Talk:Free Republic/Archive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sources please

"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)

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)

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

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

Is this source based on a LTTE?

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)

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)

Does FR have any relevance except history

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)

Last "Citation Needed" sourced!

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

Five Months without Controversy

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

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Original Research tags

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)

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)
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)

Freeper versus FReeper

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)

Answering your concerns

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)

Stephenson? DuMond?

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

Are there any reliable sources for those incidents? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
...Well? --Pamela Troy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You might start by reviewing WP:V and WP:RS.--RWR8189 (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)
(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)

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)


>>> www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1434439/posts >>> 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: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1439010/posts. Enough with the references? 189.70.223.130 (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

OR or RS?

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)

Improving the lead

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)


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)

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)

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

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)

Unilateral edits

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

'Agents provocateurs' sourcing and content dispute

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. 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)

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)
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)

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)
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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Free Republic v FreeRepublic

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)

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)

Return of Freedomaintfree?

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)

Please AGF

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
I don't think you are AG-effing, BryEschoir (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not to say I challenge all your edits - or any - it's just procedural.:) Eschoir (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for edits of Shibumi2

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)
  • 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)

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

Shibumi edit Strongly Support Oppose
delete citation needed in lead and first section of Chronology Eschoir, Shibumi2, Commuter
reword Drudge Link Shibumi2, Commuter eschoir
Eliminate Cold dead fingers box Shibumi2, Commuter Eschoir
Eliminate "struggle with elements of the socialist propaganda machine", "Leftists began to infiltrate the site", "It's scary how much power they do have" box quotes as they tend to make the place look crazy : ) Eschoir Commuter, Shibumi2, Prodego (all?!)
Eliminate vindictive little flames directed at Free Republic management and members vindictive little flames is not specific enough to edit by. do you at least have a line number? Shibumi2, Commuter
Eliminate National Enquirer style focus on petty, non-notable issues again too vague Shibumi2, Commuter

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Page refactoring project notes here.

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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

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)
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)

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)
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)
No, Freeness was indef blocked for using socks to evade the ban. [2] Prodego talk 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Too bad. He told me he was actually going to stay away. --BenBurch (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Gentlepersons; Sources Here Please! (or this will be the shortest article in Wikipedia.)

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)

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

FR threads are acceptable sources

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

Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Policy shortcut:
WP:SELFPUB

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Now you know the rest of the story. Eschoir (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

And the rest of the story supports the use of FR threads in this article about FR. Some of the quotes are contentious like the "cokehead felons" quote, and they have to go; but most are not. "Unduly self-serving" might involve a claim that Buckhead was the first to discover authenticity issues in the "Killian memos," for example, if that claim wasn't fully supported by a third party source like Little Green Footballs. "Claims about third parties," if they reference specific third parties such as DU or Ryan O'Doherty, will need sourcing from other third parties (the Baltimore Sun for example) or they'll have to go. They all involve claims about events directly related to the subject, and when the WP article simply reports that "Freepers" or a particular Freeper account wrote it, that's easily confirmed. So a few of your favorite quotes will have to go, but the rest can stay. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I read this policy and Samurai Commuter is correct. This is Wikipedia policy. It allows use of self-published source when it writes about "self" in Wikipedia article about that source. Free Republic threads are acceptable source for article about Free Republic. Policy has some conditions but those are satisfied by our article as it now stands. For this reason I believe that we do not need "refactor" any more. Thank you for your help BenBurch. But the "refactor" is not necessary. We should repair our article as it now stands and not rebuild it "from the waterline up." Please read my comments in section below. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Who said:

