Talk:Free Republic

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. (This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

Note: Other relevent comments may exist at Talk:Jim_Robinson. Consider reading that page, too, before taking any brash action.

Part of the history of this page is now at Talk:Free Republic/pagehistory, following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Freeploaders. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Archives

---

1. Talk:Free Republic/Archive1
2. Talk:Free Republic/Archive2
3. Talk:Free Republic/Archive3
4. Talk:Free Republic/Archive4
5. Talk:Free Republic/Archive5
6. Talk:Free Republic/Archive6

The Bryan Affair

I thought you all might like to know that Seand59, who edited this article a few hours ago (and was immediately blocked indefinitely for impersonating a Wikimedia staff member), is now known as Carolyn-WMF. Her account has been unblocked by Danny. She really does work for the Wikimedia Foundation.

The article at AmericanPolitics.com that was allegedly written by TJ Walker does not exist. Click on the link you provided. It's a blank page. I believe that Wikipedia has been the victims of a carefully crafted hoax. I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately. Dino 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the cut made by Carolyn, since there are some larger issues involved. She removed that paragraph for a very, very good reason. Please do not second guess her. Dino 22:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll contact TJ to confirm the info posted by 'Dino'. The Salon piece documents death threats too, so it shouldn't be much of a problem to use that, if we have to. Not much time today. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

TJ Walker article - Free Republic Death Threats

Jeff Stein in salon.com July 13, 1999 writes:

"T.J. Walker, an online columnist who dug up a passel of ominous posts on the Clintons in the past few months (another sample: "People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard ourselves!"), claimed that Free Republic's "political influence is rising even as death threats occur more frequently on its message boards." As evidence, he cited the upcoming "Treason is the Reason" rally that, in addition to featuring Barr and Hitchens, is also touting speeches by Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif., another failed House impeachment manager."

I think 'Dino' might be pulling our collective legs. Salon - Free for All at Free Republic - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, we have our very own Willy On Wheels here. --BenBurch 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is going on here?

Why are Wikimedia folks involved in removing sourced paragraphs from this article? No explanation or edit summary was left other than somebody else saying that there are "larger issues" involved. WHAT are the "larger issues"? Wikipedia is not censored is a key element of the creed here. --BenBurch 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently T.J. Walker's article was a hoax or something - see User_talk:Carolyn-WMF. - Merzbow 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I just read the above threads - I now have no clue what's going on here. - Merzbow 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suspect that some blocked user from here called American Politics and claimed to represent TJ Walker to get the article pulled. Use the Salon sources and re-create the paragraph. --BenBurch 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Do not do that until it is clarified whether Carolyn was operating under WP:OFFICE. If she was, reverting her will have dire consequences. Prodego ^talk 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I just did. BenBurch 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I commented it out for now. This whole matter has become weird, and I suspect that Wikimedia Offices may have been hoaxed by a fraudulent caller. --BenBurch 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The APJ site is full of blank pages and html errors. I don't think anything was pulled. The page is still there here and take a look at the headers

<head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Author content="Free Republic"><meta name=Description content="Free Republic's Latest Stunt: Death Threats Directed Against Hillary Clinton"><meta name=keywords content="American Politics Journal,Free Republic,freerepublic.com"><link rel="SHORTCUT ICON" href=http://apj.us/apj.html><title>American Politics Journal</title><style><!--a{text-decoration:none;}body{background-color:#fff;}-->

Headers and invisible text are legally the same as visible text, when it comes to libel slander etc. This page and these headers would NOT be there if they 'pulled the article'. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, no, unless Bryan actually hacked the site it looks like APJ did pull the article. The question of what prompted them to do so is of course the question. - Merzbow 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that somebody faked a call to them. --BenBurch 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If APJ were going to pull the article, they would pull the whole page, not leave headers that carry the same legal ramifications as visible text. The Bryantroll hacked into and posted through a myspace type site to get a new IP, so he has some technical expertise. I suspect he hacked the page. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pretexting is always easier than hacking. Most hackers know this. --BenBurch 01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that the IP of that site is what the attack is from? They look separate ti me, based on whois info. Prodego ^talk 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the threat against Ben was posted through a proxy using blnk.com (similar to myspace) so this troll has some expertise. - Fairness And Accuracy For All

The IP is User:38.119.66.207, correct? It is an open proxy (I should know, I blocked it), but I don't see how you are connecting it to blnk.com. Prodego ^talk 01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The traceroute ended up at "16 images0.paxed.com (38.119.66.207)" part of blnk.com. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I follow you through the traceroute, but I do not see a connection between images0.paxed.com and blnk.com. Where is that coming from? Prodego ^talk 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh.... Never mind, I see. The IP might have just been misconfigured though, not necessarily a hack. Prodego ^talk 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the huge question

