Talk:Free Republic/Archive 6

message: Thank you. That works for me. -- BryanFromPalatine 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not for me. Plenty of documentation of individual threats coming from actual FR members, (see Clinton death threats below) and NO documented threat is tied to a 'troll'. 
proposed quotes to include:
"Followers of the Free Republic gained notoriety earlier for posting death threats against President Clinton. This was the most direct:"
*"People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard [President Clinton] ourselves! He is now threatening my children and grandchildren, and I will kill him, before I let him kill my kids for his non-legacy! He, Clinton, has now embroiled The United States of America in a terrorist attack on a sovereign nation, and I will not stand-by, and let him kill my offspring. You better wake up, people, he's now gonna kill our kids, and the congress and senate are not going to do A GODDAMM THING!!!!!!! We better do it now, kids, while we've still got guns, or we're gonna be doing it with torches and pointy sticks later, with a lot more casualties! Don't think I'll be posting here for a while, folks. I think I'll be talkin' to the USSS for a while, and trying to convince them to kill him!...Later, buds. Gonzo" Posted on June 10, 1999  Free Republic Death Threats
"So, it doesn't matter if he [Bush] snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!"Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm SOURCE]
Any objections? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course I object. I'm sure RWR8189 will object as well. American Politics is not a RS. It is hopelessly biased against conservatives, as other passages from the site (as well as the sidebars) demonstrate with painful clarity. This same article was discussed previously on these Talk pages and it was shot down in flames. Furthermore, American Politics isn't even the original source of the article. It's TJWalker.com -- which went "Error 404" so long ago that the domain name has been reassigned to a media group.  -- BryanFromPalatine 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Foot in mouth again ! That website IS TJ Walker's - the same TJ Walker who wrote the article. The SAME TJ Walker whose article appears here on CBS NEWS TJ Walker - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure it's the same TJ Walker? Show me. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent work on the lead, Ashibaka 

message: You seriously believe that the truth of the matter is that Free Republic has been infested with enemies who are sufficiently able to sound like a coherent whatever-it-is-that-you-think-you are-there to avoid a speedy zot, but who are also the source of all extremist rhetoric and horrible grammar on Free Republic?  Do you then also believe that America is still infested with Soviet deep-cover agents waiting for their "Manchurian Candidate" phone call?  How about the Tooth Fairy? --BenBurch 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your mockery is duly noted. "[A]ll extremist rhetoric and horrible grammar on Free Republic?" No, of course not. Some of it? Yes. The reliable source, Chronicles, that has just been unearthed by your faithful friend and inseparable companion FAAFA has confirmed it. My sources indicate that the Chuy's incident was caused by a "leftist ... agent provocateur." But since it's OR, I'm not going to claim in the article that this particular incident was caused by a leftist AP. If I can find a reliable source, however ... -- BryanFromPalatine 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So unlike the fifty cents the tooth fairy left under your pillow, you have no proof whatsoever about your fairy tale? --BenBurch 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now, Let me get this straight, Bryan 

message: IMHO this issue is a significant part of FR history and should be included. It also speaks to how significant FR is in the blogoshere, and even outside the blogoshere.
I haven't seen the documentary 'Shut Up and Sing' yet, but understand that it either credits (or blames, depending on your POV) FR for the 'boycott' against them. I hear that it even includes screen shots of FR posts and a discussion of FR, after Jim Rob refused to be interviewed for the documentary.
This is what was said on 'Hardball' :
:Matthews: "Well, who were the people that were, let me go back to Natalie, who started this all because you were the voice that spoke? Who went out there and really tried to exploit this against you? Were there any commercial forces that compete with you that said, here's a chance to bring down the Dixie Chicks and, and take the money they'd be getting? I know it sounds Machiavellian but that's the way I am. I'm thinking who is gaining by your demise?"
:Natalie Maines: "Well, personally, I think the Right did. And I think it was originally started by the Free Republic. And they were very organized in calling radio stations across the country and telling them that they would never listen to their station, when they didn't even live in that town. And we knew that. And at the beginning our manager tried to explain that to some program directors and they were not willing to listen." SOURCE
I'll write a prospective paragraph about this tonight. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dixie Chicks credit FR for 'boycott' 

