Talk:Laura Schlessinger/Archive 1

Ext links
A bit heavy on external links embedded in the text; I mentioned this on User talk:Madhaus. -- Infrogmation 06:50, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * It's pretty disgusting how she is all gung ho for the Iraq "war" but her own son is in the military and she never mentions that he is going over there or planning to go. Do the math:  she has one and only one child + she's rich = he's not going.  She sure doesn't have a problem with other people's kids going over there and dying.  I hope she burns in hell right next to Dick Cheney.  Watch out for flying buckshot, Dr. Laura. &mdash; Popurbubble 17:32, 27 September 2006
 * It's pretty disgusting how some people are all gung ho about condemning other people and then not having the courage to sign one's own posts. I did the math, and added the signature myself.  Don't worry, you'll receive the same same contempt from Wikipedians that you have for Dr. Laura and Dick Cheney. Val42 04:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Laura's Jewish roots
Is it true Dr. Laura's father and his family came from Germany in the 1940's to escape Nazi persecution? I don't find it in the article, maybe an edit is worth while with the right resources to confirm it. Dr. Laura has mentioned in a few radio segments on the horrors of Nazism in a personal scale. I may suggest her conversion to Judaism has to do with her ancestral background, although most Jewish converts are simply choosing a religion fit for them. 207.200.116.201 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, if she is of German backgroud, there was no reason for the Nazis to persecute her parents. Most likely, they were Nazi sympathizers who escaped from Germany when it became clear that they would be defeated by the advancing Soviet troops. She probably converted out of feeling of guilt for her parents' possible collaboration with the Nazis. 66.65.129.159 (talk) 03:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone

 * Not a very encyclopedic tone either, which needs to be worked on. I don't like Dr Laura personally, but there are two sides to everyone. --Morven 08:08, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What I wasn't happy with was the elimination of so much of the content. I've added the links to the end (external links) but have re-added the events themselves to the controversy section. The two-sides bit could be addressed by adding more strengths rather than subtracting events showing her bad behavior. They were real, they hurt real people, and they are a matter of public record. Madhaus 06:42, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Your edits utterly failed to be NPOV and you removed the NPOV banner, so I reverted them. I fail to see what point there is and how it serves NPOV to list every single criticism leveled by people who disagree with her.  Anyone who talks for 21 hours a week and levels any opinion at all is bound to make mistakes and go overboard.  Listing every single such incident across the past 10+ years is highly non-neutral and does not improve the article.  These incidents could be summarized easily.  Daniel Quinlan 06:47, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

reverting
fine, I'll leave the banner in, but my additions are going back on. Let the editors decide who is right here, I added plenty of new content which you erased. Schlessinger is a controversial figure, and I am listing the controversies.

btw I am not listing every single controversy, if I did this article would be 100 times longer. Last week was Beth Goodman, this week she just attacked the entire Muslim religion. I'm not posting on that unless it gets a big media reaction, that's the basis for adding the controversies. Madhaus 07:22, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Your version of the criticism was so biased and slanted, it was basically impossible to edit. Some gems:
 * One of the few conservative right positions she did not embrace was gay-bashing. - Wow, very fair-minded. (Gay-bashing is a conservative position?  This is also POV and not even true.)
 * After September 11th, 2001, Schlessinger attempted to steer the show more toward politics than advice. Ratings dropped. At the height of the show's success, The Dr. Laura Show was heard on more than 450 stations. Today there are fewer than 300, and many stations either carry fewer than 3 hours or no longer carry the show live. Several major markets do not carry the show at all, such as New York, Chicago, and Baltimore. - POV, speculative, and draws strange conclusions (after September 11, a lot of stations switched to more politically focused conservative radio shows like Sean Hannity).
 * It is not clear what kind of Jew Schlessinger is at present, but it is the kind who broadcasts live on Yom Kippur. - this seems like garden variety anti-semitism to me.
 * In December, 2002, Schlessinger's mother Yolanda was found dead in her condominium, undiscovered for months. The lurid story stayed in the headlines because of a suspicion of murder. - implies Dr. Laura "did it"


 * It goes on and on with this sort of crap. I'm looking through the history to see if there's any less blatant versions that don't devolve into attack pieces.  Daniel Quinlan 09:18, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

you're taking too much out, I had smoothed out some of the NPOV stuff but you've already removed 75% of my writing. this has got to stop. I note you removed all the negative links and added a bunch of pro links. You are JUST as biased by turning this article in hagiography! Every one of those controversies was discussed exactly as I described, these are viewpoints held by many people, yes even the suggestion that she had something to do with the murder (even though she obviously didn't).

You are removing these viewpoints. You aren't toning them down, you are removing them and that is NOT acceptable.

