Talk:Tomi Lahren/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

Career

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

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)

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)

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)

Not so. This is a very simple quote. DMorpheus2 (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017

For the statement below, I could not find in the reference video where she said these things: "She has said that her shows are not about presenting news neutrally, but about commentary, and "making the news.""

This should probably be amended to: "She has said that on her shows she reports on feeling, emotions, and controversy. She also said she never has tried to mask herself as a journalist." 64.33.241.146 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

References

 Not done The content is properly sourced to this BBC article. You might have missed the relevant source content because the language it uses is "make the news," not "making the news." I've adjusted the quote to reflect the change in tense. As for your proposed change, I couldn't find content in the BBC source that expressly supports that. Perhaps you have another source in mind? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Something on her abortion position

Given how much play her comments (sometimes conflicting each other) on abortion have gotten, I think it should be mentioned in the article as one of her personal views, especially since this is the most unusual view for a conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.18 (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

She literally said, "I'm pro-choice" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tomi-lahren-pro-choice_us_58cde0e3e4b00705db4ffb27?epou5eoexwdgnl8fr&) - why is there a note saying NOT to use the term 'pro-choice'? DMorpheus2 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Because "pro-choice" is a very loaded term, as is pro-life. I push for the precise description of that view, not the sugar-coated one. Bluesphere 16:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, both terms are loaded. But they are HER words, not any secondary source. Surely that approach is the correct one because there is no description or re-wording of any kind - merely a report of her words. Glad it's back in. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm confused about what we're discussing versus what we're currently edit warring about, which seem to be two different things, and both seem off the mark. What we're discussing is whether Lahren is pro-choice, but as currently written the content doesn't say she is pro choice--it says she described herself as pro-choice, which is both verifiable and neutral, regardless of whether editors think Lahren was describing her own views with an appropriate level of nuance. But Bluesphere's edit didn't change this; instead they removed The Daily Beast, which is a reliable source regardless of its bias, and removed content about criticisms of Lahren's abortion stance without explanation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I don't care about the sourcing as long as it's reliable and supports the content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am confused also ;) I began this discussion by noting that, while Lahren herself said "...I'm pro-choice..." the article used other terms, with a note saying NOT to use the term 'pro choice'. Since the last couple edits have retained that language, I'm satisfied with the state of the article. What had my head spinning was the idea that we should not use the words she herself chose to use. I recognize that the terms used by all parties on that issue are themselves loaded and not NPOV (that's the nature of political framing) but that is precisely why we should use HER words, not any others that purport to describe her words. I suspect we are in agreement.

I am also neutral abut any sourced criticisms of her beliefs, although those should be kept NPOV, so, if opinion pieces about her 'pro choice' views are included, opinion pieces about her other views are fair game also. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Lahren?

I see we are now including opinion pieces from those who don't like Lahren's abortion views. Does that mean we will also re-introduce opinion pieces from those who don't like her views on, e.g., race? Because such sources were dismissed as opinion pieces a few weeks ago. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? Which sources, content, and/or discussions are you referring to? You see, it really depends on how the opinion sources are being used. You should read WP:RSOPINION. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

See 'white power barbie' above, and today Slate called her 'openly racist' http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/03/21/tomi_lahren_reveals_she_s_pro_choice_enjoys_alt_right_support.html

Again if the 'white power barbie' source is not RS, then the other material sourced from that is also unsuitable. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with citing Slate saying that Lahren is often racist. Then again it seems redundant since we already have something about that citing the New York Times, so it doesn't add much. As for the "White Power Barbie" stuff, I'm having trouble remembering all the details from the discussion above. Can you please provide a link to the source in question? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2017 (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)

There is no rationale for including this sentence other than to poison the well. People get called things all the time, and pretty much every conservative from the past 10 years has been called racist before. Unless there is some substantial, across-the-aisle consensus that she has said something explicitly derogatory about a race of people, this sentence should be removed entirely. If removal, for whatever reason, is unacceptable, then the sentence should be expanded as to why she has been called racist by some left-wing people (such as "been accused of racism after criticizing Black Lives Matter). The sentence itself is so vague it could apply to anyone from actual neo-nazis to Black and Hispanic conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.255.80 (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If this were just a stray comment then I'd probably agree with you, but it's been covered extensively by the reliable media, included near the top of the cited profile by the New York Times (which definitely does not throw these kinds of criticisms around loosely), and responded to numerous times by Lahren herself. It's also consistent with our neutrality policy, which requires us to cover criticisms in proportion to their overall significance, and our BLP policy, which says that noteworthy, relevant, and well documented allegations belong in biographies of public figures. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Removals from lead

