Talk:Taylor Lorenz

I am flagging this sentence for not having a neutral point of view:

“Lorenz has been the subject of online harassment, often used as a tactic to attempt to discredit her reporting and skills as a journalist” 66.42.188.148 (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:@66.42.188.148 Do you have any recommendations for a suitable replacement text?

:Awshort (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::What is not neutral? This aspect of her career seems to be heavily covered in sources, such as [https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/luigi-mangione-taylor-lorenz-cnn-b2732840.html], which also links to [https://casebook-static.pages.dev/research/what-harassment-journalist-taylor-lorenz-can-teach-newsrooms/]. – notwally (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

At this point, with her most recent comments about Luigi Mangione receiving a lot of attention and [https://news.google.com/search?q=taylor%20lorenz continued media coverage], I think we'd have to agree that this is verging into WP:LASTING impact or significance territory and would merit some short mention? The lorax (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:#RfC on Taylor Lorenz's comments on Brian Thompson's murder, consensus to exclude. So she gave an interview to CNN yesterday that talked about him? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:seems much of this is media that regularly is considered biased or even GUNREL on the WP:RSP list. Not DUE enough for inclusion still. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree that we're moving toward WP:LASTING. Here's [https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/luigi-mangione-taylor-lorenz-cnn-b2732840.html coverage] in The Independent, which is reliable. Marquardtika (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The reporting on the latest controversy seems to be a little confused over what was said. The Independent, for example says she "joked that the accused killer is also 'morally good, which is hard to find'", then says she "says women find Luigi Mangione 'handsome' and 'morally good, which is hard to find'", and then says she was "describing Luigi Mangione as 'handsome,' 'smart,' and 'morally good' in a discussion about his online fandom". Then the actual quote from her says, "{{tq|There's a huge disconnect between the narratives and the angles that mainstream media pushes and what the American public feels... You're going to see women especially that feel like, Oh my God, right? Like, here's this man who's revolutionary, who's famous, who's handsome, who is young, who's smart. He's a person that seems like this morally good man, which is hard to find.}}" Considering that The Independent also notes "Lorenz is a regular target of attacks from the right online, with comments she makes frequently blowing up and feeding an arguably disingenuous outrage culture" (emphasis added), this does not seem like the type of information that would be significant enough to include. I would also note that the recent article from The Independent does not appear to mention anything about Lorenz's prior comments about Mangione, which would be a reason against finding it to have had lasting impact. – notwally (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:In the previous RFC in December, many of those arguing to exclude Lorenz's comments cited pages such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING (even though, as I noted at the time, these policies are about the suitability of creating a standalone article, not about including content within an article).

:With Lorenz back in the headlines for again commenting on Mangione, multiple articles have referred back to her comments in December: see e.g. [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/sean-hannity-taylor-lorenz-luigi-mangione-b2735022.html] [https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2025/04/14/taylor-lorenz-luigi-mangione-morally-good-cnn/] [https://gazette.com/news/wex/taylor-lorenz-claims-she-did-not-call-luigi-mangione-morally-good/article_d193802e-751a-5aaa-b545-3f5e5b4deb71.html] [https://www.mediaite.com/tv/taylor-lorenz-laughs-off-obsession-with-handsome-luigi-mangione-to-cnn-he-seems-morally-good-which-is-hard-to-find/] [https://katu.com/news/nation-world/republicans-criticize-journalist-taylor-lorenz-for-her-comments-on-luigi-mangione]

:It is growing increasingly untenable to argue that including these comments is undue. Astaire (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Only one of those sources you listed is green on RSP (the others don't appear on the list). Her comments about Mangione fall under NOTNEWS. Some1 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Please see WP:RSPMISSING. "It doesn't appear at RSP" is not a productive objection. Which part of NOTNEWS applies here? Astaire (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Bullet point #2: {{tq|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.}} WP:VNOT also applies (just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it should be included in the article). Right-wing media causing a stink over Lorenz's comments is nothing new. If her remarks about Mangione actually impacted her career in some significant way, then I would say it's worth including; but for now, I don't see that her comments have had any lasting impact. The Independent article, which primarily focuses on Fox News host Sean Hannity attacking Lorenz for her comments, says that she {{tq|has been a popular target of hatred and abuse from the right}} and this is just another routine example of that. {{pb}} That aside, if I recall correctly, she did say something during the CNN interview about her blog getting significantly more traffic after her posts about the killing, so maybe that's worth including (if there are RSes to back that up). Some1 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Some1 Just to clarify, we shouldn't include the remarks she made but should include that she got a boost in traffic to a blog? Or am I missing something?

