Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 8 September 2006

On September 06, 2006, Little Green Footballs was linked from Little Green Footballs, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Article Overhaul

Hi WideAwake log-in

OK, I rearranged the site according to the structure you suggested, I also made the following changes:

• credited coinage of "Oil Ticks," moved from "Changes and Controversy" to "History"
• moved Daniel Pipes and Oriana Fallaci to "Frequently Quoted"
• deleted account of Anil Dash contretemps
• deleted accusation of hate speech from MSNBC
• deleted link to pro-LGF site with rebuttal to MSNBC
• changed "Islamophobic hate speech" to "Islamophobia"
• changed "highly partisan" to "politically charged"
• Added praise for LGF webmaster from INN write-up
• deleted description of LGF Quiz
• deleted rebuttal to LGF Quiz

The Changes & Controversies section now has 1 "pro" paragraph, 1 "con" sentence, and then another "pro" rebuttal paragraph so hopefully these changes will satisfy those who feel the site's critics were getting too much attention.

I don't really think that one sentence acknowledging that the site is controversial is too much information for the average reader to handle but there could always be another explosion of outrage demanding that that be stricken too so I guess we will just have to see.

- Dragula

Hello,

I am new to Misplaced Pages so I hope this is the proper protcol and place to edit.I am new to Misplaced Pages so I hope this is the proper protocol and place to edit in regards to a question I have. Specifically, in the Changes and Controversy section, the following is stated: “a view reinforced by Johnson's frequent defense of explicitly anti-Muslim authors and texts.” The above quote is too vague because it does not specifically state what authors or texts that Johnson has defended. Without that information, the seriousness and validity of this charge is left to the personal opinion and prejudice of the reader.

Follow Up to Proposal for Article Overhaul

Hi Wideawakelogin

I'll do my best to respond to your comments and suggestions

Dragula - Given the background over the Hitler quiz link, I think it's safe to say that it is a contentious issue... many people do not believe the quiz's inclusion is proper material for the a

The nature of the site itself is so polarizing that almost anything that can get edited out or added in has been. I will follow your suggestion later in this article and create list of "pro and con" external links, however the upshot of this is that there will be a lot more hit-and-run removals I think.

If that too proves contentions, another possibility exists. Subdivide the external links category into two sections: one with praises for LGF, the other with criticisms (naturally put the quiz one there with a brief sentence disclaimer). That way nobody can complain of favoritism being shown to critical links (and I must admit that there is an appearance of that too).

Right now in the external links there are

• 2 pro links ("Rightwing News" and the "At Israel's Right" article)
• 2 anti links "LGFWatch" and "Jewschool"
• 1 pro & con (the "pro and con archives")

So it's a 50% split right down the middle.

There used to be one more pro-LGF link too, LGFWatchWatch, but the site which runs it discontinued the feature, posting the following message to their site on 10 Dec 2004:

"The LGF Watch Watch mission of the blog is dead, we don't have the time or motivation. We really love Charles and we're sorry, we tried to carry it on and couldn't."

PROPOSAL FOR ARTICLE OVERHAUL:

there is material located throughout the first three four sections that could be construed as critical of LGF (examples: characterizations of its terminology as pejoratives and "hate speech," and accusations of various "phobias" are found throughout several other sections in addition to the "controversy" section).

One of the things that does make it so interesting maintaining an entry about this site is that is is difficult to figure out how to treat the material. I mean, yeah, the webmaster of LGF coined the term "Idiotarian"; that's not exactly a secret, LGF is running its annual "Idiotarian of the Year" award poll right now.

A couple of years ago the winner was Rachel Corrie and the site was filled with cartoons of her getting flattened like a pancake - that sort of black humor and over-the-top political commentary is a huge part of LGF's appeal, it's why its so popular!

I did struggle with how to define it in a way that would please everyone and seem fair though. I discovered to my relief that there was a precise phrase already in use, on Misplaced Pages, no less, that covers colorful political insults: pejorative political slogan. Perfect!

RE: "Hate speech" - that is an exact quote from the article on MSNBC, I can just replace it and write "MSNBC shamefully smeared LGF" instead I guess.

RE: accusations of various "phobias". When I first started maintaining this page people kept adding "LGF has been accused of racism, fascism, etc." LGF regulars object to this, and they should, since Islam is not a race. The site is filled with "nuke Mecca" type comments though which they catch a lot of static for. So how to describe that? Fortunately again there is a mot just for this exact sentiment, again courtesy of Misplaced Pages Islamophobia.

But that's the only phobia mentioned here as far I can see, not sure what other ones you mean...?

First, perhaps the first 2-3 sections could be reorganized under one header into a "History" of the blog detailing its origins, the political debates it's been involved in, changes to the site, the major stories such as CBS memogate or whatever it's called, and its current activities. The accomplishments section could also be consolidated into "History" in timeline order.

A second section - titled something like "Format" or "Protocols" could address everything computer and site related about LGF including common slang and acronyms their readers use, registration protocols and stuff like that.

Third, a separate and distinct category called "Controversies" could include all the stuff about criticisms, flame wars, accusations of hate speech and various phobias, but also with fairness to LGF supporters, their responses to these charges.RIght now that kind of stuff is spread out all over the article - it needs to be consolidated.

Then fourth there could be the links section, containing two subsections - one for positive links the other for negative links.

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll see what I can do.

I think that rearranging the article into something along those lines would go a long way to reducing POV disputes and constant edits of the article. The history shows that from its very start this article has been subject to POV disputes, accusations of bias from both sides, and everything else imaginable. That itself should show that the article is in dire need of a major overhaul in addition to what's already been done cause where there's smoke there's normally fire. Just a few friendly suggestions to anyone who has the time to work on this one

--wideawakeslogin 1/4

This entry will always be that way, one group will find it insufficiently laudatory, another will find it insufficiently denunciatory.

Proposal for Article Overhaul

Dragula - Given the background over the Hitler quiz link, I think it's safe to say that it is a contentious issue. I see repeated requests to remove it and removal of it entirely throughout the history of this article. I also see it being reinserted each time, almost always by one person: you. And I see it's location in the article being moved to greater prominence esp. with the paragraph. While I'm sure you have your reasons for doing this, it seems that the record of this article itself is testimony that many people do not believe the quiz's inclusion is proper material for the article, at least in the way that it is currently or was historically presented.

Also in reading A2Kafir's comments, it seems that he/she was trying to question the appropriateness of its inclusion at all more than any objection with its placement. In his request to "weave" it in, he seems to have been seeking for a paragraph that justifies its inclusion beyond a reasonable doubt - not just throwing it into any old paragraph, which can still have a POV either implicit or explicit. I don't believe that the current paragraph meets that burden or justifies its own presence. That's why I suggested moving the link back to the external links section.

If that too proves contentions, another possibility exists. Subdivide the external links category into two sections: one with praises for LGF, the other with criticisms (naturally put the quiz one there with a brief sentence disclaimer). That way nobody can complain of favoritism being shown to critical links (and I must admit that there is an appearance of that too).

PROPOSAL FOR ARTICLE OVERHAUL:

You are also right that the article itself has been a mess. I think it still is and I still see a POV evident from the content that is included in some of the sections (refer back to the NPOV article guideline quoted below to see how this can become a POV violation even if there is no explicit opinion stated) - e.g. there is material located throughout the first three four sections that could be construed as critical of LGF (examples: characterizations of its terminology as pejoratives and "hate speech," and accusations of various "phobias" are found throughout several other sections in addition to the "controversy" section).

