Talk:Free Republic/Archive 10

message: "Free Republic has a significant relationship with conservative talk radio. There are daily threads discussing, as of May 2007, seven syndicated shows (as well as a weekly thread for Matt Drudge's Sunday night show). In addition, several famous conservative talk hosts have been known to post (or at least have an account) on Free Republic, including Mark Levin and Steve Malzberg. Tony Snow was also once a member before joining the White House staff."
I have resisted the urge to delete this to provide the editor time to source it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eschoir (talk • contribs).
:There is nothing conservative about Free-Republic.  It is globalist, Libertarian leaning.68.106.248.211 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything negative that I've ever read about Wikipedia has been confirmed. The left-wing partisans are in control. All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Sockpuppet." Xboxwarrior 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Newsmax rots your brains. Can we still count on your support and participation? Eschoir 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources please

message: I may be misreading the column at this link, but it seems to be little more than a letter to the editor.  The final paragraph states: Submit your own rant or favorite discussion to redvsblue@salon.com, or jump right into a Table Talk discussion about Red vs. Blue..
Letters to the editor or their rough equivalent, are certainly not reliable sources, especially in the context of controversial material, nonetheless in article that ARBCOM has place on probation.  There are certainly no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight in a letter written by Joe Nobody.  A better source needs to be found, or this material should be removed--RWR8189 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you were onto something at first, but the line where it goes "When contacted by Salon" indicates it is reportage.  OLD reportage.Eschoir 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this source based on a LTTE? 

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

message: We're free now!Eschoir 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last "Citation Needed" sourced!

message: That's worth something.Eschoir 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there was a revert of a major rewrite to the article, with the comment "You can't do that without discussing it in Talk", to paraphrase the comment. The comment itself is wrong. According to Wikipedia ethic, anyone can do a major rewrite on an article, and if the rewrite is better, it should stay. No one owns an article. Having said that, I don't know if the rewrite is better or not. -- GABaker 4 December 2007 15:56 UTC  —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can, you are correct. Whether it should take place is an entirely different matter. Articles, especially articles that have been as contentious as this one has been, are the sum product of a lot of work by a lot of people. I don't think it is fair for someone like Shibumi2, who has contributed very little to the article, to unilaterally rewrite the article from scratch with no input from others who have put in time and effort. TechBear 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am just a watcher, not an editor on this article; you would be better off asking the people who have actively contributed. And with the article already under probation, keep in mind that Wikipedia moderators are paying close attention to all changes. I am willing to assume that your efforts are genuine and in good faith, but it would not be wise to make unilateral changes just because you personally don't like the way the article is currently written. TechBear (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wikipedia moderators are paying close attention to all changes". Well, there really isn't any position of 'moderator', though some people are watching I am sure. Such as myself. And you. Prodego talk 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Administrators, moderators, close enough. ;-b TechBear (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine, do what you want. Just keep in mind that the Arbitration Committee warning at the top of this page is there for a reason; if your unilateral rewrites spark yet another edit war on this article, it will be on your head. Don't say we didn't warn you. :-) For what it is worth, I completely agree with you that the article needs a rewrite. I just don't think it will be worth the can of worms such a rewrite will no doubt open. Freepers are a vicious bunch as a glance at the history logs will show. TechBear (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Five Months without Controversy

message: I've tagged several references, and the article, with templates that indicate that certain parts of the article may be violating WP:NOR.  Specifically, primary sources are cited--that is, directly from Free Republic, with no other secondary source establishing notability of such examples.  That is, it appears that contributors are deciding which search terms and posts at Free Republic are notworthy.  This appears to me to be patent original research.  Mind you, I am not suggesting that anything is false; just that as an article, it appears to be original research suitable for publication elsewhere.  I hope this clarifies my recent activity, and I look forward to helping.  Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added more, and have also attempted to correctly title and/or describe the references (many of which, alone, seem to violate WP:NOR--they would be fine, in my reading, if they were back up sources to other "secondary" sources).  Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: I think this is not a WP:OR issue, but a WP:RS issue. The threshold question therefore becomes “Is this material challenged?” 
Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. In order to demonstrate that a claim is not presenting original research, one must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research. 
If there is a source, in this case primary sources, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight. 
Since no one seriously challenges the claims made in the material, I think it passes the test.
Eschoir (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR or RS? 

