Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Alt-right 1

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.

---

This entry is written completely from the "alt-left" side of the political debate, and as such contains significant factual errors and outright opinions.

Lauren Southern is not alt-right, and the sources used to "confirm it" are all sources with significant left bias. It would be more correct to call her a right-libertarian and allow people to make up their own minds as to what the undefinable "alt-right" is. Furthermore, the article presupposes boats linked to severe human trafficking are part of "organizations committed to save-and-rescue operations." If someone is trying to write an unbiased entry, they failed miserably in this. If I could change it myself, I would.

Instead I would suggest saying, point blank, "sources with significant left bias refer to her as alt-right, but Lauren Southern considers herself a conservative libertarian."

Also in the interest of fairness, I would suggest saying "Lauren Southern supported the nativist group Defend Europe whom the left claims is opposing the action of non-governmental organizations committed to save-and-rescue operations in the Mediterranean, but the right sees as opposing the actions of non-governmental organizations committed to supporting illegal immigration and human trafficking."

If you're going to put political bias in it (which, IMO, is wrong to begin with), it needs to have both political biases, not just one. Art of Free Speech (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever one may think about some of the other sources in the article, the Washington Post, McLean's, and the Abbotsford Post (!) are not known to be "alt-left" news sources. The claim that these mainstream news sources all have "significant left bias" would be original research. Also, no sourcing has yet been identified for Southern as a "conservative libertarian", except for SPA editors on WP. Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - the article is a leftist farce (sadly like so much of Wikipedia) - the normal "mainstream media" lies about Lauren Southern being "far right" or "alt right" when she is actually a conservative. Note to Wikipedia - if you do not understand the difference between a conservative and a National Socialist then the conflict between the conservative Winston Churchill and the National Socialist Adolf Hitler must really baffle you. And, of course, all the other lies are presented as facts - for example the Marxists engaged with human traffickers to bring illegal immigrants into to Europe are described as being engaged in "search and rescue operations".2A02:C7D:B417:4800:A021:8D43:9DB3:E721 (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial he Washington Post, McLean's, and the Abbotsford Post are not used as sources in the opening lines which depict Southern as alt-right or far right. Isaw (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Only saw this after I edited the far right to Liberiutarian. I agree with the idea of "equalise or neutralise" as proposed by Art of Free Speech above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaw (talk • contribs) 10:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I note the edit I did was reverted. I did revert it back and messed up a tag because the page is "spaghetti code" but the current live reference to PAtreon http://www.canadalandshow.com/lauren-southern-banned-by-patreon isnt evidence ayt all of southern being alt right. this needs to go to an admin level because any changes since last October have been reverted and the supporting references are all included in the spaghetti but not in the article. This needs to be fixed. I dont want an edit war here but one soide keeps reverting any attempt to balance the article. Isaw (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

the opening section is now protected. https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/12/lauren-southern-the-sex-worker/ is an alt right saource which regards LS as close to mainstream rather than alt right. Teh sources describing her as alt right are not right at all! The Leadewr of the Libritarian Party regards her as Liberitarian not alt right or extreme right. The series of attempts toi labe her extreme right has resulted in spaghetti code on the page and the early references out of synch with the article. It is quite obvious a concerted effort is being made to project a biased opinion. Now I dont have a doig in this fight because I dont side with her politics. But I note a wikipedia wide effor4t to do this to any people who critique Islam. Am I paranoid? the entries for Tommy Robinson Linda Sarsour and Bill Warner convince me I am not. Just as Lauren Southern is being labelled by accusation. Im remonded of Victor Hugos response toi the Dreyfus Case. Liberal balanced opinions need to be brought to bear on this issue. Isaw (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2018 (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.

Far-right 2

shouldn't there be a citation for the claim that she is "far-right"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.111.205.96 (talk) 11:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes - and there is. Edaham (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is that reference then? All three references as at the current date, just following the statement refer to her as "alt-right". Alt-right is not synonymous with "far right". The first reference describes her as "alt-right", not as far right. It does juxtaposition her in a discussion about a far right group she isn't associated with. The second reference doesn't even include the term "far right". The third reference says "Far Right Descends On Berkeley For 'Free Speech' And Planned Violence", and also lists members of the "alt right" who attended, but never identified any particular group or individual as being part of the "far right". So is only IMPLYING that an unidentified portion of the people talked about in the article are "far right", but doesn't specify which ones (so weasel words). So none of these articles are directly saying that Lauren Southern is "far right", probably because they want to avoid slander. Wikipedia probably also shouldn't go down this path either. Maybe the article should say she is "loosely associated" with "members of the far right", but should hold back from directly calling her "far right". 나비Fly ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the above comment Flaviusvulso (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know much about her (just came across her today and came to Wikipedia to find out who she was) but the article kicks off by labelling her as 'far right' and then does nothing to demonstrate that she supports the type of politics described in the linked 'far right' article. I've tagged it 'according to whom?' for now but I really feel the 'far right' label should either be justified or removed. Eggybacon (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Multiple citations from reliable sources, in this paragraph and elsewhere, support the term "far right". Wikipedia works from reliable sources, not original research. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. Have responded to your other comment below. Eggybacon (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Eggybacon the actual code for the page shows repeated attempts to put in critical sources have rebounded and they are not listed in the enrty but are in the background BECAUSE that have been shown not to be evidence that Lauren southern is Far Right or alt Right.Isaw (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC alone is not sufficient. Organisations, reporters, media outlets etc should not be relied upon on assigning somebody a controversial label like 'far right,' especially if they don't identify with it themselves. I can find probably thousands of references from journalists that call Obama a communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2BC4:3100:4D94:2A0D:7527:79DC (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The SPLC were very good in the past at outing the KKK and far right. Laurn southern isnot one of these KKK type people. the SPLC is a huge commercial concern with hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore and cash funds. But WHAT EVIDENCE does hte SPLC produce other than saying they believe something. Calling someone Alt right does not make them alt right.Isaw (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there is no creditable citation for the claim that the subject is "far-right". The using of the term "far-right" have racial and violent undertone to it, which is not something that the subject is related to. The cited source of Vice and Vox both have left biased which does not present information on a neutral perspective of Wikipedia. I suggest change the term "far-right" to "conservative". O1001010 (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think "right libertarian" is a better way to describe her political position. For example she has stated she wouldn't be as a big a advocate for border security if there weren't such generous welfare systems in Europe and the US. Flaviusvulso (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

