Talk:Free Republic

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

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

Ben Burch is a looney. None of his claims can be substantiated and no proof that doesn't come from him personally will ever be offered. Will Pitt is behind this drama and hatched a plan with Stephenson hoping to use Andy's "condition" to discredit their political opponents. Stephenson didn’t know the real goal was Pitt getting his final revenge against someone that dared question his stewardship of DU during the run-up to the presidential primaries. The discrediting of his political foes was just a bonus.

Summer Clean Up of the FR article

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

Hi Dominick, thanks for your changes. I changed some parts where you used FR-terminology not known to many others (ping...) Since racism is such a striking issue at FR I reincluded that "many" rather than "few" entries show it. You also wrote "it has been charged that moderators often ban". That is a frequent policy and moderators do not make a secret about it. About freeping polls I agree that it is not unique to the FR community but since this is an article about FR a short neutral note should be sufficient. Get-back-world-respect 00:32, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hm, someone was quicker than I was. Cannot quite see why the whole edit should be reverted? Get-back-world-respect 00:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

reverting the whole edit is wrong, unless someone wanted to remove a NPoV article. Dominick 06:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reverting changes, especially explained ones, without explanation is not helpful either. Why do you insist that the "electronic townhall" is not "self-described"? Was there anyone else who called it so? What makes you disagree about a short neutral note being sufficient for poll manipulation by others than freepers? Get-back-world-respect 11:35, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I put them in change comments. Going back and forth with me reverting edits I put in is absolutly wrong. It makes for bad feelings, and starts edit wars. Recall Wikipedia is collaberative I expect editing but not reverting for reasons I already gave in those comments. The term "Self-appointed" doesn't add any facts and only puts in PoV, all webpages are "self-appointed" wikipedia is the "self-appointed" encyclopedia. Claiming the DNC front orginizations do not manipulate pools isn't the point, I think claiming that ONLY FR does this or slanting the article this way is wrong, and PoV. This is a minor part of Free Republic. Wiki has one non-negiotable part, everything must be NPoV, not leftist PoV, I still think the specific examples of racism don't belong and the inordinate amount of time spent talking about FReeping a poll weaken the article. I can't fathom ANY reason why the main forum titles were delected, and some of the items are retained escape me. The main two parts I like about FR is getting links to interesting articles and having a way to discuss them, many are totally non-political. FR has gone from pure activism to a community. This article should reflect this bent. Dominick 12:40, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do you think "self-appointed" is a derogatory term? Your analogy with wikipedia does not quite fit given that no one would question that wikipedia is an encyclopedia while few would come to the idea that FR is an "electronic townhall". No one claims "only" FR manipulated polls, it is already mentioned. But explicitly mentioning others here is not appropriate, this article is about FR. I deleted the list of sections because if people want to know about it they can check on their own. This is an encyclopedia article, so just the basics should be included. Articles about books do not include the titles of the chapters either. You exchanged "The group is funded through quarterly donations drives which mimic public television and PBS." by similar to. Obviously a donation drive is not similar to public television. "Unfortunatly, Wikipedia is one of those banned sources." is not encyclopedia style. It includes a judgment and names without any good reason a particular source. Please do not have bad feelings if your changes do not stay. It can be discussed here. Collaborative means people work together, that includes that the way to consensus is not always direct. Get-back-world-respect 13:18, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NO I like being edited. I don't like seeing an injustice about FR dont from a self-appopinted activist. Activism isn't welcome here, and having information removed doesn't add to the article. Self appointed doesn't add any infomration, and the term town hall meets a meeting between people. I may edit out the term all together. The Basics isn't a good reason to remove data either, considering some of the minutae listed here. Lets let others look t the article before we continue back and forth edits. If this stews a bit we may both be satified. Dominick 13:25, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

WILLIAM HALL(ETHNICITY:NON-WHITE)

Wikiczar

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

Wiki policy is No personal attacks. "Wikiczar" is unacceptable. Unfortunately you did not respond to my argumentation - explicitly mentioning others manipulating polls inappropriate, donation drive not similar to public television, "unfortunatly" being a judgment. While "largely" measures quantity, "often" measures frequency. An online community is better described by the majority of its users, so it is better said that they are largely, but not exclusively, united on certain issues. Again, please do not have bad feelings if your changes do not stay. It can be discussed here. Collaborative means people work together, that includes that the way to consensus is not always direct. Get-back-world-respect 14:02, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edits others have made have been reverted and changed by you, I am not the only one wronged. I am happy to have this moderated or have others come in and look. to that end I invuted a poll here, if you think this needs escalation fine. Get a third party in here. Dominick 14:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not see why you think there is anything like "escalation". This is just discussion, if you do not want to join it, fine. Get-back-world-respect 15:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I meant going up the dispute resolution path. Dominick 16:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In cases of disagreements the first attempt should always be resolving it at the discussion site. Get-back-world-respect 18:47, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poll

