Talk:Taylor Lorenz

Excessive Citations

Reversions involving use of :. 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.

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2024

Change date of birth to October 21, 1974. Source = post from Taylor Lorenz' personal twitter account.

https://x.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1860557006022803494 Jochexum (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: That response is almost certainly a joke. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. She has said multiple times that (paraphrasing) she feels safer from online harassment when theres less personal info about her in public. Delectopierre (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, there are COUNTLESS threads on this talk page where trolls will try to force this article to include her DOB despite no definitive source that I've seen. Delectopierre (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Did not get that impression from the response, but perhaps I missed it; I am not highly tuned in to her online persona. Epicradman123 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know for sure if that was the case with this user or not, just wanted to make you aware of the background. Delectopierre (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2024 (2)

Change Taylor Lorenz birth date from between 1984-1987 to 1974. She is 50 according to her own admittance on X (formerly Twitter). I have the Tweet to prove it. 2601:C1:400:1E0:102E:26AD:FFD9:5236 (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: or maybe we need to stop taking everything we see on the Internet as gospel. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

She said it herself??? 2601:C1:400:1E0:5C60:E48E:6176:CBD9 (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

And sarcasm is not a thing that exists. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

YES IT IS 😤 Delectopierre (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Dang it. That sarcastic response of mine should read 'yes it does' not 'yes it is' Delectopierre (talk) 07:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yearbook data

Noting here that Taylor Lorenz appears as a senior member of the Greenwich High School Girls Track Team on p. 101 of Compass 2001 and that her parents congratulated her on graduating from college p. 132 of Echo and Pine (2007). Editors should be wary of linking to the latter directly in mainspace because it contains names of family members. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Good note. Delectopierre (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2024 (3)

She is class of 1991 Greenwich high school Greenwich ct. her age range cannot possibly be true 2603:7000:9D00:B57:191A:415D:439A:E7DB (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2024 (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. Shadow311 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Just fyi - there are countless attempts to edit and/or force an age onto her article by SPAs pushing agendas. See talk page for more. I agree that this isn't a clear request in the first place, but wanted to alert you to the possible ulterior motives. Delectopierre (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I added a topic about her age, but did not notice any prior discussion topic about her age. I apologize if I missed it. Epicradman123 (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to apologize for. There are at least 5+, maybe closer to 10 threads in the archive. Delectopierre (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Lorenz's age

In this tweet she claims to be 50 years old, which would put her birth date at 1974. I would add that to the range as I believe it is a strong enough source to extend the range, but do not believe that its a solid enough source to eliminate the range. This would put her birthdate somewhere between 1974 and 1987 and her age somewhere between 37 and 50. Epicradman123 (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It was pretty clear sarcasm and should not be used as a statement of fact. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

She has stated that she does not want her birthday to be known due to the harassment campaigns against her. I don't know if she's outright said so, but it's pretty clear she trolls people who try to harass her by making contradictory statements about her age at different times. Delectopierre (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

She's a public figure. She has no choice over what information is released publicly. Kind of the way she treats everyone else.2604:3D09:C77:4E00:A06A:9F48:1080:74 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protection

As of the date stamp of this message, I've applied 24 hours of semi-protection to the Talk page due to the disruptive cadence of requests from IP and non-autoconfirmed editors to update the subject's age in reference to a post on X, and the complete absence of any other discussion that protection might impede. Chetsford (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford, thank you for this. Given how much of a problem this is, I wonder if the article (logs here) ought to be WP:EXTCONFIRMED long-term and the talk page semi'd for initially short, but also escalating lengths of times after any age-related requests. Escalating lengths is typical for articles, but I don't know if it's been used for talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea, however, in the last week EXTCONFIRMED would have only prevented two total edits. One of them was problematic, but was undone in about 30 minutes. Given that, I'm not personally comfortable increasing this to EXTCONFIRMED. Nor, however, would I object if you filed a request at WP:RFPP as there may be another Admin who has a more holistic perspective on this than I do and feels it's warranted. Insofar as the Talk page goes, we generally have a very high threshold for protecting Talk pages and try to limit protection to the bare minimum needed to facilitate good faith discussion. At this time I think the purpose of the 24 hour semi-protection has been served and, while there's a very loquacious discussion occurring about the DOB issue it doesn't seem disruptively overwhelming in the way we previously experienced with the rapid-fire requests from IP editors to make an edit sourced to a facetious reference (exhausting, yes, but perhaps not disruptive). Chetsford (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it'd make more sense to wait for the next spike in activity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the current news cycle, I recommend semi-protection. @Chetsford and @WhatamIdoing what do you think? Delectopierre (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think someone beat me to it! Chetsford (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is already semi'd for about two more months, so are you talking about semi-protecting the talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Didn't realize the article was semi'd. I think going back to 'let's keep on eye on talk page for an influx' is good for now. Delectopierre (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Birthday

Some people on Twitter have used newspapers from her teenage years to seemingly accurately triangulate her birth year. Would adding these to the Birthday note violate any privacy policy revolving around her being a minor at the time, or would adding these sources be acceptable? (citing the newspaper and not the tweet, obviously). Cheers ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on what's involved in said triangulation. WP:BLPPRIVACY directs that "Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth." So if a newspaper said "X was born on Y" that would probably be fine. If a newspaper said "X started her first year of kindergarten today" and we then calculated that most kindergartners are # years old and used that to calculate a DOB, that would probably be problematic. Chetsford (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The newspaper lists her as being a certain age, and then a month later in a different issue lists a different age—one before and one after her birthday. It would seem to thus be not allowed according to the policy you linked, if I'm interpreting that correctly. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, however, our same policy 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.". On this basis, it may be appropriate to remove the month and day altogether, as it's cited to a single source which may not meet the threshold of having been "widely published". Indeed, even the year may be problematic given it's a range made through extrapolation. Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hm, you may be right on that! Interesting. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That said, there was an RfC three years ago that concluded "[a] consensus to include all birth dates for which a reliable source exists, noting discrepancies". So, I'm not sure if that's worthwhile revisiting or not. Chetsford (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It is important to note that she has attempted to remove her DOB from the internet due to harassment, which quite clearly fails the "...such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." part of the policy.

“The internet has given me my entire career and I love covering it,” Lorenz says. But since rising to online prominence, with a million followers across her social media accounts, she has erased any trace of personal information about herself on the internet, including her age (she will say only that she is in her late thirties) because “it’s just so vicious; you just can’t believe how cruel people are. I definitely have just lost all faith in humans.” She doesn’t sound upset — she’s become hardened to this world.

https://www.thetimes.com/culture/books/article/taylor-lorenz-i-receive-death-threats-just-for-doing-my-job-ntk73wwcw Delectopierre (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Birthdate a matter of public record

Taylor was born on October 21, 1984. This can be seen in public records available on Ancestry.com. DerFritzBauer (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

We cannot use this per WP:BLPPRIMARY. GiantSnowman 14:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

See also WP:DOB, which 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. If 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. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Birthdate and BLP

Our policy is WP:DOB, which 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. None of the dates "have been widely published by reliable sources" and the subject does object to the details being made public. Sometimes a statement by the subject may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it. As other have pointe out, this does not apply to the "50 year old woman" tweet. The policy also says Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth, which means no trying to figure out DOB based on yearbooks, birth records, etc. Unless someone can find concrete secondary reliable sources that "widely publish" a date, we shouldn't include any of them in the article. Further, WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, so the amateur sleuthing above should be removed (I'll leave that to someone else, though). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

these are all mostly twitter trolls motivated by some feud or something after Lorenz stated she doesn't want her birthday publicly available.

