Talk:Free Republic: Difference between revisions

Template:Article probation

Archives

---

1. Talk:Free Republic/Archive1
2. Talk:Free Republic/Archive2
3. Talk:Free Republic/Archive3
4. Talk:Free Republic/Archive4
5. Talk:Free Republic/Archive5
6. Talk:Free Republic/Archive6
7. Talk:Free Republic/Archive7
8. Talk:Free Republic/Archive8
9. Talk:Free Republic/Archive9

"Free Republic has a significant relationship with conservative talk radio. There are daily threads discussing, as of May 2007, seven syndicated shows (as well as a weekly thread for Matt Drudge's Sunday night show). In addition, several famous conservative talk hosts have been known to post (or at least have an account) on Free Republic, including Mark Levin and Steve Malzberg. Tony Snow was also once a member before joining the White House staff."

I have resisted the urge to delete this to provide the editor time to source it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eschoir (talk • contribs).

There is nothing conservative about Free-Republic. It is globalist, Libertarian leaning.68.106.248.211 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

FreedomAintFree has been banned as another BryanFromPalatine sockpuppet.Eschoir 05:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everything negative that I've ever read about Wikipedia has been confirmed. The left-wing partisans are in control. All they have to do is point a finger and say, "Sockpuppet." Xboxwarrior 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsmax rots your brains. Can we still count on your support and participation? Eschoir 04:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be misreading the column at this link, but it seems to be little more than a letter to the editor. The final paragraph states: Submit your own rant or favorite discussion to redvsblue@salon.com, or jump right into a Table Talk discussion about Red vs. Blue..

Letters to the editor or their rough equivalent, are certainly not reliable sources, especially in the context of controversial material, nonetheless in article that ARBCOM has place on probation. There are certainly no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight in a letter written by Joe Nobody. A better source needs to be found, or this material should be removed--RWR8189 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were onto something at first, but the line where it goes "When contacted by Salon" indicates it is reportage. OLD reportage.Eschoir 02:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

We're free now!Eschoir 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's worth something.Eschoir 05:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Eschoir (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, there was a revert of a major rewrite to the article, with the comment "You can't do that without discussing it in Talk", to paraphrase the comment. The comment itself is wrong. According to Wikipedia ethic, anyone can do a major rewrite on an article, and if the rewrite is better, it should stay. No one owns an article. Having said that, I don't know if the rewrite is better or not. -- GABaker 4 December 2007 15:56 UTC —Preceding comment was added at 16:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can, you are correct. Whether it should take place is an entirely different matter. Articles, especially articles that have been as contentious as this one has been, are the sum product of a lot of work by a lot of people. I don't think it is fair for someone like Shibumi2, who has contributed very little to the article, to unilaterally rewrite the article from scratch with no input from others who have put in time and effort. TechBear 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather work than talk. But I respect your position TechBear. So let us discuss. What is different about Free Republic which permits different treatment (content and layout) from other articles of same class such as Democratic Underground, TPMCafe, MoveOn.org? Compare those articles please. You will straightaway see many differences. Those articles are similar with one another. They are consistent. This one is different. Why is this? Shibumi2 (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just a watcher, not an editor on this article; you would be better off asking the people who have actively contributed. And with the article already under probation, keep in mind that Wikipedia moderators are paying close attention to all changes. I am willing to assume that your efforts are genuine and in good faith, but it would not be wise to make unilateral changes just because you personally don't like the way the article is currently written. TechBear (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia moderators are paying close attention to all changes". Well, there really isn't any position of 'moderator', though some people are watching I am sure. Such as myself. And you. Prodego ^talk 23:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators, moderators, close enough. ;-b TechBear (talk) 01:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who have actively contributed are not here. They would watch too if it is important to them. I have patience. How long do we wait for response? Do they own this article? While we wait I ask question to TechBear. Please look at version I posted. What is wrong with it? Shibumi2 (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, not here? This article was a five month labor of compromise and organization, and it had staying power. I'd rather not reopen that particular can of worms. But that's just me, Eschoir (talk) 04:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History to keep consistent style of all Wiki articles of these classes. Many WikiProjects suggests desire to keep consistent style of each class. With respect to editors here I say start of WikiProject:Talkboards to keep consistent style for articles of this class. Why is this article different from others of same class like TPMCafe and MoveOn.org? This one has many words not neutral such as "purge." This word appears many times. No such word appears in other articles of same class but those talkboards also had similar events including fights between members. Why is this article different? Also layout is very different and not attractive. Entire article is history. Much space given to fights between members. Other articles have short history section and many other sections. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, do what you want. Just keep in mind that the Arbitration Committee warning at the top of this page is there for a reason; if your unilateral rewrites spark yet another edit war on this article, it will be on your head. Don't say we didn't warn you. :-) For what it is worth, I completely agree with you that the article needs a rewrite. I just don't think it will be worth the can of worms such a rewrite will no doubt open. Freepers are a vicious bunch as a glance at the history logs will show. TechBear (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged several references, and the article, with templates that indicate that certain parts of the article may be violating WP:NOR. Specifically, primary sources are cited--that is, directly from Free Republic, with no other secondary source establishing notability of such examples. That is, it appears that contributors are deciding which search terms and posts at Free Republic are notworthy. This appears to me to be patent original research. Mind you, I am not suggesting that anything is false; just that as an article, it appears to be original research suitable for publication elsewhere. I hope this clarifies my recent activity, and I look forward to helping. Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more, and have also attempted to correctly title and/or describe the references (many of which, alone, seem to violate WP:NOR--they would be fine, in my reading, if they were back up sources to other "secondary" sources). Swarm Internationale (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Why is there no mention of the Andy Stephenson and Wayne DuMond debacles? Both of these incidents had significant effects in the offline world. Any article on Free Republic should include them. --Pamela Troy (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Pamela Troy[reply]