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

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

Abstain

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

Racism

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

I was pinging the Leader of the Black Conservative group at FR. Specifially, what racism? I have seen more than a few racists get booted. I don't consider the examples posted as racist, per se. A few others here have agreed.Dominick 01:31, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As the edits by anonymous 65.27.204.208, SimonP, Neutrality and Tom Merkle (Abu-Jamal refers to racial (Arab) characteristics, thus the argument for racism for that example stands) clearly showed, there are more people who agree about racism at FR. Racism against Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims and French is the most frequent I know about, so a Black Conservative is probably not the best person to ask. Also, if the person was not a racist but still at FR she or he is unlikely to perceive racism, a more objective statement would need a less biased sample of opinions. If you disagree about what racism is, please read the wiki article. Get-back-world-respect 01:35, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Description of typical posts

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

There really isn't much to discuss. You removed a lot of pertinent information and replaced it with a broad generalization about the character of the discussion there. Rhobite 05:47, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

No, look at the article, I've just restructured it and explained it. Your version duplicates entire sentances. --Holdek 06:33, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice the duplicated information. Sorry about reverting. I have rephrased the sentence a little and moved it to the paragraph where it best fits. Rhobite 06:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The same principle should apply here.

I think Rhobite's version is a good compromise, and he's restructured so as to eliminate POV complications. Most of the posts on Free Republic are insults, and are of the length described. And I don't think most Freepers would object to this description; it's one of the primary purposes of Free Republic (to give conservatives a place to vent their frustrations.)

Your repost of the Democratic Underground material is not very usefull. It's a completely different article. --Holdek 19:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also have to wonder whether anyone would object to this characterization. It's still a generalization, but it's based in truth. A semi-random sampling of tonight's comments confirms that yes, Freepers still post one-line comments expressing their disapproval of liberals, gays, environmentalists, and uh, Mexico. Rhobite 06:42, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

merged information

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

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

JC - the only person who seems to be acting unilaterally on this matter is you. You've unilaterally merged the page itself twice now with little to no discussion at all, though others have asked you to discuss that on Talk:Jim_Robinson. Showing up on the talk page and saying the equivalent of "yeah, but i'm gonna do it anyway" is not a discussion. As it stands right now there seem to be three people who favor leaving it as it was with only you proposing to merge it, yet you plow right ahead with the merge unilaterally. As for common wikipedia policy on people who are well known for their websites having separate articles, I direct you to a couple well known examples:

• The Daily Kos blog and owner Markos Moulitsas Zúniga
• The Drudge Report and owner Matt Drudge
• The Little Green Footballs blog and owner Charles Johnson
• Power Line (blog) and its owners John_H._Hinderaker and Scott_W._Johnson

Based upon these precedents, it seems that a separate article here would be both appropriate and in keeping with wikipedia formatting policy. I have restored the previous article and removed your redirect on this basis. I will also post a copy of this comment on the discussion forum there. If you still support a change in which the articles are merged, then YOU need to go over there and make your case for it on that discussion section rather than acting unilaterally and turning talking only after the change you desire is done. Thanks for understanding. Rangerdude 16:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I probably should have read this talk too before I reverted the page when I did. I’ll make some notes in both talk pages to prevent others from doing the same.-Casito 23:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there a site more evil than this?

Seriously I'd like to know.

yes those pedophilia related and that sort. the fact is that restricting their right to whine and/or discuss on forums about subjects they care about will only increase any hatred they already had, personally, I joined the free republic in an attend to redeem my kind on this guys eyes, after all isn't dialogue first always better? if I fail on this I'll let you know.

Probably a DUmmie posting. Projection. Lose a turn.