I am reverting to my toned down version as your new version is biased in FAVOR of Laura Schlessinger and ignores the numerous problems that her show has caused both herself and many others. Look at the stuff you've said while editing, claiming "I never heard her say that so I'm taking it out." Look, unless you read the DAILY RECAPS over on the newsgroup, you aren't up to date on the show. I am.

I suggest we get someone with no opinion on Schlessinger at all to clean this up, but it should not be YOU. Madhaus 10:04, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)~


 * Please don't revert, I'm still working on it and I hope others who are more capable of writing in an NPOV fashion than you will help. Note that several other people have noted that the article is excessively negative and not NPOV.  I'm not alone here.  Daniel Quinlan 10:13, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

fine we agree on one thing: each of us feels the other is biased. But I wrote a bunch of original stuff, you're just destroying what I've built. Get someone else (and not Clayworth either). I'm okay with Morven or Infofrog. Madhaus 10:15, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I'd appreciate it if you did not add your blatantly POV criticism back into the article. I think I've shown adequate examples of how you cannot write about this person in a NPOV fashion.  You've only accused me of not including every attack you put into the article.  However, if you let me continue to work on the article, I will add more of it back in, but it will be NPOVed.  I doubt I will add all of it back in since it drones on a bit too long for an encyclopedia article.  I think it's best to focus on the major controversies (like her on-going conflict with gay rights groups) and focus less on stuff resolved in a week or less, which I think is hardly encyclopedic for someone on the radio 21 hours a week for the last 10 years.  I'd just summarize those that she's said stuff that she's later retracted and give one or two examples.  Daniel Quinlan

I told you I don't agree with the way you are editing my work, and I am going to revert or add back in what you don't cover fairly, and I repeat, someone ELSE should be NPOVing this, not you. I could give plenty of examples of your inaccuracies, starting with 21 hours a week (which you claimed twice), she only broadcasts 15 hours a week. You removed controversies that went on for months and mislabel them something resolved in a week. You claim the Yom Kippur comment is anti-Semitic, but you don't know enough about Judaism to know that somoene cannot call themselves a religious Jew and then work on the holiest day of the year, especially after berating other people for the same thing.


 * It's primarily how you said it, not the facts themselves. I do have several other concerns with this passage (which I removed), though:
 * it is not for Wikipedia to judge how "Jewish" someone is
 * lack of verification that she actually broadcast live on that day, prerecorded shows are frequent
 * not sure if Conservative Jews could broadcast on Yom Kippur without violating any tenets of Conservative Judiasm - yes, I don't know
 * Daniel Quinlan 11:13, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Major inaccuracies: that she identifies her degree on air frequently, totally false. The newsgroup recap flags it every time, it's a rarity. That she identifies herself as a former MFCC, completely false, the phrase she uses routinely is "I am a licensed practicitioner" or "counselor" or "therapist" but the point is she claims she is licensed (she is not, it's been inactive for years) and you remove this note and put in a verifiably false claim, again, see the daily recaps, this is another flagged item.


 * Okay, I clarified this a bit further in the article. Do you know what the difference between "inactive" and "licensed" is?  Perhaps she is drawing an excessively fine line and not technically lying.  Our article already mentions the criticism, though, so I'm not sure what you find lacking.  Articles should talk about criticism, not make criticism.  Daniel Quinlan 11:13, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

You want more? I could critique every one of your misleadering and inaccurate comments. You can claim NPOV all you want on my stuff, but there is nothing in there that is inaccurate, as opposed to your edits which are full of them.


 * Please do. If you make a good point, I'll respond and try to work it into the article or perhaps someone else will.  Your text is so over the top with editorializing, I found it easier and more expedient to rewrite the criticism, but it's entirely possible that you interpret something I've written as not being straightforwardly factual enough, but I tried.  Daniel Quinlan 11:13, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Again, I have far more background on this subject than you, if the problem is NPOV then someone ELSE edit for NPOV but you are deliberately destroying not editing. YOU Leave this page alone. 12.234.161.193 10:48, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I disagree, but I welcome efforts to improve the NPOV of the article. I won't support turning the article back into a criticism of Schlessinger rather than encyclopedia article that talks about criticism.  I encourage you to read NPOV and see if you can improve your ability to write dispassionately about subjects.  Daniel Quinlan 11:13, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)

Since I also made some edits here that have been reverted, time I spoke up. The reason I made edits is that this article is entirely negative. This woman is listened to by millions of people, carried by hundreds of radio stations, and the article has nothing positive to say about her at all. Why do people listen? The article gives us no idea. Why is there no mention of her childhood? (you'll find interesting stuff about it out there if you look). DJ Clayworth 15:00, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I corrected a small inaccuracy in the statements that stated all Canadian stations dropped the show. I changed it to most. Ian Nov 21


 * New comment...


 * Madhaus wrote, "After September 11th, 2001, Schlessinger attempted to steer the show more toward politics than advice. Ratings dropped."


