Jump to content

Talk:Laura Ingraham/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Social Media Controversy

Recommend new section regarding her social media disparagement of the Parkland Shooting survivor and resulting criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.2.61 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Taping claim.

The claim that "While at Dartmouth she secretly taped meetings of the campus Gay Students Association, and sent copies to participants' parents." has been added and removed. My question is two-fold: 1) Is an op-ed piece by a guest columnist sufficiently reliable to make this claim and 2) does it even belong in the first place? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The "op-ed" comment is moot - I have added the original source for this claim (Rory O'Connor's 2008 book Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio, page 100, which is excerpted word-for-word on the Huffington Post)
The second comment is yes, it most certainly does belong in this article.
I've also added a comment by Jeffery Hart, who was the faculty advisor to the Dartmouth Review when she was there. (Sourced to a CNN article on Ingraham) Raul654 (talk) 18:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you decided to actually discuss it. First, when I made the revert, the sole source was the op-ed piece. So it was a valid concern. You've sourced it with another source. But please don't dismiss it like there was no legitimate question in using an op-ed piece as the sole source for something that contentious in a BLP. I do feel there is a reasonable question of how reliable the book is. This is the only book O'Connor has written and was published by AlterNet books, which has a definate anti-conservative POV. Even our own article on Wikipedia calls them "a progressive/liberal activist news service" in the opening sentence. Aren't there any more mainstream sources for this?
The CNN interview is reliably sourced, but is the info reliable? CNN didn't say these things, a guy doing an interview with CNN did. There was no editorial control etc. He made the claims on their network, but you and I both know that people go on networks and say whatever they want during the interviews. That doesn't mean CNN reported it, it means they broadcast it. Essentially, this boils down to a professor telling an anecdote. Wouldn't it be prudent to try to find a more reliable source for the claim than just one guys memory? The other question I have is about the WP:UNDUE. The article already shows she was anti-homosexual at that time. This almost looks like piling on. As it stands now, we have 5 lines telling us how anti-gay she was and painting a horrible picture from 25 years ago. Yet we only give 2 lines to how 12 years later, he brother came out as gay and she softened her views. The more recent, positive event is given half as much space as the more distant past. That doesn't seem neutral to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, CNN and AlterNet are both reliable sources. Jeffery Hart, the Ingraham acquiescence to whom the piece is sourced, is also a reliable source. Do you have any actual evidence that any of these comments are false? Presumably, since these allegations have been reprinted in numerous places, including Time Magazine ("[Ingraham was] notorious in her student days for vilifying "sodomites" in the Dartmouth Review--and for sending a reporter to tape a Gay Students Association meeting, then naming names") if they were not true, someone would have said so at some point.
The article already shows she was anti-homosexual at that time. - given that Hart (the adviser for the paper she worked at, so presumably someone who would at least be professionally courteous to her) described her as having "the most extreme antihomosexual views imaginable" I think it's safe to say the single sentence previously in the article substantially downplayed her rabid homophobia. Raul654 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As it stands now, we have 5 lines telling us how anti-gay she was and painting a horrible picture from 25 years ago. - our job is not to write a hagiography or to whitewash embarrassing details of her past behavior, but to write an article that accurately portrays her. And the article now accurately reflects her behavior.
As for your claims that the behavior is old and therefore doesn't matter, or that she's changed, that is simply not the case: [1][2][3]. She was a homophobe 25 years ago, and remains that way to the present. Raul654 (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
So she's bigoted now because she doesn't take a left-wing view of gay marriage? I don't know if you are aware that she frequently has openly gay Tammy Bruce substitute host for her radio show? Or does Tammy not qualify since she's not a gay left-winger?--Drrll (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but just because your bench-warmer is gay doesn't mean you aren't a homophobe. Niteshift36's argument against including verifiable reports of her past anti-gay behavior is that it's old and doesn't represent her present day attitudes. The fact that she continues to engage is such behavior blows a huge whole in his line of reasoning. In 2008, she said that transgender individuals were "killing the culture" and wondered by the parents of transgendered people "aren't embarrassed" by them. In December of that year, "she alluded that being gay is a 'bad choice'." And I could go on, but you get the idea. Raul654 (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you're missing my point Raul. I'm not saying that the story Hart tells is false (or that it is true). I'm saying that I don't think his say so is sufficient. Nor am I saying CNN isn't reliable. I'm stating, quite correctly, that CNN didn't report the story. They did an interview and the interviewee said it. There is a significant difference. They are simly documenting the claim, not putting anything into the veracity of it. For example, if Michael Moore goes on CNN and says "Bush is a devil worshiper", we can source that he did say that. That is not CNN saying it, it is Moore saying it. Now, Moore is notable and we can prove he said it, would it go in the bio? Most likely not (unless there was controversy over the remark) because there is no evidence of it being true, only that Moore said it. In this discussion, you're making it sound here like CNN made this claim. They did no such thing.
As for AlterNet...AlterNet books, which is separate from their news division, is an agenda publisher. That you don't see a possible neutrality problem is a problem.
You allegation of whitewashing is offensive. The additions may or may not accrately reflect her behavior at the time, but how much space needs devoted to it? We devote over twice as much time describing her older behavior during a 4 year period than we do over her more recent behavior that is less extreme and over a longer period. That's not whitewashing, it's balance. You're also forgetting something that isn't in the writing, but you might remember. Back in 1987, we didn't know as much about AIDS as we do now. It was a popular misconception that AIDS could be spread by many ways that we now know aren't true. When you take that into account, it seems a little less extreme.
My statement that she softened her stance isn't incorrect. Contrary to the views of some, being against gay marriage or gay adoption isn't "homophobic", nor does it mean you hate gays. It means you don't support marriage of or adoption by gay couples. There is a huge difference in that. Likewise, it is not my claim that she softened her stance. That is the claim of Time magazine.
Also, I'd like to know why this goes under the career section? Why is the longer, negative stuff about her views on homosexuals in the first section, but the part about her change is buried much lower in a different section.
The way you are phrasing some of these answers, and mischaracterizing mine, make me wonder if this is more agenda driven than just a desire to improve the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Since you seem determined to make sure that the 2 stories be included (and don't appear to care much about discussing what my actual argument is), I've taken the liberty of including a reliably sourced entry about her apologizing for the comment listed in the article and apologizing about the taping. And that gets to be with the bit about her doing these things in college, not buried at the bottom of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


"I'm saying that I don't think his say so is sufficient."