Closed deletion listing on Jim Robinson

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

I've done a bare-bones merge, basically just turning the Jim Robinson article into a section of this one--I have not taken account of duplicated information that may already exist in other sections, except to make an effort to merge the Jim Robinson external links into the external links section of this one, dropping a duplicated reference to the website and another to a 1999 article in Salon. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is a merger appropriate here while standing separate articles are deemed appropriate for similar authors of other political webpages, among them Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, Matt Drudge, Charles Johnson, John_H._Hinderaker, and Scott_W._Johnson? This inconsistency was pointed out previously on the talk and VfD pages with little substantive response and no attempt to reconcile the differences. Rangerdude 20:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Yes, but you also IGNORED the fact that other editors had already participated in the consensus in favor of keeping it on the page talk:Jim Robinson including user:ObsidianOrder and user:WakeForest well before user:jonathan christensen attempted to circumvent the existing consensus on the article itself after he didn't get his way and was criticized by several for a series of rash unilateral actions. Furthermore you seem to be violating wikipedia's own VfD principles, which explicitly note that VfD's are NOT to be decided on a democratic majority vote but rather on the weight of the various arguments put forth by either side. Seeing as the majority of persons who voted in favor of merging the two stated little or no reason whatsoever for their votes and very likely spent no more than a few minutes or seconds reviewing a dispute with a complex history tracing back to an inappropriate unilateral action by the same individual who initiated the VfD, giving those votes equal weight with those who took time to state and/or justify their positions on the argument is against the spirit if not the letter of the VfD process. As for decisions regarding Drudge et al, you are deflecting the issue, which is not whether those individual articles should also be merged but rather whether some semblance of consistency between them and the Jim Robinson article should be maintained. That is called a straw man argument as it purports to rebut the argument I offered about the other articles yet in reality completely ignores the point of that argument, which was not whether the others should be merged but rather about formulating a consistent article writing policy on similar cases. Rangerdude 02:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't count votes that aren't cast. If either ObsidianOrder or WakeForest had cast a vote, and that had been a keep vote, we wouldn't be having this conversation because by my standards (at 9 for merge, 4 for keep) the vote would have been a no consensus and I would not have acted on the merge. But they did not do so. I cannot second-guess these people's opinions when, over a week after the VfD is removed from WP:VFD, I close the listing and determine the result. Nor can I take into account discussion on the talk page when the VfD notice was visible to all.

You say that Christensen "was criticised". Well the most effective form of criticism would have been a vote to keep. Clearly any criticism was somewhat muted!

You say that "wikipedia's own VfD principles...explicitly note that VfD's are NOT to be decided on a democratic majority vote but rather on the weight of the various arguments put forth by either side." Well what makes you think I don't take the arguments into account? But as it happens your claim is incorrect. I'm supposed to look at the votes and decide whether a consensus has been reached (Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Deciding_whether_to_delete). To avoid a hint of partiality I avoid looking at the merits--those are supposed to be decided by Wikipedians themselves, not me.

You say "As for decisions regarding Drudge et al, you are deflecting the issue, which is not whether those individual articles should also be merged but rather whether some semblance of consistency between them and the Jim Robinson article should be maintained." I say that you have not convinced me that consistency is a desirable goal. I can tell you that I am convinced that such an argument would carry absolutely no weight were you to raise a complaint on this matter on WP:AN/I (which I'm not adverse to you doing, by the way--feel free). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Revisions and Edits

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

The following paragraph should have NPOV cleanup, IMO:

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

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

Corsi's "apology" for remarks on FR

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

Well, after some searching, I found the quote: "I don't stand by any of those comments and I apologize if they offended anybody," Corsi said. This was reported by Jennifer Kerr of the AP. Paul Klenk 19:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is any debate as to whether or not Corsi's remarks were clearly racist, homophobic, and anti-Catholic, particularly considering that he apologized for them. I've gone ahead and added a link to the remarks in the paragraph, so there shouldn't be an issue with NPOV. Also, I know that there have been doubts expressed about the validity of the paragraph detailing Free Republic's role in "Rathergate." I'm going to remove it until we have some sort of evidence that it played any kind of a substantial role. Holdek ^(talk) 19:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

We need to be careful about agreeing with characterizations, and about making them anything more than that -- POV characterizations. In some circles, if a right-winger even mentions gays, Arabs, or Catholics in a negative light, they are automatically considered slurs. It is not a thoughtful or serious practice to do so. It is a knee-jerk reaction that, sorry to say, loudly proclaims POV. It is enough to say people characterized them as such, and leave it at thatm, but the quotes must also be placed in context, both the full text of the statement, the context about the controversy and the point the writer was trying to make. This is very seldom done, because people are lazy and they don't want to think.

