Talk:Laura Schlessinger/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Subheadings under controversies and nude photos

Odd that there are sub-headings under the "Controversies" section on this page that point to nowhere. Is it common Wikipedia practice to edit the Talk Pages? Or did someone "mistakenly" mess up the format so that things couldn't be seen?

Also the only mention of the nude photos is under the Television Heading:

Not long before her show was set to premiere, Schlessinger was a guest on The View. The appearance was tense as protesters were outside :the studio and she was confronted by audience members. Host Joy Behar took issue with some of her comments, and host Barbara Walters :raised the issue of Schlessinger's nude photos, in response to criticisms Schlessinger made about a photo of Walters naked, and a past :affair Walters had revealed with a married man.

Nowhere does it mention that the pictures were released to the internet by Bill Ballance or that Laura at first denied the existence of such pictures.

Is Wikipedia just here to tell us about the nice things about people they care about? How is that NPOV?Feddx (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see what was in the, since removed, Controversies section, click the "show" button on that banner. SMP0328. (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So Wikipedians now remove sections on the talk pages they don't agree with? And really, why can't the article contain factual information about Laura?Feddx (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Read here and here for how this article was brought into compliance with NPOV. This article shows the good and the bad of Dr. Laura, all with reliable sourcing. BTW, please stop with the hyperbole; we aren't only telling "nice things" about Dr. Laura or keeping "factual information" out of the article. SMP0328. (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit of reading in the archives. I see that you (as a collective) laud someone that has "removed the controversies section" and placed the information throughout the article. Yet I can't see the information in the article on the pictures or lawsuits filed against Laura. My question is why? What is the reasoning to remove cited facts from the article?Feddx (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for what you say is missing? SMP0328. (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

From the NY Post 23 Oct 1998 (here). There are other credible sources that were cited previously, but I'll cite as many as you feel Wikipedia needs.

"The shots of [Laura Schlessinger], now 51, were allegedly taken when she was in her 20s by Bill Ballance, the California radio personality credited with launching Dr. Laura's career.

"Ballance, 80, tells IEG's Web site, www.clublove.com, that Schlessinger willingly posed for the shots - and she insisted they show full-frontal nudity. Some of the dirty dozen show Dr. Laura in extremely revealing closeups."Feddx (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that shows its complete text? The NYP link only provides a sample and wants money for the rest. Also, the sample partially reads as an editorial. A better source would be objectively written. SMP0328. (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure I can, it's at your local library. You go there and ask to see archived copies of the NY Post from October 1998. Then you look through either the hard copy or the micro film they have and read the text of the article on page 8 from the October 23rd edition. Do you need me to make you a map?

I don't recall anything in WP:RS stating that the entire text of every source cited has to be online so editors weren't inconvenienced to do their follow-up research. There are hundreds of sources about the nude pictures of Dr. Laura, she admits they are her, and the fact that they exist can't be ignored. You can choose to ignore it along with the rest of the apologists, but I prefer to deal in fact.

Why is it so impossible for facts to be posted on Wikipedia? Because there are so many people that want to change the past. Inconceivable! -Vizzini Feddx (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

First, learn to be civil. Next, it is the job of the editor who wants to add material to prove its sourcing is reliable and verifiable. You have yet to do that. SMP0328. (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Indent Break

1. I was being civil. I don't think there's anything uncivil about stating one's opinion on a talk page, whether you agree with it or not. I believe you're inferring something that's not there.

2. As I have not yet edited the article, and was trying to get a bead on why people are omitting facts, I'm not really an editor here yet. I came to the talk page first to see why, and now I'm pretty sure of what's going on. I usually follow that protocol before editing an article.

3. Here are verifiable sources apart from the NY Post one I've already supplied:

(FRANKE-FOLSTAD, KIM "NUDE PICTURES GIVE DR. LAURA A WHOLE NEW LOOK." Rocky Mountain News 25 Oct.1998)

(ABBOTT, JIM "THE INTERNET REVEALS A LOT ABOUT DR. LAURA" Orlando Sentinal 30 Oct.1998, p.16, Calendar sect.)

(Unknown Author "Nude Dr. Laura gets judge's OK ..." NY Post 3 Nov.1998, p.8, All Ed.)

(ROSENZWEIG, DAVID "Celebrities Lose Nude Photo Cases; Privacy: Judge rejects bids by Laura Schlessinger, Pamela Anderson Lee to block pictures." LA Times 3 Nov.1998, p.1, Home ed.)

(HENRY, MARILYN "'Dr. Laura' apologizes for her nude pictures." Jerusalem Post 6 Nov.1998, p.5, News sect.)

(KING, LARRY "Dr. Laura's nude pix: A World Wide yawn" USA Today 9 Nov.1998, p.02.D, LIFE sect.)

(News Brief "'Dr. Laura' drops lawsuit over nude photos" Reading Eagle 16 Dec.1998, p.1, Entertainment sect.)

It took me all of 5 minutes to come up with these verifiable sources. And I'll restate this; nowhere in Wikipedia Sources have I ever read that the entire text of anything cited by an editor needs to be available for free online. In fact all it asks is that you cite the sources inline. And yes, Major Newspapers are reliable sources. From the 3rd paragraph of Wikipedia Sources:

In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers.(my emphasis)

In fact if you keep reading down that page you will see Access to sources. It reads:

The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. WikiProject Resource Exchange may be able to assist in obtaining copies/excerpts of sources that are not easily accessible.

I hope this straightens it out for you. I'll be adding information on the nude pictures and other verifiable information to this article soon. Feddx (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right on target here. It's not possible to Google Dr. Laura's images without finding the nude photos, and these images have been referred to frequently in the context of hypocrisy. As a result, they really should be addressed and sourced in the main article. Your point about reliable sources not needing to be available online is right on the money. Rklawton (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Killed not fallen; wounded not injured

In 2007, Schlessinger began fundraising for Operation Family Fund, an organization which aids the families of fallen or seriously injured veterans of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think what is meant here - if it is intended as information rather than sentiment or euphemism - is "killed and seriously wounded" veterans. If, as a matter of fact, OFF also aids the "seriously injured" - as for example, those who have suffered severe trauma as a result of accidents rather than hostile actions - then that detail should be added, not substituted, in the text. Womiles (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)w o miles, baltimore

Marriage and Family Counselor?

