Talk:Little Green Footballs

"Alteration and Deletion of Posts" section

With this edit, I removed material that was improperly sourced. The citation given fails WP:RS (see also WP:Blogs). Therefore, the retention of the material would have introduced WP:BLP issues. If anyone wants to re-add it, s/he needs to provide verifiable reference(s)/citation(s) that support the text. If one wants to try using the citation that I indicated fails WP:RS, go first to WP:RSN to obtain a second opinion as to whether the cite satisfies WP:RS. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

ah. i see where the issue lies. you believe that "the citation fails WP:RS (see also WP:Blogs)," but it does not. the source, as discussed above in the previous talk item, is to a blog published by The Daily Telegraph. As it is stated in WP:Blogs: "Several newspapers host columns that they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. In March 2010, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK ruled that journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines are subject to the same standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions." the existing policy appears to be clear on this, but if you would prefer, perhaps we can get a second opinion from the noticeboard.

also, i have to note that this is not the biographical article about charles johnson, but the article about the website, little green footballs. 76.248.144.143 (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The article iteself is not about a living person but the information that is the focus of the edit war going on is about a living person so WP:BLP applies. ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

actually, it's about the editorial conduct of the website. if it were scurrilous rumors about his personal life, i would see your point. in any case, the question of whether the matter pushes up against BLP is entirely dependent on whether the RS objection is valid. this has not been demonstrated. 76.248.144.143 (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The section that was removed said "Johnson had begun altering some posts and deleting others," this is information about a living person, Johnson. It is not talking about the editorial conduct of a website it is talking about the actions of a living person, so BLP unquestionably applies. The reliability of the source has nothing to do with the whether BLP applies. As far as the source, if Tim Blair is considered an expert then the parts that he writes can be considered reliable, but all the rest of the comments below his can not be used as a reliable source. ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The section that was removed is also not written in anything like passable English. It also states a complete truism: "Johnson's proven and demonstrated quick editing capabilities make any claim by him that someone made a certain post, and that the post is unedited by Johnson, impossible to trust or verify." It is impossible for anyone to 'trust or verify' that nearly any privately-operated website contains unedited material. Transparency is not the norm. The statement also reflects speculation. Obdicut (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

i believe the section being discussed was "Alteration and Deletion of Posts". It is agreed that MadKingChucky's edits were not encyclopedic.Notanipokay (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of material related to revisionist content editing

The article as it stands follows the history of the blog from its beginnings as one concentrating on computer programming, to its eventual reputation as a "rightwing hate site" against Muslims, its involvement in exposing journalistic malpractice in the Killian documents controversy and the Reutters photography scandal, and to its disaggregation from the right and recent position against anti-Muslim bigotry. Recently, it was discovered that the blog owner had deleted entries and edited bigoted language from older posts in order to revise the record of his past statements about Muslims, the left and other issues.

The dispute is over whether this last matter should be included in the article. Notanipokay (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}}

The article should be reverted back to the state it was in for a solid month before all of the section-blanking and edit-warring of last night.

for instance, this dif.[[1]]

at least until the matter can be resolved through RfC or moderation. Notanipokay (talk) 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Restored to version 391390438 of the article on October 18. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

thank you.

for the other users involved in this dispute, i have started a noticeboard post in WP:RS in addition to the Rfc.[[2]] I hope we can come to a consensus in a civil manner. Notanipokay (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that at the very least, the claim that the posts were edited without acknowledgement is incorrect. The post that was edited contains a notification that it was edited, as well. . Obdicut (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

the acknowledgement came ex post facto. specifically, it was acknowledged only after the deletions and revisions had been exposed on other blogs, and in reaction to the exposure. [[3]] it was not, in any case, concurrent with his revisions. i'm not sure where charles acknowledged the posts he deleted entirely.Notanipokay (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That would be because there has been no acknowledgement of the "disappeared" posts, just as there is no public acknowledgement of comments he has re-edited in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadKingChucky (talk • contribs) 11:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I OBJECT TO THIS. Stickee, look at Notanipokay. I may be new here and still learning - fuck it took me a bit just to get the reference structure down - but I had no idea what a "noticeboard post" or "rfc" were till this morning. Who is Notanipokay, really?

i moved your comment out from the middle of my comment. no disrespect intended, but you need to calm down a bit. i realize that the popular misconception is that wikipedia is the place where someone can log in with the name "bushequalshitler" and enjoy free reign to deface the george bush article with the allegation that he is like hitler, but it really isn't. Notanipokay (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The content that was added appears to be controversial, so it has been removed for now until consensus is reached on whether it should be included. My revert to an old version does not indicate whether I support or oppose the addition of the text (I actually haven't read the paragraph), it was just so it could be discussed by you people first (See WP:BRD). Thanks, Stickee (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"this essay is not a policy or guideline itself" - In other words, you're out of line. And where's the discussion? NOWHERE. all the little green sockpuppets jumped ship as soon as they got their way from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadKingChucky (talk • contribs) 15:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"BRD will generally fail if:...The page is protected." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadKingChucky (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

After looking it seems to real problem is not "controversy" but a bunch of little green sockpuppets. If I am reading the "3RR" rule correctly, "SpikeTorontoRCP" aka "SpikeToronto" violated that rule. "SpaceJesus5000" I don't know what to make of. "Sundowners" is just something someone created to screw around blanking things, probably the same as "Obdicut."

It must be nice to run your own little echo chamber where you can make your little green sockpuppets go bias your site's wikipedia page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadKingChucky (talk • contribs) 14:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Blair’s blog fails WP:RS because it says nothing. All it does is provide two links: one to a blog that would never pass WP:RS and another to Little Green Footballs itself. This is not the type of entry that is intended to be allowed by WP:Blogs. Thus, material that is not adequately sourced gives rise to WP:BLP issues and cannot be retained in the article. As to why there is a BLP dimension, re-read GB Fan’s comments above both here and here: they are spot on.

Notanipokay: you have taken this to WP:RSN and so far you have been given the same response:

Blair is simply linking (without comment) to another blogger in this case, and because it is a third-party blog discussing a living person (and his actions), which is definitely not allowed under BLP. If another (non-blog) source picks up the story (unlikely, but possible), or if Blair expands his post to actually discuss the issue, it might pass the threshold, but not as currently presented.

Also, inclusion of this material without a verifiable reference/citation, which the current one is not, not only violates WP:BLP, but it also is skating on the thin ice of POV pushing. Finally, you do not win the day by wikilawyering and makeing WP:3RR accusations toward me when they do not apply.

Stickee: With the greatest of respect for a fellow recent changes patroller, and the thankless task we perform, you should not have reverted to the version that includes this material without having carefully read the discussion above. Because there is the very distinct possibility of WP:BLP issues here, you should have ensured that the edit-protected version was the one without that material. Instead, you have enshrined the sort of text that WP:BLP is intended to prevent: libelous material. You should remove this material until the RfC determines otherwise. Moreover, such actions are more appropriately taken by Administrators. You need to revert to version 394122234.

Thanks! — SpikeToronto 17:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

it's unfortunate that the talk page has taken and angry, uncivil tone. I haven't the time to resume the discussion of the WP:RS matter further than to say that i've acted in good faith and with due diligence in resolving the matter toward a consensus. i will come back to participate in this discussion as soon as i am able. though it was neither my preference nor my doing[[4]], we have a week of semi-protection to let things cool off and deal with this in a civil manner.

i did want to correct one statement. i did not make any 3RR accusation against you, but against the user Sundowners, who was in fact repeatedly blanking the section without going to talk and was one diff away from 3RR. [[5]]. in fact, you were my primary correspondent on the matter (there are unanswered messages from me on your talk page) before you seem to have dropped communication once your bid for semi-protection was successful. Notanipokay (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Notanipokay, I did not drop communication with you. I went to bed. We are not all in the same time zones! Also, I have now answered all of your questions on my talk page including a postscript. Remember this: I do not have a horse in this race. I am not a regular editor of this wikiarticle. I had never even heard of Little Green Footballs until late last night when the brewing edit war began appearing on my Huggle screen while I was on recent changes patrol. My only concern is to prevent the sort of WP:BLP issues arising that have become of major importance here at Wikipedia, to the point that even the project’s founder has had to make statements in the press. Perhaps the solution for this article would be to have it added to the list of articles with pending changes. Now, I am going to (late!) lunch; it does not mean I am dropping communication. :) Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Alteration and Deletion of Posts section. The blog is not a reliable source and the material is contentious about a living person. The material should not be reinserted without a reliable source. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the removal. It should also be noted, that the folks who have been putting up this misleading information about Charles Johnson's deletion of posts run a website that is dedicated to slandering him. Hence people running around here with the name "MadKingChucky." Many of these posters were banned from Little Green Footballs for making overt threats to Mr. Johnson and members of his blog, and now run a website called http://diaryofdaedalus.com/ where they specialize in photoshopping pictures of Mr. Johnson onto pictures of Hitler and Chairman Mao among other bizarre fan fictions. That being said, these users do not carry a neutral viewpoint, and neither does the content they wish to add nor the source for it. This is a clear violation of the Wikipedia standards regarding biographical information of living persons. I have spoken to editor SpikeToronto about this, and he/she is in agreement. Spike therefore removed the content, only to have it put back up a few minutes later by a user named "m." M is another member of Charles Johnson's hate club and can be found posting at diary of daedalus's sister hate blog, http://www.theblogmocracy.com/, posting under the same name. Given these facts and Wikipedia's standards regarding biographical information of living persons, the content in question is inappropriate as well as made in bad faith and should remain off the page as per SpikeToronto's previous decision. Spacejesus5000 (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)SpaceJesus5000

I too agree with the removal of the Alterations and Deletions section for reasons given by SpikeToronto and Spacejesus5000. It's obvious by now that this page is being edited or vandalized by people with a vendetta against Charles Johnson and/or Little Green Footballs and are editing it with an unencyclopedic POV and are extremely antagonistic and biased towards Charles and LGF. Take for example the Wiki user named "MadKingChucky" a name which itself clearly identifies him as biased against Charles Johnson. Would you allow someone to edit a page for President Obama with a user name of "Mad King Obama"? I sincerely hope not. I therefore plead to the administrators that this page be locked for a period of time conforming to SpikeToronto's previous decisions. --Sundowners 18:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sundowners (talk • contribs)

Yawwwwwn. Here we go.

"Spacejesus5000" and "Sundowners", little green sockpuppets. How droll.

I find it interesting that you repeat the same old line and lie, claiming that people were "banned for making overt threats" - where are these overt threats? Can you find even ONE that exists somewhere Johnson hasn't re-edited himself? Of course not, for the same reason that he edits and changes people's comments all the time. Sometimes it is "disemvowelling" as someone above put it, sometimes it's far more sinister.

And for the record, I have never seen either of the sites you two sockpuppets link above, but I'll certainly be happy to check them out!

