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
7. Talk:Free Republic/Archive7

'Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated'

"Taking" 2,000 Freepers with her? Do you have any idea how many of those 2,000 kept active accounts at FR after they opened accounts at Lucianne.com? We do. People like to use the same username, or something very similar, wherever they go on the Internet so that their friends can find them. This makes it easy for people like us to track them when they set up accounts elsewhere. (Please don't try to read anything sinister into that. We're just trying to measure the genuine scope of the "exodus" and whether people like you have a point.) And are you certain that the author at Salon.com wasn't trying to put a spin on the numbers? Try to stop assuming the worst about everything, and try to recognize that the critics of Free Republic may be spinning the facts and exaggerating because they have agendas of their own.

There's a member of FR leadership who claimed in 1999, "JR's shifts in position and his feud with Lucianne have cost us a lot of members." The response was, "Prove it. We'll give you all the tools you need." Jim Robinson and his son, John Robinson, are software writers. They built the software that runs the site. It's had major overhauls three times, and minor upgrades many, many times. Some of the features of these overhauls and upgrades have been in response to the desire to track who is leaving, why they're leaving, and whether they're coming back. Other tools have also been created to scan other sites such as Liberty Post and Lucianne.com, and compare usernames there with the usernames of people who left Free Republic, whether they were banned or they announced their voluntary departure (a procedure known as an "opus").

Mark Twain said, "Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated." If FreeRepublic.com was a person and had said the same thing, it would be a tremendous understatement. Since 1999, Free Republic has grown from 20,000 accounts to 200,000. Compare that to the dire predictions by Todd Brendan Fahey. Of the people who have left without being banned to set up accounts elsewhere, roughly 99% still have active accounts at FR that have posted within the last 18 months, or requested new accounts (or reactivation of old accounts) using the same IP address or e-mail account.

Also, I should point out that there are three "layers" of participation at Free Republic, and only one of them is immediately visible: the discussion threads. We also have a private message feature and it's very active. The third layer is the series of 50 state discussion boards and the DC discussion board, for the local Free Republic chapters. If an account is active on any one of these "layers," we consider it an active account, even though it may not be posting on the open discussion threads. The figure of 2,500 active accounts per day (with huge increases on busy days such as 9/11 and Election Night) refers only to the open discussion threads.

Some of the people who were banned have actually had their accounts reactivated. The process is similar to Unblock-en-l but in most cases, it's not public. There was one major amnesty thread that I recall in 2004, with something like 2,000 posts; and there may have been others as well. In those cases, we have some public discussion about whether a particular banned member should be allowed to come back. Political positions that differ from JR's, or even from conservatism in general, are not grounds for banning or for denying reinstatement. What matters is how those positions had been presented.

New accounts that look like they're just looking to pick a fight are banned and there's no looking back. Well-established members who have been there a while, who get into arguments and say something nasty in the heat of the moment, are usually given time to cool off; and if they've been so abusive over such an extended period that they've been banned, they're usually allowed to reopen their old accounts after a few months if they are genuinely remorseful.

Attempts by observers with agendas, and by banned racists and abusive people, to spin-doctor and distort this situation into some sort of "purge" or "mass exodus" should be seen for what they are. Free Republic is thriving. Abuse and threats of criminal action face zero tolerance. That is the truth this article should convey. Dino 05:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Not long ago you were downplaying your connection to FR other than claiming to be their attorney - saying your weren't a moderator, weren't involved with decision-making, etc. Now it's 'we' this and 'we' that, and you're the defacto FR web traffic analyst! LMAO! Too bad (for you) that all your conficting statements exist in the article and talk page histories. - FAAFA 21:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking the bait. Dino 03:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither are the Admins on the RfA. No turnips there. FAAFA 10:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dino, it is really, really, inappropriate for you to even engage in discussion in this Wiki entry, let alone make edits. You have shown repeatedly that you are deeply entwined with the management and operations for the subject of this Wiki article. This would be the equivalent of having, say, Karl Rove openly participate in the Wikipedia article regarding George W. Bush on a regular basis. There would be an inherent conflict of interest in such a situation, just as there is here with your participation on the Free Republic article. You need to stop. Carthago delenda est 21:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't edit the article, sir. But a pair of left-wing partisans from Democratic Underground are editing it. One of them has actively recruited left-wing meatpuppets to participate at Wikipedia, skewing articles from NPOV to a left-wing perspective. His first known effort was in October 2005. [1] Dino 15:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you're playing semantics games. You consistently weigh in on this page with legal threats under the guise of "looking out for" Wikipedia's best interests if the slightest negative piece of information is included about Free Republic, or it's owner, in the article. What the "left-wing meatpuppets" from Democratic Underground have attempted to do on this page is well known, and they have consistently been reverted and/or prevented from skewing this article away from NPOV by other Wiki editors. But THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE I addressed with you: the issue at hand is the inherent conflict of interest in YOU having anything to do with this article in any way, shape, or form. I will reiterate, since you do not seem to grasp the concept: your participation regarding any aspect of this page is just as inappropriate as having Karl Rove edit and/or participate in the Wiki entry on George W. Bush. You need to stop, or be perma-blocked. Period.Carthago delenda est 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Republicans