message: I have again reverted your vandalism of this page. Your changes are not supported by consensus. There was no discussion of any changes at all after Ashibaka's last edit. Discuss your proposed changes and then we will reach a consensus for or against them. Don't continue to ignore the participation of RWR8189 or my participation, or Ashibaka's, or Jossi's. If you continue to vandalize the consensus version that Administrator Ashibaka posted, I will report you for your vandalism, and seek to have you blocked. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no consensus supporting reduction of the lawsuit section, there has never been a consensus supporting Todd Fahey as a reliable source, and there is no consensus supporting the inclusion of APJ as a reliable source. I oppose all three of these edits. By posting the version that he posted, Ashibaka opposed the use of Fahey as a RS. There has been no showing that this "TJ Walker" is the same TJ Walker on CBS News and the National Review. Do you think it's impossible that there's more than one writer out there named "TJ Walker"? Don't start pretending that it's November 15, when the DU alumni were making this into a hit piece. It must be balanced, and it must have reliable sources. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I am again reverting your vandalism

message: Two weeks for "General Disruption" BenBurch 02:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they block the associated IP's too??? If not, I'm sure we'll see another 'friend' or 'family member' show up and start editing! (not to mention new Anon IP users) After reading his latest 'explanations' in response to confirmed sockpuppet findings, I am convinced that he must that think everybody on Wiki, including all the admins are a bunch of gullible rubes! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but I have no doubt we haven't heard the end this. --BenBurch 02:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:BryanFromPalatine]] blocked yet again. 

message: * Pro Fahey argument here It's important to note that these are not 'exceptional claims'. I supplied close to a dozen NON RS V sources like blogs and forum posts confirming these 'generally accepted truths' regarding Free Republic. Here's the article.Link
Here's the gist of the claims:
"dating back to the [2000] GOP primary Presidential campaigns – it appears to many that the "independent, grassroots conservatism" emphasis has been replaced by a rank-and-file boostership for the Republican National Committee and all that President Bush sees fit to offer for the nation – an increasingly liberal (Big Government) vision, in the eyes of many "grassroots conservatives."
Corroborated by another WRITTEN RS V source,  Chronicles Magazine Talk:Free_Republic#New_RS_V_Source saying:
"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..." - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro

message: Well, being a Ph.D. candidate in English literature counts for something in the field of English literature.  Other than that he appears to be mostly self-published.  If he writes for a reliable source (such as a freelance feature in a reputable magazine) then that would be acceptable here.  Otherwise no-go.  His general sobriety doesn't interest me per se. DurovaCharge 03:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I should specify: specific content he publishes in reliable sources is acceptable, but not related content he may self-publish or publish in otherwise unreliable venues. DurovaCharge 03:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask that Jossi weigh in with his thoughts as well, as he is actively involved with rewriting RS + V to ATT. If he agrees with you I won't pursue including Fahey. IMHO, WP on RS + V is in need of serious repair. 'Reporters' who have been published multiple times, but who have been proven to be unreliable, or even conspiracy theorists (Stephen Hayes and Laurie Mylroie come to mind) are cited and  linked to hundreds of times on Wiki, even though their conspiracy theories regarding Iraq and WMD, and Saddam bombing Oklahoma City have been denied be the US Gov (which officially makes them conspiracy theorists) and are accepted as RS V sources, but a reporter who has not been published much, but never proven wrong is not. Only when ARBCOM judges a source unreliable (who else besides LaRouche is on this list anyway? A few Holocaust deniers - who else? (I hope David Icke)) are they officially deemed 'unreliable' even if extensively published. Here's one of Fahey's hard news stories. Link Thanks for your help Durova, even if we do disagree :-) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: I readded the terminology again and will add the FR link as a ref. Since we are using FR as an uncontested RS for something as important as 'budget' when there have been allegations of serious financial irregularities including hundreds of thousands of dollars raised and squandered in the LAT V FR lawsuit, and $110,000 wasted alone when their lawyer filed the claim in the wrong state, Clarity Hilarity How FreeRepublic.com lost a "First Amendment" lawsuit and wasted $110,000 on a frivolous lawsuit - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be removed, since it isn't really relevant in an encyclopedia article on the forum. It is more fitting for a guide to the site, and it doesn't really contribute anything to the article, Prodego talk 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I hadn't looked at it that way. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur.  BenBurch 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is an amazingly bad idea to include the text of explicit death threats in either the DU or FR articles; most immediately relevant is that they serve to unfairly prejudice the reader against the subject of the article. Then we have copyright concerns, BLP concerns, WP:RS concerns (i.e. giving space in an encyclopedia to the idiot writing the death threats by proxying the threats through reporters of arguable reliability themselves); perhaps even Secret Service concerns (and for the record that's not a legal threat). I went to the DU page and summarized the threats just like I did on the FR page, and will be monitoring that page as well. - Merzbow 08:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a shining example of good sense, impartiality and fairness! Thanks for your help. I look forward to more. The DU article still has the member quote hoping that Reagan 'Rots in hell', (A RWR addition AFAIK) and there's nothing of the sort here. What should we do? (as I'm sure you've figured out, both articles have the same DU and FR members and supporters (and detractors) editing them - editors who might have an unintentional COI)  - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I went and summarized the Reagan comments too, and there was one other. - Merzbow 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology again 