How does Dino (aka Bryan) know what TJ Walker told Wikimedia Foundation??? --BenBurch 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychic powers? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: 'Dino' claimed "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." Of course not? Salon quotes him, and here's something TJ wrote at about the same time he 'didn't' write the FR Death Threat article : "Don't get me started on the Fox News Channel, but when host Bill O'Reilly went on vacation recently, who was the replacement? Former Congressman Bob Dornan, the wife-beating, right wing wacko who has been ostracized by Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay for being "too out there." Enough said." TJ Walker We're being played for rubes. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there are multiple admins working behind the scenes right now with WMF to get to the bottom of this... before any of us attempt any external actions I suggest we wait a day for updates. - Merzbow 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope so! Something here smells worse than a week-old trout. --BenBurch 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, there is no vast hidden force of admins investigating this, just Jossi, and I . Jossi is requesting information from Danny Wool as well as Carolyn, which we are waiting on. Other then that this page is largely on its own. Prodego ^talk 01:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct. No need to speculate. Let's wait to see what Danny says (See User_talk:Danny#User:Carolyn-WMF), and what explanations are forthcoming about Carolyn's deletion of that material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

So TJ Walker 'didn't' write that article, huh?

It's sure odd that TJWalker.com LISTS that very article : "7-6-99 Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? "' Although none of the links work, I'd say that's conclusive proof. TJWALKER ALL COLUMNS - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here it is via archive.org; http://web.archive.org/web/20000303144134/http://tjwalker.com/7-6-99.htm

So, he DID WRITE THIS PIECE. This is conclusive. We have been played. --BenBurch 05:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Think how that poor woman in the Wiki office is gonna feel! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Replaced text

Pending any further information:

• We have a standard for verification that is not met by a purported phone call, or confirmed by amateur detective work. The citation quotes TJ Walker, in the absence of a better source otherwise we stick with verification not truth.
• Don't guess if something is an office action. If it's not explicitly such, treat it like a normal edit. Yes, this might get you de-sysopped or whatever, but it's the only rational way to proceed.

I've edited the section (since it was a blatent copyvio) and added it back in.
brenneman 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. (And in any case we have the original on TJs web site via archive.org) BenBurch 13:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:BryanFromPalatine appealing his block for sockpuppetry and disruption

See his talk page. BenBurch 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Result was unblock denied. Too bad, really, I would rather he had decided to abide by the rules here, apologized, and gotten unblocked. He's a smart kid, and likely could contribute significantly to this effort had he tried. --BenBurch 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hathorn

I don't see anything POV about Hathorn's edits. Everything outside of the 2nd paragraph is pretty much straight copyediting, can we restore that to begin with, and then discuss that? - Merzbow 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. BenBurch 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was accurate, but unsourced. (more sourcing now - good) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the following sentence "Some liberal critics claim that Free Republic has posted calls for inappropriate action by some of the members [3] whom the opponents contend advocate political extremism." The death threats are documented by Salon, and other RS V sources. This sentence needs a rewrite, and mention of 'death threats' IMHO. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote it. Please comment. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's good. - Merzbow 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Added a lot of content

Jerome Corsi (which used to be in the article), Tony Snow, and Dixie Chicks.

Please help rewrite, and linkify. I have to find the link on FR where JimRob admits that Tony asked him to pull all his posts, and close the account. Apparently he never wrote anything really bad, and pulling the posts of somone who just got a high profile admin job is not unusual. Comments, objections, praise welcome. Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job! BenBurch 06:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Jim Robinson bio paragraph.

Please check my edits, but I don't think either of those sources qualify as RS, and I don't think we need any information about Robinson here in this article which is NOT about him. Thanks! BenBurch 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There might be a place for some of it - like if his Vietnam service affected his political views - but not in the intro. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We still need an RS for it, though. I know of none. BenBurch 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

FR currently being investigated by WI law enforcement for DOS attack

As of 1/21/07, against an Arab-American owned business that supports a U.S. redeployment in Iraq—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs).

