Talk:Lauren Harries

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

year of Wogan appearance[edit]

The Guardian article states Harris appeared on Wogan in 1990 for the first time. Allen's documentary says 1988. 1988 feels right to me, since I remember it very well and I would have been 16 in 1988, and I'm sure I wouldn't have been 18 when I forst saw her. --bodnotbod 23:31, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)


Poor kid. This thread on UKPFC_Forum might be worth reading [1]. Morwen - Talk 23:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, she never really stood a chance with that family. --bodnotbod 23:59, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

"Eventually Lauren realised she was a transsexual." Surely it was James who realised this? Mysteronald 23:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BLP dispute[edit]

There's a large amount of unreferenced material here, some of which is potentially controversial.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all dodgy BLP claims gone for now :) special, random,Merkinsmum 00:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing more controversial that Lauren herself, I'm afraid. I'm kind of annoyed the entry about her constant media lobbying and self-publicising cannot be listed. These are clear facts. She is contantly fame seeking. Is this not worthy for inclusion? Hardylane (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

age on wogan[edit]

Sme reliable sources say ten [2], others say twelve [3] so I don't know which. If the first wogan appearance was when her date of birth makes it ten or eleven, obviously that's the age she was. But I don't know. What do you all think? special, random,Merkinsmum 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Seems she was born in 78 but the critical question is whether she appeared on Wogan in 88 or 90, the BBC pic looks like she was 10 (IMO) but that is original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent says he was 12 which would make it 1990. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was in August 1988. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

although some of the sources listed may be abstracts/starts of articles[edit]

Enough of them is shown to verify each of the facts concerned, which is why they're being used. special, random,Merkinsmum 11:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The link http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29092583_ITM is now broken. Jonknight73 (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

categories[edit]

if only there were an Anglo-Welsh Transexual Buddhist category 86.163.254.9 (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many categories that apply to Ms Harries, but we cannot, legally, do that. I prefer to settle on "shameless fame-seeker", myself Hardylane (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rework[edit]

I have edited the lede both to give it a tiny bit of substance and to ensure it conforms to the guidance developed on the LGBT project for trans biographies. I have also gone through the text and reworded some of the references to former name and gender, which we try to avoid as much as possible in trans biographies. Please note that we prefer to use subjects' surnames. Some of the references look a bit iffy, but I have no interest in trawling through this article to check them all personally. Reading some of the comments, do remember WP:NPOV. I know it is hard with some people, but we need to be fair, especially in BLPs. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case the phrasing 'known as "James Harries"' makes the factual meaning a bit unclear. It sounds as if "James Harries" were a character appearing on the Wogan chat show, in much the same way that "Ali G" or "Basil Brush" might appear on a chat show. This is a sensitive area, and using plain 'Harries' for the rest of the article is fine, but the style is obscuring the factual content a bit here. Better to say: her former name was James Harries, and under this name she appeared on television... Ed Avis (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs more attention re: he/she, just look at this paragraph: "Encouraged by ***his*** family to appear in the media, Harries's first television appearance was on Terry Wogan's UK chat show, Wogan. The twelve-year-old demonstrated what seemed to be a knowledge of antiques which, combined with an odd appearance including bow ties, hair in thick golden curls, formal attire and a precocious manner of speaking, made ***her*** memorable to British viewers." --Hburdon (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attacked?[edit]

There is a quote her of how some thugs, "attacked Lauren, her father and her brother in the family home". In the documentary, Little Lady Fauntleroy, one of the things that comes up is the family's flamboyance/eccentricity on the one hand, and paranoia, on the other. It was implied that some of these attacks, e.g. stone throwing etc may have even been made up. (And it seems that they occurred long before the surgery as well)

From the doc, the family also seems to fancy themselves as counsellors, although their credentials for doing so are highly questionable.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources indicate the attack happened, and resulted in prosecution. There is nothing about the second point here, and the documentary sheds no light on these beyond hearsay. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the documentary, Keith mentions the "counsellors" seen by young James, to the family. They go along with it and agree, til he mentions he has found out that the "clinic" is their own home. They bluster. Back then you needed psychological referral for a gender-change operation, then-James's parents provided that, fraudulently. To know why would be to penetrate their insanity so far you'd end up part of the family, but it's all very clear in the doc. Forgive the "original research" but that family are not well. They're fantasists and attention-hungry, but also attention-starved from not having any actual talents, and being so seemingly unlikeable as people.
84.68.163.239 (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antiques expert[edit]

