Talk:Taylor Lorenz

RfC on Taylor Lorenz's comments on Brian Thompson's murder

What is the appropriate due coverage of the comments Lorenz made about the murder of Brian Thompson and the controversy surrounding them? See details and sources in the previous discussion here.

1. Whole section (2 paragraphs)
2. Whole paragraph (3-6 sentences)
3. Short mention (1-2 sentences)
4. No mention

Vegan416 (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Notifying all the participants in the previous discussion above

@Alyo @Delectopierre @Innisfree987 @Patar knight @Astaire @PerseusMeredith @SuperSkaterDude45 @The lorax @Bluethricecreamman @Marquardtika (Hope I didn't miss anyone)

Vegan416 (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

4 Delectopierre (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• D It's WP:UNDUE weight puffed up by right-wing commentators who wanted to take a shot at her by misconstruing what she said. She is an internet commentator and she's commentating on the internet. It also appears that the brouhaha has died down with nothing new since her Piers Morgan appearance. No WP:LASTING impact or significance in Lorenz's biography. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  None of the commentators misconstrued what she said. Only some of her apologetic fans seem to try and whitewash what she clearly said. Also the interest has not died down and she is continued to be mentioned in this context in RS even after December 18, i.e. after 2 weeks had past since she made the first comment on the subject. Vegan416 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Lol, I'm no "apologetic fan". They said that she expressed joy at Thompson's murder when she commented on the joy Internet users expressed. Big difference. The last significant coverage of Lorenz in this that I saw was two weeks ago, passing mentions since then mean little. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu 1. It is very concerning that you are repeating the apologetic falsehood as if she only "on the joy Internet users expressed". In fact she explicitly said that she herself also felt joy. Here are her exact words: "that’s why I felt, along with so many other Americans, joy". You can see it yourself in this video of Piers Morgan show https://twitter.com/i/status/1866263320870682697

  2. Contrary to your claims, Taylor Lorenz continues to be mentioned in a significant way in this context even 4 weeks after her initial comments. See here for example https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/12/astonishing-level-dehumanization/681189/ where she is given as the first named example of a person who expressed positive feelings in response to the murder. Vegan416 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  It took you two weeks to respond to me? Why? This is a WP:DEADHORSE with apparent consensus formed on either C or D. A tweet from Piers Morgan is not RS about Morgan and one Atlantic source from December still doesn't meet LASTING. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  1.The only reason it took me two weeks to respond is that these days I rarely log in to Wikipedia, as I have a lot to do busy me in RL. 2.There are lots of RS about what happened in Piers Morgan's show for example TheWrap (that's where I took the quote from),The Hill, The New York Sun , and the source I brought from December 31 in the Atlantic.

  3. As for the consensus - though I voted for B, I have no problem with a consensus around C as well. Vegan416 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  This all died down before she went on Piers Morgan, and then after a brief spike it died out again. I still prefer D. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• B This is WP:DUE. Had been mentioned tens of times in RS including two weeks after the beginning of the controversy. The claim that she was just commenting on the internet in her capacity as an internet commentator is clearly false. She went far beyond commenting dispassionately on an interment trend into fully supporting it. Vegan416 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Tens of times in which RS? So far I can't find one green source that mentions this, and I really am trying because my first inclination here is C or even B. But the total lack of good sourcing here is pushing me strongly towards D, which I'd initially dismissed out of hand. Loki (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• C/D - the article on lorenz isn't too long, and a controversy that lasted a week really shouldn't take much space. Too much space to this controversy is definitely WP:UNDUE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It didn't last a week. It is still being mentioned in RS even after 2 weeks. Vegan416 (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• all the latest mentions of the lorenz scandal seem to be from 2 weeks ago when i search up lorenz on google news.
• though you can reply to RFC replies if there is something you want to correct, replying to every reply on an RFC to repeat the same info over and over is WP:BLUDGEONing.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

But what if someone repeats a demonstrably false claim like you did now about all the sources being from 2 weeks ago?

Vegan416 (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

1) Regarding recent coverage proving dueness

i don't see reputable coverage, mostly political spin or passing coverage with only a single quote or mention of lorenz. to prove wrong, find a source from NYTimes or some other source on WP:RSN within the last week talking mainly about her. The few sources I found within last week:

• outkick[1], a self-described "anti-woke" alternative to sports commentary
• WP:NYPOST[2], which is disallowed by WP:RSN
• The Western Journal[3], a journal the nytimes apparently described as "a torrent of sensationalized, misleading, or entirely made-up stories,"[4]

These are all right wing partisan outlets fanning rage flames in their audience, not real enduring coverage.

2) Regarding Bludgeoning

At least two others have accused Vegan of WP:BLUDGEON, and I see Vegan has put up close to 30% of comments in talk section comments about this controversy. I suggest you only reply to comments you disagree with if you are adding something new nobody else has put up yet. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

1) Look at the footnotes here. Also, the requirement you invented that the sources should talk mainly about her has no basis in any policy. This requirement appears in policy pages only as a condition for notability for having a separate article on a topic. Not for establishing DUE for an item inside an already existing article. Vegan416 (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

This RfC is going to become tedious really quickly if you WP:BLUDGEON the process. (I wrote that before I read Blue's comment, so make it three others.) – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• C or D - it's probably undue, check if anyone is still talking about it in 6 months. Red Fiona (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• C, I’m willing to compromise to shorten the blurb about her comments. I think her comments received a significant amount of media coverage, and I also understand that while some of it might have been in bad faith, on the other hand, she didn’t shy away from it, defending her comments on TMZ Live and Piers Morgan Uncensored. Perhaps something like this below might work:

In December 2024, Lorenz made several Bluesky posts in the wake of the killing of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson criticizing Blue Cross Blue Shield Association's decision to not cover anesthesia for the entirety of some surgeries. "And people wonder why we want these executives dead," she said. Her comments were criticized in numerous op-eds. In a post on "User Mag", she defended her comments, saying, "Let me be super clear: my post uses a collective "we" and is explaining the public sentiment."

