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.)

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
8. Talk:Free Republic/Archive8
9. Talk:Free Republic/Archive9
10. Talk:Free Republic/Archive10

FR threads are acceptable sources

Please read WP:SELFPUB, which is a section of policy WP:V. Policies are the law. Guidelines such as WP:RS are inferior to policy, and in any apparent contradiction between a policy and a guideline, policy wins. This is the controlling Wikipedia policy: "Materials from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves ..." Samurai Commuter (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Now you know the rest of the story. Eschoir (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And the rest of the story supports the use of FR threads in this article about FR. Some of the quotes are contentious like the "cokehead felons" quote, and they have to go; but most are not. "Unduly self-serving" might involve a claim that Buckhead was the first to discover authenticity issues in the "Killian memos," for example, if that claim wasn't fully supported by a third party source like Little Green Footballs. "Claims about third parties," if they reference specific third parties such as DU or Ryan O'Doherty, will need sourcing from other third parties (the Baltimore Sun for example) or they'll have to go. They all involve claims about events directly related to the subject, and when the WP article simply reports that "Freepers" or a particular Freeper account wrote it, that's easily confirmed. So a few of your favorite quotes will have to go, but the rest can stay. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I read this policy and Samurai Commuter is correct. This is Wikipedia policy. It allows use of self-published source when it writes about "self" in Wikipedia article about that source. Free Republic threads are acceptable source for article about Free Republic. Policy has some conditions but those are satisfied by our article as it now stands. For this reason I believe that we do not need "refactor" any more. Thank you for your help BenBurch. But the "refactor" is not necessary. We should repair our article as it now stands and not rebuild it "from the waterline up." Please read my comments in section below. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said:

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. Eschoir (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That was Shibumi2. But now it looks like he's admitting that he was wrong. How humble of him. Have you ever done that? Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you forgotten January 2? Eschoir (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of FR's home page says "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web."

I think it would be good, and proper, to include something like this in the lead to the FR article: Free Republic describes itself as an "online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism." with an inline reference to the home page.

What say you? Lou Sander (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the 'independent' aspect is certainly contentious, in the political sense (it's a GOP site), and can you answer the question "is there reasonable doubt about who wrote it?" in the negative? Eschoir (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We are under exactly ZERO compulsion to accept FRs self-definition. Al Capone's self definition was "Benefactor to mankind." but nobody would start his Bio that way (I hope.) --BenBurch (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Material about an entity frequently includes the entity's self-description. It seems to me that this particular self-description is fair and accurate. The proposed wording clearly identifies it as a self-description. I'm hoping to get some reasonable comments about that wording.

It's just my opinion, of course, and nothing personal is meant, but the stuff about contentiousness, GOP, and authorship seems counterproductive to making a good article. The stuff about compulsion doesn't make sense in the context of what is being suggested. Lou Sander (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to quote, and then edit the quote at that? Eschoir (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are using their own words, it's a good idea to put them in quotes. The word "premier" is kind of self-promotional, which is fine on FR, but not fine here. Lou Sander (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, FR is not Al Capone. It has its share of nutballs, but so does any community of that size. I've been reading a lot of their threads since becoming interested in this article. Nearly all FR members appear to be very mild-mannered and inoffensive. Many of their more ridiculous statements appear to be self-parody (like Jeff Foxworthy's jokes about rednecks, or Chris Rock's jokes about African-Americans, and some of them are hilarious. We have accepted, for publication in this article, definitions of FR from several of its most unkind critics, including Bill O'Reilly. In light of WP:SELFPUB and WP:NPOV, we should accept FR's self-definition in the article lead, as Lou Sander has suggested, since it is not "unduly self-serving." Let's be sure to put it in quotation marks, however. 68.31.200.249 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WELCOME NEW ANONYMOUS FIRST TIME KNOWLEGABLE EDITOR!

Eschoir (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut that out Eschoir, we see. Prodego ^talk 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead: Account Registration

Account registration began over ten years ago. Is there any good reason to mention its start date in the lead of the article? (If the date is important, which it probably isn't, it could be mentioned deeper in the article.) Lou Sander (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ONLY if it appears in a published source. --BenBurch (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

EVEN if it appears in a published source, there seems to be no reason to mention the over-ten-year-old start date of account registration. Unless I'm missing something, it's a trivial point of ancient history. Even if I AM missing something, it hardly belongs in the lead. Lou Sander (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, when writing an article about a PERSON, that person's date of birth is relevant to the article as it places him in a historical context. I would argue the same here. Problem is we don't have a nice wikibox for articles about web sites like we do for biographies. --BenBurch (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A person's date of birth is a much different thing than a minor change in a forum. Why, specifically, should the registration start date be mentioned in the lead, or even at all? Lou Sander (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would change the way it is presented to; "Founded in XXXX." But the date it started is certainly relevant. --BenBurch (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the founding date is important. But it wasn't called that, was it? Is that what it was? IMHO, there are a LOT of things in the FR article that are called something different than they actually are. There seem to be editors who take every opportunity to obfuscate, put the subject of the article in a bad light, and so on. Lou Sander (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible Wikiproject for forums

Shibumi2 suggested starting a Wikiproject covering Internet forums such as DU, FR and Daily Kos. This could be the best way to ensure consistent and even-handed treatment of all these sites. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe this is best way. WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS provide constant review by others working on similar articles and creates consistent style of these articles. I believe this is good idea and offer it for your consideration. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1200 well sourced Poison pen letter words in sandbox

Here is a first pass at a refactored article. Reverse chronological order and no original material Eschoir (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not good. I couldn't get past the first "vile" and "hateful." Lou Sander (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Now it's obvious why Eschoir wants to go with a reverse chronology. It enables him to stuff the following epithets from critics describing Free Republic into the first 161 words of the article:

• vile
• hateful
• besmirching Christian values
• some pretty sick people posting
• inciting the murder of Hillary Clinton
• racist and homophobic
• poor moderation
• victimized by a wave of purges

I thought BenBurch was going to do the refactoring. Otherwise I would have done it myself. If someone other than BenBurch is going to do the refactoring, I nominate Shibumi2. Eschoir's new blog, same as the old blog, is dead on arrival. (With apologies to Pete Townshend. Actually it's even worse than the old blog.) I've registered an account and I hope you like it . Eschoir, any messages at all from you on my User page or User Talk page will be treated as vandalism. Samurai Commuter (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is what BenBurch means by saying "refactor" then I must respectfully oppose him. I come to this project from WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST. We have very high standards for our articles. They are all like "library ships." They deliver knowledge to readers. This article now is a library ship. It delivers knowledge to readers. It has engineering problems. It is not perfect. But we can repair it.

What Eschoir wants to do is "demolish it down to the waterline" and completely reconstruct all of this ship as battle cruiser. He does not want to use it to deliver knowledge. He wants to use it to deliver attacks against his enemies. This is not honorable. It is contrary to our purpose for Wikipedia. This is unacceptable.

