Talk:Taylor Lorenz#Birthdate

User:FMSky renamed the section to just Harassment (formerly was "Harassment and coordinated attacks")

I reverted as their edit note only indicated "original research." They've reverted back again to their version, per WP:BRD we should discuss.

FMSky- any reasons for the change? It seems to me like the contents of the section warrant the title.

Thanks! SpookyTwenty (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:There's no evidence the attacks against her were/are coordinated --FMSky (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::I disagree - from the article: "Lorenz argued that Carlson's coverage was 'an attempt to mobilize an army of followers to memorize my name and instigate harassment'"

::From further in the article, the times called it a "cruel and calculated attack" SpookyTwenty (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thats one case then, but attacks (plural) doesnt seem to be supported. Why the big deal about this lmao, the way the section is currently is informative and neutral --FMSky (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The big deal is that coordinated attacks/bullying/harassment are quite damaging to their target; more so than random/individual instances. Removing the 'coordinated' diminishes the harm described in this article. Delectopierre (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::: {{ping|SpookyTwenty}} The Times social media post is misquoted; it states it was a calculated and cruel [https://x.com/nytimespr/status/1369747504565256193 tactic]. I also don't see the huge focus on this, and if RS aren't calling it coordinated then I see no reason why we should call it such. And stating they are 'damaging to their target' or 'diminishes the harm' is POV pushing, plain and simple. Nothing is lost from naming it harassment in terms of context. (I meant to reply to your post above but it messed up the layout and replied to {{ping|FMSky}} instead.

:::Awshort (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

:Just going to note that this has been discussed ad naseum:

:* Late Dec 2024 Talk Page

:* Somewhat here

:* At RSN

:* At DRN

::* As a note, this was put on hold and allowed to be archived off the DRN page. I assume that means the case was declined, however, I'll ping @Steven Crossin for visibility.

:I think I'm forgetting a venue, but will add it if I remember. It's been discussed a number of times in passing, too. Delectopierre (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! Figured this wasnt the first rodeo and didn't want to get into an edit war! SpookyTwenty (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::No problem. I wonder if it would be helpful to add a FAQ to this talk page with a few commonly attempted edits: this one, adding her birthday, etc. I'd be happy to comb through the archive to provide thread lists if others concur, though it's not so long that one needs familiarity with previous threads to do so. Delectopierre (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Probably. That's what the {{tl|FAQ}} template is for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Seems like a good idea! Particularly for a page that's in and out of protected status like this one has been. SpookyTwenty (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't like ==Harassment== by itself, because it is ambiguous. Specifically, that section heading could mean that the subject is a perpetrator of harassment, rather than the victim of it.

:I think that an unambiguous heading such as ==Target of harassment== would be preferable.

:I wonder whether the "coordinated attacks" dispute is because people don't understand what "coordination" means. If you're thinking that you have a bunch of people waiting for the "coordinator" to say "Okay, blue team, I want you all to focus on Facebook. Post a snarky comment once a minute for the next two hours. Red team, your job is to post comments on news articles. Your talking points are in the e-mail message...", then that kind of careful orchestration is (I hope and believe) not what's going on here.

:"Coordinated attacks" means something with a lot less direct control than that. For example, years ago, Wikipedia was the victim of a coordinated attack: some television comedian encouraged people to vandalize a specific article, and his fans did. That's an example of a "coordinated attack". The opposite of "coordinated attacks" is "random attacks" (our everyday, one-off scattershot vandalism). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah that all makes sense and rather of harassment seems like a clear way to state it SpookyTwenty (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::@WhatamIdoing Maybe a more informative way of presenting it to an everyday reader would be presenting her past work involving harassment as well as what people other than herself say about what has happened to her, with a suitable title? She has reported on harassment as often as she has reported on tech over the years and it could be neutrally shown. What that subheading would be at that point isn't as clear..."Works with Harassment"? "Reporting on harassment "? In that instance, "Target of harassment" would not work either since it would be more or less a presentation of her work involving it with less reliance on interviews and more reliance on what secondary sources are stating about her own harassment.