I don't have the time to overhaul it but some things should be done. First, perhaps the first 2-3 sections could be reorganized under one header into a "History" of the blog detailing its origins, the political debates it's been involved in, changes to the site, the major stories such as CBS memogate or whatever it's called, and its current activities. The accomplishments section could also be consolidated into "History" in timeline order. A second section - titled something like "Format" or "Protocols" could address everything computer and site related about LGF including common slang and acronyms their readers use, registration protocols and stuff like that. Third, a separate and distinct category called "Controversies" could include all the stuff about criticisms, flame wars, accusations of hate speech and various phobias, but also with fairness to LGF supporters, their responses to these charges. RIght now that kind of stuff is spread out all over the article - it needs to be consolidated. Then fourth there could be the links section, containing two subsections - one for positive links the other for negative links.

I think that rearranging the article into something along those lines would go a long way to reducing POV disputes and constant edits of the article. The history shows that from its very start this article has been subject to POV disputes, accusations of bias from both sides, and everything else imaginable. That itself should show that the article is in dire need of a major overhaul in addition to what's already been done cause where there's smoke there's normally fire. Just a few friendly suggestions to anyone who has the time to work on this one

--wideawakeslogin 1/4

Possible Resolution

Now that I think about it, a while back there was a lot of wrangling in this entry over the inclusion of the LGF webmaster's coinage "idiotarian." In a very similar way it was getting deleted and replaced on a daily basis, appended with comments, e.g. "Idiotarians is a stupid word made up by a fascist," "Idiotarians, or those who hate America such as Michael Moore," etc.

So I did a google search, discovered that it passed the threshold (500+), and then gave it its own page where the entry was greatly expanded and has been maintained since with very little controversy.

Plus this allowed the term to be examined and explained in its own terms - a helpful way to contextualize something with such an unavoidably partisan quality (as the LGF Quiz is also).

Response to WideAwake Log-In

Hello WideAwake Log-In

A brief BG:

I found that when the link to this "Quiz" was placed in the "External Links" section it was removed and then replaced by apparent sparring unregistered Wikipedians on a near-daily basis.

I also rec'd a request from another Wikipedian named A2Kafir to somehow "weave in" or contextualize other external links in the entry as it was becoming "linky."

For these reasons I undertook a rewrite of the article which had the additional benefit of providing context for each item, e.g., rather than a link to the "Quiz" or similar items with a simple description I now had room to aknowledge some of the back and forth RE: these and similar issues.

In addition, I have found that people seem less willing to vandalize entries or remove information when it has been woven into some sort of context in a balanced manner.

FYI that's how this article originally expanded from a "candidate for deletion" into the monstrosity it is now - all the subsections were created because I wanted something thorough, in context and well-organized.

That said, I do recognize that the squeaky wheel(s) gets the grease, so if I am outnumbered in this instance by folks who are strongly motivated to remove chunks of critical information from this entry it would be a pointless waste of energy on my part to continue maintaining it.

- Dragula

Request for dispute resolution

Dragula and others - I placed a request for dispute resolution. Attacking editors here for changes made on other articles is inappropriate & I advise you stop. -- Wideawakelogin 1/4

Hitler Quiz Dispute

Greetings Dragula and others - I reviewed this article at the request of another and it is now my opinion that some of the edits made by Dragula are not in the interest of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policies. Such incidents as the LGF/Hitler quiz, as noted by several others, are at best dubious choices for inclusion in the main text of this article. Several reasons have been given why it should not be included in the text on an NPOV basis:

• It's placement is dubious - why should that one critical link be placed in the main body of text while most others are in the external links section?
• It's subject matter is not serious - the link is a satire or joke on LGF. In this sense it has been compared to the Al Gore/Unabomber quiz (which incidentally has passed the so called "google" test and has been the subject of articles as well but is nevertheless not included on the Gore biography)
• It is not necessary to include that link in the text of the article to convey your stated intent, viz. a remark on language controversies surrounding LGF
• The link seemingly serves no clear purpose other than to promote an external site that is not distinguished or notable in its own right from other sites that are critical of LGF
• An alternative placement for the link exists that seems to be agreeable to other parties who have commented on it so far - the final section that is specifically designated for links of that sort.

More specifically in terms of wikipedia, its inclusion in the article text in the manner you have presented it appears to violate the NPOV guidelines on article tone:

"A lot of articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization" (emphasis added)

Regarding your attempts to include the link in a paragraph - this could also reasonably be characterized as bias by insinuation (see Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial), the insinuation being that since the quiz compares statements by LGF writers with Hitler some sort of shared LGF-Hitler political beliefs exist when in fact the quiz is apparently intended as a satire of some sort. On this note linking to Hitler and Himmler in the article text reeks of the Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy. An absence of balance may also be evident as very few specific responses in favor of LGF or items that are critical of the quiz have been included to counterbalance a clearly partisan link.

A quick glance at the history of this article reveals that the topic of the quiz link, and other similar inclusions of questionable POV content, have come up frequently with yourself, Dragula, almost always pushing for their inclusion. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for editing and refining this article and I am sure so do many others - it is evident that you have much enthusiasm - the recurrence of episodes such as this one and your seeming unwillingness to compromise on the placement of the link (several compromises have been proposed, most notably relocating it to the end external links section) provoke the issue of whether some of your contributions to this article are written with a true NPOV interest in mind or are simply settling old scores with LGF - an admittedly controversial blog that has both defenders and detractors.

I am neither, but I cannot say that for sure of many edits made on this article.

Next, regarding the "perceived hotbed of liberalism" issue. This seems to me to be more a matter of specificity than biased language. It seems perfectly proper in the case of some, though not all, of those sites to identify them as "liberal" - for example the Daily Kos and Indymedia as both are openly on the political left. Others may not be liberal and that should be noted as well. To group them all under a heading of "perceived" liberal sites is both speculative and imprecise. It seems to me that a better solution would be to nuance the description in a manner that recognizes most, but not all, of LGF's sparring partners are on the political left. Also remember that this article is intended to be read for reference purposes by the average internet user - not somebody who is deeply versed in the jargon and nuances of blogger disputes. Not everybody knows that LGF is a "conservative" blog site or that Kos is a "liberal" blog site, thus specificity is required in referencing them rather than broad based speculative categorizations.

Seeing as this is an apparently contentious issue I have temporarily reverted the edits by Dragula and, since their subject is a recurring source of controversy, I recommend that they stay that way until an agreeable compromise gets worked out. I've already hinted at one that's been suggested by others as well - moving the quiz into the external links section. If you or anyone else has any suggestions I would be happy to hear them.

Otherwise if this continues much longer I suggest that we restore the neutrality dispute header and seek administrator intervention.

--Wideawakelogin, 1/4/05

Follow-up w. 68.93.81.173

Hello 68.93.81.173

You opine "Though perhaps humorous, highlighting this quiz in the article text gives undue emphasis and attention to what is little more than an attack on the LGF blog."

Please note that the "LGF Quiz" is addressed in only 1 of the 16 paragraphs in this entry (not counting the "EXTERNAL LINKS" or "SEE ALSO" sections). One sentence pro, and one con - a 2 sentence graph - thats it.

As a point of comparison, 68.93.81.173, I would ask you to please refer to your own decision to leverage Zuniga's "screw them" comment into a THREE PARAGRAPH treatment in wiki's Daily Kos page, an expansion which almost DOUBLES the length of the original entry with only a very weak attendant attempt at balance!

Do you see the point I am trying to make here 68.93.81.173? "Undue attention" means something, but it does not mean what you think it means.

"It's inclusions seems to serve no other purpose than directing traffic to an outside link that is hostile to LGF and tells very little NPOV information about the blog itself."

