Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Editorialized Content Under "White Genocide"

This section (in reference to Farmlands) is an editorialization of the cited sources.

The tagline for the documentary's trailer, "Crisis. Oppression. Genocide?" reflected a broader white nationalist campaign against perceived racially motivated violence against white farmers.

The cited source from the NYT mentions Southern and Farmlands as shown below. Here's the full text of what is stated in the source:

While Mr. Dutton’s remarks drew widespread criticism, they also struck a chord among some white nationalists for whom the plight of South African farmers had become a rallying point.

In late January, Lauren Southern, a far-right Canadian commentator, published a trailer for her upcoming documentary “Farmlands” on the killings of South African farmers that featured dire warnings of an impending race war. The trailer carried the tagline “CRISIS. OPPRESSION. GENOCIDE?”

The sentence as-written implies that the article commented on the film's tagline, which is false. The cited sources mention that the tagline exists, but the commentary is not related to the tagline.

If there is an issue with redacting the sentence in it's entirety, a rework that is more accurate to the cited source would be along the lines of:

According to the New York Times, Farmlands' dire warnings of an impending race war exemplifify a broader trend wherin the plight of South African farmers has become a rallying point for some white nationalists.

Pinging @Newimpartial: -- interested to hear if you have any additional insight.

DirkDouse (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This reading of the NYT article is too simplistic, and the proposed replacement includes more editorializing than it removes. Articles must summarize entire sources, not just the parts that are most convenient to a specific POV. The paragraph about Southern is immediately after one which explains this issue being a "rallying point" for white nationalists, and is immediately followed by a paragraph discussing Richard B. Spencer. Context matters, and the only plausible reason for the paragraph is if it's about Southern's documentary being part of this "rallying point". Nowhere does this indicate that it exemplifies anything, rather, it includes it as one of two examples. Nowhere does it say "some" white nationalists, and nowhere is this presented as an opinion from the NYT needing attribution. If you think the New York Times is offering this as an opinion or is wrong, you will need to explain why based on other, reliable sources.Grayfell (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that context matters, which is why I included the preceeding paragraph. "Nowhere does it say "some" white nationalists" -- Original quote from NYT verbatim uses that exact phrasing: "they also struck a chord among some white nationalists for whom the plight of South African farmers had become a rallying point."

Not sure why the term exemplifify is contentious. NYT is using LS/Farmlands as an example (of a rallying point), which is essentially the definition of what it means to exemplify something. Either way, your edited version "Farmlands includes claims of an impending race war, which coincides with white nationalists using the issue of farm attacks as a rallying point" seems fine.

DirkDouse (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I stand corrected about "some". I still consider this to be unnecessary in this context, as no reader is likely to assume that all white nationalists everywhere are rallying to this issue. Is there some reason to think otherwise? Grayfell (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha -- Triple checked the phrasing when making the initial edit. Some always sounds like WP:WEASEL. Could see a case being made for including it. The NYT article's commentary on the topic is fairly brief; wording may have been purposeful if the author only found two examples that they considered worth noting. Regardless, the current phrasing seems clear.

May be worth revisiting at some point. Over the last week or two, it seems that news on LS and SA is popping up more often than the month or two prior that I've been following this article. There may be new/additional sources that can be pulled in to the section that discuss the issue with more precision. DirkDouse (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's crucial, but "coincide" makes it sound like Southern found herself advancing a far-right talking point by some sort of serendipitous coincidence. Sources really don't imply that it was an accident - she was invited South Africa by the Suidlanders after they made a successful PR push in the U.S., and she picked up their message and amplified it. More detailed treatments of the documentary in News24, Vice, Quartz make this more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblund (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to elaborate as long as done by adding in sources that support the claims. As mentioned, the NYT source is fairly brief. Am all for expanding the section based on the sources you've posted provided that they're cited. DirkDouse (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Overly granular, whitewashing: Can see overly granual being a valid criticism. Split into subsections may be early/preemptive in regards to the new potential sources being posted above. I know that a section about white genocide is going to be contentious, but none of this is whitewashing. The one cited source in this section refers to some white nationalists and to warnings. If the section is reworked with sources, I'm not sitting here on on Laura Southern's payroll trying to make this article come to a particular conclusion. DirkDouse (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There are two closely-related issues here. First the term "warnings". In the context of the NYT article, this makes sense because it's obvious who is being "warned" and who is doing the warning. It's not clear who Wikipedia is warning, and the film is not in a factual position to warn anybody. Saying the film includes warnings, even if sourced, is imparting a subjective opinion as factual. This is an intensely controversial claim she is making, not a fact the film is documenting.

As for whitewashing, this is a more subtle point. The white genocide conspiracy theory is about race, and it makes sense to group these race-related views together. Presenting this as a separate issue is misrepresenting the significance of her views and of her film. The film is still not particularly noteworthy, and is also about both race, and the white genocide conspiracy theory. It would be misleading to organize this in a way that suggested these three things were separate. Reliable sources, from what I've seen, treat them all as closely overlapping. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Since it would be ideal to focus on more constructive aspects of the article than to avoid getting tied up in extended discussions of phrasing/structure, if the other editors are leaning toward the current phrasing and structure, it seems best to avoid an edit war over a fairly pedantic issue.

With that said, regardless of whether the film's notability is substantial enough for a stand-alone article, SA and Farmlands definitely warrant expansion within this article, regardless of what heading it's structured under. Will probably revisit the section and go through more sources at some point. As far as phrasing goes, if I'm in the minority here, this seems like the wrong hill to die on. DirkDouse (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

References

"Some" is not a weasel word if neither "all" nor "none is appropriate. That being said, being more specific if possible would be preferred, e.g. a minority of, a majority of, some percent of, etc. Felice Enellen (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The NYT source calls this "a rallying point" both in the article and in a caption. I don't think "rally" is ever properly used to indicates only a couple of people. That's not a rally, it's barely even a meeting. There are many other sources documenting the far-right and white supremacists who've flocked to this fabricated cause: Vox mentions Jared Taylor, r/The_Donald, and an alt right podcast in the same paragraph it mentions Southern's documentary. These all overlap closely with white nationalism, so this is fairly well established.

An opinion from The Guardian calls this conspiracy theory "an obsession that has drifted from the far right into Australian conservatism – via News Corp papers – the alleged plight of white farmers in South Africa." It also refers to it as a "far right meta-narrative". This is, incidentally, a source which also mentions Southern's fawning admiration for Aleksandr Dugin, a fascist who has advocated for the genocide of Ukrainians. Last I checked, Ukrainians were white people, but I guess to her it's not so bad when it's genocide committed by other white people. Anyway, it's clear that this has become a wide-spread conspiracy theory despite having almost no basis in fact. This is what the NYT source is getting at, and this is what we should be attempting to summarize. The specific number of adherents would be nice to know, but is not vitally important to this article. Grayfell (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

TVNZ quote

I propose reinstating the TVNZ quote removed by DirkDouse, possibly paraphrasing it instead of quoting it directly.

I have already reinstated the citation which the same user wrongly removed.

The quote was “I would say these two clowns are pretty damn clever. How to travel the world for free by hosting dumb *** conferences, charge exorbitant entry fees that even dumber *** people pay for?? For what??”.

This quote was one of many comments expressing the same view and seemed to reflect the prevailing reaction of the New Zealand public. It exemplified what was, for reasons I will now explain, highly significant and newsworthy.

TVNZ was defending itself against one of the most serious accusations it, along with fellow media organisations, has ever faced – that of stopping a speaking event by allegedly phoning its Auckland venue.

When revealing the cancellation, organiser Caolan Robertson attributed it to a phone call to the venue from “places with huge resources”. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6ywqFazPpI)

He said the caller might have been “the media” or “the government”, while announcing punishments against news organisations for including coverage of unfavourable views of Lauren Southern. “We're going to go after the media,” he said chillingly. The meaning of these alarming words was widely discussed, with New Zealanders arguing about which of the following had occurred:

• When he blamed “the whole media in this country”, was Robertson administering his first such punishment by slandering them with a phone call allegation? Was the caller “with powerful resources” actually a major customer threatening to stop using the music venue, fearing the reputational damage of this nefarious association?
• Or had Communists suddenly ended free speech?

The only evidence Robertson offered was his accusation of unfavourable news coverage being extremely unjustified, such that it must belong to a malicious campaign.

To refute this, TVNZ needed to show its inclusion of some unfavourable views was justified. By reporting the Facebook comment, the broadcaster was providing an example of how this inclusion was simply a genuine reflection of the prevailing views of the New Zealand public, therefore it was normal and legitimate.

While the comments expressed on its Facebook posts about the cancelation were mixed, the more common conclusion aligned with the feeling that Southern and Molyneux are part of a nefarious hate industry which frightens and scams the public and makes anyone getting in its way yet another target of its menacing accusatory hate.

