Talk:Free Republic/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free Republic Wages War on Wikipedia :O

  • On 31 December 2005, a Free Republic Action Alert was distributed calling for a coordinated attack against several Wikipedia articles (George W. Bush, Abortion, and Kwanzaa) specifically calling for far-right POV vandalism with tips on how to evade detection. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 20:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
They also vandalized the Wikimapia. I spent a long time asking for the Wikimapia to delete entries for the Clinton Library that used language inappropriate for minors. Axeman89 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the content you are referring to, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. --RWR8189 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the Wikimapia is not part of the Wikimedia network, and vandalism is not allowed. Axeman89 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Summer Clean Up of the FR article

I took it that this article needed some help. I am on Free Republic as well, so an insider's viewpoint may help make this a decent NPoV article. Many details were missing and I supplied them. Some people on FR come from left but most are conservative. There are a few places where the language showed bias, and some places were not as relevant any more, like Poll FReeping. Lately, Moveon and other Democratic Party front organizations do it a lot more effectivly. I too don't understand the racism, but future edits and discussion can help fix things up. Dominick 23:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dominick, thanks for your changes. I changed some parts where you used FR-terminology not known to many others (ping...) Since racism is such a striking issue at FR I reincluded that "many" rather than "few" entries show it. You also wrote "it has been charged that moderators often ban". That is a frequent policy and moderators do not make a secret about it. About freeping polls I agree that it is not unique to the FR community but since this is an article about FR a short neutral note should be sufficient. Get-back-world-respect 00:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hm, someone was quicker than I was. Cannot quite see why the whole edit should be reverted? Get-back-world-respect 00:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
reverting the whole edit is wrong, unless someone wanted to remove a NPoV article. Dominick 06:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Reverting changes, especially explained ones, without explanation is not helpful either. Why do you insist that the "electronic townhall" is not "self-described"? Was there anyone else who called it so? What makes you disagree about a short neutral note being sufficient for poll manipulation by others than freepers? Get-back-world-respect 11:35, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I put them in change comments. Going back and forth with me reverting edits I put in is absolutly wrong. It makes for bad feelings, and starts edit wars. Recall Wikipedia is collaberative I expect editing but not reverting for reasons I already gave in those comments. The term "Self-appointed" doesn't add any facts and only puts in PoV, all webpages are "self-appointed" wikipedia is the "self-appointed" encyclopedia. Claiming the DNC front orginizations do not manipulate pools isn't the point, I think claiming that ONLY FR does this or slanting the article this way is wrong, and PoV. This is a minor part of Free Republic. Wiki has one non-negiotable part, everything must be NPoV, not leftist PoV, I still think the specific examples of racism don't belong and the inordinate amount of time spent talking about FReeping a poll weaken the article. I can't fathom ANY reason why the main forum titles were delected, and some of the items are retained escape me. The main two parts I like about FR is getting links to interesting articles and having a way to discuss them, many are totally non-political. FR has gone from pure activism to a community. This article should reflect this bent. Dominick 12:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Do you think "self-appointed" is a derogatory term? Your analogy with wikipedia does not quite fit given that no one would question that wikipedia is an encyclopedia while few would come to the idea that FR is an "electronic townhall". No one claims "only" FR manipulated polls, it is already mentioned. But explicitly mentioning others here is not appropriate, this article is about FR. I deleted the list of sections because if people want to know about it they can check on their own. This is an encyclopedia article, so just the basics should be included. Articles about books do not include the titles of the chapters either. You exchanged "The group is funded through quarterly donations drives which mimic public television and PBS." by similar to. Obviously a donation drive is not similar to public television. "Unfortunatly, Wikipedia is one of those banned sources." is not encyclopedia style. It includes a judgment and names without any good reason a particular source. Please do not have bad feelings if your changes do not stay. It can be discussed here. Collaborative means people work together, that includes that the way to consensus is not always direct. Get-back-world-respect 13:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
NO I like being edited. I don't like seeing an injustice about FR dont from a self-appopinted activist. Activism isn't welcome here, and having information removed doesn't add to the article. Self appointed doesn't add any infomration, and the term town hall meets a meeting between people. I may edit out the term all together. The Basics isn't a good reason to remove data either, considering some of the minutae listed here. Lets let others look t the article before we continue back and forth edits. If this stews a bit we may both be satified. Dominick 13:25, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

free republic is the most racist,hate filled site i have ever been to . they extol KLAN , while decrying the so-called "black racism"...THEY ARE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH HATE FILLED ,RACIST APOLOGISTS. THE LESS SAID THE BETTER. william hall...

William, you should register and/or log in, and sign your remarks with four "tildes"; anonymity is the enemy of credibility. I'd like to hear your opinion of Democratic Underground. Would you call it "hate filled," yes or no? Is Yahoo! Chat "hate filled?" I mean, surely you can find the same kind of comments there; Yahoo! can't control everything people post there. (By the way, repeating something doesn't make it more true, just redundant or twice as untrue.) Paul Klenk 15:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

i dont think being anonymous has anything to do with credibility .infact it adds weight to the arguments as i dont have the additional responsibility of proving myself. as far as free republic is concerned , i dont need to tell u how RACIST that site is .the MANIFESTATION OF RACISM .if u need to define RACISM in 2 words thaz there right for u .RACISM in 2 words = FREE REPUBLIC . THEY WILL DO EVERY POSSIBLE THING UNDER THE SUN TO SLANDER CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS LIKE MARTIN LUTHER KING,GANDHI AND MANDELA .....FOR THEM EVERY NON-WHITE CIVIL RIGHTS LEADER IS EITHER A COMMIE OR A SOCIALIST ....AND I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS BEING SLANDERED . NOT ONE WORD ABOUT LEADERS LIKE JESSE HELMS,STROM THURMOND ETC. WHO HAVE BEEN RACIST TO THE CORE .THEY LIKE TO LABEL PPL BY THEIR RACE RATHER THAN THEIR CHARACTER ....ACCORDING TO THEM BLACKS ARE CRIMINALS,ARABS ARE TERRORISTS ,3RD WORLDERS ARE INSECTS ...THE WORST POSSIBLE RACISTS UNDER THE SUN .....THAZ FREE REPUBLIC FOR U .....I HAVE OFTEN WONDERED THAT IN THIS DAY AND AGE such openly racist people can exist and that too in a country which claims to be the bastion of equality .....FREE REPUBLIC HAS HELPED PERPETUATE MYTHS ABOUT SOME PEOPLE ESPECIALLY PEOPLE OF ONE PARTICULAR RACE BEING RACISTS .....IF U WANT TO KNOW HOW A QUINTESSENTIAL RACIST LOOKS LIKE LOOK NO FURTHER THAN FREE REPUBLIC.....

WILLIAM HALL(ETHNICITY:NON-WHITE)

Wikiczar

Perhaps you may read the Talk Etiquette FAQ again. You have an activist's goal of exposing Free Republic, controling the article as a one-man show, and removing edits you don't like The one thing I do like about wiki is the collaberative effect, which you are stifling as a self-appointed Czar. You need to let this rest and have others pipe in. Dominick 13:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wiki policy is No personal attacks. "Wikiczar" is unacceptable. Unfortunately you did not respond to my argumentation - explicitly mentioning others manipulating polls inappropriate, donation drive not similar to public television, "unfortunatly" being a judgment. While "largely" measures quantity, "often" measures frequency. An online community is better described by the majority of its users, so it is better said that they are largely, but not exclusively, united on certain issues. Again, please do not have bad feelings if your changes do not stay. It can be discussed here. Collaborative means people work together, that includes that the way to consensus is not always direct. Get-back-world-respect 14:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Edits others have made have been reverted and changed by you, I am not the only one wronged. I am happy to have this moderated or have others come in and look. to that end I invuted a poll here, if you think this needs escalation fine. Get a third party in here. Dominick 14:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I do not see why you think there is anything like "escalation". This is just discussion, if you do not want to join it, fine. Get-back-world-respect 15:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I meant going up the dispute resolution path. Dominick 16:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In cases of disagreements the first attempt should always be resolving it at the discussion site. Get-back-world-respect 18:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poll

Start discussion here: Dominick 13:39, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just for convenience, here's a comparison between the current revision and Domonick's last edit. [1]. If there's a more representative comparison, please list it, because this is pretty complicated. Mackerm 16:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Abstain

  1. POV edit wars do not belong in Wikipedia:Current_polls. Yath 04:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Racism

There was a paragraph written about anti-black racism in the discussion. It was difficult to understand and not neutral. I agree that racism is a striking issue at the site, but please improve on the writing. Get-back-world-respect 23:29, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was pinging the Leader of the Black Conservative group at FR. Specifially, what racism? I have seen more than a few racists get booted. I don't consider the examples posted as racist, per se. A few others here have agreed.Dominick 01:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As the edits by anonymous 65.27.204.208, SimonP, Neutrality and Tom Merkle (Abu-Jamal refers to racial (Arab) characteristics, thus the argument for racism for that example stands) clearly showed, there are more people who agree about racism at FR. Racism against Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims and French is the most frequent I know about, so a Black Conservative is probably not the best person to ask. Also, if the person was not a racist but still at FR she or he is unlikely to perceive racism, a more objective statement would need a less biased sample of opinions. If you disagree about what racism is, please read the wiki article. Get-back-world-respect 01:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This should be sufficient proof to disabuse all but the most blind regarding the racism that goes unchecked at FR: The City of Fresno Human Relation Commission Deserves a Refund [update and ping to mhking and rdb3 ]

One only has to click on a topic with regards to the naacp, or gay rights, or muslims, to see how hateful and racist many users of the website are.

Some things for the anyomus post above. I'm dont go to this site i just like to clear some stuff in your argument up 1. Gays can be any race. That has nothing to do with racism. Plus, they're conservatives they dont exactly love gays do they. They're presious "God" tells them they shouldn't (Sorry if I offended anyone :( ) 2. Just because some memebers may seem racist doesn't mean they all are. You shouldn't judge all members by just a few of them. 3.Just because they don't like organizations like the NAACP doesn't mean they are racist. The NAACP could just as well be racist against whites (National Association For The ADVANCEMENT of Colored Peoples.). So don't judge them because the disagree with you on some stuff. Smart194 19:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Description of typical posts

My edit has been labled as "POV" by a couple of users. As far as I can tell, the describing of most posts on Free Republic as "one or two sentence-long ad hominem insults about liberal political figures, institutions, ideology, and liberals in general, with some posts of longer length and substance." is not an NPOV violation. If you have a better way of phrasing it, please feel free, but before reverting my edits further, please post your objections here for discussion. --Holdek 04:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There really isn't much to discuss. You removed a lot of pertinent information and replaced it with a broad generalization about the character of the discussion there. Rhobite 05:47, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
No, look at the article, I've just restructured it and explained it. Your version duplicates entire sentances. --Holdek 06:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't notice the duplicated information. Sorry about reverting. I have rephrased the sentence a little and moved it to the paragraph where it best fits. Rhobite 06:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I recieved this response when I posted a similarly worded insert into Democratic Underground:

Characterizing the posts as insults is POV and inaccurate. The comment that posts are short is vague -- we've said it's a message board so no one would be expecting lengthy essays. I don't see that we need to assure the reader that there are posts of varying length; that's what anyone would expect

The same principle should apply here.

I think Rhobite's version is a good compromise, and he's restructured so as to eliminate POV complications. Most of the posts on Free Republic are insults, and are of the length described. And I don't think most Freepers would object to this description; it's one of the primary purposes of Free Republic (to give conservatives a place to vent their frustrations.)
Your repost of the Democratic Underground material is not very usefull. It's a completely different article. --Holdek 19:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I also have to wonder whether anyone would object to this characterization. It's still a generalization, but it's based in truth. A semi-random sampling of tonight's comments confirms that yes, Freepers still post one-line comments expressing their disapproval of liberals, gays, environmentalists, and uh, Mexico. Rhobite 06:42, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the frequency of the caricaturing, I have an overwhelming hunch that this entry (as of 2/15/05) was written by a NON-Freeper...

The current examples of racism, as already discussed, are clearly NOT racist. A citation of what the UN calls racism is worthless, because by using the terms that are listed, Freepers are not trying to deny any rights to anyone. This is absolutely preposterous. As already said, race is NOT the same as nationality. Trau

merged information

I merged the information contained in the Jim Robinson article, as I do not believe that it is common policy to have a seperate article about website authors who are notable only for thier website--see e.g. The Best Page in the Universe. However, User:Wakeforest immediately reverted the entry with the summary "don't agree leave page alone or you'll be blocked."

Any suggestions? I don't want to get involved in a revert war... --Jonathan Christensen 07:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JC - the only person who seems to be acting unilaterally on this matter is you. You've unilaterally merged the page itself twice now with little to no discussion at all, though others have asked you to discuss that on Talk:Jim_Robinson. Showing up on the talk page and saying the equivalent of "yeah, but i'm gonna do it anyway" is not a discussion. As it stands right now there seem to be three people who favor leaving it as it was with only you proposing to merge it, yet you plow right ahead with the merge unilaterally. As for common wikipedia policy on people who are well known for their websites having separate articles, I direct you to a couple well known examples:
Based upon these precedents, it seems that a separate article here would be both appropriate and in keeping with wikipedia formatting policy. I have restored the previous article and removed your redirect on this basis. I will also post a copy of this comment on the discussion forum there. If you still support a change in which the articles are merged, then YOU need to go over there and make your case for it on that discussion section rather than acting unilaterally and turning talking only after the change you desire is done. Thanks for understanding. Rangerdude 16:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I probably should have read this talk too before I reverted the page when I did. I’ll make some notes in both talk pages to prevent others from doing the same.-Casito 23:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Closed deletion listing on Jim Robinson

The article Jim Robinson was listed for deletion on 16 April, 2005. The discussion was closed with the result of merge and redirect to Free Republic. The Jim Robinson article will not be deleted, but the information in it has been merged into the target article (this one) and Jim Robinson has been turned into a redirect here. You can view the discussion, which is no longer live: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Jim Robinson. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've done a bare-bones merge, basically just turning the Jim Robinson article into a section of this one--I have not taken account of duplicated information that may already exist in other sections, except to make an effort to merge the Jim Robinson external links into the external links section of this one, dropping a duplicated reference to the website and another to a 1999 article in Salon. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Why is a merger appropriate here while standing separate articles are deemed appropriate for similar authors of other political webpages, among them Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, Matt Drudge, Charles Johnson, John_H._Hinderaker, and Scott_W._Johnson? This inconsistency was pointed out previously on the talk and VfD pages with little substantive response and no attempt to reconcile the differences. Rangerdude 20:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The decision was taken as a result of a discussion which you can see in the link I provided. Three editors voted for keep: Rangerdude, Capitalistroadster, and Mcsweet. Nine other editors said that merge and redirect was more appropriate: Jonathan Christensen, Sean Curtin, bainer, Katefan0, Radiant!, Calton, G Rutter, Halidecyphon, Neutrality.