I doubt any of these users care. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites That policy change regarding birth dates (and reporting all dates for which a RS exists) was made in response to a RfC that was almost entirely focused on this specific article several years ago. The results of that RfC were to include all the dates, which prompted the footnote you removed today. (I was not a participant in that discussion, I am just familiar with the discussion). A full date of birth has not been published, nor included, per policy. I would agree that looking through yearbooks and Ancestry.com for years of birth are venturing into original research.

Awshort (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

That RfC explicitly avoided going into the specifics of the Lorenz case (Regardless of the specifics) and omitted anything to do with her objections, harassment, and the extent to which any of the dates are actually "widely reported" (though, to be fair, I don't know the timeline of those objections). The only question addressed is basically "what do we do if we have conflicting information" and it arrived at a sensible conclusion for that question. It doesn't invalidate the rest of the policy and doesn't require that, if we can assemble dates from multiple publications, then they must be included. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"...and omitted anything to do with her objections"

Do you mean specifically Lorenz's objections? Or a subject objecting in general? Because, to me at least, "such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" addresses objections in general. Delectopierre (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The RfC framed the question without factoring in objections by the subject. Now people are claiming that the RfC trumps the pre-existing language about objections by the subject and the "widely publicized" parts of the policy. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there anywhere I can read more about the RfC framing? Reading the text it does not clearly exclude objections by the subject. In fact it appears as though it does the exact opposite. Delectopierre (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

NPOV, repeated citations, and a few other random edits

I wanted to make a quick note of this since my prior removal of several items was reverted by @Delectopierre:. Notwithstanding that the WP:ONUS is on the individual who wants content included to obtain a consensus if there is an issue, there are several issues with the article currently. There are multiple instances of citations being reused within the same paragraph when one would be sufficient per WP:CONSECUTIVECITE. Looking over the history of the article a bit, it appears there have been multiple attempts to remove anything that could seen as potentially negative about the article subject which could be an issue with NPOV. I think it's possible to make the article more balanced and have started trying to achieve that, but welcome input.

Awshort (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be balanced. I also want state that it is tricky -- but certainly not impossible -- to maintain balance for a subject whom has been the victim of multiple harassment campaigns. Even if I wanted to try to remove anything negative about the subject, and I don't intend or want to do so, I know that I couldn't. But again, I have no intention to do so.

Lastly, I'll say that the edits you made removed information and in your edits claimed that the information was, and you're welcome to cite WP:ONUS, but those edits had been there for months, and your edits did notWP:PRESERVE the information already in the article. You stated that some of the information you removed "seems promotional". Please expound on that and let me know which rules it violates. I have weakly held strong opinions, and when presented with new evidence will always evaluate it fairly. Delectopierre (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Just now seeing more of your edits @Awshort. Is there a rule that agrees with you on this? I am unaware of a rule that says anyone can edit an article and then revert a reversion, demanding proof/putting the onus on others to declare why the language that was already in the article should persist.

Rm prior edits that are in dispute; one seemed promotional and the other was previously described in the same paragraph and seemed redundant. Please discuss on TP and try to obtain consensus before restoring. Delectopierre (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, the italicized text should be in quotes as it's from this diff. Delectopierre (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The rule/relevant policies would be WP:ONUS and WP:EDITCON. An edit has presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. Then the onus is on the person who wants it in the article (The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.) When the text was removed, you reverted it back into the article. As the original person who added it into the article, it could be seen as starting a form of WP:EDITWAR (An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable.)

Awshort (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You added the Podcast information, clarified further, and here's the addition of the doxxing bit. The site about the podcast (Axios) relies on a rundown of what the upcoming video podcast will be about, and relies on Lorenz for that information. That is not someone independent discussing something, and it comes off as promotional since they are asking the subject themselves about it. Relevant policy would be WP:NOTPROMO

(Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts.) And 'the history of memes' is the text that was unsupported by the reference.

The doxxing bit was covered by the text (and using the same reference) The details were retrieved from early iterations of the account as well as previous reporting. The bit from the original reference you used seem to point to this news story by The Hill as providing which conservatives were discussed in the Forbes ref.

(Critics took issue with how Lorenz went about some of her reporting, including going to the account creator’s home in order to verify their identity.

Some accused Lorenz of “doxxing” the account’s creator, a method used by people online to broadcast the personal information of their enemies in order to encourage harassment with each paragraph relying on a tweet to support it.

It comes off as an unnecessary detail that is already covered with less undue weight attached to it earlier in the paragraph.

Looking over the article history, you removed The Hill being used to support the above statement that she was accused of doxxing (as well as an ABC reference).

You also removed the bit about her being accused of hypocrisy as the 'source doesn't support the allegation'. Except it did; ::Lorenz’s admonishers accused her of hypocrisy after it was discovered she showed up at the houses of relatives belonging to the individual allegedly behind Libs of TikTok.

I made efforts to save what text I could, or move text around to make it more balanced while still going by what the sources stated.

Awshort (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is this subject so positively biased?

I'm noticing a large number of inaccuracies with established fact in this article in particular regarding the section covering threats and attacks.

This needs a bipartisan evaluation 50.35.103.255 (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

do an edit request and provide sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

can you provide any examples? Delectopierre (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The comment about Thompson murder

@Alyo why did you revert my edit? The Hill is considered an RS. See here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Hill Vegan416 (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

But he reverted it based on the claim that this is not a "real source" which is obviously wrong. Vegan416 (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

True, that's not the reason Alyo gave. I don't know if The Hill's videos are considered the same as their articles.

I would argue the content is WP:UNDUE. I haven't watched that video, but is there really evidence that she's being "slammed" over this? I'm subscribed to her email newsletter and this is what she said there:

Let me be super clear: my post uses the royal "we" and is explaining the public sentiment. It is not me personally saying "I want these executives dead and so we should kill them." I am explaining that thousands of Americans (myself included) are fed up with our barbaric healthcare system and the people at the top who rake in millions while inflicting pain, suffering, and death on millions of innocent people.

– Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, yes, while The Hill may be reliable, the source was actually from Rising (web series), an opinion/commentary show. I don't give that show the same credit for reliability as articles that have gone through editorial review, have a byline, etc. Per WP:RSOPINION, you could attribute the "sharp criticism" to the hosts of the web show, but I would question whether the content is DUE. Given that the majority of coverage I'm seeing of this online comes from tabloids, I tend to think this isn't a particularly lasting issue yet. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I fail to see how Lorenz excuses are a reason not to include this info. At most we can add a sentence about how she tries to explain herself.

@Alyo Here are more RS that cover her comment and her being slammed for it. I think this is obviously DUE.

