Jump to content

Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

Adding sources to the claim "Some academics and journalists have described Southern as a white nationalist..." would go a long way for the sake of political balance. Being able to source such a claim is quite important, otherwise it isn't known if there is a political bias of individuals who would make such a strong claim. 74.78.26.148 (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

If you press the note marked as [b], you will see the sources. Endwise (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not about political balance. It's about accuracy.
The use of the terms "alt-right", "white nationalist" and "far-right" are supported by multiple admissible citations. For any changes to be made, you should suggest reliable sources which present Ms Southern in a different light. See: WP:RS and WP:BLP for some guidance. Hyperballad Eye (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The notable source would be Ms Southern herself and her lawsuit against your website for defamation for listing her as something she claims to not be.
https://www.mixedtimes.com/news/lauren-southern-sends-defamation-complaint-to-wikipedia-over-long-running-smear-campaign
You are calling her something she does not believe in or publicly state to be, something used to defame her and attack her character that she personally states to not believe.
There is no better source than this, the person who holds the believes you are claiming to know.
This is why I dont donate to you and the example I give to anyone who thinks about donating to your site. Wikipedia will ignore people's actual words and get sued to publish smears about them. Dublin716 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
That online tabloid does not appear to be a reliable source, in the sense of WP:RS. Newimpartial (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
It doesnt need to be for the point, the point is that she herself has a lawsuit against your website because it is falsely making claims about her, and you are still saying that is not enough to remove those claims.
A political affiliation is not a brand burned on by hateful people like those who initially branded her in the first place.
You are saying that these sites are fake news as you push a smear campaign against someone suing you for those smears.
That is wild that I just tried to link 2 other sources and both were black listed from your website, you also ban news sources. I really hope anyone who isnt already agreeing with you catches on that this site is just biased trash and unfounded smears. Dublin716 (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEZeqhTB5sA&t=1105s
Since you banned the only news sites that will report on it, here is her own words on the matter and about her lawsuit.
You are smear merchants, nothing more. Dublin716 (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Alt-right

Off-topic. WP article content is based on reliable sources, not on opinions devoid of sources

Southern has made it clear that she identifies as a conservative, so why is she still labeled as alt-right? 2603:8080:C401:BC90:8066:82FB:A243:97EC (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

All you have to do is watch one or two of her videos on YouTube to see that she isn't alt-right. This particular page seems to have gone to great lengths to portray her as such, but she's mostly conservative, not alt-right. Unless alt-right doesn't mean what I think it means anymore. That's the problem with these terms; they're constantly shifting, and nobody can distinguish between alt-right and ordinary conservative thinking anymore. You can use me as a source, if you like. She's not alt-right. Robertwharvey (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunate. Perhaps we should discourage the use of sources from 4/5/6 years ago, at the beginning of Southern's career, and instead find (Wikipedia standards acceptable) sources that reflect her current political stances. I would actually consider her less conservative than Michael J. Knowles who is not alt-right. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

On a secondary note, such a label given to her isn't surprising when Wikipedia considers Buzzfeed as a reliable accurate source. This article used Buzzfeed 5 times, incredible. And to top it off the article also features Media Matters, calling her a "troll". Totally accurate and trustworthy, yup. Hard to be those things when articles written are so blatantly partisan. Not even trying to hide bias which does skew characterization of figures like Southern. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss the reliability of BuzzFeed News, WP:RSN is thataway. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Hilarious, you were one of the mods that was named by Southern for smearing her as a white nationalist, until her lawsuit forced you to take it down.
Take that L Dublin716 (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
The characterization of "alt-right" is not about being more or less conservative. It refers to a focus on white or European identity, and also a certain mode of discourse. Knowles is probably more conservative than Southern on a bunch of social issues, but he did not praise Richard Spencer, he didn't go on a boat to prevent migrants from reaching Europe, he didn't associate with Stefan Molyneux, he didn't appear in podcasts with Nick Fuentes, etc. 108.176.106.24 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm glad you're able to discern the two in that manner but the reality is that "alt-right" is seen as essentially, far-right adjacent. My main point initially wasn't using better sources, rather finding newer sources that title her as conservative (half of them are from 2017). Unlike using a source from 2017 saying someone is a murderer, political views do change over time (imagine if we still said Tulsi Gabbard is liberal because there are sources from 2017-early 2022 that say so). Many good sources saying Southern is a conservative are out there, but unfortunately the few that say she's alt-right will be handpicked instead. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah they actually flat out accused her of the things you are in this comment and she filed a lawsuit, then Wikipedia was forced to take them down.
So you are saying that Alt Right is basically their way of smearing her despite the lawsuit? Interesting that Wikipedia is just toilet paper at this point. Dublin716 (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately you were trying to be honest here and they are just smear merchants.
It took years of Lauren Southern suing Wikipedia to get them to remove the "White Nationalist" smear because that term actually had a definition.
As far as Alt Right, the meaning of that is less concrete so they are still able to smear her with it.... using Buzzfeed who knowingly published the Steele Dossier, that ended up almost all going unproven.
Then someone who thinks pronouns exists ignores your initial statement to cherry pick out the critique of a dishonored news outlet and only answers that part of it... completely ignoring the smear.
See how someone else just uses alt right any which way and gives no definition of it? It means White nationalist, Neo Nazi.... and Southern filed a lawsuit against Wikipedia for smearing her as a White Nationalist and they took that part down... but left another term that essentially means the same thing as this comment admits. Dublin716 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia itself defines "alt-righ" as white nationalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right 185.105.180.151 (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Only because the alt-right article summarizes what other sources have said about it, and they all note strong elements of white nationalism and racism within the alt-right movement. —C.Fred (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Lauren Turner has never been married, Southern is a pseudonym

