Talk:Heather Armstrong/Archive 1

Use of discussion page
The discussion page is for academically discussing the article and related topics, not for talking about your feelings about the article and related topics. This is an encyclopedia, not a social forum. Mockingbirdbat 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I restored the majority of what you've deleted. Only one line arguably falls under the guideline of what is not acceptable; otherwise, as inarticulate as they might seem, the comments are valid talk page comments. It is fair to question the encyclopedic value of an article or to question the notability of the subject matter. I happen to disagree with the sentiments, but they are relevant. Wikipedia is not censored. Agent 86 21:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent blanking of this page
User:Jonarmstrong, which seems to be a single purpose account and goes by the name of Heather Armstrong's husband, recently blanked this entire page. There is really no good reason to do so, so I've restored the page. I also note that this editor has edited the article itself a few times. While many of the edits are not a problem, a few seem to be trying to white-wash things or remove notable information. Agent 86 01:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Jonarmstrong has again deleted information rather than discussing this on the talk page. I believe that the Kensington lawsuit is worthy of inclusion on this page, because it is a matter of public record and because Heather Armstrong has discussed the resolution of the lawsuit on her blog.  Also, the fact that Armstrong's blog earns enough ad revenue to support her family is noteworthy because it's a pretty rare achievement for a personal blogger.  129.186.205.84 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the lawsuit is relevant under "Other ventures". Perhaps it is of biographical interest, but in the larger scheme of things, seems uninformed to include as a "venture". Notable event, maybe. One thing to consider, on a bio page, who cares about a lawsuit that lasted a few months? The inclusion of the suit and the links to mediabistro seem to have an agenda. I'll keep deleting the lawsuit info until someone edits the page so that it fits. I think a link to the filings might be relevant, but characterizing the lawsuit/settlement erroneously is lazy and careless. I didn't intend to blank the page. I made edits, but if there was blanking, it was unintentional. Jonarmstrong 05:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case, please write up what you consider a proper characterization of the lawsuit, and append it to that portion of the page. I see from technorati that the lawsuit settlement and proposed boycott of Kensington products were quite newsworthy to other bloggers - I assume because some were fans who felt protective of Armstrong, and because some were hoping for book deals themselves.


 * If you look at my previous edits to this page, you will see that I do not have an anti-Dooce agenda, and have in fact fixed slanderous/POV characterizations several times in the past (such as the repeated references to Jon Armstrong as "househusband").


 * Also, your choice of username does raise some questions. If you are the Jon Armstrong who is part of Armstrong Media LLC, we need to add the disclaimer to this talk page that this article has been edited by the one of the subjects.  If you are not that Jon Armstrong, it would probably be a good idea to make that clear to readers as well.  129.186.205.84 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the subjects of this page. My life and that of my family is/will be affected by the contents of this page as well as the article being discussed. It is clear that Wikipedia policy has been disregarded repeatedly with the article page and as such, I've decided to pay attention to what is being written. "Newsworthy" doesn't equate with a biography of a living person. Is Wikipedia on par with Entertainment Tonight or other tabloid media? Your argument for inclusion of the lawsuit doesn't seem to reflect the neutrality clause at the top of this page.


 * I appreciate your edits, but the more I think about it, any talk of the lawsuit at this time is inappropriate.Jonarmstrong 12:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lawsuit Edits
While I'm still uncomfortable with the discussion of the lawsuit, Heather has agreed to it with the current edits. It is important to note that the contract under negotiation with Kensington WAS NEVER SIGNED BY EITHER PARTY. Also, the standingcheese link does not include Heather's response to the complaint, and as such doesn't represent a complete portrayal of the incident and it is unlikely that one will ever be publicly discussed.

Based on the litigious nature of Kensington, there is unease about allowing this section to remain on this page, and I think anybody who has faced legal action with its accompanying fees would agree that for a biographical page about a living person it is and would be a very touchy subject.

I removed the redundant mediabistro link in the links section and left it as a reference document in the lawsuit section. Jonarmstrong 16:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think something should be added to this article regarding the recent lawsuit against her. 129.100.205.179 17:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that my comment has been deleted.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.0.195 (talk • contribs)

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Edofedinburgh 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons issues
Jon Armstrong has repeatedly deleted information in this article, both with his user account and with his IP, 67.177.26.178. He's deleted information about the Kensington Press lawsuit, the fact that there is advertising on dooce.com that generates significant revenue, the name of his daughter and his dog, and so on. He has argued that all of this is in violation of WP:BLP. On the contrary, I feel that none of it is. I think that the nature of Heather Armstrong's occupation--she sells detail-rich stories about herself and her family on her website--makes her, under U.S. libel law and Wikipedia policy, a public figure. I think she accordingly has very little reasonable expectation of privacy. Certainly facts that are in the public record and reported by secondary sources like the Salt Lake Tribune, and seem notable to multiple editors, can be included in the article.