On the contrary the quiz illuminates in a very striking way the source of the perennial controversy RE: "hate speech" on LGF.

Try a google search for the following keywords:

LGF littlegreefootballs racist racism hate speech etc

and you will see what I mean. Whether or not you or I believe such a thing as "hate speech" should even be regarded as a legitimate category of communication is irrelevant, many, many people seem to think such a thing exists and that LGF embodies it.

If you aren't aware of this controversy (which dates to 2002 BTW, see the MSNBC article) then you must not read blogs, or at least you must not read LGF.

RE: "Also, if the quiz is part of the "controversy" over LGF, why should it be specially featured over literally hundreds of other critical jokes, articles, and attacks on the site, both valid and not valid, serious and not serious? That seems to be showing favoritism to one particular critical article."

The LGF Quiz (regardless of its merits) does have the following things to recommend its contextual inclusion:

• it illuminates an ongoing blogosphere debate (RE: "hate speech" on LGF) which dates to 2002
• it was either addressed in or the subject of numerous LGF-related writings (some found in the external links below, e.g., INN, Jewschool, Yglesias, etc)
• it passes the google test (somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,080 entries on google)

I selected it for mention the same way I selected the WaPo, MSNBC, Anil Dash, Spirit of America and dozens of others. It made a splash and was widely discussed in the blogosphere (which is, after all, what we're talking about).

"If you want to keep the LGF mock quiz put it in the external links section where readers know that it is just that. Just don't try to disguise a strong POV link as valuable information on LGF deserving of its own paragraph."

The LGF Quiz was originally woven into this article per the request of wikipedian A2Kafir, who wanted to see external links contextualized. Thus the "point - counterpoint" set-up in which LGF-user rebuttals to the quiz are made explicit.

P.S. per

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&redirs=0&searchx=1&search=hotbed&limit=100&offset=0

the term "hotbed" is legitimate and useful.

- Dragula

Undue emphasis and attention to critics

LGF or Hitler et al quote quiz:

Though perhaps humorous, highlighting this quiz in the article text gives undue emphasis and attention to what is little more than an attack on the LGF blog. It's inclusions seems to serve no other purpose than directing traffic to an outside link that is hostile to LGF and tells very little NPOV information about the blog itself.

It's inclusion in the article text is comparable to including a paragraph in the Al Gore article on the similarly-styled Al Gore versus the Unabomber quote quiz - again humorous, but also clearly anti-Gore and both unimportant and inappropriate for an overview biography on Gore.

Also, if the quiz is part of the "controversy" over LGF, why should it be specially featured over literally hundreds of other critical jokes, articles, and attacks on the site, both valid and not valid, serious and not serious? That seems to be showing favoritism to one particular critical article.

If you want to keep the LGF mock quiz put it in the external links section where readers know that it is just that. Just don't try to disguise a strong POV link as valuable information on LGF deserving of its own paragraph.

Weaving it in

A2Kafir, I wove it in, as per your request.

- Dragula

LGF Watch Watch

"Per the webmaster of the LGF Watch Watch site the site's focus is no longer to watch LGF Watch, but instead to serve as a continuation of LGF"

Dragula, I'm the webmaster of LGF Watch Watch and I never said such a thing. The focus of LGF Watch Watch is to debunk the lies of LGF Watch, hence the name.

rightwatch ]

And to claim that they are lies is POV. This is a neutral site, and there are far more neutral ways to state your case. --Golbez 06:36, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

"Per the webmaster of the LGF Watch Watch site the site's focus is no longer to watch LGF Watch, but instead to serve as a continuation of LGF"

I'm the founder of LGF Watch Watch, and I've never said such a thing. If anything, I've indicated that our focus will expand to commentary on other sites similar, and like minded with LGF Watch, mostly because LGF Watch has become rather inactive. The intent is evident in my nick.

I've never said this, and none of my colleagues has. This quote is absolutely false.

Leftwatch

Howdy Leftwatch. You write:

"I've indicated that our focus will expand to commentary on other sites similar, and like minded with LGF Watch, mostly because LGF Watch has become rather inactive."

That's what I was referring to when I wrote:

"Per the webmaster of the LGF Watch Watch site the site's focus is no longer to watch LGF Watch, but instead to serve as a continuation of LGF."

Sorry if I misinterpreted you.

- Dragula 10/6/04

Update: discardedlies.com has discontinued the feature, posting the following message to their site on 10 Dec 2004:

"The LGF Watch Watch mission of the blog is dead, we don't have the time or motivation. We really love Charles and we're sorry, we tried to carry it on and couldn't."

Entries for Weblogs #2

Is Misplaced Pages to have entries on all weblogs? Or just the bullies'? Wetman 03:58, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article?

On what planet is a particular entry of a blogger carping about a news piece worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article? For a long-form magazine piece, writers do a LOT of interviews and leg-work. A very small percentage of that actually goes into the article. Even if his reasoning weren't silly, though, it's a dangerous precedent to re-enact individual blog posts that have no historical value. I'm not going to remove it unilaterally, but I think it has no value. Carpeicthus 21:53, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Al-Reuters" and "Politically Correct"

I don't understand recent edits to this page. How much are we supposed to dumb this thing down?

RE: "NPOV" - the sentence using the LGF slang term "al-Reuters" mentions the "perceived" bias of -QUOTE- al-Reuters - UNQUOTE.

I assume we are writing for intelligent people who are capable of grokking context here - the above construction makes clear that "al-Reuters" is an LGF slang term and thus provides readers with insight into some of the langauge and POV-based disputes which surround the LGF site itself.

On a similar note, someone removed the term "politically correct." Why? the term PC (look up the wiki def) refers to people who critique language based on perceived inequity or implicit POV.

The LGF site is all about POV-based language and differing interpretations therof, a fact often discussed on and around the site.

It is certainly be possible to acknowledge that fact in a neutral way but not if the site entry keeps getting dumbed down,

Readers are certainly capable of understanding terms like "politically correct" "groupthink" "bias" "slang" "midset" etc - hey, they can even follow the Misplaced Pages links.

Regarding the al-Reuters topic as that was the one I changed, it read, "Fans value the website as an Alternative Media resource which provides a useful counter-balance to the perceived Anti-Zionist bias of mainstream media sources like "al-Reuters."". While I agree it is not too difficult to tell that the original writer was aware that he was quoting a term used on LGF that quote is not attributed to anyone in particular, but is instead used in a phrase that is non-neutral to Reuters. If a sentence was added that said "People of the LGF community often use pejorative terms for major media, such as al-Reuters, or had a section about common LGF slang that would be neutral. Using the slang in a sentence about another topic in the way that the community you're talking about uses it is not neutral.

OK, that makes sense. I have re-edited the entry in a way that hopefully makes this distiction clear.

Regarding the politically correct change, which I did not make so am only theorizing. The term is defined by Webster as, "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated". It is plausible that people who do not share this belief would find statements on LGF to be hate speech. Eliminating speech implies censorship. It is entirely conceivable that people find LGF to sometimes include hate speech while at the same time not advocating censorship of that speech.

- rhyax 18:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Makes sense, that should probably be edited out then.

Thanks for explaining.

Yeah, that about sums it up, as well as that "politically correct" is pretty much a universal pejorative, and that there was no reason for that particular sentence to reflect the subject's POV. Recent edits look good, though.

- User:carpeicthus 4:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Definition of "Idiotarian"

Changed from:

Johnson is also responsible for coining the word "idiotarian" (a pejorative term for opponents of the Bush Doctrine).

to:

Johnson is also responsible for coining the word "idiotarian" (a pejorative term generally applied to those who purvey what Johnson and other "warbloggers" view as uncritical Left-wing politics.