The lorax (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• First choice D, C as an acceptable, but significantly less prefered second choice. Most of the sources that go in-depth on this are opinion pieces or biased, right-wing sources that have uncharitably mischaracterized Lorenz's statements and arguments, which raises BLP issues as I discussed in the above section. It's still unclear whether the coverage will still continue after the craze around Luigi Mangione dies down. My first choice would be to revisit after a few months, but if consensus is to cover it, it only merits a couple sentences at best. Anything longer would be WP:UNDUE. While nothing is formally proposed for this RFC, the passages proposed in the above section were about as long as Lorenz's entire pre-WaPo career and about 2/3 the length of her time at WaPo. That length obviously fails WP:BALASP. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• C/D I'm not sure this important enough to justify inclusion into a biography. This probably doesn't pass the ten year test. Having RFCs on recent events like this are difficult without having time to properly put this into context. A good compromise would be to table this for at least six months and reaccess. Nemov (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• A - This appears to be the most noteworthy statement this person has ever made. PerseusMeredith (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• C or D (leaning towards option D) per Pater knight and Muboshgu. Although, I must say, it's quite disturbing that this sort of thing with targeting CEOs / executives has been profiteering in recent days, but obviously we can't do anything about that. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 11:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate, if you want, about the meaning of "profiteering"? Do you perhaps mean the selling of related paraphernalia, e.g. t-shirts? -The Gnome (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep. And not for the first time I fear, given as far as how violence like this is seen by some people and in a way that appears approbative (not outright or willingly; imo, it's still wrong, regardless of who or what they're about, even if they're corporative healthcare providers). Either way, we're bound by the need to be neutral and not engage in dispute. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 13:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, 2601AC47. I'm afraid being approbative, or expressing or manifesting praise or approval of something, e.g. of an act of violence, has nothing to do with making a profit out of it. "Profiteering" denotes an act of making a profit, almost always a monetary profit, by methods considered unethical. Perhaps you meant to say "profiting to engage in propaganda" or something like that. It was confusing. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• C easily. Our subject's comments are not the most noteworthy news related to the assassination, nor is she a significant public figure. Her comments, though, have made an impact in the media, and, hence, are worthy of inclusion in the article, with about a couple of sentences. No more and no less. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• A or B per arguments made for inclusion. The very fact that this is being discussed two weeks from now with news coverage from reliable sources still being prevalent even after the initial outbreak shows that Lorenz is to some extent, one of the more notable figureheads for the ever-growing popularity of Mangione with sources ever clearly demonstrating this for younger demographics. I'm still confused as to how this is a B-class article though given that there are sections of her article where it is notably underdeveloped compared to other sections and could use expansion to make the inclusion of a paragraph seem less like WP:UNDUE. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 14:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Just because something could be expanded doesn’t mean it should be. The aim is always to write an encyclopedic bio; for someone like a head of state, there will be many topics of encyclopedic significance to include. For most people there will be many fewer. This is already a pretty long article relative to the available encyclopedic material, in my view. Innisfree987 (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Innisfree987: In comparison to articles I personally make for the past four years of me joining Wikipedia which are of even less notability in regards to a broader audience I personally disagree as other articles have similar sections added once a more notably comment gets made. Considering the amount of media coverage including NBC and CNN, I fail to see what makes this particular instance not notable when even non-partisan sources covered it. Regardless, this article is more of a C-class article based on the inconsistent quality as is. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 14:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is a matter of WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a repository for news reports or celebrity gossip. People getting mad because Lorenz had a Take the News of the Day is both news reports without indication of lasting notability and, very much, celebrity gossip. Simonm223 (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  To add on to this, WP:BLPGOSSIP exists to further expand on WP:NOTGOSSIP and requires editors to: Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; (many sources are not as discussed in the above section) whether the material is being presented as true; (the sources are certainly doing that}} and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. There's evidence as shown in my posts in the above section that Lorenz is not calling for or celebrating the act of killing someone itself, which many sources claim as true. Readers may be interested now, but we're still very much caught up in the Luigi Mangione mania right now.

  Even then, the best sources for "lasting coverage" presented here are one American opinion piece (WP:RSOPINION) that explicitly describes Lorenz's take as "violence may be wrong but explainable"; three Indian news sources, all of whom only devote a paragraph to this that is mostly her analysis of public sentiment with no mentions of critics; and a British piece that devotes all of one-sentence to the problematic Morgan interview. Only the last one is from the past week.

  The CNN coverage from the start of the controversy [5] includes one paragraph of Lorenz's analysis and then one sentence saying that it received backlash without further details. The NBC piece, [6] also from that period, has problems as previously noted and still devotes twice as much space to Lorenz's explanation than to the actual comments.

  All in all, this is not a very strong argument for inclusion and at best would require only a couple of sentences (e.g. 1/1.5 for analysis/explanation paired with a brief mention of the criticism). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. And that gets back to what I was saying about this being routine. Lorenz is an online pundit whose job is, at least in part, to respond to the trending news of the day with "takes" that are ideally controversial enough to generate attention. This week it's the CEO of a health company getting shot. Next week it will be whatever the hot news of the day is next week. A few people will remember that Lorenz had this or that take but, generally, only in the context of yet another bullet on a list of reasons why she's the greatest / the worst. This is just her doing her job. And if we listed every one of the takes she's generated for her job we'd have an indiscriminate list of stuff, not an encyclopedia article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: @Patar knight: So wait, an online pundit making notable takes but yet it's now deemed "not news" when other figures of similar popularity and reach make similar opinions? Fact of the matter is that this isn't even ordinary gossip when again, substrative news coverage emerged and she's arguably one of the primary voices behind the unusually large amount of support of Thompson's murder. Considering its nearly Christmas now and we're still having this conversation shows that yes, this is beyond ordinary pundit controversy that is only reported by opinion pieces.

  By the way: There's evidence as shown in my posts in the above section that Lorenz is not calling for or celebrating the act of killing someone itself, which many sources claim as true. Unless you have a reliable source that explicitly states that these are indeed false claims, this is blatant WP:OR. Doesn't help that she's later made similar statements on the Piers Morgan interview, so the burden of proof is quite massive with this one. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 17:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  One thing you misunderstand is the direction of WP:NOTNEWS it's not saying we should avoid stories which are not news stories. It's saying that Wikipedia is not a news source. There's no lasting relevance to a pundit doing her job and generating attention to her opinion of a news story. It's not even a blip on the radar of her career - it's the ground upon which her career is built. It's routine. As such it's not due inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  We're talking about it because Wikipedia is a lagging indicator from reliable sources and since this wasn't immediately apparent as relevant and worth including, the discussion dragged. News sources have largely moved on. Maybe it'll show up in a Lorenz profile months or years down the line.

  OR does not mean that editors are not allowed to analyze the accuracy of sources, especially when there are serious WP:BLP concerns. Even if that was the case, the CNN and NBC articles that you yourself cited as reasons for inclusion do not go so far as to explicitly accuse her of celebrating the murder itself and predominantly focus on Lorenz's explanation of her posts. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: So with this sudden precedent you've established, you're effectively wanting to say for example, omit the Puerto Rico "joke" made by Tony Hinchcliffe because he's a comedian and not a political commentator as despite initial speculation that this would affect the 2024 election, it ultimately didn't? And I could very well for example, use this very logic on some of the events included in the article as they are of relative obscurity in the broader scope as Lorenz is just not that notable of a person outside of a specific niche of the US political scene that wouldn't interest say, someone that isn't American such as myself. As you can see, this a rather absurd precedent.

  @Patar knight: So then why has no legal action has been taken against, in your words, the variety of sources that have made the claim? You'd think this would be an easy case of defamation and yet... nothing. Once again, you're under the burden of proof for this specific statement considering that you lack a source to verify that this is indeed, a definitive case of false claims, I'm not exactly moved by your statements on their own without anything backing them up. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 18:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am sorry but I don't follow your logic at all. Aer you suggesting that it's a routine part of Tony Hinchcliffe's job to go to a presidential rally and describe American colonial holdings as "Islands of floating garbage"? Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: Your logic is that a event should only be documented if it's had a notable effect or basis on the career of the individual. Now I don't know about you but not having your podcast renewed by Vox isn't exactly the tiny insignificant event you're attempting to portray it as. Unless I misread it, that's generally what I interpreted it as being. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 20:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  The podcast non-renewal isn't relevant to this discussion as the decision was before the comments that are the subject of this RfC: "Vox’s decision not to renew the show was made before Lorenz’s comments this week, in which she appeared to justify the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO as an expression of public discontent." [7] – notwally (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Notwally: And yet this prompted Lorenz herself claimed the article was misinformation through several posts on BlueSky. These were made three days ago as of writing this. Even if this was true, other sources have attributed her comments as part of a wider discussion on internet reactions to the Thompson murder such as this for example, well beyond the initial dates of 5 and 6 December. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 22:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @SuperSkaterDude45 I wouldn't regard that opinion piece with much weight since it is an opinion piece, and from the article itself The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill.

  Awshort (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Awshort: Wasn't the discussion primarily about if the incident was irrelevant past the two days of its initial outbreak per WP:RECENTISM. I don't see what it being an opinion piece has to do with the fact that this is still at least mentioned past the initial grace period. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 22:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that an opinion piece is not going to be reliable for this type of contentious material or useful in determining weight. SuperSkaterDude45, where are the sources saying that her professional career with Vox was notably affected by the comments under discussion here? – notwally (talk)

  @Notwally: Okay, so going by this apparent new criterion, Lorenz is mentioned by name within two paragraphs in this NDTV article when talking about the significance of the zenith of popularity of the idea of the assassinations of CEOs. As far as I'm sure, this was published by NDTV in-house. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 23:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  You might want to read WP:NEWSORGINDIA - Wikipedia generally treats Indian news sources (like NDTV) with extra skepticism due to the preponderance of undisclosed paid content. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: Sure? But so far, I have yet to find a discussion specifically about NDTV. While I'm admittedly mostly unfamiliar with the internal politics of Indian news media, from what I could find, many concerns in regard to businesses and celebrities are that they tend to receive undisclosed paid content for more favorable perceptions of them. Furthermore, a majority of the issues seem to stem from internal corruption within India with nearly every notable instance involving a regional politician. I'm not sure how this affects a mention of a political pundit that's only really notable in a specific subset of US politics. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 15:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  SuperSkaterDude45, you had said that this comment had impacted the article subject's career at Vox, which is apparently not true as those decisions had been made prior to the comment. Now your response to me asking for evidence of your initial claim is an unsigned NDTV article that mentions the article subject in only three sentences, none of which mention Vox or any impact on her career. – notwally (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Notwally: It's rather evident at my point has extended beyond Vox and about how this overall incident is about her prominence within online reactions for the Thompson murder. If you are being continuously mentioned as a source of reference behind external reactions behind a specific interest, yeah, that generally makes it a rather significant moment in your career. I have also to see any sources or really anything beyond your own personal interpretation if Lorenz WASN'T at minimum, someone that wasn't a notable reactionary for the Thompson murder. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 19:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  SuperSkaterDude45, you should strike your prior comment if you do not have any evidence supporting it. – notwally (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  Lorenz herself claimed the article was misinformation. As the rest of her posts in that Bluesky thread make clear, she was referring to the apparent mischaracterization of her relationship with Vox in that she controls the IP and publishing, while Vox doesn't have the power to cancel/renew the show since it seems like they only provided some funding and advertising. She does not seem to be disputing that the decision was made before her Thompson comments. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't put much stock on the presence or absence of a lawsuit in respect to the truth or falsity of any particular statement about American public figures.

