Talk:Liz Wahl

Next?

It will be interesting to see what happens next in the life of Liz Wahl. {[(We can watch and see if her next job is 'notable'.)]} — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wahl recently made several appearances on MSNBC, FOX, CNN and she continues to prove herself. People using Wikipedia to discredit a viral news story are either unintelligent, have been brainwashed by Russian media or most likely are paid by the Russian government to troll Wikipedia.

Where the guarantee she won't do it to her next employer on air if they don't give her what she wants. A diamond ring, a raise, a yacht. She's a ticking bomb too dangerous to be put live on air. I think her next job will be a very bad selling book. Something along the line "From Russia with...". Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Her next employer will not be for a propaganda organization. She doesn't want a yacht. She wants to tell the truth. Le Grand Bleu is clearly an RT loyalist with no moral principals and is shamelessly promoting lies for a propaganda organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordcuisine (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wahl said she would take a job with CNN, so there's your "not be for a propaganda organization". and why is there no text about her congress hearing against freedom of speech by internet bloggers!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.131.140 (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well now she works for Newsy internet channel with anti-Pitin and anti-Trump performances. No on-airs but still in media ;) \chAlx (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

The TruthDig article cites anonymous RT sources and was written by a friend of a disgruntled host at RT. The neocon conspiracy has been debunked and proven false by Slate, WhoWhatWhy, and Wahl herself in an article in Politico Magazine. The details from that article on this page is a desperate attempt to discredit Wahl and does not belong on this page. The fact that she doesn't have political beliefs of her own is a bizarre accusation. Pay disputes at work is private information, not proven, and irrelevant.

The main page here says that the 'neutrality' of the article is disputed and can be discussed on the TALK page here. Since I just started the TALK page, I thought I would put in the first comment for discussion. Here is my comment:

• Of course some of the writing and supporting information is biased. But readers know what to expect and it looks pretty good to me. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• The box with "... one wonders why they took a job at the Moscow-funded propaganda channel in the first place?" is too prominent in the article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted Freddy Gray's remark. The remark is, as far as I can see, not notable. Thus, I could remove the neutrality-tag. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Notability?

Does she really deserve her own article? WP:NOTSCANDAL, NOTPROMOTION. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

...and WP:TOOSOON, maybe. On the other hand, tv-news anchors at least have some notability. If anyone wants to start an AfD-procedure, we'll see if she is notable enough yet. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I will presently. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's just wait for those who argued strongly in favor of deleting Abby Martin's page (December 2013) ... but somehow I guess they won't show up this time. Have a nice and thoughtful day. 79.230.177.3 (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted parts

Ontherecord deleted sourced information about this girl's actions. I'd like to hear her arguments. So far she cited "an article" and "a something else". No sources, no links, no proper edits. Just edit wars. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

Le Grand Blue appears to be one of Russia's hired trolls afraid of Liz Wahl's message. Multiple articles confirm that the TruthDig article was written in conjunction with RT staff. It's pretty obvious anyone obsessed with defending RT is interested in spreading lies for the station or doesn't have an IQ high enough to see through the fake news network.

Wordcuisine (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The TruthDig article cites anonymous RT sources and was written by a friend of a disgruntled host at RT. The neocon conspiracy has been debunked and proven false by Slate, WhoWhatWhy, and Wahl herself in an article in Politico Magazine. The details from that article on this page is a desperate attempt to discredit Wahl and does not belong on this page.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to see the actual citations disproving what is said in the article. AND it would be interesting to check if users Wordcuisine and Ontherecord27 are the same person. They obviously share the same phrasing and IQ level. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy section

Agreed. This section is useless. It was covered by one fringe article that no one takes seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.31.74 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is this section even here? Has the material been covered by reliable sources? --Malerooster (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only am I doubtful as to the legitimacy of the article, but even supposing it is included... look at the predominance Conspiracy Theory takes of the article. I can think of few proper biographies on wikipedia, where a Conspirarcy Theory takes up 50% of the article. Passafist.Falling (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liz Wahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140516205101/http://abc.go.com/shows/the-view/video/PL5554876/_m_VDKA0_lyp8idot to http://abc.go.com/shows/the-view/video/PL5554876/_m_VDKA0_lyp8idot

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)