 * Daniel Quinlan responds, " - POV, speculative, and draws strange conclusions (after September 11, a lot of stations switched to more politically focused conservative radio shows like Sean Hannity)."


 * Actually, Madhaus's statement is fact. It is confirmed by a press release, complete with downloadable vanity ad, published on the drlaura.com website: "DR. LAURA WINS THE WAR BOOK!  ("Book" = ratings.)  The most relevant topic for your listeners will always be family and relationships."


 * "People may want to listen to the news, but they want to talk about themselves – even in wartime, as Dr. Laura's winter book dramatically testifies.


 * "Because of the war in Iraq, AM talk stations focused on news and information. The common wisdom among broadcasters was that Americans would want all news, all the time.  But as is so often the case, the common wisdom wasn't all that wise.  Said David Hall, Senior VP of Talk Programming, 'We tried to recast Dr. Laura's show to focus on the war, but the callers just wouldn't cooperate.'"


 * Those of us who follow the show heard Laura try to steer "more towards politics than advice." Check some of the recaps or maybe even listen to archived shows at her website, if that's possible.  --Margaret, November 22

Madhaus's statement is POV and speculative (not to mention being a bit over the top) since it concludes her ratings dropped because the show changed. The article should stick to reporting facts and avoid drawing conclusions or including the POV of the editor. The article already talks about her station count dropping from its peak.

Incidentally, my impression is that she tried recasting the show somewhat because she was losing stations immediately after September 11th. I think you're switching the chicken and the egg. For example, my local station switched to Sean Hannity for a solid three hours after September 11 and moved her show to a later slot. Her show went back to being live again sometime earlier this year. It seems more like the general audience (or perhaps moreso the stations) wanted different programming for a time, but that was not what her audience wanted, or perhaps her format and expertise didn't suit the topic. Daniel Quinlan 12:20, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * By the way, do you have the source for the David Hall quote? It might be interesting enough to work into the recent history of the show.  Daniel Quinlan 12:23, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

As of December 3, the article focussed almost exclusively on "negative" stuff, particularly the backlash from gay-rights supporters who seem to find her "anti-gay" for some reason.

Perhaps the article should also say something nice about her? Or cast some of the negative stuff as "attempts to smear her"?

Better yet, the article should summarize her views; describe how others interpret her views; and summarize or list ad nauseum the ways people have tried to stop her views from gaining a wider audience. --Uncle Ed 18:59, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please go ahead. I always know an article is in trouble when the 'criticisms' section is more than twice as long as the rest of the article. DJ Clayworth 19:06, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't care enough to do anything beyond leaving it up to other folks if they want to drop the link back in, but Gator1's characterization of the Wired News piece isn't quite correct, aside from the fact that it is now seven years old. It's not really a hit piece -- Schlessinger's experience is used as a way of describing changes in the content of the culture -- and is only nn in the sense that it's written by "The Sucksters", a collective appellation for pieces written by the folks over at Suck.com. The language is a little coarse, it certainly doesn't flatter Schlessinger, and might even, in talking about shrewishness, be a little misogynistic in its tone. But it's not a hit piece and actually seems most directly to be talking about Kenneth Starr as a "bitch"; Schlessinger, though, can reasonably be said to have been tagged in inference. In any event, the link certainly isn't vital to the entry, but I'd submit that it's a reasonable source. Adbarnhart 19:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right that it isn't a hit piece. But it's also not suitable as a general reference or external link, since it isn't really about Dr. Laura per se but rather a constellation of late 90s cultural-political trends. It is however useful as a cite for likening Dr. Laura to Judge Judy, and I've introduced it and that point in the Radio show section accordingly.  Wasted Time R 20:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable (and, indeed, more appropriate) to me. Best. Adbarnhart 22:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral editing
First, let me state that I know nothing of Schlessinger and her show. This will probably become evident from some of the following questions:
 * Is Schlessinger's affair with Bishop a documented fact, or a widely held suspicion? Could we either attribute it or reword it (e.g., "...she met Dr. Lewis G. Bishop, who was married with dependent children, and it is widely believed that they began an affair."
 * "She also discussed matters with her local Orthodox Rabbi, Moshe D. Bryski." It's not at all clear to me what matters she discussed. This needs to be clarified.
 * "and was the commencement speaker at Hillsdale College in June, 2003." Is this the only commencement speech she gave? Or is it a particularly notable event? Otherwise, it seems strange to call it out specifically.
 * It seems we take a lot of space for direct quotes from the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Couldn't we concisely summarize the rulings, and actually improve the clarity? The language used in the rulings is not particularly lucid.
 * "...Schlessinger's own donations to the foundation are her name and the proceeds from the necklaces she makes and then auctions." Does this mean that the foundation pays for the publicity Schlessinger provides to the foundation on her show? Otherwise, this could be seen as a "donation to the foundation" as much as her name. Also, it would be good, if such information is available, to indicate a dollar amount of the donation from the sale of the necklaces. As it is, the reader doesn't know if these necklaces are made from yarn and paper clips, or from gold and diamonds.