:::::Awshort (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::If we include her comments about the killing/Mangione, we should also mention that she stated she received a boost in traffic to her site, since it indicates that her comments about the killing have at least some impact on her work. (I can see how my previous comment may be a bit confusing; I didn't remember that part of the CNN interview until after writing the full first paragraph.) Some1 (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

If we do decide to include her comments on the Thompson killing/Mangione, I suggest something along the lines of: {{tqb|After the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, Lorenz faced backlash from some Republicans and conservative pundits for saying she felt "joy" after the killing (she later clarified that she meant "certainly not empathy"){{cite web |last1=Walker |first1=Jackson |title=Former New York Times reporter says she felt 'joy' when UHC CEO was killed |url=https://kfoxtv.com/news/nation-world/former-nyt-reporter-says-she-felt-joy-when-uhc-ceo-was-killed-taylor-lorenz-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-luigi-mangione-new-york-city-manhattan-washington-post-times |website=KFOX |access-date=19 April 2025 |language=en |date=10 December 2024}} and for calling the suspected killer "morally good".{{cite web |title=Taylor Lorenz slammed for CNN interview about ‘handsome’ Luigi Mangione |url=https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/luigi-mangione-taylor-lorenz-cnn-b2732840.html |website=The Independent |access-date=19 April 2025 |language=en |date=14 April 2025}} Speaking about the public reaction to Thompson's killing in an interview with Donie O'Sullivan from CNN's MisinfoNation, Lorenz said, "There’s a huge disconnect between the narratives and the angles that mainstream media pushes and what the American public feels", further stating, "I can tell you I saw the biggest audience growth [on Substack] that I’ve ever seen, because people were like, 'oh, somebody – some journalist – is actually speaking to the anger that we feel."{{cite web |last1=Lewis |first1=Ray |title=Republicans criticize journalist Taylor Lorenz for her comments on Luigi Mangione |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/republicans-criticize-journalist-taylor-lorenz-for-her-comments-on-luigi-mangione |website=KATV |access-date=19 April 2025 |language=en |date=14 April 2025}}}}{{reflist}} Some1 (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: My interpretation is that NOTNEWS #2 refers to standalone articles, which is why it makes reference to "encyclopedic topics". But regardless:

::::: {{tq|Right-wing media causing a stink over Lorenz's comments is nothing new.}} Can you point to another instance where Lorenz received a similar level of attention for her comments? As a reminder, her remarks in December were discussed by op-eds in four national-level newspapers: [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/comment/2024/12/06/taylor-lorenz-has-exposed-the-dark-side-of-bluesky/ The Telegraph], [https://www.wsj.com/opinion/health-insurance-unitedhealthcare-brian-thompson-murder-obamacare-medicare-taylor-lorenz-8f8ca0fb?mod=opinion_lead_pos1 the Wall Street Journal], [https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/12/05/united-healthcare-ceo-shooting-social-media-memes/76794711007/ USA Today], and [https://nationalpost.com/opinion/taylor-lorenz-the-progressive-journalist-who-finds-joy-in-senseless-murder the National Post]. If this is truly par for the course for Lorenz, what is another example?

::::: {{tq|she has been a popular target of hatred and abuse from the right and this is just another routine example of that.}} Please check out the op-eds I linked above. They are not "hatred and abuse". They are critiques of Lorenz's comments from newspapers that all have a GREL rating at RSP.

::::: {{tq|If her remarks about Mangione actually impacted her career in some significant way, then I would say it's worth including; but for now, I don't see that her comments have had any lasting impact.}} I disagree that lasting impact is required for inclusion, but for the record, see this line from the Deseret article [https://www.deseret.com/entertainment/2025/04/14/taylor-lorenz-luigi-mangione-morally-good-cnn/]: "Lorenz, who previously worked for The New York Times and The Washington Post, among other media companies, said on CNN that her own audience had grown because she has voiced the anger that people in the “Free Luigi” movement feel toward healthcare companies and their executives." Astaire (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::What do you think of my proposed paragraph above? Some1 (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think that addition is totally appropriate to add, she said herself in her CNN interview that her comments about the story helped grow her Substack audience, which seems relevant to her journalism career. The lorax (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks for the feedback, I've went ahead and added the paragraph to the article. Some1 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Some1 I removed the "on substack" note since it wasn't specified in the article and she is on multiple platforms (i.e. Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, Substack) and doesn't say if she means overall audience growth across all platforms, or SubStack only. Just wanted to go into a tiny bit more detail on my reasoning for removal.

