Talk:Laura Ingraham/Archive 1

message: Asbl added the following:
:During her years at Dartmouth, she wrote for the conservative journal  The Dartmouth Review. In that capacity, she publicly outed gay students.
:She had originally struck a deal with Ruth Shalit, a writer for the New Republic, to draft The Hillary Trap for her, but Shalit declined.
These are controversial statements and require citations for us to evaluate the credibility of the source. In the item on  Shalit, you might want to be specific about her role: researcher, ghostwriter, co-author, victim of plagarism, etc. patsw 18:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite Sources on Controversial Statements 

message: The date of January 1,1965 is the most frequently referenced date on the Internet.  If I recall correctly, she's mentioned on the air the date of her birth.  The year of her birth, 1965, is also the most frequently seen on the web.  It can also be inferred by her being Dartmouth College class of 1986 .
If you've got a source that says otherwise, let's discuss it. patsw 03:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Birth 

message: The NNDB profile on Laura Ingraham contains incorrect and out of date information and appears to have been last correctly updated in 1999.  Perhaps other NNDB profiles are current but this one isn't. When it's correct and accurate to 2006 or whenever it becomes correct and accurate, feel free to add the link. patsw 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The NNDB profile 

message: The following paragraph makes no sense:
::According to a 2005 Talkers magazine article, Ingraham's talk show was ranked in the top five in total audience among nationally heard talk show hosts, trailing only Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Howard Stern, Michael Savage and Laura Schlessinger. 
How can she possibly be in the top 5 if there are 5 people ahead of her???? --Asbl 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that makes no sense and should be changed.  Possibly to "Ingraham's talk show was ranked sixth..."?  Lawyer2b 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't have a clue. I dont listen to her show. --Asbl 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should try waking up at 9AM sometime. Haizum 03:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out this link.  You'll the reason for the confusion.  Talkers Magazine Talk Show Ranking Lawyer2b 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just how popular is her talk show? 

message: You keep removing things from the article with no explanation.  Please discuss on the talk page beforehand. Lawyer2b 23:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is up, [[User:66.171.45.52]]? 

message: Test of Devotion; What My Gay Brother Taught Me About Tolerance The Washington Post February 23, 1997, Sunday, Final Edition
Copyright 1997 The Washington Post
The Washington Post
February 23, 1997, Sunday, Final Edition
SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. C01
LENGTH: 1455 words
HEADLINE: Test of Devotion; What My Gay Brother Taught Me About Tolerance
BYLINE: Laura Ingraham
BODY:
At a fancy inaugural party this January, I found myself being called a "bigot" and a "homophobe" by Rep. Barney Frank. I had gone over to him to say hello, recalling how the two of us sparred a few years ago when I testified before his House subcommittee, which was examining racial and gender preferences. Eschewing cocktail party pleasantries -- not to mention the "bipartisan" good feelings that saturated the room -- he began pelting me with unflattering epithets.
....
Now he is back in the hospital, this time with stomach bleeding and short-term memory loss. When I called last week, he apologized for not sending a valentine.
-Haizum 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haizum, - please don't post the full test of copyrighted stories. A link would be sufficient, or if a link is impossible then just the relevent text. Thanks,  -Will Beback 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. This information was given to me directly from the producers of the Laura Ingraham show so I did not have a link at the time. Haizum 03:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Refutation (anti-gay) 

message: Sandover, when you first questioned why this controvery was not mentioned in this article I replied because someone like you (who had known about it) hadn't included it and complimented you on a job well done.  Recently though, while I'm assuming good faith that it's not intentional, I have to say I perceive a large POV in your edits to this section.  Your recent edits, in my opinion, created an entry that was imbalanced in that it:
*didn't mention anything dangerous that she did (i.e. go places that she had to wear body armor), 
*didn't mention that she interviewed the Iraqi military and common people (which she had suggested journalists do more of), 
*went seemingly out of the way to describe the protection/safety she enjoyed while there.   
If you're going to emphasize that two villages where she went didn't require her to wear body armor, shouldn't you have balanced that by at least mentioned she went someplace where body armor was required?  
Finally, when I did add a balancing edit describing someplace she went as "dangerous (emphasis added here) enough to require body armor" you removed the word "dangerous."  Why is it you want the article to read that two villages were "so safe (emphasis added here) that...she didn't...wear body armor" but not that she went places "dangerous" enough to require body armor?  My perception is that for some reason you want the section to deemphasize anything that portrays anything unsafe in her visit and emphasize the safety/protection she enjoyed.  Do you think my perception is wrong?  I welcome your response.  Lawyer2b 22:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What say you, Sandover? Haizum 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandover POV editing in "hotel controversy" section? 

message: OK, since I'm supposed to stay calm, I'd like to ask you all (rather than assume) that the following is POV...
The segment called "But...Monkey" takes a politician's sound bite and divides the words before "but" from the words that follow with a screeching monkey sound. This is done in order to highlight contradictory statements. Because there is no prosodic break between the words "but" and "monkey" when the segment is introduced, the title can be taken as a pun on a derogatory term for male homosexuals.
Now wait just a minute, there is no entry in Wikipedia or Dictionary.com for "butt monkey," and I've never heard it used as a derogatory term for homosexual males. In fact, on Urbandictionary.com the accepted meaning is synonymous with a "sycophant" or "brownnoser." Also, having listened to the show, they will anounce that a "but monkey" is about to be played; they then immediately play someone (pundit/politician/celebrity) saying something agreeable followed by the sound of a screeching monkey. This puts emphasis on the following "but," in which the person usually manages to contradict or seriously weaken the strength of their own statement. I really don't see how a person could mistake this for a jab at homosexuals...especially when the definition of "butt monkey" doesn't even apply (I already covered that). Thanks. Please don't ban me. Haizum 01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I've listened to the show on the way to work for about a year and I've never heard any reference to, or soundbites from "Jim Carrey's Pet Detective movie franchise", gratuitous or not. This at least needs a citation, if it isn't just another POV jab. Haizum 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only material about the show which is sourced are the first and last paragraphs. I suggest cutting all of the descriptions of her various recurring gags, unless a reliable source can be found for them. Who cares about the technical producer? Why is the fact she slept through the Super Bowl important?  Let's stick to what we can verify. -Will Beback 03:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "But Monkey" Description: POV? 

message: I reverted most of the changes made in the last day, here's why:
*The "only to find" statement does not violate NPOV, please see the previous talk heading to read my reasoning on that.
*Removing the entire statement that Logan's criticism was, at least on part, based on a mistaken premise without comment is sneaky and unimpressive, Sandover.  I'm putting it back, and if you're going to revert you need to explain why.
*The "Edward Kennedy" comments relate to the validity of his accusations against Ingraham.  I'm putting it back with an explanation linking this - it should've been made more clear, not deleted entirely.
*Laura Ingraham's journey, according to the video linked to the article, was eight days long, yes?  Watch the video.
*The boyfriend scandal is completely irrelevant to Laura Ingraham, and is an unwelcome attempt by Sandover to associate Ingraham with crooks.  Unlike the Edward Kennedy comments, which relate to his accusations (which are important to the "Controversies" heading), Ingraham's boyfriends actions don't seem to have any link to Ingraham's actions/controversies as editor. Karwynn 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second these points. We will need to see explicit and cogent explaination if any of these corrections are reverted; that means you, Sandover. Your chronic disregard for such requests and unilateral reverting is becoming disruptive; I am stating this for the record. See WP:DISRUPT "Gaming the System." Haizum 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandover, you have already begun reverting edits without explaination contrary to my endorsement as a 3rd party to the aforementioned edits, and contrary to my implied and explicit requests for dialog on the Discussion page. Ingraham's trip may not have been 8 days, and although your reference for this is from Ingraham's page, the information is taken from what is implied through her picture gallery; it is not an explicit account of exactly how many days she was there. You seem to think that because it's coming from lauraingraham.com that it must be clear and true. Although you may be correct (six days), the reference is certainly not clear enough for anyone that might be...oh...say...using Wikipedia AS A REFERENCE! Haizum 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: She was corrected on air.  YOu would know that if you had watched the video, which is linked in the article.  I suggest you look more into these things, lest you look like a mere Wikistalker, trying to undo someone's objectives.  Karwynn 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute time! 

message: The information that Wan Kim was a Democratic appointee was inaccurate. See his bio at the Department of Justice website . 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)
thread_title:  Wan Kim party affiliation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement about Iraq War media coverage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What's the show about? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Citation needed" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Don't remove information, add it 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Don't add irrelevant, and or biased Information 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Romney and Rush wars 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV nature of subheading and hearsay in the "Anti-homsexual" section 

message: Mitt?  ↜Just me, here, now … 04:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who did Laura support in the Republican primaries? 

