Talk:Laura Ingraham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cite Sources on Controversial Statements

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)

Brock on Dartmouth Gay Students Association

The substantial claim inserted into the Wiki article is

Ingraham attended meetings of gay student organizations for the purpose of publicly outing them in the journal.

This is corrected by Timothy Noah in David Brock, Liar in a credible way:

The Vanity Fair profile (which appeared in the January 1997 issue) was written by Mrs. Chatterbox (Marjorie Williams), who informs this column that she quizzed Brock (who was then openly gay) about his friend Ingraham's anti-gay Dartmouth activities in an on-the-record interview for the piece. (Incidentally, what Ingraham did was less a matter of "outing" than of secretly taping and then publishing the transcript of a meeting of the Gay Students Association.)

This correction is correctly cited and linked in the part of the article that's been deleted.

As one can read in David Brock's own reply to Timothy Noah in Slate he doesn't deny the correction as to what Ingraham did (i.e. what is disputed in the Wiki article).

As Noah mentions in his reply to the Brock objections, Brock does not deny Noah's claim that Brock lied in Blinded by the Right when Brock claims he was unaware of Laura Ingraham's anti-gay past until January 1997 when the article was published. Brock acknowledged Ingraham's anti-gay activities to Williams in an interview preparing the Vanity Fair article. patsw 00:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion focused on just The Dartmouth Review, and not generalize it to Ingraham's homophobia. I claim that just because Brock did not dignify Noah with a response to the "publishing the transcript of a meeting" excuse does not validate it. There are two huge problems with this excuse

1. What makes the transcript of the meeting of the Gay Student Association newsworthy that is worth publishing in The Dartmouth Review? Did Ingrham also publish transcripts from other student groups?
2. Why did she have to do it undercover? A legitimate reporting of the meetings would have had her identify herself, unless she was trying to expose illegal activities, and this is not the case.

Since it is not proper to debunk Noah's claims in the article, I think the best thing to do is to leave them out. --Asbl 04:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The point of Noah's article was to point out errors in Brock's book. Given the opportunity to challenge Noah and reassert the outing claim, he decided not to do so. Noah's knowledge of the actual circumstances of the incident in the early 1980's through his wife is not challenged.

Brock did dignify the Noah article with a reply in slate.com. The significance that you and I should draw from it is that Brock mischaracterized Ingraham's action at and after the GSA meetings -- and after being exposed by Noah, Brock had no meaningful response: Brock was caught in a lie.

What you have here is a typical need in the Wikipedia to present both sides, if you present one.

I believe this to be a insignificant aspect of Ingraham's life and but if does merit presentation here, it should include this Brock-Noah exchange. Noah's comments on Brock's accusation of Igraham's outing of Dartmouth's students should be restored patsw 13:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here. Brock's refutation of Noah's manuscript does not require that each and every sentence be challenged. There is no doubt that Wikipedia should be balanced, but that does not mean that points of view that are held by a very tiny minority need to be mentioned. For example, if 99.5% of scientists believe the earth is a sphere and .5% believe the earth is flat, does that mean that the .5% should get equal exposure to the 99.5%? I think not.

If you believe Brock lied, that's fine (I do not), but that is your opinion which you share with Noah. It is not supported by any credible evidence (at least I have not seen any to date). As I have pointed above, the argument that Ingraham just wanted to publish the transcripts of the GSA meetings and not to out gay students sounds contrived. --Asbl 15:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Brock lied because Noah reported a different story and Brock didn't challenge it. If Noah had been inaccurate, why didn't Brock challenge it? Your cite of a flat earth argument here is irrelevant. Noah was in a position to actually know what Ingraham did -- because his wife wrote the biographical article on Ingraham in Vanity Fair. It's a different version from Brock's account and has more validity since Noah names his source for finding the inaccuracy in Brock's Blinded by the Right.

Brock does not name his source for the "outing" accusation, Brock wasn't at Dartmouth, and Brock didn't conduct his own primary research. So it is Brock who lacks credibility.

I'll answer my own question "If Noah had been inaccurate, why didn't Brock challenge it?" -- because Brock admitted that Noah got the date right on CNN When Brock agreed that Noah caught him in an error, didn't that give Noah credibility?

I believe this to be a insignificant aspect of Ingraham's life and but if does merit presentation here, it should include this Brock-Noah exchange. Noah's comments on Brock's accusation of Igraham's outing of Dartmouth's students should be restored. The readers can decide whom to believe. patsw 02:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You have made a good point. Even though I believe Noah's claims are bunk, he has established some credibility to merit his claim being mentioned in the article. Go ahead and add it back. --Asbl 12:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Brock on Shalit

The sole source for the claim made by Brock on Shalit was an anonymous item on the Drudge Report. The item was denied and Drudge published the denial (elapsed online time: 36 hours) and Drudge's source did not return to Drudge to follow-up. It is unverified and does not belong in the Wikipedia article. patsw 01:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Your reference is 100% consistent with Brock's assertions. The denial is that Shalit wrote the book. Brock claims that Ingraham approached Shalit to "draft the book" (he did not elaborate what that means) and Shalit declined. I therefore conclude that the statement is valid and belongs in the article.--Asbl 04:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not Brock's interviewing anyone, he's based his story in Blinded by the Right on an anonymous source that Drudge believed not to be credible after Shalit's denial which Drudge reported. Brock's claim is unverified.

Did you read the denial? Shalit said she "has nothing to do with the book".

The hypothetical book, the subject of this 36-hour 1998 rumor was never written, i.e. a book which "will trace women's roles throughout history", but The Hillary Trap: Looking for Power in All the Wrong Places was. This item should be removed not only for non-verifiability but for its non-significance.

The real item might be that Brock hates Ingraham, but while truthful, it is non-encyclopedic. patsw 13:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I take exception. While Brock did not specify his source, I would think he had first hand knowledge that Igraham approached Shalit to write the "Hillary Trap" book. Remember, during that time period, Brock was a very close personal friend of Ingraham.

I am kind of lost as to what hypothetical book you are talking about. The only book mentioned in the article is the published one about Hillary. By 1998 Brock was no longer a friend of Ingraham (at least I think, I do not know the exact timeline of his friendship with Ingraham).

I have yet to be convinced that Brock is spreading lies on any of the people mentioned. He actually took pitty on Shalit, and did not mention her plagerism in his book, a legitimate topic. So much for Brock being a smear merchant.--Asbl 13:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I would think he had first hand knowledge — I don't have to conjecture. I have Blinded by the Right in front of me — and Brock doesn't say how he he came to know of this alleged offer made to Shalit. As few lines after the Shalit allegation, he says "[Ingraham] confided that she didn't believe much of what she was saying on the airwaves". This is hardly what a friend would write -- it is mean-spirited and goes to not the question of Ingraham's credibility, but to Brock's credibility when he discusses Ingraham. So why doesn't this Brock accusation belong in the article as well, if you are going to accept Brock-on-Ingraham as consistently truthful?

What about since 2000 when The Hillary Trap was published? Ruth Shalit has not written a book, in fact she was fired for plagiarism, and Ingraham wrote another best-seller Shut up and Sing.

The 1998 allegation of Ingraham making a deal for Shalit to draft The Hillary Trap: Shalit denied it. Ingraham denied it. Brock does not name a source. It is not verifiable. It does not belong in the article. patsw 03:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something. The link you gave says that Shalit denied writing the book. It did not say that Shalit denied being asked to write the book.

There is no doubt that Brock is no longer friends with Ingraham. I, unfortunately, do not have Brock's book in front of me (it has been a few months since I read it), so I can't add the other quote you are alluding to. But you certainly can, that would be OK with me. --Asbl 12:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Shalit denied having anything to do with the book. She said this on the record for Drudge. patsw 15:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, that is consistent with what Brock wrote, that she was asked to "draft to book" but declined. Once she declined, she had nothing to do with the book. --Asbl 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Date of Birth

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)

If you've got a source that says otherwise, let's discuss it. patsw 23:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The NNDB profile

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)

Unsupported, Speculative, and POV, "Refutation"

User:Asbl, the justification of your edit "...even though there would not have been a need to name the participants if that was her only purpose." seems to rely on this logic:

Ingraham wrote an article naming participants of gay students meeting she attended. She didn't need to name them in order to report on how tuition money was being spent. Therefore, she was doing it do "out" them rather than report on how tuition money was being spent.

I have a few problems with this. 1) Your edit implies that she did in fact write an article naming gay students, but I don't see anything supporting that. 2) You directly state that naming students was not necessary for her stated subject matter . I'm not a journalist, but who decides what is "necessary" for a journalist to include in an article? It seems like you're merely speculating. What if, as a journalist, she legitimately felt it was necessary to name students to do a good job? 3) Even if she did write an article naming gay students, and somehow you could conclusively prove that it was not necessary, I think it is quite a POV leap to imply "therefore, she did it to "out" them!"

In my opinion the very next sentence, "In addition, Ingraham did not identify herself as a reporter to the participants of the meeting", is also POV because it relies on similar faulty logic. It implies that if a reporter doesn't identify themself to participants they write about, that the reporter must have an ulterior motive/subject and that in this case, the ulterior motive must be "outing" those written about. Lawyer2b 06:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To address two points you raise in earlier discussions: 1) Even if Ingraham didn't publish transcripts from other student groups, you're making a big leap (POV) to say she her motive was "outing". 2) There are many cases of legitimate reporting where a reporter doesn't identify themself and the activities they want to expose are not illegal -- just questionable. Lawyer2b 06:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1. David Brock asserted in his Blinded by the Right book that she did, in fact, out gay students

2. I have not seen her articles, but if she wants to write about how tuition money is spent, why does she need to name members of a club? (I dont even know if the club is supported by tution money)

3. There is no legitimate reason to serepticiously attend a meeting and then publicly name the participants, unless she is reporting illegal activity (which she apparently did not). Nobody said anything about what she did was illegal.

