Talk:Ryan Lizza

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography 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 United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Low‑importance

Hi, I am starting this article because I think this guy has written enough to be considered a noteworthy person. I only just started this so if anyone has more to add please go for it. If you think I am erroneous please tell me but I think it's a justified article. Cubguy83 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that Lizza isn't noteworthy, but the page doesn't prove it. The Brian Williams quote seems utterly puffy, and there is no actual information beyond he is a person. I think in lieu of actual information, the page should be deleted. 72.227.159.234 (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Ryan Lizza.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Ryan Lizza.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- talk) 00:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

A section on this watershed moment in US history need to be included in the article. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/26/trump-dines-with-sean-hannity-ousted-fox-executive-bill-shine-and-scaramucci/

--Wikipietime (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a flurry of edits to the article, by Drmies and me among others, an IP editor removed the word "progressive" from in front of "CNN political analyst" in the lead. It's since been restored without comment by various new-style IPs that may be the same person, most recently here (they've also started capitalizing it, which is incorrect usage). After some thought, I decided the first IP was right. There's nothing in the body of the article, so far as I can see, characterizing his politics. I just removed it again: what do others think? Are there sources characterizing him as "progressive" or "left-wing"? If so, I believe they should be added to the body of the article, and it still might be undue weight to have such a characterization in the lead. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it the first time, and would have done so again (noticed it was back yesterday) but just saw you already had. The best evidence I'm aware of is that Lizza worked for The New Republic and The New Yorker, which are generally recognized as left-of-center. However, he's always been a reporter, never a pundit, and in any case I suspect there's some Weinstein effect point-scoring involved. (FWIW, I do not know Lizza and have no COI here, in case anyone might wonder (long story)). WWB (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "A reporter, never a pundit"--sure, that's a good way of putting it. I wish it were as simple as that with all these cats who are writing stuff but also commenting on stuff. This happens "on both sides" of course. Sure, "progressive" should not be in here. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd request that editors keep an eye out for editors downplaying the allegation of sexual assault (supposedly for NPOV reasons, although NPOV hasn't stopped such users from adding several laudatory quotations). Here is the current version, which I have re-added after reverting efforts by a sock puppet account to downplay the allegation. I'm not suggesting my version is at all perfect, but I have made a conscious effort to include several perspectives: adding both the alleged victim's endorsement of the New Yorker's finding and discussing the subsequent investigations by media organizations that decided to continue to employ or subsequently employ Lizza.

The issues with the section before my edits are quite obvious: the earlier version titled the section "Unsubstantiated allegations of sexual harassment" [1], and an intermediary version clearly attempted to similarly downplay the allegation by removing the header and adding a list of tweets that defended Lizza (and notably no tweets condemning him). Similarly, these edits have emphasized that The New Yorker "claimed" that Lizza engaged in sexual misconduct (sometimes saying "without evidence"), while using definitive language to describe other media org's determination that the allegation wasn't worth keeping off the air. Two users who recently edited the article were found to be sock puppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NPOV-Fixer/Archive.--2604:2000:1742:A11F:6CF4:818D:398A:AC43 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have restored the Bibliography section:

• Cite templates will be used where possible.
• I prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules in
  AACR2 and RDA, rather than "title case
  ".
• Links (either direct or indirect) to potentially unreliable or incomplete digitised copies and to booksellers may be removed.

This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I reverted your addition. I haven't seen another high profile reporter get such a section—I've occasionally seen it for authors with their books listed, but never just a collection of articles in magazines. I think

WP:NOTDATABASE applies here.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree with removing the bibliography. Marquardtika (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]