AFAIK the word "idiotarian" specifically refers to opponents of the Bush Doctrine (e.g., Fisk, Jimmy Carter, Rachel Corrie) so the first definition is much more accurate and specific than the second, which would seem to imply that "idiotarian" just means liberal.

The problem with this second definition is the fact that Johnson and other self-described "liberal" warbloggers are onboard with Bush's hawkish foreign policy (pre-emption) but don't necessarily side with traditional conservatives when it comes to domestic policy or social ideals.

For example, Johnson bans people who use racist or homophobic language to criticize blacks or gays and there is zero discussion of traditional conservative concerns like abortion, gay marriage, etc on the LGF site.

According to http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:PY18-FOnqpcJ:www.samizdata.net/blog/glossary_archives/002117.html+idiotarians&hl=en

"Idiotarian noun. A term of abuse for an advocate of what are deemed to be irrationalist and subjectivist values that have very little reference to the workings of the real world. Idiotarians are often socialist (quintessentially Noam Chomsky), but can also be paleo-libertarian or paleo-conservative. The defining phrase of idiotarianism is "it is all the fault of the United States": this is usually applied to geopolitics."

UPDATE: "Idiotarian" now has its own entry

Neutrality

Please don't use terms like al-Reuters, please read the Npov guidelines. rhyax 20:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Entries for Weblogs #1

Save at Weblog whatever material here is genuinely encyclopedic. Misplaced Pages does not list private websites. Wetman 23:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reverted to a neutral form

The article has been reverted to a neutral form, and the user mentioned earlier has not attempted to reverse those changes, therefore I am removing the NPOV notice. Should the changes discussed above again occur, I will re-add the notice. FrankenBorst 00:01, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

User 12.27.54.34 has made a number of changes to this page that are not in line with NPOV.

Some observers charge LGF with encouraging racism and Islamophobia, but this accusation is hotly disputed by rational americans and the site's very loyal defenders, who call themselves "Lizardoids" (SEE: Reptilian humanoid).

The reference to "rational Americans", has been removed but it keeps getting added back.

More recently, Johnson's "Lizardoids" have engaged in defending the truth

This sentence does not reflect NPOV, but keeps being restored.

The idiotarians refer to them as ], pitting Little Green Footballs against Metafilter, The Daily Kos, Indymedia and others.

The epithet "idiotarians" is does not belong here. It has been removed, but keeps getting added back.

Some of the dissenters who engage in trolling are appropriately reffered to as "Trolls" (or Morlocks in LGF parlance) by LGF regulars.

The word "appropriately" has been removed, but it keeps getting added back. FrankenBorst 02:26, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Answering Requests for Comment

I arrive as a complete outsider, thinking this might actually be an article about Footballs. I also speak as a political liberal. I think that the article as it stands (see date stamp) is fine, and probably the only way to write articles about politically controversial weblogs. You define what it is at the top, talk about it's history, give some space for reports of criticism and controversy, and then provide external links to pro and con articles about the blog. That's all you can do, right? I presume the "Hitler Quiz" referred to is currently the "LFG Quiz" in the external links section.

I don't think there should be a link to a parody site like this in the main body of the article - a link at the end is where is should be. Does this page still need to be listed in Requests for Comment? PaulHammond 14:43, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

btw - whoever wrote that "Opinion Journal" piece accusing Microsoft's site of "smearing" the writer needs to come here to learn about NPOV don't they? The person who listed Little Green Footballs added the warning/disclaimer "some people may find the comments hateful or even racist". That's perfectly true and NPOV isn't it? Some people do think it's racist, right? PaulHammond 14:55, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

LGF comments disclaimer

The article contains the following assertion:

Observers also point to the hyperbolic language and dehumanizing slurs employed by some commenters (e.g., "Palesimians," "Oil Ticks," "koranimals," "ragheads") and charge the webmaster with encouraging groupthink, jingoism, and Islamophobia. Supporters of the site counter this argument by noting that Johnson himself has never used ethnic slurs on the site and has posted a disclaimer disavowing responsibility for the site's comment section.

Where is this disclaimer given? I've spent some time searching the LGF site and found nothing supporting the above LGF defence, rather the opposite: the regular posting policy states Comments are open and unmoderated, although obscene or abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs, which suggests that comments the sites administrators regard as very obscene or offensive will tend to be deleted. I find the case that LGF generally is encouraging of the kind of comments it receives to be extremely strong. ---- Charles Stewart 20:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the most obscene remarks are removed. We cannot see them so we cannot make a comparison.

Wikkrockiana 16:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved out of the article

The discussion of flamewar tactics had an overlong list of various sites that have gotten into feuds with LGF over the years. I'll condense this into more readable prose, leaving the list here for anyone who is interested:

• American Politics Journal
• Atrios
• BoingBoing
• users of the Jerry Brown blog
• Kathryn Cramer
• the Daily Kos
• Indymedia
• Metafilter
• Nathan Newman
• News Dissector
• the NYU Center for Religion & Media
• Slashdot
• users of the Straight Dope message board
• Andrew Sullivan
• Tacitus
• la vie viennoise
• Oliver Willis
• Winds of Change
• Matthew Yglesias

Michael Snow 00:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some people

Have way too much free time.

Request for Source in 'History' Section

LGF was one of four sources, along with the Power Line and AllahPundit blogs and the Free Republic discussion forum, responsible for the initial stages of the 60 Minutes Killian memos investigation.

Can anyone validate this? I was under the impression that the contribution made by a large number of blogs (these four perhaps being the most prominent) was that they doubted the veracity of the memos, not that they actually raised valid criticisms from a position of legitimate authority, initiated an investigation, were cited by 60 Minutes, or anything else that could be accurately described as being 'responsible' for any investigation. I think it certainly needs sourcing, since it's a fairly important claim.

193.60.133.205 02:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)-Schmitt.

I imported the well-sourced text from the Killian documents article. LGF was there on September 9th. (Day 1) Kaisershatner 16:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we still need separate entries for "Idiotarian" and "Killian Documents"

Looks like the bulk of these articles have been imported into this one. Should we just go ahead and import the rest of those entries as well, and then redirect their titles here?

You're kidding, right, Dragula? The Killian documents article is currently 107k; the part that is imported here is one paragraph (not coincidentally, the part that pertains to LGF). Similarly, the Idiotarian article, as you well know from your extensive involvement in it, is substantially longer than the introductory information listed here. Kaisershatner 15:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that its really necessary to repeat 3 paragraph sections verbatim in two such closely linked articles (lgf & idiotarianism) - they're redundant, and now have to be updated in two different places instead of just one. The killain thing is fine as I see it now.

17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a reference to supporters of LGF being "objective observers" of the site, which is certainly not a neutral pt. of view. I changed this reference to make it neutral. Also, the article as written contended that only LGF commenters displayed abusive, insulting attitudes toward Arabs. I feel it is also important to highlight, even if it is less incendiary, Johnson's own writing which might be contrued as at best critical of Arabs & at worst something more sinister. So I quoted 2 LGF headlines which attempted to portray Muslims in a highly unfavorable light.Richard 06:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Racism

how can there be no mention of LGF's islamophobic racism on this page, when commentors have advocated genocide against arabs on the website? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.89.240.80 (talk • contribs) .

