Jump to content

Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Deletion

This page needs to be deleted. Since Sun TV went bankrupt, Ezra Levant has literally been operating out of his basement and the back of his car. Lauren is his sole employee. She's hardly worthy of a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.219.53 (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Entirely disagree. The status of her employer is irrelevant. She is a shining star on You Tube representing the conservative to libertarian spectrum's point of view. Methinks your suggestion is politically motivated and leans toward precisely what she is known for; disrupting those who would try to silence her. So good luck with that notion and give it your best shot. --SlimJimTalk 15:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This page needs to be deleted right now. It completely fails to satisfy Wikipedia's standards of noteworthiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.171.224 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion from August indicates that some people feel otherwise. —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Their "feelings" are irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.171.224 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep, even though her alleged libertarianism isn't properly sourced—see lower sections of this page.199.7.156.128 (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I did a quick search and found these libertarian and even Lauren Southern drafts, some which might deserve namespace status more than Southern: Draft:Austin Petersen, Draft:Andy Craig (Politician), Draft:Larry Sharpe (politician), Draft:Will Hammer,Draft:Katherine Mangu-Ward, Draft:Lori Hopkins-Cavanagh—she got 80,837 votes, Draft:The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed, Draft:Sir Frederick Mercado, and Draft:Annaliese Nielsen, and Draft:Timeline of Gamergate, and Draft:Alt-left.

Maybe this article can be moved to Draft:Lauren Southern.199.7.156.128 (talk) 11:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly support keeping this page, though cleanup and expansion of any details are welcome of course. She is a well known figure, has been on TV, and hell she was even nominated for a political position and sparked a good deal of discussion both good and bad. Aside from the fact that people don't like her I see no reason this page shouldn't remain, she meets all the notability standards of wikipedia and there has been no problem producing high quality sources that mention her by name. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 23:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Protection needed

Clear vandalism. This page needs cleanup and lock. 2001:8003:4870:7000:44A1:9762:9E0:8485 (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Protection needed ASAP to prevent IP editors from vandalizing page. And be sure not to make this a biased article thank you. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

/creates article on unnoteworthy person whose claim to fame is one self-published "book" and harassing victims of sexual assault /is surprised when article is "vandalized" /demands a lock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.171.224 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Minor cleanup

For anybody that can edit the page (as it is locked), I suggest to increase the quality of the article to merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraph of the introduction. The remark that she was re-instated does not need to be in a new paragraph, nor does it make sense to be in a new one. Hope this helps! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.17.80 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC) (Update: this has been cleaned up, this can be ignored, thanks :))!

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2016

Add photo to page:

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/07/hEa_I6ED-640x480.jpg

Reference (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/05/libertarian-lauren-southern-assaulted-by-anti-fascist-protesters/)

LaurenSouthern (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Any specific licensing you'd want this to go by? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Photo was taken by Ryan Cooper photography 

http://ryancooperphoto.com/#!/home  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaurenSouthern (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Cheers, found the original source link. I assume those photographed can freely distribute their photoshoots? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Not done: Please see WP:IUP and WP:UPLOAD. clpo13(talk) 17:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

File

The picture that appears on this page was uploaded by User:LaurenSouthern. Two things here. How do we know this user is the subject of the article (licensing). Also, if she is the subject of the article, she should not be editing her own page. — Confession0791 talk 07:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The image is tagged at Commons as possibly unfree. They're going through their process of vetting the image. That said, if we have reason to believe it's not free, we can and should remove it from the article here. As for editing by User:LaurenSouthern, she hasn't done anything to the article in four days. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
It possibly is her, she posted a link of this article on her own Facebook page, which may hint something. Perhaps I could message her to confirm. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Conservative

Lauren Southern is a conservative. She writes for a conservative website, she has a conservative following, and she champions conservative issues. Actually, it would be more accurate to label Southern a reactionary considering her obsession with anti-feminism, Islamophobia, and anti-immigration hysteria; but on wikipedia she can be considered a conservative. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice bias you got there 86.15.84.87 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
How is it a bias? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The terms "anti-feminism", "Islamophobia", "hysterica", and "reactionary" are enough to prove OP's bias. She is a right-libertarian, which is actually a thing. — Confession0791 talk 06:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

We are all biased. But reporting someone for anti-feminist activism isn't biased if they have partaken in anti-feminist activism. Also, it is acceptable for someone to show their biases in the talk section. I wouldn't put some of the buzzwords I used here in the article.

Now to the point of Lauren Southern being more conservative than libertarian. She is known for her position opposed to immigration; Right-libertarians support open borders. When Southern ran for office as a member of the Libertarian Party the party tried blocking her from doing so. Why? Probably because Libertarians don't believe she is a representative of libertarianism. Lauren Southern's activism is focused on conservative cultural issues related to immigration, religion, gender, and feminism. It is not biased to not describe Southern as a conservative because she is a conservative. The sources posted here by other people describe her as a conservative. I have added another. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Conservative and libertarians are probably the most intertwined of all political ideologies. Some people if fact say they are synonyms. Thanks for adding your source however. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Some people would be ignoring left libertarianism and libertarian socialism and the fact that social conservatism is in stark contrast to right libertarianism. If I had my way conservatives wouldn't be allowed to call themselves libertarian at all. But that is my bias and it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that your bias shouldn't be present in a Wikipedia article, however if sources overwhelming refer to her as conservative and she self identifies as that, then undue weight is being given to being called a libertarian and it should be removed. For what it's worth I've been called not a just conservative and libertarian, but far left and far right. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Off topic discussion
@Benjamin5152414: Your opinion really doesn't belong on the talk page either, just sayin'. — Confession0791 talk 07:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
But your opinion does, huh? Blow it out your ass. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I like, however, as the great libertarian you are, would restrict my free speech, "if you had the chance". — Confession0791 talk 05:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

referring to her as a white supremacist is not defamation if she writes books about how islam is a cancer and white culture is superior. Not sure what is to be gained by whitewashing her rhetoric? Povertyiswrong (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[1] here is a post on white supremacist webforum lauding her. she literally traveled to greece to try to murder syrian refugees. Povertyiswrong (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Southern Becomes a Man

This was very obviously a joke. She doesn't identify as male. User 64.189.63.130 changed all the “she” pronouns to “he.” It’s vandalism and should be changed back, and possibly monitored. Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It was done as a political stunt, and from the video it's clear she identifies as female, so those are the pronouns we should use. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding a mention to it, inside the article itself. Avaya1 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

She is legally now male, as per the Government of Canada...not that one needs such a thing to use masculine pronouns per MOS:GENDERID. It's also not some Wikipedia editor's call to say what her "true" gender and pronouns are. --TheTruthiness (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree on your first sentence. The government of Canada likely has a number of IDs, likely 10s of them, based on its many agencies and ministries. She's a male in one of them, and according to a doctor's note. If she wanted to join the military, the RCMP, become a citizen (if she was from another country), was a Mohawk who wanted to marry a woman and stay on the reserve, was a guy wanting to work for a rape crises center based on mere self description as a woman, etc, or walk downtown topless outside of Ontario, she might find a challenge or two.199.119.232.217 (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
MOS:GENDERID says: When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources. Given that it's clear from the video that Ms. Southern does not identify as male (see 3m11s, 5m50s), it's not surprisingly that no reliable sources use male pronouns for her. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

