Talk:Gloria Allred

Roe v. Wade Ommitted?

Is there a reason that Allred's involvement in Roe v Wade is omitted? If not I'll add a line. The captioned date of Allred and Roe is also incorrect (for some reason lists 1989).--Mcps39 (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Toy section divided by gender

Every place that sells toys will by divided by gender. Going to court over it is nonsense. Clothing is divided by gender. It is a wonder she did not go court over that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.2.129 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark Taylor link

The link to Mark Taylor goes to a disambiguation page. I don't know which Mark Taylor is the correct one, so could someone who does please correct the link? Thanks. Raven4x4x 08:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This Mark Taylor doesn't have a page though I keep on coming across him). (Pally01 11:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC))

npov tag

I tagged it due to some of the language presented in the article that seems a bit too biased. Perhaps a "Criticisms" section is in order. Youngamerican 15:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-tagged

I definitely agree. A lot of far-reaching claims are made with weasel words and nearly zero sources are presented.

Clairfy

Could you please clairfy where the "biased" bits are?

I think...

I think the part "Youngamerican" was referring to is the bit at the end about her various television appearances and what others think of them.

Career

Just about zero sources and all "facts" controversial in nature. Needs a heck of a lot more evidence to protect the subject from what appears to be an animus. 69.87.160.7

Michael Richards

This entire section is incoherent.

The first citation in it is missing as well. -- Craigtalbert 19:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how you cite something that impossible to understand. Cite Derrida as a source, maybe? Deluze? BonniePrinceCharlie 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This lady was on the adam corrola show and said she does not believe in free speech. She calls offensive speech 'hate speech' and wants it to be punishable if you say something that offends anyone. She says this is the basic underpinnings of the civil rights movement. Her views about this should be mentioned. -- byme

Edits

Why can't you edit this page?

I don't know, why can't you edit this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.58.22 (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Forced?

She was forced to return to her parents' home? How? With a gun? With a knife? We should probably just say "she returned to her parents' home".

A: "Forced" refers to financial circumstances and is idiomatic, as in "Since I wanted to eat, I was forced to get a job." 70.20.26.97 23:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Me

Protect?

This page has been vandalized. Looking at the history, does this page need to be protected again? Warped.reality 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced opinions

I've tried talking to get some sort of conversation started with Ciotech/Onerher on their talk page(s), but he/she doesn't seem to want to discuss his/her edits. Repeatedly removing cited material while replacing it with uncited opinions is not acceptable, especially while refusing to engage in any discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 12:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My recent changes

Added

2 referenced comments.

Craig Smith, a legal commentator, said in reference to her that "lawyers shouldn't try their cases in the media and Allred has tried far more cases in the media than she has ever tried in any courtroom."

When a reporter asked Jackson what he thought of Allred's complaints, he remarked "Ah, tell her to go to hell." (which also includes the necessary citation for the previous paragraph.)

If you remove Smith's comment, please explain what reason you have for removing the cited quotation.
If you remove Jackson's response, at least keep the citation.

Removed

allegedly told Mazzocchi that if she ever called the police he would have "every gangbanger in town looking to Kill (her)," the suit said.

I think that we already have enough detail on this topic. This article is about Gloria Allred, not all the specifics of a recent case.
If you want to add the additional information back in, at least keep the citation.

Gloria Allred has gained world wide media recognition due to her relentless pursuit of truth and justice.

Just an unsourced opinion. Attribute it to someone if you want to put it back into the article.

That's it. That's the changes I made and the reasons I made them. Please reply here instead of just reverting me again. --Onorem♠Dil 13:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Third opinion. Remember, cited information must meet the reliave sources guidelines in order to be included in the article. [2] is a reputable source, but [3] is not, per WP:BLP, quoting "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below)." Hope this solves the dispute. Also, I have tagged the article with {{unreferencedsect}} and {{cleanup-section|August 2007}}, because the particular section read like a list of facts, rather than an article, and states unsourced statements. Hopefully you'll be able to clean this up, and make this a great article. —  Scottjar  → Talk 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OH MY ITS HONERHIM AGAIN...We agree with onerher and ciotech...all YOU do is Vandalize and delete to protect your Fan Club Version...Refer to Board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopencildicks (talk • contribs)

OH MY...ITS HONERHIM AGIAN? LOOK WHOS TALIKING? I AGREE WITH honerher and ciotech all you do is remove cited material and add rumors with your Fan Club Version of a Bio...You guard Esai Morales Web site and try to rip out cited material on the Glora Allred Page...THIS IS YOUR 'LAST WARNING' We will refer your deletions and your FAN CLUB Version to the BOARD...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nopencildicks (talk • contribs)

I'm assuming what you write makes sense in your own head, but you've lost me completely. Please do refer this to "the BOARD." I'll look forward to their input. --Onorem♠Dil 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

radio talkshow

"She used to co-host a radio talkshow with Mark Taylor on KABC in Los Angeles."