I think the racist comments on LGF are already covered appropriately in this article. Rhobite 04:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

LGF's comments notwithstanding, I find it ridiculous that being against a religion is called "racism". Religious belief, just like one's political convictions, is a conscious choice and should therefore be open to criticism and even ridicule. One's race, however, cannot be chosen, and so is not fairly open to such criticism. Equating anti-Islamic sentiment with racism is nothing less than a cop-out, a dishonest tactic designed to stifle any and all criticism of Islam by playing the race card, even though it doesn't apply. I certainly hope it doesn't continue. — Impi 05:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

if it's just criticism of a religion, no, it's not racicm, but many statements on the website appear to be opposed to all people who live in islamic civilizations, regardless of their personal religious belief. see the discussion of forced sterilization of all palestinians.

None of this is on the site itself. Like many blogs, LGF has a nearly unmoderated discussion section where sometimes nasty comments appear; the website policy makes it clear that the comments do not represent the opinions of Johnson or other contributors. (I'd cite their policy but it looks like LGF is facing a denial of service attack at present.) Some out-of-line comments have, indeed, been removed in the past.

However, Imp is right. It is totally disingenuous to equate criticism or discussion of, or opposition to a religion with racism. ProhibitOnions 19:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has accused the webmaster himself of being racist, simply of hosting a site where racist commenters congregate and opine. Thus, citations of same (i.e., the commenters) are perfectly legit.

RE: the unmoderated discussion, yes, if a commenter belongs to the core group of regulars (registration to the site itself is almost always closed) then of course their comments are indeed uncensored.

In like manner, if I threw a party at my house and 99% of the invitees were Amish separatists, I certainly wouldn't make myself responsible for policing what they said, but it would be disingenuous in the extreme for me to express surprise that most of the guests were chit-chatting about Amish separatism.

Dragula 21:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

>>>> However, Imp is right. It is totally disingenuous to equate criticism or discussion of, or opposition to a religion with racism. ProhibitOnions 19:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)<<<<

I strongly disagree. Terms like 'rag-head' and 'sand-ni**er' are openly racist language. Islam has always been the subject of racist abuse by white westerners since its founder - Muhammad - was non-white. A brief survey of American history is easily enough to conclude that the opinions on LGF are a continuation of the openly hostile and dehumanising attitude towards non-whites displayed traditionally by Americans.

User:222.99.54.130 11.24, 8 June 2006 (GMT)

Removal of "hatred" references

Throughout the body of the article, numerous claims are made and references are given that Little Green Footballs is primarily a xenophobic hate site. The first paragraph is uncharactistically positive and contains no references to the fact that most of the posts on the site are strongly and violently antimuslem. I can see the need for neutrality, but when the body of the article says one thing and the lead paragraph says another, you have a problem.

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). If this article identifies LGF as a "xenophobic hate site" then this is POV and needs to be changed. However, Misplaced Pages is not a place for axe-grinding. ProhibitOnions 21:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions is correct. It's a clear NPOV violation to call LGF a xenophobic hate site, or claim that the site "stirs up hatred". It is a WP:NOR violation to post random examples of racism on LGF. You can find idiots on any web forum.. doesn't make them notable idiots. "Ben" is not a reliable source and he should not be quoted here. Rhobite 23:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts to remove references

Please do not revert solely to remove references. Just because you don't agree with the references shouldn't mean they should be removed. 204.149.81.212 17:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are not sourced, nor are they NPOV. The word 'radical' for instance is potentially a pejorative term. Your generalization about the anti-Palestinian views is also troubling in this regard. The source you cited does not support your claim in that regard. Bibigon 17:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The source I cited () shows protestors advocating peace. The site refers to them as "terrorist enablers". How is this not radical conservativism?

There are two concerns. First, your edits constitute original research, which is prohibitted on Misplaced Pages. From a more qualatative standpoint, those are not merely protestors advocating peace, as they are also calling Israel an apartheid state, and a terrorist state. Both of those accusations move beyond them simply being protestors advocating peace. However, the issue of original research is really paramount here, rather than issues surrounding Israel-Palestine. In order for your edits to conform to Misplaced Pages policy, you need to find a reliable source which documents that LGF is a radical conservative site, and similarly reliable sources for your other edits. Bibigon 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why there needs to be a complete reversion if a smaller problem (such as someone mentioning another blog) gets placed into the article. The points are still valid, just take the name out. Mlhoganjr

My issue with the citations isn't that they promote another blog. It's that they're original research, giving evidence of the hate speech, not of the critics pointing to the hate speech. Do you see the difference? Bibigon 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the language test, I just don't see the notability of the langauge test. Again, if the NYTimes or someone had referenced this quiz as evidence of this site being racist or whatever, then sure. Right now however, it's just a blog criticizing the users of another blog. I don't see why that warrants mention. If it did, then we'd have a lot more comments in every article from various bloggers. Every article could be filled with the views of dozens of blogs on the topic at hand. I'm sure LGF has some negative thoughts on Islam. Should the article on Islam have a line to the effect of "One conservative blog goes so far as to routinely joke about Islam being a religion of peace, and is dedicated primarily to pointing out cases of Islamic violence"? Bibigon 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Bibigon's reverts

This user has a known history of reverting to remove references (please refer to his Talk page). He has been banned in the past for "revert bombing". He hides behind "NPOV" arguments, when the reality is he's removing information that further substantiates articles.

Let's face facts: LGF is largely an anti-Islamic site. You can easily click a single link on the site to note this. Referencing posts made by the founder or LGF members provides context for the claims in the Misplaced Pages article that the site is Islamophobic. They should not be removed.

I've seen a lot of references removed by this user in the past few days. The solution to "questionable" references isn't to carpet bomb reverts. Positive examples of non-hate speech should be put as a counter, if so desired. 216.254.64.246 22:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Rhobite 01:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. It's a response to reckless rv'ing and trashing references. Under a guise of "NPOV" these posters ARE shifting it to their point of view. They should be dealt with appropriately. 216.254.64.246 02:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

All I have done is remove rants and unencyclopedic content from the article. Bibigon 14:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions's reverts

See above comment about Bibigon. This user also engages in revert carpet bombing (and he supports Bibigon for doing so -- again, see Bibigon's talk page). Unfortunately, as he's inexplicably a Misplaced Pages admin, I'm not sure there's much we can do about it. Ironically, he's against revert wars in his own talk page -- clearly a practice he does not follow.

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Rhobite 01:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. It's a response to reckless rv'ing and trashing references. Under a guise of "NPOV" these posters ARE shifting it to their point of view. They should be dealt with appropriately. 216.254.64.246 02:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised at the accusation (made by 216.254.64.246), because I have only reverted this page once, when after attempting to phrase some of the criticisms more neutrally, the partisan ranting was immediately reinserted.

In my previous edits, I have removed unsourced statements (generally added by anonymous editors) such as "The site's sole purpose is to stir hatred against Muslems" (sic), "comments which attempt to defend Muslims, or criticize other commenter are quickly deleted", "Critics point out that in reality, dissenters are drowned in racist, hateful comments", and "While many sites target solely Islamic fundamentalists, LGF targets the entire culture", and that it is "frequented by xenophobes of the religion of Islam" (whatever that means). Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and this kind of ranting has no place here. Considering the number of media outlets that have criticized LGF, it shouldn't be too difficult to put together a sentence that makes this point (that some people think the site is racist) in a coherent manner.  ProhibitOnions  07:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

216.254.64.246 informs me that he's read the NPOV policy, but he does need to make more of an effort to follow it. It's not OK to say that the site exists in order to stir up hatred, especially when we already cover these accusations later in the article, phrased in a more neutral way. Even the scare quotes around "coverage" are unprofessional. Bibigon's solution, changing "coverage" to "analysis", is good. Rhobite 16:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing references 2 - "It's not OK to say that the site exists in order to stir up hatred"

Ask yourself, "what is LGF"? You had a large number of references that refered to it as a hate site, and were subsequently removed. You have hundreds of comments ON the site that say "I hate muslims" and "I'd like to kill them". Why are we trying to sugarcoat hate with "neutrality"? Why are people trying to claim NPOV when they're really just removing references that show the site as it actually is? Why are we doing a disservice to those coming to Misplaced Pages, looking for unbiased information?

