Talk:Lauren Jauregui

Notability

It would be nice to have a mention on her ancestry that she has Spanish-basque or basque ancestry due to her surname being very basque. Thank you.

I highly doubt this article will last. An admin is probably going to nominate it for deletion, even though she has done her share of solo work and is easily the most recognizable of the current members of the group. Hope this page stays though. De88 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That admin is deleting that because is another page with the same name Maxgoldman12334 (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me why this article needs to be stayed in tact? Her page needs to reverted just like the others as well. I do not see a discussion about whether or not to Keep or Revert the article but I as of now am I in favor of that decision. Welcometothenewmillennium 20:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm honestly waiting for this page to get a third nomination for speedy deletion shouldn't be too long until we see that. Welcometothenewmillennium 19:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Welcometothenewmillenium I'm largely unfamiliar with this performer but I happened across the most recent AfD, and I have to let you know: In it's current form, without any improvement, this article very clearly passes Wikipedia's guidelines for general notability.

I understand based on a glance at your recent edit history that you seem to be very engaged in redirecting this article back to the band Ms. Jauregui belongs to, but Ms. Jauregui herself has been the (non-trivial) subject of multiple secondary source articles from reputable sources, which is all that Wikipedia requires for notability. Like any article it's possible that it may be nominated for deletion again as you suggest, but based on the most recent AfD, based on the current state of the article, and based on Wikipedia's Guidelines for General Notability, it seems unlikely that this article will be deleted for the foreseeable future.

If you are passionate about the subject, I recommend you try to work with other editors to make this article the best version it can be, which is of course the goal of all Wikipedia editors, yourself included. -Markeer 01:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Markeer I'm sick of fighting the topic if majority of users agree to the decision of "keeping" Jauregui's page then I will do my best to come up with reliable sources to make sure the page is in tact. As I mentioned to other editors my concerns goes as follows. The band member is currently apart of the band Fifth Harmony. The band member has not released her own solo debut album, solo debut single and been featured in other TV shows, Movies etc. Most of her information that is included in this article is listed under of member information biography. Which I felt like was fine until she does gain enough cover like listed above. All the other members have the same thing going as well. That's why their page's have been redirected and the information is placed underneath the member section. Cabello, was the only member of the group with highly sourced information to give her own page. She as of now has left the group but has released her own music, Tours and other media cover that surpasses Fifth Harmony. Not trying to hate on Jauregui but I did say I felt comfortable with her having her own page when she met all the agreements. Going on what you said I understand she might meet Guidelines for General Notability but most of her information is Fifth Harmony based. When she does become a solo artist more coverage will be added and there would be no need to even discuss the topic of the page being deleted. ---WeLcOmEtOtHenEwMiLlEnIuM _(Talk) 03:27, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A lot of the content were rephrased to make it look less significant. You guys are supposed to help expand the article and make the encyclopedia better, not try and destroy it because the second AfD didn't go your way (IMO). - TheMagnificentist 12:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, the reverting changes have been done without my part. I too agree more information needs to be placed and expanded to avoid other users decreasing bio information and making it look less significant. If you come across an important reliable information please post it. Those aren't the edits I'm trying to change just the ones that aren't precise. Maybe the other users felt as though the information was invalid and needed to be changed or shrink down to size? I too question why she gets the stand alone article and the other members (Kordei, Hansen, Brooke) information is kept underneath the member information and have been reverted. They too have released music, featured songs with various artist, featured in movies, TV shows etc. What's more valuable about Jauregui's information that the others are not? Is it all in favoritism or just the simple fact Jauregui is more notable than the others which can be argued in many different ways. I'm just throwing that statement out there no need to even think twice about my response but it could be something to think about ... ---WeLcOmEtOtHenEwMiLlEnIuM _(Talk) 09:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your argument of different treatment of subjects is well taken, but based on multiple incidents of non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, and based on multiple conversations on the recent AfDs, I hope you understand that current consensus is that THIS article meets the requirements for general notability. I believe you have a good point that the other members of this group may be notable as well, but that's an argument for creating articles for those individuals, not for reducing or eliminating this article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or similar comparisons between articles is considered a poor argument on Wikipedia. The article in front of an editor is the one to be considered first.

Today I removed a tag that User:Welcometothenewmillenium placed stating this article may not meet notability requirements, despite previous conversation on this point. I've looked again at WP:N and WP:BIO and to the best of my knowledge this article, containing more than five strong citations and several other supporting citations, passes Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore current consensus is that the article is notable for inclusion based on the recent conversation of Afd, which seemed strongly to reject any argument of lack of notability or that the article should be removed.