--Asbl 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Then, I think we should change Ingraham's entry so it mentions that. Currently, it only says that Brock said she attended meetings for the purpose of outing students; not that she actually outed them. What does Brock say exactly she did that outed them?

2. Why does she have to name members of the club? Who knows? Maybe she felt it was appropriate in the context of what she wrote and maybe not. Our opinions are nothing more than speculation. I understand the point you are trying to make, but Wikipedia has a policy against original research. Unless you can cite an independent source (Brock?) stating "naming members was not necessary for her reporting", it shouldn't be included in her entry.

3. Again, I'm not a journalist but I think journalists can legitimately surreptitiously investigate legal activities. Can you cite some independent source that states Ingraham had no legitimate reason to investigate surreptitiously? If not, you are again putting opinion and orginial research the article. Lawyer2b 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have Brock's book (I checked it from the library some time ago), so I can't give you his exact words until I go back to the library and look it up. --Asbl 17:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

David Brock attributes a motive to Ingraham's actions which is speculation on Brock's part. Lawyer2b can read the above to find out what Ingraham's motive was and that Brock had lied, and most important to this little Wiki-dispute -- Brock didn't challenge Noah's claim that Ingraham wanted to publish a transcript in the back and forth the two had in Slate ten years ago about something that happened twenty years ago. Brock's claim is disputed. It's transparent that not including the discussion of the dispute creates an anti-Ingraham POV in the article.

The incident in my opinion is insigificant with the passage of time, and with no other evidence of Ingraham's alleged homophobia is merely extending the public and petty feud that David Brock has with prominent conservatives who were, according to Brock himself, people he once called friends.

I've concluded Asbl wants this to always be an article of extremely poor quality and always mention Brock's outing allegation in its second sentence, giving it weight and prominence totally out of proportion with what would be an accurate and complete biographical article. Perhaps if more people cared, we'd have a new consensus and rewrite the whole article.

Even David Brock has moved on to attack Glen Beck in 2006 [1]. patsw 18:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Patsw, I like Ingraham because of my political beliefs (and the fact she's smokin' hot) but I'm assuming good faith with Asbl and simply want an article free from all POV. I completely agree that the accusation Brock levels should not be in the second sentence; I don't think it should be in a "career section" at all. I haven't read Brock's book, know little about the man, his beef with Ingraham, or any allegations of Ingraham being homophobic. In general however, I think there is room in biographies for accusations (and their refutations) whose sources are identified so long as they don't try to set the tone of the entire article. Why don't we find a place in Ingraham's entry for Brock's accusation and a place for you to add Noah's comments regarding its veracity? Lawyer2b 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The new criticism section is fine with me. --Asbl 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sincerely glad you agree with the new critcism section. :-) I don't have a problem with you right now changing the text to read something to the effect that "Brock claims Ingraham 'outed' people" assuming you say you will check out a copy of the book in the next week or two to make sure that's correct and add details. Do you have a problem with me removing the text "even though there would not have been a need to name the participants if that was her only purpose. In addition, Ingraham did not identify herself as a reporter to the participants of the meeting" for the reasons I have given? Lawyer2b 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You can (until I come up with backup documentation) remove the proposed text. --Asbl 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Asbl: Always Supports Biased Liberalism. Haizum 03:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just how popular is her talk show?

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)

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)

Don't have a clue. I dont listen to her show. --Asbl 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You should try waking up at 9AM sometime. Haizum 03:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out this link. You'll the reason for the confusion. Talkers Magazine Talk Show Ranking Lawyer2b 00:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What is up, User:66.171.45.52?

You keep removing things from the article with no explanation. Please discuss on the talk page beforehand. Lawyer2b 23:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ingraham's 'hotel balconies' comment

Why does Ingraham's entry lack any mention of the comments she made on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 on the "Today Show"?

"To do a show from Iraq means to talk to the Iraqi military, to go out with the Iraqi military, to actually have a conversation with the people instead of reporting from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs going off."[2]

Ingraham made the comment while Jill Carroll was still a hostage, and two months after ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff was nearly killed by an IED. (Neither reporter was "reporting from hotel balconies.") She was widely condemned by Keith Olbermann and others,[3] but praised by the National Review and fans of her show.[4] For many people, this was the first exposure to Ingraham's rhetoric. She apparently has never apologized for her remarks. Why is this controversy not part of the article? Sandover 04:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Because someone like you, who was aware of it, never added it. Well done.  :-) Lawyer2b 04:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What a crock. You obviously didn't see the media scrambling for credibility after she exposed just how isolated most mainstream journalists are in Iraq. What, do you want to contest the fact that most reporters are in hotels? Go ahead and make yourself look like an ignoramus - or troll another article. Haizum 05:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

KURTZ: I want to play for you a piece of tape involving Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio talk show how who was on "The Today Show" earlier this week and criticized "The Today Show" for not doing more from Iraq.

As we can see, the host of this questionably objective show specifically says that her coments were critical of what "The Today Show" is doing in Iraq, not every journalist in Iraq. Furthermore, it is obvious to anyone without an agenda that Ingraham would have applauded Carrol and Woodruff for actually going out and speaking with the people; she was criticizing just the opposite. Your POV comments are being removed. Haizum 06:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't even see how the Criticism section as it stands is criticism. It is only reporting something that she did regarding homosexuals, but it does not explain why these actions were criticised...by anyone. What's that you say? It's implied? Oh, then I'm afraid that isn't NPOV in the slightest. You can't imply that she did something wrong, you need to explain what was done and who criticised it. Haizum 06:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha! What a joke. The citation for the part of the Criticism section is from Margaret Carlson, author of the book Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and I Made It to the White House. I'm afraid that's hardly a reliable source for objective information. You've got 12 hours to come up with another source before I delete this for the sake of NPOV. Bzzzzt, try again. Haizum 06:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You've got 12 hours to come up with another source. Haizum, that's just not how we solve things on Wikipedia. We don't serve up ultimatums; we talk about sources and we resolve problems. You have alleged a source that I did not cite; my material did not come from Margaret Carlson's book (which I have never heard of) but from Time magazine itself, where Margaret Carlson originally reported it in 1997. Just follow the link. Time is regarded on Wikipedia as NPOV, but perhaps you might be satisfied by National Review, which originally documented Ingraham's homophobia and which Time quoted. Since you seem to have a neutrality issue based on the misunderstanding about my source, I am deleting the "neutrality" tag. Again, what does Margaret Carlson's book have to do with any of this? Sandover 07:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Haizum, second point: Ingraham's comments about reporters in Iraq not venturing out from their 'hotel balconies' caused a major controversy in March 2006, and whether you think Ingraham was misconstrued by Keith Olbermann and Lara Logan and others, you can't simply pretend it didn't happen. The controversy is part of Ingraham's history. Perhaps more context is needed here, not less, as a way of solving the problem. For the record, let's look at what you have deleted:

On March 21, 2006, Ingraham stirred controversy as a guest on "The Today Show" with remarks about U.S. journalistic coverage of Iraq:

"To do a show from Iraq means to talk to the Iraqi military, to go out with the Iraqi military, to actually have a conversation with the people instead of reporting from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs going off."[5]

Ingraham made the "hotel balconies" comment while Jill Carroll was still a hostage, and two months after ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff was nearly killed by an IED. Ingraham was widely condemned by Keith Olbermann and others,[6] but praised by the National Review and fans of her show.[7] Ingraham has never apologized for her remarks.

Ingraham may not have specifically been speaking of Carroll and Woodruff (although she didn't mention them or cite them for bravery, so your comment that she "would have applauded" them is a bit strange given that it was the perfect opportunity to do so). Ingraham was clearly not speaking only about NBC and the Today Show. If you read the transcript[8], you see Ingraham complaining about "NBC and networks of the United States." Those are her words, and they follow the crack about hotel balconies.

Accordingly, I have restored the deleted copy, and added words to clarify that Ingraham's criticism was indeed directed not just at the Today Show, but at reporters working for "NBC and networks of the United States." Sandover 07:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It still isn't cogent criticism, and therefore fails to be NPOV. Haizum 19:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Carlson is cited as a source. I don't care if you used her or not, she is cited in the section and is not an objective reference. Haizum 20:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ingraham spoke differently of Carroll and Woodruff on her radio program; that is a fact. Unless you can prove otherwise, the allegations that she was insensitive to Carroll and Woodruff are fallacious because they do not take into account all available information. You are trying to be critical of a position that she held, correct? Well, she didn't take the position that you claim she did - you're wrong. Haizum 20:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From the same program: Ingraham: "Well here, here's what I think David. I think with all the resources of networks like NBC. The Today show spends all this money to send people to the Olympics, which is great, it was great programming. All this money for Where In The World Is Matt Lauer? Bring the Today show to Iraq. Bring the Today show to Tal Afar. Do the show from the 4th ID at Camp Victory and then when you talk to those soldiers on the ground, when you go out with the Iraqi military, when you talk to the villagers, when you see the children, then I want NBC to report on only the IEDs, only the killings, only, only the reprisals. When people are on the ground whether it's recently, David Ignatius of the Washington Post, whether it's recently..." ...and yet you continue to misrepresent. Haizum 20:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From The O'Reilly Factor: Laura: I think that the coverage of the war by NBC that I have really focused on, especially since I was in Iraq last month, to me it seems bizarrely focused only on the I.E.D.'s, only on the latest reprisal killings that are taking place. When stories that are so fascinating and interesting and broader and human interest, stuff the "Today" show and NBC likes to do, those stories are out there for anyone to get. I don't get it. ...and yet you continue to misrepresent. Haizum 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ingraham was widely criticized by Keith Olbermann and others... Blatant Weasel words, and therefore a crock of POV. "Widely"? "Others"? Don't even try to get away with that, your source only leads to Olberman's comments - hardly notable. The tag stands. Haizum 20:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

She has not apologized for her remarks. If no one has called for and apology, then this implies that an apology should be issued, which is POV. If an apology has been called for, you need to cite it. 12 hour notice. Haizum 23:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If anyone has an email account that can accept a 1.23MB file, I can send you a 4 min clip of The Laura Ingraham show (3/22/2006) that blows away the criticism. Will you partisan hacks ask me to send it to you? Probably not, but the POV tag isn't going anywyere. Haizum 02:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Haizum, I hardly know where to begin. Your edits have been consistently partisan, your accusations misplaced (see 'Botch', below). You think that Time is not an NPOV source? Well, what about The Weekly Standard, which printed the memo from Jeffrey Hart about Ingraham's homophobia? Does the Weekly Standard become an unreliable source once Margaret Carlson, a highly-regarded Time reporter, reprints a quote from it? What isn't 'cogent' here? I just don't follow your logic.

What I do get is that you consistently attack inconvenient and unflattering facts, and you do so on specious grounds. While that may reflect the style of argument you hear on the Laura Ingraham show, it is not NPOV, and it is not appropriate on Wikipedia. Your 12-hour notice comments are particularly offensive. That's not the way we do things here.

Ingraham was widely criticized for her 'hotel balconies' comment, and countless bloggers took it up. That's the 'many others', and it is obvious by doing a Google search on the controversy. The 'many others' is in fact a parallelism to the phrase about National Review, and to the fans of her show who apparently support her remarks. The parallelism was designed to serve NPOV and to show that there were multiple individuals on both sides, and that's why I took pains to find people who defended and supported Ingraham.

She has not apologized for her remarks. You know, I can go either way on this, and I truly don't mean it as an accusation against Ingraham, only that the controversy was not resolved by an apology. Every time I hear of journalists dying or being wounded in Iraq, I remember Ingraham's cruel remarks and the fact that her accusation against journalists still stands. I freely admit it was the death of CBS cameraman Paul Douglas, sound engineer James Brolan, and critical injuries suffered by correspondent Kimberly Dozier which earlier this week prompted my first edit.

For what it's worth, Olbermann may or may not have been asking for an apology when he said the following:

"A note about Laura Ingraham's comments: I've known her a long time. I'll, in fact, give you the caveat that I've known her socially. But that hotel balcony crack was unforgivable. It was unforgivable to the memory of David Bloom, it was unforgivable in consideration of Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt, it was unforgivable in the light of what happened to Michael Kelly and what happened to Michael Weiskopf. It was unforgivable with Jill Carroll still a hostage in Iraq. And it's not only unforgivable of her, it was desperate, and it was stupid."

That isn't worth anything. There is no "should", "ought", or "must" regarding what Ingraham should do about her comments. He simply deems them "unforgivable". That's hardly asking for an apology. Haizum 20:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue could be resolved by including the entire Olbermann quote, and leaving it at that. It might also be helpful to point out that Ingraham said her remarks to Matt Lauer, whose late colleague David Bloom had occasionally substituted on the "Today Show." Ingraham was well aware of Bloom's role at NBC and relationship to the "Today Show," and that provides additional context. For the record, Bloom did not die on a hotel balcony. Sandover 08:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue could be resolved by a consensus that it is not significant enough to include in the article in any form. The recent tragic deaths and injuries to reporters gave a permission slip to opportunistic media critics to call Ingraham "cruel" and "unforgivable". patsw 12:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

...even though those same critics failed to realize that Ingraham herself was in a position to be killed or injured, which makes their criticism imbecile and fabricated out of their own ignorance. Haizum 20:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Patsw, if you are arguing against inclusion of Olbermann's quote in response to Ingraham, that's fine — I haven't incorporated them into the entry mainly because Olbermann's remarks (a day after Ingraham said what she said) seem more like a current event, even if those comments were emblematic. However, if you arguing against mention of the 'notel balconies' comment at all here, I take strong exception. Ingraham — who is otherwise best known in an AM radio context — made her comments during a rare national TV appearance, and was also criticized by Olbermann and Logan on national TV. Her remarks even prompted John Conyers, a Congressman, to write a column. In other words, Ingraham splashed into the national consciousness and caught the attention of people (like me) who may have already known who she was, but whose opinion on the bravery of U.S. television network war journalists was under the radar.

That's exactly why the controversy is encyclopedic. For people like me, it's now the first thing that comes to mind when they think of Ingraham. She's hardly responsible for the recent deaths of journalists, of course, but those recent remarks did prompt me to see what was said on her entry about this incident and how it was resolved. I am sure I'm not the only one who did that. Sandover 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For people like me, it's now the first thing that comes to mind when they think of Ingraham. Exactly, you're partisan. Haizum 19:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

made her comments during a rare national TV appearance ...which shows how much you know. Haizum 20:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Botch

LOGAN: Well, I think it's outrageous. I mean, Laura Ingraham should come to Iraq and not be talking about what journalists are doing from the comfort of her studio in the United States, the comfort and the safety.

This is very irritating and it shows your partisanship since you apparently don't bother to read your sources. Logan didn't even know that Ingraham had been to Iraq; the citation is unacceptable. Haizum 23:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So what? The entry doesn't quote Lara Logan, it merely says that Logan criticized Ingraham. Logan was probably doubly outraged to find out that Ingraham had actually been to Iraq and came back to make these comments. Sandover 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you expose your POV pushing a little more? "Probably"? Why would she have been more outraged with Ingraham after having gained the knowledge that she was out there risking her neck like the others? Wow, you are blinded by POV. Haizum 18:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ingraham's comments followed a six-day visit to Iraq

Actually 8 days...you botched it by 25%, but whatever, no one will think that's partisan. Haizum 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if your days are right, he botched it by 33%, not 25%. Hee hee! Karwynn 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Ingraham now claim it was an eight-day visit? Ingraham's own website (footnoted in the article) says that February 5th was her 'first day in Iraq' and February 10th was her 'last day in Iraq.'[9] That's six days. You obviously can't do math or follow a link, but whatever, no one will think that's partisan.Sandover 08:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

KURTZ: I do want to point out that Laura Ingraham was in Iraq last month for eight days, and that was part of the reason for her appearance. ...and that comes from your link. How you like them apples Sandover, how you like'm? Haizum 19:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh nice, the link doesn't go anywhere. Even when I do navigate to "Laura in Iraq", there are pictures from the 5th to the 11th...so that's still 7 days oh brilliant mathematician. Do you think perhaps she didn't take a picture on the first day during travel time in Iraqi airspace? You're a joke. Better take that ad homenem; it's all you got. Haizum 19:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Haizum, since you are having trouble with the link,[10] I will excerpt what is on Ingraham's website:

Laura in Iraq - Feb 11th, 2006 Feb 11, 2006 16

Description: Photos from Laura's journey home.

Laura in Iraq - Feb 10th, 2006 Feb 10, 2006 44

Description: Laura's last day in Iraq.

Laura in Iraq - Feb 9th, 2006 Feb 09, 2006 14

Description: International Zone.

Laura in Iraq - show time! Feb 08, 2006 12

Description: Laura doing her radio show from Iraq.

Laura in Iraq - Feb 8th, 2006 Feb 08, 2006 15

Description: Laura with the children

Iraq Scenery Feb 07, 2006 3

Description: Photos taken by Spc. David Claffey, 124th MPAD

Laura in Iraq - Feb 7th, 2006 Feb 07, 2006 18

Description: Laura visits Iraq village.

Laura in Iraq - Feb 6th, 2006 Feb 06, 2006 14

Description: Riding in a Blackhawk.

Laura in Iraq - Feb 5th, 2006 Feb 05, 2006 5

Description: First Day in Iraq.

Haizum, what Kurtz says is absolutely irrelevant. Perhaps he asked Ingraham how long she was gone — eight days — not how long she was actually in Iraq. Remember, it takes a day to get there, a day to get home. I don't know the reason for Kurtz's error or misunderstanding, and it really doesn't matter, because Ingraham is the authority and I am following what she says. That's why I provided a link to her own website, which you seem unable or unwilling to use. Here it is for the third time, in case you need it spelled out letter by letter: http://www.lauraingraham.com/freephotos

Again, I take Ingraham at her word: February 5th is her 'first day in Iraq', and February 10th is 'Laura's last day in Iraq.' February 11th is a travel day, Ingraham tells us, and it is clear from the top photo on February 11th[11] that Ingraham is wearing an ID, which almost certainly means she's in transit (via Kuwait or Qatar or some other Gulf state?) or about to board her flight out of Iraq — that's according to a friend who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who escorted Senators and other dignitaries. I have a feeling she left Baghdad early on the 11th, because the first photos from that day are dark (as in early morning), and the later photo shows a transit badge. Again, you do the math. February 5th through 10th. Six days.

Haizum, I simply will not tolerate profanity and abusive comments on my User page ('dumbass' and 'goddamn', etc), and therefore ask you to leave no more messages there. I will refer the matter to Wikipedia in the future. Sandover 05:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you will tolerate it, especially when you are the one that chose to launch personal attacks. Haizum 17:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and well played, Sandover. You are completely misrepresenting what I said on your talk page. It would be nice to actually be able to check, but you were so ashamed of the logic that I forced down your throat that you deleted the whole entry. Don't worry, I'll link to the history. [12] Haizum 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

which almost certainly Exactly, you don't know for sure, nor do you care. Haizum 17:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the National Journal, Conyers has been considered, with Pete Stark, to be one of the most liberal members of Congress for many years. This is notable, especially considering the fact that you have only been able to come up with three barely legitimate voices of criticism. I'm including it in the article. Deal with it. Haizum 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let it be known that I have offered a soundbite from her radio program for the sake of context. Sandover has repeatedly refused it by conspicuously ignoring the offer. I can no longer assume good faith with this POV pusher. Haizum 18:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless Firefox and 'type to find' are lying to me, nowhere does it say 'first day in Iraq' and nowhere does it say 'last day in Iraq,' so either my browser is lying, or you are. Haizum 18:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

...or you are linking to the wrong page while still managing to insult me. Haizum 18:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A Lesson in Logic

Since Sandover is too embarassed to have this lesson on his talk page because it exposes his faulty logic...

A general says, "We must push forward and confront the enemy to do the most damage to them."

Olberman says, "What!? General, as you speak, men have already pushed forward and been injured and killed confronting the enemy. How dare you disrespect them."

Logan says, "How dare this armchair general make such statements!"

Kurtz says, "Um...this person is actually a general."

Mr. Dover the critic says, "So what Haizum, this is still criticism."

Another example:

A NASA official says, "We must send men and women into space to gain the most knowledge. Sitting at our desks will not gather the full picture."

Olberman says, "What!? Brave men and women died because of the Challenger and Columbia accidents, how dare you belittle their accomplishments."

Logan says, "How dare this desk jockey make such statements!"

Kurtz says, "Um...this official used to be an astronaut."

Mr. Dover the critic says, "So what Haizum, this criticism is still notable and not POV at all. I'm going to cite a notoriously biased sports reporter [13] [14], a woman who had no idea Ingraham was in Iraq [15], and one of the most liberal Congressmen in America [16] [17] as my credible sources. I will also freely use Weasel words such as "others" without actually citing the source, then I will act as if the section isn't POV at all by removing the Disputed tag again and again."

That's exactly the same is what's going on here. Sure, it's criticism, but it's pointless and hardly notable. Haizum 18:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is insane. FOR THE RECORD, the above quote attributed to me by Haizum (with footnotes!) is a wholesale fabrication. I am referring the matter to Admin. Sandover 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for the record you did not actually say those things, but you are taking those positions. I think it's OBVIOUS those were examples and not actual quotes. Whine all you want. Haizum 20:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do call me "insane." I am quite sane, and it is disrespectful to those that might actually be suffering from a serious mental malady. Haizum 21:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record (from Wikipedia admininistrator Will (^E_@) T, 21:54, 2 June 2006): "Haizum has been blocked for edit warring and incivility. If he isn't prepared to accept the subjects official site as a reliable source, it's teetering onto vandalism." [18] I guess that settles that. It's at least the second time Haizum's account has been frozen. Sandover 04:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This has no business being on a discussion page; your boastfulness is disruptive. The ban was lifted in its infancy and the blocking admin was admonished. The harping has accomplished nothing. Haizum 02:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe this. Sandover, I'm relatively new on WP, and even I know you're way out of order. Calling people insane, saying that he's accusing of actually saying those things? Find me the moron that actually thought you said those exact words and didn't realize this was Hazium being satirical. He's using sarcasm for the purpose of 'MAKING A POINT', not to attack you, and you KNOW THAT ALREADY. And now you're saying you and your admin are threatening to ban him if he doesn't accept your sources as credible?! There's no way I'm gonna put up with that crap. I'm going to continue to push for a fair assessment of the validity of your resources, the reliability of which have been excellently demonstrated by the (somewhat overenthusiastic) Hazium. And I don't care if the admins around here automatically believe whoever speaks up first, I'm going to continue to edit this article fairly despite your bad-faith complaints of incivility. And as far as edit warring goes, you are doing nothing better than Hazium.

Once you are ready to resume legitimate debate, one in which you do not have your self-bestowed final say, on the credibility of these sources, post here and I'll take it up, since Hazium's been unfairly blocked. Karwynn 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I for one don't care how many edits you have. I read your aristocratic comments on [19] and conclude that you must think you have some sort of divine mandate based on the number of edits you have. I can't even believe any administrator would even allow that, much less buy right into it. It's embarassing to WIkipedia how much authority you've given yourself in this matter! Geez, even in your own writings you basically say something should be a certain because "I say it's credible" or "I don't know what to do with this user anymore". Ugh, I can't even describe it! Well, I'm going to be checking the editing abuse page, and if my name shows up, I'll make sure the admin who handles it gets the full context of what your idea of fair discussion is. Karwynn 20:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Refutation (anti-gay)

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)

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)

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)

Sandover POV editing in "hotel controversy" section?

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)

What say you, Sandover? Haizum 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"But Monkey" Description: POV?

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[20] 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)

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)

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)

The term Haizum may be thinking of is "butt boy." Laura's term is satire of a linguistic use of the word "but" because that word qualifies or even cancels what the speaker previously said. Larry R. Holmgren 06:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently Removed Citations (see edit history on about this time: Karwynn 18:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

The EXISTENCE of these criticisms does not need to be verified, and the article speaks nothing of the validity of the criticisms. Therefore, these unreliable deliberately-partisan media links are unnecessary, and the slanted and unreliable nature of the sites makes it so that they aren't really appropriate. These websites that are linked to aren't about criticizing her, they're just referencing that she has been criticized. THis article would welcome a link to something written by Logan or one of these others criticizing Ingraham, but not a site saying they criticized her.

PLEASE NOTE: THe reason I left the National Review link up is because it links directly to the source of praise, as opposed to the other links, which just go to articles that mention the criticisms.

Oh yeah: Karwynn 19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn, unfortunately, I couldn't disagree more. The existence of those criticisms should be verified; it's the exact kind of thing that deserves to have sources cited. I don't think its important what the source is, so long as its reliable and that the websites cited are partisan, by itself, I don't think is enough to deem them inappropriate. While crooksandliars.com has an agenda, their detailing of the criticism Ingraham received appears to me, at least to be sound. Lawyer2b 06:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I'll revert them, but I'm going to look on the internet for some better links. Namely, ones that go directly to the source of criticism/praise, like the National Review one. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the criticisms were presented without commentary from these media outlets.

Well done. Again. :-) Lawyer2b 19:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Haizum 05:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Article Issues

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 next 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)

Karwynn, let's take these issues one at a time.

First, it's news to me if there's video of Ingraham saying she spent eight days in Iraq (to my recollection, Haizum never cited a video). I'd love to see it, but I don't find the link. Could you provide it? As is obvious from the above discussion, the six days in Iraq statement comes from from Ingraham's own website[21], February 5th being her first day in Iraq, February 10th her last day in Iraq. If Ingraham herself claims elsewhere that she spent eight days in Iraq, I think the Wikipedia article should reflect the contradiction. If someone else (another journalist) says she spent eight days in Iraq, that is in no way reliable and deserves no mention here, because it could easily be the result of a simple misunderstanding. As I have discussed before, travel time to and from Iraq doesn't count; there's a difference between spending eight days away from the U.S. and spending six days in Iraq.

And please, as we work toward NPOV, let's assume good faith on this editing process. I was irritated by your statement (above) that I called Haizum insane, since I manifestly wrote no such thing. I wrote "this is insane," and was referring to the process of dealing with Haizum. Yes, I readily admit that I found Haizum's edits, his seemingly willful ignorance of my references, and his expletive-laced comments on my Talk page to be absolutely maddening (particularly his goading on my Talk page after I had explicitly asked him to stop leaving messages). I saw no way to deal with the problem short of contacting an administrator, and felt relief when Haizum was banned for incivility as well as for activities one Wikipedia administrator likened to vandalism. Your statement "[f]ind me the moron that actually thought you said those exact words" is highly disingenuous, since the record is clear on this as well (see, for example, this edit, in which Haizum fabricated quotes with footnotes, as well as this one, among others). There's a reason Haizum covered up his tracks[22], though it did not prevent his banning.

We would all do well to review this page, settle the six day/eight day issue with proper references, and then move on to CAP. Thanks. Sandover 19:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's painfully obvious that I wasn't directly quoting you, and it's painfully obvious that you were humiliated by my very applicable example so you screamed bloody murder on a technicality (that I didn't explicitly say that I wasn't quoting you, even though you were/are holding the absurd positions that I satirized). Also note that you made no attempt to refute the positions that I continue to claim you have. Pease get a grip. I will consider further mentions of past administrative actions against me a personal attack, and these actions will immediately be noted on the incident board. No more warnings. Haizum 02:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh and btw Sandover, the ban was lifted very early and the admin that banned me was admonished. For you to harp on the status of my user account accomplishes nothing. Haizum 02:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I and Haizum said, or are you simply not reading thoroughly? You're responding to a lot of things that were never said, at least not in the way you're presenting them. I said a video said it was eight days, not a video of Laura Ingraham, and not a video linked by Haizum. Where are you getting these ideas? The six/eight day issue doesn't concern me much; now that I see Ingraham's personal account of it, I see thet yoou're right. What I'm more concerned about is your lapse in reading comprehension, which I suspect (although I'll stll WP:AGF until I'm sure) is intentional. This isn't the only thing either - you seem to think I'm confused about what you were referring to when you accused Haizum of misquoting you. Let me say it more clearly: I know exactly what you were talking about, and I'm apalled by your accusation, since Haizum's comments, while perhaps inappropriate (at least according to the admins), were obvious, indisputable sarcasm, a fact you deliberately ignored in order to make you look victimized. Additionally, you've made it embarassingly obvious that you didn't even bother to click those "footnotes"; they link to websites, not to so-called "diff" links or the like. How could you overlook that? ANd how do you expect anyone to take this "footnoting" business seriously when he was so obviously linking to pages about the names he was mentioning, and not "footnoting" as "proof" that you actually said these things? I mean this sincerely: what in the world are you thinking? Also, I'd be careful going on and on about what a relief it was when Haizum was banned, and what a good decision it was to contact an admin about his behavior, lest you look like uninformed; his ban was overturned once some admin or other finally bothered to look at the context of it, and not jump to your side just because you came off as the stricken, bullied victim that you tried to play yourself off as.

Your discussion here is detracting from my original discussion. I'd be interested in discussing several of the things you are bringing up here, but most are completely irrelevant to the editing disputes that are brewing, so I'd like to sincerely, in good faith, suggest some guidelines for you if you want to continue talking about them: If you want to discuss Haizum's "lesson in logic", you should take it back to the "lesson in logic" heading, or start a new one. If you want to discuss the legitimacy of Haizum being banned, you should take call for an RfC or something if you feel Haizum did not receive his "acquittal", so to speak. If you want to talk more about the point I outlined above (which yes, I realize you did address some of them), keep talking here.