I don't see the point of removing references when they're used to accurately paint a picture. Continuing the analogy, if you want to add your own colors you're welcome to, but don't wash away the rest of the painting. Removing references is a reckless and dangerous practice. 204.149.81.212 16:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

See No original research. Bibigon 22:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Original research definition: "material added to articles by Misplaced Pages editors that has not been published already by a reputable source". Quotes directly from LGF don't qualify as "a reputable source"? By your logic, a politician's quotes wouldn't be permissable in an article about the politician.

By the way, these 2-3 word responses don't say much. "See No Original Research", "Don't use scare quotes". Explain your arguments, make your case. Don't just axe content.216.254.64.246 23:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Quotes directly from LGF if they are used to demonstrate a point that the site is a hate site are original research. You are doing research, and citing evidence that the site is in fact a hate site, or xenophobic, or whatever. If you want to discuss the site as a hate site, find a reputable source, such as the NYTimes, which documents that, and cite them. A politician's quotes wouldn't be permissible in an article about the politician if the point of the quotes was to demonstrate some character trait, no. Saying something like "Nixon was an anti-semite" and then backing it up with a quote where he rags on Kissinger is a no-go here. Find a reputable source which points that out, and add "The NYTimes believed Nixon to be an anti-semite." Just quoting from the site itself to demonstrate something about it constitutes original research. Bibigon 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ProhibitOnions's reverts part Deux

Prohibit Onions, LGF has won the "Best Israel Advocacy Blog" award two years in a row, once in 2004 from the Israelly Cool website and once in 2005 from the Jerusalem post. Both times he linked to the polls in question and urged his readers to vote for LGF in that category.

Sure sounds to me like he wants the site to be recognized as an "Israel Advocacy Blog" indeed, the "Best Israel Advocacy Blog" in the whole world, 2 years in a row.

Is there something I'm missing here that makes describing his blog thusly a form of "subtle vandalism"?

Would describing Ben Kingsley as "Oscar Winning movie actor Ben Kingsley" also be a form of "subtle vandalism"?

Dragula 04:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Prohibit Onions, I went to the JPost and found the definition for this award (which LGF won by a large margin, garnering 50% of the total vote):

"To be considered an Israel Advocacy Blog, a blog must deal extensively with issues relating to Israel, in the context of promoting Israel and Zionism, or presenting Israel's side of the conflict. This includes blogs written by Jews and non-Jews alike."

I think we can both agree that this award category description is also an accurate and clear description of LGF - if we incorporated it into the entry somehow, would that be adequate context to lay your concerns to rest?

Dragula 04:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's simple. Calling LGF only an "Israel advocacy blog" in the introductory sentence implies that it is solely or mainly concerned with Israel, which is not the case. LGF is a blog that takes a number of positions, only one of which is robust support for Israel. I have no objection to this award being mentioned, but it's hardly the most important thing about the blog, and its use as the only pertinent detail mentioned in the introductory sentence was questionable, given the strength of feeling in some quarters about Israel. (Thus my concern about "possible subtle vandalism": it sounds a little too close to the likes of "Zionist blog".) Subsequent edits by others have improved it.  ProhibitOnions  23:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of Bias

Does this section title strike anyone else as odd? Accusations of bias aren't particularly interesting or notable with regards to a blog. It's a blog, it's spin and opinion about news and events, etc... At it's core, just like every other blog, it is the author revealing his own bias, and the reasons for it. My point is that the accusations here aren't of bias, but of racism, islamophobia, and whatnot. Bias is too a general and meaningless a term to be applied to a blog. This isn't a news organization which is trying to be unbiased. Quite the opposite. Bibigon 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... LGF is pretty polarizing - people seem to either really love it or hate and this angle is almost always mentioned in media accounts of the site, e.g., MSN, NRO, INN, WSJ, etc... I actually can't think of a profile of the site that doesn't mention that the site is "controversial" because of accusations of hate, racism, etc.

So, I guess we could either make this section more specific, and change the title to "Accusations of Racism" or else we could just go in the bland direction and say the site is "controversial" and then leave the reader to puzzle out why.

On a similar note, there is a modifier in the section that mentions the ubiquitous use of "allegedly dehumanizing" terms on LGF, e.g., ragheads, camel jockeys, oil ticks, sand fleas, paleosimians, etc.

Is there a better way to express this, perhaps to acknowledge that Arabs actually find being called "sand fleas" offensive but allow for the possibility that LGF commenters don't realize that?

Then we can get rid of the "allegedly" since this isn't just an allegation - one would be hard pressed to find an ethnic group whose members do prefer to be characterized as blood-sucking insects.

Dragula 05:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, that issue - the LGF user community's heavy reliance on ethnic slurs - could also be folded into the "slang & posting protocols" section. This would make sense since the site has helped popularized the use of not only "idiotarian" and "moonbat" but also "raghead" "cameljockey" "oil tick" "koranimal" etc. And wiki readers aren't idiots, people understand that ethnic slurs are polarizing, maybe they don't really need it spelled out for them - it can simply be noted and wikified. Then readers will have some context for the "controversy," such as it is.

Dragula 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

"Right Wing"

A certain user whose IP address I can't be bothered to cut from "history" & paste here is hitting this entry once a day to change occurences of the word "conservative" to "right wing."

Now, there are certainly many proud, self-identified right wingers in the US. However, Charles Johnson is not one of these. He may have extreme right views but he prefers to describe himself as a reformed liberal, so to call a spade a spade in this instance is simply to invite endless wrangling over semantics which profit no-one.

So, Mr. (or miss) hit-and-run editor, can't we please just compromise on the term "conservative"? "Right Wing" may be more accurate, but the longest that's ever going to stay on this page is about 5 minutes - in this country, the term "right wing" has a pejorative connotation, and so we instead need to settle on a term that everyone can agree on.

thanks,

Dragula 23:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

>> "Right Wing" may be more accurate, but the longest that's ever going to stay on this page is about 5 minutes - in this country, the term "right wing" has a pejorative connotation, <<

There are two points here:

Firstly, any encyclopedia requires a stringent commitment to an objective criterion for compiling entries. Accuracy is of paramount importance otherwise the knowledge in the encyclopedia becomes worthless - in this case you correctly acknowledge the term 'right-wing' as being more accurate than 'conservative'.

Secondly, and rather disturbingly, you suggest that accuracy can be compromised by national bias. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the Laws of Physics cannot be suspended in America any more than they can be suspended anywhere else on Earth - which is to say they cannot be suspended at all. In view of this, can we not agree that the perception of Americans towards the term 'right-wing' is only preventing a more accurate entry for LGF's in Wiki?

Thanks 222.99.54.130 D.

Well, what exactly does "right-wing" mean in this context? How exactly can we characterise Charles Johnson? Certainly, he is vehemently anti-Islamic, but since when did being against a particular religion mean the same as "right-wing"? I really don't understand how one can be utterly opposed to and hateful of Christianity and still be considered left-wing, whereas the same attitude towards Islam must automatically make you right-wing. Clearly, opposition to an organised religion can come from those on both sides of the ideological left-right divide. So, do you have any other evidence, through his statements and actions, which justify a labelling of "right-wing"? — Impi 10:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets look at the wiki def of "right wing":

In politics, right-wing, the political right or simply the right, are terms that refer to the segment of the political spectrum often associated with any of several strains of conservatism, the religious right, and areas of classical liberalism, or simply the opposite of left-wing politics. In some contexts, the term right-wing also can include authoritarian nationalism, but that is generally considered part of the far right, which this article does not cover in any great detail.