User:Welcometothenewmillenium: please do not willfully attempt to undermine a Wikipedia article that exists in the main namespace. Improvement is always welcome. Critique has some value as well, but not nearly as much, and can be taken as intentional disruption over time if this is all that's offered. -Markeer 00:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Markeer This is not a debate about Welcometothenewmillenium vs. 4 or 5 other users over who's right or wrong about Lauren Jauregui. This is a topic of discussion about Lauren Jauregui. I read the guidelines you mentioned about notability and having reliable sources. Some of the information included in her article does in fact meet WP guidelines of a stand alone article. However, once again I keep mentioning this we are also looking for sources that surpasses her being in the group Fifth Harmony. She is apart of the girl group but we want information about the artist herself. We need more citation that backs her up that doesn't make it look like she's just apart of a girl group with an article. Aside from Fifth Harmony she received a British LGBT award, made a coming out letter to Donald Trump supporters, collaborated with two artists on two songs and her recent relationship with Ty Dolls Sign. We need more than just that ... that information was already posted in her member section. What else has she done? That's what every user reading this needs to find I'm speaking to everyone. It's not a competition of discussion we are all here to help benefit. Welcometothenewmillennium 03:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

"We need more than just that" - No. We don't. If the only thing this individual ever did in their life was write a letter to Donald Trump, this article would pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines because that letter was covered by both Latina and Billboard. Notability requirements are non-trivial coverage (i.e. an secondary source article) in multiple (in this example, 2) notable secondary sources (defined as editorially controlled, of which Latina and Billboard are examples) in which the article subject in the primary subject (as Ms. Jauregui is in those examples).

If Ms. Jauregui were never in any band, had never done anything else in her life, and had absolutely no other activities of any kind, those two articles ON THEIR OWN would mean that an article about Ms. Jauregui would pass Wikipedia's guidelines for notability for a Wikipedia article about her. I for one would find that to be a very weak and uninteresting article, but nevertheless it should, and would, remain in the Wikipedia main namespace.

I apologize if my pointing this out seems condescending or pedantic or otherwise negative. I assure you my intention is to make clear that there is not now, nor does it ever appear there will be, any kind of valid argument against the notability of this subject. Most particularly since, as you are aware, that letter to Donald Trump is NOT the only item in this article, and NOT the only evidence of notability of this subject. I understand from what you've said that you want more detail and breadth to this article. That's an admirable quality in any Wikipedia editor. But I hope you do accept that there is no argument against the validity of this article itself. All discussions should be about how to improve the existing article, not about whether the article should exist on it's own.

I'm not really personally engaged in this subject having only run across it casually (and seeing the AfD this past week). I've tried to add some citations and a few lines but I'm likely personally done with this article, although I'll leave it on my watch list for a bit. I hope you work with other editors to make this article better.-Markeer 16:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring over image

The only free image that is currently available is File:Lauren Jauregui.jpg. User:Welcometothenewmillenium has repeatedly removed the image. The following was from my talk page.

I removed the image simply because I wanted another user to upload a better image with the caption is not detailed and needs to represent Jauregui in a better way. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Another user an upload new image regardless of the p[presence of an existing image. Your edits a disruptive. -- Whpq (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The image is pourly sourced and cited and the caption isn't necessary I'm asking for users to upload new different image or a better the image was better not this one and no harm is being done. I simply stated in my edit for another user to upload a better picture. Making changes that's not vandalism or being disruptive it's making changes. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You or anybody else can upload a new free image any time you find one that is better than the current image. But until you find such and image, there's no good reason to remove the one that is already there. -- Whpq (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Welcometothenewmillenium: - I don't know what you mean by the image being "pourly[sic] sourced and cited". If you believe it is a copyright violation, you can nominate it for deletion on Commons with your evidence of a copyright violation. Otherwise you need to explain yourself. We have a free image. It is currently the only free image we have on Commons. Its presence in the article would not preclude anybody from uploading additional free images and using it in the infobox in place of File:Lauren Jauregui.jpg. So why are you so vehement in your insistence on removing this image? I'll also note that asking an editor with a history of image copyright pronblems to upload an image of her is not a good idea. -- Whpq (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we take a vote and have a WP POV discussion about it choosing from which photos to use on her page. Taking things out of hands, we are just simply editing her page to make it better adding and subtracting information we think fits and doesn't fit. Everyone's in take in welcomed and taken into consideration. Apparently we are having issues because the artist apparently needs to have an image. Instead of arguing why don't we work together and make things work? Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Another thing Whpq I left you messages in your talk page I want you to read.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm liking the image File:Lauren Jauregui performing.jpg anyone in favor? I recommend we use this image in replace. Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Some comments. Wikipedia works by Consensus, so we should not be taking a vote. As for the idea of choosing among photos for the page, the answer is quite simple. We have exactly one free image. So that is the one that will appear in the infobox. As for your suggested image, I can see that it has already been deleted as a copyright violation on Commons. I also note that despite you stating that we should have a discussion about choosing a photo, you arbitrarily changed it without any input from any other editor. That's not really the definition of a discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture

I'm in favor of a new image for Jauregui. The that's uploaded is okay but I was hoping for new suggestions. What's wrong with changing/swapping out images? Also, what's wrong with not having an image at all? There should be no controversary over edits to the article's page. Are there any other images we use use that's more appropriate and suitable for her page? Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You ask "what's wrong with not having an image at all". An image of the subject for a biographical article enhances the article. So when we have a free image for use in the article, we make the article better by using it. You keep trying to remove this image. What specifically about File:Lauren Jauregui.jpg is it that you dislike? As for your question "What's wrong with changing/swapping out images?". The answer is nothing. There's nothing inherently wrong with swapping out the image. However, the images that have been uploaded to replace the current image have all been copyright violations, including one that you uploaded. Feel free to provide a freely licensed image. Just don't add copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've added a link to Commons for free images of Lauren Jauregui. Feel free to substitute any of those images for the existing one. I won't object. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Can someone change her image to the latest image in 2018? I dont know how to change it. 2018 is gonna be a big year for lauren and she needs a rebranding so she needs new and latest photo of herself. Ughyanghasy (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2017

she was ranked 30 in The 100 Most Beautiful Women Of 2016. reference-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPARiBQAkDc 45.120.162.16 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Youtube videos are generally not considered reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

Cookiekx (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

add 'Columbia Records' to labels tab in background info

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

This is minuscule, but I wanted to update the picture of Lauren as the one in use is slightly outdated. Landc727 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Open letter

According to the article, it says that the letter was penned to members of the Republican Party. The letter is not addressed to members of the Republican Party, it is addressed to Trump supporters. There is a major difference between them and the Republicans, as there are Republicans who do NOT support Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.225.195.248 (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead citations

Welcometothenewmillenium: Please stop adding redundant citations to the lead, you've been told this several times. All the information in the lead is sourced in the body of the article. You've been linked to MOS:LEADCITE and WP:EDIT before, please read it. Citations do not need to be added to and are discouraged from the lead, except as necessary for quotations and statements that are controversial or likely to be challenged. Thank you. Lapadite (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Lapadite: Yo really?? How unprofessional is that? Calling me out on a whole article page. You know there are talk pages for that ... my talk page is free and open. For you to keep going onto every damn article page you mention my IP address name. All I did was link the same reference that was down in the body paragraph to the top of the article. Her debut album was mentioned twice why not cite it near the top instead of the bottom. Why do we have it even mentioned twice? Maybe it should only be mentioned once?? It's re referencing the same link. This whole blasting me on every page has got to stop. I have a bleeping talk page for crying out loud use it! Not only is this embarrassing but very immature. We are here to help build and better an article page not revolt a Wiki war over non sense. --Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Welcometothenewmillenium: Listen to other editors' comments and read the WP guidelines linked to you so you stop making repetitive disruptive edits and don't have to be notified of them. Also, article-related discussions are discussed on article talk pages not user talk pages, however, I also notified you on your talk pages, seeing as you haven't paid attention to anything I or others have said to you before. You're going to get yourself in trouble one day on WP if you keep ignoring WP guidelines. Thank you. Lapadite (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

In Your Phone

I think this results in a WP Discussion I nominate creating one for this song. "In Your Phone" is clearly a song she is featured in with her boyfriend Ty Dolla $ign. I personally think it should it should be listed as one of her songs. The song has clearly charted on #23 on R&B Urban Hip-Hop charts. Lapadite keeps reverting the edits as if he/she is the god of Wiki articles. If you can list reasons on why the song should be removed from the article page. Please feel free to state your reasons why. That is why I feel as topic discussion should be created about the song. Also part of being a good WikiUser "Lapadite" is listening and compromising with other editors. We are all just as valuable as you are. I am only speaking to the auto-confirmed users. Everyone's in put and in take should all be considered. We are all here to help better article pages. The page was not designed for only one person to edit. The page was designed so we can all source valuable, credible, notable and helpful edits and sources.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Welcometothenewmillenium: Once again, read edit summaries, the content edited, and WP policies & guidlines, particularly when they are linked to you. An edit summary was given in the removal of an unncecessary table for a non-notable track: [1]. You reverted it asking "yo why are we subtracting this song" (...did you read the edit summary? Ask on the talk page for more info?). A more detailed edit summary was then provided in removal of the unnecessary table: [2]. You then blanked the discography section linking to another artist's; then to a redirect. This would be reverted by anyone, but I gave it time presuming you would create the article soon, which you did: Lauren Jauregui discography. Now, as I have to advise you again, please read WP guidelines, and guide yourself by other discography articles such as those that are WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles. When you transfer content from one article to another, please state so in the edit summary. You only copy/pasted content from the BLP to the discography article; plus, much of this content isn't needed in the lead of a discography article. Again, any editor should expect other editors to edit on articles and make corrections per WP as needed; especially when you don't read/follow WP guidelines or listen to other editors telling you where you made mistakes. Lapadite (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2019

