Talk:Little Green Footballs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NPOV tag removed

User 68.43.135.155 (talk · contribs) recently removed the Template:npov tag from this article. Is "the neutrality of this article" now beyond dispute? If a sufficient number of contributors dispute the article's neutrality, we probably should put the tag back. Comments, please? Thanks, CWC(talk) 06:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't tag it NPOV but the article is problematic, citing detractors at several points but without offering balance. For instance Ibrahim Hooper's links to the Muslim Brotherhood have been covered at LGF, but his criticism is cited without provision of this context. I have made a few minor edits to neutralise this article somewhat, and refrained from adding my own POV, but I believe the article does warrant further material if it would not become unwieldly. The sections themselves seem designed to emphasise that LGF is controversial and without redeeming merits, and do reflect an anti-LGF POV to an unencyclopedic degree. The alternative to providing balance is to reduce the article to a brief description of the site's history and subject matter, but this would mean sacrificing depth of information. -- Dom 21 July 2007

Some of the reactions are reasonable on the basis that the reader must presume that CJ would dispute the claims. Ibrahim's quote is particularly troubling however. Ibrahim himself is a frequent target of CJ (and should probably be listed in that section) and without explaining that it sounds like he's just another credible third party. Worse his quote isn't a statement of opinion but a factual statement -- and one that CJ has gone to some lengths to establish is almost certainly a lie. Including it here as a credible statement is unconscionable. 12.161.221.132 (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Name??

Why is it called "little green footballs"? Ive never gotten the name.AeomMai (talk · contribs)

From the FAQ:

Q. Where does the name “little green footballs” come from?

A. Charles ain’t telling…

I don't know, either. --htom 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

speculation is that it relates to a joke about the "Thin Green Line" of some form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.202 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd heard a story that it referred to the severed heads of Muslims considering that green is the color of Islam. : Death2Objectivism 07:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the name long predates 9/11 and Johnson's interest in Islam. In fact, he's said:[1]

I am at liberty to reveal that it has something to do with an incident in my youth, that happened in Japan.

The story you heard was a smear job. Cheers, CWC 08:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So can we delete the remark about "severed heads" from this talk page? I assume that "Death2Objectivism" had no axe to grind in posting his understanding, but is it necessary to leave that misunderstanding in place simply to refute it? If it is a Bad Thing that people repeat this acknowledged Smear Job, then should Wikipedia host it online? Thanks for taking a look. Haakondahl 12:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be taken down, as the story seems to be going around. Wikipedia should correct myths and give accurate info. I have no axe to grind in particular about LGF. Death2Objectivism 04:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

All this page says is that (1) user:Death2Objectivism heard that story and (2) the story isn't true. I see no problem with that. Cheers, CWC 05:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles Johnson has repeatedly said that the name is a private matter, and he will not discuss the meaning or the source. The name preceded his interest in politics.68.5.64.178 20:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A million times better

GREAT job with the cites Chris, this entry is a million times better.

Dragula 17:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

I've just rewritten the text about redirects. Here's what we had before, including text recently added by user 71.163.15.57 (talk · contribs) (shown in green):

When such confrontations trigger a stampede of visitors from hostile sites, Johnson sometimes redirects the traffic thus generated to the Israel Defense Forces homepage. An example of this redirect can be experienced by clicking any links from this site<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/ |title=Redirection of anti-LGF site visitors}}</ref> to LGF.

I understood the original text to mean that Johnson would redirect traffic away during the "stampede" and cancel the redirection afterwards. But 71.163.15.57 is right: the redirections are permanent. (I did a little experiment using Wget and found that any request appearing to come from http://www.jewschool.com/ is redirected.) So I've replaced the text shown above with:

Johnson has configured his website to redirect visitors from some anti-LGF sites, including many of those listed below, to the Israel Defense Forces homepage.

If anyone has evidence of LGF using redirects as temporary anti-stampede measures, we'll need to undo my edit. Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph on redirects is being repeatedly altered to remove mention of the fact that there are permanent redirects in place for certain URLs which contain criticism of LGF, such as the firedoglake blog. Why? Lakeview 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Because my tests are arguably Original Research, which is a no-no at Wikipedia. In an article with this much contention, we'd need a "Reliable Source" to cite about those permanent redirects. (LGF itself counts as a RS in this context, but Charles has never written about the redirects in a citeable way, at least not in the posts.) Cheers, CWC(talk) 07:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense for Wikipedia to require authoritative citation, but a lot of the material in this article is already uncited and appears to be based on original research. A bit more consistency would be good Lakeview 22:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

question about adding external links

what are the requirements for a link to be added under "pro" or "anti" column. Can they be any written article about LGF, or does it have to meet some sort of standards? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.117.120.41 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

How 'bout you register first? Fredsagirl 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Most Externals Links Must Go

Most of these externals should probably be removed per WP:EL, specifially Links normally to be avoided: Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. Most of these fail this test. --RWR8189 09:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As a solution, I am just going to wipe out all of the external links in this article, do not reinsert a link unless it meets the criteria under WP:EL.--RWR8189 08:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV thought

Why is the "Media Attention" section divided into "Mainstream" and "Conservative?" Shouldn't it be either "Liberal" and "Conservative," or simply not segregated? The current split implies that conservative thinking is not mainstream. Fredsagirl 15:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And no, I'm not going to dig into the archives of the talk page to find a conversation about it. In the absence of an argument to the contrary, I'll make this change in a day or so.Fredsagirl 15:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Merged "mainstream" and "Conservative" together. Fredsagirl 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agreeHoserjoe 17:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Re: 'Mainstream' section of the article

1. Removed the summary of the Mainstream section. This read: "[S]ome LGF fans conclude that the mainstream media is itself biased against LGF. Here are a few examples they use to back this claim."

This is pure contention and has been removed for the following reasons, which are clear but ought to be defined all the same: firstly, how does one define an LGF fan, how does one differentiate them from a regular reader or commentator? Can one be an LGF 'fan' while maintaining ideological differences with the website, or without commenting there? Or without reading the website?

But more importantly, why does a Wikipedia reader want to know, in an article assumedly as authoritative as can be on the matter, what a group of LGF 'fans' uses as evidence to back claims of media bias? The answer could on one hand obviously be, 'because they are regular LGF readers and therefore are aware of what LGF readers conclude as media bias'. However, the point is, any anonymous author can take the title of a group of 'LGF fans' and become instantly authoritative on the subject.

The reader themselves ought to conclude as to whether the media shows bias against LGF, by the examples shown. The comment unduly influences the reader, by inaggressively introducing a perspective. The section speaks for itself, and without undue influence on the reader in any capacity. 130.130.37.12 20:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

2. The subsection regarding an interview conducted of Johnson by erroneously named 'Michael' (in actuality Matthew) Klam, made uncited claims. This has been rewritten in a manner that dictates the facts of the issue more clearly.

The previous subsection's author had asserted 'Johnson had been intervied for 43 minutes by author Michael Klam'. This time was and has never been confirmed by Klam, nor has any time. In fact, the original assertation was made by Johnson himself, in his own article posted at the cited webpage, entitled 'They Smile In Your Face'. The previous wording of the subsection implied that Johnson had been clearly done wrong by Klam, and attempts to convey this to to the reader - and assumedly to have them accept it as truth.

It hasn't been denied by Klam, either. I reverted.Fredsagirl 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I intend to revert back immediately, reasons for which I will make clear: that Johnson made the assertion first doesn't make it fact. If Klam was to make the assertion that the interview had taken 5 minutes, but had done so first, would we take him at his word? We have no word for Klam. The only evidence that suggests the interview occurred in excess of 40 minutes, is the statement made by Johnson at his website, indeed as a part of a quite obviously impassioned attack against Klam - and who Johnson avows to be Klam's ilk at the 'MSM'. The statement by Johnson is duly quoted, and cited. Removal of such would lend to the reader the (quite natural) assumption that this is fact. Therefore, to revert this section of the article would be to knowingly leave an untruth in the article, and not only be dishonest but improper means of editing, according to policy and furthermore to common sense and ethics.130.130.37.12 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you like, add in that Klam has not denied the duration of the interview. However, one can very easily assume that he is not a regular reader of LGF, and therefore that such a claim - trivial, in contexts aside from this one, as it may be - has not been addressed to him. In any case a reversion would equate to dishonesty. - 130.130.37.12 20:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of getting in a revert war, how about discussing this item fully here and reaching consensus first? Please read WP:Consensus. Also, please register. We'll take you more seriously. Fredsagirl 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's "assertion," not "assertation." The article doesn't claim it as truth, the article admits it's an assertion by Johnson. Fredsagirl 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a "mistake", not a "cause for snide, resentful condescension". If you'll count the number of times I've used the word "assertation", you'll find it's actually less than the number of times I've used the word "assertion"; which would in most circumstances illustrate a person's familiarity with the correct and incorrect words.

I'm very inclined to reach a consensus, but I'm less inclined to register but for the fact that "the royal we" would take my opinions more more seriously. Which is something I'm entirely unconcerned with.

Let me begin the attempt at consensus by pointing out to you the fact that the section of the article concerned - as it stands, in the form of alterations I made - certainly admits the assertion by Johnson.

And it is for this reason exactly, that it would have been blatantly untruthful to revert the article to the previous form, which you suggested, at 20:29 of this date, that you had already done, and accordingly did not do. Because if you were as meticulous in reading an article's history as you are in reading a user's history of mistakes, you would realise that the changes I made, and you objected to, were those which referred to the statement being made by Charles Johnson, and cited them appropriately.

Let me quote from the article I updated: "Although Johnson had been interviewed for 43 minutes by author Michael Klam ... "

Now, as far as I can tell, that article does 'claim it as truth'. Until I updated that article, there was not a word suggesting that the statement was an assertion, as opposed to a fact - which, the quoted text obviously implies.

So when you say that "the article doesn't claim it as truth", which article are you referring to? The article that I updated? Because, immediately preceding my update, is the article in the form from which I've quoted.130.130.37.13 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions of 'rivalry' indicated as fact that such rivalry was existent (and assumedly evident among readers and commentators) at both LGF and the two sites mentioned (The Daily Kos, and Wonkette); rivalry by definition suggests competition and active participation in such by all websites involved. This is not evident in the comments sections of Daily Kos or Wonkette - by where it can be assumed the opinions of regular readers may be judged - however antipathy towards these two sites is clearly evident and commonplace in the comments section of Little Green Footballs. Therefore 'perceived rivalry' has been replaced as a more accurate alternative.