message: ;Issue #1
I think we need to remove the weasel words from the intro, specifically "The site has also been controverisal for what their critics consider inappropriate calls to action posted by some of its by members". Unless Freepers support death threats, which are RS V sourced, there's no need to include that, and it's actually weasely  - right? 
;issue #2
RWR1989 good to see you back! On Dec 20 in mediation, you agreed that the crticism section be modeled after that of the Democratic Underground article. Since then, you have introduced several sourced quotes from DU members into the criticism section of that article, such as  " Comments about Ingraham's cancer reportedly included: "She Probably Gave it to Herself," "All that Hate, Lies, Anger," and "I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum." The FR article takes an entirely different approach and describes the documented words and actions of FR members, like death threats against Clinton (which were quoted in several articles) in as mild and exculpatory manner as possible. Obviously, 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' so we need to include some actual quotes in the FR criticism section, correct? I suggest "People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard [President Clinton] ourselves! He is now threatening my children and grandchildren, and I will kill him, before I let him kill my kids for his non-legacy!" OK?  - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an amazingly bad idea to include the text of explicit death threats in either the DU or FR articles; most immediately relevant is that they serve to unfairly prejudice the reader against the subject of the article. Then we have copyright concerns, BLP concerns, WP:RS concerns (i.e. giving space in an encyclopedia to the idiot writing the death threats by proxying the threats through reporters of arguable reliability themselves); perhaps even Secret Service concerns (and for the record that's not a legal threat). I went to the DU page and summarized the threats just like I did on the FR page, and will be monitoring that page as well. - Merzbow 08:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a shining example of good sense, impartiality and fairness! Thanks for your help. I look forward to more. The DU article still has the member quote hoping that Reagan 'Rots in hell', (A RWR addition AFAIK) and there's nothing of the sort here. What should we do? (as I'm sure you've figured out, both articles have the same DU and FR members and supporters (and detractors) editing them - editors who might have an unintentional COI)  - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I went and summarized the Reagan comments too, and there was one other. - Merzbow 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current issues

message: I do believe something should be included about how users at the Free Republic will urge others to 'freep' a poll, to change the results of it so it reflects their viewpoint. - Jarn 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it should.  That information was in the article for a long time.  I see no explanation for its deletion, so I'll restore it to the article. JamesMLane t c 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find a good cite for that fact. --BenBurch 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found one, but it's in German and I think it requires a subscription. I don't know, because I don't read German. It's linked to here. I'm not sure of the rules for sourcing, but could we use FR itself as a source? [www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=freep%20this%20poll This page], for example? But if it used to be in the article and no longer is, couldn't it just be restored? - Jarn 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm using  but I keep getting distracted.  Of course, the same point is in the DU article without any citation. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Needs a citation there, too!  :-) --BenBurch 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the information in the cite about some people voting hundreds of times, I hope that is alright. - Jarn 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  Its true and its in the reference. --BenBurch 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influencing polls 

