Talk:Taylor Lorenz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Birthdate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lorenz's year of birth is disputed by multiple reliable sources. Stating that "Fortune remains by far most credible", "she would have provided her own age", "obviously she fibbed", that Fortune is correct as it gives the oldest age ("suggesting its reliability as an unfavorable statement against interest"), and then in the article that she was a source for her own birthdate (when that is not mentioned in sources) is by definition original research and opinion; it is not backed by reliable sources themselves and what they explicitly say. I am also concerned by Brandt Luke Zorn's lack of willingness to discuss. A talk page message was left asking to discuss. When no response was received for 6 days, I reworded note a accordingly. Zorn returned to revert within hours (linked above) and then disappeared again, messages still unanswered. Wikipedia is built on consensus and discussion is a key part of that; please take a moment when you're available and discuss this with me.. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR is not meant for birthdates. It's meant for privately conjured theories based on remotely related science papers. That being said, the article should at least contain a rough estimate of her DOB, even if the precise day might be uncertain. --bender235 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure: TheSandDoctor asked me to take a look at this discussion and give an outside opinion. I would say leave it as "circa" with the footnote acknowledging the inconsistency in RS reporting. Deciding which sources the subject might hypothetically have lied to or which is more likely to have done more due diligence strikes me as too subjective, and in the end, the subject's exact birthdate is not something crucial to the article. And regarding OR is not meant for birthdates - it is meant for any time we draw a conclusion not explicitly supported by facts. There is an exception for basic calculations, but given the disagreement among RS, I think the "basic calculations" exception no longer applies. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

My argument was not just "deciding" that Lorenz had lied to certain sources. It's about evaluating the extent that each source is a reliable source for the given piece of information.

• First, one thing that is not in dispute is that October 21 is her birthday. Any doubt about that part? No? OK.
• Second, look at the sources in question that would allow the determination of a year: the Fortune 40 Under 40 profile of Lorenz, New York Times article "These Companies Really, Really, Really Want to Freeze Your Eggs", and CBS News article "Cries of 'oh my God' heard on moving Amtrak train". In the latter two articles, Lorenz is not the central subject of the article. In the NYT article, she is quoted for her personal perspective as someone who had had their eggs frozen several times. Her name does not appear until the 27th paragraph. The CBS News article is a breaking-news item on an incident of panic due to an unexplained loud noise on a train, to which Lorenz happened to bear witness.
  Next, a practical question: How would the reporters for Fortune, New York Times, and CBS News reporter have obtained a number for Lorenz's age when reporting their respective articles? In each case, they would have asked her first. I'm certain the latter two left it at that and filed their story, which will make sense to anyone who's gone to journalism school or worked in a newsroom. Do we really have any reason to believe an anonymous CBS reporter on a tight deadline for a minor news story went digging through birth record archives in another state and found a correct answer that no one else found? No. Simply put, the reporters of those stories are not reporting her age as her age, they are reporting it as a piece of procedural identifying information that has to be obtained by almost any professional news organization when providing quotes from non-public figures.
  Given that there are three conflicting answers, we should then ask: among these sources, which is most reliable for this piece of information? Well, in only one case, Lorenz herself and her age are the central subject of the source. I cannot stress this enough: the factual accuracy of Taylor Lorenz's age only matters in the 40 Under 40 story. Out of the three, this is the only story where the reporting institution and Lorenz herself (as a presumptive primary source of information) both had a strong incentive to get it right. It is the only one where a wrong answer about her age could have been a reason to withdraw the entire story, a result that would embarrass both Fortune and Lorenz.

This isn't even about deciding that if Fortune got it right, then that must mean Taylor Lorenz lied to the others. Frankly, it doesn't matter why the other two provided different answers. There's just no no plausible reason to prefer either of the other two to the Fortune story, or even to prefer one of them over the other. It's entirely possible both reporters simply mistyped her age and the mistake was never caught—although, again, that would no reason to rely on those sources above the Fortune piece. —BLZ · talk 02:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor, GeneralNotability, and Brandt Luke Zorn: I don't want to weigh in on how credible each source is, but just for precedent: we have dealt with conflicting sources about DOBs before. Also, since this is an interesting question in principle, I opened a discussion on the village pump. Feel free to comment. --bender235 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

I think the word journalist should be corrected to activist. She doesn’t do journalism that would mean shes objective. She is strictly a progressive activist. Kinda like a megaphone for the far left. 104.138.181.21 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The above is absolutely correct and it's repulsive that wikipedia has Libs of Tik Tok's name published — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.61.225.151 (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the cat's already out of the bag as far as her name goes: https://www.google.com/search?q=Chaya+Raichik, I don't think Wikipedia will have that much impact on its visibility. Endwise (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Isn't including irrelevant personal information against Wikipedia's policy? The story here is she's being accused of harassing and doxxing someone, so that person's name is not really relevant as they themselves are not the story. 86.49.12.69 (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There is WP:BLPNAME/WP:BLPPRIVACY, which does say something a little bit like what you've said: the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified... Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context... Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

TBH I could see the argument for removing her name from this article being stronger than for Libs of TikTok, though it might make wording things a little bit awkward. But I could see the argument for it. Endwise (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the name. This is a public individual, who's name has been widely covered. There has been, to the best of my knowledge, no court order or any other official ruling to conceal the name. It is public information. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with it being in this article. It's widely disseminated enough that Raichik's privacy interests are a bit weak, and though her name is not exactly relevant to Lorenz's career (like it is to Libs of TikTok), it's mostly just that wording this article without the use of her name would be awkward. But if, for instance, this section was originally written without Raichik's name, I wouldn't go out of my way to try and shoehorn it in. Endwise (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

She is not a public individual at all, she's a private person who runs a private Twitter account. 86.49.12.69 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Change birth year in main text from 1878 to 1978. 2003:E9:7F18:1700:4D7A:CB55:1CB0:D1BC (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This is fixed now. Endwise (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok WP:QUOTEFARM.

The LibsOfTikTok section relies way too heavily on massive quotations; I've removed the most obviously low-quality block, but the underlying issue is that we shouldn't be using so many quotes to begin with (per QUOTEFARM, Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing. Long quotations crowd the actual article and distract attention from other information - this is definitely the case here.) We should summarize and paraphrase the main threads of opinion in a neutral tone - ideally cited primarily to secondary sources that summarize opinion - rather than making extensive quotes of emotive table-pounding opinion-pieces or giving specific weight to individual opinions from non-expert sources and talking heads. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I agree that the section definitely is a quote farm; it is also probably WP:UNDUE in how in-depth it gets...it is longer than the rest of the article by a mile. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• The problem now is that it doesn't appear balanced and appears to fall short of WP:NPOV. It doesn't report the fact that the claims of doxxing are widely disputed, not just by the Post, and focuses mainly on the accusations against her. Things need to be better summarized. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  @X-Editor: Please start being communicative here. Content on individual articles is subject to consensus on those individual articles; communication is required. Concerns have been raised on this page about content and sourcing being WP:UNDUE or otherwise inappropriate and this needs to be addressed with discussion locally in order to come to a consensus. Just ignoring these discussions is not appropriate editorial conduct. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What quotations would you suggest removing or summarizing? Also, is there a source that says the doxxing accusations are widely disputed? Because it haven't encountered one that says that. If there aren't any sources that explicitly say this, then saying that in the article would be OR X-Editor (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Received 40 under 40 at age 42? What is her real age?

The article says she's an American journalist however we can't pin down her year of birth and it has recently been updated to be 1978 which would have made her 42 when she was on the 40 under 40 list. Well there had been multiple articles written before all of this controversy stating various ages for her. Wonder what else is being hidden. 2604:CA00:1DB:A85C:0:0:A60:735D (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

In a Tweet in March this year, she said she was 43 year old, which would imply she was born in 1978 (assuming October 21 is right). Secondary sources have given various ages at various times that imply a birth date somewhere between 1984 to 1987. The Forbes list was in September 2020, which would've made her 40 years old at the time according to the age in her Tweet, which I think is still possible? Regarding "What is her real age", I think we have no idea; as blz 2049 said above, Lorenz's age seems to just be one of the mysteries of life. Per WP:DOB in a situation like this we should just continue to list all of the different possible years: If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, the consensus is to include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. Endwise (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

yes, but WP:DOB also says “ A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.”which is the case here and she is clearly annoyed with doubts about her birthdate. Is there any serious reason to doubt the veracity of her claim beyond some stale references to which she has notably responded? 2600:1700:1111:5940:C08C:466B:3B33:3128 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

50.102.253.218 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

DOB???

Not entirely sure. 614 sources were reached out to, and zero responses.
Estimated DOB 1967-1972

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 04:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022

Change Taylor Lorenz birth date from Oct 21, 1984 - 1987 to Oct 21, 1984.

Change Taylor Lorenz to Taylor P. Lorenz.

Amelia-Odell (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't use primary sources for DOBs on BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Substack

https://twitter.com/taylorlorenz/status/1524471840390799361?s=21&t=1w0YLVAsy_r0djwUvxryUA

> I normally don't debunk all the crazy wrong info on my wikipedia, but since this keeps getting mentioned in articles I just want to reiterate that I've had a Substack since the platform launched. It's always been free, and I simply use it to promote my articles

> I don't monetize on social media, I have a salaried journalism job and am part of a great union. I don't monetize my Substack and I'm certainly not part of the TikTok creator fund. I make TikToks b/c as a multi media journalist I enjoy it.

I’m not sure if a tweet from her is considered a reliable source, but this is easy to verify.