::I think it would also make more sense to possibly split the material equally between Career and Personal life. I don't think people can realistically say that we should cram every instance of when she mentions the word harassment or harassment-style issues into its own subsection when she herself is describing how harassment has affected her personal life, but that it is somehow not suitable for inclusion under personal life since "all harassment material should be here". It turns into a WP:BADTHINGS section that seems to go against how the material is presented in secondary sources as well as interviews to make something that is trivially mentioned by the subject or the source into a bigger perceived issue.

::Random afternoon thoughts upon just waking up lol.

::Awshort (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think that "journalist writes about harassment professionally (sometimes using herself as an example)" should be considered a separate subject from "individual human is the victim of harassment". Her books, etc. should go in ==Career==. Since it is largely organized chronologically and by publisher, then perhaps that will be sufficient for these – less "Works about harassment" and more "While employed at The Washington Post, she also...".

:::It is possible to also put her being a target of harassment into the ==Career== section. For example, the bit about being harassed while working at The New York Times could go in the paragraph about her working there.

:::I don't think that a strict "only if written by secondary sources" approach is a good idea for what is, ultimately, a personal experience. First, I'm uncertain whether you actually mean secondary or if you mean independent, because Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. Second, we need her view of what happened to her (in addition to other people's views), and that may be best found in interviews or her own writings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::This is spot on, @WhatamIdoing. Delectopierre (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Awshort you need to stop removing anything that mentions harrasment of Lorenz just because you WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not in line with NPOV and you know it.

You can [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=prev&oldid=1283898166 cite a policy in your edit summary], but this is NOT an edit that policy mandates or dictates. Neither does the policy you quote in your edit summary apply here:

{{tq| →Career: Copyedit section to be in line with WP:IMPARTIAL; removing Lorenz tweet and summarizing what both of their respective media outlets stated. ("Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone.)}}

I do not know whether you mean to or not, but: your continued battle against including mention of the fact that Lorenz is a victim of harassment that has at times been coordinated closely mimics some of the disgusting tactics used in gamergate. It serves to deny her reality; a reality that has been verified by reliable sources time and time again.

So if you are going to continue that battle, you're now going to be doing so knowing that it is a NPOV violation and what the behavior resembles. I hope that you don't.

Before

While working for The New York Times, Lorenz faced online harassment and heightened media attention after being mentioned by name on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show following a social media post she made in support of International Women's Day.{{Cite news |last=Sullivan |first=Margaret |date=14 March 2021 |title=Online harassment of female journalists is real, and it's increasingly hard to endure |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/online-harassment-female-journalists/2021/03/13/ed24b0aa-82aa-11eb-ac37-4383f7709abe_story.html |newspaper=The Washington Post}} Lorenz argued that Carlson's coverage was "an attempt to mobilize an army of followers to memorize my name and instigate harassment."{{Cite news |last=Armus |first=Teo |date=11 March 2021 |title=Tucker Carlson keeps attacking a New York Times reporter after the paper calls his tactics 'calculated and cruel' |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/03/11/tucker-carlson-taylor-lorenz-fox/ |newspaper=The Washington Post}} The New York Times defended Lorenz, stating "Taylor Lorenz is a talented New York Times journalist doing timely and essential reporting. Journalists should be able to do their jobs without facing harassment" and called Carlson's actions a "cruel and calculated attack".{{Cite news |last=Moreau |first=Jordan |date=March 10, 2021 |title=New York Times Defends Reporter Taylor Lorenz From Tucker Carlson's 'Cruel' Attack |url=https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/tucker-carlson-taylor-lorenz-new-york-times-harassment-1234927645/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240827222446/https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/tucker-carlson-taylor-lorenz-new-york-times-harassment-1234927645/ |archive-date=August 27, 2024 |access-date=August 18, 2024 |work=Variety |language=en-US}}{{Cite news |last=Butler |first=Jada |date=March 11, 2021 |title=New York Times defends reporter Taylor Lorenz after Tucker Carlson's attacks |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/11/taylor-lorenz-tucker-carlson-new-york-times |access-date=August 18, 2024 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}