Are there any reliable sources for those incidents? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what would you consider a reliable source? Quite a few of the threads in question are still up on Free Republic. Or is this a case of us being told not to believe our own "lyin' eyes?" --Pamela Troy (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Well? --Pamela Troy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might start by reviewing WP:V and WP:RS.--RWR8189 (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It does not clearly explain why there is no mention of either case. Can YOU give me an example of what you would consider a reliable source on these subjects? --Pamela Troy

Hello Pamela. You are new here. Welcome to Wikipedia. I found article on Wayne DuMond but what is Free Republic involvement in his story? Why is it notable? I found no article on Andy Stephenson and ask you the same questions. What is Free Republic involvement in story of Andy Stephenson? Is it notable? This is encyclopedia article. It is not a list of everything editor does not like about Free Republic. Language used must be strictly neutral. Facts must be verified. Reputation of Wikipedia project is more important than any editor's agenda. Remember Essjay controversy and Arbitrators placing this article on probation and banning editors. Many ships have foundered on these reefs. I encourage you to plot your course carefully and wish you smooth sailing. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic was quite active in advocating for Wayne DuMond's release while he was still in prison for the rape he committed in Arkansas, and considered Huckabee such a friend of the site that he was repeatedly referred to as the "Freeper Governor." This, of course, has changed in the wake of how the DuMond release turned out, and Free Republic's past advocacy for DuMond (which seemed largely based on hatred for the Clintons) is now considered such an embarrassment that one Free Republic poster has requested that past threads on the subject be removed.

The Andy Stephenson case involves voting rights activist Andrew Stephenson who, early in 2005, was diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer. A fundraising drive was held on the liberal website Democratic Underground and enough money was raised to make it possible for Stephenson to go to Johns Hopkins for a Whipple procedure. Free Republic and other right-wing websites got wind of this and began spreading the rumor that Stephenson was faking his illness, or exaggerating it, that it was all a scam. This appears to have gone farther than merely making up nicknames for Stephenson like "Scamdy" or "Undie" (Stephenson was gay) or posting grossly insulting messages describing him as a "grifter." A Free Republic "comedy" blog set up a "junior detective division" that attempted to dig up personal information on Stephenson, and at least one poster to Free Republic boasted of contacting the fraud division in Washington State about him. Not surprisingly, Stephenson's PayPal was at one point frozen and his surgery delayed. The abuse of Stephenson on Free Republic, which included denials that he was ill, that he'd ever had the surgery at all, that he had Pancreatic Cancer, etc., continued up to the day he died -- from complications following surgery for Pancreatic Cancer. The Stephenson issue resurfaced recently with the outcry that resulted when a Free Republic blog that had been especially active in claiming Stephenson was a malingering crook got nominated for a Comedy Weblog Award last November. Yes. I'd say FR's involvement was "notable."