Thus there seems to be a fairly solid consensus for that latter. I would have recorded no consensus if one more person had voted to keep or three fewer to merge and redirect. Decisions on merging Matt Drudge, etc, would be taken on an article-by-article basis, as is the policy on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but you also IGNORED the fact that other editors had already participated in the consensus in favor of keeping it on the page talk:Jim Robinson including user:ObsidianOrder and user:WakeForest well before user:jonathan christensen attempted to circumvent the existing consensus on the article itself after he didn't get his way and was criticized by several for a series of rash unilateral actions. Furthermore you seem to be violating wikipedia's own VfD principles, which explicitly note that VfD's are NOT to be decided on a democratic majority vote but rather on the weight of the various arguments put forth by either side. Seeing as the majority of persons who voted in favor of merging the two stated little or no reason whatsoever for their votes and very likely spent no more than a few minutes or seconds reviewing a dispute with a complex history tracing back to an inappropriate unilateral action by the same individual who initiated the VfD, giving those votes equal weight with those who took time to state and/or justify their positions on the argument is against the spirit if not the letter of the VfD process. As for decisions regarding Drudge et al, you are deflecting the issue, which is not whether those individual articles should also be merged but rather whether some semblance of consistency between them and the Jim Robinson article should be maintained. That is called a straw man argument as it purports to rebut the argument I offered about the other articles yet in reality completely ignores the point of that argument, which was not whether the others should be merged but rather about formulating a consistent article writing policy on similar cases. Rangerdude 02:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I can't count votes that aren't cast. If either ObsidianOrder or WakeForest had cast a vote, and that had been a keep vote, we wouldn't be having this conversation because by my standards (at 9 for merge, 4 for keep) the vote would have been a no consensus and I would not have acted on the merge. But they did not do so. I cannot second-guess these people's opinions when, over a week after the VfD is removed from WP:VFD, I close the listing and determine the result. Nor can I take into account discussion on the talk page when the VfD notice was visible to all.
You say that Christensen "was criticised". Well the most effective form of criticism would have been a vote to keep. Clearly any criticism was somewhat muted!
You say that "wikipedia's own VfD principles...explicitly note that VfD's are NOT to be decided on a democratic majority vote but rather on the weight of the various arguments put forth by either side." Well what makes you think I don't take the arguments into account? But as it happens your claim is incorrect. I'm supposed to look at the votes and decide whether a consensus has been reached (Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete). To avoid a hint of partiality I avoid looking at the merits--those are supposed to be decided by Wikipedians themselves, not me.
You say "As for decisions regarding Drudge et al, you are deflecting the issue, which is not whether those individual articles should also be merged but rather whether some semblance of consistency between them and the Jim Robinson article should be maintained." I say that you have not convinced me that consistency is a desirable goal. I can tell you that I am convinced that such an argument would carry absolutely no weight were you to raise a complaint on this matter on WP:AN/I (which I'm not adverse to you doing, by the way--feel free). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Revisions and Edits

A header (Misc Comments) was added to this discussion so the index page worked properly and wasn't burried. On the article page... "Comments posted by users of Free Republic are often insults directed at liberal political figures, institutions, ideology, liberals in general, and the media. Most of the comments are short, with some posts of longer length and substance." was removed from discussion as a dangerous and innacurate generalization. The paragraph beginning with "Although Free Republic has an official policy of not permitting racism, some posts allegedly show it." was removed to keep the article within the neutral point of view. The site has a racism policy and enforces it, bringing this up in the article is an attack by inuendo and has no place here. The section heading "manipulating polls" was removed and the otherwise fair and balanced paragraph inserted into the disccussion section. [originally posted by 69.148.49.130]


The following paragraph should have NPOV cleanup, IMO:

When the Jeff Gannon (a freeper himself) saga exploded, no pun intended critics waited to see what the freeper reaction would be. The reaction turned out to be typical. Yes he may be a gay prostitute but he's our gay prostitute. Member kristinn held a ralley for him leaving the more bible thumping member's heads spinning.

--Cpk1971 03:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Corsi's "apology" for remarks on FR

This article states that Jerome Corsi "apologized" for comments he made, however, the apology itself is not quoted. I have left this wording for the moment, but I have also quoted Corsi's remarks directly -- remarks he made on-line at FR, as user jrlc. (These remarks can still be viewed.) His remark on FR could hardly be construed as an apology. I will attempt to find any quote Corsi made nationally (not on FR) and am happy to keep the word "apologized" if that is what he did. However, I may return and reword that sentence to more accurately reflect his comments. Simiarly, his comments were called racist, homophobic, etc. I have changed this to "Some characterized the remarks as racist, homophobic, and anti-Catholic", as the previous wording was clearly not NPOV, but attempted to characterize the comments without quoting them directly. Not a good practice. Thanks. Paul Klenk 19:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, after some searching, I found the quote: "I don't stand by any of those comments and I apologize if they offended anybody," Corsi said. This was reported by Jennifer Kerr of the AP. Paul Klenk 19:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there is any debate as to whether or not Corsi's remarks were clearly racist, homophobic, and anti-Catholic, particularly considering that he apologized for them. I've gone ahead and added a link to the remarks in the paragraph, so there shouldn't be an issue with NPOV. Also, I know that there have been doubts expressed about the validity of the paragraph detailing Free Republic's role in "Rathergate." I'm going to remove it until we have some sort of evidence that it played any kind of a substantial role. Holdek (talk) 19:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
We need to be careful about agreeing with characterizations, and about making them anything more than that -- POV characterizations. In some circles, if a right-winger even mentions gays, Arabs, or Catholics in a negative light, they are automatically considered slurs. It is not a thoughtful or serious practice to do so. It is a knee-jerk reaction that, sorry to say, loudly proclaims POV. It is enough to say people characterized them as such, and leave it at thatm, but the quotes must also be placed in context, both the full text of the statement, the context about the controversy and the point the writer was trying to make. This is very seldom done, because people are lazy and they don't want to think.
Also, re: Rathergate, why not tag them as "dubious" and let the discussion begin? You say "doubts have been expressed" but cite nothing to back that up. The blog -- forget the name at the moment -- got lots of press, and its writer was communicating with FR people. Before just deleting it, perhaps you could do a search yourself, and see where the evidence leads. (Just a suggestion, it might be fun for you.) Anyway, thanks for your work on the article. paul klenk 21:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Paul, I'd first like to thank you for your work on this article. You have made many substantial improvements to it. On this first issue, this is an actual quote from Corsi regarding Senator Hillary Clinton: "Let the FAT HOG run!!!" Here is another: "Mullah Ali'Gore-ah is very proud of his new Bin Laden beard and he hopes others in the Democratic Party will follow his lead. Hell-ary is disappointed she cannot grow a beard, but her press secretary reminds us she can still enroll in flight school." How does one get around the fact that these are slurs? As far as racism, he clearly uses the term "raghead" in this quote: "Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote 'gays in the military.' RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together." And he refers to lesbians as "lesbos" which is a derogatory term. I will, however, change "anti-Catholic" to "anti-Muslim" because that is more definate.
As to the "Rathergate" situation, you are right. I'll add it back and put in a dubious tag. --Holdek (talk) 02:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Holdek, I noticed you deleted the quote of Corsi's in which he brushed off the controversy, and kept the one where he seemed completely apologetic. Now, understanding that people are inconsistent, and understanding that more information provides a better context for a reader, would you please explain your thinking in deleting the brush-off quote? Many thanks, paul klenk 02:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Paul, I just thought the quote was more succinct and explained the situation better. I thought the part about the dog seemed kind of wandering for an encyclopedia article. However, I will add it back and keep both quotes if you think it would make a better article. --Holdek (talk) 02:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
UPDATE I just saw the description of your recent post. I reply as soon as I can come up with a coherent and appopriate response, and after thoroughly considering your initial comment. That is not always immediately after you leave a comment on the talk page. I'll try to be more prompt in the future but it was only a few hours. I wasn't trying to be discourteous. --Holdek (talk) 02:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Paul said above "I have changed this to "Some characterized the remarks as racist, homophobic, and anti-Catholic", as the previous wording was clearly not NPOV, but attempted to characterize the comments without quoting them directly. Not a good practice. Thanks. " I agree with this, and it is unfortunate the entry wrong does not reflect this objective viewpoint. I too changed the edit to refelct that this was a subjective view (and not correct!), but the edit was 'reverted'. These are labels that are arguable at best and certainly violate POV rules. The real lesson was one in political hardball, in which leftwing "Media Matters" decided to dig some dirt on rightwing J Corsi, and out-of-context quotes are always the easiest way to do it and were used against Corsi. For example, he is called 'anti-Catholic'. Well, Corsi is himself a Catholic, and his sharp criticisms of Catholic Church hierarchy for covering up pedophilia among Priests may be wrong, tasteless, but do not make him anti-Catholic! Corsi made attacks on liberal politicians and reacted to news about terrorists. In reaction to news that coalition troops had died in Iraq and that a Muslim cleric, al-Sadr in Iraq, called in Friday 'prayers' to foment more 'martyrdom' operations, Corsi said:" We should broadcast these hate words of al-Satan -- if these Islamic "clerics" insist on being such hatemongers, let the world see how morally corrupt their religion is. If Islam doesn't rise up and condemn these "Islamonazis" then the whole religion will look false to the world. Let's see exactly why it isn't the case that Islam is a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion? Where's the proof to the contrary?" (my source: Media Matters). Media Matters then took that longer quote and spliced it down to be their #1 hatemongering quote as calling Islam "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion." Inflammatory, yes, but racist, arguable at best. The entry distorts the real record on that account, and buys into the "Media Matters" spin, which was a partisan hit job. Media Matters should not be treated as an objective source on this, since they are as partisan as Corsi himself was/is. That's simply wrong. -- Anonymous 23:34, December 26, 2005 (UTC)

Pitt links

Am I the only one who thinks that someone who says that the Third American Empire (yeah, I wonder what reference he was dropping there?/sarcasm) started when the US beat the Soviets in a hockey game has no right to lecture anyone on proper behavior? Yes, the posts Pitt referenced seemed inappropriate. However, they show no context whatsoever (were the posts pulled, were the posters reprimanded,etc.), so you can't help but draw the conclusion Pitt wants you to draw. In addition, DUmmies have their wiki page guarded so that no one can post mopaul's attack on Pres. Reagan, or the thread where a poster was butchered for simply asking for prayers for Laura Ingraham at news of her breast cancer, all the while claiming NPOV!!! If those don't fit under NPOV there, Pitt's bloviations don't fit under it here.

You know, I just read the first of Pitt's articles, and I have to agree. I'm no fan of Free Republic, but why on Earth are we referencing a man who heavily hints that the Freepers are all stalkers and child molesters because they use pseudonyms as their screen names? As much as I detest FR's heavy-handed banning practices, I would never dream of making such an accusation, even veiled, simply because they don't all reveal their real names to anyone who happens by the site. Rogue 9 03:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

Is there any evidence that Free Republic played the role that some are claiming it did vis-a-vis "Rathergate?" It seems to me that if it really did, there would be more public knowledge of this, and I haven't seen it asserted anywhere but here (and I'll go out on a limb and say that Freepers probably assert it as well). Thanks. --Holdek (talk) 02:46, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

H, I truly appreciate your thoughtful replies and look forward to working with you, and learning from you, in the future. Kindly, paul klenk
It's been a few days, so I'll go ahead and remove it. Holdek (talk) 22:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
If I may refer to this:
 http://www.ireporter.org/2005/09/rathergate_anni.html

The discussion started on FR. Buckhead started doubting it, and people started checking it out. Like many blogs (FR is a blog with tons of authors, things are hard to document who came up with it first. Dominick 18:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

SHall I do the revert or would you like to Holdek? Dominick 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

I cannot quite see why this article needs extended definitions of FR terminology such as Freep, Freeping, Freepathon, Freeploader, etc. On the other hand there is only one sentence about the most striking characteristic most people would see when accessing the forum: an extremely condescending attitude towards anyone who does not think exactly as the other users do. Racism and extremely foul language are frequent, and the slightest doubt about the loyalty to Bush, Israel, the Iraq war, etc. immediately lead to censorship and exclusion. A title like discussion is a joke in that context. FR is not for discussion, it is a forum for those who seek confirmation by their peers. 84.59.71.43 00:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Right comments, wrong forum. You obviously meant to post this about the Democratic Underground. Thanks. -WO4TG

No. It is my opinion that FR is much worse than DU in terms of racism, especially racism toward Mexicans and muslims. 128.135.194.137 01:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, an explanation of "Free Republic" without using terms like this is warranted in an encyclopedia. Foul language is removed, racist posts are removed, like any forum, people with stupid idea are there was well as people with good ideas. Articles discussing topics as you refer to by bona-fide posters are there and can be found when the poster is polite and makes a point. Articles designed to "stir the pot" are removed. If trolls were not culled, Free Republic would be the same as many wide open forums.
The point of FR is to provide conservative fellowship, not provide a zoo for people to poke at the members. The previous posters discussion of DU is as important as the discussion of FR. If Yahoo forums and chat is not considered a racist venue, then Free Republic can't be considered a racist venue. Dominick 19:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Dominick, you're right in that the title of that section was POV. I wasn't even aware of the change. But I changed it back. --Holdek (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Social nature of FR

Holdek and others:

I noticed someone deleted a tiny bit of text about Freepers hanging out together after Freeps. I think on its face, it is a very defensible deletion -- I'm not saying I think it was unreasonable.

However, I am going to rework it into the article, into a bigger section on the social nature of FR.

Social Activities

Many Freepers know each other. The "Freeps" are not just protests; they serve as fellowship, solidarity, and foundations for planning other events.

At each of President Bush's inaugurations, FR was one of the many groups sponsoring balls in Washington D.C. The Freeper balls drew many people.

In fact, it could be argued that the Website has become merely an on-line meeting space for the social groups that have sprung up around FR. FR could be called the engine of the social groups. The social groups become political groups, the work with other Republican clubs (like several Republian clubs in Manhattan I am familiar with).

To facilitate the social events, FR software allows Freepers to designate their home state, and post messages to those in their states about protests and social activities near them.

If you truly want to understand FR -- and that is what a good encyclopedia should help you do -- you need to include as much meaningful data as you can. In many good pieces of writing, small fragments of information may not, in them selves, seem to be significant. But in the greater picture, those bits integrate themselves into a complete view, good or bad.

Full disclosure

In the interest of full disclosure, let me state the following:

  • I used to post on FR; I never do anymore, except one or two "hellos" each year to a word-for-the-day group I used to post to.
  • I used to host a "Manhattan Freeper Happy Hour" with a mailing list of seventy or eighty Freepers or more.
  • I see the validity of many people's criticisms of FR. Freepers are extremely protective of the site, and naysayers are simply not welcome -- even when they're polite. But the site isn't intended for them. It is not an "open forum". It is an "open forum for conservatives." Period. It is private property, and Robinson treats it as such. It is his to do with as he pleases.
  • I think Jim Robinson comes across as a curmudgeon. I've never met him. I have been banned by him, but I got the ban lifted years later.
  • I have been to Freeps, as well as the 2001 inaugural ball in Washington. It drew many people -- I was actually surprised.
  • I used to be a registered Republican; now I have registered as a Democrat -- only so I can vote in primaries for candidates who switched parties, because NYS Repub. party don't support them.

So, I do actually know something about FR from experience, and think that I can be fair in providing more context and information for this article. I am not so close to it that I really care whether it is successful, or whether FR comes off looking good or bad. I also know where to find documentation for some of the stories about FR that are floating around.

