Talk:Free Republic/Archive 1

message: *On 31 December 2005, a Free Republic Action Alert was distributed calling for a coordinated attack against several Wikipedia articles (George W. Bush, Abortion, and Kwanzaa) specifically calling for far-right POV vandalism with tips on how to evade detection. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 20:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They also vandalized the Wikimapia. I spent a long time asking for the Wikimapia to delete entries for the Clinton Library that used language inappropriate for minors. Axeman89 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the content you are referring to, but Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. --RWR8189 21:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the Wikimapia is not part of the Wikimedia network, and vandalism is not allowed. Axeman89 22:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Republic Wages War on Wikipedia :O 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Summer Clean Up of the FR article 

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

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: This should be sufficient proof to disabuse all but the most blind regarding the racism that goes unchecked at FR:  The City of Fresno Human Relation Commission Deserves a Refund [update and ping to mhking and rdb3 ]
One only has to click on a topic with regards to the naacp, or gay rights, or muslims, to see how hateful and racist many users of the website are.
Some things for the anyomus post above. I'm dont go to this site i just like to clear some stuff in your argument up
1. Gays can be any race. That has nothing to do with racism. Plus, they're conservatives they dont exactly love gays do they. They're presious "God" tells them they shouldn't (Sorry if I offended anyone :( )
2. Just because some memebers may seem racist doesn't mean they all are. You shouldn't judge all members by just a few of them.
3.Just because they don't like organizations like the NAACP doesn't mean they are racist. The NAACP could just as well be racist against whites (National Association For The ADVANCEMENT of Colored Peoples.). So don't judge them because the disagree with you on some stuff. Smart194 19:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Racism

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revisions and Edits 

message: 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.
:You know, I just read the first of Pitt's articles, and I have to agree.  I'm no fan of Free Republic, but why on Earth are we referencing a man who heavily hints that the Freepers are all stalkers and child molesters because they use pseudonyms as their screen names?  As much as I detest FR's heavy-handed banning practices, I would never dream of making such an accusation, even veiled, simply because they don't all reveal their real names to anyone who happens by the site.  Rogue 9 03:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pitt links

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Freeps

message: 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:
#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.
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: To Ben: New section

message: 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)
thread_title: One more challenge for BenBurch

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Missing Lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too many activist blogs 

message: Ben Burch on DU:
 Just remember that is what we are up against here. Neo-Stalinists. They are not conservatives- That is a smoke screen for
 the Sheeple. 
OK now that we have figured out the PoV of Mr Burch, perhaps we can stop using this thread to attack this entry in Wikipedia. Comrade Dominick, Орден Ленина),  22:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: May I blow off steam?

message: I would like to propose these conditions to form consensus. You may use no more than 100 characters. Keep it on topic and to the point. SIGN IT. Bold your vote then explain it in approx one sentence. Anything more will be removed</U>. If you have more to add, put it someplace else. Lets put this to bed or make this work. Dominick 12:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OH clild please! It seems that consensus is very wiki, as this was such an insignificant thing as to totally escape the notice of a lot of people at FR. FR people are laughing at DU people, thats not a fued. Dominick 12:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: User's fifth edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: User's first edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: User's second edit. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How or why is my edit count important? --DBirch 01:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: User's third edit, preceeded only by calling the subject of this vote vandalism on VIP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote to remove Andy Stephenson section 