:::::::::Awshort (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That's fair. Some1 (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Bumping as someone “deleted for more discussion”. How hard can it be to get consensus on adding info that everybody knows this person for in the first place? 47.212.192.223 (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Muboshgu}}, {{u|Bluethricecreamman}}, {{u|notwally}}: Are you okay with the following addition or would you like me to remove it pending further discussion? Some1 (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{tqb|After the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, Lorenz faced backlash from some Republicans and conservative pundits for saying that she felt "joy" after the killing (she later clarified that she meant "certainly not empathy"){{cite web |last1=Walker |first1=Jackson |title=Former New York Times reporter says she felt 'joy' when UHC CEO was killed |url=https://kfoxtv.com/news/nation-world/former-nyt-reporter-says-she-felt-joy-when-uhc-ceo-was-killed-taylor-lorenz-unitedhealthcare-ceo-brian-thompson-luigi-mangione-new-york-city-manhattan-washington-post-times |website=KFOX |access-date=19 April 2025 |language=en |date=10 December 2024}} and that the alleged killer was viewed as a "morally good man".{{cite web |title=Taylor Lorenz slammed for CNN interview about ‘handsome’ Luigi Mangione |url=https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/crime/luigi-mangione-taylor-lorenz-cnn-b2732840.html |website=The Independent |access-date=19 April 2025 |language=en |date=14 April 2025}}{{cite web |last1=Burch |first1=Sean |title=Taylor Lorenz Walks Back, Then Doubles Down on Luigi Mangione Support After Viral CNN Spot |url=https://www.thewrap.com/taylor-lorenz-on-cnn-luigi-mangione-interview/ |website=TheWrap |access-date=22 April 2025 |date=14 April 2025}} Speaking about the public reaction to Thompson's killing in an interview with Donie O'Sullivan from CNN's MisinfoNation, Lorenz said, "There’s a huge disconnect between the narratives and the angles that mainstream media pushes and what the American public feels", further stating, "I can tell you I saw the biggest audience growth that I’ve ever seen, because people were like, 'oh, somebody – some journalist – is actually speaking to the anger that we feel."{{cite web |last1=Lewis |first1=Ray |title=Republicans criticize journalist Taylor Lorenz for her comments on Luigi Mangione |url=https://katv.com/news/nation-world/republicans-criticize-journalist-taylor-lorenz-for-her-comments-on-luigi-mangione |website=KATV |access-date=19 April 2025 |language=en |date=14 April 2025}}}}{{reflist}}

::WP:BRD, don't worry about asking for permission for a bold edit.

::I'm personally on the fence at this point about inclusion. Personally, still don't think this is lasting info about lorenz, but not a huge deal either way rn for me. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Based on the sources I have seen in this thread, I still don't think this is due for inclusion. A flash of coverage followed by another flash of coverage, all of it based around partisan attacks often spreading misinformation about what was actually said, is not an enduring, significant aspect of a person's biographical details. Otherwise, our biographical articles on controversial political pundits would be overtaken just discussing these type of topics that are given momentary news coverage. The fact that in this situation the sourcing does not seem very strong or high quality (and highly partisan op-eds should not be relied on for determining whether a controversial topic like this is due), gives me more reason to believe this should probably not be included. Given the recent RfC to exclude the prior comments, I have removed this paragraph for now until there can be further discussion on this talk page about whether the recent news coverage is significant enough to now determine this material noteworthy. It also appears that most of those supporting inclusion of this most recent proposal also supported inclusion in the prior RfC, and I would be interested to see if some of those who were opposed to inclusion previously have changed their mind like Some1 has. If others have changed their mind as well, I would withdraw my objection to its inclusion. – notwally (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I wouldn't say that I've changed my mind per se, but I'm less opposed to the idea of inclusion than I was back in December (mainly due to Lorenz's comment in the CNN interview where she said she {{tq|saw the biggest audience growth that [she has] ever seen}} thanks to her coverage of the Thompson killing). I'm still fine with excluding the whole thing (per my first two comments in this thread). Some1 (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you for the clarification. I agree your reasoning. – notwally (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Why does that comment change your perspective? Delectopierre (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Notwally I also agree with Some1 for inclusion (at least as far as their version they had), and was one of the editors who voted against inclusion in the RfC initially.