Awshort's edit

In 2021, while working for The New York Times, Lorenz was criticized by Tucker Carlson on his Fox News show regarding a tweet she made in support of International Women's Day in which she said she herself had faced online harassment and a smear campaign, and urging others to consider supporting women going through the same. Lorenz said this led to further harassment https://thehill.com/homenews/media/544628-online-harassment-is-ugly-and-routine-for-women-in-journalism/. Both The New York Times and the International Women’s Media Foundation would issue statements in support of Lorenz that condemned the actions of Carlton, with the The New York Times stating "Taylor Lorenz is a talented New York Times journalist doing timely and essential reporting. Journalists should be able to do their jobs without facing harassment" and called Carlson's actions a "cruel and calculated tactic".{{Cite news |last=Moreau |first=Jordan |date=March 10, 2021 |title=New York Times Defends Reporter Taylor Lorenz From Tucker Carlson's 'Cruel' Attack |url=https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/tucker-carlson-taylor-lorenz-new-york-times-harassment-1234927645/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240827222446/https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/tucker-carlson-taylor-lorenz-new-york-times-harassment-1234927645/ |archive-date=August 27, 2024 |access-date=August 18, 2024 |work=Variety |language=en-US}} Delectopierre (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:First, figure out how you want to proceed since I've already previously said I don't want any interaction with you going forward and you have said the same regarding me. Having a back and forth conversation will make that impossible.

:Other than her tweet, nothing was removed so stating that I 'remove anything that mentions harassment' has no merit. The fact that I've tried to work on asking other editors in this discussion how to further expand her harassment material also proves that that is bullshit. Add to that the fact that I am the original person who tried to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=prev&oldid=1265205968 expand] the article coverage about how The Times covered her harassment also disproves your accusation. Not to mention I previously had tried to work with you 1 on 1 on wording and expanding the section to avoid any issues going forward, which you specifically said you intentionally ignored. And comparing trying to figure out how to present the material neutrally while expanding it with it somehow mimicking gamergate tactics against her is just unbelievable.

:Take a step back and look at it objectively and actually realize that you are still complaining that I am trying to dehumanize her by removing a section based on her past harassment and it's effects on her life when I am trying to figure out how to present it most accurately, and expand it to show how it has affected her personal life. The only difference is you think it should consist of tweets and quotes from interviews while presenting her tweets, and I think it should consist of what outside sources have stated first and then use her quotes to support that material without adding extra weight to it by summarizing it.

:And lastly, pinging only the users who had previously seemed to favor your viewpoint in the same discussion that they will already receive a notification for "for visibility" comes off as attempting to sway the consensus by stacking votes in your favor and I would highly encourage not doing it.

:Awshort (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

{{ref-talk}}

:Pinging @SpookyTwenty and @WhatamIdoing for visibility. Delectopierre (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1284069519 this edit] to align the content more closely with what the cited sources say. For example, The Hill directly states that "It all led to more abuse for Lorenz", rather than qualifying every statement about harassment as "she said". I also separated the first sentence into separate sentences to be easier to read. – notwally (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think that a bit more attention to chronological order might help this paragraph. Here's what I understand so far:

::# International Women's Day is an annual event that most decent people don't really have a problem with.

::# On the day of that event in 2021, Lorenz tweeted something in support of that event. Specifically, she tweeted that online harassment against women is a real problem. This is a claim that most decent humans with any experience of the internet find believable.

::# Tucker Carlson said something (what?) on his TV show about her tweet.

::# Carlson was condemned by various other entities for what he said (which was?).

::# Carlson and his TV channel claimed that whatever he said about her tweet constituted "legitimate criticism of their reporting, claims or journalistic tactics". (Which again makes me wonder: What did he say?)

::# Lorenz (and maybe various other entities?) worried that Carlson's comment was going to lead to even more harassment (and maybe it did?).

::What have I got wrong so far? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for summarizing, @WhatamIdoing. This is great. You nailed it. I think there are relevant things that can be added, though:

:::0. [https://www.wheresyoured.at/clubhouse-harassment-and-techs-move/ The context is that prior to this incident], she heard someone use the r-slur on a clubhouse discussion and mistakenly attributed it to venture capitalist Marc Andreessen when in reality it was Ben Horowitz. They were both on the speaking panel, and are partners and co-founders of a VC firm. She was immediately pilloried and became the target of harassment (more than she already was) for the mistake, despite correcting it quickly. This served to distract from the fact the Horowitz used the slur. That was Feb 2021.