I'd say it's probably not a reliable enough source to stand on its own. Regardless, the tweet is no longer available, and I failed to find any archives of it. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the article says these things anymore and I would be nice if she could elaborate more on "the crazy wrong info". X-Editor (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing attempts to create narrative

Multiple users selectively editing quotations to "shape" the narrative of The NY Times/Mediaite stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998 (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Most recent revision deliberately sets forth the two separate NY Times and Mediaite stories involved in this matter, quotes the relevant portions for each, and includes two separate tweets from Lorenz in response that have been selectively edited in previous entries. Additional notes quoting Lorenz have been added to the paragraph on the Drudge matter, one of which uses a deprecated source (the Daily Mail, one of Lorenz's prior employers, SOLEY because it contains an image of one of her deleted tweets not otherwise available and is thus an exception to the use of such sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC) 

Avica1998 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Subdivided “Career” into “Historical” and “Current”, chronologized the former
Incorporated information from “Recognitions” into “Historical”
Incorporated information from “2021 Lawsuit” into “Historical;” added updated text
Eliminated “Tucker Carlson” text as unremarkable and irrelevant
Added pre-journalism work history from interview source
Added 2017 assault incident into “Historical”
Extensive editing for style and form — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998 (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Much of the information you added to the article was from primary sources with extremely poor grammar and style. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. X-Editor (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

the only primary sources are the subject's own tweets and (and perhaps a transcribed interview). there has been an ongoing attempt to create a narrative with selective quoting from secondary sources; the primary sources are included to preclude this and ensure a NPOV. grammar and style in the text itself is far superiour: please compare to the atrocious "Current" section (which requires extensive editing). of all my faults, bad writing is not one of them. please specify the words that constitute "bad grammar" and "Style" Avica1998 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: I think you need to spend some more time learning the ropes on Wikipedia before making huge changes like these. To respond to your comment here, it's not the case that writing articles based on primary sources helps ensure adhering to a neutral point of view. You may wish to read WP:PSTS, and WP:BLPPRIMARY: Wikipedia is generally based of secondary sources, particularly when dealing with material about living people. We generally trust what secondary sources find important to mention about primary sources, rather than writing our own analysis of primary sources ourselves.

To discuss your edits, first, sources: MEAWW is unreliable gossip stuff, Substack articles are self-published blogs (WP:BLPSPS), you can't use primary court case documents in a BLP (WP:BLPPRIMARY), and you especially can't use forum posts by users on texags.com. Regarding style, I'm not entirely sure what you were going for with those tweets in notes separated by spaces, but that's not how things are meant to be formatted (for one, there shouldn't be spaces between the citations). Wikipedia:Citing sources has information on all that. I didn't get an extensive/proper read through of all the edits, so I can't comment on grammar. Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

see restored templates Avica1998 (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think your interpretation may be a bit off:

An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources

Still, I think I'll leave the quotes alone for the time being until the remainder of the article is properly edited. Avica1998 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: You are ruining this article with bad sourcing, bad grammar, bad copyediting, bad formatting and bad style. X-Editor (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

pending question Avica1998 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998, please stop editing the article, and actually build consensus for your changes at this talk page. You'll know you have consensus when you see editors affirm their support for your points. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

see view history Avica1998 (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The edit history reveals an edit war and three revert rule violations. Please stop and seek consensus. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998, which part of the following failed verification? "Fortune stated that she has "cemented herself as a peerless authority" whose name became "synonymous with youth culture online" during her time with The Daily Beast and The Atlantic." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

see revision 05:04, 1 July 2022‎ Avica1998 Avica1998 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: that revision does not contain any explanation for the tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Avica1998 (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998, let me ask in another way: could you please tell me which words in the article text are not verified by the source? In placing the tag, you are saying "all or part of this is not supported by the source". Which parts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

see tags under ==Accolades== Avica1998 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

This matter is now (partially) under discussion at this ANI section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of Primary Sources

Reversions involving removal of . Currently applicable to:

• use of Substack as reference in "Early life and education" section. "Substack articles are self-published blogs (WP:BLPSPS)." Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• court documents used as reference in "2021 lawsuit" subsection. "you can't use primary court case documents in a BLP (WP:BLPPRIMARY)..."Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)"|date=June 2022}}

As I previously noted in my edit summary, the substack reference is where she's talking about herself in this source, and we state in the article that this is what she said. this is an exception to concerns about (more traditional) primary sources. this is effectively self-published about herself, which can be ok per WP:BLPSELFPUB. This is a simple claim about Tumblr inspiring her. Nothing "unduly self-serving". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS: “Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs…”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self-published_sources (original emphasis)

Source is a Substack blog written by Brad Espostio. Avica1998 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The tag I removed was associated with this source she published herself. Regarding this Substack one, you need to recognize that this source is an interview with Lorenz, and as I've explained numerous times she is telling information about herself, which is acceptable especially since it isn't self-serving. She's telling where she was born, etc. Totally fine. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

So your position is that WP:BLPSPS doesn't apply when the third party is interviewing the subject of the BLP? Avica1998 (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

To me, this interview with Lorenz aligns better with WP:BLPSELFPUB that allows a self-published references about oneself to be used if they are not self-serving, etc. Her declaring where she was born is a non-controversial statement. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The essay WP:INTERVIEWS captures my thinking on this matter well. I wouldn't use the interview for anything controversial, but it's fine as a source for her birth place. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

So your position is that WP:BLPSPS doesn't apply when the third party is interviewing the subject of the BLP AND the WP:INTERVIEWS subject matter is not controversial? Avica1998 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. The third prong of it is that the material in question is supported by the subject's own statements in the interview, and not the comments of the interviewer or writer. And all of this is to clear the hurdle of RS, after which there's still a NPOV/DUE issue with interview content. Birth location is evidently due, so no issue here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. It runs contrary to Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC) interpretation. Avica1998 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Selective biography

Reversions involving removal of Lorenz's pre-NY Times media work:

Lorenz worked for the Daily Mail from 2011-2014. After a short stint writing for the The Daily Dot in 2014, she was a technology reporter for Business Insider from 2014-2017. In 2017 she wrote briefly for The Hill’s blog section, and was assaulted by a counter-protester while covering the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. From 2017-2018 she worked as a technology reporter, this time for The Daily Beast. From 2019-2022 she was a technology reporter for the The New York Times, during which time she was made a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism. She likewise signed a contract with publisher Simon & Schuster for a book titled Extremely Online: Gen Z, the Rise of Influencers, and the Creation of a New American Dream and was sued for defamation resultant from one of her articles. The book has yet to be publishedand the lawsuit is ongoing.