As for the accusation made by the "Spacejesus" sockpuppet that someone named "m" was editing, I am trying to go through the history and not finding one. Unless the "Spacejesus" sockpuppet is confusing the little "m" next to SpikeToronto's edits for some reason?

You little green sockpuppets are quite funny. No, really, I haven't seen a group of religious nuts so determined to attack their opponents and defend their prophet since the last time I saw video of Scientologists lashing out at Anonymous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadKingChucky (talk • contribs) 00:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

MadKingChucky, the issue here is a very narrow one. If you, any other editor, or I want to put in the material about this Johnson fellow redacting posts from his blog, you, any other editor, or I need to come up with a reliable source that can be used to anchor the text. Try a GoogleNews search.

The requirement that material that could give rise to biographies of living persons issues such as libel, etc., is not a suggetion or a guideline: It is a policy of the Wikimedia Foundation for all of the wikis that come under its umbrella. No one is saying that you cannot put back the material. You just have to find a verifiable reference/citation that can support the statements.

As regards “little green sockpuppets” — witty phrase that! — I too thought of such a possibility. (I always avert to the possibility of sockpuppets in a heated debate.) Only, one of the accounts was created over two years ago, while the other was created over four years ago. If you truly suspect that any of the accounts here are sockpuppets, you may of course file a report at WP:SPI. But, what you cannot do is hurl accusations at other editors. We are required to be civil, to assume good faith, and not to personally attack other editors. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the claim that Sundowners and SpaceJesus are here servicing an agenda which may constitute a conflict of interest is not just credible, but verifiable.

SpaceJesus, the age of his posting account notwithstanding, is "Space Jesus" from Little Green Footballs. Here is his comment at Little Green Footballs in which Johnson raises the matter of the article and Space Jesus responds "I'm on it!" [6]. the comment thread continues on with updates which include snippets from talk conversations between you and he. [7] so, SpaceJesus is here at Charles Johnson's suggestion.

Also, his user account, as longstanding as it is, has a prior history of vandalism and non-constructive edits (eg. [8], [9]).

sundowners, the user who nearly 3RRed himself with non-talk blankings, appears to have not made any prior edits on Wikipedia, but the date of his registration is instructive, as it came during another contentious edit war.

Before sundowners and SpaceJesus appeared, however, there where two unregistered users blanking the same section. A New Mexico-based IP blanked the section, and then an LA-based IP added the following comment to the New Mexican IP's talk page:[10]

I'm curious to know if Wikipedia editors plan to go through every blogger's old posts to see what they deleted or altered. If not, why is this section in the article about Little Green Footballs?

The LA IP subsequently re-posted the comment here on the talk page. Then Charles Johnson claimed authorship of the comment at Little Green Footballs:[[11]]

I just posted this comment in the 'Talk' section of Wikipedia's article on LGF, because someone added the stupid stalker talking points about me deleting and altering old posts:

I'm curious to know if Wikipedia editors plan to go through every blogger's old posts to see what they deleted or altered. If not, why is this section in the article about Little Green Footballs?

It might be appropriate to run a checkuser request on 76.94.174.23 to see if he and sundowners are the same person. If so, that would be a pretty serious conflict of interest issue. Perhaps a checkuser request for SpaceJesus and 68.35.110.177 should be performed as well, since they also appear to have shared a contemporaneous interest in editing articles about New Mexico election results ([[12]], [[13]].

Now, that was a lot of detail and links, and I know the reward for drilling-down to that level of detail is for partisans to burlesque it as kooky, tinfoil-hat obsessiveness, but I do think it holds a bit more weight than the obtuse characterization of editors on the pro-inclusion side as crazed legions of the conspiracy to make Charles Johnson look bad (FTR: i've never been involved with "blogmocracy". even as a commenter). Notanipokay (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. All that effort, when you could have spent your time more productively building this article by doing a GoogleNews search to find a reliable source that could be used as a citation to support the text. The issue is not about sockpuppets and conflicts of interest. The issue is about verifiablity and reliable sources. The passage that had been removed is only removed pending someone, anyone, who wants it included to come up with something to support the statements. It can be re-inserted back into the article this instant if you can find a reliable source to support it. Instead of spending all this wasted time on your sockpuppet/coi investigation, you should have been thinking about what User:GB fan (here) and I (here) told you in the section below. That is what this entire issue is about. But you have instead chosen the I-didn’t-hear-that approach. You refuse to get the point.

The reason that your sockpuppet/coi investigation is a waste of your time is that Spacejesus5000 and Sundowners do not matter. No experienced Wikipedian, no recent changes patroller, no Administrator, is going to allow potentially libelous text to remain in an article without proper citation to a reliable source. It is as simple as that. Every time the text gets inserted without citation to a reliable source, an uninvolved editor — like Stickee, GB fan, or I were when we came upon this morass — will come along, remove it, and warn the inserting user about not putting in potentially libelous stuff about living persons. When those warnings add up, such editors will be blocked. ALL of this is standard operating procedure here at Wikipedia.. Find a source and you’ll be okay. — SpikeToronto 00:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

double-sigh. the above entry wasn't intended to replace my response to the BLP/RS matter. it was a response to the NPA violation you encouraged SpaceJesus to post here in your conversation at his talk page [14].

since you became involved, you've falsely accused me of filing a bogus 3RR against you, misrepresented the nature of the dispute in the semi-protection bid to impugn me as a vandal, accused me of POV-pushing and now you're taking a tone with me. are you certain you are sufficiently impartial to be administrating this dispute? because i would think you'd have lent the COI matter more concern than is evidenced in the cartoon super-villain triumphalism of "ha ha! you'll have to do better than that to defeat me!" you responded with. i at least could have gotten a "Thanks!" from you like SpaceJesus did. Notanipokay (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You really don’t know when to stop, do you? Now it’s my reputation you seek to impugn. The way you refer to my “encouragement” of Spacejesus5000 to post here suggests that I was canvassing. I very carefully told him to weigh in on whichever side he was on so that a consensus for one side or the other could be built. If you are going to provide a link to his talk page, you should provide the entire page so that what is said is seen in context, a context in which the discussion on his talkpage began because I had incorrectly reverted an edit of his to this page during recent changes patrol.

