Talk:Lizzy the Lezzy

Untitled

This article should be kept as the website itself provides furthe information on how this series is popular all over the world, thus proving notability. --Cexycy (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Biased content

Although this information may be correct, it is written in a biased way:

• "Lizzy's lesbian comedy videos are now well known around the world.[8] Her stand up comedy videos on YouTube are watched in almost every country[1]."

No source, obviously biased content:

• " which inevitably leads to comical discussions"

The fact that they're her favorite lesbians is not relevant:

• [...] Lizzy then made fun of her favorite lesbians

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.139.33 (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

These items really don't seem to be examples of bias at all.

1. The first item is taken from the sources. (For example, the Haaratz article says “her videos have been viewed by nearly two million people all over the globe”.)
2. The second item, talking about the interaction between Lizzie and Gary, seems entirely reasonable. Remember, these are characters, not real people; saying that their dialog “inevitably leads to comical discussions” is just describing the author's style in using two characters to present some of an episode's content to the audience.
3. The IP user doesn't even claim that the last item is biased, just that one word isn't relevant, perhaps according to some private standard yet to be explained.

If there is no objection more substantial than these, I'm going to drop the POV tag.

 Unician ∇  14:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

1. The first item is not taken from the sources. Saying that it is "well-known around the world" is a completely different claim than saying that it's been seen by 2 million people. Saying that the show is "well-known" seems to imply that most people should be aware that the show exists - when it in fact is less than 0.03% of the world who've seen the cartoons.
2. I'd argue that “inevitably leads to comical discussions” is biased. There is no source proving that it inevitably leads to comical discussions. It's an unsubstantiated claim, which positively describes the cartoon in question. It sounds more like a review than a neutral, factual discussion of the subject.
3. The last item I would claim is also biased. It sounds too casual when writing "her favorite lesbians". A more factual, neutral presentation of the fact would be to include the names of the people in question. Calling it "her favorite lesbians" does not add any content to the discussion, and is too casual for the standard Wikipedia should aim to reach.

You should not remove the POV-tag until this has been discussed through. Just because you feel it should be removed, doesn't mean it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.139.33 (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Question of conflict of interest

A {{COI}} tag has (twice) been added to the article to announce that “a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject”. Page info shows that the article has had 33 distinct editors. May I ask, which of those editors is suspected of having a close connection to the author or to the production of this cartoon? What is the evidence of that connection? And what edits have been made to this article in violation of NPOV by that editor?  Unician ∇  10:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

After two and a half years without a response, I'm going to be bold and remove the tag. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 12:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lizzy the Lezzy. 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/20100326050125/http://international.lotl.com/default.aspx?iid=5394&startpage=page0000009&xml=lotlin.xml to http://international.lotl.com/default.aspx?iid=5394&startpage=page0000009&xml=lotlin.xml

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) 14:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)