Talk:Laura Ingraham

White supremacist controversy

Another Ingraham controversy has flared up and may be worthy of inclusion if it continues to receive news coverage. Ingraham has apparently defended some white supremacists and other far-right personalities who have been expelled from social media. She lost at least one sponsor.

References

Education

What did she major in? That might be significant to readers, given that she offers opinions on various topics, e.g. COVID-19

Yes because everyone offering opinions has a degree in that topic. CNN, MSNBC, and the other left news only offer fact. Never opinion or even political bias. Thanks Mr. Doomas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B170:2C02:C83:2749:56C8:79AE (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

grammar edit in Coronavirus section

"disproe effectiveness" instead of "disprove"

"Not a proper sentence"

@Amaury:

A sentence is defined as a set of words that contains a subject ("Ingraham") and a predicate ("speaks at [...]").

Please tell me why you think this is not a sentence. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CAPFRAGS --FMSky (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting me by citing the guideline. The case stated in the guideline page which applies here is clearly the second example, "Period or full stop ends complete sentence", as it also fulfills the definition of a sentence and thus ends with a period. P.S.: I just saw that you changed the caption to a sentence fragment so that it shouldn't end with a period anymore. That's fine as well, but Amaury was definitely wrong. This thread can be archived now. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

There are a number of instances (the "Books" and "Homosexuality" subsections, for example) where periods are placed outside of quotation marks at the end of a sentence but should be placed inside the quotation marks. Does not matter that a footnote/endnote number follows. The period should be inside. https://contemporaryarts.mit.edu/guidelines Amlans (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done: Thank you, but they appear to follow MOS:LQUOTE, our style guide. Can you point to any instances where they don't? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments on Nipsey Hussle

I remember when Ingraham got backlash over this, I'll list some sources below so anyone who reads this understands what I'm referring to, and if this can be added.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/16/disrespecting-deceased-is-not-news-rappers-call-fox-news-fire-ingraham-over-nipsey-hussle-segment/

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/la-et-ms-laura-ingraham-nipsey-hussle-rappers-20190416-story.html Cahlin29 (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Dartmouth Review - Article Addition

There’s significant evidence that she was an author for Dartmouth Review and initially started the entire controversy regarding Professor William Cole (Dartmouth Prof).

Do the articles have to be searchable or can Clippings from newspapers.com work? Because there’s dozens.

In the meantime, here are a few legitimate articles:

1. Dartmouth Alumni Magazine: OG - https://archive.dartmouthalumnimagazine.com/article/1997/1/1/whatever-happened-to-the-dartmouth-review Archive - https://web.archive.org/web/20250112114316/https://archive.dartmouthalumnimagazine.com/article/1997/1/1/whatever-happened-to-the-dartmouth-review

2. Dartmouth Alumni Magazine: OG - https://archive.dartmouthalumnimagazine.com/article/1984/12/1/days-in-court

3. The New Criterion: OG - https://newcriterion.com/dispatch/bill-coleamprsquos-song-amp-dance-routine/ Archive -

4. New York Times: OG - https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/07/us/the-uproar-at-dartmouth-how-a-conservative-weekly-inflamed-a-campus.html Archive - https://web.archive.org/web/20250112114315/https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/07/us/the-uproar-at-dartmouth-how-a-conservative-weekly-inflamed-a-campus.html

Is there a reason none of this is included, considering Laura wrote the articles that sparked all of the controversies? Thatsameonetwothree (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2025

A recent edit has introduced numerous issues. First, this content ("called his sister a monster" etc) is already elsewhere in the article, in the section "Homosexuality". Secondly, it is only sourced to the highly sketchy WP:DAILYBEAST so it's not clear if it's even appropriate to be included at all, let alone twice. (It says "Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.") At least remove the part from her early life section. As it is, there is way too much weight given to it. 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:B1EC:31F1:AFBF:C125 (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done: @Wuerzele Please discuss the matter on the talk page before adding it back. Removed it for now. Warriorglance(talk to me) 05:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Burying the information on an alcoholic parent

User:Warriorglance, I am an experienced WP biography editor. Early life stuff should be under early life, not "hidden" under "views on homosexuality. We have structures on WP:BIO to present biographical info in a meaningful manner so that people can understand other peoples lives. However as it is, the bio is biased (whitewashed) towards achievements and 2/3 of the article consists of views.

I did some background reading to understand Ms Ingrahams biography and on purpose did not introduce new material, made a WP:gnome edit, didnt exchange conservative for reactionary, even though this is sourceably closer to the truth and only moved existing material up, in the article as early life does not have enough infor in the early life section. I am shocked, that even that is getting reverted ! Hence I will want to move this info in the early section again, where it belongs.