Removed uncited references to praise by Bill O'Reilly, &c &c.130.130.37.12 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Replaced those references, since the cite request is still fresh. Relax. Fredsagirl 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wonder if the whole Klam graf shouldn't go, since LGF wasn't mentioned, is it completely irrelevant? Fredsagirl 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would make the case that is relevant. As far as is apparent to me, the intent of the original author in posting that text - and in forming it in the way that he did - was to give an example of 'mainstream media' bias against Charles Johnson, and much more importantly, Little Green Footballs.

In having removed a contentious headline summary, it is now clear that the statement is an example of Little Green Football's having attracted 'mainstream media' attention - since the heading and subheading, and following examples are suggestive of this, I think it is as relevant to keep this example in, as the following examples.

I also take issue with some of your smaller edits, and will attempt to come to a 'consensus' before editing them to a more appropriate form, without the subtle hints of political perspective that they occur to present; furthermore I think it more disingeuous to include subtle hints of political perspective, than to include overt ones, as I feel that it unduly influences a reader.

If you can respect the neutrality of the article, and refrain from insult or taking semantic issue with spelling mistakes that you can as easily fix yourself, rather than point out for purposes of apparent patronisation, then I am certainly liable to come to a consensus on the article, and not just with you but with other contributors.

I hope that we will see, once such a consensus is formed, an entirely neutral article, one in which there are no uncited references such as the 'O'Reilly' sentence, which seem to give Little Green Footballs a credit in the reader's mind, that it does not deserve, so far as I am aware. I am happy to be proven wrong on this account, because it will aid the article.130.130.37.13 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oy vey. Such a large missive to respond to.

First - Every edit I've made, large and small, is in the interest of neutrality. I think a careful read will evidence this. To accuse me of being disingenuous is, in itself, disingenuous and misleading.

Second - Registering; is more for purposes of accountability than for what "the royal we" think.

Third - I'm torn about Klam. It's sort of a straw man - here's a graf which talks about something that DIDN'T happen. I guess my thought is: "so what?" Lots of things don't happen, but that doesn't make them worthy of an encyclopedia, right? I would also submit that any questions regarding my "neutrality" end with my thoughts about removing this graf. Please drop the accusations and snide remarks. I've left several removals which I thought were balanced, in spite of their not being flattering to LGF.

Rivalry - is clearly evident in the comments sections of Kos and WE. Go check again. I'm not certain that's an apropos threshold, though.

More - will have to wait until I've slept.Fredsagirl 05:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits by user 'Fredsagirl'

I am addressing here some edits made by Fredsagirl, and my comments are primarily to that person. However, if a 'consensus' on some of these issues is to be reached, other users are certainly invited to comment, and I think as many perspectives as possible in contributing to the neutrality of this piece, the better.

I believe 'Fredsagirl', being quite obviously an LGF user, and possibly a regular there, is maintaining an interest in altering the neutrality of this article in the favour of LGF and Charles Johnson - that is to say, attempting to induce in the reader's mind, by means of changing certain words and phrases, a perspective with regard to some issues, similar to that shared by many or most users who frequent LGF.

I think a careful read of my change history here immediately puts the end to this fallacy. As a matter of fact, I would argue quite the contrary. When I came to this article, I was shocked at how much subtle editorializing was happening via "innocent" little words, and have worked diligently to change those to neutral phraseology.Fredsagirl 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I address these as follows:

I try and approach the issue from the perspective of the general Wikipedia reader, not from a particularly personal perspective, or from the perspective of someone who obviously has something staked in advancing the interests of the weblog in question.

Ahem...Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Fredsagirl 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

At 21:13, 1st of March, you made an edit to the article, under the somewhat misleading title of 'accuracy'.

You changed part of line 6 of the article, "...very active discussion of the American War on Terror and the Arab-Israeli conflict..." to "...very active discussion of the Global War on Terror, Radical Islam and the Arab-Israeli conflict..."

I take contention with the terms 'Global War on Terror', and 'Radical Islam', especially used in this context, and also because you have made changes and additions, with the only purpose seeming to be a very subtle advancement of a particular point of view - at the expense, I might add, of 'accuracy'. I will attempt to come to a consensus with you and others on this issue, and explain as to how I feel these changes - though they may seem semantic or trivial - affect the article in a negative way, and make it more difficult to read for the general Wikipedia visitor.

The term 'Radical Islam', that you have entered, doesn't link to a page entitled 'Radical Islam'. It links to a page entitled 'Islamic fundamentalism'. So we may reasonably assume 'radical islam', as you use it, and publish it, equates with 'Islamic fundamentalism'. I quote from the page entitled 'Islamic fundamentalism':

"It is often regarded as the older, less preferred term for Islamism."

So according to the page you link to, the term - and quite possibly it's effectiveness in conveying what it attempts to convey - is antiquated.

A WP link to "Radical Islam" redirects to wp:islamic_fundamentalism. Take it up with my betters, please. Fredsagirl 05:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The term 'radical Islam' also has certain undeniable connotations, when compared with a more encompassing and, as the Wikipedia page suggests, 'preferred term', like Islamism.

A search on littlegreenfootballs.com for "Radical Islam", in Charles Johnson's entries only, in the past year, reveals 3550 hits. A search for "Islamist" reveals 7720, a search for "Radical Islamist", 343. A search for "Islam" produces 48700 hits. Now obviously this accounts for "Radical Islam", as well, but if we subtract the hits for "Radical Islam" from the results for "Islam", we are left with 45150 hits. 45150 uses of the word "Islam" in a context other than "Radical Islam", as used by Charles Johnson or those he quotes.

From this it might reasonably be deduced that the discussion on LGF is focused more on Islam - and at least 45150 more mentions of the word suggest so - than in the phrase "Radical Islam". The term is antiquated, according to Wikipedia, unpreferred, and according the LGF, not used all that much.

I propose it's change to a more neutral word, which doesn't carry subtle political connotations, such as "Islamism".

Next I refer to your second change in that sentence, the change from "American War on Terror", toe "Global War on Terror". I agree with changing the phrase from "American War on Terror", as this is a fairly esoteric term, one used rarely in comparison to something like "The War on Terrorism" or "The War on Terror".

I quote from the Wikipedia article, which your addition 'Global War on Terror', links to (entitled, by the way, 'War on Terrorism'): The phrase Global War on Terrorism (or GWOT) is the official name used by the U.S. military for operations designated as part of the campaign. Furthermore, the first hit one receives when searching for 'Global War on Terror' using Google, is a page describing the term, belongong to the White House.

However doing such a such one only achieves 1,130,000 hits, and for 'Global War on Terrorism', only 1,060,000. The phrase 'War on Terrorism', however, achieves 1,260,000 hits, and the phrase 'War on Terror'achieves 19,000,000. Even accounting for the 'Global' hits, searching for the phrase 'War on Terror' still achieves at least 17 million more results than the phrase you put into the article, indicating it's popularity and wide recognition.

I think it's fair to say that, using Google as an indicator of popular consensus, the phrase 'Global War on Terrorism' is much less known than the phrase 'War on Terror'. The fact that 'Global War on Terror' is used a great deal in the comments section on LGF, something of which I'm well aware, does not mean that the phrase is appropriate to this article, regardless of the fact that it is about LGF. The section where 'Global War on Terror' is used, is not talking about LGF 'slang' or acronyms, or popularly used terms on LGF.

I believe it to be another subtle appeal to political perspective, when you edit the 'Global War on Terror' into the article - not the White House term, assumedly you have that incorrect, but close enough - as opposed to the much more widely recognised 'War on Terrorism' or simply 'War on Terror'.

I think it best to refer to things as the public might understand them in a public space such as Wikipedia, rather than to use terms that might be popular on Little Green Footballs - whether to achieve a subtle political influence on the article, or not.

For the sake of appeal to the public and ease of recognition, I propose editing that part of the article to either "War on Terrorism" (the name of the article it links to), or "War on Terror".

The next thing I'd like to refer to is the section on 'Palestinian Child Abuse' or something similar, where you have edited out the phrase 'usually real but sometimes fake', in reference to pictures posted on LGF, with children shown carrying guns and bomb belts.

This is a fairly blatant attempt at dishonesty, as the fact of the matter is, that while a great many of the weapons in the pictures appear to be real, a number are quite obviously fake, or toys. I am not at this point inclined to refer to each picture in terms of statistics, however I think reference should be made to the fact that the weapons displayed in the pictures are not obviously always real.

In fact, I think it would be much harder for a person to prove the child was holding a real weapon, than holding a fake one, in a great number of those pictures. It may even be contentious to assert that they are real, without anything other than assumedly your own visual analysis.

However, after your revision, the sentence previously reading ["These children are often shown carrying guns and bomb belts, usually real but sometimes fake."] now reads ["These children are often shown carrying guns and bomb belts."] There is a big difference in the understanding of this sentence, and the latter gives no suggestion that in a number of the pictures, the weapons are obviously fake. This is clearly dishonest and an attempt to influence the reader's perspective. I propose a reversion to the form the sentence was in, or an edit to that effect.

I hesitate to revert or change these contentious sections myself, in response to 'Fredsagirl's appeal to consensus and discussion, which sounds reasonable and in fact I would encourage.130.130.37.13 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to politely request that you stop using loaded phraseology such as "dishonest," and "...attempt to influence the reader's perspective," with regards to other editors. Particularly when you're attempting to discuss the neutrality of an article, this level of attack in your language is unacceptable. You are imputing motive to another editor, with no empirical means of possessing that knowledge. Please try to limit your comments to the content. Fredsagirl 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Semantics

Let's discuss:

GWOT v AWOT or WOT

Islamism v radical islam

similar contrasts. I think a good point was made, above.I'll stand w/the crowd on these. Fredsagirl 05:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh - Palestinian Child abuse. Can someone please explain to me how it's germane whether or not the bombs strapped to a child in a picture are real or not? I'd assume not, but I don't think the difference is as illustrative as the fact that kids are pictured with destructive weapons attached to their bodies.Fredsagirl 05:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1;WOT is just fine 2;Neither. Islam is sufficient to describe what LGF watches and criticises. Lord Patrick 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In three days, no one else has commented on this. I suppose that's consensus, eh? Fredsagirl 23:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I find it hard to keep up sometimes ...

Yeah, WOT and Islam are fine. Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of bias

User:82.152.248.149 added a cite from Colin Powell, which was taken considerably out of context. The balance of the quote was

"...but the line is crossed when the leaders of Israel are demonised or vilified by the use of Nazi symbols."