Now lets see "far right" on wiki:

The far right has often been associated with social and religious conservatism, reactionary nationalism, jingoistic chauvinism, economic protectionism, and/or racism, but this usage varies greatly. Most people and groups described as "far-right" don't see themselves as extremists, and consider the term derogatory. You could say that they would be considered conservatives or reactionaries.

LGF fails on counts #1 and #4 and hits the nail on the head with #2 and #3. #5 is ambiguous, for reasons which have been more than adequately covered already. (Is Islam a race? How about Arabs? Are the Palestinians an ethnic group? Is it "racist" to characterize certain ethnnic groups as blood-sucking insects or parasites? What if its not the ethnicity but the religion you don't like? How about "raghead" - is that a racist term? Or not, since distinctive religious headwear has nothing to do with race? How about "camel jocky"? How about "Koranimals"? How about "Oil Ticks" etc. We can argue on and on about this stuff until the cows come home. etc.)

That said, the last sentence of the definition quoted above is germane to the discussion above and bears repeating

Most people and groups described as "far-right" don't see themselves as extremists, and consider the term derogatory. You could say that they would be considered conservatives or reactionaries.

Which brings us back to the top of this subsection. "Far right" and "right wing" are considered derogatory in the US. Also, the center has moved considerably to the right, so that certain positions once perceived as fringe are now simply "conservative." So I still think we should simply go with "conservative."

21:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

taking a hardline on the War on Terror and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be conservative, but it is not "extreme-right," which is associated with fascism and, as you pointed out, "reactionary nationalism" (and believing with conviction, with reasons to back it up, that your country is right in a certain conflict -- in this case the Iraq War and the broader conflict -- is not "reactionary nationalism.") in terms of Islam, all LGF does is point out the obvious -- that "moderate Islam" isn't as prevalent as some have been led to believe, and that while many Arab Muslims don't explicitly endorse people like bin Laden, they do sympathize with them.

i'm not familiar enough with the commenters on that site to know just how "racist" and "Islamophobic" (that last word I really hate) they are, but if these racial insults are primarily being used against Islamic terrorists and their advocates, they're probably just using them as a way to put them down, rather than an expression of broad racism toward Arabs as an entire people. similar to how certain people think Bush's supporters mostly consist of backward-thinking, evangelical white-bread hicks.

and people who criticize certain aspects of Islam and Arab Muslim culture (including myself) aren't necessarly "Islamophobic," as I am in no way "afraid" of Islam. Dr. Trey 00:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

actually now that i have some experience reading user posts on that site, my earlier assessment was very wrong. most of it's reader base is phenomenally stupid, which isn't helped by the fact that Johnson simply blasts radical Islamists (perceived and real) daily without arguing about how to win the WoT in the long term. i still don't think it's a hate site, but plenty of its readers come close -- Islam the death cult, the problem is Islam, nuke Mecca, every majority-Muslim state should be treated as an enemy... it's all there.

one of the FEW times where i judged a book by its cover and came up with a wrong conclusion. i honestly didn't think much borderline bigotry really existed on the Right 'til i saw this site. thankfully, it's just Internet kids, so hopefully they don't represent much. iTrey 10:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

“Hadji Girl”

I've removed this section because this article is about the Little Green Footballs blog as a whole. There's no reason that the Hadji Girl entries deserve more recognition than any other entries. The paragraph is not any more notable than a dozen other entries that could be listed. For an entry on a blog, there's no reason to get tied down onto individual blog entries. It just leads to cluttering the page. If the Hadji Girl incident explodes, in a similar way to the Killian documents incident does, then it should be included. Until then, it's not any more notable than the other dozen pieces that are blogged about there daily. Bibigon 16:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Same LGF?

Does anyone know whether there is a relationship between this LGF and the group of developers for the Atari ST who were active in the early 90s? Somegeek 19:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

yep - same people - Chucky and his brother.

Amateur opinion vs. professional judgement

Given that Johnson - in his capacity as the webmaster of a political blog based in Los angeles - has strongly held opinions about everything from whether or not Saddam possessed WMD to how Rachel Corrie died and what the origins of the Koran are - there must be some way to distinguish between these - well, what really are partisan "talking points" - and the consensus judgement of professionals in the field.

Misplaced Pages has entries on a number of topics, from the structure of the atom to medieval French literature, but we do not, as rule - seem to need to balance each and every entry with some sort of caveat from an amateur pundit, e.g., "Joe Blow, the webmaster of biblicalvalues.blogspot.com, disputes Kaku's theory, noting that quantum gravitational fields are nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament," etc. Dragula 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The way we normally do this is that we don't mention their qualifications, rather than go on a long diatribe about how unqualified they are. There's no reason to believe that Johnson's opinion is an expert one. If Johnson were an expert, we'd say something like "Johnson, who participated in the official investigation, nonetheless disputes the report." That's normally how we distinguish between expert opinions and laypersons. Pointing out his lack of qualifications on the other hand constitues original research. Bibigon 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Suppose, for example, that I claim on my blog that the Earth is square in shape. By the criterion you've described here, it would thus be perfectly acceptable for me to append my opinion to Wiki astronomy articles, but it would not be acceptable for other Wikipedians to note that I am not an astronomer - the fact that I have a blogspot account automatically places my claims on equal footing with those of professionals in the field.

Is that correct, or am I misreading you? Dragula 19:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You are misreading me. Your blog does not meet the Misplaced Pages standards of notability. Charles Johnson's blog does. Furthermore, "blogger Charles Johnson" is not on equal footing with professionals in the field. Without credentials, people will take his opinions at face value -- the value of the opinions of a blogger without credentials. I think the vast majority of critics are unqualified to be criticizing just about anything, but that doesn't mean I can go around appending statements as to why they're unqualified before their names. That would be original research. There's simply no reason to believe a reader would assume that Charles Johnson is some sort of expert. We identify him in the article as a blogger, and that's about it. Actual experts are identified as being professors, or as being affiliated with reputable organizations, or whatever. That's how we distinguish between the Charles Johnson's of the world and the IDF or Human Rights Watch, or whomever. Bibigon 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that my blog is very popular. That makes it notable and thus places my strongly held opinion about the shape of the earth on equal footing with the findings of Stephen Hawkings. In fact, I blog on a daily basis about any number of different topics - for example I also have theories about the origins of the Finnish language. The fact that I possess a MySpace account means that I am just as qualified as any of the so-called "experts" in the field and when my amateur opinion is rendered it must be respected by Wikipedians, not subjected willy-nilly to diatribes about my lack of qualifications. Dragula