References

@Avica1998:, why did you paste this here? Do you have a policy-based argument for including this content? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

See -ZimZalaBim talk 03:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC) @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Avica1998 Avica1998 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem increasingly incapable of engaging in any meaningful discussion. What is your point? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should read what you wrote Avica1998 (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Your abject resistance to communicate meaningfully is disruptive and contrary to the point of this project. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

[ANI] is not the place for content discussion/disputes. If you think there is bias, bring it up on the relevant talk page. --ZimZalaBim talk 03:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Avica1998 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, you've pasted a comment I made on ANI here. So, what exactly is it that you'd like to have discussed or considered about this content you pasted above? Please articulate it clearly so other editors can help reach consensus. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm similarly baffled. How does that ZZB quote explain your view on the content under discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

-ZimZalaBim questions the relevance of this section on the talk page, then a few hours later states this section belongs on this page. Avica1998 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you selectively choosing from the subject's prior media experience, why is that experience not chronologica and why does the last 11 months of that experience comprise half of the article? Avica1998 (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Finally some context for this content being pasted here. I think it could be wise to simplify her career history and ensure chronological, and this summary might be suitable. I'd hesitate to include Goodreads as evidence as to book's status, or link to the court case itself (primary). And this doesn't include her recent departure from NYT and move to the Post. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The lawsuit cite isn’t primary, its secondary. See [Justia]. GoodReads is technically secondary as well, but I take your point. This WAPO source has a 2023 pub date: https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/2022/02/01/taylor-lorenz-joins-washington-post-columnist/ Avica1998 (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Justia simply uses an API or similar tools to pull docket information from PACER or other databases and presents them on their website in an accessible fashion. As such, it isn't really a secondary source, and WP:BLPPRIMARY applies. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No other objections? Avica1998 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The mention of the suit needs to be removed unless it can be sourced to RS (a high school newspaper is not). Innisfree987 (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I see Avica1988 inserted a version of the biography above, and I went ahead and removed the duplicate content (best not to purposefully include that, even with a duplicate tag). And I also did some editing for readability, which also included removal of the book mention. Just signing a book contract isn't inherently notable (unless it was highly sought after or had a huge advance, which isn't the case here). If it gets published, then we include it. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:MOS

"Accolades" are not an official section of a biography and are more suited to a resume. The referenced articles are opinion pieces. - 20:45, 27 June 2022‎ 128.235.13.0 talk‎

Of the three remaining clustered sources at the end of the "2021 lawsuit" section, two are behind paywalls, one is a forbidden court document per Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC), and all three are used solely in support of a quote from The NY Times spokesman. :Avica1998 (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC); - 15:43, 29 June 2022‎ Avica1998

Second paragraph of "Libs of Tik Tok" section improperly clusters sources at the end of the sentence, whereas there are three separate content-text that should be inlined: "inline citation avoids inadvertent plagiarism and helps the reader see where a position is coming from." Wikipedia:Citing sources

So fix it. If you see citations improperly clustered, then feel free to determine the correct spot and move them. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Accolades

Despite the disruptive editing, here's a thread to discuss the Accolades section. Personally, I think it is normal and fine to include mention of the subject of a biography has been viewed and evaluated. Whether this might be too much focus on accolades could be up for discussion, but seems appropriate to include mention of accolades to help contextualize the criticism that comes later in the article. Note, however that that use of the {{peacock}} inline tag is inappropriate: we are quoting the language used by other sources; it is not us saying those things about her. -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"Restored revision 1096180311 by Avica1998 (talk): (1) the changes you are unhappy with were not "vandlaism". (2) is it not "peacock" when we are quoting other people's wording (if you don't like it, discuss on talk); (3) ok to have accolades or similar sections. again, discuss on talk "

What "other people's wording" do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Avica1998 (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

In these edits you reapply a peakcock inlinetag as if we're using inappropriately flattering words in our text. But the article is quoting the sourced content. Our article isn't saying Lorenz is "synonymous with youth culture online" but we are quoting someone else who did. Whether you feel it is ok for us to include that quote is a different question than us using improper adjectives to describe the subject. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Your quotes cannot be verified Avica1998 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Um, what? We are quoting what other sources have said about the subject of the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