So far, there is no reliable source for "conservative" or "right libertarian". In the other hand, there are several - including canadaland (ref. 33), for "far right". Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Newimpartial yes ther is ! Her eis the leader of the Liberitarian Party endorcing her as aCANDIDATE fopr that Party https://pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/future-bright-liberty/Isaw (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Here are some examples of how she's been described in mainstream media: "Conservative internet personality" and "Libertarian activist" (CBS), "a reporter from The Rebel Media, a conservative media platform" (The Globe and Mail), "a Canadian activist popular in rightwing media" (The Guardian, the UK's preeminent left wing newspaper), "Conservative speaker" (Star Tribune, an American print newspaper with a significant circulation). I am not convinced that a single use of the term 'far right' on a website that proudly displays a link to an article like this questioning its journalism meets the requirements of WP:BLPSOURCES for such a contentious label as 'far right', and the current wording certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOV. Why not just call her 'right wing'? Eggybacon (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The misuse of "far-right" to refer simultaneously to mainstream right figures or parties such as Jordan Peterson, Ezra Levant, UKIP, Lega Nord, while also using it to refer to Richard Spencer, David Duke, BNP, and Golden Dawn simply discredits the source and helps the actual far-right find legitimacy and public acceptance. Humanophage (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia, we like to call that original research. Newimpartial (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Humanophage Like to call what orioginalk research?

Your entire immediately preceding comment. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Fox News lists her as exclusively "right-wing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:982:4200:A6C:9459:D3F9:E9FF:76D (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That source uses right-wing to describe her ideology, but that doesn't actually mean that she cannot be both. CNN calls her "far-right", as do many others. Meanwhile, Newsweek call her both "far right" and "alt-right" in the same article. These are all overlapping concepts. Grayfell (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

References

GrayfellLet me get this straight. You are claiming she is a Liberitarian Party candidate but with alt right views? Wher has she supported white nationalism or ethno nationalism? and I do not mean controlling immegration which even the left want. I mean ideas that white people are suyperiour or that balck people or Jews or some otehr race or minority should not be given equal opportunitiesd? In short things that ALT RIGHT people do and say??? Isaw (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

By the way the "criticism of Islam" accusation came because she saw a theatre play was announced like Gerry springer the Opera whjere Jesus was depicted as "a bit gay" so as a social experiment she set up a stall for gay Muslims calling for Islam to be tolderany of gay peopole and handing out paphlets suggesting Mohammad could have been gay or bi sexual. The police were called. that was the last time she was in the UK. when she returned they didnt want her goinf to a free speech event in speakers corner so they banned her using the Terror5ism act on the basis that her social experiment was a threat to national security. None of this is any evidence of hewr being alt right. The alt right have no policy that Mohammad might have been gay and that Islam should tolerate homosexuals like the rest of society does. So that is ANOTHER irrelevant reference! Isaw (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Miscegenation Scandal

In December 2017 a scandal erupted on Stormfront when Ms. Southern was accused of race mixing, with some purported photos of her with Africans were posted. In light of her defenses of Western Civilization, this caused considerable consternation in alt-right circles. https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1233788/ Her comment sections on her youtube videos have also been full of the accusation, which so far as I know she has not responded to.107.77.209.204 (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

yes I have showed other alt right and far right sources pointing to far right followers of LS being outraged at her friendly attitude to blacks. What that shows is that she isnt racist and that the racist alt right dont regard her as one of them Isaw (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Far-right 3

change 'far-right' to 'right wing' Gareth1893 (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Since the listed source are left biased, here are some right biased source that calls the subject "conservative".

1 and 2

Lastly, from a neutral source Ars Technica calls subject "right-wing". https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/crowdfunded-anti-refugee-ship-loses-patreon-propulsion/ O1001010 (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The Sun and Daily Mail are both unreliable tabloids, regardless of their purported political bent. Tabloids should not be used in general, and specifically not Daily Mail, per WP:DAILYMAIL.

Far-right is, by definition, a subset of right-wing. Being "biased" doesn't make a source unreliable. We're not interested in false balance. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Being "biased" absolutely matters since categorizing a subject's view point is most definitely an opinion instead of a fact. Here is a right biased source that describes the subject as a "Canadian Libertarian." 1. The neutral source above from Ars Technica, which is how I originally found about the subject described with the term "right-wing" 2 Also, MustangNews which is from California Polytechnic State University describes the subject as "A Canadian conservative and libertarian". 3 But judging from your last sentence about "false balance", I am getting the impression that personally you are not conducting yourself from a neutral direction which is what Wikipedia suppose to be. Also who is "we"? O1001010 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

By "we" I meant Wikipedia. See WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Describing a source as 'biased', or attempting to figure out exactly where on the left-right spectrum it lies, is itself subjective. This is a form of original research. Your assessment that a source is "left biased" doesn't change anything.