That use of symbols is precisely what LGF and Johnson repeatedly point out. I moved and properly footnoted the Powell quote, but am uncomfortable using it at all, since the meaning as spoken by Powell is actually opposite from it's meaning as used by user:82.152.248.149 Fredsagirl 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Concise

Suggested to remove as unencylopedic:

(1) From "Palestinian child abuse" is material which belongs in "Slang and posting protocols":

"Johnson also uses the term "Religion of Peace" (sometimes abbreviated as "RoP"), for ironic purpose, in the title of posts which reference new Islamic terror attacks.[18]"

(2) From "Rachel Corrie suggested for removal - section is supposed to be about "Recurring themes" on LGF, not advocating for Johnson's interpretation of events in the Middle East.

"In support of this view, he has cited a diary entry from Corrie in which she claims that the Palestinians are justified in their terror attacks because the Israeli military's capabilities, aided by the U.S., put the Palestinians at a disadvantage.[21]."

(3) "Accusations of Bias" - unsourced repetition of sourced material in previous section "Claims of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment"

• From "Slang and posting protocols" comes unsourced original research:

"Like other political forums on the Internet, LGF attracts dissonant commenters. LGF states that it does not ban posters for dissenting opinions while critics deride LGF and claim that dissenters are drowned out by supporters and that even "legitimate critiques" have been barred outright (see following section on Registration)."

(4) Also the following seems to be unencyclopedic as well. Johnson also posts a module showing what jazz CD he is listening to that afternoon, but this does not merit a paragraph of commentary on wikipedia.

"Employing an altered version of the Serenity Prayer, Johnson reminds readers in the comments section to debate carefully: Lord, grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls, the courage to debate with honest opponents, and the wisdom to know the difference"

(5) The entire "Registration" section consists of an unsourced repetition of sourced material in previous section "Netiquette and redirects"

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Dragula

Responses from User:Chris Chittleborough AKA "CWC":

(1) Good point. Let's rename '"Palestinian Child Abuse"' to "Slang" (or "Terminology"?), move the slang stuff there and rename "Slang and Posting Protocols" to (say) "Comment Protocols".

(2) I disagree. LGF's stuff about Rachel Corrie is a good example of LGF's attitudes to Israel, anti-Israel Westerners and the "MSM".

Hi Chris, I think its definitely a good example of Johnson's attitude towards Rachel Corrie, but if his comments on her diaries really do represent some sort of significant contribution to the post-mortem analysis of this particular media frenzy then they should probably be on the Corrie page itself and not here. To have a paragraph on this page explaining and justifying why Johnson adopts certain editorial stances strongly implies an endorsement of these stances by Wiki, and unless we want to get into opposing views and turn the LGF page into the debate-Corrie page I really do think we should just cut or move this.

Dragula 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(3) Another good point. We could definitely improve the structure here. See my (5).

(4) I disagree. That Johnson reminds commenters to debate carefully is significant, in light of many claims the LGF is a "hate site".

Hi Chris, once we cut the unsourced claims about LGF's status as a "hate site", then we are left with only with the claims made by various media outlets, including Pajamas Media contributers who charge critics of LGF with employing Hitler's "big lie" technique - I think that's balanced enough, don't you? Seriously, most sites have some sort of cutesy disclaimer or in-group in-jokes on their bulletin boards - I just don't think that's encyclopedic.

Dragula 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(5) Yep. More structural problems. Here's a first draft of a possible new structure for the "Changes and controversies" section (which I would rename to "Controversies"):

==Controversies==

Fans see Little Green Footballs as an alternative media outlet which provides a counterweight to alleged anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Conservative bias of mainstream media outlets such as Reuters ("al-Reuters" in LGF slang). Conversely, some opponents argue that LGF tends to characterize any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism{{fact}}. Some LGF fans in turn accuse their opponents of characterizing any criticism of Islam, Arabs or other Muslims as bigotry or "Islamophobia".{{fact}}

Hi Chris, actually I think all of the above is more than adequately covered by "Claims of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment" and "Media"

Dragula 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

===Claims of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment===

((As at present))

===Commenters===

In 2004, as the volume of comments from argumentative newbies rose with the site's increasing profile, Johnson implemented a simple registration system and allowed only registered users to submit comments. Registration is now only available at irregular intervals.

Like other political forums on the Internet, LGF attracts dissonant commenters. LGF states that it does not ban posters for dissenting opinions,{{fact}} while critics claim that dissenters are drowned out by supporters and that even "legitimate critiques" have been barred outright.{{fact}} Employing an altered version of the Serenity Prayer, Johnson reminds commenters section to debate carefully: Lord, grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls, the courage to debate with honest opponents, and the wisdom to know the difference.

I suggest we whack the whole "Commenters" section entirely. Registration policy is covered by the Blog Herald quote about LGF's fued with Digg; the rest is just unremarkable trivia about how blogs work.

Dragula 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

===Netiquette and redirects===

((As at present))

This absorbs the "Registration" and "Slang and posting protocols" sections into "Commenters" (except that the first para of "Slang and posting protocols" is moved elsewhere; see my (1)).

Any comments, suggestions, criticisms ... please ?

Cheers, CWC(talk) 08:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Unsourced/Unencylopedic claims

Hi CWC,

Following the general Wiki guideline/admonition to "be bold" i have removed most unsourced claims from the page; LGF has generated enough media attention over the years that there are plenty of legit news refs we can use instead. Please review and let me know what you think.

Dragula 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed?

"prior to 9/11 Johnson sometimes expressed liberal political views and occasionally criticized United States President George W. Bush."

Anyone have a link for this? It's very believable (no one's views are ever set in stone; David Horowitz and Ronald Reagan began their political consciousness as liberals, and many Supreme Court Justices have followed the opposite trend,) but I would think a lot of casual readers would find it surprising.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=62000 <--Actually just found a link to an interview, no specific website quotes, though. Also answers a little of the "why the name lgf" question above too. I went ahead and stuck it in.

—The preceding comments were added by Thermal0xidizer (talk. Moved to end of page by CWC 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC), who changed "below" to "above".

Synthesis/Original Research

"Throbert McGee" has done a yoeman's job of fleshing out this entry to provide context and apologetics from the POV of an LGF regular, but seems not to understand Wiki policies RE: original research and synthesis (took me a long time to grok these as well, FWIW). So... I have removed two extended passages advocating for the "insiders" interpretation of LGF member political self-perception and shades-of-meaning slang usage; not wanting to discourage an eloquent writer, I then scaled back plans to drastically clip three other sections and amended these with the appropriate tags. Throbert, you are a fine writer whose mastery of style and diction are evident both here and on LGF itself; please read and research Wiki policies RE: original research and synthesis and let's see if we can't come up with some way to make your material encyclopedic!

best

Dragula 18:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Throbert,

As of tomorrow night it will have been a week since the above note. If nobody else has any objections or further input, I plan at that time to delete the Original Research and Incorrect Synthesis material from this entry.

Dragula 18:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I must confess that I haven't keep track of changes to this article over the last week or two. However, it has occurred to me that (1) we could shorten the article by leaving out stuff that is mentioned in the LGF FAQ, and that (2) shortening the article would be a Good Thing. Cheers, CWC 13:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up is in order

Hi all. In the course of dealing with some "issues" over at the Killian Documents discussion page, links to LGF in one way or the other strangely kept popping up. While I have no interest in the overall LGF wiki itself, it looks as though I might have to pop by at some point to help clean up a few issues here as well, starting with things like that comment on the main page that goes LGF is perhaps best known for playing a key role in exposing the forged Killian documents. Yeah, we'll have to definitely do something about that since, well (as some of you might already know) not only were the documents never actually proven to be forged, but the current evidence shows that they couldn't have been forged, period. There are also some issues regarding "the forged and altered photographs in the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy" that might be worth exploring as well, but I don't know if I really enough interest to pursue it much. We shall see. Also, I suppose I should point out that some people here might perchance be asked to leave [2] FYI. Have a nice day. Go Sox! -BC aka Callmebc 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The COI allegation has been resolved; see here. I do not agree with "BC"'s claim that the Killian docs could not have been forged. And my team won the World Cup last night! CWC 15:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Be thankful I'm not at all that interested in this "Dragula" thing. As far as the Killian memos thing goes, it's a done deal whether you "agree" or not -- they could not have been forged, period. Not only did I locate other proportionally printed TANG docs from the late 60's [3], but yesterday I found a declassified, proportionally printed "Memorandum for Record" from 1959 [4] that I've already posted. That plus the Faux-Arial word processing doc dated August, 1973 [5], plus how nobody can replicate all the memos with a modern word processor, not to mention the logical impossibility of the Feb. 2, 1972 memo being forged at all, means that it's over. The only thing left is to place blame for how this mess came to orginate. Plus finish up on that little Arbitration issue. Congrats on your cricket team though. -BC aka Callmebc 15:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Callmebc, you are presenting things which you personally "found" as evidence to support your proposed edits. This is not "cleaning up" as you style it, but something else entirely. If you would like to cite a WikiPrinciple to support your position, that will add wieght to your proposal. Until then, it is what I might politely call "Original Research", and is unacceptable in my judgement. Go Mighty J! Haakondahl 15:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

External Links & Critical Sources

McJeff, after you deleted the external links for this entry I restored them and left a request to discuss in the entry history. I also left 2 detailed paragraphs on your user discussion page explaining the history of this entry and requesting a rationale for the deletion of critical external links.

As I mentioned on your own user discussion page, other editors felt this entry had become unbalanced because there were no critical external links. I explained that these were a hassle to maintain because they were subject to continuous hit-and-run vandalisms but decided to restore them since they really should be here. I also asked you discuss with me why you thought they should be removed.

Today I checked the page and found that not only had you re-deleted one of the recently restored critical external links but had also deleted my explanation of the history of this entry and request to discuss from your own discussion page!!!

I notice that you are an extremely new editor (welcome!) For this reason you may not understand that Wikipedia is a community, that it does have policies, and that my request to discuss this situation - the one you deleted from your user discussion page - is still visible in its entirety in that page's history!

"Please discuss" means exactly that - please discuss. I have filled you in on the history of this entry, explained recent debates and decisions RE: the presence of external links, and now would ask that if you see something here that as a new editor, you do not like, please do not delete it, or delete requests to discuss it (!) - instead PLEASE DISCUSS.

best,

Dragula 18:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not THAT new, although I've only relatively recently started editing seriously - if you've any inclination, check out my work on the Zombietime entry, or on Bully.