We need to remember MOS:GENDERID. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(Same guy, different IP) I myself am pretty conservative on these matters: e.g. he's Bruce Jenner unless confirmed he's done something bold like get his penis removed, and isn't just an attention whore. We are almost as binary as all the other mammals. That said, if anyone wants to use male pronouns in the article, or more stupidly, the singular they, they can knock him/her/itself out: I'm more concerned with her alleged identity as a libertarian and likely identity as an anti-feminist.199.119.232.214 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It's your prerogative to be a rude, bigoted jerk and nothing and nobody keeps you from making a fool of yourself; certainly the government doesn't stop you. (Misgendering people is roughly equivalent to jostling passersby in the street: something that, as a cultured, polite person, you simply avoid if you can help it. Empathy also helps: When you're treated rudely and invalidated on a daily basis, your psyche suffers. Just because the government doesn't police a behaviour doesn't mean it's fair game.) But your "conservative" stance is evidently connected with ignorance: Apart from the curious implication that publicly showing up feminised and identifying as a trans woman isn't bold, considering especially how despised trans woman are among Jenner's own political and ideological fellows in particular, and that she is almost certainly taking hormones and planning facial surgery and probably other surgeries, and hasn't even excluded genital surgery in the future though isn't rushing it. In fact, fewer than 5 in 1 trans women have genital surgery ever in the first place, for various reasons (and since you do not usually examine the genitals of people you interact with, it doesn't really matter what someone has in their underwear); among trans men, genital surgery is even less common. Most are simply comfortable enough with their genitals to conclude it's not worth the bother, and the health risks involved, so unless one's unease with one's genitals is significant, the surgery is generally skipped wherever it is not legally required to change your gender ID. More importantly, genital surgery does not involve removal of the penis; it is effectively turned inside out and refashioned into a clitoris. Also, you are severely misinformed about the extent of gender dimorphism in humans: in fact, it is remarkably small, and almost completely absent in childhood (apart from the crotch); intersex conditions are relatively common and changing people's appearance to pass as the other binary gender is relatively easy (with the outcome strongly depending on age, but also individual variability; some people are relatively androgynous-looking in the first place), as is common knowledge among crossdressers.
As for Southern, the obvious question is: how is her insistence that the state should keep citizens from changing their name and gender legally (or at least make it hard for them) compatible with the "small government" principle espoused by libertarians and conservatives alike? Evidently "statism" and big government are A-OK when the purpose is convenient, such as bullying annoying uppity minorities that libertarians and conservatives generally do not belong to (apart from Jenner, I can only think of Deirdre McCloskey right now; I wonder what she thinks about this issue – it's hard to imagine trans libertarians endorsing this amount of government interference with citizens' most personal matters). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
MOS:GENDERID suggests changing gender pronouns to what the subject actually identifies as reliable sources do not agree. Watching the video makes it clear that it was done as a political stunt to try and show how easy it is to get gender ID fixed, and that Southern identifies as female (see 3m11s, 5m50s). Given that, it would be completely inappropriate to change the gender pronouns in this article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Patar knight: Even if I accept your argument why were my edits hidden and not similar edits? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Your edits labeled the author of the Torontoist article as "transphobic" which is a massive WP:BLP violation, especially since it's prima facie not true given the facts. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
That was unintentional, I was just trying to deal with the facts and follow the policies for transgender at the same time as staying neutral , and I apologise for that. However I don't understand why you hid my edit where I removed the copyrighted image. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Did you watch the video? It's very clear that Ms. Southern is not transgender, and changed her gender to produce a video for The Rebel. Normally, when people legally change their gender, it's because they are in fact transgender, which isn't the case here, and it's important to make sure readers are aware of that. Implying that someone is transgender when they are not is a massive WP:BLP issue. I hid the second edit with the image because the defamatory text is still present in that revision. Do not re-add similar material in the future or you will be blocked. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I have watched the video. What I am saying is how can you say he is not transgender or even worse, that he's faking. Are you saying that their is a difference between legally changing gender and being in fact transgender. I agree that readers should be aware, but in a neutral and honest way. If you don't want similar material to be re-added then I suggest some form or protection on the article. Also please don't post to my talk page when you can just ping me in this relevant discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia:, I posted on the talk page because sometimes pings don't work and because a talk page message is more prominent, which is important given this is a BLP issue. I'm not sure how you can watch the video at the points I linked to and think that Southern is truly transgender, given how she basically says that transgendered people are contributing to the moral degeneration of society at the second timestamp.
There is a difference between legally changing gender and people actually being transgender. Some people who are transgender haven't gotten their gender legally changed, and based on Southern's video, the current system can't always screen out instances where people who are not transgender pretend to be to in order to legally change their gender ID. Since almost all cases of people legally changing ID are for people who are actually transgender, putting that in a biographical article without qualification implies that the subject is transgender, which is not the case for Ms. Southern. Inserting text that implies that a person is transgender when they are not is a WP:BLP violation. If you or anyone else reverts to re-add this information, you will be blocked.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
@Patar knight: I have not only watched the parts you've linked to but the whole video in order to avoid taking things out of context. Him saying that transgendered people are contributing to the moral degeneration of society just means that he's insulting them and criticising them, not that he has faked being transgender or that he has not legally changed his gender. What is this difference between legally changing gender and being actually transgender, does legally changing gender without being actually transgender mean that you're faking being transgender or merely that you're committing gender identity fraud. Where does the current system fail to screen out these instances, and how is he pretending, he had a doctors note. I won't revert to re-add this information until a consensus to do so is reached. I however fear that IP's may do this, and kindly suggest you put some sort of protection on this page. Please don't threaten to block me because I got into a dispute with you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@TheTruthiness: Please don't edit that section again without discussing or leaving a note here. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: Please don't add contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced (which a biased editorial from a small website clearly is). Per WP:BLP this material should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. FYI users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. If you really believe this Torontoist editorial passes muster you can raise the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. --TheTruthiness (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:NEWSORG is not a blanket ban on opinion pieces and is meant to be applied on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the writer isn't just an opinion columnist, but does plenty of reporting on trans-issues. [1]. The piece itself isn't purely an opinion piece, but a hybrid piece which uses elements of reporting (i.e. Southern faked being trans) before moving on to opinion (i.e. Southern's behaviour is wrong and unethical). Allowing the former is usually fine, allowing the latter requires a higher bar. Furthermore, the Torontoist has an editorial policy, which involves issuing corrections when necessary, and is generally a reliable source. [2]. Publishing in the Torontoist also precludes the reference from being removed per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Lastly, in this case, the facts as stated in the source are easily verified by looking at the video produced by Ms. Southern herself.
Talking about trans issues for a website doesn't make you an expert and he's certainly not an expert on Southern's gender identity. A political reporter can write an editorial about politics that's biased, those editorials wouldn't be considered RS per BLP. Also Southern NEVER TELLS THE DOCTOR SHE'S TRANS so it's not even basically factual. The article is overtly attacking Southern and thus doesn't pass the BLP muster which is much greater than other articles. My edit with the Rebel video passes all 5 points of BLPSELFPUB as it simply states basic facts about her legal gender change without taking an opinion on it one way or the other. --TheTruthiness (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@TheTruthiness: When did I add contentious material about living persons that is poorly sourced. I agree that people may consider the Torontoist article a biased editorial from a small website. Please don't threaten to block me like Patar knight has, after all I am just a WP:NEWCOMER. I never said that the editorial passes muster, but I understand that third party sources should be used. Thanks for educating me on WP:NEWSORG. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
On the balance, I would strongly prefer removing the entire section, since it's not well covered by WP:RS and it is functionally just advertising for the subject. But if we do include it, sourcing it to a self-produced video would violate WP:BLPSELFPUB and leads to the BLP issues above unless we make it clear that Ms. Souther is not trans. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that removing the section may be the best comprise as reliable sources aren't covering it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
How do you know Southern isn't trans? Are you a doctor who specializes in gender dysphoria that has examined them? My edits don't violate any points of BLPSELFPUB, it's notable for someone to legally change their gender and my edits write about it in an NPOV fashion. --TheTruthiness (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed that blurb. There are obviously concerns about Torontoist but sourcing it straight to The Rebel Media isn't great either. Sources on something like this should be independent as well as reliable. clpo13(talk) 18:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Clpo13: Please comment here before editing that section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

