Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:35, 2 January 2008

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.)

Youthful indiscretion

Freedom isn't free: The "coke head felon" quote may go on too long, feel free to edit it, but I object to it's elimination without citation of some wiki rule it is in violation of. It is included for it's classic indiscretion along the lines of John Cleese's rant in The Architect Sketch ("I'll have you know I wouldn't become a Free Mason if you got down on your lousy stinking knees and begged me!"). It is not posted for itself but in support of the last paragraph giving the context that political purges aren't new at FR. Eschoir 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've invested some time in reviewing the history of this article, including the archives of this Talk page. You were banned and sued by Free Republic, and you've been posting elsewhere with undiluted hostility toward Free Republic for ten years, so you have a conflict of interest. James M. Lane is a Democratic Underground member and his comments here speak for themselves, so he has a conflict of interest. In my opinion, neither of you should be editing the article. The history of the article shows that the "coke head felon" quote was championed by someone who has now been banned. In spite of your claim in your edit summary, there were links provided at that time, but the consensus was that the quote should be removed. If anyone else interprets the history of this article differently, I will listen with an open mind. The wikirule that I cite is the consensus rule. FreedomAintFree 05:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RWR8189 is an active member of Free Republic, but, strangely, you don't accuse him of having a conflict of interest. For the record, I don't think that he does, but he's obviously closer to the line than I am. (I lurk there but seldom post.) As for the quotation, I have no idea whether there was a consensus as you say. My personal opinion is that the quotation should be included. Your ES "people are allowed to change their minds about a candidate" misses the point completely. The issue isn't that we report Robinson's statement if it was logically inconsistent, because we want to show him up, but if what he said about Bush was OK (because he's "allowed" to change his mind) then that makes it not worth including. We're not here to tear Robinson down or build him up. The issue is whether the quotation would be informative to a reader who came here knowing nothing of FR. Clearly, it would. A major change of position by the site administrator is more important than stupid posts by a couple of since-banned DU members, yet the latter information is still included in the Democratic Underground article. I also don't see the relevance of your contention that the quotation "was championed by someone who has now been banned." We can report on McCarthyism but we shouldn't practice it. JamesMLane t c 08:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"and you've been posting elsewhere with undiluted hostility toward Free Republic for ten years"

Please source this statement, edit it or withdraw it.Eschoir 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedomaintfree seems to have registered June first, yet he knows so much history. I smell a sock-puppet.Eschoir 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freepers will go to any lengths apparently to suppress the cokehead felons quote.Eschoir 01:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego: Thanks for the advice. I disagree. The 3rr prohibits the reversion of a single editor's work. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" The Freepers are guilty of violation of the 3R by proxy. So far, Fredomaintfree (a Bryan sockpuppet) has reverted me [#1], I reverted him, he reverted me[#2], I reverted him, and then proxy RWR (second editor) reverted me[#3], I reverted him, then third editor reverted me[#4], I replied with new content. Now FreedomfromPalatine has reverted my new copy [#5]!

No meaningful attempt by the freepers has been made to discuss changes. "When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance."

Check your facts. Thank you for your watchfulness.Eschoir 02:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Freepers"? There is no Cabal. See WP:CABAL Putting aside the issue of possible socks a moment, those are all individual editors. Personally I saw activity that caught my eye and I see sourcing issues, hence my edit and my edit summary indicated my reason. Dman727 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your "edit" was a revert, not merely an edit. And are you not a registered un-banned participant at Free Republic?Eschoir 03:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an account at a number of political sites including free republic and DU. I rarely partipate in most of them as I don't like sites that limit themselves to one political spectrum. Discussion limited to one spectrum like singing in an echo chamber. Dman727

I must have missed the lesson on WP:3RRPROXY...And for the record I have nearly 6,000 posts at DU as well, so hopefully I don't run into any proxy cabals if I agree with you on a matter at that article.

As this article is on probation from ARBCOM I think we should tread very lightly, there may be BLP issues involved in quoting Robinson directly from FR as well, although I have no doubt he said it, without an RS, it doesn't cut it.--RWR8189 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Inclusion in Indiscretions

Per Prodego, I propose the following text:

When Robinson was supporting Alan Keyes, who had spoken at the original March for Justice, for President in 2000, he "famously blasted George W. Bush’s presidential candidacy back in 2000, before a dramatic late-campaign about-face that saw him emerge as one of the GOP ticket’s biggest supporters." [1]

- He famously wrote "So, it doesn't matter if he snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful indiscretion? . . ."