I think this all can be described in pretty "neutral" language, i.e., language that does not include adjectives like "immoral," "callous," or "irresponsible." There is, of course, no way of preventing those words from cropping up in the minds of readers as they peruse the threads in question (that are still up and available for interested readers), but those are the breaks.--75.18.215.111 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(and in answer to my questions...dead silence.) We're in the midst of the holidays. You guys are probably pretty busy. But I want you to know that I have no intention of dropping this subject. The entry on Democratic Underground has references to "embarrassments" and links to threads on DU. Why not Free Republic? This disparity leaves the impression that it's Free Republic's clout -- not the actual rules -- that have eliminated references to the Andy Stephenson case from Wikipedia. I'd sure hate to think that was the case. --Pamela Troy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.215.111 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pamela. Do you have reliable sources to confirm any of this? Particularly effect of Free Republic activity on Huckabee and on Stephenson case? I have been very busy due to final exams and holidays. Also travel and challenges on other Wikipedia articles. But I do not want to ignore your concerns. Please post your reliable sources. I welcome your introduction of accurate new material if well sourced and written in neutral language.

English is difficult language to learn. I want you to understand me please. Did Freepers just point at Huckabee and chatter without any effect? If answer is "yes" then it is not notable and should not be in article. But do reliable sources state that Freeper chatter was cause of Huckabee to take action and cause DuMond to be released from prison? If answer is "yes" then it is notable and should be in article. Thank you for kind patience. We can work together yes? Shibumi2 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1434439/posts >>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=scamdy It is curious how scamdy.com, a website formerly maintained by one of the FreeRepublic's administrators, now directs to democraticwarrior.com. Just in case, here is a thread at FreeRepublic showing all the compassionate and very Christian reactions to the announcement of Stepehenson's death: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1439010/posts. Enough with the references? 189.70.223.130 (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this notable? How did the Freepers influence the Stephenson and DuMond cases? All that you've proven so far is the "Freeper chatter." We all know Freepers chatter. What Shibuni2 reasonably wants you to prove is this: how did the chatter affect any of the real world decisions on Stephenson's medical care, for example, or Huckabee's decisions about DuMond? Regardless of how the Freepers felt about them, how did everyone else in the DuMond and Stephenson affairs feel about the Freepers? How did this Freeper chatter influence them? 68.29.195.152 (talk) 01:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this what I wanted to know from Pamela. Key of this issue is influence of Free Republic on events outside Free Republic website. How is this notable? What influence did Free Republic cause on Stepehenson and DuMond? What they said is not really important. What others did in response to what they said might be notable and worthy of new sections in article. I look forward to response from Pamela with reliable sources. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not a WP:OR issue, but a WP:RS issue. The threshold question therefore becomes “Is this material challenged?”

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. "Original research" is a claim for which no reliable source can be found. In order to demonstrate that a claim is not presenting original research, one must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Producing a reliable published source that advances the same claim taken in context is the only way to disprove an assertion that a claim constitutes original research.

If there is a source, in this case primary sources, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight.

Since no one seriously challenges the claims made in the material, I think it passes the test. Eschoir (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead to this article begins

Free Republic is a "for-profit", non-tax exempt [1] moderated Internet forum, activist and chat site for conservatives, primarily within the United States. It presents articles and comments posted anonymously by registered members using screen names.

To improve the article, I propose making two separate changes to the lead.

First, it is not clear right now that most Free Republic posts begin with articles from newspapers, magazines or other media. These articles cover a full spectrum of opinion, and come from all around the world. They are typically from what Wikipedia would call "reliable sources." The anonymous comments are typically refer to the content of these articles, sometimes agreeing with them, sometimes ridiculing them, etc. I propose to make the following change:

... It presents articles and from newspapers and other media with diverse points of view, along with comments posted anonymously by registered members using screen names. The comments are typically from a conservative point of view.

