Talk:Little Green Footballs
|
|
| Contents |
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
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 article... That's why I suggested moving the link back to the external links section.
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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia: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
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 [1] (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ken_crossman/Gore.htm) - 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 [[2] (http://www.discardedlies.com)]
- 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.
"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. Wikipedia 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 [flame wars]], 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 (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15154_My_Letter_to_the_Strib#comments)
- Atrios [3] (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13850_Freak_Parade_at_Atrios#comments)
- BoingBoing (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10547#comments)
- users of the Jerry Brown (http://jerrybrown.typepad.com/jerry/2005/02/free_sigarchi.html#comments) blog
- Kathryn Cramer (http://www.kathryncramer.com/wblog/archives/000497.html)
- the Daily Kos [4] (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Alittlegreenfootballs.com+daily+kos&btnG=Google+Search)
- Indymedia
- Metafilter
- Nathan Newman (http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001636.shtml)
- News Dissector (http://www.newsdissector.org/blog/2005/03/08/#1118)
- the NYU Center for Religion & Media (http://www.therevealer.org/cgi-bin/r/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&search=LGF)
- Slashdot (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13741_The_Faint_Whining_of_the_Slashdot_Nerd#comments)
- users of the Straight Dope (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=7117_The_Straight_Dopes#comments) message board
- Andrew Sullivan (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14492_Sullivan_Off_the_Rails_Again#comments)
- Tacitus (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8353)
- la vie viennoise (http://www.uncoy.com/2004/04/lgf_and_lgfers_.html)
- Oliver Willis (http://www.oliverwillis.com/node/view/684)
- Winds of Change (http://windsofchange.net/archives/004817.php#comments)
- Matthew Yglesias (http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/003049.html)
Michael Snow 00:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)