- "Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another coke head 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]

- Robinson's shift to Bush (after posting "I do not believe a Bush Presidency will be good for our Constitution or for our Republic.") caused an internal battle analogous to the "April Purge" of 2007 "as its founder and chief administrator first cleansed commenting ranks of Bush supporters, then, later, rallied to his support."[3]

Personally, I can't see what's notable about it, for it to be worth including at all. And it goes on much too long, even if it were worth including. Marieblasdell 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to reach a consensus on whether it's intended to write an article about Free Republic, or an extensively detailed biography about Jim Robinson, listing every time he changed his mind. If the former, this text is not notable and doesn't belong in the article. If the latter, then the whole article needs a new title and a major overhaul. FreedomAintFree 04:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I described in my edit summary, Free Republic is not a reliable source. Inclusion of Robinson's comment is limited to what is included in the Observer article, or another reliable source if it can be found. And as was noted above, this is not the Jim Robinson page, and it doesn't describe his views on every matter. If you think he notable enough to deserve his own page, go ahead and create one, although I believe it was AfD'd some time ago.--RWR8189 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the article about FR, we can certainly quote FR. "Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves...." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves The conditions set in that passage of the policy are met here, because the purpose of the quotation isn't to establish that Bush is a cokehead, but rather that at one time the FR site owner said he was.

More generally, the main reason for not having a separate article about Robinson is not that statements about him don't belong on Wikipedia. The reasoning that emerges from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Robinson is that he's notable only in the context of FR, so that relevant information can go on the FR article. By "relevant information" I mean, of course, information relevant to FR. If Robinson was convicted of a felony or saved an infant from a burning building, those interesting tidbits wouldn't belong here. Given that he runs a political website and imposes some restrictions on the scope of permissible discussion based on his own opinions, however, his political opinions do become relevant to the article about the website.

The material shouldn't be presented as an "indiscretion" of Robinson's -- "Look! JimRob is bad because he changed his mind!" Also, I agree with Marie Blasdell that the text suggested above is too long. I disagree with the straw-man argument that analogizes coverage of this point to "listing every time he changed his mind" or "describ[ing] his views on every matter". No one is proposing that. We as editors make decisions all the time about what's important, and we can reasonably say that it's worth noting when the administrator of a political site reverses his opinion of one of the most important political figures of the day. JamesMLane t c 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with JamesMLane's analysis. When Robinson's political views affect Free Republic they are relevant to this article. They should not be portrayed in a sinister or mocking fashion. FR is a reliable source for its own views. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That outburst notwithstanding, I don't see any policy shift that is apparent before and after the cited quote that would make this opinion notable to FR. He evidently changed his position on a subject, but I don't see how this is entirely notable to the history of FR, policies, or indiscretions. If Skinner over at DU was to criticize Obama's past use of cannibis or cocaine and then go on to endorse him as the Democrat nominee for president, I wouldn't find that particularly notable either.

It also seems to border on original research to cherry-pick quotes and then do self-analysis claiming that positions have changed.--RWR8189 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infamous FR troll proposes adding the cokehead felons quote, supported by the DU member who calls Freepers Freeptards. Nearly everyone else is opposed. This is a conflict of interest and it is affecting their judgment in this matter. Even though they seem to be allowed to edit the article their opinions should be given less weight when determining consensus. -- FreedomAintFree 02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any policy shift that is apparent before and after the cited quote that would make this opinion notable to FR. He evidently changed his position on a subject, but I don't see how this is entirely notable to the history of FR, policies, or indiscretions.:::

YOU don't, but you are a Freeper. The point is, the Observer does. History does. History also repeats itself, especially when unstudied. If Giuliani gets the nominations, will Giuliani opponents be banned?

And FreedomfromPalatine, I guess some editors are more equal than others, eh? For someone who has only been registered for a week, you sure are savvy to Wiki ways! Eschoir 04:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beback was kind enough to post links to all the "Wiki ways" on my talk page when he noticed that I'm a newbie. When I buy something, I read the owner's manual. Even though he has had disagreements with me on this article and another, Will has been decent and welcoming, and he hasnn't called me a sockpuppet. He sets a good example for you, Eschoir. Please follow it. -- FreedomAintFree, 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources please

"Free Republic has a significant relationship with conservative talk radio. There are daily threads discussing, as of May 2007, seven syndicated shows (as well as a weekly thread for Matt Drudge's Sunday night show). In addition, several famous conservative talk hosts have been known to post (or at least have an account) on Free Republic, including Mark Levin and Steve Malzberg. Tony Snow was also once a member before joining the White House staff."