message: Is it really all that notable that Ingrham made a remark about McCain's weight? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've amended it but it should probably just be removed. McCain is a minor celebrity commentator and a talk show host was satirizing, among other things, her talk about body image with ET in 2008. Barely news. Lachrie (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is overflowing with trivia. Going by the book summaries, Ingraham is primarily a cultural critic. At least two of her titles, one on Hillary Clinton and another on celebrity culture, have been reviewed in academic journals. Emphasis on a momentary spat with a minor celebrity looks like trivialization of a substantial body of work, and should probably be removed on grounds of presentism. The “Quotes” section only includes two jokes without any context. That also strikes me as dubious. We could probably do without those as well. Ideally quotations should be apothegms summing up the author's views, sourced directly from published work. Coverage of her writings needs to be expanded. Lachrie (talk) 06:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't disagree. Of course politics is an aspect of culture. They intersect, which is why sensitive issues like body image actually can find a place in political discussion. Recentism is neologism for presentism, which is just a bias toward the present. You're right that this person is a talk show host first. The trouble is we might have to listen to hundreds of hours of live radio to get a comprehensive picture, while from the standpoint of Wikipedia, the books are probably going to be a more reliable source for her ideas and opinions, anyway. The content will be fuller and more definitive than possible in ad lib broadcasts, where statements can be more easily misconstrued. So my feeling is that if we want to expand and improve the article we need to get much more coverage of the primary literature. Lachrie (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meghan McCain 

message: I got this idea from the Michael Savage talk show host article, and wanted to add this as a new section as well. I'm attempting to present this with a Neutral point of view without offending anyone, but still wanted to add the Code Red part of this section. If any additional contributors would wish to contribute their input/updates to this area please feel free to help touch it up but don't delete it. Zul32 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Activism section 

message: I'm adding this line from The Laura Ingraham Show: "Since June 2008, Ingraham has been off the air due to a contract dispute." --70.128.112.146 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I can't. :P    Someone else do it please. --70.128.112.146 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me a citation and I'll do it. Padillah (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't know where to find one. Then just add that she's been off the air. The article is not wholly accurate. --64.149.41.29 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, here's an updated sourced statement from the other article: In June 2008, Ingraham was off the air due to a contract dispute Ingraham Speaks Up About Her Silencing on Talk Radio. A number of hosts filled in for her - primarily Monica Crowley. Ingraham returned to her show on June 30. --70.142.54.69 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

text: What about her other show? About 10 years ago she had a show called 'Watch It' on MSNBC. I believe it came on after Don Imus in the morning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.148.222.114 (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show Cancelled? 

message: I'm not really an expert on this but there seems to be a bias in favor of Ingraham here.  "Jeffrey Hart, the faculty adviser for The Dartmouth Review, being so full of himself, actually described Ingraham as having", why say he is so full of himself? like i said I don't know all that much about this but seems like it should be deleted. Also why no mention of the fact that she was named as one of the strongest anti gay voices of 2008 by GLAAD? Finally the section on Colbert seems a bit off, why the inclusion of intellectually vacant?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.76.155 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  parts of this seem dodgy 

message: As I read this she worked for CBS to host a cable show on MSNBC.  I thought NBC was the network owner of MSNBC at that time and Microsoft a co-owner.  Have I misunderstood or is NBC where she took a job?
Gsw1943 (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  CBS and MSNBC 

message: An editor seems bent on simply shoving in a claim of "Polish roots". First off, it's being just throw in like some random thought. Second, two sources are being used. The first one is not a RS. It's merely a list from some club. Ingraham does reference it in her own book, but only as a passing mention that her maternal grandparents were Polish immigrants. We truly don't know what percentage we're talking about. In actuality, Polish immigrants meant they came from Poland, not that they were ethnically Polish. Regardless, we don't know if she is half, quarter, tenth or what......Labeling her as Polish with only a passing mention about her grandparents doesn't seem prudent.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Polish roots" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Ingraham. 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/20081201195922/http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/americas_election_hq_returns_monday_88514.asp to http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/fnc/americas_election_hq_returns_monday_88514.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130812163527/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20071012/ai_n21051734/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20071012/ai_n21051734/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Ingraham. 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  tag to http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/32746.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120527181136/http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences/ to http://www.talkers.com/top-talk-radio-audiences
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515111330/http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/laura-ingraham.htm to http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/laura-ingraham.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On 29JUN2011 in the third hour of her radio show, Laura Ingraham announced she has a new son, Nikolai (sp?) (a.k.a. "Bam Bam"), an 11 month old adopted baby from Russia.
The article should be edited to include this new info.
I agree.  On 07/07/2011 Ms. Ingraham said she was a "mother of 3" on the The O'Reilly Factor.
(Ecgberht1 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Son 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laura Ingraham. 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/20110720152943/http://www.clapplibrary.org/new_york_times_best_seller_list.htm to http://www.clapplibrary.org/new_york_times_best_seller_list.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified