A fact from Paige Lorenze appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 December 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of skiing and snowboarding articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Skiing and SnowboardingWikipedia:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingTemplate:WikiProject Skiing and SnowboardingSkiing and Snowboarding articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Bruxtontalk 14:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New enough (when nominated), long enough and otherwise in good shape: no sign of WP:PROMO or copyvio issues. Article is well sourced, as is the hook. QPQ is done. Image is formally awaiting review, but the licence conditions provided seem correct to me.
I do however have a small quibble with the text: we have written Referring to her number of high-profile relationships before the hook, but that isn't really supported by the Cut article. The Cut implies some connection to her comment that "famous men want [her]", but I don't think we can extrapolate that to the number of high-profile relationships she has had. Given the BLP context, it's important that we say only what we can back up from good sources. UndercoverClassicistT·C 21:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approved on that basis. It's clear enough in the source that there's some connection between the Pete Davidson label and the nature of the men who fall in love with her; I think this formulation successfully avoids adding an implication that isn't there. UndercoverClassicistT·C 07:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I specifically avoided citing the generally unreliable WP:NYPOST and chose to include the quotation only because a good secondary source mentions it. Though suppose it would be OK to add the Post as a primary source if you think that helps the article: {{cite news|url=https://pagesix.com/article/paige-lorenze-dating-history/|title=Paige Lorenze's dating history: From Armie Hammer to Tommy Paul|last=Hautman|first=Nicholas|date=2023-09-05|website=[[Page Six]]|access-date=2023-12-07}}. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 23:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and Hameltion: That is a tough one. We have a source quoting a redlined (generally unreliable) source. I am not sure we can use it.@Theleekycauldron: can I bother you to weigh in on the use of the sources we discussed here? Bruxton (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Figured this concern might come up – in short, Wikipedia's justified discouragement of using certain outlets as sources shouldn't extend to when reliable sources have taken notice of them. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hameltion: I pinged TLC and hope that they offer an opinion. If not I will check with another dyk expert. I do not want to hold up the nomination. Thank you for all you do in DYK. Bruxton (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I've always found this to be an interesting question, but I'm not sure it's one DYK needs to answer one way or the other. We can trust the The Cut to accurately quote the New York Post, and moreover, The Cut provides due weight that the Post doesn't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New enough (when nominated), long enough and otherwise in good shape: no sign of WP:PROMO or copyvio issues. Article is well sourced, as is the hook. QPQ is done. Image is formally awaiting review, but the licence conditions provided seem correct to me.
Approved on that basis. It's clear enough in the source that there's some connection between the Pete Davidson label and the nature of the men who fall in love with her; I think this formulation successfully avoids adding an implication that isn't there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)