Talk:Boycott of The Ingraham Angle/Archive 1

Archive 1

About this article

Without this article the narrative of this boycott is developing on these articles:

• David Hogg (activist)
• Laura Ingraham
• The Ingraham Angle

I have not sorted the 100s of articles which have appeared on this article in the past few days, but in addition to the usual journalism, there seem to be multiple pieces of journalism for each of the advertisers involved in this. That makes this boycott potentially part of the wiki article for any of those companies. This is the second boycott associated with the shooting, with 2018 NRA boycott being the first. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Lack of sources in first draft

I do not know what the best sources are for this boycott. Although the cited sources present parts of the narrative I am not sure which one presents it all. Same with the background section - it needs sources. I do not think anything here is controversial - all the sources tell approximately the same story - but so many of these sources assume some background context and are not accessible to someone who had not heard of the shooting, or the protests, or the other cultural context tied into this and which is implicit in the journalism.

I would appreciate anyone developing the citations here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Text from other articles

Various other articles attempted to present this topic. Here is the text from those articles as of now, 3 April 2018:

3 April 2018 from Ingraham, Hogg, and Ingraham show articles

Laura Ingraham In March 2018, Ingraham was again widely criticized after she mocked David Hogg, a 17-year-old survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, for not being accepted to attend UCLA. In response, Hogg asked his 600,000 Twitter followers to boycott Ingraham’s advertising partners. Nutrish, TripAdvisor and Wayfair responded by pulling their ads from her program. Ingraham subsequently issued an apology, stating "I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him". After this, Atlantis Paradise Island, Liberty Mutual, Miracle-Ear, Nestlé, Hulu, Expedia, Entertainment Studios, Johnson & Johnson, JoS. A. Bank, Jenny Craig, Ruby Tuesday, Office Depot, Honda, Principal Financial Group and Stitch Fix also discontinued their advertisements on her show. As part of their efforts to sow discord and undermine American democracy, Russian bots came to the defense of Ingraham on social media. References David Hogg Hogg was criticized by Fox News personality Laura Ingraham who made a comment about Hogg being rejected by several colleges, which she said he "whines" about; in response, he urged people to boycott her advertisers. Within two days, fifteen companies had ceased advertising on her show. She apologized for her remark, but he rejected it, saying she had only apologized because firms had been leaving her show, and that he would accept an apology in the future if she denounced the way her network treated him and his friends. On March 31, he urged his followers on Twitter to boycott Arby's restaurants, which continued to advertise on her show. Republican strategist Steve Schmidt described why Hogg's boycott of Ingraham's advertisers was so successful: Maybe that’s what happens after you’ve been down range of an AR-15 that kills your classmates and comes close to killing you. You lose all fear. Because this kid’s not scared. He’s not scared of the NRA. He’s not intimidated and scared by Laura Ingraham. References The Ingraham Angle In March 2018, Ingraham was criticized after she mocked David Hogg, a 17-year old survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, for not getting into UCLA. In response, Hogg asked his 600,000 Twitter followers to boycott Ingraham's biggest advertisers: Sleep Number, AT&T, Nutrish, Allstate & Esurance, Bayer, Rocket Mortgage, Liberty Mutual, Arby's, TripAdvisor, Nestlé, Hulu, and Wayfair. Nutrish, TripAdvisor and Wayfair responded by pulling their ads from her program. Ingraham subsequently apologized. After her apology, Atlantis Paradise Island, Nestlé, Hulu, Expedia, Johnson & Johnson, JoS. A. Bank, Jenny Craig, Ruby Tuesday, Office Depot, Honda, and Stitch Fix also discontinued their advertisements on her show. References

If anyone likes, they can review these other presentations to retrieve what works and needs to be made more prominent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Name of the article

The subject of this article does not have a short common name. Can anyone propose names which work?

N Boycott of The Ingraham Angle

This title does not work, because there is no boycott of The Ingraham Angle. In a boycott, consumers protest the boycotted organization by avoiding their products. For the subject of this article, the people who are protesting are not the audience of this television show and not threatening to quit watching it. Instead, the boycotters are mostly people who neither liked nor watched the show anyway. The target of the boycott is any organization which sponsors this show which none of the protestors watch.

N Boycott of Laura Ingraham

Again, this title does not work, because Laura Ingraham is not the target of the boycott.

Y Boycott of Laura Ingraham's sponsors

This works, but it is confusing because the boycotters actually are not upset with the sponsors. Also the sponsors never actually were the target of a boycott, and instead the protesters suggested a boycott which they never began because the sponsors immediately changed their behavior.

Y Boycott of The Ingraham Angle's sponsors

Y Protest of Laura Ingraham

This works, but it is general, and there are various other protests against this person which meet WP:N. Probably a more specific title is better.

?David Hogg boycott

This is unclear, because the reader could interpret this as "the boycott which David Hogg started" or "the boycott against David Hogg"

Y Boycott in support of David Hogg

The sources already communicate variously that a protest targets Ingraham, her show, her sponsors, her network (Fox News), her politics, gun culture in the United States, gun violence in the United States, and gun law in the United States; and that the method of the protest is a boycott. I can agree that Ingraham is an indirect target of the boycott, but there are multiple indirect targets. Whatever the target, all of the boycott activity which this article discusses has as a common factor support of David Hogg.

