Jump to content

Talk:Taylor Lorenz

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

Excessive Citations

[edit]

Reversions involving use of [excessive citations]:. Currently applicable to "Career", "2021 lawsuit", "Libs of Tim Tok" and "Coverage of the Depp v. Heard trial" subsections.

Plagiarism

Copying from a source acknowledged in a poorly placed citation
Inserting a text—copied word-for-word, or closely paraphrased with very few changes—then citing the source somewhere in the article, but not directly after the sentence or passage that was copied.

1A. Jacob claims in the lawsuit that the article contained "numerous false and disparaging statements" about her and her business, including the accusation that she leaked nude images of one of her clients and hiked up the rent on her "content house" tenants.

1B. Jacob says the article contained “numerous false and disparaging statements” about her and her business, including the accusation that she leaked nude images of one of her clients and hiked up the rent on her content house tenants.[1]

References

  1. ^ Siu, Antoinette (August 13, 2021). "TikTok Talent Agent Ariadna Jacob Sues NY Times, Reporter Taylor Lorenz for Defamation (Exclusive)". TheWrap. Retrieved August 16, 2021.

removal

[edit]

pinging @Emir of Wikipedia@Alyo @Refael Ackermann saw this mini edit war happening.

i do think we should include the section about her dismissal though if we are worried about WP:BLP we probably need to use WP:PUBLICFIGURES and identify additional sources that state she was being investigated by wapo Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear that the AP source doesn't say she was dismissed. And wouldn't the place to add it be the "Career" section rather than the lead?
"Reporter Taylor Lorenz exits Washington Post after investigation into Instagram post". AP News. 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-02.
-- Pemilligan (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluethricecreamman, if you can find a RS that expounds a little deeper on the topic, such as an interview with an insider at WP who could confirm it was a forced resignation, then I could see that being DUE (with attribution). Barring a source, Wikipedia editors should not synthesize a statement that her exit was involuntary.
I also agree with @Pemilligan that details about her resignation, and WP's statement about it, belong in the career subsection. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ah did not read the full source that was cited. Yeah, WP:OR concerns means we shouldn't say dismissed. Also, I see we already talk about the investigation anyways in the WaPo section of her bio. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AP appears to me to imply that she was dismissed over the post, but mere implications fail BLP. I agree that it would need stronger attribution. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of the the above replies to Bluethricecreamman, particularly w/r/t placement in Career section. Is it likely that her leaving the Post is in some way connected to that Instagram story? Sure. Do we have a source saying so? No. Given what I know of media journalism, someone in DC/NYC is trying to write this story as we speak, and if there's something there we'll get that story in a couple months. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AP story just says that she resigned following the Instagram incident, not that she was fired. A spokesperson for the paper said, "She has resigned to pursue a career in independent journalism, and we wish her the best."The lorax (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read this as "She resigned after being investigated in a way she felt was biased". In this day and age (Post Bari Weiss) individual reporters can even benefit from headbutting against the MSM. Refael Ackermann (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO @Alyo comment was very much in place. More information should be included in the body, if we think it's lede worthy information. Refael Ackermann (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing I don't appreciate is the use of the "revert" function... It makes me feel like I did something procedurally wrong (notif, and red stuff, etc.), when the fact of the matter is that the disagreement is about substance. Refael Ackermann (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]