Finally, I'm wondering if the neutrality of this article is still disputed. Can those who were invovled in the dispute review the article to see if issues still remain? Thanks.


 * -Anthropos 08:14, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)

I think it probably is disputed. For all the reasons you mention above. Here are some others:
 * Criticism of women who engage in sex outside marriage as "presenting themselves virtually as unpaid whores"
 * Criticism of teenaged girls who wear croptops as "sluts").

These are left over from early form of the article, when it was very biased indeed, and I haven't seen any references for them. While I can imagine the first being said, the second sounds like the sort of thing no sane radio presenter would say without qualification, but a biased editor would pick up and strip off the qualification. Did she say they "dress like sluts"? "make themselves look like sluts"? Or what? DJ Clayworth 20:52, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Why TV show cancelled
How does this page manage to discuss the cancellation of her TV show without discussing the fact that it sucked? What's NPOV for lacklustre, unexciting, tedious, unimaginative? "Unpraised by critics"? -- Nunh-huh 07:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The NPOV for all these words is "the show was cancelled". DJ Clayworth 13:47, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Replies to recent comments
DJ Clayworth asked about the quotes above (unpaid whores, teenaged girls as sluts); this is all documented in the Usenet group alt.radio.talk.dr-laura where the show is summarized every day and the choicer quotes, such as those, are called out. I've heard her say them, and what's more, so have others, and they have posted there about it. I agree with DJ that no sane radio presenter would say such a thing without qualification, and I further state that these were said without qualification. I listen to this show because it is train wreck theatre, it's so shockingly bizarre you just cannot turn it off.

I will add the link to the Usenet group in since it is a good source for verifying almost all the history and controversy.

Anthropos raises some great points. if I can get that info I will add it in.
 * The tax returns on the foundation are about 2-3 years out of date but I'll try to find the latest analysis.
 * I admit I probably can't edit this piece for NPOV but I have plenty of good material. I did try to say some nice things and I took out a false comment that she was a single mom, that's not true.  She was divorced but her son was born after she married her 2nd husband and they are still married.
 * The affair with Bishop is documented.
 * The matters she discussed with Bryski were how to cover ethical/moral points she raised on the show.
 * Hillsdale was important for 2 reasons: it's a training ground for very conservative kids (or their parents) (ranked low in the third tier by US News, but their college prexy receives a higher salary than most first-tier school prexies), and Schlessinger's son had enrolled there, probably at her direction. I do not know of any other college that invited her to give a commencement speech.

Nunh-huh is right, the TV show was spectacularly bad. She's still on radio and not TV because she stayed away from controversy on TV so it was dull, dull, dull.

--Madhaus 09:52, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Any more issues causing the disputed NPOV flag? Please post them here so we can clean them up to everyone's concern. I tried rephrasing arguments as coming from either supporters or detractors. I will remove flag if no comments here within 14 days. --Madhaus 07:48, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

Deleting NPOV dispute
Having made my announcement 14 days ago and receiving no response, I am removing the neutrality dispute tagline from this article. Please discuss here if neutrality issues continue. --Madhaus 07:14, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)

Re: Category:Homosexuality. Do we really think this category ia appropriate? Is everybody who has ever expressed an opinion on homosexuality to be including the category? COuld make it big. DJ Clayworth 13:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't have a strong feeling about it either way. Schlessinger is one of the best known people for making anti-gay statements but hasn't made them publicly in 3 years. Rather than use that category I'd put her under "conservative pundits" or something to that effect. --Madhaus 06:18, 2004 Oct 4 (UTC)

Moral ops
I was reading through her moral opinions and noticed Couples who lived together before marrying are more likely to divorce. was included. I was under the impression that this is a matter of empirical fact (in that it is both true, and not an opinion) rather than a moral opinion. Should this therefore be included? -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Perceived Hypocrisy" section is POV
Just read it. It's flagrantly defensive of Schlessinger and not neutral. Highlighted pertinent excerpts:

The fact that Schlessinger is herself divorced has often led to allegations from her opposition ( who try their hardest to find fault in anything whatsoever that she does ) that she does not practice the same high moral standards she preaches, '''even though she divorced many, many years ago, and she has seen the error of her ways. God forbid we learn from past mistakes. This also applies to parents who were past drug users. Clearly, these parents should not try to teach their children that drugs are bad, because that would label them a hypocrite.''' The nude photo controversy certainly did not help this reputation.