Second, the for- or non- profit status of the forum isn't a key fact that belongs in the lead. It's covered, at least partially, elsewhere in the article. I propose to remove the words

"for-profit", non-tax exempt [1]

from the lead, and to insure that the points and the reference are appropriately included later on.

Your comments will be appreciated. Lou Sander (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. I don't follow as much as I used, but I think the gross number of 'reliable source' articles is down in proportion to the vanity posts, caption the photo, listen to (your fave, the 'brilliant') Ann Coulter on the radio now posts. Val called it a 'spam factory' early on and it only has become moreso.

I think the "for profit non-tax exempt" may be technically better applied to Free Republic, LLC later in the article or in a separate article.Eschoir (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at 50 consecutive FreeRepublic posts and did the best I could at cataloging the articles they involved. IMHO, it is a typical list of the sources of FreeRepublic articles. There are a few "selfs," but by and large these are "newspapers and other media with diverse points of view," as stated in the proposed change. Here's the list:

Washington Post (On 01/02/2008 6:13:02 AM PST), CNN, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, gopnation.com, news4jax.com, Jewish World Review, mormonapologetics.org, Semiconductor Today, youtube, San Francisco Chronicle, World Net Daily, CNN Blog, The Story Atlanta, Self, Steyn Online, The Australian, Boston.com, NY Sun, Modern Conservative, Houston Chronicle, Self, Washington Post/MSNBC, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Self, New York Times, WSJ Opinion Journal, South Asia Analysis Group, New Media Journal, Self, iht.com, The Salt Lake Tribune, wapo.com, Boston Herald, New York Post, Palm Beach Post, NewsAndObserver.com, Self, Asahi, RTTN News, classroom-issues.suite101.com, Telegraph.co.uk, Turkish Daily News, New Hampshire Union Leader, The Penn Stater, Eject! Eject! Eject!, New York TImes, Reuters, Ynet News, New York Times, Asheville Mountain Express (On 01/02/2008 12:17:41 AM PST)

IMHO the present "articles and comments posted anonymously..." business gives a wrong impression of what FreeRepublic is, by emphasizing the posters at the expense of the sources. The proposed change just explains things a bit. Though many/most of these things are "reliable sources," the proposed change doesn't claim that. Lou Sander (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that a more profitable representative search would be latest articles not latest posts. Eschoir (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't figure out how to do a latest articles search it's so decentralized anymore. I not the variety in the sidebar, and that the third most recent listing under breaking news is that bhutto was assasiinated. That's why you don't go there for breaking news anymore.Eschoir (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took it upon myself to unilaterally cut one of the two iterations of the 'Sleeper cell" paragraph in this article. I chose the first one as it is out of chronological order with the rest of the article. And I sure would like a reliable source for the Wyldcard and sleeper cell assertions.

I also called Mr. Kristinn Taylor "Mr. Taylor" instead of 'Kristinn.' First name references may be good for "Hillary" or "Paris" or "Rush" but I don't think Mr. Taylor is there (or wants to be there, despite his anonymous fans.)