Also, I personally don't think many Freepers would make very good Wikipedians. They are far to defensive about their views, and many cannot seem to have a calm and rational discussion with someone they disagree with. I would never think about inviting them here to work on this article!!!! LOL. paul klenk 02:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I would welcome you to add as much as you can/wish to this article. I think you have some good ideas there and I encourage you to add what you know. Your perspective as a (former) member combined with your demonstrated concern for neutrality could really help this article. I'd personally be interested in why you switched parties and what your personal perspectives on Free Republic are, and perhaps we can discuss this on your or my talk site. Providing documentation on claims can be helpful...reading Free Republic, my perception is that Freepers tend to have an inflated view of their own influence in the world of politics, and that is why I am suspicious of the Rathergate claims. But I look forward to seeing your additions to this article. Regards, --Holdek (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I am a Freeper. I don't think full disclosure is germane, but there it is anyhoo. I think my work stands on it's own. I would agree, some Freepers are defensive, and many have a inflated view of the contributions they make, like many activist political movements. Paul, I am sorry that you think many Freepers don't make good wikipedians. I do not think that statement helps wikipedia maintain NPOV, nor does it help combat the manufactured opinion people have obtained about FR. Without conservatives, of all stripes, wikipedia could not maintain NPOV. I think many would be excellent wikipedians, I think the “one line wonders” would not be helpful, but they are not detail people.
I think FR contributes to the political landscape, as does other conservative tools for activism, like the Team Leader program. In particular, there are groups that would like to limit or eliminate influence, and what better dirty trick that to claim that since some FR posters make stupid statements, then all Freepers are racists or worse.
We are here at wikipedia participate in an effort to catalog and create a font of knowledge that is broad, and as universal as possible. One big reason I left wiki was this article in particular. There is a place to criticism of FR, where criticism is due. Where criticism is false it should be excised or the source and defense posted in detail.
If we are posting things that are factual, then that is indeed NPOV. I think the allegations about Jim Robinson need a bit more proof. I think we can all agree he is a bit of a curmugeon and defensive about his property, but I also think he has a big heart and has allowed a lot of people in common political cause with him a lot of leeway to work towards a common political goal. The financial allegations are made by very partisan sources, among them Salon. His own words are here: www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a2c5f673b72.htm
I agree with you Holdek, if the Rathergate claims are false, lets strike them. I think they are correct as per my own recollections, watching it unfold. I think, by my judge of character, that you would also agree if the allegations of grifting by Mr. Robinson are false, lets make sure that we include both sides of that story. I think they are important, but if they have substantial doubts attached to them, lets include those doubts as well. If those are false and a dirty trick, full disclosure would be of benefit to Mr. Robinson.
Thanks for reading my overlong musings on this article. It impacted my participation before, and frankly, I should have not walked away. Dominick 12:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Buckhead

Holdek, I would like you to help me co-research this Buckhead thing. It is a lot easier to just delete the passage; I respect your reasons for doing so. But I am finding a lot of material out there to support that this happened: Buckhead made his observation at FR to "Howlin"; it was noticed and picked up by other bloggers; and this caused the story to spread, making it impossible for the national medial to ignore it. I believe Powerlineblog (I am checking) is going to credit Buckhead.

The reason I'm asking for your help is so you can examine the broad range of sources where this is mentioned, and help you have a say from the beginning which sources you find okay and which you find objectionable. I don't want to go through all this work, document what happened, and then find an objection from you to the source, not the data.

Also, I think one of the problems we're having with this section is the title "FR in the national spotlight." It is a bit grandiose, making it hard to justify placing something underneath it. We perhaps need a different title. Right now, the Corsi thing is there, and I have a problem with it. In the Corsi story, FR is so tangiential. It happened during the Kerry campaign, a big deal; it involved Swift Boats, big but lesser deal; one of the players, Corsi, got caught making inflammatory statements on the Web, no big deal; FR is the site where he made the comments -- less than a deal at all. In that particular story, Corsi was in the spotlight, FR was in the background. FR is a footnote in this story. It is not the story. The section headline clearly blows it out out o proportion.

In Rathergate, when Dan showed America all these forged letters, the media went along with it until. Now, I'm still not saying "America" took notice of FR, but my research indicates he was instrumental in tearing down Rather's ridiculous evidence. Buckhead was the spark; the fire grew on the Internet; the medial picked it up and it challenged the biggest newcaster in America in one of the biggest stories of the year -- the Bush/Kerry race.

Also, please note that Buckhead is mentioned in our own Rathergate story here at WP.

"Within hours of the segment, the authenticity of the documents was questioned by posters on Free Republic, a conservative Internet forum, and discussion quickly spread to various weblogs in the blogosphere:" Following this quote is Buckhead's remark at FR.

I'd appreciate your thoughts. paul klenk talk 04:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Holdek, I am compiling my research here: User:Paul_Klenk/Sandbox#Buckhead paul klenk talk 05:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Holdek, the sources have been added by me, as you requested, in order to justify the story being included in this article. I feel there are good enough and specific enough, so I put the passage back in. Also, I moved it above the Corsi story as it is clearly a much more notable one. Everyone remembers Rathergate. No one even knows who Corsi is, let alone what he did. I would appreciate it if you would discuss specific objections here if you have a problem with the passage now. paul klenk talk 06:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Holdek, I have added more details to the paragraph (which I originally authored, by the way), laying out the "plot points" as they occurred. This should help a reader better understand the direct connection between FR and Powerline, and the "floodgates" it opened. paul klenk talk 07:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Buckhead resolved

Thank you for doing this research, Paul. It's very extensive. What I was looking for was not so much the partisan blogs but rather the LA Times story validating this assertion. I notice that the story no longer is retrievable on the web, but I trust the NYU assertion that it at least exists. Again, this the optimal way to handle these disputes. Thank you for being a good Wikipedian. I have no problem with the way the section, and the headline (which you make a good point on as well), read now.
Also, if you could check out my talk page, I have a question for you there...--Holdek (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I do think that Power Line's validation is enough. PL is not nearly as partisan as, say, Little Green Footballs. It is a very professionally written blog. The authors have been on CSPAN and other programs. Remember, as we learned through Rathergate, many blogs are written by freelance professional journalists and other very bright, educated people. So-called mainstream journalists -- many of whom them are extremely partisan, but refuse to admit it -- are being held accountable in the blogosphere. There is also a sort of hierarchy of blogs; PL is not "just a blog," -- it was very widely read at the time -- widely enough that it caused a wildfire to spread after their post on September 9. Thanks for your thoughts. paul klenk talk 05:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
It may interest you to know that I've been corresponding with Corsi by e-mail. I tracked him down through his FR handle, jrlc, sending him an FR e-mail and asking him to check in with me. He did a week ago. He has given me a lot of information. On its own, it won't help me because of the prohibition against original research. But it is enough to help put me on the right track for non-original research I can use here. Frankly, I think his mention on the FR page is so marginal... Truly a mere footnote, and would not have been mentioned had it not seemed to put FR in a negative light. paul klenk talk 05:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Dan Rather is on C-SPAN (live) right now, talking about Buckhead. paul klenk talk 00:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Corsi

I think the Corsi thing is important. It plays to an important criticism of FR, which is its percieved acceptance of hateful speech (or at least speech that is insulting to the point where the author would not want the statements publicized). Its a meaningful example of a criticism of the site as a whole. However, I could see possibly moving it to a different section under a more generic headline. --Holdek (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I haven't removed it. But every site, including Yahoo and MSN, have message forums where such statements are made. No one mentions this in those articles, nor do they use it to paint the "site as a whole." If it didn't make FR look bad, it wouldn't have gotten attention. This is a pattern when writing articles about any political subject -- of either party: Dump as many negative anecdotes or criticisms as possible into the article, and make no attempt to put them into context for the reader.
The paragraph does need to be improved. Instead of characterizing the quotes, we need to let an actual critic do that by quoting a critic, or -- better -- give a quote or two, and let the readers characterize them themselves. Calling any criticism of homosexuality "homophobic" is getting a bit old. Many people do not agree with its practice, its agenda, or the way the lifestyle is marketed (even some homosexuals). Everyone comment showing disapproval does not need to be called "homophobic" (surely there are those who would call what I just said homophobic). Also, proving the actual quote and the context is more meaningful for a reader. His statement about "buggering boys" was more more of an indictment against the Arabs practice of (according to him) raping young boys, comparing it to that of some priests. Hardly a slam against the gay lifestyle.
Another point I learned from Corsi -- and need to find reference to elsewhere: He made no effort to hide his identity on the forum. The people who broke the story made it seem like they "uncovered" something, but he was open about it. And for the life of me, I can't understand why he apologized for his statements. He is not sorry at all, and discusses his use of such statements in his letters to me.
Also, I believe this incident is discussed in length in Corsi's article. paul klenk talk 05:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
FreeRepublic has long been criticized, rightly or wrongly, as a repository for hateful speech. This is an incident which plays to that criticism, and in that context it is important due to its intersection with national politics. Like I said I would be willing to move the paragraph to a more general discussion section of the article. But it serves as a good example and is distinguished because of the aforementioned criteria.
As for the homophobia, I feel pretty comfortable with the label. He said "Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote 'gays in the military.'" And refered to Lesbians as "Lesbos," which is a slur. It goes beyond just a simple "I don't like the gay lifestyle" kind of comment. I wouldn't mind putting this quote and the ones I listed above in the "Corsi's "apology" for remarks on FR" section of this talk page into the article, but I don't think we should make this section of the article too disproportionately long and extensive. --Holdek (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
You make a lot of very good, fair points. My preference is always to quote the person, and let the reader characterize, rather than our editors doing that. But if a term had to be used, I would suggest "anti-gay" -- homophobic suggests he is "afraid" of homosexuality; it's really a poor, overused term. Anti-gay can mean either someone who is simply against gays, or really hates them. I think we can say that about Corsi -- we just can't say he's afraid of them!!! LOL! paul klenk talk 20:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
In contemporary usage, "homophobic" often means anti-gay. But by the same token I would not be averse to it being changed to "anti-gay" instead. --Holdek (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Holdek - Why do you keep reinserting your version of the Corsi controversy? It is very biased against Corsi and is very supportive of Media Matters, treating them as the "discoverer." What is "in the national media" and where did this supposed apology take place? Also Corsi does not admit to being a "homophobe" or "racist" - he stated "the politically incorrect humor I posted on this site is evidently not funny to everyone" according to the quote. A neutral version would also describe the charges as alleged and would recognize that Media Matters had a political agenda in it as well. You do not own this article so please quit reverting attempts to make it more neutral. - Antimetro

You posted this in the wrong section, but what the heck. 1. Corsi apologized in the Associated Press. 2. He did so after his comments were discovered and posted by Media Matters. 3. The article never alleges that Corsi "admits to being a racist." 4. But the comments he made on Free Republic clearly are. Please see the previous discussion above on this talk page on this very subject (section 10). 5. Media Matters' is clearly labeled as a "liberal website." I hope this clears things up for you. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Holdek (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Holdek - The claim that it is racist is your point of view about it - not something Corsi admitted and not something that his comments "clearly are." I'm also not the only one who's disputed your version of the Corsi controversy. At the section #10 you talk about Paul Klenk takes issue with your description of Corsi's comments as an apology and your labelling of his remarks as racist, because it violates the POV ban. Anonymous also made the same complaints about your version, and now I'm making them. That's a 3 to 1 consensus against you on this. If you keep reverting it you seem to be ignoring that. Please abide by the consensus made by other people here and please don't revert something when it is against you. Thanks. - Antimetro

"Censorship"

FR does have a reputation for censoring comments. I found an interesting article about this.

However, what is lost on people is this is a site exclusively for conservatives. (As far as I know.) It is essentially Robinson's private property, to do with as he sees fit -- and liberals are not welcome to come share, defend, discuss, or promote their views. When they do so, they are basically breaking their user agreement, and trespassing. I will do more research into this. paul klenk talk 05:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is pretty spelled out in the article. --Holdek (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
some conservative's views have been banned as well. this is because there are many moderators, as long as you alienate one of their moderator's views, you can be banned.

My experience with FR is that posts reflecting a traditional or "paleoconservative" point of view are quickly removed from the site. That's fine, and it's certainly the owner's right to do so, however, FR should not assert that it is representative of a broad spectrum of conservative thought or the conservative movement in general. FR is strictly a neoconservative site. Posts that advocate on behalf of the Goldwater/Reagan wing of the Republican Party and/or are critical of the Rockefeller/Bush wing of the Party are invariable deleted.

I would hope that subsequent revisions of the FR article replace the word "conservative" with "neoconservative" where appropriate and indicate that FR does not represent the political philosophy of most Reagan conservatives.

Freeps

The second sentence below is very strange:

"The more active chapters organize offline events called "Freeps." Often these are presented as responses to protests by protesting groups."

There is nothing wrong with mentioning examples of which groups they freep. Also, they do freep left-wing groups and figures almost exclusively -- it is rare they protest anyone on the right (if they do, I can't think of an example). I will attempt a rewrite the corrects the clumsy sentence above and includes the facts about who they freep. 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Add left wing, writing they protest A.N.S.W.E.R. primarily isn't true. I think adding left wing is a better change than adding a shopping list of groups that have no common cause with FR. FR wasn't formed as a counter to any particular group. This wasn't censorship. Dominick 13:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Andy Stephenson FR coverage

Lets discuss it here, instead of a revert war. I looked at the threads and the Seattle article has a number of inaccuracies. First and foremost, some posters did talk about him, but FR was the medium for discussion, not the sponsor or any comments. Doubt on his condition was also expressed by some DU people. People on the internet are paranoid all over. Dominick 16:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I posted;

Famously, Free Republic, along with Conservative Underground and other conservative web sites participated in the cyberstalking and physical staking of voters rights advocate Andy Stephenson while he was dying of cancer. "FR" members spread the lie that Andy Stephenson did not have cancer, and interfered in the fundraising for his operation and later with the medicaid benefits for his aftercare and terminal hospital care. See:


Now... Would the change "Famously, MEMBERS OF Free Republic, " make this suitable? BenBurch 16:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, we verifiably know that Andy died of cancer... In fact, one of the most deadly types you can get. And we have a statement from his surgeon. BenBurch 16:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you post the numerous threads of DU members doubting Andy's story including your most famous member Mr. William Pitt?

Unsigned commentator; Clearly those threads are not about Free Republic, and if they are to be posted at all, you should post them on the Democratic Underground page. Feel free to do so, subject to the sort of discussion you see here. BenBurch 17:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that in the last few minutes, various editors seem to have "scrubbed" this page of many of the true negative comments about Free Republic. BenBurch 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

BenBurch: It's clear that your entries on FR and CU are meant as some sort of payback, and not about unbiased information. I think you should just drop it.

Unsigned commentator; The truth is always the best sort of payback. And I have a documented case here. If any part of it is not true, please point that out here and provide sources and suggest corrected text. Otherwise I will continue to lobby for this entry to be a permanent part of the FR story. BenBurch 17:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Famously isn't a PoV term, if I asked ten people on the street who knew what FR is who Andy was they could not answer.
I looked at the FR thread, for verification, because I would like to see if this was true. It was talking about him, and expressing doubt, but not talking about cyber/physical stalking, not about interference and medicaid benefits. Now Paypal does this a lot with fundraising, it happened to a friend of mine raising money for Katrina people, PP cut them off. If you want to link original statements on FR, thats great. CU isn't FR, nobody on FR can stop people on CU. FR may question it, if questions were to be asked. There are a lot of lawyers on DU, why didn't they do it right, pro bono?
The Seattle article was the only place I saw Fr mentioned as participating. Quote:
Then came the backlash. The origins of the rumors are murky, but the basic theme was Stephenson was a scam artist 
who didn't have cancer. The rumor spread like a computer virus across the Internet, and soon vitriolic postings 
were popping up all over the place. 

