Talk:Ann Althouse/Archive 1

message: Per the previous editor's request for a reason why the adjective was deleted: Conservative blogger? Moderate blogger? Liberal blogger? Legal blogger? Politics blogger? It seems to me that to call Althouse a conservative, still less a conservative blogger, is stretching the definition of the term unreasonably. If anything, the apt term would be a moderate blogger, which is a singularly ungainly term. Moreover, her blog is not even primarily focused on politics, which means that describing it with an explicitly political adjective would be missing the point even if that adjective were applicable! Ergo, it seems far more sensible to simply omit the adjective entirely, instead of getting into a protracted argument about what Althouse's politics are and what kind of blog it is. Simon Dodd 19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since Ann Althouse has twice asked her readers to vote for her as Conservative Diva  perhaps we should just take her at her word and call her a conservative blogger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.39.78.68 (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What kind of blogger

message: Is the wikipedia now to include any article about Tina the Goth Girl Live Journal and what she did today, what got pierced and who she fought with?
How is Ann Althouse different from Tina the Goth Girl who blogs at LiveJournal/MySpace/....?
I agree.  UW-Law School has far more notable professors--Stewert Macaulay, Carin Clauss, Walter Dickey, Charles Irish, Frank Remington--that don't have entries.  Professor Althouse doesn't have a wikipedia article based on her scholarship, she has one because she takes pictures of bratwurst and gave her car a name for some reason.  I don't think every bogger needs an article.JIJAWM 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why isn't this article just deleted?

message: It belongs ... and the "tiny piece" you left doesn't justify the hed. Althouse was attacked by LGF; she then inadvertently started another controversy with an offhand remark where she, not the left-wing bloggers, chose to pick the fight.
I'll admit it might have been too quotey but you need something to explain this section. How about one general "Controversy" section subdivided for LGF and Feminism?
And, since your user page indicates you are a law student at UWM, you should state for the record whether you are now or have been a student of Professor Althouse. NPOVing can come not just from what you put in but from what you leave out. Or edit out. Daniel Case 03:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminism controversy

message: Hello wikiworld. I've just made some substantial edits to this page, and it's my first attempt on this scale, but I opted for boldness. FYI I have absolutely no dog in this fight, only yesterday having become aware of either the controversy or the various players. I've tried to stay faithful to NPOV, but welcome constructive oversight and suggestions. Snickersnee 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's become unavoidable that this issue will have to be included, at least for a while, but we might at least make some pretense about being balanced about the characterization of what happened. The previous version certainly was not that; with that said, since I find the reaction of the left to this entire "controversy" disingenuous, meretricious and louche, clearly I can't do that alone. I don't represent the present edit as being "complete," but rather as one suggestion of a possible compromise, and I'll leave it to other users to make further changes. What I would suggest, however, is that we try to work together (even if in a synthesis-antithesis process) to find a text that fairly and accurately represents what went on. I don't want this article to be a puff piece, but OTOH, what I'm not willing to accept is a plainly POV article which becomes yet another part of the leftosphere's smear attack against Althouse. Simon Dodd 01:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Althouse/ Valenti Controversy

message: As usual, Wikipedians are to be congratulated for giving a reasonably clear summary of a confusing series of events.  I say that sincerely. But having now read the entry, I must now say...fer chrissake. This "controversy" is hugely overblown by those who care about it. It is a dustup involving obscure figures - I am a daily reader of several news sources, and I never heard of any of these people. I vote for sharply abbreviating this entry. Mrwriter 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, several people have now expressed that sentiment, and I also share it. I would appreciate very much if one of the several editors since my revision (perhaps Simon?) could point out what about my version was so painfully NPOV that it couldn't be salvaged without rendering the article overly-detailed and gossipy? At least mine was brief. I'd be sincerely indebted for the chance to improve the quality of my contributions. Snickersnee 01:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really didn't have so much of an issue with your edit as surrounding edits, actually - yours fixed a couple of defects and didn't introduce anything massively troubling. I tend to agree with Mrwriter that this controversy is really fairly minor; my thinking, however, is that the less context one is aware of, the less this video is going to make sense. POV creeps in along several angles of attack, and omission is one of them. My own view is that a neutral recounting of the facts -- including all relevant context -- is sympathetic towards Althouse, but I know several others believe that a neutral recounting of the facts -- including all relevant context -- shows her to be, you know, whatever it is all these left wing bloggers want to say about her. But what we all ought to be able to agree on is that more facts and more context can't be a bad thing, as long as it's concisely written. Simon Dodd 04:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow=

message: instead of addressing the issue?
71.39.78.68 01:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there isn't an issue to address. See generally FRCP 12(b)(6). Your position is absurd, and doesn't even rise to meriting inclusion on the talk page, let alone a substantive response. It's a cheap collection of quotes that collectively establish no actual position. Simon Dodd 01:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simon is not a lawyer, he's just a sysadmin that hates his job and fantasizes about being dressed in robes and handling gavels all day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.64.16 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simon, why did you revert the above out of the talk page

message: Simon, while we wait for the mediation cabal to take a look at the Jessica Valenti book issue at Ann Althouse, I propose you and I both refrain from editing the page further.  I am also curious about what I perceive as a threat from you, your posting this message on my talk page: User_talk:71.39.78.68
"Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Re your continuing smear campaign against Ann Althouse."
Can you expand on that?  Are you saying you will block me from editing by your own action, or are you saying you will submit that request to the appropriate people?  While we try to mediate this between us, can I get you to agree to drop this threat?
I am cross posting this at the althouse page to help ensure you are notified.
Thank you.71.39.78.68 21:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I have asked the mediation cabal to take a look at Ann Althouse