And I acknowledge my recollection of events years ago is faulty - though he talked about constructing and wearing a penis suit, the poster "Doctor Raoul" apparently heeded good advice and never wore that particular costume to any of the street theatre appearances with or without the good Mr. Taylor. Eschoir (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is prohibited as WP:OR in any event. I notice that you also blanked an entire section that had been fact-tagged for just a couple of weeks, although that's now been restored. Such actions are often interpreted as vandalism, particularly on such a contentious topic. 68.29.223.151 (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing anonymously for the first time with a lot of backstory knowledge are often interpreted as sockpuppetry. Eschoir (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the word "penis" to an article that has nothing to do with sexuality or medicine rarely fails to be interpreted as vandalism. I am trying to AGF, please return the favor. Regarding the question you raise below, a review of the article and the diffs shows that half of the sources cited are Free Republic threads, and most of the citations of Free Republic threads are by you. But you take issue with this one. Please explain. 68.31.209.162 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been banned numerous times yet you keep coming back under different IP addresses, expecting a different result. Please explain. Eschoir (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the deletion of this section entirely. The citation is not to Chronicles, it connects to a free republic article that doesn't link, Chronicles doesn't confirm it, the cite makes a limited point about pre-2000 activities, the rest of the paragraph is unsourced, undue weight, and not encyclopedic. Eschoir (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on taunting an editor who is briefly blocked, knowing that he will come back? Why do you make these sockpuppet accusations here, where they're useless? File your case against me at WP:RFCU but be prepared for the consequences. After I'm cleared, I'll come back with a case against you for harassment, vandalism, COI and tendentious and disruptive editing at WP:ANI, and ask them to ban you from editing this article. 68.31.65.228 (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should consider answering my original question instead, rather than trying to change the subject. Based on your previous edits, you have no real problem with fact tags sitting around unanswered for months. Nor do you have a real problem with using a Free Republic thread as a reliable source. You've engaged in both of these practices yourself. Why are you claiming to have a problem with both of these practices now? I think your real problem might be the content. 68.31.65.228 (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule #1 - never get in a flame war with an anonymous unregistered sock puppet. Eschoir (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Eschoir. Prodego ^talk 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir, I see that Prodego has thoroughly addressed your sockpuppet claim on his Talk page and I know that you've read it, since you responded to him. Your delaying tactics are now exhausted. Please answer the question. Why, after months of citing Free Republic threads as reliable sources and allowing fact tags to go unanswered for extended periods of time, have you now declared that both of these practices are unacceptable? 70.9.56.94 (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir will explain in his own time when he is ready. Please do not push him on this. You are getting your way on "agents provocateurs" section. Please be satisfied with that. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please - I have not withdrawn my challenge to the agents section. If it is not sourced within the next few days, it goes. I personally answered all the outstanding fact tags back in August, no matter how much anonymous vandals try to obfuscate.

Citing a Free Republic hobbit chat site with a link to the hobbit chat site is intrinsically reliable for the proposition that there is a free republic hobbit chat site. Whatever the chatters say is not the subject not offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

In the instant case, the footnote is a lie. It should be identified as a link to the FR source, where it is disavowed by Freepers using language like: The " article " is full of lies and you have been far less than " honest " , in posting it. As far as I can tell, from your own word : " You know why I posted it. To stir up the nest and liven this place up. " , you have shown that all you are is a disruptor.

It is revealed that it is not claimed to be in the online edition of Chronicles, as the footnote falsely suggests, rather the Freepers conclude it is probably a LETTER TO THE EDITOR in the print edition. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/793011/posts?page=200#200

In fact, the wiki footnote itself refers to it as coming from the Chronicles letters section.

So, in sum, we have a false footnote, linking to a post on FR of absolutely unverifiable provenance, decried by the freepers as dishonest, cited by anonymous editors as proof of the matter asserted. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is inadmissable, and the whole agents provocateurs is unreliable and unverifiable, and is going away very soon. Eschoir (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eschoir, regarding your recent reversion of Prodego's edit, which removed the corporate data about Free Republic LLC, I've restored his edit. But if you insist on getting into an edit war with Prodego, I won't stand in your way. Please read his edit summary. This article is about the Internet forum, not the corporation. If you ask me, I think the corporation is well described in L.A. Times v. Free Republic.

I'll let prodego do his own edits.

About the agents provocateurs section, I think

what you think hardly matters, doesn't it? It is what is verifiable that matters

the MD4Bush incident proves that at least one Democratic Party operative was acting as an agent provocateur as recently as 2004.

even if what you assert was verifiable, your thesis is that these agents are there to make FR look bad. This doesen't fit that theory

The Sean Scallon article was published in the print version of Chronicles magazine (December 2002 edition) but does not appear on their website. [1]

Are you citing a blog?

I'm citing a blog solely for the purpose of showing that the Scallon article was real, that it was published in the print version of Chronicles, and that it wasn't published at the Chronicles website. 70.9.56.94 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept the authority of the Scallon article, so you won't object to the inclusion of

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. Robinson has made it clear where he stands: "I see that the only Party capable of blocking and defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close that as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil."

in the body of the article?Eschoir (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next, let's look at your other fact tags. Run a Google on the phrase "sleeper troll," limited to the FR site. You'll see right away that there are a lot of Freepers who refer to "sleeper trolls" on FR threads. You argue above that a link to an FR thread about hobbits is "intrinsically reliable" to prove the Freepers chatter about hobbits.