Comments on a post similar to that reported include:

• Jan Abraham: Did it not occur to everyone that the pair have been manipulating the whole drama to make money and this is what they do. Won't see them donate proceeds to charity, haha.
• Kay Josephs: You hit the nail on the head Jan This was all about making money nothing else Well these two fell flat on their faces because they will be out of pocket with airfares, accommodation meals etc etc They also had a security team and photographers all who will need paying You can guarantee they stayed in 5 star hotels and flew first class Anybody paying for tickets will be very lucky to get their money back...
• Lyn Dorsey: They are making money from hate. Might not be an issue to make money, but there has to be a moral compass somewhere for the way you (they) make their money.
• Kay Josephs: Leanne Rohloff As I am not stupid enough to pay money out to toxic individuals like these two people tell me how the jokes on me ???? A very strange post indeed..
• Kay Josephs: David Simons You will find an out clauses in The Powerhouse won't be liable.These toxic idiots lied to the owners of Powerhouse like they lied about pretty much everything when interviewed and chopped and changed stories several times. This was all done on the phone with nothing signed First they blamed the government for shutting the venue down then they claimed the government-owned Auckland Council venue.Phill stopped them from using when we all know ratepayers own that venue Other things they said also didnt add up They ofcorse blamed everybody but themselves..This will be a very expensive exercise for these nasties who probably won't pay back price of tickets..
• Robyn Patricia Murphy: They are making money off this too
• Shujjah Zahid: So basically they made assumptions on what had happened and why the guy cancelled on them, then they go further and even come up with who would have made the threats. Rip logic. P.s this has nothing to do with free speech, it’s all about making money and the media is giving them free advertisement.
• Lutila Falani Kalolo Toailoa: Maybe they did it for money so they spew hate and some kiwis are like YEAH YEAH HERE TAKE MY MONEY FOR YOU TO SPEAK WHAT MY MIND WANTS TO SAY EVEN THOUGH ITS HATE AND FELLOW KIWIS WILL HATE ME AND I CANT TOLERATE PEOPLE WHO HATE ME .... STAY OUT OF NZ YOU DOUCHEBAGS 😂😂
• Wayne Downer: I like the part where free speech costs $99 to go and see/ hear😂, $750 for a meet and greet with dinner

These were on https://www.facebook.com/1NEWSNZ/posts/10155605089691218

AndrewArmstrong2 (Talk) 09:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Quotes from unnamed FaceBook users are too trivial to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. If this can of worms were opened, then everyone here could pull arbitrary quotes from arbitrary people to make this article fit whichever narrative they desire. The note from Te Hamua Nikora is still included in the article and covers the social media response as described by TVNZ without resorting to unremarkable social media comments.

It should also be noted as it was previously included, the quote suspiciously omitted the fact that it was stated by an unknown, non-notable person. Deliberate or not, the inclusion was misleading and has no place in an article that aims to have any amount of objectivity.

If the sentence "an unknown Facebook poster called Lauren Southern a dumb ass" is notable enough for Wikipedia, then the website might as well be shut down.

DirkDouse (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I propose paraphrasing the removed content to: Reaction from the public included criticism of the conference and its entry fees.

By writing about shutting down Wikipedia, DirkDouse is basing this information's exclusion on a censorious attitude. The same user wrongly removed an entire section from the page on 24 August.

Obviously, despite what DirkDouse claims, the quote was taken from a cited article, not “arbitrary people”. The user's slippery slope scaremongering is deceiving and unhelpful. Wikipedia's protection against anyone's “arbitrary quotes” – that of requiring reliable sources – was being fulfilled here.

Caolan Robertson's accusation of the Auckland event being cancelled due to phone calls to the venue from “the whole media in this country who have written hit pieces constantly” and from “the government” was EXTREMELY SERIOUS! He accused news organisations of stifling free speech. TVNZ's defence, that of simply reflecting the views of the public – not trying to stop the event – cannot be considered “too trivial to warrant inclusion”.

The quote DirkDouse deleted was the only example of the public's reaction. All others were of people in the government and media – the target of Robertson's accusation. As a TV personality, Te Hamua Nikora would count as someone in the media.

The deleted quote provides an example of how there are many ordinary New Zealanders who view Southern as part of a nefarious international hate industry, which was terrifying and scamming their fellow kiwis.

AndrewArmstrong2 (Talk) 15:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source for anything. If you want to include claim in the article that characterizes "reactions from the public" you need to find a reliable secondary source that supports that characterization. Otherwise, it is original synthesis. You may view these comments as extremely important, but keep in mind that Wikipedia doesn't judge "importance" on the basis of the personal beliefs of editors. We assign due weight to various viewpoints on the basis of how widely covered they are in reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 16:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I propose rephrasing the sentence to: Other discussion included criticism of the conference and its entry fees.

The reliable secondary source says the topic was widely discussed and includes the supporting quote. AndrewArmstrong2 (Talk) 16:48, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

In addition to being false, Nblund has confirmed DirkDouse's views on what is “too trivial to warrant inclusion” are irrelevant, because “Wikipedia doesn't judge "importance" on the basis of the personal beliefs of editors”.