The lead of the article is supposed to be a summary of the main points of the article. Her political affiliation, her position on the Blaze, and her removal from this position, are probably the most remarked upon aspects of her biography so far. Leaving them out of the lead is simply not an option. Vanamonde (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else feel that the lead paragraphs contain too much detail, and not to mention, are structurally awkward? Her position on TheBlaze had been a host of a political commentary program, which could be summed up in one simple sentence. Anything more about her tenure there could go under her career section. Regarding where she stands with TheBlaze, the dispute between the two sides is perfectly summed up before the table of contents is even presented, so it seems redundant to repeat the same information later in the article. This is why I'm merely pointing out that her "firing" from the network is better placed in the body of the article. DantODB (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The detail is necessary in the lead, because the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Per WP:BRD, when your changes were reverted, you should have come here to seek consensus, not tried to edit-war your version into the article. If you have additions to make to the body, go ahead and make them; but that has nothing to do with the changes to the lead. Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

When all of the facts regarding her "firing" is presented in the lead, how is it considered effective to reiterate the same exact points in the body? An example of this would be the sentence in the first paragraph regarding her hosting Tomi up until her her suspension because of abortion comments. In my personal opinion, this little piece of information holds the same weight as her presidential candidate endorsement of Marco Rubio in 2016, since they both are minute details that pertain to her career and political views. Should we put the endorsement in the lead? Also, I explained my edit after the first revert, and I wasn't aware that the issue was only with the lead since other information that I referenced were removed as well. DantODB (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the second paragraph's opening sentence fail to sum up the the embodied content. It talks about the timeframe in which her commentary received attention, and the next point presented is about news media outlets commenting on her social media presence. To be accurate, it was her that received the attention, not her activities. DantODB (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, you appear to be stonewalling. The lead is supposed to summarize the important aspects of the article; so of course it has to mention details from the body. As of now, it does not provide an adequate summary. Moreover, it is inaccurate, as she is not at this moment a television host. Her political affiliation is not trivial. WP:MOSLEDE suggests four paragraphs for the lede; you have trimmed it to two very short paragraphs, which is quite extreme. Vanamonde (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think some middle ground may be warranted. Please let me know your thoughts on this bold compromise, which in my view approximately reflects the weight of the recent dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I feel that her termination is still not prominent enough on the grand scale to be elaborated in the lead. Bill O'Reilly's article's lead simply put his firing from Fox News as such (no detailed explanation), explaining it later under his career section. I simply think that it's a tad superfluous. The rest, I'm on board with. DantODB (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)? His lead section has three sentences about the harassment allegations, the recent revelations, and the firing. My proposed edits only has two sentences. And O'Reilly has had a much more extensive career, which competes for space in the lead section to boot. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I didn't make my point clear, I apologize. Regarding O'Reilly, I was trying to say that that the difference between the summary in the lead and the details provided further into the article is massive. There's a whole section devoted to the sexual harassment allegations, whereas Lahren's pro-choice stance is only repeated in the body of the article, not even elaborated by much. I agree that Lahren has not had the extensive career that O'Reilly has had, which is why I believe that the lead could afford to be shorter than most. I feel that the length of the lead should mirror the length of article, instead of making use of a suggested length to provide repetitive statements of the same information. DantODB (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason, policy-based or otherwise, why everything in the lead should be proportional everything in the body. Emphasis in the lead is supposed to roughly reflect relative importance to the topic, not coverage in the body. The story of the recent dispute simply can't be told without referring to abortion, as the sources do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of that. It's just that it seems superfluous that the controversy is stated in the opening, and then repeated under her career, and then again in her political views, in terms that don't even elaborate on the point by much. DantODB (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ideally content in lead sections is supposed to be repeated in the body. If you feel there is too much redundancy in the body, then the solution is to fix the body. Personally I agree with your sentiment and think it reads a little weirdly that we have bits about the dispute in the political views section and bits in the career section. I'd be in favor of consolidating it into a new section. But that's a separate discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand that the lead summarizes the body, but it's not so much the body as it is the lead. I feel that introducing the controversy with TheBlaze in the lead reads superfluous because it's only repeated and barely elaborated, especially since it only has little to do with what she's done. Other than that, I'm good with the new version. I also fixed the portion in the political views section where it repeats the point of the suspension since that has been covered. DantODB (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Then I guess I don't understand your concern after all. Is there something you can point to in WP:LEAD? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:INTRO, "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." I feel that since the controversy over the suspension only holds a handful of solid points (i.e. she spoke of being pro-choice then gets suspended), it is more appropriate to merely clue in on it in the lead and elaborate on it in the body paragraphs. Right now, it looks as if all of the information regarding the controversy is already presented in the lead because there is no "greater detail" in regards to it, making the repetition in the body seem redundant. Since this is the case, wouldn't it be more effective to state the fact that she does not work for TheBlaze anymore in the lead with a short, simple statement that is to be elaborated in the body? DantODB (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case you won't get agreement from me. In my experience I have cut down many lengthy and over-specific lead sections, and this is definitely not one of them. "Not included in body" or your variant, "not enough detail in body," has never been a valid basis for removal of content from the lead, in my view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Which is what I was saying at the beginning of this section. There is no policy-based reason for leaving this issue out of the lead. Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Understood. The version that is up right now is all good with me, then. DantODB (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Phillipegarcia90 (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The affirmation that Tomi Lahren is alt-right is false and ideologically motivated. There are no elements that confirm your affinity with Alt-Right. Personally she refuses this definition, so she is a american conservative or perhaps a libertarian.

