Talk:Free Republic/Archive 3

message: While free republic statements about free republic posts are reliable sources, they are not reliable sources for anything else. Beyond this, the statement about the APJ posters being moles was not sourced, at all. No edit that attempts to improve the encyclopedia can be vandalism - please do not lable mine as such. JBKramer 19:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no further comments. I think this is a bad course of action. Dominick (TALK) 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JB - Here are my thoughts. If an issue is not an 'extraordinary claim' is a 'generally accepted truth' and lacks really good sourcing, but has dozens of less-that-perfect sources - and the issue is confirmed by the subject - and there are no RS's claiming the issue false -then the multiple arguments can be weighed together to meet RS V.  It is a 'generally accepted fact' that members of FR were instrumental in investigating and even solving the 'Killian Documents' incident. Were their important contributions documented by the NY Times, or even the Washington Times? No. AFAIK the only 'paper' that claimed this was a tiny newspaper in the south, sold at about 50 locations like gas stations and Quiky marts.  Now is that paper a more RS than 50 well-respected blogs? I don't think so.  I contend that FR can be a RS on FR issues, if that issue is not 'in contention'. Therefore, with a preponderance of evidence claiming that FR was instrumental in 'solving' the Killain Docs, and NO ONE claiming otherwise - these arguments weighed together add up to WP RS V. Same with the Chad Castagana issue. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe in 'generally accepted fact'. Source or remove. If it's not reported by an WP:RS, it didn't happen. Blogs are not reliable sources. The threashold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If you don't like the policies that make blogs not acceptable as sources, fork the project.JBKramer 22:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JB - regarding your revert - "Chad Castagana left comments (including one stirring endorsement of Katherine Harris) at conservative websites with names like Expose The Left and Free Republic." huffington Post This combined with Jim Rob's admission combined with DOZENS of blogs, combined with NO ONE denying it = RS V. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Please include that cite in this article. If you'd like to draft a proposed paragraph here, I will review it. JBKramer 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - but please explain why FR isn't a reliable source about what happened on FR when the issue is NOT ' in contention'. My understanding is blogs are OK as sources on themselves, when there is no denial of what is being claimed. FR 'admitted' Chad was a Marc Costanzo the Freeper. Dozens of blogs say so. NO ONE is claiming otherwise. If ONE person writing on RS claimed "I know that wasn't Chad writing as Marc Costanzo - I know for a fact that he was climbing Mt Everest and didn't take his laptop". We couldn't accept it as 'truth'.  The fact that there are NO opposing claims changes much. (Same with Killian docs) IMHO) - F.A.A.F.A. 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because it's not FR saying that, it's some guy posting on their message boards. JBKramer 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  In the context of FR operational matters, Jim Robinson, posting under that name, can be taken to be the authentic Jim Robinson, to speak FOR FR's owners, and to be an expert in what he is saying about FR.  In short a RS.  BenBurch 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well.  Jim Robinson is the owner of Free Republic and is in the capacity to speak for the site.--RWR8189 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free republic posts not rs 

message: How's this JB?
Chad Castagana, arrested by the FBI  for allegedly sending profane and death-threatening letters containing 'white powder'  to Liberal politicians, journalists, and celebrities was a registered user of Free Republic, and had previously been banned from Free Republic several times under various usernames. His last username, as confirmed by Free Republic's founder and owner Jim Robinson, was Marc Costanzo, and the posts in question were determined to be Castagana's through an examination the IP logs.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738800/posts] Castagana wrote about the threatening letters on Free Republic, in one case writing about Keith Olbermann's  reported reaction to receiving one of the letters. Castagana, posting as Costanzo whose sig line read "Name your poison", wrote on Free Republic on 10-30-2006 regarding the Olbermann letter-threat "I do not believe he sent it to himself. But that is just guess work." and "I heard from a liberal blog that Olbermann was a prima donna at the hospital.." [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727261/posts?page=230#230]
F.A.A.F.A. 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A problem here I think is that you are the one who is making the determination that Castanga is "alluding" to the alleged crimes, not a reliable source.  It seems to me to be correct, but it is not at this point verifiable.--RWR8189 01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I changed alluded to to wrote about which assigns no connection. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, I think the problem is that you are making the connection Costanga's postings and the alleged crime and not a reliable source, the nuance of the wording isn't really relevant.  Even though the plain text of his posting obviously seems to indicate some connection to the alleged crime, no cited reliable source has come out and said as much.--RWR8189 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still makes the assumption that a crystall ball is used to figure out his posting was an allusion to his crime. It still unfairly links FR to a act of terrror it did not participate it and is inherently PoV. However fairness is not an issue, the issue is the prejudice that FR breeds terrorists. Dominick (TALK) 13:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: (UI) The new wording does NOT indicate that he 'alluded' to it. It says he wrote about the incidents. Just like anyone else on FR wrote about the incidents. Dominick you aren't even reading before you revert. THE VERY FIRST CITE - The Daily News, a major paper in L.A, wrote 'death threats' and most other articles say 'death threats' - F.A.A.F.A. 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not usuing WP:FAITH I read it it cant be included. 
RWR8189 (Talk | contribs) (this section cannot be included, not only because of WP:V WP:RS and WP:NOR, but because of WP:BLP accusations made against this person must be verified)  Cant use the metion of the name, sorry. Dominick (TALK) 20:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: They're verified in the FBI affavdavit linked to. Dom, you don't want to start an edit war. The whole Killin Doc issue is similarly sourced using FR as a source on FR. The next time you revert, I will have to apply the same understanding of RS that you are using to the Killian section, and the ENTIRE article. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FR is acceptable accotding to wikipedia policy as a source for the FR article. Read the policy. Huffington is a source for her blog's article. Find another source and WP:NPA. Threats are pointless, I guess you are out of proper arguments. Dominick (TALK) 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dom{you removed sourced material without even bothering to follow the links. The daily news and the affadavit said death threats but you challenged me with the inane edit summary - prove it was a death threat without a fortune teller blogs are not sources). I am dissapointed that you are acting in such a manner. If this application of RS policy as to not accepting FR as a RS on FR is being used on Chad Casatagana, it's going to be applied to the Killian Docs too. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've already cut the death-threats baby in half. JBKramer 20:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, JBK - Since you're using the same application of not accepting FR as a source on FR for the Killian Doc issue as well, I accept that WP is being applied fairly, even though I don't agree with it. Will you please do the same for the 2 Killian Doc articles which have numerous claims, cites and links to FR? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I decline. I think you all are well on your way to making this article a good example of how wikipedia should not work. Activists should not be allowed to win on the basis of the shrillest voice. Dominick (TALK) 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was directed to JBKramer, not you. AGF please.- F.A.A.F.A. 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do AGF until you showed to the contrary. Your assumption about FR clouds your judgement. You don't hurt FR here, you hurt Wikipedia. Dominick (TALK) 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop! I find Free Republic very entertaining and spend at least a half hour there every day. I assume nothing about FR as I am continually surprised by what I read there. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised Chad Castagana Paragraph 