I have resisted the urge to delete this to provide the editor time to source it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eschoir (talk • contribs).

There is nothing conservative about Free-Republic. It is globalist, Libertarian leaning.68.106.248.211 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish World Review source indicates that Drudge removed his link to FR because of racist posts surrounding the "Clinton love child" story. But you've ignored a statement by Drudge one paragraph later in the same JWR story, saying that he restored the link. The history is that Drudge briefly removed the link for racist posts, quickly restored the link, and then removed the link again for unknown reasons. As it stood, the paragraph here in the Wiki article was misleading; and the brief removal of the link for a few racist posts isn't notable. FreedomAintFree 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreedomAintFree has been banned as another BryanFromPalatine sockpuppet.Eschoir 05:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything negative that I've ever read about Wikipedia has been confirmed. The left-wing partisans are in control. All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Sockpuppet." Xboxwarrior 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax rots your brains. Can we still count on your support and participation? Eschoir 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source based on a LTTE?

I may be misreading the column at this link, but it seems to be little more than a letter to the editor. The final paragraph states: Submit your own rant or favorite discussion to redvsblue@salon.com, or jump right into a Table Talk discussion about Red vs. Blue..

Letters to the editor or their rough equivalent, are certainly not reliable sources, especially in the context of controversial material, nonetheless in article that ARBCOM has place on probation. There are certainly no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight in a letter written by Joe Nobody. A better source needs to be found, or this material should be removed--RWR8189 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were onto something at first, but the line where it goes "When contacted by Salon" indicates it is reportage. OLD reportage.Eschoir 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does FR have any relevance except history

I'm trying to think of a more organized version of this article. I was thinking of arranging the paragraphs by date. When you do that you get a LOT of ancient history, but less recent stuff. How to show current relevance (assuming it has any)? Seems like first two paragraphs of Format & Policy go up to first sectioin, then History (Chronology) and finally polls. Any takers?Eschoir 02:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last "Citation Needed" sourced!

We're free now!Eschoir 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five Months without Controversy

That's worth something.Eschoir 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Eschoir (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, there was a revert of a major rewrite to the article, with the comment "You can't do that without discussing it in Talk", to paraphrase the comment. The comment itself is wrong. According to Wikipedia ethic, anyone can do a major rewrite on an article, and if the rewrite is better, it should stay. No one owns an article. Having said that, I don't know if the rewrite is better or not. -- GABaker 4 December 2007 15:56 UTC —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can, you are correct. Whether it should take place is an entirely different matter. Articles, especially articles that have been as contentious as this one has been, are the sum product of a lot of work by a lot of people. I don't think it is fair for someone like Shibumi2, who has contributed very little to the article, to unilaterally rewrite the article from scratch with no input from others who have put in time and effort. TechBear 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather work than talk. But I respect your position TechBear. So let us discuss. What is different about Free Republic which permits different treatment (content and layout) from other articles of same class such as Democratic Underground, TPMCafe, MoveOn.org? Compare those articles please. You will straightaway see many differences. Those articles are similar with one another. They are consistent. This one is different. Why is this? Shibumi2 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just a watcher, not an editor on this article; you would be better off asking the people who have actively contributed. And with the article already under probation, keep in mind that Wikipedia moderators are paying close attention to all changes. I am willing to assume that your efforts are genuine and in good faith, but it would not be wise to make unilateral changes just because you personally don't like the way the article is currently written. TechBear (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia moderators are paying close attention to all changes". Well, there really isn't any position of 'moderator', though some people are watching I am sure. Such as myself. And you. Prodego ^talk 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators, moderators, close enough. ;-b TechBear (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who have actively contributed are not here. They would watch too if it is important to them. I have patience. How long do we wait for response? Do they own this article? While we wait I ask question to TechBear. Please look at version I posted. What is wrong with it? Shibumi2 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, not here? This article was a five month labor of compromise and organization, and it had staying power. I'd rather not reopen that particular can of worms. But that's just me, Eschoir (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History to keep consistent style of all Wiki articles of these classes. Many WikiProjects suggests desire to keep consistent style of each class. With respect to editors here I say start of WikiProject:Talkboards to keep consistent style for articles of this class. Why is this article different from others of same class like TPMCafe and MoveOn.org? This one has many words not neutral such as "purge." This word appears many times. No such word appears in other articles of same class but those talkboards also had similar events including fights between members. Why is this article different? Also layout is very different and not attractive. Entire article is history. Much space given to fights between members. Other articles have short history section and many other sections. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, do what you want. Just keep in mind that the Arbitration Committee warning at the top of this page is there for a reason; if your unilateral rewrites spark yet another edit war on this article, it will be on your head. Don't say we didn't warn you. :-) For what it is worth, I completely agree with you that the article needs a rewrite. I just don't think it will be worth the can of worms such a rewrite will no doubt open. Freepers are a vicious bunch as a glance at the history logs will show. TechBear (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research tags