Not what i said.

So there are a lot of reliable sources proving the Freepers chatter about sleeper trolls. A term that Shibumi2 was kind enough to sanitize as "sleeper accounts."

Just because Freepers chat about hobbits, is not evidence of the existance of hobbits.

Finally, there's your objection about the WyldCard/Chuy's Restaurant/Jenna Bush statements. I don't have an answer to that at the moment. Give me some time. 70.9.56.94 (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reverted another unilateral edit of yours in which you restored other material that had been deleted. This includes the "unknown person or persons" claim in the MD4Bush Incident section. The person isn't unknown.

Well you can scoop the world by revealing it here with a verifiable source.

The internal details of the petty bickering and petty scandals at Free Republic are not notable, nor is including this material appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It was deleted for a good reason. 70.9.56.94 (talk)

It was in the article for most of last year, and was eliminated without taking it to talk.

It's low-grade blog material, not encyclopedia material. Wikipedia is not your personal blog. Please don't restore it again. 70.9.56.94 (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try taking it to talk before deleting long established content Eschoir (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Free Republic was Hollywood, this content would make this Wikipedia article its National Enquirer. It isn't notable. It's petty and small-minded.

YOu left out 'verifiable' hope that helps.

Including the "purges" quote from the New York Observer adequately conveys the frustrations of certain banned Freepers. This article is not your personal blog, Eschoir. For the MD4Bush incident, there's plenty of reliable sourcing at MD4Bush Incident, including the Washington Post (article still available online) and Baltimore Sun. Do I need to duplicate all of those citations here? 70.9.56.94 (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you say some identifiable individual has been shown to be MD4BUSH, yes.

From top to bottom of your edit:

1. The anti-bush quote is not really related to Free Republic, though it was made there, so I question whether it should be included. We must be careful not to confuse Robinson with Free Republic.
2. "April Purge" of 2007"? this completely violates WP:NPOV
3. Yet again. What people say on Free Republic is completely irrelevent. The point of this article is to describe what Free Republic is.
4. The section about the corporate status of FR is good, we should keep this, preferably with no quotes, since quotes aren't really a good source for a legal status.
5. The MD4Bush section sounded better as "was created", IMO.

Prodego ^talk 18:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego, you and I (plus Shibumi2, who originally deleted the National Enquirer style chatter) have formed what I see

What a surprise.

as a consensus.

No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. WP:consensus

Eschoir, the corporate info without the quotation marks is already present in the first few lines of the "Chronology - 1996-2000 - Anti-Clinton" section. Putting it in again would be redundant. The article as it stands represents a consensus. Please do not edit it without discussing your proposed edit here and reaching a consensus first. Thank you. 70.9.56.94 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you commute on Saturdays, too. Eschoir (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic LLC is not FreeRepublic the web forum. I propose consistency demands the differentiation - references to the LLC be spaced and to the website be one word. Eschoir (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: 1) I'm not an expert on either subject, or on the differences between them. 2) I frequently read the articles in the forum, but rarely read the comments. 3) Prior to 2006 or so, I was a frequent poster of comments, and an occasional poster of articles, to the forum. I was banned at least five times, usually without explanation. Fed up, I stopped contributing.

Comment: It sounds like a good idea to separate the forum and the LLC. Probably a major section of the article should be headed Free Republic LLC, and all the "business and corporate stuff" should be put there. If the section gets huge, maybe a separate article would be justified. Lou Sander (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his last post before permanent bannage, Bryan wrote

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

Six months later, the edit reappears!

entitled: Improving layout. Changing some awkward wording ... nothing substantive.) (undo)

Drudge later restored the link from his site to Free Republlc, but dropped it again for unknown reasons, and currently does not link.