:::

:::3. Then in early March 2021, Carlson starts attacking her. His attacks were summarized thusly:

::::*[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/11/taylor-lorenz-tucker-carlson-new-york-times From the Guardian]: {{tq|Carlson called Lorenz, an internet culture reporter who formerly worked at the Hill, “privileged” and dismissed her experiences as “not real harassment”.}}

::::* [https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/tucker-carlson-taylor-lorenz-new-york-times-harassment-1234927645/ And from Variety]: {{tq| Carlson said Lorenz, a tech and internet culture reporter, was “at the top of journalism’s repulsive little food chain” and that she is “far younger” and “much less talented” than other prominent New York Times reporters in a segment discussing “powerful people claiming to be powerless.” “You’d think Taylor Lorenz would be grateful for the remarkable good luck that she’s had. But no, she’s not,” Carlson said. He then read a tweet from Lorenz, posted on International Women’s Day, saying how online harassment and smear campaigns have destroyed her life}}

::::* It's also relevant that Carlson mobilizes his audience to go after the people he targets. Spending two nights in a row railing against her on his show was quite clearly a bat signal. I will try to find the article I recently read that describes this pattern: Carlson goes after someone, his fans go after them, rinse and repeat. It's also mentioned in the [https://x.com/NYTimesPR/status/1369747504565256193 NYT statement] after the Carlson attacks.

:::6. There certainly has been more harassment. The incidents were in the coordinated harassment section, prior to the slow and steady dismantling of that section by removing items, downplaying them, or attributing them to her and claiming that it violates WP:POLICY. These are from memory so will need to be verified, but wanted to make sure they're part of the conversation:

::::A. She and her family have been swatted, received death threats

::::B. She was physically attacked at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally.

::::C. She's been stalked and had to be escorted to safety at a conference when a stalker who had made violent threats against her [https://www.thetimes.com/culture/books/article/taylor-lorenz-i-receive-death-threats-just-for-doing-my-job-ntk73wwcw?region=global showed up there].

::::D: She discovered a craigslist post offering payment for covert photos of her.

::::E. She printed libsoftiktok's real name. Despite the name having already been published, and being publicly available, she was accused of doxxing the woman running the account, and accused of harassment by knocking on the woman's door despite this being a normal reporting tactic.

::::F. Another example of people jumping down her throat after making a mistake, or when they just disagree with her reporting is around the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial.

:::I think there's more but that's what I recall right now.

:::Lastly, I'll add that [https://casebook-static.pages.dev/research/what-harassment-journalist-taylor-lorenz-can-teach-newsrooms/ this casebook] couldn't paint a clearer picture of the coordination of the attacks against her (it's been dismissed on this talk page as OR because they don't use the word coordinate, and there's been an effort to dismiss it as a RS):

:::{{tq|Anons on 4chan also brainstorm how to find her personal information to use it against her, and discuss how to bait her into revealing information about herself that they can weaponize.}}

:::It also paints a picture of why adding her birthday has been so contentious; I'm not accusing anyone who has tried to add her DOB as someone coming from 4chan, but their behavior at least mimics the behavior that 4chan espouses. Delectopierre (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Just to clarify the above, {{tq|6. There certainly has been more harassment.}} following the Carlson incident isn't exactly correct when the examples listed happened either prior to that segment, or are still included under the subheading of harassment.

::::*{{tq|The incidents were in the coordinated harassment section, prior to the slow and steady dismantling of that section by removing items, downplaying them, or attributing them to her and claiming that it violates WP:POLICY.}} No, not all of them were, or they had undue focus with a single source stating something and were UNDUE. Several were discussed with multiple editors, and reworded or removed.

::::{{tq|A. She and her family have been swatted, received death threats}} Included in the harassment section still.

::::{{tq|B. She was physically attacked at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally.}} Included in her earlier career section since it happened years before.

::::{{tq|C. She's been stalked and had to be escorted to safety at a conference when a stalker who had made violent threats against her showed up there.}} Included in the harassment section still under her being stalked.

::::{{tq|D: She discovered a craigslist post offering payment for covert photos of her.}} Never mentioned in article as far as I can remember, but I would imagine covered under being stalked. Undue to single out a single instance.