That's true, but before that, she had her own show. Can't think how to add that info in smoothly, or of any sources. (She used the song "Gloria" when she was on by herself, but I can't think what intro she and Mark used when they were on together.) anon 07:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Biographical information

not sure if anyone else has details or sources, but apparently the local NBC affiliate in Los Angeles will be running an interview with Allred about her life in which she will talk about, "the rape, the abortion, and answers THE question..." I can only assume the latter refers to if she's gay or not?? I didn't read about any of this in the article, so i wasn't sure if these are details from her book-- new??

In any case, the text article is located here: Gloria Allred NBC 4 interview. It's not up yet, but later today (03/13/09) they are supposed to have the extended interview on a video on the same site. --162.80.36.13 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

First Husband

What was the name of Allred's first husband, father of Lisa? why is this omitted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radzewicz (talk • contribs) 06:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Fraud?

"Allred has tried far more cases in the media than she has ever tried in any courtroom." Has she won or lost any cases in a courtroom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.137.235 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

California 2010 gubernatorial election controversy

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_california_governor_housekeeper

With 5 weeks to the election, the California gubernatorial race is heating up. Nicky Diaz Santillan is the driving force behind the latest controversy over Meg Whitman's past. She alleges that Whitman knowingly kept her, an illegal immigrant housekeeper, in her family’s service for over ten years. Nicky links this alleged knowledge with a secondary allegation of brusque treatment. The foundation for these claims is a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration, which prompted the Whitman household to investigate discrepancies in the housekeeper's documents. Juxtaposed with Whitman's calls for tougher crackdown on illegal immigration, she might seem another hypocritical politician.

Allred is taking up another political case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaxe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

We should point out Allread long time Democratic party activism. And that her client lied to Whitman and that Whitman specificly requested a legal worker.Unicorn76 (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Provided a needed citation

I don't know if it's necessary to put a notification here, but I thought I'd be on the safe side. There was a "citation needed" thingy on the Schmitz settlement, so I found a citation, stuck it in & took out the tag.Revanneosl (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

TV show We the People With Gloria Allred

The disclaimer on the show is "all characters and events depicted in this work are fictitous" not "a show using improv actors to reenact real-life case scenarios."Robinrobin (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sections removed by me to try and make it look less like a CV

Text removed

Please discuss here before placing them back into the article-

Gloria Allred has represented numerous parties in various high-profile cases, and frequently comments on television. Gloria Allred represented Amber Frey when Frey was a witness in the criminal case against Scott Peterson. She has also represented cases against the Boy Scouts of America for excluding an eleven-year-old girl named Katrina Yeaw, something she referred to as gender apartheid, and a case against the former Sav-On Drugstore chain for having both a boys and a girls toy section, as well as representing actress Hunter Tylo when producer Aaron Spelling fired her because of her pregnancy.

In 1981, she sued California State Senator John G. Schmitz for slander, resulting in a settlement of $20,000 and an apology.

In 1985, Allred, along with Catherine MacKinnon, drafted a version of the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance for Los Angeles County. The legislation failed to pass the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

In 1987, Allred achieved notoriety after successfully suing the then all-male Friars Club in Beverly Hills, an exclusive private club, over its membership discrimination policies. The Friars Club eventually settled the lawsuit with Allred and five other plaintiffs, after Allred displayed early skills in the effective use of the media.

In August 1997, she represented the model Kelly Fisher when she sued Dodi Fayed for allegedly breaking off their engagement to begin his highly-publicized relationship with Diana, Princess of Wales. The suit was dropped not long after Diana and Fayed died in Paris that August.

She represented Nicole Brown Simpson's family during the O. J. Simpson murder trial. She also represented photographer Henry Trappler in a lawsuit against Mötley Crüe drummer Tommy Lee. Allred is also known for her criticism of pop singer Michael Jackson. After watching media coverage of the Berlin event with Michael Jackson, she wrote a letter to California's Child Protective Services, asking for an investigation into the safety of Jackson's children. She also spoke on CNN about the subject. Child Protective Services does not make their investigations public, so it is not known whether any action was taken as a result of Allred's letter.

