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

The comment about Thompson murder

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

---

@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 @Alyo @Delectopierre @Patar knight

We see that Lorenz's comments continue to be mentioned in RS even after two weeks passed from their beginning:

Vegan416 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

– 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)

@Alyo Well more than a week has passed, and it still mentioned: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/12/04/opinion/thepoint;https://www.newsnationnow.com/health/taylor-lorenz-health-care-ceo-shooting/ Vegan416 (talk) 18:15, 14 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?

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Raquel_Willis&diff=prev&oldid=1238101699

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Eric_Lander&diff=prev&oldid=1209041570

https://wiki.riteme.site/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)

You're both putting words in my mouth and twisting my words. You strawman a false equivalency I did not make. Remember to assume good faith. Delectopierre (talk) 21:24, 12 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)

K, think I been a bit busy, so probs not gonna make an RFC this weekend. someone else feel free to. If nobody does by next weekend, I might try. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Piers Morgan Interview

Hey all, I know this this does not pass muster for inclusion on the article (so far as I can tell) but she just published a post claiming that:

1. Piers cut her off

2. Piers twisted her words and then used the clip to go viral

3. The intent of her statement was not at all what the media is claiming.

https://www.usermag.co/p/the-part-of-my-quote-piers-morgan

I'm including a couple of snippets from her post below.

This is relevant as she has long been a favored punching bag of the press, especially those that lean right.

My inclination is to actually add this to the list of harassment campaigns. I'm, however, unsure if that's possible because of the source. I will do some research, but welcome feedback as well.

I also encourage everyone in this thread to read her post.

"Over the past few days, dozens of media outlets have been running non stop

headlines smearing me and pushing a deceptively edited clip that claims I felt "joy" over the UnitedHealth CEO's death. Let's get one thing out of the way up top: that literally never happened. That's a gross and intentional mischaracterization of what I said, made clear if you listen to my full comment, and there's a reason why the media is misleading people about it."

"He replayed the clip again where he's clearly cutting me off and, after a fellow panelist defended me, saying that Piers had, in fact, completely put words in my mouth, I finished my sentence:

'I feel joy because people like you, who are rich and powerful and on TV and have all the access to all the healthcare privileges in the world are finally being forced to pay attention to the barbaric healthcare system, that murders tens of thousands of innocent Americans, and that is what I feel joy in. I feel joy that people like you are forced to confront these systemic problems.'"

Delectopierre (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPS can only be used if the person is a subject matter expert, or if they are talking about themselves. As this is Taylor talking about her own experience on the piers morgan show, it could be used if it is due to mention the whole incident. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the info. What are your thoughts on including this in the harassment section? It seems like another one of the same pattern to me, we're just in the thick of it so it's slightly less obvious. Delectopierre (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This is inline with my own analysis above of why accepting the "joy' story at face value had BLP implications. She was explicitly asked about why some people were celebratory, began to answer, and got cut off before she could explain with the accusation that she felt joy at the murder itself. Being happy at an indirect effect of a bad event is not a wholesale endorsement of the bad event itself. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. What are your thoughts on including this in the harassment section? Delectopierre (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we can't do that since it is WP:BLPSPS and it is saying that third-parties caused harassment. I think that's likely correct, but we need independent RS to report on it. Maybe that'll come, maybe it won't. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

blpsps says “… as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.”

you can use a written piece by taylor lorenz to talk about taylor lorenz, with appropriate attribution, if information is due Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Lorenz is making a self-published claim that other people's actions (i.e. Piers and various writers) led to her being harassed. That is not allowed under BLPSPS without corroboration by independent sources. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Without taking a position on whether it's allowed or not, harassment seems like something that isn't well accounted for in wiki policies. Perhaps I'm incorrect as I am newer to editing.

But because harassment requires the victim's subjective assessment (eg 'that behavior harmed me') I wonder if there is a gap in policy here?

I also don't want to suggest harassment is fully subjective. There is an objective component as well.

