This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This article's subject has mentioned it in the past.
Dissident right is a range of people on the right unsatisfied with the neocon status quo that covers more populist views all the way to the alt-right, alt-right is a fringe idea within the dissident right. Lauren has criticized capitalism on numerous occasions. She's actually more of a socially conservative libertarian social democrat. Lauren supports Russia and is a fan of Alexander Dugin, someone who many American communists (Caleb Maupin, Jackson Hinkle, Haz al-Din) are fans of. She was friends with some people who were friends with Nazis (like Brittany Pettibone, not a Nazi herself but chummy with some of the more "moderate" ones like Lana Lokteff who for some reason affiliates with Nazi scumbag David Duke). If we run through the transitive property, then isn't most of BreadTube part of the alt-right because after all, shoe0nhead, a BreadTuber, is friends with Lauren Southern. 72.72.201.226 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Please reference some credible sources that identify her as part of the "dissident right", we'll be able to make the change. Robincantin (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Lauren's own word not credible? If someone isn't having major news sources posting articles about them, does that mean they never change from a wikipedia standpoint? Brids17 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the words "conspiracy theory" used "in passing" violate NPOV. If we want to make the observation that certain things are conspiracy theories, we should make it explicit, say who said so and source it. Otherwise we are injecting a claim (or worse, an opinion) without evidence.
Nothing is lost in this article if we only say "Great Replacement theory".
For what it's worth, I think there are plenty of awful and implausible theories out there. But I don't think it ever serves the cause of a rational argument to label something a conspiracy theory in passing. There are other ways to talk about the epistemic status of a theory that are more precise and less condescending. Olivergoodman (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those terms are defined in the wikipedia article about them as conspiracy theories (in the lead, with multiple solid references), so there's no need to source it again here. Mentioning that both of these elements are conspiracy theories in this article provides useful context, especially since several sources use the term to refer to Southern's work.
There are certainly other ways to designate them, but the discussion should take place on the discussion page of those articles, not this one. If it's changed there, we should change it here. Meanwhile, I think we're good. Cheers. Robincantin (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? We're stooping that low to smear her character when she didn't even make a single video on Tenet having to do with Russia? She is a victim in the scheme and had no idea what was going on. And if you believe the contrary you would need proof. It's not on me to prove she didn't know. Using that heavily loaded term should have a credible source next to it. 142.120.85.124 (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. Still, can we agree it's bad form to string a succession of loaded epithets in the lead, even if each is actually sourced? Also, looking at the article on propaganda, that designation could be applied to a surprisingly large number of people. Robincantin (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says that she got 535 votes in the 2015 Canadian federal election, giving her 0.9% of the total. I found it highly unlikely that only approximately 59,444 ballots were cast in the election, so I checked the numbers on the Elections Canada website. To put my doubts in perspective, in the 1867 election, when the population was 3,230,000, there were cast 268,387 ballots.
Only 17 million votes? Why don't you count all the votes that were cast in the entire world that year? Then, the percentage of the votes Southern received will be even more ridiculously low. That would match your conviction of how unpopular Southern is. Congratulation on solid algebra but, your logic strength is certainly below 0.003% of anyone's potential. 74.14.215.83 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