Also, re: Rathergate, why not tag them as "dubious" and let the discussion begin? You say "doubts have been expressed" but cite nothing to back that up. The blog -- forget the name at the moment -- got lots of press, and its writer was communicating with FR people. Before just deleting it, perhaps you could do a search yourself, and see where the evidence leads. (Just a suggestion, it might be fun for you.) Anyway, thanks for your work on the article. paul klenk 21:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I'd first like to thank you for your work on this article. You have made many substantial improvements to it. On this first issue, this is an actual quote from Corsi regarding Senator Hillary Clinton: "Let the FAT HOG run!!!" Here is another: "Mullah Ali'Gore-ah is very proud of his new Bin Laden beard and he hopes others in the Democratic Party will follow his lead. Hell-ary is disappointed she cannot grow a beard, but her press secretary reminds us she can still enroll in flight school." How does one get around the fact that these are slurs? As far as racism, he clearly uses the term "raghead" in this quote: "Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote 'gays in the military.' RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together." And he refers to lesbians as "lesbos" which is a derogatory term. I will, however, change "anti-Catholic" to "anti-Muslim" because that is more definate.

As to the "Rathergate" situation, you are right. I'll add it back and put in a dubious tag. --Holdek ^(talk) 02:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Holdek, I noticed you deleted the quote of Corsi's in which he brushed off the controversy, and kept the one where he seemed completely apologetic. Now, understanding that people are inconsistent, and understanding that more information provides a better context for a reader, would you please explain your thinking in deleting the brush-off quote? Many thanks, paul klenk 02:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I just thought the quote was more succinct and explained the situation better. I thought the part about the dog seemed kind of wandering for an encyclopedia article. However, I will add it back and keep both quotes if you think it would make a better article. --Holdek ^(talk) 02:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE I just saw the description of your recent post. I reply as soon as I can come up with a coherent and appopriate response, and after thoroughly considering your initial comment. That is not always immediately after you leave a comment on the talk page. I'll try to be more prompt in the future but it was only a few hours. I wasn't trying to be discourteous. --Holdek ^(talk) 02:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Pitt links

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

Disputed

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

H, I truly appreciate your thoughtful replies and look forward to working with you, and learning from you, in the future. Kindly, paul klenk

It's been a few days, so I'll go ahead and remove it. Holdek ^(talk) 22:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

If I may refer to this:

 http://www.ireporter.org/2005/09/rathergate_anni.html

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

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

Neutrality

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

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

Regardless, an explanation of "Free Republic" without using terms like this is warranted in an encyclopedia. Foul language is removed, racist posts are removed, like any forum, people with stupid idea are there was well as people with good ideas. Articles discussing topics as you refer to by bona-fide posters are there and can be found when the poster is polite and makes a point. Articles designed to "stir the pot" are removed. If trolls were not culled, Free Republic would be the same as many wide open forums.

The point of FR is to provide conservative fellowship, not provide a zoo for people to poke at the members. The previous posters discussion of DU is as important as the discussion of FR. If Yahoo forums and chat is not considered a racist venue, then Free Republic can't be considered a racist venue. Dominick 19:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, you're right in that the title of that section was POV. I wasn't even aware of the change. But I changed it back. --Holdek ^(talk) 00:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Social nature of FR

Holdek and others:

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

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

Social Activities

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

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

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

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

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

Full disclosure

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

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

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

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

Paul, I would welcome you to add as much as you can/wish to this article. I think you have some good ideas there and I encourage you to add what you know. Your perspective as a (former) member combined with your demonstrated concern for neutrality could really help this article. I'd personally be interested in why you switched parties and what your personal perspectives on Free Republic are, and perhaps we can discuss this on your or my talk site. Providing documentation on claims can be helpful...reading Free Republic, my perception is that Freepers tend to have an inflated view of their own influence in the world of politics, and that is why I am suspicious of the Rathergate claims. But I look forward to seeing your additions to this article. Regards, --Holdek ^(talk) 03:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I am a Freeper. I don't think full disclosure is germane, but there it is anyhoo. I think my work stands on it's own. I would agree, some Freepers are defensive, and many have a inflated view of the contributions they make, like many activist political movements. Paul, I am sorry that you think many Freepers don't make good wikipedians. I do not think that statement helps wikipedia maintain NPOV, nor does it help combat the manufactured opinion people have obtained about FR. Without conservatives, of all stripes, wikipedia could not maintain NPOV. I think many would be excellent wikipedians, I think the “one line wonders” would not be helpful, but they are not detail people.

I think FR contributes to the political landscape, as does other conservative tools for activism, like the Team Leader program. In particular, there are groups that would like to limit or eliminate influence, and what better dirty trick that to claim that since some FR posters make stupid statements, then all Freepers are racists or worse.

We are here at wikipedia participate in an effort to catalog and create a font of knowledge that is broad, and as universal as possible. One big reason I left wiki was this article in particular. There is a place to criticism of FR, where criticism is due. Where criticism is false it should be excised or the source and defense posted in detail.

If we are posting things that are factual, then that is indeed NPOV. I think the allegations about Jim Robinson need a bit more proof. I think we can all agree he is a bit of a curmugeon and defensive about his property, but I also think he has a big heart and has allowed a lot of people in common political cause with him a lot of leeway to work towards a common political goal. The financial allegations are made by very partisan sources, among them Salon. His own words are here: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a2c5f673b72.htm

I agree with you Holdek, if the Rathergate claims are false, lets strike them. I think they are correct as per my own recollections, watching it unfold. I think, by my judge of character, that you would also agree if the allegations of grifting by Mr. Robinson are false, lets make sure that we include both sides of that story. I think they are important, but if they have substantial doubts attached to them, lets include those doubts as well. If those are false and a dirty trick, full disclosure would be of benefit to Mr. Robinson.

Thanks for reading my overlong musings on this article. It impacted my participation before, and frankly, I should have not walked away. Dominick 12:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Buckhead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holdek, I am compiling my research here: User:Paul_Klenk/Sandbox#Buckhead paul klenk ^talk 05:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Holdek, the sources have been added by me, as you requested, in order to justify the story being included in this article. I feel there are good enough and specific enough, so I put the passage back in. Also, I moved it above the Corsi story as it is clearly a much more notable one. Everyone remembers Rathergate. No one even knows who Corsi is, let alone what he did. I would appreciate it if you would discuss specific objections here if you have a problem with the passage now. paul klenk ^talk 06:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Holdek, I have added more details to the paragraph (which I originally authored, by the way), laying out the "plot points" as they occurred. This should help a reader better understand the direct connection between FR and Powerline, and the "floodgates" it opened. paul klenk ^talk 07:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Buckhead resolved

Thank you for doing this research, Paul. It's very extensive. What I was looking for was not so much the partisan blogs but rather the LA Times story validating this assertion. I notice that the story no longer is retrievable on the web, but I trust the NYU assertion that it at least exists. Again, this the optimal way to handle these disputes. Thank you for being a good Wikipedian. I have no problem with the way the section, and the headline (which you make a good point on as well), read now.

Also, if you could check out my talk page, I have a question for you there...--Holdek ^(talk) 04:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I do think that Power Line's validation is enough. PL is not nearly as partisan as, say, Little Green Footballs. It is a very professionally written blog. The authors have been on CSPAN and other programs. Remember, as we learned through Rathergate, many blogs are written by freelance professional journalists and other very bright, educated people. So-called mainstream journalists -- many of whom them are extremely partisan, but refuse to admit it -- are being held accountable in the blogosphere. There is also a sort of hierarchy of blogs; PL is not "just a blog," -- it was very widely read at the time -- widely enough that it caused a wildfire to spread after their post on September 9. Thanks for your thoughts. paul klenk ^talk 05:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It may interest you to know that I've been corresponding with Corsi by e-mail. I tracked him down through his FR handle, jrlc, sending him an FR e-mail and asking him to check in with me. He did a week ago. He has given me a lot of information. On its own, it won't help me because of the prohibition against original research. But it is enough to help put me on the right track for non-original research I can use here. Frankly, I think his mention on the FR page is so marginal... Truly a mere footnote, and would not have been mentioned had it not seemed to put FR in a negative light. paul klenk ^talk 05:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Dan Rather is on C-SPAN (live) right now, talking about Buckhead. paul klenk ^talk 00:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Corsi

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

Well, I haven't removed it. But every site, including Yahoo and MSN, have message forums where such statements are made. No one mentions this in those articles, nor do they use it to paint the "site as a whole." If it didn't make FR look bad, it wouldn't have gotten attention. This is a pattern when writing articles about any political subject -- of either party: Dump as many negative anecdotes or criticisms as possible into the article, and make no attempt to put them into context for the reader.

The paragraph does need to be improved. Instead of characterizing the quotes, we need to let an actual critic do that by quoting a critic, or -- better -- give a quote or two, and let the readers characterize them themselves. Calling any criticism of homosexuality "homophobic" is getting a bit old. Many people do not agree with its practice, its agenda, or the way the lifestyle is marketed (even some homosexuals). Everyone comment showing disapproval does not need to be called "homophobic" (surely there are those who would call what I just said homophobic). Also, proving the actual quote and the context is more meaningful for a reader. His statement about "buggering boys" was more more of an indictment against the Arabs practice of (according to him) raping young boys, comparing it to that of some priests. Hardly a slam against the gay lifestyle.

Another point I learned from Corsi -- and need to find reference to elsewhere: He made no effort to hide his identity on the forum. The people who broke the story made it seem like they "uncovered" something, but he was open about it. And for the life of me, I can't understand why he apologized for his statements. He is not sorry at all, and discusses his use of such statements in his letters to me.