Virtually all of the posters are Republicans. Robinson has urged the members to keep their political affiliation within the GOP and its primaries and not consider conservative third parties, which he maintains would improve the electoral prospects of Democrats.

While the above is probably true. It is still uncited, so I moved it here. --PTR 15:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a nice positive article about Free Republic

You must not have looked very hard. I ran a Google search for "Free Republic" + "Lucianne Goldberg" and Flak Magazine (8/9/01) was fifth on the list:

FR is a real Internet success story. Mr. Robinson has recently been honored with the National Federation of Republican Assemblies' Ronald Reagan Freedom Award for his efforts on behalf of conservatism in America. ... FR also has its share of characters, whom you will begin to notice if you lurk long enough. One of note is the superb satirist Registered, who can work wonders with photographs and is the author of the "Sore Loserman" logo seen everywhere in Republican circles during last November's Florida debacle. Then there's TLBSHOW, king of the vanity posts; _Jim, much-hated government apologist; Michael Rivero, conspiracy hunter du jour; Inspector Harry Callahan, who believes the moon landings were faked and is FR's resident extreme right-wing wacko and Murraymom, FR's best-known and best-loved liberal gadfly. Unlike Lucianne and Democratic Underground, FR management is surprisingly tolerant of "disrupters" who go against the forum's ideological bent, as long as they try to be "thoughtful" in their criticisms.

... FreeRepublic has something for both liberals and conservatives. For those on the left, it provides revealing insight into how and why conservatives think the way they do. For right-wingers, FR is a great place to hang out, stay entertained, get enraged, or simply reassure yourself that you are not alone and that conservatism is still alive and well in America today. But more significantly, FreeRepublic and political forums like it, both left and right, provide a group portrait of America at the beginning of a new millennium, and the picture that emerges is a paradoxical one: a country whose people can be frustrating, provocative, humorous, intolerant, thoughtful and, above all, argumentative all at the same time.

Okay, go ahead. Come up with an excuse for not putting it into the article. Dino 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

LMAO! 1) it's a NN blog that anybody can submit to : "we invite anyone interested to join us...Those who contribute five or more pieces that are published become "staff writers," for what that's worth, and remain so as long as their newest piece is less than six months old." 2) I do like these quotes though "There have been participants defending Timothy McVeigh, "a modern-day Paul Revere," and fundamentalists often take control of any thread having anything remotely to do with homosexuality. There's even an active pro-Milosevic lobby." Keep up the good work Deano! ROFL - FAAFA 13:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that every community of this size has a lunatic fringe. In the past you've demonstrated a propensity to represent such members as "the typical Freeper," or even "an official FR page compiled by Free Republic." There are 100,000 active members posting within the last 18 months, another 100,000 inactive (most of them probably just lurking), and a couple dozen of them are nutcases. Adding such posts to this article is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.

Regarding Flak Magazine, the publication may not be very notable, but Barton Wong has been fairly active. Try Googling his name. And notice that anybody can submit an article to Flak Magazine, just like anybody can submit an article to National Geographic or The New York Times. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to publish it. Dino 14:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

FReep this poll

PTR: I take no issue with the heading change. However, you took out the lines says "The goal is to influence polls to reflect the aggregrate votes of Free republic members. In addition, poll publishers complain that some voters find ways to avoid systems that only allow one vote and, instead, vote hundreds of times", claiming they were not in the cite. However, they are. Let me quote the passages so you don't have to read the cite:

For the part about reflecting the aggregate votes of Free Republic members, I don't think I even NEED to quote the cite since that's the entire point of a poll, to make it reflect your opinion, however: "Whenever a poll is posted on Free Republic.com, everybody goes and votes the right way".

