Talk:Laura Schlessinger/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Apologies and Thanks

Three months ago I put a NPOV tag on the article writing: This article is a hatchet job. At every turn every event from this woman's life is made to look like the words of a macheovelian witch. Token comments from her "defenders" only give the impression of beleagered woman under attack from all right-thinking people. This is a very nice article and could be sold to "Hello! Magazine", but it is an editorial - and a negative one at that.It's not just the many incidents of clear NPOV violations, but the entire tone of the article that oozes bile towards this woman.

Why areconservative commentators mentioned in her defence described as conservative but liberal detractors are not similarly identified? A section on "perceied hypocracy" and "negative reactions to views"? This article is so addled with subtle and not-so-subtle POV that the only answer might be to start over.

For those who doubt the POV nature of such headings consider this: how about two more sections entitiled "perceived brilliance" and "positive reactins to views" where fawning fans could recount how "she saved their lives". These are PLAINLY just devises for people who don't like her to expess themselves in an open forum.

"These groups include working mothers, public schools and public school teachers, Democrats, feminists, atheists, non-Orthodox Jews, Unitarians, Muslims, Hindus, journalists, psychologists, and people who use the Internet." How about a listing of groups who like her?

This article has got to change.

I forgot to add it to my watchlist so I forgot about it! I think the article is much fairer now and is NPOV. Kudos to those (Wasted Time et al.) who changed it and apologies for "running away".

jucifer 15:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Statistics?

How accurate are her statistics?

The short answer is, probably not very. Her days as a scientist are long behind her. She's now in the political-cultural-advocacy-as-entertainment industry, where statistics are something you either ignore or twist to fit your already existing beliefs. Wasted Time R 10:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your reply! (I kept missing it but then finally saw it.)

It would be interesting to find really old transcripts of her shows to see how or if her accuracy has changed. (And no, not so interesting that I would go to her site to pay to hear old shows. Anyhow, I would imagine that if she doesn't have enough webspace to allow listeners to hear every aired show, then she could pick and choose the ones that she sounded the best in.) 04:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

About two weeks ago (Wed Oct 12 2005 is what I jotted down, but I don’t think I wrote it down that day, so . . . ) she said something about psychopaths having high IQs. And then there was the flap some years ago about the kid with Tourette’s syndrome, where she seemed to assume that if he had it, he had a cussing problem. (So far as I understand it, the caller never mentioned cussing on the air, and only a small percentage of people with Tourette’s have that particular problem.)

About half a decade ago, I read a book about psychopaths by Robert Hare, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (1993, reissued 1999). This author was supposed to have studied psychopathy over 25 years. (I don‘t know how many years he’s up to by now.) He’s supposed to be an expert on it. His psychopathy checklist is the 20-item list you see on most websites on psychopathy, and quite a number of the papers you can read online cite him.

I haven’t got the book handy and the only thing I could find online about what he says (in 2004) is “But these are not stupid people, I mean the range of intelligence amongst psychopathic populations is the same as it is in the general population.” http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1158704.htm

While it is true that if you read long enough, you can eventually find something that does mention psychopaths having high IQs, most papers on websites, actually do not mention it at all, or say something like they don‘t seem to learn from punishment though they are not deficient in intelligence. Actually, if you look up sociopath rather than psychopath, it is much easier to find websites that say that they usually have average intelligence. Some say that the two words mean the same thing, but Hare, I believe, says that they are different. (Wikipedia’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath redirects to “Antisocial personality disorder,” and so does Sociopath.) Here’s a quote from the Antisocial personality disorder Wikipedia article, which only says this about IQ--

Psychopaths in popular fiction and movies generally possess a number of standard characteristics which are not necessarily as common amongst real-life psychopaths. The traditional "Hollywood psychopath" is likely to exhibit some or all of the following traits which make them ideal villains.

High intelligence

If you know next to nothing about Tourette’s then cussing is probably what you think of if anyone mentions it to you. Likewise, if you’ve never read up on psychopathy, then you might think that all psychopaths have high IQs. Granted, these are not what DL got her doctorate in, and you don’t need to know anything about either of these subjects to give advice about the morally correct thing to do, but “as a scientist” (a phrase I’ve heard her use), I would expect her to try to be accurate or at least qualify her remarks. (I know I’m impressed that she has a doctorate, and notice that there is a tendency for me to want to think she always knows what she is talking about.)