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. Eschoir (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That was Shibumi2. But now it looks like he's admitting that he was wrong. How humble of him. Have you ever done that? Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you forgotten January 2? Eschoir (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of FR's home page says "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web."
I think it would be good, and proper, to include something like this in the lead to the FR article: Free Republic describes itself as an "online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism." with an inline reference to the home page.
What say you? Lou Sander (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the 'independent' aspect is certainly contentious, in the political sense (it's a GOP site), and can you answer the question "is there reasonable doubt about who wrote it?" in the negative? Eschoir (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
We are under exactly ZERO compulsion to accept FRs self-definition. Al Capone's self definition was "Benefactor to mankind." but nobody would start his Bio that way (I hope.) --BenBurch (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Material about an entity frequently includes the entity's self-description. It seems to me that this particular self-description is fair and accurate. The proposed wording clearly identifies it as a self-description. I'm hoping to get some reasonable comments about that wording.
It's just my opinion, of course, and nothing personal is meant, but the stuff about contentiousness, GOP, and authorship seems counterproductive to making a good article. The stuff about compulsion doesn't make sense in the context of what is being suggested. Lou Sander (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to quote, and then edit the quote at that? Eschoir (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If we are using their own words, it's a good idea to put them in quotes. The word "premier" is kind of self-promotional, which is fine on FR, but not fine here. Lou Sander (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, FR is not Al Capone. It has its share of nutballs, but so does any community of that size. I've been reading a lot of their threads since becoming interested in this article. Nearly all FR members appear to be very mild-mannered and inoffensive. Many of their more ridiculous statements appear to be self-parody (like Jeff Foxworthy's jokes about rednecks, or Chris Rock's jokes about African-Americans, and some of them are hilarious. We have accepted, for publication in this article, definitions of FR from several of its most unkind critics, including Bill O'Reilly. In light of WP:SELFPUB and WP:NPOV, we should accept FR's self-definition in the article lead, as Lou Sander has suggested, since it is not "unduly self-serving." Let's be sure to put it in quotation marks, however. 68.31.200.249 (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WELCOME NEW ANONYMOUS FIRST TIME KNOWLEGABLE EDITOR!

Eschoir (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut that out Eschoir, we see. Prodego talk 18:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead: Account Registration

Account registration began over ten years ago. Is there any good reason to mention its start date in the lead of the article? (If the date is important, which it probably isn't, it could be mentioned deeper in the article.) Lou Sander (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Possible Wikiproject for forums

Shibumi2 suggested starting a Wikiproject covering Internet forums such as DU, FR and Daily Kos. This could be the best way to ensure consistent and even-handed treatment of all these sites. 68.31.123.238 (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I believe this is best way. WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS provide constant review by others working on similar articles and creates consistent style of these articles. I believe this is good idea and offer it for your consideration. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1200 well sourced Poison pen letter words in sandbox

Here is a first pass at a refactored article. Reverse chronological order and no original material Eschoir (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not good. I couldn't get past the first "vile" and "hateful." Lou Sander (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Now it's obvious why Eschoir wants to go with a reverse chronology. It enables him to stuff the following epithets from critics describing Free Republic into the first 161 words of the article:
  • vile
  • hateful
  • besmirching Christian values
  • some pretty sick people posting
  • inciting the murder of Hillary Clinton
  • racist and homophobic
  • poor moderation
  • victimized by a wave of purges
I thought BenBurch was going to do the refactoring. Otherwise I would have done it myself. If someone other than BenBurch is going to do the refactoring, I nominate Shibumi2. Eschoir's new blog, same as the old blog, is dead on arrival. (With apologies to Pete Townshend. Actually it's even worse than the old blog.) I've registered an account and I hope you like it . Eschoir, any messages at all from you on my User page or User Talk page will be treated as vandalism. Samurai Commuter (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If this is what BenBurch means by saying "refactor" then I must respectfully oppose him. I come to this project from WP:SHIPS and WP:MILHIST. We have very high standards for our articles. They are all like "library ships." They deliver knowledge to readers. This article now is a library ship. It delivers knowledge to readers. It has engineering problems. It is not perfect. But we can repair it.

What Eschoir wants to do is "demolish it down to the waterline" and completely reconstruct all of this ship as battle cruiser. He does not want to use it to deliver knowledge. He wants to use it to deliver attacks against his enemies. This is not honorable. It is contrary to our purpose for Wikipedia. This is unacceptable.

I have worked hard to repair this library ship. It runs better now. It is not perfect yet but it is better. Please join me to repair this ship. If we "demolish it down to the waterline" we do not know how Eschoir will rebuild it when we turn away to other articles. I submit this to you with respect for your consideration my fellow editors. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


Gosh, I don't think i'm being a-g-effed.

The kamikazi twins are running roughshod through the online article claiming a non-existent consensus. Some of the edits are pretty good, too.

IMHO, editing properly stopped when refactoring began. Since subequent edits are lawless edits, I reserve the right to revisit them if refactoring is abandoned. Eschoir (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I will extend you the courtesy you refused to extend to me, by refraining from chopping up your post into an incomprehensible mess with my response. I tried to AGF with you for a few days, but that's a two way street and you persistently refused to AGF with me. Editing on the mainspace article doesn't stop unless the article is protected and we had consensus supporting Shibumi2's edits. All have had a chance to express opposition, and only one (with a COI the size of the Pentagon) expressed opposition (and only to a couple of minor points). Edits supported by consensus are the antithesis of lawless edits. You don't write the rules, and I reserve (and am exercising) the right to seek ArbCom enforcement against you. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what Shibumi2 says above. His mastery of the English language is adequate, but it is not at the level of a highly articulate native speaker. On the other hand, his mastery of clear thought, and his evaluation of the work of editors, and his ideas of the standards suitable for an encyclopedia, are all at very high levels. Professional levels, in fact. He also understands the difference between honorable acts and dishonorable ones. We should not tolerate the latter, but in this article, we seem to relish it.
The refactoring has not started out on the right foot. The first sentence of the refactored article is "FreeRepublic is a moderated web forum for discussing the concerns of some Conservative factions in US Politics." The part after the word forum is not written to a high standard at all. For example Some Conservative factions is weasel wording and I believe is misleading. For another, many people visit Free Republic as a source of information, from all viewpoints, as expressed in media from all around the world.
On the other hand, there is good, neutral material, well written, in the refactored Free Republic LLC section and in the paragraph immediately before it. 74.1.175.146 (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Shibumi2 is a good editor, "74." If you're new here, welcome. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome another anonymous editor

I'm particularly fond of this example of your work Eschoir (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a talk page. Per WP:TP, "Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Why is stuff like the above so very prominent on this one? Lou Sander (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Undermoderation. Some Freepers (like BryanFromPalatine) don't feel obliged to follow wiki rules. They're fighting for a cause. That's why the article is on probation. Eschoir (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
And also why I am trying to re-write it. I don't really have a beef with FR (believe it or not) I am happy to let them do their thing, and so think I can be neutral. They also don't bother my web forum and thats as it should be. BTW, in server hell this week, so should be more active next week some time. --BenBurch (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't waste your valuable time, Ben. You've got your own things that you need to be doing, like your web forum. Your initial perception was that the big problem was sourcing. The revelation of WP:SELFPUB shows that the problem with this article isn't its sourcing. Continuing the "refactor" effort only encouraged another editor to write a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson. The effort should be spent on making the existing article NPOV. 68.31.200.249 (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this somehow suspended for this page? (Excerpted from WP:ATTACK) Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Lou Sander (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
A beneficial reminder. I will effort trying not to respond to the personal attacks. "The revelation of selfpub" is actually a hurdle that very few quotes from the website will be able to overcome. Policy is clearly that anonymous or pseudonymous sources are not acceptable sources. And I repeat-the fact that freepers chat about hobbits, is not evidence for the existence of hobbits.Eschoir (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

FR threads as sources about FR

If pseudonymous sources are not acceptable, can you cite the policy and post a link to the proper section? In this case, WP:SELFPUB states very clearly and unequivocally, "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used in articles about themselves." This article says things like, "The Freepers claim," or "One Freeper said." We have threads showing that Freepers really did say those things. It doesn't say, "John Smith, posting as 'Random Name' on Free Republic, stated that ..." unless that information comes from a reliable source, such as the Buckhead posts about the Killian memos being sourced to Harry MacDougald in the Los Angeles Times.