Until there is a reliable source stating that, it cannot be in the article.--RWR8189 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I read, the cause is the firm's insulting e-mail to a U.S. 1st Cav Division NCO who wanted to buy the firm's product, but was rebuffed. Free Republic never urged a DoS attack, though a poster did pist the firm's contact info. --GABaker 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A "dead agent" attack then. You don't have to kill a secret agent, just publish his contact information. The mere outing is an invitation to attack. This was similar. But I still need to see a RS. --BenBurch 07:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. So should Snopes be held responsible since they published the contact information, too? Jinxmchue 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course not! Once the cat is out of the bag it is no longer private. You can make a cucumber into a pickle, but you cannot make it back into a cucumber. --BenBurch 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, guess what, Ben. FR didn't break the story or first publish the information. Jinxmchue 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source regarding the death threats. Though it isn't stated explicitly in the article, my sources in WI law enforcement tell me that Free Republic is being focused on as a source of a hacker attack and several death threats: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=555527

Per the news story,

West Allis police said Monday that they were aware of the controversy. "We're monitoring the situation, in case somebody decides to retaliate," Capt. Tom Kukowski said." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, but that article states the site was taken down by the owners, not a DOS attack: "Bargain Suppliers of West Allis said its discount-mats.com Web site had to be taken down Monday to address the thousands of e-mails it's received since news of the exchange - in which an employee voiced opposition to the war in Iraq - began circulating on the Internet last week." Jinxmchue 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, got any names for your "sources in WI law enforcement" so we can verify your claims? Jinxmchue 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The person I spoke to relayed my query to Captain Ponzi (not sure I got the spelling right) and informed me that FR is one of the groups they're looking at.

Oh, it's only one of several groups. So have you been endorsing adding this information to any Wiki pages for those other groups? Jinxmchue 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source of that quote, as google would have shown you, Jinxie; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/23/national/main2388167.shtml "Anti-War E-Mail To Soldier Causes Backlash" via the Associated Press. Sounds like a Reliable Source to me... --BenBurch 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Still says absolutely nothing about Free Republic, Ben. Please review the discussion and try again. Jinxmchue 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

'hate group' settlement

What happened to RWR1889? He seems to have lost interest in anything Freepalicious except for reverting vandalism. Tough times! I found a RS V source for the $60,000 settlement that the City of Fresno paid JimRob for calling FR a 'Hate Group'. Did he really spend it on an RV? Maybe one of you guys can add it to the article. Freepers = LOVERS, not HATERS! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he did, isn't that OK? He is a special needs person, and travel must be hard for him. --BenBurch 07:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

'Free Republic' got defamed, not him. He could have rented a really nice RV for a month for $5000, and refunded the rest to the members. There have been lots of questions about FR 'fundraising' - it could have put some of those ugly rumors to rest, and bought him some 'good faith'. Check out this thread. HERE LOL ! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed he COULD have done that. Maybe SHOULD have. But as he is the sole owner, he didn't HAVE to. And I do have sympathy for anybody in a wheelchair. --BenBurch 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Did you read that thread? AFAICT, the far right criticize JimRob and FR MUCH more harshly and frequently than the left do. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. It was a stitch! I almost choked on my coffee laughing. --BenBurch 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been unblocked

After contacting the ever patient and cooperative Carolyn Doran (several times) and Attorney Brad Patrick (once) at the Wikimedia Foundation, and working patiently at Unblock-en-l with Yamla, Luna Santin and another admin that I only know as "Larry," I've been unblocked.

I will not abuse their trust, and I am grateful for their intervention on my behalf. Let's all relax for a moment, have a cup of coffee or a glass of wine if you're inclined, and decompress. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

I refer everyone who has any questions (or snarky remarks) to this notice on my Talk page. Dino 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And you're already violating WP on your first day back! Well done! Your edits to the 'conclusions' section of an investigation page reserved for Admins (now moved), and then your misrepresentation that this investigation had been concluded through 'consensus' are amusing, but violations of WP protocal. Keep up the good work! I am still waiting to hear Carloyn's explanation about the removal of the TJ Walker material beacuse of a mysterious phone call at the same time as you were posting that another mysterious phone call to TJWalker resulted in him denying that he had written the article. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I un-archived some recent discussion - and unsettled issues regarding TJ Walker, as they han't been addressed and shouldn't be archived until they are. Please do not re-archive them Dino. Thanks. Fairness & Accuracy For All

Your edits to the 'conclusions' section of an investigation page reserved for Admins (now moved) ...

Please guide me to the Wikipedia policy that reserves the "conclusions" section for admins only. Otherwise, revert your relocation of my conclusion. Thanks. Dino 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

... and then your misrepresentation that this investigation had been concluded through 'consensus' ...

