Talk:Taylor Lorenz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Stop rolling back the birth date...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• WP:BLPPRIVACY is unambiguous that the standard is "widely published": Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. And this case specifically shows why; we have multiple contradictory dates of birth, and a situation where the subject objects to publication, and malicious actors who are overtly trying to harm her reputation. While a date of birth is sometimes something unexceptional and therefore not worth worrying about, in a situation like this it's a clear-cut and serious BLP issue, which therefore requires the highest quality of sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate that you struck the comment. You made the edit in good faith, and the opposition you have faced to it is also good faith. Your interpretation of the guidelines appears to be out of step with the community consensus on the interpretation of the guideline. You can always raise the issue at the appropriate noticeboard, but otherwise, you need to accept that your argument is not the consensus view. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

As indicated in the last version before the birth date information was removed completely by Rhododendrites in this and the subsequent edits, multiple reliable sources have reported different ages. Lorenz recently posted that she tries to keep this information private, which tracks with the varying ages in past sources. [1] Since this is both a verifiability and privacy issue, it's probably best to leave it off. At the very least, if some information is restored, it should be follow the policy at WP:BLPPRIVACY and use the ranged footnote instead of using one date. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The policy you link says "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". So, year gets included. Hi! (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

It has been argued above that the subject objects to all mentions of her birthday online, but that isn't entirely accurate. The linked article with the relevant portion (she has erased any trace of personal information about herself on the internet, including her age (she will say only that she is in her late thirties)) was from October '23. However, in January of '24 she brough attention back to her age again, by referencing the fact that she was on the Fortune 40 under 40 list (I was named to a 40 under 40 list three years ago (which they literally fact check ur age for)). My personal opinion is the Fortune article could be used along with the tweet above to provide an age as of date which conforms to WP:CALC, gives a 2 year age range which is vague enough to help a casual reader while still respecting the article subjects right to privacy by including the year only and not a date, and meets the burden of WP:DOB since it is stating "Hey, this source that gives my age had to fact check said age and should be trusted" by the article subject themselves. She has made reference to this article in the past and the large age gap presented within, as well as referencing her apparent disdain for the Libs Of TikTok person for keeping her birthday offline with takedown and lawsuits, so I'm not sure that it can be argued that she has tried to conceal her birth year on Wikipedia. If anyone would have the technical know how to write in and get their date removed from an article, I'm pretty sure Taylor Lorenz would fall under that umbrella due to her career and what it entails. And lastly, I don't think the Politico thing should have ever been included; nothing that I have ever ran across has been from Lorenz about her actual birth day.

Awshort (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the Politico stuff if it's not otherwise verified given her recent statements and that the Fortune piece is probably the best source for a DOB since it's for something that does an explicit age check. In respect to the tweet though, I'm not sure if a 2-year gap is warranted, since the use of "decade" isn't meant to be precise. If she's referencing some specific theories that she's 47-49, but say she's actually 35 or 36, many people would also say offhand that they were a decade off even if they were actually at least 11 or 12 years off. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Patar knight Sorry, I may be misunderstanding your reply but what I meant by the 2 year gap part was just to list what {{Age as of date|50|2022|1|1}} 52–53 came up with (using the Fortune article and it's included date and ages instead of the default I had copied from the template).

This one is kind of a unique case regarding birth dates, since one of the Wiki policies being followed strictly (WP:DOB) seemingly created a conflict for a living person by editors including every date that could be found/implied. Which was in turn picked up on by critics of Lorenz who used it to accuse her of lying about her age. Ironically, this was listed by @Aquillion: as a potential issue thay could arrise in the original discussion on VPP regarding her birthdate years ago.

Awshort (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

1. Replying to a tweet ≠ bringing up her age. Someone asked her a question that she answered.
2. Even if she did bring up her age (she didn't) that doesn't mean she is inviting the whole internet to participate in discourse about her age. But again, she didn't bring it up.
3. Her tweets were mocking the people who harass her, as they obsess over age. Just like you are obsessing over her age. She was venting her frustration that another article was published about her by a right wing organization with demonstrably false information ("a corporate journalist in her 40s"). Her tweets were not saying "here is my age".
4. Just because she participated in the forbes awards and verified her age with them doesn't mean she wants to verify her age further with anyone else.