::::I agree there are mostly sources from the right feigning outrage or whatever about her comments (and I also agree that that is normal, for her specifically), but to me that alone doesn't seem to be an indicator for exclusion since we allow biased sources all the time - even if they are the only ones covering something. Looking over the article, there are several things that are mainly covered by only sources from the right, and that are still presented neutrally.

::::Lasting coverage in itself doesn't seem like a suitable measure for whether something should necessarily be in the article since we have a lot of things that are included in the article currently that received little to no secondary coverage and don't always appear DUE. The amount of coverage seems to meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE for inclusion. Not to mention that Lorenz is using the coverage to push subscriptions for her SubStack (i.e. [https://youtube.com/D89eDCDWuO0?si=XjcklKVm-xzMr454 Sean Hannity video on her own YouTube], [https://www.instagram.com/reel/DDijjMpyotF initial Newsnation coverage], [https://x.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1865893043741860132?t=7owRfYTZo_rrCVSRIHh9yQ&s=19 Twitter thread showing audience growth through Ben Shapiro]) There were several other videos that she had posted shortly after the initial coverage but I can't seem to find them now so I'm unsure if she deleted or they got flagged. I would imagine they were all DMCA'd since she was posting the full clips that featured her on TV with the description text essentially being 'Subscribe to my SubStack!'

::::Just to clarify, I'm somewhat in the same boat as Some1 and am not outright pushing for inclusion. I do however think it meets the bar more than a lot of the random stuff in her article that never seemed to meet DUE in terms of a biography and is simply included because it exists (I.e. "she wrote this article, it has to be included!").

::::Awshort (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Her comments on Mangione are clearly one of the most [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=taylor%20lorenz&hl=en-US notable] things about her. Some editors will dismiss this as a "flash of coverage", yet this is of course always to be expected when anyone does anything notable. The other things about her determined by wikipedia editors to be notable and due for inclusion also only have [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=taylor%20lorenz&hl=en-US spikes] of interest and coverage. This is so clear cut that it's bewildering to me why editors are so insistent on exclusion. 24.126.11.183 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|CeltBrowne}} the text {{diff2|1292327836|you added}} did not mention Israel–Palestine; nevertheless, Lorenz's dislike of Joe Biden has a great deal to do with Israel–Palestine according to her [https://archive.ph/pGkY2 New Yorker profile].

Furthermore, your {{diff2|1292245479|previous edit summary}} claimed the May 2025 tweet was directly related to her departure from the Post, which is not supported by any source I've seen, making the addition look extremely like WP:SYNTH. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Reply|Sangdeboeuf}}

:I've added a new additional source to address your concerns, one which states Lorenz's dislike of Biden is based upon his healthcare policy.

:I've excluded discussion about her exit from the WP in order to move forward.

:I hope this resolves the matter. Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::So you no longer believe the tweet was related to her departure from the Post? The fact that you already claimed as much implies a connection, which is improper synthesis. {{pb}} The most recent source {{diff2|1292330048|you added}} is paywalled, which makes it difficult to determine due weight. Furthermore, while the text did not explicitly mention Israel–Palestine, both [https://archive.ph/lw9Yh The Free Press] and the [https://archive.ph/oVBGF Algemeiner article] you cited mention the Gaza war, making this addition fall within WP:CT/A-I. Algemeiner also expresses the fringe viewpoint that Lorenz is a "far-left, anti-Israel activist". It's also only a passing mention (not even a full sentence), which undermines the argument for due weight. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I am not engaged in synth, I am engaged in consensus building and addressing your concerns. I attempted to incorporate your wording/editing of the passage, as well as added an additional source, in order to move forward.

:::The FP source is not paywalled, it has free access with registration (as noted in the citation).

:::I have no interest in becoming entangled with I/P nor Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict, I simply trying to establish the subject's views on Biden, something which has been significant in their career.