message: Who removed the section documenting the FR's love of political violence? That's one of the main undercurrents of the website!!! I will restore it. I am a FReeper by the way, but I do not support the site's wanton encouragement of violence. Grrr! - unsigned note from User:68.33.185.185 .
:Feel free to add it in if you can make the entry conform with the rules.--BenBurch 04:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too bad that the account of the incident where someone published Martin Sheen's home address on FR, and several Freepers then discussed which rifle round was best for both 'hunting' and 'target practice', in the same thread can't be linked to, but it wouldn't pass RS V, even though it has the poster's usernames and timestamp etc. I think the FR consensus was that a .308 would suit 'the job' best.  - F.A.A.F.A. 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Create a web site documenting those things.  If you like, I'll give you some space for it.--BenBurch 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Review WP:RS. Forum posts are not reliable sources. JBKramer 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Violence 

message: I think it would be a good idea to strip the article of all things with source tags, and re-build it just with properly sourced material.  The present article is largely without sourcing, and I don't think people will be motivated to source it until it is stripped down to just the facts.  Note, this is NOT an attempt to censor the article.  I firmly believe that acceptable sources can be found for most of what is now here, but this is not presently an encyclopedic article, and that needs to be fixed.  BenBurch 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff with source tags

message: The poll speaks to the composition of the user base, not the beliefs of Free Republic the website. Free Republic's published pages can be used to make statements about Free Republic only. Polls of their user base cannot be used for anything. JBKramer 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  poll not RS 

message: BryanFromPalatine "paraphrases" my statement at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) above.  My actual comment (which is not entirely relevant to the discussion on this talk page), is the first one in this subsection, and a follow up comment (which might be relevant to this Free Republic discussion), is .  
The policies at play in the Democratic Party article that BryanFromPalatine violated with the addition to the Democratic Party article are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV#Undue weight.  I have no idea what action these policies compel in this article.  In the Democratic Party article, however, these problems could be cured by: (1) the first three by simply citing references and (2) while undue weight could likely not be cured completely in that particular circumstance, the *major* Democratic Party scandals (e.g., impeachment of Clinton) should be (and now are) discussed in the article text, but not in a list.  
My impression of the situation in the Free Republic article (and I'm not completely aware of the situation here, nor, frankly, do I want to be) is that there is one scandal involving a prominent (?) Free Republic member.  Assuming citations to reliable sources can be found, the verifiability, original research, and BLP problems are easily cured.  Because it's only one scandal (or at least a small number of scandals), and assuming a reasonable amount of text is devoted to it here (as opposed to an excessive amount), there is no undue weight problem.  The only decision left is one of editorial judgment--is the scandal closely enough related to Free Republic to discuss it in this article, or is it's relationship to Free Republic so tangential that it really needs to be discussed only in the article on the individual involved in the scandal?  
This was a question I answered in the negative for most of the additions to the Democratic Party article in the main, but in the positive for major Democratic Party scandals (impeachment).  As I've demonstrated, however, the situations in the Democratic Party article and the Free Republic article are, I think, very different, in that the addition to the Democratic Party article necessitated both editorial judgment and the application of numerous policies, including undue weight, whereas the situation here, assuming the addition is referenced, will only call for editorial judgment as there is likely no undue weight problem.  
Finally, I would appreciate it if (1) no one attempts to use my editorial judgment or interpretation of policy AS policy, as no one on Wikipedia has such power (other than perhaps Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee), and (2) no one "paraphrases" my words such that my original quotation is taken out of context or its meaning is otherwise twisted. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And one more thing: I'm not certain if this is relevant to this article or not, but if sourced criticism is being removed wholesale from this article (i.e., criticism of Free Republic in general, not relating to a single-member scandal), there is a de facto WP:NPOV violation (completely unrelated to undue weight).  Undue weight merely commands that we not devote *excessive* amounts of attention to something.  It does NOT excuse deletion of sourced criticism completely.  If there is not one already, an RFC might be a good idea. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On use of my quote and more

message: --BenBurch 05:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I left on BFP's user talk page 

message: Um...  RWR8189?  Freeptard gets over 1500 ghits.  It is used.  I've seen it used a dozen times in the last month on different boards. It's just as relevant as DUmmie for a DUer. --BenBurch 05:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It gets the exact same number of hits as Freeploader, 1570, with many, many more non-FR hits. I also agree that it's just as relevant as 'DUmmie' - F.A.A.F.A. 06:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see he reverted it.  Thanks, RWR. --BenBurch 06:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freeptard