Talk:Tomi Lahren

Positive Feedback

Nice article; keep up the good work. -- AstroU (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting that news brief on Trevor Noah mentioned Tomi's segment on his show but didn't show any news feed. Tomi quietly and assuredly proved his accusations wrong - even though his media coverage made his statements sound so definitive. Loved the fake applause as well Hopefully, soon, we will soon be getting fair media coverage. Tdpruett (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture?

A portrait-picture or an action photo always improves the article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting. -- AstroU (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2016 (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. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Add 'right-wing' or 'conservative' label to her description.

The opening line should read something like, "Tomi Lahren... is an American television and online video host and a conservative political commentator." This is the most accurate and informative description to give for this woman.

• I added back "conservative." When I significantly improved this article a year ago, we had the term conservative in there. It is appropriate and unbiased. The connotations of "right wing" are not as unbiased.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2016

Change "Tomi Lahren ... is a conservative political commentator" to "Tomi Lahren ... is a fascist political commentator." 73.100.247.108 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pppery 13:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversies

Do not include a description or explanation of the BLM on this segment. It is biased and only a link to BLM should be included. Rdctx84 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The quote Tomi spoke was not that a piece of paper isn't a measure of education, it was that a piece of paper is not a measure of an educated voter, referring to being educated on the political issues and candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momto2boys (talk • contribs) 00:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Career

Could we please include her degree she recieved from the University of Nevada? NZVortex (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fascism

There is no mention of her political views as fascism. This page is therefore incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.44.202 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable independent sources that describe Lahren's views as supportive of the totalitarian extreme right wing (rather than merely the radical democratic right wing) 62.190.148.115 (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as a leftist who disagrees with most of what Lahren has to say, I would nonetheless describe calling her views fascism as hysteria and there is no place for that sort of behaviour on Wikipedia. It's also a prime example of Godwin's law in action. 95.150.101.2 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 02 Decamber 2016

Change "associate produced" to "was an associate producer for"

"Associate produced" is not a thing, and it makes her look like a stupid and shallow person trying to sound smarter than she is to advance her career in show-business.

Rpwestcott (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"Critics say many of Lahren's commentaries are racist, a label she disputes"

Is it justified to include that in the lead of the article? --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I think so. It's very frequently mentioned in news stories about Lahren, even those from before the Trevor Noah interview. See WP:LEAD, which says we should include prominent controversies. And don't omit the balancing content "..., a label she disputes." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, most of the articles are about how she reacts to racism and the racism of Trump supporters. I don't see enough to say that this is anything but a minority opinion. --RaphaelQS (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks like a combination of both. Perhaps both should be mentioned, as well as a broader statement about race relations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No. it gives undue weight on a wp:BLP article. SWF88 (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Lahren is known for her comments about race relations. Mentioning something about that in the lead seems totally appropriate. It's just about how we present it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

yes. but not other peoples comments about her. the article is wp:BLP and putting comments like people think she's a racist in the lead gives undue weight to a negative description. avoid inflammatory comments or inflammatory titles. this is not my opinion. this is wiki wp:BLP. SWF88 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing in BLP about having to omit verifiable criticisms balanced by the criticized individual's responses. Not to mention that some of the content we're discussing adding isn't a criticism of Lahren. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

the article doesn't even mention her being called a racist. it's obvious NPOV addition, more importantly in the lede, where it's given undue weight. SWF88 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Search for Tomi Lahren and racism in Google News. Or just search for Tomi Lahren, and skim through 10 reliable sources. How many of them mention racism and/or race relations? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

many of those articles mention race because she talks about race and race relations. the 'some people call her racist', or similar addition is not justified. firstly because it's a BLP, which requires more than one source /incident to be included, second, it's not in the main body of the article, third it gives undue weight for criticism. this is especially sensitive for BLP articles who are in the spotlight for their politics. wiki has to keep a wk:NPOV. SWF88 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

If you read this (short) discussion, you'll notice that it's not just about folks who call Lahren racist but also about, in RaphaelQS's words, "how she reacts to racism and the racism of Trump supporters." What are your thoughts on that? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in BLP requires multiple sources. I'm not sure where you're getting that, but if you want multiple sources, we can certainly provide them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing undue or non-neutral when a large variety of folks call Lahren's views racist, and we provide space for her rebuttal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing prevents us from adding content to the lead section that's not the body, that's an old canard. If this is a problem when we can add the content in question to both the lead and the body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

