Talk:Rich Lowry

Lack of citation

Work section has this uncited line "Lowry frequently speaks on the topics of American exceptionalism and the future of the Republican Party." This should be a very easy citation to find. Right this sentence out of place, or simply not true. I won't delete it immediately, but I do believe it should either be deleted or supported. I found no cite to support it as written 99.100.16.236 (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The following Edit will be updated

Lowry gained notoriety during the 2016 United States Presidential election, when he asserted that Carly Fiorina "cut Donald Trump's balls off with the precision of a surgeon" when Lowry was on the Fox News Channel's The Kelly File, National Review, and Twitter.

This edit was placed in the lead, which I can agree it can be in the body. It was then removed again, for no cognizable reason. Wikipedia is not a personal Linkedin page. Lowry is and editor of a major publication which focuses on politics and the elections. The action in question would not have been allowed on broadcast networks, but was allowed under cable. Lowry has taken to attacking the front runner in the elections in a variety of ways, with this being noteworthy because it is part of the reason why the Republican Front Runner has stopped appearing on the Fox Network. Lowry notions himself as an opinion leader and commentator of the Republican party. The quote is sourced and cited. Following the quote Lowry has taken to modern social media to further interject in the election and the choice of candidates. This is new, novel, and noteworthy. It is a proper item in Wikipedia because off that. And Lowry is a public figure interacting with the public in a televised forum. It does not slight him or remark on anything other than the nature of his work, in a public election. I can see no reason why this should not be reflected. The election of the President is the nature of the work of Rich Lowry, and his adventurous volley is significant enough to include. If other editors want to include other things that he is doing, I have not sought to disclude them. The inertia of keeping everything the same does not reflect well a living document.--99.100.16.236 (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Another example of notoriety is what Lowry is himself tweeting on the topic: "@realDonaldTrump I thought the Carly cut your balls off line might bother you, but you know it's true..." "@realDonaldTrump so it's OK for you to insult Carly's looks, but you can't handle me describing what happened to you in the debate?" "@realDonaldTrump man, you can dish it out but you REALLY, REALLY can't take it" "@realDonaldTrump a deal for you, Donald: if you apologize to Carly for your boorish insult, I might stop noting how she cut your b**** off" “@KevinGlynn1: Haha I am loving the beat down @realDonaldTrump is getting right now! Keep it up @RichLowry !!! ‪#‎NoBallsTrump‬” Again this is an editor of a major publication, who knows fully what he is doing. A simple google NEWS search on Rich Lowry, show how this item dominates with many many articles written on it. --99.100.16.236 (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page per WP:BRD. First, for each revert, you were provided links to this encyclopedia's Manual of Style explaining why your addition to the lead and of adding a "controversies" section were not appropriate. Second, this off-color remark hardly "gained" Lowry notoriety. The few stories that emerged on political websites tied it to Trump's ongoing feud with Fox News, or portrayed it as Lowry coming to the defense of Carly Fiorina after she was on the receiving end of some of Trump's less than elegant pronouncements on her looks (which ironically reinforced Kelly's original debate question). Third, Lowry is not a news journalist held to any standard of neutrality. He is the editor of a political journal of opinion and a political commentator whose job it is to express that opinion. Regarding your claim that the "election of the President is the nature of the work of Rich Lowry", that's simply not correct. His role as political commentator, like that of every political commentator on the left and right, is to communicate his opinion. About the only thing that led to this single-news cycle incident on political websites is Lowry's less than professional on-air language, and its subsequent use by Trump to paint this as further evidence in his ongoing public feud with Fox News. That hardly warrants its inclusion in a biography of a living person in an encyclopedia. There is nothing noteworthy of Lowry taking a stand against Trump (for whatever reason). If there were a Trump vs Fox News section in one of the 2016 campaign articles—I could not find one—it might have a place there. The reason it's not there is that it's not really noteworthy in itself, apart from its momentary value on Twitter and political forums. Trump responds publicly to just about anyone who criticizes him, which is certainly his right. Lastly, if you think it is noteworthy, you might consider adding a section called "Trump and the media" to the article Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. His relationship with The New York Times and the network and cable news channels, for example, is equally contentious. His very public battles with journalists, reporters, and commentators is noteworthy, in my opinion, but in the right context. As for its inclusion in this article, if you think it belongs, see what other editors think and gain consensus for its inclusion. Bede735 (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Bebe737. Factually speaking, the National Journal represents itself out as a News publication. Lowry as editor is the face of the magazine. Lowry has taken postions against specific candidates in the election. In the case of Trump its an ongoing dialogue of a series of articles. He is a paid contributor to Fox News. While I appreciate your assessment and appraisal of all the idiosyncrasies of Lowry it really has noting to do with an ongoing biography of living public figure. Its your opinion. Twitter, Twitter Fights, attacks on cable news by Republicans against republicans, by main stream media outlets is novel, as this is change in the way coverage takes. Lowry interjected himself into the election by carrying on personal attacks against a registered national candidate. If you can come up with another example of that, from and editor and cable TV participant....please share. However I don't think you can find a comparable example. I can take out the word "notoriety", perhaps a small rewording. However the edit in this page is appropriate.