<SNIP>

Another group appears to be people who are rightfully concerned about Internet scams. 

Fred Grady, an accountant from Stanton, Neb., straddles both groups. He pays for a site called Scamdy.com that 
alleges Stephenson defrauded people. He learned of the controversy through a conservative Web site, Free Republic 
(www.freerepublic.com), that has an ongoing flame war with Democratic Underground. He is also very concerned that 
Stephenson's fund-raising was not done properly.
OK so the origins are murky laying it at FR's door is not right IMHO.
Furthermore:
According to some of Stephenson's supporters, the questions they raised temporarily stalled his friends' fund- 
raising, delaying Stephenson's cancer surgery. They accused Stephenson of fraud, filed complaints against him, and 
accused him of lining his own pockets.
According to supporters is a weak proof. Maybe CU did more than FR did, but that is way OT. This is the FR article.
Motion to strike! Dominick 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the motion to strike. This whole thing is silly and really has nothing to do with Free Republic. CEL

If you look at the Democratic Underground thread, from which this attempt started [2], you'll see that BenBurch is not interested in expanding knowledge. Merely payback and attempt to libel an opposing forum. No where in his links, except for one stated above, is the FreeRepublic mentioned - or its members.

Motion to strike as well. InvictusNox 17:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a revised poposed entry;

Members of Free Republic, along with Conservative Underground and other conservative web sites participated in the cyberstalking of voters rights advocate Andy Stephenson while he was dying of cancer. "FR" members spread the lie that Andy Stephenson did not have cancer, and interfered in the fundraising for his operation and later with the medicaid benefits for his aftercare and terminal hospital care. See:

BenBurch 17:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ben, I think the consensus is that this incident should not be in the article. Dominick 17:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to post a caveat. I read [3] and IMHO astroturfing for partisan PoV is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia. Dominick 18:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I tried to say this nice, Ben. Lets be clear for all the people.
benburch  (1000+ posts)      Tue Oct-04-05 02:06 PM
Response to Original message 
52. Ah, well, looks like I lost the fight over there. 
I will find another way to get that information on the record.

And it WILL be on the record and linked to FR's Wiki page
This isn't the place. Dominick 18:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


I put in a PoV nuetral version. I am avoiding an astroturfed war here. Please look at it and see if it better meets consensus. Dominick 18:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the FR main page should be temporarily locked to prevent further vandalism.

How is this incident, or allegations of this incident, notable? Of all the items discussed at FR, and all the people, what makes this one stand out? paul klenk talk 19:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Paul I agree with you, I didnt want a partisan edit war, fed by people astroturfing from DU. I did what I thought would settle it, and edited it for style and NPoV content. If you think it should be removed thats great too AFAIC. Dominick 19:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul, As I see it, this incident is notable because it involved making baseless allegations of fraud and wrongdoing against a sick man. You can trash minorities and democrats and greens all you want; That is the essence of politics, but when you trash a sick man, deliberately interfere in his treatment, and dog him literally to the day he dies, and then, afterwards, try to claim that he never died of what actually killed him, you have gone way, way beyond the realm of politics and into personal vendetta. And as Free Republic was the site of much of this vendetta, and as Jim Robinson was told about what was happening on his site and pretended that he couldn't read the articles in question (linked above under my revised entry proposal) this IS something true that FR did and it is a valid item of data for inclusion in this encyclopedia.

Here is Jim Robinson's response to being told about the above entries;


Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:36:28 -0700

From: Jim Robinson <jimrob@psnw.com>

To: webmaster <webmaster@whiterosesociety.org>

Subject: Re: A polite request for moderation of your site content.


I pulled 117 and 134 based on your complaint, but know nothing of the rest.


Thanks,


Jim


webmaster wrote:


> Jim,

>

> Here are some threads about Andy Stephenson;

>

> Every DUFU thread since April 28th;

>

> www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=dummie

>

> All of the following Chat threads

>

> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1425289/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1424310/posts

> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1423092/posts

> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1422536/posts

> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1422004/posts

> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1421322/posts

>

> My copyright Material;

>

> www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1425289/posts?q=1&&page=101 -

> Post 117

>

> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1425289/posts?q=1&&page=101

> - Post 134

>

> It would really be a good idea for you to get onto this issue

> because, as I said, it is going to make a lot of people look foolish

> rather soon.

>

> Thanks for your time and attention!

>

> -Ben Burch

>

>

> On Jun 19, 2005, at 5:21 PM, Jim Robinson wrote:

>

>> Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. To the best of

>> my recollection, I've never heard of Andy Stephenson and wouldn't

>> know him from Adam. If someone has posted some of your material, I

>> will be happy to remove it if you can supply me with the URL where

>> the info is posted.

>>

>> Thanks,

>>

>> Jim

>>

>>

>> webmaster wrote:

>>

>>

>>> Gentlemen,

>>>

>>> I think it is now past time that you ask people to stop posting

>>> libel about the Andy Stephenson matter.

>>>

>>> None of the allegations being made by these people are true, and I

>>> am building a site addressing these lies; http://

>>> www.AndyThanksYou.com

>>>

>>> And I will be posting even more information in coming days that

>>> will address *every* question that has been asked.

>>>

>>> Some of the people who have been libeled say they intend to sue,

>>> (I don't presently intend to, BTW) and I would think it wise for

>>> you to get in front of this issue and shut it down.

>>>

>>> In addition, some material has been posted from my site to your

>>> board that is Copyright and which I have explicitly forbidden

>>> adaption or re-posting of. Please remove that material at least.

>>>

>>> Thank you very much!

>>>

>>> Sincerely,

>>>

>>> Ben Burch

>>> WhiteRoseSociety.org Webmaster

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

BenBurch 20:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To Ben: New section

Ben, thanks for coming to the page to talk. I appreciate it.

First, for ease of disussion, let's you and I talk in this section, and use the above section to add your evidence. That way you and I can speak without having to pore through evidence to find discussion.

You are a new user, so let me talk first about general WP policies. Please be patient here, because there is a learning curve, and it takes a while to work through many policies here:

  1. Wikipedia does not allow original research, or material based on original research. Sorry. Bringing in your own personal Website stuff, your e-mails, etc. is simply not allowed. Do not post it here, do not use it as source material. Period.
  2. You can't present material as fact just because someone said it is true -- even someone from, say, the New York Times or the LA Times. You can say "FR is alleged" to have done such and such, or "The New York Times alleges" or The New York Times quotes so-and-so who alleges,. You cannot say "FR did such and such." If you absolutely know it is true because you received an e-mail from Jim Robinson, see No. 1 above.
  3. Blogs and chat rooms and discussion forms are not allowed as source material, as they are highy unreliable. Exception: they are those owned by or written by the subject of the article. Barbra Streisand's blog can be used as source material in the Barbra Streisand article, but not on an article about Global Warming just because she has opinions about it. See the wisdom in that?

There are some flaws in your thinking here:

  • Famously really is a POV term -- usually. Elizabeth Taylor is famous; Andy doesn't even have an article on WP. He is hardly famous.
  • You have some personal investment in this Andy character and the FR thing. You have to show you can step back and work from a detached temperment.
  • Do not confuse what "FR members post" with what "FR does." The two are not equal.
  • Just because something personally offends you doesn't make it notable. See your comment about picking on a sick man, or somesuch comment above.
  • As you have had disputes with FR in the past, and are actually the subject of some of the disputes, I would think it best that you recuse yourself from this article, at least until you can cool down. Come visit the page and drop off evidence, and let others sort through it.
  • Work on other articles here, too -- that way your only contribution here is not some personal stuff in your own life which you want to "put on the record". This is not the place for people getting their own sides of disputes on the record.
  • Oh, one more item: FR does not provide "coverage" of a subject. That's what a new organization does. FR is a chat forum, with a few activist chapters. It's quite marginal, sometimes notable, often not. What posters say there is not notable, hardly ever.
Thanks for the grin, you are right, a lot of what people say is not notable...on or off FR. Dominick 22:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Even here! paul klenk talk

One more challenge for BenBurch

Start an Andy Stephenson article here at WP. This will be a good exercise for you, as other editors will take a look and see if it is, in fact, notable. The whole WP community will have an opportunity to decide 1] is he notable, and 2] is your material worth anything. Once you can get it in its own article, it may be easier for you to bring it into this one.

paul klenk talk 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


Plan to when I have a week or so to spare. It would be a long article and would require research BenBurch 00:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

FR

This discussion is copied from Stevie's talk page.

Stevie, would you please participate in the discussion at the FR talk page? There is a mild edit war breaking out, and we want to work together as editors to avoid that. Hope to see you there. paul klenk talk 21:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I was merely restoring the neutral text. I don't have the time today for discussion on this topic. I'm out of legal reversions, so my work is done for the next 24 hours. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 21:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, whether the text is neutral is a matter of your opinion. That's why we have talk pages -- so we can talk about it together. When you do have time, please weigh in there. It is an important part of the process. Reverting without discussion is not always very helpful. paul klenk talk 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
My position is to monitor for compliance with factuality. As long as it doesn't stray from that, we're good. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 21:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Purported factuality does not necessarily rise to notability, and the community should talk together to discuss it. I'm not good with taking time to pop in and revert edits, but not taking time to discuss them with fellow editors. We work in collaboration here; not participating in that is anti-collaborative. I realize today you do not have time, but do please stop by in the future. paul klenk talk 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
There are different approaches to collaboration. I have my own methods for working in the Wikipedia, sometimes the way you see it, sometimes taking a different, yet legal approach. Whatever ensures factuality is what I go after. I will not have others decide for me how I am to operate. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 21:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, it appears you have time for this discussion after all. After this post, I am copying this discussion to the FR talk page. I do appreciate individual styles, but actually the community decides how we operate on a number of issues; we do not have full reign to pick a personal approach. It isn't enough to worry about what is "legal" -- the goal is not to merely avoid breaking a rule or getting blocked. The goal is a community of editors working together. That is one aspect of WP which you do not have the personal option to disregard. One cannot disregard discussions about disputed content on talk pages if one chooses to edit that content. I will look at the text you re-added in light of your stated reasons, and give my opinions on the talk page.

A motive betrayed?

Please note Stevie's comment:

I'm out of legal reversions, so my work is done for the next 24 hours. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 21:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me our work at this page should rise to level higher than "getting in our three reverts a day." Others, what do you think? paul klenk talk 22:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Just a reminder, but WP:3RR does not apply to correction of simple vandalism — and anons who blank article text without comment generally qualify as vandals. - jredmond 23:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
It is highly subjective. Vandalism should not be confused with content dispute, and anonymous editors have the same right to edit as logged in users. Everyone has the right to remove disputed material. What is a propos in Stevie's statement is his preoccupation with legal reversions as the sum and substance of his work. The word "legal" is what betrayed his motive (plus his refusal to discuss it with fellow editors on this page). If he were asserting that something was vandalism, he would not have needed to use the word legal. paul klenk talk 23:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
It can be viewed as "blanking out" vandalism (esp. since no explanation was provided) or as censorship of relevant content. Either way, it's wrong. Reverts in both these instances are normal and justified in the Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 02:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The term NPoV is the standard, not "getting back" at FR using Wikipedia as a club. I think from this thread [4] the coordination of attacks on the PoV here is reprehensible. Lots of sock puppets, I would love to see one act of blanking vandalism get a 24 hour ban, like other pages get. I would like consensus respected which we did talk about here, while he claims that consensus cant remove material. Well, NPoV must be respected this is a toppolicy. If the matrial is that important make a page about it and link it from somewhere, and prepare to be edited mercilessly. Dominick 22:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, I could not agree more. This is reducing this site to a political discussion group.

I'm a new user, but a long time Wiki-phile incident caused me to sign up. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a retribution site. I personally believe the Andy Stephenson paragraph is not necessary. It’s not a central tenet to the forums’ TOS and was an isolated incident in a long (somewhat) history of the discussions. The other part that is troublesome is that it was not isolated to this site – it was discussed on many sites; and a lot of the information seems to be politically motivated mixed with conjecture and questionable data, at least from my observations throughout the day. I agree that an Andy Stephenson talk page may be an answer, but it will only serve as another battleground for the political zealots that habit these types of sites. I hate to see the Wiki dragged down to this level. Just my $.02 --DBirch 23:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Made a few more PoV fixes. Read and edit please Dominick 23:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Edits seem fine, Dominick, I'm happy with the present paragraph. BenBurch 00:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Typical conservative behavior to play all these silly games (i.e., this is the only talk I've seen in the Wikipedia where user talks are moved for vindictive purposes). Anyway, my only motive is moving the text toward factuality. That's my M.O. *everywhere* in the Wikipedia. Always has been, always will. If the text isn't fully factual yet, then revise it toward that end! Don't raise "discussions" on the pretense that you want to deny the appropriate inclusion of pertinent facts. (In other words, don't act like conservatives. hehe)

I have no issue with the text being perfected beyond where it's at now. But removing it is basically censorship of a significant event that ties FR and DU together. If it's not mentioned here, it will get placed somewhere else, like in a new Andy Stephenson article or in the DU article. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 02:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Stevie, I do not play games. Discuss the content with your fellow editors. Right now, the paragraph is junk: completely non-encyclopedic. One does not perfect junk; one gets rid of it. paul klenk talk 02:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Nope. It's facts that are inconvenient to your viewpoint. Tough. But in the spirit of NPOV, editors should be responsible to ensure that the text reflects "all sides of the story" to ensure balance. But with recent changes, it already appears like it's becoming rather balanced.
I also wanted to note that my reverts were simply anti-censorship reverts... that is, the content needed to stay, and be revised to achieve balance, rather than ripping it out. And reverts are normally used to defend against censorship of material. I offer no apology for what I did. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 02:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The question I have here is WHY do the proponents of Free Republic want to have this event expunged from their history? That seems rather Soviet to me, and not what I would expect from an American Conservative. Would any of you care to comment on this? The present entry is better sourced than most of what you will find in this article as a whole, absolutely happened, and it seems to me that you ought to be proud of what you accomplished here? The included sources are the direct words of FR members and two published journalistic works. Others can be provided if you want some more documentation, but I've already been told not to "pile on". BenBurch 03:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It isn't a significant part of either the popular culture about FR, or is not big part of the focus of FR. Jim Robinson doesn't even know about this, and he watches FR like a hawk. I think you all are the ones having the problem, I went against consensus, included this paragraph, for two of you over eight others, and still you want more.
As the email above proves, Jim Robinson certainly was told about this, and PRETENDED not to be able to see it. BenBurch 12:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I looked at the new edits. Paypal's actions don't have much to do with FR or any delay. Paypal does this a lot to people raising money, if you start a charity, do not use Paypal. Paypal is good for payment for goods, it is not to be used for donations, and they tell you that. A quick Google bears this out. FR didn't influence this at all, IMHO. If you want to make more detail on this start a Andy page. This minor incident has taken up too much time.Dominick 09:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Dominick, Actually, yes, Paypal was totally material to the delay. Here is what happened; The $50,000 was raised, and the checks were cut and sent to Johns Hopkins. They were lost in the mail room, being buried on the desk of the mail room supervisor. As a result, the Hospital was going to cancel the surgery. Friends of Andy who worked at the hospital intervened, and the hospital agreed that if they could be shown that Andy had raised the money, the surgery would go ahead as scheduled. When Andy went to log onto his Paypal to prove this to him, it had been locked due to abuse complaints. We know that FR members claimed to have been filing these abuse complaints. Because he could not get into his Paypal account at that critical time, due to the complaints that were filed, the hospital cancelled the surgery and he lost his surgical slot. The checks were found in the mail room late on the day the surgery was supposed to have happened, but well after it was too late to do a damned thing about it. So, the paypal issue caused the delay DIRECTLY. We also know from conversations with the Medicaid people that a person called them and claimed that Andy had raised several hundred thousand dollars on his fundraiser, and that he was therefore not qualified for Medicaid. This is why the Medicaid was cut off. We were finally able to prove to Medicaid that this was just not true and they did restore his benefits prior to his final hospitalization, but Andy had to go without effective pain medication for nearly two weeks as a result of these "helpful" people. These same people (and the discussion is on FR) sent him a registered telegram while he was in the recovery room after his surgery in an attempt to prove that he wasn't in fact there. These same people called the Washington Secretary of State's office alleging that he had run a fraudulent fundraiser. These same people sent him a letter while he was in Virginia Mason medical center detailing the legal actions they planned to take against him for the alleged fraud of him raising money for his operation. It wasn't enough that he was in terrible pain and dying, but they had to put down the screws to make him even more miserable. BenBurch 12:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
His actions have nothing to do with this article. You may suspect FR members were filing thse complaints, or not, but, Paypal shuts down anything in a heartbeat if it has nothing to do with Ebay. They exist to support Ebay now. His fundraiser directly shut down his medicaid, not FR. Again, this is a minor thing, not directly attibutable to FR, nothing on FR says hey lets all coordinate calls to Medicaid and Paypal. No matter how you would like to attach this here, you are making the opposite case with me. Dominick 12:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Missing Lead

And on a different issue altogether-- where's the lead sentence for this article? You know, like "Free Republic is a ..." ? -- Mwanner | Talk 00:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

    • I was in the middle of complaining about that when you posted. Yes, add a lead in. It's not clear what Free Republic is without the lead in... it just jumps right into an arcane topic discussion.--Isotope23 00:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


It's there... looks like the 'vandalism plea' is improperly formatted and causing the lead to be commented out. Will fix. --CBDunkerson 00:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

mea culpa mea culpa I stuck that in there. Dominick 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many activist blogs

We need to resource a lot of things here, too many activist blogs, need to be replaced by other ources. Dominick 01:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

May I blow off steam?

