Talk:Laura Ingraham

Cite Sources on Controversial Statements

Asbl added the following:

During her years at Dartmouth, she wrote for the conservative journal The Dartmouth Review. In that capacity, she publicly outed gay students.

She had originally struck a deal with Ruth Shalit, a writer for the New Republic, to draft The Hillary Trap for her, but Shalit declined.

These are controversial statements and require citations for us to evaluate the credibility of the source. In the item on Shalit, you might want to be specific about her role: researcher, ghostwriter, co-author, victim of plagarism, etc. patsw 18:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Brock on Dartmouth Gay Students Association

The substantial claim inserted into the Wiki article is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brock on Shalit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date of Birth

The date of January 1,1965 is the most frequently referenced date on the Internet. If I recall correctly, she's mentioned on the air the date of her birth. The year of her birth, 1965, is also the most frequently seen on the web. It can also be inferred by her being Dartmouth College class of 1986 .

If you've got a source that says otherwise, let's discuss it. patsw 03:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The NNDB profile

The NNDB profile on Laura Ingraham contains incorrect and out of date information and appears to have been last correctly updated in 1999. Perhaps other NNDB profiles are current but this one isn't. When it's correct and accurate to 2006 or whenever it becomes correct and accurate, feel free to add the link. patsw 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsupported, Speculative, and POV, "Refutation"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just how popular is her talk show?

The following paragraph makes no sense:

According to a 2005 Talkers magazine article, Ingraham's talk show was ranked in the top five in total audience among nationally heard talk show hosts, trailing only Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Howard Stern, Michael Savage and Laura Schlessinger.

How can she possibly be in the top 5 if there are 5 people ahead of her???? --Asbl 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that makes no sense and should be changed. Possibly to "Ingraham's talk show was ranked sixth..."? Lawyer2b 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just How Popular is Her Talk Show?

Today, April 28, 2006 is the 5th Anniversary of the Laura Ingraham Show Magister39 22:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What is up, User:66.171.45.52?

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

Ingraham's 'hotel balconies' comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Botch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description: Photos from Laura's journey home.

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

Description: Laura's last day in Iraq.

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

Description: International Zone.

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

Description: Laura doing her radio show from Iraq.

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

Description: Laura with the children

Iraq Scenery Feb 07, 2006 3

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

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

Description: Laura visits Iraq village.

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

Description: Riding in a Blackhawk.

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

Description: First Day in Iraq.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Lesson in Logic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism Refutation (anti-gay)

Test of Devotion; What My Gay Brother Taught Me About Tolerance The Washington Post February 23, 1997, Sunday, Final Edition

Copyright 1997 The Washington Post The Washington Post

February 23, 1997, Sunday, Final Edition

SECTION: OUTLOOK; Pg. C01

LENGTH: 1455 words

HEADLINE: Test of Devotion; What My Gay Brother Taught Me About Tolerance

BYLINE: Laura Ingraham

BODY: At a fancy inaugural party this January, I found myself being called a "bigot" and a "homophobe" by Rep. Barney Frank. I had gone over to him to say hello, recalling how the two of us sparred a few years ago when I testified before his House subcommittee, which was examining racial and gender preferences. Eschewing cocktail party pleasantries -- not to mention the "bipartisan" good feelings that saturated the room -- he began pelting me with unflattering epithets.

....

Now he is back in the hospital, this time with stomach bleeding and short-term memory loss. When I called last week, he apologized for not sending a valentine.

-Haizum 21:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Haizum, - please don't post the full test of copyrighted stories. A link would be sufficient, or if a link is impossible then just the relevent text. Thanks, -Will Beback 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. This information was given to me directly from the producers of the Laura Ingraham show so I did not have a link at the time. Haizum 03:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandover POV editing in "hotel controversy" section?

Sandover, when you first questioned why this controvery was not mentioned in this article I replied because someone like you (who had known about it) hadn't included it and complimented you on a job well done. Recently though, while I'm assuming good faith that it's not intentional, I have to say I perceive a large POV in your edits to this section. Your recent edits, in my opinion, created an entry that was imbalanced in that it:

• didn't mention anything dangerous that she did (i.e. go places that she had to wear body armor),
• didn't mention that she interviewed the Iraqi military and common people (which she had suggested journalists do more of),
• went seemingly out of the way to describe the protection/safety she enjoyed while there.

If you're going to emphasize that two villages where she went didn't require her to wear body armor, shouldn't you have balanced that by at least mentioned she went someplace where body armor was required?

Finally, when I did add a balancing edit describing someplace she went as "dangerous (emphasis added here) enough to require body armor" you removed the word "dangerous." Why is it you want the article to read that two villages were "so safe (emphasis added here) that...[[she didn't]]...wear body armor" but not that she went places "dangerous" enough to require body armor? My perception is that for some reason you want the section to deemphasize anything that portrays anything unsafe in her visit and emphasize the safety/protection she enjoyed. Do you think my perception is wrong? I welcome your response. Lawyer2b 22:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

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

"But Monkey" Description: POV?