::::{{tq|E. She printed libsoftiktok's real name. Despite the name having already been published, and being publicly available, she was accused of doxxing the woman running the account, and accused of harassment by knocking on the woman's door despite this being a normal reporting tactic.}} Covered in the reporting she did on LibsOfTikTok still.

::::{{tq|F. Another example of people jumping down her throat after making a mistake, or when they just disagree with her reporting is around the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial.}} Criticism of her reporting on it is still in the article, as reflected in secondary sources.

::::{{tq|Lastly, I'll add that this casebook couldn't paint a clearer picture of the coordination of the attacks against her (it's been dismissed on this talk page as OR because they don't use the word coordinate, and there's been an effort to dismiss it as a RS)}} The discussion at RSN ended with the decision that the policy brief should be treated as RSOPINION. Since no prior conversation existed on whether it was or wasn't a reliable source, a discussion needed to happen to determine if it was usable, and how it could be used.

::::Awshort (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I had initially attempted to avoid a back and forth between the quotes of he said/she said in the article by removing her tweet accusing him of wrongdoing and not including his comments insulting her, but to fill in the gaps a bit I've tried to include all the prior material below (apologies in advance for the excessive quotation marks; they were in the sources that contained the material. Also, apologies for the Wall of text but wanted to be thorough) -

:::Initial Lorenz Tweet: {{blockquote|“For international women’s day please consider supporting women enduring online harassment. It’s not an exaggeration to say that the harassment and smear campaign I’ve had to endure over the past year has destroyed my life. No one should have to go through this.”

The high-profile Times reporter continued, "I’m slightly open [about] some of what I deal w/ but the scope of attacks has been unimaginable. There’s no escape. It has taken everything from me. The only mild solace I’ve found is w/ other women who have had their lives destroyed in the same way. We’ve developed deep trauma bonds."}}

:::What Carlson initially said: {{blockquote|Carlson said Lorenz, a tech and internet culture reporter, was “at the top of journalism’s repulsive little food chain” and that she is “far younger” and “much less talented” than other prominent New York Times reporters in a segment discussing “powerful people claiming to be powerless.”

“You’d think Taylor Lorenz would be grateful for the remarkable good luck that she’s had. But no, she’s not,” Carlson said. He then read a tweet from Lorenz, posted on International Women’s Day, saying how online harassment and smear campaigns have destroyed her life

“Destroyed her life, really? By most people’s standards, Taylor Lorenz would seem to have a pretty good life, one of the best lives in the country, in fact. Lots of people are suffering right now, but no one is suffering quite as much as Taylor Lorenz is suffering,” he continued.}}

:::New York Times press release response:{{blockquote|“In a now familiar move, Tucker Carlson opened his show last night by attacking a journalist. It was a calculated and cruel tactic, which he regularly deploys to unleash a wave of harassment and vitriol at his intended target,” the New York Times PR tweeted in a statement. “Taylor Lorenz is a talented New York Times journalist doing timely and essential reporting. Journalists should be able to do their jobs without facing harassment.”}}

:::Lorenz reply: {{blockquote|Lorenz later wrote on Twitter, “I hope people see this and recognize it for what it is, an attempt to mobilize an army of followers to memorize my name and instigate harassment.” She also posted an example of a vulgar message she had received.

She wrote, “As I said in this thread on international women’s day, no one should have to go through this, it’s become a far too common experience. Women, POC, LGBTQ journalists all suffer higher rates of abuse online, it has to stop.”}}

:::

:::Carlson rebuttal to NYT/Lorenz: {{blockquote|Carlson says he "told you" about the reporter" during a Tuesday segment about how "the most privileged in our society now consider themselves oppressed."

She "is certainly a shining example of that principle," Carlson said. "A New York Times reporter from Greenwich telling you what a victim she is."

According to her, "saying mean things about her on Twitter is 'harassment,' disagreeing with her on the internet is 'harassment,' failing to affirm her as she self-actualizes... is 'harassment.' There's a lot of real harassment out there. This is not it."

"We were embarrassed for Taylor Lorenz, she spends her entire life on the internet, so of course, he has become a deeply unhappy narcissist -- that's what the internet does to people."