  Because most American jurisdictions require parties to pay their own costs instead of the more common English system where the winning party is entitled to a portion of their legal fees paid, it is usually ill-advised to go against rich opponents. Lorenz is well-off but probably not rich enough to sustain a protracted legal fight. Engaging in legal action would also keep the story in the news cycle and invite continued harassment, which Lorenz would probably not want.

  On the merits (though this obviously isn't legal advice), since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, American case law has required actual malice to succeed in defamation claims from public figures such as Lorenz, especially in respect to journalistic publications. This requires not just a finding that the claims were false, but that the defendants had actual knowledge that the claims were false or were reckless as to the truth. Many of the less egregious comment would probably be written off as opinion or fair comments (which is not the same as being true). Unless the defendants literally have communications proving actual malice, it would probably fail, and to even get to the discovery stage would probably not be cheap. Overall, a defamation claim would probably not be worth it, regardless of the underling facts. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Patar knight: Whilst there might be some basis of truth within this all of this, the lack of a definitive source that demonstrates that these claims are false and not clarified as is the case with both initial reports and later perspectives leads me to think that at the very least that I'm still going to find more credibility in the existing secondary sources as is due to how they are strongly preferred on Wikipedia over their primary equivalents. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 23:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  You do not need a secondary source to critically examine a reliable source to see if there are issues with accuracy, neutrality, BLP, etc. that would affect whether to include something or not. Sometimes even reliable sources get it wrong. You would if someone was arguing to put it in wikivoice that the criticism was false/mischaracterized, but nobody is doing that. However, if we're putting in this controversy, then BLP obligates us to include her denials (WP:DENIALS) and then we quickly begin running into WP:BALASP issues. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Patar knight: The difference between WP:SECONDARY and WP:WSAW is that WSAW is ultimately an essay that could be made by any editor without any chief consensus reinforcing it. Furthermore, I don't exactly see WP:BALASP issues given that if I were to be as conservative as possible, I'd include something similar to what The lorax wrote in his latest proposed inclusion in a few sentences given how many reliable sources have also added clarifications whilst still noting that she's a major figure when it comes to an explanation regarding the high support for the murder. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 01:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  WP:OR, which SECONDARY is part of, leads with Wikipedia articles must not contain original research., so I guess it's a good thing this isn't article space. WSAW is an essay, but it shouldn't require a policy or guideline to support the position that sometimes reliable sources are wrong or lack context which in turn affects editorial discretion. Since you're out of step with the community and determined not to engage with the substance of my posts, I'll drop this thread here. Merry Christmas. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• D as not important enough under WP:NOTNEWS. A few comments about a sensationalized media story does not seem significant enough to include in a biography. If we started adding these types of examples in, our biographies would be full of these types of "controversies". I do not think it is likely that coverage of this article subject in the furture will mentioning this as a significant part of her life. – notwally (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• D per Nemov and Notwally. The goal is to write a biography such as you’d expect to see in an encyclopedia. I think way too many passing flaps are included in BLPs generally, so I’m glad we’re having an RfC to address that. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• C certainly worthy of some basic mention due to the broad coverage in media. Mediafocus (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• C or D because it's entirely normal for an online pundit to have a take on the news of the day. Her angering some guys on Twitter is just a routine day at the office. This is unlikely to have lasting significance. Simonm223 (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• D per Muboshgu and Patar knight. WP:NOTNEWS and this isn't even news. Gamaliel (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: No matter how the discussion goes, arguing that our subject's comments about the murder of Brian Thompson are "not news" is simply an arbitrary, baseless assertion, since a plethora of sources testify to the opposite. We may disagree about the durability or the importance of those widely reported & reproduced comments. But we cannot credibly suggest "they are not news." -The Gnome (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Citing WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean that stuff should not be included because it is literally not in the news, but that it doesn't rise above routine events and gossip about notable people that news covers but might not have the enduring qualities that make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia (WP:NOTGOSSIP also redirects there). For example, the news will always have in-depth analysis of professional sports matches but most individual athletic plays will not be suitable for inclusion on athletes' articles per NOTNEWS. Citing it here just means that it looks like a case of a cultural commentator getting discourse on her work, which is part and parcel of her job. Maybe this has legs, but it doesn't look like it, and this doesn't fall into a category of event where it can be immediately ascertained (e.g. charged with serious crimes, loss of a job, a journalist committing plagiarism, etc.) -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  WP:NOTNEWS means Wikipedia articles are not news articles and therefore should not cover topics the same as news media. – notwally (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Patar knight, notwally: My comments addressed the claim that our subject's comments were not newsworthy. Check out, for example, the assertion above that literally goes "this [her comments] isn't even news." The plethora of sources reporting on her comments and reproducing them is a trivial proof of the contrary. -The Gnome (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Given Gamaliel’s experience and that NOTNEWS was cited right before that statement, I understood it in that context and not in the literal “0 news outlets have reported on this” sense. It’s like something you might exclaim if you’re watching a new channel and it switches from a story about foreign coup to something like “minor internet celebrity threw up in a fancy restaurant”. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Patar knight is correct in their interpretation of my comments, thank you. Colloquially in the United States, "this is not news" does not literally mean "this has never been the subject of news coverage", it means "this is too insignificant to deserve substantive news coverage". Gamaliel (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• D although can reassess in the not too far future; unlikely to ever justify more than C. It's just UNDUE compared to current actual scope of Lorenz article at this time, if nothing else. Skynxnex (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• D, with the small possibility of C if there remains sustained coverage beyond the standard "twitter person of the day" type stuff as the Thompson news story/coverage progresses. As of now, this is all outrage coverage of a political commentator whose words have constantly been taken out of context through this whole saga. If/when this gets added, it should be no more than "Lorenz was criticized for comments made after the Thompson murder, with Lorenz saying XYZ". Otherwise this is undue weight, with proposed additions being longer than sections describing her entire tenure at other jobs. I've been following this discussion since the beginning, and I do not believe the standard for inclusion has been met. NOTNEWS, BLP, and DUE all lean against inclusion. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
• D. Lorenz is entirely peripheral to the Thompson story, where she gets one sentence and a very short quote, which is fine. That's the correct level of coverage in the correct location. It helps to elucidate the responses to the killing. It is about Thompson and the public response, not about her. Anything else is undue. The pretence that every single thing she says is an intolerable outrage against God and man is simply not something that we are required to take seriously. If I strain very hard then I can see that C might be just about be arguable but I am unable to comprehend how anybody could think that A or B were even worth proposing. This whole RfC seems misconceived. I know that some people think that Lorenz is Satan incarnate, personally responsible for every evil that befalls the earth, but this is all just plain silly. Her haters are never going to stop trying to make her the main character of the internet. We are in no way obliged to assist them in that endeavour. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• D This article is the BLP of Taylor Lorenz and those comments do not seem to have been a major event or had a major impact in her life. Give it a few months and see if there is some large result but unless that comes to pass I would lean on have the restraint of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E and not put spread the topic into other articles than directly about the murder itself. I'm also not inclined to approve of edits sight unseen and not descrribed in any detail other than length - there's nothing to say what content the edits are in mind, so really no way to tell if there even is WEIGHT and RELEVANCE to this article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• D for now; just not enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage to establish relevance for her personal biography about something so tangential to her, especially given that it seems to have already died down. RSes barely covered this and the coverage that did exist wasn't really significant. A sentence in the article on Brian Thompson's murder certainly makes sense, but the sources that do exist don't really treat it as relevant to her biography - they mention her in passing when making other points about the Brian Thompson murder, they don't have much to say about her. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This is starting to look like WP:SNOW.And just in time for xmas. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• C, nothing more or less. As it stands, the article is not long enough to justify including more than a few sentences without WP:DUE concerns. However, Lorenz' comments have clearly passed the coverage bar for inclusion:
  • The comments themselves were covered in reliable sources such as CNN, Al Jazeera, and NBC News. In particular, Lorenz' comments are the focal point of the NBC News piece, which treats them as representative of a wave of radicalization online.
  • Lorenz' comments were the main subject of at least four national-level op-ed pieces: The Telegraph, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the National Post. While these editorials may not be reliable for facts per WP:RSOPINION, they do further establish WP:DUE (as I explained above on this talk page, opinion pieces also contribute to WP:DUE).