It is not our job to second guess CNN. If they thought he was credible enough to run the story, then why should be think otherwise. As I said above, do you have any actual evidence that these statements are wrong, or are you simply trying to set the bar for verifiability so high that it precludes material you don't care for?
As for AlterNet...AlterNet books, which is separate from their news division, is an agenda publisher. That you don't see a possible neutrality problem is a problem. - again, this is an example of trying to set the verifiability bar insurmountably high so as to preclude material you don't like. Do you have any evidence that the claims made in O'Connor's book, and republished in numerous media venues, are wrong?
You allegation of whitewashing is offensive. - I call them like I see them.
The additions may or may not accrately reflect her behavior at the time - there's no "may" about it. They do accurately reflect her behavior at the time, as stated by reliable sources, your dissembling about said sources not withstanding.
We devote over twice as much time describing her older behavior during a 4 year period than we do over her more recent behavior that is less extreme and over a longer period. - what more recent behavior? She was named by GLAAD as one of the worst Anti-Gay defamers in 2008, 12 *after* she claims she reconciled with her brother. Maybe she's no longer trying to out people to their parents, or publicly calling them sodomites, or refusing to eat at restaurants with gay employees, but the difference in her behavior is of degree, not of kind. If you want a sentence in the article stating something to that effect, that's fine with me. But your latest edit, in which you portray her as some kind of reformed bigot ("she changed her views after witnessing"), is factually untrue. I'm going to be adding GLAAD's listing of her shortly. Raul654 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, you mischaracterized what my position is and I don't see you changing from that tactic. As for my addition, I included what is documented. You keep making it sound like I am the one inventing the claim and that is dishonest. I would contest the inclusion of an "award" like the GLAAD pseudo-award. It is based on their opinion and their bias.
Further, I presume that you do know that BLP applies to talk pages as well, so your statement that she is a homophobe should most likely be removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


Again, you mischaracterized what my position is and I don't see you changing from that tactic.
Again, you have dodged by above questions about why we should consider media outlets like CNN, Time, etc, and Ingraham's own acquietence Jeffery Hart unreliable. So I'll ask for yet a third time - do you have any actual evidence that the reporting found in these sources, and that Hart's claims, are untrue?
As for my addition, I included what is documented. You keep making it sound like I am the one inventing the claim and that is dishonest. - fair enough, you didn't invent the lie. Laura Ingraham did that with that essay and her behavior since. However, you are attempting to prepetuate the lie. Just because Laura says it about herself does not mean that we have to uncritically report it as fact. GLAAD's listing of her demonstrably shows that her claims to reform are false. And that's why it belongs in.
It is based on their opinion and their bias. - of course it's an opinion. So what? That doesn't mean we cannot cite it. They represent gay people, and their opinion on who is and is not one of the worst defeamers of homosexuals is extremely relavant, especially insofar as it demolishes Ingraham's claim to reform. Raul654 (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • No Raul, I haven't "dodged" anything. I simply quit debating it. It's in there. Your agenda is fulfilled. But that doesn't excuse you from mischaracterizing what I actually said. That's just dishonest.

:Just because GLAAD takes a number of quotes and invents an "award" for it doesn't mean it belongs in this article. Do we included the "worst player of the week" named by a sportcaster in that athletes bio? No, because it's just some guys opinion. GLAAD can dispute her. That's fine. But making up psuedo-awards, like Media Matters does as well, just to promote an agenda is not the NPOV that should be included here. Nor am I "perpetuating a lie". I reported what was in a reliable source. I'll use your tacitc. Can you prove that Ingraham did not mean every word she said, when she said it?[[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Just because GLAAD takes a number of quotes and invents an "award" for it doesn't mean it belongs in this article. - her behavior vis-a-vis gays since she claims she changed her views is extremely relevant to this article. Even if we charitably assume that everything she said in 1997 is the absolute truth, her subsequent behavior show that her change wasn't quite as profound as she thought it was or that she has subsequently changed her views again. And if GLAAD, which is the premier American gay and lesbian anti-defamation group, isn't qualified to speak for gays as a whole regarding her anti-gay rhetoric, then who exactly is?
Nor am I "perpetuating a lie". - In this edit, you changed this article so that it says she stated that she changed her views after witnessing "the dignity, fidelity and courage" with which her brother and his late companion coped with AIDS. Now while everything you wrote is literally true - she did state that she had changed her views - it leaves the viewer with an extremely distorted perception of what she has actually said and done in the last 13 years or so.
I'll use your tacitc. Can you prove that Ingraham did not mean every word she said, when she said it - Prove that she was lying at the time she said it? No, that's rather hard to do without a time machine and a lie detector. Hell, she may have even been telling the truth at the time. However, her stated change of heart in 1997 is greatly at odds with her later behavior, and this article needs to make that clear. Raul654 (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe you didn't notice, I struck out the part about the GLAAD thing. You're not going to let anything get in the way of your including it, so I am not going to debate it. As for "perpetuating a lie"...well, unless you can prove that she did not believe what she said, when she said it, then you're being dishonest. I've changed views on issues over the years and changed back on some. That doesn't mean I was lying when I made the first change, nor does her current view make her previous view (in her 1997 apology) a lie. People actually change their views from time to time. Sometimes more than once. That doesn't make them liars.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That doesn't mean I was lying when I made the first change, nor does her current view make her previous view (in her 1997 apology) a lie. - Setting aside the issue of whether or not she was lying -- so you agree with me that her current views and her views at the time of her 1997 apology are two different things. Do you also agree with me that omitting her post-1997 views leaves this article's reader with a misleading impression of her opinion regarding gays? Raul654 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I would agree that presenting it in a neutral manner would be fine, such as giving a neutral example or two of her current views, the way they are reported by the mainstream media. But calling her a "gay defamer" really doesn't do that. It just throws a deragatory label on her. For instance, an example or two where she said something about opposing gay marriage, adoption etc. And those examples can be found from the MSM and eliminate any "take" from GLAAD or other activists. But I think we can both agree that there is a vast difference between avoiding a restaurant with gay waiters and taking a position against a political issue like gay marriage. Opposing gay marriage, opposing gay adoption or holding the belief that homosexuality is not genetic isn't necessarily homophobia. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The statement in the wikipedia article "published the transcript including the attendees" is in direct contradiction with the NYT source which says "The Review published excerpts that included people describing their sexual experiences and talking about their sexual identities. The article named two association officials but did not identify participants in the meeting."2604:2000:DD00:3D00:F509:C995:462D:43FC (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle. - MrX 🖋 21:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)- MrX 🖋 21:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

Please add following template to External links. Twenty-one years of conversations (from 1996-2017) "in her own words" is important.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, please provide sources that demonstrate that these Charlie Rose appearances have been given significant coverage' in reliable sources to justify notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

There is an extra blank line in the middle of the Dartmouth section that needs to be deleted. 38.74.146.126 (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. We'll send you a bill for $100.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Political views

There seems to be a bit of an edit war over this, so I'd like to get comment. Right now, the section "political views" contains the following statements: "In March 2018, she mocked David Hogg, a 17 year old survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, for not getting into UCLA.[33] In February 2018, Ingraham publicly said that LeBron James should not opine on politics, noting that he should "shut up and dribble." [34] It was not immediately clear if Ingraham was making this recommendation because LeBron James is an NBA Player or because he is African-American, as Ingraham's views on racial justice are not fully known." I've removed the second half of the last statement because it is clearly prejudicial, implying she made the statement because of racism when that is not shown. My question is whether these statements should be here at all. They don't seem to say anything about her political views, or at least, do so in a very indirect and roundabout manner. They seem to be here purely as an attack on Ingraham, factual though they may be. ThePortaller (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

If the statement about what she did or said is factual, I'm not sure how it can be seen as an "attack." Avocats (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem was that there was no citation. I fixed that. Proscriptus (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Her mocking the Parkland student and subsequently apologizing for it isn't really part of her political views, is it? Wouldn't that be better suited for the already inclusive Controversies section?Oathed (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, which is where it seems to have been moved. ThePortaller (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Jenny Craig becomes the 10th advertiser to drop Laura Ingraham’s show following her attacks on Parkland survivor David Hogg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1303:CCD9:512C:A355:EB4A:EC4 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Editing wars continue between two Wiki editors with badges. One insists that Newsmax is reliable and one does not. It is entertaining to watch the back and forth sparring when one badged editor puts it in and the other tries to say they are wrong and removes it. Yet the one that removes it says that other sources that are at least as far out from "neutral" are a reliable source. At least the two badged editors can't threaten the other with censorship ;) Mike03car (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"Ridicule"