Now, for the second, about voting hundreds of times: "People are finding a way of getting around our system that only allows one vote, and they're voting hundreds of times. It's not thousands of people voting one way; it's one or two people voting hundreds of times".

As you can see, it already "reflect[ed] what the cite says", so you didn't need to change it. - Jarn 00:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I do take issue with the heading change (here and in the Democratic Underground article). "Influencing polls" is the best heading to appear in the ToC, to help the reader decide whether to skip down to that section. "FReep this poll" might, to the uninitiated, mean influencing a poll, or creating one, or reporting one. That term is explained in the text but it doesn't make the best heading. JamesMLane t c 22:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this guy took it out again, even though it is well sourced. He also removed a lot of other well-sourced stuff claiming it wasn't "fact". Am I allowed to revert it? To me, it seems like vandalism. - Jarn 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it. If it was against the rules, someone inform me. Though from what I have seen, the only person doing anything wrong is this guy. Oh, and I think you're right about the title, James, so I changed it back. - Jarn 23:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I may have been too hasty in my revert. I am still new to Wikipedia and it looks to me like someone merely taking out information they don't like. PTR, can you tell me why you don't think it's fact when the source clearly reflects it? - Jarn 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was removing non-encyclopedic information that tries to use inference to suggest rather than just reporting the facts. Citing the number of people attending a rally and comparing it to the number of people at the Free Republic rally is just NPOV.

It is also not mentioned in the citation that the reason is for voting is to sway the results and it is not noted in the citation that the Free Republic people are voting multiple times. We might know this, everyone in the world might know this but it's OR if it's not restating what is in a reference.

This is simply a website. The only things that are really needed here are: what it is, the way it works and any controversy. Currently it tries to explain too much which makes it non-encyclopedic. I've been doing the same thing to the DU article.

Full disclosure - I had never visited the Free Republic or DU sites until I started editing this article. I came here because it was tagged. The only reason I've visited those sites now is to make sure the cites reflect what was said. --PTR 14:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"It is also not mentioned in the citation that the reason is for voting is to sway the results and it is not noted in the citation that the Free Republic people are voting multiple times." I would ask you to please read the cite. Or read what I copied from the cite at the beginning of this section on the talk page. For your benefit, I will do so again:

For your first argument about it not being stated that their trying to sway the results, isn't that what voting is all about? Affecting the results? Oh, and here's a quote from the cite for it: "Whenever a poll is posted on Free Republic.com, everybody goes and votes the right way"

Now, as for the one about not voting multiple times, that, too is in the cite. Here is that quote: "People are finding a way of getting around our system that only allows one vote, and they're voting hundreds of times. It's not thousands of people voting one way; it's one or two people voting hundreds of times"

Since the cite does show it and that was your only argument, I will add that back in, since I can now safely assume you have no objection. - 12.218.6.223 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above was me, I forgot to log in. - Jarn 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since we both want it to reflect what the citation says, I've changed it to the actual quotes from the citation. --PTR 14:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it. I think a summary of the cite would be better. Your edit tells the same information in about three times the length. However, I can tell that you won't allow me to summarize the cite so I will stop reverting it. - 172.151.29.56 21:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above was me also, I forgot to log in... again. - Jarn 21:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with summarizing. I put in the quotes because we couldn't seem to compromise on the summary. It seemed the summaries didn't state exactly what the citation said. Blame my technical editing background. I don't think it's allowable to jump from "people" to "free republic" and when one of the quotes says "it's just for a laugh" it doesn't seem to support trying to sway the poll. Maybe I'm being too literal but it just bugs me.--PTR 21:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this summary:

