Jump to content

Talk:Lauren Southern: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 983723366 by 88.106.238.93 (talk). Doesn't make sense. Please leave the headers alone.
Line 77: Line 77:


:{{Not done}}. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
:{{Not done}}. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

== Alt Right / White Nationalist ==

Hello, Lauren Southern here to correct this article myself.

I think I'd know best what my politics are, not websites or news sources which dislikes me immensely.

"She has been described as alt-right and a white nationalist.[5][6]"

I am neither a white nationalist nor alt-right.

Critics of Joe Biden, including main stream sources have called him a sexual predator, yet you would never find this in his introductory paragraph on Wikipedia - because these are allegations from critics.

If Wikipedia and the editors here want to even show a modicum of even handedness they would edit this page to remove "white nationalist" and "alt right" from the opening paragraph and if included anywhere show that I have denied both allegations and that these are from critics.

I have linked to this talk page on my twitter to ensure you know this is in fact my account.

Revision as of 04:40, 22 November 2020

Everyone I Don't Like Is Hitler

She has been described as alt-right and a white nationalist.[4][5]

This should read "She has been described by her critics as" to be honest. Wikipedia hasn't been honest in a decade or so though now, they're just a copy paste of media hacks who play their role in perpetuating witch hunt tags against anyone the establishment dislikes by labelling them all nazi's or white supreeeemists. But here's hoping one editor with a spine and moral compass appreciates that she doesn't identify as that, ran as a libertarian, holds libertarian views, and it's only her critics who say this and write it correctly in an unbiased NPOV way. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia only accepts reliable secondary sources. If you believe you can find one contradicting the article's current statement, then that change can be made. I'd recommend trying to get consensus here first given how frequently this has been an issue. As an aside, it is bad wikipedia etiquette to question the motivations of wikipedians volunteering their time to edit wikipedia in good faith.Elec junto (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to highlight the fact that it's a description of her by left wing publications. Vice and Huffpost are unapologeticaly left win even far left in the case of HP.Belevalo (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I counter this vote and cancel it out in the affirmative. It's not relevant whether they are perceived to be left wing or right wing as this article isn't about them. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Look dude, this rant sorta seems like you and WP:NONAZIS counter each other. I tried to assume WP:GOODFAITH, but I can't with the whole Wikipedia hasn't been honest in a decade or so though now, they're just a copy paste of media hacks. The whole "This blatant white supremacist is actually NOT a white supremacist. The media and society are just trying to get her for being an independent thinker! She's definitely not a white supremacist, you just don't like what she has to say snowflake and ur trying to ruin her life by calling her what she unequivocally is" is a typical alt-right talking points used by racists who aren't ready to take that final step and embrace there KKK hoods, while nevertheless doing everything the KKK does. WP:NPOV defends calling her what she is, rather than changing it for WP:Censored sake. If you don't see the first violation, then acknowledge the blatant WP:COI violation and don't edit this page. I mean no violation of WP:ADHOMINEM. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously biased. Too obviously. Her political views already covered in the «Views» section, there is no need to highlight it in the second sentence of the article... Just wow. It's the shame how Wikipedia became a platform for a political wars. — WitcherGeralt (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a need. The second sentence is part of the introduction, which, according to WP:LEDE, is supposed to summarize the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's happening with Wikipedia is really sad. When it became Ok to label a person as a nazi just for being conservative and advocating freedom of speech? You should be ashamed of yourself, people, it's because of you such a useless resource as Conservapedia exist. When I first heard of it, I thought it was a joke, when I knew it wasn't I was really surprised. Now I see the roots of it, Wikipedia is not neutral anymore. — WitcherGeralt (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to the non-rant part of this, the half-sentence "label a person as a nazi just for being conservative and advocating freedom of speech". (The rest of your contribution does not belong here because it is not about improving the article.)
You are lying. The article does not call her a nazi. There are other, more nuanced descriptions in the article, and they are lifted straight from reliable sources calling her that. If you want to remove those, you need to make a case, on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, that all those sources are not reliable. But if you want to convince people, your reasoning there needs to be far, far better than the reasoning you have shown here. For instance, "You are obviously biased" is right out, simply because it is universally applicable. I could tell you "You are obviously biased" with the same, or better, justification. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am allergic to hypocrisy, so I have no desire to argue with you. — WitcherGeralt (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not refer to it as a Nazi, despite it being a white just like every other Nazi. The only mention of the term Nazi, is its defense of its leader Richard Spencer another Nazi, an outspoken self admitted Nazi at that. If anything the lack of sources that refer to it as an evil subhuman Nazi, is slanted in favor of the Fascist far-right white supremacists.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Change far right to center right. Lauren is not far right by any means. This is slander 2605:8D80:4E0:6028:15F6:376F:8968:8CCA (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong translation

There is a wrong translation in reference #93: "Überlegenheit" means "supremacy", not "survival", in English. "Survival" is "Überleben" in German. I guess s.o. was confused by the adjective "überlegen" and the noun "Überleben". Jezabeliberté (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I've corrected it to "superiority". It makes quite a difference to the sense of the sentence. Thank you for noticing. Bishonen | tålk 19:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Male or female?

I don't understand this: She OFFICIALLY changed her gender / sex status to male. Shouldn't (s)he then be classified as a man? Jezabeliberté (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check the archives on this talk page for previous discussions. She hasn't identified as male except for the one publicity stunt. Even in the video of the publicity stunt itself, she expressed shock that she had been allowed to make the change - because she thinks it is obvious that she does not really identify as male. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikipedia doesn't follow what the law says and gender is based on what people feel they are?Isaw (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:GENDERID. —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what anyone here is talking about, but Southern is female in terms of both legal and personal gender identity, per the reliable sources on the matter. Newimpartial (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

relevant to mention that mass shooters were inspired by her rhetoric and those around her https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/03/15/new-zealand-terrorist-manifesto-influenced-far-right-online-ecosystem-hatewatch-finds https://thinkprogress.org/alleged-new-zealand-shooter-donated-far-right-group-steve-king-tucker-carlson-8fe73243ea88/ 2001:1970:5E26:F400:14A3:4C86:2012:567B (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Right / White Nationalist

Hello, Lauren Southern here to correct this article myself.

I think I'd know best what my politics are, not websites or news sources which dislikes me immensely.

"She has been described as alt-right and a white nationalist.[5][6]"

I am neither a white nationalist nor alt-right.

Critics of Joe Biden, including main stream sources have called him a sexual predator, yet you would never find this in his introductory paragraph on Wikipedia - because these are allegations from critics.

If Wikipedia and the editors here want to even show a modicum of even handedness they would edit this page to remove "white nationalist" and "alt right" from the opening paragraph and if included anywhere show that I have denied both allegations and that these are from critics.

I have linked to this talk page on my twitter to ensure you know this is in fact my account.