Talk:Tomi Lahren

Christian

Skyring, what's wrong with this source for saying that Lahren is Christian? I believe the Metro is a reputable newspaper. Heck it's the largest circulation weekday newspaper in the UK. Just because it's in tabloid format doesn't mean it's tabloid journalism.

• Waring, Olicia (May 23, 2018). "Who is Tomi Lahren? The FOX News contributor Donald Trump is a big fan of". Metro.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The Metro is handed out for free on the Tube. It is of minimal journalistic repute. It is the newspaper equivalent of Laxette - consumed at one end of the tube and stuffed into the bin at the other. --Pete (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a Brit, but looking in Google News, the Metro is often cited approvingly by other reliable sources. There's a similar free subway newspaper in some cities in the US also called the Metro, no idea if it's related, but as far as I know it's pretty reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Separate organization. But the point stands. Just because a newspaper is handed out on the subway (or the tube) doesn't make it unreliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

It has been the subject of some discussion in WP:RSN here, here, here, here, and here.

There are many more, but I haven't yet found any discussion that presents the Metro in an approving light. --Pete (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Read those discussions. They make clear that you can't rule out a newspaper just because it's in a tabloid format. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I offer the same advice to you. I cheerfully acknowledge that "tabloid format" and "tabloid journalism" are different terms. There is a certain amount of overlap, but it is also clear that there are tabloid newspapers which are reliable sources. The Sydney Morning Herald, for example, has been printed in tabloid format for some time, but retains its journalistic standards.

But the Metro is nowhere spoken of in these discussions on WP:RSN as a good and reliable source. If you can find something to that effect, please cite, but I couldn't find anything better than faint praise, outnumbered by scathing denunciations. And, to paraphrase one discussion, if something is only reported in the Metro, there's probably a good reason why it isn't reported in any other source.

Sourcing standards rise with BLP. We need reliable sources, and tabloid journalism is specifically mentioned as not suitable. I read the Metro when I visit London and take the Tube - as one does - and honestly, it is little more than cheap entertainment. It doesn't approach the worst of the tabloids in muck-raking dishonesty, but neither does it approach the best standards of mainstream British journalism found in The Times, Guardian, Observer and so on - all of which moved to tabloid format. --Pete (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just tried to find any other source saying that Lahren is a Christian and I couldn't find anything. The only thing I found was an editorial written by Lahren in which she glancingly says she is a Christian. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

She seems to have a different idea of "Christian" to mine. Or Christ, for that matter. (ETA) Looking at, and listening to, the link, she doesn't actually say she's a Christian. I think I'd want a stronger statement in a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

A primary or secondary source indicating Lahren considers herself Christian would be sufficient, but oddly enough I haven't managed to find any sources that fit that bill beyond this Liberty University source that Skyring deemed unreliable. There are plenty of sources in which Lahren defended Christians or Christianity, but that's not quite enough. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I regard Liberty University PR as being more propaganda than factual information. My standards for someone claiming a religion aren't high, but they've actually got to say they are, and I balked at the idea of a freebie paper being used as a reliable source. --Pete (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh Pete = Skyring! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• In preparing a defense of the Metro source I've come to notice that it's not cited as approvingly as I had previously thought. It's never (or almost never) cited among the UK's leading reliable news outlets such as the The Times, The Guardian, or BBC News. Unless further evidence of reliability comes up I'm going to consider this matter resolved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the LIberty University article should be fine. She is directly quoted as saying "I am Christian". Milo Yiannopolous, a much more tendentious case, is called "Catholic" in his Wiki article on the basis of a Breitbart article that simply says "he is Catholic" without any further proof. We should at least be able to say "she reportedly has called herself a Christian" on the basis of the LU article.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"pro-life"

This phrase should not be used unless it is in quotes, is preceded by "so-called," or by "self-identified."

Considering that many so identified are pro-war, pro-death penalty, and climate change deniers, an accurate description is not pro-life, but anti-abortion. Michtom (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's a violation of NPOV. Either we call either position by their self-chosen names (pro-life/pro-choice) or by some third-party, arguably more correct description (anti-abortion/pro-abortion). However, it is not okay to add disclaimers to one epithet but not to others (as you did on Cenk Uygur. All the criticism you level at the term "pro-life" could just as easily be construted towards the term "pro-choice" (what's the choice about? who gets to make the choice?) Also, inserting a "what is called" (as you did on the Cenk article) is also linguistically inept as any noun in the article could have that addition. We use words for things because that's what they "are called". Str1977 ^(talk) 06:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanksgiving highlight

One editor removed content on Lahren speaking fondly of migrant getting teargassed at the border. This was reported on by two RS and just quotes her own words on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

What does it add to the article? KidAd (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Usmc family, military brat link. Should be no assiciation, to this closed minded individual.

Why is there a link to a military brat page when the the USMC family is a highlighted icon.She has no traits or experience in this area. My father was a retired air force colonel. Vietam veteran, purple heart recipant. She has not experience any of the traits to be called "military", although the brat part is point on. I have no hometown, no since of self. I love people of different nationalities, I'm open minded to immigrants and cultural differences. This (BLP violation removed) Tomi Lahren isnt close to being a military brat, her dad works at Target. She never moved to a different country or state. She lived in South Dakota her whole sheltered life. A only child, a (BLP violation removed). Please remove the link to military brats. From someone who went to 6 different elementary schools in 4 states and 1 other country, she does not meet the criteria to be called open minded, (BLP violation removed). TimEd13 (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019

Metoo 172.79.131.5 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2019 (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) 22:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Stupid line in the article

"denied climate change"

No one denies climate change, people argue about the impact of humans and deny MANMADE climate change. But that`s something entirely different.

80.131.52.101 (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Revealed: Fox News personality Tomi Lahren’s line of "patriot" yoga pants are made in China

https://www.salon.com/2019/08/26/revealed-fox-news-personality-tomi-lahrens-line-of-patriot-yoga-pants-are-made-in-china/. KurtR (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Salon is not generally considered reliable (see WP:RSP), and the article content is from Raw Story, which is even less reliable. Even with better sourcing, I don't see how the article is relevant to Lahren's biography, especially as it does not mention of her "patriot yoga pants" or any clothing line or related material. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

KurtR, putting a link here with no context is not helpful. I'm considering whether or not this thread violates WP:NOTFORUM. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

There are other sources like DailyMail, check Google News. It's time to mention her clothing line and this thing. She also wrote on Twitter about it. KurtR (talk) 20:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

KurtR, please see WP:DAILYMAIL for why we don't use that as a source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Found articles on Dailydot and on Washington Examiner, they are probably better. It's a question of time, that more reliable news will publish this story, let's wait. KurtR (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Correction potentially needed in the "Alleged racism" section of this article

In the section "Alleged racism" it mentions a supposed racist-related incident but then it mentions this: "In November 2016, Lahren released a video on the protests against Donald Trump.[48] In August 2016, she released a video criticizing NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who had been protesting police brutality by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem before football games.[4]" What does those two things have to do with her supposedly being racist? She critized a black man so what, is criticizing a black man considered automatically racist nowadays? It could be that those last two instances involved some alleged racism, does somebody know if that's the case? But whatever the case, that specific section of this article needs further clarification: if those two instances are unrelated to her alleged racism they need to be removed (maybe put somewhere else) and if they are indeed related that needs to be stated, because right now it just looks like someone added some random unrelated notes to this article. Thanks in advance!

--177.225.172.224 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)