Also, I believe this incident is discussed in length in Corsi's article. paul klenk ^talk 05:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

FreeRepublic has long been criticized, rightly or wrongly, as a repository for hateful speech. This is an incident which plays to that criticism, and in that context it is important due to its intersection with national politics. Like I said I would be willing to move the paragraph to a more general discussion section of the article. But it serves as a good example and is distinguished because of the aforementioned criteria.

As for the homophobia, I feel pretty comfortable with the label. He said "Isn't the Democratic Party the official SODOMIZER PROTECTION ASSOCIATION of AMERICA -- oh, I forgot, it was just an accident that Clintoon's first act in office was to promote 'gays in the military.'" And refered to Lesbians as "Lesbos," which is a slur. It goes beyond just a simple "I don't like the gay lifestyle" kind of comment. I wouldn't mind putting this quote and the ones I listed above in the "Corsi's "apology" for remarks on FR" section of this talk page into the article, but I don't think we should make this section of the article too disproportionately long and extensive. --Holdek ^(talk) 20:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You make a lot of very good, fair points. My preference is always to quote the person, and let the reader characterize, rather than our editors doing that. But if a term had to be used, I would suggest "anti-gay" -- homophobic suggests he is "afraid" of homosexuality; it's really a poor, overused term. Anti-gay can mean either someone who is simply against gays, or really hates them. I think we can say that about Corsi -- we just can't say he's afraid of them!!! LOL! paul klenk ^talk 20:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

In contemporary usage, "homophobic" often means anti-gay. But by the same token I would not be averse to it being changed to "anti-gay" instead. --Holdek ^(talk) 01:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Censorship"

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

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

I believe this is pretty spelled out in the article. --Holdek ^(talk) 20:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Freeps

The second sentence below is very strange:

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

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

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

Andy Stephenson FR coverage

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

Here is what I posted;

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

• The Stalking of Andy Stephenson by Beth Ferrari
• Seattle Weekly: "Cancerous Campaign - Voter activist Andy Stephenson fights charges he faked his illness—from his hospital bed."
• Seattle Weekly: "A Fight To The End"
• Seattle Weekly: "Internet Martyr - The life and cruel death of Andy Stephenson."
• "Conservative Underground: BUM FIGHTS was Andy Wars"
• "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 1"
• "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 2"
• "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 2 - WILL PITT RESPONDS"
• "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 3 - Questions"
• "Andy Resource Center"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Famously isn't a PoV term, if I asked ten people on the street who knew what FR is who Andy was they could not answer.

I looked at the FR thread, for verification, because I would like to see if this was true. It was talking about him, and expressing doubt, but not talking about cyber/physical stalking, not about interference and medicaid benefits. Now Paypal does this a lot with fundraising, it happened to a friend of mine raising money for Katrina people, PP cut them off. If you want to link original statements on FR, thats great. CU isn't FR, nobody on FR can stop people on CU. FR may question it, if questions were to be asked. There are a lot of lawyers on DU, why didn't they do it right, pro bono?

The Seattle article was the only place I saw Fr mentioned as participating. Quote:

Then came the backlash. The origins of the rumors are murky, but the basic theme was Stephenson was a scam artist 
who didn't have cancer. The rumor spread like a computer virus across the Internet, and soon vitriolic postings 
were popping up all over the place. 

<SNIP>

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

Fred Grady, an accountant from Stanton, Neb., straddles both groups. He pays for a site called Scamdy.com that 
alleges Stephenson defrauded people. He learned of the controversy through a conservative Web site, Free Republic 
(www.freerepublic.com), that has an ongoing flame war with Democratic Underground. He is also very concerned that 
Stephenson's fund-raising was not done properly. 

OK so the origins are murky laying it at FR's door is not right IMHO.

Furthermore:

According to some of Stephenson's supporters, the questions they raised temporarily stalled his friends' fund- 
raising, delaying Stephenson's cancer surgery. They accused Stephenson of fraud, filed complaints against him, and 
accused him of lining his own pockets.

According to supporters is a weak proof. Maybe CU did more than FR did, but that is way OT. This is the FR article.