Slow form of edit-warring is taking place at this article over use of the word "ridiculed" as a descriptor. Along with another editor, I agree that use of the word is POV. Doing both a Yahoo and Google search returned only one reliable source in a news item (rather than a blog or op-ed) using the term. The other results showed unreliable sources using the term. I believe it's best to not use the term in Wiki-voice at all, to do so is not adhering to policy on NPOV or WP:RS. If many RS's used the term, we could discuss on basis of "we follow the sources", but only one has (that I can find). As it is, the content currently states, "...after she called David Hogg, a 17-year old student survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, whiny." [4] It currently read, "after she ridiculed David Hogg, a 17-year old student survivor...". Discuss based on policy, please. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Pinging Mike03car as one of the editors involved; also pinging MrX as the editor who has been continually returning the content back to the POV version without attempting to discuss and has reverted it back to the POV version once again. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC) NOTE: Both versions included below with new, suggested version as well as survey on which version is preferred follows. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I literally included three source in my edit summary. Is there some other adjective besides ridiculed or mocked that you think would would preferable, and why? It seem like like we settled this months ago, but it keeps surfacing for some reason.- MrX 🖋 00:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Bring them here, please - rather than reverting without discussion. It probably keeps resurfacing because more than one editor recognizes the way it's written in Wiki-voice and without enough RS's to support the use of it is POV. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Have you even attempted to analyze the sources? This is not difficult. See below.- MrX 🖋 01:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
This is absurd. The most cursory of Google searches shows that RS that used the term "ridiculed" verbatim (not including synonyms like "mocked") include the NYT[5], CNN[6], Fortune[7], The Plain Dealer[8], Buzzfeed News[9], MassLive[10], the Daily Beast, the Huffington Post... I'm not gonna go through more search results. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
BuzzFeed, Daily Beast, MassLive, Cleveland.com/entertainment section, are not reliable sources. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
They are. You should take your complaints to the RS noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The most cursory search for the term "mocked" shows a dozen or so different RS, including NYT, Reuters, NPR, LA Times, CBS News, CNBC, TIME, USA Today. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Hogg, the Parkland shooting survivor, has gone after Ingraham once again. He first led an advertising boycott against the host when she ridiculed him for getting rejected from several of the colleges to which he had applied back in April."
— Fortune

"The conservative commentator mocked the 17-year-old anti-gun activist after he revealed that he was recently rejected by four University of California campuses."
— CNBC

"Last Wednesday, Ingraham posted a mocking tweet of high school senior David Hogg, taunting him for not getting into some colleges he had applied to."
— CBS News

"Fox News host Laura Ingraham returned to the air Monday night, quipping that she is "glad that I don't have a Google alert on my own name" after a week in which several of her show's major advertisers pulled back after she mocked a Parkland school shooting survivor."
— USA Today

"The Fox News host Laura Ingraham announced on Friday that she was taking a week off following the decision of several companies to pull advertising from her show after she ridiculed a student survivor of the Parkland, Fla., school shooting."
— The New York Times

"But continuing to express mainstream thought from a decade ago is precisely the opposite of what Fox News is up to; it’s not Ingraham’s expression of views that got her boycotted, it’s her decision to express those views by mocking and deriding a high-schooler who recently survived a school shooting."
— Time

"The controversy started when Ingraham mocked Hogg on Twitter. Hogg, in turn, urged his followers on social media to contact Ingraham's advertisers."
— CNN

"The anger generated by Allman’s remarks is reminiscent of the outrage after another conservative commentator, Fox News host Laura Ingraham, mocked Hogg after it was announced the student activist did not get into some top colleges — only to face a fierce backlash from activists and advertisers."
— The Washington Post

"More recently, Bruenig has characterized “corporate boycotts”—like the decision by several large corporations to pull ads from Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show after the host ridiculed the Parkland high school activist David Hogg—as “capital strikes” in which corporations control public discourse."
— Weekly Standard.

- MrX 🖋 01:13, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Because of the reliable sources produced by MrX, I support use of either "ridiculed" or "mocked". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem with repeating what any source says in the manner it's being repeated for content, Cullen328, is that it's POV in Wiki-voice. And that's never acceptable. Best to stick with what was actually said. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
No, Winkelvi, incorrect. She ridiculed and mocked the student, and many reliable sources reported on her behavior, using those same words. Are there any reliable sources that say she did not ridicule and did not mock the student? I think not. Leaving it out is whitewashing. If it was only a few sources among many, your argument might hold water. But the number of reliable sources using "ridiculed" and "mocked" is convincing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Ridiculed and mocked is an opinion drawn, a conclusion made, by the writers of the articles. It's not fact, just biased writing. This is one of those instances where, in the interest of NPOV, Wikipedia editors must be more mindful of neutrality in Wiki-voice and encyclopedic tone that following sources verbatim. Following sources is great when it comes to fact, with exact verbiage in cases such as this, not so much. This is when WP:COMMONSENSE and NPOV should prevail over taking on the appearance of bias to readers so Wikipedia isn't leading the reader by the hand to draw a conclusion. We should let the reader decide if Ingraham was ridiculing or mocking, we shouldn't do it for them. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
It’s a description. We use descriptions from RS all the time. And to characterize this as biased writing sounds like biased writing. O3000 (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Winkelvi asked associated WikiProjects, including of course WikiProject Conservatism, for input on this (yes, seriously). Because we apparently desperately need some broader input as to whether at least eight RS that use the term "ridiculed" and a dozen or so RS that use the term "mocked" are sufficient sourcing for the terms "ridiculed"/"mocked". This is obviously a highly contentious issue of utmost importance, and solving this Gordian knot requires editors with an excellent understanding of Wikipedia policy, high proficiency in media literacy and apparently solid conservative credentials. Can we use a term that can be substantiated with 20+ RS? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"I'd just like to note that Winkelvi asked associated WikiProjects, including of course WikiProject Conservatism, for input on this (yes, seriously). Yes, seriously and yes, of course. If I had only alerted WikiProject Conservatism, that would be a problem. Alerting all associated projects listed at the top of this talk page is not a problem. Nor is it against policy.
(edit conflict)"we apparently desperately need some broader input as to whether at least eight RS that use the term "ridiculed" and a dozen or so RS that use the term "mocked" are sufficient sourcing for the terms "ridiculed"/"mocked"." Why not? Wikipedia is a WP:Community. Issues related to writing encyclopedic, NPOV articles concern the Community as a whole, does it not? Alerting all of Wikipedia of the issue is impractical. Alerting projects associated with this article to get more opinions is practical and appropriate. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Unless the word “mocked” or the WP concept of RS has changed meaning in the last week, these RS look rather obviously acceptable. I would also suggest that anyone brought here by the posts to ten (10) Wikiprojects by Winkelvi identify themselves. O3000 (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm especially looking forward to the input by WikiProject Connecticut[11]. This is precisely the kind of thorny issue that the WikiProject was created to resolve, and I'm sure Winkelvi alerted them to get some of the Connecticut-specific knowledge that our discussion sorely lacks at the moment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Per the new image that has magically appeared to the right, keep in mind that the word canvass comes from the Greek κάνναβις meaning cannabis. O3000 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Albemarle County discusses ridicule and mocking. Oil on WP:CANVASS

.

