Talk:Ann Althouse/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What kind of blogger[edit]

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)

Well, since Ann Althouse has twice asked her readers to vote for her as Conservative Diva [1] perhaps we should just take her at her word and call her a conservative blogger —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

On July 10th, today, someone removed some factual links from this article without seeming to explain why[edit]

Why has this article been sanitized? If there is no response, I plan on adding the sanitized links back in.

There is absolutely nothing moderate about Althouse. She is such an ego maniac and most likely wrote this original page.

She is a conservative idiot!!!

Why isn't this article just deleted?[edit]

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)

Feminism controversy[edit]

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)

    • Explain to me why a blogging fight of no particular consequence belongs in someone's bio? Especially one that I cannot imagine is of much general interst or one of questionable significance. Even if it did, surely it does not deserve 50% of the article.
      • I tend to agree with mmmbeer. I actually came here by accident and was surprised to find this information, so I thought I'd check the talk page. I'm surprised this isn't flagged as NPOV. It actually seems just plain useless. Sounds more like Daniel Case has an agenda than anything actually significant to contribute to this bio. 16:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Hmm, another negative comment from an otherwise anonymous U of Wisconsin server. Interesting. Daniel Case 04:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know professor Althouse, but I'm not entirely certain that matters. None of the edits have been more than what is publicly available, and if you're trying to get at if I have a stake in your particular subject, I had never even heard of it until your particular screed. I do know that this is not the article for all of the context. If it's SO significant in this person's life, make it a paragraph and add an article dedicated to it.mmmbeerT / C / ? 11:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

On what basis is "has consistently taken feminist postions on her blog" justified?

Daniel Case responds[edit]

I think the whole issue goes to Althouse's credibility (i.e., whether, as it seems she did, she invented an issue to get upset about as a way to regain her conservative credibility. She would hardly be the only commentator of any ideological stripe to have done this). I am happy with what has been left here, but if, say, you check out the equivalent discussion of, say, Andrew Sullivan's barebacking escapades, its relevance to his credibility is fairly assessed.

If you're going to complain that this doesn't belong in someone's bio, then expand the entry so that the bio is more complete and this can be placed in proper context. When you leave a page basically a stub for months at a time, you pretty much tell anyone here that anything else you add is relevant.

No, I didn't have any agenda. I began writing about this over at the Pajamas Media entry and then realized it was more relevant over here. I now think it deserves a separate article, though why controversies about particular bloggers can't be accomodated within the articles about the bloggers themselves (consider that the dustup over Markos Koulitsa's work for the Dean campaign is entirely contained within the article about his blog, and if that doesn't merit a separate article I certainly don't think this does).

However, I fully expect that if I take it separate, an AfD campaign will be started against it. Oh well. Daniel Case 00:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I give up. I just find it very funny that this evening, a user whose IP came back to Madison, WI, and has apparently never edited any articles here previously comes on, and after a bunch of edits to the section deletes it entirely. Coincidentally Althouse herself posted about the Pajamas Media article today (it has actually been around for some time, as she might have discovered by checking its history page).
I'd take the complaints above more seriously if the revisions to the article since then had not been so uniformly favorable to Althouse. If I didn't have an agenda before, I have one now.
Intellectual honesty is a law professor's stock in trade. I believe it's relevant to an encyclopedia article on one to note episodes where he or she seemed not to take that too seriously.
However, it looks like either she or her fan base is going to keep her Wikipedia article short and innocuous. Therefore, I have reposted my near-final edit from last night as the Ann Althouse article at dKosopedia, where I suppose most people here would say it belongs, and where I have taken some advantage of the less restrictive NPOV climate. Since so far Wikipedia articles do not generally link to other wikis' articles on the same subject, I have decided not to put it in external links. For now I am just satisified with the link here on this page.
I really have more important things to do. Kafayah! Daniel Case 04:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Althouse/ Valenti Controversy[edit]

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)

