Zinxochai

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stefan Molyneux. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the "undo edit" was clearly stipulated in the edit summary regarding why it was reverted. Please consider the Wikipedia rule "Biographies of Living Persons" regarding the erroneous posting by the user. Wikipedia is not a political forum, it is an encyclopedia, and characterization has its place on other parts of the internet. Correcting an unsubstantiated claim is in no way a war. If the posting user would like to discuss such claims, users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus. Zinxochai (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As WP:3RRNO says: "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." And as WP:BLPREMOVE says: "Note that, although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption." Whether the content in dispute here violates BLP is clearly debatable given the numerous reliable sources calling the subject alt-right. Instead of edit warring, users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus. Bennv3771 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As "Alt-right" refers to an ideological position on politics, the only reliable source is Lauren Southern (in this case) and Stefan Molyneaux (in the case of the page in which the material is found). If a person is British, and a group of people calls that person French, it doesn't matter how much expertise the group has, or how many references the group can make to so called "sources", the person is still not French. The same is true in this example if the countries are replaced by religions or political views. Only these two individuals can proclaim their ideological beliefs, which is, if I am not mistaken, Conservative (Lauren) and Capitalist (Stefan).Zinxochai (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Comparing someone's nationality to what someone claims is their political leanings is a false equivalency. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Wikipedia gives priority to independent reliable sources. Lauren Southern is clearly not an independent unbiased source on herself.

Only these two individuals can proclaim their ideological beliefs sure they can proclaim whatever they want, but Wikipedia will decide what they actually are only based on independent reliable sources. Similarly, if someone claims they are British, but all reliable sources say they are French, then Wikipedia will say they are French. Please read: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. As WP:V says: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Bennv3771 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

So, for example, if I were European, and I move to the USA, I might claim I am from my home country, lets hypothesize that is Germany, or I might proclaim I am American. It is my decision to determine my own identity for myself in this case. It may be bias, however it is the only source of accurate assumption. All other sources are irrelevant. I might even proclaim I am a German-American, as Lauren could claim she is an Alt-right Conservative; however, she does not claim to be anything more than Conservative. I chose to use countries as my example, because it is far less controversial than religion or politics. Simple is better. Although, lets consider for a moment, I might posture myself a Muslim, but if an expert on religion thinks that I am not a good Muslim, and due to the fact it is an Abrahamic religion, the expert claims I am Christian, the expert is incorrect. As no person could have their religious identity stripped from them, no more can a person have their political identity stripped from them. Zinxochai (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV etc) then you either have to get consensus to change these policies or live with it or don't use Wikipedia. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy requires a verifiable source. The original post did not cite a reliable source, and neither have you. Please provide me with a reliable source on this talk page if you have one. I am not in dispute with Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and support how it is currently stated. I am, in fact, trying to uphold the the verifiability Policy as no reliable source has been provided. Claiming there are sources without providing the sources is the same as telling me to "Go Google it". That's just Laziness... Zinxochai (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A much better way to frame the statement could be; "Lauren Southern, who claims to be Conservative, but has been criticized as Alt-Right due to her political values..." would be far more acceptable, and is a statement I wouldn't have a problem with. Zinxochai (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please provide me with a reliable source on this talk page if you have one.: Why should I? I am not trying to convince you that this person is alt right. I have no opinion on that matter (you will note I did not revert your edits). I was just telling you not to edit war. There are several sources cited in Lauren Southern's article so just go look there yourself if you are so interested. Insisting I look for sources for you when you are the one having a content dispute with other editors is just laziness... Bennv3771 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Burden of proof goes to those individuals making a claim. The claim in this case is that Lauren Southern is Alt-Right. This is not my claim, so I do not hold any burden of proof. I do not intent to insinuate on your opinions of Lauren Southern, and respect your right to your own political opinions. However, stated above by you, "BLP is clearly debatable given the numerous reliable sources calling the subject alt-right." I have searched for such sources and found nothing more than hearsay and tabloid journalism. If there is a legitimate source, it is difficult to find (The sources provided on Lauren's persona page do not provide evidence of their claims, nor do they stipulate a scientific thesis to corroborate those claims). Lauren's page does a good job of saying, "Lauren is Alt-Right in so-and-so's opinion". However, this is not extended to Stefan's page, where she is called Alt-Right directly. I appreciate that you have respected my edits, and have not reverted them. I will keep in mind the suggestions you have provided me, and will continue to take great care in the protection of Wikipedia's policies. As for my own source of information, I will direct those interested in this matter to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh8H6tOQh10&feature=youtu.be&t=6m1s. Zinxochai (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Burden of proof goes to those individuals making a claim. The claim in this case is that Lauren Southern is Alt-Right. Oh good! I am not making the claim that she is alt right either so I don't have to provide you with any proof. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I have searched for such sources and found nothing more than hearsay and tabloid journalism. Is it really that hard to find sources? I just spent a few seconds going to Southern's Wikipedia page where there are already 7 reliable sources provided in the second sentence of the article... maybe you aren't "googling" right. And no, I didn't respect your edits, I just don't give a damn. Bennv3771 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP is clearly debatable given the numerous reliable sources calling the subject alt-right. this is a very strange way to not make a claim. But, I wholly support your retraction, and I am satisfied that we understand each other, even if we don't always agree. Zinxochai (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not retracting anything. Don't put words in my mouth. I just found it funny that you worded your sentence so poorly and was making a joke about it. Namely, you said "The claim in this case is that Lauren Southern is Alt-Right." when in should have been "The claim in this case is that there are numerous reliable sources saying Lauren Southern is alt-right." I did indeed make the latter claim, but I did not make the former claim as you claimed. Bennv3771 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Poor indeed.... that was your quote, and they are your fingers, not your mouth (I am be facetious). I also said, "the claim" not "your claim". I am still talking about the supposed articles, and not the Alt-Right claim. And the articles you are referring to are tabloid sources, as the claims within are unsubstantiated (that is why her page says "in so-and-so's opinion"). They lack the necessary substance to be legitimate arguments. Anyway, your statements are starting to become circular, and this conversation is vastly unfruitful. Thanks for your time... Zinxochai (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Poor indeed.... that was your quote Nope that was not my quote. Show me where I claimed Southern is alt-right? I claimed there are numerous reliable sources that say she is alt-right. And none of those sources are tabloid sources by Wikipedia's standards. The reason it says she is "described as alt-right" is because there are also numerous reliable sources saying she is far-right instead. If those were unreliable sources, they wouldn't even be cited in a BLP in the first place. Bennv3771 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

