Talk:Little Green Footballs

LGF was never "right wing"

My friends consider me a bleeding-heart lefty and even I'm more conservative on most things than Charles. The people saying he started out "right wing" before turning liberal seem to be making a big mistake: Being caught up in the post-9/11 anti-Islam fervor had nothing to do with "right wing". He was merely a left-winger caughter up in the post-9/11 anti-Islam fervor. You could argue that he was once "mildly conservative" on a handful of issues but "right wing"? That's the opening line of the entire article and it's linked to one single opinion column using it as an umbrella term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.164.189 (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2012 (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:[1]), 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 [2]. 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 [3].

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)

Name Origin

While the name may have originated with a Muppets-driven Japanese song, Kermit's inspiration undoubtedly derives from a form of soft green vitamin-pill our mother gave us in the 50's and 60's, which we promptly dubbed exactly 'Little Green Footballs', as in "Here come the little green footballs.", and a web-search shows we were not alone. A D-supplement that apparently survives to this day which some people still call 'little green footballs', e.g.:

I have read a suggestion of 1000 IU daily PO, for every 25# of wt.....if obese perhaps more rather than less.....

and yes the little green footballs are Vit D2......not the useful form.

[emphasis added]

http://allnurses.com/general-nursing-discussion/vitamin-d-511928-page2.html

JohndanR (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2012 (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)

"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." It has happened. Please see Blinded by the Right, which involved the author (David Brock) coming out as gay, and repudiating conservatism, which he saw as being incompatible with his authentic self. Cheers, Reninger (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Another pretty obvious example is Arianna Huffington, although one imagines Johnson was less driven by the need to be fashionable at all the right parties. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to present this theory of the development of Johnson, even as article structure, without solid reliable sources discussing it. Nevard (talk) 09:54, 15 November 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 encourage. 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)

There is an oft-referenced Wikipedia essay that discourages the use of such criticism sections as being likely to lead to undue weight on negative criticism. Keeping criticism inline helps ensure that negative views are counterbalanced by positive. As for the origins of the webblog, I just haven't seen any decent sources written by anyone who cared enough to write about the subject (being funny as well as juvenile would have helped). Nevard (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Parting ways with islamophobia

Sometime during 2007 the blog switched from promoting islamphobia to making a break with that movement. Perhaps that should be mentioned in the article as it's a quite dramatic change. I think it might have been somewhere around this. // Liftarn (talk)