I've tagged several references, and the article, with templates that indicate that certain parts of the article may be violating WP:NOR. Specifically, primary sources are cited--that is, directly from Free Republic, with no other secondary source establishing notability of such examples. That is, it appears that contributors are deciding which search terms and posts at Free Republic are notworthy. This appears to me to be patent original research. Mind you, I am not suggesting that anything is false; just that as an article, it appears to be original research suitable for publication elsewhere. I hope this clarifies my recent activity, and I look forward to helping. Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more, and have also attempted to correctly title and/or describe the references (many of which, alone, seem to violate WP:NOR--they would be fine, in my reading, if they were back up sources to other "secondary" sources). Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're simply examples of what is on the site, demonstrating the variety of topics discussed on the board. I don't think "secondary sources" are all that necessary; however, some of the content in the 2007 section is almost certainly original research (from banned/former Freepers with an axe to grind). (Disclaimer: I do post there.) JMyrleFuller (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freeper versus FReeper

Both versions are used in this article, and I could not find whether the term was good bad or indifferent. We should use the term consistently (Capitalization), and describe it if possible. Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your concerns

I agree that using Free Republic as a source for an article about Free Republic (except for basic information such as name of owner) is incorrect. Use of words that are not neutral is also incorrect. I read this entire page. At least two editors who were very active on this article have conflict of interest. This produced article that is not good. If these editors are confident that their work is good then they should nominate it for Good Article award. It will be instructive process for them. WP:MILHIST has standards much higher. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shibumi BLOCKED

for two weeks for multiple accounts. How odd that happens so much to Freepers. Eschoir (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenson? DuMond?

Why is there no mention of the Andy Stephenson and Wayne DuMond debacles? Both of these incidents had significant effects in the offline world. Any article on Free Republic should include them. --Pamela Troy (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Pamela Troy[reply]

Are there any reliable sources for those incidents? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what would you consider a reliable source? Quite a few of the threads in question are still up on Free Republic. Or is this a case of us being told not to believe our own "lyin' eyes?" --Pamela Troy (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Well? --Pamela Troy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might start by reviewing WP:V and WP:RS.--RWR8189 (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It does not clearly explain why there is no mention of either case. Can YOU give me an example of what you would consider a reliable source on these subjects? --Pamela Troy

Hello Pamela. You are new here. Welcome to Wikipedia. I found article on Wayne DuMond but what is Free Republic involvement in his story? Why is it notable? I found no article on Andy Stephenson and ask you the same questions. What is Free Republic involvement in story of Andy Stephenson? Is it notable? This is encyclopedia article. It is not a list of everything editor does not like about Free Republic. Language used must be strictly neutral. Facts must be verified. Reputation of Wikipedia project is more important than any editor's agenda. Remember Essjay controversy and Arbitrators placing this article on probation and banning editors. Many ships have foundered on these reefs. I encourage you to plot your course carefully and wish you smooth sailing. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic was quite active in advocating for Wayne DuMond's release while he was still in prison for the rape he committed in Arkansas, and considered Huckabee such a friend of the site that he was repeatedly referred to as the "Freeper Governor." This, of course, has changed in the wake of how the DuMond release turned out, and Free Republic's past advocacy for DuMond (which seemed largely based on hatred for the Clintons) is now considered such an embarrassment that one Free Republic poster has requested that past threads on the subject be removed.