• Boycott in support of David Hogg is my preferred choice. This name is easiest to understand because it does not confuse the reader to wonder about the target of the boycott or the methodology of the protest. Also this title emphasizes Hogg as the key figure in the protest and this topic. Thoughts from others? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  I find the current title (Boycott in support of David Hogg) a little awkward. I prefer Boycott of The Ingraham Angle's sponsors, The Ingraham Angle advertiser boycott, or similar.- MrX 🖋 18:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  I agree that the current title is awkward, and believe it should be changed to one of the aforementioned. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that the current title is awkward. I find the original title "Boycott of The Ingraham Angle" to be the best option here: the target of the boycott is the show, and the target is what matters most. -- irn (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is also a political angle to consider here. The boycott is not in support of Hogg, it is in support of common decency. Advertisers are not pulling their money from the show because Hogg needs support, the are punishing Ingraham for her behavior. Abductive (reasoning) 03:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Consequently, I currently cannot support any title that has the name David Hogg in it. Abductive (reasoning) 03:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with that assessment, though in reading this I'm not really convinced a standalone article is even necessary. ValarianB (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

WOW, that was a fast deletion!

(Under 10 Minutes!) Okay, MrX, I see your point; I didn't realize that the boycott was so recent; it certainly can't be related to something it preceded! I was surprised to find the German Marshall Fund was the parent of Hamilton 68/Alliance for Securing Democracy (although I don't know what they mean by they are "housed at" GMF although "funded by a group of American private individuals and small family foundations". Does anyone know this group any better than I do (which is not at all)? I'm still intrigued at their being censured by the Russians. The website for ASD makes it clear (I think) that it was purpose-made to look into Russian involvement with the 2016 election (see http://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/about-securing-democracy) so if it is saying Russian Bots are also behind the support for Laura Ingraham, that's at the very least another instance of Russian involvement in US domestic issues -- not totally unrelated. Does anyone know exactly when Hamilton 68/Alliance for Securing Democracy was founded? alacarte (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know much about this group, and I don't fully understand the Russia connection. There may be something there, but of course we need to use sources that tie it to the boycott. Maybe something will be reported in the coming days.- MrX 🖋 20:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Recent removal of advertisers list

I object to this removal of the list of advertisers who ceased advertising as a result of the boycott. The information is not indiscriminate, and certainly doesn't violate WP:NPOV. It's sourced to several sources and it's encyclopedic.- MrX 🖋 21:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It was warranted for all the reasons JFG stated: "Remove full list of advertisers, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV (see discussion at AfD) -- keep a few of them in prose to illustrate impact, and keep one citation to the full list". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

We also need to keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS, just because some advertisers may not be worth mentioning it doesn't mean all aren't. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: What would you suggest would qualify a company as not worth mentioning?- MrX 🖋 22:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

That it is just simply another company boycotting and is just a routine announcement in the boycott with no unique notability. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not following you, but all of the listed advertisers are notable. They have their own Wikipedia articles and most are well-known brands.- MrX 🖋 22:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Several editors beside me invoked WP:INDISCRIMINATE about the full list. I believe that a brief mention of some notable advertisers in prose is enough. Curious readers can follow citations to the full list. On the NPOV angle, sure the data is sourced but emphasizing a detailed list of companies may be construed as implying support for the boycott (hence SOAP). Wikipedia should keep a healthy distance to the controversy. — JFG ^talk 22:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Content decisions are not made at AfDs. I would agree to remove the non-notable advertisers—the ones for which there is no Wikipedia article. See 2018 NRA boycott for comparison. Which of the four examples under WP:INDISCRIMINATE do you think applies here? This seems like an example of people throwing around policy links having not actually read them, kind of like they do with WP:NOTNEWS.- MrX 🖋 22:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I take items 1–4 at WP:INDISCRIMINATE as examples of what not to do, illustrating the principle of not listing indiscriminate things just because we can. We could also invoke the WP:NOTEVERYTHING section of WP:NOT, which states: A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Finally, you have not addressed my objection about NPOV or a possible perception as advocacy. — JFG ^talk 22:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

We routinely host list articles and lists within articles, provided that the lists are verifiable and relevant to the main subject. In this case, a reader would be wondering what's the big deal about an Ingraham Angle boycott. The big deal, of course, is the impact of notable advertisers dropping her like a hot potato. The list is not indiscriminate by simple virtue of being a finite list of entities that meet very specific, well-defined criteria.

"Perception of advocacy" doesn't make sense. The deed is done. The boycott has borne its fruit. It's over. The large-boned lady has sung. Do you think the list is somehow going to convince another 17 year old to re-boycott those companies? I'm struggling to understand in what way a simple list would tilt the article in a non-neutral way.- MrX 🖋 23:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the article prose can (and does) express what the "big deal" is, without necessarily naming a laundry list of brands taking their business elsewhere under popular pressure. We also won't list other brands who will fill the void to address the other half of the American audience. Obviously, we aren't going to change each other's minds. Let's wait until other editors comment. — JFG ^talk 23:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep the list of boycotting advertisers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

:::::::I think I'd prefer it return as well. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not seem to be in the slightest way relevant when the subject of the article is the boycott. Seeing it in list form informs the reader about the depth and breadth of the controversy and its effects. TheValeyard (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)