Talk:Taylor Lorenz

February 2021 incident on Clubhouse

​ I have removed the short paragraph on whatever went on between Lorenz and Andreessen. This is because BLPs have high standard for inclusion of content. They require reliable sources. The Greenwald piece seems to be the best available, and this is not admissible because it is self-published on Substack. All other sources are quite marginal. It is totally possible that future coverage will be better, and it is totally possible that I am missing high-quality sources that are currently available. Jlevi (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

That incident is the main reason anyone's ever heard of her, and it will be the high-water mark of her notoriety. 2601:647:4F00:7D:DF5:94B8:D2F8:26B7 (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

She's now also known for doxxing the woman who owns the "LibsOfTikTok" account, which her fellow nazi Megan McArdle excused because the account belongs to an orthodox Jew. 2601:647:4F00:113A:E8DB:241:AF12:BE4D (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

— 2601:647:4F00:7D:DF5:94B8:D2F8:26B7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Fox News (the news section, not the opinion section) has now published a piece on this, which I've added: https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-taylor-lorenz-marc-andreessen-r-slur 98.33.111.31 (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

— 98.33.111.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This source is much better. Jlevi (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversies do not belong in Wikipedia bios unless they have "enduring notability", per WP:NOTNEWS (and WP:BLP). In other words, it has to have some sort of lasting impact. The current content does not meet that standard. Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is the most notable thing most people have ever heard about this person, and should definitely be included. By now there are several reliable sources, and thus the arguments below have moved on to explaining why it isn't notable enough. It's not reasonable or not in good faith. You could mark the article for deletion because this person is just not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. But can't have it both ways. MikeR613 (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I concur with the points raised by Kaldari on this. WP:CSECTION applies as well. The aspersions that were above (mostly redacted by Kaldari per BLP policy) calling it the main reason anyone has heard of a 40 under 40 journalist and the WP:CRYSTAL territory of speculations are concerning and possible indications that those making them are unable to maintain objectivity with BLP policy in mind. Rolling Stone has referred to this as a harassment campaign against Lorenz; we shouldn't be perpetuating one, especially an event that currently does not demonstrate lasting notability. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If Rolling Stone names it as a harassment campaign, shouldn't that source be included in the article? Just ignoring the thematic is not feasible. And Mediaite is definitily a serious source. It is feasible to say that this story is the reason that many people have heard of her, so it should definitely be included in one way or another in the article. If you want to use the Rolling Stone source for that, please go ahead. Celebrities feeling harassed is no reason on Wikipedia not to include stories, since that would apply to almost every controversy. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Do you mean this source from Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/useful-idiots-taibbi-glenn-greenwald-1127937/ ? That could definitely be included in the article. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 08:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We are still falling into WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:CSECTION territory, as was pointed out by Kaldari. Enduring/lasting notability of individual events/controversies is key, and this has not met that bar at this time; this appears to include the current Verge incident content as well. The section states that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style" and that "...routine news reporting of...celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". As a more tangible example, even plane crashes that get international media attention can be not notable enough for inclusion; that Canadian crash received far more press than this incident has.

WP:NPOV and WP:BLP must be considered and followed at all times. If you want to include a "thematic", then the existing Verge line should be reworked to say "Lorenz has been the subject of multiple harassment campaigns." (with Rolling Stone and the current sourcing as ref) in order to maintain its neutrality and avoid WP:UNDUE weight. It should not receive its own section. The RS source I was referring to was more recent. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Kaldari. I take no position on the so-called "harassment campaign"; I don't even know what the "Clubhouse incident" is. But this article is one of the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The entire page could easily be distilled into a few relevant paragraphs. Avica1998 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Birthdate

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

---

Lorenz's year of birth is disputed by multiple reliable sources. Stating that "Fortune remains by far most credible", "she would have provided her own age", "obviously she fibbed", that Fortune is correct as it gives the oldest age ("suggesting its reliability as an unfavorable statement against interest"), and then in the article that she was a source for her own birthdate (when that is not mentioned in sources) is by definition original research and opinion; it is not backed by reliable sources themselves and what they explicitly say. I am also concerned by Brandt Luke Zorn's lack of willingness to discuss. A talk page message was left asking to discuss. When no response was received for 6 days, I reworded note a accordingly. Zorn returned to revert within hours (linked above) and then disappeared again, messages still unanswered. Wikipedia is built on consensus and discussion is a key part of that; please take a moment when you're available and discuss this with me.. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR is not meant for birthdates. It's meant for privately conjured theories based on remotely related science papers. That being said, the article should at least contain a rough estimate of her DOB, even if the precise day might be uncertain. --bender235 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Full disclosure: TheSandDoctor asked me to take a look at this discussion and give an outside opinion. I would say leave it as "circa" with the footnote acknowledging the inconsistency in RS reporting. Deciding which sources the subject might hypothetically have lied to or which is more likely to have done more due diligence strikes me as too subjective, and in the end, the subject's exact birthdate is not something crucial to the article. And regarding OR is not meant for birthdates - it is meant for any time we draw a conclusion not explicitly supported by facts. There is an exception for basic calculations, but given the disagreement among RS, I think the "basic calculations" exception no longer applies. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

My argument was not just "deciding" that Lorenz had lied to certain sources. It's about evaluating the extent that each source is a reliable source for the given piece of information.

• First, one thing that is not in dispute is that October 21 is her birthday. Any doubt about that part? No? OK.
• Second, look at the sources in question that would allow the determination of a year: the Fortune 40 Under 40 profile of Lorenz, New York Times article "These Companies Really, Really, Really Want to Freeze Your Eggs", and CBS News article "Cries of 'oh my God' heard on moving Amtrak train". In the latter two articles, Lorenz is not the central subject of the article. In the NYT article, she is quoted for her personal perspective as someone who had had their eggs frozen several times. Her name does not appear until the 27th paragraph. The CBS News article is a breaking-news item on an incident of panic due to an unexplained loud noise on a train, to which Lorenz happened to bear witness.
  Next, a practical question: How would the reporters for Fortune, New York Times, and CBS News reporter have obtained a number for Lorenz's age when reporting their respective articles? In each case, they would have asked her first. I'm certain the latter two left it at that and filed their story, which will make sense to anyone who's gone to journalism school or worked in a newsroom. Do we really have any reason to believe an anonymous CBS reporter on a tight deadline for a minor news story went digging through birth record archives in another state and found a correct answer that no one else found? No. Simply put, the reporters of those stories are not reporting her age as her age, they are reporting it as a piece of procedural identifying information that has to be obtained by almost any professional news organization when providing quotes from non-public figures.
  Given that there are three conflicting answers, we should then ask: among these sources, which is most reliable for this piece of information? Well, in only one case, Lorenz herself and her age are the central subject of the source. I cannot stress this enough: the factual accuracy of Taylor Lorenz's age only matters in the 40 Under 40 story. Out of the three, this is the only story where the reporting institution and Lorenz herself (as a presumptive primary source of information) both had a strong incentive to get it right. It is the only one where a wrong answer about her age could have been a reason to withdraw the entire story, a result that would embarrass both Fortune and Lorenz.

This isn't even about deciding that if Fortune got it right, then that must mean Taylor Lorenz lied to the others. Frankly, it doesn't matter why the other two provided different answers. There's just no no plausible reason to prefer either of the other two to the Fortune story, or even to prefer one of them over the other. It's entirely possible both reporters simply mistyped her age and the mistake was never caught—although, again, that would no reason to rely on those sources above the Fortune piece. —BLZ · talk 02:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor, GeneralNotability, and Brandt Luke Zorn: I don't want to weigh in on how credible each source is, but just for precedent: we have dealt with conflicting sources about DOBs before. Also, since this is an interesting question in principle, I opened a discussion on the village pump. Feel free to comment. --bender235 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

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

She's 43

She admitted to being 43 this week.