If you have strong feeling on this, you should find other editors, whom you are not friends with, and have them make an appraisal. Without that. I will be updating this again, and if you revert it out, I will call it out as vandalism. My edit conforms to all the rules of BLP, specifically

   Neutral point of view (NPOV)
   Verifiability (V)
   No original research (NOR)

You POV on Lowry is with noticeable affinity to the person. That is fine. My edit is basic and appropriate. And importantly the nature of what Lowry is writing on the same subject is continuing. It was not a single news cycle item. This is a modern election, with modern coverage, Lowry is an editor of print and Internet journal. His work is absolutely related to the election and politics. --99.100.16.236 (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Ditch the last paragraph

Or at least cut the fluff: as in: "Lowry has been broadly critical of U.S. President Donald Trump, In the summer of 2017, when Trump criticized the performance of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Lowry defended Sessions and assailed the president’s lack of “gratitude” toward his long-standing campaign supporter. Orthotox (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Rich Lowry's Biographical Information

Missing most of his basic biographical information, particularly to include race/ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation.2605:6000:6947:AB00:49D2:79EC:1362:5C96 (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Why the edit to remove slavery apologist?

Is there any source or reference for reversing the edit to list him as a slavery apologist? Mastersoftext (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of slavery or being an apologist for it in the article. The lead should summarize the article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Um duh, it works the other way, you need a source to put it in. 69.116.73.107 (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Possible POV issues with "Georgia to restrict voting rights"

The phrasing of "restrict voter rights" may be a POV issue. In any event, there was a series of edits and reverts on the phrasing, so I think that it should be discussed in the talk page. I think that we should include the info, but not describe the bill in Wikipedia's voice as restricting voting rights. We don't describe it as such in Wikipedia's voice on the Election Integrity Act of 2021 article, rather we describe it as a "Georgia law overhauling elections in the state." If it is inappropriate to describe it with such inflammatory language in Wikipedia's voice on an article about it, it is inappropriate in an article about a living person supporting it. Furthermore, the source used doesn't even go that far with the description. The closest it comes on its own terms other than when quoting or paraphrasing others is when it says that it is a "voter restriction law", not a "voter rights restriction law".JMM12345 (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Cwegner edit removals seem political

Cwegner’s removal of a reference to an article published by Politico and authored by the person entitled on this wiki page, and justifying their edit as the information is not necessary seems politically motivated. This editor seems interested in hiding information from the public. Just FYI for future edits. Ken8314932 (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ken8314932: What makes you think this particular opinion piece is notable enough to mention or link? Is anybody talking about it? All I can find is a couple of mentions on Twitter. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be deciding what is news worthy based on who is talking about it. This is a major publication with millions of viewers, it’s relevant to the Jan 6th hearing, potentially charging a former president with a crime and was written 5 days ago and published by a major publication, namely Politico. You seem to be politically motivated and using twitter as the platform for “news worthiness “, where as a Politico publication alone is news worthy, with a topic that relevant to everyone living in the US and potentially every democracy around the world. Not sure who you expected to be “talking about it” 5 days after publication in the mist of a media storm on the topic. Frankly i just want the community to be aware of your potential intentions and bias in edits going forward, can you confirm you are not being paid to edit please?