Jagan 02:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The user responsible for the POV issues has removed most of what s/he inserted, so my revert to Kelly Martin just cleaned up the leftovers. Does the article look okay now? If so, feel free to remove the POV check template. -- Hadal 03:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That's fine. I wouldn't have had a problem with a rephrase (such as "supporters point out that said divorce was years ago and that she has 'seen the error of her ways'"), but I've removed the POV check. Thanks. If someone wants to do something like that they can, as far as I'm concerned; just keep it as an objective survey of both opinions. Jagan 20:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hatchet Job
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 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 likee what she sa?

This article has got to change.

jucifer 23:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Great! Go for it! --Muchosucko 00:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I did some quick NPOV surgery on the article. If you think it's ok now, take off the NPOV tag.   Wasted Time R 01:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

With nude pics being add BACK on after being take off (for good reason) even if NPOV is taken off by disputer, I will make my own challenge. This article has a real NPOV problem and it's way beyond the nude pics problem. AFethke 17:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Nude pix are back out. But you gotta say what else you specifically object to.   Wasted Time R 17:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I made edits and here are my explanations to most of them. Same sex marriage is not "common" in America so I took it out.

USC contract renewal et al: Makes it sound like she was fired and who givesa crap if her husabnd left a tenured position....maybe a cie for this would help.

Clear Channel: the implication is unnecessary and it implies she's a corporate shill. She has always been conservative.

call volume: If the listneer stats are cited, this should too.

Book descritption: Just not true and makes it sound like she's telling women to be slaves  BS

Anything they wish: Not true again, the quote is more accurate.

1099 langauge. Implies she only dioes the cahrity to work to get the tax deduction. Who the heck is she SUPPOSED to claim it under?

MFCC studies: Who are these "academics." Cite it.

Yom Kippur apology:

If they are going to be quote,s you've got to cite it or its' just POV. This goes for gay callers being banned.

E-mail: ENOUGH already, we get it, she doesn't like homosexuality and homosexuals don't like her, I got it!

Sailing and leavng orthodox judaism: It implies she left areligion to go sailing.....please.

Removed inactive links. Why are they there is inactive?

These are my problems with the article. If we can compromise I won't have a problem.AFethke 20:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

As of now, I am satisfied that the article is sufficiently NPOV. If the anon user ever removes the challenge, I won't object.AFethke 20:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

What are we going to do about the neutrality challenge? I think it's pretty clear that Jucifer is not going to respond and has not participated in the discussion. Anyone else in favor of removing it now that we have made extensive edits? If we don't I fear it will stay there forever.AFethke 03:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

 * "I brought my son up to be a warrior"
 * "I think what he’s doing is so important, and so noble, that I’m willing to face what I need to face. I’m so proud to have produced someone with such character – willing to put his life on the line."
 * Not sure I see the role of these quotes? Her son is barely mentioned in the article, other than the fact he's articling at a college Sherurcij 00:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Mentioned his joining the US Army with intent of Special Forces, so this is fixed.  Wasted Time R 16:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Nude Pictures Controversy Section Being Removed
I would like an explanation why the nude pictures controversy is POV. I specifically edited it to remove anything that could be seen as POV. It happened and it is noteworthy. Is the sex tape section in the Paris Hilton page POV as well? This is not the Dr. Laura fan-club, this is an encyclopedia, please re-write the section in a manner that you think is appropriate instead of just deleting it. One simply cannot remove sections without at good reason, and I fail to see how the section is anything but NPOV (NPOV means non-point of view, that's a GOOD THING). I want to know exactly what the "good reason" for removing the section is. MicahMN | Talk 20:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that there should be some mention of this controversy. It needs to be in there somewhere, whether in a section of its own or dropped in somewhere else.  Leaving it out is POV by ommission. -  Tεx  τ  urε  20:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but here's my take on it. It's a touchy subject because it is somewhat noteworthy but can easily taint the article if discussed too much. I say, let's note that some nude pics were published on the Internet by an ex-lover some time ago and that some people saw this is as hypocrisy. Anything more than that is just an excuse to drag her name though the mud. Oh and I would draw a distinction between the fairly recent Hilton nude porn tape and some old nude pics. It's not the same. Analogies are very dangerous things.


 * My point was that I feel that the section was removed because some editors thought that it made her look bad. I did re-write, condense, and remove POV parts to the nude photo section, but they were removed without a reason as to why the new section was POV. I'll concede, after re-reading the Perceived hypocrisy section, the nude pictures line was a little POV, and it should either not be restored or re-written. MicahMN | Talk 20:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I've restored a brief mention of them in the Perceived hypocrisy section. The whole thing isn't very notable because everybody has some skeletons in their closet, and who wants them out on the Internet?  Of course the first thing she did is deny they were of her, that would be anyone's first reaction.  Then she tried to get it stopped, which would be anyone's second reaction.  Big deal.   Wasted Time R 20:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, not really.. an honest person would own up to it. 'Course, Laura isn't an honest person. But then, honest people don't preach about morality and the decrepitude of various acts that they themselves have committed, and castigate those who do- with no mention of their own violations. It's notable. It indicates more lies and a lack of maturity in owning up to something that happened twenty-something years ago- which is how she spun it, of course. Dan 21:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and am on board with the new nude pic stuff now. AFethke 20:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Embedding the nude pictures information (an extremely noteworthy occurance, by the way) into the "History" section is disengenuous and sneeky. It deserves its own section as much as the aforementioned Paris Hilton tape, Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee's vacation video (which as a picture on their's for gawdssake!). People who insist upon deleting or hiding this information are simply trying to whitewash Schlessinger's reputation. I'll put it back if ti gets deleted again, and I invite others to do the same.