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/taylor-lorenz-chinese-propaganda/

https://twitter.com/TaylorLorenz/status/1509432405030936578

69.127.80.46 (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sadly there are some things in life we cannot directly know—like the true face of God, or the age of Taylor Lorenz. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 05:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The age 43 tweet will eventually auto-delete and she may attempt to say she never said it. Including here an archive link of that tweet

https://archive.ph/iMwkZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2102:30D4:E10A:1CAB:7191:C453 (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

I think the word journalist should be corrected to activist. She doesn’t do journalism that would mean shes objective. She is strictly a progressive activist. Kinda like a megaphone for the far left. 104.138.181.21 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The above is absolutely correct and it's repulsive that wikipedia has Libs of Tik Tok's name published — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.61.225.151 (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the cat's already out of the bag as far as her name goes: https://www.google.com/search?q=Chaya+Raichik, I don't think Wikipedia will have that much impact on its visibility. Endwise (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Isn't including irrelevant personal information against Wikipedia's policy? The story here is she's being accused of harassing and doxxing someone, so that person's name is not really relevant as they themselves are not the story. 86.49.12.69 (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There is WP:BLPNAME/WP:BLPPRIVACY, which does say something a little bit like what you've said: the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified... Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context... Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

TBH I could see the argument for removing her name from this article being stronger than for Libs of TikTok, though it might make wording things a little bit awkward. But I could see the argument for it. Endwise (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the name. This is a public individual, who's name has been widely covered. There has been, to the best of my knowledge, no court order or any other official ruling to conceal the name. It is public information. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with it being in this article. It's widely disseminated enough that Raichik's privacy interests are a bit weak, and though her name is not exactly relevant to Lorenz's career (like it is to Libs of TikTok), it's mostly just that wording this article without the use of her name would be awkward. But if, for instance, this section was originally written without Raichik's name, I wouldn't go out of my way to try and shoehorn it in. Endwise (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

She is not a public individual at all, she's a private person who runs a private Twitter account. 86.49.12.69 (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is NOT reliable

Sourcing to Fox News in regards to the "Libs of TikTok" incident completely unnecessary, as there are plenty of good sources reporting on it. I also don't see the point of going into the specifics of what she was accused of. We could fill an entire book with the nonsense right wing pundits accuse journalists of on a regular basis, for the simple act of practicing journalism, and none of it is even remotely noteworthy.

Therefore I recommend replacing The article drew criticism from American conservatives, who accused Lorenz of doxxing Raichik, and additionally accused Lorenz of hypocrisy for previously speaking out against online harassment. In response to the article, Libs of TikTok accused Lorenz of harassment for visiting the homes of her relatives, and tweeted that "Thankfully I'm currently holed up in a safe location. I'm confident we will get through this and come out even stronger." with In response to the video, Raichik, and a number of American conservatives accused Lorenz of doxxing and harrassment. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's still relevant for this article to describe specifically what she was being accused of, though I can understand your desire to reduce the reliance on Fox News. I have trimmed it down a bit further and reduced reliance on it. Endwise (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

She's being accused of "doxxing and harrassment", which is what my recommended revision already states. Accusations of "hypocrisy", which is such a cliche at this point, it's considered one of the most basic jokes comedians fall back on when mocking conservatives, and Raichik's story about "hiding in a safe spot" do little besides hurt the neutrality of the article, by suggesting that what Lorenz did was something nefarious, rather than standard investigative journalism. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I already removed the "holed up in a safe location" quote before you wrote that comment; it's more relevant to Libs of TikTok than Lorenz. Endwise (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In a similar vein, the cause revealed the identity of the person behind the account as Chaya Raichik, and also revealed her occupation, religion, and, through a later-removed hyperlink, her address is included here based on the FoxNews article, and some WP:SYNTHESIS by citing the WashPo piece. I actually can't find any other WP:RS that include such specific information about what information was revealed, and it's unclear even from the FoxNews article exactly what address was included (her work address? her home address? her family's address?). Any suggestions for addt'l cites here or better phrasing to reflect the actual cites? SiliconRed (he/him) (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek is also not reliable post 2013 and should be removed. The quote you mention removing is back @Endwise:. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it. Endwise (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• @X-Editor: Why are we now increasing reliance on Fox News? As written the addition also appears to run into WP:VOICE and WP:DUE concerns. Additionally, given that this was written it appears directly for Tucker Carlson Tonight (see how it's categorized), this also falls quite clearly into Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Fox_News_(talk_shows) and therefore shouldn't be sourced from as any sort of fact. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Change birth year in main text from 1878 to 1978. 2003:E9:7F18:1700:4D7A:CB55:1CB0:D1BC (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