I call 'em as I see 'em. It looks like a consensus to me. You didn't even try to deny it. Everyone else who participated in the discussion agreed that you have abused other Wikipedia editors. The evidence that you have acted in collaboration with BenBurch is most compelling. Sorry, but that's not how things are done around here. You've been warned many, many, many times about your abusive posting habits. Dino 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting to hear Carloyn's explanation about the removal of the TJ Walker material beacuse of a mysterious phone call ...

There's nothing "mysterious" about it and in response to accusations made earlier, I called Carolyn but most certainly did not impersonate TJ Walker. I spoke with her four times that day, clearly identifying myself each time; and we were most amused when she was permablocked for impersonating a WMF employee. I can only conclude that after my first call to her, she called TJ Walker herself and reached her own conclusions about the authenticity and reliability of that source, and made the edit. It should be removed because it is libelous. It no longer appears at AmericanPolitics.com because it is libelous. It no longer appears at TJWalker.com because it is libelous.

When a particular article or other publication is withdrawn, a cached copy can often be found lingering on the Internet somewhere, much like the City of Fresno press release referenced above that labeled Free Republic as a "hate group." That does not mean it is still a reliable source under WP:RS. It only means that it's impossible to completely remove all traces of a libelous statement from the Internet. Dino 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dino: You claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that YOU contacted TJ Walker, the author of the contested article and that TJ told you that he never wrote that article! " I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." here (when TJ Walker certainly did write the article - and it's even archived from his website on the www! here) TJ Walker is a published notable author and RS whose work has recently appeared on CBS and National Review Here is a list of the dozens of articles, including the one in question. TJ Walker - All Columns 1999-2000 from the time period in question.

Could you explain the inconsistancy between your claim of TJ saying he didn't write the article, and the truth, and chronicle any interactions you had with TJ Walker ? Thanks ! There's a new investigation into these actions by the way - and it WILL involve TJ, since your hollow denials and phony claims demand so. By the way, TJ Walker doesn't suffer fools and liars lightly. - Fairness & Accuracy For Delay, Ney, Abramoff & Cunningham 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When you guide me to the section of Wikipedia policy that reserves the WP:SSP Conclusions section for admins only, I'll consider answering these questions. Thanks. Dino 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, let's remove these libelous statements and references from the article. Prior to mid-2001, Free Republic was not incorporated. It was a sole proprietorship. Jim Robinson was its only moderator and he monitored the site 16 hours a day. Any article about Free Republic covering the period prior to mid-2001 is therefore a biography of a living person named Jim Robinson, WP:BLP applies as official Wikipedia policy, and any false and defamatory material therein is libelous. The publication date of the alleged "TJ Walker article" is in 1999. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the article was removed from TJWalker.com and from AmericanPolitics.com for reasons other than the fact that it was libelous. Until you satisfy that burden of proof, every reference to that article should be eradicated completely from this one. This transcends questions of consensus and is not negotiable. Dino 15:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The following three sections have been reposted from WP:BLP and I encourage you to read them, as well as my review at the end. I have boldfaced the more important passages relevant to the present dispute. Dino 15:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."

Folks, cite it or don't put it in. All unsourced material should be removed immediately upon sight, no questions asked. CyberAnth 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used ...

Biased or malicious content

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

Dino says, "Let's review"

This is a contentious, emotionally charged, politically delicate topic. Based on the experiences of the City of Fresno regarding their "hate group" allegation, Jim Robinson will not hesitate to take legal action to protect his name and reputation, and those of Free Republic; I am doing my very best to prevent that from happening. When writing about such litigious people and organizations, it is best to err on the side of caution.

The alleged "TJ Walker article," even if it was written by TJ Walker, was self-published; and as you've mentioned, TJ Walker is a liberal. That, by itself, is sufficient grounds for removing it under WP:BLP. That article was then published on AmericanPolitics.com, a highly partisan left-wing website. This is also sufficient grounds for removing it under WP:BLP.