Gloria Allred also represented Rhonda Miller in a sexual harassment suit against Arnold Schwarzenegger during his run for California's gubernatorial recall election in 2003. The lawsuit was later dismissed.

In November 2006, Cindy Streit, etiquette consultant in the film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, hired Allred, who demanded that the California Attorney General investigate fraud allegedly committed by Sacha Baron Cohen and the film's producers.

On July 19, 2007, she filed a lawsuit in Superior Court on behalf of Elizabeth Mazzocchi against actor Esai Morales for "intentional and negligent transmission of a sexually transmitted disease, assault, battery, and breach of contract."

She represented three former Circuit City employees on behalf of a large plaintiff class in an age discrimination lawsuit against that company after it fired 3,400 workers nationwide in April 2007.

In September 2007, she represented Tony Barretto, a former bodyguard of pop singer Britney Spears, in the child custody case between Spears and ex-husband Kevin Federline.

She represented Mandi Hamlin in a March 2008 complaint against the TSA. Hamlin was reported to have been humiliated when she was made to take off her nipple rings in a Lubbock, Texas, airport.

In April 2008, it was reported that she had been hired by the family of the teenager who had been beaten and filmed by eight Florida teenagers. She also appeared on Today with Jessica Gibson, who is counter-suing Rob Lowe for sexual harassment.

On February 24, 2004, Gloria Allred and her law firm, Allred, Maroko and Goldberg, filed the first lawsuit in California challenging the denial of marriage licenses as being unconstitutional. She took the case pro bono for Robin Tyler and Diane Olson and Rev. Troy Perry and his husband Phillip Ray De Blieck. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples.

On July 30, 2008, Gloria Allred filed a complaint with federal regulators against Downey Savings and Loan Association regarding check-cashing procedures. Marc Retmier, a 19 year old US Navy Hospitalman, was killed in action in Afghanistan in June 2008. Downey Savings refused to immediately cash his family's military bereavement checks, and Marc Retmier's family were forced to look elsewhere to secure funding necessary to pay for his funeral services.

In December 2009, Allred was retained by Rachel Uchitel after media sources alleged Uchitel had been having an affair with married golfer Tiger Woods. Allred is also representing Joslyn James, a pornographic actress and Woods's alleged mistress.

In February 2010, Allred was retained by Amanda J. Eneman, a massage therapist and ex-girlfriend of Illinois lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Scott Lee Cohen who once had Cohen arrested, and who had herself been arrested for prostitution.

On May 14, 2010, in a news conference held at Allred's office, English actress Charlotte Lewis, alleged that director Roman Polanski had sexually abused her in his Paris apartment when she was 16 years old. In June 2010 she was hired by Debrahlee Lorenzana, a former bank employee who had drawn wide public attention after alleging she was fired for being too attractive. In August 2010, Allred represented Jodie Fisher, whose sexual harassment claim revealed expense-account irregularities that led to the resignation of HP CEO Mark Hurd.

In July 2010, Allred filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against actor David Boreanaz. Allred claimed he sexually harassed her client during filming of his TV show, "Bones," and it began during filming on August 21, 2009. According to the suit, Boreanaz was sending "sexually inappropriate text messages" to Kristina Hagan, who was an extra on the show. Hagan also claims Boreanaz grabbed, kissed, and fondled her and then "masturbated in front of her." In March 2011, Boreanaz settled the lawsuit. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

On April 27, 2011, Allred appeared at a press conference with the family of Justin Quinn, who was allegedly threatened at a San Francisco Giants baseball game by Braves coach Roger McDowell. Quinn had objected to McDowell's uttering of homophobic slurs and use of a baseball bat to simulate a sex act in the presence of his daughters.

On June 15, 2011, Allred appeared at a press conference with former pornographic actress Ginger Lee in regard to Representative Anthony Weiner allegedly coaching her to lie on his behalf in relation to a sexting scandal.

On October 18, 2011, Allred won court approval to represent nine former middle-aged cocktail waitresses who were fired from their jobs at Resorts Casino Hotel in Atlantic City, New Jersey after they "did not look good enough" in new uniforms modeled after 1920s-era Flapper outfits. Resorts had sought to bar Allred from the discrimination lawsuit, arguing in court papers that her "flamboyant and headline-grabbing antics" would add nothing to the case.