This is fixed now. Endwise (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Received 40 under 40 at age 42? What is her real age?

The article says she's an American journalist however we can't pin down her year of birth and it has recently been updated to be 1978 which would have made her 42 when she was on the 40 under 40 list. Well there had been multiple articles written before all of this controversy stating various ages for her. Wonder what else is being hidden. 2604:CA00:1DB:A85C:0:0:A60:735D (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

In a Tweet in March this year, she said she was 43 year old, which would imply she was born in 1978 (assuming October 21 is right). Secondary sources have given various ages at various times that imply a birth date somewhere between 1984 to 1987. The Forbes list was in September 2020, which would've made her 40 years old at the time according to the age in her Tweet, which I think is still possible? Regarding "What is her real age", I think we have no idea; as blz 2049 said above, Lorenz's age seems to just be one of the mysteries of life. Per WP:DOB in a situation like this we should just continue to list all of the different possible years: If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, the consensus is to include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. Endwise (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

yes, but WP:DOB also says “ A verified social media account of an article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of reporting a full date of birth. It may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it.”which is the case here and she is clearly annoyed with doubts about her birthdate. Is there any serious reason to doubt the veracity of her claim beyond some stale references to which she has notably responded? 2600:1700:1111:5940:C08C:466B:3B33:3128 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok WP:QUOTEFARM.

The LibsOfTikTok section relies way too heavily on massive quotations; I've removed the most obviously low-quality block, but the underlying issue is that we shouldn't be using so many quotes to begin with (per QUOTEFARM, Quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing. Long quotations crowd the actual article and distract attention from other information - this is definitely the case here.) We should summarize and paraphrase the main threads of opinion in a neutral tone - ideally cited primarily to secondary sources that summarize opinion - rather than making extensive quotes of emotive table-pounding opinion-pieces or giving specific weight to individual opinions from non-expert sources and talking heads. --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I agree that the section definitely is a quote farm; it is also probably WP:UNDUE in how in-depth it gets...it is longer than the rest of the article by a mile. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• The problem now is that it doesn't appear balanced and appears to fall short of WP:NPOV. It doesn't report the fact that the claims of doxxing are widely disputed, not just by the Post, and focuses mainly on the accusations against her. Things need to be better summarized. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  @X-Editor: Please start being communicative here. Content on individual articles is subject to consensus on those individual articles; communication is required. Concerns have been raised on this page about content and sourcing being WP:UNDUE or otherwise inappropriate and this needs to be addressed with discussion locally in order to come to a consensus. Just ignoring these discussions is not appropriate editorial conduct. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What quotations would you suggest removing or summarizing? Also, is there a source that says the doxxing accusations are widely disputed? Because it haven't encountered one that says that. If there aren't any sources that explicitly say this, then saying that in the article would be OR X-Editor (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Substack

https://twitter.com/taylorlorenz/status/1524471840390799361?s=21&t=1w0YLVAsy_r0djwUvxryUA

> I normally don't debunk all the crazy wrong info on my wikipedia, but since this keeps getting mentioned in articles I just want to reiterate that I've had a Substack since the platform launched. It's always been free, and I simply use it to promote my articles

> I don't monetize on social media, I have a salaried journalism job and am part of a great union. I don't monetize my Substack and I'm certainly not part of the TikTok creator fund. I make TikToks b/c as a multi media journalist I enjoy it.