HE thinks he's a man, and identifies as a male, so it is irrelevant what anyonelse thinks, if HE believes HE's a man, HE's a man — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.220.162 (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll believe that you're serious when you go up to Southern and treat her as a dude in person, call her "he", "sir", etc. I bet you won't, though; you're just trolling.
I'll believe Southern is really a trans man if she starts correcting everyone who refers to her as "she", "miss", etc. (like Danielle Muscato does, except the other way round). From what I've heard, she's not doing that, though. In fact she seems to insist on being called "she", "miss", etc., as expected. Nor does she enter gentlemen's bathrooms, flashing her ID at people. Nor is she campaigning for men's issues, or whatever. That's not the behaviour of a man. She acts like a woman. There's not the slightest indication that she's trans, zero evidence, and a lot of evidence against. And, in fact, this shows how stupid it would be to change your gender willy-nilly, legally or socially (other than to make a political point, like she), when you're not trans. Why would anyone want to put up with all the hassle to correct people who misgender you, just for fun? In the real world (as opposed to the fantasy world conservatives live in), nobody does that, change their gender willy-nilly, without being serious about the whole transgender thing (and, in fact, while being utterly gender-conforming like Southern), and constantly correct people who misgender them. So it's really a non-issue. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
He does correct people who misgender him.[2] Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
YouTube is not a reliable source. We know that Southern vocally opposes trans people, and has not indicated a change of heart, so she's not serious about the whole thing. She's evidently just trolling (unlike Danielle Muscato, who has given reasons for not presenting as female and even convinced Theryn Meyer of her sincerity). She's not even bothered to change her name. If a notorious gay-basher suddenly claims to be gay, arguing that he could therefore not be a homophobe, while continuing to date women, nobody takes him seriously, either, for good reason. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1202160/
  2. ^ "Lauren Southern informs Protester that she is a man". 19 January 2017. Retrieved 1 March 2017.

Editnotice

The page has since been pending-changes protected to prevent vandalism. Do you think it'd be a good idea to create an edit notice to try to prevent edits that change her pronouns?

Idea for an editnotice

{{editnotice | id = allornone | header = Updating her pronouns | headerstyle = font-size: 120%; | text = Please do not update Lauren Southern's pronouns to their male counterparts. The video was done as a political stunt and in the video it is obvious that she identifies as a woman. This has been [[Talk:Lauren_Southern#Lauren_Southern_Becomes_a_Man|discussed on the talk page]], and there has been no consensus to change the pronouns. | style = background-color: #fee; }} that will create:

Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. — Confession0791 talk 06:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I've made the request as there was no opposition in over a month. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I added a request that the editnotice appear in bright orange, and perhaps with an exclamation sign. — Confession0791 talk 04:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Not the end of the world, but I think the message should only say that she identifies as a woman. Having the word "political stunt" there falsely implies that it is up to the editors to judge a person's reasons for transitioning. If she vigorously defended this political stunt by insisting on male pronouns for the rest of her life, then we would of course have to update the article accordingly. Connor Behan (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

my 30 October edits

here    (better edit and the next edit is a minor one on my part)

  • I changed
    "is a Canadian conservative and libertarian activist, political commentator, and writer for The Rebel Media, a Canadian online media company."
    to
    "is a Canadian conservative and activist, anti-feminist, political commentator, writer for The Rebel Media, a Canadian online media company, and ran as a candidate for the Libertarian Party of Canada in the 2015 Canadian federal election."

    Aside from the fact that she ran as a Ltn in the last Cdn election and some likely templated description of her in the 3rd person on the LPC page, I know of nothing that makes her stand out as a libertarian. (She's supporting Trump, meanwhile critic of feminism—and one in Category:American libertarians—Camille Paglia is voting Jill Stein—again.)
  • I added her Reddit stuff
  • and only the image I can currently find. It ain't glamourous, and I'll read image guidelines later (I wonder how many pages it is). Those who don't like it might find something in Flickr or the like—she is a public person, so there might lots of free images out there.

199.119.232.217 (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus on an image -- that needs to be discussed on the talk page. "Anti-feminist" is editorializing, and unsourced. Libertarian =/= liberal, and her libertarianism is sourced. Reddit is also not a reliable source. It's important that this talk page is meant for improving the article, not pondering Ms. Southern's politics. — Confession0791 talk 07:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
She says she's opposed to feminism on Reddit. If Reddit ain't allowed, why is Facebook and Youtube any more credible—or useful in the case of the dead link to FB? I haven't heard Camille Paglia say she's opposed to feminism—at least not without some adjective (possible e.g. "radical feminists" or "third wave feminists"): Southern has. "Liber—tarian" is more "liber—al"—note the similar root words, than conservative, though it's neither, save for tendencies on what to focus on—and keep in mind, while many Americans have buggered up the definition of the word "liberal" WP is intended for use of all in the world, not just the US. If she was some prig who wanted to make fun of the idiocies of some leftists, but still supported libertarian positions, if some only politically—as opposed to personally, fine: but she supports Trump. Libertarians are pro-immigration, pro-free trade, anti-interventionist, tend to be pro-choice on abortion, and would close Gitmo. Trump is the opposite of this. Libertarians oppose eminent domain laws. Trump uses them. Libertarians oppose anti-defamation laws—"let truth and falsehood grapple". Trump has threatened to sue the women who claimed that he sexually assaulted them. (Betcha Southern is quiet on that one!) I've also heard of no libertarian bragging about sexually assaulting women—grabbing them in the genitalia area.

So unless you cite these sources where someone says she's a libertarian, someone very credible—not some reporter who likely thoughtlessly considers libertarianism to be just another brand of conservatism—the kind of reporter who'd call Jethro Tull heavy metal or perhaps Bob Dylan to be a notable figure in literature, or doesn't challenge a self-description, I see no reason why the WP article should describe her as libertarian when she really isn't.199.119.232.217 (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm going through some of the references. Here what one of them says.
http://www.themarysue.com/the-triggering-is-dumb/ Internet Jerks Pledge to Make Internet Even Worse in #TheTriggering
"#TheTriggering is the brainchild of anti-feminist/journalist Lauren Southern, who gained notoriety by showing up to a slutwalk in Vancouver and proudly held up a sign that read “There is no rape culture in the West.”"      (bold italics mine)
199.119.232.217 (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

(1) Kabas, Marisa (June 15, 2015). "Meet the Canadian college student who's about to be the next enemy of the feminist movement". The Daily Dot.
http://www.dailydot.com/irl/lauren-southern-libertarian/

"She pointed to Libertarian vlogger Julie Borowski, who recently posted a video in which she dressed up in what appeared to be an SS officer uniform and spoke in a fake German accent in an attempt to mock other libertarians.

Southern also said she had great admiration for Christina Hoff Sommers, known online as "The Factual Feminist." Sommers is best known outside the conservative community as a woman who came to the defense of Gamergate, calling it "a voice for moderation in today’s fevered debates over sex and gender.”