message: Another sock of  --BenBurch 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I've ever seen another editor, other than Scientologists and LaRouchians, defend an article and topic like BFP defends FR! (no offense to Scientologists or LaRouchians) How many socks has he created? 5? 6? He did express great admiration and respect for a woman who claimed she was a 'mind control' victim. Hmmmmmm. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please mind Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. There is no need to comment like that on Bryan, even if he is violating the sock puppetry policy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Picaroon 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a confirmed WP violating sockpupeteer with numerous confirmed puppets. I will try not to violate NPA again (if I did), but WP mandates that I should no longer should AGF regarding his participation. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see that as a personal attack at all.  It was a pretty clear exposition of the truth.  BFP started out here with no AGF for any of those who were editing this article whom he disagreed with, but no, that does not allow us to do the same to him.  But even so, look at how things ended up for him.  Blocked.  Disgraced.  And he failed to impose his POV on this article. --BenBurch 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you've just returned from a 24-hour block for edit warring in this article, I'm sure you know what it's like to be blocked and disgraced. - ClemsonTiger 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.  Nope.  I wasn't blocked any time recently.  Try again. (Just a clue.  This is 2007) --BenBurch 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you know what it's like to be blocked and disgraced. There's nothing like experiencing it first hand - ClemsonTiger 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked for 24 Hrs?  Minor infraction, like a speeding ticket.  Disgraced is when you evade blocks by sockpuppeting and create a whole sockpuppet army, get investigated, caught, get your whole sockpuppet army (with one exception I note) banned permanently and then garner three weeks of block because you constitutionally cannot obey the rules.  A 3RR block is supposed to be a correction - I took the hint, BryanFromPalatine did not.  Or don't they teach ethics at Clemson any more? --BenBurch 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ben, NPA (again). Calm down, and all of you should try to make this article as NPOV as possible, even if you think FR is the best/worst site on the internet. Prodego talk 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.  I am STILL looking for some well sourced praise of FR to balance this article.  Care to help me find some?  I wish I still had Lexis/Nexis available to me.  Maybe the Wiki Foundation will one day have that available to researchers.  --BenBurch 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Honestly, we don't make articles NPOV by balancing them, we do it by making sure that everything shows an objective view of it all. We present information neutrally. Take a look at the article 'Nazi Germany', for example. Notable criticism should be mentioned, and explained, but it should not be a section against the subject. Prodego talk 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is my vision for this article too, but I am sensitive that, since all we can find is essentially negative. it looks like an attack piece even though that isn't the intention.  If I could find some actual positive thing about FR in an RS-V source I would be happier with the result.  Sadly, politics breeds more criticism than praise. --BenBurch 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say costing Dan Rather his job is pretty darn positive, but that's just me. :) - Merzbow 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That cuts both ways, so it's not an unmitigated positive.  There must be SOMETHING great that FR has done, like sending ballistic armor to the troops or similar that has Main Stream mentions and which would be a good positive for this article, but I cannot find it!  All I find are negatives, and I know that there must be another side to this. BenBurch 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed on that.  FR was a minor player or cheerleader in the Killian matter, but I am content to allow the current characterization of it here unless others object. BenBurch 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "minor player or cheerleader"? Ivor Tossell of the Globe and Mail said that "it was central to the network of websites that uncovered the forged memos about Bush's Vietnam service that appeared on CBS News and ultimately cost Dan Rather his job." He makes it sound more like a quarterback than a cheerleader to me. You've used Mr. Tossell's quotes to say, "the worst site on the Internet, political-rhetoric division" and "an exercise in political extremism that, despite being something of an anthropological train wreck, keeps popping up square in the mainstream." If Mr. Tossell is reliable enough for that purpose, then he's reliable enough to describe Free Republic as "central" in the Rathergate episode, instead of a "minor player or cheerleader." Wouldn't you agree? - ClemsonTiger 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another selective use of sources that I've observed after a review of the extensive archives of this Talk page. You feel that Sean Scanlon is reliable enough to say, in the lead of the article, "The website and its founder have generated controversy for their alleged post 9/11 shift away from their libertarian-leanings and opposition to George W. Bush, to what critics feel has become a rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy, and a purported increase in censorship and banning of numerous conservative members." However, you evidently don't feel that he is reliable enough to say, "leftist ... agents provocateurs" anywhere in the article at all. What's wrong with this picture? It's a reasonable question, in my opinion and not intended as a personal attack. - ClemsonTiger 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ClemsonTiger (suspected sock puppet of BryanFromPalatine ) : all political sites have trolls from the 'other side' so its not unique to FR thus not even worth mentioning if we're only going to include a couple sentences like you want, plus the Tossel article did not claim that these trolls were responsible for any of the  death threats from FR members like you tried to claim in your edits adding this info. Why don't you find something about WH PRMeister Tony Snow being a Freeper when he was still with Fox? That's kind of impressive. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People who are not familiar with political sites are not aware that "all political sites have trolls from the 'other side.' " It's only fair to educate them. Educating people is one of the primary functions of an encyclopedia. I'm not familiar enough with Free Republic or its members to say anything about Tony Snow, but it seems to me that a review of the article for objectivity is called for. Prodego asks a good question: Is it objective? For example, where did the phrase "rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy" come from? Is that an objective summary of what Scanlon wrote? Understand that I'm only trying to improve the article. - ClemsonTiger 22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Kynouria]] blocked indefinitely 