"Dr. Laura" has a PhD in Physiology. Marriage and Family Counselor/Therapist is a legal designation in most States, defined by having met very specific educational and supervised experience requirements in Marriage and Family Therapy or Psychology before passing rigorous examinations. Physiology is not a commensurate field of study.

Whatever you think of her advice show, she violates a number of the basic ethics and laws governing Marriage and Family Therapists.

If, indeed, Ms. Schlessenger, PhD practiced for a time as an unlicensed counselor, please correct the entry to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.151.176 (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.43.206.226, 17 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The wiki page says: Today's Dr. Laura Show is a joint effort between Take On The Day, which produces it, Talk Radio Network, which syndicates and markets it to radio stations, and Premiere Radio Networks, (a subsidiary of Clear Channel), which provides satellite facilities and handles advertising sales.

I went to the Talk Radio Network and found no evidence of Dr. Laura. I think someone may have confused Laura (Schlessinger) with Laura Ingraham (who does have a show at Talk Radio Network)

(She does seem to be affiliated with Take On The Day and Premiere Radio Networks) 72.43.206.226 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. There are plenty of hits for "Talk Radio Network" and "Dr. Laura". I see you point about talkradionetwork.com, but try trn1.com. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Avargasj, 19 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} On August 10, 2010, on a call with an African-American woman who was seeking advice concerning her own interracial marriage, Schlessinger used the word "cracker" eleven times, saying that mention of the term did not constitute racism. She told the caller that she had the right to say the word because black comedians and actors on HBO say it, and cited a previous race-related comment made by her that was "funny" (and was made to her bodyguard, a black man). She also claimed that black people voted for Barack Obama for President on the basis of skin color, as an example of blacks as well as whites making judgments based solely on skin color.[15] She apologized for doing the "wrong thing" a day later.[16] She understood the importance of apologizing before the media got wild and asked her to apologize, and did so praising herself for her quick response to her mistake. Some may argue this incident may have led to her decision to not sign a new contract with her current talk show syndicate.

On August 17, 2010 Schlessinger announced the end of her radio show during an appearance on Larry King Live, saying that her motivation was to "regain her first amendment rights."[17] During King’s interview with Schlessinger, Shlessinger also added that she wanted to live her life without threats and was tired of all the hate she received for exercising her amendment rights. She said she has decided to move her work to the Internet and not return to talk radio.

Avargasj (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please detail your request in a 'please change X to Y' manner. Copying the entire section makes it difficult to understand the change you want to make. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is now effectively worthless

Racist aren't racist and homophobes are just charming because to say otherwise might be pejorative.--DCX (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Much

With the subjective definition of what is and isn't considered 'verifiable' actual racist have to go out and have to be caught lynching someone on a cell phone camera several times before they can be considered racists . And of course because News sources can be considered as 'reliable you need have several videographers who of course don't run a blog or have actually said anything else in public that might be considered 'POV"

DRCarroll 04:28 August 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 09:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from GeneO1023, 19 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The cited doctoral thesis is NOT her work. It is in fact the work of a serious group of Japanese researchers.

Glucose tolerance factor stimulates 3-0-methylglucose transport into isolated rat adipocytes

Masakuni Tokudaa, Atsunori Kashiwagic, Eiji Wakamiyab, Tatsuya Ogunib, Makoto Minob and Hiroyuki Kagamiyamaa

a Department of Medical Chemistry, Osaka Medical College, 2-7 Daigakumachi, Takatsuki, Osaka 569, Japan

b Department of Pediatrics, Osaka Medical College, 2-7 Daigakumachi, Takatsuki, Osaka 569, Japan

c Third Department of Medicine, Shiga University of Medical Science, Seta, Ohtsu, Shiga 520-21, Japan Received 30 March 1987. Available online 08 December 2004.

GeneO1023 (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you accusing her of plagiarism? Stonemason89 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The sources say that thesis does belong to her, as well as all the other sources I Googled. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dureagle, 21 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The sentence under racial comments that reads "She also said, "It's never okay to use that word." [34]" should in fairness bechanged to read She also said, "It's never okay to use that word, although she herself used the word five times during the call." [34][transcript of call]

Dureagle (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

While that may be true, it also seems SYNTHY. I'm not sure if we should do that. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Her favorite movies are Kill Bill volumes 1 and 2. Her favorite TV show is NCIS

This is trivia and ought to be removed as such. I'm sure magazines have also asked her what her favourite colour is, and who she like in friends. None of this makes the information encyclopedic. We are not a human interest magazine.

I'm not going to edit war with User:Freakshownerd over this. So, a third opinion please?--Scott Mac 14:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite notable because Schlessinger (like many other social conservatives including Jack Thompson) is usually very critical of violent movies, TV shows, and video games. However, she said in the interview that she does make exceptions for Kill Bill and NCIS. That's why it's notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I was the editor who initially added the Kill Bill and NCIS mentions to the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can show sources that comment on this - i.e. that it is unusual that she likes movies like this, I might agree. Otherwise this is SYNTH - trivial which you deduce is significant.--Scott Mac 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing Scott Mac. I saw the removal on my watch list and think it's noteworthy. She's a pop-culture icon and these interests have been covered in reliable sources. It goes to her personality and interests, and I think it's worth including. There is undue weight on lots of other aspects of who she is. This is a general interest encyclopedia and I think these bits add insights into who this person is beyond other minutae about every little controversy. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Scott, if you actually read the source I gave for that statement, you'll find that it's an interview with Dr. Laura in which she herself acknowledges that it's surprising that she likes Kill Bill, but that she likes it anyway. No additional sources needed, besides those which have already been presented. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is to remain, there needs to be some explanation of its significance (and the explanation needs to follow the source and not be deduction). "Schlessinger remarks that despite her views on x, she likes y". At the moment, there's no indication that this isn't just fancruft of the "she once said her favourite colour was" variety.--Scott Mac 22:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? What is the significance of who her rabbi was? Or the names of her children? The tidbits give some insights into her personality and tastes. They are reliably sourced. I don't see what the big deal is. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Vanity Fair article