If many reliable sources all point to a general idea, even if they don't use the exact same term, we should probably attempt to explain that idea to readers. Her being far-right (however we put it) is likely one of the reasons they're reading the article, since that point is raised by multiple sources.

I assume an event listing from the student newspaper for California Polytechnic State University is generally reliable, but... what does it actually prove? context matters, and routine coverage like this is pretty weak. As for Fox, this article already mentions her Libertarian party affiliation in the very next sentence, and again, "Libertarian" is entirely compatible with being far-right. Grayfell (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

GrayfellLet me get this straight . You are claiming Southern can be a Libertarian and yet also be fascist racist alt right or far right and you think it is fair and balanced to poprtray her as such? did you read the point above about comparing Churchill to Hitler and depicting a conservative as a far right fanatic? to show her as far right you have to identify her with hating a group or being racist. that has not been done. all that has been done is showing lists of other people calling her far right or alt right. Name calling isnt evidence and hiding behind the idea of "no original research" is just using the rules of Wikipedia to avoid confronting this obvious unfair description of Southern.Isaw (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Who is saying Southern "is" Libertarian? She ran as a Libertarian candidate, which saya nothing about her prior or subsequent views. Her avowed "identarianism" certainly isn't libertarian. Reliable sources refer to her as far right and alt-right, and so should WP. Newimpartial (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Far-right 4

I suggest changing "far-right" to "classically liberal", in modern parlance "conservative-libertarian" describing Lauren's politics.

I don't even know what "far-right" means. But Lauren's positions are clearly in line with classically liberal, modern conservative/libertarian principles. 47.32.19.11 (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not original research or personal opinion. Grayfell (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

"reliable sources" should not be stemmed from biased information, which on this matter, Vox and Vice are clearly biased. The sited sources are clearly the personal opinion of the media author themselves. Using your own logic, these sources should be nullified. The Wikipedia sourcing standards should at least be from a neutral point of perspective. Until a neutral source can be referenced, the said term should be removed. O1001010 (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Canadaland seems pretty neutral, in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Except Canadaland is not listed as a source for the alt right label. The listed sources are from Vox, Vice, and SPLC. If you look at the discussion from the members who have pushed for such label, it's two members which profile shows their own bias. At this point I recommend the sentence to be taken out and not replaced with anything until a neutral source could be stated. O1001010 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Then our loving administrators should move note 33 to accompany the reliable sources you object to, since it documents the label. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked into source number 33 and did a little research on this. Canadaland is founded by Jesse Brown which wrote for Vice and Huffpost. If you look at the article it just says that the wikiarticle subject is banned from Patreon due to a known biased lobby "HOPE not hate". The author Graeme Gordon offered no proof why the alt-right label is used nor why Patreon believes there will be "loss of life" in the subject's actions in African illegal migrant participation. Using Wikipedia's own definition of alt-right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right, the subject does not fit the description of the said terms. I vote to remote the the opening term "far-right" and "alt-right" in this article's opening sentences. O1001010 (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

If there's a reason Canadaland isn't reliable, you haven't explained it. Having written for other outlets before founding a new one doesn't make an outlet unreliable... why would it? Being a "known biased lobby" doesn't invalidate the group's actions. Again, why would it? Gordon isn't obligated to explain every aspect of everything he reports on. Very few sources would meet that impossible standard. Attempting to apply your own definition of "alt-right" to her would be WP:OR. We are not concerned with whether or not you, as an editor, think she's alt-right. We're concerned with what reliable sources say about it. Bringing these complaints up suggest a misunderstanding of how this works. Likewise, see WP:CONSENSUS. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and we don't go by votes for article content. Grayfell (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I've long been a proponent of self-identification. She does not seriously identify as alt-right, no more than she identifies as being a man. However, the way Wikipedia works, self-identification doesn't matter — WP:RS is what matters. $0.02. — Confession0791 ^talk 07:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WHAT "reliable sources" say Southern is alt right or far right and on what evidence is that based. It seems to me that articles about people who criticise Islam like Souther, Bill Warner or Tommy Robinson depict them as racist and extreme in the opening lines whereas for people like Linda Sarsour criticisms ( such as calling for female critics of Islam to have their genitals mutilated) are buried deep in the article or removed. this trend needs to be addressed.Isaw (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

And would you agree the leader of the Libritarian Party accepting her a a candidate for that party is a reliable source that she ios Libritarian and not far right? Isaw (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't scatter the same arguments all over the talk page. Pick one discussion, preferably the latest one, and make your arguments there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume that would be alt right 5 so I will continue there. Sorry for typos my keppad buffer is freezing on me. Isaw (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sources and categories regarding heritage and religious views

@Grayfell: in special:diff/822202045 you removed the cited tweets from Lauren where she stated:

Jewish people are still recovering from the holocaust, my grandparents escaped the Nazi's in Denmark & lost everything.

agnostic, thanks for the follow! :)

Then in special:diff/822202200 you removed the categories which were supported by the cites you removed.

Your summaries stated:

Find reliable, secondary sources for this

Per previous. Needs reliable sources in article

Lauren Southern is a reliable source regarding her own viewpoints and her own heritage. Any other sources making such statements about her could base the information upon asking her questions like the ones she answered on Twitter.