message: I note the recent addition of a comment about purges and a link to an article on that site.  Comments please?  --BenBurch 19:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a blog/foum and not notable enough, or RS V to include. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ALIPAC's web site a reliable source for an editorial about Free Republic? 

message: Here's one RS V source about Tony Snow's participation on FR.  Tony Snow on FR  There are a lot more mentions, but all I found were blogs. It appears that after he got the WH job, they deleted all his FR posts, but many are archived. With posts like this about his boss, it's no wonder. "He (Bush) inhabits a political Oz, where the colors are happy and the tough decisions can wait until the oracle speaks. When he stumbles over abstruse matters of foreign policy, for instance, he actually jokes about his cluelessness." "This is how frat boys behave when they know the class nerd is going to take their exams for them." OUCH! (he's got an amazing command of the English language. I'd never heard of the word 'abstruse', and thought it might have been a misspelling of 'obtuse'. New word! Thanks Tony! ;-) - Fairness And Accuracy For President Bush 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Snow as FR Poster 

message: I just noticed that Free Republic is used as a source for hundreds of articles. In some cases it is used as a convenience link to copyrighted articles from other sources which may or may not be otherwise available on the web.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/576453/posts][www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/939567/posts] In other cases, it is used as a direct source.[www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b9029683567.htm] I'm not sure that either use is justifiable. Are there other opinions about this? -Will Beback · † · 03:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As per policy, partisan websites can only be used as sourced for articles about these partisan websites. And convenience links to such partisan websites can be used only in very specific situations, or not at all. A cleanup of these should be undertaken by involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As things are now FR probably can't be used as a reliable source.  Which is a shame since FR probably has one of the largest archives of online news stories anywhere.--RWR8189 05:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Most of which are copyvios. I have deleted a bunch of these links, leaving some in EL sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost all  are/were copyvios. They were known for their flagrant disregard of copyright law: "A recent case, Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, illustrates these points. An Internet bulletin board operator posted articles from the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post on its site. The defendant, Free Republic, Fresno, California, operates www.freerepublic.com, on which members post [full text] news articles with their comments for others to read and discuss. The federal court found that this was not a fair use." fair use and online copying - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree to some extent. Some articles (ignoring the copyvio issues) are posted on multiple sites/forums/blogs, and are the same in every case. Most of these articles were copied and pasted from the original sources, many of which don't archive their articles, and the aricles disappear after a few months. (that's one thing great about CNN. They have articles going back a decade - like quotes from the GOP criticizing Clinton for 'attacking Sudan', when he was trying to kil OBL, his 'needless costly war in the Balkans', and his phony 'war on terror')  Unless there's some kind of 'conspiracy', articles posted on multiple sites are likely to be accurate, IMHO. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But since its just Joe Nobody copying and pasting the articles its not reliable.  While it isn't a reliable source, I do think the mere volume of articles going back nearly 10 years now makes for quite an interesting archive, since like you say most websites delete their stories after several months.--RWR8189 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now, you know that an article does not have to be online AT ALL to be cited in Wikipedia, in fact, that seems to a degree to be preferred.  So, you don't use the link, you cite the original wire service or newspaper where that is still discernible from the FR entry.  What we REALLY need is to have Wikipedia Foundation make some kind of a deal with Lexis/Nexis so that some select body of editors could check such sites or conduct searches requested by others. --BenBurch 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FR as a reliable source for Wikipedia 

message: Please strive to maintain basic talk-page discipline. Comments about other editors, personal opinions about the subject of the article and similar discussions are not for these pages. There are other fora out there for these, that are much more suited to debates about this subject. Here we discuss the article and nothing else. I have refactored a comment by FAAA and placed a WP:NPA warning in his/her talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk-page discipline 