I didn’t say that you had filed a WP:3RR report. I thought you had accused me of such here on this talk page. My error, since, appparently, I was confusing you with MadKingChucky, who made the statement above, perhaps an understandable mixup. It’s interesting, though, I can admit that mistake, but when you accused me of ceasing to communicate with you once the page had been semi-protected, and I pointed out to you above how that assumption was incorrect, you didn’t own up to your mistake.

I misrepresented nothing at WP:RFPP. I said that it was impossible for standard blocking to deal with the IP edit war. This was correct, as you have proven, since you were editing from six different IPs. I mentioned no IP or person specifically in the filing, so I characterized you not at all.

You refuse to get the point. You refuse to accept that this is only about WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. Despite claiming not to be a “newb,” you refuse to accept that there are policies that must be adhered to here at Wikipedia. So instead you impugn the character of others by misrepresenting their very clear statements and claiming that they are not neutral.

I cannot imagine how anyone who cares not a wit about Little Green Footballs, who cares not a wit about this Johnson fellow, who cares only about the integrity and liability exposure of Wikipedia, and adherence to its most important policies — WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP — can be seen as anything but disinterested in this outcome. It boggles one’s mind how you refuse to see what you do not want to see. I categorically stated that I have no objection to the material and that it could be reinserted into the article the instant that someone, anyone, comes up with a reliable source. To characterize me as you have, you would have had to ignore those statements, of course. Did you even bother to click on the GoogleNews search link I gave you to see if any of those articles could provide the support you need to reinsert the text? You make trying to help you a thankless task. Why? Because, I guess, the only thing you would consider help is if we all turned a blind eye and allowed the material to be reinserted without a verifiable reference/citation. — SpikeToronto 05:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You say you are concerned that editors may have a conflict of interest. It does appear from the links that there is a conflict of interest. To me what they have done is not a problem. All there edits are to the talk page or removing content that was improperly sourced contentious material about a living person. The problem with conflict of interest comes when they are adding content or removing content with adequate sourcing. ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The source in question is by Tim Blair which is published by a major newspaper. There is no BLP issue due to sourcing, just a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by LGF fanboys. That's not a proper reason to remove it. Vividuppers (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a fan of LGF. Never heard of LGF until I saw this edit war going on. A blog published by a major newspaper does not make the source reliable. It is not a reliable source and if you continue adding in the information you can be blocked for violations the Biography of living persons policy. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the source IS reliable. A "blog" written by a journalist which is published by a newspaper with editorial oversight is no longer a self published, but a journalistic source. I've also attributed it to Blair so that any issues regarding his opinion is clearly stated to be his. The BLP is a non-issue. I'm not accusing you of being a fanboy, but I think you've been sucked in my their "arguments". Vividuppers (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

before reinserting you need to discuss the section here and see if the consensus changes because right now the consensus is that the source is not reliable and the information does not belong. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

no, gb, the consensus is not that "the information does not belong". that's your opinion and your opinion only. don't misstate what is and is not the consensus. that is not constructive.Notanipokay (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I might not have stated it the best, the consensus here on the talk page is that the source is not reliable. Because the source is not reliable the information does not belong. The consensus is also that if a reliable source is found for the information then the information probably does belong. This is not only my opinion, it is others opinion also. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK so now you're falling back on "consensus". Well that's clearly problematic when it consists of you and a bunch of fanboys sent over here to sanitize the article. Sorry but you'll need to actually address my points. Vividuppers (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll also point out that the article was stable for months until they showed up. Vividuppers (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Charles and his fans are playing games. Blair is reliable. The fact that he reports on a story that Charles's blanking defenders are claiming "originates" from a "non-reliable" source is bogus argumentation. Of course, this is what happens when you play "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" with what you are going for - eventually you can "trace" anything back to anything.

thank you, Vividuppers, for reminding people that the removal of the material, not the addition of the material, was the vandal behavior which began this conflict. the RS/BLP issues may be valid in a narrow sense, but they are being invoked in a way which obscures the fact that the article was stable with the material included for more than a month before Sundowners, SpaceJesus5000 and related IPs came in and began blanking the page and refusing to use talk. Notanipokay (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that playing "six degrees of kevin bacon" with neo-nazi groups these days is one of Charles's favorite tactics to tar anyone he doesn't like shouldn't make his accusations valid, nor should it be used to try to claim that Tim Blair, an actual journalist, is "invalid" as a reference reporting on issues like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadKingChucky (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:RS, & WP:V issues