We absolutely have a responsibility to get the facts straight, and it's clear in WP:BLP that editors trying to remove libel from their own article get a lot of latitude. I've examined the edits of Jon Armstrong, and nothing that he's removed comes close to the libel standard applicable to public figures. The issue of whether or not the contract was signed is just about the only thing that was worth discussing--and I think that the article should get edited to make it clear that Kensington claimed that there was an oral agreement in place, and that that was the basis of their complaint--just as it should be clear that the final agreement was unsigned.

This information is at the core of Heather Armstrong's cultural notability, and the reason that she gets coverage in the mainstream press. This occupation didn't exist a decade ago, and its business model, the lawsuit, the exposure of her daughter's life in intimate detail are all notable and are some of the main reasons that Heather Armstrong is of general interest to readers of Wikipedia who exist outside of the blogging world. This is not tabloid journalism, this is documentation of the facts of a new phenomenon of the internet age, the professional blogger.

I think that Jon Armstrong should stop editing this article except to remove false or unsourced information. Other edits should be proposed on the talk page. Darkspots 19:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Two concerns: continued litigation that you won't have to pay for but we would and remarks that seem irrelevant to presenting accurate and complete information without bias or agenda. My edits have never been about libel. My edits have always been about relevance and accuracy.


 * One edit I continually make is a reference that dooce wasn't the first blog to accept advertising and mentions kottke.org's micropatron program. I keep deleting it because it seems out of place and is poorly written. If you read the sentence I keep deleting, it doesn't read neutral and while the discussion is valid, it seems lazy and out of place. I think one could read it as condescending. Is that the tone that is acceptable on Wikipedia?


 * If the business model is of interest, then a section should be created by those interested in it with useful links that would help a researcher or reader. I'm trying to stay out of this as much as possible. But spending large sums of money on lawyers and the resulting stress and impact on a personal and business level combined with the nature of wikipedia means that any living person should be aware of what is being written about them. Because we choose to be proactive (and reactive, by nature of wiki), where is the fault in that? Wikipedia is not a forum. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If it does devolve to that level, its usefulness will cease and it will wither. Living persons have a responsibility to be a part of the conversation about them, particularly on a page that makes claims to being fair, accurate and neutral. Jonarmstrong 14:56, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Mr. Armstrong. And very articulately and eloquently stated on your part, I might add.Sea Wolf 06:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Hi jon! (Per the section immediately below): Although the article's image of its subject is pretty good, I think that one that is be maybe more formal or else of slighly better quality would always be nice, too ("Dooce" is quite photogenic, I think). Would there be any way, Jon, for you to email me a shot that I would then upload on to WikiCommons? If so, and were you to mention that you would be allowing its general and free use, while asking that proper attribution be given, I'd really appreciate it. (I can be emailed here.) ↜Just M &thinsp;E here&#8202;,&#8202;now  22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Awful picture of subject
The picture of Heather Armstrong is not very good. Do we have another one available?216.54.39.107 (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually got Heather's permission to use her current 'about' picture, so yay! 12/7/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akariari (talk • contribs) 23:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Story is plagerized
The write-up of Armstrong is basically a rip-off of the Vox article referenced - not original or even edited, just taken verbatim. I think it should be redone or at the very least, attributed to the writer at Vox. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/4/25/18512620/dooce-heather-armstrong-depression-valedictorian-of-being-dead 165.225.35.28 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Having been the one who expanded (and updated) the article based on the Vox article, I decided to check your assertion by running the article through our favorite copyvio checker. The biggest flag from that came not from the Vox piece but from Armstrong's blog, and that's an attributed quote in the article. Checking it against the Vox article shows that other than some quotations that are clearly marked as such in the article and incidental phrases, there is absolutely nothing "verbatim" from the Vox article. To be blunt, it's pretty clear (as if it wouldn't already have been from your inability to spell "plagiarize" correctly) that you don't know what you're talking (or rather writing) about. Please don't throw around accusations like that without some real evidence. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Gendering Armstrong's children
Heather has written that her younger child identifies as gender-nonconforming. Avoiding "daughter" in favor of "child" (and using they/them pronouns, since we don't know their direct wishes) is more respectful, even if Heather may resent that. 100W bulb (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)