It is obvious, that 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:B1EC:31F1:AFBF:C125 wants this info to be buried. However, having an alcoholic, violent parent is an important point in Laura Ingrahams early life exposure. I want the info back in early life.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:DAILYBEAST 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:9075:128F:216D:BEFA (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@IP editor: if you are so experienced in putting up links that look like WP:law you might as well paste the content : There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." - unless you think "monster" and "nazi" is something positive.2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:9075:128F:216D:BEFA (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:9075:128F:216D:BEFA please ping me if you repond. controversial statements does not mean that something is " negative" or not "positive"- To put something in quotations is the correct way of quoting what seems even a controversial statement. I think you have not made your case for suppressing published information.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see no reply from Warriorglance to the points made, so I will move the early life info from the end of teh article back into the early life section where it belongs.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: You've been reverted, so per WP:BRD you should find a consensus first before re-attempting to insert disputed content sourced to an unreliable source. Your edit has also introduced redundancies as this statement is already present in the article, just further below. We now have the same exact content in the article twice 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:A1C0:1817:9F39:28D (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wuerzele Oh sorry, I didn't notice you replied. To make things clear, I never doubted your BLP experiance. I wanted you and the IP editor to reach an agreement about the edit. So, you say that you are shifting content within the article? Not adding content? Let me just get a quick lookover. Warriorglance(talk to me) 05:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:9075:128F:216D:BEFA It seems @Wuerzele only shifted material about the family into the relevant section. Personally, I don't think shifting content about the father is a controversial edit. It was already present in the article prior to the edit. But, since WP:DAILYBEAST is a little sketchy, I don't really support the edit unless you have another source for it. Do you? Warriorglance(talk to me) 05:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

No, use the search for the word "nazi", the sentence is now twice in the article almost word for word. And like stated that is too much weight for content from a sketchy source 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:A1C0:1817:9F39:28D (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Warriorglance and Wuerzele: Is anything gonna happen here now? 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:FC6B:E1CF:59AC:352 (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Warriorglance: Other guy isn't responding, can you remove the content from the early life section now? Thanks 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:CF8:D09B:E584:AED9 (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

No, Warriorglance I dont have another source- That is NOT the point however! You suppress the info in teh Bio section by reverting my WP:gnome edit. You then stalled the discussion, only came back after I reinserted a changed version omitting the word the IP editor didnt want in there and teh IP ieditor, ardent defender of status quo, balked again. Neither of you have really moved the ball forward, responded on the factual issue, neither of you compromised or has been creative, you just stop things! Neither of you is discussing what I am bringing up.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not stopping you @Wuerzele. I understand perfectly what your point is, You want to bring content about the alchoholic parent into the 'Early life' section from where it was buried. I am not against it. I do not want to suppress information. I am suggesting an another source be added so that the sentence also relies on a fully reliable source too. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Wuerzele - you said up above that - However, having an alcoholic, violent parent is an important point in Laura Ingrahams early life exposure. That's the opinion of her brother and is irrelevant and UNDUE in her biography, especially considering the context in which the comment was made. The full quote from her brother is: We grew up with an abusive, alcoholic father who was a Nazi sympathizer. Like father like daughter?! This was the familial soil that gave bloom to my sister's anger. It's obvious her brother is employing the old "guilt by association" tactic, and considering he is a known critic of his sister, his opinion of their father should be taken with a grain of salt. I think it should be removed from the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Here from BLP/N. Stopping people from sticking undue negative content into articles is not "hiding", "burying", or "suppressing" anything, and these terms always sound alarm bells when I read them. Quotations are an easy way to tilt the POV of an article and then claim that one is absolved of responsibility for the wording, but NPOV covers this. WP:BALASP says a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. WP:IMPARTIAL says Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute. And as Isaidnoway has pointed out, the quote is being taken out of context to mean something different than it does in the source. WP:ONUS has applied for some time now, and re-adding it without consensus is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien So, Basically what you are saying is that adding content like this undue and it should be removed for the time being until consensus is attained? Warriorglance(talk to me) 10:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Correct. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I think you are completely missing the point- info was teher al along and I am merely piuttin in teh right spot. and yes, it is important for a bio. Wuerzele (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be to remove the info. Can someone now actually do so? I'd do it myself but the page is protected.2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:4C88:5354:4B82:FC8C (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I removed mention of the brother's criticism in two places. Partially this reverts an addition re an alcoholic father by Treybien on 28 September 2019. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)