Talk:Tomi Lahren

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christian[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Metro is generally unrelible per WP:METRO.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Also this kinda just falls under WP:COMMONSENSE. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I have had the boldness to delete the section on Lahren's Ancient ancestors, not notable & BLP[edit]

I took the boldness to delete the contentious section which attempts to criticize a living person (BLP) by claiming her ancestors were horse thieves (metaphorically speaking). Her great great grandfather (for crying outloud) is not notable. (PeacePeace (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021[edit]

change Pro-life to pro-life Vacatio Libertas (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I changed "pro-life" to "anti-abortion". Glenn Beck is not "pro-life". He supports the death penalty. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 False Fraud Claims Inclusion Discussion[edit]

Due to Lauren’s self-description as a “constitutional conservative” that it is included in the article, I believe that included her statements on the false fraud claims in the 2020 election would be fair under the views section. However, due to BLP, I wanted to make a discussion here to gather the best RS for citing and also see if there is a different consensus that makes more sense in preserving accuracy of this Wikipedia entry. Thank you. Feel free to chime in. - Tyrone (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also the reason why my grammar is so bad is autocorrect. I will consider getting up off my butt to my computer to edit, in the near future. Until then, enjoy my stumblingns. - Tyrone (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

27 August 2022[edit]

Thread retitled from "Inaccurate Wiki favoring her public image.. but whatevs, and if it protects her fragile image".

Tomi Lauren also is quoted via her official Twitter on 06/24/2022 stating “This is a state’s rights issue but now we are in for the 2 extremes, neither of which is good. On demand is ridiculous and disgusting BUT banning is counterproductive. You’re not gonna stop abortions, you’re just gonna stop safe ones. SAFE, LEGAL, RARE.”

A good blanket statement for trying to please both sides while remaining in favor of her fav manchild, Don J T**** . SkillaryDuff (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? That looks more like a nuanced approach to me. Which makes perfect sense as it's a complicated/divisive issue. Not sure if you realized this, but not everything in life is black and white. 24.156.179.25 (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add the word “Right” to the quotation “rising media star”[edit]

The actual title of The NY Times article is “Tomi Lahren: Young, Vocal and the Right’s Rising Media Star“. She’s the RIGHT’s rising star. Leaving off the word “Right” implies she is everyone’s rising start. That’s NOT what the article says. 104.179.17.65 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tomi_Lahren&oldid=1208077983"