The use of the word "ridiculed" or "mocked" is merited given the following sources: NBC Chicago, May 29 ("Conservative Fox News host Laura Ingraham mocked Hogg on Twitter Wednesday..."), USA Today, April 2 ("Ingraham... committed a trifecta of blunders when she ridiculed Hogg for his rejections."), USA Today, March 29, 2018 ("Ingraham, who hosts a nightly show on Fox News, sought to cut him down with a tweet..."), CBS News, March 29 ("Fox News host apologizes for mocking Florida school shooting survivor..."), Fortune, March 29 ("Fox News Host Laura Ingraham Ridiculed a Parkland Student.."), CNN, March 30 ("David Hogg rejects Laura Ingraham's apology for mocking tweet"), Mother Jones, March 28 ("Conservatives Are Now Mocking David Hogg..."), Time, March 30 ("...Laura Ingraham mocked Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg..."), Independent UK, March 31 ("Fox TV host Laura Ingraham takes week-long break after mocking Florida shooting survivor David Hogg"), CBS/WTVR, March 29 ("...Ingraham apologizes for mocking... Ingraham was denounced for ridiculing a teenager and survivor of a mass shooting."), The New York Times, March 31 ("...after she ridiculed a student survivor...") and Newsweek, March 28 ("...Ingraham Mocks Parkland Survivor David Hogg...") More of these sources use a form of the word mock than they do ridicule but there is strong support for either or both. Binksternet (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Editors should be extremely careful about making unfounded accusations WP:NPA of canvassing especially at an article under DS where an uninvolved admin can magically appear and drop his banhammer. Wink fully complied with WP:APPNOTE which requires that only one Wikiproject be notifed. He went over and above the guideline.– Lionel(talk) 05:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Interesting you should say that, Dlthewave. The Wrap (which I don't think is a reliable source, but at least two editors commenting here have defended it as such in the past) stated the following: "Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham apologized to Parkland, Florida, school shooting survivor David Hogg on Thursday, a day after he called on people to boycott her advertisers because she accused him of whining. In a tweet Wednesday that quickly went viral, Ingraham said Hogg was “rejected by four colleges to which he applied and whines about it”." [12] So, it would seem that if we are okay with using whatever adjective a reliable source uses, "whining" (as I noted below in version C) is an acceptable term to use in the article. Or, I'd be perfectly fine with changing it to the actual quote (and that would actually be more appropriate, so I'm going to change it now). Thanks for the comment, it was quite helpful. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I came here from the notice at the conservatism project, and I do have a concern that it was canvassing. However, that said, I'm uncomfortable with saying "ridiculed" or "mocked" in Wikipedia's voice, no matter the amount of reliable sourcing. There really are WP:BLP implications about using such terms. I'd prefer something like "strongly criticized", followed by "characterized as ridicule or mockery by source names". That way, it is attributed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:YESPOV, "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." The sources are not reporting that someone opined that Ingraham mocked Hogg; they are stating it as a fact in their voice. When something is widely-reported as a fact by multiple reliable sources, attribution is not needed or even desirable. No one has produced any reliable sources to the contrary. Editorial judgement also comes into play. Any reasonable person seeing the words that Ingraham tweeted would likely describe them as mocking or ridiculing. On the other hand, her tweet was not widely-described as criticizing, thus not verifiable.- MrX 🖋 20:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The fact that we can use the word per policy does not mean that we should. The very existence of this discussion demonstrates that "uncontested and uncontroversial" is not quite what we have here. I think there are good reasons to place higher priority on WP:BLP than other considerations in a situation like this. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Tryptofish: Not canvassing. As policy re: canvassing states here, "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion...Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". The previous is a perfect description of the notifications left at the project talk pages listed at the top of this talk page as well as the kind of message that was left. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
It's borderline canvassing for two reasons: (1) you did not (unless I missed it) immediately disclose here that you made the notification, and (2) this WikiProject is unlike most others in that there is a realistic expectation that editors with one view of the RfC issue, more so than the other view, will see the posting there. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Your definition of what WP:CANVASS states does not match what WP:CANVASS states, Tryptofish. Ergo, still not canvassing, borderline or otherwise. But, if you'd like to see change in policy, I'm sure you can bring this situation up at the appropriate place and see what happens. Maybe you can get the policy to reflect that this currently acceptable action per policy is a policy violation. Until then, I'll continue to follow policy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Duly noted. I do think that I understand policy, be it about canvassing or about BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
I acknowledge you believe you think you understand policy on canvassing. That said, it's obvious you do not if your definition flies in the face of actual policy (which it does). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Duly noted. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Attribute who used the term Mocked or Ridiculed, such as according to X, they described Y as Z. No need to push the agenda of several sources on Wikipedia, let this article not descend into an attack page cause sources disagree with the political POVs of the subject of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The agenda of our sources is to report factual, relevant information to the public. Journalism. If you believe otherwise, please explore those ideas at WP:RSN or WP:VP, not here.- MrX 🖋 12:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Which version?

Which version should be used - choices A (current version); B (reverted version); C (suggested version) listed below, survey follows:

A: "In March 2018, Ingraham's show was boycotted by 27 sponsors after she ridiculed David Hogg, a 17-year old student survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting."

B: "In March 2018, Ingraham's show was boycotted by 27 sponsors after she called David Hogg, a 17-year old student survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, whiny."

C: "In March 2018, Ingraham's show was boycotted by 27 sponsors after she stated on Twitter that David Hogg, a survivor of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, was "whining" about not being accepted by colleges he had applied to was "rejected by four colleges to which he applied and whines about it"."

-- ψλ ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900,

Survey

Version A

  1. Support Version A, since the term "ridiculed" and its synonym "mocked" was used extensively in a range of reliable sources. No objection to also quoting her Twitter mockery. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Version A - When in doubt, use WP:RS. Although I've always been bothered by the word survivor as I don't think he was in the same building. But, if it's in his article, it has to be in this article. O3000 (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support Version A.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    Tomwsulcer, can you give any reasoning behind your !vote? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
    Yes. But see the trout comment below.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    Tom, I'm asking for an explanation behind your !vote. A Trout has nothing to do with your reasoning, does it? Are you aware of this policy guideline [13], specifically the section titled, "Communicate"? Is there a reason why you're being what appears very much to be uncooperative, non-collegial, and unhelpful? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    Winkelvi the way I see things, you're not really interested in learning, or changing your mind, rather it appears to me that your agenda is merely to waste everybody's time here with a disruptive poll. So it is hard for me to take your request seriously.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    If, then, you don't take this survey seriously, why even !vote? I mean, you haven't provided rationale, and have refused to do so when asked what your rationale is, so what's the point of !voting at all? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    Sigh.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
    NOTE: See comments in above discussion where consensus was already determined, with multiple reliable sources. - MrX 🖋 10:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Version A, per the best sources. A trout for Winkelvi – disruptive poll. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  5. Version A, of course, per my previous arguments and the multiple reliable sources in the "Ridicule" section above. - MrX 🖋 00:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  6. Version A per the mass of WP:RS, which, as it has been (re)iterated many times, is the lodestar which guides how we speak in Wikipedia's voice. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  7. Version A. Per RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Version B