It appears the fondness is mutual."


If Southern has a WP article, it seems Julie Borowski (currently a red link. 12:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)) might be worthy of one. As it is, in http://www.julieborowski.com/ and https://www.facebook.com/JulieBorowski/, I read no reference to dressing up as an SS Officer, but she seemed positive about Gary Johnson.

As for Christina Hoff Sommers:
http://hlrecord.org/2009/12/is-the-future-of-feminism-conservative/
“I don’t think we should reject contemporary feminism,” she said. “We should reform it.”

(2)"Bokhari, Allum (July 9, 2015). "Lauren Southern, 'Anti-Feminist,' Reinstated as Libertarian Candidate". Breitbart News Network."
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/09/lauren-southern-reinstated-as-candidate-following-breitbart-story/

"Following our story, the backlash against Southern’s suspension intensified. Over ten candidates resigned or threatened to resign, and the party was slammed in The Libertarian Republic and EveryJoe. I am even told that a columnist at Reason magazine — the Bible of libertarianism — was preparing to criticise the party’s decision."

It appears that others felt she wasn't/isn't quite the libertarian

and how reliable is Breitbart News anyway?


(3) Raptis, Mike (2016-03-07). "Activist accused of pouring bottle of urine on Rebel reporter during 'anti-fascist' rally in Vancouver".
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/activist-pours-bottle-of-urine-on-rebel-reporter-during-anti-fascist-in-vancouver
"Southern, who also ran as a candidate in 2015 for The Libertarian Party of Canada,"

The only reference to "libertarian."

(4) Christian, Natasha (2016-03-08). "Protester pours urine on journalist for 'hateful' comments". Yahoo7. Retrieved 2016-05-21.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31043202/protester-pours-urine-on-journalist-for-hateful-comments/
"An outspoken libertarian commentator was left ‘covered in urine’ after a shocking end to a fiery feud with anti-fascist activists".
and
"One of her videos explaining why she isn’t a feminist has been seen by more than 800,000 times."

Okay, Yahoo calls her a libertarian, but describes her not as a critic of feminism, but why she isn't one.


(5) Trump supporter BLOCKED by Facebook for complaining about site's censorship of right-wing activists By
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3603345/Conservative-activist-Lauren-Southern-banned-Facebook-mentioning-censorship.html

It doesn't describe her as a libertarian.


(6) Taranto, James (2016-05-23). "The Troll Booth". WSJ.com. Retrieved 2016-09-03.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-troll-booth-1464026102
I found nothing of her at all.


(7) "The alt-right, explained in its own words". washingtonpost.com.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/08/29/the-alt-right-explained-in-its-own-words/
It took a while for the page to load

It seems nothing but Southern posting in a comment section.


(8)Southern, Lauren (October 3, 2016). "Lauren Southern Becomes a Man!". The Rebel Media. Retrieved October 28, 2016.
http://www.therebel.media/lauren_southern_becomes_a_man
Nothing about being a libertarian—and she works for this operation!


(9) Elections Canada – Confirmed candidates for Langley—Aldergrove, 30 September 2015
http://www.elections.ca/Scripts/vis/FindED?L=e&PageID=20
I guess one will have to search to find her election results.

199.119.232.217 (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian?

Hello, I notice this page mentions that she is a libertarian and a member of the Canadian Libertarian Party. I would point out that she may think of herself as a libertarian, but she diverges quite far from libertarian thought on a lot of issues. I would say she is more of a Paleoconservative than a libertarian. Richardgjp (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That very well may be, but it's whatever the sources confirm, not what we philosophize things to be. — Confession0791 talk 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I would point out that Hillary Clinton may think of herself as a liberal, but she diverges quite far from liberal thought on a lot of issues. My opinion, like yours, is irrelevant. There is no libertarian (pr liberal,etc) pass/fail quiz. --TheTruthiness (talk) 04:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

FFS! (and I thought I was going to avoid this article!)

In the Hillary Clinton article, the word "liberal" is mentioned 25 times. Aside from the use of adjectives or qualifications, a "National Journal" described her as the 32nd most liberal senator in 2006 and 17th in 2007, and apparently many sources—including conservative sources—perhaps especially conservative sources—describe her as liberal; and these sources aren't glorified blogs.

However, a further qualification is she is also quoted as having a conservative mind. So yes, you're right in this, TheTruthiness. I'm sure it's a good article given the attention it gets.

The thing is about this farce of an article, however, is that Southern neither describes herself as a libertarian, nor do the other sources save maybe a templated description of a candidate by the LPC and Yahoo possibly using the Wikipedia article itself as a source: their quote seems a bit like the quote in the earlier edit of this article. If Robert Mugabe gave the CATO institute $100 000 and explaining why he did it said, "at heart I'm a libertarian," and some glorified blogs described him as a libertarian, should the article about him describe him as such? After all, he acted, self-identified, and it's sourced—kinda.

Again, unless reliable sources explicitly describe her as being a libertarian, or maybe, just maybe, she describes herself as one, you can't describe her as such in the article—much less a "libertarian activist." Free speech activist? Maybe. Ditto activist against statist feminists. But libertarian? No.

(Now go on and delete this post as you've done my other ones, and keep describing her as a libertarian activist cause it's the kewl thing to do.)
199.119.232.221 (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you enjoy being a troll? Because that's what you're doing here. The rest of us are trying to build an encyclopedia. You are disrupting this site in order to achieve political brownie points. We have no use for what you're doing. So I suggest you spend your time doing some "community organization" or actually going to the polls, and leave this endeavor to the serious editors who are concerned about the facts, and not your philosophical meanderings. I sincerely encourage you to become a serious editor, or leave. Good day. — Confession0791 talk 07:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll happily f-off off if you give me frikin' sources. Give me a quote or something beside just repeated unsubstantiated statements that it's sourced.199.119.232.221 (talk) 07:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

did she really get urine poured on her or was that soda pop?

In March 2016, a protester in Vancouver poured a container of urine over Southern's head while she was speaking with other protesters at a rally in Vancouver.[11] The incident resulted from statements Southern made about there being "only two genders".[12]

I suspect the Yahoo! News thing was from other sources and the National Post has mostly the video to go on. In the video, Southern talks mostly sensibly to some easily-offended rad-fems. Some guy then pours a liquid on her head from which looks like a green bottle—maybe 7-up or Sprite. She says she hopes it's not urine, that it's only pop. She doesn't seem bothered by what was poured. Also could it have been a confederate who was trying to make the rad-fems look bad (or worse—their stupid answers were making the process easy). About 25 years ago, Morton Downey Jr. claimed that he was attacked by skinheads. Here's the Youtube video and some commentary: http://www.bogushatecrimes.com/89_MortonDowneySwastika.php

Oh, and the link saying she's sympathetic to the Alt-Right is unreadable for me.

199.119.232.214 (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh and the original subject of the video, Augustus Sol Invictus, has his own article here. Like Southern, he seems a bit bogus as a libertarian, opposing immigration, abortion, and he sacrificed a goat.199.119.232.214 (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Lauren Southern legally changed his gender from a woman to a man; therefore, the female pronouns in this wiki page should changed to accurately reflect his gender. Source: www.therebel.media/lauren_southern_becomes_a_man Fnovax (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: See previous discussion at Talk:Lauren Southern#Lauren Southern Becomes a Man. clpo13(talk) 22:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Legally a transsexual

Isn't she one, despite her pronoun choice? She legally changed her sex on camera, so I imagine that unless she changed it back, she should be included as a transsexual under categorisation, the idea that she 'illegally did so' not withstanding (as it is completely speculative, constitutes WP:OR and isn't a valid opinion in regards to her gender identity, for only she could have articulated how she felt at that very moment, and even had a doctor's notice on hand).

