Talk:Gina Loudon

Third Rate Article
No date of birth? No source for her "doctorate"? (It's a third-rate online "university.") Controversy regarding her master's degree cited nothing but her home page. Real question is: Why is she here? This cheapens the idea of education and academic achievement, just like "Judge Jeannine" cheapens the idea of the judiciary by claiming to be a judge. Avocats (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I corrected the date of birth issue. I found a verified date from the Library of Congress Subject Headings, which contradicted almost everything I found elsewhere. Her Linkdin page show Fielding Graduate University as her graduate studies for a phd in Human Development. I searched ProQuest Digital Dissertations as well as OCLC, but kind find no document with her name, or any variation thereof. While I too wonder about this persons qualifications, they are a media presence. We need to make sure that Wikipedia has the absolute best and robust information so people can come to their own conclusions. Nwyant (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

News coverage in wake of book
There's some bio in here beyond the slightly-misleading headline: [https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-adviser-gina-loudons-book-claims-she-has-a-phd-in-psychology-she-doesnt Trump Adviser Gina Loudon’s Book Claims She Has a Ph.D. in Psychology. She Doesn’t.]  Esowteric + Talk  20:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Strong bias in the article
Recent edits to this article seem to have a strong negative bias towards her. While it appears she is not a licensed psychologist, the PhD she has is within the branch of psychology and is a legitimate degree for a legitimate institution. Recent edits are also incorrect in claiming she claims an additional 2 degrees in psychology. I can find no sources that make that claim.

Additionally, rankings on Amazon are not relevant as today the ranking is 6974 and upon release the book ranked in the top 100.

I would suggest removing the biased language, interpreted allegations and incorrect statements from the article to allow people to come to their own conclusions.

I also suggest creating a "Controversy" category and moving all the Daily Beast allegations to that section and restoring some of the other biographical information that was removed recently.

MarkSutherland (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The perception of bias might be that finding actual authoritative information about her is difficult. Also, her birthdate, according to the Library of Congress Authority is March 21, 1962. Other than a birth certificate or driver's license, there is nothing more authoritative. https://lccn.loc.gov/n2014033140. As far as her getting a degree from a legitimate institution, I can find no copy or record of a Master's Thesis or PhD dissertation in OCLC or ProQuest Digital Dissertations, which is a huge red flag. Nwyant (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * A newly-created editor added this unsourced content that was later removed, if it is of any use in a search: "Her dissertation on her own theory contrasting Sternberg's theory of love with the Maslovian hierarchical needs, and then applied it, hermeneutically, to existing data on relationships. Her original findings in her research are still being used today." This is not the sort of contribution that a stranger to her life or work would make. Regards,  Esowteric + Talk  08:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Her findings would not still be used today, unless her work has been published in some form.  Esowteric + Talk  08:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, looks like that may have come from any one of multiple [unverified] sources: Google search. Also Google Scholar search drew a blank for citations.  Esowteric + Talk  08:49, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I've spent more time on this today and found that her PhD program no longer exists at the Fielding Graduate Institute. Also, the FGI is not accredited by the national accreditation centers for higher education (that I can find). The only program they have that is accredited is their Phd in psychlogy, which was accredited by the American Psychological Association, but even that is questionable as they are on probation. Nwyant (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I got confused. Did she get her Masters and PhD from Fielding Graduate Institute (a former name of Fielding Graduate University)?  Esowteric + Talk  21:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Really not sure if the Daily Beast article should be the lead. From what I see she is all over the TV, has books, is influential on the Trump campaign. Might be better to create a controversy section that has the PhD items and others in it. I’ve seen that structure on other bio pages where the lead section is more high level biographical. Anglophile123 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Notability concerns
I have spent 30 mins trying to get better refs on the subject and am struggling. Can't find any proper WP:SIGCOV where she is the topic of a full piece by a good RS (hence the reason why the article still lacks basic BIO details like DoB etc.) It seems the only real RS on her is when she is controversy (e.g. Washington Post, Daily Beast and Guardian refs). I also can't get enough proper refs to be sure that she would meet NAUTHOR? Britishfinance (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I also have concerns about the copyvio of her photograph which appears on news sites as being copyrighted but an SPA loaded it up to commons claiming copyright? Britishfinance (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)