Let me make myself perfectly clear: I'm not trying to shut you up about Haizum and/or my comments, NPA violations, etc., nor am I trying to shut you up about Haizum deserving bannage; I just don't think they should go under this heading, and we will be better suited to work this stuff out if we keep organized and focused. If you have a better alternative, I'm all ears. In the mean time, I'm going to start a new heading, duplicating the outline I made above, so there's less chatter (since one of us is so pretty long winded :-P).Karwynn 20:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If someone else (another journalist) says she spent eight days in Iraq, that is in no way reliable and deserves no mention here, because it could easily be the result of a simple misunderstanding. Oh, but if a sports journalist and a couple of other notoriously left-wing individuals criticize Laura Ingraham because they obviously didn't realize that she had risked her own life in Iraq, that is reliable and does deserve mention because it isn't the result of a simple misunderstanding? Sandover, you should consult WP:NPA for attacking yourself. Haizum 05:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sandover but for different purposes. Given a seconary and primary source to quote, I'll take Ingrahm's words over another journalist's words if there is a conflict. I'm not sure what you're proposing, are you saying that given Ingrahm's account differs from a journalist's account, that you want to take that journalist's account over Ingrahm? If so, it would seem to value secondary sources over primary sources, of which the former, generally speaking, would seem to be less accurate in principle. --kizzle 06:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference doesn't go to Ingraham's words, it goes to a part of her website that has pictures with captions. The length of time is being extrapolated from those captions. That simply isn't clear enough. We need a credible reference that says "I was...for X days" or "She was...for X days," not guess work based upon a picture gallery that she doesn't personally maintain. This is an encyclopedia. Haizum 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone doing legitimate research should be able to click on the reference link and find the source of information with relative ease, not try and interpret various captions in an image gallery. My point applies even if we assume the numbers are correct (we shouldn't, but it will keep Sandover from revert warring). Haizum 06:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

From this link, it looks like it was 6 days, but she probably arrived the night before and left on the 11th, so that "means" 8 days, I guess... I really don't care either way, as +/- 2 days really doesn't add or detract on whether you think her trip there was bullshit or not. But I will say that technically, it would seem that you are correct as she says she's leaving after the 10th (meaning she was there at least the morning of the 11th), but she did arrive on the 5th, so maybe 7 days? Ugh, I've stopped caring. --kizzle 06:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No, that's better than what we have, because what we have a BOZO link that doesn't even go to the page where the information is claimed to be. Haizum 06:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, when you click "http://www.lauraingraham.com/freephotos" (the reference link), it simply goes to a list of galleries, it doesn't even go to the very questionable captions where the information is being extrapolated. The link is BOZO, as in BOZO the freaking Clown. Haizum 06:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bozo the Clown Haizum 06:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Only to Find"

Note: the first paragraph here was originally posted in another talk page by the author, at the time given on the signature. It ahs been reproduced here by Karwynn, not the author, for the sake of discussion.

Hrmm, I think what we should be going for is neutrality. That wording has a hint of spin in it. Watching the video, Logan doesn't seem taken aback, rather she repeats "one week" twice with disdain. So, one could spin it that way too. The best way to do it is to make simple statements without leading connecting words. For example, simply omit "only to find that". This avoids the (mistaken) implication that Logan backpedaled, while also noting the correction. Brillig20 06:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, she repeats "eight days" twice, but I still see your point. I actually considered putting something about her haughtiness or something in there, but didn't because I thought (and still think) it would be POV-critical of her - after all, it would further expose her as the arrogant eltist reporter she is. As for your concerns, I think you have the right intentions, but I don't agree with your conclusion. "Only to find that", to me, implies that a person says or does something on a pretense, and then finds that that pretense was wrong. Logan's "she could come to Iraq" statement was based on the pretense that Ingraham hadn't been, and then she found out that she had. (You might say she already knew that and decided to overlook it to make Ingraham look bad, which would hardly surprise me, but unless a source says otherwise I'd go with that video which makes it look like she was clueless.)

Besides, the way you rewrote it is akward and paradoxical. It looks self-contradictory and totally non-sequiterish the way it is. That's why some transistional phrase is more beneficial. Karwynn 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute time!

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)

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)

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)

Ya I'm not so sure about the "only to find" statement... can we get a little more explicit detail, like was she corrected on-air, or did someone point out later? did she respond? can we also cite this exchange as well? thanks. --kizzle 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Unethical Behavior Surrounding This Article

From the Keith Olberman talk page...[23]

User Sandover writes the following (also shown below in small text)...[24][25]

I have put especially disturbing phrases in bold.

I've been having some struggle on Laura Ingraham's page, mainly with one temporarily-banned user but potentially with other Ingraham loyalists, to introduce an NPOV account of Ingraham's March 21, 2006 appearance on NBC's "The Today Show." Ingraham, who visited Iraq for six days in February, criticized coverage of the Iraq conflict by "NBC and networks of the United States":[26]

To do a show from Iraq means to talk to the Iraqi military, to go out with the Iraqi military, to actually have a conversation with the people instead of reporting from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs going off.[27]

To which, the next day, Olbermann replied:

A note about Laura Ingram's comments. I've known her a long time. I'll in fact give you the caveat that I've know her socially. But that hotel balcony crack was unforgivable. In was unforgivable to the memory of David Bloom, it was unforgivable in considerable of Bob Woodruff and Doug Vought, unforgivable in light of what happened to Michael Kelly and what happened to Michael Weiskopft. It was unforgivable with Jill Carroll still a hostage in Iraq. And it was not only unforgivable of her; it was desperate and it was stupid.video here

I think Ingraham's remark should be part of her entry. It's important to note that Ingraham herself did not travel with the Iraqi Army, but visited under the protection of U.S. occupation forces. Anyone who might have a look at the conflict, perhaps provide a sympathetic, solving voice, is welcome. Sandover 17:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, Sandover is attempting to rally support against "Ingraham loyalists" in what he believes is our attempt to make the article biased. There are a number of problems with this type of behavior:

• He is citing a specific user to rally against; that person being me, the only one having recently been blocked.
• He is not attempting to gather neutral minds to this article.
• He is not disclosing his attempts to gather input (objective or not) on this talk page.
• He is advertising on the Olberman page with people that are more likely to be sympathetic to Olberman.
• He is not assuming good faith. WP:AGF
• He is labeling other editors participating in this article.
• He is citing past administrative actions taken against me that are no longer in place; this is a libelous personal attack.

For the record, I will be seeking input from administrators regarding this issue. Haizum 07:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I was trying to solve a problem — I was quite obviously asking for someone to help solve the absurdities on this page well before I contacted an administrator. Would an administrator have been appropriate at that point? No, and I had no clue that things would later go crazy. I only contacted an administrator because of the goading obscenities left on my Talk page, as well as messages which continued even after you were asked to stop leaving messages, the false quotes invented on this page and which you attributed to me, etc. You are prolific, you are caustic, and you have worked very hard to mislead anyone reading this thread (and fooled no one).

I wrote this early on. Remember the context: there was a battle with you and perhaps someone else early on merely over the issue of including the quote from the Today Show, and then another battle to include Ingraham's mention of other networks, etc. It took a long while for the early copy to stabilize. I was feeling fatigued, and hoped someone else would take over.

So is there a Wikipedia policy against doing this? If there is, I profusely apologize. I've never done it before. I thought people who had Olbermann on their Talk page would, first of all, represent all political stripes: it's fair to say Olbermann has many left-leaning fans as well as critics from the right, and above all the page had seen some big battles successfully resolved. So what better place to go? And obviously, I thought it would be helpful to find a moderating influence familiar specifically with this controversy. I thought a third part might help us find middle ground. In the end — and I do think this is relevant — not a single person volunteered to help. The invitation to help is clearly not a solicitation of partisan attack. It was an invitation to solve.

But I must say, this last battle with you just takes the cake. How many words have you written? And after all that, how ridiculous that you still maintain you cannot read the page which states Laura's first and last day in Iraq. February 5th is her first day in Iraq. February 10th is her last day in Iraq. Everyone else apparently can read that!!! Why can't, or won't, you see that? Even Karwynn says I'm right, and he's hardly on my side (in fact, that user has a curious sockpuppet cadence).

But in the end, I really don't care to fight this battle, with you or with the multiples of you, and I'm frankly exhausted by it. Six or eight days? I fundamentally just don't care, if I ever did. It's obvious Laura Ingraham went to Iraq to prove a point, whatever it was, and she proved that point, in six or eight days. That visit was under U.S. protection, and though there's no way this will ever enter the article, Ingraham's experience was patently different from the experiences of journalists who actually live and work in Iraq, often for many long months at a time, reporting the news as it develops. Jill Carroll was kidnapped on a street in Baghdad, her interpreter shot dead in front of her, after having interviewed a political leader. Did Ingraham do such interviews? For what it's worth, Jill Carroll was very convincingly disguised as an Iraqi woman, fully covered, and had even retrained herself to walk in a different way so as not to be recognizable. Did Ingraham walk the streets of Baghdad this way? Of course not. Nor did Ingraham live there. Nor did Ingraham dare do what Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt were doing at the time they hit by an IED, travelling with the Iraqi Army. Ingraham herself did not take the same risk. Brave Laura Ingraham, she made her point.

For what it's worth, much of the stuff about Concerned Alumni of Princeton is wrong, and it's really only a tangential scandal for Ingraham since it came about in the context of Alito. Some should be deleted. But because we can never resolve even the simplest edit on this page without the most grotesque epic drama, since I can't even revise a passage to improve its grammar, I am simply going to...resign. This is pointless! You admit you are in touch with Ingraham's office, to obtain quotes to defend her? Ugh! And you claim to be defending NPOV here? Everyone needs a fan, I guess. But this is pathetic. Sandover 09:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Extremely minor technicality: she says on Feb 10. she's leaving the next day. Just keeping you honest. While I'm staying out of the conflict between you and the other editors here, I do highly agree with your characterization of Ingraham's visit. --kizzle 16:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandover, you need to LISTEN to what Haizum and I are saying about his "misquoting" or be deemed in bad faith, and if you disagree, you need to say something instead of just ignoring us: Haizum's comments, staging reactions from you, Lara Logan, and others, were sarcasm aimed at illustrating a point and not intended to be representative of your exact words, nor were they footnoted as such. Do not sit there and say they were unless you have some refutation of this claim. I'm already struggling very, very hard to assume good faith and think that you are either skipping over our statements about that or misunderstand us. Make it easier on me and acknowledge this, refuting it if you are not satisfied.