Here’s another interesting quote from her--

You don't do that. You don't have a few drinks and go with a guy you don't know. There are dead bodies of women strewn all over this country, most of whom have never been found, who have done that. [ . . . ] And women do this everyday. Last night, somewhere, I'm sure a woman was killed leaving a bar with some bum. http://www.ccnr.ca/english/decisions/decisions/2000/000510bappendix.htm

Um, “most of whom have never been found”? And “every day”? These are statistics I am totally unfamiliar with. Does anyone know how accurate these might be?

If DL only very occasionally flubbed up statistics, then it wouldn’t be worth adding to the Wikipedia article, but if she is constantly doing it, it might be worth thinking about adding. *** Obviously, though, the article needs to be much longer and in depth to think about adding info about this. *** (I don’t listen enough to know much about her statistics. I have heard her mention sailing analogies but have never heard her mention racing at all, for instance. Also, if I do hear any statistic from her, I usually haven’t the slightest clue how accurate she is.)

03:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (Hi, everyone! I have occasionally made minor edits but have never gotten around to choosing a user name or anything. I also don’t guarantee that I’ll check back here as regularly as you do--sorry! It “only” took me two weeks to write and post this, you‘ll notice!)

Dr Laura's participation in Rind et al.(1998) fate

Wouldn't it be interesting to include Dr Laura's opinion on the controversial 1998 Child sexual abuse report[*] ?

I read that she had posted some of her reactions on her website but they have been retrived since then.

Was this one one of these ? "Evil among us"

She's part of the numerous demagogues who used popular prejudices about "adult-minor sex" to gain the general public outrage, including of course victims. She described it as "the most dangerous assault yet on our children, our families, and our society" and made a parallel with the "normalization of homosexuality".

West wing reference

RE:[1] [2] I can't get a source to prove it's a parody that refers to Dr. Laura, because parodies work by indirect reference. That is where we find their power. They say things that cannot be said directly, because it would be too politically dangerous or sensitive. Indeed, one raison d'etre of a parody is to hide the direct connects: i.e.: The author must make the link between a parody and the powerful person it refers to obscure. Can you propose another alternative that will work?

We have the whole transcript of Bartlet's speech on the Wiki servers here: [3]. Here are the similarities: Dr. Jacobs is a established enough of a figure on the national level to be invited to the white house. Dr. Laura is nationally syndicated and the number 1 in ratings for several years. Dr. Jacobs has a PH.d. in a field that is not the focus of her show. Dr. Laura has a PH.d. in a field that is not the focus of her show. Dr. Jacobs uses the Dr. title on a call in radio show. Dr. Laura uses the Dr. title on a call in radio show. Dr. Jacobs dispenses advice regarding psychology, theology or health care. Dr. Laura dispenses advice on theology, mental health, and psychology. Dr. Jacobs calls homosexuality an abomination. Dr. Laura calls homosexuality a "biological error." Dr. Jacobs quotes the Bible chapter and verse. Dr. Laura refers to the Torah, and considers herself a Jewish rabbi. Dr. Jacobs bases her disapproval of homosexuality in the bible. Dr. Laura disapproves of homosexuality based on the psychological family health, the Torah (edited), and her physiological training. --Muchosucko 15:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You can get a source that merely reference the episode and mentions somethign about it being a parady, a neutral third party making the claim is all I'm looking for. Not a very high threshold is it? It's just that they could have been paodying a lot of right wing religous talk show hosts...like Dr. Dobson for example.Gator (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Here they are [4]. Respectfully,Muchosucko 15:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Fine, pick a NPOV one and cite it and that would be fien by me.Gator (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Which one do you prefer? [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Please tell me which one you like, and I will use that one. Some are from the left, some are neutral, and some are from the right. --Muchosucko 15:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will choose [10] because it has Sorkin quoted as saying that he lifted the passage from a Dr. Laura e-mail and incorporated it into the episode. The source is fairly NPOV; it is the "The West Wing Episode Guide" on the internet. Sorkin says, "Sorkin, who hoped to give credit, says they "cast a fairly wide net, but we didn't find the author." And he has yet to hear from Dr. Laura herself. "I don't imagine I'll be getting a Christmas card from her."" As well as:

"A friend forwarded me a copy of an anonymous Internet posting in which the author sarcastically agreed with Dr. Laura [Schlessinger, the controversial talk-radio host] that homosexuality was an abomination as cited in Leviticus. He or she then went on to point out other Old Testament passages that mentioned extreme punishments for what today are some pretty ordinary things. - Aaron Sorkin Sorkin already had written a subplot for the episode about President Bartlet (played by Martin Sheen) taking an obsessive interest in a New Hampshire school board election. The race was in the district where Bartlet, a former New Hampshire governor, sent his kids to public school. And the leading candidate was Elliot Roush, a Christian fundamentalist whom Bartlet beat in the first election of his political career.