Version C

  1. Support C - NPOV, states the facts, isn't in Wiki-voice, puts the tweet by Ingraham in context. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    The fact is that she ridiculed David Hogg That fact is already in the article. Tweets don't have context..- MrX 🖋 10:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  2. Support version C: context in important. And if possible we must use her own words. Per WP:RS#Quotations: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." – Lionel(talk) 02:31, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    Or we could just follow sources.. By the way, the text in version C is not a quote by Ingraham. It's a quote by Winkelvi. - MrX 🖋 02:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    I was referring to "whining." – Lionel(talk) 05:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    Lionelt, please note above that I have changed version C to contain the exact quote. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
    Incorrect. The correct quote is "David Hogg Rejected By Four Colleges To Which He Applied and whines about it."[14] Per WP:RS#Quotations: "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." Nonetheless, quoting her doesn't improve the article and is not mandated by policy. We should simply write 'mocked' or 'ridiculed' based on the large number of reliable secondary sources cited above.- MrX 🖋 10:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
  3. Support C When something is controversial like this I find it best to give more context and let the reader decide. PackMecEng (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  4. Support C - per @Winkelvi and Lionelt: reasoning.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"Harshly criticized"

I forgot to mention this in my edit summary, but the RS clearly mirror this language: "Laura Ingraham was furious with Kevin Yoder."[15] + "Ellmers won the primary... even after withering attacks from Laura Ingraham."[16] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We can state that according to sources, Ingraham was such and so, but we can't say in Wiki-voice "Ingraham harshly criticized...", because that is POV. You've been told this many, many times over the last few months, Snooganssnoogans. Also, as I just posted at your talk page with a warning, don't plagiarize content from sources [17] as you did here. Further, don't lie in edit summaries when reverting/editing (link to comment at your talk page about same here). As well, this statement you have now put into the article, "Ingraham holds anti-immigration views" cannot be said in Wiki-voice and needs to be written in an NPOV manner. I'm hoping you will do that quickly. Even though Wikipedia isn't on a deadline, POV language should never be allowed to stand - especially in a BLP. There are rules against that, of course. We all need to follow them. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"Harshly criticized" is an appropriate way to paraphrase what the reliable sources have written. Since it's not a Wikipedia editor's POV, and as far as I can tell, there are not any reliable sources that contradict that description, we can definitely say it in Wikipedia's voice. Likewise, a review of available sources indicate that Ingraham's anti-immigration stance is well-established.[18][19][20][21].- MrX 🖋 12:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"'Harshly criticized' is an appropriate way to paraphrase what the reliable sources have written." Only if you want the article to read POV and anti-Ingraham. Which is not how an encyclopedia is supposed to read.
"and as far as I can tell, there are not any reliable sources that contradict that description" Are there reliable sources that say she "harshly criticized"? If not...well, you know the rest. Not to mention that no matter how many sources say it (and, "as far as I can tell" - you know...with my own original research, none do - but YMLVs), we still can't say exactly that in wiki-voice because it's POV wording. This has been pointed out to you endlessly as much as it has been to SS.
"Ingraham's anti-immigration stance is well-established." No, her anti-illegal immigration stance is well-established. And, unless you have something in the form of a direct quote that states she is anti-all immigration (legal and illegal), such content cannot be allowed to stay in the article. None of the sources you provided have done that. Unless, of course, you're reading between the lines while wearing your bias-rimmed rose-colored glasses. That's some pretty good Wiki-lawyering, X. But it doesn't persuade in a manner that calls for a rewriting of policy on POV or BLP. Nice try, though.
And just for good measure and to recruit the eyes of a proven neutral Admin in regard to politically-based articles, I'm going to ask MelanieN to weigh in here.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
WaPo says she's "anti-immigration".[22] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, then, dear God, it must be true because the WaPo says she is without any real evidence that she is other than a writer's biased take on what she's said. Let me try to put this in simpler terms: do you have a direct quote from Ingraham where she has said she is anti-legal immigration as it related to the United States? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Where does it state we need a direct quote from the subject to include content on her views?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Not useful O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
TheGracefulSlick - here's a query for you: Have you ever edited this talk page or the article before? I don't think I've ever seen you show interest in any of the politically-related articles prior to your post here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Is there a purpose behind this question? O3000 (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There's always a purpose behind every question I ask. Those of us on the autism spectrum rarely ask anything pointless/without good reason that follows a logical path. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Winkelvi, nope, first time! Should I have tried to meet your qualifications before asking a question on content? Also, look at Crippled America—a political campaign book—since I “have not shown” any interest in politics.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"Qualifications"? There are none. But I do find it interesting that you ended up here since politics and this article are not in your repertoire. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Winkelvi does this lead to you answering my question? Or no?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry Winkelvi, but your comments in this section reflect a very poor understanding of WP:NPOV. For example, exclaiming that "unless you have something in the form of a direct quote that states she is anti-all immigration (legal and illegal), such content cannot be allowed to stay in the article." is simply not a factor in determining the actual content that we are discussing in this section. Critical adjectives are not violative of NPOV either. You seem to conflate "neutral point of view" with "neutral". Please take the time to learn our policies before diving into the deep end.- MrX 🖋 19:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"your comments in this section reflect a very poor understanding of WP:NPOV." No they don't.
One thing is for certain, X - if you are ever permanently transported in an act of time travel back to an era pre-electricity, be sure to apply for work as a gas-lamplighter. You're so very adept and talented at it. I'd be willing to bet you'd make employee of the month, each month, for an entire year. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Demographic Changes in the United States

Would someone please change this sentence:

"Ingraham has spoken out against the changing racial demographics of The United States"

Should be: "Ingraham has spoken out about changing demographics in the United States."

Reason: Ingraham has not spoken out against changing racial demographics in the US. She has not mentioned "race" in these contexts. She has spoken out about changing demographics, but she says explicitly that this is a matter of cultural demographics and not of race.

The wiki article should reflect what Ingraham actually said and not what she did not say.

1Nathan7 (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This has been widely reported in reliable sources as racially cast. [23]. But, I added her denial. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Glad you noted her denial in the article. Someone's going to have to explain to me one day when "reliable sources" became judge and jury as to an individual's guilt or innocence when it comes to the hot-button issues of the day and why Wikipedia gives so much credence to the pronouncements of these media Judge Dredds. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We all look forward to your understanding. O3000 (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Your response tells me you lack an understanding of what I wrote. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Lets get something more reliable than "The Fix" opinion section of The Washington Post. PackMecEng (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't use it in article space. There are cites there already. I used it on talk to provide an example of widespread opinion using a respected blog with editorial oversight. O3000 (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank goodness, but just an FYI no sign of editorial oversight on that blog. Fine for the authors opinion and all but that is it. The sources used in the article are better but not by much. PackMecEng (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Curtis

@Moomat: Having an estranged brother is one thing, using said brothers opinions to insert negative comments into the article is quite another, especially if it's based on a single source (The NBC article basically parrots the Daily Beast). Kleuske (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Moomat: To make the point that she's estranged from her brother requires a single statement (sourced) along the lines of "She's estranged from her brother". The nasty stuff is an private persons opinion. Kleuske (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"Anti-immigration"