Secondly, you are (hopefully unintentionally but blatantly nonetheless) violating WP:NPOV and, more importantly, WP:NOR here with your constant assertions of Ingraham's "lack of putting herself in danger". This article is not about what Laura Ingraham didn't do, even when comparing her to others that had done. The article doesn't say Laura Ingraham didn't serve our country in Vietnam, even though John Kerry did. It doesn't say she didn't administer to the poor and dying in India, even though Mother Theresa did. It doesn't say she didn't give grand, inspiring speeches about civil rights at the height of segregation, even though Martin Luther King Jr. did. Wikipedia is not an outlet for criticizing public figures, only for reporting criticism by others. If you want to write about someone else's criticism of her lack of dangerous activity, criticism by a notable organization or person, or find a statistic saying she is criticized by the public at large about this issue, you're welcome to attempt to fit that logically and in context into the article. Otherwise, the business of "she didn't do enough dangerous stuff" stays out. I'd like to hear comments about at least this particular issue from everyone; does what I'm saying sound reasonable? Karwynn 18:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am readily conceding my bias on this Talk page — in fact, laying it out above — so that the article ultimately can achieve NPOV in balance with Haizum (and other) committed Ingraham partisans. Remember, there was a fight merely to include the "Today Show" 'hotel balconies' controversy in the article. We got past that. This has been a long battle.

Now this six vs. eight day controversy is upon us — and by the way, I was the first person to point out that she left the morning of the 11th, I think. I might settle for a highly didactic "Ingraham's own website recounts six days in Iraq, from February 5th through 10th, 2006.[28][29] Ingraham left the morning of February 11th." How about that? Is it NPOV? You'll note that if she arrived the morning of the 5th, and left the morning of the 11th, that's still six full days. (I just don't see how anyone can squeeze eight of this.)

Both Ingraham's own trip to Iraq, as well as the specific time and context of criticizing other journalists for what she perceives as their lack of bravery, are relevant to the controversy. Bravery only enters the controversy because Ingraham's "Today Show" comments imply that reporters aren't taking the necessary risks to cover the story accurately. Ingraham made her 'hotel balconies' statement following the highly-publicized injuries suffered by Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt, who were doing activities in Iraq which Ingraham herself did not do: travelling with the Iraqi military. These facts are relevant, and I've argued for inclusion of them all.

You'll note that I let stand the descriptions of Ingraham's activities in Iraq. I emphatically agree that the article itself shouldn't criticize her for lack of bravery. The article should show the context both of her travel and of her later remarks, enough context that a reader can take the measure of the dispute and of the criticisms levelled at Ingraham.

May we move on? Sandover 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that you have no interest in being attentive or fair to us. This is not about "moving on"; we do not have to meet your standard regarding these disputes and then drop the matter when you get tired of hearing about it. You do not have the unilateral final say in this matter. Get that through our head and change your attitude towards us, or risk looking very guilty to the admnistration who will undoubtedly become involved if you don't cease your ownership comments.

As far as the commentary on the safety/danger level of Ingraham's trip: by your own admission, you are intentionally inserting the "lack of danger" of Ingraham's trip to compare it to the other reporters' journeys, and then draw conclusions of your own, IS original research and can't be included here. As I said before, which you didn't comment on, if you want to write about someone else's criticism of her lack of dangerous activity - criticism by a notable organization or person, not some random blogger - or find a statistic saying she is criticized by the public at large about this issue, you're welcome to attempt to fit that logically and in context into the article. Otherwise, it stays out. Once again, I'll say I'd like to hear comments about at least this particular issue from everyone; does what I'm saying sound reasonable or not? Karwynn 20:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandover, why are you unable to defend your questionable actions without mentioning my past actions? These are personal attacks at this point. You went to another page to rally "sympathy" against "Inhraham loyalists," and because you didn't disclose that, AGF goes out the window. All you can do is cry POV because I attempted to go straight to the source (producers of her show) to gather information. Haizum 20:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If Sandover doesn't want to particpate in the debate/discussion any further, and at the same time is saying he isn't going to edit what is being debated, I think that's his right and should be respected. I think we should feel free to continue to discuss the topic but let's not bait Sandover nor make an issue regarding his not participating. Lawyer2b 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, and I'm sorry if I'm coming off as badgering. I'm just making sure my thoughts are heard so he can't say "well, I guess no one has any objections left, so I'll go and change everything again". Sandover, if you don't want to discuss the article, you don't have to, but don't expect to be able to keep any changes you try to force through then if you're not up for open discussion. Karwynn 21:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn wrote: [B]y your own admission, you are intentionally inserting the "lack of danger" of Ingraham's trip to compare it to the other reporters' journeys, and then draw conclusions of your own, IS original research and can't be included here.

Karwynn, I think you misunderstand me: I am most certainly not inserted "lack of danger" into Ingraham's trip, and think it would be wrong to do so. I said so above, and I am astonished by the suggestion. Of course I have my own point of view of the controversy, and I believe it doesn't belong in the article. I have laid out my point of view here in an effort to achieve NPOV. I know nerves are frayed, but please assume good faith.

Also, I am certainly not doing any "original research", but simply establishing the context in which the controversy arose. Ingraham's remarks were made in a specific time and place; they followed her own visit to Iraq, and that fact is one of many which are essential to understanding the context of the controversy. In short, I believe that if Ingraham's remark is to be quoted, it demands both a brief account of Ingraham's trip as well as the context of conditions for other journalists then reporting from Iraq, whom Ingraham criticized. Kaizum has supplied details of Ingraham's trip. For my part, I've laid out the bare bones of what I believe is necessary for the reader from my POV, and you will see each part of it responds specifically to something in Ingraham's own words:

To do a show from Iraq means to talk to the Iraqi military, to go out with the Iraqi military, to actually have a conversation with the people instead of reporting from hotel balconies about the latest IEDs going off.[30]

Ingraham made her remarks on NBC's "Today Show" which itself had lost an on-camera reporter in Iraq. Elsewhere in her televised interview, Ingraham made a specific reference to reporters from other networks, insinuating that they are not reporting about the Iraqi military nor reporting from a context of "going out" with them. In effect, Ingraham suggested network TV reporters were not taking the necessary risks to report the full truth. On the "Today Show," Ingraham also spoke about her own recent visit to Iraq, so viewers knew she was speaking from firsthand experience.

At the time Ingraham made the remark, Woodruff and Vogt had recently been injured in an IED while travelling with the Iraqi military, and kidnapped Jill Carroll was still missing. There's a reason Keith Olbermann specifically referenced Woodruff and Carroll the following night, further establishing the context in which Ingraham made her statements. (Would it help to include Olbermann's quote as well? I have not wanted to, but if it's a way to solve the problem maybe we should think about it....)

All of which is to say, if you object to any statements in the article, please let me know what they are and why you feel they are not germane. I don't respond well to generalized criticism (or invective). I actually think the article offers a good defense of Ingraham, and I have no objection to including the fact that Ingraham herself took risks in visiting the country. Of course she did.

Kaizum, I am not making personal attacks. However, I think you need to justify yourself on the six vs. eight day issue, because you are the lone voice on the latter. I'd like to move on. Sandover 00:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Kandover, I've already said that 6 days could easily be correct, but the link that you provide is not worthy of an encyclopedia. You would already know what I'm talking about if you actually bothered to read recent posts[31]. Haizum 00:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Faulty Criticism by Logan

User:Sandover removed the following text from the article:

Logan voiced that Ingraham had no validity in criticizing other journalists for not being active enough in Iraq when she had not gone there herself, only to find that Ingraham had in fact been to Iraq for six days.

Since the criticism is relevant to Ingraham, wouldn't you say the fact that it was inaccurate is relevant as well? There may be a less POV way to say it, but I believe there should be some mention in the article that the criticism from Logan was faulty. How about this:

Logan voiced that Ingraham had no validity in criticizing other journalists for not being active enough in Iraq when she had not gone there herself, but was unaware at the time that Ingraham had in fact been to Iraq for six days. Lawyer2b 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, Sandover. I didn't realize you had removed all reference to Logan's criticism from the article. Realizing this, I guess my first question is why should that criticism be removed? Lawyer2b 04:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Logan's ignorance of Ingraham's own six-day visit to Iraq (by the time Logan weighed in, Ingraham's "hotel balconies" comment was already propagating around the airwaves) is really what the controversy is about, or particularly relevant to a reader's understanding of it. Ingraham was criticized by a number of different people, not just Logan, for her "unforgiveable" (Olbermann's word) denigration of the risks taken by network journalists. I think the fact that Logan got part of the story wrong takes away from the gist of why most people were criticizing her in the first place. No one besides Logan accused her of not going to Iraq, even offhandedly, and no one reading her Wikipedia biography would have left with that impression.