Lauren "Southern" is related to actress Sophie Turner. There is no record of either Lauren being married in either Canadian or Australian registries. 174.49.0.4 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What are your sources for her alleged name? —C.Fred (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In Her Own Words

As of June 14, 2023, Lauren Southern discusses her own life:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtuIHj7OXc

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqzJmdlJx0k

Seki1949 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Lauren Southern was divorced by her husband over 18 months ago.

Lauren was divorced by her husband over 18 months ago. 103.106.76.140 (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What reliable sources have published this? —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know exactly how reliable a source it would be considered (as I'm not fully versed in Wikipedia's guidelines), but she did recently post on twitter that she no longer lives with her husband and that she hasn't been doing so for two years. (https://twitter.com/Lauren_Southern/status/1666883921790009344)
Would this be considered a reliable source? Emkut7 (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
"Lauren was divorced by her husband over 18 months ago." Do you know who divorced who? Divorce is normally a private matter. Perhaps 'Lauren Southern and her husband were divorced in [month] [year]' Seki1949 (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Shorten Intro

The introduction has information not necessary for that part of the article. Not only is it quite lengthy but much of the information presented is from events/sources 5-6 years ago. As many followers of her know she has much more nuanced views since her early 20's and to present all that information in the beginning creates a larger presumption to the average reader she still holds those exact views. It would only make sense information years old should be put in other sections of the article which is more of a timeline of her political career. Not to mention such views are not significant/relevant to her current character. 142.116.121.165 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2023

Libertarians are not alt-right. Please remove the slander claiming she is alt-right unless there is verifiable proof. Disagreeing with the extreme left does not qualify. 24.158.139.90 (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a little superscript "[a]" beside that claim in the lead, that displays a list of many reliable sources describing Southern as alt-right. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: As above, per sources. No consensus, setting request to answered. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

Lauren is not alt-right. That’s defamation 66.113.12.68 (talk) 06:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

Per the article, sources describing Southern as "alt-right" include:

Sources describing Southern as "far-right" include:

Sources describing Southern as "right-wing" include:

Some academics and journalists have described Southern as a white nationalist, Sources discussing Southern in relation to white nationalism include:

If you have a problem with reliable sources, please take it up with those sources, or at least explain the issue in more detail. Grayfell (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

My only issue with these sources is that they are all outdated. They all take place before her "transformation." Do sources still refer to her as alt-right? Since 2020, it appears that she genuinely has become a different person. However, I do acknowledge that policy is not on her side if no recent sources merely describe her as "conservative". I no longer feel that "alt-right" is an accurate descriptor of her current views (I was and still am genuinely disgusted by her past worldview). Is there any way we can replace these outdated references with newer ones. I have been struggling to find any. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The issue here is not about reliable sources, but that Wikipedia labels Southern as "alt-right" in the encyclopedic voice. The choice to do this shows editorial bias, is counterproductive, and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. The editorial decision here would be analogous to the article on Kamala Harris beginning "Kamala Devi Harris... is a woke[a] American politician..." with the superscript citing all the reliable sources who have described Kamala Harris as "woke", and then saying to readers "if you have a problem with that, take it up with these sources". Wikipedia should never present opinion or labels as fact, but should instead contextualize. Here it would be better to say something like "described as alt right by many mainstream media outlets and social scientists".
Imagine someone coming to this article to find out more about Southern, having enjoyed some clip of her on youtube. They will read Wikipedia saying she is alt-right (citing a bunch of liberal sources), conclude that Wikipedia is biassed, leave the page, and look for information elsewhere. So you have actually deterred this person from reading legitimate criticism of Southern, and also given them reason to bad-mouth Wikipedia to their friends. Lose-lose. Geometry guy 21:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
If you think Wikipedia shouldn't be describing individuals known for their political views in wikivoice from the left <-> right spectrum, you're going to need much broader consensus than you'll be able to achieve at one single article talk page, because this is extremely common practice when a person's political views are widely described in RS. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This is not describing political views but applying a pejorative label that the person does not accept. If you claim this is widely acceptable in the wikivoice by broad consensus, please point me to the policies and discussions which support your position. Also can you give some examples where a pejorative label is applied in the wikivoice to a living left wing politician. Geometry guy 13:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Does Southern now reject the label of alt-right? She's identified with it in the past. Her tweet also demonstrates that the term isn't necessarily a pejorative. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't know. It would help a lot if we could find something more recent than her piling on to a hashtag in 2016. "Altright", like "woke", can be pejorative or not, depending on who is saying it when, and with what meaning they intend. A sex positive feminist might proudly identify as "slut", but that does not necessarily mean we should use that label in the wikivoice. My impression is that "woke" and "altright" are both trending in the pejorative direction as the political debate becomes more polarised. All of this means an NPOV encyclopedia should be even more careful how these labels are used in articles. Geometry guy 21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Geometry guy, besides her 2016 tweet there's also all the RS that was provided above and the fact that there doesn't appear to be any sources denying that she is alt-right. So it seems like it's ok to leave in. And she just seems to hold the alt-right ideology or do you disagree? How would you characterize her (regardless of RS)? And alt-right is a political movement with specific criteria and people who self identify with the label. "Woke" is an adjective with a loose definition and isn't a clearly defined political movement. Same with slut. They don't seem like the same thing. Also any political label can be pejorative if applied to the wrong person and that definitely goes for the altright label. Southern has self identified with the altright label in the past so it seems accurate until RS with due weight contradicts it. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that "alt-right" is pejorative. It's a descriptor of a specific ideology, not unlike "far right". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
You disagree because you yourself are a leftist, and it is convenient for you to pretend it isn't a pejorative. That's all there is to it.
As for her being "far right", that's equally pejorative. It's literally a meme on her channel now because she's been accused of it for so long. She even made an entire video mocking the idea of her being far right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQrnH20sVHk&t=261s Winnzy (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Libertarians aren't "Alt-right"

Stop spreading misinformation because of your political bias 162.235.56.28 (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Some libertarians are alt-right, some are not. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Lauren Southern dated Andrew Tate. Request for Addition to Personal Life?

About a year ago or so, Tommy Robinson, a former associate of Lauren Southern, claimed in a video titled: "Fake Rape Allegations: Andrew Tate The Truth" on Rumble.com, that he witnessed her in a relationship with Andrew Tate back in 2018, either early or mid 2018. He said he, Caolan Roberton and Lauren spent some time in Romania at Tate's house and got a lay of the land, so to say.

Separately, this Caolan Robertson, who is definitely associate of Lauren and Tommy's and his/her former camera man, also hinted in a post about Lauren, though not naming her specifically, that she was sexually assaulted by Tate at some point on the same day he went on a tour throughout Tate's house, all in Romania. He said this in a tweet on twitter that was deleted on or around 30th December 2022, about a year ago now.

I wonder, is this information relevant enough for her article? The relationship has not been confirmed by Lauren, but she's been radio silent on Andrew Tate regarding any mention of him, which is surprising for her content - since she talks about men in the alt-right/right-wing sphere occasionally. Tommy Robinson is a witness to a relationship that isn't commonly known by most people. However, Tate is a well known public figure and so is she, so is it possible someone here can edit her article to include this information in the section on her personal life? If I provide the Robinson video where he makes the claim, would that make an edit more likely? 176.61.110.190 (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Any such claim would require high quality reliable sources, not firsthand rumors in Rumble videos. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
It's not a rumor, it was literally said by a man who was with her in Romania. Caolan Robertson was also with her and indirectly referred to her in a tweet that she was involved with Andrew Tate.
An article from The Atlantic is referenced in her personal life section quoting Daniel Lombroso supposedly quoting Lauren saying "She kept telling me she had grown more 'compassionate,' but whenever I asked her pointedly if she regretted her past work, I got obfuscation and tactical apologies." something she hasn't said in a video or a tweet and it's allowed to stay, even though it's just something he claimed she said - but two associates of Lauren's both saying in different ways that she was with Tate translates as a rumor? 176.61.110.190 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
"...indirectly referred to her in a tweet..." Okay, so what are we supposed to do with that? Does a reliable, verifiable source (meaning a published source) say that Caolan Robertson tweeted about this, and does that reliable, published source explain why this is anything more than gossip? Grayfell (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll quote the tweet Caolan Robertson posted on 31st December, 2022 and deleted shortly after.
"Andrew showed me his webcam room where he forces women against their will to make porn and sexually assaulted someone close to me. Both in the same day." There are screenshots of that tweet. No interview with Caolan was conducted about the tweet and not many people know about the tweet or even Tommy Robinson's video claim about seeing her being in a relationship with him. Lauren doesn't identify as "Alt-right", yet it's at the top of her page as if she self-identified with that label, just because a bunch of news outlets with opinion pieces called her as such.
If a New York Times opinion piece claimed Lauren was a dog, would you believe them just because they're considered a "reliable, verifiable source" every other time? 176.61.110.190 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
So in other words, the answer to my question is "no". If no reliable source has mentioned this, neither should we. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles mainly summarize reliable sources.
If, instead, this is all just a convoluted argument to remove 'alt-right' from the lead, the talk page already has many past discussions of this, and again, Wikipedia mainly summarizes reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauren_Southern/Archive_10&oldid=1246911823"