:::I do not understand why you have removed {{tq|while Dylan Byers reported that the Washington Post "determined Lorenz violated the paper’s standards and had no desire to continue employing her"}}, particularly when Wikipedia:Conflicting sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth both state that both views should be stated (WP:!TRUTHFINDERS). What is your basis for removing this text, considering Wikipedia:Conflicting sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth guidelines? CeltBrowne (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The FP article looks like an opinion piece to me and I'd consider it undue. The sky is blue, the pope is a Catholic and Bari Weiss doesn't like progressives who are critical of Israel. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ec}} I'm not about to give Bari Weiss's friends in Silicon Valley my email for the sake of access to an article. It would be helpful to quote the passage that directly supports the proposed addition. {{pb}} One can be trying to build consensus as well as be guilty of WP:SYNTH. The fact that a connection was strongly implied between the May tweet and Lorenz's departure from the Post taints any further efforts to reintroduce this material. {{pb}} The sources cited focus on criticism of Biden for his support of Israel. That is the context for the coverage of Lorenz's tweet, and so WP:CT/A-I still applies. {{pb}} WP:TRUTH and WP:CONFLICTING are only essays and do not have the force of policies or guidelines. No guideline (or essay) should be interpreted to mean that we should give equal validity to any and all opinions; see {{slink||Dylan Byers}}, below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

According to [https://archive.ph/pGkY2 The New Yorker], the Post announced no findings of bias in its investigation of Lorenz (no findings of any kind, in fact). Dylan Byers' opinion that Lorenz {{diff2|1292334215|"violated the paper's standards"}} is therefore WP:UNDUE as well as being specifically denied by the subject. The essay WP:CONFLICTING is not a policy or guideline and should not be cited as justification for violating NPOV and BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Dylan Byer's reporting (they're a journalist covering a story, "opinion" is certainly not the correct term here) about Lorenz departure from the WP comes from the exact same source that you are sourcing her denial (The New Yorker). You cannot state one while dismissing the other when using the same source. The source itself clearly felt the need to state both. Furthermore, respectfully, Lorenz has a self-interest in denying her departure stemmed from the investigation.

:I've had this exact discussion (What Journalists stated vs the subject denying it) before on Talk:Mary Lou McDonald#RfC about the subject's membership of a political party, and Users overwhelming rejected the idea that just because someone denies what a journalist states about them, it cannot be stated on Wikipedia. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Being quoted in The New Yorker does not magically change an opinion into a fact. Byers {{em|believes}} that Lorenz violated the paper's standards; that's his opinion (published via Puck, the outlet Byers co-founded and presumably has a great deal of influence over. He's not a beat reporter just delivering the news). Lorenz denies this, and if we want to include the allegation we have to include the denial as well per WP:PUBLICFIGURE (which also requires {{em|multiple reliable third-party sources}}). Personally I think this is all too much in the weeds, especially since the Post itself never announced any findings of the investigation. So who even cares? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hr}} {{small|The following has been refactored from {{slink|Talk:Taylor Lorenz|May 2025 tweet}}:}}

WP:BLPPUBLIC is policy and covers how to handle a denial. It clearly illustrates through examples that both Lorenz denial and Byers reporting should be included. CeltBrowne (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:WP:BLPPUBLIC requires {{tqq|multiple reliable third-party sources}} for any allegation or incident involving a well-known subject. Feel free to present some sources under {{slink||Dylan Byers}}, below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|CeltBrowne}}, present sources on talk, do not add to the article without consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sangdeboeuf and I agreed in regards to what is stated on WP:BLPPUBLIC and I was happy to comply with what was stated there. Multiple sources were stated as being needed, and Multiple sources were provided. It was a new edit with new content, and I was Bold with it.

:::Can I ask what your objections are to the new sources which were provided? CeltBrowne (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::My objection is to adding something that is under discussion to a BLP without consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::There cannot be a consensus against something which hasn't occurred yet. At the time you reverted, the new sources had not been discussed. New sources being added to an article do not need to be "pre-approved" on Wikipedia (WP:BRD)

:::::There was/is an agreement that WP:BLPPUBLIC applies (I was literally going to simple type "I agree" here on the talk page earlier but it was caught in an edit conflict). WP:BLPPUBLIC states that a an allegation that's denied may be included if supported by multiple reliable third-party sources. I am, in good faith, attempting to adhere to the stipulations of WP:BLPPUBLIC.

:::::What is the current objection/issue to the reliable secondary sources of NPR, Politico, The New Yorker and Puck? If there are no objections to them being the multiple reliable third-party sources required by WP:BLPPUBLIC, I don't see a reason for them to be reverted. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's rather difficult to assess this as you have not shared any links to coverage on those platforms. At talk, so far we have had shared an opinion piece from the Free Press, a piece from Algemeiner that, frankly, is of questionable reliability and the piece from the New Yorker which contradicts that Lorenz "violated the paper's standards".