Similarly, I've cut other extraneous information in her entry. I don't believe Ingraham's editorship of Prospect (CAP's magazine) in 1986 is in any way mitigated by whether Sen. Edward Kennedy knew or did not know he was still in the all-male Owl Club in 2006. Seems like an apples-and-oranges situation, anfd I can't see why or what club Kennedy belongs to today as being relevant to Ingraham's employment back in 1986. I was a Princeton undergraduate back then, so I remember firsthand the Prospect and both D'Souza's and Ingraham's editorship. Yes, the Prospect did advocate limits on the admission of racial minorities and women, and yes, it did criticize the Princeton administration for allowing students access to birth control through McCosh, the campus infirmary. Sandover 01:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Logan's comments were one of the most widely known criticisms of Ingraham. Of course they are notable. Additionally, making a big deal about how safe Ingraham was is still non-NPOV. Karwynn (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Karwynn. I would also add that it seems non-NPOV to attempt to deliberately present what you believe was the gist of the criticism. The criticism she received is the criticism she received; I think it should be presented objectively and people allowed to come their own conclusion as to what the gist of it was. Lawyer2b 22:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You also edited a lot of notable material from the CAP section other than the Kennedy, which I re-inserted. THe Kennedy situation's relevance to the controversy is explained in the paragraph. Generally, re-inserting old disputed material without mentioning it to anyone could be seen as decetful. Karwynn (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Haizum 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that Logan got part of the story wrong takes away from the gist of why most people were criticizing her in the first place. Rather, people were criticizing her in the first place because they got part of the story wrong, such as Keith Olberman: The Idiot Boy Haizum 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Prepare for an Analogy: "Sandover, I am criticizing you for not contributing to Wikipedia, you are still a rookie." Now, any idiot can check your contributions and see that you are an active participant. So what happens to the criticism? It stands? No, it goes away because it was baseless. O - B - V - I - O - U - S . Haizum 16:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Has the person who put in the sentence about Logan's criticism actually listened to the news clip in which she made it? It's hard to tell. Take it all in all, Logan is a serious journalist whose business is covering war (and who has been doing so for a decade or more) and she was reacting to a polemicist's from-the-hip comment after having been in Iraq for eight days (you have "six" in your version, but that's not what's in the clip or the transcript). I think the current version (about how she was "ignorant" of Ingraham's visit to Iraq) is not POV because it doesn't give any context for Logan's criticism and seems to focus on her being misinformed. Why make her sound ignorant? She isn't. (Why *would* she know of Ingraham's comings and goings? Ingraham didn't rub shoulders with the foreign correspondents, she was cozily embedded with U.S. troops throughout her stay. And Ingraham, whatever you may think of her opinions, isn't an important authority on Iraq either.) Either give Logan more respect, or just take that annoying belittlement of her out, please. Rousse 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rousse, Ingraham's own account (and photos) of her trip to Iraq shows six full calendar days, and the two extra days appear to be transit in and out of the Middle East. Apparently in her initial account (self-promotion) of her trip, Ingraham and her staff puffed it up as an eight-day visit. We've corrected that fact on this page, after much argument.

Obviously, Logan was questioned on camera about Ingraham's visit without being fully informed of the details (including its length). IMHO, defenders of Laura Ingraham, eager to exonerate her in any way, point to Logan's inaccuracy as a way to diminish the offense that was, in fact, Ingraham's to begin with. They also consistently delete the fact that Ingraham faulted journalists for not taking risks that she herself was unwilling to take, in particular, travelling with the Iraqi military.

I agree with you, and have suggested Logan be dropped altogether, since the main criticism/controversy appears to have come from Olbermann and Congressman Conyers. But including Logan is useful, because having been corrected on the fact of Ingraham's visit, she persists on the point that foreign journalists living in Iraq take significant risks all the time, including risks Ingraham was unwilling to take, even for a brief moment, but was willing to fault others for not taking. I have revised accordingly. Sandover 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You are pushing the lack of danger in order to make her look bad. It's not really encyclopedia to go over every little risk Ingraham could have done, but didn't. If you can find a notable criticism of her to that effect, you can mention that that person said such-and-such. Additionally, saying Ingraham "faulted" anyone is not NPOV, nor are your persistent attempts to advance the viewpoint that she did not put herself in "enough" danger. We're not here to write about how wonderful of a journalist Lara Logan is compared to Ingraham. Here's the fact, as seen on the video (that I obviously HAVE looked at, ROusse, since I'm the one who added it in): Logan criticized Ingraham for not ocming to Iraq herself, saying "she should come to Iraq". Logan was corrected on air that Ingraham had been to Iraq. That's what needs to be in the article. Not this business about how wonderful and respectable Lara Logan is. Here's another fact: Ingraham went to Iraq, travelled around some, and was with the U.S. military. THat's what needs to be in there. Not all the things she didn't do, such as charge into the battlefield, attend WIkimania, and cure cancer.

Additionally, the comment about Ingraham's former boyfrend is irrelevant. YOur continued efforts to associate Ingraham with crooks are POV-pushing. We have discussed this before, and you basically ignored everyone. Now you have come back in order to try and deceive everyone by editing after the dispute was over. This is not the place for you to advance your POV of Ingraham as a hypocrite. That the facts show that Logan is an idiot is not my problem, nor is the fact that Ingraham didn't risk her life to the extent you would've found satisfactory. If you can't follow consensus and stick to fact rather than editorializing, you are not likely to get your way. Karwynn (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It *is* (or should be) encyclopedia (your phrase) to mention in an honest way that Ingraham has critics, and to report even-handedly what those critics say. She's a controversial figure, you must realize. That means a lot of people disagree with her. I think that most Americans, if asked whether it was a dangerous job to report the news from Iraq, would say yes it certainly is. That's what Logan was trying to say. And for this you call her an idiot? And you think for some reason she should know that Ingraham had been to Iraq? But I've had my say here. Do what you will with this article, I've certainly had my fill of this fight. Rousse 21:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what was done; critics were paraphrased right from the video's linked. Logan's criticism was accurately criticized, yes? ANd yes, it is notable that she was tearing into Ingraham for not going to Iraq when she had gone. ROusse, if I went around telling everyone you were a pagan hell-bound sodomite who had never been to church in his life when in actuality you attended cChurch regulary (or even sporadically), it would be worth a mention when describing my criticism to someone else, right? Karwynn (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this summarizes the point nicely:

PRESS: Well, I just wanted to say -- I have to say -- I hate to use the word again, but I think it is outrageous for a talk show host to go to Iraq and admittedly, in very secure conditions, and be taken care of and give a report, and then come back and attack the journalists who are there covering it day by day by day, putting their lives on the line, you know, it's an attack on Laura Logan. [32]

Lara Logan's point about Ingraham not being in Iraq: wrong. Logan's point about a talk show host "in very secure conditions" as Press puts it goes and does a report (from the green zone, if i'm not mistaken?) for only 8 days and then criticizes real journalists who are there day in and day out, who are not all reporting from the green zone, for not showing the good news because they're afraid to leave their hotel balcony is complete bullshit: spot-on. Hopefully, we can all agree at least that Logan is waaaaay hotter than Ingraham. ;) --kizzle 04:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Duuuuuude. How can you say that? That pic of Ingraham in her article is s-s-s-smokin'! (kiss tip of finger and put on Ingraham's ass with sizzling noise so as to brand L2B4Eva!) Lawyer2b 20:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

LMAO! (only time i ever have used that acronym too) ... what can I say, I guess I'm a sucker for accents :) --kizzle 21:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. Logan is definitely some eye candy and the accent is a bonus as well. If her follow up 60 minutes segments aren't as grave as her first, I'll be paying more attention to her more than the subject matter. :-P Lawyer2b 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure we'll have no trouble getting consensus for that. But as far as the rest goes: the article has Ingraham's comments, and has video's linking to her critics' responses. It seems like that is enough information to let a reader judge for their own who was in the right. The only additionaly thing in that section is the "corrected on air" tidbit, which I think is quite notable to Logan's statement. Karwynn (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to accurately characterize the conversation, we should also then add Logan's "Yeah, 8 days!" scoff right after she was informed of Ingraham's visit by the host, which indicates the latter of my previous points. --kizzle 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I just made a few changes: moved "foreign correspondent" down below to give context to the "Yeah, 8 days!" remark as it's pretty trivial where that phrase goes, so it served below to better achieve balance... added show-specific context rather than "on air". --kizzle 19:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lawyer for your imprimatur (I had to look it up at dictionary.com, and fuck I'm taking GRE's in like 2 months!) --kizzle 20:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Phone Jamming

The citation I added will do for the time being, but it is a partisan blog, and later on it should be replaced with a more unbiased news item.--Benfergy 19:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• You just admitted to knowingly injecting biased content into Wikipedia. Until you can find an unbiased news item from a verifiable and reputable source, my suggestion is you NOT deliberately submit biased content. Adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP is not optional. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so angry? --Benfergy 00:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just getting ready to make such a suggestion. Thanks Dubc0724 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• You just knowingly condoned actions contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Recuse yourself. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Ingraham's action is a felony or a felonious conspiracy. It reminds of the 2002 phone jammers who were convicted and sentenced to prison: 2002 New Hampshire Senate election phone jamming scandal. Hu 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your false dichotomy is an admission of POV. Recuse yourself per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 12:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hu and I have been doing back and forth about whether "Laura Ingraham allegedly encouraged listeners to jam the phone lines of a toll-free Democratic Party etc". I think the use of the word "allegedly" here is warranted because "jamming" phone lines is a felony, whereas Hu thinks it's not necessary because (I think) the events reflected here clearly and unambiguously happened and thus it's not "alleged". Any other opinions? SparhawkWiki 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If we have recorded sources, then these are not allegations; these are facts. The bitch tampered with an election. She should be prosecuted and thrown in jail. --Nelson Ricardo 11:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Admission of POV. Recuse yourself per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Right on! We should all call her saying what a complete idiot she is. MJ @ Wed Nov 08 15:01:09 2006 (EST)

• Admission of POV. Recuse yourself per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cease and Desist

WP:BLP: Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial material.

