Talk:Ann Althouse

Proposed: replace entire "controversy" section with brief description

This whole blog spat is entirely non-notable and deserves no more than a sentence or two mentioning the conflict. Agree/Disagree. Pusher robot 23:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree, and would far rather this article focused on the well-respected legal scholar whose name appears in the title, rather than the ceaseless yapping around her heels of some very small dogs. Nevertheless, I've reluctantly accepted that other users are determined to include this event, and are determined to have the treatment of it written in way that smears Althouse. I'm willing to compromise to the extent of allowing the former, but the latter is unacceptable insofar as if it was written the way some evidently want it to be, it would not only be defamatory towards its subject (which is unacceptable in any event), but in clear violation of both the purpose and policy of Wikipedia (specifically, NPOV). As I noted uppage, if the Valenti/Franke-Ruta business is mentioned at all, it must be handled even-handedly, accurately and without taking sides. In short, it must be NPOV, and POV can creep in as much through omission as inclusion.

My inclination is to treat this the way the "Scalia hand gesture" incident was treated: I considered the whole thing non-notable, but other users were determined to include it, and in the spirit of "go along to get along," I was willing to accept that section, as long as it remained NPOV. In due course, it's been whittled down, and eventually it'll disappear into a footnote. Same thing here. This is a minor incident that I find very difficult to believe wasn't manufactured specifically to give Valenti a publicity boost (at a minimum, the controversy that gives Valenti her sole claim to fame reignited at an extremely fortuitous time).Simon Dodd 14:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As discussed up-page, I now see that I was wrong on Apr. 10: the disputed section should be removed entirely. A mutually-agreeable text that fully describes the controversy is clearly impossible. Since no mention at all will clearly be unacceptable to Althouse's detractors, and a POV article is unacceptable to me, I have replaced the entire section with a very brief, terse, neutral paragraph noting that (a) there was a controversy, (b) Althouse's perspective of what the controversy was about, (c) Althouse's critics' perspective of what the controversy was about, and (d) that the controversy reappeared earlier this year. To be sure, I am not happy with this version, and regard it as a significant compromise on my part: There is no mention of the Valenti book, and very little explanation of the (wholly exculpating) context. Nevertheless, I think this version of the text is as close to a mutually-agreeable text as we're going to get, and I have requested page protection to bring a halt to an absurd edit war that has defaced this article.[1]Simon Dodd 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request changes to blogging section

In the 2nd paragraph "late 2005" should be "late 2006", as per the first related post [2] I also suggest "Althouse's critics on the left" be shortened to "Althouse's critics" since without sources it does not seem appropriate to categorize the unnamed critics, especially if (per the previous paragraph) Althouse perceives herself to be on the left ("represents herself as politically liberal").—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wnjr (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with changing the year, that was a typo on my part. I'll ask an admin to attend to that. [UPDATE: I've asked user:SlimVirgin, as an admin who's had no contact with this dispute, to make the change at her leisure.]

As to the point about the description of critics as being on the left: The main folks who criticized her were blogs like LGM, Tapped, Firedoglake, Matt Yglesias, Pandagon, Feministe, Feministing of course, and so on. I'm not aware of any blogs on the right who criticized her over the original incident with Valenti or the subsequent episode with Franke-Ruta (and even if there were a few isolated examples to the contrary, the vast majority of the criticism came from the left). Unless you have some compelling examples of "Althouse's critics on the right" to bring forward, it seems unexceptional to speak of "Althouse's critics on the left." So I would not support the change, because the evidence clearly points out that virtually all of Althouse's critics over this incident are on the left and it seems fair to note that point.Simon Dodd 15:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP

I was asked to fix a date correction in this protected article, but when I looked at the section, it seemed to violate the BLP policy, which says that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed immediately. The critics were unnamed and there were no references. If the sources are blogs, these are not allowed in BLPs, unless the blog owner is the subject: see WP:V and WP:BLP. I also removed the unsourced date of birth, and I removed the tag in part because the contentious section is no longer on the page, and in part because it was drawing attention to a dispute, which can be a BLP problem in itself. It's best with biographies of living persons to err on the side of caution and discretion. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think all that's eminently reasonable, and I heartily approve of the article as instantly constituted.Simon Dodd 16:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that all those issues with the contentious section were the result of your overzealous editing, it seems rather bizarre to congratulate SlimVirgin for correcting your errors. I expect the section will return in some form in due course.Wnjr 11:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Protection

The article is still protected, but without the customary legend to that effect. If the protection is to continue, it should be noted at the top of the article.