Coming to this as someone with no knowledge, I get the distinct impression that James-as-was was not in fact an antiques expert, but it's neither stated outright nor backed up with a reference, merely snidely implied. Perhaps to article could be fixed for either accuracy or dignity, don't really care which... --94.212.2.245 (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Harries was NOT an antiques expert at all. He has admitted himself that his father told him what to say before each television appearance. This article should be deleted because James Harries is not a notable person, just an unemployed 33-year-old living on a council estate in Cardiff. (92.10.133.248 (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Her name is Lauren, she uses female pronouns and I feel this should be respected as she identifies with the female gender. 2.125.185.175 (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a child prodigy[edit]

Lauren Harries now freely admits she knew almost nothing about antiques as a child and that her father told her what to say before each TV appearance. The Keith Allen documentary also revealed taht it was her mother who carried out the pre-op counselling using fake qualifications bought from the Internet. Also there is nothing wrong with using the 1991 picture because Lauren Harries was only famous as a child. (92.7.27.64 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I disagree on her being only famous as a child. However tastless the coverage was her emergance as female garnered a lot of coverage. RafikiSykes (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did it? I only heard about him again in 2005 when I saw the Allen programme. (92.7.18.204 (talk) 12:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Yes it was covered in a range of media and the publicity and interviews helped pay off her operations etc.

RafikiSykes (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason it made news in 2001 was because of his brief TV fame in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Either way it is essential that the article should make clear that Harries never was an antique expert, or child prodigy, by her own admission. The fact that the conselling before the operation was carried out by his mother using fake qualifications is also notable. (92.7.18.204 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
You need to find a reliable, citable source for these assertions, and saying "watch the documentary" doesn't meet Wikipedia standards.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should there even be an article for this person? James/Lauren Harries is not notable enough to meet wikipedia standards. In any case, I have added a link from The Guardian newspaper which confirms everything. (92.7.18.204 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The source you added is an opinion piece from an otherwise reliable source. First, for these sorts of very negative assertions, we need better sources. Second, much of your wording didn't even conform to the source. Don't reinsert without discussion AND consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It also said nothing about her gcses. It that her mother was the counsellor who looked after her during the transition nothing about the mother doing the psycho-sexual counselling.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also nothing there about the sex change being forced upon Harries to make money.RafikiSykes (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly very notable indeed because the operation was actually illegal since the mother used fake qualifications bought on the Internet. I really think this article should be deleted anyway. Lauren Harries is just an unemployed transexual living on benefits on a Cardiff council estate. Not exactly a "celebrity". (92.7.18.204 (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure why her being a transwoman has anything to do with her occupation now or anything she did in the past. The article should be edited to include how her parents coached her, but not removed entirely as she was/is still a person of note if people know who she is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.185.175 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little Lady Fauntleroy[edit]

The Guardian article ([4]), which has been removed, is indeed a review of the film by Keith Allen. What's hard to follow in the review is which "revelations" (told with typical British acerbic relish by the author) are actual admissions by the Harries family and which are conclusions by the reviewer or even by Allen. If we can reliably source the admissions, then I think they should be included in the article to the extent they are relevant to Harries. These assertions are so negative, though, that we have to proceed with caution because of BLP issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I watching it at the moment. She mentioned that her father told her to say around the 18 hundreds when she didn't know the age of an item on tv - nothing saying that all of the expertise was stock answers. Hammer horror type music is played when she first appears and at various points so far. This does not strike me as a high quality source She gave bad answers looking at later 20th century wade item but has not specifically been shown to give poor valuations on antiques.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's interesting to hear your views after watching the film, but, just as with the IP, we have to have secondary sources, not the film itself, to support any assertions we make of this kind.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I won't put anything based on the film in myself. It seems to contain a fair amount of material that can be interpreted as positive or negative. The other family members rather than her seem to be what is mainly taken issue with. Given this article is about her rather than her entire family i would question the amount of weight given to her relatives be it positive or negative.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Morning appearance[edit]

I'm very concerned at the attempts by some people to remove the report about her appearance on "This Morning". Wikipedia entries are not supposed to be airbrushed publicity pieces for wannabe personalities. Hardylane (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the commentary to yourself and let's discuss the article and the material you added. You cited two sources for your material, one a promo for Harries's show (not sure why you did that other than the unsourced assertion about a plug), and the other an article. It's only the article that has any support for your material, and, unfortunately, much of the material is NOT supported. I'm going to revert the addition because of all the problems. If you want to try again, fine, but my suggestion is you keep it relevant and very carefully sourced. Also, don't include citations that are unnecessary (like her show promo).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but who do you think you are telling what I can and can't say on a discussion page? The citations I gave were relevant in terms of the fact that she was trying to promote her TV show (which required proof that it existed at all), and the "This Morning" incident itself, which was reported on the STV page I referenced (STV is part of ITV just in case you find that hard to grasp). Like I said, Harries' "This Morning" incident is extremely important to relate, as not only is it historical fact, but it fundamentally affects her current and ongoing status as an "aspiring celebrity" Hardylane (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't all seem to be supported in that cite. No mention of her show plug.RafikiSykes (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only information that the source provided verifies is that Harries 1) appeared on This Morning, 2) she did an unusual impression based on a Little Britain character, and 3) they will not not ask her to be on the show again. From the repeated insertion of the inappropriate and unsupported material, and by their words above, it appears that user:Hardylane seems intent on pushing their own interpretation of Harries' intentions into the article. In compliance with BLP policy, unless it is explicitly stated in a reliable source that the appearance and behaviour on This Morning was made in order to promote a new program, it stays out of the article. If reliable sources are found that support the contention, then a single sentence regarding the appearance is sufficient - an entire paragraph is WP:UNDUE. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get concerned about biased reporting, as seems to be the case here with Harries' entry. Two recent editors in particular seem to be intent upon removing anything that is remotely negative and airbrushing her history in her favour. I shall endeavour to reinsert the incident, which was well-reported at the time and is available on the net as a video clip, according to universally approval, but I simply cannot conscience it's complete removal, given that this TV appearance has had a direct effect upon her career and reputation. Try researching before you rubbish my insertions. Hardylane (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What editors have been removing is contentious information that is not adequately sourced to support its inclusion. This is wholly inline with policy and will be enforced. Any additional insertion of such information will continue to be removed until it meets the requirements for inclusion. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to information that is unflattering to a subject if it is backed up by various reliable sources. RafikiSykes (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the comments in the sections near the top of this page clearly illustrate Hardylane's intentions.RafikiSykes (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 94.0.219.87, 18 August 2011[edit]

 --Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lauren harries is welsh, not english 94.0.219.87 (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If you're talking about the lead, she is known as an English "media personality". Even assuming she was born in Wales (the article says only that she moved to Cardiff as a baby), the lead description is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She has lived in Wales since she was 6 months old, her family live in Cardiff and she speaks with a Welsh accent. I casually came across this article when she appeared on TV yesterday, where her intro was filmed in the centre of Cardiff, Wales. I'm not sure either what evidence there is for an English identity. I can understand why international readers of Wikipedia will find the nationality helpful ...and British would be more helpful (and non-controversial) in this respect, wouldn't it? Sionk (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think British would be fine to use as it would cover english and/or welsh RafikiSykes (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, I'm okay with British.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thank you very much. Basket Feudalist 12:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image of subject as a 12 year old male[edit]