At any rate, if there's been discussion that says there should be links critical of LGF, I won't go against that. I did check the discussion page before I redeleted the links. I saw no conversation referring to LGF Watch, and assumed that you were acting on your own against general decision. As that apparently isn't the case, I readded LGF Watch, with a note that it is a blog critical of LGF.

I'd like to call attention, however, to WP:EL. Namely, the links normally to be avoided section. Specifically, criteria 11 - links to blogs and personal webpages that are not run by a recognized authority. The LGF Watch blog is run by someone anonymous whom Charles Johnson refers to as a 'stalker'. Or criteria 1 - any site that does not provide a unique resource.

For the sake of peace while things are discussed, I reinserted the link to LGF Watch. I agree that it's best to have sources that are critical of LGF in order to present a balanced view, but I don't know of any. At one point in time there was a very extensive list of links to various LGF sites, both pro and anti - perhaps you'd like to dig up that list and look for a source that would be more appropriate than LGF Watch?

As for the LGF Quiz, it is not a unique resource, it does take quotes from people out of context and outright fabricate things, and what it basically amounts to is slander. LGF Quiz is not critical of LGF itself, but rather it's a direct attack on the people who post there, and that's why it isn't suitable for being linked. If there's a reason you think LGF Quiz is a valuable resource to be linked to, I'd appreciate you explaining it.

McJeff 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with McJeff's application of WP:EL in this article. It is important to have external links that are not blogs and that are notable. I plan on removing the dictionary link and the other blog.--RWR8189 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think the dictionary should be included as a unique resource. McJeff 23:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks, at the time the lengthy list of "external links" was removed (several months ago), the editorial consensus seemed to be that much controversy could be avoided by deleting links to personal sites and blogs from this entry entirely, the reasoning being: Either we include only legit news sources, cited, in which case people howl that the entry has been whitewashed, or else we include both critical and laudatory personal and blog sources in the "external links" section ONLY and instead provoke an endless series of vandalisms and reverts TO THAT SECTION.

So, am open to suggestions either way, but IMHO we need to come up with a consistent approach. Either we include links to blogs and personal sites (both critical and laudatory, that pass the google test and serve as unique resources in some way) in the "external links" section or else we don't.

In either case, the article itself is comprised almost entirely of cites of legit news sources so to put things in perspective, we are only really talking about 4 or 5 links in a small section called "external links" - we really could just prune that section down to a link to LGF itself and things would be fine too.

Thoughts?

P.S. On a related note, yes, I am aware that the LGF site owner classifies sites which critique (watch) or satirize (quiz) his site as slander, libel, stalkers, deranged-America hating jihadist leftist loons, etc. Unfortunately and for this reason, if we instead decided to hold out for critical blog and personal sites that he has pre-approved we could be in for a very long wait!

Dragula 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the list of anti-sites for months. Maybe the first step is to post it here and browse through it, seeing which ones fit WP:EL the best? There's certain to be some stuff there.

Also just to make something clear - I'm not trying to phrase things as if I think Charles Johnson is the ultimate authority on what is/isn't credible. It's simply that the LGF Watch blog is exactly what WP:EL excludes as a credible source. And while it could be a point of view thing, I'll grant, the "LGF Quiz" doesn't seem to be satire, but rather venom and hatred of the kind most often encountered in a middle school cafeteria.

One further thought/suggestion - it might be easier to simply make a Criticism section for this entry, siting those sources that meet WP:EL to back up statements made, while leaving the links section as just the link to LGF.

P.S. changed the name of this section of the debate to "External Links & Critical Sources" since that's pretty much what this is about, rather than a knee-jerk edit I made after my fourth can of Vault. McJeff 04:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

LGF Quiz

Charles has mentioned the LGF Quiz here and here. He says it's a "years-old out-of-context cherry-picking smear job, containing not a single quote from me, put up by an obsessed Palestinian sympathizer who was determined to ruin LGF’s reputation in our early days" and that the quotes from LGF it uses are all from commenters, not Charles, and were "taken wildly out of context". Unless someone produces a Reliable Source contradicting Charles, I suggest that we should not include the quiz in the article. (I don't have an opinion about lgfwatch yet.) Cheers, CWC 11:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we have some better reason to rule out critical links - even those which explicitly frame themselves as satirical critiques of in-group community language - besides the fact that they get the LGF webmaster's shorts in bunch?

Honestly, if we start to make editorial decisions here based on the site owner's off-the-cuff pronouncements regarding "obsessed Palestinian Sympathizers," "Self-hating Jews," "America-loathing Journalists," etc, then editing this article could get very complicated indeed.

By way of example, he also considers most major American and British newspapers to be hotbeds of deranged and malicious treason and evil - "the Media are the Enemy," etc - but we still use these as sources for the entry!

Again, I think we should be consistent here, either allow both pro and con links in the external links section, or else not at all.

Either way, I think we need to we need to continue to restrict the rest of the entry to cites from legit news sources ONLY or else the entire thing will go back to being a ongoing trainwreck of back'n'forth hit & run vandalisms and reverts.

best,

Dragula 05:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to partisan sites dedicated to undermining LGF have no place in a factual article save, if they are notable, as source material. There are plenty of sites dedicated to attacking the BBC, for example, including some respectable sources, but their partisanship would render linking them a travesty in an encyclopedic description of the organisation. --91.109.117.73 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: Dragula thinks he owns the article's content and is its final arbiter. Good luck reasoning with him/her/it. A2Kafir 14:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Personal Sites and Blogs

Just looked at the entry and re-read recent discussion again. I hate to say it, but conflicting POVs regarding external links (unavoidable - human nature!) seem to confirm the wisdom of the original decision, to wit: we could avoid a lot of ambiguity, special pleading and partisan conflict by simply leaving personal sites and blogs - Watch, Dictionary, Quiz - out of the mix entirely.

The rest of the entry is concise, cited, and relies on legit, recognized professional news organizations - once we introduce the more subjective, amateur stuff, we will be opening up a can of worms that is not easily reclosed.

Dragula 14:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly! We have some good, cited criticism and support from newspapers etc, and I see no benefit, only needless trouble, from adding blogs and personal sites.

LGF has a "tools/info" list in the left-hand column which contains the FAQ and the Dictionary. Most web users visiting a new site know to look for the site's FAQ; I don't see that our article needs to point to the FAQ.

BTW, I've had a look at LGF Watch, and was very disappointed. I think WP:EL rules it out.

Also, re: my previous comment. I was trying to say that Charles claims the "LGF Quiz" is intellectually dishonest, and thus I would oppose mentioning it unless someone showed it was honest. My apologies for the excessive quotes and unclear language.

(I added the "Personal Sites and Blogs" heading because Dragula's point applies in general, not just to the Quiz.) Cheers, CWC 08:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris, glad we are on the same page here. Everyone of course has sympathies and/or more-or-less unconscious biases but the thing that really make WP stand out from so many other similar venues from my POV is the fact that editors here really do take the policies and commitment to certain principles seriously - it is a pleasure to have some higher standard to work towards and strive for, and I'm glad that it we seem to be able to do this together.

Speaking of which, I haven't had time to really review it yet but the entry has accrued what appears to be a great deal of OR over the course of the last 24 hrs or so. IMHO we could and probably just should revert to your last edit of 16:35, 4 May 2007 (the last, stable iteration preceding the items discussed above).

Will now take a more in-depth look and would appreciate your thoughts on this as well.

best,

Dragula 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cites from recognized authorities and reliable sources

Wanted to add a bit of clarification here RE: cites from blogs and personal sites.

Per WP:EL, links to be avoided include "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."

See also: Self-published sources: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications.

best,

Dragula 19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Misc Issues

A few thoughts:

• The article might benefit from a few more citations from supportive sources
• Discussion (here) will probably need to focus on and explain such issues as OR, Syn, NPOV, WP:EL etc to new editors more heavily in the future. One would imagine that these would have the common sense (for example) not to alter quotes and citations to make them say what they "should have said"... but perhaps there is just a learning curve here that needs to be worked with.
• If no objections, plan to revert back to CWC's edit of 5.4.2007 on 5.16.2007.

Dragula 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought: change the "exposing the forged Killian documents" to something a wee bit more accurate and up to date. My interest isn't with this Wiki, but I will make a fuss with the Killian stuff if it isn't fixed. Do what you want, but "forged" is now a big no-no. I would suggest something along the lines of "called into question the authenticity of the memos, a charge that CBS then failed to address adequately." Whatever, but it's well past the time to drop the forged claim. -BC aka Callmebc 13:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Callmebc, like any other entry, this one touches on multiple overlapping issues that already have their OWN entries. People seem to want to use intro paragraphs or links in THIS entry to editorialize about issues in OTHER entries. So, where possible, I have deleted ALL of that stuff where I've found it and instead replaced it with neutral phrasing linking to those other entries - including the Killan doc (months past this entry features a 5 paragraph Killan doc section which was very NPOV). So...

I'l admit. I don't know much about the KD, I just want THIS entry to be concise and profesh. So... if you can come up with some sort of neutral phrasing, that does not refer to controversial or unsubstantiated claims, or introduce any editorializing or premature introductions of the back'n'forth arguments which no doubt exist already on the KD page, then by all means do so.

My only caveat is that if an editorial consensus can't be reached in that entry (I don't know - I haven't followed it except for to check the material there and then delete any material I found here that was redundant) you're unlikely to bolster your own position by introducing it here. Right now we only legit news cites and referenced sources in this entry and it would be preferable to keep it that way - I don't want the Killan docs controversy spilling over here.

thanks in advance for your consideration

Dragula 15:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like in the time that it took me to write the above long-winded dicsourse, CWC went ahead and fixed the offending phrase. LOL. Good job CWC. Callmebc, I trust that this settles the issue for you?

Dragula 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, "BC". Thanks for pointing that out. I've changed that sentence to "... playing a key role in raising doubts about the Killian documents".

Sadly, the "exposing the forged Killian documents" claim has been there for months with no support from any Reliable Source. (The sources that call the memos forgeries aren't 'reliable' by our rules, and (AFAIK) the 'reliable' ones carefully avoid outright statements that the memos are forged.) Even sadder, this kind of thing is not all that uncommon in Wikipedia articles.

(Memo to self: read articles like this every couple of months, instead of just looking at the diffs.)