Stevo D (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Lauren would probably only identify as transgender s/he has made no attempt to transition, but merely identifies as the opposite gender to what s/he was assigned at birth. I do accept however that it is without a doubt WP:OR to make claim that s/he illegally did it, despite it being based upon personal identification. Furthermore I don't think the doctor's notice should be used, as it is a primary source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing was a joke in the first place. Don1182 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, legally on paper, she's a man under Canadian law, and even had this confirmed on video. Stevo D (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"a person who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex" - Google definition of transsexual. Southern identifies as female. It's already been discussed, and the consensus is that she legally changed genders for political reasoning. --Aleccat 17:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you please highlight where that has been discussed? I can only remember discussing the use of pronouns and whether it was worth mentioning the transition of Southern or not. I don't remember saying whether we should include them in trans categories or male or female ones. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
"Lauren Southern Becomes a Man" it'd be WP:OR to directly state or even infer that she is transsexual without a source. It'd also violate BLP. --Aleccat 18:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Alt right in lead

Ok, I'll start the talk. --Malerooster (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for her self identification? --Malerooster (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I added "alt-right" to the lead because I felt that "conservative" was vague and not entirely accurate. "Conservative-libertarian" resolves that issue enough, I guess. How much weight to give her self-identification is a separate question. She describes the term positively as it applies to herself. Not technically self-identification, but still relevant. Sources connect her to the alt-right, so as long as we're not ignoring the link completely, I don't have a strong opinion about how this is included. Grayfell (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Other: With Southern's current activism, the term "identitarian" may be the best word to describe her in the lead. I'm too lazy to do the research for the citations at the moment. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That sounds too much like a WP:EUPHEMISM. Identitarian movement (which is in very bad shape) is almost entirely about Europe, and #In North America is very brief and says "See also alt-right". Identitarian movement is also being proposed for merger with white supremacy, which seems unlikely to happen, but is a good reminder that sources are skeptical of the movement's legitimacy. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree on the euphemism part, but it seems euphemisms have been winning recently and I've kinda given up on honest language. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Question can anyone point out the sources for this addition (and the text that is being proposed)? The history for this article is a bit convoluted as of late. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There's far more as well.

Don1182 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Cite more please. the Washington Post one doesn't even refer to her directly as alt-right, as a matter of fact, calling her an "alt-right pundit" (pundit literally means expert), doesn't equate to being a member of the alt-right (SPL center source). Same for the NY Mag source. Calling her an "alt-right figure" does not equate to being a member of the alt-right. Donald Trump is an alt-right figure, yet he's not a member of the alt-right. So essentially only the SFist, LA Times, and Aljazeera sources are the only really valid ones, and even then, I think at the middle is the only unbiased/neutral/reputable source. Reason being, the Aljazeera author IS DESCRIBED AS A POLTICAL ACTIVIST HIMSELF, EVEN ON THAT SOURCE, and SFIST'S ARTICLE ONLY REFERS TO THE LA TIMES ARTICLE. Using those sources would likely violate WP:NPOV or WP:RS. Alt-right is a hefty claim, and one well-written source does not back it up for me. --Aleccat 01:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment let's stop pretending there isn't consensus on this. We have one person since April !vote 'oppose', while sources from the SPLC to the NYT and many many in between using the label. By contrast, the term 'consercative-libertarian' is sources to a local television station (what's that? -ed) in California. How about we spend our time more productively chasing down sources for those labels...00:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Find sources and I'd totally change my decision, but no, there is no consensus right now. --Aleccat 00:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Current draft is "alt-right commentator", which is a more encyclopaedic synonym for NYMag's " alt-right pundit"; the term alt-right is also used for Southern by the SPLC, the Washington Post, and SFist. As I say, much better sourced than "conservative" in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The issue is more the sources seem unreliable to me to back up the claim. Aleccat 00:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any consensus. If it is to be in the lead it should be attributed, not wikivoice. If you want to remove the conservative-libertarian please do it, it's time people stop focusing on labels on here and actually contribute to the article.Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
^^^^^ THAT. Very much. Aleccat 01:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

In some of her videos she is dismissive of the fact people call her altright that alone should be enough to warrant debate about this 71.59.220.119 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Since all the lead says is that she has been referred to as alt-right by certain RS, there is no conflict between that and whatever stance sr takes toward the label itself. Newimpartial (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Southern is NOT self described alt-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lauren Southern. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Name

Regarding this. Only primary sources. The secondary one in Italian doesn't mention the name "Simonsen" as far as I can tell. I'm reverting it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Libertarian / Conservative

Regarding "libertarian" and "conservative" labels:

Libertarian-conservative

Conservative

Other

Other sources used in the lead and previously used as sources for "libertarian-conservative":
  • The Guardian says nothing about it, describes her as a "political activist"
  • Fox News says nothing about it, describes her as an "independent journalist"
  • MSN only says "activist".

I'm not sure what is best here. I am (for now) removing the college newspaper and the local newspaper and tagging for better sources. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

alt-right feel she warrants description as alt right or far right. feel it would be fair/accurate to call her a white nationalist or supremacist, she sells white power memorabilia (deus veult and totenkompf hoodies) on her website. the wikipedia page of identity europa lists it as a white supremacist organization, and she became famous for attacking refuge rescue boats, a literal incident of racially motivated violence, as described on her instagram page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Povertyiswrong (talk • contribs)

It's not about what we think but about what sources say. See WP:OR, WP:RS. There isn't much point in discussing what we think of her (see WP:FORUM). Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
SPLC is a reliable source which refers to her as an "alt-right pundit" [7], which is an accurate label. There is no reason to privilege her self-labelling over that of reliable sources, in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Date of birth

Do we have a source for Southern's date of birth? I don't see anything cited, but I want to make sure the source wasn't lost before I remove the dob. —C.Fred (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I oddly was unable to find a reliable English source other than her social media. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
That's because internet celebrities are getting WP articles now, and they do not meet the traditional definitions of 'notable' and the only sources are often what they say about themselves and what news sources repeat from there. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide verifiable, reliable sources for the "traditional definitions of 'notable'???68.234.100.139 (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"I am 25 years old" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhdDJQKZ4UI). She was born in 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A312:C63C:8D00:2C43:A15C:2A72:DE00 (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

No good, that's a fictional-story video, a satire. Cannot be used for facts. She says recently in a different video "22", forget which vid. GangofOne (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Question?