You edited my contribution. I thought you were almost painfully even-handed, while mine was not. I would have left the part about inviting readers to comment on the other blogger's body, because this and her loathing of Clinton and continued support of W do address the issue of her credibility as a moderate. But I think you really improved that entry so I won't tweak it further. Thanks for the improvement. ljean 22:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Thanks for saying that, I really appreciate your kindness. I realize I left out far more than I included, but it's a summary, and I thought it better to stick to the core issue of what caused the kerfuffle. I have my own ideas about what constitutes a "moderate", but I bet everyone else does too, and would rather avoid a wiki-war over a subsidiary issue which would drag on indefinitely. Also, Ann (sometimes) claims not to loathe Clinton, so then we'd have to go back and forth on that. I did leave in the focus on poor Ms. Valenti's tangibles, but only because it's directly on topic, and can't really be disputed. Even given my limited focus, I expect it to be challenged, and would rather keep it short and defensible, rather than extensive and rejected.Snickersnee 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
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)

    • Simon replaced your article with one that was ever-sos-lightly hysterical, including things like "Several left wing bloggers attacked Althouse in increasingly bitter and hostile terms." I think that Simon needs to be blocked from editing this. Is there a mechanisms on wikipedia to request this? Because he removes anthing that is not completely unbiases. I admit my own entry was initially biased. Another person cleaned it up nicely. Then it became a 3x longer entry about "Ann as matry". Please, she is a senior tenured law professor who taunted a young blogger.

POV TAG[edit]

I added the POV tag to this entry. The "chief editor" of this page is "Simon Dodd". If you visit the Althouse blog comments, it can be seen that Simon shows up in almost every thread there, almost always to defend Althouse. At other blogs, people have wondered if Simon is an Althouse sock puppet. I don't believe so, but we do have a history of strange edits to this page from folks associated with Althouse. I believe that reviewing Simon's comments at althouse demonstrate that Simon should not be editing this page. Just reading the comments on this talk page, we can see Simon use phrases like "the left" in a POV manner. Simon self describes himself as a conservative, Simon comments at the Althouse page as a conservative and in frequent "battle" with leftists, Simon Dodd should not be editing this page. 02:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dodd (Simon) has also extensively defended Ann's interests and positions at at least two other blogs:
(1) The blog of Garance Franke-Ruta, who was recently the target of a highly emotional outburst from Ms. Althouse. See
(2) The Bloggingheads.TV forum:,4081
Dodd has also defended Ann at his own blog:
At least one user has reported that Simon is using his hold on this article to prevent edits that he does not personally approve of. See,
Ankles 03:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome aboard, Quxxo. See my previous comment above, which explicitly invites Althouse's critics to edit this version and acknowledges that I can't create a balanced entry without their help, with the qualifier I don't expect this entry to take Ann's side, but I'm not willing to let this entry become part of the leftosphere's lynch mob against her. Simon Dodd 03:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't resist adding - what iis a "hold" in the context of wikipedia mean? How did I obtain (and what can I do with) this magnificent new-found power to place "holds" on articles? Simon Dodd 04:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Case, again[edit]

Snickersee asked me, as a former editor of this page, to take a look at this controversy. I admit to probably being one of Anne's critics, but I learned a valuable lesson from the first edit war: Even if a blogger is notable, even if a controversy about a blogger's blog is notable, describe it in the most general terms. You don't need to include this level of blow-by-blow. All I think need to be mentioned is that Franke-Ruta confronted her on TV about the feministing controversy and then she walked out, with maybe any explanation she chose to offer. It would be better to go into such detail as the article currently does on a wiki devoted to blogs and bloggers. Not here.

The accusations against Simon Dodd are out of line. His user page doesn't seem to be that of a sockpuppet and he makes his potential biases pretty clear. Comments about him by others off-wiki are irrelevant to his behavior here, especially by unidentified people who seem not to understand how Wikipedia works.