In addition, many of the D !voters' arguments fail to withstand scrutiny.

• WP:LASTING and WP:SUSTAINED have both been cited here, but these policies refer to notability for a standalone article, not for whether a passage is due for inclusion within an article. There are no WP policies requiring that BLP pages contain only events that have received coverage over an extended period of time; if there were, then much of BLP pages' content would need to be stripped out.
• WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME have also been cited, but these are also irrelevant. BLP1E is for standalone pages for briefly notable people and BLPCRIME is for people accused of a crime, neither of which apply here.
• WP:NOTNEWS has been cited, but without explaining which aspect of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" would be violated. (IMO, NOTNEWS is one of the most frequently misinterpreted parts of WP policy.) It is not "original reporting" - Lorenz' comments have been reported in multiple reliable sources. It is not "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities". It is not "celebrity gossip" or "personal details" about which readers would likely be uninterested.
• Some D !voters have tried to argue that because Lorenz is a "pundit" whose job is to "commentate on the internet", this level of coverage is expected or routine, and therefore worthy of exclusion. Respectfully, this argument is nonsensical. First, Lorenz is much more of an analyst than a pundit: her job (both before at the Washington Post, and now as an independent Substacker) is to provide reporting and commentary about internet goings-on - not to become the subject of internet debates herself by making inflammatory statements. Second, the D !voters making this argument should produce another example where Lorenz made routine statements in the course of her job that received this level of coverage in national news media - I very much doubt that it exists.

Astaire (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Consensus is an "effort to address editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Consensus cannot violate policies, but not every legitimate concern raised by editors has to be directly based on a policy. Further, WP:NOTNEWS #2 says: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." Enduring significance is a requirement for notability but is also relevant for determining whether content is due. – notwally (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's take a closer look at WP:NOTNEWS #2, in particular the first two sentences:

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style.

Notice that the first sentence mentions notability, which as defined at WP:N refers to "whether a given topic warrants its own article" (emphasis mine). The second sentence confirms this by discussing whether "newsworthy events" do or do not "qualify for inclusion" in Wikipedia. Thus, just like WP:LASTING and WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NOTNEWS #2 is about creating standalone articles, not about whether content should be included within an article.

Consensus cannot violate policies, but not every legitimate concern raised by editors has to be directly based on a policy.

Per WP:DETCON: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." As such, concerns are only "legitimate" inasmuch as they are grounded in policy.

Enduring significance is a requirement for notability but is also relevant for determining whether content is due.

This is trivially true, in the sense that enduring significance and coverage helps provide greater prominence to a certain viewpoint. To quote from WP:DUE: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Notice that WP:DUE does not place any limitations about how the "prominence" of a particular viewpoint is achieved - whether by a slow trickle of coverage over time, or by a spike in coverage, as was the case here. And when a person makes comments that become the subject of multiple op-eds in national newspapers, the bar for WP:DUE has clearly been met. Astaire (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• D Falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIARY: Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. ... all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life...warrants inclusion in the biography of that person Some1 (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• C per Astaire. Thriley (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Could someone arguing for inclusion share what they think are the 2-3 best sources supporting WP:DUE? Keep in mind this should exclude unreliable sources, opinion pieces, passing mentions, etc. Trying to decide between C and D after my own search returns a ton of unreliable stuff. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

D per DanielRigal humorous approach. The article for the actual murder mentions her in a single sentence or two, so I can't rationalize how people think A or B are possible. Weak support for C if there was shown to be evidence that she lost partnership deals or it otherwise had a lasting effect on her professional life. This does not include the current Semafor claim regarding Vox severing all ties with her, since it was heavily disputed by Lorenz and Vox offered no support confirming it. Awshort (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Harassment section

I'm starting this discussion since it was a fairly significant edit, but I removed the Harassment section and moved the material in an attempt to obtain a more NPOV.

