Talk:Little Green Footballs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

Archives /Archive01 July 2004 to September 2006

Contents 1 Talk page archived 2 NPOV tag removed 3 Name?? 4 A million times better 5 Redirects 6 question about adding external links 7 Most Externals Links Must Go 8 NPOV thought 9 Recent Edits 10 Edits by user 'Fredsagirl' 11 Semantics 12 Accusations of bias 13 Concise 14 Removed Unsourced/Unencylopedic claims

[edit] Talk page archived

I've WP:ARCHIVEd this talk page using the move option. Anyone wishing to continue a old discussion should copy-and-paste the wikitext of the relevant section of the old archive into this page (at the bottom of the page, I guess). Thanks, CWC(talk) 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.35.202 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A million times better

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

Dragula 17:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Recent Edits

Re: 'Mainstream' section of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oy vey. Such a large missive to respond to.

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Edits by user 'Fredsagirl'

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

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

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

I address these as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Concise

Suggested to remove as unencylopedic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Dragula

Responses from User:Chris Chittleborough AKA "CWC":

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

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

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

Dragula 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Dragula 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

==Controversies==

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

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

Dragula 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

((As at present))

===Commenters===

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

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

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

Dragula 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

===Netiquette and redirects===

((As at present))

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

Any comments, suggestions, criticisms ... please ?

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

[edit] 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)