What matters is the quote's presence in the reliable source and phrasing it in a way the source directly supports.

AndrewArmstrong2 (Talk) 20:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It is clear that you have strong personal biases on this topic. Deleting a Facebook quote from a Wikipedia article is not censorious, deceitful scaremongering. DirkDouse (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

What was deceiving was presenting news article content as just any Facebook post and presenting its inclusion as a slippery slope to “arbitrary quotes from arbitrary people”.

When summarising it, DirkDouse even twisted the quote, which described Southern as “clever” and only the conference as “dumb ***”, to make it appear disparaging of Southern.

AndrewArmstrong2 (Talk) 00:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, if you want to include a statement that summarizes the public response, you need to do so by referencing reliable secondary sources that explicitly include that characterization. 1NewNow just references a facebook quote that appeared on the news outlet's facebook page. This is partly a way for news outlets to engage the public and promote their brand, it doesn't suggest that this particular view point was widely held or important. I'm not sure what this adds to the article, and it doesn't appear to have generated significant coverage beyond this story - so it should be removed. If you want to find some additional sourcing, it's worth reconsidering, but I think you're getting bent out of shape over a very minor issue. Nblund ^talk 14:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Following BRD

Having made a single passing revert of this diff and leaving the summary, “doesn’t seem like an improvement”, I was re-reverted and asked not to edit war. The editor seems to not want what he or she sees as an accusation in the leading sentence of the article and wants to relegate the information to further down the page. I think this is wrong for a couple of reasons:

• It makes the opening sentence less clear
• The editor who moved the text explained in the summary that it belongs with other “accusations”. The sources don’t seem to cast the term as an accusation. They just say she’s far-right.
• The move casts undue doubt on what reliable sources clearly state about the subject

Could we please have a consensus on this. Also could the editor who reverted me refrain from carelessly tossing away accusations of edit warring. I’ve followed BRD to the letter, to this day in all but the most blatant cases of vandalism. Many thanks. Edaham (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Also note that, following BRD, I have reverted the Bold change by LeapUK. I would encourage this editor to read the previous, extensive discussions on Talk, which show that the subject is near-universally seen as part of Canada's "far right" but only sometimes as part of the "alt right". Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The accusation of Far-right belongs in the same sentence as the one of being Alt-right because you don't get to make the assertion that she is Far-right and then follow it up with an accusation that she may also be Alt-right. Far-right is way beyond mere Alt-right and so the accusation is superfluous if it is taken as granted that she is Far-right. If you want to keep Alt-right in there you have to place BOTH as allegations or dump Alt-right entirely and stick only with Far-right. To do otherwise is like one moment saying the sun is a nuclear furnace and then saying some people alleged that it's rather warm. Note that I did not at any time remove the allegation of being Far-right, I just moved it to the sentence where the Far/Alt allegations belong. I suspect though that this is disagreed with because of political bias (wanting to make sure Far-right is in her top line) rather than honesty. LeapUK (talk) 16:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note that LeapUK does not appear to understand the terms of Canadian political discourse, which are used in reliable sources about Canadian politics. In Canada, there is no assumption that "far right" politics is to the right of "alt right" politics; if anything, the latter is seen as something more specific and potentially conspiratorial, IMO.

In any event, LeapUK appears to have based their edits on unsourced OR. We rely on RS, here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, reliable sources have called Southern both alt-right and far-right, and most sources view the alt-right as a rebranding or at least a subset of the far right. From the New York Times: "The 'alt-right' is a racist, far-right movement based on an ideology of white nationalism and anti-Semitism. Many news organizations do not use the term, preferring terms like “white nationalism” and 'far right.'"Nblund ^talk 23:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

”you don't get to make the assertion that she is Far-right and then follow it up with an accusation that she may also be Alt-right. Far-right is way beyond mere Alt-right and so the accusation is superfluous if it is taken as granted that she is Far-right. If you want to keep Alt-right in there you have to place BOTH as allegations or dump Alt-right entirely and stick only with Far-right.” this basis for an edit suggestion is so far from being based on policy that I suggest that you refrain from editing this article and articles like it until you’ve taken the time to read our policies on sourcing. First of all “Wikipedia editors” didn’t assert or accuse the subject of anything. Those words come from sources and whoever wrote the article has taken the time to abundantly demonstrate this. Secondly your discerning of the position of various terms along the political scale is original research and cannot be the basis for any edit to any article. Having been thus informed, any further attempt to edit articles using your opinion as the basis or applying your own research will be viewed as disruptive. Wikipedia is a summary of compiled sources. If the most notable thing about a subject is that they are written about as being far-right then that’s what our summary will say. Edaham (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Journalist?