The MediaMatters case study relied on social media posts from Lorenz and interviews, and has been misquoted or misrepresented as being a suitable source in the instances it was used in in the past which seems to go against WP:BLPSPS. There was what seemed like undue focus on a stalking incident which received minor coverage and only was briefly mentioned by Lorenz. The same applies to the types of harassment she has received in terms of type of threats briefly mentioned in the MSNBC interview.

Rather than outright removing the majority of the text, I attempted to fold everything into the narrative more neutrally without any emphasis or undue weight being added to it. I agree that Lorenz has been harassed or faced harassment in the past but feel adding a section with every minor harassment incident leads to an unbalanced article structure. I would have added this to the prior "Assaulted removed" Talk Page article but it's been archived. Pinging @Delectopierre: since it was a section added by them.

Awshort (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Reverting. the page seems to have changed significantly, but the harrassment section existed well before delectopiere did their changes (see this version [8])

• "The MediaMatters case study relied on social media posts from Lorenz and interviews,"

You can't cite social media generally as it is WP:SPS, but another party talking about it makes it much more useful and suggest duenes.

• "There was what seemed like undue focus on a stalking incident"

The original version includes swatting attempts, Tucker Carlson targeting her, and several other sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

but the harrassment section existed well before delectopiere did their changes

Can you provide a diff? Because from the history of the page, it was created by delectopiere a while back and didn't seem to exist before hand.

Regarding MediaMatters, I agree with your assessment of social media posts and secondary coverage. I should have included a quote from the page on why it was questionable - ::The following section details harassment Lorenz has faced, as she described in multiple interviews, as well as social media research conducted by TaSC.

While several interviews are linked to from the MM article, the first sentence that is cited to it (often used as a tactic to attempt to discredit her reporting and skills as a journalist.) is not what the case study says, which is Dinformation is spread to discredit her, including the recent example of the false allegation that she changed her name from Lorenz to “Lopez” in order to secure her upcoming job." which relies on a since deleted social media post from her. And as stated in previous edit summaries, the Carlson material is still in the article as is the swatting incident. But due enough for a section that is longer than some of her career sections? I disagree.

Awshort (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• ah, you're right. Delectopierre added it first
• WP:BLPSPS states you are allowed to use sps sourcing if the "self" in self-published sourcing is the living person themselves (the quote being "unless written or published by the subject of the article.") TaSC is a Harvard University Kennedy School of Government organization that was publishing information about social media from 2019-2023 anyways, which indicates some amount of WP:DUEness about the information, though I agree we should attribute Lorenz's claims from social media to Taylor Lorenz.
• The significant harassment against Lorenz has resulted in lasting coverage about her, indicating some dueness about her experiences. Multiple sources have indicated that she has faced long-term ire and bullying by internet trolls. I'll add some sourcing and beef up that section today.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd also argue the quote including the recent example of the false allegation that she changed her name from Lorenz to “Lopez” in order to secure her upcoming job. is an example of discrediting her as a journalist. That a troll deleted a social media post does not mean that the post did not exist, especially if a reliable source noted of it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman The removed post was from Lorenz, not a troll. When there are only one or two sources mentioning something (for example, anything from the Media Manipulation page that can only be attributed to it), then it doesn't meet the threshold for WP:PUBLICFIGURE of an incident being covered by multiple reliable third party sources. It would also fall under WP:NOTRS in it being a source covering something while having both an apparent conflict of interest (Lorenz and the MM piece author, Emily Dreyfuss have been friends since 2016, as noted by Lorenz here) as well as relying mostly on personal opinion since it is an opinion piece on how others can avoid harassment.

The harassment she had faced from Tucker Carlson was well documented and met WP:DUE, and was moved to the Career section from the harassment section.  The "she has received threats, including..." was condensed and moved to Personal Life since Lorenz herself and reliable sources other than MM have stated that she has received threats. A single quote in an interview (MSNBC piece) stating they had pictures of her family online and that "they will threaten children" doesn't meet the need for there to be a list of all the types of threats she has received since it is adding undue weight to a WP:MINORASPECT. The "stalking incident", and the "she had to be escorted to safety at an event" portion would both also fall under this since they only appear in either the MM piece or a single source. The fact that she/her family had been swatted before appeared in multiple sources and was included in personal life.

Lorenz neither wrote or published the article on Mediamanipulation, so WP:BLPSPS would still apply in that it's a self published report (by Emily Dreyfuss) that is being used as a source for a living person. WP:SPS also states

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

I don't think the solution is to try to add more sources to "beef up" the section, I think the more neutral thing is to omit material that fails the above thresholds and move material that fits elsewhere in the article per WP:STRUCTURE (Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. as well as Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject.) and remove the Harassment section entirely.

Awshort (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've moved the harrassment from carlson to the harassment section. Seems useful to stick it in with the remainder of harassment section.

MediaManipulation is not SPS. Seems like an academic group that was publishing this between 2019 and 2023 under "Joan Donovan, PhD". At worst, we could attribute it to the Media Manipuatlion Case Study group.

Multiple sources have all documented Lorenz's stated experience. We are allowed to include it with attribution, and the multiple mentions seem to indicate dueness.

"Beefing up the section" means finding sources to prove dueness as per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I think any reasonable person would note that Lorenz has been the target of various doxing campaigns that deserves significant mention. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The section itself shouldn't have been restored while there were BLP and NPOV concerns per WP:BLPRESTORE, since your initial revert was essentially adding back the material unchanged when you restored it. The BLP concerns for the prior removal still exist in regard to NPOV issues and disputed BLP material is kept out during an ongoing discussion to achieve consensus.

Third party sources covering something would cover dueness per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but an interview is not a third party source which was what was added to support inclusion. While the Tucker Carlson coverage met that bar (as noted further above since it received a considerable amount of coverage), the other harassment material is either sourced to the Media Manipulation brief or an interview, neither of which are independent sources. A policy brief for Media Manipulation published by Emily Dreyfuss with no editorial oversight is not a third party source; Dreyfuss (author) notes herself that the material is pulled from talks with Lorenz, and per the WP:NOTRS mention above she is also not independent from the subject.