Work together, guys, despite your differences. I know I've had some like this before, and there has been shouting and screaming, but I have seen politically explosive controversies over wording in articles resolved here that would never be resolved out in the blogosphere. Daniel Case 01:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, I appreciate your comments, and naturally I agree - I don't know how I can make the point any clearer than I did upthread that I'm perfectly willing to work with critics to get a balanced and reasonable article. I don't want this page to be a puff piece for Althouse, but on the other hand, I'm not willing to let it be part of the smear attack on her. I think this article can be fair and neutral, and users will notice that I've not just reverted any and all attempts to insert material about the Valenti / Franke-Ruta spat. But what I do and will demand is that if the Valenti business has to be mentioned at all, it has to be dealt with in a contextualized and evenhanded manner. It isn't really enough to just link to the video, because POV can seep in through omission just as easily as it can through addition.
And y'know, if Althouse's critics want to have an entry that is mindlessly critical of her, they have an alternative venue: they're welcome to head over to Dkosopedia or wherever and write whatever poisonous decontextualized crap they want.
In any event, since most of the more egregious nonsense appears to be from purpose-created user accounts and anonymous users, I've filed for this page to be semi-protected, restricting edits to registered users with accounts older than five days, which I think will take a great deal of heat and vandalism out of this article. Simon Dodd 15:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


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)

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)
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)

Why is there reference to Valenti's book in a section about Franke-Ruta?[edit]

Are you claiming that Franke-Ruta was engaged in some sort of conspiracy with Valenti AND with Bob Wright to somehow bait Ann? And that this conspiracy required knowing that Ann would go ballistic over the use of the word "breast"? If that's your claim, where is your evidence. Wiki policy is no original research. This book stuff this baiting stuff is pure POV and not surprisingly, it was advanced by Simon at Althouse's blog today, and entered by Simon into the wiki entry today.

Simon said...

Mortimer: let me get this right. Valenti wants to write a book, but her sole claim to fame is that Althouse once cut her to shreds. She and Garance Franke-Ruta are pals. Shortly before said book is due to come out, Valenti's pal Garance goes on bhtv with Althouse, and even though none of the subjects agreed to be talked about lend themselves to it, Garance manages to work the controversy into the conversation, reigniting the controversy that first brought Valenti to notice immediately before Valenti's book is due out. Means, motive, opportunity. 11:50 AM

Simon said...

Mortimer Brezny said... "Yes, it sure looks like Garance and Jessica plotted and planned this one. Garance's attack plus the impending publication may have even helped Jessica secure that Guardian piece."

It's possible that it's coincidence. And we have only Bob Wright's say so that Garance admitted to being friends with Valenti. And even if they're friends, that doesn't establish intent on Garance's part, independently or in collusion with Valenti. But it's a hell of a coincidence that this controversy is reignited out of the blue at so serendipitously opportune a moment for Valenti. I mean, really you couldn't have timed it better if you'd tried.

I'm starting to regret giving Garance any credit in this. You have to ask yourself - the bloggingheads thing going viral and getting Valenti's name back into circulation: Who benefits from this?

I feel physically sick. 12:05 PM

Jeez, Simon please remove your POV crap, and please stop vandalizing this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

If I really must respond to this bilge... As to your appeal to Wikipedia policy, that fails to survive scrutiny. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." See Wikipedia:Attribution. Personally, I think that policy is spinach, but nevertheless, it has been accepted as "an official policy on the English Wikipedia." Ibid. The information added earlier is not only attributable, but attributed. Your claim that it isn't relevant might be reasonable if the entry for World War 2 began "World War 2 began when the Allies declared war on Germany" - that would be false by omission of relevant context, such as Germany's actions before the allies' declaration of war (Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Rhineland, WW1, etc.). That is no less true here.
I can certainly see why you're anxious tokeep context out of this article's discussion of the diavlog, because the less context readers are aware of, the less they are likely to understand what actually happened. Nevertheless, POV can enter an article as effectively through ommision as it can through inclusion.
I don't know what they're putting in the water out there in Arizona, but you seem to be under the mistaken impression that this article either reflects your opinion, or it's POV. By contrast, I've repeatedly noted (and demonstrated in fact) that I'm happy to have this article include information I don't think should be in here, and even present alternative views, but what I won't accept is if it's an unvarnished smear piece. Go away and stay away. Simon Dodd 02:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the relevance of that book to the bloggingheads issue? Are you saying that book was somehow important to the issue? If so, be specific, what are you saying is the relevance of the book to the issue? Referring to the book is your attempt at deflecting the responsibility of the blow up from Althouse to some unknown cabal trying to increase sales of the book. Cite that, or remove it. What is your claim with regards to the book. Isn't it the case that you and one or two other people in Althouse's forum are the only people making such a claim? How is the claim then, not original research, how is it documented, and how is it not your POV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
If you can't state the relevance of the book to the bloggingheads issue, please remove the reference to the book. I will do so otherwise. 19:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The relevance is obvious, but it isn't this article's place to take an editorial line by making the link explicit. Wikipedia should not hesitate to place verifiable and potentially relevant information before the reader, who can then make up their own mind. Simon Dodd 14:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's clearly bullshit. This is a talkpage, and you still can't figure out what the relevance is. How many times are you going to simultaneously put in POV bullshit while claiming you are happy to work with others? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
Merely saying the relevance of the book is obvious, does not make it so. You have yet to state what the relevance of the book is, and so I have removed it. Please do not revert it without stating specifically what the relevance of the book is. 04:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it's plainly obvious that this was a stunt to promote Valenti's book. But to say in the article "this was a stunt to promote Valenti's book" would violate NOR and NPOV. At very minimum, it's plainly relevant that this controversy about Valenti reemerged right at the moment Valenti would need some publicity, and this article should make clear that the book's publication and the diavlog controversy coincided, while making no editorial comment. Thus, putting the information there allows readers to make up their mind if there really is a link.Simon Dodd 01:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You have no evidence of this. It is pure supposition, and we don't do original research here. You have no statements from Garance, Valenti, Wright, or even Althouse. "You think" is the definition of POV. I am reverting the POV reference. If you want to say Valenti wrote a book, add it to Valenti's page. Please do not add mention of the book back in until you have a citation that says that someone notable agrees with your theory.
I'm removing this text as