NOT a journalist. She doesn't even have a degree, nor is she a certified member of any professional journalists' association. This should be amended to say "writer" or "commentator". It is factually incorrect, regardless of any source that so describes her, and it is an insult to professional journalists. Dunks (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The cited reliable sources say she's a journalist. That's all that's needed. You don't have to be a good journalist or an accredited journalist to be a journalist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@ Dr. Fleischman: I agree with Dunks. I am unable to find any regular articles by her in any print media or television channel. The Al Jazeera article does not state that it is written by her. Can someone please supply some mainstream media where she has done actual journalism? Writing in Breitbart (or a left wing internet website either) or an internet blog is not sufficient to call someone a journalist to the best of my knowledge. Notthebestusername (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

PS -I would love to be called a journalist or a news editor, but just because I have been editing Wikipedia for the past eight years does not make me a literary editor or journalist :). A few better links to better actual news publicaitons would justify using the term for Southern though. We just need someone to tell us the names these news publications. Notthebestusername (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Left-Wing slanted Op-Ed's are being used as "Reliable" & "Credible" Sources to describe Ms. Southern as "Far-Right" & "Alt-Right". Now you want to EDIT her career? Why bother having a page on her at all? Is it too much to ask for unbiased factual information? I don't want to see an opinion in reference material. This happens on here with everyone on the Right-Wing. I don't see Bernie Sanders being labeled a "Communist". If she said she was a monkey would you label her a potato? Why are you using what others say about her to define her instead of what she has said. She has referred to herself as an Identitarian. Using this term would put all the above to rest. It's neutral but also associated with "Far-Right" groups like Identity Europa whom she tried to stop migrant boats with. Right-Wing Identitarian is a neutral compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44b8:2c0:ea00:e8ab:6e1f:c1b9:6723 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2018‎

If reliable sources said she's a potato, she'd probably be allowed to enter the UK. There is nothing neutral about euphemisms and public relations. Stop and think about what the word biased means. Southern a biased source of information about Southern. If we want "unbiased factual information" we have to get it from sources outside the extremist walled garden she occupies. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

We do it this way because that's how Wikipedia works. We don't write articles to conform to your or Southern's perception of the truth. We write articles that conform to what the reputable sources say. Canadaland, The New York Times, the National Post, The Independent, and Business Insider are not fringe left-wing rags. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure on what planet referring to LS as a journalist is even remotely contentious. Journalist: "a person who writes for newspapers, magazines, or news websites or prepares news to be broadcast." Multiple news outlets that she's written for are clearly listed in the article and she's consistently referred to as a journalist by reliable sources. Seems to be agreed fairly definitively by others. Am collapsing this thread. DirkDouse (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Farmlands

So here's the challenge with the Farmlands release. The trailer for the documentary achieved some notoriety in the reliable news media, but surprisingly (to me), not a single reliable secondary source has said anything about its release in the last 24 hours. The current content "As of January 2018, Southern was producing a documentary called Farmlands ..." seems incomplete as it suggests that it hasn't been released yet. So what to do? I think we need to reference the YouTube video as a primary source, despite the fact that I generally try to avoid that sort of thing, which has a promotional effect. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I reworded it. Just the facts, I hope. No need to mention the trailer. GangofOne (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

We need to stick to the sources. The source is about the trailer, not about the documentary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Please reword it then, and check both refs. GangofOne (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Are we good? I'm not sure if you're expecting any further changes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It's released, article doesn't reflect that. Watch it, see if the trailer reflects the film. The trailer is not important once the film is released. Anyway, no big need to change it now. GangofOne (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The trailer is important because its tagline was mentioned in a New York Times article as evidence that the alt-right / white nationalists such as Southern have rallied around the white farmers and Southern has suggested it's genocide. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I watched it and everything you said from "as evidence" is wrong. wumbolo ^^^ 16:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't follow. Did you read the New York Times source? I was just relaying what the source said. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Attempts to analyze ambiguous trailers usually turn out to be mostly wrong. wumbolo ^^^ 16:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Sources are coming! [1] [2] wumbolo ^^^ 16:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I included a link to Southern's new video, 'Farmlands'

• FARMLANDS 2018 documentary about South African * race-based land redistribution violence.

and it was expunged from the article. It is relevant to the article. TonyMorris68 (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Added. I think you are right. It is relevant to this person. Have just placed facts, so that the wiki is not biased on either side. Spoke to a few friends from South Africa. Both black and white. Both of them told me that this documentary did not create any waves. The people know all the problems that they have, and how convoluted it all is. They don't need a one sided narrow minded documentary to tell them. However, the docu encapsulates South African history well (albeit in just 7 minutes) though it oddly only focusses on the Dutch settlers and not the British settlers who won the Boer war from them. Todays white south Africans are descendants of both the sets who mixed inter racially so we really cannot speak of one country of origin. Naturally, whites and blacks (and brown people) were discriminated against for more than 100 years (Most people are aware of M.K.Gandhi's experience in South Africa which started his non violent struggle) Notthebestusername (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it again for a couple of reasons. Your addition introduced redundancy, as the film was already mentioned later in the article. Additionally, the sources you added appeared to be blogs and routine listings derived from press releases, which would only be useful for non-controversial details.