Delectopierre (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I support inclusion as previously on the page. It's well-sourced. glman (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

as previously on page might be ok, i think it was just an age without the date or year. i dont know intricacies of blp tho Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i've added the long-standing version... WP:DOB states that if a source objects to their birthday being up on wikipedia, we can report on year and remove date and month, so i've gone ahead and done that.

apparently multiple reliable sources have a range of years? not sure which is supposed to be the right one. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Just responding to ping: as far as I can tell, nothing has changed in terms of sourcing, so #Birthdate_and_BLP is still my current position. No widely publicized date + requirement to piece together clues from multiple sources + subject stating explicitly that she doesn't want it publicized = no include. There is a whole encyclopedia of content out there -- no need to fixate on this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm done trying to fight this, but the Fortune article is a single source that's widely publicized and would only necessitate a year range. What you repeated here is just untrue. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bayou Tapestry Look at it a different way rather than seeing it as "fighting"; consensus is about offering up compromises or alternative suggestions rather than an 'all or nothing' approach. I disagree about leaving it off entirely and have tried to offer up a suggestion for a range I felt still respected the article subject and didn't dial it down to a specific year.

Just a suggestion from.a fellow editor who gets frustrated from time to time :-)

Awshort (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean the fact here is that compromises have been offered but there are a select few editors who just have this page set to their watchlist and will pull any date that gets added down. Bayou Tapestry (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

single source that's widely publicized - the meaning of widely publicized implies multiple sources, not "big audience". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Assaulted removal

@Awshort I'm reverting this diff. Your summary "Rm 'assaulted' since it happened when she was live-streaming the Charlottesville protest and seemed to be unreleated to any of the 'new' harassment she faces." is WP:OR. Delectopierre (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Delectopierre Before my reply about the content itself, I just want to point out that your behavior on this article is somewhat concerning since you have an almost battleground approach to dealing with other editors which seems to have went into WP:IDHT territory, along with an apparant WP:OWN mindset for this article.

You asked about if a rule exists to obtain consensus before restoring contested material previously, which I provided you an overview of WP:ONUS, WP:EDITCON, and WP:EDITWAR.

You have accused others of bludgeoning, Accused me of 'obsessing over her age',

Reverted @FMSky: to go back to your preferred version of an article multiple times

then stated they were engaged in an edit war when they undid your revert.

You stated my removal of the word assaulted was original research and put the article back to your preferred version again.

You stated that you were working to achieve consensus and were going to revert FMSky a third time, which you did.

You then went to @Patar Knight: because a user was "making non-consensus changes/reversions despite my request for them to discuss before making changes."

Although Patar explained why Rolling Stone was not a RS in his reply and said that he probably wouldn't spend time fighting this himself, you asked again on the Talk page for the Rolling Stone info to be restored to your preferred version because there was no consensus.

Starting with the fact that the harassment section you created is probably WP:UNDUE and should be folded into the rest of the article per WP:STRUCTURE, she was hit while covering a rally in 2017 by someone protesting the event. It is covered elsewhere in the article under her Career section. The harassment section (aside from the fact it should not exist) shouldn't be a WP:COATRACK of every bad thing that has happened to her being lumped together since you perceived it to be harassment or 'coordinated attacks'. Along with this, the Elon Musk tweets should not be labeled as harassment since as far as I van tell it was not labeled as such by RS. Lastly, the harassment section you added is mostly snippets from the Media Manipulation case study or her MSNBC interview. Lorenz has stated multiple times she regrets doing the msnbc interview and much of it was presented incorrectly or out of context so I don't feel it should be used. Media Manipulation was a case study that apparently went based off of conversations between Lorenz and the author of said case study. While it does point to otherwise reliable sources randomly for statements being made, there are multiple items that are not sourced to a RS and should not be used (is the harassment from Twitter? Reddit? A YouTube video that Lorenz didnt like? It isn't specific and can't be used).

Please be aware that the onus is still on you if you want material to be included (as it is with anyone else for inclusion of disputed material), and not on other editors to have to gain consensus on why it should be removed or doesn't improve the article.

Awshort (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That's a whole lot of words to say you don't want to maintain a NPOV. You say the harassment section shouldn't exist, for a woman who has been the target of coordinated harassment campaigns. This is well documented.

It is our duty to ensure NPOV, especially for BLP, and it is my opinion that it is even more critical for the victim of targeted harassment.

You need to act like it. Delectopierre (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the onus being on me, that's not quite right. If you're removing info from an article, WP:RVREASONS states that there are 6 reasons to remove content.

• WP:USI
• WP:INACCURATE
• WP:ANOTHER
• WP:IRRELEVANT
• WP:INAPPROPRIATE
• WP:AOA

It also states, "If there is any doubt the removal may be controversial, or if it has been restored following a previous removal, it should be discussed on the page's talk page prior to removal."