Does anybody have a copy of this article? It will be important to see it, as the citation has been used to make controversial allegations that are apparently false.... e.g. the date of the the Lewis wedding and announcing that LS was pregnant at the wedding. Unless we ourselves can verify the material, I think we should be very cautious about trusting the material sourced to this. --Slp1 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's any doubt, we should assume the worst and remove the material. If it is notable, we should be able to find other sources anyway.--Scott Mac 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. I'm going to try and replace the Vanity Fair article refs with other ones. Thank goodness for Amazon look inside!. I am also planning to combine some sections which seem duplicative.--Slp1 (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Insufficient time was allowed for discussion of this matter - which involves the removal of sourced information which has been in this article for quite a long time. The Vanity Fair article does say the things that were cited. I have read it. The material was added to the LS article at a time when the Vanity Fair article was available on line, and it stood the test of time. At least one reprint is still available line. Check Google. Vanity Fair is an at least as credible a source as the few pages of out of context information from the "Unauthorized" Biography that Slp1 is using via the limited view feature of Amazon in place of the Vanity Fair references. I should say this in a better way -- the magazine is more of a credible source than an unauthorized bio. In any case, Wikipedia does not require that sources be on line -- but it is far better and more accurate to use a complete article from a reputable publication as a source than out of context pages from something called an "unauthorized biography" IMO. I will be re-adding some of the Vanity Fair info later.KeptSouth (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right that WP does not require the sources to be online, but given that this page was full of policy violations, verifying the information was critical. And no, I did not take the material from the bio out of context, since I took all the material from full chapters. Might you have linked to the Vanity Fair reprint? I looked very hard before I posted above but couldn't find it. If you can verify the content, that's fine, though the information I removed from (about her being pregnant when getting married) appears to be simply false (based on other sources) and I suspect misrepresented the source. I'm frankly not sure that a Vanity Fair article described as a "scathing profile", [1] is much better as a source than biography from a reputable publisher with sources given. But you'll have to deal with that when and if you come up against conflicting information. --Slp1 (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have found a copy of the Vanity Fair article.[2] Assuming it is an accurate, the text we had did misrepresent the source: Vanity Fair doesn't mention the date of the marriage (which was wrong in any case), clearly attributes the comment, ("Herman says that Schlessinger told her she was pregnant at her wedding"), uses "told" rather than "announced" and includes Schlessinger's adamant denial. Interestingly enough, in the later bio, Herman doesn't repeat the same exact story; she mentions that she was told during "a conversation" about a first pregnancy that occurred before the marriage, with the baby was lost later due to a tubal pregnancy. Once again the story is attributed to Herman, however. --Slp1 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Supposed shotgun wedding of Laura's parents

Recently, this phrase was added, then removed by another editor. Her parents married in Italy "due to her mother's pregnancy." with the reason given that this explained her parent's troubled marriage.[3] Because some editors here are apparently persistent in adding and re-adding certain material, I am discussing this now, because of the likelihood that this material will be re-added.

In my view whether LS was conceived out of "wedlock" some 60 years ago is irrelevant to her bio. The editor who added this information said it explained her parents' unhappiness - but that reasoning is OR and SYN -- look at the sources and you will see. It is also contrary to what LS herself wrote:

I actually liked hearing that I was a "love child," because it meant there was at least one time they had been happy with each other."

I hope this information says out, permanently.

KeptSouth (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't view the information as negative at all. Nor is it OR and SYNTH. It is a simple statement of fact that LS herself has felt important enough to mention several times herself, contrasting it with the later unhappiness of her parents. See here for where she includes in one of her books, for example.[4].

Anyway good luck guys. Not into this confrontational style of editing. --Slp1 (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You have not responded to my comment which concerned your addition of material saying her parents were married "due to her mother's pregnancy" -- that is OR, and SYN unless you have another reference that supports your claim. You also justified the addition of the material by saying that the premarital pregnancy explained her parents later unhappiness. [5] That is apparently the opposite of what you are saying now. Please read you prior statements and the comments of others a little more carefully so that we may cooperate to improve the article. --Best regards KeptSouth (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"After a shotgun wedding in Italy the couple returned to the US".The Times, 2006. Please check the meaning of shotgun a little more carefully.

And no, it is not contradictory to suggest that LS herself was glad that she was a product of love and passion and that a wartime meeting and a shotgun wedding can be a bad start to a marriage. Indeed, LS herself seems to connect the ideas in her book, not that I attempted to do in the text. But as I said, have fun. --Slp1 (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

<--Redent. Right you are, a columnist in Rupurt Murdoch's sensationalistic Times of London did use the term "shotgun".

Our purpose in writing and editing these bios, however is not "to suggest" things, or to "seem to connect the ideas" (look a few line up - I am quoting you). Rather, according to BLP policy, "conjectural interpretations" of a source are to be avoided, please also see WP:No original research which prohibits "any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." --Regards KeptSouth (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Not that I attempted to do so in the text." My comment was to refute your allegation that I was contradicting myself in an edit summary and in a comment on the talkpage. As if whether I did or not was somehow relevant or important. KeptSouth, you do very good work, and I really mean that. But how about saying "I am concerned about using an unauthorized bio", or "It's okay, I have the Vanity Fair article to hand, so can verify the material, no need to remove these references", or "I don't think this Times article is a good enough source for this"; or "We should reword or delete "due to her pregnancy", instead of lecturing and appearing to accuse other editors of improper editing practices. Just a suggestion. --Slp1 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...you are suggesting exact ways I should phrase my questions and concerns about this BLP. At the same time, you are saying I am lecturing you. The only thing I will say is that your responses have been mainly non responsive to the points I made about Wiki BLP policy. This seems very odd, when you appear to get what I am saying so well that you can rephrase it.