If Lauren identifies as male, shouldn't two categories be changed? Shouldn't the article be under "Canadian men in federal politics" and "male critics of feminism"?KellyLeighC (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"This article is covered by MOS:GENDERID. Based on discussion at Talk:Lauren Southern#Lauren Southern Becomes a Man, she identifies as female and female pronouns should be used. Use of masculine pronouns should be reverted per WP:BLP". There are lots of notices/discussions on this issue. Are you trying to make a point? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 20:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I saw where another user mentioned 'She is legally now male, as per the Government of Canada...' and I saw the line "In October 2016, Southern had her gender legally changed----as part of a video produced for Rebel Media to show the ease of the new gender ID laws". I didn't know if that meant she identified as male or not. KellyLeighC (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Lauren Southern DOES identify as male and repeatedly says "I'm a man" and "I'm legally a man" in YouTube videos. Excellent point.04:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's clear from the video and her other political activism, that she doesn't actually identify as a male, even if she managed to get herself legally IDed as a man on one document. What she actually identifies as is what MOS:GENDERID is concerned with. TBH the sentence should be removed, since it fails 1, 2, and 4 of WP:BLPSELFPUB since it serves her agenda that she's legally a man and attacking her is transphobic, it involves claims about the government's classification of her gender, and the obvious issue that she doesn't actually identify as a man. It's also only been covered by one reliable source, [8] which calls her out on this, but which repeatedly been removed by other editors. Even with the one source, it would fail WP:EXCEPTIONAL. (It looks like the German source is an opinion column, the Google Translation makes it seem like it's just bizarrely bashing "PC culture" 05:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)) ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's clear from the video and her other political activism Red XN WP:OR. Concerning the rest, MOS:GENDERID seems clear to me: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article.. I'm not really interested in changing anything but I don't think you make a very convincing argument. Saturnalia0 (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
In this video Southern did identify as a Male. It was not just some one off prank or joke. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:OR, non WP:RS. Fails MOS:GENDERID. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to change shes to hes to make a point, I guess feel free to (it's irrelevant to my daily life), but realize you are doing it because of your political opinions of her and are in no way maintaining a NPOV. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 01:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This is tough because legally she is a man, but a lot of the sources use female pronouns, and Southern allegedly changed legal gender to prove a political point. I'd recommend female pronouns. Aleccat 00:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Identitarian Movement

I believe there is an issue with the article's statements and the sources used to cite that the Identitarian Movement mistakenly claimed the NGO boat was carrying migrants to Sicily. In the video, Lauren Southern and the Identitarian movement did not claim they believed the boat to currently be carrying migrants. They claimed the boat was going to pick up migrants. The NGO ship does frequent the shores of Libya to pick up shipwrecked migrants. il Giornale , US News, and Abby News all back up that much is true. The NGO ships are search and rescue missions. They do no directly pick up migrants from Northern Africa; however, they do rescue and therefore indirectly bring migrants into Italy. I believe stating that is more accurate and true to the cited news articles. SouthernJusticeWarrior (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

This would be incredibly misleading. The sources you link support that it's a search and rescue operation. Describing that as 'picking up migrants' is bizarrely loaded and would not accurately convey the ship's activities. Grayfell (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but you are wrong. The wiki article as-is is misleading. The ships ARE 100% going to pick up shipwrecked migrants as a search and rescue operation. That is what the multiple citations verify. Therefore, indirectly, the NGO ship is 100% without a doubt bringing migrants to Italy where it's safer to administer aid. SouthernJusticeWarrior (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
As I said, emphasizing that aspect of the ship's activities without any of that context, which your comments support, would be unacceptably misleading. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
And I will include that context. herp derp SouthernJusticeWarrior (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Language such as "Indeed..." and "some say" are forms of editorializing and weasel wording, which do not belong. The Guardian source you added said nothing at all about Southern, making this WP:SYNTH which is not acceptable, either. This article isn't about "some NGOs", this is about Lauren Southern. Grayfell (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

WPo ref

I was recently reverted for removing the WPo ref for not mentioning Southern. Turns out it was an issue with my web browser, more precisely with my ad blocker, which was blocking social media content from the page (including the tweet by Southern). That being said, the ref still does not classify Southern as alt-right, it merely states that she used the hashtag "AltRightMeans", and further explained her interpretation of alt-right. Now, if she is or not alt-right I don't know and I don't care, what I do know and care about is that she is not called alt-right in that ref - and certainly not by the WPo, the article is an analysis signed by Caitlin Dewey. So, I am removing it again. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It being an analysis piece doesn't mean it isn't WaPo - I can add Dewey's name if you like. But using Southern's tweet where she self-declares as alt-right as an example of #altrightmeans is the same as Dewey referring to her stance as alt-right. Newimpartial (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not nearly the same. At most you could argue it's Southern describing herself as alt-right, in which case I'd say it's inaccurate to add that to an encyclopedia based on that tweet. Now, we can't say that Dewey classified her as alt-right based on it, because she did no such thing. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Dewey included Southern as an example, in an article about what rf alt-right is, as an example of what people on the alt-right say that the term #altrightmeans. That is in fact the same as Dewey classifying her as alt-right:any other reading of the analysis piecewould in fact be raher tortured. 14:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC) (That was a signature glitch on my part. Sorry.)
Again, I don't see how that is. The article mentions 50,000 such tweets, are we to say 50,000 people are alt-right because they used a certain hashtag, and use that single article as a reference? And attribute it to the WPo? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Perhaps we should wait for other editors to weight in, or if you believe it is urgent start a formal request for comment. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The Southern reference isn't one of "50,000 [uncurated] tweets", it was a reference specifically chosen by Dewey to illustrate the #altright. That is still the WaPo labelling her as alt-right, and I would like to add the source back in, if there is no further objection. Newimpartial (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Tweet

Grayfell, TheTruthiness and other interested parties, I tend to agree with Truthiness on a mention to a tweet of Southern's being undue (see here for edit summary). This is what the source says: Some of the misinformation spread further via The Rebel's Lauren Southern, who was posting links to unverified rumours on the website 4chan. (She also deleted her tweets soon afterwards.) This is Southern's reply embedded on the source: @BashirMohamed @WNYLookingGlass you're right. I usually just post interesting info I find but ppl take it as gods word. Will be more careful. It seems hardly due weight for me, we don't usually include retracted stories on articles about websites or journalists, unless it was something major. This wasn't even a story, but a tweet, and it certainly wasn't major. So... What do you think? Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Since this is McLean's reporting on it, and it was one of the most noted (by third parties) things Lauren did while working for Rebel, I'd say it is due. Nice canvassing, tho. Newimpartial (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What is a "claim"?

The article says that Lauren Southern and some activists from Generaion Identity claimed that the NGO ship Aquarius was leaving Sicily to find migrants in the Mediterranean Sea and carry them to Sicily. Some editors keep adding the word "mistakenly" to the claim, which is, in my opinion against the Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy. Thus I feel I have to clarify some aspects:

  1. first of all it is a freaking claim. If Johnny Reb claimed that the grass is blue there is no need to find a reliable source to state that the grass is actually blue in real world, but the claim could as well be add to the Johnny Reb entry on Wikipedia
  2. a newspaper interviewing some NGO operators that claim that NGOs made "scapegoat for Italian frustration over immigration" is not a reliable source to state thet the claim by Southern and Co. was a mistake. However, many here (I did it myself, and am sorry for this) tried to find evidence that the NGOs did or didn't enter Libyan waters to bring immigrants to Italy. This is an enormous mistake. Southern and Co. just claimed that the Aquarius was leaving Sicily to find migrants at sea and bring them to Italy and, surprise, is what they do. It is their darn mission. They say they save people at distress at sea and bring them to a safe port (in Italy). There is no debate, maybe they legally take them in international waters, maybe they take them in Libyan waters, who knows. The Italian Police is investigating. But wherever they take the migrants it is a FACT that they then bring them to Italy. So, if you add that "mistakenly" word to the article you give distorted information about what the NGOs are doing. If you prefer just change it to something like:
    "Lauren Southern and Generation Identity controversially claimed that the Aquarius (which was leaving Catania to find and rescue migrants at distress in the Mediterranean to bring them to Italy) was indeed incentivating the migration flow towards Europe"  ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont)  📯 22:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
If some of you requires further sources to be sure that the Aquarius navigates from Sicily to Libya and vice versa, please visit the website of SOS Mediterranée at:
http://sosmediterranee.org/?lang=en

 ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont)  📯 22:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That suggestion is not neutral, nor even particularly accurate. When a claim is demonstrably mistaken, we do not insinuate that it isn't. The ship's mission isn't to ferry migrants to Italy, it's search and rescue. That is the clearest description. Editorializing about "incentivating" doesn't actually matter. They were fundamentally misguided about the purpose of the ship. The source attached quotes Southern as saying "Our goal was to stop an empty boat from going down to Libya and filling up with illegal migrants". This is not even remotely accurate, and should not be presented as accurate. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Who said they are "ferrying" migrants? It is not even suggested by what I said. My edit states that they find and rescue migrants at distress in the Mediterranean. Isn't it their mission? Southern and GenID said that the ship was heading towards Libya as it is widely known that rescues are made in international waters in the south of the Mediterranean, that is the same direction as Libya. It is also well known [9] that 80% of migrants arriving in Italy are not eligible as refugees, so when they enter the Italian borders, they are actually "illegals". Southern and GenID claimed that this could incentivate migration. Can you "demonstrate" that this is not true? Have you any non-newspaper source that says that the work of NGOs isn't incentivising immigration? I am aware there isn't as well any source that proves that the work of NGOs does incentivise immigration. As there aren't sources to prove either of the statements as right or wrong, the claim remains a claim. And you cannot label a claim as "mistakenly" just as much as you couldn't label it as "righteously".  ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont)  📯 23:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
All this about incentivizing is original research. The quote from Southern is flat-out wrong. It was arguably simplified to make a point, but it's still factually incorrect, and Wikipedia should not waffle on false information. If she was really talking about stopping them from incentivizing "illegal" migrants, find a reliable, independent source which explains this. The sources currently used do not support this perspective. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
In that particular situation I guess she said nothing about incentivising immigration. Thus I guess it is better not to write about it in relation to that particilar event. However, only to inform, here is one of the many articles stating that the work of NGOs incentivises immigration (a statement by the Libyan Coast Guard).  ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont)  📯 07:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a Journalist

Lauren Southern is not a journalist, but a reporter. She never studied journalism and has no journalism credentials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.172.44 (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Great subject heading - Once again, the perfect place under which to discuss actual sources regarding this topic! Edaham (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree. I support the terminology that this article in The Washington Post uses, referring to Southern as a vlogger. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

conservatism / neo-fascism category template edit tennis match

Can we review sources which support either of these terms and then apply the appropriate one (or neither) based on consensus rather than tag teaming the article to switch it back and forth? Edaham (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion User:Edaham! "Far-right" is a much more accurate descriptor of Lauren Southern than "right-wing". With regard to Southern supporting nationalist parties blocking rescue ships carrying refugees, The Washington Post states:

In response to the Defend Europe mission, Lauren Southern (a Canadian) and Brittany Pettibone (an American) uploaded a YouTube video in which they said they’re in Sicily because they believe their countries “share the same fate” as Europe. In the video, they also repeatedly stress how millennials “like them” want change and position themselves as saviors doing good. But Southern and her ilk do not speak for my generation. What Europe needs right now are long-term, constructive, legal solutions to the migration situation — what we don’t have time for is far-right bloggers who offer nothing more to offer than fear-mongering hate in a desperate attempt to build up their fascist fan base.

User:Dougweller, what are your thoughts? I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks and thanks in return for joining the discussion. Hope this will result in a more sticky addition to the right hand side of the page. The whack-a-mole approach to reinstating that banner was making me a bit dizzy. I think that Far-right is probably a better category than neo-fascism. The plain matter of this article on a living person is that she hasn't really been around long enough to be a fully fledged fascist, despite the WP's claims regarding the term. Secondly (picking-straws) they directly describe the subject of the article as far-right, whereas they describe their fan base as fascist. Conservatism is far shy of describing their political views and seems to be an attempt at whitewashing as no reliable sources describe them as advocates for conservatives without also using other terminology regarding their far right alignment. For uninvolved editors contributing to this discussion, it concerns the edit history in which the category banner was repeatedly changed from "Article on neo-fascism" to "article on conservatism in Canada". Many thanks- Edaham (talk) 10:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Piracy?Really?

So, I know this page is kind of a battleground, used also by some people to attack political views different from their own, but Wikipedia should be neutral and some of the last edits on this entry are very far from being neutral. Moreover being this the bio of a living person, it must adhere even more strictly to WP:NPOV.

Point 1 – piracy: the heading of an article by a well-known left leaning newspaper accusating a right-wing group of piracy is not a reliable source, "sources must be produced by a reliable third party" WP:RS. Let's define piracy: a pirate is a "criminal who plunders at sea; commonly attacking merchant vessels, though often pillaging port towns" or an "armed ship or vessel that sails for the purpose of plundering other vessels". A dinghy delaying the departure of a NGO ship just cannot be defined "piracy". Wikipedia is not a political hub.

Point 2 – white supremacy: let's now move to another topic and the libelous attribution of the term "white suprematists" (see WP:LIBEL) again sourced to the same newspaper article. The term is attributed to Generation Identity, a European nationalist group. Now, the purpose of this group is to defend the European culture from deeply diverse foreign cultures such as Islamism. So the group could be better definde "islamophobe", while "white supremacy" doesn't suit the definition. The group never made any statement agains other races or non-white people.

Point 3 – NGOs: I think this is not the correct page to talk about the operate on NGO ships in the Mediterranean, but let's clarify something. First of all claims like "ships who saved refugees" in this context is clearly used to depict the actions as monstrous and soulless. It is well known that while sometimes NGOs did save vessels at distress, other times some of them took on board migrants from dinghies that were not at distress, thus didn't save them technically. Italian DA's offices are investigating some NGOs beacuse of possible collusion with the same "slave market" that migrants are fleeing from according to the claims on this entry (check here). While the operate of NGOs is doubtless well-intentioned it lead to a peak in the departure of migrants from Africa, sure to be "rescued" by NGOs once in international waters(this is one possible involuntary collusion NGOs had with traffickers).

 ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont)  📯 16:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I took a read through the article for you. The word "pirate" only occurs in the link summary of one of the links, which was created by refil (i.e. taken directly from the page from where the info was sourced as evidenced here. That "white supremacy" is a libelous attribution of a term is a piece of original research, unless there's some source you want to back it up with - although I'd recommend against using a talk page to make a proof of a libelous action - in any case the term does not appear in the current version of the article (even in the source summaries) and you are free to contest its usage (sourced or not) if it appears in future versions. The information on the NGOs seems to be well sourced and you'd probably be better off bringing sources to the talk page which are more accurate than the ones used already. Your third point seems the most difficult to properly answer and requires a bit of reading, which I'm doing now. Edaham (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes I am aware those problems do not appear in the latter version of the article (as of August 21). I have already removed politically biased terms, and am pretty satisfied with the neutrality of the current version. ᚪᛋᚦᚩᚾᛏ (Asþont)  📯 08:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
That's good. An article either is or isn't accurate. Politically biased terms are not to be excluded from the project solely on the grounds of their being biased. The important thing is that we are not biased about their usage or excluded. If they are properly sourced, they go in. If they aren't they don't and if it's not clear then they get contested as per wp:brd here on the talk page. Edits remain in place when they improve the article, not because they involved the removal material deemed by an editor to be partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 09:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Lauren_Southern

Following was requested as a result of these antics. Please conduct further discussion of wp:rs pertaining to the matter on the talk page, cheers. Edaham (talk) 06:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Far-right 1

In the first line of the intoroduction:

Delete: Lauren Southern (/ˈsʌðərn/; born 16 June,[3] 1995) is a Canadian far-right political activist