Regards from a rather annoyed CWC 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm....well, well -- a simple "thank you" is in order here I do believe. And a mucho gracious for the prompt response. -BC aka Callmebc 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

recent vandalism

Sorta discourages any defacing of this article, doesn't it? lgf post --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 18:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

James Wolcott not Notable, Vanity Fair not a Reliable Source (this title is misleading)

Hi JimxChue, if you could expand upon your comment regarding the "questionable sourcing, questionable notability, questionable neutrality" of this entrys account of the Wolcott/Pipes/LGF contretemps, I'd appreciate it. FWIW, the citations in this section are verbatim and accurate and LGF, Pipes and Wolcott are all major media figures. BTW, "neutrality" does not mean that we are supposed to somehow enforce a neutrality pact between LGF, Pipes and Wolcott themselves, but that we ourselves are not supposed to editorialize.

Dragula 14:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see. First off, the sourcing is from Wolcott's blog, not a reliable source. The comment cited from an LGF reader is hardly notable (thousands are made each and every day from hundreds of non-notable, anonymous commenters), and Wolcott himself isn't particularly notable, either. I could possibly see leaving the comment about Wolcott and Wolcott's response, but the comment from the LGF reader definitely is not notable. Jinxmchue 16:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi JinxMcHue, thanks for responding

To your comments, please correct me if I'm wrong here but it seems to me that we may be having a misunderstanding here RE: the application of certain basic WP, e.g.:

Wolcott himself is not a Wiki editor and so does not have to maintain NPOV or restrict himself to Wiki Policies RE: notability, we just have to maintain NPOV when discussing this particular media mention and hew to certain standards when citing him as an MSM news source. Do you understand the distinction here?

Thus it is that James Wolcott - a published author with a decades-long career as a cultural critic and journalist - specifically wrote an online article for Vanity Fair (magazine) about this very comment (on LGF - the one you keep deleting) and then quoted it verbatim on the Vanity Fair website. He is a journalist reporting it as news in an MSM news source; by definition this makes it notable. We then cited the article ("Headhunters") with a link to its location on the Vanity Fair website as an example of a mainstream news media reaction to and/or mention of LGF - just like we would any other.

FWIW, I have restored the passage to its extant state and lets see what other editors have to say before we go deleting things again.

BTW, checked out the blog mentioned on your "User Page", are you really one of the designers behind the "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game? That's pretty cool!!!

Dragula 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Um... It's "quoted verbatim" because Wolcott quoted it on his blog. That doesn't make the comment notable. It just makes Wolcott a whiner. (Okay, I'll admit that was gratuitous.) It's not a Vanity Fair article. It's a blog entry. As per Wiki guidelines regarding verifiability, it can't be used, particularly since what's being quoted is not notable in and of itself. Seriously, who but Wolcott gives a fat rip about what some non-notable, anonymous LGF reader said? As I noted in my last edit summary, if Charles Johnson himself had made the comment, then I would see absolutely no problem including it. Jinxmchue 04:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
• Furthermore, how does anyone know the quote in question didn't come from a troll? LGF has more than its fair share of disruptors who post inflammatory comments in an attempt to make LGF look bad. The quote simply is not verifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Jinxmchue 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jinxchue,

To your points, you ask: "Seriously, who but Wolcott gives a fat rip about what some non-notable, anonymous LGF reader said?"

Google shows results for "wolcott headhunters" Results 1 - 10 of about 844 for wolcott headhunters. (0.36 seconds)

Typical result: "the s.n.a.f.u. principle: December 2005: Everyone is linking Wolcott's Headhunters for a reason..."

You also ask "Furthermore, how does anyone know the quote in question didn't come from a troll?" Thats not germane to this media mention, whether it did or not, Wolcott wrote an article about it, Wolcott is a major media figure, Vanity Fair is a major Media outlet, the article was posted to their website, end of story.

At any rate, there is probably no point in my responmding to you here because you have apparently decided to go ahead and delete this for a third time instead of continuing the discussion and waiting for other editors to weigh in per my request. In other words, you seem to want to start an edit war.

I have other things to do this week so for now I'm going to just leave your vandalism as-is and tag the article.

best

Dragula 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi JinxMcHue,

I just noticed that something seemed a little funny about the above discussion, so I looked in the history and realized that you actually edited out two paragraphs of my original response to you last night, the parts where I tried to adddress your concerns about notability and verifiability and explain a bit about Vanity Fair's status as a news source, Wolcott's career as a media critic, etc!!!

You do realize that all of this stuff shows up in the history, don't you? I'm restoring my response to the above in its entirety and urging you to please respect WP and play by the rules!

Dragula 17:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about??? I didn't edit anything out. My three edits to this current page are here, here, and here. As you and everyone else can see, I only added comments and didn't take any away. Better check your own edit history. It's pretty convoluted and you probably dropped the paragraphs yourself. Please check your facts the next time you feel like making accusations like that. Jinxmchue 17:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi JinxMcHue, LOL. you're right, mea culpa. I did whack a couple of paragraphs somehow when I was responding to you the second time - I've had other people do that to me in the past, always thought it was lame, and because you seem pretty eager to delete things without discussing first I just assumed that you did the same thing. My apologies.

That said, how do you want to resolve the issue at hand? It seems to me that if a journalist wrote an article about a comment on LGF and published that on a major media news source, then the anonymous comment (or at least the article about it) is notable.

I should add that we may not really understand Wolcott's motives here either, I am not a journalist or media figure and I suspect neither or you, so nobody has ever threatened to cut off my head nor have I ever had the opportunity to write an article about it for Vanity Fair or anywhere else.

Anyway, Wolcott's article "Headhunters" did receive a lot of attention and linkage, per google, so we can't just pretend it doesn't exist, even if we do think he was overreacting.

Are LGF's anonymous commenters still not newsworthy even when journalists write specifically write news stories article about LGF's anonymous commenters in MSM news media sources? That is the question here, I guess.

Addendum (we are apparently posting simultaneously here) - if you think that the title is misleading, please change it! I am trying to puzzle out your position here which is not clear to me, if you have specific objection then we should definitley use that as the title instead so that we can resolve this.

best

Dragula 18:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you portray my edits as "vandalism." Wiki policies and guidelines are on my side: WP:VER and WP:RS. Who posted the comment is VERY germane as it is a matter of verifiability. Anyone can post any sorts of comments on LGF anonymously. How do we know that the comment wasn't posted as a joke by someone who supports Wolcott? People doing that sort of thing to discredit Johnson and other commenters is nothing new to LGF (and many other blogs, forums and websites). Unless the comment had been made by Johnson himself, it simply and entirely lacks verifiability and notability even if Wolcott commented on it. Leaving the information would just open up a can of worms that I would rather remain closed - yes, even for articles about conservatives. Bloggers like Johnson, Malkin and others have commented many times about comments left on other blogs and websites. Do we really want to open the door to people adding these things to Wikipedia? I hope not! Jinxmchue 18:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, your position here seems to be that if we first define blog user comments as non-newsworthy (ironic given that this very entry is about the very blog in question), then we have to pretend that articles written about these commmenters in recognized news media sources don't exist, no matter how much attention these same articles receive.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

Dragula 18:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm noting that the new section title is misleading. I've never said Wolcott is entirely non-notable. I said he's not particularly notable. I also NEVER said Vanity Fair is not a reliable source. I said Wolcott's blog (which just happens to be hosted by VF) is not a reliable source.

Wolcott's blog is NOT Vanity Fair. Finally, let me make this clear one more time: reader comments on LGF - even if highlighted by someone like Wolcott - are not notable. Jinxmchue 18:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that "Wolcott's blog... just happens to be hosted by VF?" He is listed on the site as a contributing editor.

Dragula 18:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi JinxMcHue,

OK, I see the edit you want to make now. You removed the information about Wolcott's "Headhunters" piece - which was about an LGF commenter calling for Wolcott's head - so that users now have no idea what Wolcott was writing about or why and the impression is created that Wolcott wrote an entire article for Vanity Fair about the time Johnson calling him "highfalutin'!!!!"

That's amusing in a way I guess but I'm not sure that its entirely fair or that it lives up to Wikis high standards. Per the quote I found searching for links to this piece on google, Wolcott's piece got a lot of media attention "for a reason".

Once again, you don't think this is something Wolcott should have written about, Vanity Fair should have allowed to be published to their site, or so many people should have linked to, but the fact remains that he did, they did and they did again... isn't there some way we can at least acknowledge that that LGF webmaster disputes this (if he does) instead of just censoring out the info that is "not nice"?

19:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi JinxMcHue, just for kicks I googled "JinxMcHue + LGF" and found

Charles Johnson (lgf) Needs Help Getting Rid of a Stalker

"by jinxmchue on 3/01/07

[comment buried, show commenthide comment] + 4 diggs bury this digg this

Hey, guys. Just an FYI if you haven't heard the latest. LGF Watch has been blocked from having links to their posts added to Digg. Sweet!"

You don't have a Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest here, do you JinxMcHue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragula (talk • contribs)

19:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:COI before you make such accusations. If you have evidence that Jinx has a vested interest in LGF, then report him to WP:COIN. Otherwise, this smacks of a personal attack. - Crockspot 20:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Pajamas Media

The name refers to Jonathan Klein's comment about bloggers working in their pajamas. This links to a disambiguation page, any of these three are capable of making this comment. Do we know who it was? --Knulclunk 05:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What's an Idiotarian?

Anyone? --AW 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A perjorative term covering both Pat Robertson and Noam Chomsky (!), meaning basically people who blamed the U.S. for the 9-11 atrocity. See the LGF FAQ and follow the links for more information. Cheers, CWC 19:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. That needs to be in the article then, since it's mentioned. --AW 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent (28-29 December 2007) Edits

I found the quote Wolcott (of Vanity Fair) referred to in his column. If Dragula really feels this is encyclopedic and noteworthy, s/he might want to use it to bolster the claim in the article text. Enter 'Wolcott' in the search box at the LGF site. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I also found the correct Greenwald (Salon) entry. It wasn't difficult. Greenwald, to his credit, provides both screenshots of the LGF comments and a proper link to them. Again: if this is encyclopedic and noteworthy.... Mark Shaw (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrie diary

"She claims that the Palestinians are justified in their terror attacks" is simply not supported by the cite. [6] Terror attacks are attacks on civilians. She appears to be talking about military resistance - she talks about the "huge force of Israelis" with "Tanks, APCs," etc. LGF is not a reliable source for these kinds of claims, and the quote simply doesn't support what it's being used to cite. <eleland/talkedits> 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no nation called "Palestine," there is no "military" action on the part of Palestinians to point to here. And the violence perpetrated by Palestinians Corrie was acting to support was, and is, targeted primarily at civilians. Mark Shaw (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? This isn't the place for us to have a debate about the legitimacy of Palestine. The diary entry says what it says, not what a highly politicized unreliable-source interpretation of it concludes is the WP:TRUTH. If you believe that defending a city from invading foreign troops is "terrorism," fine, but take it to a blog or usenet and don't try to impose it on Wikipedia. This approach leads to serious problems of WP:NPOV. <eleland/talkedits> 12:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on Eleland's edit summaries, I think he is unfit to edit this article. Borderline personal attacks on Charles Johnson ("crazy theories"), POV pushing claims in edit summaries that Palestinian anti-Israel violence is justified... I do not believe that someone with such a clear conflict of interest should be editing this article. McJeff (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to know what a conflict of interest is, McJeff. Maybe you should read the essay that you linked. An opinion isn't a conflict of interest; if it was, you'd be just as "unfit" as I. <eleland/talkedits> 19:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk sense. Why would I link a page I hadn't read? Your opinion on Israel/Palestine, you are unfortunately entitled to, but your opinion on Charles Johnson is the problem here. McJeff (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, why would you link to a page that didn't support the accusation you were making? I don't know, you tell me. My opinion on Charles Johnson is not a "conflict of interest." I haven't the slightest stake in Charles Johnson one way or the other. Don't make unfounded allegations. <eleland/talkedits> 20:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of NPOV....

