Talk:Free Republic/Archive 9

message: The paragraph inserted is only a part of the founder's statement.  I think the whole thing is too long to be inserted but shouldn't there be a mention that it "reads in part..."  --PTR 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founder's Statement 

message: What makes them official?  This site is wholly owned by one guy.  There is no legislature. This is a snapshot of the current fashion of his thought.  Formerly he was anti-Bush and pro-Keyes and pro-legalization (proposed settling the LAT v FR litigation by assembling the litigants around a pot pipe and toking). Get rid of the Official Stances unlesss their officialness can be sourced. Eschoir 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Stances

message: Here is the whole quote excerpted by ? about provocateurs:
:Some of the articles posted on the site came from racist or antisemitic web sites. Conspiracy theorists also made use of Free Republic. Leftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs. "Vanity posts" became more frequent, and flame wars among members became more intense, as the site split into factions during the 2000 presidential election. Overall, civility degenerated. Some members became concerned that Free Republic had become a virtual hangout for kooks. Matters came to a head in early 2000 when Robinson (or "JimRob") speculated on George W. Bush’s connection to the airport in Mena, Arkansas where drug and gun-running allegedly took place during the 1980’s. Matt Drudge then dropped Free Republic’s link from the Drudge Report, and Goldberg took 2.000 members with her to start her own Lucianne.com. 
:Robinson decided to clean up his website and, like any good sheriff, deputized a posse of site moderators to remove offensive posts, threads, and articles and to ban those who posted them. But they did not stop there. Soon, they had banned the posting of any articles from certain websites that they deemed taboo, such as VDare.com ("too divisive"), LewRockwell.com, DixieNet.org (the League of the South’s website) , and the Free State Project’s website (www.FreeStateProject.org) 
:It would be easy to conclude that Robinson and his monitors simply went overboard in an effort to clean up the excesses of Free Republic, but there is more to it than that. 
:Because of its significant growth, Free Republic costs $240,000 annually to maintain. As a non-profit, Free Republic depends on donors, large and small, for its survival. No doubt the embarrassment of being dropped from the Drudge Report and Goldberg’s public break with the site concerned Robinson, and lie feared that funds might dry up if his site were perceived to he on the fringe. In addition, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times sued Free Republic for copyright infringement. The case was settled out of court. It was only natural for Robinson and his site administrators to want to look good for prospective donors. 
:With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, Zionists, Republicans who act is if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer daily prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders, Robinson has made it clear where he stands: "I see that the only Party capable of blocking arid defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close hat as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil." 
Since the link to Chronicles doesn't get to the article cited, only a FR thread, Chronicles doesn't archive the article, and since the quote is misleading, I propose two solutions: 1) eliminate the quote OR 2) include the bolded text in the article along with the original quote. 
I will so edit after a one week waiting period for editorial comment.  I will then edit the "official stances" and "founders statement" as well.Eschoir 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Mooted already.  Eschoir 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PROVOCATEURS

message: Today's FaAfA factoid....
'Aloha' means hello AND goodbye!
I deleted the Gathering of Eagles subsection as unsourced OR. Neither source even mentioned Free Republic and the link to the site itself is dead. Wasn't that event spearheaded and orchestrated by Move America Forward or Right March, not FR, anyway?
Aloha - FaAfA yap 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take care, and I guess we'll see you next year. - Merzbow 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Aloha! --BenBurch 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted 'Gathering of Eagles ' as OR 

message: I looked at the McDonalds article as a model for wiki objectivity on commercial operations.  I propose its neutrality at least at the top of the article would be something to emulate here. There are no "founders statements" or other self-serving fluff in that article.  Just facts.
Need I remind you Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information? Eschoir 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Model Article

message: The Arbitration Committee has rendered a decision affecting this article. As noted above, this article has been placed on article probation. It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. The complete decision can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration Committee decision 

message: the paragraph on Snow doesn't appear to be supported by the footnotes.  This is all I get from the two footnotes.
White House Press Secretary and former Fox News commentator Tony Snow was a poster on the forum in 2000.[13] [14]
Eschoir 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked and found it on their home page.  I think the use is covered by fair use.  Most of the corporations on wiki incorporate their respective logos under the same policy (i.e. ford, yahoo, etc.  The relevant policy is WP:LOGO.  I've not scoured the policy and the fr logo for compliance, but a casual look-see to seems to be ok.Dman727 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you find the identical logo, or one that says "Support Free Republic"? Eschoir 21:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, its right here www.freerepublic.com/home.htm in the upper right corner.  The size is slightly different, but otherwise its identical. Dman727 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  ok..strike that. I looked it at multiple times and didnt see it, but your right.  The one on their home page has "support" written across it.  Given that, Im not sure.  I don't think its a copyright issue per fair use, and it might be an older logo and it would seem strange that someone would go through so much trouble to create an identical one with a different word in it.  Proably the best thing would be if someone uploaded an identical one to the one that is used on the website. Dman727 22:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.Eschoir 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Snow