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

message: Please AGF Eschoir. You have been warned by Prodego. He is administrator. You have replaced material which should be deleted. It is not notable and it is not NPOV. Prodego and 70 IP editor agree with me. As 70 IP editor says "this is not your personal blog." This is our consensus. I have reverted your edit. Please do not continue seeking edit war. If you seek to change Free Republic article then discuss here on talk page first and get consensus. Then you make change edit with support of community. I have also moved "Agents" section since it was about activity before 2000 and was out of order. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, you took none of the unilateral edits you made to talk before making them.  Sorry.  When you do, and get consensus, your edits will be considered.Eschoir (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, Shibumi2 was reverting your own unilateral edits that you made without taking them to Talk. He already has consensus, but we'll go through the formal procedure so that you don't have a leg to stand on. 68.31.191.215 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me show you my leg: No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. WP:consensus Eschoir (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When it's an article about an Internet forum, and every editor working on it supports the changes - with the sole exception of a permanently banned former member of said forum, who created nearly 100 sockpuppets in said forum, who transformed the article into a bitter, petty litle personal blog about said forum - then the changes are supported by consensus. 68.29.239.118 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you are AG-effing, BryEschoir (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is not to say I challenge all your edits - or any - it's just procedural.:) Eschoir (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please AGF 

message: Editors, please indicate below whether you support or oppose the edits made by Shibumi2 on the evening of January 6.
*Strongly Support. Shibumi2's edits made the article NPOV. They removed a lot of material that made the article read like the Free Republic edition of National Enquirer. They eliminated the bitter, petty little grudge POV that the reader might find in the personal blog of a permanently banned Freeper.  68.31.191.215 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dearest anonymous commuter you assume very much. This time you happen to be correct. But please do not assume this way about me in future. This leads to problem with other editors. I am very patient but you see Eschoir make trouble for you. This must stop. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Voting is evil. Prodego talk 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But statements of support for consensus are good. That's how all admins became admins. Here, a call for consensus has been displayed for two days. Comments below it show that all the people currently working on the article have seen it and had an opportunity to express support or opposition. For two parts of his edits, there's one dissent from the usual suspect. For all the rest of Shibumi2's edits, no one has expressed any opposition. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your support. This is much work for me to create article that is balanced. Please be patient and do not become angry with each other. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus for edits of Shibumi2

message: Thanks!  And remember this is the standard;   Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --BenBurch (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already very well-sourced - much better than the typical Wikipedia article in that regard. IMHO the big problems here are notability and WP:NPOV. Too much non-notable material from episodes of petty little bickering between Freepers has been included, in an effort to portray Freepers as a bunch of nutballs and criminals. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, most of these sources on the present article are not up to wiki standards.  The standards are well defined, and most of these do not make it.  I will go ahead with the refactoring with just those sources from the current article that meet the standard if nobody can find better ones.  Anybody with Lexis/Nexus access??? --BenBurch (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Baltimore Sun citations in the MD4Bush section are valid. I checked them myself (using microfilm at the library), before I added them to the article, but feel free to double check. 68.31.123.238 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gentlepersons;  Sources Here Please!  (or this will be the shortest article in Wikipedia.)

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

message: Account registration began over ten years ago. Is there any good reason to mention its start date in the lead of the article? (If the date is important, which it probably isn't, it could be mentioned deeper in the article.) Lou Sander (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ONLY if it appears in a published source.  --BenBurch (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  EVEN if it appears in a published source, there seems to be no reason to mention the over-ten-year-old start date of account registration. Unless I'm missing something, it's a trivial point of ancient history. Even if I AM missing something, it hardly belongs in the lead. Lou Sander (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, when writing an article about a PERSON, that person's date of birth is relevant to the article as it places him in a historical context.  I would argue the same here.  Problem is we don't have a nice wikibox for articles about web sites like we do for biographies.  --BenBurch (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A person's date of birth is a much different thing than a minor change in a forum. Why, specifically, should the registration start date be mentioned in the lead, or even at all? Lou Sander (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would change the way it is presented to;  "Founded in XXXX."  But the date it started is certainly relevant.  --BenBurch (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the founding date is important. But it wasn't called that, was it? Is that what it was? IMHO, there are a LOT of things in the FR article that are called something different than they actually are. There seem to be editors who take every opportunity to obfuscate, put the subject of the article in a bad light, and so on. Lou Sander (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead: Account Registration 