Multiple sources have all documented Lorenz's stated experience. We are allowed to include it with attribution, and the multiple mentions seem to indicate dueness. Have they all documented it, though? You have two sources mentioning that she has dealt with swatting in the past which are both her mentioning it, a separate source where she mentions she has dealt with doxxing in the past, and two sources where she herself mentions she has received threats. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the [...] incident, leave it out.

Lorenz has been the target of various doxing campaigns that deserves significant mention. That isn't supported by the sources you provided. The mention of the word 'harassment' in one article and 'doxxing' in another does not equate to 'various doxing campaigns'. And her stating she's been doxxed in two interviews is hardly something that merits a section equal to her Career.

Add to this the fact the harassment conversations were when she was promoting her book and have not been mentioned really before, or after. A brief mention in a few sources doesn't seem sufficient to have a devoted section to harassment. You also haven't mentioned why the attempt to fold the material into the article to be more balanced and in line with WP:NPOV wasn't acceptable and had to be reverted to a standalone section.

Awshort (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You removed the section while there were concerns and there was not yet consensus. @Bluethricecreamman restored it, during said disagreements. There is largely consensus, except for you. Delectopierre (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Bluethricecreamman}} Your edit summary was blank on reversion of the removal, so I wanted to invite you to discuss as well.

You were already typing out a response, my apologies.

Awshort (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

"I'm acting first trying to get consensus after"

Sounds like a great way to operate on Wikipedia. I'm so tired of this campaign to remove anything that might humanize Lorenz and add anything that makes her look bad. If this is the Wikipedia you want, have at it. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not experienced enough as an editor to spend hours and hours trying to convince others that the sky is blue.

Invoking Andrew Gillum to say: Now, I’m not saying other editors are harassing her, I’m simply saying those who do harass and abuse Lorenz believe these editors are on their side.

Delectopierre (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Delectopierre Yeah, operating under policies to make sure that a BLP article is using high quality sources and maintains a neutral point of view without adding in editor bias is usually the way that Wikipedia works. Removing large edits and leaving a talk page note is also part of the editing policy, just as an aside.

No one is removing anything that humanizes her or attempting to add anything bad about her; the information has been moved around without an undue focus on minor incidents.

The fact that you think that is anywhere remotely close to editors condoning harassment of her or are on the side of those who harrass her is something else.

Awshort (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

When you make an edit and then start a discussion, you claim that's how wikipedia works. When I do the same, you say "your behavior on this article is somewhat concerning".

You removed Harassment section, despite the fact there was discussion about whether it should exist, but obviously no consensus.

When I revert something, you accuse me of WP:EDITWAR. Then you accuse me of...accusing others of WP:EDITWAR for doing the same thing?

You bizzarely accused me of asking @Patar knight for help, and I'm still waiting on your explanation of what, in your mind, this accusation demonstrates.

You throw around WP:ONUS in whatever way it suits you. In this instance, you claim the WP:ONUS is on me to justify inclusion in an article, even though it had already been in place for some time and had Wikipedia:IMPLIEDCONSENSUS. However in this instance you're now claiming that the WP:ONUS is on others to include the information you just removed.

You reverted an edit of mine claiming there was no evidence of coordination, despite the fact that I provided you plenty of evidence in the past.

Rules for thee but not for me.

You need to take a long hard look in the mirror and think about why you continue to remove mention of coordinated harassment and attacks on Lorenz. Delectopierre (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I have to say as a completely uninvolved editor that I think the harassment section should stay. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Birthday

She was born in 1984. Why does it say 1984-87? JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed extensively before, see Talk:Taylor_Lorenz/Archive_2. We do not have reliable sources for the DOB, and Lorenz has expressed a preference to not have her DOB be public info. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Pretty much all public records point to 1984 birth. I don't think a public figure should be allowed to dictate what goes on their Wikipedia page. Her DOB is public info, even if she doesn't want it to be.

What really bothers me is the 1984-87 claim. She obviously was not born in 1987, yet it's listed as somehow a possibility.

If there was a good reason to not list her DOB, then just don't mention it at all, rather than saying she might have been born in 1987. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Her DOB is public info, even if she doesn't want it to be, not according to WP:DOB. Wikipedia is very strict about that sort of thing. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I will say this is the first time I haven't seen this something like "born 2002 or 2003", unless there's significant disagreement about when someone was born (which is very uncommon in modern biographies). An extended age range instead of that is a bit odd (but it does seem to explain the situation here). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

She has worked to prevent it from being public due to the harassment against her and her family. While that, in and of itself, isn't necessarily a reason to keep it off her article (that I'm aware of, relatively new here) it does lead to some ambiguity.

Given the range, and the lack of a definitive source, my feeling is that there should be no DOB on her article.

There have been numerous campaigns - some by trolls, some by well meaning editors - to add her DOB. But without a definitive date, that proves impossible. See archives for more discussion. Delectopierre (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The birthdate(s), which are still in the infobox, still present a straightforward BLP violation IMO. Our WP:DOB says Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. But none of the dates "have been widely published by reliable sources" (some people have pointed to the popularity of individual sources to argue that means "widely published"), and the subject does object to the details being made public. I pointed this out previously, but a participant in that discussion simply restored the birthday information. There's been a long-term fixation with her birthday here (and on Twitter, where she's gotten an awful lot of "attention" since her conflict with Libs of TikTok).