Motion to strike! Dominick 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Here is a revised poposed entry;

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

• The Stalking of Andy Stephenson by Beth Ferrari
• Seattle Weekly: "Cancerous Campaign - Voter activist Andy Stephenson fights charges he faked his illness—from his hospital bed."
• Seattle Weekly: "A Fight To The End"
• Seattle Weekly: "Internet Martyr - The life and cruel death of Andy Stephenson."
• "DUmmie Funnies - numerous entries from about mid April 2005 to mid July 2005"
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1425289/posts?q=1&&page=1#1
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1424310/posts
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1423092/posts
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1422536/posts
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1422004/posts
• http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1421322/posts

BenBurch 17:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ben, I think the consensus is that this incident should not be in the article. Dominick 17:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to post a caveat. I read [3] and IMHO astroturfing for partisan PoV is not an acceptable use of Wikipedia. Dominick 18:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried to say this nice, Ben. Lets be clear for all the people.

benburch  (1000+ posts)      Tue Oct-04-05 02:06 PM
Response to Original message 
52. Ah, well, looks like I lost the fight over there. 
I will find another way to get that information on the record.

And it WILL be on the record and linked to FR's Wiki page

This isn't the place. Dominick 18:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

How is this incident, or allegations of this incident, notable? Of all the items discussed at FR, and all the people, what makes this one stand out? paul klenk ^talk 19:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul I agree with you, I didnt want a partisan edit war, fed by people astroturfing from DU. I did what I thought would settle it, and edited it for style and NPoV content. If you think it should be removed thats great too AFAIC. Dominick 19:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

From: Jim Robinson <jimrob@psnw.com>

To: webmaster <webmaster@whiterosesociety.org>

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

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

Thanks,

Jim

webmaster wrote:

> Jim,

>

> Here are some threads about Andy Stephenson;

>

> Every DUFU thread since April 28th;

>

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

>

> All of the following Chat threads

>

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

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

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

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

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

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

>

> My copyright Material;

>

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

> Post 117

>

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

> - Post 134

>

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

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

> rather soon.

>

> Thanks for your time and attention!

>

> -Ben Burch

>

>

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

>

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

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

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

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

>> the info is posted.

>>

>> Thanks,

>>

>> Jim

>>

>>

>> webmaster wrote:

>>

>>

>>> Gentlemen,

>>>

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

>>> libel about the Andy Stephenson matter.

>>>

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

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

>>> www.AndyThanksYou.com

>>>

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

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

>>>

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

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

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

>>>

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

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

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

>>>

>>> Thank you very much!

>>>

>>> Sincerely,

>>>

>>> Ben Burch

>>> WhiteRoseSociety.org Webmaster

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

BenBurch 20:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To Ben: New section

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

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

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

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

There are some flaws in your thinking here:

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

Thanks for the grin, you are right, a lot of what people say is not notable...on or off FR. Dominick 22:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Even here! paul klenk ^talk

One more challenge for BenBurch

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

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

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

FR

This discussion is copied from Stevie's talk page.

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

I was merely restoring the neutral text. I don't have the time today for discussion on this topic. I'm out of legal reversions, so my work is done for the next 24 hours. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, whether the text is neutral is a matter of your opinion. That's why we have talk pages -- so we can talk about it together. When you do have time, please weigh in there. It is an important part of the process. Reverting without discussion is not always very helpful. paul klenk ^talk 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

My position is to monitor for compliance with factuality. As long as it doesn't stray from that, we're good. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Purported factuality does not necessarily rise to notability, and the community should talk together to discuss it. I'm not good with taking time to pop in and revert edits, but not taking time to discuss them with fellow editors. We work in collaboration here; not participating in that is anti-collaborative. I realize today you do not have time, but do please stop by in the future. paul klenk ^talk 21:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

There are different approaches to collaboration. I have my own methods for working in the Wikipedia, sometimes the way you see it, sometimes taking a different, yet legal approach. Whatever ensures factuality is what I go after. I will not have others decide for me how I am to operate. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 21:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it appears you have time for this discussion after all. After this post, I am copying this discussion to the FR talk page. I do appreciate individual styles, but actually the community decides how we operate on a number of issues; we do not have full reign to pick a personal approach. It isn't enough to worry about what is "legal" -- the goal is not to merely avoid breaking a rule or getting blocked. The goal is a community of editors working together. That is one aspect of WP which you do not have the personal option to disregard. One cannot disregard discussions about disputed content on talk pages if one chooses to edit that content. I will look at the text you re-added in light of your stated reasons, and give my opinions on the talk page.

A motive betrayed?