At any rate, the important thing about that single-sentence passage in the article is what Corrie said, not what CJ "claims" she said. Personally, I'm not sure why the passage is there to begin with - it seems unnecessary, given that the exact same link is cited in the previous paragraph. I suggest it be removed. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read the diary entries at http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0302/S00049.htm and do not see support in any way for this statement: "She claims that the Palestinians are justified in their terror attacks". --Timeshifter (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

All Palestinian attacks are terror attacks as defined by the conventional description of terrorism. If she supported Palestinian aggression, she supported terrorism. McJeff (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The conventional definition of terrorism requires that the target be civilian. Attacks on military invaders / occupiers are not terrorism. <eleland/talkedits> 19:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As Israel are not invaders and their military presence is law enforcement, they are not terrorists. McJeff (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Law enforcement?" That's an utterly ridiculous claim. Try reading something other than far-right blogs once in a while, such as the ICJ Wall opinion, or any mainstream human-rights report, international law report, etc etc etc. Jesus, I can't believe I'm actually having this argument. "Law enforcement!?" You simply haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, I'm afraid. <eleland/talkedits> 20:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate you at length because quite obviously it would be futile. However, if you read those "far-right blogs" that you so disdain, you'd become aware of the grotesque double-standard Israel is held to. These "mainstream human rights reports" criticize Israel up one side and down the other while not bothering to mention things like the Palestinians having set up rocket bombardments in the Gaza strip within the first week Israel pulled out. Quite frankly, almost anything mainstream regarding Israel/Palestine is garbage, and even a cursory bit of independent research should be enough to prove that. McJeff (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Results 1 - 10 of about 96 from hrw.org for qassam. (0.26 seconds) (First result is titled "Hamas Must End Attacks Against Civilians")

Results 1 - 10 of about 987 from amnesty.org for qassam. (0.36 seconds) (First result is titled "Marks on the Israeli Town of Sderot")

<eleland/talkedits> 09:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to the discussion of the article itself, and specifically of the wording of the passage in question, I see that McJeff has changed my latest version slightly. I think this change is reasonable, and should satisfy any objections. I suggest we acknowledge consensus and leave it as it currently is. Mark Shaw (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, the article could specify whether she referred to attacks on Israel, or just on Israel military structure. It's worth noting that nowhere in her diary did she discuss attacks on civilians, neither to condone nor to condemn it, and since speculation about why is inappropriate, maybe the specification should be made. On the other hand, I personally feel that saying Rachel was only in favor of attacks on military infrastructure would be a whitewash - ISM's dogma is strongly anti-Israel on all levels, and she certainly was not unaware of this. McJeff (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see this diff: [7] I added: "Johnson's claims are highly disputed. See Rachel Corrie."

Also, in one sentence I added "he claims that". Claims should not be in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to this: "The positions taken by Johnson are disputed, and those positions (though not Johnson himself) are discussed at Rachel Corrie." --Timeshifter (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

See further revisions farther down. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I read the Rachel Corrie section in the LGF article here, and it does not include criticism of the LGF viewpoint. It is OK in Wikipedia articles to include criticism throughout a Wikipedia article. So if there is sourced criticism of the LGF viewpoint concerning Corrie, etc., then it is OK (and even required by WP:NPOV) to discuss that criticism in the same section of the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I agree with that. LGF's opinion of Corrie is a fairly strong and controversial one, but it isn't incorrect - or at least, it can't be proven incorrect. Defense of Rachel Corrie's position is appropriate for the Rachel Corrie article, but not necessarily for the LGF article; this section of an article is not about Rachel Corrie herself but rather about what LGF says about her. McJeff (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is why we should say what CJ claims about the diary entry, rather than stating his claims as fact. But you refuse to accept this. <eleland/talkedits> 19:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't "refuse to accept" anything. I believe it's understood that this mention of Rachel Corrie's diary as per the LGF article is specifically about LGF's take on the article and makes no claim of being the undisupted truth, therefore making an opposing point of view presented in this particular article unnecessary. But if you can find a reputable, notable third party source openly criticising LGF's interpretation of Corrie, feel free to add it as a reference. McJeff (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to us to decide whether LGF's opinion is correct or not. From WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

We put out info in the form of X says Y. We let the readers decide what is true or not. We don't repeat the Rachel Corrie article here. We put out what sources say about LGF, and what the sources say about LGF's opinion. We point people to the Rachel Corrie article for more encyclopedic info about her. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Corrie's claims are borne out by her diary itself. Clearly, she is justifying Palestinian terrorism - or, if the reader prefers, "violence against Israel." Second, "highly disputed" means nothing in this context save to bring a non-NPOV voice into the mess.

LGF's opinion is not the question here. What's important is what Corrie wrote in her diary, and what she wrote is exactly what CJ says she wrote. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is obviously a disagreement about that interpretation. And why would you remove a reference link to her diary entry? See this diff: [8]. Removing such a reference link is vandalism. I returned it. User:McJeff recently left a 3RR warning on your talk page concerning your reverts. Please see this diff: [9] . --Timeshifter (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of the removal was that of the claim that CJ's interpretation of the Corrie diary entry is "highly disputed." It isn't, except in the minds of apologists for Palestinian terror.

I'll not make any further changes for the moment, but this edit war must be resolved soon. One side has dug in its heels and obstinately insists on presenting a particular point of view via the insertion of weasel words ("CJ claims that" Corrie wrote something, when clearly that is what she wrote) and references to highly non-NPOV material in support of the idea that there's some question about the meaning of what Corrie wrote.

We should be working towards consensus, not moving away from it. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE requires that all claims must be referenced, and that the article must say who is making the claim. So since CJ is making the claim, CJ must be referenced as the person making the claim. Otherwise there is no reason to put this Rachel Corrie info in this article about Little Green Footballs. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's abundantly clear, from the previous version of the passage in question, that it is CJ citing the Corrie diary. The weaselwording "CJ claims..." is not necessary and, indeed, inappropriately skews the POV of the passage. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. CJ's blog is not a reliable source in any sense of the word. It is completely inappropriate to cite CJ's interpretation of anything as a fact. On controversial issues, we don't even cite historians and other experts as fact, let alone some random far-right blogger. <eleland/talkedits> 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you claiming that CJ somehow hacked the Scoop Media Group's website and fabricated the Corrie diary entry? That seems rather a stretch.

Your claim that "'CJ's blog' is not a reliable source" is well-taken (although the tone of your objection reveals your own bias, which is neither here nor there), but when you claim that third-party sources behind citations offered up on that blog are similarly flawed, you're just shooting the messenger. Corrie's own words support CJ's "claims," and if you want to deny those words, you need to properly impeach the source. And that source isn't Little Green Footballs. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to believe that Corrie's diary entry expresses support for terrorism. This is an interpretive claim about the diary - she doesn't actually say "I support terrorism." Interpretive claims must have a reliable source. (WP:SYNTH) This claim doesn't. The fact that the diary entry clearly doesn't express support for terrorism, unless you expand your definition of "terrorism" to include defending one's home from an occupation army, is just gravy. Terrorism is attacking civilians to achieve some political goal. Corrie was very very clearly talking about IDF troops. But like I say, this doesn't actually matter. You can't make interpretive claims about the content of sources on your own, and CJ's claims are not reliable. <eleland/talkedits> 02:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The issue here apparently is that, because Rachel Corrie's diary did not specify attacks on civilians, it should not be claimed that she supported terror. This is entirely inaccurate, and while I'm willing to compromise to an extent as per No Original Research, I am absolutely not willing to budge any further than I already have.

Corrie was part of the International Solidarity Movement, an organization that is emphatically anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian aggression. Whether they explicitly support terrorism is irrelevant, because they simply cannot have their heads so deep in the sand they don't realize that the vast, vast majority of Palestinian attacks are directed at civilians. Exactly where the ISM falls between "activist" and "terrorist" is debatable, so I would chose to use neither word, and simply link to their article.

As far as her diary goes, she was writing it to make it available to people so she could convert them to her view. She's not going to try to do that by advocating violence against civilians. In short, she's lying by omission.

I'm not going to allow that sentence of "CJ's claims are highly disputed" in this article. First, they're not highly disputed, they're only disputed by the extreme pro-Palestinian POV. And second, unless you can produce an impeccable source, that's original research and weasel words, both of which are forbidden by wikipedia.

You guys objected to her designation by the article as a terrorist, and that's fair. But surely if you object to that, then you can see the problem in trying to portray her as a martyr being slandered by Charles Johnson. McJeff (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point, and Wikipedia is not a talk forum. See WP:TALK. CJ can claim whatever he wants. Wikipedia does not decide whether Wikipedia agrees or disagrees. Wikipedia just says that it is CJ who is making the claim, and that there is further information about such disputed claims (no matter who is making the claims) at Rachel Corrie. I took out the word "highly" from the phrase "highly disputed" to avoid prejudicing the issue. My current wording of the sentence in question is "The positions taken by Johnson are disputed, and those positions (though not Johnson himself) are discussed at Rachel Corrie." It can be further revised. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be beside the point, but I don't see where any disputes about Corrie's support for terrorism (or euphemistic variations on that theme) are described at Rachel Corrie. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I may have been remembering a previous version of the page. So this viewpoint of CJ, and of you, must be such a minority viewpoint that it has not made it into the Rachel Corrie article. WP:NPOV does not require that even the smallest minority viewpoint be placed in articles.