Otherwise, you'd have to lose a few more of the quotes you've been using to "put the subject of the article in a bad light," as Lou Sander described your editing. We should start by deleting the quote about "two 45 rounds and a nice little spot in Marcy Park," since it comes from a source that is pseudonymous, and the preceding phrase about "threatening to assassinate former President Bill Clinton," since it would then be unsourced.

If Freepers chatter about hobbits on one of their threads, it doesn't prove that hobbits exist. But it does prove that Freepers chatter about them. Similarly, if Freepers chatter about "sleeper troll" accounts, it doesn't prove that sleeper trolls exist. But it does prove that Freepers chatter about sleeper trolls; therefore this article can report the fact that Freepers chatter about them. It's been tagged as unsourced for about three weeks, but so what? Shibumi2, if he's given a reasonable amount of time, will post his sources. Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all you truncate the wikipolicy selfpub. It does not say
Policy shortcut:
WP:SELFPUB
"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" period, as you state. It says
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Let me break it down for you.
Major premise:
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
Minor premise:
Most posts at Freerepublic don't reveal who wrote it, identities being for the most part zealouly guarded, unlesss you are Jeff Head or Arthur Wildfire! March.
Conclusion:
It is a violation of Wiki policy to use Freeper posts, which conceal the identity of the writer, as a source.
It follows that a reliable source can quote a Freeper post, since the post is not the source. Thus, a reliable source can quote Critter saying "Clintoon is a murderer and rapist" not as proof that Clinton is a murderer and rapist, but that it was said.
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as it does not involve claims about third parties. Who are third parties? Well, local chapters, for one (HERE'S the grounds for eliminating Reedick). Agents provocateurs. Dixie Chicks.
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject of Freerepublic.com, like the South Carolina chapter.
Your expansive definition of no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it would negate the rule, as then NOBODY would be excluded as a source, not the farthest out poster on usenet, as long as he had a handle.
I didn't bring these up, but I can under stand them.
Eschoir (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are this visitor's two cents, for whatever they are worth: "Let me break it down for you" is a pretty backhanded way to demean another editor. ("Who, me? I never engage in personal attacks.) You seem to be wallowing in that over here. You've also got a lot of immature argument. Maybe it's narcissistic high school kids, trying to play the teacher role. Pretty unseemly, at least to me. DCLawyer (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the procedural criticisms. Anything substantive? Eschoir (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

That was substantive. When an article about FR states that "Freepers claim," with citation of FR threads containing their claims, it satisfies WP:V. There is no reasonable doubt that Freepers made those claims. To the extent necessary for inclusion of their statements, Freepers are adequately identified as "Freepers."

If "agents provocateurs" have registered accounts at FR, it isn't about a third party; it's about events that occurred at Free Republic between registered FR members. Nobody can be excluded as a source in the Free Republic article, as long as he has an FR handle. Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't want this sentence to be true: "Nobody can be excluded as a source in the Free Republic article, as long as he has an FR handle." Think about it. Eschoir (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Read footnote 5 of WP:V, especially the part that goes "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." Eschoir (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The footnote is about newspaper blogs. The idea is that if the Daily Planet has a blog conducted by journalist Lois Lane, posts to that blog by trollish reader Mr. Mxyzptlk can't be used, for example, as though they came from the Planet, from its blog, from Ms. Lane, etc. Lou Sander (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I think wrong your analysis is, as Yoda say would. When FR runs newspaper articles and trollish reader Mr. Mxyzptlk posts the same answer, it is no more acceptable than when the WP runs its own.Eschoir (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, Footnote 5 is appended to WP:SPS, not WP:SELFPUB. Here is my understanding of these two sections of WP:V policy. Established Expert, an expert in the field of climatology chooses to self-publish an article by starting an FR thread. (Assume for the sake of argument that his identity is well-established and his FR account was established under his real name, like Robinson's.)
According to Footnote 5, Established Expert's article (and any of his comments n the thread) can be used as a source in Wikipedia's Global Warming article, but the comments of the anonymous Freepers cannot. However, since Footnote 5 is not appended to WP:SELFPUB, both Established Expert's article and the Freepers' comments can be used as sources in the Free Republic article, if they're notable and they satisfy all of our other policies, such as WP:BLP. Samurai Commuter (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting take on Established Expert. I don't know what I think about him. I think it highly hypothetical.