message: Shibumi2 suggested starting a Wikiproject covering Internet forums such as DU, FR and Daily Kos. This could be the best way to ensure consistent and even-handed treatment of all these sites. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I believe this is best way. WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS provide constant review by others working on similar articles and creates consistent style of these articles. I believe this is good idea and offer it for your consideration. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Wikiproject for forums 

message: I'm particularly fond of this example of your work
Eschoir (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a talk page. Per WP:TP, "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Why is stuff like the above so very prominent on this one? Lou Sander (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Undermoderation.  Some Freepers (like BryanFromPalatine) don't feel obliged to follow wiki rules.  They're fighting for a cause.  That's why the article is on probation. Eschoir (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And also why I am trying to re-write it.  I don't really have a beef with FR (believe it or not) I am happy to let them do their thing, and so think I can be neutral.  They also don't bother my web forum and thats as it should be.  BTW, in server hell this week, so should be more active next week some time.  --BenBurch (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't waste your valuable time, Ben. You've got your own things that you need to be doing, like your web forum. Your initial perception was that the big problem was sourcing. The revelation of WP:SELFPUB shows that the problem with this article isn't its sourcing. Continuing the "refactor" effort only encouraged another editor to write a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. The effort should be spent on making the existing article NPOV. 68.31.200.249 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is this somehow suspended for this page? (Excerpted from WP:ATTACK) Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Lou Sander (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A beneficial reminder. I will effort trying not to respond to the personal attacks. "The revelation of selfpub" is actually a hurdle that very few quotes from the website will be able to overcome.  Policy is clearly that anonymous or pseudonymous sources are not acceptable sources.  And I repeat-the fact that freepers chat about hobbits, is not evidence for the existence of hobbits.Eschoir (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Welcome another anonymous editor

message: Posts on Free Republic should not be used as sources. WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB are not self-contained independent sections. SPS tell us that "forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". SELFPUB tells us since the use of those forums is contentious and the identity of the authors cannot be ascertained that FR postings should not be used as sources. Most of the material in this article should be drawn from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V). Vassyana (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed a ton of original research, unsourced material, advertising copy, random quotations and links from Free Republic's message boards, and added a lot of fact tags for material that should be removed later if unsourced to valid RS. This article is a horrific mess of Free Republic advertising, propaganda and general unsourced OR. Lawrence Cohen 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: it remains unsourced, and a search for agents reveals a negligible portion of the 63 mentions fit the description offered. Eschoir (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone do me the favor of clearly stating the dispute over "agents provocateurs?" It is too long and twisted for me to follow. Feel free to do it here, or on my talk page, or by email. Thanks in advance for your help. Lou Sander (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodbye agents provocateur 

message: I propose to make some changes to the lead. I claim to have the skills to make them in an accurate, neutral way. If one or two others are interested in seeing these changes, I'll come up with a draft and put it here for comment. 
:1) Currently, the lead says little about the articles that are posted on Free Republic. They are from diverse points of view, and from what WP would call reliable sources, from all around the world. IMHO we do a disservice by not describing this situation. I propose to describe it, using one or two sentences.
:2) The current lead spends many words describing the specific "interest area" posts that appear on FR. It specifically lists ten of them. IMHO this is too much detail. It also gives undue weight to these posts, which are much less numerous than the diverse news articles mentioned in 1) above. I propose to move the list of "interest area" posts downward in the article, retaining a brief summary in the lead.
:3) The conservative nature of the site isn't necessarily well-described in the current lead. Somebody has even asked for a citation. I propose to work on this, and to find a way of properly describing it. 
I undertake this work with the purpose of improving the article and making it accurately descriptive of the Free Republic site. If that is your goal, too, I hope you'll respond. If you seek to disrupt the effort to make a good article, or to present other than an accurate description of the Free Republic site, I hope you'll stay away. Lou Sander (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Accuracy is in the mind of the beholder.  Stick to accurate references to Reliable Sources and verifiability.
1.  How do you propose to do an article inventory using RS and not OR?  You reveal your preconception when you say "They are from diverse points of view, and from what WP would call reliable sources, from all around the world." Does that include vanity posts, and hobbit chat? How about "Among the articles for prayer requests and zotting viking kitties with 20000 page views and 534 replies, one can also find articles from from diverse points of view, and from what WP would call reliable sources, from all around the world, with 3 page views and no replies."
It would seem to require OR.
2.  Move it, but not for Undue Weight.
3.  Find a Reliable source.   I've got one, BTW.  Named Scallon.  I'm told he's verifiable. Eschoir (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on improving the lead