To which specific sources are you referring? Avica1998 (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

when I click on the links to the Fortune staff (September 2, 2020). "Taylor Lorenz | 2020 40 under 40 in Media and Entertainment". Fortune. Retrieved September 3, 2020. cite and the Adweek staff (August 9, 2020). "Meet Adweek's 2020 Young Influentials Who Are Shaping Media, Marketing and Tech". Adweek. Retrieved September 4, 2020. cite I am sent to a subscription page. I cannot verify the quotes you are using, Avica1998 (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998 That isn't at all what "failed verification" means. Having to pay for access to a website is completely acceptable on wikipedia and does not prevent the website being used as a source, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. "failed verification" tags are for when you've actually looked at a source and confirmed that it does not support the text of an article. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at the text that the source takes me to and it does not support the text of the quotation. Your argument doesn't really address the concerns shared by 128.235.13.0 talk at 20:45, 27 June 2022‎‎. Avica1998 (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998 Stop playing dumb, if you are actually going to argue that someone was citing the login page you are very quickly going to find yourself at the end of a WP:CIR block. If you want to evaluate whether the source here supports the text you need to actually access it or find someone who can. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If the quote is legitimate, find another source that documents it and insert it in its place. Avica1998 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

As IP 192 explained, that is not how verification works here; if the source were offline altogether and you couldn’t see it for that reason, it would still be legitimate to use. Nevertheless here is the section of that article from which the quote is taken: "As the role of a technology reporter has evolved into a more sociological profession, the Times’s Lorenz has cemented herself as a peerless authority. During her stints at the Daily Beast and The Atlantic, her name became synonymous with youth culture online. But this characterization amounts to a reductive view of her coverage of the ways in which people of all ages use Internet platforms today." Innisfree987 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

see Plagiarism in regards to the need for verifiable sources in problematic articles such as this one Avica1998 (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please specify your concern. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

How is another source supposed to reproduce the text of that article without ending up being sued for copyright infringement? As I explained above there is no requirement at all that sources should be freely accessible. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: IP 192 is correct in directing you to WP:SOURCEACCESS, a sub-section of the Verifiability policy. That policy subsection states that we should not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. Paywall issues are particularly common in academic articles, where most research papers are not open access and are behind paywalls, however we absolutely include those papers because they typically of the highest quality.

There's a few ways to work around paywalls. WP:LIB provides access to many journals and sources. WP:REREQ allows editors to request a specific source or selection of sources as needed for an article. And more often than not, someone will have archived the source in full on Archive.today or the Wayback Machine. For example, the full text for the Fortune is available on archive.today. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Which was my point. 128.235.13.0 talk at 20:45 makes a different but equally valid point. Avica1998 (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't really address the concerns shared by 128.235.13.0 talk at 20:45, 27 June 2022‎‎. Avica1998 (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

To save folks some time, IP 128 removed §Accolades with the edit summary "Accolades" are not an official section of a biography and are more suited to a resume. The referenced articles are opinion pieces." I disagree that the cited articles are opinion pieces, but I am fine with removing Accolades as a subsection and merging the content into §Career. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Firefangledfeathers. Here's the diff to the contribution if anyone's interested. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone (@Sideswipe9th, Firefangledfeathers, ZimZalaBim, and Innisfree987:. That interaction was particularly puzzling. (Had I been aware of this I would've jumped in to assist.) From what I can tell, the Fortune source is behind a popup you need to close, not even a full paywall? Almost all the citation templates include a "url-access" parameter specifically to identify paywalled sources from the get-go as well. Given this interaction, I am especially concerned about their master's account when its block expires. I had an early (inactionable) feeling that this account may have been a sock when it first showed up but I couldn't place it. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Defamation lawsuit dismissed?

Hi. I saw on Lorenz's twitter that the judge dismissed the 2021 defamation lawsuit filed against her/NYT by Ariadna Jacob: https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1567943737338380288. I think this should be updated, but the only problem is that I can't seem to find any sources about it other than her tweet, so I'd have nothing to source it to. Endwise (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: I saw that and was wondering as well. Based off of the info in the tweet, I found the full order online (so it is verifiable), but the problem is WP:BLPPRIMARY comes in to play here. But I think that we might need to WP:IAR a bit (perhaps with a {{better source}} template) on this given that the case was dismissed. Right now it is unfairly (WP:DUE) stating that it is pending when the case was dismissed by the judge, thus upholding (at this time) that Lorenz et al didn't do anything wrong. This feels complicated from wiki perspective; I don't like IAR around BLP but there is an argument to be made here per BLP that it would be in the subject's best interest (and in the interest of WP:NPOV) in this case to at least temporarily use the source (minimally, just to the fact that it was dismissed)? I'm torn. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This problem is probably not that uncommon, where the update to a story is not as "exciting" as the original story itself so the update doesn't get published by the press. Not really an issue for a newspaper where reports are fleeting, but it's a significant issue for Wikipedia where the original report will stay up eternally. I would imagine this has happened before?