On November 7, 2011, Allred appeared at a press conference with Sharon Bialek, a Chicago woman who alleged that Herman Cain grabbed her in a sexually aggressive way when she sought his help after losing her position at an education foundation affiliated with the National Restaurant Association in the late 1990s.

On March 9, 2012, Allred called for an investigation into whether radio personality Rush Limbaugh should be subject to criminal prosecution in Florida for derogatory remarks he made regarding a female law student. Allred commented: "Mr. Limbaugh targeted his attack on a young law student who was simply exercised [sic] her free speech and her right to testify before congress on a very important issue to millions of American women and he vilified her. He defamed her and engaged in unwarranted, tasteless and exceptionally damaging attacks on her..... He needs to face the consequences of his conduct in every way that is meaningful."

Also in 2012, Allred took on the case of Jenna Talackova, a Canadian transgender woman who was challenging her disqualification from the Miss Universe Canada pageant for not being a "naturally born" female. The Miss Universe organization ultimately reversed its decision before the case proceeded to the courts.

As of the first week of June 2012 Allred has confirmed via an email that she is representing a former girlfriend of Rudy Eugene, Eugene being the now deceased cannibal of the 2012 Miami cannibalism incident.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOriginalSoni (talk • contribs) 23:00, January 25, 2013‎

Discussion

TheOriginalSoni: please stop edit warring and gain consensus here on talk before removing content again. You boldly removed sourced content here and after you were reverted, you proceeded to remove the content again and again and again. The sections you listed above are also not the only ones that you deleted from the article. I can appreciate having a conversation about how to approach Allred's long career, but just blanking large sections over the objections of other editors is not consensus. I believe most of the content you listed above is worth retaining as is some of the other content that you removed. Please seek consensus here before deleting specific passages. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 00:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gobonobo - This is not edit warring. And I know what I did. You did not need to provide a recap. If you see my edit summaries, you'll find that I have given perfectly valid reasons along with every revert of mine To that effect, the first revert that I made was because I saw Arxiloxos' first revert as mal-informed.

I too prefer having a conversation but I would much rather prefer if you did not make a minor edit just after you main edit. It might have passed my watchlist (Not that I imply anything here. I just stated a fact. Still on AGF here). Coming back to the original question, my original section blanking was an attempt to clean up the article, and I was open to anybody putting back only the parts of the sections they deemed important. As for the parts that are not here in this talk page - These are the ones that were not reverted back by Arxiloxos in his second revert (which I then assumed that these bits were not important). I will put them back in this talk page. Please feel free to discuss each paragraph separately before trying to edit it back rather than simply reverting back yourself.

Cheers,

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record: While I am not anxious to get into an extended argument about this article, and I certainly willing to compromise here, if I am forced to choose one or the other, I think Gobonobo has the better side of this discussion. The first removal raised concerns because it was, in essence, section blanking without explanation by an editor with a big "Retired" badge on xis user talk page (which, puzzlingly, is still there). My reversion (which TheOriginalSoni now calls "mal-informed") was then reverted again, this time with an explanation and an invitation to restore the parts I thought important, but when I did that, after going through the section with an effort to winnow the length and emphasize the more substantive parts, xe removed a bunch of it again. My failure to revert yet again was based on my general policy against repeated reversions and a lack of desire to engage in extended haggling, not because I thought the excluded content was inappropriate. I still don't think repeated wholesale removals of sourced information about notable cases are the most reader-friendly way to proceed. Allred's career has been marked by extensive media coverage and I think that should be reflected here--especially those cases where she herself has been the focus of the media attention. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Its a "he" - Thank you for your neutrality on that.

And I have no idea either why my retired tag is still there- Yet I think I shall stay with them. And your description of my retired badge is a rather moot point.

which TheOriginalSoni now calls "mal-informed" - Please note my words correctly. I said "because I saw Arxiloxos' first revert as mal-informed", not that they were actually mal-informed. There have been many cases of other users reverting large edits w/o seeing what the actual reversion is for. Which is why I reverted back, this time with the edit summary.