With that story line already percolating, Sorkin said he looked at the e-mail about Schlessinger and thought, "Gee, this is right for this episode, and there's a way to dramatize it."

...

But Sorkin said he was troubled by his use of the Internet material.

"If you're a writer," he said, "the only thing worse than not getting credit for something you did is getting credit for something you didn't do."

So Sorkin mentioned the situation in a weekly meeting of "West Wing" producers. "I wanted to make sure that nobody thought I was trying to pull a fast one," Sorkin said. "Being called a plagiarist is like being called a sex offender. Even if it's not true, once the stench is out there, it's not easy to get rid of."

Staff members were assigned to try to identify a specific author, and efforts included asking questions in some of the many anti-Schlessinger Internet chat rooms and contacting gay-oriented publications like The Advocate.

"We came up empty," Sorkin said, "except that all the people we spoke to said they'd seen several different versions of the [Schlessinger/biblical] material over the last year or so."--Muchosucko 15:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

None of thiose were any good, but I found this. Feel free to use it. [11] Ctrl F Laura and you'll fnd the reference to the parody.Gator (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Pinktulip's demands

I don't really know what Pinktulip wants, but I would ask him/her to come here and discuss it. Thnaks.Gator (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

pictures

Can you use these pictures?

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/5294/doctorlaura27jd.jpg http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/3740/doctorlaura14mp.jpg NiftyDude 21:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't look at them, but if they're copyrighted and not in public domain then no and if they're nude pics, well, obviously no.Gator (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead... look at them... you know you want to...

Actually, they're nude pics that were posted on Anarchist Librarian, which I have creatively modified to humorous effect which also covers-up the naughty parts. NiftyDude 21:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hysterical....I have a sense of humor about these things, but please be aware that I'm on a work computer (as I'm sure others are), please don't do this again as you could get peple in trouble. Thanks.Gator (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh... I'd better go back and edit the pictures of the nude sunbathers in the Principality of Sealand.NiftyDude 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Complaints

Muchosucko has complained that I have unfairly reverted his edits here, am unwilling to work with anyone and have a "monopoly" over this page. This surprised me because his username doens;t seem familiar to me at all. However, I've invited him to come back here and discuss his edits so that we all can have a fiar chance to consiuder whether to put them in. The fact is, when they were reverted, he didn't come here and try and persuade anyone to accept them and no one else, apparently, though that they should be included, but I'm sensitive, so I am hoping he'll come here and let me prove to him I can work with him is what he wants is NPOV and acceptable to the consensus. Reverts happ[en every day here, so there should be no hard feelings about such things, but... Mucho,the floor is yours:Gator (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gator, anyone looking at the LS article history can see that you've clearly become the de facto "gatekeeper" for this article. You have a model in mind for what the article should look like, you put it on your watchlist, and you quickly revert any change that you don't believe fits into that model. Nothing wrong with this, plenty of WP articles have gatekeepers (including me on a few). But it comes with the gatekeeping territory that people will criticize you for having a monolopy; you shouldn't be surprised. Wasted Time R 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I would consider you a longer time gatekeeper here than I. lol I understand that, I'm on alot and have a great deal of pages on my watchlist. NO apologies from me for that. But I have no "monopoly" here. That's garbage. I am a lsave ot consensus like everyone else. I'm just blown away because if you look at his only edits here, I worked with him to find a good cite and he got what he wanted (parody info from West End) so what the heck did I do wrong?!?!?Gator (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"so I am hoping he'll come" Gator, I rarely contribute to confrontational articles especially ones like these because you will revert them. I find your style of editing off-putting. So I simply avoid you for fear of inciting the sort of response I see now.--Muchosucko 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You came here once and you go what you wanted after we find a cite (actually I find it). So you're allegations are totally baseless as the only coact we've had is this artcile and it went very well. Any reasonable person would, of course, defend themself when someone is making stuff up like you were. I work well with almost everyone. Wasted time and I have ben here for some time and we've worked together beautifully on this controversial article. You must bethinking fo someone else, because this makes no sense to me.Gator (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Kids in the playground avoid bullies as much as they can. That is why I walked away. Bullies are also insensitive to other people's feelings, which is perhaps why you thought everything was OK between us. Again, I believe your character will show itself in the long run, through your edits and contributions, not a dialogue on talk pages. If your attitude is systematically negative, some consensus will build. If you are systematically positive, my criticisms will be an anomaly. --Muchosucko 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So just name calling? No actual edits or explanations as to what I did that was so wrong? Oh well, I tried. Sorry to waste everyone's time. Let's get back to work.Gator (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Muchosucko, you need to point to specifics of what those you accuse are doing badly, otherwise it is you and not they who will appear to lack character. Wasted Time R 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Wasted. I've been being gnaged up on ever since I reported a real POV driven user for a 3RR violation and he didn't like it. This is related to that. I hope it's the end of it. This is not why I spend so much time here. Thanks again, you're a good person.Gator (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If a formal RfC or RfA comes up, I will be happy to provide the evidence, and explanations, and I will respond fully to any refutations. But in this informal forum, my efforts are not warranted. They will not be appreciated nor will they achieve any substantial result, short of outbursts of emotion and such. Also, I haven't time. Pillory me as you wish.--Muchosucko 23:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