That is, quite frankly, bizarre. Corrie says "A," CJ says "Corrie says 'A' and here's her diary entry where she says it," you say "the article about CJ's blog must state 'CJ claims that Corrie says "A",' because another Wikipedia page about Corrie doesn't include anything about her saying 'A'?"

The contortions necessary to arrive at that position must be quite painful. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is another version. "This interpretation by Johnson is not found at Rachel Corrie." --Timeshifter (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a dubious disclaimer is not appropriate. However, this doesn't change the central point, which is that we must not cite a controversial interpretation from a non-reliable source as a fact. This is really basic stuff, and the refusal of LGF-fans here to get this point is greatly troubling. <eleland/talkedits> 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Canadian Monkey. Please see this diff: [10] You are incorrectly citing WP:SYNTH. And are you familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration? Tendentious editing in this area will only get you banned. Continually deleting rather than revising is a sign of an editor who can't control their biases, and should not be editing Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am citing WP:SYNTH very accurately. What you are doing is stating 'CJ is wrong', and pointing us to some other discussion, which does not mention CJ at all, claiming that discussion proves CJ is wrong. CJ may indeed be wrong, but in order for you to state that, you must have a source that exactly says this. Otherwise this is original research. There is nothing tendentious about making sure editors follow our core policies. Please refrain from making hollow threats. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's bizarre that you would cite WP:SYNTH in this context. One of the core principles of WP:SYNTH is that all interpretive claims about a source must themselves have a reliable source. CJ isn't a reliable source, at least for WP purposes. So it's not appropriate to pass along CJ's interpretation of Corrie's diary as fact. This is very simple, and I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge it. <eleland/talkedits> 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? CJ is a reliable source for his opinions, which is what we are quoting here, and attributing to him. CJ may be of the opinion that the moon is made of green cheese- and if he writes that in LGF, we can quote it, saying "CJ thinks the moon is made of green cheese". Adding a disclaimer that says 'CJ's views about the moon have been disputed", and linking to Moon would be original research. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Rather than continue arguing about whether what CJ says Corrie said in her diary is really what she said, perhaps it would be better to quote her directly. This makes the passage starkly accurate, and eliminates the problem of either reader or editor having to interpret either Corrie's or CJ's words. I've made the change. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What CJ said about Corrie is crucial for this article. Once again, this article is not about Rachel Corrie herself, but about LGF's view on Corrie. And the only acceptable criticism of LGF's view on Corrie would be a source that explicitly both directly confronts and disproves LGF's view on her. That is, a reputable third party source (not a DKos diary or pro-Palestine blog) directly discussing LGF's take on Corrie. This article cannot turn into an appeasement process just because there are a bunch of pro-Palestine users determined to whitewash the article and slander CJ. McJeff (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying about "...appeasement process," but I still find the "CJ claims" qualifier to be inappropriately weasel-wordish. Clearly, she did write what he says she wrote, and the inclusion of this qualifier implies that this is open to interpretation - which is obviously what the pro-Palestinian editors intend. I'd like to find a way around that. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

IMO we could solve the weasel word by saying "CJ states..." as opposed to "CJ claims...". Since 'claims' is the weasel word trying to make it sound like he's wrong. McJeff (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know - that still seems, to me, to suggest that there is some reasonable alternate interpretation, and in addition it just sounds awkward. Perhaps "CJ notes..."? Mark Shaw (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

POV forking

Concerning the Rachel Corrie section. Please read Wikipedia:Content forking. Wikipedia does not allow putting unchallenged info here about Rachel Corrie because it was not allowed at Rachel Corrie. Also, Wikipedia requires that for controversial info buried in other articles that there be links back to the more detailed article.--Timeshifter (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. This is an article about CJ and his opinions - we can include his opinions, even if they are controversial, provided they are properly sourced, and there is no 'POV fork' involved in this. If these opinions were directly challenged - we can of course include those challenges, properly sourced to reliable sources, in the article as well. What we can't do is include information which we, as WP editors, believe proves the false nature of his arguments. That is original research. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is what I said above, in fewer words. McJeff (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Here I terrify myself by saying that I broadly agree, albeit for different reasons - I think CJ & LGF largely hang themselves by having some of their more shocking comments highlighted here. People can make up their own minds as to how totally offensive and inaccurate they might be. On a more general point though, WP:BLP surely doesn't mean that once something's been said somewhere, everyone else has a licence to repeat it - in the UK at least, someone who repeats a libel is pretty much as culpable as the person who first uttered it. --Nickhh (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a very general point. BLP doesn't apply of course, he says with more than a touch of black humour. It's just that I have seen this point made elsewhere in similar situations (ie "we're just repeating someone's on the record opinion"). --Nickhh (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to WP:BLP. I think there may be a possibility that Canadian Monkey is a sockpuppet of some past banned or departed editor in the area of Israeli-Palestinian articles. Therefore much of this discussion will be a waste of time, unless and until some admins enforce the WP:IPCOLL sanctions here. So this latest reversion crew will have its way for awhile. Been there, done that, and already bored. Basic fairness is not rocket science, and their wikilawyering is obvious. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

From WP:GRAPEVINE is this:

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, though editors are advised to --Timeshifter (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)seek help from an administrator or at the BLP noticeboard if they find themselves violating 3RR, rather than dealing with the situation alone. Content may be re-inserted only if it conforms to this policy.

'These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

So it is not OK to try to include libelous material about Rachel Corrie anywhere in Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear to me whether this is offered specifically in reference to the insistence that the "CJ claims that" weasel words be included in the section on Corrie, but: 1. The material in question is not libelous, unless it can be shown that that really isn't what she wrote in her diary, and 2. Corrie is not a living person. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

More wikilawyering. All these guidelines apply also to dead people. They apply MORE to living people. Read the Rationale section of the same Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons article:

Rationale. Wikipedia is an international, top-ten website, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies.

Trashing Rachel Corrie also trashes her family, colleagues, and friends. Trashing her also trashes the group she was involved with: ISM, (International Solidarity Movement).

See also:

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#policy presumes "hurt" or "distress" impossible in afterlife. There is some humor there, but also some serious discussion. Wikipedia is not some talk forum for "he said, she said" trashing of people, living or dead. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but no. Corrie is not a living person, the BLP policy does not apply to dead people, that's why it has that "LP" part. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice evasion. Obvious that you did not read what I wrote. Proof that you are part of a reversion team. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. you are quoting from Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people, and making the ludicrous claim that 'All these guidelines apply also to dead people.' They do not. I can't make it any simpler for you: they do not. There's a reason the policy is called WP:BLP and not WP:BIOGRAPHIES. I've cautioned you on your Talk page to be civil , and I'm doing so here as well - comments such as "you are part of a reversion team" are inappropriate, comment on edits, not editors. I suggest you strike them out. Further incivility will get you blocked. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And anyway: where's the libel? Mark Shaw (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See previous replies from several people. Repetition of questions that have already been answered is another sign of being part of a reversion team. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to living people only. Period. And WP:CIVIL applies to all editors. Discuss edits, not editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Stating something emphatically as in "Period" does not necessarily make it so, Jayjg, even if you are an admin. As I wrote previously please see:

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#policy presumes "hurt" or "distress" impossible in afterlife. There is some humor there, but also some serious discussion. See also this quote below that I left previously. Emphasis added.

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

That Jimmy Wales quote applies to all material on Wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a talk page discussion, not a policy you can quote. McJeff (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, and just this once (I have no interest in participating in a USENET-style flamewar): I am not a member of a "reversion team" (whatever that is). I invite anyone to check my contribution history if they're curious about my prior WP habits. I remain hopeful that this difficulty can be resolved without further acrimony. Mark Shaw (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fiskie

The current wording as reverted to here suggests it was this specific incident which prompted the naming of the award. A minor point perhaps, but I can't find any evidence or source for that. LGF and like-minded types have more than enough reasons to dislike Robert Fisk, and it's not clear they picked out this one specifically. Oh and "refugees" is not more neutral language, it's more accurate language. --Nickhh (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's your evidence. I'll add it to the article. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, if I was being pedantic I'd say it doesn't exactly make the specific causal link between that individual incident and the naming of the award. In fact if anything it leans more towards making the point that Fisk is (supposedly) such an all-round "idiotarian" [sic] that they had to name the award after him. But somehow I feel I'm indulging this rather childish "award"-giving and name-calling by even discussing this ... --Nickhh (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Read the caption under Fisk's photo on that page. 2. Please try to be a bit more civil in these discussions. This is a place to talk about the article, not to flog one's own opinions about it with gratuitously offensive commentary. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

1) I did read the caption - It doesn't say "on account of this incident and article, we decided to name the awards after Robert Fisk". However above that it actually does say "He’s like the idiotarian Lance Armstrong in the Tour de Schtoopid, and would undoubtedly dominate the race. Therefore, we’re naming the trophy after him", ie it's about his supposed overall "idiot-ness", of which his comments about the Afghan incident are presumably meant to be but one example. And note that he wrote about the attack over a year prior to this blog entry.

Noted. Change made. Mark Shaw (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

2) Apologies for the slightly off-topic soaping (which was aimed at LGF, not any editor here of course), it's just that I'm a little embarrassed to be even engaged here. And it is rather childish name calling by any standard (and far more offensive of itself than my calling it exactly that). And finally, might it not be possible that the reference to the Afghan incident and use of the photo is more to do with allowing LGF readers to laugh at a photo of an injured and bandaged Fisk? Just a thought --Nickhh (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would seriously doubt that Johnson posted that picture for the Lizardoids "amusement". My guess would be it was a reference so that readers could see exactly how bad the beating he was given that he defended was. Despite the low opinion that many people have of LGF, I find I agree with the Weekly Standard's take, that LGF is "one of the saner precincts of the blogosphere". Please see the discussion thread about Teddy Kennedy's seizure for a better example... almost invariably the comments were something along the lines of "I'll pray for him and his family", hardly bloodthirsty behavior. McJeff (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

UltraConservative

Removing this from the lede was a good thing. I have no idea why I didn't get to it sooner. McJeff (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Charles Johnson is by no means a conservative. He claims to have been a liberal mugged by reality, but in reality he is just a reactionary who finds something he dislikes (muslims, Islam, creationism) and rants obsessively about it.