Even if WP:BLP does not apply, Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises surely applies. While it is not yet Wikipedia policy, it has been proposed as policy and that proposal should meet favorable responses. It closely follows WP:BLP and in many places, it is a word-for-word copy. Dino 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming from a member of the FR legal team, that is a LEGAL THREAT. --BenBurch 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's remove it. Tbeatty 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, I encourage you to remove it aggressively per instructions by Jimbo Wales. As you can see from the boldfaced portions above, no need to worry about the 3RR rule. Thanks. Dino 17:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dino. I emailed TJ Walker and American Politics Journal so that they can verify or deny your claims that TJ admitted to you that he didn't write his 1999 article entitled 'Is FreeRepublic.com really DeathThreat.com?', and that because of that admission, APJ pulled it. Let's wait until next Tuesday for them to weigh in on this matter, OK? Fairness & Accuracy For All

Ignoring Dino

I plan to totally ignore any comments here by User:DeanHinnen and in fact, to totally ignore his existence henceforth. He can say whatever he wishes to say about this article, but I will edit it as though he never had said a word. --BenBurch 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that a powerful case has been presented with quotations from WP:BLP, you choose the "Ignore" option. Dino 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I will listen to him - especially his insinuations that not removing sourced RS V criticism of FR might lead to legal action, and his claim that he is part of FR's 'legal team'. (I thought Bryan was on the legal team - I'll have to search for those posts by Bryan) - Fairness & Accuracy For All

his insinuations that not removing sourced RS V criticism of FR might lead to legal action ...

It is not "sourced RS V criticism," and I repeat that I'm not threatening legal action. It is poorly sourced. First, that article was self-published. Second, it was then published by an extremely partisan left-wing website. Third, both of these sources have withdrawn the article from their websites. The directives of WP:BLP and WP:RS are very clear. The legal issue is that this poorly sourced and partisan criticism is being inserted, and fanatically defended, in an article about a man and an organization who sued the City of Fresno and won a $60,000 out-of-court settlement for libel. They are evidently inclined toward litigation. You don't need a member of the Free Republic legal team to tell you that. Dino 21:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you stop impugning TJ Walker and his writing as being 'extremely partisan' and 'left wing'. (he has been asking to verify or deny your claims that he admitted to you that he didn't write his 1999 article, and that he called APJ and had them 'pull it' because of this admission, by the way).

Rating the State of the Union

Wednesday January 24th 2007, 10:49 am

"When it comes to the pure mechanics of speech making, Bush continues to improve every year in office (regardless of your feelings about his political abilities). Bush now thoroughly knows his way around a Teleprompter. He moves his head well, pauses sufficiently, and does not rush. Bush finally shows a full range of facial expressions. His reading is more natural and the squints and smirks are staying hidden." SOTU - Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asking Jossi to return mediation

Admin Jossi is one of the chief contributors to re-writing WP RS V to WP:ATT. I have asked him to return to mediation that was going well until Bryan created 5 (?) sock accounts to sway consensus. I hope Dino will 'sign on' to the still-valid mediation agreement and allow Jossi to guide any proposed major changes to the article. Maybe we should get the WMF attorney Brad to weigh in on specific third-party claims about FR and JimRob, as Dino is concerned about libel issues? - Fairness & Accuracy For All

While we're waiting for all that to happen, I strongly recommend that we play it safe. Protecting Wikipedia should be more important than anyone's partisan concerns. Remove Reference #3 from the article, please, until we have input from the sources you've specified. Also, I wouldn't describe the removal of one poorly sourced partisan criticism as a "proposed major change to the article." Thank you. Dino 21:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we wait until TJ and APJ weigh in. We can't act based solely on your claims that TJ admitted to you that he didn't write that article - your original claim - as acting on that gives credence to your allegations that TJ palgarized the article, or had it ghost written, or what ever it is that you are claiming. (what is it exactly that you are claiming? If TJ didn't write it, who did?) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dino - please sign your posts, and there's no need to fill up this page with cut and pastes from WP. All of us here (expect for one or two) are quite familiar with the applicable policies. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we wait until TJ and APJ weigh in. We can't act based solely on your claims ...

We can act based purely on the fact that it has been withdrawn from publication at both TJWalker.com and, within the past few weeks, AmericanPolitics.com. The fact that you had to go searching for a cached copy, when just a few short weeks ago you were linking to a copy at AmericanPolitics.com, indicates that Carolyn and I might be telling the truth. WP:BLP and WP:RS clearly mandate the immediate removal of this libelous material. Furthermore, if a couple of phone calls to TJ Walker by Carolyn and I are unacceptable, then a couple of e-mails from you to TJ Walker are equally unacceptable. I'd like to see a written statement by Walker, posted at TJWalker.com or some other RS, indicating that he did write the article and that he stands behind it today. Until we get that, every mention of that article (including the mention in Salon) must be deleted from this website. If you are as familiar with Wikipedia policy as you claim to be, then you will agree without the slightest hesitation. Dino 00:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We can wait for TJ and APJ to weigh in. Thanks for your insistance on verification though. I'll suggest that TJ Walker contact Brad Patrick, the WMF attorney, preferably by fax, to verify or deny your claims. You're still standing by them, right? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Let me understand this. An article was written in the past by a person named TJ Walker, right? That article was later removed by the author from hios website, on the basis that it was libelous? Is there any official retraction by TJ Walker to that effect? If that is the case, you can cite both the article and the retraction. If there is no retraction, citing the article would appropriate as per WP:V, even if it is from a cached version or an Internet archive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another question, why is it WP:BLP mentioned? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jossi - We only have Dino's 'claim' that the article was pulled. I believe it to be nothing more than a website error - and TJ Walker and APJ have been asked to verify or deny Dino's 'claim'. META headers and invisible text have been ruled 'be the same' as visible text in cyberlaw. The page here still has the headers