Media web sites, including newspapers, television networks, and America Online, run occasional "polls" that do not use the sampling methods of formal opinion polls but instead invite everyone to respond. Some Free Republic forum messages, usually captioned "FReep this poll!", urge Free Republic members to vote en masse in these polls. While Free Republic members say they do it just for a laugh, some political analysts say it can have an effect if it's reported as real news. The polls can also be manipulated by people voting multiple times rather than once. --PTR 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that looks good. However, I do think that something should be said about the people in Free Republic voting hundreds of times, since that is the focus of the cite. The cite says it doesn't see anything wrong with the voting, but the people voting hundreds of times. I probably should have quoted more of the sentence, but it definitely is talking about people from Free Republic. The beginning of the paragraph shows that they're talking about people from Free Republic doing it and it is shown by the whole article being about people from Free Republic. But here, let me quote you this:

"SF Gate has had a few of its own polls FReeped. As SF Gate News Director (and poll writer) Vlae Kershner put it, "People are finding a way of getting around our system that only allows one vote, and they're voting hundreds of times. It's not thousands of people voting one way; it's one or two people voting hundreds of times.""

That's more of the article. As you can see, they're talking about the act of "FReeping", which is done by the people from Free Republic. I really believe something about that should be in the poll, since it is the focus of the article. - Jarn 23:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable putting words in the guy's mouth. He doesn't say FR. I understand the article is about FReeping but they describe FReeping as someone posting a poll and telling everyone to go vote in it. That being said, you write it up the way you think it should read and I won't change it. Good discussion, by the way. --PTR 16:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic

Hello,

An Arbitration has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic/Workshop. --Tbeatty 03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rally

The paragraph as written is trying to make a point by comparing the numbers. It's not encyclopedic. The 100 number referenced is from a sentence that says "...had gathered before the rally..." This link says they were expecting 1,000 but were prepared for 20,000. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007955/posts In all, the paragraph is trying to spin. --PTR 15:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

SO? (comparing numbers) Those are FACTS. Facts are not POV. And why are you inclusing a DIFFERENT link to a 2003 event?! Here's what The Guardian (via AP) article says:

"Earlier, Taylor said organizers were prepared for 20,000 people to attend the pro-military rally, billed as a time to honor the troops fighting ``the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world. and "about 100 people had gathered before a stage set up on the eastern portion of the mall as the noon rally began. "

The pargrpah in question:

In 2005, Free Republic helped to organize and stage a 'Freep' in Washington, D.C., intended to show support for the troops and opposition to the antiwar protest of September 24, 2005, which drew an estimated 100,000. Free Republic's D.C. chapter leader and frequent spokesperson for the group, Kristinn Taylor, was quoted as having said that Free Republic was "prepared for 20,000 people to attend the pro-military rally, billed as a time to honor the troops fighting, the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world." Instead of the 20,000 expected, only an estimated 100 reportedly attended.[2]

I'll ask an admin to weigh in. - FaAfA 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but PTR is right, this is clearly "spin". <<-armon->> 22:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Looks like spin to me. Dman727 00:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the link. I pasted the wrong one. This one said several hundred people attended. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2005/20050925_2844.html An admin sounds good. --PTR 22:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

AP trumps an employee of the DOD writing for his employer. After Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman they have been found to be ....er.... less than RS V. Here's a thread from FR. it says 200. Numbers and facts aren't POV. I agree that the qualifyer 'only' 100 is, and should be removed FR link I asked Jossi to take a look. - FaAfA 23:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'll wait for Jossi. Taking out the only does improve it. I still don't think the link you are using for the 100 is pointing to the right rally. Apparently (according to cites) there were two rallies. One counter demonstration (Saturday) and one honoring military families (Sunday). It might just be better to change the paragraph so it says:

In 2005, Free Republic helped to organize and stage a 'Freep' in Washington, D.C., to show support for the troops and opposition to the antiwar protest of September 24, 2005, which drew an estimated 100,000. Approximately X number of people attended.[3]

--PTR 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We'll wait for Jossi (and maybe I'll ask at an RfC) then. The fact that 100 or 200 Freepers showed up at a rally is NOT notable. The fact that 100-200 Feepers showed up at a rally which they had hoped 20,000 would show up at - IS - what's notable. - FaAfA 06:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it notable?--PTR 14:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Another bitter little skirmish. For every square inch of this article, a drop of Wiki-blood must be spilled. Like I said, gentlemen: they're like the Japanese at Iwo Jima. They got the article the way they like it on January 6, and trying to get it back to NPOV is a take-no-prisoners battle. One of them has actively recruited left-wing meatpuppets to participate at Wikipedia, skewing articles from NPOV to a left-wing perspective. His first known effort was in October 2005. Dino 15:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider it fighting and definitely not a bitter skirmish. Compromising on wording is never easy even if you're writing the directions for using a coffee machine. --PTR 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