I agree with you and think (hopefully temporarily) using the primary source court document is probably the best thing to do. I imagine the reason WP:BLPPRIMARY exists is to protect the privacy interests of living people, so that little-known court cases and the like aren't dredged up by editors to try and damage people's reputation. But not updating this section would seem to be far more likely to cause reputational damage etc. than using the court document to update it would. So upholding the letter of BLPPRIMARY would seem to go against its spirit. Perhaps this should be discussed at WP:BLPN? Endwise (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: I agree that wider discussion would probably be helpful here. This isn't an area that I deal with terribly often, but I believe that what you have said regarding this is fundamentally true and not updating it could cause Lorenz and the NYT unwarranted reputational damage given that the suit was dismissed. Do you want to start the thread or shall I? TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Taylor_Lorenz_and_WP:BLPPRIMARY. Endwise (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Endwise:. I've copied some of my comments over there and left my 2c. Thanks for initiating this discussion. Hopefully we'll get some agreement there or a path forward... TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY should not be abused even if it is favorable to the subject, unfortunately. This is a good time for everyone to review WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:VNOTSUFF and WP:RECENTISM, and try to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, newspaper, magazine, blog or bulletin board announcing every new update. When Wikipedians trip over themselves to slavishly cram every verifiable news blip into an encyclopedia article, before issues are fully resolved, they often leave readers with a big fat "so what?" "why the hell am I reading this?" "What's the significance?". If no significance for a fact can be evinced beyond "uh, it happened", then writers should consider omitting it until its significance in the biography of the subject can be made more clear. While intended for fiction, Chekhov's gun comes to mind: if an article is little more than a series of "and then", "and then", and "then", but none of the "and thens" have context or follow-ups that explain the significance of the happenings, then the article is not very much worth reading. If the news reports someone has a professional (but not uncommon) mishap, it may be as unremarkable as an article reporting someone ate a peanut butter sandwich. Unless the result of such facts are either: A) they were fired/censured/promoted/celebrated for the former, or B) died from a peanut allergy from the latter, then neither event is probably worth including in an encyclopedia. PS: it's also bad form to label an entire section of a BLP "Controversies". See WP:STRUCTURE, WP:BLPBALANCE, and WP:CRITS. If controversial aspects warrant mention, just mention them in the context of noteworthy writing rather than framing (and de facto implying) that most of her articles are controversial. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing for here: are you saying the whole section on the defamation lawsuit should be removed, or that it should stay but we should not mention that it has been dismissed? Agree about re-organising content so that there isn't a WP:CSECTION, though that's a separate matter. Endwise (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good question: is a dismissed lawsuit even significant enough to include (let alone devote a subhead to)? I made a trim to reduce the weight, but have been reverted so I bring the question here. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is NOT reliable

Sourcing to Fox News in regards to the "Libs of TikTok" incident completely unnecessary, as there are plenty of good sources reporting on it. I also don't see the point of going into the specifics of what she was accused of. We could fill an entire book with the nonsense right wing pundits accuse journalists of on a regular basis, for the simple act of practicing journalism, and none of it is even remotely noteworthy.

Therefore I recommend replacing The article drew criticism from American conservatives, who accused Lorenz of doxxing Raichik, and additionally accused Lorenz of hypocrisy for previously speaking out against online harassment. In response to the article, Libs of TikTok accused Lorenz of harassment for visiting the homes of her relatives, and tweeted that "Thankfully I'm currently holed up in a safe location. I'm confident we will get through this and come out even stronger." with In response to the video, Raichik, and a number of American conservatives accused Lorenz of doxxing and harrassment. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's still relevant for this article to describe specifically what she was being accused of, though I can understand your desire to reduce the reliance on Fox News. I have trimmed it down a bit further and reduced reliance on it. Endwise (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

She's being accused of "doxxing and harrassment", which is what my recommended revision already states. Accusations of "hypocrisy", which is such a cliche at this point, it's considered one of the most basic jokes comedians fall back on when mocking conservatives, and Raichik's story about "hiding in a safe spot" do little besides hurt the neutrality of the article, by suggesting that what Lorenz did was something nefarious, rather than standard investigative journalism. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I already removed the "holed up in a safe location" quote before you wrote that comment; it's more relevant to Libs of TikTok than Lorenz. Endwise (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In a similar vein, the cause revealed the identity of the person behind the account as Chaya Raichik, and also revealed her occupation, religion, and, through a later-removed hyperlink, her address is included here based on the FoxNews article, and some WP:SYNTHESIS by citing the WashPo piece. I actually can't find any other WP:RS that include such specific information about what information was revealed, and it's unclear even from the FoxNews article exactly what address was included (her work address? her home address? her family's address?). Any suggestions for addt'l cites here or better phrasing to reflect the actual cites? SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek is also not reliable post 2013 and should be removed. The quote you mention removing is back @Endwise:. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it. Endwise (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• @X-Editor: Why are we now increasing reliance on Fox News? As written the addition also appears to run into WP:VOICE and WP:DUE concerns. Additionally, given that this was written it appears directly for Tucker Carlson Tonight (see how it's categorized), this also falls quite clearly into Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Fox_News_(talk_shows) and therefore shouldn't be sourced from as any sort of fact. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Lol what garbage. "LOL WELL IT MUST BE WRONG BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT WING!!! LET ALONE ALL THE SHIT SHE GETS AWAY WITH." Rethink your life. 71.139.97.78 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's been established that Fox News is a reliable source, get these trolls out of here 73.47.251.80 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Address on LibsOfTikTok's real estate license