is the prevailing interpretation of BLP and RS that nothing can be said of an individual which A) has been deemed notable enough by the new york times to be fully and specifically explicated in their print edition, or B) the individual's autobiography?Notanipokay (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation is that contentious and potentially contentious information about a living person does not belong in wikipedia anywhere unless it is backed by a reliable source. A reliable source does not mean only the New York Times print edition. It can be any reliable new organization (print or online), biographies (auto or not), blogs writen by experts in the field discussed and other sources deemed reliable. The source for the information I removed was a blog that pointed to other blogs. The writer of the blog did not make any comments of his own. Therefore I do not believe the source was reliable and that is the same conclusion that was made at the reliable sources noticeboard. ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Notanipokay, this has been pointed out to you repeatedly, but when you don’t like the answer you just create a new section on the talkpage! Look, Notanipokay, if you can find a source as reputable as The New York Times that supports this, go for it! And, it does not have to be a newspaper of record like the Times. It can be any reputable print or online source. If you find it in the Peoria Journal Star, it would be acceptable. But, the blog entry that was used was little more than a collection of redirects. That will always fail WP:RS. We have told you this more times than I can count.

Wikipedia is not censored. But, there are limits. The primary directive of Wikipedia is that everything we add to an article must be verifiable. (Please read WP:V as it is the most important policy at Wikipedia.) And, something is not verifiable if it is not from a reliable source. This is never more true than when the stuff being added relates to a living person. Living people file lawsuits! It’s as simple as that. Best wishes! — SpikeToronto 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

i created this new section because the previous section became congested with personal attacks, not because i didn't get the answer i wanted. i have more to say about the the rs/blp issue. if i may, and if no one objects, i'm going to move things around a bit so we can continue working on this. 76.248.144.143 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

When you say you are going to move things around, do you mean you are going to rearrange conversations? If that is what you mean, I object. Conversations should not be rearranged. They should be left in chronological order with indenting to show who was replying to who. If you mean something else can you please explain. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

as you can see, i left things as they were for that very reason. i'm working on the blp/rs issue at the rs noticeboard and will return here when i have something which should be agreeable to everyone to add. in the meantime, the article remains protected and as you left it, so we can all chill out.Notanipokay (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of working on it over at WP:RSN, where you will never get support for the Tim Blair citation, why not look for something here. Instead of trying to bend WP:RS to your will, why not do what every other Wikipedian does and bend to it instead? We have all been where you are now, wanting to insert something and being told that the source fails WP:RS. And we all adapted. Three experienced Wikipedians here have tried to help you and two experienced Wikipedians at WP:RSN have answered your question the same as the three of us here. So, why not take the advice of the five of us and spend your time looking for a source that will pass WP:RS? Finding one, and re-inserting the material, will add balance to the article. Thanks and good luck! — SpikeToronto 18:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

please be patient. i haven't made any changes to the article, so there's no cause for you and BG fan to retype the same admonishment over and over.

i think you know enough about blogs and articles about blogs in general to anticipate the problem the RS/BLP standard bears on the proposed inclusion; of course there's nothing to be found in a google news search. the tim blair blog is the only blog which is connected to a professional journalistic outfit which has mentioned the matter of the revisionist deletions and alterations at LGF, which is at least as significant a turn of events at that blog as his "why i left the right" post, and a crucial following chapter in the story. and the reason is not because other news agencies would regard it as a "risky allegation", but because the entire subject of lgf is beneath their radar.

obviously i would have to rework the text around some other sourcing, or in a way which uses the source in a more compliant way or a combination of both. that's what i was at the RS noticeboard trying to do. since my best guess at the reason for your consternation is that you'd rather have that discussion occur here, i'll submit this for your consideration. can charles johnson's admission of having changed the post (link:[15]), which is linked from the tim blair post, be used as the primary source, with the text reworked around that??Notanipokay (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

and, please stop telling me how to behave. the record shows that my behavior has been within conduct guidelines since the moment i clicked the "post" button on the original edit. when you and gb fan came into this, i was trying to resolve an edit-war started by single-issue sockpuppets with COI violations and histories of vandalism who were blanking the article and refusing to use talk. i've been civil and patient. please be patient with me. Notanipokay (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not a sockpuppet. I did sign up on Wikipedia with the primary motive of editing this entry, though I hope to move on to some other ones as well. I am a regular poster at LGF, under the same username. I do not think, from my reading of conflict of interest rules, that I am prohibited from editing, but that my edits will come under a stronger scrutiny and if I show bias that I should expect my entries to be deleted and recuse myself from editing. I am, in a week or so's time, going to attempt a rewrite of the LGF entry to meet Wikipedia standards, with verifiable links and a neutral tone. I will not attempt this rewrite before discussion and input from other editors has been solicited. SpikeToronto, forgive the ignorance of a newcomer, but is there a way for me to solicit the attention of a non-aligned editor to review my proposed edits once I've made them? Obdicut (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Blair’s blog would probably be okay if that particular entry had actually said anything. But instead, as mentioned earlier, it was like a redirect, providing links to other sites that themselves fail WP:RS. At first glance, I do not think that there is anything inherently wrong the with The Daily Telegraph. It’s just that Blair didn’t say anything in that particular entry. Does he have any other blog entries that deal with this issue and in which he actually says something in an article-like fashion? As for using entries from Johnson himself at the website, again at first glance, that seems okay to me because the article is about the very website from which you would be pulling the quote(s). Just remember WP:NPOV. So try to pull stuff that represents the subject in a balanced way. That is, present things that laud the website as well as stuff that critiques it.

Obdicut, you can try re-drafting the article in your own user namespace by creating a file called User:Obdicut/Little Green Footballs. Then, when you are ready, you can ask at WP:BLOG if any or some of the editors there would review your re-write. I suggest there because this wikiarticle comes under WikiProject Blogging (i.e., WP:BLOG).