Thanks. Ken8314932 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Ken8314932: There are pages upon pages of opinion pieces Lowry has written for Politico. How do we choose which ones are worthy of mention? If they are notable third-parties should be talking about them, and if they're not it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

And for the record, I am not being paid to edit. Who do you think would be paying me? Rich Lowry? Trump? Maybe both? –CWenger (^ • @) 03:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

He just said the n-word with a hard R in an interview and caught himself. Kind of a big deal.

Edit: According to this linguist https://www.languagejones.com/blog-1/2024/9/17/did-rich-lowry-just-say-the-n-word-on-megyn-kellys-show

I think it warrants a 'Controversies' subheading, it should not be buried in the text of his 'Career'

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rich-lowry-denies-using-n-word-to-refer-to-haitian-migrants-on-megyn-kelly-show

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rich-lowry-says-didn-t-210358898.html

https://www.advocate.com/news/national-review-n-word-haitian-migrants

https://www.latintimes.com/watch-top-conservative-journalist-appears-use-n-word-during-interview-haitian-refugees-559478

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/conservative-reporter-haitian-immigrants-slur_n_66e88926e4b0b7fef8322bab

https://www.thewrap.com/rich-lowry-racial-slur-megyn-kelly-show-haitian-migrants/ Drocj (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed barring better sourcing/reporting for a BLP. None of these seem to pass BLP muster, and fall heavily into WP:BLPGOSSIP. Reporting is basically social media users arguing about slip/mispeak for the meat of the article, and use of weasel wording.

Examples from the articles you give:

Dailybeast: However, a number of users on social media are saying that, before he corrected himself, it sounded like Lowry used the N-word instead of “migrants.”

Yahoo (this is just a repeat of your wrap article): Folks online are calling out, seemingly used

Advocate: appears to have used

Latintimes: appeared to use, The clip quickly went viral, causing uproar in social media

Huffpo: almost used a racial slur, Many people on X, formerly Twitter KiharaNoukan (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

There's now a piece from NPR. NPR acknowledges that most of the exposure of the slur usage came from social media/Twitter, prominently embedding a tweet from a Media Matters for America staffer. The piece uses the "appeared to use a racial slur" language like other reporting, but also put "[slur]" in the transcript of what Lowry says.

As always, no mention is better than undue mention for a BLP. It is basic libel consciousness for press (and by extension, Wikipedians) to say "appeared to have stated a racial slur" instead of "Lowry said the n-word." On the other hand, it is unfair to characterize all concern for Lowry's slur usage as "gossip," since he did say it. It's not ambiguous. Mewnst (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

It's unambiguous?, yet all the outlets giving mention are couching all their wording and pushing attributed statements from social media users rather than their own reporting? The NPR item doesn't add anything new. The reporting effectively consists of "some people on social media are saying this is a slur, others disagree". It, and pretty much all the other outlets given so far, report ambiguity and couch their own language in ambiguity. Pointing to phrasing from a transcript from NPR that makes clear in their own words that they themselves hold the position of ambiguity and are putting the meat of their article through social media users saying XYZ does not negate this. The HuffPo article's transcript states this: two Springfield residents calling to complain about Haitian mig… migrants taking geese from ponds. Seems pretty ambiguous if multiple outlets are popping out different transcripts.

This is exactly the kind of item BLPGOSSIP is for (among other policies revolving around contentious material in BLP): Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words. The only unambiguous fact that can be gleaned from the body of reporting is: Some people on social media accuse this of being a slur, which others deny. This fails BLP inclusion. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The NPR reporting appropriately frames the statement in the context of Lowry discrediting the cat-eating hoax, and it's one of the few articles out that isn't clickbait. There is now reputable coverage on the topic that is acknowledged by the BLP subject, so a balanced inclusion isn't preposterous. It can be done with no undue weight, no "Controversy" heading, acknowledgement of ambiguity (though disputed), and better context of the contested phrase.

I think this edit of mine is something like that:

In a September 2024 appearance on The Megyn Kelly Show, Lowry stated an indistinct word in reference to Haitian migrants while criticizing JD Vance's amplification of the Springfield, Ohio cat-eating hoax. Following allegations made in press and social media that he had used a slur, Lowry claimed he had mispronounced the word "migrant."

