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"

Worst Wikipedia Entry I've Ever Read

I think this needs a COMPLETE rewrite. Totally biased information that only cites items that a liberal would point out. I have donated a lot of money to Wikipedia but might have to rethink that after reading this. Absolutely shameful claptrap. 152.208.58.247 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Reality has a liberal bias. Still no mention of the Dartmouth controversy her brother discusses in several interviews. You’re giving me some needed inspiration to add it. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

LMAO! You mean this? 'She's a monster': Laura Ingraham's gay brother lashes out in interview. Curtis Ingraham, the Fox News star’s brother, has been speaking out against his famous sibling and her conservative views since the beginning of the year. “Our father was a Nazi sympathizer, racist, anti-Semite and homophobe,” Curtis Ingraham, who is gay, wrote alongside a video of his sister. “Like father like daughter?” -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No idea what the OP is on about, but the controversy over what happened in the aftermath of Ingraham's deliberate outing of gay students still isn’t in the article. Her brother alleges one of the students committed suicide after his sister outed them. Viriditas (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

if what people say is ok to put in wiki as fact, I always hear it must be from a reputable source. There has to be a lot uncensoring going on at wiki because this is about what her brother said in an interview, where he obviously is disgruntled. Any way to prove all her brother said was true about, her, her dad, and things she allegedly said? Typical bias entry. All left views. Where is fact, you know the middle where most of us are??? 2600:1004:B170:2C02:C83:2749:56C8:79AE (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

Dangerous (and off-topic) misinformation O3000, Ret. (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
203.220.64.191 (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Your article about the response to Covid 19 are sadly out of date given it is now accepted that wearing masks was a complete waste of time and lockdowns caused more damage to the people than they were supposed to protect. Vaccinations neither prevented transmission or contracting the virus which your organisation continues to promote. Hardly I reliable information source.  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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

"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)