At some point after the original controversy, Valenti wrote a book, which was scheduled for release in late April 2007.[2] Shortly before the release date

as it has no relevance to the article, and the claim that the book was written after the original controversy is unreferenced, not to mention implausible. [3] (also, it reads like an ad for Valenti's book)
Wnjr 10:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
User: has requested arbitration on this page, and requested that pending some action on that action, the page be restored to a workable version. While reserving the right to refuse arbitration, I do agree at least that we should hold fire until the request is acted on in the first instance. Thus, I see there as being two reasonable alternative states for the article pending action on the arbitration request: it can either retain the disputed text, or we can simply drop the entire section on the Valenti controversy, as I previously proposed. Since User: has expressed a preference for not removing the section entirely, I have simply reverted your edit. If the text is removed again, I'll revert to my previous preference and remove the entire section. Either way is fine by me. Simon Dodd 12:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
User: has requested mediation, not arbitration. Claiming that you restored the page to a workable version is simply no excuse to include your OR, and your suggestion that it must be included or the entire section removed seems to be made with the worst of intentions. The rest of the controversy section is sourced and referenced, but is very much in need of cleanup.
Wnjr 13:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
User: has requested mediation specifically on the question of whether the reference to Valenti's book can be included.[4] I fail to see how you can seriously claim that declining to accept User:'s version of the text pending mediation can be considered to be made with the "worst of intentions"; the factual basis and verifiability for the statement is undisputed, and the touchstone of Wikipedia is verifiability. The operative question is whether the article will reflect the result of mediation that User: desires while we await action on the mediation request; it shows profound bad faith to demand mediation and to demand that your preferred resolution prevail, without further edits, pending action on that mediation request.
It's now become obvious to me that user:Pusher robot was absolutely correct in his/her conclusion downpage, and I was wrong to resist his/her conclusion: the section should be entirely removed. It has no place here; this is an article about a significant federalism and federal jurisdiction scholar and successful blogger. The Valenti controversy is entirely non-notable (as, indeed, are Valenti and Franke-Ruta themselves), and the controversy self-evidently cannot be included in a genuinely NPOV fashion without intervention by yourself and User: There is every reason in the 'verse that it both should be removed entirely. However, since that will doubtless prove unacceptable, I have reduced it to a level of detail appropriate to its actual significance.Simon Dodd 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Utter nonsense, either you can explain how your assertion that Valenti wrote her book "sometime after the initial controversy" has any basis in fact or it stays removed. Then perhaps you could explain why you believe the Valenti controversy is non-notable, rather than vandalizing the page again.
Wnjr 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Simon, why did you revert the above out of the talk page[edit]

instead of addressing the issue? 01:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Oh my god, did you just cite 12(b)(6) in every day conversation? Ugh. No wonder people hate lawyers :( Happy Editing!