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/insurance-executives-murder-sparks-online-praise-hate-rcna183017

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/ceo-down-taylor-lorenzs-meme-after-unitedhealthcare-ceos-murder-sparks-fury/articleshow/116010900.cms

https://www.thefp.com/p/the-extremely-gleeful-extremely-dark

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/6/us-police-release-images-of-person-of-interest-in-unitedhealth-ceos-murder Vegan416 (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I do not see how one random quip on social media is DUE based on one 24-hour news cycle, especially given her explanation. Especially given that these articles include her comment as part of their coverage rather than focusing on her. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, what amounts to "American healthcare CEOs are not sympathetic murder victims" is hardly worth including if this is the level of coverage that's been generated. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not an honest summary of her remarks. Saying "this person is not a sympathetic murder victim" has a very different moral weight than saying "we want this person dead". Astaire (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

She didn't say "we want this person dead", nor did she imply it. She in fact directly refuted it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

She did say "we want this group of persons dead" which in a sense is even worse... Vegan416 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"We" is widely used in journalism and generally to refer to large groups of the public in general. For example, a headline that says "Why we're being hurt by the increased cost of living" does not mean that literally everyone is being hurt by it or that the author is personally being hurt by it. In this case it's undeniable that many people did in fact "want" Thompson dead because of the ghoulish practices of the American health insurance industry.

Lorenz makes it pretty clear in her actual article about this:

Let me be super clear: my post uses a collective "we" and is explaining the public sentiment. It is not me personally saying "I want these executives dead and so we should kill them." I am explaining that thousands of Americans (myself included) are fed up with our barbaric healthcare system and the people at the top who rake in millions while inflicting pain, suffering, and death on millions of innocent people.
If you have watched a loved one die because an insurance conglomerate has denied their life saving treatment as a cost cutting measure, yes, it's natural to wish that the people who run such conglomerates would suffer the same fate.

If this social media kerfuffle is included, which I think fails the DUE standard, then it should absolutely include her explanation of her wording. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Peter, I suppose you are being sarcastic of course... Vegan416 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to the slamming? NBC says tons of people online, including TL, responded with "what at least one researcher is calling a worrying sign of radicalization among segments of the U.S. population". Al Jazeera says nothing about outrage at all--just using TL as an example of people's reaction to the murder. And then your other links are the Times of India and a Bari Weiss project, neither of whom I would describe as being descriptive of what will constitute lasting coverage. "The Free Press slammed Lorenz for her comments..." is justified by this, I guess? But in the larger scheme of current news cycles, there's not much reason to think this particular comment will be generating any heat in a week. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Lasting coverage and focused coverage are not a requirement for DUE. They are a requirement for Notability for a separate article but not for a short mention in an existing article. Also as mentioned below since yesterday several other reliable sources jumped into the fray. Vegan416 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Uhh, that's the whole point of DUE? Alyo (chat·edits) 19:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

A piece of information is DUE if it is reported by multiple reliable sources with a large audience. It is not required that it will be continually reported for years. Vegan416 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

While reporting on something by reliable sources is a factor, it's not sufficient in and of itself even if done in multiple RSs. DUE requires us to look at how significant the content is and prominently the content is used in the corpus of RSs. Focused and continual reporting is an indicator that something is DUE, even if the latter is not always required when the significance is immediately clear.

Audience size isn't a factor in DUE (e.g. academic papers typically have a very small audience, but are better indicators of what is appropriate to include in an encyclopedic article about a subject).

The following from WP:BALASP seems relevant here: For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Well other editors here think that this is not an isolated event, but part of a pattern of behavior: "Lorenz gets viral/infamous moments like this all the time". But his one is particularly outstanding even against this background. Vegan416 (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Inclusion. This has been covered by NBC, CNN, WSJ (opinion), Chris Cuomo, etc...

Given the media coverage (not just conservative media), I think inclusion is appropriate. This isn't just a passing controversial comment that a media outlet that is looking for clickbait picks up. The murder is one of the biggest media stories in the country and the lack of empathy has been picked up by a number of outlets. Rightly or wrongly, depending on your viewpoint of health insurance companies, this is going to be party of Taylor Lorenz's story.

I think the post should include clarifying language that she is specifically not advocating murdering anyone.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/06/business/insurance-claim-denials-unitedhealthcare-ceo/index.html

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/health-insurance-unitedhealthcare-brian-thompson-murder-obamacare-medicare-taylor-lorenz-8f8ca0fb

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chris-cuomo-scolds-journalists-celebrated-161416345.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/insurance-executives-murder-sparks-online-praise-hate-rcna183017 PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• ✅︎ Support inclusion - Her comments have had significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. She did an interview with TMZ Live defending her remarks and an essay on her Substack. Chris Cuomo criticized her comments. The lorax (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your exclusion of the "royal we" part of her comment was a mistake. But still, it's UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  In addition to wide coverage from sources like TheWrap, her comments have caused a significant spike in views to the page, which should be considered.The lorax (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Page views play no part in this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  

  Image of Pageviews of Taylor Lorenz last 90 days (as of Dec 6, 2024)

Lorenz's comments have now been the main subject of critical editorials in the Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal, both generally reliable sources per WP:RSP and among the largest newspapers in the UK/US. It is increasingly untenable to argue that including her comments (and the backlash) is undue. Astaire (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I would also add this opinion piece in USA today, which says "The most disgusting, in my opinion, are the social media posts from Taylor Lorenz, a perennially obnoxious presence in the media world. I hate to give her any more attention, but she deserves to be called out because of her past prominence." That'q quite heavy slamming...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/12/05/united-healthcare-ceo-shooting-social-media-memes/76794711007/ Vegan416 (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The key word here is "opinion". WP:RSOPINION, to be precise. These opinion pieces don't carry the weight to overcome WP:UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. Opinion pieces in RS don't carry weight in determining factual veracity (about which there is no dispute here). But they do carry weight in establishing DUE. And you are also wrong in claiming that we need to overcome WP:UNDUE. Because WP:UNDUE was not established at all. This is just your opinion. Vegan416 (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. There is nothing in either page to suggest that opinion pieces do not contribute to due weight. WP:DUE says: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources... And WP:RSOPINION says: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact.

WSJ, USA Today, and the Telegraph are all generally reliable sources at WP:RSP. Obviously we cannot use these opinion pieces to state in wikivoice something like "Lorenz is a perennially obnoxious presence in the media world". But according to RSOPINION, we can use them to source the backlash to Lorenz's comments, and these opinions also go toward establishing due weight (since they were "published by reliable sources"). Comments that can be sourced to reliable news articles (NBC News, Al Jazeera, etc.) and that are criticized by editorials in three national-level newspapers are clearly due for inclusion. Astaire (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. And now I can add yet another reliable source. This time in a news section (and not an opinion):

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/06/business/insurance-claim-denials-unitedhealthcare-ceo/index.html Vegan416 (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

All this says is that Lorenz wrote a piece about public sentiment about the murder. Given cultural reporting is one of her beats, this is routine work. Correctly analyzing and explaining the reasoning for which members of the public might support actions that many consider deplorable is obviously not the same as endorsing the action itself. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Patar knight First, what you say here is nonsense. See what NBC says she did beyond the "And people wonder why we want these executives dead" comment:

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/insurance-executives-murder-sparks-online-praise-hate-rcna183017

"Lorenz [...] also posted the photo of another insurance company CEO with a birthdate and a blank date of death. (That post has since been removed.) And she reposted a post that said: “hypothetically, would it be considered an actionable threat to start emailing other insurance CEOs a simple, ‘you’re next’?”"

This looks closer to endorsing the action than to just "writing a piece about public sentiment about the murder".

Second, even if we could be sure with 100% that she didn't mean to endorse the murder, this is completely irrelevant here since nobody here suggests the write in wikivoice that she endorsed the murder. All we suggest is to quote what she said verbatim, plus her later explanations and mention also the responses to her comments. It is really becoming bizarre to claim that this is UNDUE. Vegan416 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This looks closer to endorsing the action is your WP:OR. Patar knight is correct, Lorenz was doing her job in writing about society on the Internet, which is what makes this UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Nope. This entire argument of you and Patar that "she was just doing her job" is WP:OR Vegan416 (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

She's a columnist who writes about Internet culture. It is her job. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I brought multiple RS who reported on this, who clearly think that she stepped way out of her job description. Otherwise why would they report it as something worth noting?