Good luck to you both! Thanks! — SpikeToronto 20:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• @Notanipokay: Based on your latest post I think you should read WP:UNDUE. If Tim Blair is the only person to pick up on this and the post that was linked is the only information about the situation a paragraph about that situation would give undue weight to the viewpoint. As a side note, I apologize if any of my posts came off as admonishments, that was not my intent. My intent was to try to explain the policies here so that the new editors can understand them. I have reiterated some things because it appeared to me that I failed to adequately explain what I meant so I tried to reword things so it was more understandable. ~~ GB fan ~~ 02:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

i addressed similar concerns upthread in the talk item for my original inclusion [16]. please read that item, because i stated it much better there, but to reiterate down here, there are a lot of things in the article as it stands which would certainly be trivial in other articles, but which are not at all trivial in the context of this article. for instance, the event of johnson writing a post about how he doesn't like republicans anymore hardly caused a ripple outside of a fraction of the blog-o-sphere, but it was an important event in the context of little green footballs, and so it's important enough to be included in the wikipedia article about little green footballs. the event of johnson revising his archives of paranoid rightwing hate-speech is a subsequent, related event of proportionate weight.

if you were really looking for a candidate to place the WP:UNDUE tag on, you might look at the "charitable contributions" section [17].

i agree with obdicut that the article needs a significant re-write. perhaps when i've satisfied this particular inclusion, i'll attempt one as well so we can have two models to draw from. Notanipokay (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Notanipokay, I'm concerned that you think that what is going to happen is that you're going to write a piece that's highly critical of LGF, and I'm going to write one that lauds it and showers it with praise, and through some sort of alchemy we're going to merge the two together to produce a neutral article. I really don't think that's a key to success. If you're not even going to attempt to write from an unbiased point of view, then I'm not sure you really get what is going to make a successful entry.Obdicut (talk) 09:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What you guys need to do

SpikeToronto asked me to poke my head in, to see if I could referee the argument. First I'd like to say to Notanipokay, thank you for creating an account and starting to discuss, same for Obdicut, thanks for enaging in the process. What I think you guys need to do is suggest changes to the article here, and let everyone discuss them - you're right that each of you writing their own article then coming back isn't going to work. I know nothing about this chap, so perhaps if you lay out the pieces of evidence that you want to include, we can look at how they might fit in. Is what is there now good, inadequate, POV, what? The lede could certainly use a rewrite - it hops around all over the place. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for lending fresh eyes to this.

i think, other disputes aside, there is a consensus between critics and supporters of the subject blog that the article as it stands is a bit incoherent and choppy. i think you're right that the lede is the first thing that should be addressed. perhaps we can agree on this list of things which are notable enough to be included in the lede:

*LGF as one of the seminal blogs of the modern blogosphere.

*its post-911 turn toward rightwing politics.

*its role in the Killian Documents Scandal and the lesser "fauxtography" scandal.

*its post Obama innauguration turn against the right and toward the left.

Notanipokay (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for lending fresh eyes to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.141.215 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 November 2010

I just want to say, by the way, that when I asked Elen if she would mind lending us some of her wisdom, it was a few days ago before things simmered down here on the talk page. Notanipokay, you might want to respond to Obdicut’s query above so that you can each get a feel for how you can collaborate with one another. And, by the way, even if one of you were to write the critique, and the other the plaudits, the two could still be meshed to create a balanced NPOV article. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 04:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

i didn't see the query. what did he ask me? Notanipokay (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It was this edit at the bottom of this section above. Sometimes, because people add content to sections above the latest, it helps to go through the diffs since your last edit in the page history. That way you won’t miss anything. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 06:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

i saw the comment, but i didn't want to respond to his "if you're not even going to attempt to write from an unbiased point of view" because my aim and my conduct in this thread has been to encourage good faith and consensus, not to perpetuate the edit-warring. where do you see a question there? Notanipokay (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The question didn’t have a question mark, but essentially he was asking if your idea of a good re-write would be a wikiarticle that largely pulled from critiques of Little Green Footballs and would tend to exclude anything positive about it. This is why I said that it would not matter because “even if one of you were to write the critique, and the other the plaudits, the two could still be meshed to create a balanced NPOV article.” Thanks! — SpikeToronto 21:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Spike, the only problem with that is that I don't actually want to write an entry that is just plaudits. I'd prefer to do an actual, sober attempt at an encyclopedic entry. What I'm concerned about is that, given that there's a large population of people who are hypercritical of LGF and of Charles Johnson, that the result of meshing my attempts at an unbiased article with other attempts that contain unacknowledged negative bias will result in an article with an overall negative tone. I don't want to be forced into being the 'positive' guy when that's a role that doesn't suit me.

For example, my rewrite of the entire deletion and editing of posts issue would be a rather dry "Unlike newspapers, LGF has no policy that posts which are edited or deleted will be noted as having been altered. Charles Johnson has edited several past posts for the stated reason of bringing them into line with his current views and to remove the ability of others to use those posts as supports for their argument." I feel this addresses the facts without casting an innately negative or positive tone on it. I don't see any point in noting that users posts have been deleted, since this is completely standard across almost all blogs.