BLP is clearly debatable given the numerous reliable sources calling the subject alt-right. is your quote, word for word. This is the only thing I have claimed to be your quote. You're really grasping at straws... Zinxochai (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I know that is my quote. But that is not the quote that I said was poor. This is the poor quote I was talking about: "The claim in this case is that Lauren Southern is Alt-Right." If you weren't talking about the same quote that I called "poor" then why did you say "Poor indeed.... that was your quote" in response to me saying your quote was poor? That implies you are talking about the same quote, which in turn implies that you are claiming I made the quote that we both say is poor (i.e."The claim in this case is that Lauren Southern is Alt-Right."). Bennv3771 (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I still said "the claim" and not "your claim". What you want to be true, and what is accurate, seem to have parted ways... We can agree that 'the claim' by a consensus of some people's opinions is that Lauren is Alt-Right. Can we not? that is understandable from my wording. I mean, don't put words in my mouth... right? I think you also ignored the fact that I sad I was being facetious. Poor indeed was to mean that there was nothing poor about what I said. Zinxochai (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Anyway arguing over your quotes isn't what Wikipedia talk pages are for so I'll leave now. Regardless, don't edit war! Bennv3771 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A much better way to frame the statement could be... You should bring this up on Talk:Stefan Molyneux or Talk:Lauren Southern where you might find interested editors. Telling this to me is pointless I'm afraid, as I don't give a damn what the statement ends up saying. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

For future reference - this conversation is the result of:

(cur | prev) 03:11, 8 August 2018‎ Grayfell (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,712 bytes) (-36)‎ . . (Undid revision 853970640 by 186.67.153.74 (talk) Partial revert and simplifying. "Controversial" tells us nothing, and Southern is first and foremost a youtuber.) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 17:04, 8 August 2018‎ Zinxochai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,748 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (Undid revision 853971180 by Grayfell (talk) Both Lauren and Stefan do not ID themselves as Alt-Right. If someone holds the belief that they are "conservative", for example, you cannot say they are "progressive". This is only your opinion, and doesn't comply to the biographies of living peoples rule. Source them claiming to be "alt-right", or stop making this claim.) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 17:07, 8 August 2018‎ Bonadea (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,712 bytes) (-36)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Zinxochai (talk): Per sources in the article about the person. (TW)) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo)

(cur | prev) 17:25, 8 August 2018‎ Zinxochai (talk | contribs)‎ . . (24,737 bytes) (+25)‎ . . (Undid revision 854054939 by Bonadea (talk) No. This is not prefaced "according to her Persona Page". Lauren's page clearly states the original line 42 post - "Lauren Cherie Southern (born 16 June 1995) is a Canadian political activist, internet personality, and journalist. She has been described as far-right and alt-right." Stop breaking the biographies of living people rule by using the inaccurate term "Alt-right".) (undo) (Tag: Undo)

This reversion was made as the original state matched Lauren Southern's persona page, and was clearly discussed on her talk page. Since this information appears on Stefan Molyneaux's persona page, it becomes a representation of his associations. If a statement about Lauren appears on Stefan's persona page, Lauren's edit locked Wikipage is the most credible source. The only purpose for modifying the context which matched her persona page seems to be for the purpose of associating one person with someone who holds a certain contextual set of values. Considering that Stefan's page mostly supposes Stefan as a potential Alt-Right figure, regardless of him speaking out clearly against the Alt-Right and violence, may unfairly suggest those allegations accuracy. Because neither Grayfell, nor Bonadea discussed this particular revision on Stefan's talk page, it is nothing but vandalism to change the description of Lauren's character between her persona page and Stefan's. At the time of the preceding conversation with Bennv3771, I was in the process of writing this report on Stefan's talk page, to explain the fact that the change to "Alt-Right" breaks Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons Policy - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Non-article_space). Although everybody was clearly not "Warring" in this situation, the first sign of a potential infraction against the "Edit Warring" policy was inacted by Bonadea, who did not receive a warning about "Edit Warring". I have posted a report on Stefan Molyneaux's talk page about the BLP Policy, and why I had reverted the changes. Zinxochai (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As of posting both reports, I have noticed that Stefan's page has been reverted back to erroneously calling Lauren Southern "Alt-Right". Zinxochai (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Zinxochai, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Zinxochai! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)