The Andy Stephenson case involves voting rights activist Andrew Stephenson who, early in 2005, was diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer. A fundraising drive was held on the liberal website Democratic Underground and enough money was raised to make it possible for Stephenson to go to Johns Hopkins for a Whipple procedure. Free Republic and other right-wing websites got wind of this and began spreading the rumor that Stephenson was faking his illness, or exaggerating it, that it was all a scam. This appears to have gone farther than merely making up nicknames for Stephenson like "Scamdy" or "Undie" (Stephenson was gay) or posting grossly insulting messages describing him as a "grifter." A Free Republic "comedy" blog set up a "junior detective division" that attempted to dig up personal information on Stephenson, and at least one poster to Free Republic boasted of contacting the fraud division in Washington State about him. Not surprisingly, Stephenson's PayPal was at one point frozen and his surgery delayed. The abuse of Stephenson on Free Republic, which included denials that he was ill, that he'd ever had the surgery at all, that he had Pancreatic Cancer, etc., continued up to the day he died -- from complications following surgery for Pancreatic Cancer. The Stephenson issue resurfaced recently with the outcry that resulted when a Free Republic blog that had been especially active in claiming Stephenson was a malingering crook got nominated for a Comedy Weblog Award last November. Yes. I'd say FR's involvement was "notable."

I think this all can be described in pretty "neutral" language, i.e., language that does not include adjectives like "immoral," "callous," or "irresponsible." There is, of course, no way of preventing those words from cropping up in the minds of readers as they peruse the threads in question (that are still up and available for interested readers), but those are the breaks.--75.18.215.111 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(and in answer to my questions...dead silence.) We're in the midst of the holidays. You guys are probably pretty busy. But I want you to know that I have no intention of dropping this subject. The entry on Democratic Underground has references to "embarrassments" and links to threads on DU. Why not Free Republic? This disparity leaves the impression that it's Free Republic's clout -- not the actual rules -- that have eliminated references to the Andy Stephenson case from Wikipedia. I'd sure hate to think that was the case. --Pamela Troy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.215.111 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pamela. Do you have reliable sources to confirm any of this? Particularly effect of Free Republic activity on Huckabee and on Stephenson case? I have been very busy due to final exams and holidays. Also travel and challenges on other Wikipedia articles. But I do not want to ignore your concerns. Please post your reliable sources. I welcome your introduction of accurate new material if well sourced and written in neutral language.

English is difficult language to learn. I want you to understand me please. Did Freepers just point at Huckabee and chatter without any effect? If answer is "yes" then it is not notable and should not be in article. But do reliable sources state that Freeper chatter was cause of Huckabee to take action and cause DuMond to be released from prison? If answer is "yes" then it is notable and should be in article. Thank you for kind patience. We can work together yes? Shibumi2 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1434439/posts >>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=scamdy It is curious how scamdy.com, a website formerly maintained by one of the FreeRepublic's administrators, now directs to democraticwarrior.com. Just in case, here is a thread at FreeRepublic showing all the compassionate and very Christian reactions to the announcement of Stepehenson's death: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1439010/posts. Enough with the references? 189.70.223.130 (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this notable? How did the Freepers influence the Stephenson and DuMond cases? All that you've proven so far is the "Freeper chatter." We all know Freepers chatter. What Shibuni2 reasonably wants you to prove is this: how did the chatter affect any of the real world decisions on Stephenson's medical care, for example, or Huckabee's decisions about DuMond? Regardless of how the Freepers felt about them, how did everyone else in the DuMond and Stephenson affairs feel about the Freepers? How did this Freeper chatter influence them? 68.29.195.152 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR or RS?

I think this is not a WP:OR issue, but a WP:RS issue. The threshold question therefore becomes “Is this material challenged?”

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. In order to demonstrate that a claim is not presenting original research, one must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research.

If there is a source, in this case primary sources, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight.

Since no one seriously challenges the claims made in the material, I think it passes the test. Eschoir (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the lead

The lead to this article begins

Free Republic is a "for-profit", non-tax exempt [1] moderated Internet forum, activist and chat site for conservatives, primarily within the United States. It presents articles and comments posted anonymously by registered members using screen names.

To improve the article, I propose making two separate changes to the lead.

First, it is not clear right now that most Free Republic posts begin with articles from newspapers, magazines or other media. These articles cover a full spectrum of opinion, and come from all around the world. They are typically from what Wikipedia would call "reliable sources." The anonymous comments are typically refer to the content of these articles, sometimes agreeing with them, sometimes ridiculing them, etc. I propose to make the following change:

... It presents articles ~~and~~ from newspapers and other media with diverse points of view, along with comments posted anonymously by registered members using screen names. The comments are typically from a conservative point of view.

Second, the for- or non- profit status of the forum isn't a key fact that belongs in the lead. It's covered, at least partially, elsewhere in the article. I propose to remove the words

"for-profit", non-tax exempt [1]

from the lead, and to insure that the points and the reference are appropriately included later on.