message: See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine.  Please can we not hear from you again, Bryan, until your block expires?  When that happens I am happy to work with you again on this article.  --BenBurch 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me, Ben, that the problem is that you don't work with him. You fight him every inch of the way. Every sock puppet investigation, and every conversation here at the Free Republic Talk page, has been littered with ridicule and personal attacks from you and your friend. The administrators just removed another personal attack against RWR8189, and posted another warning. In pushing your POV in violation of WP:NPOV, you have again and again violated not only WP:CIV and WP:NPA, but also WP:RS. - ClemsonTiger 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to talk about yourself in the third person. Per Wikipedia:blocking policy, You may come back when the block on your main account expires. Not before that. Picaroon 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Stop it Bryan, you have no right to be here editing this talk page now.  You were properly blocked for 3RR, sockpuppeting and general disruption, and this is the SECOND new sock puppet of yours that we found here since  then.  Please obey the rules of this institution and you won't find that the other editors here, myself included, will ever stand in the way of good, constructive edits on this or any other article. --BenBurch 00:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Bryan, you are cruising for a community ban if you keep up the sockpuppetting. The best way to have your POV heard is to edit within the rules of Wikipedia. Please think about it. - Merzbow 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I thought he'd stop and begin to obey our rules.  But I really do not think that he will unless prevented from editing at all. --BenBurch 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That is policy, but we have to get an admin to take the action.  Checkuser does not do this job (they do enough work cleaning up after liars without having to block them too.) BenBurch 02:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, well, well.  Actually, I am sorry to see him go because he was smart and could have been a really good editor had he minded the rules. BenBurch 02:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, cause he didn't follow the rules from the get-go, and any user who creates numerous socks to 'vote' and sway consensus, as he tried to do, is the antithesis of a true Wikipedian. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I think that nearly anybody can redeem themselves if they start acting properly. BenBurch 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Oh well. Life goes on. :) - Merzbow 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After that little display in ANI I might have changed my mind.  If that was him. BenBurch 18:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: The IP address of the threat points to myspace-type provider called www.blnk.com. If that was 'Bryan', he has evidently studied up on proxies, which makes his actions all the more troubling. Evading a permaban to  threaten another user is serious business. If 'Bryan' posts again, I think an admin or the Wiki lawyer should contact law enforcement and his well-known employer. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be a good idea to contact a Checkuser admin privately on this issue. - Merzbow 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why? The threat came from an anon (visible IP), so what would a checkuser do? Prodego talk 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so.  Let's forget this whole matter as it deserves, and write this encyclopedia. --BenBurch 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's the spirit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Back to business. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:ClemsonTiger]] confirmed as sockpuppet of [[User:BryanFromPalatine]] 

message: * Regularize all the citations to use the cite macro or at least the ref tag to so that they all appear in the cites table.
* Attempt to find some RS-V cites to good things FR or Freepers have done.  For example is there any direct quotation from Tony Snow while he was on Fox News  praising FR?
* Can we find a LGPL or fair use picture of one of the DC Freeps?  Seems to me I recall some of the DUers had some good ones, could somebody ask on there if the owners would upload them here and turn them over to LGPL or at least PD? 
Add your own items.  strike out items as they are done.  Thanks!  --BenBurch 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish RWR1989 would write something about the Dixie Chicks and Tony Snow. I supplied links. As a Freeper he might know resources that we don't. I think my next addition will be Free Republic's contributions to the Franklin Coverup Scandal [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388cd49f5ce8.htm SEE HERE] and their early opposition to bush, claiming that he was involved with 'CIA Drug Smuggling'. IMHO those are as important as the Killian Docs. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He still could (and should) have some input on the items you wrote on that.  --BenBurch 13:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-Do List on the article. 

message: Jeff Stein in salon.com  July 13, 1999 writes:
 "T.J. Walker, an online columnist who dug up a passel of ominous posts on the Clintons in the past few months (another sample: "People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard ourselves!"), claimed that Free Republic's "political influence is rising even as death threats occur more frequently on its message boards." As evidence, he cited the upcoming "Treason is the Reason" rally that, in addition to featuring Barr and Hitchens, is also touting speeches by Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif., another failed House impeachment manager."
I think 'Dino' might be pulling our collective legs. Salon - Free for All at Free Republic - Fairness And Accuracy For All 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, we have our very own Willy On Wheels here.  --BenBurch 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TJ Walker article - Free Republic Death Threats 