Your request for secondary sources to confirm this is unnecessary. WP:SCHOLARSHIP states:

Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.

When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised

Until we know relying on secondary sources is possible, we must rely on a primary source. Are you saying I did not take extreme caution? I didn't interpret anything for myself, this is used to establish basic info.

Per WP:WPNOTRS:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately.

Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research.

Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.

I believe my use of them was cautious and avoided original research. I believe I took specific facts from them, as our policy says we may.

While I realize that secondary are preferred, that is only if they exist. If they do not exist, we should use the primary source. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not ping me again, for anything. I am not interested in validating your obsessive fixation on conspiracy-theory minutia here or anywhere else. Either someone with more patience can explain it to you, or we can take this to an administrative noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell you need to remove yourself from dictating this Wikipedia page. I do not believe that you are conducting yourself neutrally and professionally on this subject, and Wikipedia is not a place for activism. This article basically changed to its current form by yourself and a clique of people that does not conform to Wikipedia's standards. O1001010 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Your aspersions are irrelevant. Do you have something productive to say? Grayfell (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes this article lacks balance and we need to agree to deal with that issue. Im happy to leave it as it is for the moment biased as it is until such issues are discussed. Depicting Southern as alt right isnt justified. If you want we can go through the sources one by one and we can find some new sources. Isaw (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In hinbdsight plenty of people have gone through all the sources. And you can see in the page source how all these sources have been rejected. Calling her alt right isnt justified.Isaw (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Random comments running contrary to our policies and guidelines don't make a consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right 3

I have a problem with the sources cited for claiming Lauren Southern is "associated with the alt-right." They are highly biased outlets (e.g., Vox, Southern Poverty Law Center), but, more importantly, two of the cited articles each only mention Lauren Southern's name once, cursorily, and then merely call her "alt-right" without explanation. Additionally, the MediaMatters.org article called Southern "alt-right," without giving reasons, and then listed a number of controversial things she has said and/or done which are not easily defensible as evidence of her being an alt-right figure (in my opinion, the facts presented seem quite irrelevant to the matter); MediaMatters cited Vice News and even BuzzFeed as two of its sources. There is no discussion of her ideas and whether these align with what is rationally perceived—according to reasonable standards of definition—as alt-right, i.e., as constituting a politics of identity based around concepts of race and White racial supremacy. It is not fair to call an individual alt-right without due corroboration of the claim. It is not appropriate to use the same descriptor for Lauren Southern as one would for, let's say, Richard Spencer, unless the one making the claim gives evidence; this inflates the meaning of the term and results ultimately in misrepresentation and misinformation. If it is to remain in her bio that she is "associated with the alt-right," it ought to be demonstrated with clarity that Southern at least meets even Wikipedia's definition of alt-right, and this is not demonstrated in the bio or in the references. Simply relying on Vox and the SPLC as reliable sources on account of their previously having been categorized as such does not excuse an irresponsible, haphazard article from either of them; in fact, it diminishes their reputation as reliable.

To be clear, I am not opposed to using the term "far-right" to describe her. I believe this can be corroborated based solely on the fact that she spent time at Rebel Media, and is additionally corroborated by the Canadaland article (ref. 33). However, far-right is not synonymous with alt-right; Merriam-Webster, for example, defines far-right very broadly, while being more specific with regard to alt-right.

Gedoughty02 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Calling sources "highly biased" doesn't make them universally biased, and more importantly, it doesn't make them any less reliable. Your opinion on the facts presented is, to be blunt, irrelevant to the matter. It's not for us, as editors, to attempt to interpret her actions and apply labels we think match those actions. This would be original research. Instead, we interpret sources and attempt to summarize them in a neutral and proportional matter. We do not demand that sources justify their use of every term they use. The goal is to use reliable sources to support a summary of who she is and why she's notable. If Vox, The SPLC, MediaMatters, Vice News, The New York Times, The Poynter Institute, and others connect her to the alt-right, it's reasonable for us to note that connection. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source is not reliable per se, but in reference to the legitimacy of the facts presented. The sources may very well have reported on things in which Lauren Southern has participated, but calling these things alt-right is a matter of opinion (and indeed, in some of the cases, it is a stretch). Vox, Vice, the SPLC, etc., all have a bent when reporting news. It is undeniable, and it is astounding that those on this talk page have assumed like robots that these sources are reliable full stop. To turn your phrase, these are not "universally" reliable sources; they are reliable in so far as they report with credibility. It is not at all clear that the sources referenced did this. So yes, these are not universally biased outlets; but they were being editorially clumsy in the case of the articles referenced. It is reasonable perhaps for Wikipedia editors to note Lauren Southern's connection to the alt-right, but the honest thing to say would be that a handful of left-wing outlets have associated her with the alt-right (and even then without fair explanation or justification). If the job of editors is to summarize sources, then more sources are needed here. Her bio is currently not a "neutral" presentation of facts. Gedoughty02 (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The opinions or judgments of reliable sources are what matters here, and our own personal opinions have no place at all in Wikipedia articles. Because several reliable sources associate her with the alt-right, then so too will this article. Can you provide links to any reliable sources that refute this claim? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss it. So when you say "several reliable sources," you really mean three. I'll take them one-by-one. First, the Vox article, dealing primarily with the Generation Identity group who tried to stop Near Eastern migrants from crossing the Mediterranean into Europe. Whatever the group's intentions, the Vox article mentions Lauren Southern a grand total of two times, citing her as having been "on board [the boat] the night of their trial run." The article goes no further to explain Southern's role at that event.