I have worked hard to repair this library ship. It runs better now. It is not perfect yet but it is better. Please join me to repair this ship. If we "demolish it down to the waterline" we do not know how Eschoir will rebuild it when we turn away to other articles. I submit this to you with respect for your consideration my fellow editors. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I don't think i'm being a-g-effed.

The kamikazi twins are running roughshod through the online article claiming a non-existent consensus. Some of the edits are pretty good, too.

IMHO, editing properly stopped when refactoring began. Since subequent edits are lawless edits, I reserve the right to revisit them if refactoring is abandoned. Eschoir (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I will extend you the courtesy you refused to extend to me, by refraining from chopping up your post into an incomprehensible mess with my response. I tried to AGF with you for a few days, but that's a two way street and you persistently refused to AGF with me. Editing on the mainspace article doesn't stop unless the article is protected and we had consensus supporting Shibumi2's edits. All have had a chance to express opposition, and only one (with a COI the size of the Pentagon) expressed opposition (and only to a couple of minor points). Edits supported by consensus are the antithesis of lawless edits. You don't write the rules, and I reserve (and am exercising) the right to seek ArbCom enforcement against you. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Shibumi2 says above. His mastery of the English language is adequate, but it is not at the level of a highly articulate native speaker. On the other hand, his mastery of clear thought, and his evaluation of the work of editors, and his ideas of the standards suitable for an encyclopedia, are all at very high levels. Professional levels, in fact. He also understands the difference between honorable acts and dishonorable ones. We should not tolerate the latter, but in this article, we seem to relish it.

The refactoring has not started out on the right foot. The first sentence of the refactored article is "FreeRepublic is a moderated web forum for discussing the concerns of some Conservative factions in US Politics." The part after the word forum is not written to a high standard at all. For example Some Conservative factions is weasel wording and I believe is misleading. For another, many people visit Free Republic as a source of information, from all viewpoints, as expressed in media from all around the world.

On the other hand, there is good, neutral material, well written, in the refactored Free Republic LLC section and in the paragraph immediately before it. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shibumi2 is a good editor, "74." If you're new here, welcome. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome another anonymous editor

I'm particularly fond of this example of your work Eschoir (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page. Per WP:TP, "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Why is stuff like the above so very prominent on this one? Lou Sander (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Undermoderation. Some Freepers (like BryanFromPalatine) don't feel obliged to follow wiki rules. They're fighting for a cause. That's why the article is on probation. Eschoir (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And also why I am trying to re-write it. I don't really have a beef with FR (believe it or not) I am happy to let them do their thing, and so think I can be neutral. They also don't bother my web forum and thats as it should be. BTW, in server hell this week, so should be more active next week some time. --BenBurch (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't waste your valuable time, Ben. You've got your own things that you need to be doing, like your web forum. Your initial perception was that the big problem was sourcing. The revelation of WP:SELFPUB shows that the problem with this article isn't its sourcing. Continuing the "refactor" effort only encouraged another editor to write a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. The effort should be spent on making the existing article NPOV. 68.31.200.249 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this somehow suspended for this page? (Excerpted from WP:ATTACK) Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Lou Sander (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A beneficial reminder. I will effort trying not to respond to the personal attacks. "The revelation of selfpub" is actually a hurdle that very few quotes from the website will be able to overcome. Policy is clearly that anonymous or pseudonymous sources are not acceptable sources. And I repeat-the fact that freepers chat about hobbits, is not evidence for the existence of hobbits.Eschoir (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

FR threads as sources about FR

If pseudonymous sources are not acceptable, can you cite the policy and post a link to the proper section? In this case, WP:SELFPUB states very clearly and unequivocally, "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used in articles about themselves." This article says things like, "The Freepers claim," or "One Freeper said." We have threads showing that Freepers really did say those things. It doesn't say, "John Smith, posting as 'Random Name' on Free Republic, stated that ..." unless that information comes from a reliable source, such as the Buckhead posts about the Killian memos being sourced to Harry MacDougald in the Los Angeles Times.

Otherwise, you'd have to lose a few more of the quotes you've been using to "put the subject of the article in a bad light," as Lou Sander described your editing. We should start by deleting the quote about "two 45 rounds and a nice little spot in Marcy Park," since it comes from a source that is pseudonymous, and the preceding phrase about "threatening to assassinate former President Bill Clinton," since it would then be unsourced.

If Freepers chatter about hobbits on one of their threads, it doesn't prove that hobbits exist. But it does prove that Freepers chatter about them. Similarly, if Freepers chatter about "sleeper troll" accounts, it doesn't prove that sleeper trolls exist. But it does prove that Freepers chatter about sleeper trolls; therefore this article can report the fact that Freepers chatter about them. It's been tagged as unsourced for about three weeks, but so what? Shibumi2, if he's given a reasonable amount of time, will post his sources. Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all you truncate the wikipolicy selfpub. It does not say

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" period, as you state. It says

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Let me break it down for you.

Major premise:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

Minor premise:

Most posts at Freerepublic don't reveal who wrote it, identities being for the most part zealouly guarded, unlesss you are Jeff Head or Arthur Wildfire! March.

Conclusion:

It is a violation of Wiki policy to use Freeper posts, which conceal the identity of the writer, as a source.

It follows that a reliable source can quote a Freeper post, since the post is not the source. Thus, a reliable source can quote Critter saying "Clintoon is a murderer and rapist" not as proof that Clinton is a murderer and rapist, but that it was said.

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as it does not involve claims about third parties. Who are third parties? Well, local chapters, for one (HERE'S the grounds for eliminating Reedick). Agents provocateurs. Dixie Chicks.

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject of Freerepublic.com, like the South Carolina chapter.

Your expansive definition of no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it would negate the rule, as then NOBODY would be excluded as a source, not the farthest out poster on usenet, as long as he had a handle.

I didn't bring these up, but I can under stand them.

Eschoir (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are this visitor's two cents, for whatever they are worth: "Let me break it down for you" is a pretty backhanded way to demean another editor. ("Who, me? I never engage in personal attacks.) You seem to be wallowing in that over here. You've also got a lot of immature argument. Maybe it's narcissistic high school kids, trying to play the teacher role. Pretty unseemly, at least to me. DCLawyer (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the procedural criticisms. Anything substantive? Eschoir (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

That was substantive. When an article about FR states that "Freepers claim," with citation of FR threads containing their claims, it satisfies WP:V. There is no reasonable doubt that Freepers made those claims. To the extent necessary for inclusion of their statements, Freepers are adequately identified as "Freepers."