Please note Stevie's comment:

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

It seems to me our work at this page should rise to level higher than "getting in our three reverts a day." Others, what do you think? paul klenk ^talk 22:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a reminder, but WP:3RR does not apply to correction of simple vandalism — and anons who blank article text without comment generally qualify as vandals. - jredmond 23:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It is highly subjective. Vandalism should not be confused with content dispute, and anonymous editors have the same right to edit as logged in users. Everyone has the right to remove disputed material. What is a propos in Stevie's statement is his preoccupation with legal reversions as the sum and substance of his work. The word "legal" is what betrayed his motive (plus his refusal to discuss it with fellow editors on this page). If he were asserting that something was vandalism, he would not have needed to use the word legal. paul klenk ^talk 23:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It can be viewed as "blanking out" vandalism (esp. since no explanation was provided) or as censorship of relevant content. Either way, it's wrong. Reverts in both these instances are normal and justified in the Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The term NPoV is the standard, not "getting back" at FR using Wikipedia as a club. I think from this thread [4] the coordination of attacks on the PoV here is reprehensible. Lots of sock puppets, I would love to see one act of blanking vandalism get a 24 hour ban, like other pages get. I would like consensus respected which we did talk about here, while he claims that consensus cant remove material. Well, NPoV must be respected this is a toppolicy. If the matrial is that important make a page about it and link it from somewhere, and prepare to be edited mercilessly. Dominick 22:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stevie, I do not play games. Discuss the content with your fellow editors. Right now, the paragraph is junk: completely non-encyclopedic. One does not perfect junk; one gets rid of it. paul klenk ^talk 02:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nope. It's facts that are inconvenient to your viewpoint. Tough. But in the spirit of NPOV, editors should be responsible to ensure that the text reflects "all sides of the story" to ensure balance. But with recent changes, it already appears like it's becoming rather balanced.

I also wanted to note that my reverts were simply anti-censorship reverts... that is, the content needed to stay, and be revised to achieve balance, rather than ripping it out. And reverts are normally used to defend against censorship of material. I offer no apology for what I did. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The question I have here is WHY do the proponents of Free Republic want to have this event expunged from their history? That seems rather Soviet to me, and not what I would expect from an American Conservative. Would any of you care to comment on this? The present entry is better sourced than most of what you will find in this article as a whole, absolutely happened, and it seems to me that you ought to be proud of what you accomplished here? The included sources are the direct words of FR members and two published journalistic works. Others can be provided if you want some more documentation, but I've already been told not to "pile on". BenBurch 03:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a significant part of either the popular culture about FR, or is not big part of the focus of FR. Jim Robinson doesn't even know about this, and he watches FR like a hawk. I think you all are the ones having the problem, I went against consensus, included this paragraph, for two of you over eight others, and still you want more.

As the email above proves, Jim Robinson certainly was told about this, and PRETENDED not to be able to see it. BenBurch 12:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the new edits. Paypal's actions don't have much to do with FR or any delay. Paypal does this a lot to people raising money, if you start a charity, do not use Paypal. Paypal is good for payment for goods, it is not to be used for donations, and they tell you that. A quick Google bears this out. FR didn't influence this at all, IMHO. If you want to make more detail on this start a Andy page. This minor incident has taken up too much time.Dominick 09:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominick, Actually, yes, Paypal was totally material to the delay. Here is what happened; The $50,000 was raised, and the checks were cut and sent to Johns Hopkins. They were lost in the mail room, being buried on the desk of the mail room supervisor. As a result, the Hospital was going to cancel the surgery. Friends of Andy who worked at the hospital intervened, and the hospital agreed that if they could be shown that Andy had raised the money, the surgery would go ahead as scheduled. When Andy went to log onto his Paypal to prove this to him, it had been locked due to abuse complaints. We know that FR members claimed to have been filing these abuse complaints. Because he could not get into his Paypal account at that critical time, due to the complaints that were filed, the hospital cancelled the surgery and he lost his surgical slot. The checks were found in the mail room late on the day the surgery was supposed to have happened, but well after it was too late to do a damned thing about it. So, the paypal issue caused the delay DIRECTLY. We also know from conversations with the Medicaid people that a person called them and claimed that Andy had raised several hundred thousand dollars on his fundraiser, and that he was therefore not qualified for Medicaid. This is why the Medicaid was cut off. We were finally able to prove to Medicaid that this was just not true and they did restore his benefits prior to his final hospitalization, but Andy had to go without effective pain medication for nearly two weeks as a result of these "helpful" people. These same people (and the discussion is on FR) sent him a registered telegram while he was in the recovery room after his surgery in an attempt to prove that he wasn't in fact there. These same people called the Washington Secretary of State's office alleging that he had run a fraudulent fundraiser. These same people sent him a letter while he was in Virginia Mason medical center detailing the legal actions they planned to take against him for the alleged fraud of him raising money for his operation. It wasn't enough that he was in terrible pain and dying, but they had to put down the screws to make him even more miserable. BenBurch 12:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Missing Lead

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

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

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

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

Too many activist blogs

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