I will attempt my edits this weekend, and hope that we can reach a good, neutral, and factual entry that is not an attempt to paint LGF or Charles Johnson in any particular light, but can present facts and let readers of the article make their own moral and ethical judgement of those facts.Obdicut (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Obdicut, i think, ironically, the version you propose casts a more negative tone than the one i introduced. my wording, for instance, avoids the assertion that the edits and deletions were done "for the stated reason of bringing them into line with his current views." i fear that if you put that up, spacejesus and "sundowners" will accuse you of being an agent in the conspiracy to make charles johnson look bad too.

what did you think of my suggestion about the lede?Notanipokay (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Your time spent predicting the possible actions of others is probably not time well-spent. As to the lede, I don't actually understand people's obsessions with placing people and blogs somewhere along the 'right' or 'left' non-existent spectrum, so I think two out of your four points are trivial. Post-9/11, he was highly critical of Democrats and their response to radical Islam; at the same time, he was critical of Vlaams Belang and other right-wing groups. He opposed President Obama's election, a decision he's said he now regrets, and has since then focused more on the increased radicalism of the GOP and their allies. However, he is still entirely critical of figures such as Kucinich's stance on Israel, or others' on the 'left' who supported the Palestinian 'peace' flotilla. I think that there are two main problems with attempting to write about Charles Johnson's politics: 1. The left-right scale is insufficient to describe anyone of moderate complexity; it's main use is as shorthand for "Democrats" or "Republicans". 2. There is a difference between what Charles Johnson himself personally believes and what he spends time using LGF to examine. So, I think an examination of what topics LGF focused on is a lot more important and significant than attempts to pin him down on an arbitrary left-right scale that makes sense, usually, only in terms of self-identification.Obdicut (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@Obdicut: It will not matter if one version of the article is heavily negative. When the work is “meshed,” the end result must satisfy WP:NPOV, which, in a nutshell, requires that wikiarticles be balanced:

Editors must write articles from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

As for your other concern — “unacknowledged negative bias” — such would be against multiple policies at Wikipedia: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and, in this wikiarticle, WP:BLP. No talkpage consensus can be used to support any against-policy inclusion of material in violation of any or all of these core policies, which together form the second of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Remember, the objection to the section that was deleted was not its content, it’s that the only citation given was to a webpage that contained no content other than links to material on third-party sites. There was no objection to Tim Blair or to the Daily Telegraph. The objection was to the fact that the link provided had no text supporting what was inserted in the wikiarticle, only links to other sites. It, most likely unintentionally and in good faith, leveraged Blair’s name, and the name of the Telegraph, to legitimate the statements added to the article.

@Obdicut & Notanipokay: I notice that there is both a wikiarticle about the person, Johnson, and a separate one about his blog, Little Green Footballs. According to WP:BLOG, the project under which this article falls, this is because each of the blog and his own personna have sufficient notability to warrant separate treatment. Thus, it would seem more appropriate that material relating to the personal politics of Johnson be in his personal wikiarticle. Consequently, the article here about the blog should be written in the manner in which one would write an article about any other publication. That is, it should resemble the sort of article one might write about The New Republic, Maclean’s, Slate, or Salon, for instance. (Sorry I don’t give a blog example. I don’t read/follow any of them.) That is, the article should be about the blog’s history, ownership, readership, demographics, political stance, writers (e.g., education, previous placements), etc., and less about the personalities involved. The problem with too much focus on Johnson himself is that it makes the article less about the blog — thus running afoul of WP:BLOG — and makes it more likely to run afoul of WP:NPOV. I would love to see a “warts and all” article about the blog. Then, I might learn something about Little Green Footballs that is factual and not based on opinion. — SpikeToronto 23:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished my rewrite of the article to bring it in line with other articles on blogs. I need some help with it, though. I'm not sure how to bring it to the attention of WP:Blog. Can someone please advise? Page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Obdicut/Little_Green_Footballs

I think if you leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Blogging pointing to the rewrite and to this page for some of the background that should take care of it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

replacing valid contrib

recently there was an editwar and the result was the removal of a valid contrib. the way this unfolded was as follows:

-a factual, neutrally-worded and validly sourced contrib was included and remained there for better than a month with no controversy.

-charles johnson, the article's subject, along with confederates he enlisted, began blanking the section without going to talk. when they finally entered the talk page, they continued their edit war from a position of conflict of interest with personal attacks.

-invalid BLP and RS objections were cited to defeat the contrib.

the result is that, through a campaign of WP:IDONTLIKEIT designed to defeat valid contributions, the article's subject was able to defeat inclusion of a fact which he acknowledged himself, but would prefer to have dressed only in his own spin or not at all, and a campaign of disruptive and violatory editing was rewarded with their preferred outcome.

the BLP/RS objection was and remains to be invalid. i will explain:

-the substance of the claim is that charles johnson had been caught in the act of revisionist editing of his blog. the source cited was a blog which, for general purposes, complied with the RS specifications for blogs because it was the blog of a professional journalist published under the imprimatur of a major daily newspaper.

-nonetheless, the RS validity of that particular entry was disputed on the claim that it rested the weight of it's substance on a link to a non-RS compliant blog rather than first-party explication.