I understand that all previous efforts for inclusion were doing it very wrong, but what's so bad about this? Mewnst (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Mewnst (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I would argue it still fails WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. We have what, 12 paragraphs about him, and we're going to dedicate one to what he allegedly, accidentally said? However, your addition is nicely worded and I won't remove it. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

The wording is fine, if this incident was more notable for encyclopedic inclusion than social media users arguing over it. The issue isn't having a more prominent newsorg with a story up so much as what is in the content of the story. I'd see nothing wrong with HuffPo as a solo inclusion if there was more solid, meaningful reporting about this that establishes actual notability. But it, and NPR, and everything else is really showcasing the same detail-scarce, unremarkable reporting. This incident isn't a particularly notable or insightful part of the cat-eating story, the NPR (and others) mention of it is basic background. WRT the actual controversy as reported by the outlets, it's some people on social media say this, others say that. If verifiability not guaranteeing inclusion, especially of a contentious item on a BLP of all things, is to mean anything, it should hold sway here. If something notable comes up like him getting canned from a job over this, then sure, otherwise adopting a stance of exclusion, pending more notable content for a highly contentious BLP claim, is the right move. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

"This incident isn't a particularly notable or insightful part of the cat-eating story,"

Right this is a separate story altogether. I'm glad you are able to piece that together.

"Detail scarce, unremarkable reporting"

Someone perceived to be saying the n-word in a live interview is pretty straightforward stuff. What details are there to be had?

"Social media users arguing over it"

Social media was pretty unanimous in its accusations based on the reporting, not much arguing as was unbridled shock and outrage. Drocj (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

"Right this is a separate story altogether. I'm glad you are able to piece that together"

Consider reading the conversation you jumped into to understand the comments above before adding pointless snark.

"Someone perceived to be saying the n-word in a live interview is pretty straightforward stuff. What details are there to be had?"

What details indeed. There is a problem in that this doesn't go anywhere beyond the immediate sensationalism of a garbled word, when per BLP, it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Especially regarding a contentious claim in a BLP. Which is pretty much exclusively found within the realm of social media gossip.

"Social media was pretty unanimous in its accusations based on the reporting, not much arguing as was unbridled shock and outrage."

When this is your argument in response to the problem of this controversy existing exclusively on the tides of fickle social media virality, you're pretty much proving the point about sensationalism and gossip. This is everything that multiple pieces of BLP policy is designed to prevent. Even then, your interpretation is contradicted by RS. Per the cited NPR piece: NPR media reporter David Folkenflik weighed in on X, saying: "After watching several times, even slowing this down to 0.25 speed, I believe Lowry garbled migrants and immigrants just after saying the word 'Haitian.'" KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drocj

Instead of shifting your claims in your edit summaries and confusing editors, from alleged "editorializing" of NPR's media reporter to suddenly some "linguist" somewhere overriding the reporter's existence at all even when we're just directly quoting him, can you enunciate your reasoning for repeated removals of Folkenflik, which is included in RS as a notable neutral party weighing in on the topic? WP:IDLI is not a reason for removal. KiharaNoukan (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of Folkeflik's quote in the Wiki article provides the false sense that a consensus has been reached that Lowry jumbled his words. We don't know that. That is his statement, that's why it's included. However there is no media consensus that he jumbled his words. I would like to find a linguist quoted in an article but I have yet to find one. Until then it's best we do not provide an impression of a media consensus as to whether he said the word or garbled his words like you believe. To cherry-pick one neutral party is insufficient. It's best left alone as it is for now with the accusations and his response. Drocj (talk) 08:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

So in other words, you're removing Folkenflik, who is actually cited in the NPR article, because you're hoping that you can later on add someone who disagrees with him, who doesn't exist in RS? Again, IDLI is not a reason for removal. KiharaNoukan (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning. Your view that it's just IDLI is incorrect. Cherry picking commentary and adding it to the Wikipedia page of a living person is not a good idea. I brought up a linguist because then it becomes a matter of science rather than opinion. Drocj (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