Anti-Intelligent design focus

As LGF has kept up its string of anti-Intelligent Design posts for about 2 months now, would anyone else think that it's worth noting in the article? McJeff (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would, described as kind of a minor theme. It's certainly significant enough. Mark Shaw (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I started the section. It's not very good at the moment but it can be improved. McJeff (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is worth noting, and I'd appreciate my edits to be considered. My edit is factual and the accusation that I am a known troll is preposterous. Let the people know the facts that if you argue creation with Charles or any other lizard, you will be booted from the site and Charles will add your IP address to the 'block' file. To deny that is a blatant lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.131.49 (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable source for that, and construct the passage in appropriately-toned language, I think it's worth adding. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

72.175, you weren't the person I was referring to, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Personally, I'm rather displeased with the recent "self-righteous shrillness" of LGF, as Robert Spencer so aptly put it, and yes, as a registered user over there I've seen everything you've talked about.

But on wikipedia, verifiability trumps almost all other policies. Unless you can find a reliable source, the claim that he bans people for disagreeing with him can't be added.

If you can hunt down a post from CJ on the LGF website in which he claims he will ban people from the website for holding certain opinions, that would be more than good enough to suit me. You may also want to go to the wikipedia message board WP:RS and ask people who are more expert than I on whether CJ's discussion posts are reliable (as opposed to his blog posts, which indisputably are). McJeff (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't even see the site to do the research. Charles has this IP banned. I think what it will take is more folks who are proven conservatives who are being tossed aside simply because they believe in creation and have the guts to speak up about it. Fortunately for me, having this little hiatus has given me the opportunity to explore the other conservative blogs out there, and I am quite pleased at what I find. Hopefully, Charles will come to his senses that there needs to be a measure of tolerance on his blog, or he is no better than the supremacists he chastises. He does good work, and I hope he keeps it up, I just won't be there (even if I wanted to) to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.131.49 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I wanted to add that I understand about the verifiability and I won't be making any more of the edits on the page without some sort of linkable proof. Thanks again, it is nice to talk to a sensible person about this. Have a wonderful weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.131.49 (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Decapitation comment

Under Media attention/2006, second bullet, everything after the Johnson quote should be deleted including the sub-bullet. It is immaterial and not sourced. As for authoritative, a post by some random LGF member adds nothing to this article.Jarhed (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

Resolved

 – No merge will take place.

As per this[11], it is proposed that Charles Foster Johnson is not notable without the Little Green Footballs blog, and that Wikipedia might best be served by merging the CFJ biography into the blog's article (e.g. here). I am posting here to inform you of this and start discussion so that a consensus may be reached. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Johnson's stature in the blogosphere, and his activities in other pursuits, warrant a separate biographical article. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please enumerate what other "activities in other pursuits" recommend him as notable enough for a separate biographical article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

See: Charles Foster Johnson. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the article. I am also well aware that, were it not for the LGF blog, none of the other things listed on that page would warrant enough notability for a Wikipedia bio. If you think otherwise, please enumerate the specific things from that biography that would make him notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.194.45 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. IP address 98.194 is an experienced wikipedian operating with his IP address rather than his real account, this is obvious by viewing his contribution history. User:LittleGreenVolleyballs is a Single Purpose Account. The discussion linked by the IP address does not even address a merge proposal, nor does it cite anything within wikipedia's Notability Policy to support a merge. This whole "discussion" reeks of a point-job. McJeff (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose never heard of this guy before but certainly seems notable for a bio; pro musician on gold albums, coined popular phrases, sources leading back to washington post and one other that seemed pretty good; found of a very popular (whatever one thinks of its content) website.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I HEAVILY OBJECT TO THE PREMATURE CLOSING OF THIS PROPOSAL, ESPECIALLY WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS MADE BY MCJEFF AGAINST SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT EVEN YET COMMENTED.

Preceeding unsigned comment was added by 98.194.194.45 (talk), who has since been blocked [12]. McJeff (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert of jwbaumann edits

See: [13]

I agree that something should be said about CJ's positions on Vlaams Belang, but this passage as written had serious problems with tone - both in terms of the primary topic and in the throwaway accusation that CJ is somehow anti-Christian. I invite and encourage a rewrite. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I took a try at a rewrite, does it work for you? McJeff (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that looks pretty good; thanks. I would have had a go at it myself, but I've been traveling and didn't have much time for it.... Mark Shaw (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Bostom/Wilders material

See this diff: [14].

This material was previously removed for WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RELIABLE. I invite editors who wish to restore it to offer their rationale(s) here. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have observed over the last 1-2 years a major shift in focus at little green footballs. This of course has been hinted at a little in the page in the "Claims about Vlaams Belang", however it has gone well beyond that. A major blog war and ideological war has developed with numerous individuals involved in the anti-jihad movement and blogs. It is more than just Vlaams Belang. In truth, Andrew Bostom and Geert Wilders are only two of those. Robert Spencer, Diana West, and several other noted individuals have had nasty spats with Charles Johnson, in which Charles calls them fascists, Nazis, sympathizers of National Socialism, and other various names and charges, and they respond back etc. I think these disputes need more development on the LGF wikipedia page, with their own individual sections, or one major section detailing the overall conflict, because they have spilled out beyond just Vlaams Belang. Even, Oriana Fallaci, has been attacked by Charles Johnson in this way. You can look at my two edits in relation to Bostom and Wilders, and I did source them, and could add much more if you wish relating to these feuds with sources. That was just the tip of the iceberg.

The point is, it appears this page is out of date in relation to these conflicts. I was not biased, I simply stated facts with the sourced material from the two parties involved in the conflict, stating what they felt about each other, or from individuals who defended those that were under attack. Let's face it when you imply Andrew Bostom, who happens to be Jewish, wants to work with white hate groups this is worthy of a section. True or not.Koskidzrules1 (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm calling WP:TEND on this, specifically the section "Righting Great Wrongs." Mark Shaw (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have started a Sockpuppet Investigation, as I believe Koskidzrules1 is the next iteration of LGOutcast / Little Green Volleyballs / Lizard1000. McJeff (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the "shift" is or whatever the whatever is, it would be awesome to use 3rd party RS when adding or changing any material here. I know this is sometimes a novel and annoying thing to ask for, but I guess its me being me again. Anyways, thanks, --Tom 18:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Anybody see a common thread here?

This article could use serious help/attention/work/whatever as has been pointed out repeatidly over the years. It seems that we should try to only use multiple 3rd party reports for establishing notability of material. The actually LGF site it seems should be used only sparingly and not as a source for what is notable ect since that would be original research or synthesis. Again, if multiple RS have picked up on a "story" or criticism or attention or whatever, then that is a good starting point for inclusion that should be discussed here, otherwise this article is really not up to encyclopediac standards. Anyways, --Tom 14:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Political Affliation: Neoconservative

Since the 2006 election season, the LGF blog has (arguably) shifted leftward in its editorial slant. While the blog's pro-war (or, more accurately, anti-Muslim) stance is currently in vogue with the "conservative mainstream," LGF is increasingly concerned with attacking traditionally conservative political activities such as advocacy for religious education, traditional marriage, and limited government. It's clear that the current ascendancy of Obama and the Democratic Party in general has lured LGF to a more moderate position.

As such, I think that changing the blog's political affiliation to something other than "conservative" is in order. "Neoconservative" might be appropriate or perhaps just "moderate" if that term is too loaded. Removing the political affiliation altogether might also be a viable option. -- Uncle Dick (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The claims you're making above ("attacking... religious education, traditional marriage, and limited government"; "the current ascendancy of Obama and the Democratic Party in general has lured LGF to a more moderate position") are interesting. As a daily reader of LGF, I can say that I agree that CJ has had some problems of late with other bloggers who do not share his distaste for creationists, conspiracy theorists, and white supremacists, but I don't think that the actions and statements of those others has any bearing on where LGF or CJ himself actually stand. Mark Shaw (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't really consider opposition to creationism to be a 'liberal' position. Nor has CJ been at all hesitant to criticize Obama where justified. The way I see it is that the "right wing blogosphere" has been sliding slowly right, and LGF, which did not accompany it on the slide, looks more liberal by comparison. It hasn't changed its position though, there are a few anti-creationism posts back from 2006ish on the blog. McJeff (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree - I checked out the descriptions at of Conservatism_in_the_United_States and Neo-Conservative certainly applies with Mr. Johnson. However, personally I'd be willing to accept some kind of re-write that states he is a social liberal. He supports GW Bush, Israel, the War On Terror and seems to fit most the criteria for the neo-con monicker. From whom I see listed as popular American conservatives, this blog owner has written many pieces highly critical of them all. If things were different in the past, I really don't care. Ronald Reagan was a registered democrat once too. I personally will ensure that independent or no label is applied until this dispute is settled. Is there a reason why people are insisting this website is conservative in nature when it really isn't? SlickyboyRick (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - You "wil ensure that independent or no label is applied until the dispute is over"? I don't think you should try to do that. Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and edit warring isn't permitted. Also, your Original Research about who is and isn't a conservative has no bearing on what the article contains. McJeff (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Political Affiliation: Independent

Charles was recently quoted on an interview where he has stated he is not conservative. The blog is not conservative. It is much more liberal, as a matter of fact, then conservative. Either "Neo-conservative" is the political affiliation of his blog, or Independent." I placed independent there now because that's what Charles is. Anyone who disagrees should check out what defines a conservative and see if it applies. I know the answer: IT DOES NOT. I do not think Independent is a charged term and is more than fair. SlickyboyRick (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find that interview, the claim can be changed. If you don't, it will not be. McJeff (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this diff - the change from "conservative" to "independent" apparently got left in by mistake during a recent correction; so putting it back was, I think, the right thing to do. Mark Shaw (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A Note about the recent Fauxtography

So, Charles Johnson posted a photo of lawyer Markus Beisicht with Filip DeWinter. It turned out that the picture was photoshopped - while it really did show Beisicht and DeWinter shaking hands, the background was faked. Now that this has happened, Jihad Watch readers seem to be coming out of the woodwork demanding that Johnson's "shame" be immortalized.

To them I say.

WP:UNDUE, WP:N.

If a Reliable third party source discussing this incident in detail can be found, then maybe we can talk about how to add it. But it would still have to follow Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. McJeff (talk) 19:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Note also that, according to Johnson, it's not clear which of the two photos was faked. And, at any rate, there's nothing to suggest that he himself was responsible for the photoshopping, or that he was aware of it at the time he originally posted the photo. So, unless anyone can come up with WP:RS to show the contrary, we also have WP:BLP. Mark Shaw (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)