-this second, derivative claim is false. there are two links stemming from the source; one was to the non-RS compliant blog, the other was to Johnson's own blog, admitting that he had been "caught" and spinning it as the innocent correction of a grammatical error.

the result of the [Noticeboard] ruling was given by the senior editor brought into this talk page at the conclusion of the edit war and was, quoting, "If you have Johnson, on Johnson's blog, saying he picked his nose, then you can use it. He's a reliable source for what he said/did himself."

the substance of the erroneously deleted edit, that charles johnson had been caught in the act of revisionist editing, is not "controversial" in any valid sense of the word and the source provided in the contrib is not in violation of the BLP or RS specifications.

consequently, i am re-adding the contrib. Notanipokay (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with everything said in the historical summary above, and I'm not sure the two sections added by Notanipokay couldn't be better worded, but I do agree with the gist of the argument that it's appropriate to note LGF revisionism here. Mark Shaw (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

mark, i would eagerly accept your edits on the section. i really don't care if my original wording is intact. i shouldn't care at all about what becomes of any wikipedia article. what does bother me is the way the subject of this article was able to red-pencil it's content. Notanipokay (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles Johnson has sent a confederate to canvas a mod named SpikeToronto to re-red-pencil the article to his liking

"It's that same obsessed weirdo again, putting back the badly-sourced edits that he was told he could not make, several times before. If you would leave a note for the admins, I'd appreciate it. I can't do it myself."(link)

"sure, the last admin and i were on the level about it all. ill write him after im done with this paper." (link)

"Thanks. That guy should be blocked from making edits -- he's demonstrated many times over that he's not on the level, and now he's sneaking back in to make edits he was told he could not make."(link)

Notanipokay (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a closer look at the edits in question (represented by this diff). I'm not going to make any changes myself as I have a slight conflict of interest as a booted former LGF commenter, and don't really want to get involved except as an observer. But, for the record, it seems to me that the "alteration and deletion" section, at least, needs to be rewritten in a less accusatory and more neutral tone. Notanipokay seems to be trying to wave a bloody shirt here. While I approve, to some degree and for personal reasons, of the idea of seeing CJ portrayed as a buffoon, I have to point out that it's simply not encyclopedic. Let's stick to the facts and apply as little slant as possible. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

how about, "johnson responded to allegations of revisionist editing by writing that he had been 'caught' correcting a 'mistake'"? i don't know if that sounds more neutral. another editor who had come to defend johnson suggested a wording which explicitly stated that johnson's intent was to bring the older post in line with his current views. again, i'm not insisting on my wording here, but i don't know how to make it more neutral than it is. sometimes it's just that way. there's no way to say "mr. x was convicted of fraud" more neutrally than "mr. x was convicted of fraud." Notanipokay (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Aricle overhaul?

How about scrapping this article and building it back from the ground up? It's been a long time since I edited this article, and coming back it looks more disjointed than ever. I think this is an article that could seriously benefit from a complete overhaul. Look, there is something very unique about Little Green Footballs. It is a web site that went from virulently political right to virulently political left. This wasn't just small shift, the web site has a very angry tone, and doesn't do anything in moderation; it goes for broke on it's ideological opponents. It's extremely rare for any popular political pundit or website to change it's point of view so drastically; in fact I can't think of a single example of another pundit that has ever done this. But the problem is, this woudln't be easily apparent to anyone reading the article for the first time. The terms "centrist" or even "center-left" very poorly describe someone who runs so hard in one political direction, and then years later just as hard in the other. The "recurring themes" are one example. Johnson no longer mentions Rachel Corrie, or "Palestinian child abuse". Similarly, he said nothing about creationism or ID before 2007, but the article makes it sound as if these are all happening at the same time. Of course, there was the very early period where it was just a blog about bicycling. Perhaps one solution would be to divide the article into sections: pre-2001, 2001-2008, 2008 until today. What do you all think? BuboTitan (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. That would be the only way to make the article coherent, or sufficiently incoherent, if you will. It is correct that LGF has gone through three stages, two of them political and diametrically opposed. For some reason, Charles Johnson has made a great effort to hide and/or alter the 2001-2008 period, with banning posters from this period (4000+ I believe), removing posts, deleting comments (both his own and others) and unregistered visitors can't access comments pre 2009 or so, which is quite extraordinary, considering the impact and popularity this blog once had. So, dividing the article into three parts is a great idea, but researching the 2001-2008 period, or anything predating 2009 for that matter, may turn out to be difficult. Gus 123 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have some editorial advice for the above rewrite, which I encoursge. Remember that this is about the blog, not Charles. The entire intro reads like it's about him. It's not. Here's an outline:

Intro

- Quick summary of what the blog is like right now.  The words "Charles Johnson" should appear no more than once in the intro, to help set the tone for future edits.

History

1. Discuss the blog's origin as a photography, programming and occasional news blog with only a few readers
2. Discuss the blog post-9/11 when it shifted focus to the discussion of militant Islam and became super-popular with a huge right-wing following.
3. Discuss the Killian tapes and such, since they happened next. You may mention Charles Johnson again.
4. Discuss the blog's shift in focus without any negative information, including its relative readership compared to the other periods in the blog's life - the BLOG'S, not CHARLES - keep it about the blog.
5. Leave us at the current day, which was described by the intro

Topics

1. Ask Charles for a thumbnail sheet of photographs published on the blofthat can be displayed on Wikipedia
2. Get some sample article titles about programming IF he still blogs about it.
3. Mention intelligent design and whatever he blogs about now.

Controversy This is where all the critical stuff goes, like most of Wikipedia. It should be here so it doesn't taint and color the whole article. We don't need to think worse of Mr. Johnson with every paragraph we read. Instead, we should concentrate all the negative stuff here and explain it.

Again, this can be done through the mere act of copying and pasting the existing content into new section headings and just tying all the sentences together. No information or significant wording need be changed.

Full disclosure: I was an LFG Lizardoid Minion from 2002-2006, when I stopped going for no apparent reason. But I'd never go back there or even read it now, because I think that guy is certifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.110.162.193 (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)