message: The logo doesn't appear anywhere on Free Republic in any official capacity, it appears to be taken from a copyrighted image on speakeasy.org/~jp99 - I propose its presence is against wiki policy. Eschoir 23:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked and found it on their home page.  I think the use is covered by fair use.  Most of the corporations on wiki incorporate their respective logos under the same policy (i.e. ford, yahoo, etc.  The relevant policy is WP:LOGO.  I've not scoured the policy and the fr logo for compliance, but a casual look-see to seems to be ok.Dman727 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you find the identical logo, or one that says "Support Free Republic"? Eschoir 21:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea, its right here www.freerepublic.com/home.htm in the upper right corner.  The size is slightly different, but otherwise its identical. Dman727 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  ok..strike that. I looked it at multiple times and didnt see it, but your right.  The one on their home page has "support" written across it.  Given that, Im not sure.  I don't think its a copyright issue per fair use, and it might be an older logo and it would seem strange that someone would go through so much trouble to create an identical one with a different word in it.  Proably the best thing would be if someone uploaded an identical one to the one that is used on the website. Dman727 22:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.Eschoir 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: logo

message: Whenever theres a news item posted about the so called "homosexual agenda" it doesn't take long for the bigots to come out of the word work with their petty snide little jokes at "gay" men's expense based on homophobic stereotypes. Only homosexual males are targetted for this form of abuse. Lesbians are always ignored even with most articles are about both genders. Words like faggot, queer, fudgepacker etc are also thrown around with "gay abandon". Views expressing all homos as pedophiles, AIDS infested or sex crazed perverts are common. I'm no fan of the homosexual agenda I think liberal "gays" are their own worst enemies but this site is extremely frustrating in its refusal to crack down on obvious bigoted posts and posters. This article should label this site clearly for what it is: a homophobic, sexist, and anti islamic racist hate site. Most of all it is anti-homosexual males. Such appaling filth should be shut down immediately or at least properly moderated! YourPTR! 08:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Try to improve the article through verifiable and reliable sources, not rants.--RWR8189 12:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That is original research.  When editing Wikipedia you should keep the core policies of nuetral point of view, verifiability and no original research in mind.--RWR8189 17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a neutral point of view it is easy to verify that FreeRepublic is a hate site. It has no regard for freedom and no respect for anyone who isn't a white, Christian, narrow-minded, middle-American bigot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MonkeyInTheBath (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I checked the source ands it simply says they "may" remove such posts, not that they "require" doing so. I changed our text to reflect that. -Will Beback · † ·
It’s clearly become a hate site.  It didn’t used to be.  Now, with most of the reasonable people purged, the people remaining are the ones who say things like “we need to mine the border,” “shoot them all and let God sort the out,” or “put a bounty on Mexican pelts”  as solutions to illegal immigration.  These are the kind of people that Jim Robinson has decided are welcome on his site. --64.13.192.13 02:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Shrug.  If you find a reliable source that indicates this, then add it to the article. Otherwise the discussion is just idle chatter more suited to a forum (i.e. not an encylopedia). Dman727 04:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearly a HATE site! 