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 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Proposed: replace entire "controversy" section with brief description[edit]

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 focussed 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.Simon Dodd 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the mediation cabal to take a look at Ann Althouse[edit]

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: "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. 21:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Simon will you please revert your substantial elimination of this article?[edit]

Simon, while we wait for mediation, would you please revert your substantial change to this article? You basically violated the 3R rule in spirit if not in letter. You have now removed substantial material that many of us have been working on for the better part of two months. And I am not certain that calling me "pathological" shows your understanding of the wiki prime directive, which is to assume good faith in others. Can you explain please? thank you 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

After you behavior WRT this article, there is no reason whatsoever to presume good faith. You have repeatedly attempted to ensure this article reflects your POV while branding any attempts to ensure the article adheres to WP:NPOV as being themselves POV or original research. It's facially apparent that your goal here is to have the article reflect your grudge against Althouse, and since you're apparently unwilling to just accept an NPOV article, I think the best solution is to adopt user:Pusher robot's suggestion, uppage, and simply eliminate the entire section as non-notable. That eliminates any question of POV. Nevertheless, I'm happy to revert the article to the last known good version pending admin intervention, and have done so. Simon Dodd 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Simon, I have mentioned all of my concerns about the book on the talk page. You have taken actions to delete some of these discussions from the talk page. You and I disagree about whether the book is POV or not, or if it is relevant. I do not see how your reverting to include the book, which came AFTER the original entry is "the last know good version." Of course, I say my edit that removed the book and reflected the original way it was shown is the last known good version.
Since you are the party that a) doesn't discuss things on talk pages, b) just reverts, c) protects pages, d) threatens other users with ip banning, d) does not discuss the actual issues other people have asked you with regard to the book, then I will leave it up to other users to determine if you are the person acting in bad faith here or not.
So I ask you again, to revert to the last known good version, which was the version that did not cite the book. And I ask you once again to cite, using wikipedia standards, exactly why you think the book is important and relevant, and cite your outside sources that indicate that.
Once again, I have cited in the talk pages, and posted links to your discussion on the Althouse blog where you and others surmise there was some setup, some quid pro quo, in which Garance would mention the book to raise sales for it, and in which you allege then that Garance purposely set up Althouse to raise the issue and bring up the sales of the book.
But apart from your discussions at the Althouse blog, there is no one else who has ever made that claim outside of that discussion.
Cite then, why that discussion and your theory is up to Wikipedia standards.
And please stop threatening other editors with bans and blocks. 23:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
In other words: revert to your preferred version of the text and stop making changes. That isn't what you requested (which was to replace the section dealing with the controversy), and it's hardly a good-faith request: it's just another way by which you can secure the edit you want. In the alternative, if you aren't willing to accept the description of the controversy with the reference to the Valenti book, we can just drop the entire section on the controversy pending arbitration. I'm fine with that as an alternative.Simon Dodd 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not the person threatening other people with banning. That is you. I am not the person that is putting uncited material into the article, that is you. I am not the person putting my own private pet theories into the article, that is you. Since you are confident you are right, and have raised your issue to the point of threats where it requires mediation, shouldn't you be the person offering a good faith gesture? Since the article started out without that sentence, and since the last edit before yours that was not done by me, reverted it back to where it was without that sentence, why don't you leave the article without your final edit?
And as I have mentioned here several times, you are welcome and encouraged to state exactly what you believe the relevance of the book is, and cite it.
(And as you can see above, what I asked for, what you agreed to, was for you to revert your last substantial change, which was a change that started out without the reference to the book, and a change in which you took out a large portion of the text.) 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Given your attitude towards this article, it is indeed you who needs to be making a good-faith gesture, but let me make something very clear. I consider what you want to do to this article to be reprehensible. You have requested arbitration. I have not yet acceded to it, but I have tabled intentions to request further page protection for this article and potentially for your banning, pending at least some kind of action on your arbitration request. You may consider that a display of good faith, but you can't be serious if you think that I'm going to say "well, I guess that since you filed an arbitration request, I'll just let the page reflect your preferences while action on that's pending." That attitude once again displays profoundly bad faith on your part. Simon Dodd 13:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)