Generally, the output of a creative professional is discussed in proportion to how reliable, independent sources cover it. We don't automatically list every project which has its own website, or which has been blogged about. Articles should indicate or directly explain how this information is encyclopedically significant, not merely pass along routine information. Since the article already explains this somewhat in the white genocide conspiracy theory section, this seems like it's contextualize the film more faithfully to sources. I am not flatly opposed to include a dedicated section about the film, but only if it can be supported by more substantial sources. It should be placed in chronological order, also. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Grayfell: No issues. You know better in this case. I personally had never even heard of Laura Southern till a week back, and that too only because this documentary appeared on my you tube list. I thought it was relevant based on the number of views that the video had. Btw the documentary is absolute bs except for the slick manner in which the first 8 minutes are presented with the history - albeit with important omissions - of South Africa. Thereafter I could barely stand watching it. It looked more like a L'Oreal advert with a lot of tosh!. You guys know better of this person. I live in a part of the world where such people are a non issue, as we are more concerned with clean drinking water, (real) jobs, roads, infrastructure, education, so... No offence, but I'll leave this to you experts. Notthebestusername (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@ Grayfell and everyone else - I just had to share this. Watching Southern in Farmlands reminded me of a recent parody sketch by Cecily Strong in Saturday Night Live where a girl pretends to be extremely aware of all the big issues in the world ... and bumbles while showing here ignorance. It was extremely funny and the actress was amazingly true to Southern's type. I never knew these people existed for real... till now :) Again, no offence meant. Notthebestusername (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Gender ID update

Asked and answered. Please see past past discussion for additional detail
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How long did she have the male tag? Is she still have it and no one complaints? What if she will try to use it to force Wikipedia to refer her as a 'He'? הראש (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2018 (UTC) This has already come up several times before. See Talk:Lauren Southern/Archive 1#Lauren Southern Becomes a Man which is linked at the top of the page. Put simply: Wikipedia is not obligated to humor publicity stunts. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC) tl;dr. I specifically ask if some clerk realized the mistake and changed her assignment back to female in the documents. הראש (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

White genocide conspiracy theory

The first sentence of the third paragraph in the section "Views" claims that "Southern has promoted the white genocide conspiracy theory" whilst not giving any source of this. The ref to this sentence cites an article solely addressing that she filled out the wrong Visa for her Australian tour.

I would therefore ask to back this claim with a source or drop it elsewise. Same with the last category "White genocide conspiracy theorists". 2003:EE:43D4:C389:4DBF:1BF1:58B4:1BC9 (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

There are two sentences about this, and two sources. Both sources mention white genocide. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Such an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim requires multiple sources, but the Raw Story article merely summarizing Southern as "promoting 'white genocide' narratives" without any evidence is WP:TERTIARY sourcing, and the IBTimes are not particularly reliable. wumbolo ^^^ 22:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You appear confused about how sources work. Have you actually read WP:TERTIARY? Wikipedia is a tertiary source, while Raw is a WP:SECONDARY source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources. Likewise, while you clearly really like linking to WP:EXTRAORDINARY, you need to explain why this is extraordinary. Since it's repeated by multiple sources, it seems pretty ordinary to me. How about this source:

Southern’s treatment of this subject is selective, lurid, and plays up to the long-established far right meta-narrative of “white genocide”.[3]

Or this one:

Southern has advocated against European countries’ acceptance of refugees from Africa and Asia, claiming that immigration would lead to white genocide.[4]

Or this one, which specifically explains why concerns over genocide are based on fearmongering instead of statistics:

Pundits have picked up AfriForum’s message, some going as far as to label the farm attacks a genocide. “If it continues, I fear there is going to be the beginning stages of what many would call genocide,” the Canadian far-right political commentator Lauren Southern said on the Breitbart News Sunday podcast.[5]