message: I don't think it's a big problem that Hipocrite is interviewing John for to get some facts for this article.  However, I can understand why it could be construed as original research.
If Hipocrite were to log in to Free Republic and copy and continue his interview there, Robinson's words would then be part of the record at FR, and would be fair game for this article.
paul klenk talk 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, that would then make Hipocrite a Freeper, and might completely destroy any credibility in the eyes of some Wikipedians!   LOL!  ;-)  Just kidding, Hip.  paul klenk talk 18:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the benefit of asking the questions I asked on FR. As a new user, I doubt I would get taken seriously. The article here stands fine without the questions answered. If it turns out that no money was flowing to the LLC members, that's a fact worth including as a rebuttal to the questioners about appropriate fund spending. Honestly, I didn't know the first thing about Free Republic's budget before I read that talk page post, but given that they are open about their finances, it should be trivial to get rid of the hanging accusation in the first paragraph. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The benefit is, because it would appear on an outside site, on FR itself -- the subject of the article -- and because it would be between you and John, it would be less easily construed as original research.  The FR thread could be added as a source in the article (as it is for other material in the article).  And I'm sure you would be treated very nicely as John's guest; if he knew you were meeting him there under a predetermined handle, you wouldn't be mistaken for an outsider, troll, or mere newbie.  He would treat you as well as he treats you here.   I do think it is remarkable and laudable of John to log in here as himself and be so forthright answering questions.  You two have covered a lot of ground.  Perhaps at the FR site, Jim Robinson would agree to do the same.   paul klenk talk 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: OK I just didn't want to see us play "bite the Newbie" in Mr. Robinson the younger. I am sure he has planty to contribute in a lot of areas at Wikipedia not related to FR. Dominick 19:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IN RE Original research: to John C. and Hipocrite 

message: I'm looking at the article and I can't help but notice this:
[i]It is also worth noting that Jim Robinson, [b]who now quickly bans from the forum anyone who speaks disparagingly of the current administration[/b], said of George W. Bush on August 20, 1999:[/i]
Apart from being arguably untrue (see the Schiavo controversy, the Miers controversy, the border security controversy, etc., etc., etc), it's clearly the POV of someone who probably has an agenda against FR.  Also, the quote which follows seems to be based in bitterness that Robinson's preferred candidate (Alan Keyes) didn't win in the 2000 primaries, so I doubt the relevance of it.
Well, we can discuss it.  Would you care to sign your name this time, though?  It is a properly attributed and properly cited quote that I think says a lot about the changes in FR in the last six years.  But if you cannot sign your comments, I don't think we can go much further. BenBurch 03:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there anyway to fix this?

message: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501360/posts
Looks like some people intend to break the rules to control the message here...  BenBurch 05:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Find one editor in that FR thread. However on http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4968220 you are figured promentantly. Dominick 09:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at all the IP users attacking long-agreed parts of this entry, Dominick...  Not brave enough to make themselves known, they intend to attack editors OTHER entries so that we will give up on this one;
From that FR thread;
 "A few words of advice- Be persistent. Be patient. Be aware that most of the
 Wikipedia nazis with time on their hands are lunatic liberals masquerading as
 reasonable people. If you can't reason with them, you can make it very difficult
 for them to propogandize by going after their other articles and contributions.
 If you have access to more than one terminal, spread things around a bit since
 the IP address is recorded and leaves a trail for them to go after your articles
 in like manner. However, since most of us have a life beyond posting and,
 therefore, have fewer articles and modifications to trace, they can eventually
 be worn down since they have far more to lose in their work than we do in ours."
BenBurch 16:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ahhhhhhh, the infamous hypocrisy of the DU.  I'm no friend of Free Republic, but pulling this out after the debacle with the DU thread above is just hilarious.  Rogue 9 02:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors:  Please review this thread from FR

message: Shall I go for a RfU on the page? We are collecting more Jim Robinson stuff, and moving that there, would better focus the FR page. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 09:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so.  Jim Robinson seems to be a topic of his own, given the amount of information people want to post about him.  Personally I don't see why the guy is that important, but I suppose he passes the threshold of notability given the popularity (or notoriaty, whichever you prefer) of the site he created.  If there is going to be a lot of info I'd rather it be there than here.  So as far as I'm concerned, have at it.  Holdek (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The threshold seems to rise and fall. I am just asking, liberal or conservative, lemon or lime, less filing or taste great, I figured this is the place to ask. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 23:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Robinson page? 

