Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:18, 11 June 2007

Palestine Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

/Archive01 July 2004 to September 2006

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)

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:

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Recent Edits

Re: 'Mainstream' section of the article

1. Removed the summary of the Mainstream section. This read: "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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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...Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 now reads 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."

(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.."

(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 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 , but yesterday I found a declassified, proportionally printed "Memorandum for Record" from 1959 that I've already posted. That plus the Faux-Arial word processing doc dated August, 1973 , 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misc Issues

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)

• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Low-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics