Talk:Laura Schlessinger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laura Schlessinger is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 26, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] 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. — 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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 (68.97.142.105 (talk · contribs)) 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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. - Tεxτurε 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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!)

[edit] 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".


See also Rind et al. (1998)

[*] Rind, B., Tromovitch, Ph. & Bauserman, R. (1998), "A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples". Psychological Bulletin. 124(1), 22-53,

(Jean 939 12:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] 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)

[edit] See also

Why pull the see also?Gator (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

All of the "greatest of all time" list articles such as Talkers magazine's 25 Greatest Radio Talk Show Hosts of All Time, List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, etc. are being thrown out of Wikipedia as copyright violations. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4 for the full story. Since I was the one who wrote up the two Talkers magazine lists articles, I felt obliged to clean up after them. Wasted Time R 18:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. Thanks.Gator (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)