Ben Burch on DU: 

Just remember that is what we are up against here. Neo-Stalinists. They are not conservatives- That is a smoke screen for
the Sheeple. [5]

OK now that we have figured out the PoV of Mr Burch, perhaps we can stop using this thread to attack this entry in Wikipedia. Comrade Dominick, Орден Ленина), 22:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote to remove Andy Stephenson section

I would like to propose these conditions to form consensus. You may use no more than 100 characters. Keep it on topic and to the point. SIGN IT. Bold your vote then explain it in approx one sentence. Anything more will be removed. If you have more to add, put it someplace else. Lets put this to bed or make this work. Dominick 12:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I think we have a pretty clear consensus. Lets leave this up for a while in case there are new votes. Some of you guys went over 100 chars, so remind me send you to Siberia later. Dominick 12:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete We went round and round, and gave it a chance, I can see there is nothing directly linking it to FR, and isn't a notable FR story. Dominick 12:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete A statement used as "payback" doesn't belong; no proof Robinson condoned or even knew about the posts until brought to his attention.--DBirch 15:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, non-encycloepedic junk. paul klenk talk 16:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As evidence provides, the originator of this section is using it as payback against an opposing form, and including it does nothing but to make this community a war-turf for political partisans. InvictusNox 21:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There is evidence that the people who keep posting this are using it as a payback against FR and it does nothing to further information about Free Republic. Philo-nero 03:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Partisan bickering and flame wars don't belong here. WCC 03:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. You can run from the truth, but it will find you. BenBurch 03:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Because it provides more insight about FR's "special" relationship with DU (more like an ongoing feud--let's be honest). (Note: the rules placed upon this vote are arbitrary and unWiki.) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 03:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

OH clild please! It seems that consensus is very wiki, as this was such an insignificant thing as to totally escape the notice of a lot of people at FR. FR people are laughing at DU people, thats not a fued. Dominick 12:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment/No Consensus I don't know or care where the random voters came from, but most of the Delete votes are from hit-and-run users, probably meat puppets. Witness editcounts. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems consensus is evident despite two late votes.Dominick 12:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

moved extraneous junk... If you are looking for sockpuppets do it somewhere else. Anonymous users can edit this article and I think consensus is clear among logged in users, thanks. Dominick 01:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

User's fifth edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
User's first edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
User's second edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
How or why is my edit count important? --DBirch 01:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
User's third edit, preceeded only by calling the subject of this vote vandalism on VIP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

$72,000 and etc.

I want to edit a paragraph here to make a factual correction. I didn't do this immediately because my PoV would immediately be questioned.

The current Freepathon (October 2005) is requesting $72,000 for the next three months. This is in addition to the regular monthly donations from its members, and the relatively minor income from sales of Free Republic-branded merchandise.

This is factually incorrect. The $72,000 includes the regular monthly donations and is specifically not an additional sum. Also, there are no officially branded items for purchase. Some independents have created FR related items and have opted to donate the proceeds of those sales to the site, but there is no official merchandise and no official contract. Those proceeds, as far as I am aware, are made as donations during the quarterly drive. Therefore, they should also be included in the $72,000 figure.

But, what's the point of making this statement anyway? The website costs money to run. It's a very popular website (PDF link to comScore marketting research.) There's some [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497498/posts controversy] surrounding the site's funding, and arguments are made against the site based on these false notions.

Also, the term Freeploader is very unattractive and is certainly not part of any official lexicon of the site. It isn't used frequently, but when it is I wince. I wish people wouldn't use it.

John C. Robinson 07:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for joining us here. I can't see any controversy in that, so make the changes. Lets put in just what you said, Freeploader is not official and is discouraged. Dominick 11:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I have asked John C. Robinson a series of questions regarding the budget and membership-distributions of Free Republic LLC on his talk page. I believe the answers, if relevent, would be useful to include in the article if we could get outside verification, which I will get cracking on this afternoon. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
No original research is allowed on Wikipedia. I think asking him about the budget crosses that line. Notable people do not get accounts here to give interviews. I think putting those questions on his talk page isn't the way we should do things here. If they have something on the FR site, or there was a document released, then by all means grab that info and post it, if it sustains the article. Dominick 16:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
"if we could get outside verification" Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Read above for why the term Freeloader was removed, please don't revert so quickly before reading. I was more objecting to putting questions like that on JR's talk page, the tone was like you were doing original research. Dominick 17:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Your change to Freeploader or whatever was entirely innapropraite. If it is depreciated, that's fine. You will still need to give what it meant in the past. I included in my edit that it was "not part of any official lexicon of the site." Additionally, your blind reversion reinserted an old blanking vandalim that I had corrected. Please do not blind revert the article again. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
You reverted the vandalism before I could fix the term, read this section and see why the term was changed. I agree the section you replaced should not have been removed. I do think your total revert of the edits my made were incorrect.
Perhaps you would like to rewrite my edits of that section, and make them match this talk page, that was my intent. Dominick 18:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I did not revert the totality of your edits. I removed the term depreciation, and inserted the description above - that it is not part of the "official lexicon." If the term is depreciated, it was once part of the lexicon, but it is no longer. Is that accurate? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Rotated the term a little, and added pejorative. look OK? Dominick 18:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

IN RE Original research: to John C. and Hipocrite

I don't think it's a big problem that Hipocrite is interviewing John for to get some facts for this article. However, I can understand why it could be construed as original research.

If Hipocrite were to log in to Free Republic and copy and continue his interview there, Robinson's words would then be part of the record at FR, and would be fair game for this article.

paul klenk talk 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course, that would then make Hipocrite a Freeper, and might completely destroy any credibility in the eyes of some Wikipedians! LOL!  ;-) Just kidding, Hip. paul klenk talk 18:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the benefit of asking the questions I asked on FR. As a new user, I doubt I would get taken seriously. The article here stands fine without the questions answered. If it turns out that no money was flowing to the LLC members, that's a fact worth including as a rebuttal to the questioners about appropriate fund spending. Honestly, I didn't know the first thing about Free Republic's budget before I read that talk page post, but given that they are open about their finances, it should be trivial to get rid of the hanging accusation in the first paragraph. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The benefit is, because it would appear on an outside site, on FR itself -- the subject of the article -- and because it would be between you and John, it would be less easily construed as original research. The FR thread could be added as a source in the article (as it is for other material in the article). And I'm sure you would be treated very nicely as John's guest; if he knew you were meeting him there under a predetermined handle, you wouldn't be mistaken for an outsider, troll, or mere newbie. He would treat you as well as he treats you here. I do think it is remarkable and laudable of John to log in here as himself and be so forthright answering questions. You two have covered a lot of ground. Perhaps at the FR site, Jim Robinson would agree to do the same. paul klenk talk 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
OK I just didn't want to see us play "bite the Newbie" in Mr. Robinson the younger. I am sure he has planty to contribute in a lot of areas at Wikipedia not related to FR. Dominick 19:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The intent of WP:NOR is to fend of people's goofball scientific or theological theories. That said, it's certainly a very good standard to apply even when the theory is not quite so goofball. I don't know if it could be construed to exclude interviewing someone for an article or not. This would be an interesting question to raise higher up. Jdavidb (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyway to fix this?

I'm looking at the article and I can't help but notice this:

[i]It is also worth noting that Jim Robinson, [b]who now quickly bans from the forum anyone who speaks disparagingly of the current administration[/b], said of George W. Bush on August 20, 1999:[/i]

Apart from being arguably untrue (see the Schiavo controversy, the Miers controversy, the border security controversy, etc., etc., etc), it's clearly the POV of someone who probably has an agenda against FR. Also, the quote which follows seems to be based in bitterness that Robinson's preferred candidate (Alan Keyes) didn't win in the 2000 primaries, so I doubt the relevance of it.


Well, we can discuss it. Would you care to sign your name this time, though? It is a properly attributed and properly cited quote that I think says a lot about the changes in FR in the last six years. But if you cannot sign your comments, I don't think we can go much further. BenBurch 03:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I made some changes to that to give a more neutral POV, comments, please. BenBurch 05:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Editors: Please review this thread from FR

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501360/posts

Looks like some people intend to break the rules to control the message here... BenBurch 05:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Find one editor in that FR thread. However on http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4968220 you are figured promentantly. Dominick 09:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Look at all the IP users attacking long-agreed parts of this entry, Dominick... Not brave enough to make themselves known, they intend to attack editors OTHER entries so that we will give up on this one;

From that FR thread; 

"A few words of advice- Be persistent. Be patient. Be aware that most of the
Wikipedia nazis with time on their hands are lunatic liberals masquerading as
reasonable people. If you can't reason with them, you can make it very difficult
for them to propogandize by going after their other articles and contributions.
If you have access to more than one terminal, spread things around a bit since
the IP address is recorded and leaves a trail for them to go after your articles
in like manner. However, since most of us have a life beyond posting and,
therefore, have fewer articles and modifications to trace, they can eventually
be worn down since they have far more to lose in their work than we do in ours."

BenBurch 16:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

We had the same exact problem after YOU did it on DU! I don't agree with it, but you will not find FR people who are on wikipedia doing this. Dominick 16:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhh, the infamous hypocrisy of the DU. I'm no friend of Free Republic, but pulling this out after the debacle with the DU thread above is just hilarious. Rogue 9 02:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Mission Statement Formatting

Dominick... That sort of quoting is just ugly. Is these some better way to get that on here that would look decent? BenBurch 17:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The content is uglier than the formatting. --goethean ॐ 17:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the box needs to go. Wikipedia says to use <blockquote>
That's within articles, not on discussion pages. --goethean ॐ 17:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
This was about the Article, not the discussion page. glocks out 16:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah...I realize now that I was confused. Sorry! --goethean ॐ 17:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I fixed the box. Looks looks better moved up a bit, thanks for the comment.
I am willing to work with anyone who wants to improve the article. If someone wants to insert PoV, you should go elsewhere. I think every single FR user would leave this alone, if they thought they were getting a fair shake. Ben you admitted you wanted to strike back at FR here that doesn't belong at Wikipedia. The PoV comment that the content is ugly is extraneous rubbish and doesn't belong here either.
If you want to have Wikipedia treated like a reliable source for information, and you feel your personal cause is just, then you should have no problem laying out the facts, in NPoV format, and prioritizing them to make the article coherent. If you want to use Wikipedia like a club, to bash your enemies, and this goes for my fellow conservatives, then you are in the wrong place.. Dominick 18:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Some people feel bashed by the NPOV facts, it seem, or so that FR thread seems to show BenBurch 18:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks like we have the same thing from clown posse. Is this what you want Wikipedia to be? Now we have PoV editors coming from either side. If you can't twist something, they want to destroy it, from either side. Dominick 18:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Nope, not what I want it to be at all! But then I didn't post that request for vandalism on FR, either. CP seems to have found THAT and that is why they are here now. BTW, this was just supposed to be a section about improving the formatting of the page, an IMPROVEMENT I wanted to make. (And thank you for doing it.) BenBurch 18:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Salaries:

"Jim and Amy are compensated for their time."[6] Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no salaries drawn on FR budget. You asked John Robinson yourself, and no line items are on the webpage. You have to show in the budget that time was compensated for or you can't say that! If you have a primary source that says that, then put it in. Otherwise, it is hearsay. Pulling a living out isn't the same thing, as a salary. 15:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dominick (talk • contribs) 15:41, 17 October 2005.
Please sign your posts. Hearsay is perfectly allowable. I agree that "salary" was too strong, so I wrote exactly what was quoted. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see a problem with the word salaries here. Defined as, a "[f]ixed compensation for services, paid to a person on a regular basis," as written in the dictionary, it seems a perfect fit. "Compensation for time" also fits, but is more vague--perhaps a more useful alternative only because there has been no authoritive definition to date (no, I'm certainly not an authoritive source, more knowledgable, perhaps.)
For reference, the administrative line item of the budget allocates funds for the purpose of compensation, of which Jim Robinson and "JustAmy" Amy each receive a fixed portion. I opined that this particular line item should state that purpose more clearly (who receives the funds) but also noted the budget, as written, is a "high-level overview" wherein naming entities would be unusual. John C. Robinson 16:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, I five tilde-ed it, in my excitment. Two people drawing quarterly a small compensation shouldn't be considered a salary. If I got 72k quarterly to run the business I do now, I would be very very unhappy. I understand Jim Robinson could be considered to draw a salary, and in fact there isn't a problem with that. The 9k figure for administration would be 40k a year give or take, and that to me is casual labor-type pay. Dominick 17:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm totally indifferent to the language, but 9x12 = 108. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Quraterly donations of 72k, and the monthly budget was 9k, of course. Mea culpa! Dominick 01:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Jim Robinson page?

Shall I go for a RfU on the page? We are collecting more Jim Robinson stuff, and moving that there, would better focus the FR page. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 09:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think so. Jim Robinson seems to be a topic of his own, given the amount of information people want to post about him. Personally I don't see why the guy is that important, but I suppose he passes the threshold of notability given the popularity (or notoriaty, whichever you prefer) of the site he created. If there is going to be a lot of info I'd rather it be there than here. So as far as I'm concerned, have at it. Holdek (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The threshold seems to rise and fall. I am just asking, liberal or conservative, lemon or lime, less filing or taste great, I figured this is the place to ask. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 23:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hate Filters

From the article text:

The site is blocked by several leading child-protection filters due to allegations of hate speech regarding certain groups of people, such as liberals, homosexuals, and Muslims.