message: From the article text:
The site is blocked by several leading child-protection filters due to allegations of hate speech regarding certain groups of people, such as liberals, homosexuals, and Muslims.
Is any of this true? Where is the documentation? John C. Robinson 17:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good question.  It's definately plausable, but I'd like to see documentation as well.  Otherwise, it should probably read "The site has recieved criticism for allegations of hate speach..."--Holdek (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Where is the documentation for any of your claims in the article?--Sortenos 13:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I worked at a large defense contractor, FR was blocked. I don't know if it was due to time spent there, or due to liberal perceptions of hate speech. I think the problem is assuming we know WHY the site is blocked. They also blocked NASCAR.com, and I know that was because many guys followed NASCAR, not because mostly white people attend races. (thats tongue in cheek humor there....) I think it should be removed, it lends credence to the myth that FR promotes racist speech, which it does not. It seems to be in there only to promote a PoV that FR is a racist site. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 13:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make an edit.  Holdek (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, with the generalization and passive voice the paragraph is now devoid of content. Returning a specific actor making the accusation would be useful, provided it is better documented than what has been already replaced. Maybe an external link to a Salon or even DU article critical of the "hate speech" would pep it up. Also, I feel "hate speech" when used has connotations that imply something far more sinister than the common bigotry it is meant to describe here. To me, "hate speech" conjures up an image of klan members and similar vulgarities. That's a useful label to stick on something you don't like for the sake of vilification, and hence, I feel it is PoV. It's also cliché. John C. Robinson 21:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it more than once from "hate speech" to "hateful speech," and I'll do it again.  As for the rest of it, we have many links already documenting what people consider to be offensive content on Free Republic, but feel free to add your own if you are so inclined.--Holdek (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hate Filters 

message: I moved this to the talk page from the article:
:On 31 December 2005, a Free Republic Action Alert was distributed calling for a coordinated attack against several Wikipedia articles (George W. Bush, Abortion, and Kwanza) specifically calling for far-right POV vandalism with tips on how to evade detection. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1549132/posts] user:HopeSeekr of xMule 15:31, December 31, 2005 
This stuff shouldn't be in the article because of WP:ASR --rogerd 20:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Republic Action Alert vs. Wikipedia 

message: a while ago I posted a linking proving that freepers use bots to scew with polls.
why was it removed?
grazon 04:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I read the history log correctly you posted information about someone posting information about Wikipedia. That was a violation of the principle of "avoid self reference" WP:ASR. Second, It wasn't particularly noteworthy. Third, if you read the thread you'll see that the guy who posted it is not a Free Republic regular, but rather an anti-Wikipedia troll, and his proposal met with little support. If you want to find an example of "Freeping" there are much better ones available. -Will Beback 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what happned? 

message: WP:ASR specifically says: "If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia." After Holdek again reverted that quotation I have used Wikipedia as an example in that subsection, which should suffice to justify a mention of Wikipedia.Cyberevil 02:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's way more than a "mention" of the matter. Also, to say that "Free Republic plans to" implies that it is an agreed upon course of action, rather than a single, non-regular poster. -Will Beback 03:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the particular subsection do you find the line "Free Republic plans to"? Please don't just revert without verifying contents. Thank you! Cyberevil 04:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, several versions of this have ben added recently. So why do we need to actually quote, at length, the posting? -Will Beback 05:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, the information you continue to put back in the article has nothing to do with influencing polls, since Wikipedia is not a poll.  Second, I see no reason to insert non-notable information in the article, which seems to have the sole purpose of making Wikipedia editors hostile toward Free Republic.  --Holdek (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holdek, please read WP:3RR before doing any further reverts of this article. It is not okay to simply put an article into a form you wish it to be, without consulting with your fellow editors. Thank you! Cyberevil 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been discussion about this article for days (regarding this topic).  It seems that you have ignored it.  Holdek (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The only reason people are mentioning the action alert in this article is because it has to do with Wikipedia. It's not big news, there is no need to mention every silly rant on Free Republic in this article. Rhobite 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to have it in there because it exemplifies Free Republic's politics in its very own words. Cyberevil 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but Wikipedia operates on consensus, and a significant number of editors disagree that this is a good example of FP's politics. -Will Beback 06:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really.  Maybe it would if it had something to do with Freeping a poll.  Holdek (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Influencing polls

