Talk:Talia Lavin

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, September 1, 2022, see discussion.
delete, September 21, 2015, see discussion.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2022)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red

On 27 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Tal Lavin to Talia Lavin. The result of the discussion was moved.

Bibliography

I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Lavin → Talia Lavin – Per this tweet (https://twitter.com/swordsjew/status/1610347775765655554), Lavin is currently going by Talia LemonOrangeLime (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

support it's their name after all—blindlynx 15:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

repeated removal of cited material

a user has removed cited material relating to the subject's primary reason for notability. i have restored the material and invite the user to discuss the reasons for removal here. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the subject's primary reason for notability, and the fact that you claim that makes it difficult to presume good faith. The fact that someone made a mistake, and fixed it quickly, but then got attacked by the far right is not WP:DUE. Obviously. Polygnotus (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daddyelectrolux: I noticed you did this elsewhere too. Can you explain why? Polygnotus (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus:: as i understand it, Lavin's notability is as a researcher, journalist, and author. as a researcher. the tattoo incident that caused her to leave the New Yorker magazine is well cited in very reliable sources. this NYT article states:

In 2018, in an incident that brought her national attention but is not included in the book, she misidentified an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer’s tattoo as being a Nazi symbol. It actually indicated his service in Afghanistan — a mistake that caused such an uproar that Lavin resigned from her fact-checking job at The New Yorker.

this NYT book review even brings it up, stating:

Lavin resolutely identifies as an antifascist; a report last week in The Nation examined how she became a target of scrutiny by ICE, which issued a press release accusing her of “slandering an American hero,” after she posted (and quickly removed) a mistaken tweet about an officer’s tattoo.

The Nation magazine also wrote a detailed article about it. the material is directly related to her work as a researcher, the fact that the material calls this work into question does not mean it should not be included. yes it was a mistake but it was a mistake that was serious enough for her to quit her job and serious enough that several outlets have considered it important enough to include it in the articles about her and her books. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daddyelectrolux: You are shifting the goalposts. You called it the subject's primary reason for notability. Why? Polygnotus (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you're still not answering. what i said was material relating to the subject's primary reason for notability. her primary notability is in her work as an author, researcher, and fact checker. as a researcher, she messed up and accused an ICE agent of being a nazi. an error so egregious that she quit her job as a fact checker for New Yorker magazine. i am simply asking for a rationale for the exclusion of this material as "undue", and i'm not getting one. Daddyelectrolux (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that I have removed cited material relating to the subject's primary reason for notability and the material I removed was not relating to the subject's primary reason for notability (which is her work). A late-night tweet is not work.

Falsely claiming that Lavin accused an ICE agent of being a nazi is a BLP violation.

The far right produces an endless stream of ragebait. Don't believe everything you see on the internet.

As Guernica writes: She didn’t start the tattoo rumor—only, briefly, perpetuated it—but far-right media entities, including the neo-Nazi site the Daily Stormer, continued to peg the mistake as hers alone. Lavin quit her job to avoid attacks on the reputations of her colleagues.

So to call it an an error so egregious that she quit her job, like you did, is incorrect (and bizarre). The egregious thing that made her quit that job was not her error but the actions of the nazi trolls.

Extended content

https://www.readtpa.com/p/podcast-talia-lavin

Yeah. I mean, it sucked. That was back in 2018. But it recurs daily, in this very warped way. I got Ken Klippenstein in The Nation, to kind of tell my story through... We sued ICE under FOIA to be like, "What do you actually have?" And they didn't have my tweet, because I had deleted my fucking tweet, which by the way, didn't say, "This guy's a Nazi." It was just a picture of the tattoo that ICE had tweeted out, without the guy's name, and it looked like an Iron Cross, and then like a picture of an Iron Cross. It was sort of like a question mark. Whatever. It was a late-night thing. I'd seen it tossed around in different circles already online.

And I deleted it after 15 minutes. I was like, "I made a mistake," you know? People pointed out it might be a Maltese Cross. And the next morning, ICE issued a press release, blaming me. We FOIA'd their emails, and they were like, "Ah, we don't have her original tweet." No one had it. Like, given all the people that picked over every aspect of my life, you think someone would have screenshotted that original tweet if it truly virally influenced a trend. It didn't. It straight up didn't. That's not factual. But at the time, I mean, I was very young. I mean, not very young. I was younger, and naïve.

part 1/2 browser is crashing

So years ago she mistakenly implied (although she did not directly accuse anyone) that someone had a tattoo that he didn't have (and if he did it would not automatically mean he is a nazi) based on a low resolution photo where you can only see part of the tattoo, and she didn't come up with it but it was just something she found online because others had made that claim, and she corrected her mistake after 15 minutes to not spread misinformation, and ironically became targeted by far-right trolls who spread misinformation.

One short sentence that states that the death threats helped inspire her work (if mentioned by an RS), fine. But to make the whole article about this one thing... Gleefully writing snarky comments like Within "several months", she was no longer with Media Matters for America... The course was canceled by May 30, 2019 when only two people signed up for the course. The Wrap reported her faculty bio had been deleted "around April 20, 2019".

People should understand what is and isn't WP:DUE for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The fact that reliable sources report something means that it probably happened, not that it must be included on Wikipedia. For example, reliable sources report your local weather every day, but we don't include that information on a encyclopedia. Our goal is not to write the news. I think BLPs should describe people the way a historian would, in retrospect.

The date on which her faculty bio was deleted is not encyclopedic information, and there is no reason to include it other than to punish her. And trying to editwar to include (far) right misinformation on two articles at the same time is a bad idea. Polygnotus (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the tattoo? It doesn't even look like an iron cross, especially not if you look at a higher resolution photo that was published later. And someone using the iron cross is not a guarantee that they are a nazi. The current German airforce uses it, and bikers and some metalheads. Polygnotus (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]