Can you cite equivalent multiple RS that say it is within her job description to say things like "And people wonder why we want these executives dead"? If not, then your line of argument here is pure OR. Vegan416 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Both of NBC's examples are a stretch.

"Blank date of death" suggests that the photo has a prominent empty field labeled "Date of death" needed to be filled in or something like that, but the actual image is the standard Google mobile search dating format for people who are still alive ("DOB -"). Identifying CEOs of businesses who make unpopular decisions (in this case, not fully covering anesthesia for surgeries) for public complaints is bog standard on social media and is hardly endorsing murder.

The "you're next" repost seems bad in isolation, but the person being reposted asserted that it was an honest question about wanting to stay in the bounds of legality if they did write to CEOs, since as a trans woman [1], she had gotten similar messages that were apparently not acted on. [2] It's pretty likely that Lorenz is familiar with the poster since they're both big posters, and she endorses the genuineness of the inquiry in a series of replies with the poster. [3] Probably not something to repost if you want to avoid media scrutiny, but even if you want to take this at the absolute worse, it's an endorsement of making threats, not murder.

The proposed addition is so long that it is almost as long as her pre-WaPo career and about half as long as the WaPo section. Including it as is would violate WP:BALASP and if it can't be shortened while avoiding any WP:BLP concerns, that's a sign that it's more smoke than fire and might not be due for inclusion anyway. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

What you wrote here is WP:OR that should be ignored. You cannot put your own personal opinion and OR against an RS like NBC. Vegan416 (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not proposing that what I wrote should be included in the article. WP:OR has never barred editors from independently looking into source accuracy in non-article namespace discussions, especially in the context of BLPs. The links I provided shows that while the referenced facts in the NBC story are true, it appears that they lack critical context, and should probably be excluded on BLP grounds in addition to DUE/BALASP grounds. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The links you provided are all to unreliable self-published sources in social media and your OR with them cannot disqualify a statement by an RS, especially when you admit that the RS is factually correct. Vegan416 (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The same image is also reproduced by The Free Press, which is obviously anti-Lorenz, so there's no reason to doubt its authenticity.

With the exception of link for the transness of the poster (which is nonetheless easily validated as the same person), the links in the second paragraph to posts from the same Bluesky accounts that NBC itself linked to as Lorenz's and the person she reposted's accounts. These are not random accounts and an argument could be made that WP:ABOUTSELF is met.

Something can be factually correct but still lack important context. For example, it would be factually correct to say that Ag-gag laws protect the property rights of the agriculture industry, but it would need to be balanced by the context of how they are routinely used to censor animal rights activists and likely infringe upon freedom of expression rights. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece, but I'll note that the link for why Lorenz is obnoxious is a story where she uses some coarse language to basically say that mask wearing, especially in the context of presumably crowded indoor events like a book launch, is better than not wearing a mask, which is objectively correct. Seems like the Thompson killing scenario is similar: providing correct analysis in a slightly obnoxious manner. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is what I had written before getting reverted:

In December 2024, Lorenz made several tweets 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. She also tweeted a photo of Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Kim Keck. In a post on "User Mag", she defended her comments, saying, "I am explaining that thousands of Americans (myself included) are fed up with our barbaric healthcare system and the people at the top who rake in millions while inflicting pain, suffering, and death on millions of innocent people."Chris Cuomo criticized Lorenz, saying, "You are worse than what you oppose when you celebrate murder as a justifiable end for disagreement over policy. I mean, what the hell is going wrong here?"

I include her explanation, and the criticism of her from Chris Cuomo. I'm not sure why this is such a controversial addition. And the consensus above appears to be forming that including it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE. Please let me know if there's any way we can edit this to make it acceptable. The lorax (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's good, but I think better sources can be used and some rephrasing. Here is my suggestion:

In December 2024, Lorenz made several comments 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. She also posted (and later removed) a photo of another insurance executive with a birthdate and a blank date of death. And she reposted a post that said: “hypothetically, would it be considered an actionable threat to start emailing other insurance CEOs a simple, ‘you’re next’?”. She later defended her comments, saying, "I am explaining that thousands of Americans (myself included) are fed up with our barbaric healthcare system and the people at the top who rake in millions while inflicting pain, suffering, and death on millions of innocent people." Lorenz was sharply criticized by several commentators for celebrating and being an apologist for murder, some even accusing her of inciting for further murders. Lorenz denied these accusations, saying her comments didn't mean that "people should murder" executives, though she wasn't "going to weep over" the murder. Vegan416 (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

A huge paragraph and 14 citations for this is totally UNDUE. And again, if you're going to write any of this up and not include the "royal we" portion of that, that's biased editing by omission. Not to mention the unnecessary "sharply" and concluding by watering down her self-defense with the "going to week over" partial quotation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This is funny. First you complained that there were not enough reliable sources about this, now you claim that there are too many :-)

Actually I have done her a favor by not mentioning the expression "royal we", because "royal we" actually includes the speaker. "royal we" means a single person speaking about himself in plural language...

Regarding the appropriate size of the paragraph, that can of course be discussed Vegan416 (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Your lack of assumption of good faith is disturbing. If you can't AGF, you shouldn't be editing in a contentious topic. A WP:CITEBOMB is not saying there are too many sources. I think I'm done discussing this with you unless you want to elevate this to a broader community. Actually I may do that anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is shorter version:

In December 2024, following the killing of Brian Thompson Lorenz criticized an insurance company's decision to not cover anesthesia for the entirety of some surgeries, saying: "And people wonder why we want these executives dead". She also reposted someone asking if e-mailing other CEOs ‘you’re next’ will be an actionable threat. Lorenz was criticized by several commentators as celebrating and justifying the murder, some even accusing her of inciting further murders. Lorenz denied these accusations, saying that she used the word "we" in a general sense that didn't include herself, and that her comments didn't mean that "people should murder" anyone. She maintained however that many Americans, including herself, are justly angry with "the barbaric healthcare system" and that she wasn't "going to weep over" the murder. Vegan416 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Personal thoughts, Lorenz gets viral/infamous moments like this all the time. We are WP:NOTGOSSIP and should not be commenting on the latest outrage that x, y, or z did unless if it is fundamentally impactful or important to Lorenz's career... If Lorenz ends up fired, or censured or sued due to remarks, I think its a different story, but otherwise not really sure it makes sense to list this unless if coverage of this lasts more than a week. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

I agree. The goal is to write a biography that includes the essential elements of someone’s life that an encyclopedia would cover. This has not risen to that level yet. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman 1. Please show the policy page which says that only events that are "fundamentally impactful or important" to a person's career should be included in their article. 2. Please explain why you made the following edits despite the fact that they don't involve events that are "fundamentally impactful or important" to the article subjects' career?

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Raquel_Willis&diff=prev&oldid=1238101699

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lander&diff=prev&oldid=1209041570

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Pamela_Paul&diff=prev&oldid=1207854022 Vegan416 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The rule is WP:DUE and it is debatable and depends between various figures.

