Talk:Laurie David

Air Travel Controversy
Can some boffin please put what the 'average family carbon footprint(uk Family)' is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.236.154 (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am confused with this talk page, and this article in general as it has no section of "biography" for her. I think this picture: http://wholelifetimes.com/2006/04/img/lauriedavid0604.jpg should be put up of Laurie David but I dont know how to do it:(

The issue not a NPOV problem; as I wrote it, both sides are covered. The issue is notable -- it has been addressed in Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, Nightline (where was addressed in an interview), and elsewhere. Widespread criticism in mainstrean media that has been addressed by the subject is certainly relevant for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion or fluff pieces. I am re-adding the section with additional background and references. Dbchip 14:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Your edit hardly covers "both sides."  I will rewrite it to make it less POV.  Laurie David being questioned about the same baseless charge (which she has refuted) is hardly "widespread criticism."  Wikipedia is not a platform for political hit pieces.  At least three editors have removed Goldberg's comments and the fake "airline controversy" nonsense.  These editors are in consensus, and that is why such nonsense was (and will continue to be) deleted. Eleemosynary 04:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (Removed POV (including Times coverage that does not directly address David), and Bernie Goldberg self-promotion) DId you read the NYT article?  She is directly named in paragraph three.  Also, how is linking the book "self-promotion?"  I can assure you that I'm not Bernie Goldberg. Dbchip 05:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the article. She is mentioned in it, but the language you quoted does not directly address her.  Your edit made it seem like the Times writer used those statistics to directly criticize Laurie David.  In the context of the article, he did nothing of the sort.  Your previous edit could be contstrued as extremely disingenuous.  I didn't assume you were Bernie Goldberg, but his book is self-promotion.  Goldberg using David as a target in his book is admittedly sleazy, but it's not encyclopedic.  If you don't want the article to be a puff piece, try not to make it a hit piece. Eleemosynary 05:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added sections, including one for the paragraph about criticism of her use of a private jet. Since she gets the last word in it, it is still probably pro-David POV, but at least readers can judge for themselves by the fact that controversy exists. 4.243.206.84 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the article already covers her global warming activism, it should also cover the sourced info that proves she doesn't practice what she preaches. To have the former without the later would make the article unbalanced. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply to User:Eleemosynary
Hi, User:Eleemosynary. Regarding your reverts to Laurie David, I disagree that consensus has been reached since every revert by one editor clearly is a disagreement with another and there has been no discussion here. I can't speak for past edits, but my most current contribution presented both sides to offer a neutral point of view and cite very credible sources in mainstream media. The controversy section only contains documented facts from credible sources, including the subject of the article. Please discuss any further changes in Talk:Laurie David. Dbchip 04:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See above. Eleemosynary 04:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to User:Eleemosynary
Hi User:Eleemosynary. You don't at all find it noteworthy that a top champion against global warming produces nearly five times the annual CO2 output of an average US citizen just for holiday travel? BrushlessInSeattle 19:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Karl Rove Verbal Beatdown
Witnesses say Laurie David approached Karl Rove's table, was verbally abusive and asked to leave. It seemed a partisan issue really unrelated to the rest of her work so I removed it. It reflects poorly on Laurie David and almost makes it look like she went out of her way to go over to Karl Rove's table and harass him. []


