Talk:Laura Ingraham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dartmouth College, which collaborates on articles related to Dartmouth College.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
No	This article is on a subject of no importance within WikiProject Dartmouth College.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Laura Ingraham article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1

Archives
Before Feb 2007

Contents 1 Wan Kim party affiliation 2 Statement about Iraq War media coverage 3 What's the show about? 4 "Citation needed" 5 Don't remove information, add it 6 Don't add irrelevant, and or biased Information 7 Removal of Controversy Section 8 Copy edit 9 Romney and Rush wars 10 Source for quote about gay brother? 11 NPOV nature of subheading and hearsay in the "Anti-homsexual" section

[edit] Wan Kim party affiliation

The information that Wan Kim was a Democratic appointee was inaccurate. See his bio at the Department of Justice website [1]. He was appointed to the position of Asst. AG in 2005 (i.e., during a Republican administration). His previous positions appear to be ordinary DOJ civil service. Pop Secret 03:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement about Iraq War media coverage

I would not be surprised if this entire piece turned out to be written by Ingraham herself, especially considering the grammatical error regarding her statements, plural. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.43.226.11 (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] What's the show about?

I think there should be a separate paragraph which includes information about the show. What sets it apart from other conservatives? The Wacky soundbites, I think she does it every friday, where she plays two soundbites, almost always with liberals making an "unwise" statement, and then people call in and vote for the craziest one. For example, when Hillary Clinton was in that Baptist church about 2 months ago, remember? "I don't feel in no ways tired... I've come to far... From where I've started from". And other things like that. What do you think? I don't know if you could reference it though. Is there a place where you can find transcripts for her show? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sacrublood (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Citation needed"

When I see "citation needed" throughout an entire section, am I to conclude that the section in question is hearsay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgearhart (talk • contribs) 04:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the information could be true. It just means that a citation proving the validity of the information is needed. If someone finds one, then it should certainly be added to the article, as opposed to removing the information. An honest attempt at searching for a source should be made before removing anything. Stanselmdoc 16:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't remove information, add it

This page is short enough as it is, information should not be removed. If it is not written well, it should be rewritten. And more information should be added to the article, not taken away. That is why I have started adding stuff. If some people don't like the way I write things, let's find a better way to say it. It's about improving the article with information and sources, not about stripping out information and leaving a bare minimum. Stanselmdoc 16:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't add irrelevant, and or biased Information

I'd like to remind the author of this article that this is an online encyclopedia not a fan website, you can talk about the facts but there is no need for your little editorials after each one. If you want to add information make sure its relevant and non-biased. Ex: saying Ingraham was criticized for her comments on journalists not reporting from the war zone is a fact. Saying she made this comment after a trip to Iraq is fact. Describing all the "brave" and "wonderful" things she did in Iraq is biased commentary, especially if you include it without mentioning all the things she didn't do. Furthermore, quoting Oberman is acceptable, adding that he himself didn't go to Iraq is once again biased and irrelevant as the article is not about him. So just to wrap things up, in the future try to take a more neutral tone, maybe try adding a few criticisms of Ingraham that aren't compliments in disguise. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.181.191 (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh, how could anyone add "all the things she didn't do." Not to nitpick, but that doesn't accord with logic. 12.206.222.20 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Controversy Section

I am going to remove the controversy section as I think it is inappropriate for the following reasons. On the “Anti-Homosexual Activism” , there is no third party source citing the controversial nature of the material, only a he said (David Brock), she said back and forth. The same goes for the other two subsections.

