Talk:Rich Lowry/Archive 1

Controversy Section
As it stands, I don't quite understand the Controversy section. Certainly the views about waterboarding as controversial. But they should probably be elaborated on here a little more with some quotes and such. I really don't understand the inclusion of Olbermann's "Worst Person" designation. I don't think holding this title is understood to be any kind of controversy. It would better fit in a trivia section, which Wikipedia seems to discourage. Lborchardt (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said, the Olbermann reference should be immediately removed from any sort of "Controversy" section. Leaving it borders on bias in favor of Olbermann's opinion(s), which are far from any sence of journalistic neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NebraskaDawg (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted your change. Oblermann certainly has a point-of-view and Wikikpedia allows point-of-views when they are properly sourced. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 22:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel it to be a detriment to the quality and neutrality of this article to devote so much emphasis to a meaningless designation by an opinion commentator, rather than focusing on the professional career to a person who has been the editor of the nation's most influential conservative magazine for nearly eleven years. It should at least be restructed and placed in a new section. --NebraskaDawg (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My goal is not tabloidal (nor am I the author of this section). First, opinion is allowed in Wikipedia. From WP:NPOV:"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." This section details not just Olbermann but others who commented on the statement.


 * That said, I agree that this page is woefully inadequate for a person of Lowry's responsibilities and standing which understandably makes this one piece of his bio stand out. The solution is for you to take the time do the research and expand this page -- which would be an invaluable improvement to this project. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 04:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

- Point taken, and I do apologize if I came across acrimoniously or rudely. Please also forgive me for my ignorance on the intricacies of Wikipedia policy. I've just noticed headlines like "the neutrality of this article is disputed," giving me the impression that neutrality is the goal. Is there a possibility that the Olbermann reference could legitimately be placed in a different section, like a "references in the media" section or something comparable?--NebraskaDawg (talk) 04:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No apologizes necessary -- I agree with the thrust of your point that this article is in dire need of improvement. I'll give a shot at doing some quick restruturing and see if you prefer that. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 04:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done the restructuring naming the section "Positions" and rewriting some of the wording so that it is more neutral in tone (which is the Wikipedia objective) and described Olbermann as a liberal commenator and replaced "notoriety" with "publicity". I also changed "denied" waterboarding is torture with the more neutral "believes that it isn't". Again, I wish I had the time to expand this article to be more worthy of the subject and I am sincere in the invitation for you to do so. It is absurd that such a tiny episode receives such weight but that is the fault of the paucity of the detail in the bio and not the episode itself -- if that makes any sense. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 05:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

- Thank you for your understanding. In my opinion, the editions you made have improved both the quality and the neutrality of the article. There is not a lot of biographical information out there on him, other than his bio on National Review Online, so I understand what you were saying. Thank you again for your understanding. --NebraskaDawg (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fuck Talk a source?
Isn't there enough evidence without having to link to a blog, with a title about "Fuck Talk". Doesn't seem to be the best source of information to me.
 * I've removed it. Reasons: 1. Superfluous,2. Source notability, 3. Perhaps source content (ribald humor) --Lord of the Ping (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I 2/3 agree. 1. True, 2. Definitely true (not a reliable source), 3. False -- Wikipedia does not censor and frequently contains objectionable material. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 04:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point 3, in my mind, was more the issue of satirical criticism vs. mere humorous ridicule. The former is criticism veiled in humor, whereas the latter is humor sprinkled with flakes of criticism. I wasn't quite sure whether it rose to the level of seriousness to be mentioned. But that's why I tagged it on as a possible reason for deletion.--Lord of the Ping (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Sorry for the confusion. The source isn't usable however we parse it. :) &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 02:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No confusion, my fault for clarity. I'm glad you chimed in, I wanted a second opinion :)--Lord of the Ping (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So this is what an anti-biography looks like?
This is less of a biography than it is a statement about how much the author detests Mr. Lowry. I find little useful information pertaining to Mr. Lowry's life, and much about why the author detests Mr. Lowry. Is this really what Wikipedia is coming to? How trite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.24.241 (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal Life
This section is juvenile, unsourced and stupid.

I have nothing in common with Mr. Lowry politically, and personally despise many if not most of his positions. But this section contributes nothing to this (very thin) article and should be removed.

In fact, again noting my personal position, this whole article seems to me to be a very unfair, biased anti-biography (to note the previous section). There is not much here of interest.

I came to the article because I wanted to learn about his educational background.

Nothing there. I am very disappointed. Bill Jefferys (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)