If "agents provocateurs" have registered accounts at FR, it isn't about a third party; it's about events that occurred at Free Republic between registered FR members. Nobody can be excluded as a source in the Free Republic article, as long as he has an FR handle. Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't want this sentence to be true: "Nobody can be excluded as a source in the Free Republic article, as long as he has an FR handle." Think about it. Eschoir (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Read footnote 5 of WP:V, especially the part that goes "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." Eschoir (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The footnote is about newspaper blogs. The idea is that if the Daily Planet has a blog conducted by journalist Lois Lane, posts to that blog by trollish reader Mr. Mxyzptlk can't be used, for example, as though they came from the Planet, from its blog, from Ms. Lane, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think wrong your analysis is, as Yoda say would. When FR runs newspaper articles and trollish reader Mr. Mxyzptlk posts the same answer, it is no more acceptable than when the WP runs its own.Eschoir (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Footnote 5 is appended to WP:SPS, not WP:SELFPUB. Here is my understanding of these two sections of WP:V policy. Established Expert, an expert in the field of climatology chooses to self-publish an article by starting an FR thread. (Assume for the sake of argument that his identity is well-established and his FR account was established under his real name, like Robinson's.)

According to Footnote 5, Established Expert's article (and any of his comments n the thread) can be used as a source in Wikipedia's Global Warming article, but the comments of the anonymous Freepers cannot. However, since Footnote 5 is not appended to WP:SELFPUB, both Established Expert's article and the Freepers' comments can be used as sources in the Free Republic article, if they're notable and they satisfy all of our other policies, such as WP:BLP. Samurai Commuter (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting take on Established Expert. I don't know what I think about him. I think it highly hypothetical.

Nice to see you've abandonded your previous position, that no Freeper cann be excluded as a source.

But anonymous or pseudonymous Freepers replies are out as sources, as they are covered by footnote 5 and tellingly, they are officially disclaimed by FR:

---

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Free Republic or its operators.

Eschoir (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Prodego, BenBurch, Lou Sander, DCLawyer and Shibumi2, what's your interpretation? Can the statements of Freepers in FR threads be used as sources in the Free Republic article to support a "Freepers claim" statement? Samurai Commuter (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Eschoir that we should not use the quote of a single person on FR as a stand in for Freepers as a whole. Free Republics posters are FR no more then we are Wikipedia, and I doubt anyone would take my quotes on Wikipedia as official in any way. Prodego ^talk 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We might be better off dealing with specific cases, rather than trying to divine universal rules or procedures. My eyes glaze over when Mr. Mxyzptlk goes legal. They roll back into my head when others join in the discussion. But that's just me. Lou Sander (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a specific case: can 45 Freepers support an article section that says, "Some Freepers claim"? Not "Free Republic states," but "Some Freepers claim"? Samurai Commuter (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a specific case: can 203 Freepers support an article section that says, "Some Freepers claim"? Not "Free Republic states," but "Some Freepers claim"?

It would be absurd. Besdies being OR, and forming a synthesis, it has no notability. Freepers sometimes call posters the don't like "sleeper trolls" and you have 45 posts and no articles out of how many million? That's why posts responding to articles are not allowable as sources. For good reasons.

Go with understanding the universal rules before editing.Eschoir (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You've cited 203 Freepers, but read what they're saying. They're ridiculing conspiracy theories about "chemtrails." Remember, whatever we use has to be relevant to Free Republic, notable, and compliant with all other Wikipedia policies. This chemtrails bit would satisfy WP:V if you say, "Freepers have ridiculed a conspiracy theory about 'chemtrails'," but it would not satisfy WP:NOT. Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are 8,690 Freepers saying "ZOT!" That's their slang term for the permanent banning of a troll. They may not always say "sleeper troll," but they always say "zot." Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the only online FR reference to WyldCard:

---

To: Hacksaw WyldCard has been banned for the Mia Lawrence incident. Try to pull up his homepage, you'll get "No current Freeper by that name." But like Philo said, it was festooned with Bush caricatures and left-wing slogans.

123 Posted on 08/03/2001 13:37:14 PDT by Bryan [ Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | Top | Last ]

Old axes are the best axes to grind.Eschoir (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently all other direct references to WyldCard have been deleted, but that's a pretty good source thread and it's from the same period. I like their self-parody threads too. Some of them are really funny. Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since all other direct references to Wyldcard have been deleted at FR, so shall it be here. Eschoir (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Posts on Free Republic should not be used as sources. WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB are not self-contained independent sections. SPS tell us that "forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". SELFPUB tells us since the use of those forums is contentious and the identity of the authors cannot be ascertained that FR postings should not be used as sources. Most of the material in this article should be drawn from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V). Vassyana (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB we can't use them, and they all need to be removed sooner rather than later. Lawrence Cohen 15:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a ton of original research, unsourced material, advertising copy, random quotations and links from Free Republic's message boards, and added a lot of fact tags for material that should be removed later if unsourced to valid RS. This article is a horrific mess of Free Republic advertising, propaganda and general unsourced OR. Lawrence Cohen 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally agreed, but "never say never." If someone feels the need to use a post as a source, they need to be very explicit about why, and people need to agree with them. Lou Sander (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye agents provocateur

it remains unsourced, and a search for agents reveals a negligible portion of the 63 mentions fit the description offered. Eschoir (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone do me the favor of clearly stating the dispute over "agents provocateurs?" It is too long and twisted for me to follow. Feel free to do it here, or on my talk page, or by email. Thanks in advance for your help. Lou Sander (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since no non-Bryan sources for WyldCard have been expressed, I am deleting 'agents' for the third time.Eschoir (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir and SamuraiCommuter

Would you fellows please explain what you are edit warring over? Your edit summaries are pretty opaque. Thanks in advance for your help. Lou Sander (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bryan has been trying to get agents provcateurs in for the last year using different accounts, relying on short memories. He introduced it, was banned, tried Justin88 and now Shibumi2. It has been rejected every time. Bryan is relying on himself as the source of "Freepers say Wyldcard is a sleeper account."Eschoir (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who unearthed that Bryan/WyldCard thread from August 2001? Regardless of what you think of him, Bryan is a Freeper. And if one Freeper is RS for "two 45 rounds and a nice little spot in Marcy Park," then one Freeper is RS for "WyldCard was an agent provocateur." Samurai Commuter (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Salon is the source for the "two 45 rounds". There is no source, queestionable or not, that says "WyldCard was an agent provocateur."Eschoir (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lou, this gentleman has been trying to turn this article into a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson for months. Notice that he said, "Old axes are the best axes to grind." Anything that might serve to mitigate the worst Freeper posts, such as Scallon's "agents provocateurs" quote, is being deleted. Other quotes are being selected for inclusion because they make the subject of the article look bad, such as Pein's "mob rule" quote, even though Pein was referring to bloggers at Little Green Footballs, not the Freepers. So it's irrelevant, but Eschoir wants it in there anyway. Samurai Commuter (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm still trying to figure out what is the specific beef. Is it the use of the words "agents provocateurs," or some material that those words summarize, or ???