What does Wiki do? How do you discipline an unregistered banned editor with a false proxy? Eschoir (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF Eschoir. You have been warned by Prodego. He is administrator. You have replaced material which should be deleted. It is not notable and it is not NPOV. Prodego and 70 IP editor agree with me. As 70 IP editor says "this is not your personal blog." This is our consensus. I have reverted your edit. Please do not continue seeking edit war. If you seek to change Free Republic article then discuss here on talk page first and get consensus. Then you make change edit with support of community. I have also moved "Agents" section since it was about activity before 2000 and was out of order. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you took none of the unilateral edits you made to talk before making them. Sorry. When you do, and get consensus, your edits will be considered.Eschoir (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Shibumi2 was reverting your own unilateral edits that you made without taking them to Talk. He already has consensus, but we'll go through the formal procedure so that you don't have a leg to stand on. 68.31.191.215 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me show you my leg: No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined. WP:consensus Eschoir (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it's an article about an Internet forum, and every editor working on it supports the changes - with the sole exception of a permanently banned former member of said forum, who created nearly 100 sockpuppets in said forum, who transformed the article into a bitter, petty litle personal blog about said forum - then the changes are supported by consensus. 68.29.239.118 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 68.29.239.118 (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are AG-effing, BryEschoir (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editors, please indicate below whether you support or oppose the edits made by Shibumi2 on the evening of January 6.

• Strongly Support. Shibumi2's edits made the article NPOV. They removed a lot of material that made the article read like the Free Republic edition of National Enquirer. They eliminated the bitter, petty little grudge POV that the reader might find in the personal blog of a permanently banned Freeper. 68.31.191.215 (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Support End this edit war now please. I tried very hard to make NPOV article that also has layout looking good. Please accept this offering. Free Republic has many good things and some bad things in its history. We must seek balance in telling their story. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest anonymous commuter, please make our job reaching consensus easier by enumerating those edits below -I've helped you as memory served

Eschoir (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Eschoir (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that since Shibumi2 made the edits, he supports them. I also assume that since Shibumi2 originally put the box quotes in, he opposes their removal. Finally, I've also deleted your continued failure to AGF despite repeated warnings from an admin. 68.31.73.144 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dearest anonymous commuter you assume very much. This time you happen to be correct. But please do not assume this way about me in future. This leads to problem with other editors. I am very patient but you see Eschoir make trouble for you. This must stop. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. I assume your edits are made in good faith, I do. And I assume you are doing the best you can. And I don't call for your banning, because as I said ten years ago, you can only ban a name. You've got nothing that can be banned. You are not a sockpuppet if you don't register. So long as you follow the rules, you'll do fine. Eschoir (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is evil. Prodego ^talk 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But statements of support for consensus are good. That's how all admins became admins. Here, a call for consensus has been displayed for two days. Comments below it show that all the people currently working on the article have seen it and had an opportunity to express support or opposition. For two parts of his edits, there's one dissent from the usual suspect. For all the rest of Shibumi2's edits, no one has expressed any opposition. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. This is much work for me to create article that is balanced. Please be patient and do not become angry with each other. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we're going to start re-working this page this week. Keep the notes under this topic please.

My view on how to proceed; In particular, I'd like to hear from people who have citations to PUBLISHED material about FR as we are going to have this article clear of uncited material and material which does not meet Wiki standards. Where there is a significant imbalance between positive and negative published material, which I expect, I propose we simply note that fact. Articles about websites and in particular about controversial web sites are a real problem on Wikipedia, so lets make this one accurate, NPOV, and short. If there are particular incidents in FR history that seem to be notable and encyclopedic, the briefest of mentions and a citation ought to suffice.

After we have agreed on the ground rules, I will make a sandbox version of the page to start in on. --BenBurch (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds excellent. A large rewrite could really make this page much better, if it is done carefully. Prodego ^talk 20:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start off with a budget - set the ideal # of words.