I haven't seen any of those reasons invoked. There is no doubt that she was assaulted. So, if not failure to maintain NPOV, what is it? Delectopierre (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RVREASONS is an essay, while WP:ONUS is policy. Essays can be written by anyone and cannot override policies.

Awshort (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Delectopierre Please provide an example of how I don't want to maintain NPOV or strike your comment. I said the harassment section shouldn't exist as a standalone section and the material should be folded into its respective sections and provided policy based reasoning on why. You stated it's our 'duty' to maintain NPOV for BLP subject's which I agree we need to follow NPOV, but several editors have disagreed that your edits are 'neutral'. {tq|You need to act like it}} Just some advice; maybe it's time to disengage from this article for a bit since even when people try to point out the correct policies you have an almost hostile attitude towards them. I would also suggest looking over WP:NOTADVOCACY.

Awshort (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

"Please provide an example of how I don't want to maintain NPOV or strike your comment"

Here is one: "The harassment section (aside from the fact it should not exist)"

Here is another: you put 'coordinated attacks' in single quotes, thereby doubting their validity. It is well documented that she is the target of coordinated attacks. See the following examples:

1. The Information: "No stranger to digital harassment, doxxing or the dangers of online celebrity, Lorenz took what could have been a basic Beltway bulletin and made it a thing."
2. The International Women's Media Foundation: "The IWMF is appalled by the relentless online smear campaign against New York Times technology and internet culture reporter Taylor Lorenz....Carlson’s commentary is a deliberate, deeply dangerous effort to mobilize harassment toward Lorenz."
3. Forbes: "Right-Wing Figures Attack Journalist Taylor Lorenz For Revealing Creator Of ‘Libs Of TikTok’"
4. Media Manipulation: "As a result of her prominence, gender, and the nature of her reporting, Lorenz is a frequent target of coordinated harassment campaigns that include being swatted, stalked, dedicated built specifically to harass her, her followers getting harassed for associating with her, and waves of threats and hate that include disturbing sexualized fantasies and anti-semetic slurs."

Furthermore, what relevance does my going to @Patar knight for assistance have? What is this evidence of, in your mind? Delectopierre (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Of note, WP:OR applies to content of article, not edit summary info. as per the policy, it "does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards."

Question of whether "assaulted" should be included is a question of WP:DUEness and if the sourcing reflects that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand what you mean here. Are you saying that I'm applying WP:OR to an edit summary, rather than the content of the article?

My invocation of WP:OR is because the edit summary said "Rm 'assaulted' since it happened when she was live-streaming the Charlottesville protest and seemed to be unreleated to any of the 'new' harassment she faces." (emphasis mine).

To me, removing info from an article because it 'seems unrelated' sounds like WP:OR. Am I misinterpreting this? So far as I know, nobody is challenging whether or not she was assaulted. I read the comment to say that 'because it's unrelated to other assault/harassment, it should be removed.' Aside from not making much sense to me in the first place, I haven't seen a single source that it's 'unrelated' to the other assault and harassment she faces. Delectopierre (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, the source cited probably isn't sufficient for the claim. The source: Lorenz says she has been the victim of stalking, swatting, anti-semitic slurs, and assaults. “I have been assaulted. I have had a stalker show up outside my apartment. I have had swatting at times,” she said. Repeating this in wikivoice when the source explicitly attributes it isn't appropriate.

As for OR, no, not including something is not OR. We are allowed to make our own editorial determinations about stuff, we just can't write content in articles that isn't supported by our sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sources. See below. Her attacker was arrested and convicted.

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/journalist-taylor-lorenz-punched-while-filming-aftermath-fatal-attack/

https://www.newsleader.com/story/news/local/2017/08/14/reporter-punched-face-during-charlottesville-rally/565922001/

https://www.poynter.org/news-release/2017/in-charlottesville-and-elsewhere-u-s-journalists-are-being-assaulted-while-covering-the-news/

Re: WP:OR So someone operating with editorial bias can just go delete sections? That doesn't seem right. Delectopierre (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That incident is well sourced and is mentioned in the 'career' section of her page, but I think it's questionable if it should also be mentioned in the 'Harassment and coordinated attacks' section. None of these sources says that it was 'coordinated' as far as I can tell or that it was "online harassment [that] has spilled over into the physical world". Hi! (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, including this in that section would be WP:SYNTH since no source makes that connection. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You can say the exact same thing about it being in the career section. Delectopierre (talk) 06:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)