File away. Anyway...back to work anyone?Gator (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article?

I think we've done a lot of great work here on a controversial figure and have a good product. I'm proud of this page. How do people feel about me nominating this article for featured article status? At worse, it will give us areas for improvement so we can work towards that ultimate goal and, at best, it will get the article featured. I just didn't want to take this step without bringing it up here first. Thoughts?Gator (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts at all? Support, Oppose?Gator (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I've nominated this article to be a featured artcile. Please vote to support or offer constructive criticism.Gator (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

CA MFCC License

The article said there was a citation needed for this. The closest thing I knew of was a direct license search at http://www2.dca.ca.gov/ which I linked superscript in the article. It's a useful unadvertised site that I had learned about when I had to search several California license holders of various types for an old job. A search for her name lists no results which typically means her license is inactive or expired (though not revoked). badmonkey 02:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nude photos of Laura Schlessinger

It is news worthy and it is a period of her life that these particular "photos" appeared without her knowlegdge or permission. She publically admitted that the women in the photos was her. If Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton and Rob Lowe naked sexual videos were also made public without their knowledge or persmission it is also listed in their biography.

I feel that the admission of it in Laura Schlessinger biography on wikipedia is neutral:

Nude pictures

In 1998, naked pictures of her were posted on the Internet by ex-lover Bill Ballance, who had given Schlessinger her start in the radio business in 1974. At first she denied being the woman in the photographs, but two weeks later she sued for copyright infringement. Schlessinger ultimately dropped her lawsuit after failing to obtain an injunction to stop Ballance from displaying the photos.

This issue generated considerable controversy. Supporters noted that the pictures had been taken more than twenty years earlier, and that Schlessinger was clearly a different and wiser person now. Detractors observed that Schlessinger had initially reacted with dishonesty about the pictures, and by subsequently blaming "feminism and the sixties" she was indulging in a responsibility-shifting excuse which she would presumably never tolerate from her own callers.

Soon after this incident, Schlessinger added the Internet to her list of improper behaviors by callers. Later she proclaimed that there was "nothing useful on the Internet." By 2001 she was backing off this particular position, but has never repudiated her previous stance.

We must make everything newsworthy so people can know all there is about a person.Bnguyen 05:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing this here and discussing, but please don't add it back until we've talked this through.