I recently reported this article to the blp noticeboard and had a lot of disparaging material removed and also removed a pre transition image.I note the user who uploaded the image and is now reinstering it.I note they work for the media company and gave the copyright permission for it to be on wiki and their wish for it to be in articles seems at least a little promotional.It shows the subject as a 12 year old boy and as the subject is a 33 year old woman now this is not an accurate representation to have in the only image in the article. The article and talk page already has a lot of abusive history related to her being transsexual and posting of images of transsexuals as birth gender is a common method of abuse.Primarily it is 20 years out of date and not the persons correct gender.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the BLP/N discussion, could you provide a link to where it is archived? Thanks Fæ (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive129#Lauren_Harries
RafikiSykes (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is a potentially contentious image, particularly for the lead of the article and I have reverted on the basis that this requires discussion. I would draw a parallel of deliberately comparing images of a celebrity know to have had rhinoplasty when this would be a tangential topic. There is potential here to be concerned with regard to BLP, COI and WEIGHT policies. Fæ (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I support removal from the infobox but in the career section it is representative of how many people remember the subject (me included) - " posting of images of transsexuals as birth gender is a common method of abuse" - if this is true we wouldn't want to support that - but in the body of the article I would need convincing as to a strong reason to remove - it is a commons compatible pic and the only one we have of the subject..? Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://twitter.com/#!/laurenotw I have asked her on twitter about providing a photo and she seems agreeable.What is needed for a photo to be acceptable in the article?RafikiSykes (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lauren tweeted back some photos. Will any of these be any good and what dpes she need to do so they can be used? https://twitter.com/#!/laurenotw/status/108970428709601280/photo/1 https://twitter.com/#!/laurenotw/status/108969815078748160/photo/1 https://twitter.com/#!/laurenotw/status/108969102525206528/photo/1 https://twitter.com/#!/laurenotw/status/108963997595860993/photo/1 RafikiSykes (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick look , those are not really very correct - what we need is a portrait type pic of the subject only - as recent as possible. Basically the subject should simply uploada picture they are othe copyright owner of to wp:commons and release it under a commons compatible license. There is a helpful (but imo complicated) link I will look for , or if anyone else knows where it is please post here. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it's now been three months and no other photo has been added to the article, I have just reverted - but following the suggestion of Off2riorob (above, 31.8.2011) have moved it to the body of the article. It is now included as a historial document (in a section headed "Early career"), rather than a current image. Hope that works. AnOpenMedium (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?[edit]

User:Bbb23 has twice removed this from the list of external links:

Here are the reasons given:-

- copyright problem (as well as relevance)
- because the copyright belongs to him (unless you think he posts copyrighted material of others on his channel)

I remain unclear about this and have put it back, on the grounds that

has not been removed from the external links. Is the suggestion that the subject of an article can include their own copyright material in an article and not infringe, for example, WP:SOAP (never mind copyright)? Genuinely puzzled and seek comment from copyright experienced editors. Testbed (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to have a possibly infringing link in the article while waiting for others to comment? What urgency is there to the silly link? I find your priorities baffling.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are concerns regarding the copyright status of an external link, then please do not restore it until it has been vetted. The burden is on those wishing to add the material to ensure it does not violate Wikipedia policy. If you find that there is not enough discussion generated on this talk page to make a determination as to the viability of the link, the External links noticeboard may be able to provide additional input.Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 17:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked another editor to comment on the substantive issues of the added link and the Harries official channel link. My view is that both should go. Normally, when an official channel link is used, it's done in the body of an article and for a specific video. For example, if we want to cite to an ABC video, we can cite to ABC's official channel because they clearly own the copyright in their own videos. Here, even assuming that everything on the Harries official channel is Harries' own work, we have no control on what Harries may post to her channel in the future; therefore, it shouldn't be here. As for the newly added link, I have no idea who owns the copyright to that video; therefore, without some indication that it's posted by the copyright owner or otherwise licensed to be used, it should go as well. (That's without getting into the issue of whether it has any value otherwise.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Testbed's comment and my follow-up comment, I've removed the subject's YouTube channel from the EL section until and if we get this sorted out.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I work a lot with copyright issues and was asked to weigh in here. In the case of the "popbitch" website, there is clearly no reason to presume they are carrying that with license to do so. Accordingly, it is a violation of both WP:LINKVIO and WP:ELNEVER. With Harries' official channel, we are not required under copyright policy or EL policy to remove it on copyright concerns, until and unless she actually does post something there that we believe she has no rights to. :) Whether or not it's appropriate as an external link for other reasons at WP:EL is a matter of editorial decision. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. LH's YouTube channel has three podcasts on it. They appear to be interviews (?) of her that were made into podcasts by a company called phUK Productions ([5]). They can be downloaded for free from iTunes (as well as listening to them at the YouTube site), but it's not clear to me who owns the copyright. It may be phUK Productions, but I don't know who that is, and it may just be a company that puts it together technically but is not responsible for the content. Just because the podcasts are free doesn't mean that copyright doesn't still protect them, so it's not clear to me whether the YouTube link should be in the article. For that reason, I won't reinsert the link, but if others feel comfortable with it, they can do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns in section "Sexual reassignment"[edit]