Is any of this true? Where is the documentation? John C. Robinson 17:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a good question. It's definately plausable, but I'd like to see documentation as well. Otherwise, it should probably read "The site has recieved criticism for allegations of hate speach..."--Holdek (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Where is the documentation for any of your claims in the article?--Sortenos 13:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
When I worked at a large defense contractor, FR was blocked. I don't know if it was due to time spent there, or due to liberal perceptions of hate speech. I think the problem is assuming we know WHY the site is blocked. They also blocked NASCAR.com, and I know that was because many guys followed NASCAR, not because mostly white people attend races. (thats tongue in cheek humor there....) I think it should be removed, it lends credence to the myth that FR promotes racist speech, which it does not. It seems to be in there only to promote a PoV that FR is a racist site. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 13:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll make an edit. Holdek (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, with the generalization and passive voice the paragraph is now devoid of content. Returning a specific actor making the accusation would be useful, provided it is better documented than what has been already replaced. Maybe an external link to a Salon or even DU article critical of the "hate speech" would pep it up. Also, I feel "hate speech" when used has connotations that imply something far more sinister than the common bigotry it is meant to describe here. To me, "hate speech" conjures up an image of klan members and similar vulgarities. That's a useful label to stick on something you don't like for the sake of vilification, and hence, I feel it is PoV. It's also cliché. John C. Robinson 21:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted it more than once from "hate speech" to "hateful speech," and I'll do it again. As for the rest of it, we have many links already documenting what people consider to be offensive content on Free Republic, but feel free to add your own if you are so inclined.--Holdek (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Homosexual or Gay?

The site's software empowers its users to maintain ad hoc keywords. The users of the site have chosen the keyword "homosexualagenda" to index articles in reference to what they consider a "homosexual agenda". This "homosexualagenda" keyword frequently makes the top 25 popular keywords. The keyword "gayagenda" does not make this list. Clearly, the article text is referencing what "members consider to be 'the homosexual agenda'." What reasons do editors here have for continually changing this to "gay agenda" when, IMHO, "homosexual agenda" is clearly a better choice? John C. Robinson 06:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Homosexual is NPoV, and is the more common use among conservatives. Holdek should respond. Lets give him a little time. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 13:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Holdek keeps changing this to the "Gay" Agenda despite the fact that Free Republic is explicit in using the term the "Homosexual" agenda

When I go into Free Republic and enter in "gay agenda" in the search field, I get several results. I enter in "homosexual agenda" and I get nothing. Holdek (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The site's default search looks at recent (30ish days) original headlines as published by newspapers. The news doesn't commonly use that term, so you won't find many picks. The Freepers, OTOH, use "homosexual agenda" in common language as evidenced by the "Popular Keywords" featured on the upper right sidebar of the search form, etc. Freepers have tagged nearly 9,000 articles with that term (adding roughly 15ish a day.) [www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=homosexualagenda] By comparison, "gay agenda" has just about 400 articles. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=gayagenda] Should that not sway you, consult Google:
Results 1 - 10 of about 53,900 from freerepublic.com for "homosexual agenda" OR homosexualagenda. [7]
Results 1 - 10 of about 440 from freerepublic.com for "gay agenda" OR gayagenda. [8]
John C. Robinson 21:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I suppose either will work, as "gayagenda" is used as a keyword and is frequently used in comments. Then again Freepers like to use words like "homos" and "sodomizers" and "perverts" often as well. Nonetheless I suppose either "gay" or "homosexual" agenda will work, and won't object if you choose to change it to "homosexual." Thank you for presenting your case in good evidence-based fashion. --Holdek (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


RE: "Nonetheless I suppose either "gay" or "homosexual" agenda will work, and won't object if you choose to change it to "homosexual.""


No kidding. I'm not the first otherwise conservative (pro-gun, pro-WOT, anti-abortion) FReeper to get banned from the site for refusing to go along with the common assumption of most FReepers that homosexuals are evil criminals and that their God gives them the right to persecute gays by force of law (oddly enough, the same opinion of the Muslim zealots we fight in the WOT). I doubt I will be the last. 

         --An angry former FReeper.

Free Republic Action Alert vs. Wikipedia

I moved this to the talk page from the article:

On 31 December 2005, a Free Republic Action Alert was distributed calling for a coordinated attack against several Wikipedia articles (George W. Bush, Abortion, and Kwanza) specifically calling for far-right POV vandalism with tips on how to evade detection. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] user:HopeSeekr of xMule 15:31, December 31, 2005

This stuff shouldn't be in the article because of WP:ASR --rogerd 20:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe instead of baiting the freepers, you should just let it go. BlueGoose 19:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

what happned?

a while ago I posted a linking proving that freepers use bots to scew with polls.

why was it removed?

grazon 04:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If I read the history log correctly you posted information about someone posting information about Wikipedia. That was a violation of the principle of "avoid self reference" WP:ASR. Second, It wasn't particularly noteworthy. Third, if you read the thread you'll see that the guy who posted it is not a Free Republic regular, but rather an anti-Wikipedia troll, and his proposal met with little support. If you want to find an example of "Freeping" there are much better ones available. -Will Beback 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Influencing polls

WP:ASR specifically says: "If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia." After Holdek again reverted that quotation I have used Wikipedia as an example in that subsection, which should suffice to justify a mention of Wikipedia.Cyberevil 02:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There's way more than a "mention" of the matter. Also, to say that "Free Republic plans to" implies that it is an agreed upon course of action, rather than a single, non-regular poster. -Will Beback 03:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Where in the particular subsection do you find the line "Free Republic plans to"? Please don't just revert without verifying contents. Thank you! Cyberevil 04:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, several versions of this have ben added recently. So why do we need to actually quote, at length, the posting? -Will Beback 05:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
First of all, the information you continue to put back in the article has nothing to do with influencing polls, since Wikipedia is not a poll. Second, I see no reason to insert non-notable information in the article, which seems to have the sole purpose of making Wikipedia editors hostile toward Free Republic. --Holdek (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Holdek, please read WP:3RR before doing any further reverts of this article. It is not okay to simply put an article into a form you wish it to be, without consulting with your fellow editors. Thank you! Cyberevil 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
There has been discussion about this article for days (regarding this topic). It seems that you have ignored it. Holdek (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The only reason people are mentioning the action alert in this article is because it has to do with Wikipedia. It's not big news, there is no need to mention every silly rant on Free Republic in this article. Rhobite 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I would like to have it in there because it exemplifies Free Republic's politics in its very own words. Cyberevil 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
That may be so, but Wikipedia operates on consensus, and a significant number of editors disagree that this is a good example of FP's politics. -Will Beback 06:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Maybe it would if it had something to do with Freeping a poll. Holdek (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I keep seeing reverts to a version of this section that has "administrators" running the poll-freepings, wiki invasions, and whatnot. The threads linked to to support this have no administrators doing any such thing, hence me changing it to "members." I'll have to look even harder to see if any members even give tips on avoiding detection and whatnot (and until I determine that they aren't, I'll leave it the way it is), but no administrators show up on any of the threads cited. So would the anonymous user who keeps reverting point me to the post number on the threads cited where an administrator gets involved, or stop reverting? That would be greeeaaaat. Thanks a bunch, Peter. (sips coffee) Gordongekko909 01:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim Robinson quote

This sounds suspiciously like original research to me. Why is this particular quote notable, and who consideres it notable. DTC 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

LOTS of people find it notable [9] BenBurch 01:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

288 referecnes on the google link, and all of them are from other boards? This hardly reaches the standard for notability and inclusion. DTC 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. BenBurch 20:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)+

You disagree with the idea that this quote is not notable? Explain, because based on what I have seen here, there is no notability in this quote, only an attempt poison the well with its use. DTC 15:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures at rallies

There needs to be some documentation that the pictures of signs containing grammar and spelling mistakes are from Freeps. --Holdek (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What documentation would you like? The people who took them said at the time that they were at freep rallys. Should they have photocopied the passports? BenBurch 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you need to post a link to a source that says so. I'm not going to just take your word for it. --Holdek (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, when you revert something like this, do not misrepresent the type of edit you are making. It is not a minor edit. --Holdek (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, minor comes up by default in my browser, and I have to remember to turn it off. BenBurch 22:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, reverted with the minor tag turned off. Also, added yet another picture even you could not argue with. Do not revert that one unless you have some other basis to do so. BenBurch 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This picture in isolation is not notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. It needs to be established that it happens often. You can pick singular instances like this out of anything. If you can prove that the other two photos are from Freeps, I think you have justification for keeping this section in because it establishes a clear pattern. --Holdek (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good, I'll link to about six more of them. I consider your edits to be vandalism, as you change your reasons each and every time you revert my edits. It is obvious you simply do not want this fact established in this article. BenBurch 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My reason has remained the same every time: because the implication of the photographs that you are posting are that a significant number of Freepers are uneducated, and this is a controversial implication, you must provide some sort of evidence that these photos are specifically from Freeps. You have done that for one, which by the very definition of a pattern is not a sufficient number to establish one. The additional photos you linked to do not help your argument because they are devoid of evidence that they are specifically from Freeps.
You need to post some proof. Although the photos are funny, this is an encylopedia. The quality of the article needs to remain high for it to be considered accurate and serious. Thank you. --Holdek (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously no proof would be good enough for you, though, right? I got many of these by copying links from users posts on free republic. Say what proof you want and what format you want it in. I warn you though, that elaboration of that sort would make an ugly entry in the encyclopedia, and not what anybody would choose from stylistic point of view. Your bias against facts you know to be accurate is unwholesome. BenBurch 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

For starters, just provide SOME evidence, ANY evidence at all! Maybe provide a link to the posts on Free Republic that linked to the photos, if they said "This is from our recent Freep" or whatever. This is an ENCYLOPEDIA. You need sourcing for controversial entries. Please try to understand that. --Holdek (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Please work out your differences here on the talk page, and remember to follow the rules. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting this page. It seems that there are many people coming in from anonymous IPs (or maybe just one person using multiple IPs) trying to use the article to further their political viewpoint. Folks, if you want to make significant or controversial changes to the article, you need to discuss it with other editors on the talk page. Remember, this is a collaberative project. Thanks! --Holdek (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
LOL! That's it? Someone keeps insisting on posting about that "Get a Brain! Morans" sign? I've heard that particular sign was a photoshop. Anyway, we can take it. WinOne4TheGipper 22:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, the sign and others like it are the real thing. The issue as far as I'm concerned has not been the veracity of the sign, but rather if it is specific to a Freep. Holdek (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Correct. The original of that picture was real, but it has been used IN numerous photoshops, placing the Morans Man in several other venues and changing his face to other well-known faces. And I will not put the verbiage back until I have time to document the provenience of the images. BenBurch 00:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The reason for posting here is to help a bit because this thing has gone way out of hand. Even though I know Ben it is a reply given the current dilemma and I try to remain neutral.
The original was taken at St. Charles, MO at the Boeing factory ( Sources: [10] Fark.com clichés and many more ) and was published by the St. Louis Independent Media Center ( http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/981/index.php ). There are two problems though:
1) the original site has deleted the image (see URL above), however the DU copy is a copy of the original ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/morans.jpg )
2) I think that this is the point in favor of Holdek (I'm sorry Ben), we do not know the author of the picture who has the copyright and since stlimc.org no longer has it online it is unlikely that they know it. So it is currently a copyrighted image and doesn't fall into a fair use category.
So in short I think that unless Ben can trace the copyright holder the image is not acceptable for wikipedia since it is protected by copyright and is not allowed to copied (even though there are 1000s of copies on the internet and most sites use a broader definition of fair use as far as image inclusion). Dr Debug 01:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Debug - That's exactly why I merely referenced an external version rather than copying the image into Wiki. BenBurch 13:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
(too much indention)Ben, it still leaves many questions about that picture unanswered, because the photographer, the guy in the picture etc. are unknown and external linking doesn't make it a verifiable image, because the other sites use that picture because it is within fair use unless the copyright holder identifies him/herself and objects.
I am not trying to make a judgement whether or not your statement should be included, but even though the Morans picture is widespread, it is also very unclear and unverifiable. So if you want to discuss inclusion it might be better to focus on verifiable pictures and be slightly more neutral instead of making a broad statement.
How about: "Often these signs are lampooned by liberal bloggers like the "Providense" sign that was brought to the Free Republic protest against Cindy Sheehan at Crawford, Texas in August, 2005." [11]
In that case the source of the material is identified, attributed, issues about the image can be directly asked to the photographer and it even has a Creative Commons License. Dr Debug 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Unprotected. Please try not to edit war, resolve your differences and move on. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ya know, it'd be a whole lot easier on all of us if we could set up a virtual boxing ring every time a Vandal came along.:)--WinOne4TheGipper 22:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia being freeped?

As can be easily seen, this article is frequented by many users who have views that are very distinct from what would be the consensus among average wikipedians. This happens to be the case with many articles that are of particular interest to certain groups: military subjects and military personnel, political groups and their supporters, and pedophilia and pedophiles, most notably: NAMBLA. Any idea how to deal with the resulting problem that wikipedia articles tend to show certain things in a different light from what would be the case if certain interest groups did not use wikipedia to make their point? 84.59.117.44 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As I stated at the other article, could you be more specific about the problems? I am interested in systematic bias, and would be interested to discuss it more with you to find possible solutions. --DanielCD 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Did I have a comment removed from this section? I recall pointing out that the Wikipedian editing process is the solution to this problem. GABaker 03:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)GABaker 22:55, 30 January 2006
What is an "average wikipedian" view? Tbeatty 20:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Provenence

I would like the "except for questions of provenence" part of the article deleted. Not only were questions of provenience raised, but also of forgery, meddling by the DNC, and media-sponsored character assasination. CBS's investigation and pull of the article only preempted those questions from getting a sizable audience. S7rugg1e

Retitle section on lawusits to "Copyright and Fair-Use"

It seems that a better titles would be "Copyright and Fair-Use" as the lawsuit was only tangential to the outcome and their was only one lawsuit mentioned. Essentially FR has set the standard for excerpting articles on Websites and Blogs and has become the defacto policy. Tbeatty 20:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Online Polls

I matched the wording t othe wording for Democratic Underground. I don't particularly care what the wording is, but it should match for NPOV. One site doesn't do more poll manipulation than the other. I tried to put FR wording on DU, but that was considered more derogatory for DU, so I put DUs wording on FR. Either way, they should be the same. Tbeatty 21:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