"It's a pretty good little scam the New York Times has running -- they get to hurt you at will, but you're not allowed to notice. Notice what they're doing and you are 'calculated and cruel.'"}}

:::Your timeline is correct. Outside of that timeline, the later comments in favor of Lorenz following it were several opinion pieces, press releases or Lorenz bringing Carlson up in interviews in the following years and calling him obsessed with her or similar. Sources and comments in favor of Carlson were right wing sources/opinion pieces or public figures in the right wing arena referring to her negatively and generally calling her names. There were also public figures from the right that commented on the original tweet of Lorenz and mocked her., her journalism, or dismissed what she was saying etc.

:::Michael Tracey, journalist: {{blockquote|If you are this traumatized and disconsolate from your adult professional choices, that's unfortunate and hopefully you have mental health resources available. But using it as a battering-ram to stigmatize as 'violence' all criticism of you, a public figure, is totally absurd."}}

:::Glenn Grenwald comments: {{blockquote|"Taylor Lorenz is a star reporter with the most influential newspaper in the US, arguably the west. Her work regularly appears on its front page," independent journalist Glenn Greenwald reacted. "Her attempt to claim this level of victimhood is revolting: she should try to find out what real persecution of journalists entails."

Greenwald continued, "If you're going to insinuate yourself into polarizing political debates and report (or pretend to 'report') on the powerful, you'll be 'attacked' online. It can be extra toxic due to race, gender, sexual orientation, etc but it's still just online insults. That's not persecution. With all the suffering and deprivation and real persecution in the world, it is utterly astonishing how often coddled, well-paid, highly privileged, coiffed, insulated, protected US [sic] elites posture as the world's most oppressed class. It's quite sickening and offensive."}}

:::Lorenz reply to Greenwald: {{blockquote|"'She should try to find out what real persecution of journalists entails' is exactly the type of threatening dog whistle commentary that contributes to harassment campaigns. It’s not ok," Lorenz wrote. 

:::She added, "Female journalists, stars or not, should not have to endure harassment for doing their job."}}

:::There was also a study done which examined how Carlson's coverage caused an increase in 'harmful tweets' to Lorenz following his segment, but one of the three people involved in the study was the head of the IWMF, the organization that had issued a press release in defense of her following Carlson's initial comments as well as the organizer of the Coalition Against Online Violence which she had initially tweeted about on International Women's Day. Still, as a fan of data science, I think we can showcase their findings while presenting it neutrally. I'll try to source that portion later tonight and add it in if time permits.

:::Awshort (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::So a young woman says she's getting harassed online, and a multi-millionaire with a TV show bearing his name says that she should be "grateful" for having "remarkable good luck"? I wonder how many of us think "a pretty good life" includes death threats.

::::This is followed by another man exaggerating her complaint about harassment to say she's claimed "all criticism" of her is "violence".

::::And then another man, also reputedly a multi-millionaire, says that all of this ("this" includes swatting her and her family members, which, to be clear, is a process that involves strangers in uniforms appearing unexpectedly at your home with guns drawn and prepared to kill someone) is "just online insults".

::::And these people can issue these judgments confidently because they're magic and know absolutely every little thing that happened to her, right?

::::This article should not make the WP:GEVAL mistake. Name calling (e.g., "narcissist") is not journalism. Spouting off when you've read a tweet but don't know all the facts is not journalism.

::::Having the head of the IWMF involved in the study is not a problem, even if they previously issued a press release. Issuing a press release shows is that the charity is in favor of their mission and trying to get their name in the news by commenting on a current event; it does not show that there is a real-world conflict of interest between Lorenz and the IWMF. Wikipedia:Independent sources means that Lorenz should not be paying ($$$) the IWMF or in some sort of significant contractual or personal relationship with them. It does not mean that they cannot ever have met, interviewed, said anything about, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Could someone else take a look at all the Awshort reverts just made? I try not to interact with them.

::::*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=1284654964&oldid=1284654223

::::*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&diff=prev&oldid=1284653359

::::Delectopierre (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

:Of course editors have an endless supply of WP:RULES to rationalize editorial decisions that are actually motivated by personal bias, which is what seems to be happening. 24.126.11.183 (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)