 Done The "alt-right" label was supported by a mix of unreliable sources, and reliable sources that failed verification, so I removed it. Please try to assume good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Ancestor immigration

@Cloud atlas: Are you okay with the version added by JayCoop? I reverted it as it was pretty much the same point my edit was, but it uses a different source. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not Cloud atlas but I'm not ok with it. A subject's great-grandparent's immigration status is too attenuated to be biographically relevant. It comes off as a BLP attack. If it becomes significant with respect to Lahren's immigration views then we can revisit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and for reverting the change, Emir of Wikipedia. I agree with DrFleischman that, regardles of the source, the information won't be relevant to the subject's biography until it becomes part of public discourse around the subject, the subject engages with it, or it otherwise affects her life.

Cloud atlas (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2017 (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. User:Sir Joseph also pointed this out. SWF88 (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. This is nonsensical. The disputed content doesn't say the Times directly called her a racist, so that's a straw man argument. The Times article is undisputably reliable. I would take this to WP:RSN, but we already have consensus for inclusion of this article, so if you continue to revert someone will have to take you to WP:ANEW. Shall we go that route? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

just find a WP:RS. Second hand rumors doesn't qualify. who are these people who call her a racist? apparently not even the NYT knows, but they're the ones cited for calling her a racist. and you would put this nonsensical edit in the lede and give it undue weight. SWF88 (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

NY Times isn't a 'second hand rumor", it is almost by definition a RS. We cannot simultaneously gush about her being 'bigger than trump" while dismissing the racism issue. A possible approach is to remove *all* the opinions from the lead, leaving only the facts, and add a section in the body describing her opinions, POV or criticism. I for one am flexible about where this sort of content goes; I cannot however agree to the one-sided POV that exists without this content. 00:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMorpheus2 (talk • contribs)

I added the "some" modifier and moved the sentence to the article, not the lead. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 00:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

DMorpheous2, you need to cut out your POV or you risk being blocked. You need to follow guidelines and rules and your constant ignoring them will not end well for you. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 00:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I am curious why you moved that particular content and not the 'rising start stuff also? DMorpheus2 (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Because it doesn't belong in the lead. We finally have a sort of consensus on the wording, let's leave it at that. The lead is not for "some critics" and potentially negative information if it's not that major to her or the article. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 00:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also curious why you feel the need to threaten me. I don't like how this article is being edited either. I've made several suggestions to preserve NPOV on it. I am not alone. I have provided quotes from sources. You are pushing a POV also; I am looking for balance based on sources. DMorpheus2 (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is this article locked for editing in a way that paints this lady out to be a racist? The NYT articles was an obvious attempt to do what the editors of this article very clearly intend to do. It is sad to see what wikipedia is becoming, hopefully reason and sound logic will prevail. Agree or disagree with her views or peoples view of her, but to take sides as this article does is disingenuous to what wikipedia is supposed to be. Disinterestedsouth (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Might I also add that the NYT is destroying credibility within journalism by conceding to labels as opposed to taking issue with ideas. For the editors to condone this behavior is abhorrent and the discussion above would seem to be occurring between children. Social issues are subjective, civil discourse should not be. If the NYT found one example of her being racist then they should have reported it. Smearing a human beings reputation by using a reputable name to reverberate trash from critics is wrong. Disinterestedsouth (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Whether Wikipedia has a systemic bias is up for debate, but writing the Times article off because an editor says it's "obvious" what it was trying to do would be completely inconsistent with our community standards. In particular I suggest you familiarize yourself with our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources for disparaging nickname

@DrFleischman: I wanted to bounce a thought off you with respect to the final sentence in the article's lead: "Lahren's commentaries have frequently been described by critics as racist, a label she disputes, and she has been described by media outlets as a 'white power Barbie'."

I think that the part about "white power Barbie" should be removed. The reason is that the cited source (The Guardian) only says, "She says commenters have repeatedly lampooned her as 'white power Barbie'." But the article text makes it sound like the media outlets themselves use that nickname to describe Lahren. It doesn't seem like that nickname is widespread enough to be part of a BLP.

What do you think? -- Cloud atlas (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. Let me know if you think differently. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No objection here. The material was restored with that wording in February by Kim Leung, after I believe I had removed it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits by RekishiEJ

RekishiEJ, please respect BRD and avoid edit warring. You restored "USMC family" which isn't a common knowledge term, and discussions in the RSN archives suggest heavy.com isn't a reliable source. As the the editor seeking to include new content, you have the burden of establishing its verifiability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)