The article previously claimed that Raichik's real estate license contained a home address associated with relatives of hers. Neither of the citations given supported that. The Newsweek article mentions relatives, saying that Lorenz visited their address, but not that she published it, and does not mention the license. The Mediaite article claims that the license contained Raichik's home address, but seems to source this claim to tweets from third parties. In the New York Post article I added as a citation, a spokesman for the Washington Post claims that the license contained a former professional address. Given the dispute about whether the license contains her home address or her professional address, I think the most we can state for sure is that the Washington Post claimed that it contained a professional address. Certainly we have no reliable source for the assertion that it was a home address associated with relatives. I might add that the address listed on the real estate license is clearly that of a real estate office (https://opengovus.com/new-york-state-real-estate-license/109912266950), but that likely constitutes original research. Mwphil (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Posted the wrong link to the real estate office, it should be https://opengovus.com/new-york-state-real-estate-license/10991226695. Mwphil (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

X-Editor reverted the edit on the grounds that the New York Post is not a reliable source. I'm fine with not including information from the New York Post, but that leaves us with absolutely no information whatsoever about addresses; as I discussed above, we have no reliable source for the assertion that it was a home address associated with relatives. Taking away the New York Post leaves with no information at all about what that address was, so I've removed any reference to it. Mwphil (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that and addressing, @Mwphil:. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

February 2021 incident on Clubhouse

​ I have removed the short paragraph on whatever went on between Lorenz and Andreessen. This is because BLPs have high standard for inclusion of content. They require reliable sources. The Greenwald piece seems to be the best available, and this is not admissible because it is self-published on Substack. All other sources are quite marginal. It is totally possible that future coverage will be better, and it is totally possible that I am missing high-quality sources that are currently available. Jlevi (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That incident is the main reason anyone's ever heard of her, and it will be the high-water mark of her notoriety. 2601:647:4F00:7D:DF5:94B8:D2F8:26B7 (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

She's now also known for doxxing the woman who owns the "LibsOfTikTok" account, which her fellow nazi Megan McArdle excused because the account belongs to an orthodox Jew. 2601:647:4F00:113A:E8DB:241:AF12:BE4D (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. this article incorrectly says that Libs of Tick Tock doxxes people, which she does not. She never posts anything that someone did not willingly put on the internet themselves. She doesnt add information about them. Lollipop55414 (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

— 2601:647:4F00:7D:DF5:94B8:D2F8:26B7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Fox News (the news section, not the opinion section) has now published a piece on this, which I've added: https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-taylor-lorenz-marc-andreessen-r-slur 98.33.111.31 (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

— 98.33.111.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This source is much better. Jlevi (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversies do not belong in Wikipedia bios unless they have "enduring notability", per WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:BLP). In other words, it has to have some sort of lasting impact. The current content does not meet that standard. Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is the most notable thing most people have ever heard about this person, and should definitely be included. By now there are several reliable sources, and thus the arguments below have moved on to explaining why it isn't notable enough. It's not reasonable or not in good faith. You could mark the article for deletion because this person is just not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But can't have it both ways. MikeR613 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I concur with the points raised by Kaldari on this. WP:CSECTION applies as well. The aspersions that were above (mostly redacted by Kaldari per BLP policy) calling it the main reason anyone has heard of a 40 under 40 journalist and the WP:CRYSTAL territory of speculations are concerning and possible indications that those making them are unable to maintain objectivity with BLP policy in mind. Rolling Stone has referred to this as a harassment campaign against Lorenz; we shouldn't be perpetuating one, especially an event that currently does not demonstrate lasting notability. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If Rolling Stone names it as a harassment campaign, shouldn't that source be included in the article? Just ignoring the thematic is not feasible. And Mediaite is definitily a serious source. It is feasible to say that this story is the reason that many people have heard of her, so it should definitely be included in one way or another in the article. If you want to use the Rolling Stone source for that, please go ahead. Celebrities feeling harassed is no reason on Wikipedia not to include stories, since that would apply to almost every controversy. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Do you mean this source from Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/useful-idiots-taibbi-glenn-greenwald-1127937/ ? That could definitely be included in the article. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We are still falling into WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:CSECTION territory, as was pointed out by Kaldari. Enduring/lasting notability of individual events/controversies is key, and this has not met that bar at this time; this appears to include the current Verge incident content as well. The section states that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style" and that "...routine news reporting of...celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". As a more tangible example, even plane crashes that get international media attention can be not notable enough for inclusion; that Canadian crash received far more press than this incident has.

WP:NPOV and WP:BLP must be considered and followed at all times. If you want to include a "thematic", then the existing Verge line should be reworked to say "Lorenz has been the subject of multiple harassment campaigns." (with Rolling Stone and the current sourcing as ref) in order to maintain its neutrality and avoid WP:UNDUE weight. It should not receive its own section. The RS source I was referring to was more recent. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Kaldari. I take no position on the so-called "harassment campaign"; I don't even know what the "Clubhouse incident" is. But this article is one of the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The entire page could easily be distilled into a few relevant paragraphs. Avica1998 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Age

@Endwise Do you have any proof of these multiple ages or that she is supposedly trolling? You reverted it with no substantial evidence to support it, with me posting the link of her tweet saying her age. If you do not provide any proof for your claims, I will revert your revert. Tweet with age straight from Lorenz for anyone wondering: https://archive.ph/iMwkZ HeinzMaster (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

We've been over this before on this article. Principally, these tweets are usable only if the points in WP:ABOUTSELF are met; given the age she listed in her tweets disagrees with all the secondary sources we have, it's clearly not the case that there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Regarding the article history, these tweets/ages were actually previously added by me, and removed later by Little Professor in this edit. I can't find the tweet I was referring to in my edit summary, but see e.g. this tweet where she says the thing about her being 43 is a conspiracy theory and a tweet from a couple months ago where she says she's actually in her mid-30's; clearly such contradictory tweets cannot satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF.