Once again, feel free to add back only the sections that you deem actually important, or after discussion on this page. In my opinion, The best way to deal with large chunks of removable information is to remove it all, and add back only what looks necessary. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I did that once before[4] in response to your edit summary[5] only to watch you promptly cut stuff out again that I had carefully judged to be worth keeping.[6]. So you will pardon me for not leaping to your renewed invitation. And I will be a little blunter this time about your "retired" tag: in my view, for an editor to maintain such a tag on their page while being actively engaged is problematic, and can lead to other editors to interpret that editor's edits-while-retired as anomalous, and raising red flags (as did your first, unexplained, large-scale deletion here). I see that others are also raising this concern at your talk page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I still thought some of it was unnecessary. Which is why I removed it.

In my opinion, its a personal choice on my part whether or not I choose to have a retired tag. Everyone is completely free to check my contributions or my archives (which contain all the history), as well as clarify the same with me. The concerns raised by others on the same are completely different from what the issue here is - Those are about sending Welcome templates to others. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

TheOriginalSoni: When I happened across this article, you were already engaged in an edit war and were not observing WP:BRD. Your initial removal of a large swath of sourced content (for which you left no edit summary) here was reverted. Minutes later, you again removed the same content. Arxiloxos then attempted to compromise by restoring only a portion of the content, much of which you removed yet again.

As a previously uninvolved party, I agreed with Arxiloxos that the content being removed included some highly relevant cases. I went ahead and restored some of the content only to have you revert minutes later. Upon further inspection of the removed content I found that there were other notable cases that were deleted, so I restored the lot. Then you reverted back to your preferred version, claiming that other editors need consensus before restoring anything that you deleted. When yet another editor stepped into the fray, restoring the content, you again removed it unilaterally. When I tried to address all this here and on your talk page, I've received WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT replies.

I believe that the section for Allred's legal career could use some attention, but disagree entirely that a good route is to just remove large amounts of content. I am open to compromise about what stays in the article, but feel that your unrelenting removal of content makes compromise impossible. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

All the three parties involved here (you, me and Arxiloxos) agree on the fact that the Career section is excessively long, and needs to be cut down. Then I do not understand why do you continuously insist on having a version of the article which contains to many problems. I removed all I believed was irrelevant, and you remain completely free to add anything that you feel isnt. Why you replaced everything, and not what you thought was important was something I found unusual.

I may not be able to quote as many policies or differences as you do, but my point is plain and simple - The article contained excessiveness - I removed it - Arxiloxos replaced it - I removed it again (assuming it to be a mistake on his part), explaining my point - He replaced portions of it - I found some of it still irrelevant - I removed those portions, expecting him to replace any further portions that he thought was relevant - You replaced my last edit, asking to come to talk - I came to talk, and reverted - You replaced everything - I reverted to the one version I considered less incorrect than the rest [While a talk discussion is ongoing, I do not think there is any relevant reason for the article to stay one way or the other -Both the versions are equally correct, in which case I reverted to the version which was less worse, IMO] - Some other editor claims that only an admin can solve the dispute and reverts everything - I check with an admin on the talk page - An admin states that its not the case - I ask if I can revert back, since the "uninvolved editor" was incorrect in his revert - Another uninvolved editor says I can - I do revert it.

While the article stays with whatever version it was, it continues serving as a CV to the subject of the article, which ought not to be the case. So either we can bicker over the details of the reverts, or we can prefer to actually work to establish which sections need to be cut off. I preferred the latter, which is why I removed the paragraphs that Arxiloxos added for the 2nd time. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think TheOriginalSoni is removing too much. This encyclopedia has no limit, and it should be thorough. Could TOS remove just one section at a time, providing the rationale therefor? That might be better. I really don't see this as a CV, but simply as a very thorough encyclopedia article which should last for the ages. Who knows? In five hundred years some reader of this article will want to know about all these details. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for admin help

Sorry if this is not formatted correctly; I'm not a Wikipedia editor. However, there is what I suspect is vandalism in this article and that of her daughter (Lisa Bloom) with various Armenian references. I would fix them but I don't know the protocol and from what I understand, editors prefer to do that themselves, often reversing changes by unnamed people anyway. Thanks! 192.195.81.147 (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

{{admin-help}} Can an admin look into this situation and please help decide whether some information needs to be removed or not? (Apparently the editors under question prefer the oldest version, which is just a CV, IMO.) I suggest removal of all those parts which are unnecessary, and then a proper discussion on the same, but I am simply being reverted right to the very first edit.

Please mediate and help decide which is the best version/thing to do!

