Talk:Louise Linton

Instagram

I want to note that LL's mockery of a woman on twitter should absolutely be on this page. She is a woman of few accomplishments, and this action of hers is very newsworthy, given who her husband is. I don't like how much censorship is going on right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiculalinguae (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news site, but Louise Linton's escapades on Instagram are getting a lot of coverage. It's worth discussing: should it be included? Here's a ref for context for those who are unaware of what we're talking about. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone has already started deleting her Instagram mentions after you put it up, I reposted it, but it would be best if we could protect her page. I've never done that before, does anyone know how to do this? VeritasVeritas (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

This page has been added to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection already ... Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Too late the entire controversies section has been removed Chaosfeminist (talk) 01:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Law school accreditation

This article mentions that the law school she went to is "unaccredited", but the university's page says it's accredited by the State Bar of California (though not the American Bar Association). Should "unaccredited" be removed or reworded?JKNJwrites (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Does any of this really matter? I understand you can pass the bar without taking a single class. You can practice law as a high school dropout, if you are able to pass. Few ever do this.2605:E000:AA1F:E400:41AB:5103:D60F:9FBF (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm asking less for Linton's sake, but for what seems to be a misrepresentation of the school itself. There are quite a lot of passive aggressive statements in this article, as there are in the articles of anyone even remotely associated with POTUS. I don't care about POTUS one way or the other, but the focus on "unaccredited" seems to be taking a shot at Linton at the expense of the school.JKNJwrites (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The material regarding the law school's accreditation status was unsourced, so I've removed it. We should only re-add such material if and when we find reliable sources which discuss it. Marquardtika (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

It's off-topic. This is about Linton, not the law school. Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the previous comment from Toddst1. It is really unnecessary to talk about the law school's accreditation. This sentence part is unnecessary, "a private, for-profit law school, accredited by the State Bar of California Committee of Bar Examiners, but not accredited by the American Bar Association." Rather, it looks like it is there to disparage the education of person. A more neutral and objective factual talk would be something about the whole legal profession rather than a particular person's education. For instance, you could say she went to law school, as opinion of most, lawyers are mostly congregate and individual peddlers with lack of ethics. That would be more objective and neutral as it is criticism about lawyer profession rather than this person. However, even with my alternative criticism about the lawyer profession, you might see that the current criticism about a school's status or information is just as unnecessary as my suggested alternative about the whole law profession. Thus, both are unnecessary unless you really want this bio to be about a school or the law profession, which again both are unnecessary to this person's bio. Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

controversies

The "controversies" section is literally the only reason most people know about this woman. Why was it removed? Chaosfeminist (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Because the controversies section is giving undue weight to the rest of the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Also see WP:CSECTION. We should have the well-sourced critical content, but it should be integrated into the rest of the article instead of having its own dedicated "controversies" section. Marquardtika (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaosfeminist (talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

First marriage

Please see Talk:Ronald Richards (lawyer)#Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2017 for information regarding the date. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Early Life

The link for LL's drama coach is dead and cannot be verified; it is also somewhat grammatically tortuous and tends to overinflate the biography; it could be better expressed as 'she trained with a private drama coach' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom Flan Flinger (talk • contribs) 18:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The link has been changed to an archived version. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Stage surname

The text in the article currently reads:

Linton has stated that she adopted her stage surname from her paternal grandfather, partly to protect her family and partly to avoid confusion with the author Louise Hay.

There is an attached note requesting clarification, which states:

How can "Linton" be her paternal grandfather's surname when she is supposed to have inherited the surname 'Hay' from him as he is her father's father?

The cited source "Queen of California" states:

Interestingly, she has chosen to use her grandfather's surname for her stage name, rather than her own Hay. "I'm aware I'm stepping into an industry which can be glowing but also challenging, so it was a measure to protect those who share my last name," she explains. "Linton is my brother's middle name and one of my father's names. There is a famous author called Louise Hay too so I wanted to avoid confusion."

It appears to imply the surname belongs to her paternal grandfather (as her brother and father carry "Linton"), but that is never clearly stated in the quoted text, so the word "paternal" has been dropped from the article, which should resolve the request for clarification.

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Let’s look for media comment on the elbow length leather fashion gloves

I can’t believe anyone sincerely concerned about animal rights would want to buy leather fashion gloves. If we can find commentary in the media about that, it would improve the article.Rich (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)