<html><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html charset=iso- 8859-1"><meta name=Author content="Free Republic"><meta name=Description content="Free Republic's Latest Stunt: Death Threats Directed Against Hillary Clinton"><meta name=keywords content="American Politics Journal,Free Republic,freerepublic.com"><link rel="SHORTCUT ICON" href=http://apj.us/apj.html><title>American Politics Journal</title><style><!--a{text-decoration:none;}body{background-color:#fff;}--></style></head><body></body></html>

Thus still constituting 'libel' using Dino's argument. A site admin deleting an 'offending' article to protect thmselves would NEVER leave such headers intact. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 03:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Info on FR's extremist history

The site we're talking about has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....

The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Reichstag Fire

More claims from this time period (an official FR 'page' compiled by FR - and as such, reflects their views)

And even speculated that the US. Gov, not Al Qaeda, bombed The USS Cole : "IMO the Cole bombing, if not another American Reichstag event, is AWFULLY convenient for a lot of Clinton goals.." Cole bombing - An American Reichstag?

I have never added anything to the Free Republic article but documented claims from verifiable secondary sources that are 'accepted truths'. I also ask that we wait until TJ Walker and American Politics Journal weigh in to verify or deny Dino's claims that TJ Walker admitted to him that he didn't write his July 06, 1999 article entitled 'Is FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com?' before deleting this source.

Note that all the facts above are sourced from Free Republic itself. Let's not try and sweep FRs documented extremist past under the rug - it's neither 'accurate' nor 'fair' like is my credo! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion or characterization of what is extreme is simply not relevant. Find mainstream, reliable Sources that characterize it as such. Otherwise it has no place here. Save it for the DU threads on FR. --Tbeatty 07:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK! "Free Republic's founding guru, Jim Robinson, has been sued by the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times; and a swelling number of haters have turned up the volume of death threats, gay-bashing, name-calling and conspiracy theories tying the father of Republican front-runner George W. Bush to drug-dealing by the CIA....The top extremist, in the estimate of the disenchanted, is its founder, Robinson... When Robinson unleashed a windy jeremiad linking Texas Gov. Bush with alleged CIA-connected drug-running under his father, a former CIA director (1975-77), vice president (1981-89) and president of the United States (1989-93), all cyber-hell broke loose." Salon.com - Fairness & Accuracy For All

BenBurch blocked 24 hours for 'incivility and mischaracterization'

The site we're talking about has a documented history of being so extreme (up until 9/11 when they underwent a 'sea change') that they theorized that Clinton bombed the Murrah building in Oklahoma City so that he could pass anti-terror legislation....

Is that the official position of Free Republic, or the surveyed position of a majority of its members? Read the thread. Do not characterize it as the official Free Republic position unless you can prove it. BenBurch has just been blocked for 24 hours for mischaracterization. What you are describing is the position of a small segment of Freepers: the tinfoil hat crowd. That crowd is constantly subject to ridicule by the rest of the Free Republic membership. You are succumbing to the usual temptation: characterizing the most flaky, freaky quotations you can find as those of the "typical Freeper."

I also ask that we wait until TJ Walker and American Politics Journal weigh in to verify or deny Dino's claims ...

Earlier, you suggested a deadline of Tuesday. We shouldn't even wait that long. The burden of proof is on you under WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP, and until you satisfy that burden of proof it should be removed. Dino 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - lets wait till Tuesday. What part of the TJ Walker article do you claim is a violation of BLP? FYI, DU pulled the nutty threads that alleged that the Indonesian Tsunami might have been some 'evil Bush plan'. No such action from FR when their members alleged that Clinton bombed Oklahoma City or the USS Cole, was there? Do you want me to source the 100's of threads on FR that claimed Clinton had his political opponents killed? No comment from you on FR's owner claiming Bush was a 'felon and cokehead' and he would 'take up arms' and 'be ready for war' if Bush were elected, I see.