Holy Hagiography, Batman, What Have You Done To This Page?
Holy cow, I'm one of the people who wrote quite a lot of this page over the years... where the heck did all this information go! I figured before re-adding stuff I'd read through the discussion and see why people did what they did. I find that in "correcting" for perceived negative POV this article has now become far, far too pro-Schlessinger, asserting positive opinions as facts, removed negative facts because people (above) refuse to believe them despite all the citations I've put in (and was told by style people to take out because they linked to to many external references which is not how Wiki articles supposedly work). If you check out this very early version (July 2003) of the page you'll see how I documented just about everything.

I am extremely unhappy with the current page, with the removal of so much crucial information, and the non-neutral presentation of positive opinion as settled history. I will begin to edit for this, restoring major history in a more compact form (because of the warning on the article size) and rewriting some statements by attributing them to supporters rather than asserting them. There is more than I can address now so I'll do so here when I start editing. I would ask we get someone with no connection to this page to check for any NPOV violations once I do so as I haven't been the best person to do that in the past.

Anyway, I fail to see how an article about a "controversial radio host" can describe her without describing the controversy. Mentioning the nude pictures but dismissing them as "long-ago" misses the point; the issue was not how long ago the pictures were taken but how Schlessinger handled the situation, namely lying about it and then suing people. Schelssinger has sued a lot of people. Every mention of her numerous lawsuits has been removed from this article. Why?

Schlessinger also attacks private citizens on her radio show, all that was removed as well. Why? This is important; most radio talk shows handle controversies of the day, not drag in unknown people and turn them into new public discussion issues.

The whole sailing while advocating Orthodox Judaism was covered, meticulously, in the newsgroup that follows her, alt.radio.talk.dr-laura. Most of the more unusual comments she's made were logged there as well. Again, I would cite but I was told by Wiki regulars this is not proper style.

Again, I'm just appalled at the editing done to this article. The structural editing is good (new sections and order) but the removal of what made Schlessinger a controversial figure is gone and that needs to come back in some form.

Responding to a few of the comments made since I last updated the article:

SocratesJedi asked if it is "fact" about couples who live together first being more likely to divorce. That's an interesting question since they aren't comparable groups so it may be a meaningless fact. Was the study corrected for restrictive religions (no divorce), age, number of marriages, etc.? A better study would show the living/not-living together groups were otherwise similar. What's also to note is how Schlessinger often mentions this study as if it applies to every single person, rather than over large groups, and as if the correlation was 1.0 rather than whatever the study found.

Jagan objects to the Perceived Hypocrisy section because it's negative. Hypocrisy is one of the biggest reasons Schlessinger collects detractors. It ought to be there, perhaps in more summarized form.

Jucifer felt the article was too negative. Again, I did my best to include what is rather than what I think. I can't help it if Jucifer didn't already know this was out there, Wiki is there to inform. I listed the large number of people Schlessinger insulted just to give a sense of why she is controversial, yes she really has insulted these groups at one time or another, most of them repeatedly. Again, all logged in the newsgroup.

AFethke made a lot of changes/removals I strongly object to. The USC dismissal was cited in the Bane bio but not online except in the newsgroup where it was discussed. AF is incorrect in saying Schlessinger was always conservative; this is completely and demonstrably false. The conservatism began in 1996 and wasn't firmly aligned with social conservative movements until 1998. But Schlessinger has been on-air nationally since 1994, and in the LA region for years before that, with her own set ideas that would not be described as conservative. All that summary was removed, losing the historical context of how her views have evolved. I put it there for exactly this reason: to inform.

Call volume: it peaked and now it's down, what more is there to say? Only Schlessinger and her show can give out that info and they don't give it out. But from the number of callers who say "I can't believe I got through so fast" it's clear that it's down substantially from the peak.

The objection to how I described the book isn't exactly helpful, but many published critics had a similar description.

Foundation: it is odd that Schlessinger started a foundation and gave to little of her own resources to it while asking so much of her listeners. Many celebrities start charities, most give more of themselves than their name. I mentioned the 1099 to cite the lack of financial support by Schlessinger, and the curiosity of asking her listeners to do all the work and supply all the goodies while she took the deduction.

MFCC studies, again the problem with cites... Wiki old-timers told me to avoid external references.