Nice to see you've abandonded your previous position, that no Freeper cann be excluded as a source.

But anonymous or pseudonymous Freepers replies are out as sources, as they are covered by footnote 5 and tellingly, they are officially disclaimed by FR:

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Free Republic or its operators.

Eschoir (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Prodego, BenBurch, Lou Sander, DCLawyer and Shibumi2, what's your interpretation? Can the statements of Freepers in FR threads be used as sources in the Free Republic article to support a "Freepers claim" statement? Samurai Commuter (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with Eschoir that we should not use the quote of a single person on FR as a stand in for Freepers as a whole. Free Republics posters are FR no more then we are Wikipedia, and I doubt anyone would take my quotes on Wikipedia as official in any way. Prodego talk 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
We might be better off dealing with specific cases, rather than trying to divine universal rules or procedures. My eyes glaze over when Mr. Mxyzptlk goes legal. They roll back into my head when others join in the discussion. But that's just me. Lou Sander (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a specific case: can 45 Freepers support an article section that says, "Some Freepers claim"? Not "Free Republic states," but "Some Freepers claim"? Samurai Commuter (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a specific case: can 203 Freepers support an article section that says, "Some Freepers claim"? Not "Free Republic states," but "Some Freepers claim"?

It would be absurd. Besdies being OR, and forming a synthesis, it has no notability. Freepers sometimes call posters the don't like "sleeper trolls" and you have 45 posts and no articles out of how many million? That's why posts responding to articles are not allowable as sources. For good reasons.

Go with understanding the universal rules before editing.Eschoir (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You've cited 203 Freepers, but read what they're saying. They're ridiculing conspiracy theories about "chemtrails." Remember, whatever we use has to be relevant to Free Republic, notable, and compliant with all other Wikipedia policies. This chemtrails bit would satisfy WP:V if you say, "Freepers have ridiculed a conspiracy theory about 'chemtrails'," but it would not satisfy WP:NOT. Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are 8,690 Freepers saying "ZOT!" That's their slang term for the permanent banning of a troll. They may not always say "sleeper troll," but they always say "zot." Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the only online FR reference to WyldCard:

To: Hacksaw WyldCard has been banned for the Mia Lawrence incident. Try to pull up his homepage, you'll get "No current Freeper by that name." But like Philo said, it was festooned with Bush caricatures and left-wing slogans.

123 Posted on 08/03/2001 13:37:14 PDT by Bryan [ Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | Top | Last ]

Old axes are the best axes to grind.Eschoir (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently all other direct references to WyldCard have been deleted, but that's a pretty good source thread and it's from the same period. I like their self-parody threads too. Some of them are really [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1674019/posts funny.] Samurai Commuter (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Since all other direct references to Wyldcard have been deleted at FR, so shall it be here. Eschoir (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Posts on Free Republic should not be used as sources. WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB are not self-contained independent sections. SPS tell us that "forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". SELFPUB tells us since the use of those forums is contentious and the identity of the authors cannot be ascertained that FR postings should not be used as sources. Most of the material in this article should be drawn from "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:V). Vassyana (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB we can't use them, and they all need to be removed sooner rather than later. Lawrence Cohen 15:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a ton of original research, unsourced material, advertising copy, random quotations and links from Free Republic's message boards, and added a lot of fact tags for material that should be removed later if unsourced to valid RS. This article is a horrific mess of Free Republic advertising, propaganda and general unsourced OR. Lawrence Cohen 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally agreed, but "never say never." If someone feels the need to use a post as a source, they need to be very explicit about why, and people need to agree with them. Lou Sander (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye agents provocateur