Before this becomes an outright revert war, it seems best to have a discussion here. The current wording of the section uses male pronouns. This contradicts MOS:IDENTITY, which "applies in references to any phase of that person's life" [emphasis added]. Can we get consensus to edit the section to comply with guidelines? MaxHarmony (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to revert the edit that changed the pronouns to he/his, but I guess it should be discussed here first; I consider any reference to her as "him" to be fundamentally incorrect, and though biologically male at one point, it doesn't change the fact that she identifies as female. I can't really see any convincing reason to use male pronouns to identify her, especially as the opening paragraph makes her former identity obvious. —Christine (blather • contribs) 15:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 19 September 2013[edit]

during CBB lauren refered to herself as a 35 year old woman. this means she is 35 :) Ipodfred999 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. RudolfRed (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lauren Harries. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

Lauren herself said she was born on 6 March 1978 in this blog: http://http3bpblogspotcomk0krkurxsvs.blogspot.co.uk/ (2A00:23C4:6384:600:10BB:173F:872F:5DEB (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC))[reply]

How do we know this is her blog? I can't find any mention of that website at all besides this article. It should at least be marked as dubious source, or better removed entirely until one can be found. 86.140.96.13 (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The blog is unreliable. BMD ref is dead. The BBC ref only says "10-year-old in 1988". --Geniac (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it must be possible to find her date of birth online, since we know she was born in Surrey in 1978? (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:5075:628B:59FB:3143 (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Recent TV appearance[edit]

It's online here (Series 5 Episode 2). I'll leave it to somebody else to concoct the reference.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/naked-attraction/on-demand/69592-002

I just watch NA for the bantz, honest.Paulturtle (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK so she made an appearance on a TV show. Was this as the regular presenter of the show (probably notable), or just as a one-off guest (probably not notable)? If the latter, I refer you to this discussion.
But in the main, WP:NOR applies here. We need independent third-party sources, since WP:V and WP:BLP are both policies. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's hardly non-verifiable, let alone defamatory, to report that she appeared on a TV show. Taking part in a dating show (billed as a "celebrity contestant") in which the participants appear stark naked is clearly rather more notable than a passing interview on a chat show.
The newspapers also reported the hissy fit which she threw after not getting picked.
"Original research", honestly. That rule is there to stop people from writing rubbish in articles, not to stop people from reporting factual information.Paulturtle (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The contestant in the show is only named as Lauren; there is no mention of Harries - I expect there are other trans women named Lauren. Anyway, how were we to know that this series of edit-and-revert wasn't "to stop people from writing rubbish in articles"? Not a hint of verifiability at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Other than the fact that Lauren has confirmed it via her official Twitter, independent sources have also confirmed it, and have written about it. – DarkGlow (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Language too informal[edit]

Allen's documentary showed that the Harries family was not all they seemed; The counsellor who looked after Lauren during her sex change operation was called Lesley Stewart, which turns out to be the "business name" of Kaye Harries, Lauren's own mother. Plus it turns out that all their qualifications, doctorates in metaphysics and counselling degrees, were issued by the Cardiff College of Humanistic Studies which is located at Tudor Cottage, their own house. They've certified themselves.

If this is quoting someone it needs to be in speech marks. If it's supposed to be in Wikipedia's own voice then it needs revising a bit. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lauren_Harries&oldid=1207555271"