 * Which is probably the case. However, I'm not sure how it could be incorporated into a Wikipedia article without making the article un-encyclopedic. 4.243.206.84 18:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected 1 week
I have semi-protected this article for 1 week (as well as blocked one IP for edit-warring over insertion of said material, in violation of WP:BLP) as a result of tabloid buzz (apparently coming from Star (magazine)). Supermarket tabloids cannot be used as reliable sources for potentially negative and libellous information; another more reliable source will be needed for the claims that have been going on. –MuZemike 20:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Flat out wrong. I should remind the above user that it was the supermarket tabloid The National Enquirer that broke the John Edwards extramarital affair and some editors insisted that Wikipedia shouldn't mention it because of the story's source.  That was the wrong choice.  The National Enquirer came close to winning a Pulitzer for that story. --Oakshade (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make them any more reliable. They rolled the dice, and they happened to be right. This has been discussed many times before on similar BLPs. –MuZemike 20:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being nominated for a Pulitzer does indicate they are reliable. Your original research "rolling the dice" opinion is noted, but has nothing to do with reality. When a story goes beyond the original report and covered by more non-tabloid stories, the story itself becomes notable.  I'm not saying it should be written here "David had an affair with Gore," but it being presented as reports from the tabloid Star magazine report they had an affair sourced by other reliable sources and perhaps quotes from those who deny the affair would not be a violation of WP:BLP.  The stipulation that it doesn't matter that the Edwards affair was reported by reliable sources because it was originated by the National Enquirer was exactly the argument used by those who felt there shouldn't even be a mention of it.  That was obviously the wrong line of thinking. --Oakshade (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relevant discussions regarding the reliability of such sources include the following:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive612 (with regards to the now-deleted Vera Baker article)
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 40
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 19
 * That being said, I have no problem with somebody reevaluating the reliability of such sources (i.e. another trip to WP:RSN), and I would be happy to unprotect if stuff from actual reliable sources do start coming in regarding her affair. –MuZemike 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Something else to consider here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/15/laurie-david-al-gore-affa_n_613211.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.15 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. I don't know how reliable the New York Daily News is, but they posted something . However, they seem to be just going off what Star is saying. –MuZemike 21:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The New York Daily News is a legitimate newspaper and a paper of record. There's no reason to not post the news of a possible affair if it appeared in the Daily News.Simplemines (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "There's no reason to not post the news of a possible affair"? You do know what Wikipedia is right? Feudonym (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The story has been picked up by a large number of mainstream publications. The Daily Mail is a major mainstream newspaper. Its also been mentioned in the Washington Post. The story is so widely reported now that the lack of mention here seems odd. 70.234.196.237 (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as the other sources are just saying, "The Star alleges", there's nothing close to a BLP-compliant source here. The Daily News and Daily Mail are tabloids little more credible than the Star. PhGustaf (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When the subject is publically making statements on the story in question to reputable sources (Time Magazine among others), its strange to act as if the story does not exist. . Her agent has given interviews to people magazine. The story has also appeared in the Washington post and been covered by USA today. Its also ironic that while the New York Post has multiple current citations in the article, it is said that it has no credibility. 70.234.196.237 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laurie David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607135408/http://www.nypost.com/seven/06052007/gossip/pagesix/newly_single_pagesix_.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/06052007/gossip/pagesix/newly_single_pagesix_.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070109191258/http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ to http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Laurie David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602031434/http://www.nypost.com/seven/05302009/gossip/pagesix/lauries_vineyard_violation_171597.htm to http://www.nypost.com/seven/05302009/gossip/pagesix/lauries_vineyard_violation_171597.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20041012093237/http://www.childrensnatureinstitute.org/dinner/dinner2003.html to http://www.childrensnatureinstitute.org/dinner/dinner2003.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070808212821/http://chicagolife.net/content/interview/Behind_An_Inconvenient_Truth to http://chicagolife.net/content/interview/Behind_An_Inconvenient_Truth

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing COI template
I see that a COI template was added by Johnnie Bob on April 7, 2021, likely because user 2601:18e:8300:8a00:2851:2c0:206e:b003 made some edits suggesting they were editing their own page. However these edits seem to be consistent with allowable edits to correct misinformation according to WP:AUTO#IFEXIST. There's no evidence this person was a "major contributor" to this wikipage and it now seems to have a NPOV tone. Please let me know if you have any objections to the template's removal. Nnev66 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Trying again to reach Johnnie Bob now that I know how to properly ping. I'd like to remove the COI template on this page (see above). Nnev66 (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly have no objection to the removal of the template. This was placed a long time ago and the article has undergone substantial changes (and improvements) since that time. Johnnie Bob (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and context Johnnie Bob. Good to know there wasn't anything more to it. Nnev66 (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I waited to see if anyone had any objections to removing the "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" tag. Since no one has spoken up I'm going to remove it for the reason noted above, i.e. it appears an IP address who may have been the subject made corrections but I don't see evidence of an editor being a major contributor. Nnev66 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)