nothing. it's not our job to judge or draw conclusions. that would be original research. and no wiki is not a tabloid. it requires multiple RS to include in the page. the source provided to the post added to the lede doesn't even mention her being criticized for racism. it's an obvious attempt to use a RS to add an NPOV statement to the article. SWF88 (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "nothing," and I don't understand the basis for your repeated contention that BLP requires multiple sources. Please explain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I was my response to "how she reacts to racism and the racism of Trump supporters." What are your thoughts on that?.SWF88 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me copy paste the lead of the BLP. I've made my points about NOR, NPOV, etc earlier on. i don't need to repeat them again. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability (V)
• No original research (NOR)

and the lead: The lead section (also known as the lead or introduction) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph. The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. SWF88 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't need a cut-paste of a policy I'm quite familiar with. I need an explanation of your assertion that we need multiple sources to support anything in a BLP. I don't see anything in that passage about that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

because the addition is libellous. at least it would be, if it was justified by the source, which it isn't. SWF88 (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be shifting the goalposts. So now if we have one reliable source then we're good? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

no. not in the lead. gives undue weight to a single point of view. but post in main body. SWF88 (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... so again... where is this in WP:BLP or WP:LEAD, or is it just your own personal gloss on the rules? Please help me understand. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not my personal gloss. the issue is very simple, it's NPOV and it can't be verified, since it's not in the source given. furthermore it's OR, the editor put it on himself to draw conclusion and making it potentially very damaging to the BLP of the person involved. There are the steps we have to make to write a neutral article and lead. proof has to be overwhelming( which in this case it isn't). not just a single post by an anonymous source. Policy is right there in the Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, but i believe you already know this. SWF88 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Now you're throwing around three policies and guidelines, making it very difficult to collaborate. Please tell me in concrete terms what is required in your view. Two reliable sources, but one is insufficient? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

no need for battlefield mentality. i am willing to collaborate. all I'm asking is provide reliable sources and not original research, also add it in the main body so it doesn't come of as a hatchet job for the BLP. that is part of the policy. NPOV, NOR and verifiability (V). SWF88 (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand your position. So in your view, one reliable source in the body is enough for inclusion in the lead as well? Or two reliable sources? Or in your view nothing about racism is going in the lead no matter what? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Racism

Here's a source labeling her racist: http://modernliberals.com/tomi-lahren-colin-kaepernick/

Here's another: http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/08/tomi-lahren-privileged-racist-24330.html

Here's the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/business/media/tomi-lahren-young-vocal-and-the-rights-rising-media-star.html?_r=0

Here's # 4: (blocked by wikipedia, but it is change dot org

I think it is safe to write that she has been labelled racist. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The NYTimes is the only RS in that list, and even the NYTimes didn't call her racist. The NYTimes said some of her critics called her racist. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

3 of those 4 are unreliable sources, that have a vested interest in ruining her reputation. and nytimes didn't criticize her for being racist. SWF88 (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the 3 unreliable sources change the equation, but I'm certain the NY Times isn't the only reputable news outlet to have mentioned accusations of racism. (Not to mention that one is enough.) We'll find stuff. I just don't have time at the moment. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

sounds like you're determined to make an NPOV post. remember, wiki is an encyclopedia, not a place for hit piece journalism. SWF88 (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to one editor to decide that 3 of 4 cited references are unreliable. Nevertheless, since one of them is the vaunted NY Times (not my opinion, but they certainly have a reputation for reliability) I have restored the quote. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, the NYTIMES did not call her racist and including that is a BLP violation. You are also editing against consensus and you can be blocked for that. You must reliable and impeccable sources for a BLP issue and blogs and opinion pieces are not RS. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free; I consider myself warned. But I do not believe I am violating WP:BLP at all. If the NY Times is not a reliable source, quite frankly I don't know what is. I also don't see any consensus here at all. What I see is a dispute. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The NYTimes is a reliable source, but it doesn't call her racist. You are violating WP:SYNTH by manipulating the words of the NYTimes. In addition, we also have whether or not a mere mention deserves to be in the article or in the lead at all. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, we're halfway there. You agree the NY Times is a reliable source. Second half: here is the quote from the NY Times, "It is an approach that has made her a new media star, while also drawing the ire of critics who say her commentaries are often racist." I inserted "often racist". I don't think that's manipulation; it was a quote exactly as I added it. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point where the NYTimes is not the one calling her "often racist" they are quoting her critics. You can't say that the NYTimes called her racist when the NYTimes only says that her critics say her commentaries are often racist. That is a huge jump and not supported at all by the source. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it is a fact that the NY Times reported that she has been labelled 'often racist'. That's in addition to the many other sources I've listed. I'm not missing any points, thank you very much. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, the source doesn't agree with you. Here is the NYTimes quote, "It is an approach that has made her a new media star, while also drawing the ire of critics who say her commentaries are often racist." The NYTimes is reporting that critics say her commentaries are often racist. Her critics aren't calling her racist and the NYTimes isn't calling her racist. All we can report (if it's notable and relevant and worthy of inclusion, etc.) is that the NYTimes reports that some critics say her commentaries are often racist. That is all. Anything else is a violation of BLP and WP:SYNTH. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