I am sure much of the material could be worked into the article in another manner, but with regards to WP:BLP, it cannot stay in its current form. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I checked on of the sections you deleted, "Statement about Iraq War media coverage", and found it had a 3rd-party source. What provision of BLP was violated by the material you deleted? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that none of the third party sources indicate a controversy. And for Eleemosynary to label my edits as "vandalism" .. well, I dont even know how to respond to that. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So your issue is that the sources don't use the word "controversy"? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only do they not use the word "controversy", they dont even mention the controversial nature of the material. I see that they are now "notable", what makes these any more notable, and why are they now "notable" instead of "controversial". What prompted the change in your attitude? DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

They're notable because they're noted. These are incidents that have been covered in the general media. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"They are notable because they are noted", not to sound rude, but that smacks of doublespeak. Take the section "Encouraged mass calls to Democratic voting problem hotline". It only has two sources, one is a dead link from C-Span, and the other is a quick blurb on this subject from the Think Progress website. Considering TP's partisan nature and the lack of coverage from other sources that we all can agree are reliable (no coverage in the “general media”), this does not belong in the article, and certainly not in its present form.

As for the section “Statement about Iraq War media coverage”, it begins with “On March 21, 2006, Ingraham stirred controversy”. She stirred controversy? Really, according to whom, because none of the cited sources mention a “controversy”. I would also add that ”Michigan News” is not a reliable source, and the Truthdig link is dead.

Is it fair or proper for Wikipedia to be nothing but a repository of he said she said material? DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 16:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop blanking the page, "DJ." It's vandalism. --Eleemosynary (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not vandalism if its within policy, and I would appreciate it if you would stop characterizing it as such. . DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 18:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is vandalism as you've been doing it. You've already been warned about it on the ANI page. It will be "characterized as such" as long as you keep doing it. --Eleemosynary (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

3O: At first glance I can say, DJ Creamity, even if this content doesn't meet BLP you are expected to edit the content until it does meet BLP guidelines, not summarily erase it. The severity and frequency of your edits makes me question your objectivity in this particular case. Also, just because nobody has used the word "controversy" doesn't mean a statement isn't controversial. The only factor needed for an issue to be considered controversial is the ability to have a two-sided argument, the ability to debate the subject. Since some of her antics were, in fact, debated by Congress as to whether they constituted voter fraud, I think that qualifies as controversial. And, lastly on the subject of notability - "They are notable because they are noted" is not doublespeak. Doublespeak is the hiding of one phrase (usually negative) in the wording of a more acceptable phrase (look it up, we are on the internet after all). What was presented is a straight-forward clarification. The statements and activities are notable because they have been noted on by others. They are remarkable because they have been remarked upon. In deference to maintaining a NPOV on this subject I would recommend that the "Controversies" section be renamed to "Notable activities" or something less POV ("controversy" does carry with it a negative connotation and a stigma of "headline grabbing" when associated with media figures). And I do agree that much of the phrasing needs to brought in line with BLP standards. Padillah (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There in lies the justification of the removal, if the material does not comply with BLP, as the header at the top of this page says, it must be removed immediately, but I guess that even policies that are “non-negotiable”, are negotiable when being negotiated. And even though I was not required to discuss the deletion, I did, and no one responded unitl Eleemosynary stalked me here and began edit warring over the article. I was going to work what was notable back into the article, but the dispute on the deletion, reinsertion of the material made that a bit difficult. As for the COI, I suppose I do, I have met Laura a number of times, and was a bit put off by the poor treatment of her in this article, relative to the treatment of other individuals in other article, and the apparent double standard (IMO) in the treatment of topics on Wikipedia in general. I referred to Wikipedia:Criticism for some of my rationale, and although only an essay and not a policy or even a guideline, it does draw on many of the policies of Wikipedia and many of the do apply here.

As far as they being notable because they are noted, it should also be noted that may of the sources that “note” the material do not qualify as reliable sources. Is ThinkProgress’s weblog a reliable source for a BLP? Is the Truthdig citation a reliable source for a BLP, when there is not even an authors name associated with the link? Is the self published Michigan News a relaible sourc for a BLP?

I think that in general, these criticisms sections just turn into a dumping ground for anything and everything that a politically motivated editor wants in an article, and in this case it has come to dominate the article, with near half the content devoted to it, a violation of WP:WEIGHT.

Thanks for the input. DJ Creamity^{Oh Yeah!} 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All very valid and lucid points. This is why Wikipedia needs people like you AND Eleemosynary, to make sure neither side gets more exposure than the other. Something that's worked for me is copying the text to the Talk page, making notes on how to reintegrate it, and then deleting it from the main article. this lets people see that you are not just trying to destroy information but still gets it out of the view of the public.