Editors have once again[24] tried to change anti-immigration to "anti-illegal immigration", despite the fact that cited sources explicitly refer to her as "anti-immigration" and despite the fact that Ingraham has specifically spoken out against "legal immigration". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article talks about all of it in context of illegal immigration. Explaining her views, what she has said on it, and what she has done. All while explicitly in context of illegal immigration. How you get anything else is beyond me. Also really calling it bordering on vandalism? Stop the personal attack BS and focus on content. PackMecEng (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it does not.[25] It's weird how the Washington Post calls her "anti-immigration" and refers to her "restrictive views on immigration" when she so obviously only opposes illegal immigration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Then it goes on to say "media story about an immigrant as an "illegal immigration sob story." and stuff like "such as calling the children of immigrants in the country illegally "anchor fetuses." Sounds like framing it though stories on illegal immigration to me. But we could also find a better source that is not commentary in the style section and an actual source for statements of facts. That would probably clear things up a lot. PackMecEng (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Those who are anti-immigration usually start and frame their arguments that way ("framing it through stories on illegal immigration"). That's a much more palatable approach, since most people are against illegal immigration. Once you start digging, you discover it's a slippery slope hiding their real beliefs, which are more sinister and unamerican. We are seeing a literal anti-immigrant (especially against "wrong color", "wrong religion", and poor) movement from the alt-right, neo-nazis, white supremacists, Bannon, and Trump. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

All that aside, RS say anti-immigration. So, we say anti-immigration. O3000 (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Great, lets get a good source for that past commentary and add it. Otherwise the source used is not good enough. PackMecEng (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks -- that'll do. Added. O3000 (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to call Ingraham anti immigrantion we're going to need better sourcing. The WaPo article calls her an early proponent of Trumpism, which the author describes as anti-immigration among other things. Typing Trumpism into Wikipedia takes you here, with the relevant immigration section saying Illegal immigration was a signature issue of Trump's presidential campaign, and his proposed reforms and controversial remarks about this issue have generated headlines. The Guardian article never directly calls her "anti immigration" as far as I can tell, but writes that she said "“It’s clear that we need a reset on the entire issue of immigration – illegal and legal,” which isn't really that controversial of a statement. Such direct descriptions in Wikipedia's voice need to have better sourcing. The comment should be REMOVED per BLP until better sourcing is provided. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The conservative Laura Ingraham used her TV show to blame immigrants – legal and illegal alike – for destroying “the America we know and love” in comments Wednesday night that drew a swift backlash. “In some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” Ingraham said on the cable network. Ingraham added: “Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people. And they’re changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like,” she said. “From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and in some cases legal immigration.”

[26] O3000 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Help me out - where does it say "Anti-immigration?" Mr Ernie (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The source says that she's criticizing both legal and illegal immigration. The very thing that you claim there is no substantiation of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Criticism doesn't mean you are anti something. We criticize things all the time, mostly with the intent to bring about some improvements. For such a strong statement in Wiki voice, we need direct sourcing. As it stands this is a BLP violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
We have both direct sourcing describing her as "anti-immigration", and clear documentation of various anti-legal immigrant ways (in addition to RS that go further than simply call her anti-immigration - connecting her to white nationalist rhetoric). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Are you citing a Wikipedia page for what counts as 'Trumpism' and implying that WaPo is wrong because Wikipedia says something different? And you didn't even cite Wikipedia correctly. This is literally what the 'Trumpism' Wikipedia article says in its lede: "Trump's signature issue is immigration, especially illegal immigration". And the immigration section in the article explicitly mentions how Trump wants to limit legal immigration in a variety of ways. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Ingraham herself has explicitly spoken out against BOTH "legal immigration" and illegal immigration, saying that they BOTH (in her own words) contribute to adverse demographic changes in the United States.[27] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
That source does not call her anti-immigration. Pointing out problems with legal immigration doesn't make you anti legal immigration. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
So, you dismiss RS which do verbatim call her "anti-immigration" but which do not delineate at great length all her anti-immigrant ways while simultaneously dismissing RS which do delineate her anti-immigration ways because they do not verbatim describe her as "anti-immigration"? And for what it's worth, RS go even further than "anti-immigration" and say that her concerns about demographic changes echo white nationalist rhetoric[28]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Again I ask - where is the verbatim quote that she is anti immigration? The WaPo article says she was an early proponent of Trumpism. The WaPo article describes Trumpism as anti immigration, but they do not make the connection that Ingraham supported that aspect of Trumpism. Trumpism is a big thing and encompasses many views. Therefore we need strong sourcing with direct attribution to write that she is anti immigration in wikipedia voice. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia avoids copying verbatim text as that would be a copyright violation. Being staunchly against immigration is being anti-immigration. How else can you characterize claiming that immigrants are "destroying America?" 17:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)
The WaPo article calls her "anti-immigration" verbatim. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Where? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's the direct quote she was an early proponent of Trumpism — an anti-immigration, tax-slashing America Firster. I interpreted anti-immigration as describing views of Trumpism. Clarifying for other readers. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You did not read the WaPo article that you're calling on us to dismiss? It describes her as "an anti-immigration, tax-slashing America Firster"[29]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The source says she "was" and uses anti-immigration, tax slashing, and America Firster to describe Trumpism. I'm saying we better sourcing. If it is so obvious surely another outlet would have called her that too. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
No, it's describing her, and that her views are like Trump's. This is not a difficult text to read: "During the Obama years, she railed against most everything he did. And, of course, she was an early proponent of Trumpism — an anti-immigration, tax-slashing America Firster who opposed big trade deals and international organizations such as the United Nations because, as she proclaims in her new book, they "take power out of the hands of the voters and give it to a far-away and often hostile global elite."" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion - I see it that way in the text now. It is still only one source. Strong claims need corroboration (or at least they should). Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This is easily corroborated. For example;

  • Yilek, Caitlin (9 August 2018). "Laura Ingraham faces backlash over anti-immigrant comments". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  • Burke, Timothy (9 August 2018). "Laura Ingraham's Anti-Immigrant Rant Is So Racist It Was Endorsed by Ex-KKK Leader David Duke". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  • "Fox News' Laura Ingraham suggests legal and illegal immigration is ruining America. CNN's Chris Cuomo rebuts". 9 August 2018. Retrieved 19 October 2018.
  • Timmons, Heather (August 9, 2018). "Laura Ingraham's Fox News anti-immigrant rant overlooks her adopted daughter — Quartz". qz.com. Retrieved 19 October 2018.

Among others. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 18:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The issue seems to be cleared up now with better sources and more neutral language. PackMecEng (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The previous wording more closely matches RS. O3000 (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Which part the heading or text in the section? PackMecEng (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
"Anti-immigration." Why not use the language used by RS? We're not here to euphemize. O3000 (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
With the section heading part, I think "Immigration and diversity" is more appropriate since the section covers more than just "Anti-immigration". For the text in the section where would you want to stick it? PackMecEng (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Where it was before this [30]. That's what this section is about. O3000 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I would be okay with changing the first sentence from "Ingraham holds views critical of immigration" to "Ingraham holds anti-immigration views". If everyone else is fine with it of course. PackMecEng (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Mocking of gun shooting survivor