message: This sounds suspiciously like original research to me. Why is this particular quote notable, and who consideres it notable. DTC 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 288 referecnes on the google link, and all of them are from other boards? This hardly reaches the standard for notability and inclusion. DTC 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You disagree with the idea that this quote is not notable? Explain, because based on what I have seen here, there is no notability in this quote, only an attempt poison the well with its use. DTC 15:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Robinson quote 

message: As can be easily seen, this article is frequented by many users who have views that are very distinct from what would be the consensus among average wikipedians. This happens to be the case with many articles that are of particular interest to certain groups: military subjects and military personnel, political groups and their supporters, and pedophilia and pedophiles, most notably: NAMBLA. Any idea how to deal with the resulting problem that wikipedia articles tend to show certain things in a different light from what would be the case if certain interest groups did not use wikipedia to make their point? 84.59.117.44 19:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated at the other article, could you be more specific about the problems? I am interested in systematic bias, and would be interested to discuss it more with you to find possible solutions. --DanielCD 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I have a comment removed from this section? I recall pointing out that the Wikipedian editing process is the solution to this problem. GABaker 03:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What is an "average wikipedian" view? Tbeatty 20:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia being freeped? 

message: It seems that a better titles would be "Copyright and Fair-Use" as the lawsuit was only tangential to the outcome and their was only one lawsuit mentioned.  Essentially FR has set the standard for excerpting articles on Websites and Blogs and has become the defacto policy.   Tbeatty 20:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retitle section on lawusits to "Copyright and Fair-Use" 

message: While I do not currently have the links with me (I will be getting them soon), one of my friends has shown me several threads on the Free Republic forums, giving praise for Slobadon Milosevic and the killing of Albanians, as well as lamenting his death. I have also seen some of the forum's members making light of the recent death of the Christian Peacemaker hostage Tom Fox in Iraq and maintaining that he was a Satanist due to his pacifism, as well as saying that a "Crusade" against all Arabs (also called ragheads on the forums) is necessary. Another point is some threads stating that gays are "disgusting pedophiles" who deserve to burn in hell. Wouldn't this be an appropriate point to list under a section concerning criticism of Free Republic? It is fairly substantial evidence as to the bigotry of at least some forum members, and in my opinion it does deserve attention, since it verifies some claims of malicious activity.
Mister Mister 01:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Free Republic gets a lot of posts, so it's to be expected that there'd be at least a few first-class wackos making bigoted or malicious posts.  Selecting a few of the most egregious crackpots doesn't really prove very much.  I'd look for some independent indication of notability.  Examples that occur to me are: coverage by a non-FR source, or an official pronouncement of FR policy telling contributors to stop calling Fox a Satanist (or whatever). JamesMLane t c 03:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Republic posts and other things. 

message: *Weasel words are unaceptable, and should not be used. If direct citations cannot be provided, the content should be removed. Remember, WP:V states that the burden of proof is on those seeking to include the information, not those seeking to remove it.
*Influence is better than bias in this case. While it is true that bias may be a more exact statistical term, why not make the article more accessible to a larger number of people? Wikipeida is not written just for experts after all. Furthermore, the influenced explanation proposed above explains exactly how the survey was biased, another reason which makes it preferable.
*For the record, Online polls are inherently unscientific.
--Hetar 18:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd Opinion

message: I have to complain that a disputed section was changed, and the dispute NPOV flag was removed.  I consider that to be improper and shall advance this issue.
I tried in good faith to approach this matter by discussion, but changes are made without discussion being offered.
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors.  See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.  Happy editing!
--SteveatWork 20:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: . . . but you're the one that added the section in question AND the  tag.  If this were allowed, I could go to the George Bush article and add "George Bush is a raving lunatic" with the appropriate NPOV tag and get away with it.  But it's not allowed, so I can't, thankfully. - Jersyko·talk 21:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper Editing of the Board 