The Yom Kippur apology story is well documented on several sites but again I have the external reference problem. Google it up since you don't seem to believe anything I've put there. Right now the article mentions the apology but not the aftermath, that it was not accepted, and why. I will be adding it back in.

The sailing story is fully documented on the newsgroup and is one of the most fascinating pieces of detective work I've ever seen there. The races were on the Santa Barbara Yacht Club website... she won a race, but it was on a Saturday so she didn't mention it on the show. Races she won on Wednesday or Sunday were always mentioned on-air. It was just like the joke where God made the minister get a hole-in-one on Sunday (Who is he gonna tell?) When this hit publicly, she made her religious withdrawal announcement within days. This ties back to the hypocrisy issue; when someone publicly, repeatedly, and completely aligns themself with a religion, going so far to attack others for not having a similar set of beliefs, and is then caught breaking this religion's rules... that is news. This is Bill Bennett gambling. This is Jim Bakker and Jessica Hahn. It's the entire story.

Anyway, I hope this explains why I'm going to start re-adding axed content to this page, and why. I will be back, everyone, to do this right. I would appreciate your help in doing so within the bounds of a good Wiki article. Madhaus 21:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're free to edit, of course, but fair warning, there HAS been alot of discussion on all of these edits and you're about to open up a real s--t storm here on an article that as been COMPLETELY quiet for almot two months (good thing an AMAZING for Wikipedia). Have fun, but be warned. I forsee an NPOV tag being slapped on this thing as all of the edits achieved consensus after VIGOROUS debate. Reversing all of these edits might be, in your opinion, the right thing to do, but be prepared to go to war with editors (other than myself I'm out). Have fun!Gator1 21:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Another thing. You state that people who edited shouldn't partcipate and that someone not attached to the article should do a NPOV check. Does that include you? Because you are intimately attached to the article as it was many of YOUR edits that were overturned. Don't you think you should recuse yourself too and just make your arguments here and try an convicne other people o amke your edits for you? That would seem more consistent than sayign that you're the only one who can edit this now. Just an after thought. No offense of course.Gator1 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Gator! No I am not suggesting I am the only one to make edits; I am referring to a much earlier edit war where a couple users were constantly reverting my stuff without clear explanation. I had to post at great length to support what I did and I'm doing so again now. They would accuse me of making things up when I had cites for everything. It was very frustrating because I felt an alternate reality was being brought in. That's why I wanted a neutral party to do the NPOV work, since clearly neither I nor they could be objective about it. I gave my reasons above why I want to bring things back, and I really see the current article as avoiding too much of why she is a "controversial radio host" rather than just a "radio host." I wasn't around during the latest changes or I would have been part of a great deal of the discussion above so the "stable for 2 months" really isn't enough of a reason to leave items out, but I will do my best to keep it brief. And my most recent version of the article was stable for a lot longer than 2 months, should everyone else have left it alone? Madhaus 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm one of the people who helped trim down the article. Madhaus, I know your postings from the Usenet newsgroup back when I used to read it and occasionally write to it, and I believe all your contributions were carefully researched and truthful. Nevertheless, they did add up to a hatchet job. Like it or not, Dr Laura had/has a huge audience, and the article has to point out why that is, so that a Dr Laura fan can read the article and think it a fair treatment. That was impossible with the old article, which incessantly hammered away at the same negative themes over and over. The current article makes it clear, say, that Laura detractors consider her guilty of hypocrisy; piling on numerous additional examples of this hypocrisy is unnecessary. In other cases your article piled onto Deryk, which I thought over the line (if you've ever known a child who was an academic disappointment to his/her parents, you know that it's a difficult situation for all involved). In sum, your article basically read like a courtroom legal brief against Dr Laura, and while it may have been an accurate and justified brief from your point of view, it was not what the Wikipedia article for Dr Laura needs to be. Wasted Time R 23:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see the paragraph about Beach Access restored. El Ingles 15:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