message: Judge refuses bail to armed protester
Alan J. McCombs, The Examiner
2007-05-05 03:03:00.0
Current rank: # 5,635 of 5,893
WASHINGTON -
A D.C. Superior Court judge refused on Friday to offer bail to the man police say brought a rifle and two knives to a counter protest of an immigration rally on May 1.
Tyler Froatz II, an Eagle scout and District resident for the past 18 months, will be held in police custody until a May 17 court date after Judge John Hess expressed concern over whether Froatz posed a threat to the area.
Police say that on Tuesday, Froatz, was counter protesting at an immigration rally in Meridian Hill Park when he became embroiled in a fight with immigration rally organizer. According to police, Froatz bent the organizer's left arm and scratched her hand, before leaving the area to don dark camouflage clothing. Police arrived and arrested Froatz and found a host of weapons on him including a hammer, taser, and a loaded flare gun. In addition, Detective Robert Freeman of the U.S. Park Police testified that Froatz was carrying two knives including a "12 inch dagger-style knife."
A search of Froatz's nearby Jeep recovered a loaded M-1 rifle and ammunition. A map of a local embassy and a detailed, hand-drawn sketch of the park with lines pointing towards the center of the protest was found in the front seat of the Jeep, Freeman said.
But those items were overshadowed by what investigators discovered in Froatz's apartment in the 5300 block of 8 th St. NW. Freeman described a home bristling with a variety of bladed weapons, 13 guns and more than 2,000 rounds of ammunition. Froatz did not have a permit for the guns which include a fully-loaded 12-gauge shotgun and a .45-caliber pistol.
Police also discovered an explosive resembling a Molotov cocktail. The cocktail was found in a Welch's grape juice bottle wrapped in a t-shirt and appeared to be a mix of gasoline with a jelly-like substance which if it exploded would stick to a person "like napalm," Freeman explained.
Kristinn Taylor, a friend of Froatz who attended the hearing, expressed shock that the "nonthreatening," and chatty 24-year-old could hurt anyone.
"Like a lot of people who feel strongly about the immigration issue, he was out protesting," Taylor said, who added Froatz was not working for Free Republic during his protest.
"He didn't say anything about killing illegals or nothing like that."
http://www.examiner.com/printa-711301~Judge_refuses_bail_to_armed_protester.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pimmelkopf (talk • contribs) 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to Free Republic in the Examiner article is kind of confusing.  Taylor, the terrorist's buddy, is (or was) the head of FR's chapter in Washington, D.C.  In the article, though, he seems to be denying an accusation that hasn't been mentioned earlier in the article, namely a direct connection between FR and the terrorist.  I think we need to pin that down before we can include anything about this incident in the Wikipedia article.  Taylor is clearly connected with FR, but if the only connection between FR and Froatz is that Taylor is a personal friend of Froatz, I'd say that's too attenuated to merit mention in our article. JamesMLane t c 10:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bear in mind that the editor who posted this is now blocked indefinitely. - Crockspot 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should anyone bear that in mind?  I followed the link.  The article actually says what the banned editor said it says.  The Washington Examiner is no Indymedia.  It's a corporate-owned, advertiser-supported, right-wing-leaning medium (see this editorial disparaging liberals).  In short, it's the type of publication that no one ever quarrels with using as a source.  It doesn't lose its acceptability under WP:RS just because it's cited by a blocked editor.  The question for us is the nature of the tie between the terrorist and FR.  Ad hominem attacks on one editor don't contribute to answering that question. JamesMLane t c 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Seem reasonable to bear in mind.  No sense replying to a banned, vandalism only account, and the link posted is too attenuated to merit mention in the article. Not quite sure why theres even an argument. Dman727 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  This looks really bad.  Heck it is really bad.  There was no reason for that M-1 or map unless you planned to be a sniper.  And the EMBASSY map?  This really must be looked upon as an act of domestic terrorism that we caught.  GOOD JOB DC COPS!  --BenBurch 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judge refuses bail to armed protester 

message: The quote of Ivor Tossell is given undue weight and does not deserve mention. There is nothing about him that elevates his political opinions to the point where they deserve more weight than those of the average person. He gave his opinion about FreeRepublic and has had it published in his column. But that doesn't make him an authority worthy of citation in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mc6809e (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. He doesn't seem to be a particularly notable person, (technology columnist?), and he's not stating anything in the way of facts--he's just saying that he hates the place. So, his comments don't even really qualify as a 'controversy', as I'd see things. Marieblasdell 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the opinion of Ivor Tossell deserve mention? 

message: The current version of this incident reads:
"On April 21 founder Jim Robinson started a thread critical of 2008 Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and began banning any members who announced their intention of voting for Mr. Giuliani. By some accounts 30-50% of the Free Republic user base has been banned in recent weeks."
The overall situation seems important enough to be mentioned, but I'm suspicious of this version's phrasing of it, especially the last sentence. I don't think that a comment in a blog is valid sourcing, either. 
I'd suggest something that reads more like:
"On April 21, founder Jim Robinson started a thread critical of 2008 Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani. It aroused much controversy, and as a result, many members were banned or resigned."
What does everyone else think? Marieblasdell 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is fine provided theres a WP:RS to back it up.  So far this content has been posted with only a blog as a source which fails WP:RS. Dman727 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if I believe this at all. I'm an atheist/evolutionist who's posted plenty on FR and I've never even been threatened with being banned. I doubt I'm less objectionable than a Giuliani supporter. 4.88.77.154 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the version that was posted was not believable--30 to 50 percent? There couldn't have been that many members who WERE Giuliani supporters! But I think that the version I suggested could be documented by a link to the thread in question--unless that'd be considered original research. To me it would seem more like a primary source than original research. Marieblasdell 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giuliani supporter bannings 