Regarding the subjective experience, though: even public figures' inner emotional worlds aren't generally newsworthy. Which means that given current wiki polices — as I understand them — it is easier to include thinly veiled harassment of a subject as if its 'outrage' than it is to include the same behavior as. harassment.

Whether or not that's what's happening here is another story. It seems like it, at this point, but time will tell. Delectopierre (talk) 04:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Podcast Status

Lorenz is now publicly asking people to edit her Wikipedia bio on BlueSky to remove references to her former partnership with Vox Media.

https://bsky.app/profile/taylorlorenz.bsky.social/post/3ldptsflpok2b

My edit sought to clarify the issue by noting that the podcast was being produced with Vox, but not owned by Vox and that it now continues without their involvement. The original source cited (Axios) includes Vox's involvement in the very headline, but someone has repeatedly edited it to cut out that Vox reference. Presumably, this is being done at the subject's request.

https://www.axios.com/2024/02/29/washington-post-taylor-lorenz-video-podcast-vox Mediafocus (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mediafocus Yeah, I'm not sure what the issue was with your edit either? I glanced before replying, but I wouldn't have mentioned the CEO death and that being the reason she was dropped or whatever unless it was widely covered.

The "remove all mentions of Vox Media, including from titles of references" that was done shortly after your edit seemed unnecessary. Vox originally noted they would be partnering together, Axios obviously covered it by asking for comment from Lorenz herself (linked in your comment), which Adweek and TheWrap found worthy enough to mention. She was obviously in a partnership with Vox, but the question I guess is how to adequately frame that? Your edit seemed like it covered that she was in a partnership, and was still issuing episodes of the podcast/video.

We should always consider an article subject with regard to their articles and use editor discretion based on their requests. However, the BlueSky thread asking for help while simultaneously asking people to check out the podcast and suggesting it is "affecting brand deals" gives off a more promotional feeling than anything, so my personal feeling is including her quote would be somewhat out of place. She's a big enough public figure that I'm fairly certain it will be covered in a RS shortly.

Awshort (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Your edit claimed that Lorenz was dropped by Vox because of the Brian Thompson comment, sourcing it to an Axios piece written months before Thompson was killed. That's the problem with your edit. I'm not removing her partnership with Vox from the article no matter what she asks for on social media so WP:AGF rather than assume that we are editing this page at the subject's request. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Notifying all the participants in the previous discussion above

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

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

Survey

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

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

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

• B This is WP:DUE. Had been mentioned tens of times in RS including two weeks after the beginning of the controversy. The claim that she was just commenting on the internet in her capacity as an internet commentator is clearly false. She went far beyond commenting dispassionately on an interment trend into fully supporting it. Vegan416 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
• C/D - the article on lorenz isn't too long, and a controversy that lasted a week really shouldn't take much space. Too much space to this controversy is definitely WP:UNDUE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

1) Regarding recent coverage proving dueness

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

• outkick[20], a self-described "anti-woke" alternative to sports commentary
• WP:NYPOST[21], which is disallowed by WP:RSN
• The Western Journal[22], a journal the nytimes apparently described as "a torrent of sensationalized, misleading, or entirely made-up stories,"[23]

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

2) Regarding Bludgeoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The CNN coverage from the start of the controversy [24] includes one paragraph of Lorenz's analysis and then one sentence saying that it received backlash without further details. The NBC piece, [25] also from that period, has problems as previously noted and still devotes twice as much space to Lorenz's explanation than to the actual comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The podcast non-renewal isn't relevant to this discussion as the decision was before the comments that are the subject of this RfC: "Vox’s decision not to renew the show was made before Lorenz’s comments this week, in which she appeared to justify the killing of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO as an expression of public discontent." [26] – notwally (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Harassment section

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

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

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

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

Reverting. the page seems to have changed significantly, but the harrassment section existed well before delectopiere did their changes (see this version [27])

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

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

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

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

but the harrassment section existed well before delectopiere did their changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You were already typing out a response, my apologies.

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