What cherrypicking? We have the perspective of social media users, we have the perspective of Lowry, and we have the perspective of NPR's media reporter as a neutral third party, all from the cited NPR source. You're citing "linguists" from where? Any WP:RS? Familiarize yourself with policy before accusing people of cherrypicking. KiharaNoukan (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with KiharaNoukan. It seems like the only reliable source we have that has done a thorough, even-handed analysis is the NPR reporter, regardless of their qualifications. We should include that, particularly in a BLP. If more reliable sources come along that disagree, we can add those. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

We should not include any commentary that imparts a false impression of media consensus. The current paragraph is all that is needed. To include it would give his opinion undue weight. Drocj (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drocj

We have a policy on "undue weight". Per WP:UNDUE - all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources

You're trying to push contentious material into a BLP that goes against what the published RS say, based on "linguists" that you have never cited, and no published RS have apparently displayed. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you read it, it says that the minority viewpoint should not be included at all. There is no evidence that Folkenflik's view is is the majority viewpoint. Drocj (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drocj

Folkenflik is cited as the sole example of a neutral 3rd party POV on this issue in the NPR article. You've repeatedly tried to push "linguists" that you have provided a grand total of zero sources for. By what standard are your mysterious "linguists" a majority viewpoint, and Folkenflik not?

Also, stop edit-warring to insert your viewpoint and please self-revert. The consensus position laid out by multiple editors is for adding the neutral Folkenflik position, citing policy and RS. KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, a linguistic study with a scientific approach is a valid inclusion. Folkenflik's view is still cherry-picked since there is no evidence it represents the majority view. We cannot include minority views so it is safer to not include his view. The consensus is what either the wider public or linguistic community believes. Everyone has an opinion, We should not judge that the opinion of one NPR reporter which for all we know could be FRINGE is worth inclusion. Drocj (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You haven't cited any linguistic studies in any reliable sources. You are pushing policies you do not understand.

From WP:FRINGE - based upon independent reliable sources.

Where are your independent reliable sources to consider this fringe? Or do you claim NPR is fringe? KiharaNoukan (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of every opinion we view to be "reliable" you continue to ignore my point that since we have no evidence of what the majority opinion is right now, any quotes that are meant to define that supposed majority opinion do not make sense for inclusion. If we know what the majority opinion is then we know what is fringe. That's how it works. I am not claiming any opinion is fringe or majority held, that is what you are trying to do. Drocj (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If a bunch of people on social media claimed 5G causes cancer, and all we had is one non-physicist in NPR evaluating the claim and finding it to be non-credible, would we not reference it? –CWenger (^ • @) 22:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

This is so slanderous lol. Of all the controversial (and racially charged) things he has written and published over the previous three decades as editor of the most influential conservative mag, you're going to include in his lean career bio a summary of a gaffe he made on a podcast, merely because mainstream outlets did the same derivative coverage. Many of these social media users are loud partisans (judging by their X accounts) and they obviously desire to make Lowry toxic and easy to dismiss (God knows not using the n-word is like the only sacred cow left in the Trump era). You are doing exactly what those partisans want you to do: amplify and immortalize this gaffe. Lacking a preponderance of evidence that Lowry did say or was in the process of saying the n-word before he rephrased (thus betraying his character), this gaffe is not valuable to public debate or his biography. At this point, it's just giving "when did you stop beating your wife?" vibes. It's a record of gossip. I see there was good faith deliberation on whether and how to cover this, but trust me, if you want Wikipedia to survive the post-truth era, I would just drop this and stick to newsworthy facts/his stated views. 2601:249:9100:BEE0:3184:3725:6A60:1429 (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Being accused of saying the n-word complies with Wikipedia:Notability (news events)#Inclusion_criteria, there was widely spread video available of the incident for social media users to see it for themselves, that's a lasting effect. The claim that this controversy is manufactured by partisans is unsubstantiated since linguists have also shared their interpretations on social media supporting the accusations despite their expertise being absent from the cited NPR article. (Neither here nor ther) Thus this has been included in the article with no undue weight. I would agree that this is not biographical & it does not belong under 'Career' but instead 'Media Appearances' or 'Controversy'. Drocj (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I, as an openly right-leaning editor, am normally very opposed to including every last embarrassing detail about people like him in their respective articles... but not this time. Notability is clear; the matter should really have its own (sub-)section if you ask me. However, we should still wait a few more days/weeks until more RSs are available. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)