::::::In fact what all of these sources really do is closely tie the criticism of Lorenz's comportment surrounding Biden to the Israel / Palestine conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Per this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&oldid=1292349253] edit, new sources were introduced to the article from NPR, Politico, and Puck;

:::::::The New Yorker source was/is already used in the article and used to cite Lorenz's denial (the ref named "Chayka")

:::::::The added sources: are:

:::::::* {{cite news |last= |first= |date=3 October 2024 |title=The most popular kid in school |url=https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2024/10/03/the-most-popular-girl-in-school-00182430 |work=Politico |location= |publisher= |access-date=26 May 2025}}

:::::::* {{cite podcast |host=Peter Hamby, Dylan Byers |date=10 December 2024 |title=WaPo Hunger Games and other media war stories |url=https://open.spotify.com/episode/7Edwx9yqSL3byUfYTeOz7w?nd=1&dlsi=35c222be08b04ffe |work=The Powers that Be: Daily |publisher=Puck |time=18:40 |access-date=26 May 2025}}

:::::::* {{cite news |last=Folkenflik |first=David |date=10 October 2024 |title=Taylor Lorenz leaves 'Washington Post' after rift with editors |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/10/10/g-s1-27366/taylor-lorenz-leaves-washington-post-after-rift-with-editors |work=NPR |location= |publisher= |access-date=26 May 2025}}

:::::::The NPR, Politico, Puck sources primarily discuss Lorenz's exit from the WaPo rather than I/P. NPR and Politico are good, reliable secondary sources per WP:RSPNPR and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

:::::::In particular, Politico states that Byers "confirmed the obvious" when he reported that WaPo "determined Lorenz violated the paper’s standards and had no desire to continue employing her" . CeltBrowne (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The podcast is not WP:RS. I'll review the other two momentarily. Simonm223 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The Politico piece is a single passing mention of the contents of the non-reliable podcast's associated substack. Since the core source of this is WP:SPS we cannot use this for a BLP. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The NPR piece actively disputes the claim you wish to make saying {{tq|The paper has not announced the findings of its review. “We are grateful for the work Taylor has produced at The Washington Post,” a corporate spokesperson said in a statement. “She has resigned to pursue a career in independent journalism, and we wish her the best.” The paper would not comment further.}} So, no, based on these sources, you should not re-add the deleted copy. It would be a BLP violation to do so. Simonm223 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Furthermore I'm really not certain why you keep claiming this has nothing to do with the Israel / Palestine CTOP. From everything I've seen in all your sources the core of this dispute is whether Lorenz was fired or quit her job at the Washington Post. And, among those saying she was fired, the reason, per your sources, is because she called Biden a "war criminal" in a photo caption she shared on social media. The context in which people on the left were calling Biden, in specific, a war criminal is the Israel / Palestine conflict. The war crime, in question, was selling arms and providing military support to Israel. This is the context of this situation. So why do you believe it to be outside the CTOP? For that matter, why do you care whether it's in the CTOP? It just means that we should all be on our best behaviour. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::On what basis do you not find Dylan Byers being interviewed by Journalist Peter Hamby reliable? CeltBrowne (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Because Puck is WP:SPS and WP:SPS can not, under any circumstances, be treated as reliable for statements regarding a living third party per WP:EXPERTSPS, WP:BLPSPS and other policy documents that reiterate an SPS can never be used in this fashion. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{noping|Simonm223}} is correct that the [https://open.spotify.com/episode/7Edwx9yqSL3byUfYTeOz7w?nd=1&dlsi=35c222be08b04ffe Powers That Be podcast] is self-published and should never be used for claims about third parties. Both Hamby and Byers contribute to Puck, which Byers co-founded, so this isn't even an independent source. {{pb}} The [https://web.archive.org/web/20241005214855/https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2024/10/03/the-most-popular-girl-in-school-00182430 Politico newsletter] is a quick recap of various trending stories delivered in a breezy, conversational tone, not in-depth coverage of one subject. It's basically an op-ed or opinion piece lightly covering many topics in passing and shouldn't be cited for factual claims. The statement that {{tqqi|Dylan Byers confirmed the obvious about Taylor Lorenz's decision to leave the Post}} is clearly just the authors' opinion. {{pb}} The [https://web.archive.org/web/20241115161838/https://www.npr.org/2024/10/10/g-s1-27366/taylor-lorenz-leaves-washington-post-after-rift-with-editors NPR article] bases its reporting of Lorenz's relationship with the Post on anonymous sources, so it shouldn't be relied upon for significant claims about Lorenz's {{diff2|1292349253|"professional fate at the paper"}} either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}