message: How does Dino (aka Bryan) know what TJ Walker told Wikimedia Foundation??? --BenBurch 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Psychic powers? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I suspect there are multiple admins working behind the scenes right now with WMF to get to the bottom of this... before any of us attempt any external actions I suggest we wait a day for updates. - Merzbow 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so!  Something here smells worse than a week-old trout. --BenBurch 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me, there is no vast hidden force of admins investigating this, just Jossi, and I . Jossi is requesting information from Danny Wool as well as Carolyn, which we are waiting on. Other then that this page is largely on its own. Prodego talk 01:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Correct. No need to speculate. Let's wait to see what Danny says (See User_talk:Danny#User:Carolyn-WMF), and what explanations are forthcoming about Carolyn's deletion of that material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is the huge question

message: Pending any further information:
* We have a standard for verification that is not met by a purported phone call, or confirmed by amateur detective work.  The citation quotes TJ Walker, in the absence of a better source otherwise we stick with verification not truth.
* Don't guess if something is an office action.  If it's not explicitly such, treat it like a normal edit.  Yes, this might get you de-sysopped or whatever, but it's the only rational way to proceed.
I've edited the section (since it was a blatent copyvio) and added it back in.
brenneman 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes perfect sense.  (And in any case we have the original on TJs web site via archive.org) BenBurch 13:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced text 

message: See his talk page.  BenBurch 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:BryanFromPalatine]] appealing his block for sockpuppetry and disruption 

message: I don't see anything POV about Hathorn's edits. Everything outside of the 2nd paragraph is pretty much straight copyediting, can we restore that to begin with, and then discuss that? - Merzbow 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  BenBurch 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was accurate, but unsourced. (more sourcing now - good) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I rewrote it. Please comment. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good. - Merzbow 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hathorn 

message: Jerome Corsi (which used to be in the article), Tony Snow, and Dixie Chicks. 
Please help rewrite, and linkify. I have to find the link on FR where JimRob admits that Tony asked him to pull all his posts, and close the account. Apparently he never wrote anything really bad, and pulling the posts of somone who just got a high profile admin job is not unusual. Comments, objections, praise welcome. Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job! BenBurch 06:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added a lot of content 

message: Please check my edits, but I don't think either of those sources qualify as RS, and I don't think we need any information about Robinson here in this article which is NOT about him.  Thanks! BenBurch 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There might be a place for some of it - like if his Vietnam service affected his political views - but not in the intro. - Fairness And Accuracy For John Titor 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We still need an RS for it, though.  I know of none. BenBurch 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Jim Robinson bio paragraph. 

message: As of 1/21/07, against an Arab-American owned business that supports a U.S. redeployment in Iraq—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs). 
:Until there is a reliable source stating that, it cannot be in the article.--RWR8189 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I read, the cause is the firm's insulting e-mail to a U.S. 1st Cav Division NCO who wanted to buy the firm's product, but was rebuffed.  Free Republic never urged a DoS attack, though a poster did pist the firm's contact info.  --GABaker 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "dead agent" attack then.  You don't have to kill a secret agent, just publish his contact information.  The mere outing is an invitation to attack. This was similar. But I still need to see a RS. --BenBurch 07:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, okay.  So should Snopes be held responsible since they published the contact information, too? Jinxmchue 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course not!  Once the cat is out of the bag it is no longer private.  You can make a cucumber into a pickle, but you cannot make it back into a cucumber. --BenBurch 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, guess what, Ben.  FR didn't break the story or first publish the information. Jinxmchue 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but that article states the site was taken down by the owners, not a DOS attack: "Bargain Suppliers of West Allis said its discount-mats.com Web site had to be taken down Monday to address the thousands of e-mails it's received since news of the exchange - in which an employee voiced opposition to the war in Iraq - began circulating on the Internet last week." Jinxmchue 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, got any names for your "sources in WI law enforcement" so we can verify your claims? Jinxmchue 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, it's only one of several groups. So have you been endorsing adding this information to any Wiki pages for those other groups? Jinxmchue 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the source of that quote, as google would have shown you, Jinxie;  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/23/national/main2388167.shtml "Anti-War E-Mail To Soldier Causes Backlash" via the Associated Press.  Sounds like a Reliable Source to me... --BenBurch 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Still says absolutely nothing about Free Republic, Ben. Please review the discussion and try again. Jinxmchue 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FR currently being investigated by WI law enforcement for DOS attack 