By the way this page: FR 'action news bill' being an official FR 'MEMBER page' allowed by FR - shows official FR tolerance of these views. [refactored] Fairness & Accuracy For All

That page isn't an "official FR page compiled by FR." It's a user page by ActionNewsBill. What official position does ActionNewsBill hold at Free Republic? Is he a member of the board of directors, or the president of some local Free Republic chapter? Is he Jim Robinson's right hand man? None of the above. He holds the same official position at Free Republic that any ordinary editor holds here at Wikipedia. Does any ordinary editor speak for the Wikipedia Foundation? Do not mischaracterize that as an "official FR page compiled by FR" unless you want to join BenBurch on the blocked list. Dino 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My bad! A Freeper calls himself 'action news bill' ? OK! Don't worry. I have lots more links to articles and threads on FR that I can supply! What about JimRob calling Bush a 'cokehead and a felon' and that he would 'take up arms' if Bush got elected? That is the gist of much of the criticism (which mostly comes from genuine conservatives) - JimRob's (and FR's) 180 from being Bush Haters to becoming Bush Worshippers and Big Gov-Loving, Civil Liberties-Hating Statists. No comment Dino? Did '9/11 change[d] everything' ? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 03:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have lots more links to articles and threads on FR that I can supply!

Unless it is an article written and posted by Jim Robinson, John Robinson or Kristinn Taylor at the top of a thread, it is not the official Free Republic position. Do not mischaracterize it as such. There have been roughly 100,000 threads at Free Republic in its 10-year history. If you can show that even one-half of 1% of those threads are conspiracy theories, I'll be surprised. Dino 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of posts written by JimRob himself - posts that he didn't delete like he did his posts alleging that Bush was tied to 'CIA drug running' - Here's another one from 1999 "I do not believe a Bush Presidency will be good for our Constitution or for our Republic. I also oppose Dole, Hatch and McCaine on the same grounds. I believe that Forbes, Keyes, Smith and perhaps Buchanon would be strong supoporters of the Constitution. I'm neutral on the other Republicans whoa re running."Posted on 08/20/1999 16:54:27 PDT by Jim Robinson link - Your comments on this thread Dino? Sudden Instant Death Syndrome (Clinton) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 07:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty keeps deleting this - so here is FULL Jim Robinson 'cokehead felon' post verbatim

To: Freedom Wins

"So, it doesn't matter if he snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful indiscretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh? Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment?

Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions. Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!

And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!"

2 Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson REPLY #2 - You accuse me of misquoting him or misinterpeting him???! Fairness & Accuracy For All

That would belong in a biographical article about Jim Robinson. I notice that they started one, there was a Request for Deletion, and the consensus was that it should be merged here. But every time Billy Hathorn tries to include biographical material, it gets reverted.

I made it clear that anything written by Jim Robinson, John Robinson or Kristinn Taylor that is posted at the top of a thread is the official Free Republic position. What you have posted here is an example of Jim Robinson posting as a member of Free Republic. It was Reply #2, not the top of the thread. Robinson has the right to participate in discussions there, and vent his personal opinions just like everyone else. But unless they are at the top of the thread, they are not official Free Republic policy.

My only concern at this point, really, is the removal of libelous material to keep Wikipedia from getting sued. Anything else like this is a secondary consideration. You're insisting that we wait until Tuesday to hear from TJ Walker and AmericanPolitics.com about the removal of that article from their websites, and that the libelous material should stay in place until then. More prudent heads than yours need to be involved in such a decision. There's a noticeboard for libel that's linked to WP:BLP and I'm posting a notice there. Dino 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you misquoted him. He did not call Bush a cokehead and a felon. He is chastising the WP for allowing Bush to not answer questions about it. To wit, Bush is President and Robinson doesn't seem all that upset. But I doubt he would be happy if the U.S. elected another Clinton so he wants those questions asked and answered (drug use and felonies). --Tbeatty 15:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, use my full username. --Tbeatty 15:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, you misquoted him. He did not call Bush a cokehead and a felon. He is chastising the WP for allowing Bush to not answer questions about it." ROFLMAO - 18:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's his comment in the thread:

To: To All:

I was addressing my comments to the author and supporters of the view subscribed to in this editorial. Does the Wall Street Journal now claim that a felon, any felon (forget about the name Bush for a moment), should be allowed to be our President? And do they further say that the precedent set by Clinton's stonewalling is ok? That as long as a presidential candidate stonewalls on questions of his integrity that it is ok? If he can stonewall the press and the people will fall for it that it's all ok? If cocaine use is a felony, any person who used it at any time in is life is a felon and he should not be qualified to run as president. It appears to me that we have a potential candidate who realizes this fact and this is why he refuses to answer the question. I just kinda blew my top when I see what is normally a conservative editorial page spin for a felon. Forget the name. They are suggesting that if a candidate has a felony in his background that he should simply follow Clinton's precedent and stonewall. I cannot believe I read this in a Wall Street Journal editorial.