Alternatively, is there any reason not to unprotect? I haven't been involved in editing this article, but there's apparently been no discussion of any disputes on this talk page for more than a month. That would normally be a reason to unprotect. JamesMLane t c 08:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is essentially worthless

While Althouse may be a "repected legal scholar" who is suffers the terrible ills of having "small dogs" "yapping" about her heels, the simple fact is that in this crazy internet of ours she is largely known as a BLOGGER. That is, she blogs. Perhaps this wikipedia entry should mention that crazy fact? I understand that she is a political blogger, and like most political topics there is no acceptable NPV that is not the author's NPV. But refusing to discuss the thing which has made her most well known in the world is silly. Or do you think she was brought to the attention of the NY Times and got to write those those op-eds on the basis of her legal scholarship? (Speaking of which, perhaps this article should mention, or link to, those Op-Eds?) Glen Reynolds has a blog, a rather popular one at that. He is also a law professor. And somehow, his wikipedia page manages to mention both of those facts.128.84.218.156 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I came here to learn more about her based on this new, interesting story about her marrying one of the people that commented on her blog. Very weird, but anyway there is a ton of controversy about her and she is very popular/unpopular in some circles and there have been several public discussions, feuds, etc. related to her blog. But none of that is in this article. People researching her don't care about where she went to law school (although that should be in there) -- they are often going to be looking for an unbiased, as-neutral-as-possible account of her blogging-fame and reputation in the political world (from both sides). None of that is in here. Vegaswiki (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

She was notable for her scholarship before she even began blogging. Ergo, the article balances between Althouse qua a law professor and Althouse qua a blogger. (When you say that "people" researching her don't care about X, moreover, what you really mean is that you don't care about X; see You != "Some People".) Materials about various controversies have passed through the article from time to time, and the result has always been to skew the article in ways that run aground on WP:NPOV, WP:RECENT, and WP:UNDUE. That is is precisely why such materials aren't here now and shouldn't be added. The article as it presently stands is a concise, unbiased, NPOV description of Althouse. The last thing it needs is another shouting match between her fans and detractors over what additional material about why she's peachy/awful ought to be included. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservative?

"Conservative" is not a useful description for a Democrat who supported McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore & Obama[3], same-sex marriage[4][5], and Roe v. Wade[6].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwoods (talk • contribs)

Voting pattern does not describe what someone is - a number of people vote against candidates instead of voting for them(voting against Nixon is a low bar to clear), and many people change their voting patterns from their past (using something from 20 years ago is flawed when using their current views). Many conservatives also support same-sex marriage, as they see it as a an imposition of the state between two consenting people in the private lives (Andrew Sullivan comes to mind). And many also support Roe v Wade for the same reason, but decry it as a personal choice to be avoided.

In addition, in your very citation "Basically, I like the sort of liberal(ish) Republican that can succeed in a blue state". You are arguing for Republican positions (Republican voting block, State involvement in marriage, State ban of abortion). There is a difference. Your other citation is also flawed "This year is only the third election out of twelve, where my candidate has won" - that would be President Bush she supported[7], noted conservative.

If you were to take these basic positions, she also supports Gov. Walker, who is very conservative. And Republican. I can find more if you think that would buttress my argument[8], such as liking and defending Rush Limbaugh[9]. And the fact that she voted for Obama? [10] " to try to understand how I turned against John McCain", "this little outburst shows that the choice of Lieberman would have come close to clinching my vote", "Was I rooting for McCain?", "I'm more worried about McCain than Obama". Voting for someone she is less worried about? Not the support you think.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.78.22 (talk) — 69.115.78.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Neither "liberal" nor "conservative" would be useful terms when it comes to Professor Althouse. She's really an independent person--a free thinker.Scooge (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You can describe your opinion of her however you wish. In a few days (barring any other information that can be produced), I'll make the change. I'll use the citation of her supporting President Bush, her own blog post mentioning her as as a candidate for "Grande Conservative Blogress Diva 2007," and one more item. I'll include whatever you wish if you wish to present her as a free thinker.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.78.22 (talk) — 69.115.78.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Except that "President Bush" hasn't run for anything since 2004, and the qualifications for the Gay Patriot "Grande Conservative Blogress Diva" contest specifically state that the "Diva" in question needn't be conservative at all. As previously stated, she was an Obama supporter. The term "conservative" is a blunt instrument--and quite misleading in this case.Scooge (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if the piers on which you intend to rest the addition would support the load (they won't, as User:Scooge points out), what you're proposing to do would be a near-textbook case of WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Could it be possible to add a picture to this article please?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ann Althouse. 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/20070202190129/http://www.althouse.libsyn.com:80/ to http://althouse.libsyn.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927023651/http://www.wuwm.com/view_le.php?articleid=148 to http://www.wuwm.com/view_le.php?articleid=148

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)