Insert: Lauren Southern (/ˈsʌðərn/; born 16 June,[3] 1995) is a Canadian conservative political activist

The yerm "far-right" has negative connotations and is entirely unfair. Squidger (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The use of the term is supported by 3 different reliable sources. It doesn't matter whether you're seeing that "unfair" or "fair". In order to effectively change that you should provide equal reliable sources i.e 3, or even more that support the change you want be made. And perhaps even gain consensus here as this is not minor change.  — Ammarpad (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2017

With reference to the statement "In April 2017, Southern was one of several scheduled speakers at a Patriots' Day rally in Berkeley, California", a source needs to be provided. 77.135.110.229 (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I have tagged it with a {{cn}} tag. —MRD2014 Talk • Edits • Help! 03:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Degree

The degree she never received is supposed to be relevant information? Lauren is a celebrity more than a politician. I don't think anyone views her as a professional, to where her credentials need to be scrutinized. This is entirely obvious, and the line about her not receiving a degree is also an obvious assault on her character. And I'm saying this as a neutral Wikipeda editor, and not as a fan. Personally I am a centrist, always have been. I honestly don't care about politics or any particular conservative values. Her degree is irrelevant, and that information needs to be removed. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Always a centrist? It sounds like you care very much about politics to so strictly define yourself, but nobody here cares either way. Regardless, she was a political candidate, and a pundit who discusses politics, so her academic credentials are relevant. That's enough, but even if she were "just" an entertainer, encyclopedia biographies typically include information about people's education. Removing this would need a specific reason beyond your personal opinion that it's irrelevant. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm only defining myself to alleviate any question about me, which unfortunately did not work as intended. She is not a person who offers professional advice though, for her degree to be relevant. Her role in politics also does not require any degree. And if you honestly believe you can sit here and pretend this information was not specifically chosen as a direct assault on her character, then perhaps you are not really using your best judgement. It really is entirely obvious. Perhaps you could put some of your effort in scrutinizing the neutrality of this article instead, friend. Wikipedia is not an immature political forum. You can't just conveniently perceive things to fit your narrative. Using common sense is actually a rule here. Please try and set aside your personal feelings about her and remove this information immediately. Thanks. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually come to think of it, Wikipedia may actually be an immature political forum. Your response is quite typical, and is often received when trying to peruse neutrality on sensitive subjects of all sorts. You may not realize that you are only lowering the quality of content provided here. I don't even bother logging in anymore. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment - this from an IP account that has mostly been occupied with arguing that the Jewish hat is not antisemitic but "quite fashionable", that the term antisemitic itself is "racist, wouldn't you agree?", and accusing others of "vandalism" for restoring the stable version of an article. Immature political forum, indeed. Newimpartial (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes actually, rather than spinning my arguments as some type of absurdity, you probably should go back and do a better job reading them. My arguments are certainly true, the judenhut (jewish hat) was actually an item of elite-fashion for the period, and not some kind of dehumanizing punishment for the Jews. That particular article is actually a bias political spin on a sensitive subject. Just one of many here on Wikipedia. The judenhut article has multiple issues I would like to clean up, but it is literally guarded by a person who has been constantly monitoring it for 10 years now. This is quite ridiculous. I shouldn't even have to explain myself here, especially on topics which have absolutely nothing to do with Lauren Southern. Keep it neutral please. Wikipedia will eventually lose the ability to defend itself against against lawsuits and such. Regardless of how much funding and legal power they have. (much of their funding does actually go to lawyers, rather than obtaining informational resources and data to be made public, and improving the quality of research and thus this website.) Please also remove derogatory terms (already proven to be derogatory in US courts of law) such as "alt-right", "far-right" and such. Thanks. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
You may only post the political affiliation Lauren herself has identified with. "Conservative" would be an acceptable blanket term. Thanks. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Technically this article, and all editors affiliated with maintaining such slander, are in gross violation of Wikipedia rules. This is grounds for a strict IP bans, and I would even recommend further ensuring that investigative approaches are taken to ensure none of these editors can ever return under a different name, by exploring their posting habits, personal subjects of interests and IP location data. Real money is at stake here, I don't believe the Wikimedia foundation is fond of losing any of it. Overall I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps this open encyclopedic model is able to even work. Any funding and donations would be better served towards a credible commercial alternatives with paid, professional researchers who are under contractual obligations of neutrality. Encyclopedias, such as 'The Encyclopedia Britannica' don't need much to be transformed into something very large, and very fast. Thanks for your understanding. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, after giving it some more thought, I do believe The Encyclopedia Britannica does have the ability to win the hearts and donations of those who appreciate quality information. I can definitively draft even more ways of marketing the Britannica into the hearts and minds of people. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For future readers, and setting aside all the WP:NOTFORUM violations above, I wanted to respond to this:
Please also remove derogatory terms (already proven to be derogatory in US courts of law) such as "alt-right", "far-right" and such. ... You may only post the political affiliation Lauren herself has identified with. "Conservative" would be an acceptable blanket term. Thanks.
The IP is describing a personal preference, as has been described by other IP and sockpuppet editors on this page previously, which is not in accord with WP policy. According to WP BLP policy and sourcing guidelines, reliably-sourced labels to be used (including "alt-right and "far-right"), while terms used in self-identification are not especially preferred (q.v. "you may only post", above) and should only be included if appropriately sourced and attributed.
Also, the wording of the "you may only post" comment suggests and undisclosed COI involving the IP and the subject of this article. :) Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
You may only post the political affiliation Lauren herself has identified with. "Conservative" would be an acceptable blanket term. Thanks. 76.169.78.241 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Not per WP policy. Sorry. Newimpartial (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

Lauren Southern is a conservative speaker who has emphasized multiple times of her non-racist/sexist beliefs. She provides a voice for the conservatives bashed by the media who are denied a say in social issues purely because of leftist bias. Yeneter (talk) 02:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to remove two sections

Hi, I'm proposing to remove these two sections:

The book listed is a nn, self-published work. Electoral record is not suitable for inclusion since the subject had no chance of winning and only got .9% of the vote. Any feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

  • support the removal of the sections and their headings, but as these are (for what they are worth) career milestones for the subject to date, if they can be sourced well, I would suggest they be rewritten/abbreviated and moved to a section which deals generally with the subject's career. The information contributes to an understanding of he subject's aims and also the reaction to them. Edaham (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I support removing both. The 90-page book needs a secondary source, and the table is interesting, but excessive for this article. We already explain the election, although saying she got 535 votes is not, by itself, as informative as it could be, so I've adjusted it to mention the percentage. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I've moved the info from publications to the media section of career. I've also removed the section heading per the above discussion. Please review, copy edit or revert if required. Edaham (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Neither of the two sources for the election table support any specific numbers regarding Southern, although it might have been an archiving issue or something. It would, of course, be much better to find a reliable, secondary source for this information, anyway. Grayfell (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I removed the Electoral record section. It looks like the Publications section has already be removed / relocated. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me, thanks. It looked complicated so I left it there and just did the easy bit. Edaham (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Alt-right 2

OP has been blocked for personal attacks. Any discussion of this issue should start fresh based on reliable sources, as always. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lauren Southern is not alt-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

According to what ? There is no evidence that Lauren Southern is alt-right. Alt-right isn't even real. I don't appreciate my factual reverts being changed and then me being attacked for vandalism when you know for a fact it's not that. And what right do you have to tell me that I'll be blocked from editing ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spottedfeather (talk • contribs) 22:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauren_Southern/Archive_1&oldid=1143744594"