Some users point to an RfC from 2021 which stemmed from a Lorenz talk page discussion, but it omitted the actual context of the article (that none of the dates have been widely reported, the subject doesn't want the birthdate shared, and has received rather extensive harassment). In other words, the RfC generalized the question in such a way that doesn't actually apply to the Lorenz article given WP:BLPPRIVACY (or, to be more precise, at minimum it doesn't apply today -- I don't know if the subject expressed objections to it being released back in 2021). I was disappointed that the birthdates were simply restored by a user in the previous discussion a few weeks ago, but I figured the choice was to move on or open up a thread at ANI (it's already been to BLPN). Anyway, I decided to go on vacation instead. :) Just reiterating this one more time now for anyone else who may be interested in enforcing WP:DOB. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a good point to bring up. I guess it comes down to how you define "widely published", my instinct would be reliable sources including an age. I think it's very important to remember the human aspect here, which is why I'm cautious engaging on this (also because I don't usually do that much BLP work). I will say that my instinct is that estimated birth years do not go against the spirit of WP:DOB, because that's mostly about an exact date of birth. It even says that erring on the side of caution is to include the year. If we're not doing that, there's a lot of biographies that wouldn't even have an estimated age range. I agree that we should not be including her supposed birthday here, but that doesn't appear to be what this discussion is about. The infobox just states that she was born "c. 1984–1987". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why it is such a big deal to know the exact year anyway. Sure, if we have it in RS then we can say it but, if not, then it is enough to know that she was born in the mid-80s. It doesn't add much to the readers' understanding to be more specific than that. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be more specific, I'm saying the current state of things seems alright even if it's a bit unusual compared to other biographies (even if this makes sense with context). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure. I was just making the general point, broadly agreeing with you, that we don't need to agonise over this. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I have removed it per now per WP:BURDEN and WP:DOB until we come to a consensus, which was not reached before the previous discussion was archived.

I don't think any dates have been widely reported to meet the requirements of DOB, especially when Lorenz has expressed privacy concerns. Looking into this a bit more, it seems that including the date range has lead to attacks against her. [9][10][11][12]

I feel that if we do include it, it should be only the year and should probably use the age as of the date of the Fortune article, since they do age verification for that and Lorenz has explicitly pointed to that to defend against claims that she's secretly much older than her reported age.[13] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely an angle I didn't consider. I would've hoped the age range would've helped instead of harmed here. :( I was mostly thinking about it from the "when sources disagree, describe them all" stance and assumed that's what happened here when I read this article this morning and saw all those sources for the range. But that social media post emphasizing that Fortune has the correct year pretty much overrules that imo per WP:ABOUTSELF. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I did as well, which is why I sort of supported it in the archived discussion and didn't really question the range/note when I saw it in the past, but it seems that's not the case as confirmed by Lorenz herself. In that case it would probably be best to just depend on the most reliable source alone, which in this case is Fortune. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Patar knight For what it's worth - I posted several examples of the issues she faced regarding the age range being included in the article here.

Support Fortune per my prior reasoning, and the fact the article subject says it was fact checked adds to the reliability IMO.

Awshort (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll be busy for the rest of the day, but I'll try to take a look tomorrow. Thank you for starting a discussion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree to go with Fortune, also per ABOUTSELF. CNC (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

But again, what definition of "widely published" could possibly include a single source? The threshold is satisfying WP:DOB when, again, there are explicit objections by the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites I think for an exact date of birth, we should always go with widely published. That was always my issue with the Politico source. Year of birth has seemingly always had less strict requirements. DOB states we can use a year only if the subject complains, and WP:CALC says we can use an age range based on their age as of a date.

In the majority of BLP articles I have ever edited, a single source for a DOB is usually all that has been required. Someone's name appearing in a Today's Birthdays section of a newspaper is usually the threshold. I'm not saying that is in line with WP:DOB, I'm just saying that is the common usage. Awshort (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the second criterion (Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public., (emphasis added)) would apply here, since Lorenz has endorsed the Fortune article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hasn't the article subject explicitly objected to these details being made public and included on her Wikipedia page? My personal preference is to simply remove these details entirely rather than provide things like ranges when there is a controversy over the details. – notwally (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

She's indicated she tries to keep her DOB private (linked above somewhere), but I don't think she's specifically said anything about inclusion on Wikipedia besides noting that the lack of clarity incited conspiracy theories (my 1st link in this section). DOB's guidance on such cases is f a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it., so listing the year would be fine and would probably alleviate help with some of the theories, assuming we accept Fortune as reliable and her endorsing it as getting around the widely published requirement. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

To save everyone a little bit of time and legwork, I also gathered all relevant conversations in secondary sources as well as her comments that mention her birthdate.

1. Policy Brief: She allows little personal information about herself to be online, like her age or relationships, because she has learned all of those details can be used against her by her harassers. Research brief by her friend Emily Dreyfuss, taken from published interviews and tweets of Lorenz (source, 2022)
2. TheTimes: she has erased any trace of personal information about herself on the internet, including her age (source, 2023)
3. Lorenz: I don’t disclose any personal details like my birth date,(source, 2024)
4. Lorenz: the reason that I don't post about my birthday is because I'm constantly being doxed.[...]So it's like, you know, look, I've been on 40 under 40 lists recently. Right. If people really wanna find my age, I don't think it's hard to find.(source,1:14:07, 2024)
5. Lorenz: I was named to a 40 under 40 list three years ago (which they literally fact check ur age for) (source, 2024)

Awshort (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between an exact birthdate and a birth year, which is explained at WP:DOB. But I also think that it's wise to generally err on the side of caution if we could be doing harm (because that's the general spirit of what WP:BLP is all about). I think I'm going to head out from here on out because I'm starting to repeat myself and not really adding anything new to the discussion. I mostly just came here because I finished reading her book a few days ago and it was really interesting. It meets WP:NBOOK if anyone is interested on collaborating to start an article for it (but come to my talk page for that if you're interested because I'm unsubscribing from this thread). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

agree with Clevermoss, WP:DOB says we can generally just include the birth year and be done with it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Guess I have one more thing to say, actually I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Year of birth because this has implications for how we treat BLPs more broadly. This discussion, particularly Rhododendrites comments, has caused me to think about how providing a year of birth might not always be the best alternative and maybe our policy pages should reflect situations like this one. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)