Then the VICE News piece: the article does nothing more than read into Southern's quotes; the reader must take VICE News's opinion of Southern on faith. They call her alt-right two times directly and once indirectly. One quote reads: "How Southern went from irksome student to alt-right phenom is closer to fate." It is not explained what views she particularly espouses that qualify as alt-right. Anti-feminism and anti-mass migration are listed as the only two, though not explicitly; and it is not clear how these pertain necessarily to alt-right views. Southern, in fact, explicitly states in the article: "'Yes, I have friends who are people of colour,' she said. One friend is Muslim, but has right-wing views, and often agrees with her, according to Southern. A close friend in university was Nigerian, 'an absolutely badass chick.' And then there's the internet. 'I've got a lot of Asian friends that I talk to in my chat groups, especially,' she said. 'A lot of meme groups. A lot of right-wing meme groups. I’ve got a lot of Asian friends.'" There is never a question put to Southern that explicitly asks how Southern perceives her own political identity in relation to the alt-right, yet there are direct quotations of Southern stating she has friends who are members of minority groups. Yet, for some reason, alt-right is the label that sticks. I encourage you to direct me to the question where Southern self-identifies as alt-right or espouses explicitly white nationalist ideas; in several places online, Southern makes reference to her admiration of what she calls "Western culture," but this is not synonymous with the white race and she has never synonymized the two. Again, I encourage you to show where she has done this.

Now for the SPLC: like Vox, the main focus of this article is not Southern, but an event in which she took part; and also like Vox, the article mentions her only twice. The first time reads thus: "Canadian Lauren Southern, an alt-right pundit who came to notoriety by denying the existence of rape culture and by demonizing minorities, arrived wearing a helmet boasting a 'MAGA' (Make America Great Again) sticker." A reference to another website (not referenced in the Wikipedia bio) is given as evidence by the SPLC for their claim (which is not an article wherein Southern shares her views in a formal interview but where her actions are interpreted by editorial fiat as alt-right, without definition); besides this website, the SPLC gives no further evidence or references for stating that Southern has "demoniz[ed] minorities," and it is not clear what denying the existence of rape culture has to do with a person being alt-right; or, for that matter, what support of Donald Trump has to do with it necessarily, unless the SPLC flippantly equates Trump supporters with the alt-right.

If what is meant by "associated with the alt-right" is that Southern associates herself explicitly and self-professedly with the alt-right, then this phrase is misleading at best, flat-out wrong at worst (in fact, in this YouTube video Southern says these very words: "I am not a white nationalist"). I do think what is actually meant is that a few journalists have pronounced her as alt-right, without a formal interview, without asking her questions specifically pertaining to that topic, but just as a matter of personal opinion.

So I do have a proposed new reference. It is an interview that Lauren Southern did in March 2017 with Dave Rubin on The Rubin Report. To state one way or another whether The Rubin Report is "reliable" is irrelevant, given that the form of the interview was an unedited, extended discussion with Southern herself. It's obviously reliable because it's from the horse's mouth, and not through a journalistic medium which can be believed or disbelieved based on whether one trusts the source. In this interview, Lauren states this: "They've got interesting movements in, like, France and everything right now where they've got the Identitarians talking about, 'France belongs to the French people,' and I find those arguments far more fascinating than the ones in Canada and America arguing for ethnostates that are super utopian and just not gonna happen. I think it's actually a really interesting question to ask, should Denmark remain a majority-Danish people? and if you talk to liberals [and ask], should Japan remain majority-Japanese? and they'll be like, 'Yes, absolutely!' right?" So I think that's a far more interesting argument than the Pepe, bring-whites-back-to-power argument in America." Southern herself explicitly states that she is not moved by alt-right arguments, but perhaps instead by arguments for the preservation of ethnic heritages and their surrounding cultures where they have been established for very long periods of time. If one wanted to be merely provocative, this could be called alt-right. But if Wikipedia is about nuance, then this would not be fair. One person on this talk-page stated that if several reliable sources note Southern's connection to the alt-right, then Wikipedia ought to note that connection. Yet, for some reason, when Southern disconnects herself from the alt-right, this gets not even a reference. Gedoughty02 (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I will assume good faith, but you seem not to understand how Wikipedia works. Reliable secondary sources are preferred, rather than declarations by the subjects themselves. The sources you discuss would be quite sufficient on their own to document that Southern is "associated with the alt-right", as the article currently reads, and Canadaland (presently reference 33) also makes the same observation. Wikipedia simply does not privilege how its subjects describe themselves, regardless of what tou might prefer. Newimpartial (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you can assume good faith. And no, I'm not savvy with Wikipedia. You can also be assured that I am flabbergasted at the standards here for "reliable secondary sources." I laid out the actual contents of the articles, and still I'm being told that these are "reliable sources." "Reliable" is quickly losing all meaning as it pertains to this article; all it means with regards to this article is that the references are reliably reductive. "Associated with the alt-right" is misleading; I have explained why. What am I missing, exactly? I simply care about word choice here. What is really meant is not "associated with" but "perceived by many as." You editors can do what you want. But the reality is that people will find out from other places that to associate Lauren Southern with the alt-right proper is reductive and unnecessary, especially when a consensus of opinion has been established only between five news articles with the same hostile bent toward their subject. Gedoughty02 (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because you, personally, don't agree with them doesn't make them hostile, and being hostile doesn't make them incorrect. I've seen plenty of sources that are dismissive and sarcastic, but the ones we're using are tame. But so what if they were hostile? She doesn't have the right to be taken seriously when she intentionally trolls other people (by pretending to change her gender, for example), or when she makes multiple videos spreading white supremacist conspiracy theories. Neutral sources are not obligated to humor that kind of thing, because her arguments are not even worthy of that kind of attention. Sources do not validate badly-disguised racism, and neither does Wikipedia. If this is hostile, so be it.