User:200.122.158.40 you have reverted twice without discussing why you think your old non-neutral POV should stand. It is vandalism to revert without discussing. Please stop. We have consensus wording from the Democratic Underground page (and it should be consistent across all articles that describe this practice. It is not plagiarism to arrive at consensus wording (considering I edited them both) and the differences are enough that they are not identical (for example, the term "freeping" is only a Free Republic term. Tbeatty 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't accuse other users of vandalizing articles if they are trying to make good-faith contributions to the encyclopedia. User:200.122.158.40's contributions to this article are coherent. You may think there is a better, more neutral way to phrase the section, but that doesn't make his contributions vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information about what is and isn't vandalism. According to that page, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Although edit summaries and discussion are always preferable, there is no Wikipedia rule which says that "it is vandalism to revert without discussing." Please do not misrepresent Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Rhobite 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
No, this user reverted to a previous version without discussion or consensus and he left a message on my talk page that was reverted by an editor who appears to be aware of this user. I have discussed my change and have made it neutral with other pages with similar content. Reverting a 3rd time would be a violation of the 3RR rule. Tbeatty 23:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Reverting a fourth time would be a violation of the three revert rule, but that is also not considered vandalism. I don't want to press the issue, it's just that misapplication of the term "vandalism" is a pet peeve of mine. Personally, I think both versions of the section are phrased neutrally. I was always under the impression that FR places more of an emphasis on hitting polls than DU does, but maybe I'm mistaken. FR was definitely influencing polls before other sites did it... they were an innovator. Rhobite 23:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Today, I don't think it is different between FR and DU. I see them both as being equal in this regard. Both do it with same intent. I didn't care which language was chosen but it should be the same for both. Either they are both as devious as it sounds or it's both as benign. DU people had an issue with the FR wording on their page so I went with the benign version on both. Tbeatty 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's what he left on my user page:
Please stop your vandalism of the Free Republic article. Also, if you are simply cutting and pasting from another article, as you have admitted, this is considered plagiarism. 200.122.158.40 22:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
He is equally mistaken to accuse you of vandalism. Neither of you have vandalized - congrats! Hopefully he's reading this page and will participate here. He is also wrong about plagiarism. Wikipedia articles are free content. It is OK to move content from one article to another, or duplicate content in several articles. All contributors agree to the GFDL, which allows this use. It would be nice to cite the source page in your edit summary, so that people can track down the original author of the paragraph. You've done this, so there is no plagiarism or copyright problem. Rhobite 00:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think either Tbeatty or the anonymous contributor are vandals. But I question why Tbeatty believes his version is more correct POV-wise. As Rhobite notes, there is definitely a general impression (right or wrong) that Free Republic is notorious for influencing polls in this manner. After all, its not called "DUing", its called "freeping". The version that Tbeatty dislikes so much addresses this issue in what seems like a neutral tone to me. Tbeatty's version makes it seem like its an absolute matter of inarguable fact that ALL political sites influence polls in a similar fashion. If I was asked to choose, I would have to go with the anonymous poster's version. And, Tbeatty, if you really believe that all similar articles/issues have to be written exactly the same, well, then change the DU one also. Since you've has made such an edit on both articles before, what's the big deal now?Hal Raglan 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
On DU it's called DUing the poll. ANd it happens at least as frequently on DU as it does on FR. My point is that "common practice" is a relative term. With no data to support that either one does it any more than the other, I believe the language should be the same. COnsidering that when I put the "common practice" language on the DU page, it was roundly squashed, I would suggest that it is not NPOV to have it in the FR side. Both sites do it. In fact, lots of sites do it. I think it's fair to have similiar language to describe it. Tbeatty 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think the issue is that editors to the DU article object to the wording. Coordinating POV issues between multiple articles can be a real handful.. it's one of the tougher tasks on Wikipedia. Rhobite 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I can understand that, but ultimately "freeping" a poll is a term utilized to denote the action made by members of Free Republic to influence polls. The anonymous user's version addresses that. There would be no reason to write the DU section in the exact same manner since the term "freeping" is not associated at all with DU. Free Republic apparently originated this practice, or at least became famous/infamous for the practice. I simply prefer the anonymous editor's version. Its really not a big issue to me, and I'll end my discussion of this topic here. But I really wonder why Tbeatty felt it necessary to start hurling the whole charge of vandalism at someone merely because he/she didn't like someone editing his words.Hal Raglan 00:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The DU section is not written exactly the same since it is called "DUing the poll". The neutral language of both sites should prevail. I didn't care which. My use of the term vandal had to to do with a). The note left on my user page by this person and b) the edit comment that s/he discussed the change on the discussion page. They did not. They simply reverted my edits without discussion or consensus. Tbeatty 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Tbeatty, I appreciate your willingness to discuss your thoughts on this talk page. But at the risk of beating a dead horse, since you decided to mention it as the main reason for your use of the word "vandal", I believe it should be noted that you actually called the individual a vandal quite some time before he/she added the comment to your talk page. (The comment was removed by another editor but it is still viewable in the history, complete with time displayed.) You were definitely in the wrong, and so was he/she for responding in kind. I notice that you have continued to attack this person by adding him/her as a "vandal" on your talk page. You can say anything on your page that you want, I suppose, but that truly seems childish. Also, I must say that, based on your comments, it does seem like the chief reason you attacked him/her in the first place is because he/she changed your wording without first clearing it with you. Wikipedia editors don't need to seek a consensus on the talk page for such a relatively minor edit. That said, I do appreciate that you were willing to attempt a compromise in this matter by further editing the material in response to some of the other comments made. That is so much better than simply continuing a revert war or hurling more insults.Hal Raglan 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Not conservative because some posts disagree with Bush?

Seems silly to me to make the claim that FR is not a conservative site because some posts may have called Bush an idiot. LAst time I checked, it wasn't a requirement to be apologists or a cheering section for any particular person to be considered conservative. I rv'd the change because it detracts from the statement and tries to make controversy about FR where there is none. Tbeatty 04:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

When the posts at Democratic Underground and Free Republic sound alike, it is reasonable to question the veracity of Free Republic's "conservativeness" (as subjective as that word is). BlueGoose 01:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You could just as easily say it is DU that is "not progressive" or "not liberal". Conservative and Progressive mean many things. I think it's safe to say that the objectives of both forums fall within the definitions of "conservative" or "liberal". They are both mainstream enough within their respective politics continue with their self-described labels. --Tbeatty 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a credible source that substantiates your claim that the conservative nature of FR is in dispute. Gamaliel 01:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

DU doesn't have categories about the "homosexual agenda" and "moonbats". It seems obvious to me that Free Republic is predominantly conservative. Rhobite 01:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? I thought they just renamed those categories "General Discussion" and "Breaking News" :) --Tbeatty 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Careful, some of my friends are moonbats! :) Rhobite 02:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Conservative Commentator Sean Hannity bashes FR, another link:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9291

BlueGoose 05:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because Hannity bashed it and called it a "fringe" website doesn't make the case, IMO. Did he assert they were in fact not conservatives? Gamaliel 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of conservatives are turned off by the racism and childishness on FR.. that doesn't mean FR isn't conservative. Rhobite 12:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Conservatives hae a big tent. Free Republic doesn't define conservatism but I would argue conservatism is the overwhelming view of Free Republic. There are certainly fringe posters at Free Republic but that detracts from the posters, not FR. You could make the same argument that "wikipedia" is not an encyclopedia because of vandals or other posters. But your effort at putting "so-called" in front of "encyclopedia" is uneccesarily antagonistic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbeatty (talk • contribs) .

Islamophobia and Sinophobia

There is scarcely an Islam-related article posted on Freerepublic that doesn't draw comments talking about nuking Mecca, referring to 'ragheads' or generally advocating torture. It is clearly a place where racial and religious hatred are commonplace and the Wikipedia article ought to reflect this. There is no attempt made on the part of the Freerepublic moderators to curb this kind of behaviour, though they are very hawkish when it comes to moderate and/or left-wing opinions being expressed. If there is any overarching conservative narrative on Freerepublic, it's that there is an Islamic plot to violently convert the world and anyone who doesn't buy into this 'clash of civilisations' is an appeaser and leftist. To put this simply: I don't believe that if you were to attempt to prove in a court of law that Freerepublic is a racist/religiously bigoted organisation/website you would have very little trouble indeed.

I'd like the article to be changed to reflect this. I'm willing to provide evidence (not that I need to - it's readily accessible by reading any frontpage FR story) of consistent, widespread and condoned racism and bigotry, though more often than not it speaks for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.87.193.90 (talk • contribs) 14 February 2006


I disagree that your view of racism or "islamophobia" should be included. I think it is POV. Racist comments are purged according to policy. Non-conservative participation is not allowed per policy and I think that has been covered in tha article. Tbeatty 17:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
File:Freerepublic-hatespeech.gif
Screenshot taken one day after racist post was made on Free Republic. Quote: "I loath the han chinese. The are racist vermin about as disgusting as radical islamist...Beware Russia you have been warned.These mongols only understand strength." Post was not purged, user was not banned. Click for full-size screenshot. Any questions about the screenshot, please contact me (Naus).
But they are not purged, even after being alerted for abuse. Here's an example of an unpurged (it's been more than a day) post of the typical hate speech tolerated by Free Republic: "I loath the han chinese. The are racist vermin about as disgusting as radical islamist...Beware Russia you have been warned.These mongols only understand strength." (written by FR user MARKUSPRIME on 03/10/2006 4:11:52 PM PST, member since last year Mar 26, 2005, claims to be a white American). For your information, the Han Chinese is the name of the 1.2 billion ethnic Chinese (Han Chinese is not a political term, but the name of an ethnicity living across the globe, it is the largest single ethnic group in the world, comprising 19% of the world population), the user also calls the Han Chinese "mongols" referring to their Mongoloid race, which extends to the American Indians, Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians, etc. So this is clearly racist and hateful ("loath", "vermin", "disgusting", "mongols"). Yet it has not been removed as of this writing and dozens of posts followed his. Most leftist posts are removed within minutes. To ignore the racism that is nourished by Free Republic is POV. Naus 02:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC) Screenshot on right.


Please see Wikipedia:No original research. It is not productive to dig through Free Republic and find the worst posts in order to use them as evidence for a Wikipedia article. If there has been notable criticism of Free Republic's double standards, please link to that instead of your own research. Rhobite 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Primary sources supplying said evidence is not "original research." From the Wikipedia:No original research article: "Primary sources present information or data, such as archeological artifacts; film, video or photographs (but see below); historical documents such as a diary, census, transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires, records of laboratory assays or observations; records of field observations...research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged."
In this case, the primary source is the Free Republic website and the secondary source is the screenshot, which is independently verifiable by linking to the Free Republic URL shown in the screenshot. If you insist that an independent website be created for this screenshot and many others, then I and others will gladly do it. In any case, the observation that Free Republic does not moderate all racist posts should not count as original research but observations of the primary source; it has the same weight as saying "Blatantly racist attacks are removed by moderators" (from Wikipedia article). From what primary source can you say that blatantly racist posts are indeed removed by the moderators other than from the Free Republic site? Isn't YOUR POV according to you also original research (as well as being unverifiable)? The double standards here is nauseating. Naus 18:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Out of millions of posts, they didn't remove one post which in your subjective believe constitutes racism. This doesn't justify your addition to the article. How would you feel if the same standard was applied to Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, or even Wikipedia? Rhobite 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The issue (from my stance at least) isn't about trying to characterize all Free Republic posts as racist (that is obviously POV), it is about 1. the validity of the original Wikipedia text that states: "Blatantly racist attacks are removed by moderators"; 2. that charges of "racism" are colored by left-wing PC (even though many conservatives call the racism and childishness for what it is); and 3. the Orwellian logic of Tbeatty's implication that since racist posts are "purged according to [FR] policy," that racism on FR cannot possibly exist. And these kinds of posts are not one in one million; you are well aware that the racist post in that screenshot was written just 2 days ago, I happened to be reading the thread and was shocked at its transparency, there wasn't even an attempt to cover the racism; the fact that the target was not muslim, homosexual nor Democratic made the "perception of racism" less ambiguous and less controversial. I am a rather conservative individual and sometimes agree with the points made by the FR community, but I refuse to condone racism, it is simply not the American way in the 21st century and gives a bad rep for conservatives (and Americans) everywhere. And I take great offense that you can still charge that the blatantly racist post quoted in bold-italic above is only racist in my "subjective." That post was not a political nor religious attack, it was a hate-filled attack on a specific ethnic group. You don't need to threaten death or harm to be racist. Naus 00:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
My point was that it was incorrect to paint "Free Republic" as racist. If you complain about a post for racism it get's purged. THat's how non-conservative posts are purged. My guess is that in your particular example, there were no complaints. While that may show ignorance on the part of the readers/poster, it does not say the site is racist. It points to perhaps the racism of a single poster. I doubt that most posters would know that "Han Chinese" means the majority of Chinese people. I have also noticed that this sub-heading changed to "Sinophobia" due to your original research. You will find the same racism by posters on almost every posting site on the web. It doesn't necessarily reflect on the site. One could easily argue that the poster was complaining about Han Chauvinism and not Han Chinese per se. Considering that this very thing is controversial among the Chinese people and their non-Han ethnic minorities, it would be hard to say that the poster is racist for expressing these same concerns.
As for being subjective, all racism and discrimination is subjective. Some would consider opposition to the UAE ports deal as racism while others consider it sound foreign policy. It's subjective. Applying your subjective standards to form a conclusion must pass encyclopedic muster and Wikipedia policy. You have violated one of those policies by trying to get your original research published as fact. --Tbeatty 05:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That's quite a creative stretch you got there; unfortunately, it's also intellectually dishonest on your part. Han Chinese is an ethnicity (equivalent to Hispanics); whereas Han chauvinism is an ideology like white supremacy. Suppose a person wrote "I loathe white non-Hispanics" and then proceed with "Caucasians only understand strength", that is not a critique of any ideology (say white supremacy), but a hateful generalization of an ethnic group and race. Does that analogy clear it up for you? Or do you still prefer to muddle separate concepts in the hopes of justifying blatant racism? Also, there is no original research when the primary source comes from the Free Republic site. According to your notion of "original research," the bulk of this Wikipedia article should also be considered "original research" directly from the FR site. Naus 10:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not a stretch nor is it dishonest. I am willing to give the poster the benefit of the doubt that his own experience with a "Han Chauvinist" has caused him confusion on the Han Chinese in general. I simply doubt he knows the difference that Han Chinese is not a term that describes more than Han Chauvinsts. Sort of like black South Africans being angry at South African White people for Apartheid. South African Whites and South African White Aparteits are different but I would cut a South African black a lot of slack if he confused the two and expressed his anger against South African whites. It's a gross generalization that is motiviated less by race and more by personal experience. While this may be a racist statement, it is not racism in general that motivates the anger or post. It's ignorance of a single poster. And it is Original research when you create the search to prove a postulate. Find a credible source that calls Free Republic racist and you can include. Search the site yourself and you can keep it to yourself. This is an encyclopedia, not a sting organization. --Tbeatty 04:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic posts and other things.

While I do not currently have the links with me (I will be getting them soon), one of my friends has shown me several threads on the Free Republic forums, giving praise for Slobadon Milosevic and the killing of Albanians, as well as lamenting his death. I have also seen some of the forum's members making light of the recent death of the Christian Peacemaker hostage Tom Fox in Iraq and maintaining that he was a Satanist due to his pacifism, as well as saying that a "Crusade" against all Arabs (also called ragheads on the forums) is necessary. Another point is some threads stating that gays are "disgusting pedophiles" who deserve to burn in hell. Wouldn't this be an appropriate point to list under a section concerning criticism of Free Republic? It is fairly substantial evidence as to the bigotry of at least some forum members, and in my opinion it does deserve attention, since it verifies some claims of malicious activity.