Having some idea of the character and content of the good sources, I think 1000 words would absolutely capture all that is actually encyclopedic about Free Republic. I mean as it still exists, and as we can link to it, people wanting more detail can simply look there or to Google. --BenBurch (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO 1,000 words is a little too short. The current word count after restoring Shibumi2's edits (as supported by consensus) is 3,034. (That count excludes photo captions, the large sidebar blockquotes and the table of contents, as all word counts should.) Maybe 2,000 words would be about right. Maybe the current length of around 3,000 words is right. But I think most of us would agree that 4,000 words was too long. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguish between what is FR and what is not. Is the LLC in the article? IS FRN? Are the ping lists in? Are the "local chapters" - I would suggest not, as they have been officially disavowed as not part of FR, but that may be where the 'real' FR is at these days. The website may just exist anymore for purposes of raising money to keep the website in operation.

Try reverse chronological order for structure, like a newspaper sports article.

Try a facts section, w/ date of founding, corporate stuff etc just in a list.

Decide if traffic numbers are important.

Decide if you want to use a pre-existing model, like the DU article.

Decide the outline first, then fill in.

Just some suggestions. Eschoir (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A complete rewrite to a shorter length sounds great. Shibumi2's edits on January 6 are a fine place to start since they removed about 5 KB of objectionable material. Unfortunately, BenBurch accurately describes a "significant imbalance" in third-party material available on the Internet. Furthermore, Eschoir has an obvious COI problem and it shows in his work. Every petty little feud at Free Republic has been catalogued here in tiresome detail, and with a style that I can only describe as National Enquirer or a personal blog. A store manager at McDonald's or Wal-Mart wouldn't be mentioned in those articles if previously convicted of some minor offense, but for some reason the president of a local Free Republic chapter was mentioned here for that. Let's try to steer clear of such pettiness, recognize Eschoir for who he is, and write a good article. 99.201.244.135 (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is unmatched irony:

recognize Eschoir for who he is . . . [signed] 99.201.244.135 (talk)

You have just as much of a COI as Eschoir, so don't even start. Prodego ^talk 03:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who he is. If he buggers sheep, it doesn't matter. All I care about is that we have references to actual sources and that the article be a NPOV reflection of those sources. --BenBurch (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larf! Eschoir (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping that third-party published material isn't required merely to back up the introductory description of Free Republic. The nature of the forum is there for all to see, and it isn't any sort of a mystery. Neither is it something that is likely to be "covered" by a third party source. Lou Sander (talk) 05:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My intentions are to keep all references to this web site down to ONLY what you can find in reliable and verifiable sources. If the resulting article is spartan that will be because of the lack of such sources. One can have a paragraph summing the picture painted by the reliable and verifiable sources, though, and saying what it is, eg; "A web forum for discussing the concerns of some Conservative factions in US Politics." Which, in fact, is how a mean to start it. --BenBurch (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox here: Talk:Free_Republic/refactor

I believe the current article as it stands as of this moment (12:15 GMT January 8) is a good place to start. Due to the many previous challenges to material, it's already very well sourced. Ben, one of the things you'll have to watch out for is the inclusion of material that is not notable.

Case in point: the Julie Redick material. A Free Republic chapter president is accused of embezzlement. So what? If a Wal-Mart store manager is accused of embezzlement, would that go into the Wal-Mart article? It becomes even less notable when one recalls that these local chapters are independent entities. They aren't owned or controlled in any way by Free Republic LLC.

If Redick's chapter was notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, then the incident might be notable enough for inclusion in that article. But the only chapter that might be notable enough for its own article would be Kristinn Taylor's DC Chapter, IMHO.

A careful review of the article's edit history and Talk page archives shows that several accounts have been indefinitely blocked, and lots of pixels spilled, over a few small but bitterly disputed points of contention. Suspend your Sock accusations and ask yourself: did the blocked editors have a point?

Does "cokehead felons" belong in this article? Does the Drudge bit really need to be misleading? Or was FaAFA (now banned for sockpuppetry) fighting to preserve them because they supported his POV pushing?

There's a lot of material that has been included that is not notable. Even though it might have a reliable source, it violates the WP:N guideline. Wikipedia is not a collection of useless trivia. It is an encyclopedia. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do plan to crib anything usable from the current article. Also, note that FAAFA will indeed be back with us in just a few weeks. --BenBurch (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Freeness was indef blocked for using socks to evade the ban. [2] Prodego ^talk 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. He told me he was actually going to stay away. --BenBurch (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And remember this is the standard; Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --BenBurch (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]