Per the New York Times, A similar fight occurred in July when Patreon and GoFundMe, two crowdfunding sites, banned several accounts associated with the alt-right. One of them was used by Lauren Southern, a Canadian activist and journalist who made a name for herself with inflammatory stunts like disrupting a refugee rescue mission in the Mediterranean Sea. [1] The source is specifically saying she's "associated with the alt-right". So without dipping into your own boutique definition of "alt-right", what's the problem, here?

Poynter says she's already the most prominent woman on the alt-right.[2] This article was also reprinted in Vanity Fair[3] which is a small but real sign of greater significance. The people who "perceive" her as alt-right are reliable sources, and those are the perceptions we care about. Grayfell (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

GrayfellYou claim Poynter says she is the most prominent female on the alt right but the Poynter article (actually an Opinion piece by James Warren) says that she is prominent alt right in reference to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-UKPpmQlys from which I challenge you to produce a single racist commment or alt right position. Yes Warren is an established journalist but I'm sorry but just quoting hearsay opinion isn't evidence. Warren is arguing Southern is alt-right based on the fact that many alt right men follow her page and they are angry at her for not behaving in a way they expect she should do if she was alt right like them.Isaw (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't foresee getting through to anybody, so I'll drop it. Gedoughty02 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Not in the opening it isnt especially of the sources you mention are not there! and if they are there it is also reasonable to note other sources as well. the Poynter reference for example CALLS southern Alt right but supplies no evidence of it! In fact it does the opposite. It shows alt right males who follow Southern were opposed to her because she was not racist and was friendly and acceopting of black people. the Vice article you source at best claims Southern "runs in those circles" and makes lots of claims about her being alt right but wher is the EVIDENCE? Isaw (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

How about https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/12/lauren-southern-the-sex-worker/ which is an ethno nationalist/white nationalist source which calls Southern "Alt lite" and specifically catagorises her as not being alt right but is positive towards her as a stepping stone because people who follow her can be converted to extreme right. As such a source from the alt right itself accepts she is not alt right.Isaw (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't you see that all these sources are just repeating what has been said before without proving the connection to the alt-right? The rumor that she is alt-right started when Vice, Vox etc. published the articles mentioned above. Then all the other media started using it without question. Now you can find plenty of examples of media calling her that, but no source is provided that would substantiate the claim. Now if this is the way that Wikipedia determines whether a description of a person is correct because it has been mentioned a bunch of times in the news, and none of the news outlets support the claim with facts then this system is flawed.Deadlybanter (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlybanter (talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Calling this a "rumor" tells us that you've already decided the sources are wrong. That doesn't leave much room for discussion, does it? I doubt those were the first outlets to describe her as far-right, but they might've been. If so, that's likely because she's only been active on an international level for a few years at most. If sources only recently noticed her at all, what significance is there in when they started calling her alt-right? If Vox, Vice, etc. hadn't described her that way, someone else would've. Grayfell (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

So if someone calls her alt-right, and then more people repeat it relentlessly, through this amazing logical loophole she BECOMES alt-right. Wow. Just wow.Deadlybanter (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Not only that calling someone something makes the mud stick but Southern and others are l;egistated agaisnt based on this proifile of accusation. she was banned from the UK because she was going to interview Tommy Robinson. Meanwhile Robinson goes to scotland to interview a man who faces six months ion jail for teaching a Pug to give the nazi Salute when he says "Seig Heil". iy ids [pastryt opg as mindset of vcensorship and gagging orders that strives to stifle free speech and one of the tools used is badmouthing opinions you disagree with. Personally I don't follow they type of politics Southers or Robinson does and I dont find Holocaust jokes funny but I will defend the right of people to have different opinions to me. But it doesnt stop there! People who have opinions that dont fit with a certain mind set are demonised and catagorised into hate groups.That is unfair. Isaw (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The baseline assumption is that she became alt-right by espousing alt-right views and promoting (other) alt-right personalities. Sources merely document this. If her ideology doesn't match your personal definition of alt-right, well, too bad. If you think these sources are not reliable for some reason (other than that you don't agree with them), then explain that reason. Alternately, find new reliable sources which directly explain why she is really this or isn't really that, and we can go from there. Grayfell (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

