Talk:Boycott of The Ingraham Angle

List of advertisers in boycott
Is there any significance to the numbering in the lists of advertisers in boycott? If not, it should be presented as alpha sorted lists.- MrX 🖋 11:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a first list then a series of reports in which other advertisers joined. There is no need to retain the order or to separate the original day 1 list from the advertisers on day 2 or later. I set it up this way and it is a mistake. Yes, as you say, there should be one alpha sorted list.


 * In the present deletion discussion there is a comment that there is just one source for the list. There are more in the media, I think, but lots of sources copy other sources and I do not know the earliest or best sources. Develop the section as you like, but converting to alpha would help.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  01:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I will reformat it into a single list. There are plenty of sources for the list many of the individual companies on the list. I'll see if I can add on a couple of more, but probably tomorrow.- MrX 🖋 01:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This may or may not be the right location to ask about it, but I was looking to communicate a concern to the editors. It's about the companies left in the paragraph as part of the boycott. Even in the articles referenced, AT&T is never stated as a company that left the Ingraham Angle in two days, even though the paragraph says they did. AT&T was targeted, as stated in the references, but I don't see any verification that they were one of the companies that pulled ads from the show in two days. They did probably eventually pull their ads, but not in two days that I am reading from any of the linked sources. Mike03car (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can find a source for that, or correct the article text.- MrX 🖋 10:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I still don't find AT&T as one that left in two days. They ought to be a "later left".Mike03car (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ad rates on Ingraham's show fall
This is an interesting take on the impact of the boycott:Ad Prices On Fox's 'The Ingraham Angle' Fall In The Wake Of Advertiser Boycott Parking it here until I have time to add it to the article (unless someone wants to do it now).- MrX 🖋 18:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A good read. I'd add it, but it'll just get hacked to pieces by you certain persons :p Mike03car (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've already added it.- MrX 🖋 21:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It must have been invisible when I said "good read".Mike03car (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I responded that way because I misread what you wrote. I thought you wrote "I'll add it". Sorry for the confusion.- MrX 🖋 23:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of LeBron James
Can anyone explain the relevance of the LeBron James mini-controversy to the boycott? I realize that a few sources have mentioned it, but from the perspective of an encyclopedia, is this really something that should be included in this article? It feels kind of WP:COATRACKY to me.- MrX 🖋 21:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's no more "coatracky" than this article. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not helpful.- MrX 🖋 21:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the significance of LeBron James is that there was a pattern similar to the Hogg-Ingraham spat, but LJ did not urge a boycott, and Ingraham did not apologize. It lends credence to Hogg's claim that the only reason why Ingraham apologized was that advertisers were starting to leave her show.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. It's in the main article anyway.- MrX 🖋 15:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Reviving this article
I originally made this article 3 April 2018. It got merged in an WP:AfD on 13 April 2018. In that a major argument was that this article did not pass inclusion criteria in WP:NOTNEWS. I am reviving this article because as time passed, this incident has remained relevant in journalism and research, which is supporting evidence of ongoing WP:Notability. There is no formal policy for recreating deleted pages, but in Recreation of previously deleted pages a general proposed idea is demonstrating a change in notability. Newer sources which I put in the article, including the following, provide that evidence. A 2020 review by S&P Global remarked that Ingraham's views continued to be a deterrent to advertisers and contribute to the decline in advertising revenue of parent Fox News.
 * Articles for deletion/Boycott of The Ingraham Angle

If anyone would like to challenge notability again then feel free to comment here or send to AfD.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's a worthy topic as a standalone article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is not the proper procedure and the unilateral dismissal of the status quo shows a blatant dismissal of BRD, FORUMSHOP and probably more. That said, this is as good a place as any to discuss this article, I guess.  Pinging previous commentors:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and , the closer. (hopefully didn't miss any).  Good luck,  GenQuest  "scribble" 21:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No comment beyond thanks, good luck to you, too! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll reserve commenting until/if there is a 2nd AfD. But thanks for the ping. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The Fortune article is an in-depth piece from a reliable source that focuses on the issue, and post-dates the AFD.https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/fox-news-laura-ingraham-1202851735/#! is another. https://www.thewrap.com/google-advertising-fox-news-laura-ingraham-angle/ is another one from 2019.  https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/12/16/fox-news-laura-ingraham-signs-multi-year-deal-ingraham-angle/3921536001/ is from just a month ago; it doesn't focus on the issue but does mention it, show it is still relevant. If we add Hogg's second boycott call, backed by more recent references like these, to the article, we can restore it, and if some still think it needs deletion, we can have a new AFD. --GRuban (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing improper in re-creating this article nearly three years later when it includes coverage in reliable sources published after the AfD closed. If the article goes to AfD again, I intend to recommend keeping it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair you recommended keeping it in the AFD as well. PackMecEng (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, this was previously closed as merge into the parent article. How have the limited sources since changed that?  Springee (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain restored independent article. In early April 2018, we were debating the long term value of this boycott, started two weeks earlier.  I thought then it would remain significant, as would any boycott that met with a noticeable level of success.  I think it did.  Here are some more post AfD sources: , , , .  Forbes looked back at the concept of boycotts in 2020, mentioning the boycott, indicating its long standing relevance.  It has also gotten callback mentions elsewhere , , , .  Beyond the extended merits of restoration, lets look at the NOM of the original AfD that resulted in this article being removed from public view for two and a half years . . . "This user is currently blocked."  Hmmm.  We remove content edited by some blocked users, ostensibly not to reward the damage they are doing to wikipedia.  Here is an AfD, aggressively advocated by a blocked user.  I think this narrow and IMO poor decision certainly should be revisited if not reversed. Trackinfo (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the new sources, I think I am not opposed to the re-creation as such. There's no policy violation with doing so, after over 2 years and a demonstration of new sources.  Which is not to say that I would vote keep in a new AFD.  Which is also not to say that I wouldn't.  Just that, by both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia rules, recreating previously AFDed articles is perfectly allowable if and when the problems noted in the original AFD have changed.  In this case, they have.  Again, this is NOT an endorsement of the article, and I am not indicating one way or another of how I would vote in a second AFD, but there's no issue with the restored article at this point.  -- Jayron 32 11:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Explanation of edit
Sorry, I didn't understand the topic sufficiently during my first edit. (I loathe gossipmongering and the paragraph sounded like that to me.) This time I just took out the part from Daily Wire, which doesn't affect the story line. Mentioning DW isn't necessary, doesn't add anything to the article, and DW is labelled generally unreliable at RSP — "and it should never be used for information about a living person." Platonk (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right, the Daily Wire was just repeating the original story. I cited TMZ instead because they were the first to report what Hogg said in social media, and other media including the Daily Wire and Ingraham repeated the TMZ story. Thoughts? thanks.   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  12:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Better. Was it on his social media? It looked like an interview by TMZ. Maybe change "which colleges had offered or declined admission to him" to "which colleges had accepted him for admission, and which had declined." The word "offered" is lost in the tsunami ( to use Hogg's phrasing ) of decline/reject wordage/concepts of the paragraph. Platonk (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)