Thanks, and Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, where admins have no special authority. I suggest posting at WP:BLP/N, which will attract editors experienced in biographical articles, or using WP:Dispute resolution. JohnCD (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

From the edit summary of the last editor, I assumed that only an admin can solve this situation. Is it not so? In which case I would be entitled to revert back. Right? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Without hesitation, I believe. Basket _Feudalist 13:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gracias. I think I'll take this issue to the BLP/N. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving on

I've restored and rewritten some of the legal career section, adding some and re-removing some. I invite challenges to individual passages that were retained. The 2000s and 2010s sections in particular could use some smoothing - converting into prose, condensing or potentially removing some of the less notable incidents, contextualizing. It should be said that Allred is probably the most well known woman lawyer in the US and she has had a long career that easily deserves more than just a few paragraphs.

I think the article can be further improved by expanding the lead, improving references, and ensuring that her landmark cases are included. I plan on adding her abortion and earlier marriage and incorporating these references [7][8][9][10] as well as some material from her book. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 23:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Like. the tone of the article overall reads a lot better now. Half a line per case might be also added as a background. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Jewish

Is "Jewish" so important that it should be mentioned twice in the first sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.40.127 (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. What's with the religious importance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.160 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I have removed it. There's nothing wrong with saying she's Jewish, but we don't need to draw attention to it in that way. Robofish (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the complete removal is that she then can't be in the Jewish American category without sourcing per WP:BLP. I added back a source and single mention. She's also Armenian descent. Nothing I read states she actually practices Judaism so this is more of an ethnic and cultural determination and not about religion. 97.85.173.38 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for better profile photo for infobox

Gloria Allred in 2012

Suggestion for better profile photo for infobox, File:2012 Gloria Allred.jpg.

Picture = Valued Image on Commons.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, you may find other free-use-licensed-media-files helpful, at commons:Category:Gloria Allred. Hope that's helpful to other editors, — Cirt (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I see there has been no discussion or objection. It's a good picture, so it's done. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gloria Allred. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061120083559/http://www.courttv.com:80/people/2006/1116/borat_ctv.html to http://www.courttv.com/people/2006/1116/borat_ctv.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

This article reads like a profile page on LinkedIn

This article reads like a profile page on LinkedIn. I am neither a fan nor a critic of Allred. Not a lot to add to that. Bilipede (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Little More Than Award Spam

I have added the NPOV tag to the article since a very large percentage of the article seems to just be mentions of every relevant and non-relevant award and honorific she has ever received. 97.104.138.227 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Allred Clients vs Trump

Given the recent press with Trump and the women represented by Allred against him, like the Cosby case eventually took off, shouldn't her new case against Trump along with her activism regarding getting video footage be added to this particular article here? Conspirasee1 (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Allred now has several clients she is representing against Donald Trump, two of which have come out publicly. Shouldn't this be added as well, given the fact that there is a section with another famous person, Bill Cosby? Can someone add it or should I? Conspirasee1 (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I added Trump, and moved Cosby to the same area (2010s section). Next time, be bold and don't be afraid to edit on your own. Brianga (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Someone (97.87.116.23) added a reference to one of the Trump accusers being Jessica Drake (porn actress). I removed it since I see no reason she should be singled out and the (incomplete) sentence contained no reference other than to another wiki pageGaas99 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The same user reinserted the text without any discussion here or any commentGaas99 (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've now removed it again. Repeatedly restoring contested content to a biography, without discussion and against consensus on the article's talk page, may result in the editor's IP address being blocked from editing. Hopefully, they'll give up before that becomes necessary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The Jessica Drake entry is the latest information on the case and the sentence referenced Drake's wiki page. I don't see why this is removed as Mrs. Allred made several news releases on the topic. Drake is just the most recent of Trump accusers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.116.23 (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

1) If you would like to list the women who are her clients in the Trump affair, to be fair and to have a WP:NPOV you should list all three and not only the one who is a porn actress whether she is the latest or not. Your reference to another wiki article is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used here WP:WPNOTRS

2) I and at least two other editors feel that the inclusion of Drake gives undue weight to her per WP:UNDUE.