I think the current info is all that is necessary for this artcile and this has come up before. It's noteworthy, so that's why it's mentioned already (no one is tryign to keep it out). Anything more, especially, what's above, is way too much. I don't see the reason why it needs to be 3 paragraphs worth of this. It's not that big of a deal, it was long ago, so mention it briefly and move. Going on about it like this, is too much in my opinion. That's my opinion.Gator (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don;t see why this:

Schlessinger's current advocacy of high moral standards is often contrasted by critics with her past, given that

she is divorced
she dated a married man with three children, who, subsequently, left his wife for her
she posed nude for a boyfriend/supervisor when she was in her 20s, who in 1998 posted the pictures on the Internet. ^[1]

isn't sufficient. It's newsworthy, so it's in. Where's the problem?Gator (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

These are verifiable facts, that even Dr. Laura admits. I think that they should be in there along with her attitude that to know if someone has really changed (left the bad acts behind) takes 5 - 10 years of them not doing such things. This can probably be found in one of her books. Then you won't have to get something from her supporters (which are generally difficult to support factually but can be accepted generally). Val42 19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, I've noticed a lot of criticism of information about her nude photos is based on "she's been through enough of a hassel, why drag it up again". This isn't about preserving or smearing anyone's reputation, it's about reporting accurate and verifiable facts. If you can verify information for a whole section on her photos, her reputation shouldn't be a reason not to include it, shoul it? Plus, remember, Wikipeida is not censored for minors Kuronue 03:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of article as a whole

I've never seen a more biased biography on Wikipedia. There are no citations for "supposed" viewpoints. Also, I believe there are many irrelivent "facts" on this page. There's a lot of assumptions if you ask me. Obviously heavily edited by a bunch of people critical of Dr. Laura.

Also, how her nude photos emerged, and the reasons why they were taken are all maters of speculation. That section needs to be edited. We don't know those details.

Also, she is NOT currently divorced as the article incorrectly presumes. --69.216.119.23 18:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Kris

The whole article probably needs rework, but I've tagged the "Opinions" section in particular. Let's fix this section first. Val42 03:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, she wrote like 6 books. You would think at least one of them would be used as a reference to what she professes. Bytebear 06:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Tightened languaged, shortened slightly" changes unjustified

User:Thepinterpause made large-scale edits and deletions under the above justification, without any discussion here first. I do not believe most of these changes are warranted. This article has been remarkably stable for about a year now (a lifetime in Wikipedia!) despite disparate opinions about the subject, and I don't see the rationale for upsetting the applecart.

In particular, why does this article need to be shortened? WP is not paper, as they say. Schlessinger is a notable figure who has had a large audience and some influence in the US. She merits the article's length.

Moreover, the "language tightening" frequently removed material of substance. Three examples from early on:

"She gets to the core of a caller's issue quickly rather than let them talk for a long time." This is one of her key skills - callers are long-winded and don't know how to be succinct; she teaches them.
"Schlessinger was also criticized for having an unappealing physical appearance. [reference]" She got a brutal treatment in the press for something she has no control over. Why isn't this worth mentioning?
"The following are some of the opinions that she has stated on the air at least 5 times ... [whole section removed]" Why on earth was this whole section removed? It was replaced with a brief paragraph that oversimplifies her views and misrepresents them in some cases (e.g. she's not against all divorce, she's not against contraception for married couples, just to name two). This section accurately portrays her views, and in some cases the evolution of them; why remove?

While some of the Thepinterpause edits may be warranted, most are not. Reverting for now. I would suggest discussing large-scale changes here before just hacking away. Wasted Time R 4 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

Thepinterpause (talk · contribs) made some interesting edits. That i have reviewed and will continue to consider. I think s/he is well meaning and not a vandal -- so thanks for those contributions. We should continue to value and discuss the edits. Also s/he added the following:

The controversy over Schlessinger's views on homosexuality, and her religious-based defense of them, eventually led to a widely-forwarded e-mail questioning her positions on a number of archaic Biblical passages. The substance of that e-mail was repeated on an episode of the television drama The West Wing ("The Midterms"), which featured a Schlessinger-like character.

I think it's pretty interesting and maybe worthy of incorporation. Considering the 2004 RNC deryk stuff is in the article. Here is a link to the changes for your convenience --Muchosucko 4 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)

I agree that Thepinterpause's edits were well-meaning and not vandalism, and some of them can definitely be considered. But the bulk of the edits seemed to be based on the theory that the article was too long and can safely be reduced, both of which assertions I disagree with. Often NPOV is best achieved by describing the detail of something without commentary, rather than trying to summarize or characterize it in a few words (which is inherently a form of commentary). Wasted Time R 4 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Thepinterpause's edits really do seem justified. Last time I visited this page, Wikipedia had suggested shortening the length of the article. A lot of the information contained in the earlier article was repetitive and gratuitious. Many of them also do not seem to comply with NPOV. Should every controversial view of a talk-show host be included in his/her Wikipedia entry? I don't think so. The laundry list of views is clearly designed to "shock" and turn people against Dr. Laura. Is it really relevant information to include what age she finds appropriate for dating? Does a general audience really need to be told about the misfortunes of her son? While I am a strong opponent of hers--- I even participated in the StopDrLaura t-shirt drive--- we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a soap box and it benefits everybody to write as objectively and concisely as possible about each subject. The article as it stands does not represent the best work of Wikipedia. --DanielC 4 July 2005