POV problems
As has been stated by other editors on this talk page, this article has serious POV problems. It makes multiple negative accusations against Dr. Laura Schlessinger without any sourcing. This is a serious problem, especially because this is a BLP article. Any suggestion as to how to fix this article are welcome. If no reliable sourcing is provided within two days a month, I will begin removing moving unsourced material from the article to this talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um no, threatening to remove content is unhelpful. I suggest you start by asking for cites using cn on the two or three facts that you feel are most dubious and need sourcing, allow time for other editors who are willing to add sourcing to do so. As of this writing there is no statement indicating that someone thinks they need verifying. Once those items are sources see if there are a few more that are also dubious and repeat the cycle. In this way the worst stuff will be systematically sourced or removed. -- Banj e  b oi   20:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll place cite tags on the worst sections and wait for editors to add sourcing. SMP0328. (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Close but not quite, first off avoid the WP:Deadline; secondly tagging whole sections has already been done and no one has stepped up to rewrite the whole article or sections. So, tag specific facts and sentences; just the few worst things you really think are untrue and see if anyone steps up. Our goal is an accurate and neutral article. It may take a little while to get there. -- Banj e  b oi   21:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those sections have almost no sourcing, so tagging an entire section means every sentence that isn't sourced need sourcing. It isn't necessary to individually tag each sentence. What makes you think individually tagging each sentence would improve our chances of getting sourcing? SMP0328. (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Because I'm willing to look for sourcing but I'm not invested in rewriting everything. As a general rule, or IMHO based on experience, tagging specific facts as dubious is more effective. It gives a specific problem area that needs to improve on the article. If your not going to do the sourcing yourself then it makes sense to work with whatever method achieves the same ends. I don't think I've seen section tagging as being terribly effective to getting sources added. -- Banj e  b oi   22:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I said all unsourced sentences in a tagged section need sourcing. That's why there's no need to tag individual sentences. Additionally, this article is clearly tilted toward showing Dr. Laura in a bad light, the best example being the Controversies section. SMP0328. (talk) 22:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. OK let's get back on track here. Stating a whole section is unsourced is a valid concern but doesn't mean the actual content is untrue or POV. To retain the POV tag we need specific actionable items other editors can address if you are unwilling or unable. Stating a whole section is untrue can be addressed, it either is or isn't. If you can't be bothered to target specific facts that are dubious - likely false that is - this feels more like a case of "I like it" vs. "I don't like it." My initial reading is that all this content is true and verifiable. If you are unwilling to specify which statements you feel must have sourcing to remain then likely we should trim back all the tags to a basic one at the top hat the entire article simply needs more sourcing. -- Banj e b oi   01:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Personal history, Publications, Foundation and Controversies sections contain little or no sourcing. The last one is the worst offender, because it also contains numerous allegations against Dr. Laura which are not sourced. Moving the contents of that section into various other sections wouldn't help, because they would still be unsourced. If I can remove that section from the article, and place it on this talk page, I would be willing to remove the POV tag from the article. Do you have any objections to me doing that? SMP0328. (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Views on contraception
I noticed that Dr. Schlessinger had expressed critical views on contraception, defending Pope Benedict XVI in a debate about the distribution of condoms in Africa. This could maybe be added to the article as a way of describing some of her conservative opinions. ADM (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversies section
I, SMP0328. (talk), have removed the following the section for being undersourced and for violating NPOV: —Preceding unsigned comment added by SMP0328. (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added sources to the areas that were most lacking. I made some factual corrections and edited the phrasing of the Qualifications section. If there are areas that you believe still need sources, please use  or another inline citation-request template. Also, please explain why you think this section violates NPOV: in the absence of a justification or of consensus for this removal, I have restored the rest of the sections. Whatever404 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend you read this discussion. That section contains material which is trivial and only serve to try to paint Dr. Laura Schlessinger in a bad light. It is far from neutral. That's why I removed it. Why do believe it warrants inclusion in the article? SMP0328. (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable and sourcible controversies and criticism need to be included per NPOV. Removing content like this only ensures to inflame tensions which is unproductive. -- Banj e  b oi   03:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The section
This section is a previous version. In some areas of the following section and subsections, the article content has changed.

New POV tag
In order to keep the POV tag in place please present specific actionable items that other editors can address if you are unwilling or unable. Please note saying it needs more sources is unhelpful, stating which statements are likely untrue and needs sourcing is; Saying everything is POV isn't productive, citing specific examples and proposing more NPOV language is. -- Banj e b oi   03:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for the POV tag now that the Controversies section has been merged into the rest of the article. Since the merger, that material no longer is given undue weight. I thank Banjeboi for the excellent job he did in conducting the merger. SMP0328. (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't I own Canadians?
This is from the Economist: Maybe this widely posted spoof can be mentioned in the article? Ikip (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think not. The above quoted letter is clearly a thinly veiled criticism of Dr. Laura's disapproval of homosexuality. Her disapproval and the criticism of it is already mentioned in the article. There's no need to add that sarcastic letter. SMP0328. (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Too few viewpoints tag
I have collated and rearranged, not really adding anything except a few new cites. It seems that the positive side of Dr. Laura and her opinions are under-represented. I will look for some of this and will add to the article later. In the meantime, I have added the too few tag.KeptSouth (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversies
Banjeboi did a very a good job about six months ago removing the controversies section and incorporating it all into the rest of the article. Since then, some idiot decided to shove it back in there. Unless I see a very good reason to the contrary, I'm going to remove it and revert the article in the manner he had rewritten it. Trusilver 08:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's when that damn section was restored. It was done by KeptSouth as part of a long series of edits. SMP0328. (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the section from the article and placed it here:

{{hidden|Removed section: Controversies|