• Raquel Willis is a known social justice advocate and has proudly defended her support of various causes. This include pro-Palestine causes.
• Eric Lander is a scientist known for both his stewardship of the Broad Institute, his patent fights with CRISPR, and his eventual dismissal from the Biden White House for his inappropriate behavior. A previous incident that had fellow scientific community in uproar, enough to be mentioned in STAT news is fairly due.
• Pamela Paul has had multiple controversies regarding her anti-trans views. It is significantly WP:DUE to include that in her bio.

In contrast, I'm not sure the color commentary of various political opinion shows is necessarily due, especially as she is not the focus of the assasination of this health ceo, nor is she a leading voice in those who are creating memes about the incident. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

To include this, you need to argue why this is specifically WP:DUE for her encyclopedia article i.e. this is a significant encyclopedic detail that warrants inclusion, to describe everything you need to know about Lorenz. Passing mentions by others in a broader story about folks' response to the incident really suggests Lorenz isn't central to this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Lorenz's comments appear to have enduring historical significance as they are mentioned in trade articles about her career and thus don't seem to be a trivial moment that Wikipedians are cherry-picking to make her look bad. She herself is widely publicizing her comments, defending them on TMZ Live, which has a significant audience. What is the argument that she's not considered a leading voice in the narrative about people being unsympathetic towards healthcare executives? Is it that criticism of her comments is largely coming from conservative news sources? The lorax (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The company had a short-term partnership with the high-profile tech reporter that is set to expire at the beginning of the year, Semafor has learned. ... 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. So, it has nothing to do with the Thompson tweet. What's your argument that she is a "leading voice" in this? That's WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

What's @Bluethricecreamman's argument that she is NOT a "leading voice" in this? That's WP:OR as well... Vegan416 (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

They already said she's receiving "passing mentions". The RS aren't treating her as a "leading voice" in this, whatever that actually means anyway, and you and lorax have provided no evidence that she is integral to this. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman @Patar knight @Muboshgu Let me dismantle this "leading voice" argument.

First of all, none of you presented any RS that says she is NOT the "leading voice" in this. So your claim that she is not the leading voice is based on your personal impression from the sources, rather than what the sources say explicitly. This is OR by definition.

Second, if such OR is allowed in talk page discussions (as Bluethricecreamman said now) then let me present a counter OR to your OR. I claim that she is presented as the "leading voice" in several of the RS I collected in the footnotes: 3 of the sources put her name in the title of their pieces. Other 2 articles described her comments as "The most disgusting" or "representative (and massively upvoted)". And 3 other sources put her comments as the first example they gave of positive responses to the murder.

Third, I reject the premise that she even has to be the "leading voice" for this to be DUE to be mentioned here. There is no such requirement in the policy pages about WP:DUE, and you argument that it should be a requirement is just your personal opinion. Furthermore, Bluethricecreamman who introduced this premise here, himself didn't obey his own rule in his edit here. There he mentioned in Raquel Willis's article her comments about a topic in which she is very very very far from being the lead voice, or having any expertise in. Her comments there also didn't generate any lasting coverage. Nevertheless, he still considers it to be DUE. But if that was DUE then all the more so is our case here. Vegan416 (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that you've dismantled much. In order to include disputed material, the WP:ONUS is on you. The default state of information here is exclusion, not inclusion--we do not start with the entire corpus of human knowledge and then remove things when they are problematic. Patar knight and Muboshgu do not need to demonstrate that she is not a leading voice. To the extent that it is relevant to demonstrate DUE weight, you do. That isn't up for discussion, that's one of the base rules we're all operating by here.

Your use of the term "OR" is still unclear. WP:OR does not prohibit editors from analyzing sources on the talk page and presenting arguments for and against inclusion. This is a required part of Wikipedia, particularly when it results in consensus. The policy specifically envisions a world in which sources are not precise, and different editors have different reads: see the line that says In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments. Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. If you chose to abandon this "leading voice" line of argument, that's fine. But you still still need to demonstrate that any text passes DUE via other sourcing.

Finally, we are different people. You are not going to convince Patar knight, Muboshgu, or me to do something on this page based on an action taken by Bluethricecreamman somewhere else. That's just irrelevant, and I encourage you to not go hunting through other people's edit histories to drum up "evidence". It isn't a good look. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Lorenz being widely seen as one of the leading voices in promoting this anti-executives sentiment - I think I have already proved that this is indeed the case. So by this standard of DUE this issue certainly needs to be included.

I didn't yet look at the edit histories of you or Patar Knight or Muboshgu. But if you had ANYWHERE ELSE included material that, by your own preferred "rules" here, should have been UNDUE, then I'll definitely point that inconsistency here, as it would be highly relevant. Speaking in general sense (what Lorenz erroneously called "royal we" :-) ) and without making any allegations, I would say that because the concept of UNDUE is extremely ill-defined and subjective, and prone to abuse, one of the only ways to expose arguments about it as being ad-hoc is to show that they are not being used consistently BY THE SAME EDITOR. Vegan416 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I have already proved that this is indeed the case and yet multiple editors disagree with you. So by the standards of CONSENSUS the issue has not been included. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Alyo is absolutely right about edit histories. Taylor Lorenz is Taylor Lorenz, other people are other people, and other situations are different from this. The only content relevant on this talk page other than wiki policies is Taylor Lorenz. WP:Focus on content, not on contributors. And no, you haven't "proven" anything of the sort. There is clearly no consensus to include this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is my count so far:

@Alyo @Delectopierre @Innisfree987 @Muboshgu @Patar knight are against inclusion

@Astaire @Vegan416 @PerseusMeredith @SuperSkaterDude45 @The lorax are for inclusion

@Bluethricecreamman was against inclusion but changed his mind following the Piers Morgan show

So there is a light majority for inclusion.

Please correct me if I missed something.

And I have proven that 8 of the 12 secondary sources in the footnotes here see Lorenz as the leading voice in this issue, one of them saying that here comment are "representative (and massively upvoted)" of the anti-executives comments. Also of interest is that she was chosen to appear in Piers Morgan show to represent this view.

I would also like to see your explanation why the Raquel Willis comments are more DUE than the Lorenz comments. Vegan416 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I saw a correction by Patar Knight suggesting that Mediaite incorrectly transcribed her remarks.

I'm removing support for either inclusion or exclusion.

This seems like it is heading towards RFC territory. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The correction is that this isn't a vote, it's based on arguments supported by policy. By that metric, you are nowhere near achieving consensus. Repeating "I have proven..." does not make you more right, it just makes you more obstinate. For the last time, no one here cares about Willis. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's funny because none of you bring any policy argument against inclusion. Just saying obstinately that you think this is not DUE is not a policy argument. Please show us references to specific sentences in policy pages which you claim to rely on. Vegan416 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

My friend, so many people have pointed out so many policy-based objections throughout this discussion that this is an insulting request. If you are unable to understand what's been going on in this discussion, it becomes a waste of time to continue repeating what I and others are saying. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll repeat mu question: Please show us references to specific sentences in policy pages which you claim to rely on. Vegan416 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest starting with all those at WP:BLUDGEON. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