Let's just move on with trying to improve the article using the best sources possible.KeptSouth (talk) 07:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Racism??!!

why is this article under "racism"? I see no reason why it should be in it anymore than jesse jackson or spike lee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.120.245 (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the inclusion criteria of Category: Racism. I suppose the editor that added the category to this article assumed that anyone involved in a race-based controversy should be included in the category. If that's the case, I suppose the two you mention should be included in the category as well.

I think that inclusion into the category should be limited to organizations or concepts, not people that were involved in any race controversy. This position is most consistent with Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy.--PinkBull 23:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed this overly general category. --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the category reflects people, organizations, and ideas that art part of America's ongoing dialog about racism. As such, the category is appropriate in this article. If people think the category is overly broad, then they should take it up on the category's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the racism category should be removed. It is overly general. In the context of LS's entire life, the few comments she made last week may be fairly characterized as abrasive, rude and seemingly racist. However, the comments hardly prove she is a "racist" or that she stands for "racism". Therefore, her life bio does not belong in the "category" of racism. KeptSouth (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

New sections

I am moving information about LS's marriage and family life from the Radio career section, to a new section. It has been mixed in -- often out of chronological sequence, and often in a confusing way -- with information about her radio career and shows. The nude photos was a huge controversy at the time, and should not be lumped in with her early radio career, so I am moving it to the controversies section. KeptSouth (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

N-word controversy

Fixed factual errors, and added Dr Luara's low view of Hansen's choice to marry a white man = one of the main reasons Hansen did not accept the apology.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Wikipedia does not put extra emphasis on ethnicity, so I will remove her ethnicity from the infobox.-- And Rew 03:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you, but could you please point out where this is stated, so that I may reference it? 2tuntony (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Curious about this. And this edit today removing religion. RomaC ^TALK 02:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo in one of the last paragraphs of the section "Television show". It says "had used show staff to falsely pose as a guests on the show." when it should have deleted the -s of "guests" (ie "had used show staff to falsely pose as a guest on the show."). I would have corrected it myself, but this article is locked.86.152.225.110 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Rklawton (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Judaism

Firstly, the infobox says religion. She is no longer a practicing Jew. Secondly, according to Jewish law, your mother must be Jewish for one to claim it as her heritage and/or ethnicity. LS' mother was Italian. If Laura was the least bit Jewish, she would have followed Jewish Law and respected her mother. Mom would not have died alone and lay decomposing for 2 months. I would personally be quite embarrassed if she claimed ANY aspect of Judaism. DocOfSoc (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your emotional statements above show POV and they are not completely correct. In reform and non-Orthodox Judaism, one may consider themselves Jewish even if they aren't born of a Jewish mother. And it's not in the Law, it's in the Mishnah. Schlessinger became an Orthodox Jew but she was already Jewish by heritage. As far as her mother dying, that has nothing to do with anything in regard to whether or not Schlessinger was Jewish at the time or if she is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoNeuroGeek (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mishnah IS the law! [6] A true Jew would have never treated her mother like she did so it is pertinent. Being Jewish is being part of the jewish community and not decrying its traditions and way of life. FYI, please sign your posts with four tildes. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mishnah is not the Law, Torah is the Law. Mishnah is a compliation of the Law. Just as Talmud is not the Law but a commentary on the Law. "A true Jew"??? Who are you to say who is a true Jew and who isn't? IMO, your comment here is unconstructive commentary removed --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) disrespectful of Jews the world over (and one of them would be me). Being Jewish is more than "being part of the Jewish community". unconstructive commentary removed --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) As for "decrying its traditions"...Schlessinger didn't do any such thing. Rather, she renounced Orthodox Judaism. There are many Jews who do not belive in nor follow OJ just as there are Jews who say they don't believe in G-d. And yet, they all still indentify with Judaism. And that paradox is part of the very heart of Judaism, for where there are two Jews there are also three (or more) opinions. In the future, please don't presume when it comes to the religions of others.unconstructive commentary removed --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC) NeoNeuroGeek (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The source in the article says "Schlessinger said she still “considers” herself Jewish" Seems in 2003 she gave up practicing Orthodox Judaism is all. If you are embarrassed by her behavior just remember that it takes all kinds to make the world go round. RomaC ^TALK 05:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Laura says a lot of things, she probably doesn't think she is a racist either. When I emceed a program she was on, she lied to my face. We were having a friendly conversation and she said " Oh, I always wanted a sister." uummm, she HAS one. I just smiled and did my job. (personal source doesn't count, just an FYI.)The Infobox says Religion. period. She is no longer a practicing Jew, end of story. NO religion. So esp. on a BLP that is simply wrong information. Neo, has now violated the 3RR rule. If you are referring to the source that Neo used, that is not a valid source accepted by Wikipedia, so cannot be used as a citation. I will refer this to an admin who perhaps can explain what religion in an info box means. Happy trails ...DocOfSoc (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't judge whether people are Jewsih by anyone' particular definition of that. If the sources say she considers herself Jewish, then that's what we call her. Period. There are plenty "Christians" who have behaved in ways, or even expoused beliefs, which other Christians would say makes then an unbeliver or apostate, but I doubt I'd have much success in getting the "Christian" description removed from the popes who'd had 10 mistresses. Wikipedia generally used the definition of "self-description" not the rules of the Mishnah, or of Orthodoxy to decide what to call people.--Scott Mac 08:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful response Scott and I agree...BUT the category says religion not ethnicity. She is no longer a practicing Jew, so it is not her religion, categorically ;-) Isn't minutia fun? Your response? Namaste...!!!!