I'd like to be able to see clearly something like "Commuter wants to say X about agents p. Eschoir objects because Y." I'll try looking at it again, but it's been hard to focus on the specifics of why each side wants what it wants. Maybe it would help if each side would make its case (briefly) here. Lou Sander (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir claims that it's the sourcing. A printed issue of Chronicles magazine that should be available in public libraries, but not online, should be sufficient. Since Eschoir has used several FR threads as linked sources in the article, and since he personally unearthed the Bryan/WyldCard thread from 2001, that should also be sufficient.

One, I challenge the sourcing. It is sourced as a LTTE, which is not acceptable. But I could live with the source, as there is plenty of information about the site that the article could use. Believe me, you don'nt want Scallon as a RS.

Two, it is cited for a proposition it does not suppport. It says before 2000 and the institution of moderators, leftists had 'infiltrated' the site. It goes on to say that the overmoderation that rid the site of those leftists also killed the site -

Bryan wants to use that to support a thesis that Wylddcard and MD4Bush were agents provocateur, defined as those leftists posing as rightists trying to make FR look bad, even though they were post moderation. Even though bryan described wyldcard's homepage as not concealing his leftism and didn't accuse him of being a sleeper troll or provacateur. Even thoughh MD4Bush wasn't done to 'make FR look bad'.

So third, there isn't a RS for actual agent's or sleeper trolls. If Scallon is a RS, there is no post-2000 sourced material. Eschoir (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Eschoir thinks he can "win" a dispute over content by accusing those who disagree with him of being sockpuppets, and trying to start a revert war. Both practices are disruptive and violations of policy. If he's concerned about content, the place to resolve the dispute is right here on the Talk page. If he's concerned about sockpuppetry, the place for that is WP:RFCU or WP:SSP. I've been watching both pages and he hasn't even tried to file his case. Samurai Commuter (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the sourcing of WHAT??? What is the specific claim, or content, or whatever, that people are arguing over? Lou Sander (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again:

Citing a Free Republic hobbit chat site with a link to the hobbit chat site is intrinsically reliable for the proposition that there is a free republic hobbit chat site. Whatever the chatters say is not the subject not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

In the instant case, the footnote is a lie. It should be identified as a link to the FR source, where it is disavowed by Freepers using language like: The " article " is full of lies and you have been far less than " honest " , in posting it. As far as I can tell, from your own word : " You know why I posted it. To stir up the nest and liven this place up. " , you have shown that all you are is a disruptor.

It is revealed that it is not claimed to be in the online edition of Chronicles, as the footnote falsely suggests, rather the Freepers conclude it is probably a LETTER TO THE EDITOR in the print edition. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/793011/posts?page=200#200

In fact, the wiki footnote itself refers to it as coming from the Chronicles letters section.

So, in sum, we have a false footnote, linking to a post on FR of absolutely unverifiable provenance, decried by the freepers as dishonest, cited by anonymous editors as proof of the matter asserted. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is inadmissable, and the whole agents provocateurs is unreliable and unverifiable, and is going away very soon. Eschoir (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

About the agents provocateurs section, I think

what you think hardly matters, doesn't it? It is what is verifiable that matters

the MD4Bush incident proves that at least one Democratic Party operative was acting as an agent provocateur as recently as 2004.

even if what you assert was verifiable, your thesis is that these agents are there to make FR look bad. This doesen't fit that theory

The Sean Scallon article was published in the print version of Chronicles magazine (December 2002 edition) but does not appear on their website. [1]

Are you citing a blog?

I'm citing a blog . . .70.9.56.94 (talk) 18:406, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So you accept the authority of the Scallon article, so you won't object to the inclusion of

With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, Zionists, Republicans who act as if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders. Robinson has made it clear where he stands: "I see that the only Party capable of blocking and defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close that as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil."

Eschoir (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. It's a duck, because the vest has no sleeves. Lou Sander (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir, now that the article is protected we have a brief window of opportunity to work out our differences, should you choose to take advantage of it. Please stop chopping my Talk page edits into an incomprehensible mess and throwing around sockpuppet accusations. This is disrespectful and disruptive, and it violates Wikipedia policy.

The edit warring must stop. Propose your article edits here before making them, and see whether you get any support from anyone. If you don't, then it wouldn't be wise to assume that you have consensus.

You are relying on an anonymous Freeper to support your claim that the Scallon article was an LTTE. You have no other proof. Even if it really is an LTTE, please cite a section of WP:V that forbids its use as a source. If you liked the Freeper post on that thread you linked, then you'll love this one: "Moreover, if you knew the magazine then you'd also know that the Scallon article was not a 'Letter to the Editor' -- each month Chronicles runs a few short bits after its correspondence section on a variety of topics."

You'd like to include the Scallon quote about "reduced to the musings of neoconservatives etc." because it makes the subject of the article look bad. This is a constant and very easily identified pattern in your edits. That position is well represented by the many strongly worded quotes you've already added, from such critical voices as Salon and the New York Observer. Samurai Commuter (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

More on improving the lead

I propose to make some changes to the lead. I claim to have the skills to make them in an accurate, neutral way. If one or two others are interested in seeing these changes, I'll come up with a draft and put it here for comment.

1) Currently, the lead says little about the articles that are posted on Free Republic. They are from diverse points of view, and from what WP would call reliable sources, from all around the world. IMHO we do a disservice by not describing this situation. I propose to describe it, using one or two sentences.

2) The current lead spends many words describing the specific "interest area" posts that appear on FR. It specifically lists ten of them. IMHO this is too much detail. It also gives undue weight to these posts, which are much less numerous than the diverse news articles mentioned in 1) above. I propose to move the list of "interest area" posts downward in the article, retaining a brief summary in the lead.

3) The conservative nature of the site isn't necessarily well-described in the current lead. Somebody has even asked for a citation. I propose to work on this, and to find a way of properly describing it.

I undertake this work with the purpose of improving the article and making it accurately descriptive of the Free Republic site. If that is your goal, too, I hope you'll respond. If you seek to disrupt the effort to make a good article, or to present other than an accurate description of the Free Republic site, I hope you'll stay away. Lou Sander (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy is in the mind of the beholder. Stick to accurate references to Reliable Sources and verifiability.

1. How do you propose to do an article inventory using RS and not OR? You reveal your preconception when you say "They are from diverse points of view, and from what WP would call reliable sources, from all around the world." Does that include vanity posts, and hobbit chat? How about "Among the articles for prayer requests and zotting viking kitties with 20000 page views and 534 replies, one can also find articles from from diverse points of view, and from what WP would call reliable sources, from all around the world, with 3 page views and no replies."

It would seem to require OR.

2. Move it, but not for Undue Weight.

3. Find a Reliable source. I've got one, BTW. Named Scallon. I'm told he's verifiable. Eschoir (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I justlooked for the ten interest areas - they are no more linked in the home page! No hobbit chat! Delete it. There seem to be eight named fora, one for news articles. Eschoir (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not voting.

Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it.

Not revert.Eschoir (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir please listen. There are already too many references to infighting and purges at Free Republic in the article.

1. Salon.com's Jeff Stein observed in 1999 that: "[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."

2. These shifts signalled internal battles comparable to the nomination controversies of 2007 "as its founder and chief administrator first cleansed commenting ranks of Bush supporters, then, later, rallied to his support."

3. "Sadly, the FRN did not survive the infighting on FR," Johnson wrote.

4. "Starting in April 2007 ... members sympathetic to the former mayor's candidacy claim to have suffered banishment from the site. They were victimized, they say, by a wave of purges designed to weed out any remaining support for the Giuliani campaign…"

Four mentions of infighting and purges is already too many. You made your point. Readers are already constantly reminded of infighting and purges from top to bottom of this article. Your effort to include fifth mention from Scallon article confirms that your conflict of interest prevents you from editing this article as unbiased and detached editor.

Also your effort to include Glennon mention is misleading. Is one expert opinion from Killian document articles your goal? If this is your goal then final conclusion of Peter Tytell in final CBS News report on this issue is more notable: "Tytell concluded ... that (i) the relevant portion of the Superscript Exemplar was produced on an Olympia manual typewriter, (ii) the Killian documents were not produced on an Olympia manual typewriter and (iii) the Killian documents were produced on a computer in Times New Roman typestyle [and that] the Killian documents were not produced on a typewriter in the early 1970s and therefore were not authentic." [2] If other editors here want to use this quote instead then I have no objection. But Glennon quote is misleading. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Infighting and purges don't belong in the article at all. Take them out. Also, this page isn't the place to argue with other editors about their conflicts of interest. Let the edits speak for themselves. Lou Sander (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for urging a break in the COI personal attacking.

A remiinder that this article is on probation. "It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources." That means no Freeper postings as sources. Eschoir (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry, Lou. That would be a whitewash. I'm not here to whitewash the article. I'm here to bring it into compliance with NPOV. When correcting a POV problem, we have to be careful not to overcompensate.

These are criticisms from noteworthy sources. They have to be fairly represented — not overrepresented, and not underrepresented. Adding the second Scallon quote and the Pein quotes that Eschoir is trying to add would be "overrepresented." Taking out all criticism would be "underrepresented." "Fairly represented" is somewhere in between. Its precise location is debatable. Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy anniversary! Eschoir (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not Soap Opera Digest. With few exceptions, the comings and goings of the characters, the opinions of the participants, and so forth just aren't important enough to include. Right now, the lead, which is important, more or less sucks. Proposals to improve it are met with trollish gibberish. It's a puzzlement. Lou Sander (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Lou, please draft a new lead the way you want it and post it here. We will discuss it and if you get support for it, please make the edit in the article mainspace. Also, if you want to remove some (but definitely not all) of the "infighting and purges" and other criticisms, please follow the same procedure. You know that certain people will accuse you of whitewashing the article. Try to make sure they don't have any solid ground to stand on.

For everyone else, please follow the same procedure. All changes should be proposed on this page and discussed. If it's clear after a day or two that there are no objections, or if you see one objection but at least one or two other editors stated that they support your proposal, then go ahead and make the edit.

This article is not breaking news. There's no need to rush. Let's have a cup of tea and discuss before making changes, all right? Samurai Commuter (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That offer has been made in the sandbox for weeks, and no one but me has acted upon it.

And the rule is talk before deleting, or 'reverting,' not adding content.

I am seeking a 3rd opinion on sourcing. Stay tuned. Eschoir (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen cannot be considered "unbiased" as 3rd opinion. He is trying to get Samurai Commuter banned. He is also trying to get me banned. This is not honorable. Shibumi2 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. My edits are fully compliant with policy, while your re-adding material that is not compliant with WP:RS is not. Lawrence Cohen 18:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Case in point: the Pein quotation that you keep adding. When someone else deletes it and you put it back in, you have reverted. Please don't. That edit is not supported by consensus. Pein was talking about the bloggers, meaning Rathergate.com, Little Green Footballs and Powerline. FR is a forum, not a blog, and both Pein and you seem smart enough to know the difference. Pein's comment is irrelevant to FR and creates a negative impression of FR for Wikipedia readers.

Also, Pein was writing before the CBS review panel posted its final report, which contained the Tytell quotation. At the time Pein was writing, questions about the authenticity of the Killian memos still had no conclusive answer and Mary Mapes was still working for CBS News. If Pein had revisited this article a few months later, his lead might have reversed: "on close examination the scene looks less like a case of mob rule than a victory for democracy."

Please remove the Pein quote. Samurai Commuter (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Forum posts are never RS, and Fact tags

No one may remove {{fact}} tags without addressing them. Any editor, however, is free to remove any unsourced material from articles at any time as I did so. Also, per WP:RS, forum posts are not a valid RS at this time. Do not re-add them. Note my edit here. Lawrence Cohen 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Forum posts are acceptable under WP:SELFPUB. Shibumi2 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Free Republic.com message board posts as RS. Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please see that noticeboard. I've answered your concerns there. Freepers' efforts to stop vandals from disrupting their forum are notable regarding Free Republic and are appropriately sourced to their discussion threads per WP:SELFPUB. Anyone who believes the Freepers are "extremists like Stormfront" should think about letting someone else edit this article. Samurai Commuter (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The events may be notable to their internal subculture, but are not notable for Wikipedia, as we have no coverage by external sources. We simply do not report the internal happenings of some minor internet message board. SELFPUB also has extremely specific limitations on it. Read them again. Lawrence § talk/edits 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's two misconceptions. Your first was that they're "extremists like Stormfront" and now you think they're "some minor internet message board." If you think that's the case, put in your AfD nomination or stubify it, and see what happens. The coverage from external sources is the Scallon article and the Bill O'Reilly quote. Supported by that external coverage, the internal battle against trolls and "agents provocateurs" becomes just as notable as the "infighting and purges" covered in Salon and the New York Observer, so if "infighting and purges" belongs in the article, then so does "agents provocateurs." And what the Freepers are saying about these disruptive trolls also belongs in the article. Samurai Commuter (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Once it's unprotected, I'd be happy to remove any and all material added by banned users, or material that is non-notable, or one-note and limited to trivial matters. Yes, I said they were similar to Stormfront, and Stormfront is a minor fringe group. There is enough coverage at this time for Free Republic to survice an AFD, I think. Any user in good standing is of course free to nominate it for AFD, if desired. We can do that for you, if you would like. Lawrence § t/e 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. You have said that it's some minor internet message board, that's full of extremists like Stormfront. You seem to be saying that it's not notable and that it doesn't rate a Wikipedia article. So why haven't you nominated it for deletion on your own behalf? Samurai Commuter (talk) 01:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

2004 Elections - What's the point?

What is the point of including this? ...