They've been fairly clear about their stance above and cited some policies, so pretending that they have no argument seems disingenuous. The WP:ONUS is on those who want to include disputed material. WP:OR, as I mentioned above, does not mean editors are not allowed to analyze the corpus of reliable sources on a subject for what is due and what is not. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Please show us references to specific sentences in policy pages which they claim to rely on. Vegan416 (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Generally, I think WP:OR applies to article content. Arguments on talkpage here about dueness aren't subject to OR. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't' think that's a fair characterization of the Semafor piece. It's not a career overview or profile. It's reporting on another bit of news on Lorenz and mentions the recent controversy. It is standard for any news articles to mention recent, related controversies of the article subject even if they're only tangentially related to the subject of the article. Inclusion of such segments isn't indicative of lasting significance unless there's some time after the controversy in question, which isn't the case here. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes. She is a polarizing figure, and any time she makes a comment that makes a certain subset of (mostly) right wing podcasters/youtubers giddy, people come on here and try to include every single time she didn't say bless you when someone sneezed. I agree with your comments here. Delectopierre (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not the case here. I don't need to rehash all of the sources but the above list of media networks are exhaustive and also encompass left-wing media. The fact that we are still talking about this a week later shows that this wasn't just a "flash in the pan" comment by a polarizing figure seeking click bait. PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No, this is exactly how the WP:RECENTISM bias of clickbait works. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Delectopierre, yes, saying "we want these executives dead" is exactly like not saying bless you when someone sneezes. (And to be on the safe side maybe I need to emphasize that I'm being sarcastic here, because looking at social media posts it seems that some of Lorenz's fans have completely lost their mind on this matter.) Vegan416 (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

And my comment included snark too. That you're nitpicking my false equivalency in a snarky comment points, once again, to WP:BLUDGEONWikipedia:Don’t bludgeon the process Delectopierre (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

References

• Support inclusion. So far, I have come away with being more convinced of the arguments from @The lorax: and @Vegan416: considering that it's rather evident that based on the substantial amount of American national news coverage from reliable news sources per WP:RS/P as well as criticism from major figures such as Chris Cuomo that it warrants an inclusion. I am genuinely confused as to how controversial this inclusion is considering that the very premise of the initial reversion was founded on false grounds as well as how similar edits have been made towards living people in the past. Of course, clarifications would have to be made but otherwise, if this much national attention is being gathered towards said comment, chances are, it's notable enough for inclusion. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 00:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Since I think that's directed at me, I'd like to know what the "false grounds" were? I stand by my first revert and no one contested my explanation. Having followed this discussion, I'm unconvinced by the arguments of lorax and Vegan416, and agree with continued exclusion of this content from the article. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we've been clear about how the existence of coverage is not in and of itself sufficient for inclusion. Otherwise, we'd be way more inundated by pop culture than we currently are. WP:ONUS and WP:RECENTISM apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alyo: You've stated that The Hill was unreliable, which has a current consensus of being reliable as of writing this. The very first subtopic of this specific section was about how it was indeed a reliable source. Your reasoning for this was on how it was apparently from Rising and how you don't give that show the same credit for reliability as articles that have gone through editorial review, have a byline, etc. which is just your own personal preference without any real significant consensus as of writing this. By the way, no one contested my explanation? I apologize if I'm confused but weren't objections why this entire subtopic exists?

@Muboshgu: Sure but if many different sources, notably NBC and CNN, go out of their way to talk about this controversy, chances are, it is indeed quite a big deal. You could state that WP:RECENTISM could be an affecting it but I fail to be convinced by that seeing how fairly niche controversies don't attract nearly as much national attention. A more well-known instance of this occurred with the entire existence of the 2024 Donald Trump rally at Madison Square Garden article where the biggest highlight of the event was with the Puerto Rico controversy by Tony Hinchcliffe where three entre paragraphs were dedicated to it from immediate national news coverage. In an alternate universe where Harris won, you could make the argument that the event had more significance in retrospective but in this universe, she didn't and at least a few people such as myself still remember it for how grossly insulting it was, even into December 2024. Another more niche instance was with the comments of Harsha Walia regarding the 2021 church fires in Canada where an entire paragraph was dedicated to them with several sources that were around the same publication time frame. Once again, I fail to see how this instance is different from the previous two instances I've stated, especially with the sizable amount of people that supported and/or mocked Thompson's murder. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 03:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

One more case for inclusion is Lorenz’s appearance on Piers Morgan’s show, where she again doubled down on her comments, saying she felt “joy” over the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. For her to go on a press tour and continue making this same point seems like a lasting part of her biography at this point. The lorax (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSP suggests looking for better sourcing than mediaite. otherwise this is looking like it might be worth a mention Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If you watch the full segment, Mediaite's transcript isn't correct. At start of Taylor's Thompson bit, she starts says: “I do believe in the sanctity of life and I think that’s why I felt, along with so many other Americans, joy, unfortunately, you know because it feels like..." when Piers jumps in during the bolded segment (which Mediaite excludes) and immediately accuses her of expressing "joy" over the killing, which she immediately denies, says that she misspoke, and clarified her point, which was about public sentiment. It's hashed over at the end and Marc Lamont Hill backs her up to the extent that it's unfair to say she felt joy over the death itself because she was interrupted. [4]

I guess you could argue that she decided to do a 180 on her previous public statements and publicly state that she did in fact find joy in the execution, but the phrasing (i.e. "sanctity of life", "unfortunately") and her subsequent explanations and denials on the show make it seem that the most reasonable explanation is that she used poor word choice that was pounced on before she could move on to her analysis.

Doing repeated media hits (she did a segment on TMZ) may be the tipping point, but Piers Morgan's show doesn't have the same reach in RSs as his previous shows do so we'll see. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, The Daily Beast also covered her comment on the program, transcribing it as:

She said she “felt, along with so many other Americans, joy, unfortunately” after the shooting last Wednesday in front of a New York City hotel.

The lorax (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

You've stated that The Hill was unreliable Yeah, flat out, that's just wrong. Provide a diff or rephrase, please. ...which is just your own personal preference Well, it's also true. Reliability has never been blanket applied to every single part of news org/site just because said site is generally considered reliable. Hill's journalism/newsroom/editorial practice is considered reliable, such that it can be used as a reference for statements in wikivoice--an opinion video from two news commentators is not under that umbrella. If you go to https://thehill.com/video, there are two separate carousels: Rising and "News". Note the difference. Nearly every major news organization in the country has an opinion board/section, for which a different set of standards for use apply. This is a clear instance of that situation. No one has contested this characterization. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Rising is an RSOpinion which I brought there for DUE. For verifiability I brought then the primary source of her BlueSky post. Anyway this discussion is irrelevant now when the number of sources (both RS news and RS opinions) have grown by an order of magnitude. Vegan416 (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure those two are good examples. Of course peoples' statements can be encyclopedic content, but the level of attention this story has gotten and the actual/potential real-life impact is nowhere close to what Hinchliffe and Walia got, though you have to adjust for the Canadianess of the latter.

The former was widely discussed on all mainstream news and some labelled it a potential October surprise.

The Walia incident resulted in public condemnation from a sitting provincial public safety minister, alleged behind the scenes from the provincial attorney general, [5] a public statement of support from the province's largest Indigenous groups, and she lost her position as head of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, which along with the CCLA is basically the Canadian version of the ACLU. The story was the primary subject of far more mainstream publications, including the big three networks of CBC, [6] CTV, [7] and Global.[8]; the largest newspaper in the province [9]; and both national papers. [10][11] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support inclusion: we should definitely have something about her reaction to the Thompson killing. "Former New York Times reporter says she felt 'joy' when UHC CEO was killed" We should discuss what specific content to include, but totally omitting this notable incident does not seem in line with WP:NPOV. Marquardtika (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Potential RFC

Maybe we can just do an RFC if this isn't resolved soon? I don't wanna do too much while issue is in flux, but I can try to draft a potential RFC text for this weekend if someone doesn't beat me to the punch first. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm for that. But what would be the exact question? Do we have to suggest a draft paragraph version, or will the question be just if the subject itself is DUE, and then (assuming it will be voted to be DUE) we can continue to argue about how to phrase it? Vegan416 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

ill make a draft this weekend and ask yall to comment on it before i put it out.. assuming nothing else happens Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

ill wait for this convo to chill down a bit. alternatively anyone else can make an rfc draft and try their hand at it too Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I may try. Never did it before. So it can be a good practice. Vegan416 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hold off on an RfC. A key issue here is the number and quality of sources, as aided by the passage of time (per RECENTISM concerns). The more you wait for sources to develop, the easier it will be to determine if RS's are treating this as a lasting issue, for which coverage is DUE. The sooner an RfC happens, the more that RECENTISM matters. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting a few more days. But here is a policy argument from here: "Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted" Vegan416 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How on earth does that apply here? No one is saying that Taylor Lorenz should be deleted. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This applies to details within the article as well. It shows that just shouting RECENTISM over and over again is not enough in order to exclude recent news. Vegan416 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The Thompson detail isn't in the article at present, it was added and then reverted. The rest of the sentence, which you didn't quote, says but the quick and contemporaneous passage of events may make any subject difficult to judge as actually notable enough for a permanent encyclopedia entry. Proper perspective requires maturity, judgment, and the passage of time (see also § Suggestions for dealing with recentism, below). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Let me if I understand your interpretation of WP:RECENTISM correctly. This sentence appears in the article of the conservative journalist Brian Kilmeade:

"In August 2022, while serving as the fill-in-host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, Kilmeade shared a digitally-altered photo of federal magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart receiving a foot massage from convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell."

This is based on just one reference from a day after the event. From the date of retrieval of this ref, we can see that this was added to the article only 4 days after the event. A quick search didn't bring up any continual coverage of this event after August 2022.

So by your standards this was a violation of WP:RECENTISM and should be deleted? Vegan416 (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Prima facie, someone employed by a news channel, even in a commentary role, admitting to presenting a fake image on air seems much seems much more significant than an independent journalist being criticized over word choice. From a quick look at the sources, it seems the Kilmeade story got much more direct interest from mainstream sources including AP, [12][13] reputable foreign sources, [14][15][16] resulted in fact checking, [17] and still got some coverage weeks later. [18][19] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

that policy text definitely does NOT apply to text in an article, just an article itself Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

So you think that according to WP:RECENTISM any piece recent news shouldn't appear in any article in Wikipedia? Vegan416 (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No one said that, and it derails the conversation when you accuse people of saying or believing things that they very obviously don't. Please stop. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

the quote you posted from that essay (technically not a policy) is about the article deletion process. I am pointing out that quote does not mean what you think it means and is not pertinent to this situation.

I said nothing in this exchange about what that essay means with regards to the thompson killing inclusion. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait, WP:RECENTISM is not a policy? So @Muboshgu was wrong when he claimed that arguments based on it are policy arguments (here) Vegan416 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

RECENTISM is an explanatory essay to NPOV, N, and NOT, three policies. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

it is basically a form of soft instructions, but if another policy contradicts the essay, the policy always wins over the essay. the community could also come to a consensus without the essay as well, though it is understood that many essays generally can help with guiding some discussions. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But as the note at the top of this essay says "it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." So arguments based on it are not policy arguments. Thanks to Bluethricecreamman for paying attention to detail. Vegan416 (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Alyo. It's probably good to have one if this disagreement doesn't resolve itself in time, but the RECENTISM of the event will skew the RFC results, with many "support: it's in the news" comments that don't utilize policy arguments. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

If anyone is going to include an RFC. it would be best to draft a proposed draft of what the content inserted will be. It's not in dispute that several RSs have covered the topic. A key issue is how to include the content without violating various policies. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that Lorenz is the subject's or repeated, coordinated, documented harassment campaigns, and regularly gets criticized by fox etc, I would support an RfC about the inclusion of controversy in general on this article.

There's an argument every time fox criticizes her. Surely some of the controversy is WP:DUE, and surely some is WP:UNDUE. But going in circles about whether it should be included every time she's criticized doesn't seem like the best path forward.

I don't know what the text should/would read, but I can try to think it through. I also welcome others thoughts on a broader RfC. Delectopierre (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is one proposal, let me know if this is too long:

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. She also posted a photo of Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Kim Keck. 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." She added that she along with thousands of Americans were "fed up with our barbaric healthcare system and the people at the top who rake in millions while inflicting pain, suffering, and death on millions of innocent people." Lorenz's comments were criticized in numerous op-eds. NewsNation's Chris Cuomo admonished Lorenz, saying, "You are worse than what you oppose when you celebrate murder as a justifiable end for disagreement over policy. I mean, what the hell is going wrong here?" CNN's Jim Acosta also rebuked her comments as a sign of the "toxicity of the public discourse." Lorenz later appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored, saying, "I do believe in the sanctity of life, and I think that’s why I felt, along with so many other Americans, joy, unfortunately..." Morgan interjected, saying, "Joy, seriously? Joy at a man's execution?" Lorenz replied, "Maybe not joy, but certainly not empathy."

How do people feel about this version? The lorax (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

way too long. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I can cut out the specific commentary from Chris Cuomo and Jim Acosta and just keep the "Lorenz's comments were criticized in numerous op-eds" bit. But maybe keep the Piers Morgan part? The lorax (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I would worry less about that, and more about what you would like to ask for in an RFC... an example 1-minute draft idea

What is the appropriate due coverage of the Lorenz thompson killer comment controversy?

A) Whole section (2+ paragraphs)

B) Whole paragraph (3-6 sentences)

C) Short mention (1-2 sentences)

D) no mention

I should note, this would need much more work, like an example of what the short mention or a whole paragraph would entail maybe? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That suggestion gives an advantage to the side who is against inclusion, since it breaks the pro-inclusion camp into 3 options. I suggest to have to questions. The first if the subject is worth mentioning at all. And then, for those who voted yes - a second question how long should it be (1-2 sentences, 3-6 sentences, or 2+ paragraphs). Vegan416 (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not how rfcs work. if the vote gets split, but a,b and c have more votes than d, the closer won't pick d. see also WP:CONSENSUS but the closer also weighs arguments and can throw votes away based on that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

more generally, though vote count matters, its not the most important, and if more folks vote a,b, and c than d, closers will be smart enough not to pick d. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The Piers Morgan incident is reported by several RS. Here are some examples

https://thehill.com/video/full-show-luigi-mangione-charged-for-killing-unitedhealthcare-ceo-taylor-lorenz-rejoices/10285801/

https://www.thewrap.com/piers-morgan-taylor-lorenz-joy-unitedhealthcare-shooting/

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/taylor-lorenz-the-progressive-journalist-who-finds-joy-in-senseless-murder

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-f-are-you-laughing-piers-morgan-loses-it-on-taylor-lorenz-during-healthcare-ceo-shooting-debate/?itm_source=parsely-api

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-killing-ex-washington-post-reporter-said-she-felt-joy-2647899-2024-12-10 Vegan416 (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I hear ya, Bluethricecreamman (talk) and wanted to suggest a shortened version of what I suggested above that corresponded to your Choice B idea (3-6 sentences):

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." Lorenz later appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored, saying, "I do believe in the sanctity of life, and I think that’s why I felt, along with so many other Americans, joy, unfortunately..." Morgan interjected, saying, "Joy, seriously? Joy at a man's execution?" Lorenz replied, "Maybe not joy, but certainly not empathy."