Lauren is not dating ty dolla sign 86.179.108.148 (talk) 16:05, 4 June 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. DannyS712 (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sexual orientation labels

For reference. In a conversation from July 10, 2020 with "Conciencia Collective x mitu", Jauregui said around 7:13, "I'm in the same space of fluidity ... I identified as bisexual, then kind of swerved into pansexuality when I learned there's a whole other universe out there- I'm attracted to just souls. So now, I just think queer is it, I'm queer, that's it." Jauregui has identified with sexual fluidity before and has referred to her sexual orientation as bisexual, fluid, and queer ([3], [4], [5], [6]). For encyclopedic purposes, do not add trivia on different labels the artist may have mentioned over time. Wikipedia is not WP:NOTNEWS, not a repository for trivia and celebrity personal life updates. Lapadite (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Date of birth

Noticing many changes to the subject's date of birth. Looks like Jauregui was born in 1996 per this source (which is currently the first source of the article), but I don't see anywhere that specifies that day or month. Can that be verified somewhere to prevent chronic changes to the DOB? Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced content. Primefac (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment wouldn't disagree that the full date of birth can be removed under situations like this.

As to this one: I don't think we're allowed to have IMDb as a reliable source but the full dob is included there. I am leaving the article as it is at this point.

Not every famous person would reveal when they were born, though years of birth is revealed in at least one source like in this one here when this discussion opened up. We should consider full DOB's should only be included if a reliable source is added. If we look at Shawn Mendes for example, the DOB there is currently unsourced but this website reveals it (if correct) per google search for "shawn mendes dob". Hopefully by removing Lauren's dob from the article as unsourced solves this problem until there is an agreement on if IMDb should be included as a WP:RS. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 17:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The removal of the date is completely unnecessary and disruptive. The DOB isn't at all controversial content. It's just an IP that began vandalizing the page. We don't yield to vandalism, we just revert it, and request page protection if needed. A quick Google search shows reliable sources mentioning her DOB, which has been noted since the artist began in Fifth Harmony in 2012. Not to mention that Jauregui has made yearly birthday posts on her social media. Lapadite (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: great! Can you source that? Because that is what the article is missing right now. And it doesn't look like vandalism anyway. It looks like there are blogs/unreliable tabloids that show two different birth dates... users reading one thing and trying to change that here isn't vandalism. If there is a social media post that you can source that would be appreciated. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was vandalism.: [7], [8], [9]. Again, the removal of the DOB because some IP decided to vandalize the page was unnecessary and not per WP:PAG. And there is no controversy whatsoever concerning the DOB. WP:V - one can easily see the DOB is verifiable content by doing a Google search, so it should not have been removed regardless. Vandalism does not determine verifiability. Lapadite (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Cool, glad we got that taken care of... --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Never said anything about conflating vandalism and verifiability. The sources in the article did not include the birth month or day, just the year, and simple google searches yield https://thefamousbirthday.com/, https://idolbirthdays.net/, and another website that I am literally unable to include here because it's been blacklisted from WP. That's what my google searches showed me, so I sought additional verification. Bottom line was that the birthday was not sourced, and I'm glad we fixed that one way or another. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Lauren jauregui on Women's March in 2019.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Palestine Activism

"I’ve heard so many soldiers and Zionists threaten rape or wish it upon those or us who have enough humanity to show up for the Palestinian people in solidarity."

https://twitter.com/LaurenJauregui/status/1724104098226803200

Lauren Jauregui routinely makes extreme and unproven claims like these with no source attached. Her Wikipedia article categorises accusing soldiers and Zionists of threatening to rape activists under the term "supporting Palestinians" and leaves it at that. It's either extremely ignorant or extremely cynical, in other words, and it does not begin to reflect the extremity and hate of her actual rhetoric on the subject. 147.235.215.128 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

These are proven and factual. ProudWatermelon (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)