Here's the key Thepinterpause paragraph that all of you like so much:

Her opinions emphasize a socially conservative and "family-oriented" philosophy. She has consistently advocated abstention from any sexual activity outside of marriage, and considers abortion and contraception morally repugnant. She has also criticized daycare, working moms, divorce, and teenage dating.

"Family-oriented", even with the scare quotes, is a highly POV phrase — many people with opposing views think families are a swell notion too. She does not consider contraception morally repugnant, just unreliable, and thus should not be used outside marriage. Her views towards working mothers weren't always what is stated here (and "moms" is too colloquial for an encylcopedia). She thinks divorce is justified in certain circumstances (which are fairly common) and not in others. She thinks teenage dating is ok for some teenage years, not for all.

So of the 9 claims made by the Thepinterpause paragraph, 5 are fully or partly wrong. If you all really think this is a better work of Wikipedia, I'll withdraw my objections. Wasted Time R 4 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)

FYI I've merged back in several of Thepinterpause's edits, including the e-mail/West Wing graph noted above. Wasted Time R 5 July 2005 23:49 (UTC)

I've looked over the discussion here, and I'll concur with many of the claims about my editing, but I still think the article is far too long and includes far too much detail for such a minor public figure. We simply don't need a detailed list of every obnoxious word she's ever uttered on the radio--- and we certainly don't need them repeated again and again. I don't see why the "moral opinions" list can't be truncated or incorporated elsewhere. I tried putting it into one simple paragraph, but that was removed. But since I have absolutely no stake in the article--- I stumbled across it through the "random pages" device--- I'll let it go if nobody else cares. -Thepinterpause 7 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)

She's not a minor figure, she has had a huge audience and still retains a significant audience. (And in any case, in Wikipedia there is virtually zero correlation between the length of an article and the importance of the article's subject, as I'm sure you've already discovered.) The moral opinions section is relevant because morality is the primary focus of her work. Your POV that her words are obnoxious affected your attempt to put her opinions into one paragraph, and anybody else's might well do the same. Better just to leave them expanded out as they are. Wasted Time R 7 July 2005 23:13 (UTC)

"The nude photo controversy certainly did not help this reputation."

I don't see any explanation in the article about what this controversy was. I assume that it involved nude photos of Dr. Laura, but does somebody want to elaborate on the particular circumstances of this incident? Judzillah 22:48, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

The article is much clearer about this now. Thanks Judzillah 15:31, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

"Dr"

It should be noted that she haves a doctorate in gym teaching, not psychology. 62.13.81.164 19:07, 14 May 2007

Her degree is in physiology not gym teaching. Val42 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Deryk Schlessinger

Hey, I removed 70.188.224.207's edit to the Laura page, simply because they appear to be assumptions ("it is far more likely that the MySpace page was created as a hoax by some third party in order to bring negative publicity to her.") And he/she was incorrect in saying that "The allegation was made by a single website with a history of criticism of Schlessinger", since the newspaper link given specifically says they "... learned of the Web page earlier this week from a former schoolmate." I agree whole heartedly that this 'story' is a bit hazy but let's keep it to what is on the record. If things change, the Wiki will keep it up-to-date.Dronester 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