I'm also open to more suggestions about what a shortened section would look like. The lorax (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

Edits: Change or edit or remove:

"She is a podcaster for Vox Media" change to "she was recently a podcaster for vox Media"

Change/add in career: She was removed from Vox Media, specifically for her comments regarding the CEO of United healthcare who was assassinated in broad daylight.

One of her comments was "I felt joy" when explaining the assassination she recanted that statement to saying she felt "joyful about what the assassination has brought to light" her "healthcare argument"

Source: https://nypost.com/2024/12/09/media/vox-media-splits-with-taylor-lorenz-after-explosive-comments-on-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompsons-murder/

Notes: I don't know what all you will want to add or edit.. she is a very political figure that alot of people will like a defend and other people will not like and will criticize.. right now it's been all day and her page is protected (possibly for good reasons) however not only is it projected it was edited 8 hours ago and it still has false information.. that's not good and it's not up to normal wiki standards.. it also really looks bad..

Within minutes of dictator Al Assad leaving Syria the Wikipedia page was updated including the Syrian flag changed.. so there's really no reason why this should be wrong and still be wrong even after an update since the news.. Shacaca (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shacaca Not fully rejecting the edit request, but my read of the Semafor piece is that they're just not renewing, so she remains a podcaster through the end of the deal in early 2025. It's not false information until the deal ends. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

So if we are going to be accurate as possible its not being renewed in the beginning of the year. Shouldn't we add that part to her career? Shacaca (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Shacaca That was already in the Career section before you made your request. I'm going to close this now. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The New York Post isn't a reliable source per WP:NYPOST. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop rolling back the birth date...?

Ok, I appear to have walked into something here. I noted that Lorenz's page did not have her birth date listed, I add it, and then a few hours later my edit is rolled back. I open the talk page, and there have been SEVERAL very active discussions on this. What on earth?

1. You don't need a citation for a birth date if it's publicly available (the day and month have been made available by the subject themselves).
2. The date was included recently, along with a source. What was the issue with that previously? It seems to have been removed relatively recently judging by the edit history (I didn't find the specific edit).
3. It doesn't matter what the subject of a biography thinks about having their birthdate on the page if said person is notable, and the subject here has a relatively sizable Wikipedia page with several sources. WP:BLPPRIVACY is very clear - we should include, at minimum, the year.

Has everyone lost their mind? Do people have this page set on their watchlist in case the DOB gets added? Do we seriously need to escalate this to admins over adding a BIRTH DATE on a BIOGRAPHY of a PUBLIC FIGURE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayou Tapestry (talk • contribs)

Hi @Bayou Tapestry, WP:BLPPRIVACY states that we should only include DOBs that have been "widely published by reliable sources", and that we should err on the side of removal when the subject objects. Lorenz's DOB has not been widely published, as the people who claim to have identified it above are doing their own detective work, and she has indicated a clear preference for removing her age from the internet. Please do not re-add her DOB unless you have reliable sources. Thanks! Alyo (chat·edits) 05:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you kidding me...? It doesn't have to be "widely published", it's "it can be included if it is published". If there is a source, I will be including the age.

https://fortune.com/ranking/40-under-40/2020/taylor-lorenz/ - she was 35 in September 2020. She herself has said her birthday is Oct 21!! There are many, many sources of her age, but conveniently they are not considered reliable sources!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayou Tapestry (talk • contribs)

@Bayou Tapestry, per WP:ONUS, please revert yourself. Wikipedia works by WP:Consensus and you see from earlier discussions on this page, the material does not have it. You can advocate here to try to develop that consensus, but until you do, you cannot unilaterally impose contested material. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I truly don't care enough to fight this. Someone will revert the birthdate edit because obviously there are tons of people with this article on their watchlist ready to remove the date. I just want people to know this is really bizarre. A range for the birthdate (1984-1985), with a reliable source, was removed for no actual reason. You do not need consensus to add birthdates to biographies when the date is sourced! Normally you don't even need to provide a source for the date, I've legitimately never seen this before for someone whose birthday is public. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The policy of requiring consensus for inclusion applies to all material; I would appreciate it if you would revert yourself to work toward consensus. Additionally sources are always required for living people’s birthdays, and are necessary but not always sufficient.

Meanwhile please take care not to remove other people’s comments, as happened here. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: With all due respect, the current "consensus" here is seemingly only being followed by the same few editors with people who are relatively new to this discussion such as myself having differing perspectives, so it isn't as definitive as you're depicting it as being, especially with the frankly weak arguments being presented towards not including a DoB when sources have already covered it years ago. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 14:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Please provide all these sources that have included her DOB, noting of course that "The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified" and "Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth" (both from WP:DOB). At most, I see enough sourcing to include the year. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

BLP is a very strong principle. if she decides not to include her date of birth as public info on the internet BLP will override concerns usually. Please also see WP:ONUS but if material is added that does not have consensus it will be removed. it doesnt work the other way Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m not going to try to fight this because I don’t care enough to, but folks here understand this is really strange right? There are reliable sources that can at least verify the year, but even if an edit is made that perfectly satisfies BLP that apparently isn’t good enough? I’m sure there are thousands of people with information in their Wikipedia articles that they don’t like, but it doesn’t really matter because they are public figures. Again, this isn’t private information, this is readily verifiable info on the subject’s age.

It really just seems like there are a collection of people who feel very strongly that this specific biography not have any date included at all. There’s no greater principles than that, and they are holding this specific bio to a different standard than they would hold literally any other bio. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits don't perfectly satisfy BLP when they ignore the plain wording of WP:BLPPRIVACY. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for her year of birth, full stop. That, and her comments about her privacy, are why we don't list it. She keeps her birth year private, I don't know what about that is hard to understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. The Fortune list isn’t a reliable source? Bayou Tapestry (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You need to learn to WP:AGF. Or you're off Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok I struck it, and I'm not going to make any more edits to the article. But this is very frustrating. I made an edit in good faith that follows the rules how they are written, and it gets reverted for no coherent reason. I do not agree with the conclusion here, but there appear to be a lot of people watching this page so there's not really any point in trying to gain consensus. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

As indicated in the last version before the birth date information was removed completely by Rhododendrites in this and the subsequent edits, multiple reliable sources have reported different ages. Lorenz recently posted that she tries to keep this information private, which tracks with the varying ages in past sources. [20] Since this is both a verifiability and privacy issue, it's probably best to leave it off. At the very least, if some information is restored, it should be follow the policy at WP:BLPPRIVACY and use the ranged footnote instead of using one date. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I had added a two year range with a source, and even that got struck. I truly don't understand this. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

As shown by the sources in our previous DOB footnote that 2-year range is still potentially wrong. I'm not aware of past statements but her recent statement was made in the middle of a public spat with Nate Silver, so I think that's what resulted in the change. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bayou Tapestry, please strike your personal attacks. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I support inclusion for all the reasons given by Bayou Tapestry Vegan416 (talk) 08:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The policy you link says "If 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". So, year gets included. Hi! (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not quite the right understanding. That means something closer to "So, it would not be a direct violation of the policy to include the year, but editors still have to agree that they want to include the year(s)". Everything requires other editors to agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)