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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)