Talk:Taylor Lorenz

Luigi Mangione comments

At this point, with her most recent comments about Luigi Mangione receiving a lot of attention and 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 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, "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. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

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: 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 has been a popular target of hatred and abuse from the right and this is just another routine example of that.

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:

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") and for calling the suspected killer "morally good". 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."

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:

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: The Telegraph, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the National Post. If this is truly par for the course for Lorenz, what is another example?

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.

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 [6]: "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)

Muboshgu, Bluethricecreamman, 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)

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") and that the alleged killer was viewed as a "morally good man". 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."

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 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. Sean Hannity video on her own YouTube, initial Newsnation coverage, 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 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 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)

I strongly disagree about this point, I would say the fact that she has authored a book is vastly more notable than being witch=hunted for comment that existed to spark the moral gray area around a specific moment. I think including this note as a moment of political discourse should include that she said it humorously. In fact it's probably more important that she got fired from the washington post which is extensively written about in this article after calling President Biden a war criminal and I don't know WHY that isn't included under "VIEWS" Videovideovideo (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Age

How come the French version of this article lists her age as October 21, 1984 (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Lorenz) but this one hides it? SlapperDapper (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Probably because no one has presented a published, reliable source for that info. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

99.999% of articles on people on Wikipedia have no source for the age/birthday. SlapperDapper (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Then 99.999% of articles are badly written. Other stuff exists. Wikipedia has strict policies on how we write about living people, including the need for reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok I will make it my mission to add [Citation Needed] on page I come across with no source for the age. SlapperDapper (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

After reaching this article on the matter, I just did some quick math from their citations. Fortune's 2020 40 under 40 list listed her as 35 as of Sept. 2nd 2020, pinning the date to Sept. 3rd, 1984 – Sept. 2nd, 1985. An NYT article states her age is 31 as of Aug. 29, 2018, pinning the date to Aug. 30, 1986 – Aug. 29, 1987. This was just a cursory gleaning of public record, I won't be digging any further. Based on Wikipedia standards, I'm not sure if the course of action based on these citations is to list the full range of 1984-1987 or leave it unpublished due to the contradiction, or if one of these citations overrules the other. Loverthehater (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The WP:FREEBEACON is not a reliable source, especially regarding living people. I don't think news articles are precise down to the day of publication when it comes to subjects' ages either. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I was putting the Free Beacon there just for transparency on my research process, the real claims come from the underlying citations to WP:NYT and Fortune, which can be seen in the original comment. I'm also aware that news articles don't typically list full birthdates, as I'm also aware that birth-year alone is admissible for wikipedia pages. The dates are, however, inconsistent, as the articles show. I couldn't find anything else and I'm not really interested in diving for this rather inconsequential info nugget at this point. If there's a more authoritative source than NYT or Fortune, or other sources agree with one more than the other to narrow down on anything, that's likely what will be needed at this point, but more experienced editors can chime in if this is incorrect. Loverthehater (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Reading through the talk archives for this page, it looks like this has been hashed out already. This is pretty unambiguous from a reading on WP:DOB's privacy clause stating:

Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.

It it known that Lorenz does object to her DOB being public information, and from my cursory read it does not seem like this information is "widely published", so it's gonna be left off. Loverthehater (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

See previous discussion regarding the DOB here: Talk:Taylor Lorenz/Archive 3#Birthday. Some1 (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2025

2021 lawsuit In August 2021, Lorenz, along with The New York Times, were sued by influencer talent agent and entrepreneur Ariadna Jacob for defamation in relation to an August 2020 article about her company, Influences.com. Jacob claims in the lawsuit that the article contained "numerous false and disparaging statements" about her and her business, including the accusation that she leaked nude images of one of her clients and hiked up the rent on her "content house" tenants. Jacob also claimed that Lorenz failed to disclose her working relationship as a client of United Talent Agency, a firm that she covered favorably in The New York Times and was a rival to Influences, creating a potential conflict of interest. Jacob claims that she lost 85 clients following the publication of the article and is seeking damages in excess of $6.2 million. Jordan Cohen, spokesperson for The New York Times, stated that they would defend the lawsuit: "Ms. Jacob's main complaint is that The New York Times gave voice to young people who felt they had been mistreated by her. It's troubling that she has turned to litigation to try to silence those who criticize her business practices." 77.22.49.22 (talk) 12:27, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Why was this part omitted

 Not done: The section has been removed since November 2023. It was removed because the cited source the section relied upon was an unreliable source and inappropriate for use in a WP:BLP article. No reliable source was found to back up the claim. Also, please note that it is NOT appropriate to use an edit request for the purpose of asking about why something was deleted. SI09 (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

adding onto si09, very much WP:undue as well, the article is not a WP:COATRACK for every bit of WP:GOSSIP around Lorenz Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Request to Remove Outdated Engagement Info

Hi, I'm requesting an update to the sentence stating that Taylor Lorenz is "engaged to Christopher Mims"

This information is **no longer accurate** — the engagement ended many years ago. The claim is also outdated (from 2015) and does not reflect the current situation.

Additionally, the inclusion of this name may raise **privacy and safety concerns**, as the person mentioned is no longer involved and does not have a public-facing connection to Taylor Lorenz.

Per WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIVACY, unsourced or outdated personal information about living individuals — especially when it could pose a safety risk — should be removed.

Thank you for reviewing this. 100.40.139.214 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2025 (UTC)