Mister Mister 01:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic gets a lot of posts, so it's to be expected that there'd be at least a few first-class wackos making bigoted or malicious posts. Selecting a few of the most egregious crackpots doesn't really prove very much. I'd look for some independent indication of notability. Examples that occur to me are: coverage by a non-FR source, or an official pronouncement of FR policy telling contributors to stop calling Fox a Satanist (or whatever). JamesMLane t c 03:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Spin-offs

The article now has a section titled "Influences", which includes only Free Dominion. I think we can develop that paragraph to mention the forums that have started with banned FR members. LibertyPost.org is a notable one, and apparently there's a forum started becuase of differences on immigrantion. We can put all of these together and make a useful section on related websites. -Will Beback 23:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Related" websites could be a somewhat broad category. I put the link to "Not so Free Republic" in the portion of the text that it best illustrates, namely the points on which Freepers are not unanimous. It belongs there, but I don't have time to keep reverting it, so I'll leave it in ext links, but with an explanation of its relevance to the article.
In a quick look at LibertyPost.org, I didn't see the indication that it was started by exiles from FR. Can that be verified? I agree that, if there are multiple such sites, they could reasonably be discussed together in a separate section or subsection of the text. Alternatively, are you thinking of the broader meaning, to include websites started in emulation of FR or bearing some other relationship to it? JamesMLane t c 03:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I could find a source for the LibertyPost, so it may not be notable enough to be verifiable. FR-specific discussion is relegated to the "Biker Bar" forum. I've also heard it said that other sites were set up to emulate FR in addition to Dominion Republic, but I don't know their names. It was just a thought that if others knew more about this info it might be a useful organization. Dealing with criticism or praise of internet forums is tricky, because those are usually expressed on other forums or on tht eforum itself. Since forums are not reliable sources, it is difficult to cover the topic properly. Simply mentioning the existence of an opposition forum is safer than trying to summarize the opinion there. -Will Beback 10:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
In general, that's true, but my impression is that the NSFR forum (hosted by Americans for Legal Immigration) is focused specifically on the criticism of FR over the immigration issue. JamesMLane t c 12:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think any of these other forums rise to the level of notability to be mentioned in the body of this article.
This article shouldn't become a laundry list for loosely related non-notable conservative forums scattered across the internet.--RWR8189 03:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it shouldn't be such a laundry list. If, however, the facts show that a conservative Canadian site was directly inspired by FR, then I think that's notable for the FR article. As for a site catering to FR exiles: By itself, the mere existence of such a site isn't all that big a deal. In this instance, however, I think it's definitely worth noting that FR, a site of generally homogeneous views, has been racked by division over a few issues, including immigration. That point has been in the article for some time. The establishment of a forum specifically geared toward people banned from FR because of their views on immigration is a fact worth reporting in the context of that controversy. It's an indication that the immigration rift wasn't just the banning of, for example, a handful of libertarians who wouldn't shut up about legalizing drugs, but was rather a major event that occasioned significant departures. The information at NSFR is that attacks, counterattacks, challenges, and bannings were flying thick and fast for a period in mid-2005, and have heated up again now as the issue has regained prominence. We don't need that much detail in our article. Referencing the site at that point in text, however, is the best way to provide the interested reader with convenient access to the additional detail. JamesMLane t c 04:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Statistical Relevance of Online Polls

There is current discussion about the utility of statistical methods in analyzing open-ended, unsolicited polling online. The topic is actively debated whether a poll anticipating random individual entries loses analytic validity when organized classes enter the poll from other directions than random discovery by a board reader. For this purpose, the statistical term "bias" is substituted for "influence" in this section. It is meant in the strict sense used in statistics, and is not meant to have a pejorative connotation. The comments are relevant for any student of statistics with interest in online poll analysis, who may be unfamiliar with the political character of Free Republic. --Steve 12:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't write in the article that FR tries to bias polls and then render the charge NPOV by explaining on the talk page that you don't mean it pejoratively. The article must stand on its own. The average reader would take your addition as pejorative. Furthermore, I don't understand how this analysis would apply to the online polls, because it depends on the assumption that the polls "anticipat[e] random individual entries". It's hard to see how the polls could anticipate such randomness, given that (1) the entrants aren't exactly "unsolicited" by the polling site, and (2) even among those solicited, some will be more likely to respond than others.
If there is some serious body of statistical thinking analyzing these silly polls and criticizing the Freeping of the polls, we can refer to it in the article. To comply with NPOV, however, the discussion would have to be put in context and attributed to a notable spokesperson, with a citation. I have no objection to adding a criticism of FR that meets that standard. Until we can cover it in that kind of encyclopedic fashion, though, the prior wording was preferable. JamesMLane t c 13:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Statistical Bias

Mr. Lane, Thank you for your kind response. The term "bias" has a correct and easily understood statistical meaning, and the article references the meaning of the term. I believe that the proper use of a statistical term renders it appropriate for use in an article. The point of view is neutral. I regret that you feel that the average reader would misunderstand the term "bias" and not wish to follow the link. I believe that it is appropriate to challenge people to pursue the meaning of terms on Wikipedia, not to minimize the use of words to what people might find as a connotation.

I recommend you reconsider your editing of this article after you review the section on statistical bias, and request that you address the criticisms in terms of the proper use of the words, rather on how individuals might feel when reading the article. I believe that the entry which I made survives strict scrutiny, and is inherently neutral. I believe that your elimination of the entry does not.

Please respond after you have reviewed the term.

In addition, you have removed the link to statistics from the article. This prevents the reader from making use of Wikipedia to explore other areas of question. In general, I believe that this sort of action is contradictory to the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to connect ideas. Please restore the deleted link. Thank you. --71.33.47.216 15:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC) PS: I dislike posting unsigned comments. The account is available for reply. --SteveatWork 15:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the word "bias" has a statistical meaning. It also has other meanings, though. A reader wanting to know the essential encyclopedic facts about Free Republic won't necessarily follow all the links. It's OK if following the links is necessary to get more information, but not if it's the only way to correct a natural misimpression. To say instead that FR tries to "influence" these polls is certainly accurate and NPOV.
To go beyond mere influence, and to introduce the concept of sampling bias, you wrote that the practice of Freeping polls "has been objected to" on this basis. This phrasing violates our guideline of avoiding weasel words, which is why I suggested that the objection should not be included if it can't be attributed and cited. (Even then, it might not be notable. I would've assumed that few statisticians give any serious thought to these polls, but I'm no expert on the point.)
I suggest that the first paragraph of this section could be the wording that I reverted to, with the neutral language (and heading) about influencing polls. A second paragraph might then say something like: "Although such polls do not employ the scientific sampling methods of traditional opinion polling, some statisticians have argued for the utility of statistical methods in analyzing this online polling. [insert citation] Dr. Dewey Countem, a professor of mathematics at Jerkwater Tech, has concluded that there can be analytic validity even in a poll conducted among a self-selected subset of individual visitors to a particular site, but that any such validity is lost when organized classes enter the poll from other directions, such as recruitment. On that basis, he has argued that the practice of Freeping an online poll is objectionable because it introduces a deliberate sampling bias. [insert citation]" That would represent a properly NPOV approach. Whether its inclusion would be encyclopedic depends in part on how notable this criticism is.
Finally, while we're on the subject of citation, I see that your edit preserves the speculation that FR may have been the first site to do this. I hadn't focused on this paragraph closely enough until prompted by your edit. Now that I'm scrutinizing the paragraph more carefully, though, I think that the last sentence is also weasel worded ("is believed to be the first"), and should be deleted unless someone can support it. JamesMLane t c 15:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've come here via the Rfc. Online polls are inherently unscientific. Thus, using a term like "bias" or "statistical bias" to describe Freeping online polls is of little use since the polls are inherently biased to begin with. Certainly, however, Freeping influences the results of online polls. This seems to be a more accurate description of what actually takes place. As an aside, the whole idea of influencing unscientific online polls for any reason is absurd, but that's neither here nor there for the purposes of this article . . . - Jersyko·talk 16:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree, but the word "statistical bias," which you deleted from the post, and also the link therein, does in fact have a solitary definition. I believe that omitting a term because those who do not understand it might not wish to understand it is insufficient to refrain from utilizing it.

You have made the assumption that no statistician will review and explore online polls, and use statistical methods to derive information from them. I do not understand the basis for this assumption. In another place, the assumption is made Online polls are inherently unscientific. That is a rather vague supposition. If one rephrases this to state that "Online Polls are without analyzable statistical content," I believe that the statement would be more internally correct, but I suggest that perhaps this falls into the statistician's realm for opinion. It is no different than posting the claim that "fossil records are inherently unscientific."

You assume that I accept the term "influence" as something with the definitional weight of the term "sampling bias," and assume I make a differentiation between the two, and suggest to me what that differentiation is. I do not recognize the term "influence" to have any relevance to statistics in this conversation. You mention that I use "weasel words," a term which I will explore. I should suggest as well that substitution of the word "influence" for "sampling bias" is to substitute a word with less meaning for one with explicit and correct meaning, for no purpose with which I can properly understand.

I see that your edit preserves the speculation that FR may have been the first site to do this This and the following material is immaterial to me, and you may preserve, delete or amend it as you see fit.

PS: In reviewing the discussion, I am becoming more confused. Is there some sort of definition of "poll" that is used by the online community, which differs from the Wiktionary definition, "An election or a survey of a particular group?" Wiktionary-poll Is there a common online parlance that conveys a different meaning?

Perhaps mathematics and statistics are concepts which are too complex for the Wikipedia, although I had thought that it was targeted towards those with a high-school level of education, at least. Is it too complicated and hard on people to introduce specialized math terms?

Am I transgressing the convention here by using terms which are considered politically incorrect? I do note the term "bias" was acceptable when describing the Digest poll of 1936 regarding Presidential candidates. Should this term, perhaps offensive and using intellectual jargon, be changed to "influence?"

Am I being too rigid in cleaving to denotational targets of words, or is it implied that we should preserve connotational common use, and the set should be drawn where the terms such as "affect, influence, bias" lie within the same essential meaning?

Please assist me. --SteveatWork 18:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to take independent action, but in my review of Wikipedia etiquette, it is improper to strike another user's entry, and to ignore any dispute about the matter. I have asked certain questions and made certain points, and the editor who made the changed abandoned the talk thread. I have no recourse but to restore the original version, which I deeply and sincerely believe is neutral, and to mark the discussion section with a NPOV flag.

I trust that those who may have the dispute will extend me the courtesy of further discussion on the matter. Please demonstrate an active eagerness to achieve consensus on this matter! --SteveatWork 18:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

  • Weasel words are unaceptable, and should not be used. If direct citations cannot be provided, the content should be removed. Remember, WP:V states that the burden of proof is on those seeking to include the information, not those seeking to remove it.
  • Influence is better than bias in this case. While it is true that bias may be a more exact statistical term, why not make the article more accessible to a larger number of people? Wikipeida is not written just for experts after all. Furthermore, the influenced explanation proposed above explains exactly how the survey was biased, another reason which makes it preferable.
  • For the record, Online polls are inherently unscientific.

--Hetar 18:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


Improper Editing of the Board

I have to complain that a disputed section was changed, and the dispute NPOV flag was removed. I consider that to be improper and shall advance this issue.

I tried in good faith to approach this matter by discussion, but changes are made without discussion being offered. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Happy editing! --SteveatWork 20:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

. . . but you're the one that added the section in question AND the {{NPOV}} tag. If this were allowed, I could go to the George Bush article and add "George Bush is a raving lunatic" with the appropriate NPOV tag and get away with it. But it's not allowed, so I can't, thankfully. - Jersyko·talk 21:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Awfully sorry

I certainly did not expect to have this degree of complexity in an entry. I had thought at one time that when one has a concern about an NPOV, then changes can be made with mention of that concern, and that it was considered rude to remove an NPOV tag until the parties had discussed and agreed on the concern in question.

I regret that I have become involved in pages on the political areas. In the sciences, I am more used to collaborative consensus building. I shall not work on this site again, and I certainly apologize if you feel that I have made comments on the order of "George Bush is a Raving Lunatic."

I will withdraw from the collaboration, and stay to the strict Science encyclopedias for this reason. I am just not up to this sort of work. --SteveatWork 18:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Influence on 2004 Presidential Campaign

In regards to this part of that section.


"Also during that campaign, Jerome Corsi, co-author of the controversial book Unfit for Command that attacked the Vietnam war record of Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry, apologized in the national media for homophobic and anti-Islam comments, as well as slurs made against liberal political figures, that he made on Free Republic under the user name "jrlc." The posts were discovered and made public by Media Matters for America, a liberal website [9]. Concerning the remarks, Corsi said, "I don't stand by any of those comments and I apologize if they offended anybody," and, "...the politically incorrect humor I posted on this site is evidently not funny to everyone. Detractors should have interviewed my dog. No matter how I frame a comment, "Chico" has yet to laugh." Subsequently, John O'Neill, the book's other co-author, attempted to distance himself from Corsi and attempted to downplay Corsi's involvement in the writing of the book."

This part has nothing to do with Free Republic, it has more to do with John O'Neill and the Swiftboat Vets. As such I contend that it should be stricken from the Free Republic site entry. Arkadyfolkner 09:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The comments were made on Free Republic and the website was mentioned frequently in reagrd to them. -Will Beback 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


Reorginzation Of Discussion Area

The area discussing the discussion on Free Republic was becoming unwieldy, so I tried to re-organize it in a more coherant way. Also, I made some corrections and clarifications to language. --Holdek (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Free Republic Action Alert vs. Wikipedia #2

I've removed this text from the article:

  • On 31 December 2005, a Free Republic Action Alert was distributed calling for a coordinated www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1549132/posts POV vandalism against Wikipedia in articles they perceived to have a liberal bias primarily-George W. Bush, Abortion, Ann Coulter and Kwanzaa. Several administrators actively endorsed this plan and went as far as providing tips on how to evade detection. With such writings as: “I suggest people sign up and start politely editing. Once there, to gain "credibility" I suggest you look around and then for the first few days edit only uncontroversial articles for grammar or choppiness or poor citation - you will then be seen as a neutral editor. I suggest using a different screen name than you do at FR.” And: “If 100 people sign up and begin editing, we might be able to balance the content of Wikipedia. As is typical, consensus is supposedly the hallmark of wikipedia, but PC reigns and we will have to work together to be effective.” Wikipedia is usually the subject of contempt in free republic (largely due to the perceived ”Bias”) and usually refer to it derisively as FAGOPEDIA; FALSEWITNESS; WIKIPEDIA; WIKIPEDOPHILIA.

Per discussion above (#Free Republic Action Alert vs. Wikipedia) this material violates WP:ASR. Furthermore, it does not appear to have been a notable event in the history of either website. -Will Beback 20:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Jenna Bush

I deleted the paragraph dealing with the alleged cyberstalking of the restaurant owner who had her busted for drinking because the source was absolutely ridiculous. First, the article is by William Rivers Pitt, an avowed enemy of Free Republic, and himself a DUer. He merely accuses Free Republic of cyberstalking in the article, with no corroboration: no other stories, no links to FR threads where this cyberstalking allegedly happened, etc. It's just him saying it.

If there actually is a thread on Free Republic where this stuff happened, that would be a much better source. But I don't think you could call William Rivers Pitt a reliable source of information about Free Republic. Gordongekko909 01:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Found that thread. Re-added paragraph with additional cite. BenBurch 02:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just read the thread. I didn't see any advocacy of "violence toward the restaurant's patrons, as well as destroying it physically." Can you point me to those? Also, the personal information (aside from what was in the NYP article itself, as well as the contact info for the restaurant) was deleted, so I'm gonna go ahead and note that. Gordongekko909 02:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_Republic/Archive_1&oldid=1136740308"