message: What happened to RWR1889? He seems to have lost interest in anything Freepalicious except for reverting vandalism. Tough times! I found a RS V source for the $60,000 settlement that the City of Fresno paid JimRob for calling FR a 'Hate Group'. Did he really spend it on an RV? Maybe one of you guys can add it to the article. Freepers = LOVERS, not HATERS! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if he did, isn't that OK?  He is a special needs person, and travel must be hard for him.  --BenBurch 07:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Free Republic' got defamed, not  him. He could have rented a really nice RV for a month for $5000, and refunded the rest to the members. There have been lots of questions about FR 'fundraising' - it could have put some of those ugly rumors to rest, and bought him some 'good faith'. Check out this thread. HERE  LOL ! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed he COULD have done that.  Maybe SHOULD have.  But as he is the sole owner, he didn't HAVE to.  And I do have sympathy for anybody in a wheelchair. --BenBurch 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Did you read that thread? AFAICT, the far right criticize JimRob and FR MUCH more harshly and frequently than the left do. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did.  It was a stitch!  I almost choked on my coffee laughing.  --BenBurch 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'hate group' settlement 

message: Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.
Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).
Jimmy Wales has said:
:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." 
He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:
:"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words.  We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Jimmy Wales.
Folks, cite it or don't put it in. All unsourced material should be removed immediately upon sight, no questions asked. CyberAnth 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material

message: From the Dec 2002 Chronicles magazine article. I would like to summarize the following:
* "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."
And add the following quote verbatim.
*"With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, Zionists, Republicans who act as if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders."
Don't forget - I am the one who just researched, compiled, wrote and added the PRO-FREE REPUBLIC  additions about Tony Snow and the Dixie Chicks, and even the pro-FR Walter Reed info too. I'm think I'm becoming Freeper at HEART ! Are we all OK with this? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should not be anything pro(or anti) Free Republic in the article. It should all be neutral. Prodego talk 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed additions 

message: From Fensteren, another victim of false accusations of sockpuppetry: "The presence of people like BenBurch and others like him in this Wikiclique is poisonous to Wikipedia. They foster an atmosphere of conflict and venom, rather than collegiality and cooperation. Good people are being driven off, or leaving without a word ... The presence of such people is the reason why I have not continued to participate on Wikipedia to a greater degree. Careful review of the diffs and contrib histories confirms, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that BenBurch has formed a street gang. Whenever one of them gets into a disagreement, another one shows up, probably in response to a phone call or e-mail. BenBurch always baited BryanFromPalatine. Administrators blamed the victim, because he always took the bait and reacted in the wrong way. BenBurch should share his fate."
:"Another from RfC "Since this represents Fensteren's seventh edit to Wikipedia, it is likely that this is a role account or sockpuppet." Guy (Help!) 11:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fensteren has been clear about why his participation here is limited. RFCU cleared him. Your accusations live by that sword, so accusations against Fensteren should die by that sword (figuratively speaking, of course). Dino 11:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the Admin who called him a probable sock or role account. A sock or meat puppet can use proxies, edit from another IP, etc etc and sharp admins will still spot them right away.They look at behavior and patterns.  It's VERY rare that an editor who is not a sock or meat puppet will join Wiki then almost immediately embroil themslves in a dispute between other editors and start defending one vociferously for 'no' reason.  Don't forget my advice about the turnip truck. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 12:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi Jossi - While I might tussle a bit on the talk pages - I believe that my edits to the FR article have been exemplary. Look at my most recent edits. I added more 100% NPOV biographical info on JimRob. In regard to threats, I changed 'some members' to 'handful' and 'small minority'. In a spirit of compromise, I decided to remove TJ Walker's claim that threats were not removed in a timely manner - until TJ weighs in - and discovered that this claim wasn't even in the article anymore - and hadn't been in days! I removed the TJ Walker quote anyway, and replaced it with a quote from another article. Please take the time to examine my actions, not just words, and I believe that you will find them USDA Grade 'A' Prime. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tried to keep my edits neutral.  You know, I never wanted to spend all this time on this article, but I saw nothing but POV pushing in what was a very bad article (no sourcing, removal of sourced but negative material) and since I didn't think anybody else would stand up to it I did.  Now, maybe I should have recused myself, but had I done so this would be a sales brochure for Free Republic now.  So, what to do?  I could go away and do other things.  I'd love to.  But I know if I did this would return to its original state in days.  --BenBurch 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few more reposts from RfC