During the 2004 U.S. Elections, Jerome Corsi, a Swift Boat Vet and co-author of the book Unfit for Command that attacked the Vietnam war record of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, apologized in the national media for comments that he made on Free Republic under the user name "jrlc" "describing Muslims and Catholics as pedophiles and Pope John Paul II as senile." The posts were never moderated and were discovered and publicized by Media Matters for America..

Some guy posted some stuff, political opponents picked up on it, and he apologized, calling it a joke. It doesn't seem very important, but maybe I'm missing something. Lou Sander (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I see the encyclopediac value of this section. "Non-notable guy slags famous people, apologizes" isn't a historically useful fact. Lawrence § t/e 21:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Corsi isn't "non-notable" - he has a Wikipedia biography. The relationship of Corsi to FR was one of the few occasions when FR has been reported on by the major media. From that perspective I'd say it's one of the most notable events mentioned in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If what is important is that FR is occasionally reported on in the national media, why doesn't Wikipedia just say:

Postings on Free Republic sometimes gain national attention. During the runup to the 2004 U.S. presidential Elections, author Jerome Corsi posted a series of inflammatory comments on Free Republic. Some of his comments were repeated in national media, drawing an apology from Corsi, who said they were meant as a joke. a Swift Boat Vet and co-author of the book Unfit for Command that attacked the Vietnam war record of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, apologized in the national media for comments that he made on Free Republic under the user name "jrlc" "describing Muslims and Catholics as pedophiles and Pope John Paul II as senile. The posts were never moderated and were discovered and publicized by Media Matters for America..

The deleted material has a lot of not-very-relevant detail about who the guy is, what his book was about, what his screen name was, selected examples of his inflammatory comments/jokes, etc. IMHO, this isn't germane to an article about the forum in which he embarrassed himself. Lou Sander (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Is FR a reliable source themselves on this matter? If so, to what extent? Lawrence § t/e 22:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Postings by FR members are only suitable as sources for postings by FR members. Postings by the webmaster and non-postings hosted by the site (such as policies and purpose) are good sources for the site as a whole. For the topic of Corsi, only his own postings should be used as sources about himself. The postings of the webmaster may be used for his official view of the matter. But on the whole we should use 3rd-party sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Will, how do you feel about Lawrence Cohen gutting the "Agents Provocateurs" section? And do you believe an FR moderator, talking about the moderators' experiences with trolls and vandals, is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article? Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know which reference includes a known moderator - can you point to the assertion and source? The quote on agents provocateur appears to be from Chronicles (magazine) if so it should go directly to that website, or at least provide a proper citation with only a courtesy link to the FR page. We should avoid characterizing the comments and opinions of posters as much as possible because at some point it becomes original research. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the whole story, but I've seen disputes over the Chronicles citation. If somebody will provide details of where it is, I have special resources I can use to find a copy. If it's not available to me online, I'll find a paper copy, scan it, and post it off-Wiki where all concerned can see it. Lou Sander (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC) PS - The Chronicles web site is down right now. The error message says "Bandwidth Exceeded." Lou Sander (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for Lawrence Cohen's revert?

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose the final revert (there were so many) by Lawrence Cohen on January 22. Also, please support your position by citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Remember, whenever a policy appears to contradict a guideline, policy wins.

• Very strong oppose. Fighting off trolls and vandals (and others such as "MD4Bush" who do not have the best interest of the forum at heart) appears to be a notable part of the Free Republic story. Third party sources include the Scallon "agents provocateurs" quote, the O'Reilly "planted" quote and the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post stories about MD4Bush. With this third party support, the Freepers' statements in their own defense become notable and are acceptable under WP:SELFPUB policy, which trumps WP:RS guideline. Without those, the many strongly worded criticisms from barely notable sources such as Salon and the New York Observer are given too much weight, violating WP:WEIGHT, and should all be deleted per Lou Sander. The Pein "mob rule" quote was about blogs like LGF and Powerline, not forums like FR, so this quote is irrelevant and violates WP:WEIGHT. Please join me in opposing this revert. Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fighting off trolls and vandals (and others There, you've already run onto a definitional problemsuch as "MD4Bush" who do not have the best interest of the forum at heartMD4BUSH was an e-mail scandal and didn't have anything to do with freerepublic's best interest) appears to be a notable part of the Free Republic storyperhaps among those who have been banned without notice or reason for failure to conform with the currently prevailing mobthink, but of course that would be a rare experience, so that set of people would necessarily be small. Third party sources include the Scallon "agents provocateurs" quote which doesn't mention trolls or vandals, and says the problem was pre-2000, the O'Reilly "planted" quote which also doesn't mention trolls or vandals and holds the website responsible for not moderating and the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post stories about MD4Bush an e-mail story. With this third party support, the Freepers' there is no such entiity as 'the Freepers'. What do they have, a Congress?!? statements in their own defense defense? Defense of what? If you want to use a wiki article for public relations problems, you won't succeed. You are advocating advocacy under the banner of NPOV become notable you misspelled "self-serving" hoppa that hepps heaps and are acceptable under WP:SELFPUB policy, which trumps WP:RS guideline. Without those, the many strongly worded criticisms you misspelled sourced observations from barely notable sources such as Salon and the New York Observer are given too much weight, violating WP:WEIGHT just because the articlee on Lizzie Borden spends a lot of time on shameful things she has done, doesn't mean we have to make up nice things to say about her so her matricide and patricide are not given undue weight., and should all be deleted per Lou Sander. The Pein "mob rule" quote was about blogs like LGF and Powerline which consist of two or three named people, not forums like FR which consist of hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous members of a potential and bragged about and pictured and Natalie Mainesed mob, so this quote is irrelevant and violates WP:WEIGHT. Please join me 'and the puppets in opposing this revert.