Recent coverage has removed whatever linger doubt I had that this victim-narrative of "white genocide" is a defining trait for Southern. It's overwhelmingly clear that sources link her to this "far-right meta-narrative", regardless of what specific term those sources use. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. But, you do realize that the white genocide conspiracy theory states that a white genocide is happening right now, at this very moment. Just like all these sources confirm, Southern believes that the South African farm attacks would lead to a white genocide in the future if they are not stopped. It's true that violent crime is on the rise [6], but the racial claims are based on 17-year-old statistics. Not collecting racial data does not help the situation, since there's plenty of actual white genocide conspiracy theory believers who believe a white genocide is happening right now in SA, because just like you said, their beliefs are based in fearmongering not statistics. And I get your point from a previous discussion, that Southern can be part of the far-right even while attacking far-right people. It does surprise me that the Guardian said that Southern plays up to the "far-right meta-narrative", after they mentioned her documentary in the previous paragraph, and in her documentary, Southern was very critical of the far-right's contentions of a white genocide [7]. wumbolo ^^^ 23:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see this verb-tense stuff as a meaningful distinction. White genocide conspiracy theory#South Africa is about a subset of the conspiracy theory. Southern has, according to sources, supported the idea that this is an intentional, ongoing concern. In this sense, it is "happening" now, and she is ostensibly trying to prevent it from continuing. She opposes immigration because it leads to "genocide" and she actively ignores statistics in order to characterize farm attacks as genocide also. From my reading, The Citizen article doesn't support that Southern has been critical of the far-right. All it does is repeat her ridiculously simplistic, inflammatory claims: This is what makes South Africa so intriguing, because, depending on your outlook, it is either a paragon of multiculturalism and social justice, or a powder keg with a genocide against the white population ready to erupt into an all-out race war. Who the hell is saying that South Africa is a paragon of social justice?! The overwhelming majority of reliable sources discussing this issue recognize that South Africa has many very serious, severe social justice problems. Yeesh. An untrained, first-time documentary filmmaker should find an editor who can catch these kinds of problems, assuming she actually wanted this documentary to be seen as legitimate journalism.

I don't know if The Citizen is a reliable outlet in general, but this is an opinion article which was condensed and republished from another outlet. The original article goes into slightly more depth about the left-right issue: One can’t help but feel that Southern does hit a sensitive nerve when stating that, on the one hand, “farm murders are a non-issue” in left wing thought and the “establishment media”, while, on the other hand, the “far right [is] predicting a civil war”. Again, who is saying this is a "non-issue"? Since many sources describe Southern as far-right or alt-right, it's hardly a stretch to point out that she's on the side "predicting a civil war", as this is the side she gives legitimacy to. Her contempt for "establishment media" is likewise crystal clear. These reliable sources override her own amateurish, simplistic attempt at spin. Grayfell (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

(1) White genocide conspiracy theory#South Africa is about people like the Suidlanders who believe that a genocide is imminent/happening at the moment. RS clearly say that Southern believes a genocide is possible in the future. (2) Southern isn't ignoring any statistics to make genocide claims; there exist no statistics either supporting or contradicting a genocide (the outdated statistics "support" it, and that's basically why Southern wants new statistics; if the old statistics did not exist, the genocide claims would be an utter fear-mongering fabrication). (3) Southern does say which mainstream media she believes ignores/doesn't ignore the attacks – she said the BBC ignored them, while Fox News and CNN didn't. wumbolo ^^^ 19:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