message: Most of the "facts" in this section have not been established.  I propose stripping it to the statements where there are cites.  --BenBurch 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: I didn't want to interrupt the discussion above, but the following sentence doesn't make sense in its current form:
'His post on Free Republic, mentioning the memos' proportional spacing and he made the claim that such printing was "not widespread until the mid to late 90's," was made during the CBS News broadcast.'
I feel confident that he didn't make a post on Free Republic during the CBS News broadcast, which is what the sentence says, right now. Did he actually make the claim during the CBS News broadcast, or is that intended to refer to something else entirely? I want to rewrite it, but I don't want to introduce factual errors. Marieblasdell 22:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it doesnt sound quite right. I suppose its possible that he posted simultaneous with the newscast, but that seems unlikely imo. Proably "during" should be replaced with "regarding", but I don't know either for a fact. Dman727 23:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I understand it a little bit more. Thank you. I'm going to try to rewrite and clarify it. I don't think that whether it was 'during' the broadcast is important. Marieblasdell 23:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall (no cite, sorry), the first post was indeed posted while the broadcast was actually going on.  That's why the whole thing was almost certainly a setup. Unlearned hand 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it looks as though Buckhead made his post right at the end of the show, 8:59pm Pacific Time,  [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/replies?c=47]. It appears that the show aired on both the East and West coasts at 8pm. The Killian memos were in a standard segment, roughly about 12 1/2 minutes long, so it looks as though Buckhead made his post right after the segment aired, but while the overall show was still going on, especially considering that he probably spent at least a minute or so composing it before the time of the actual post. -BC aka Callmebc 20:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the show aired at 8pm on the East coast, then he made his post at a time when the show (on the East Coast) had been over for almost 3 hours, so I think my phrasing of: 'on the night of the broadcast' is appropriate. Marieblasdell 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  You're right -- I was thinking he was on the West Coast because of the Pacific Time bit, but he's an Atlanta lawyer, so he would have seen the earlier Eastern time version. Which would put his post at 11:59pm his time, a couple of hours after the show. -BC aka Callmebc 23:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small point re: Memogate 

message: Freedom isn't free: The "coke head felon" quote may go on too long, feel free to edit it, but I object to it's elimination without citation of some wiki rule it is in violation of.  It is included for it's classic indiscretion along the lines of John Cleese's rant in The Architect Sketch ("I'll have you know I wouldn't become a Free Mason if you got down on your lousy stinking knees and begged me!").  It is not posted for itself but in support of the last paragraph giving the context that political purges aren't new at FR.
Eschoir 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: RWR8189 is an active member of Free Republic, but, strangely, you don't accuse him of having a conflict of interest.  For the record, I don't think that he does, but he's obviously closer to the line than I am.  (I lurk there but seldom post.)  As for the quotation, I have no idea whether there was a consensus as you say.  My personal opinion is that the quotation should be included.  Your ES "people are allowed to change their minds about a candidate" misses the point completely.  The issue isn't that we report Robinson's statement if it was logically inconsistent, because we want to show him up, but if what he said about Bush was OK (because he's "allowed" to change his mind) then that makes it not worth including.  We're not here to tear Robinson down or build him up.  The issue is whether the quotation would be informative to a reader who came here knowing nothing of FR.  Clearly, it would.  A major change of position by the site administrator is more important than stupid posts by a couple of since-banned DU members, yet the latter information is still included in the Democratic Underground article.  I also don't see the relevance of your contention that the quotation "was championed by someone who has now been banned."  We can report on McCarthyism but we shouldn't practice it. JamesMLane t c 08:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "and you've been posting elsewhere with undiluted hostility toward Free Republic for ten years"
Please source this  statement, edit it or withdraw it.Eschoir 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I've got an account at a number of political sites including free republic and DU.  I rarely partipate in most of them as I don't like sites that limit themselves to one political spectrum.  Discussion limited to one spectrum like singing in an echo chamber. Dman727
I must have missed the lesson on WP:3RRPROXY...And for the record I have nearly 6,000 posts at DU as well, so hopefully I don't run into any proxy cabals if I agree with you on a matter at that article.
As this article is on probation from ARBCOM I think we should tread very lightly, there may be BLP issues involved in quoting Robinson directly from FR as well, although I have no doubt he said it, without an RS, it doesn't cut it.--RWR8189 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Youthful indiscretion