I changed the section title to "Advertiser boycott" here and Snooganssnoogans reverted here citing "more descriptive. also discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laura_Ingraham#%22Ridicule%22". The section linked does not discuss the section heading or the changes I made to the lase sentence, it talks about the wording in the early part of the section. What part of that discussion are you referring to? I changed it because the title of the section reads like crap and is also largely focused on the boycott aspect. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion was about removing 'ridicule' and 'mocking' from the text, presumably including the section title. The text largely focuses on the boycott that resulted from her mocking of gun shooting survivor David Hogg. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
The title was not addressed in the talks above, so that is a non-starter. Mocking of gun shooting survivor is just very poorly written. Heck why gun shooting, even school shooting would be an improvement. I would be open to other titles that have better wording. Also the significant impact of the mocking was the boycott, that is the only part that actually had impact. The reason why is almost secondary to the important bits that happened. Finally what was the issue with the last sentence I changed? Would you be okay with me re-adding that? PackMecEng (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The word "mocking" is not NPOV enough for a title, even with sources that use it we should seriously consider not having it in the section title. With this in mind the section is now called "David Hogg controversy". Having 'ridicule' and 'mocking' in the text is fine because that's what happened and it's supported by sources. The section is as much about Ingraham ridiculing Hogg as it is Hogg organising a boycott, so "Advertiser boycott" doesn't work. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I would be okay with "David Hogg controversy" as an improvement. PackMecEng (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree, it's an improvement. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Section headings

I've renamed the section "Stoneman Douglas shooting comments" since that's what started the thing off. Nevertheless, I don't think we should have a separate section for every recent media flap, especially in a BLP. Wikipedia isn't a news site; we don't need exhaustive documentation of unfolding controversies, which tends to emphasize primary sources (breaking news) over secondary ones. Assigning separate sections to every minor issue tends to invite POV forking, also undesirable for a biography.

By the way, this isn't about any inclination on my part to whitewash criticism of the article subject; I've made much the same points regarding our bio of Linda Sarsour. Personally, I find Ingraham's views repugnant. But encyclopedic biographies should ideally stick to high-level sourcing and avoid "controversy" sections altogether. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

"adopted" children in infobox

I am at a loss for why some editors wish to insert "(adopted)" into the number of children in her infobox. Firstly, there is no source for her third child. Secondly, there is no specification in {{Infobox person}} for noting the provenance of children in this field, nor should there be! It is supposed to be a number, or links to notable BLPs. Thank you. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

An IP user removed "adopted" from the infobox a few hours ago so I re-inserted the text because it is reliably sourced in the personal life section below. Apparently it has been in the article for at least one month (didn't go back in the history further than that). I think it is fine and should remain in the infobox, but it doesn't really seem like a big deal if others want it removed.Tempwirk (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
We do want it removed--thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

James Frederick Ingraham III

03:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)~~

Criticism of LeBron James

We should mentioned that Ingraham described James (and other athletes) as "Jumb Docks". An apparent error, by Ingraham. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Alleged white supremacist

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/04/18/laura-ingraham-insulted-chrissy-teigen-then-model-called-host-white-supremacist/ apparently not the first time the allegation. Is this or is it not relevant given that it keeps happening, whether true or not?Oathed (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2019

Please correct misleading reference to Laura Ingraham's view on immigration. She is against, or anti, illegal immigration. It is purposefully misleading to portray her as against all immigration. This is a common political bias found in Wikipedia. Braindoctor1 (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has already been discussed multiple times above. aboideautalk 15:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2019

In the lead, please link: J.D. degree → Juris Doctor 2606:A000:1126:28D:B8FC:1D0E:240:E5D9 (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019

Suggested Changes are to add a Climate section to political views and controversies, referencing below events: 1) 9/23/2019 Comparison of climate activist Greta Thunberg to Stephen King's movie Children of the Corn, and denouncing her climate views as cultish 2) 9/6/2019 Declaration of Democratic candidates speaking at the Climate Convention as "Dictators in Training" with their approach to climate change 3) 8/28/2019 Her claim of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's ("AOC") climate change initiatives are a con 4) 11/30/2015 Described global warming as a religion, and referred to the "church of global warming". Further described the climate treaty as an agenda for setting up "global governance"

I am happy to write this entire section out, but I believe that a section should be added that clarifies her controversial position on climate change, given her influence. Maxcalderon (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

falsehood: "Ingraham holds anti-immigration views"

As the article points out, Ingraham's own ancestors were immigrants, so it's completely misleading for this article to state that "Ingraham holds anti-immigration views". 75.67.201.218 (talk) 04:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What is the "Baptist Neo-Tradition"?

Is there such a thing as the "Baptist Neo-Tradition"? Clicking on it takes one to something about Baptists, but there is no "neo-tradition" there. I don't believe that any such recognized category exits. So even if it comes from Ingraham, it would not be appropriate, except if it were given as, "Ingraham calls it neo-." Clicking on footnote 100 takes you to a Wikipedia article. I see a book in the ref though. When I googled intitle:"Baptist neo-tradition", I got no results. I am thinking that the sentence needs changing either to give the particular baptist denomination in which she was a member or to state that she was a member of an independent baptist church. The very phrase seems an oxymoron; if it is neo-, how is it a tradition? The National Catholic Register gives an interview (http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/how_radio_star_talked_her_way_into_the_church)

"I grew up kind of northern Baptist. We went to a great church, Pilgrim Church in Glastonbury, Conn." But she quit attending at about 12 years and I saw nothing in that article about being a member of that church. So is it proper to speak of conversion from baptist?
There is a Pilgrim Baptist Church found via google in Glastonbury. It says CBA, which probably means Conservative Baptist Association (hardly neo-) which is a split off from the Northern Baptist Convention, probably the denominational split occurred before Ingraham was born, though since baptist churches are autonomous, this local church could have changed associations at any time. And of course we don't know that Ingraham's attended church had the name baptist in it, as some baptist churches have pulled that name out of their name, though staying affiliated with a baptist denomination. At any rate I have no access to the book cited in the ref. And if Ingraham stopped attending at 12, it is quite possible that she doesn't even know the denomination or lack of it. At any rate I am thinking that the sentence requires verification.

(PeacePeace (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2019

Change "Ingraham holds anti-immigration views" to "Ingraham holds anti-illegal immigration views". The current phrasing is inaccurate and misleading, not supported by the sources, and does not draw the important distinction between immigration and illegal immigration. 198.81.129.194 (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

The category '1963 births' needs to be removed per BLP; there is nothing in the article/sources to support it. 107.77.203.182 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

isn't she the one who gave the stiff right-arm "Nazi salute" at a rally?

Why, yes, yes she is. I believe that makes her right-wing, a Nazi, and she even calls herself a "nationalist," which is, as you all know, the new(ish) term en vogue for the Nazi to use. Why isn't this mentioned? There's pictures and video. If the shoe fits, the Nazi needs to wear it.198.70.2.200 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Education

Laura Ingraham earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in English and Russian Literature from Dartmouth College.


The source of this information is from the Daily Press in an article written about her in 2001.

https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-20010816-2001-08-16-0108150239-story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C500:3150:313B:899:7D15:A307 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Conservative/Rightwing

@Kirkurdu: If you contend the terms are equivalent, there’s no point in changing them. If you are of the opinion that they do differ, you need a source, as per WP:V and WP:BLP. Moreover, since the edit was disputed, putting it back is also against policy. Seek consensus on the talk page, back up your claims with sources. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not really invested here, but this source seems to be the best one for identifying her as "right-wing" (as an excerpt from a book it seems substantial to me). But googling "Laura Ingraham""right-wing" and "Laura Ingraham""conservative," I didn't see any pieces describing her as right-wing except for references to / quotes of that linked piece, whereas a lot of others began with the phrase "conservative commentator Laura Ingraham..." -- though these sources also identify related people/programs as right-wing. I think either term is probably accurate or supportable, but "conservative" was more common in the sources I saw. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 02:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Alaska Politicians?

Why is this page/person categorized as an "Alaska Politician" when she appears to be neither a politician nor an Alaskan/Alaska resident?