As an aside, that's not how edit warring works; you were the one that added it. Endwise (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

She's 43

She admitted to being 43 this week.

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/taylor-lorenz-chinese-propaganda/

https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1509432405030936578

69.127.80.46 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sadly there are some things in life we cannot directly know—like the true face of God, or the age of Taylor Lorenz. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 05:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor Should probably allow the edit then. Not sure why a new, direct source isn't being acknowledged. corylulu (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The age 43 tweet will eventually auto-delete and she may attempt to say she never said it. Including here an archive link of that tweet

https://archive.ph/iMwkZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2102:30D4:E10A:1CAB:7191:C453 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

would edurank count?

says her age is 38 under the article 49 Notable alumni of Hobart William Smith Colleges 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:C578:BB08:7893:4515 (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

I just wanted to add that her age variation is way further than being maybe 3-4 year difference, based on evidence...she is closer to 50 than pre 40......that's a huge discrepancy....... 170.250.45.66 (talk) 23:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Khrincan (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Excessive tagging

@UnorthodoxyAC: Citing a news organization's website for the fact that a person worked for them is considered an acceptable use of primary sources and these descriptions are generally not written by the subject themselves. Please revert yourself and let's discuss per WP:BRD. Tag bombing isn't helpful. CC @Innisfree987: TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but every primary reference is to be accompanied by either a secondary or tertiary sources, as per WP:USEPRIMARY. Primary sources always require a second reference, regardless of the subject at hand (see Wikipedia:PRIMARYCARE). UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources always require a second reference, regardless of the subject at hand -- this is false, as explained by the essay you linked here and the policy (WP:PSTS) you linked in your edit summary. Simple info like "x person worked here from 2011-2014" are, as WP:PSTS and WP:PRIMARYCARE says, "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts" and so acceptable to use a primary source for. In general, it is helpful to read essays/policies and guidelines before citing them. Endwise (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. In fact PRIMARYCARE specifically says, “A page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person.”

Additionally @UnorthodoxyAC, all the material in the lead is cited in the body of the entry and we do not repeat citations in the lead except in cases of controversial claims. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Where they worked somewhere and the years they worked it (and stuff of that sort) is non-controversial. Again, please revert yourself @UnorthodoxyAC:. At this point there is a rough consensus between 3 editors that the tags aren't needed/are incorrect. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Strike that. Endwise reverted. Amend to say "don't restore the tags" as at this point that would be both edit warring and disruptive editing. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good... my mistake UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I did, but may have misread it. No need for assumptions. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Why does this person have a WP page?

I am unaware of anything of significance she's done. Thus, I suggest that her page be deleted. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:E1B5:4CEE:714E:F285 (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC) 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:6D41:A61:65A:B2BB (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There are more prominent reporters that have had their pages removed, so there's no reason for her's to remain. I feel like it's only here for political posturing. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

You can read Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion of biographies at WP:NPERSON. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

...and that solidifies the point at hand. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Not really. This article meets WP:NBASIC from just the reporting on Lorenz' coverage on Libs of TikTok.

If you disagree however, like any editor you are free to nominate the article for deletion. Just please make sure to check out WP:BEFORE before doing so. However given the circumstances, I think it is very, very unlikely to be deleted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I can’t recommend pursuing deletion as the entry pretty clearly meets the notability criteria: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Emphasis in the original.) AfD nominations of entries that clearly meet WP inclusion standards are disruptive. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel that there's a strong enough cases for deletion, yet. If she does nothing of note going forward, then maybe, although I don't feel that the majority of other editors are unbiased/untribal enough to put politics aside with such things, so it'd be a lost cause. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's... not how notability works. If someone is notable now, they are notable going forward into the future. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

That's... your opinion, but several others have been deleted for exactly that. This is a topic for the future. UnorthodoxyAC (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

No. You are just wrong. WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it spelled doxxing or doxing?

In the subsection about doxxing, the word is spelled doxxing in the headline but doxing in the body. 74.120.55.241 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, both spellings are acceptable. We should try to be consistent. The sources here seem to prefer "doxxing" but our article on the subject is called Doxing and the sources there use a mixture. I am not sure which one we should switch to for consistency. "Doxxing" feels like the correct spelling to me but that's just me. What does everybody else think? DanielRigal (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Doxxing is how I always spell it, and it matches with the sources. I'm pretty sure doxxing is also a redirect to doxing, so there's no big problem with that either. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I changed all non-quoted spellings to "doxxing" as that was the first wikivoice spelling I saw in the article. In UK sources, it seems that it's spelled "doxing". I think we'll just learn to live with that discrepancy haha. Wracking ^💬 20:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)