• Double plus oppose consensus by puppetry IF such a thing were to occur . . . And support immediate lawful removal of unsourced content Eschoir (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain. If there are problems with trolls and vandals, and if those problems are important enough to be in an encyclopedia article, there should be a section or subsection headed "Trolls and vandals." Specific examples could possibly be included. Lou Sander (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There was once such a section. It was called "Leftist ... agents provocateurs." It has now been deleted. Do you support that deletion? Would you want the section restored? Samurai Commuter (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The section was added by a banned user, Bryan From Palatine. Re-adding it is disallowed. We don't edit on behalf of banned editors. Lawrence § t/e 05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If Adolf Hitler said "The sky is blue" would you then say "No the sky is red"? Whatever you think of BryanFromPalatine does not matter about article content. His section he wrote had good content. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He wrote it, you posted it. Article fine for months till Shibumi come. Since then, all hell break loOse. Sockpuppetry not honorable. Eschoir (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it must not have been well done. It IS possible to talk about trolls and vandalism without getting into controversial stuff. Just say there are problems with trolls and vandalism, source it, and give a NPOV example or two. Try hard not to include inflammatory quotes. If there aren't any sources other than FR posts, you're probably out of luck. If there aren't any sources, the trolls and vandalism maybe aren't such a big deal. Lou Sander (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Trolls are fairly commonplace, and apparently not notable. Eschoir (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Lawrence Cohen does not have consensus. Lawrence Cohen and Eschoir are trying to start edit war on this page now. This is not honorable. Please stop. Respect other editors. Save your accusations for proper location. Here you must assume good faith. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil

You have a sandbox, rewrite the article as you would write it. See if you can get consensus on a version. Eschoir (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I did have consensus for the version that existed in the mainspace, just before you resumed edit warring this morning. Samurai Commuter (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're a "too proud to be anywhere but mainspace" kind o' guy?Eschoir (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus from who? Lawrence § t/e 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So you see there is no consensus for your edits on January 22. WP:RS guideline does not defeat policy which allows self-published material from Free Republic in article about Free Republic. I will contact administrator to restore previous version by Samurai Commuter. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have it backwards. I was asking Samurai Commuter where the claimed consensus was. Lawrence § t/e 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am speaking to you Lawrence. You do not have consensus. See section above. Strong opposes. I also have found new online source for article. It is not in printed magazine so everyone can click on it and see it. No arguments please. http://www.flakmag.com/web/freerepublic.html Shibumi2 (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You just convicted yourself of being a Bryan sockpupppet Eschoir (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I did what? Is this out of order? Lawrence § t/e 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Shibumi again posts copy directly traceable to Bryan. HE is the source of the Wyldcard allegation, the Leftists . . . agents provocateurs" copy, and HE is the source for the 2001 FLAK magazine article linked by Shibumi2 Eschoir (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for magazine articles about Free Republic. I typed "magazine Free Republic" into Google. Do it yourself and see what you get. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Lou Sander (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

More Barton WongEschoir (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir is always searching for something negative that he can add to this article. Here is something else I found. I found Alexa rankings.

• Yahoo: Number 1
• Google: Number 2
• New York Times: 239
• Salon.com: 2,752
• Slate: 2,867
• Daily Kos: 4,883
• Free Republic: 9,451
• Democratic Underground: 12,193
• Bartcop: 32,860
• Buzzflash: 54,470
• White Rose Society: 904,899

I cannot find Houston Review. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I found Alexa about ten months ago and put it in the article - it got botted out. Eschoir (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Republican Front Runner

{{editprotected}}

In the article section on the mass-banning of Giuliani supporters, it describes Giuliani as the "republican front-runner." I don't think anyone would argue that this is still the case. Thanks! Sperril (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Lawrence Cohen did not have consensus for his reverts of January 22. [3] He was joining in edit war started by Eschoir. For this reason administrators should restore previous version by Samurai Commuter. Thank you.

If any other editors have objections to this based on policy governing content then please post your objections here with citation of policy section that supports you. Objections based on false accusations of sockpuppet or proxy status should be made at WP:ANI or WP:RFAR not here. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

BenBurch can you explain this please? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4968220 Shibumi2 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just asking... could the DU post linked to above be used as a source supporting the claim that trolls/agents come into Free Republic to do it harm? If they do it to an article about Free Republic, they'll do it to Free Republic itself.

And is Ben Burch maybe not the perfect guy/girl to be refactoring this article? Lou Sander (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrators avoid making content edits or restoring previous versions of protected pages. I hope everyone will take the time until then to try to resolve the disagreements that led to the article being protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also ask BenBurch to explain this please? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=24203&mesg_id=24203 Does BenBurch blame the Freepers for the death of his close personal friend, Andy Stephenson? Shouldn't we also ask Eschoir to explain this please? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic#Free_Republic Does Eschoir still have an axe to grind against FR after being banned for life from FR, creating 88 disruptive sockpuppets, and being blocked by a federal injunction nearly 10 years ago? Lou Sander, shouldn't we be asking whether either one of these two are maybe not the perfect guys/girls to be editing this article at all, under any circumstances? Inspector Callahan SFPD (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Magnificent first wiki-post! Welcome mystery consensus builder Eschoir (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

All posters please note and comply: Per WP:TP, "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Lou Sander (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss

Silence can sometimes speak louder than words. In response to these requests to explain both Eschoir and BenBurch are silent. Inspector Callahan and Lou Sander please observe this. Protection on this article expires in 18 hours. Our repeated offers to discuss this content dispute have been ignored by BenBurch, Lawrence Cohen and Eschoir. Or they have responded with accusations which should be made elsewhere and resolved elsewhere.

I will post last version by Samurai Commuter on Sandbox page. I will once again invite Eschoir and BenBurch to explain why they are opposed to this version. This explanation must address all concerns about WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and be fully compliant with WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIV. If you do not post such well grounded objections here on Talk page then I will revert last edit by Lawrence Cohen and restore previous version by Samurai Commuter tomorrow morning.

I would prefer to discuss this in a cooperative and collaborative way. So please explain why you cannot stand "Agents provocateurs" section. It is well sourced. It explains presence of some of the objectionable material at Free Republic. Also please explain links provided above to Democratic Underground and to request by Samurai Commuter for clarification. These raise serious WP:COI issues. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox version is here. Please review and tell us what is wrong with it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic/Sandbox "Agents provocateurs" section is supported by Scallon article, MD4Bush sources such as Washington Post and Baltimore Sun, and O'Reilly statement about "planted" remarks. Pein statement gives too much WP:WEIGHT to criticisms. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You will revert regardless of what anybody does here. You already have reverted. Eschoir (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. If you could produce a good reason based on content then I would not change one thing. Shibumi2 (talk) 12:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, there's my edits. Eschoir (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Very good. I will review them and post my response here. Shibumi2 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that article lead needs work but Lou Sander should do it.

Local chapters are connected to Free Republic because they make extensive use of its forum and they organize under its name. But they are not controlled by Free Republic. They are like adults in relationship with their own parents and grandparents. They share name and they get together sometimes but they are not controlled by their parents.

South Carolina chapter hosted "family reunion" with guest Katherine Harris. This is notable.

WP:SELFPUB allows Free Republic threads to be used as sources in article about Free Republic. Agents provocateurs section is therefore well sourced. Scallon article was printed in Chronicles magazine. If it is POV pushing then Salon quotations and New York Observer quotations would then go unanswered. O'Reilly criticisms would also go unanswered. If Agents Provocateurs section must be removed then Salon and Observer quotations and O'Reilly criticisms must also be removed to avoid POV pushing in other direction.

DC chapter protests often at Walter Reed hospital. Not just one member. Weekly reports in Free Republic forum. That section should be expanded. I encourage you to write it.