Where are you seeing this? I dont see it at top of talk page or on her main article page?MaximusEditor (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Also when you make a post on a talk page dont forget to sign it with four ~ after your edit. It auto generates your edit signature so we know who we are talking to.MaximusEditor (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, as far as I can tell she has no connection at all to Alaska. The only reference I could find is a tweet she once made in 2018, in which she vaguely threatened to consider moving to Alaska just to exact political retribution on one of that state's senators. I see no evidence that she should be categorized as an Alaska republican, and the page as written doesn't support it. - Astrophobe (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

China Section

I'm curious if anyone else is a little confused at the claim in the china section that states "In August 2019, Ingraham falsely claimed China had a "brutal violation of basic human rights..." backed with a source demonstrating she said it, but saying nothing about it being false.

The idea that there is no genocide going on in China in relation to the Muslims living there is very much in question, and that's putting it mildly. Also, whether or not there is genocide isn't really related to Ingraham spreading anti-asian rhetoric in relation to the coronavirus. The genocide stuff really needs to be edited out of there, it is irrelevant and misleading.

- Whoever most recently edited the China section in May has exacerbated this issue. Not only did is the question of whether genocide is occurring in Xinjiang valid, but they also added two sources that do not support the revisions. Can someone with protected access edit?Tallowbreeched (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

Remove these lines, because the wording is too partisan and biased as well as not based in fact. Atleast try to make it more neutral sounding:

"but also falsely claimed they were committing genocide, although there is no evidence of this.[1] Ingraham's views about China have increased hate crimes agains Asian-Americans.[2]"

Uhhhhh..... there is a LOT of evidence that there is a genocide in China.

"although a majority of Jews in the United States have lost support of the country due to the its government's sharp turn to the right.[3] She falsely attacked Ilhan Omar's comments about Israel's genocide against Palestinans under prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[4]" Kyrstensinemafan (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The situtation in Israel is very disputed to say the least, and Omar's claims about Israel are dispusted and VERY controversial.

 Done I rolled back those edits, they were clearly POV and write likely BLP violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "China committing 'crimes against humanity' in Xinjiang: report". Nikkei Asia. Retrieved 2021-05-26.
  2. ^ Murphy, Meghan (2021-04-04). "Murphy '23: 'An existential threat': how anti-Chinese discourse in foreign policy lends itself to anti-Asian hate". Brown Daily Herald. Retrieved 2021-05-26.
  3. ^ Kabas, Marisa; Kabas, Marisa (2021-05-21). "Young American Jews Have Reached a Tipping Point With Israel". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2021-06-12.
  4. ^ "Laura Ingraham: Nancy Pelosi has her hands full with the freshman insurrection on Capitol Hill". Fox News. November 14, 2019. Archived from the original on August 30, 2019. Retrieved August 30, 2019.

Recent Edits by User:‎WakeFan1991

Human Rights Watch did not say anything about Omar or Ingraham in the source that was cited, and certainly didn't prove "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." to be true. "Experts" (sourced to a single opinion piece) saying there is no genocide does not have any bearing on her saying "brutal violation of basic human rights", and in the source cited they actually agree with her statement Beijing is violating the Uighurs’ human rights... There are credible charges of human-rights abuses against Uighurs, but those do not per se constitute genocide. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


‎WakeFan1991, please stop removing and editing my talk page comments. [31] [32] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I have edited the article to include your points, and apologize for any trouble I may have caused. ---‎WakeFan1991
  • I am now known as WakeFan1991, and am editing this thread to reflect the changes. ---‎WakeFan1991

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2022

Very minor but under the television show host subcategory, the sentence "She gained her wish in 2008..." is not idiomatically correct. It should be "She finally got her wish in 2008..." Pbhave1 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done I dropped "finally," but changed it to "got her wish." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2022

Could someone revert this edit, which appears to be vandalism [33]. "Propagandist" is not supported by the body of the article. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit by User:MManville

Revert back to previous version. Rogue editor added personal bias about a tweet which should be removed. Makes a lot of assumptions and editor has a history of adding venom to conservative bio articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.15.147 (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

add to personal life

Laura has adopted children. She adopted internationally. This is information she posted on her website and shared in interview with people magazine: https://people.com/parents/laura-ingraham/ . 2600:1003:B03B:435B:504:5C45:4394:BBE4 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove template from top?

FMSky, you added a template saying "This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies." Is it still needed? Llll5032 (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

imo yes. the political views section is still twice as long as her whole career section --FMSky (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Which political views are out of WP:PROPORTION to "the body of reliable, published material on the subject"? Llll5032 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
not one view or subsection in particular but rather the entirity of it. the section shouldnt be twice, almost 3 times as long as the rest of the article. see the german version for a good example on how it should be balanced https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingraham --FMSky (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
and nothingburgers like this "shut up and dribble" nonsense shouldnt be included at all. we dont have to list ever little comment of her that rattled some folks on twitter ---FMSky (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you seeking representation "proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" per WP:PROPORTION, and to "catalog a topic's worth and its role and achievements within society, rather than offering a directory listing" per WP:INDY, or can you cite policy for some other measurement? Llll5032 (talk) Llll5032 (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
ah ok i see what you mean, maybe that tag is the wrong one then. i mean a tag that the article should be balanced better, so WP:PROPORTION might be it. --FMSky (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The "shut up and dribble" episode was too prominent before, but I think it matches its WP:SIGCOV better now. Llll5032 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
yeah but is there a template/tag what the entire article is unbalanced? i.e that one section is way too long and another way too short? --FMSky (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
If we follow WP:PROPORTION and WP:INDY, then the article is unbalanced if it does not follow the emphasis of reliable sources. Do reliable sources discuss her career track as much as they discuss her statements as a commentator? Llll5032 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, they do. If we look at sources published before like 2013/14 or something, they almost entirely discuss her in the context of her career. Look at an older version of this article for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laura_Ingraham&oldid=605400293 . looks a lot different, doesnt it? then twitter and cancel culture came and the rest is history --FMSky (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Did getting the influence of a prime time TV commentary show and being an informal advisor to the POTUS for 4 years have a role? Llll5032 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
and now 2 thirds of the article is about that and the decades before that are ignored? --FMSky (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Does the article ignore the decades before? If you see important biographical information from those decades that is emphasized by RS, then it should be included. Llll5032 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

A short description of the subject's political positions, for which she is known, should be due at the top. But it was recently deleted. Per MOS:BLPLEAD, "The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight. When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources, and make sure the lead correctly reflects the entirety of the article." Can a WP:CONSENSUS be reached? Llll5032 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I added a part back but i dont think we should be throwing labels like "nationalist" around unless it is supported by multiple reliable sources --FMSky (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks and I agree that we need multiple RS for the label. Llll5032 (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually, you don't need multiple sources for the defamatory "nationalist" claim. Ingraham has always identified as a conservative. The Nazis were "nationalists." Calling her a nationalist is a smear. Try and remember this is a bio of a living person. Bodding (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE have some guidance about when those descriptions should be used and when they should not. Llll5032 (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and these are to be reliable sources. Stop trying to game the rules to fit your opinion of Ingraham. That's why we don't use opinion pieces. That's all Michael Grynbaum writes. His opinion. Bodding (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Editors have been in good-faith agreement that multiple RS would be required before using any such label at the top in Wikivoice. Llll5032 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laura_Ingraham/Archive_2&oldid=1211427451"