FAAFA has his own ideas about what is "notable" and what isn't. He seems incapable of examining those ideas. Left-wing spin from the Guardian is not NPOV. Dino 20:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The source was AP for The Guardian. If AP is too POV for you, let's go with the FR numbers then - 200. That's much better for you Freepers. Only 19,800 less than expected instead of 19,900! The FR organizers should have advertised that they were going to have that purple ink for Freepers to dip their index fingers in so the Freepers could mimic the fundamentalist Muslims they admire so much. You Freepers love that little trick! You probably would have got 25,000 if you pimped the purple ink! LOL! - FaAfA 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough with the silly Muslim rhetoric. 25,000 or 100, Im trying to understand what is notable about this rally. It sounds like another run of the mill rally that left and right interest groups like to hold. If the turnout was less than what the planners had hoped for, it seems that the notability of the rally would decline, rather than go up as faafaa suggets. Dman727 21:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems you're wrong. When Katherine Harris had a rally in an airport hanger and it drew only a fraction of what was expected, THAT'S exactly what was so notable about it, and ALL the stories covered THAT aspect. Silly? I love the purple finger! I was hoping they would show Freepers outside the Academy Awards with their giant styrofoam purple fingers, like 2 (?) years ago when Michael Moore drove them into fits of rage. (did they go? Have to check FR) The purple finger (and FR's expression of solidarity with fundamentalist Muslims) is one of FR's most important contributions to political dialogue EVER! Long live the puple finger! ;-) - FaAfA 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. How many irrelevant tangents can you cram in there? lol. Katherine Harris, Muslims, purple fingers, styrofoam, Michael Moore, airport hangers, and Academy awards. Did I miss any? That paragraph is a medley of tangents. In any event, I disagree and an army irrelevant tangents will change that-Some run of the mill, non-rally is a big yawner and does nothing to futher the readers knowledge of the site. Dman727 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! That was good wasn't it? The airport hanger isn't a tangent. That's where Katherine Harris had HER (like FR) nearly-empty rally. We'll wait. - FaAfA 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it you are in a dispute on the Katherine harris article?? Honestly Faafa, I have no interest in that article. Respectfully, it seems that you are trying to convince me of something in regards to Harris, however I'm not particularly interested. Dman727 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I take it you're wrong. I don't think I've EVER edited there. Like FR did in DC in 05, she 'threw a party and nobody came'. That's all. - FaAfA 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didnt go check as I've not followed Harris except for that business in the 2000 election. I DO see where you are coming from and I understand your point-its just that I disagree. I feel that "non events" arent really notability even if the people that were throwing it wanted it to be an event. Dman727 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that we have precedent for including such information when notable, but from reading the above I don't see that it's been established that less people that initially predicted showing up to the rally is important or notable info about the rally. People mis-estimate rally sizes ahead of time all the time. That they did the rally, sure, that it was much smaller than the anti-war rally they were counterprotesting, sure.

Not every fact about an organization is significant enough to be encyclopedic. One can construct an entirely factually true and semantically useless encyclopedia article out of factually true info - or a horribly biased one cherrypicking facts. This case is clearly more subtle than that, but the point holds - would an independent person not affiliated with (not for or against, just random person in society) care about how many people they thought would show up to the rally, or just that they held it and that it was smaller than the anti-war rally, reading the article? The case certainly hasn't been made that the fact being there adds any useful encyclopedic content. Georgewilliamherbert 03:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

George, I would agree if 10,000 people showed up - but when the official spokesman for Free Republic says that they are expecting 20,000 and only 100-200 show up, that IS notable. Google Katherine Harris + Hangar. - FaAfA (yap) 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Harris rally is one thing - it recieved nationwide press attention. This was covered briefly in passing, and is clearly true, but not clearly relevant or notable. You clearly believe so, but you haven't convinced me. Forget the rest - can you explain why you think it's important enough to specifically note, and how you propose to address noting it in a NPOV way? Georgewilliamherbert 03:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also FaAfA, "Prepared for" is not the same as "expecting". You're attempting a "gotcha" on a bit of puffery. What's fair to say, going by the cite, is that they were hoping for more, they felt they still made their point, and that they attributed the low turnout to the apathy of the "silent majority". <<-armon->> 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Also back to the rally passage. Two issues -a proper cite for this is here -it was an AP story, and including it would be fine IMO if the tendentious presentation was cleaned up.