ok guys, it's been about three months since the myspace story was first reported. Here are the facts: First, only one newspaper has ever reported on this. Second, there are no named sources anywhere. "An army spokesman" is quoted. What's his name? Nobody knows. Third, the newspaper that reported it ran several critical, dare I say hit-pieces about Shlessinger. Last-but-not least, it's a myspace page. If anyone here is brave enough to give me your name, I promise you I will find "your" myspace page in about five minutes (because I'll go out and make one and put your name on it). Is it ok if I create a wiki article about you, and write in that article that you allegedly had a myspace page with torture-fetish porn? Does that sound like a fair thing to do to you? Of course not! That's ridiculous, and likely slander as well. So why do you let that happen to someone else?? Please, I would really like to hear someone defend this. It's a made-up story. It's a lie. There is no evidence at all that the story is true. Why is it in wikipedia? 70.188.224.207 04:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think scrubbing this story is a mistake. Here is a link to an August 31 2007 article in the Santa Barbara Independent by Matt Kettmann reporting that the Army investigation is closed and that the Army is not releasing the results http://www.independent.com/news/2007/aug/31/military-investigation-dr-lauras-son-complete/ . The article quotes Lt. Col. David Accetta, Army spokesperson in Afghanistan. So 70.188.224.207's claims of "likely slander" don't seem to have much merit but are notable for the rhetoric. Being that this woman makes her living telling others how to keep their houses and affairs in order, yet may be failing in these endeavors on her own, makes it worth adding, don't you think? Dent.earl 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I dislike Dr Laura but Wikipedia should not be used to spread unconfirmed rumors. Beyond that, common sense tells you that the most likely scenario is someone got his password and then uploaded the material. Is it more likely that

a)the son of a famous person would post illegal material using his name rather than use a pseudonym or

b)someone stole his password and posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.82.198 (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated mention of the Deryk Schlessinger/MySpace event, which 98.162.177.7 removed. This event was reported in two newspapers; the Salt Lake Tribune and the Santa Barbara Independent. Army spokespersons Robert Tallman and David Accetta are quoted in the two articles. 98.162.177.7, you did not make any mention on the Talk page as to why you removed this content. Please explain rather than reverting. Whatever404 (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. Let's be a clear on who this article is about. Just because something, somewhere happened involving Laura Shlessinger's son, doesn't automatically make it noteworthy to add to her article. Honestly, having read through this entire article and its past history over the last couple days, I find the agendas of several of its frequent editors to be suspiciously POV. Considering that the criticism section of this article is already bloated to the point of obnoxiousness, how about we reserve criticism for the actual subject of the article, shall we? Trusilver 06:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Family estrangement

Why is family estrangement in the controversy section? It doesn't seem to go there... -WarthogDemon 03:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well beyond the obvious "more than two months without a simple telephone call?" you may follow the link in the entry and then read that more than 10 days passed before she reclaimed the body. Then in her brilliant letter the compassionate ("honor your father and your mother") preacher sadly comments/complains that her mother choose to lead a isolated live. One with a glass dome shouldn't throw rocks. Flamarande 21:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Gov. Spitzer scandal

Shouldn't there be a mention of Dr. Laura blaming Mrs. Spitzer for her husband getting caught with a call girl? As I recall, she said the fault was his wife's, because "she didn't perform her wifely duties enough" (something along those lines, anyway). I realize that this article's fairly long as it is, and including every mention of when she put her foot in her generous mouth borders on trivia, but there's something to be said about mentioning her response(s) to the more notable scandals that broke during her career, particularly when she gets a pretty intense backlash of criticism, yeah? —Micahbrwn (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There would need to be some evidence (i.e. WP:RS) of a controversy first. Evidence that someone said something controversial in the eyes of an editor, is not sufficient. You may find, when someone has a history of saying controversial things, some stuff just passes by without anything taking any notice, perhaps because most people aren't listening (Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly come to mind here) Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Being Bold

I am going to be WP:BOLD and purge this article of the controversy section, considering none of it is sourced and is a BLP violation. CENSEI (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Speak now ..... CENSEI (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This is one of worst articles I've ever read on Wikipedia in almost four or five years. I'm not pro- nor anti- Dr. Laura, but the article seems to me, from somebody who didn't know who this person was till I read the article, anti-Dr. Laura just because she is a Conservative, and is written from a strange POV without anything that may be proven nor disproven. Just letting anybody know is all. Coffee4binky (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I came across this article today and I agree completely. This article is easily the most banal article I have ever come across. It is POV to the point of crassness. Undue weight is given to the criticism section and more than one item that is included there shouldn't be in the article, period. Trusilver 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Everything in the "Controversies" section should simply be merged into the rest of the article which is actually not bad. Clumping all the controversies together doesn't help anything. -- Banjeboi 14:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

^ Dr. Laura Dishes on Nude Photos - Marcus Errico, E!, November 4, 1998

[1] Dr. Laura Dishes on Nude Photos - Marcus Errico, E!, November 4, 1998

[1]