89 Posted on 08/20/1999 10:03:57 PDT by Jim Robinson

Yes you misquoted him. --Tbeatty 04:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - two hours after he posted his screed and he saw that he had a full blown mutiny on his hands he tried to backtrack a little as damage control - but STILL alleges A SECOND TIME that Bush is a cokehead and felon (HERE) 'If cocaine use is a felony, any person who used it at any time in is life is a felon and he should not be qualified to run as president' . Or are you gonna claim now that he was talking about Klintoon? Fairness & Accuracy For All

Nope. He's talking about Presidential candidates. They should not have enganged in felonies. Saying that Presidential candidates should not engage in crimes is not the same thing as alleging that they did. Robinson makes that clear. He complains that Bush decides not to answer the question and WSJ is backing him up on it. That is quite a bit different than alleging that he is a felon. Your misquotings and misunderstandings are creating an embarrassing littany of BLP violations. Please refrain from adding your wild interpretations to the article. --Tbeatty 06:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

About Wikipedia 'getting sued' for libel

Dino - all your worries are for naught!

"Thanks to section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which became law in 1996, Wikipedia is most likely safe from legal liability for libel, regardless of how long an inaccurate article stays on the site. That's because it is a service provider as opposed to a publisher such as Salon.com or CNN.com." Wikipedia and libel - 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You might want to read this, in particular the analysis by Prof. Lichtman of the University of Chicago's College of Law. If Wikipedia employees (such as Carolyn Doran and Brad Patrick) are aware of libelous material in the Free Republic article, and refuse to do anything about it, can Wikipedia be held liable? Do you really want to find out the hard way? Wikipedia's status under Section 230 of the CDA has never been tested in a court of law under those specific circumstances; and, win or lose, there's always the matter of attorney fees. Why roll the dice with a proven litigious man like Robinson? Is the decision to roll those dice your decision to make? Play it safe. Dino 00:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Dino, you must have missed this

Note : That Admin User:Jossi who is heavily involved with BLP, LIVING, and re-writing RS V to ATT is of the opinion that the source is fine, even as he accepts as fact Dino's unproven claim that the article was 'pulled' for being libelous! "Let me understand this. An article was written in the past by a person named TJ Walker, right? That article was later removed by the author from his website, on the basis that it was libelous? [unknown] Is there any official retraction by TJ Walker to that effect? If that is the case, you can cite both the article and the retraction. If there is no retraction, citing the article would appropriate as per WP:V, even if it is from a cached version or an Internet archive". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC) link Why is Dino even persuing this, when Jossi, who is the long time mediator on the Free Republic article, [just now returning to medition] said it was OK?

This too : Free Republic was not a sole proprietrship in 1999 as Dino claims. It was a LLC. From L.A. Times vs. Free Republic [1999] "Unable to present any evidence of transformativeness, Defendants are forced to falsely portray “[t]he [Free Republic] site [as] a not for profit enterprise.” Defendants’ Motion 6:20-21, 7:5 (relying on the Declaration of Howard K. Szabo). In fact, the Free Republic website is a for-profit limited liability company in the business of “Internet discussion and marketing.” Wayland Decl., §§ 9-10, Exhs. H & I (fictitious business name statement for Free Republic). Free Republic is not -- and never has been -- a non-profit entity." LA Times v Free Republic - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Quoting from the Plaintiffs' pleadings rather than the final negotiated judgment? Are you always so one-sided in your analysis? Why do I even bother asking that question? Dino 22:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

LMAO ; "CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT : Defendant-Appellant Free Republic is a not-for-profit limited liability company" link Keep digging that hole Dino - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep on LYAO. That document is a Corporate Disclosure Statement from April 2001. Dino 00:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From 1999:

STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

Defendant Jim Robinson is the owner and operator of the two website Defendants: Electronic Orchard and Free Republic,[10] Electronic Orchard is a for-profit limited liability company in the business of "Internet Programming & Design Services."[11] Free Republic is a for-profit limited liability company in the business of "Internet discussion and marketing". Fairness & Accuracy For All