Where is the controversy? There isn't any. The only people that care are you, and a bunch of left-wing bloggers (by your own admission) - you've made that clear. Sorry, but it has to be removed until you can actually cite "controversy," not create it. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

REMOVED. The caption did not:

• show any intent to violate Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 223 (a)(1)
• show any intent to physically disrupt communications --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen closely. An assistant attorney general suggested it was voter fraud. A senator wanted an investigation. There's where the controversy comes in. So no, we're not the only ones who care. Also, can you not see any ethical problems with what she did? She jammed the phone lines of a number people used to report voter problems. Okay, we can't prove her intent... but you're crazy if you can't see anything wrong with that. Jimmycracker 05:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1. You can't just ignore the FACT that the caption did not:

• show any intent to violate Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 223 (a)(1) aka "prank call" or "crank call"
• show any intent to physically disrupt communications
• prove or indicate that lines were in fact jammed, deliberately or not

...then expect to get away with posting the same information. In other words, stop disrupting and use logic on the talk page before making an edit. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

2. You just used "we" as if you've been part of this discussion yet you posted under a different account name. The manipulative use of meatpuppets is not acceptable behavior. Please disclose all meat/sockpuppets before engaging in a discussion as such. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you f**** crazy? That's... an awfully big assumption to make. No... I'm not using a different account, and you can't I assume I am because I used the word "we". What you're doing is offering your own opinion of the legality of the situation, which is not POV. What I'm doing is citing the concerns of a U.S. senator and assistant attorney general, high authority figures whose opinions are notable. You said there's no controversy, but the controversy is RIGHT THERE. Why do I get the feeling you're a right-wing nutcase who can't stand any criticism on your own party?Jimmycracker 00:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Also, source for the attorney general/senator exchange: http://www.c-spanarchives.org:80/zentest/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&cPath=6_11&products_id=195412-1&tID=5 Watch the video at 38:53Jimmycracker 04:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The legality of the situation isn't opinion based:

• she did not personally violate Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 223 (a)(1)
• she did not encourage anyone to violate Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 223 (a)(1)
• she did not personally jam any telephone line
• she did not encourage anyone to jam any telephone line
• no lines are reported to have been jammed
• Ingraham has not been indicted for anything (a ham sandwich can be indicted, as they say)

I'm not going to say that it isn't notable that so and so Senator (undoubtedly a Democrat), and so and so Assistant AG (Democrat appointee) discussed her actions (or lack thereof), but the section as it stood was blatantly POV because it assumed her intent, more flagrantly, made up the part about her breaking the law, and finally insinuated that she had broken the law and was under some sort of investigation for it. Come on. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a modified Libertarian btw. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll just put back in what I had about the senator/attorney general exchange.Jimmycracker 07:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to note who the senator and asst.AG are, that is, by name and affiliation - let the readers decide if there was a conflict of interest or not. Also, since the only notability (controversy) I see in this "conversation" they had is the consideration of legal action, it should also be noted that no legal action has been taken. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a better edit, but this subsection still surrounds an unapproachable legal accusation that never got off the ground; the senator's "jamming" claim was erroneous, and nothing ever became of it. It's trifling at best. I'm going to examine similar articles and see if such a level of attention is placed on such non-events, after which I'll insert a disputed POV tag - or not. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I also just realized that the asst.AG's "voter fraud scheme" comment was based on a prior erroneous claim that Ingraham tried to jam phone lines. I hope you can see why this is problematic in terms of NPOV - the "voter fraud scheme" comment was made because of a false pretense. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Link 12 isn't acceptable. 1. Partisan site 2. Implies that recorded prank calls came from Ingraham listeners. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you listen to the show recording, the context is mockery of a toll free hotline that hangs up on the caller. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If a talk show host says, "we all need to mail [US Senator] and express our views," it isn't controversy when a partisan senator then says "[talk show host] was trying to disrupt a senatorial office by overwhelming workers with a mass mailing." When an accusation is baseless, it isn't notable. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Imagine there was an article titled "Jimmycracker" with Biographical information, Contributions, etc, and a Controversy section. In your opinion, would it make sense for the incident in which I, a notable peer, pointed out how you might possibly be using a meatpuppet account because you used "we" in relation to other comments which you did not make? What I mean is, should that incident belong in the Controversy section about you? Sure, it did happen, and maybe I even got an admin to say "well, that sounds like a violation" with the false pretense that you were actually using a meatpuppet. Should that go in the article about you as controversy even if it was looked into and no administrative action was taken? In my opinion, no, because I was wrong to make the accusation in the first place (the accusation was erroneous), and all subsequent 3rd party comments surrounding my accusation were based upon a false pretense (making them erroneous as well). I think you see what I'm getting at here with regards to the Ingraham article and the requirements of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally think it's obvious what she was trying to do, but of course you're right, it's not provable. However, look at this Ingraham quote: "Multiple callers are calling the 1-888-DUMB-VOTE line and they said that the line is now broken. That you can't get through." She never stated it was her intent to jam the lines, but she just admitted that they were jammed... unless 'broken' means something else? I really doubt it. So yes, they were reported to be jammed. In any case, if you think the accusation is baseless, do you have any idea how many baseless accusations are reported on wikipedia? They're notable because they reflect on the person who's making the accusations. I also find it interesting how even right-wingers online (pretty much all of them I've seen) agree that this was a phone jamming. Additionally, the prank calls did come from Ingraham listeneners... this call mentions her specifically: http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/audio/prank2.wav Prank calls intended to 'harrass, threaten or annoy' go against FCC rules. I hope you realize this certainly falls under this category: http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/democratic1.download.akamai.com/8082/audio/prank1.wav

So this really isn't as black and white as you make it out to be. There's plenty of evidenceJimmycracker 23:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• You cite one call which came from an Ingraham listener, one.
• Fallacious ad populum comment: do you have any idea how many baseless accusations are reported on wikipedia?
• Ingraham did not 'harrass, threaten or annoy'
• Ingraham did not instruct anyone to 'harrass, threaten or annoy'
• They're notable because they reflect on the person who's making the accusations. Then note them in the respective article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing how you are unable to respond to the analogous hypothetical, I'll be removing any baseless accusations and comments made under false pretense from the main article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I cited two actually... and the DNC reported that the hotline was being flooded with prank calls. Are you gonna try to deny this? More importantly, Ingraham told her listeners to all call the hotline at the same time. It was flooded with prank calls which subsequently caused the lines to be broken. And you're claiming she bares no responsibility for this? Telling your listeners to all call a hotline at the same time which causes the lines to be jammed? If she wasn't intending to jam any lines as you seem to think, then she made a mighty stupid decision, and being ignorant is not an excuse. Furthermore, I assume this is illegal... and if it's not black and white, then it's at least ambiguous—which is why a senator brought it up and an assistant attorney general was concerned.Jimmycracker 09:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no point in discussing this with you if you won't recognize the legal definition of a prank call. Even the calls made on the show Crank_Yankers aren't legally considered criminal prank calls. It's entirely reckless to begin implying that Ingraham committed a felony. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, look, people listening to Ingraham called up and *did* make prank calls, which were of a harrasing, "annoying" nature. Illegal. No, it's not clear that this was Ingraham's fault. But as I said, and this is what's important, this is what the senator wanted the attorney general to investigate: (LISTEN) her actions caused the phone lines of a hotline to be jammed, which is illegal. No, you're still not listening. Stop playing around.Jimmycracker 23:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, not illegal; and not pursued as being illegal. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Wan Kim party affiliation

The information that Wan Kim was a Democratic appointee was inaccurate. See his bio at the Department of Justice website [33]. 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)

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).

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).

"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)

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)

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)

Removal of Controversy Section

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)

Copy edit

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

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)

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)

More about Laura Ingraham is available from this Time Magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986234,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.81.23 (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I did not remove the piece how meeting her brother and his partner tempered her views. I merely put a {{citationneeded}} tag and went on my way. TheListUpdater (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Time article says:[34]

• She now understands why gays need protection and regrets her "callous rhetoric."

That seems to support the assertion that she "tempered her personal views on homosexuality".   Will Beback  talk  23:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Who did Laura support in the Republican primaries?

Mitt? ↜Just me, here, now … 04:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Meghan McCain

Is it really all that notable that Ingrham made a remark about McCain's weight? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

• This is a biography, not an article about the show. Is the comment notable in Ingraham's life? 2 years from now, will anyone remember the comment? Will anyone even remember who Megan McCain is 5 years from now? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Ingraham's radio show is one of the most listened to in the US. I see her more as a political pundit, although cultural criticism is often part of her show (usually connected to politics). Interesting about presentism......I was about to suggest this was a case of wp:recentism. Although it did get some media coverage for a couple of days, here we are a month later and there is no new coverage to be found. I find that to be strong evidence that this was not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

New Activism section

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)

Show Cancelled?

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)

Oh, I can't. :P Someone else do it please. --70.128.112.146 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Give me a citation and I'll do it. Padillah (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

What happened to her Fox News Show "Just in..."? She was on for 2 weeks now the show is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.100.216 (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The FNC show "Just In with Laura Ingraham" was only scheduled to run for three weeks. It was not "cancelled" - and it is unknown whether it will return. Dpaanlka (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Update to Personal section

{{editsemiprotected}} Addition to Personal section following comment on adoption of Maria

In July 2009, Ingrham adopted a second child, a boy from Russia named Dimitri

Source: http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/aggregator.php?entry=746351

JerseyRick (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. Please provide a reliable source for this information. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source, with photo, found with Google -- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/reliable-source/2009/07/love_etc_67.html Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call a gossip column a reliable source for a claim in a BLP. You're welcome to check over at WP:RSN if you disagree. Celestra (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done: Thank you for your comments and reference. A column published in The Washington Post, with all the editorial and legal oversight that implies, is a reliable source in my humble opinion. Many additional sources for confirmation and verification are turned up in Google with the keywords '"Laura Ingraham" dmitri', including photos on Laura Ingraham's website. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A gossip column is a gossip column regardless of the paper which publishes it. Gossip columns are expected to print information of questionable validity and are not WP:RS for factual statements, especially in a WP:BLP. But I'll take it over to the WP:RSN and WP:BLPN to see if they share your opinion, rather than reverting. Celestra (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just another point, She mentions her son on her radio show almost daily for about a year now.

parts of this seem dodgy

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)

CBS and MSNBC

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)Steve Wilkerson

"Polish roots"

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)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

New Son

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))

72.82.176.105 (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a story behind the cross that you wear? Bienik (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Bienik (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)