The only problem I run into when I read your arguments is the two-sided stance of "I'll replace the information in a better format" and still maintain "sources that note the material do not qualify as reliable sources". This leaves me wondering what, of the information you say is unreliable, are you going to put back? Take a look at some of the FA's of people and see if you can see that both sides of most criticisms are presented. Even Harry Truman get's some mention of the opposition to dropping the atomic bomb.

I do understand your frustration over seeing someone you have met and admire apparently smeared. But without some of these criticisms it looks as if she's just minding her own business and doing a wonderful uplifting show and you and I know that's not true. Take a look at the Howard Stern article and see if you can tell he was embroiled in controversy for most of his career. That article does not accurately represent his life and carrer and is very POV. Fairness isn't "only including what's nice". Let's see if we can't get some fair sources and round this article out. Padillah (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy edit

I copy edited the lead and added nationality per WP:MOSBIO. Thanks, --Tom 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romney and Rush wars

Should some mention be made of the fact that Hannity, Limbaugh, and other radio types came out strongly against McCain before the Feb 5th primaries, but yet their efforts didn't work and perhaps caused a backlash? OddibeKerfeld (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Not unless it has anything to do with Laura Ingram. Remember, this is her article, not the "Republican Mouthpiece" article.Padillah (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. However, Ingraham, Hannity, and Limbaugh all came out hard against McCain in the last week. Ingraham even said she could never vote for him. Seems like it could be worked into her page. OddibeKerfeld (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, "Ingram has stated..." is a perfectly reasonable statement to make in her article. Be careful of two things: 1) Everything should be sourced (I mention this cause it's rather hard to do with radio broadcasts. Remembering hearing it is one thing, citing it is something else entirely). And 2) Don't expound on her statement, just report that she said it. The Primaries are not over yet and there are enough delegates left to turn this around for anyone. Also, berating her in an article about her is not good form. Other than that, let it fly. Padillah (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source for quote about gay brother?

The article claims it was from an essay in the feb. 23 1997 issue of the Washington Post, but a search of the archives here for articles written between feb. 22 and feb. 24 1997 by author "Ingraham" turned up nothing, and googling this quote only turned up pages that were quoting wikipedia. Is it possible this quote is misattributed, or even completely untrue? Hypnosifl (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's the case. There are other references to its existence. To begin with, the WP carried letters to the editor on Mar 1, 1997 responding to it:

• Laura Ingraham {"Test of Devotion," Outlook, Feb. 23} regrets her Sodomite-baiting school days as editor of the Dartmouth Review.... The day Ingraham's brother decided he was ready to have that talk was a day the ball got moved forward.
• Ingraham seems to think she deserves congratulation for learning, through her brother and his lover, that gays are people, too.

Second, David Brock was asked about the piece in Advocate, Mar 19, 2002:

• Q: There's a colorful scene in the book where you describe running around Badlands [a Washington gay bar] with Laura Ingraham, a well-known conservative commentator with an antigay past. She later wrote a column supporting her gay brother. Did you have anything to do with her renunciation of antigay politics?
• A: I helped her write the column. I'm not sure it was a change of heart. She had gotten some bad press in Vanity Fair about her past and wanted to deal with that reputation...

My guess is that the Ingraham article has been intentionally removed from the WP archives. I'm doing research for another article that occasionally takes me to the library to check microfilm. I'll add this citation to the list. If I can find it I'll restore it. In the meantime, it's appropriate to remove an unreferenced quotation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV nature of subheading and hearsay in the "Anti-homsexual" section

Opinions on Mediamatters aside, for the subheading "anti-homosexual" to be in this article is inflammatory POV. Furthermore, to quote a source in the manner that the sub-heading does, by saying that the writer of the book once heard her say this is practically the definition of hearsay in action. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law, why should it hold up in wikipedia? This is sloppy editing at best. Rocdahut (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)