message: I certainly did not expect to have this degree of complexity in an entry.  I had thought at one time that when one has a concern about an NPOV, then changes can be made with mention of that concern, and that it was considered rude to remove an NPOV tag until the parties had discussed and agreed on the concern in question.
I regret that I have become involved in pages on the political areas.  In the sciences, I am more used to collaborative consensus building.  I shall not work on this site again, and I certainly apologize if you feel that I have made comments on the order of "George Bush is a Raving Lunatic."
I will withdraw from the collaboration, and stay to the strict Science encyclopedias for this reason.  I am just not up to this sort of work.
--SteveatWork 18:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awfully sorry 

message: In regards to this part of that section.
"Also during that campaign, Jerome Corsi, co-author of the controversial book Unfit for Command that attacked the Vietnam war record of Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Kerry, apologized in the national media for homophobic and anti-Islam comments, as well as slurs made against liberal political figures, that he made on Free Republic under the user name "jrlc." The posts were discovered and made public by Media Matters for America, a liberal website [9]. Concerning the remarks, Corsi said, "I don't stand by any of those comments and I apologize if they offended anybody," and, "...the politically incorrect humor I posted on this site is evidently not funny to everyone. Detractors should have interviewed my dog. No matter how I frame a comment, "Chico" has yet to laugh." Subsequently, John O'Neill, the book's other co-author, attempted to distance himself from Corsi and attempted to downplay Corsi's involvement in the writing of the book."
This part has nothing to do with Free Republic, it has more to do with John O'Neill and the Swiftboat Vets.   As such I contend that it should be stricken from the Free Republic site entry. Arkadyfolkner 09:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The comments were made on Free Republic and the website was mentioned frequently in reagrd to them. -Will Beback 22:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence on 2004 Presidential Campaign 

message: The area discussing the discussion on Free Republic was becoming unwieldy, so I tried to re-organize it in a more coherant way.  Also, I made some corrections and clarifications to language.  --Holdek (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorginzation Of Discussion Area 

message: I've removed this text from the article:
*On 31 December 2005, a Free Republic Action Alert was distributed calling for a coordinated  www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1549132/posts POV vandalism  against Wikipedia in articles they perceived to have a liberal bias primarily-George W. Bush, Abortion, Ann Coulter and Kwanzaa. Several administrators actively endorsed this plan and went as far as providing tips on how to evade detection. With such writings as: “I suggest people sign up and start politely editing. Once there, to gain "credibility" I suggest you look around and then for the first few days edit only uncontroversial articles for grammar or choppiness or poor citation - you will then be seen as a neutral editor. I suggest using a different screen name than you do at FR.” And:  “If 100 people sign up and begin editing, we might be able to balance the content of Wikipedia. As is typical, consensus is supposedly the hallmark of wikipedia, but PC reigns and we will have to work together to be effective.” Wikipedia is usually the subject of contempt in free republic (largely due to the perceived ”Bias”)  and usually refer to it derisively as FAGOPEDIA; FALSEWITNESS; WIKIPEDIA; WIKIPEDOPHILIA.
Per discussion above (#Free Republic Action Alert vs. Wikipedia) this material violates WP:ASR. Furthermore, it does not appear to have been a notable event in the history of either website. -Will Beback 20:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Republic Action Alert vs. Wikipedia #2 

message: I deleted the paragraph dealing with the alleged cyberstalking of the restaurant owner who had her busted for drinking because the source was absolutely ridiculous. First, the article is by William Rivers Pitt, an avowed enemy of Free Republic, and himself a DUer. He merely accuses Free Republic of cyberstalking in the article, with no corroboration: no other stories, no links to FR threads where this cyberstalking allegedly happened, etc. It's just him saying it.
If there actually is a thread on Free Republic where this stuff happened, that would be a much better source. But I don't think you could call William Rivers Pitt a reliable source of information about Free Republic. Gordongekko909 01:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jenna Bush