If your blog is in fact very popular and notable within the field of astronomy, then yes, your opinions would be added. They wouldn't be given any credence because you have no apparent qualifications, but if you are as notable as you imply, then it should be mentioned. You wouldn't be given equal footing with Stephen Hawking unfortunately, because he is an expert in the field, and would be identified as such. You would be identified as a blogger, and nothing else. Bibigon 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, we are talking about the Rachel Corrie case, right? Corrie's status as an "idiotarian" and a "human pancake," etc., are indeed well-established themes on LGF. I agree that part should stay. But whether or not Corrie commited suicide by bulldozer (which is what the entry for the page now strongly suggests) strike me as a claim that should be either moved to the Rachel Corrie and hashed out there.or else we should expand this entry threefold, and make room for the eyewitness testimony, Israeli govt. report, etc. Dragula 22:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, we're talking about Charles Johnson. The specifics of the Rachel Corrie death are irrelevant here. We give a quick synopsis of Johnson's position, because the page is about his blog, and what he's written there. Bibigon 22:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bigibon, As I understand it, your stance is that Charles Johnson is a "notable" blogger, thus his claim that a peace activist committed suicide by bulldozer in order to facilitate the flow of drugs and prostitutes into Gaza should be presented without caveat or qualification. On the other hand, Johnson is also just a "blogger", so the assumption any normal person would make - that his extraordinary claims must be based on his own background as a forensic pathologist or military tactician of some sort - can, and must, remain implicit, for to point out that he is neither of these things would consititute "original research." I appreciate the effort you've put into trying to explain why this should be so, but I remain fairly confused on this issue and so plan to mark this article POV. Hopefully a more experienced editor can clear this up for us - thanks! 18:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Go right ahead. Bibigon 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered to be reliable sources, and are generally not used, except in articles about the blog itself, or the blog's author. The only exceptions could be when the blogger is a famous individual or noted expert in a field. In the case of this article, since it is about the blog, the article should describe the blogger's views on various subjects, including Corrie; however, as Johnson is not a noted expert on Corrie, and since his opinions have not been published in a reliable source, they do not belong in the Corrie article. On the other hand, Misplaced Pages editors cannot take it upon themselves to attempt to refute the views of the blogger, as described in the article about him (or the blog), as this is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages's no original research policy, which states that "original research" is something that introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source. If you can find a reliable source which argues against Johnson's views regarding Corrie, then you should add them; however, your own personal arguments can never enter the article. Jayjg 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The IDF claims that Corrie was run over by accident while she was "standing" in front of a bulldozer which was digging up explosives; the ISM claims that Corrie was run over deliberately while she was "standing" trying to protect a house. Neither mention Corrie "jumping" in the bulldozer's path; neither mention prostitutes and drugs being smuggled in tunnels. So if everyone agrees that the IDF and ISM reports and eyewitnesses constitute reputable sources, and that it is legitimate to juxtaposition information from reputable sources with the partisan opinions of amateur political pundits then I will do so. I'm going to triple-check and seek an explicit confirmation in this instance, however, as my mind has grown weary from this rather intense and unanticipated back & forth: If the primary purpose of these Wiki entries is to broadcast the partisan opinions of amateur political pundits then to introduce reputable sources would not be appropriate. So please do confirm that introducing info from reputable sources is the best way to handle this.Dragula 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, you cannot use your own arguments to try to refute arguments that you don't like, regardless of the sources you use to build your argument; this is forbidden by the original research policy. If you have a reliable source that says "Johnson is completely wrong because...", then you can quote it, but you cannot make up your own refutations. The policy is very clear on this. Jayjg 21:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, if I am reading you correctly, then political opinion which has been introduced to Misplaced Pages entries needs to stand on its own without any sort of context, unless there is a specific rebuttal from a reliable source. For example, British historian David Irving asserts that the holocaust was a hoax. He has been specifically rebutted by other historians who dispute this. But if a hypothetical blogger named Jow X also claims that the holocaust did not occur but has not been specifically rebutted by name then his view should simply be presented as a truth claim by a "notable" blogger - no other context for the claim needs to be provided, and the reader may infer whatever degree of expertise or authority they wish. Is that correct? Dragula 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather prejudicial analogy, but no matter. If the blogger was notable enough to have his own article, then his claims or statements could certainly be placed in the article about him, and if no-one notable had responded to his claims, then there would be no "refutation". Again, one couldn't use these claims in the article on The Holocaust, but one could certainly put them in the article about the blogger. Here's an example, if it helps; the David Icke article states that In 1999, he published The Biggest Secret, in which he wrote that the secret world government consists of a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are, in fact, reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie. There is no refutation in the article that insists that George Bush, Queen Elizabeth, et al are actually mammalian human beings, not reptilian humanoids, since no reliable sources have actually made that refutation. Jayjg 22:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi JayG, that is actually a very helpful analogy - thank you. On a related note, the "themes" section of this article probably does, in itself, comprise a context for assertions made both by Johnson and the LGF commenters and could probably be expanded to provide a more well-rounded overview of these. I'll work on that later when I have more energy! Thanks again. Dragula 01:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bibigon's reverts getting out of hand

Bibigon continues to revert this article to slant it in his direction. His user history page details a laundry list of other offenses, basically taking any article involving Palestine, Israel or Islam and shaping it to fit his views. This typically involves removing clearly referenced information that goes against his opinions. He has been repatedly suspended for such transactions. Please see his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Bibigon

Any specific edits which you disagree with? Ideally having to do with Little Green Footballs, since it is the Little Green Footballs talk page after all. Bibigon 00:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream Sources

The Jerusalem Post is a mainstream source, as is the Washgington Post. The intro clearly describes the site's topical focus (commentary on Israeli and American politics) and acknowledges the attention the site has received, and influence it has had, in this endeavor.

While the Washington Post could be considered a "mainstream" source, the Jerusalem Post certainly is not, at least according to Misplaced Pages.216.254.64.246 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please elaborate on how "Misplaced Pages" rejects the Jerusalem Post as a mainstream source. Nothing in the paper's article suggests it is not--to the contrary, being owned by one of Canada's largest media concerns it suggests that it is. 24.72.6.129 20:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FBI not investigating

User 132.241.246.111 (talk · contribs) keeps adding the following

==FBI investigation?==

As of August 2006 members of LGF are reportedly being investigated by the FBI.

Note that the link is to a blog post, which is not acceptable as a source. (The post does link to a WaPo article, but the only mention of the FBI is in quotes from a CAIR spokesman.)

Charles has categorically stated that there is no investigation: see WaPo Covers Reuters Scandal, Quotes CAIR and Lefty Blog Gets Its Smear From CAIR.

It seems to me that we should not mention this storm in a teacup unless/until a WP:RS reports something a lot more substantial than an unverified statement from one of LGF's opponents. So I've been removing it. What do other editors think?

BTW, the anon's last edit summary was "sorry but I can't find any newsmax coverage of this"!

Cheers, CWC(talk) 21:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, the source is not in accordance with WP:RS. The editor also has a recent history of adding the same type of partisan POV to other articles. I actually found this edit while following his contribution history. Glad someone else caught it and reverted.Crockspot 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Biography standards and negative information

Any Misplaced Pages article which contains information about a living person MUST comply with Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons. In short, this means that any negative information on a person (such as accusing Charles Johnson of bias) MUST provide a reliable source. Blogs are not considered reliable sources for negative information. If negative information is entered in this article without a reliable source it will be removed. --Alabamaboy 19:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All entries that are unsourced should be deleted immediately as per WP:BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is not correct. WP:BLP states "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page." WP:BLP does not permit the removal of all unsourced material, only negative material. Best, --Alabamaboy 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But or our WP:V and WP:RS calls for sourcing all materials in articles.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Definately. All material should be sourced. But as it says in those guidelines, "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." As a result, we have to first challenge unsourced material and give editors an opportunity to add a source. If no source is added, then we can remove the material. With negative bio material, it can simply be stripped from the article. --Alabamaboy 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

66 edits in only 44 hours !!!!

That's one edit every 40 minutes since the LGF webmaster posted his linked article about "Misplaced Pages's Fatal Flaw" to on Wednesday afternoon - WAY TO GO TEAM!!!!

Dragula 21:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Articles linked from high traffic sites