Another thought:

Laura said:My identifying with this entity and my fulfilling the rituals of the entity (Judaism)-- that has ended."

As shocking as her rejection of Judaism is the longing glance she cast toward Christianity: "I have envied all my Christian friends, who really, universally, deeply feel loved by God. They use the name Jesus in referring to God… That was a mystery, feeling connected to God." [7] BTW, I do a great Streisand, in your head, repeat after me "This is not Jewish." Also please explain the 3RR rule to Neo above. AND... Nice to meetcha!DocOfSoc (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"I still see myself as a Jew" - that's good enough for me. She doesn't say "ethnic Jew" or whatever else you may wish to dismiss this as. She sees herself as a Jew - you may not, but we go with her. As I said "who is Jewish" "who is Christian" is ultimately a definition that will vary by group and POV. There's plenty people describing themselves as Christian, and thus described as such by wikipeia, whom I suspect are sons of Satan, but that's my problem. I can't see how her envying of Christians makes a difference.--Scott Mac 08:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Great Scott! She is a Jew! Her ethnicity! If the info box said ethnicity, we would be not having this discussion. What it does say is religion, and Jewish is a religion she clearly does not practice and has decried vociferously. How come the differentiation seems unclear? Ethnicity: Jewish, Religion: none. Breathlessly awaiting your hallowed response ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Show me where she says she's only an ethnic Jew?--Scott Mac 09:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

She doesn't have to *say* she is "only an ethnic Jew" because she has already said she does no longer, practice "Judaism, the religion," it says "religion" in the infobox.

Schlessinger — who very publicly converted to Judaism five years ago — opened her radio show, with the revelation that she will no longer practice Judaism. Although Schlessinger says she still "considers" herself Jewish, "My identifying with this entity and my fulfilling the rituals, etcetera, of the entity (Judaism)— that has ended."

Jewish dictionary: Ju·da·ism (jd-zm) n. 1. The monotheistic religion of the Jews, tracing its origins to Abraham and having its spiritual and ethical principles IF, after Religion, we could put Judaism, there would be no discussion. She has rejected Judaism as a religion. "Jewishness is our heritage, " Judaism" is our religion.(quoteth my Favorite Jew) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Further:[8] From AFriedman's page, a font of knowledge.[9] DocOfSoc (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The way to solve this, is to omit altogether. The problem with infoboxes is that they are binary - either we say she's this or that - and either way is POV. Better to take the whole think out of the infobox. We just don't have a "religious" field for her. Her views can then be narrated in the article without us having to come to a judgement about whether she's Jewish, how she's Jewish, or how we'd define it.--Scott Mac 12:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

TY Scott. I totally agree. In fact, that's what I did in the first place and all heck broke out. I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness. I hope someday to visit your beautiful country. God Bless...DocOfSoc (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Doc, it seems like you have a very strong POV on this, and about how she practices/practiced religion. It seems reasonable to call her "a Jew that no longer practices" by all normal measures of religion (for example; my parents have not been to Church for years but still believe/identify as Christian). After all, half of any religion is the specific belief (practicing it is just interpretation). If she says she is a Jew she is a Jew - there is little we can really dispute in that. But it cmay be worth putting "Jewish (non-practicing)" --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have resolved this dispute by removing the "Ethnicity" header in the infobox. None of these fields are mandatory. Don't reinsert it until there is (a) a clearly understood definition of "ethnicity" and (b) consensus backed up by reliable sources about what the sbubject's ethnicity is. Risker (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no you have not. The discussion above was about whether the infobox should show Religion: Judaism or not. Ethnically she is Jewish and Italian. Her ethnicity is sourced in the article contrary to your mistaken assertion. I will add ref tags to the info box, though they are not really needed. Perhaps that will resolve your misunderstanding. KeptSouth (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification. I made no negative comments about Judaism or Jews. The practice of Judaism and it's tenets is an integral part of my ministry. I cherish my Jewish community even tho' I am not officially a member. Christianity is totally based on Judaism and compliment each other in so many ways. God said: love me as you love yourself. Amen DocOfSoc (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Note to all. Can all future posts here please relate directly to the content of the article, and NOT on Judaism itself, or what any individual editor's relationship to it might be. This thread is really quite off-topic at times.--Scott Mac 21:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a point, however, most of the discussion above concerned whether it was correct to add religion:Judaism to the info box for Laura Schlessinger. In other words, the content of the article was discussed. Sometimes, people do go off topic, on controversial article discussion pages, but it barely happened in this section, IMO. KeptSouth (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the discussion is not about adding but about an editor repeatedly removing the Religion field, which had been in the infobox for a long time. The Ethnicity field was also in the infobox for a long time but removed shortly after LS made her controversial comments. No disrespect intended DocOfSoc but your personal opinions on Judaism and Christianity and who is a good Jew and so on are not relevant to the editing can you please keep them off this Talk page. RomaC ^TALK 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever...adding, adding back - it's all the same to me. Religion and ethnicity have been added, removed, added removed, in a snail's pace edit war for at least a year. More important information than her religion and ethnicity has recently been removed, in my view.

LS changed her religious beliefs more than once, and what should control -- what should go in the infobox -- is whatever her latest statements on religion were. That shouldn't be so hard to determine.