We can all use google. We can all find dozens of articles in which she is labeled racist. I've provided a handful of that sample. Are there any circumstances under which anyone on earth can be labeled racist? Because there are a few of them out there. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources

Here's another explicitly calling her racist:

http://usuncut.news/2016/08/30/racist-news-anchor-threatens-kaepernicks-citizenship-in-disgusting-rant-video/

http://www.chicagonow.com/reflections-chicago-life/2016/07/lets-talk-about-jesse-williams-tomi-lahren-and-yes-race-in-america/

http://conservativetribune.com/tomi-lahren-causes-massive/

DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, you need 1)reliable sources and 2)it has to actually say what you say it says. None of the sources you are including will pass WP:RS. If you have a problem, you can to go to the Reliable Sources noticeboard and ask. Remember, an opinion piece is not a RS. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/09/tomi-lahren-is-terrible-period.html "overtly racist" DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, an opinon piece from the Daily Beast is not reliable. As I said, if you have a problem, go to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and seek input there. To label someone a racist, you need impeccable sources. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, I don't understand your position. The NY Times article, which you agree is a reliable source, says that Lahren's critics have said her commentaries are often racist. Therefore (per WP:V) we can say that Lahren's critics have said her commentaries are often racist. What's the problem? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Two things, firstly that was not what was inserted into the lead. And if you do want to include the NYT piece, that doesn't belong in the lead, but in the body of the article. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you are correct, sorry, there's been a bit of whack-a-mole as different editors have added different content. I agree that we should not be saying that the Times called Lahren "often racist," that's not verifiable. As for lead versus body, what's the basis for that? The reliably sourced statement that Lahren's critics have called many of her commentaries racist seems extremely noteworthy and provides a good, succinct summary of the various controversies. Of course it needs to be balanced with Lahren's response to the accusations. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

SWF88, please do not edit war over this content without consensus. We have at least 3 editors who support inclusion of this material: myself, DMorpheus2, and Somedifferentstuff. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

this is not edit warring. you're not following wiki guidelines, just want to make a NPOV addition. NYTime hasn't directly called her a racist, it only mentioned from second hand sources that some people might call her a racist, without specifying who. this is not a RS. and i'm not the only one highlighting this to you. SWF88 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Conservative?

How can we say in the lead that she is 'conservative? It's based on a single opinion piece. By the logic of the racism discussion above, that doesn't belong in the lead, does it? Don't we need multiple sources that are not opinion pieces? DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I should perhaps note that this is the VERY SAME ARTICLE that is being slammed above as being not a reliable source. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That isn't an opinion piece, and it is a reliable source. If we need to go to WP:RSN to resolve the matter, then fine, let me know. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"White power Barbie" ?

Would it be OK to include the term 'white power barbie" in the lead? This from the same source as "...the young Republican who is bigger than Trump on Facebook". Just checking to see if that's a reliable source. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in favor. That source doesn't call her "white power barbie," it says that (unnamed) liberals have commonly called her "white power barbie." That's not particularly noteworthy for polarizing political figures, who get insulted on social media all the time. It's also rather inflammatory and redundant with the broader statement that her critics have described many of her commentaries as racist. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Just trying to make a point about sourcing here. If we are intellectually honest, neither 'white power barbie' nor "the young republican..." belong in the lead. I am looking at other bios of living persons; they often stick to a 'just the facts' approach in the lead and include any criticisms or political views lower down in the article, in their own sections. That approach may be useful here, but it would mean BOTH refraining from calling her e.g. a racist bitch or a conservative wonderwoman. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I see. Starting a new discussion just to make a point about a different one is generally not appreciated. There's a critical difference between "white power barbie," which is attributed in the source to unnamed liberals (presumably regular folks on social media) and "the young republican...," which is in BBC News' own voice. This is an intellectually honest distinction and I don't appreciate the suggestion otherwise. No one is proposing calling Lahren a racist bitch or a conservative wonderwoman. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is very clearly not NPOV, with different rules for different points of view within the same source. The point is to explore the logic in use here. A good approach to this article would be to shorten and make NPOV the lead (i.e., in its current form, take out some of the gushing) and add additional sections, particularly since this person seems to be quite controversial. DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BIASED - sources need not be neutral. I'm happy to explore the logic in use here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

the sources you're pushing doesn't qualify as a RS. and the NYT doesn't call her a racist. this is a clear case of WP:SYNTH. SWF88 (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)