From my reading, The Citizen article doesn't support that Southern has been critical of the far-right. Maybe. But let's not get distracted by this one source. Southern obviously opposes far-right politics (Nazis), since she's very much opposed mass-migration to Europe, presumably because she doesn't want any radical anti-Semites harassing and murdering Jews in Europe. [8] wumbolo ^^^ 11:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That final "presumption" is apparently OR and is unsourced. Also, the far right in Canada is not necessarily anti-Semitic, and Southern is Canadian, so some of the assumptions Wumbolo appears to be making do not apply to this article. Newimpartial (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Anti-immigrant reactions to the European migrant crisis are because of perceived concerns of the safety of citizens. I doubt Canadian opinions are much different (especially since Southern notably worked with European anti-immigrant groups). wumbolo ^^^ 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This mind reading about the anti-immigrant movement is 100% OR. It is a very long march from generalized concerns about safety to anti-antisemitism. Also, by this argument, the National Front in France could not be part of the Far Right as long as it offered to protect Europen Jews from dangerous immigrants, which is in no way a valid argument about the use of that label. Newimpartial (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Wumbolo, that's definitely OR, and frankly ludicrous since basically every extreme right party opposes immigration from the Mediterranean. That logic would seemingly classify Golden Dawn and Jobbik as pro-Semitic organizations. As for the original claim: multiple reputable news organizations recognize that Southern is promoting a white genocide conspiracy theory talking point. the Suidlanders themselves say that Southern came to SA at their invitation, and she solicited donations for the group on her youtube channel. The claim that she's a critic of that idea is itself somewhat WP:EXTRAORDINARY. If it helps, here's a South African news source that makes the obvious connection. Nblund ^talk 20:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There's two conspiracy theories, one is "White Replacement" and one is "White Genocide". Lauren goes in depth on "White replacement" conspiracy and never uses the word "genocide" for Europe, see her talking here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTDmsmN43NA However her documentary Farmland does cover violence, but that is a separate topic occurring in a different part of the world. The media often confuses the two, and we shouldn't make the same mistake. Genocide is violent, Replacement is non-violent. In 2007, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) noted in its judgement on Jorgic v. Germany case that, in 1992, the majority of legal scholars took the narrow view that "intent to destroy" in the CPPCG meant the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group, and that this was still the majority opinion. In the same judgement, the ECHR reviewed the judgements of several international and municipal courts. It noted that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice had agreed with the narrow interpretation (that biological-physical destruction was necessary for an act to qualify as genocide). The ECHR also noted that at the time of its judgement, apart from courts in Germany (which had taken a broad view), that there had been few cases of genocide under other Convention states' municipal laws, and that "There are no reported cases in which the courts of these States have defined the type of group destruction the perpetrator must have intended in order to be found guilty of genocide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertShadow72 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This is original research, which is not appropriate on Wikipedia. We should avoid, as much as possible, trying to interpret Southern's videos, and unless the ECHR, etc. mention Southern by name, this is a distraction. This article is about Southern according to reliable sources, not Southern according to Southern, or Southern according to her viewers, and especially not European court documents issued before Southern was born, or when she was a child. Southern is not a recognized expert, and since the conspiracy theories are not (according to reliable sources) consistently framed, it would be inappropriate to presume that Southern's interpretation is more nuanced than it appears on its face. "Replacement" is a euphemism for... something, but neither conspiracy theorists nor their detractors can clearly articulate what. Violence does seem to be a consistent implication, thought, even if it's not spelled-out. From Wikipedia's POV, "replacement" is exactly as violent or non-violent as reliable sources say it is, so if reliable sources discuss Southern's take on it, let's see what they say and go from there. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

-edit conflict- Southern is described as promoting "white genocide" conspiracy theories in multiple reliable sources. You're correct that shifts in population proportions don't constitute "genocide", but I'm not sure why we would just assume that Lauren Southern knows or cares about the intricacies of international law. Nblund ^talk 23:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources DO say she believes in "white genocide" of Europe, but I see no actual evidence of her believing this. I've scoured hours of her videos and interviews and she never claims whites will be replaced violently in Europe. Whites are being replaced via immigration is often mislabeled a "white genocide" and these secondary "reputable" sources are also making this mistake. As for the international law nuances of genocide, I would also submit that the average person, with no knowledge of international law, also believes "genocide" is violent. Therefore, in common parlance, "genocide" should not be used for peaceful immigration. Mislabeling peaceful migrations of Muslims as "genocide" is hurtful to Muslims who are peaceful, and making that mistake on Wikipedia is sad to see. Unless you can find me a source where Lauren believes there is actual intentional violent widespread genocide of whites in Europe, I think we've made a mistake to say that's her belief. The average person will read "genocide" as violent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertShadow72 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources DO say she believes in "white genocide"... Yes, that's enough. That's how Wikipedia works.

I've scoured hours of her videos and interviews... This is original research. It is not how Wikipedia works. There is a real need for scholarship on this area, but Wikipedia isn't the place for trying to share research. This isn't the function of a tertiary source, and we do not have the ability to vet this kind of thing if we wanted to.

Mislabeling peaceful migrations of Muslims as "genocide" is hurtful to Muslims who are peaceful... I suppose that's true. So who, exactly is doing this? Who is saying or implying that Muslims are inherently violent. It's not the reliable sources, it's people like Southern's pal Stefan Molyneux. If Southern is along for the ride, according to reliable sources, Wikipedia should reflect that also. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2018

Please allow me to update the photo. Wikidabber99 (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Your request consists only of a vague request to add, update, modify, or improve an image, or is a request to include an image that is hosted on an external site. If you want an image changed, you must identify a specific image that has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Please note that any image used on any Wikipedia article must comply with the Wikipedia image use policy, particularly where copyright is concerned. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

College Dropout

Does anyone know what Southern's marks were in college? Her explanation sounds dubious: not want to pay for knowledge she could get on her own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.120.119 (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

Please remove "Far Right" from the introductory paragraph JoshuaMikaADA (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: @JoshuaMikaADA: Given that the article provides no fewer than six sources that call her "far right", you need to present a compelling justification for removal. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)