If someone makes inappropriate or off topic comments on a talk page, why keep chastising them? Let's just work on this article. There are a lot of cn tags that need to be addressed, as well as some holes in the narrative. KeptSouth (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

Use of the title "Doctor"

Her claim to be a "licensed psychotherapist", and her use of the "Dr. Laura" name while giving advice have engendered controversy. Critics contend that these titles lead her listeners to assume that she holds a doctorate in psychology, or that she is a psychiatrist, and that state law in California limits the use of the "psychotherapist" term to those holding a psychotherapist license. However, she does hold a California license as a family and marriage counselor which she obtained after completing classes and training from the University of Southern California (USC), and her Ph.D in physiology qualifies her for the title of Doctor. In regard to her 2000-2001 television show, she stated in an appearance on CNN's Larry King Live that she had requested that it be called "Schlessinger," in the tradition of Phil Donahue's successful talk show that was titled with his last name. Producers refused this request and television show was given the title Dr. Laura. Schlessinger has characterized her radio show as a "moral health program" rather than an "advice program" which has allowed her to avoid continued criticism for giving psychological advice. Although critics have called her approach to callers shrewish and scolding, others see it as frank and blunt. Schlessinger has also been compared to the highly popular Judge Judy.

Nude photos

In 1998, admittedly upset that he was snubbed by Schlessinger at an event, former radio mentor Bill Ballance sold nude photos of Schlessinger to media outlet Internet Entertainment Group (IEG). Schlessinger had posed for the photos while involved in a sexual relationship with Ballance in the 1970s. IEG, known for distributing a sex tape of Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee, purchased the photos and subsequently posted them on its website which were later leaked to the general public. Schlessinger initially denied that the photos were of her, but then claimed a copyright interest in them in court. Attempts to have the photos removed from various websites failed after a court ruling stated that IEG had legally acquired the rights to the material. She later admitted that the photos were authentic, addressed the issue on her show calling Ballance a "mentor and friend", and said she was "mystified as to why this 80-year-old man would do such a morally reprehensible thing." She claimed to have possessed "no moral authority" when the photos were taken, citing her age at the time of twenty-eight and a painful divorce as factors contributing to her voluntarily being photographed nude. She added that she had undergone "profound changes over the course of my life, from atheist to observant Jew." The incident brought to light accusations that Schlessinger had been unfaithful in her first marriage, caused the breakdown of her second husband's marriage, cohabitated with him while unmarried, and intentionally conceived a child with him out of wedlock. Schlessinger had railed against infidelity, cohabitation, and intentional single-parenthood on her show, but never addressed that these were part of her personal life experience. Schlessinger responded to these criticisms saying:

“ A hypocrite is someone who says 'Do as I say, not as I do.' A teacher is someone who says, 'Do as I say, not as I did.' ”

Libel lawsuit

In 1998, Schlessinger was in a Costa Mesa surf shop, with her son, when she began perusing Big Brother, a skateboarding magazine. Schlessinger deemed the magazine to be "stealth pornography," and said so on her radio show. When the owner of the store publicly denied that she found pornography in his store, Schlessinger sued him for lying, claiming that his denial had hurt her reputation. When the case went to court, the judge dismissed her suit as frivolous but the shop owner's $4 million defamation countersuit lodged for hurting the reputation of his store, was allowed to stand. The suit has since been settled, but the terms of the settlement have not been revealed. Off the record, lawyers and friends claimed victory, indicating the settlement was "about the amount of a moderately-priced Orange County home" (at the time, $650,000 to $2 million).

Views on gay and lesbian people

Prior to 1997, Schlessinger was very supportive of gay callers to her show. During that time, she took issue with Christian religious leaders who opposed gay relationships, and said that it was cruel to deny love and happiness to same-sex couples. She renounced this view in 1997. Soon, her monologues approvingly mentioned ex-gay groups that claimed they could help gay and lesbian people through conversion therapy, and she attacked the American Psychological Association for condemning their stance that conversion therapy was harmful to patients and damaging to society. Schlessinger also began citing psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover in support of her new views.

|blp=yes|headerstyle=background:#ccccff|bodystyle=text-align:center}}

Material that is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, and that is consistent with policy, can be restored to the article; just not as a separate section, because that give such material undue weight. SMP0328. (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to reincorporate the information into the article, but it will take me a few days to do it, I've been busy lately. Anyone else willing to help take a stab at this? Trusilver 02:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we simply place that material back where it was before it again placed in a Controversies section? That's not sarcasm. SMP0328. (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought of that, and that might be a good starting point, but many legitimate and good edits have been made since then. I would hate to hatchet away all of those to revert to a six month old version without attempting to integrate them. Trusilver 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be done without a reversion. If I had the time, I'd do it myself. SMP0328. (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are all the controversies? This woman is known more for her troubles --regardless of if you're a big fan of hers or not. Stop whitewashing! --204.169.162.3 (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There's been no whitewashing. It was felt that concentrating all of the criticisms in one section was giving undue weight. Those criticisms that were reliably sourced were merged into the rest of the article; unsourced criticisms were removed. SMP0328. (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It was better when the controversies were simply a part of the rest of the article. 71.139.41.13 (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms of Dr. Laura are in the article. They're simply no longer being highlighted, by being grouped in a single section. SMP0328. (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

When there are three separate headings for publications, charitable work and awards with one of them having subheadings, isn't it giving too much legitimacy to the person's positive qualities? I think there should be a controversy section too. Kc27 (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page and noticed that NONE of these controversies are mentioned in the article anymore. Doing a search for the word libel revealed zero hits, photos revealed one hit that didn't truly elaborate on that controversy, and there's nothing about physiology in there. I have added all of these portions back into the main part of the article. If anyone has an issue with the manner in which they are or are not incorporated into the article the onus is on YOU to incorporate them, not simply remove them. "Controversy" sections are pretty normal in bio pages.

alexif (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, you have this precisely reversed. The burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores information. WP:V, and per WP:BLP improperly sourced material must be removed. For at least part of the removal of material readded by your edits mentioned above, the negative material was entirely unsourced. It appears that other editors have found more problematic sections. Please be more careful in the future. --Slp1 (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't. You and others are removing materials that you don't like and are coming up with nonsensical excuses. First it was that it was incorporated into the article (it wasn't) and now it's that it wasn't sourced (it was). You're simply making up reasons because you have an agenda. I don't. The amount of information on here is tolerable, so I won't get into some inane back and forth on wikipedia about this with you. Tell Dr. Laura I said "hi" as you very clearly work for her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.22.63.1 (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Her Son