I’m not sure if a tweet from her is considered a reliable source, but this is easy to verify.

I'd say it's probably not a reliable enough source to stand on its own. Regardless, the tweet is no longer available, and I failed to find any archives of it. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the article says these things anymore and I would be nice if she could elaborate more on "the crazy wrong info". X-Editor (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

50.102.253.218 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

DOB???

Not entirely sure. 614 sources were reached out to, and zero responses.
Estimated DOB 1967-1972

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 04:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2022

Change Taylor Lorenz birth date from Oct 21, 1984 - 1987 to Oct 21, 1984.

Change Taylor Lorenz to Taylor P. Lorenz.

Amelia-Odell (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We don't use primary sources for DOBs on BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Ongoing attempts to create narrative

Multiple users selectively editing quotations to "shape" the narrative of The NY Times/Mediaite stories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998 (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Most recent revision deliberately sets forth the two separate NY Times and Mediaite stories involved in this matter, quotes the relevant portions for each, and includes two separate tweets from Lorenz in response that have been selectively edited in previous entries. Additional notes quoting Lorenz have been added to the paragraph on the Drudge matter, one of which uses a deprecated source (the Daily Mail, one of Lorenz's prior employers, SOLEY because it contains an image of one of her deleted tweets not otherwise available and is thus an exception to the use of such sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC) 

Avica1998 (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Subdivided “Career” into “Historical” and “Current”, chronologized the former
Incorporated information from “Recognitions” into “Historical”
Incorporated information from “2021 Lawsuit” into “Historical;” added updated text
Eliminated “Tucker Carlson” text as unremarkable and irrelevant
Added pre-journalism work history from interview source
Added 2017 assault incident into “Historical”
Extensive editing for style and form — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998 (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Much of the information you added to the article was from primary sources with extremely poor grammar and style. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. X-Editor (talk) 06:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

the only primary sources are the subject's own tweets and (and perhaps a transcribed interview). there has been an ongoing attempt to create a narrative with selective quoting from secondary sources; the primary sources are included to preclude this and ensure a NPOV. grammar and style in the text itself is far superiour: please compare to the atrocious "Current" section (which requires extensive editing). of all my faults, bad writing is not one of them. please specify the words that constitute "bad grammar" and "Style" Avica1998 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: I think you need to spend some more time learning the ropes on Wikipedia before making huge changes like these. To respond to your comment here, it's not the case that writing articles based on primary sources helps ensure adhering to a neutral point of view. You may wish to read WP:PSTS, and WP:BLPPRIMARY: Wikipedia is generally based of secondary sources, particularly when dealing with material about living people. We generally trust what secondary sources find important to mention about primary sources, rather than writing our own analysis of primary sources ourselves.

To discuss your edits, first, sources: MEAWW is unreliable gossip stuff, Substack articles are self-published blogs (WP:BLPSPS), you can't use primary court case documents in a BLP (WP:BLPPRIMARY), and you especially can't use forum posts by users on texags.com. Regarding style, I'm not entirely sure what you were going for with those tweets in notes separated by spaces, but that's not how things are meant to be formatted (for one, there shouldn't be spaces between the citations). Wikipedia:Citing sources has information on all that. I didn't get an extensive/proper read through of all the edits, so I can't comment on grammar. Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

see restored templates Avica1998 (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I think your interpretation may be a bit off:

An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources

Still, I think I'll leave the quotes alone for the time being until the remainder of the article is properly edited. Avica1998 (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: You are ruining this article with bad sourcing, bad grammar, bad copyediting, bad formatting and bad style. X-Editor (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

pending question Avica1998 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Avica1998, please stop editing the article, and actually build consensus for your changes at this talk page. You'll know you have consensus when you see editors affirm their support for your points. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

see view history Avica1998 (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The edit history reveals an edit war and three revert rule violations. Please stop and seek consensus. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998, which part of the following failed verification? "Fortune stated that she has "cemented herself as a peerless authority" whose name became "synonymous with youth culture online" during her time with The Daily Beast and The Atlantic." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

see revision 05:04, 1 July 2022‎ Avica1998 Avica1998 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998: that revision does not contain any explanation for the tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability Avica1998 (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998, let me ask in another way: could you please tell me which words in the article text are not verified by the source? In placing the tag, you are saying "all or part of this is not supported by the source". Which parts? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

see tags under ==Accolades== Avica1998 (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

This matter is now (partially) under discussion at this ANI section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Accolades

Despite the disruptive editing, here's a thread to discuss the Accolades section. Personally, I think it is normal and fine to include mention of the subject of a biography has been viewed and evaluated. Whether this might be too much focus on accolades could be up for discussion, but seems appropriate to include mention of accolades to help contextualize the criticism that comes later in the article. Note, however that that use of the {{peacock}} inline tag is inappropriate: we are quoting the language used by other sources; it is not us saying those things about her. -- ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"Restored revision 1096180311 by Avica1998 (talk): (1) the changes you are unhappy with were not "vandlaism". (2) is it not "peacock" when we are quoting other people's wording (if you don't like it, discuss on talk); (3) ok to have accolades or similar sections. again, discuss on talk "

What "other people's wording" do you mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avica1998 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC) See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Avica1998 (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

In these edits you reapply a peakcock inlinetag as if we're using inappropriately flattering words in our text. But the article is quoting the sourced content. Our article isn't saying Lorenz is "synonymous with youth culture online" but we are quoting someone else who did. Whether you feel it is ok for us to include that quote is a different question than us using improper adjectives to describe the subject. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Your quotes cannot be verified Avica1998 (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Um, what? We are quoting what other sources have said about the subject of the article. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

To which specific sources are you referring? Avica1998 (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

when I click on the links to the Fortune staff (September 2, 2020). "Taylor Lorenz | 2020 40 under 40 in Media and Entertainment". Fortune. Retrieved September 3, 2020. cite and the Adweek staff (August 9, 2020). "Meet Adweek's 2020 Young Influentials Who Are Shaping Media, Marketing and Tech". Adweek. Retrieved September 4, 2020. cite I am sent to a subscription page. I cannot verify the quotes you are using, Avica1998 (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avica1998 That isn't at all what "failed verification" means. Having to pay for access to a website is completely acceptable on wikipedia and does not prevent the website being used as a source, see WP:SOURCEACCESS. "failed verification" tags are for when you've actually looked at a source and confirmed that it does not support the text of an article. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Excessive Citations

Reversions involving use of :. Currently applicable to "Career", "2021 lawsuit", "Libs of Tim Tok" and "Coverage of the Depp v. Heard trial" subsections.

Use of Primary Sources

Reversions involving removal of . Currently applicable to:

• use of Substack as reference in "Early life and education" section. Substack articles are self-published blogs (WP:BLPSPS). Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• court documents used as reference in "2021 lawsuit" subsection. Endwise (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)"|date=June 2022}}

Selective biography

Reversions involving removal of Lorenz's pre-NY Times media work:

Lorenz worked for the Daily Mail from 2011-2014. After a short stint writing for the The Daily Dot in 2014, she was a technology reporter for Business Insider from 2014-2017. In 2017 she wrote briefly for The Hill’s blog section, and was assaulted by a counter-protester while covering the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. From 2017-2018 she worked as a technology reporter, this time for The Daily Beast. From 2019-2022 she was a technology reporter for the The New York Times, during which time she was made a Visiting Fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism. She likewise signed a contract with publisher Simon & Schuster for a book titled Extremely Online: Gen Z, the Rise of Influencers, and the Creation of a New American Dream and was sued for defamation resultant from one of her articles. The book has yet to be published and the lawsuit is ongoing.