But the [problem sources DO NOT doccument this. all that doccument is CLAIMS about others calling her alt right or extreme right. No actual evidence of her being alt right is produced! A bit like the WMD in Iraq. I can produyce hundreds of articles saying the WMD were there but they all began with Curvebalkl and a rumour that they were in Iraq. the sources are not reliable ( actually they are reliable but they are not valid. they reliably say the same WRONG thing) because they dont show her saying doing or supporting alt right beliefs. Isaw (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Grayfell in this thread. What both Gedoughty02 and Deadlybanter may not be aware of is that Wikipedia doesn't require sources to "prove" or substantiate any of their findings. If the source is reliable, i.e. if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is not self-published, then we assume that all findings have been reviewed and fact-checked. In the case of news sources, this is typically done by the publication's editorial staff. Newspapers routinely routinely publish information without providing substantiation. If we removed content on this basis then we'd have to strip half the encyclopedia. That's just not how our verifiability policy works. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Dr. Fleischman So the WMD were in Iraq after all? There point is hearsay isnt evidence. also as regards wikipedia policy you posted on my talk page the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons which says under Biographies of living persons Passed 10 to 0 at 22:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC) in relation to " material about living people can affect their subjects' lives" ( describuing someone as alt right can and does affect their lives) that " such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." I removed the alt right allegation and you re included it. Where do I go to address that infringment of wikipedia policy? Isaw (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with much of what you've written here, but to answer your latter question, you have the option of pursuing dispute resolution. Alternatively you could cry BLP and edit war, but then you risk getting blocked or banned. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Isaw, Please do not inject comments in the middle of other people's posts. Likewise, no matter how eager you are to respond, do not add comments ahead of other people's responses. Doing this makes discussions confusing, and also pretty much guarantees that your comments will be overlooked or ignored. This isn't a threaded discussion like Reddit, instead respond at the bottom of a section until you get a sense for how talk pages work. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Gender

I think that the atricle should be written in the male form. Since October 2016 Lauren Southern is a man therfore every "she" schould be replaced whith a "he" and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.71.246.90 (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The use of the she/her pronouns is very problematic. It should be corrected immediately to reflect Lauren's gender identity as male. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.196.166 (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Alt-right 4

Come on guys, Lauren is just Libertarian. Even the proof given (a "patreon" media) isn't enough serious to classify it as Alt-Right.

Alt-Right guys are mostly pro-white, strong insulting and internet trolls. I don't see any of that on Lauren.

She's a truly believer of free speech, like most Libertarians, so she mostly defend any kind of speech from the left (even antifa) and the right (even alt-rights), but that doesn't make her Alt-Right.

So, change the classification, unless you can provide direct proof where she's supporting alt-right movements.

--Waltercool (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The proof is reliable sources. You are free to research who someone is based on their actions and your opinions, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia isn't a platform for original research. This core policy is consistent with other encyclopedias and tertiary sources. Instead, we summarize reliable sources, and those sources strongly connect her to the far-right and alt-right. If you have a new source, and it come from an outlet with a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, please present it here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be for OR but if the sources are clearly wrong, then they're not trustworthy, no? Vox, etc. and specially the SPLC !! are nowhere near reliable sources when it comes to issues about right-wingers. It's like trusting antifa for a NPOV. Even Ben Shapiro is a Nazi. I'm sure if you dig enough you might find something calling Lauren Southern a Nazi. Fact is that she is not alt-right to any NPOV observer without far-left semiotic lenses, she's not even far-right, it only seems that way if you're on the far-left like all these, hum, "reliable" sources. 197.229.154.158 (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Vox and SPLC are in no way, shape, or form like Antifa. These organizations have reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, regardless of your aspersions. Please see our guideline on reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And by the way... How does a South African end up claiming to be an expert on Lauren Southern, Ben Shapiro, and the American political media? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"right-wing" --193.80.37.179 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC) "right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right-wing" "right wing" So its not clear, that she es "alt-right". The intro should be changed --193.80.37.179 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a Googling competition. The Standard source also calls her "far right" in the sub-headline, which reaffirms that she is both. Of the rest, Fox is the only ones that's approximately reliable, and maybe The Washington Times. Maybe. The rest are worse. Far right and alt-right are overlapping subsets of right-wing, so these carefully selected examples prove nothing. Grayfell (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Opposition to Islam in Canada

2604:2000:DD50:8C00:9C4:FF32:82F8:C321 (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I Want to add Category:Opposition to Islam in Canada, because she doesn't want Islam in Canada nor in any other Western Countries.

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Spintendo      10:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: They were not requesting a user right, they were asking to add Category:Opposition to Islam in Canada to this page. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought they meant that they wanted to make this change. Spintendo      12:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Report, possibly useful source.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43393035 101.224.10.84 (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

NGO Ships

With regard to her activism against NGO Ships, Surely this should read "Search and Rescue ships, or something similar? While the Aquarius is funded and operated by NGOs, its purpose is essentially that of a lifeboat. It's purpose is to save lives at sea. The moral duty to save lives at sea is well established and applies equally to all in peril, regardless of how they got there.(Indeed it even rescued the "Defend Europe" ship C-Star)

I feel that the section title Support for the targeting of NGO ships is confusing and doesn't really get the point across. Indeed the entire section really fails to get the point across.

Perhaps Obstruction of Search and Rescue Operations would be more appropriate?

--139.153.56.67 (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2018 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The requestor is correct. The section has a weird, excessive focus on the term "NGO ship" that isn't particularly informative. Moreover the section needs to be rewritten a bit as its emphasis is off. The point (properly conveyed by the source) is that Southern tried to block a ship from rescuing stranded refugees and was detained by the Italian Coast Guard. The ownership or non-profit status of the ship is irrelevant to Southern's biography. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

currently reads "stated purpose of tracking and stopping collusion between NGOs and human traffickers." feel "collusion" and "human Traffikers" should both be removed, saying NGOs is sufficient without shading it to support her agenda. suggest "stated purpose of and stopping between NGO rescue ships."