I reincorporated a deleted section on her son. He was an adult during the entirety of the controversy, it affected her work, and simliar to the other people detailed in the "personal" section of her page, it is a particularly illuminating example of how her personal and professional life differ. I will periodically monitor this page to ensure it is not removed without justification. 130.22.63.1 (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove it again. Neither is she (alone) responsible for her adult son, nor is he responsible with being saddled with such a mother. The son is not notable, and dragging out his life to stick it to her is neither appropriate nor necessary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Stephan Schulz. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree ... he is absolutely pertinent as she broadcasts on "family" issues and has clearly raised a son with issues. that being said, I've got no interest to get into a revert war with someone who has some sort of personal vested interest with the family (really? two hours?) over someone who's been fired and will probably fade from public memory pretty quickly. 130.22.63.1 (talk) 10:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that I live on a different continent from "Dr." Laura, and that my whole experience of her was about 5 minutes of live radio while passing through Sacramento on my last vacation, I think you will be hard-pressed to find someone more disinterested. What you are doing is a classical case of WP:SYN - instead of reporting what a reliable source writes about her failures (or not), you present information about her family situation that suggests her failure. This is unacceptable in general, and in particular when it happens on the back of a third person. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the same reason why you responded in less than three hours this time. Or how you've never listened to her before but you felt strangely compelled to closely monitor the page. Ultimately, I'm not going to get into a revert war over this because I've gone through battles like this and won, but it took years. I don't really care about this. Bottom line -- if you don't think it's pertinent that a "family values" commentator raised an adult child with questionable values, I don't know what to say. It was not presented as invective, it was presented as fact. I thought this was about facts? Facts can't be biased. It was all properly cited, he's her kid, etc. He's not notable enough to warrant his own page, it's only by virtue of connection to her. The kid did what he did. He's related to her. She stopped working for a short time during the controversy, because of the controversy. How is that not pertinent? In summation ... it affected her career and it's directly related to her career ... Say hi to Laura and Deryk for me. 130.22.63.1 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you inform yourself about WP:Watchlist, on of the perks of having an account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

So anyone coming to this page doesn't have to dig for the FACTS, here they are:

Her son enrolled in Hillsdale College in the fall of 2002; he subsequently left college and joined the United States Army under its 18X Special Forces contract program.[81] Deryk Schlessinger would subsequently wash out of the 18X program and was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division.[82] While deployed to Afghanistan, then-SPC. Schlessinger was investigated for offensive material on his MySpace page.[83] The U.S. Army's Army Knowledge Online website currently lists his rank as E-2, the second lowest rank in the U.S. Army. During her son's investigation, Dr. Laura published a book titled "Raising Respectful Children in a Disrespectful World."[84]

By the way, you need to go to the FDR page and edit out 'The five surviving Roosevelt children led tumultuous lives overshadowed by their famous parents. They had a total of nineteen marriages, fifteen divorces, and twenty-nine children.' Or the page on John J. Pershing because it does more than just list the bare names of his kids. If the kid did something good and notable, I'd put it on there too. I'm sure I can find dozens more examples, I guess you'll be busy from now on. The fact that he did what he did doesn't make it impertinent. 130.22.63.1 (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither FDR or any of his children nor Pershing or any of his children fall under Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy that particularly protects living persons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Living people are absolutely *not* protected from the truth. And in this case, the information provided here is provided by reliable sources per policy. However, I do agree that her son is not notable and that we need only make a brief mention of his career as a soldier. Rklawton (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

N-Word Incident

Schlessinger has been getting a lot of press lately as a result of this: [10]. As a result, this article is likely to get increased traffic in the next few days, so it might benefit from having a few more watchers. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think any sentence that includes a phrase like "further motivation may have been" doesn't belong into a Wikipedia article. It's cool to point out that a number of her sponsors have canceled, but not to suggest that Schlessinger's decision was predicated on that. That's a conclusion readers may draw from the combined facts. Hmoulding (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. In fact, this should probably be locked down - there's currently some vandal constantly putting up a picture of genital warts as the photo on this article. 76.25.129.96 (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

He added the same photo (along with the word "Fag") to my user page, too. That guy definitely deserves a block ASAP. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

He's blocked. As for coverage, that depends on the media. If enough of the media makes a big deal out of it, then it should go in the article. From what I see, she wasn't caught in any sort of Mel Gibson rant, so the folks who want to get their shorts in a bunch will, and the rest of us will just shrug and move on. Rklawton (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the MSM news websites(msnbc.com cbsnews.com abcnews.com) along with a string of blogs are covering this story. It's inclusion in the article is imminent. I won't be adding it, because I can't stand this woman, and can't be NPOV enough to edit the article. See ya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.35 (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The website Media Matters has noted that Schlessinger's website has excised the recording of the call in which she says the n word eleven times. They have also posted a complete transcript of the call and a recording of the call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucie Sofia (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the transcript, I don't think she "used" the word: in terms of the use–mention distinction, she mentioned it, but did not use it. It is also true that mention is a form of "use" (in a broader non-technical sense of "use"), and that there are different kinds of mention, but I think the distinction is nevertheless worth making clearer in this article than at present. jnestorius^(talk) 19:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This section originally read "N-Word Incident", and there was no call for someone to change it. No one should alter, or remove another user's talk page statements, unless they violate talk page rules. True, Wikipedia is not censored,and if someone wrote "N-word" in the article (which has happened), it should rightfully be removed, or changed to "nigger". However, on the talk page, if someone is not comfortable using an offensive word, then that is their call to make, and it should not be changed by another user, as "removal of speech code". 2tuntony (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Overly gratuitous use of the N-word in opening paragraphs and lack of context