From the cite:

Organizers of Sunday event to show support for troops and President Bush's policies acknowledged that their rally would be much smaller. Still, they said their message would not be overshadowed.

and

War supporters said the scale of the anti-war march didn't take away from their cause.

"It's the silent majority," said 22-year-old Stephanie Grgurich of Leesburg, Va., who has a brother serving in Iraq.

Presenting it as an abject failure is what's problematic and "spin". <<-armon->> 03:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is one rally of one chapter of Free Republic notable? This is like talking about the amount of people that showed up for a single camping trip at the local Boy Scout chapter and putting in the Boy Scouts of America article. It's simply not notable. Quit trying to push POV with these simply non-notable facts. --Tbeatty 03:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it's spin - the deliberate contrast of the numbers of the freep compared with the numbers of the anti-war protest is OR. - Merzbow 03:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Precedents :

K-Fed plays to an almost empty house

"K-Fed’s New York City gig at Webster Hall wasn’t cancelled as some predicted — but it reportedly took some big-time begging on his part."

“They were going to cancel this concert, but he begged them to keep it on,” a Webster Hall bartender told Star. “He had to fight with them to keep this concert.” Only 300 people showed up at the club that holds 1,500." MSNBC

Another Harris staffer gone

"U.S. Senate candidate Katherine Harris has lost another key staffer in the wake of a disastrous political rally last week.

Rhyan Metzler, who had been Harris' political director, is no longer with the campaign, according to Harris spokeswoman Jennifer Marks. Metzler is the staffer that is being blamed for embarrassing comments Harris made following a rally at Orlando Executive Airport.

Only 40 people showed up for the event -- a number that includes Harris staff and media -- and Harris blamed the paltry turnout in part on a last-minute location change. She said a tree fell on the hangar that the rally was scheduled to be in forcing her campaign to switch to another hangar.

Airport officials, however, said no trees had fallen and that Harris was in the hangar her campaign had originally booked." Sentinel - FaAfA (yap) 03:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear where the consensus is on this issue, sir. Everybody here except you wants the remark about the low turnout removed from the article. Dino 15:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's true, Bryan. In fact, I'm in favor of expanding the article to the abysmal turnout at every FReep - I have pictures of the MFJII Eschoir 02:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're off to a very poor start on this article with this unsourced and heavily POV edit, which will stay reverted: [4]. - Merzbow 05:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not experienced in encyclopaedic editing. I am however a veteran of the earliest days of the Free Republic bulletin boards. I write from hard won experience. I now see the style here is completely different. I looked at your home page and am quite impressed at your objectivity. Hopefully I can make some contributions that are up to snuff.Eschoir 00:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

TBeatty

Can somone talk to TBetty? He just classified my notification of several admins, INCLUDING admins whose politics I know are different than mine and who don't particularly care for my humor, admins who I asked to mediate this difference of opinion as SPAMMING, and called it "spamming editors to try to get help with non-consensus spin" and added it to 'EVIDENCE' of my misdeeds in the RFAr! LOL! Seriously !LINKI kid you not! - You can see that I asked for an admin opinion of this issue back on 2/25, and then asked that same admin a few days later to weigh in, with NO results. TB is off the hook! FaAfA (yap) 04:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think spamming is? [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] ? --Tbeatty 04:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Canvassing for more information. --Tbeatty 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I notified several ADMINS after getting NO response TWICE from one Admin - in an effort to PREVENT an edit war- and I even included Admins whom I know who are conservative, and don't even LIKE me! WOW TB, just wow! - FaAfA (yap) 04:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The timestamps are all within about 15 minutes of each other. I kindly suggest giving admins more than 15 minutes to respond before contacting all the other admins. Dman727 04:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Er..... Feb 25 and Feb 26 - FaAfA (yap) 06:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah my mistake. I looked at 7 of your spams, I didnt realize there were even more than that. Dman727 16:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Admins have a noticeboard. Being ignored by a single admin is not an excuse to campaign on 7 talk pages to get your version of content inserted. It is the definition of spam. Read the guideline. You have been around long enough to know that. Also, you should know that admins have no more authority over content than any other editor. Admins enforce policy, not content. --Tbeatty 04:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your administorial advice. I have been around long enough? LOL! I just know I'm not the one Jimbo Wales personally told that they probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia for their gross violations of WP:BLP! - FaAfA (yap) 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Dixie Chicks?