3) Identifying Ms Drake as a "long time porn actress" would seem to not be necessary in an article about Gloria Allred. Drake's profession is identified in her article. Gaas99 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

From Mrs. Allred's website it seems she is representing Summer Zevos and Jessica Drake, the other women who have complained against Trump are not Mrs. Allred's clients. So we should note these facts in more than one sentence on the issue, without editorializing Mrs. Allred choice in clients and actions. Simple statement of known facts, however they may weight the readers opinion of the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.116.23 (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

No, she is also representing Karena Virginia so there are three. Statement of facts is fine, however, it should be fair, unbiased and free of WP:RECENTISM. While Drake is the latest she probably will not be the last. Stating her occupation suggests that the insertion is not free of bias for obvious reasons. Gaas99 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

So lets try: Mrs. Gloria Allred is representing Karena Virginia, Summer Zervos, and Jessica Drake who accuse Donald Trump of sexual misconduct. The alleged misconduct occurred between 9 to 18 years ago. Mrs. Virginia claims Mr. Trump approached her indiscriminately after a 1998 US Open match and without provocation touched her right breast. Mrs. Zervos meet with Mr. Trump after the completion of the fifth season of The Apprentice. The meeting allegedly resulted in unwanted sexual provocation of open mouth kissing and inappropriate intimate contact. Most recently, Mrs. Drake complains she was propositioned to perform sexual acts in exchange for payment. All three complainants have not previously accused Mr. Trump of misconduct. Mr. Trump has indicated the allegations are false an will pursue remediation of events when appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.116.23 (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything problemmatical there, though the prose might benefit from a little copy editing. Others' opinions are welcome. @Gaas99: @Conspirasee1: @Brianga: --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the current verbiage needs to be expanded much, if at all, mostly per WP:RECENTISM. This is an article on Allred - the person - and not Trump or his campaign or legal battles. In the grand scheme of her career, this representation is certainly notable, but the finer points are probably overkill. I would suggest: "Allred is representing several women who accuse Donald Trump of sexual misconduct. The claims, which Trump has denied, first arose during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign." Brianga (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

then lets delete the whole thing? The current sentence is none descriptive, trivial, and is not consistent with Allred's career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.32.174 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I like that, Brianga. And I am persuaded by your argument. Perhaps we could give the actual number of accusers she's representing. For now, I've made the edit,[11] with minor changes to fit it into the existing prose:

Allred is representing at least 28 women who accuse Bill Cosby of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and/or other sexual misconduct, and several women who accuse Donald Trump of sexual misconduct — claims which Trump has denied, and which first arose during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I split it into two sentences. I know you were going for compactness and simplicity, but putting them together sort of implies that they are connected, which they aren't. Brianga (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gloria Allred. 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/20100419105634/http://blogs.suntimes.com:80/sweet/2010/02/scott_lee_cohen_not_fit_to_ser.html to http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/02/scott_lee_cohen_not_fit_to_ser.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.courttv.com:80/people/2006/1116/borat_ctv.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_6423766

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Rape Claim

I'm afraid this needs to be made clear. It came from her autobiography and is not backed by good documentation at all.2601:447:4101:41F9:1D0A:FED6:C00C:3C5 (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• You don't believe the woman? I added one "disclaimer", this one, and that should be enough: your four disclaimers are in fact a BLP violation, casting doubt upon her account. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Not good enough. Sorry. Wikipedia is not a place to promote victimization without good proof. Whether or not I believe her is also not a good excuse.2601:447:4101:41F9:450B:3FDC:2FE5:2620 (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of the section and will post to the BLP noticeboard. "Promotion of victimization" reveals a bias against the subject that in my view violates NPOV. It would, however, be good to base the section as much as possible on independent sources. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Needs a reliable secondary source, for any claim that there is doubt about the statement of the subject of the article about being raped. No such source has been presented, as far as I can see. We therefore await the presentation of such a source. Until then, "claimed" and "allegedly" wording is not acceptable. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've had enough of this editor. I neutered the title of this section. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Criticism and balance

Instead of a criticism section that for obvious reasons quotes mainly people who dislike Allred, I think it would be more NPOV to have a Reactions section that includes also positive comments. For example, LA Mag cited elsewhere in article has quotes that Allred and her partners are "superb lawyers," also that "Allred has conviction, whether or not you agree with her position or her strategy."[12] The Guardian calls her "America's top feminist lawyer."[13] Cutting this short, I suggest we repurpose the "Criticism" section to provide a more balanced list of people's public statements about Allred. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

See also this useful Wikipedia reference: Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Scrambled

Allred divorced her first husband in the early 1960s and her second, of 19 years, William Allred, began divorce proceedings in 1986, represented him in his criminal proceeding with community property hearing in 1989.

Incomprehensible. Could someone separate-out the elements? Valetude (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)