I also think a much more serious issue is the use of the n-word out of context in the opening paragraphs, despite it being offensive and without including a fuller explanation of what the discussion was about ie. whether the word was always offensive and that it is often used by rappers and comedians. I think we should use better discretion and provide a better explanation that gives a fuller understanding of what occured. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Offensiveness should not be an issue. The whole of your point seems to be sound, however. In the section, "Radio career", it uses the phrase, "her use of a racial epithet", which, in turn, links the reader to the section, "Controversy", which discusses the fact that she "used the word nigger 11 times". I would think that could we do something similar with the first paragraph. 2tuntony (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead, and (in the first paragraph only) changed "the word nigger" to "a racial epithet"; not because it's offensive, but because it seems unnecessary. The actual word that she used is discussed in the article, and I don't think that the article loses anything with this. As such, I think that it's perfectly acceptable to remove. If anyone disagrees, perhaps we could do something like "her use of a racial epithet". 2tuntony (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Laura did not use the word, Nigger, as a "racial epithet". Readers of Wikipedia ought not have to weed through speech codes in order to get to the truth of the matter.--Bureaucracy (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Westwing parody

We keep having material added stating Schlessinger was parodied on the WestWing. Now, I've seen the show and it may well be a parody, but AFAICT we don't have a reliable source saying that the WW was directly parodying here. Snopes isn't reliable - and pointing to the episode or its transcript invites OR. The show never claimed it was Schlessinger.--Scott Mac 22:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Scott, why is snopes not reliable, and where can I find this list of unreliable sources for Wikipedia?Antigravityece (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no such list. There are guidelines at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources if that helps.--Scott Mac 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

How does this work for you: EW articleAntigravityece (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a lot better. And it attributes the claim Sorkin, which is better still. I'd be interested to hear what others think though.--Scott Mac 09:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

N,n,n?

That is a word that should be used as sparingly as possible, but Wikipedia is not censored, and nothing should ever be bowlderized in an article. The article states that she used the word 11 times. It then quotes her uses of it, but says, "n,n,n" and "n-word". That's obviously not what she said. These euphemisms need to be removed. Instead of a direct quote that would require us to print that word 11 times, how about using a summary of what she said, sans the euphemisms? Joefromrandb (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed the euphemisms. I think that the article sums up the call accurately, and going into specific detail about each one of the 11 times she said the word is over the top and unnecessary, with or without euphemisms or vulgarities. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. SMP0328. (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

biased

article coz it has no controversy reg homosexuality and stuff, u hide the truth that this worthless clown hoe ass slut said, see in german article and read quotes this worthless parasite slut said there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.184.200 (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision

I will be more polite than the last comment. One day a caller questioned routine infant circumcision and Dr. Laura flew into a rant, claiming that all opposition to circumcision was just a cover for antisemitism and an attempt to exterminate Jews. She is unfit to give advice to anyone. Radio Sharon (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking for this to be put into the article? If yes, please provide a reliable source and explain how this specific comment by her is worthy of inclusion. SMP0328. (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Get over it! She's not "giving advice", she's a radio entertainer. The article is about an entertainer who airs a "moral health program", as she describes it. She may be no more fit to give advice than Howard Stern or Snoop Dog, so what matters is the encyclopedic content about an entertainer with an audience of 10 million listeners. Whether she's fit or not to give advice on circumcision is irrelevant if 10 million people are listening to her. Santamoly (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Letter to Dr. Laura

Article could perhaps shed some more light on the "Letter to Dr. Laura" viral email (after all, the letter was real, and it goes quite far in explaining some widespread opposition to her beliefs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.14.91 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Lewis G. Bishop

There have been multiple edits, since reverted, claiming that this person, Laura Schlessinger's husband, has died. This must not be allowed, unless reliable sourcing is provided. Hearing her say her husband died is not a reliable source. Reliable sourcing is necessary for any article, but especially for an article about a living person. SMP0328. (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Laura Schlessinger. 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/20130714044307/http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=46877 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=46877
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101203233106/http://investor.sirius.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=533425 to http://investor.sirius.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=533425
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821235450/http://www.salon.com/people/feature/1999/08/23/drlaura/print.html to http://www.salon.com/people/feature/1999/08/23/drlaura/print.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816153330/http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2002/05/13/2002-05-13_mag__dr__laura_s_star_falling.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2002/05/13/2002-05-13_mag__dr__laura_s_star_falling.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716190922/http://talkers.com/online/?p=71 to http://talkers.com/online/?p=71
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215184400/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/07/dr.laura/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/07/dr.laura/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051211044909/http://www.radiohof.org/2005_nominees.html to http://www.radiohof.org/2005_nominees.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415055750/http://www.radiohof.org/2005_inductees.html to http://www.radiohof.org/2005_inductees.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116080439/http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/010323/laura.shtml to http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/010323/laura.shtml

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) 07:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Laura Schlessinger. 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://70.85.195.205/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49682
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120716100418/http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=79852674&albumID=803078&imageID=18559692 to http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewImage&friendID=79852674&albumID=803078&imageID=18559692
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727055846/http://www.male-space.org/drlaura/drlaura_intro.html to http://www.male-space.org/drlaura/drlaura_intro.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/entertainment/2004/11/08/2004-11-08_laura_s_advice_to_self__skip.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://70.85.195.205/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=204&PAGE=1
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120913113844/http://www.telemundodallas.com/sh/entertainment/news/articles/natlphae-entnews-990729-102408.html to http://www.telemundodallas.com/sh/entertainment/news/articles/natlphae-entnews-990729-102408.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823035849/http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/08/dr-laura-caller-tells-cnn-its-never-ok-to-use-that-word.html to http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/08/dr-laura-caller-tells-cnn-its-never-ok-to-use-that-word.html

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) 15:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Schlessinger. 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/20150923211340/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/051900-01.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/051900-01.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429020159/http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/030400-02.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/030400-02.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) 06:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)