What's the issue with the Dixie Chicks section? <<-armon->> 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-arranging the section, which at one time was in chronological order, to put The Dixie Chicks into the lead and to further separate a significant quote and put that quote into a 'stand-alone' position of prominence.

How 'bout we add this quote into a similar position " "It's a hateful place that, if the world was working as it should, would be relegated to the Internet's endless fringes, where conspiracy theorists and pyramid-power believers roam the wasteland." Globe and Mail S'that OK? - FaAfA (yap) 02:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. What does the Globe and Mail quote have to do with it? <<-armon->> 03:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Maines quote is a 'weighty' quote, moved into the most prominent position possible. If that's OK, picking a similarly 'weighty' quote (not one of the mildest) and moving it to a similar position should be OK, yes? - FaAfA (yap) 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So am I correct in reading this as just a jockeying for "position" in the article? If so, sorry I asked. <<-armon->> 04:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The quote is a very loud condemnation of Free Republic, reflecting the mean-spirited side of the organization, coming from one of its most prominent critics. Also, "the most prominent position possible" is in the lead of the article, which is precisely where FAAFA placed some nasty information in several successively nastier versions not long ago.

If FAAFA wants to counterbalance it, then we should give the same prominent placement to that statement by Sean Scallon about "leftist ... agents provocateurs." Since the Dixie Chicks statement in London was in 2003, and the other three paragraphs (Rathergate, Tony Snow and Jerome Corsi) are about events in 2004 and thereafter, Shibumi2 was correct in putting the Dixie Chicks at the top of the section to be in chronological order. I agree that we should get some input from an admin on this, since FAAFA is now starting a revert war with Shibumi2.

By the way, what happened to the Free Republic logo? Dino 14:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

From the article: "In addition, members whose comments and/or views are contrary to the prevailing Free Republic philosophies often have their posting privileges permanently revoked without warning." This has recently been added to the article by a brand new, single-purpose account and it has no basis in WP:RS, let alone reality. It isn't the "comments and/or views [that] are contrary to the prevailing Free Republic philosophy." I can immediately link you to the "User pages" of three or four Freepers whose views are diametric opposites to the prevailing Free Republic philosophy. If I start looking, I could find more.

What matters is how those views are presented. If someone registers the username "GOPsux" and starts posting "Republicans are fascists," he'll be gone in a hurry. But if someone registers a username like "Larry from Seattle" and starts posting a polite, well-founded constitutional dissection of the PATRIOT Act, the War On Drugs and the NSA's warrantless wiretaps, he will continue to be a valued and respected member of Free Republic. Dino 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"I can immediately link you to the "User pages" of three or four Freepers whose views are diametric opposites to the prevailing Free Republic philosophy." Of course you can. But you don't. You never do.

And you claim four accounts out of a claimed 200,000 registrants shows diversity? That's 0.002%.Eschoir 05:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You show a gift for employing logical fallacies. I didn't say that it "shows diversity." My point is that it isn't the nature of the views presented, but the manner in which they were presented that determines whether a members stays or is banned. Here's the homepage of MurryMom, a progressive in every sense of that badly abused word, who has been actively posting on Free Republic since May 1998.

Here's the homepage of L.N.Smithee, an African-American male who has been an actively posting member of an allegedly racist website since March 1998. Some of his views are conservative; but others are very, very "contrary to the prevailing Free Republic philosophy." As I said, if I went searching for them, I could find a lot more.

You, on the other hand, were banned for life in 1997 after just a few months, and you created over 80 sockpuppets to evade the ban. Dino 11:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, isn't there an injunction against you? And don't you need to post a link to the text of the injunction on your User page at Wikipedia? Does failure to post that link constitute a violation of the injunction? Dino 15:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)