OK, since I'm supposed to stay calm, I'd like to ask you all (rather than assume) that the following is POV...

The segment called "But...Monkey" takes a politician's sound bite and divides the words before "but" from the words that follow with a screeching monkey sound. This is done in order to highlight contradictory statements. Because there is no prosodic break between the words "but" and "monkey" when the segment is introduced, the title can be taken as a pun on a derogatory term for male homosexuals.

Now wait just a minute, there is no entry in Wikipedia or Dictionary.com for "butt monkey," and I've never heard it used as a derogatory term for homosexual males. In fact, on Urbandictionary.com[20] the accepted meaning is synonymous with a "sycophant" or "brownnoser." Also, having listened to the show, they will anounce that a "but monkey" is about to be played; they then immediately play someone (pundit/politician/celebrity) saying something agreeable followed by the sound of a screeching monkey. This puts emphasis on the following "but," in which the person usually manages to contradict or seriously weaken the strength of their own statement. I really don't see how a person could mistake this for a jab at homosexuals...especially when the definition of "butt monkey" doesn't even apply (I already covered that). Thanks. Please don't ban me. Haizum 01:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've listened to the show on the way to work for about a year and I've never heard any reference to, or soundbites from "Jim Carrey's Pet Detective movie franchise", gratuitous or not. This at least needs a citation, if it isn't just another POV jab. Haizum 02:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The only material about the show which is sourced are the first and last paragraphs. I suggest cutting all of the descriptions of her various recurring gags, unless a reliable source can be found for them. Who cares about the technical producer? Why is the fact she slept through the Super Bowl important? Let's stick to what we can verify. -Will Beback 03:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Article Issues

I reverted most of the changes made in the last day, here's why:

• The "only to find" statement does not violate NPOV, please see the next talk heading to read my reasoning on that.
• Removing the entire statement that Logan's criticism was, at least on part, based on a mistaken premise without comment is sneaky and unimpressive, Sandover. I'm putting it back, and if you're going to revert you need to explain why.
• The "Edward Kennedy" comments relate to the validity of his accusations against Ingraham. I'm putting it back with an explanation linking this - it should've been made more clear, not deleted entirely.
• Laura Ingraham's journey, according to the video linked to the article, was eight days long, yes? Watch the video.
• The boyfriend scandal is completely irrelevant to Laura Ingraham, and is an unwelcome attempt by Sandover to associate Ingraham with crooks. Unlike the Edward Kennedy comments, which relate to his accusations (which are important to the "Controversies" heading), Ingraham's boyfriends actions don't seem to have any link to Ingraham's actions/controversies as editor. Karwynn 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Only to Find"

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

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

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

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

Dispute time!

I reverted most of the changes made in the last day, here's why:

• The "only to find" statement does not violate NPOV, please see the previous talk heading to read my reasoning on that.
• Removing the entire statement that Logan's criticism was, at least on part, based on a mistaken premise without comment is sneaky and unimpressive, Sandover. I'm putting it back, and if you're going to revert you need to explain why.
• The "Edward Kennedy" comments relate to the validity of his accusations against Ingraham. I'm putting it back with an explanation linking this - it should've been made more clear, not deleted entirely.
• Laura Ingraham's journey, according to the video linked to the article, was eight days long, yes? Watch the video.
• The boyfriend scandal is completely irrelevant to Laura Ingraham, and is an unwelcome attempt by Sandover to associate Ingraham with crooks. Unlike the Edward Kennedy comments, which relate to his accusations (which are important to the "Controversies" heading), Ingraham's boyfriends actions don't seem to have any link to Ingraham's actions/controversies as editor. Karwynn 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I second these points. We will need to see explicit and cogent explaination if any of these corrections are reverted; that means you, Sandover. Your chronic disregard for such requests and unilateral reverting is becoming disruptive; I am stating this for the record. See WP:DISRUPT "Gaming the System." Haizum 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandover, you have already begun reverting edits without explaination contrary to my endorsement as a 3rd party to the aforementioned edits, and contrary to my implied and explicit requests for dialog on the Discussion page. Ingraham's trip may not have been 8 days, and although your reference for this is from Ingraham's page, the information is taken from what is implied through her picture gallery; it is not an explicit account of exactly how many days she was there. You seem to think that because it's coming from lauraingraham.com that it must be clear and true. Although you may be correct (six days), the reference is certainly not clear enough for anyone that might be...oh...say...using Wikipedia AS A REFERENCE! Haizum 05:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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

She was corrected on air. YOu would know that if you had watched the video, which is linked in the article. I suggest you look more into these things, lest you look like a mere Wikistalker, trying to undo someone's objectives. Karwynn 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unethical Behavior Surrounding This Article

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

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

I have put especially disturbing phrases in bold.

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

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

To which, the next day, Olbermann replied:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Faulty Criticism by Logan

User:Sandover removed the following text from the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this summarizes the point nicely:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phone Jamming

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

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

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

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

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

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