The claim that the NGO's she attacked were human traffickers requires support from a source other then identity europa, a white nativist group described by the British government as a terrorist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.19.86 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. According to the Canadaland source this was in fact Defend Europe's stated purpose, even if it rested on false or unsupported assumptions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

i don think that identity europa's stated purpose should be described as objective fact, because to frame there narrative as factual is not objective and sanitizes them. currently the article implies the rescue boats were human traffickers. as the above poster stated they are a white power group described by the English and italian gov as terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.19.86 (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Three things. First, it's not stated as objective fact. The only thing stated objectively is Defend Europe's stated purpose. Second, I'd remove Defend Europe's stated purpose if I could find a reliable source saying what the group was actually doing in the Mediterranean. (No, Hope Not Hate is not a reliable source.) Third, you seem to be confusing Defend Europe with Identity Evropa. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

you are ignoring context. Italy has just had an election hardly covered by the Media outsoide Italy. Right wing parties ( mostly NOT FAR RIGHT) won a majority in Parliament. In the run up to the election you had headlines like “Pact between NGOs and traffickers, the government knew everything and now it wants to cover it up,” an April front page of Il Giornale, a newspaper owned by the brother of four-time Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Catania Chief Prosecutor Carmelo Zuccaro, who launched the probe, has gone even further, suggesting the rescuers are being paid off by the smugglers themselves.“Some NGOs could be financed by traffickers and I know there has been direct contact” between them, Zuccaro told state TV Rai in April. Lauern Southern came into this and acted like greenpeace did in the past by blocking a ship. I dont approve what she did and I dont regard the Medicine Sans frontiers vessle Aquarius as a smuggler but it does not prove LS is alt right. All it proves is she did what most mainstream right in Italy supported. or support the Italy EU memorandum of understanding with the United Nations-backed government in Tripoli pledging millions of euros, equipment and training to fight people smuggling, run U.N.-managed migrant camps and bolster the coastguard. as for what they were doing there the accusations were taken up by the main opposition political parties, the anti-establishment 5-Star Movement and the far-right Northern League. Parliament launched its own investigation. The critics accuse aid workers of operating a “taxi service”, effectively aiding smugglers by providing the final leg of the journey: taking people off unsafe boats near the coast of Libya and bringing them to Italy.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-italy-ngo/rescuers-made-scapegoat-for-italian-frustration-with-migrant-crisis-idUSKBN19E0HM Isaw (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we please try to focus on specific suggestions to improve the article based on the available reliable sources? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Far right and alt-right

The beginning of this articles claims Lauren Southern is "far-right" and "associated with the alt-right". The first claim is substantiated by an article that claims she is far-right, but provides no evidence itself within the article. It merely makes the claim in a vacuum, just as this Wikipedia article does, meaning this Wikipedia article has just as much authority of making the claim as the piece it uses as a source for the claim, which equates to no substantiated authority at all. This means it can only be substantiated as opinion and is not sufficient to back the claim that the subject is far-right on a Wikipedia article, and should therefore not be considered a legitimate source for the claim. It would be advisable to provide specific examples of her actions and thoughts, with the appropriate amount of context and allow the reader to judge the facts as they are. The defining characteristic of being far- right (or alt-right for that matter) is a sense of superiority over other "groups" of people, be it by race, ethnicity, class, etc, based solely on these arbitrary characteristics, often times coinciding with poorly sourced or poorly executed reasoning. There is no linked evidence suggesting the subject of the article holds these views, other than other linked sources that make the same claim with no substantiated evidence of such a case (other than they make the unsubstantiated claim themselves, all sites that are quite blatant about pushing a specific political narrative). This makes this article seem intentionally misleading, and the action of making these evidently unsubstantiated claims leads one to believe that there is a strong politically driven directive to slander the subject of the page. For the sake of intellectual integrity within Wikipedia, there should be no unsubstantiated claims made with a political agenda. This is blatant propaganda (the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement.- according to Dictionary.com) that requires careful evaluation of the source articles and subsequent editing my multiple people in order to insure only adequately backed claims are made and that the public that accesses Wikipedia get an honest and unbiased (as much as it could possibly be) look at the topic of their interest.

Note also that being associated with the alt-right is a very vague claim considering anyone remotely on the right of the political spectrum, or even holding slightly right-leaning views, can be ""associated with the alt-right". This means that people with very left-leaning views who have an opinion about a specific topic that is today associated with the right side of politics, are suddenly labeled as being "associated with the alt-right" (which according the it's Wikipedia page, is "loosely-connected and somewhat ill-defined." This is precisely because of situations like the one presented on this page. Historically the alt-right had a more precise meaning, but has lost that meaning with the recent oppressive push of far-left politics that seek to subjugate or demonize people along the lines of its political directive [for the record I am traditionally left-leaning but because I support people's right to discuss current issues I too am considered far-right, mostly by people who have very little understanding of politics, but I guess if you repeat something enough and loudly enough eventually people start to believe you, but I digress...).

There are many politically charged edits to articles throughout Wikipedia nowadays, so a call back to simply providing unbiased factual information would seem appropriate. We might as well start somewhere since the alternative is indoctrination into a world-view that has neither been clearly defined, nor clearly discussed because its tenants rest on its ability to shut down any and all opposition. A7exro (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A7exro, if you read further up on this page you'll see that your concerns have already been discussed over and over again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

Please remove "associated with the alt-right. This is not true and is based only on opinion. Serpentmars (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done. The description is based on sources. Newimpartial (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• This has been discussed over and over again. Please read this page before making further edit requests. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)