I see you are still trying to include "mob rule" quotation from Pein but without explanation. Like removal of Agents provocateurs this Pein quotation makes it POV pushing in other direction. Criticism from Salon and Observer and O'Reilly is more than enough. Shibumi2 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way, that "Lou Sander" should do it. Any article may be edited by any editor at any time, unless the community enforces a sanction in the form of blocking a user indefinitely (in which case, he may not edit any article ever under any username, and anyone pushing his favored edits will be blocked as him); unless the community enforces article sanctions--if the community decides a user is barred from an article, he's cut off; or unless the arbitration committee bars a user from an article(s). Lawrence § t/e 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Local chapters are connected to Free Republic because they make extensive use of its forum and they organize under its name. But they are not controlled by Free Republic. They are like adults in relationship with their own parents and grandparents. They share name and they get together sometimes but they are not controlled by their parents.

If they are adults they should have their own articles. You don't include GW Bush stuff in GHW Bush article.

Peerhaps you missed this response for my request for third opinion:

Third opinion (repost)

Posts on Free Republic should not be used as sources. WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB are not self-contained independent sections. SPS tell us that "forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". SELFPUB tells us since the use of those forums is contentious and the identity of the authors cannot be ascertained that FR postings should not be used as sources. Most of the material in this article should be drawn from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V). Vassyana (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Katherine Harris did not attend the SC Chapter meeting, by the way, but a crook did. Notable? Eschoir (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Largely not acceptable" is not the same as "completely unacceptable." In some cases identity of authors (such as Kristinn) can be ascertained beyond doubt. In other cases (such as Admin Moderator) identity is protected for good reason but author clearly speaks on behalf of Free Republic. In other cases they are identified in this article only as "Freepers." Most of material in this article (and specifically in Agents Provocateurs section and MD4Bush section) is already drawn from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" like Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, Bill O'Reilly transcript and Chronicles magazine. Any mention of WyldCard has already been removed from article since you hate Bryan so much. Shibumi2 (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if this is one of those rare circumstances that is outside the range of "largely not acceptable" and even if the identity of some posters can be ascertained, the use of the forum as a source is still highly contentious (which contraindicates the use of the forum as a source). Multiple outside opinions and noticeboard discussions have indicated that the forum postings should not be used as sources, for multiple policy-based and rational reasons. Please take that broader community input into consideration. Continually pushing contentious edits is generally considered disruptive. Vassyana (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have major, major problems with all these forum posts being used period for any purpose. They need to go and very soon. Their usage is against policy, tradition, and article norms. Lawrence § t/e 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed comments by Lou Sander about Jerome Corsi and agree that second half of paragraph should be removed. Jerome Corsi has his own article and this material belongs there. I will be adding a comment from Admin Moderator to Agents Provocateurs section to improve sourcing. Please review. http://www.freerepublic.com/~adminmoderator/ Shibumi2 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm removing that section if re-added again. It's non-notable. There is NO consensus to include it, and it's the pet project of a banned user, BryanFromPalatine. Any attempts to edit on the behalf of a banned user is a blockable action. Any user who wants to include material in ANY article, if challenged on it by other editors, must obtain consensus for it's inclusion. That is the way Wikipedia works. There is no consensus for that section as it keeps getting removed by multiple users. Obtain consensus from established logged-in users, and we can discuss this. Lawrence § t/e 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You have just declared your intention to start an edit war. Let everyone take note of the fact that Lawrence Cohen has issued an ultimatum and if it is not obeyed, he will start an edit war. 99.201.206.151 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice trolling. I said I would remove it. I didn't say I would remove it repeatedly each day. Anyone adding material on the behalf of banned users: thats a no-no. Lawrence § t/e 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not adding on behalf of banned user. I am adding on behalf of Shibumi2. If Adolf Hitler says "The sky is blue" will you say "No the sky is red"? If Pol Pot developed polio vaccine would you refuse to vaccinate your child? This is not about you. It is not about me. It is not about Bryan./ It is about content on Wikipedia. Agents Provocateurs section is good content for Wikipedia. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Shibumi2 also has his supporters. Subtract two people who have never even tried to explain their WP:COI problems, and one person who has followed him here from Talk:Waterboarding to harass him, and there would be no one deleting it. Samurai Commuter (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that A) activities on Free Republic occasionally get national attention, and that B) the article ought to mention that. Surely B) can be done without including gory details that people get into edit wars over. It may require some troll suppression, but it CAN be done. Lou Sander (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed every trace of Free Republic discussion threads from Agents Provocateurs section. Bill O'Reilly thinks "planted" material is notable. Sean Scallon of Chronicles magazine thinks "agents provocateurs" are notable. Baltimore Sun and Washington Post thought "MD4Bush" was notable. This provides "other side of the story." I am using these sources plus Admin Moderator (official spokesman for Free Republic) to create new Agents Provocateurs section. You have no excuse to revert it. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Shibumi2. Even though WP:SELFPUB would normally allow the use of FR threads as sources in this article, the POV pushers with COI problems are making it "contentious." Maybe now they will stop avoiding those inconvenient questions about their COI problems. Or will they keep ducking and running from those questions to continue their edit war? It's up to them. Samurai Commuter (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I find nothing objectionable in the new section, though it IS a pretty lengthy way to say that bad guys sometimes infiltrate the site. Also, the link in Footnote 33, about the SC DOT employee, doesn't work right now. Lou Sander (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing NOTABLE about trolls. The moderation of those trolls has been the subject of much more RS material. Thus my section on "Moderation in the Defense of Liberty" in the sandbox. Eschoir (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose your "Moderation in the defense of liberty" section since it has never before been discussed, because this criticism of FR is already overrepresented by Salon and the Observer, and because Wikipedia is not your nasty little personal blog. I have restored Shibumi2's version. Please do not revert until you've demonstrated that your changes are supported by consensus.

I can't discuss things for you. Following Shibumi2s request I posted it at the sandbox yesterday, and there were no objections.

So tell me, you now object to the sources?Eschoir (talk) 02:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am telling you now that I object to your manipulation of the sources in this manner, because this type of criticism is already overrepresented by the Salon and Observer quotes. This article is not the bitter, mean-spirited personal blog of a Freeper who was banned for life. It is not a poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. It is an encyclopedia article. It must be NPOV.

Shibumi2, by ignoring your "Moderation in defense of liberty" section and posting his own version, demonstrated his opposition. Lou Sander, by stating his support for Shibumi2's version ("I see nothing wrong with it"), indicated that he opposes your alternate version. There is a consensus here and it opposes your version. Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

All open source websites have vandalism problems. Judging from the magnitude of their response, FR's vandalism problem is proportionate with Wikipedia's. As any editor working RC patrol can confirm, the problem is notable. Samurai Commuter (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir: Please stop using this page as a soapbox. Lou Sander (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Eschoir (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir: please stop using this page, and in particular the article mainspace, as a soapbox. Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)