Your comments will be appreciated. Lou Sander (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. I don't follow as much as I used, but I think the gross number of 'reliable source' articles is down in proportion to the vanity posts, caption the photo, listen to (your fave, the 'brilliant') Ann Coulter on the radio now posts. Val called it a 'spam factory' early on and it only has become moreso.

I think the "for profit non-tax exempt" may be technically better applied to Free Republic, LLC later in the article or in a separate article.Eschoir (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at 50 consecutive FreeRepublic posts and did the best I could at cataloging the articles they involved. IMHO, it is a typical list of the sources of FreeRepublic articles. There are a few "selfs," but by and large these are "newspapers and other media with diverse points of view," as stated in the proposed change. Here's the list:

Washington Post (On 01/02/2008 6:13:02 AM PST), CNN, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, gopnation.com, news4jax.com, Jewish World Review, mormonapologetics.org, Semiconductor Today, youtube, San Francisco Chronicle, World Net Daily, CNN Blog, The Story Atlanta, Self, Steyn Online, The Australian, Boston.com, NY Sun, Modern Conservative, Houston Chronicle, Self, Washington Post/MSNBC, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Self, New York Times, WSJ Opinion Journal, South Asia Analysis Group, New Media Journal, Self, iht.com, The Salt Lake Tribune, wapo.com, Boston Herald, New York Post, Palm Beach Post, NewsAndObserver.com, Self, Asahi, RTTN News, classroom-issues.suite101.com, Telegraph.co.uk, Turkish Daily News, New Hampshire Union Leader, The Penn Stater, Eject! Eject! Eject!, New York TImes, Reuters, Ynet News, New York Times, Asheville Mountain Express (On 01/02/2008 12:17:41 AM PST)

IMHO the present "articles and comments posted anonymously..." business gives a wrong impression of what FreeRepublic is, by emphasizing the posters at the expense of the sources. The proposed change just explains things a bit. Though many/most of these things are "reliable sources," the proposed change doesn't claim that. Lou Sander (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that a more profitable representative search would be latest articles not latest posts. Eschoir (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure out how to do a latest articles search it's so decentralized anymore. I not the variety in the sidebar, and that the third most recent listing under breaking news is that bhutto was assasiinated. That's why you don't go there for breaking news anymore.Eschoir (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral edits

I took it upon myself to unilaterally cut one of the two iterations of the 'Sleeper cell" paragraph in this article. I chose the first one as it is out of chronological order with the rest of the article. And I sure would like a reliable source for the Wyldcard and sleeper cell assertions.

I also called Mr. Kristinn Taylor "Mr. Taylor" instead of 'Kristinn.' First name references may be good for "Hillary" or "Paris" or "Rush" but I don't think Mr. Taylor is there (or wants to be there, despite his anonymous fans.)

And I acknowledge my recollection of events years ago is faulty - though he talked about constructing and wearing a penis suit, the poster "Doctor Raoul" apparently heeded good advice and never wore that particular costume to any of the street theatre appearances with or without the good Mr. Taylor. Eschoir (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is prohibited as WP:OR in any event. I notice that you also blanked an entire section that had been fact-tagged for just a couple of weeks, although that's now been restored. Such actions are often interpreted as vandalism, particularly on such a contentious topic. 68.29.223.151 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing anonymously for the first time with a lot of backstory knowledge are often interpreted as sockpuppetry. Eschoir (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 18:18, 2 January 2008 edit 68.29.223.151 (talk) →‎Unilateral edits ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:35, 2 January 2008 edit undo Eschoir (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,162 edits →‎Unilateral edits: Welcome back DeanHinnen Next edit →
Line 264:		Line 264:

	:That is prohibited as [[WP:OR]] in any event. I notice that you also blanked an entire section that had been fact-tagged for just a couple of weeks, although that's now been restored. Such actions are often interpreted as vandalism, particularly on such a contentious topic. [[Special:Contributions/68.29.223.151\|68.29.223.151]] ([[User talk:68.29.223.151\|talk]]) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)		:That is prohibited as [[WP:OR]] in any event. I notice that you also blanked an entire section that had been fact-tagged for just a couple of weeks, although that's now been restored. Such actions are often interpreted as vandalism, particularly on such a contentious topic. [[Special:Contributions/68.29.223.151\|68.29.223.151]] ([[User talk:68.29.223.151\|talk]]) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

			Appearing anonymously for the first time with a lot of backstory knowledge are often interpreted as sockpuppetry. [[User:Eschoir\|Eschoir]] ([[User talk:Eschoir\|talk]]) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)