it remains unsourced, and a search for agents reveals a negligible portion of the 63 mentions fit the description offered. Eschoir (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone do me the favor of clearly stating the dispute over "agents provocateurs?" It is too long and twisted for me to follow. Feel free to do it here, or on my talk page, or by email. Thanks in advance for your help. Lou Sander (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since no non-Bryan sources for WyldCard have been expressed, I am deleting 'agents' for the third time.Eschoir (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir and SamuraiCommuter

Would you fellows please explain what you are edit warring over? Your edit summaries are pretty opaque. Thanks in advance for your help. Lou Sander (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bryan has been trying to get agents provcateurs in for the last year using different accounts, relying on short memories. He introduced it, was banned, tried Justin88 and now Shibumi2. It has been rejected every time. Bryan is relying on himself as the source of "Freepers say Wyldcard is a sleeper account."Eschoir (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you the one who unearthed that Bryan/WyldCard thread from August 2001? Regardless of what you think of him, Bryan is a Freeper. And if one Freeper is RS for "two 45 rounds and a nice little spot in Marcy Park," then one Freeper is RS for "WyldCard was an agent provocateur." Samurai Commuter (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Salon is the source for the "two 45 rounds". There is no source, queestionable or not, that says "WyldCard was an agent provocateur."Eschoir (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Lou, this gentleman has been trying to turn this article into a Poison pen letter to Jim Robinson for months. Notice that he said, "Old axes are the best axes to grind." Anything that might serve to mitigate the worst Freeper posts, such as Scallon's "agents provocateurs" quote, is being deleted. Other quotes are being selected for inclusion because they make the subject of the article look bad, such as Pein's "mob rule" quote, even though Pein was referring to bloggers at Little Green Footballs, not the Freepers. So it's irrelevant, but Eschoir wants it in there anyway. Samurai Commuter (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm still trying to figure out what is the specific beef. Is it the use of the words "agents provocateurs," or some material that those words summarize, or ???
I'd like to be able to see clearly something like "Commuter wants to say X about agents p. Eschoir objects because Y." I'll try looking at it again, but it's been hard to focus on the specifics of why each side wants what it wants. Maybe it would help if each side would make its case (briefly) here. Lou Sander (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Eschoir claims that it's the sourcing. A printed issue of Chronicles magazine that should be available in public libraries, but not online, should be sufficient. Since Eschoir has used several FR threads as linked sources in the article, and since he personally unearthed the Bryan/WyldCard thread from 2001, that should also be sufficient.

One, I challenge the sourcing. It is sourced as a LTTE, which is not acceptable. But I could live with the source, as there is plenty of information about the site that the article could use. Believe me, you don'nt want Scallon as a RS.

Two, it is cited for a proposition it does not suppport. It says before 2000 and the institution of moderators, leftists had 'infiltrated' the site. It goes on to say that the overmoderation that rid the site of those leftists also killed the site -

Bryan wants to use that to support a thesis that Wylddcard and MD4Bush were agents provocateur, defined as those leftists posing as rightists trying to make FR look bad, even though they were post moderation. Even though bryan described wyldcard's homepage as not concealing his leftism and didn't accuse him of being a sleeper troll or provacateur. Even thoughh MD4Bush wasn't done to 'make FR look bad'.

So third, there isn't a RS for actual agent's or sleeper trolls. If Scallon is a RS, there is no post-2000 sourced material. Eschoir (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Eschoir thinks he can "win" a dispute over content by accusing those who disagree with him of being sockpuppets, and trying to start a revert war. Both practices are disruptive and violations of policy. If he's concerned about content, the place to resolve the dispute is right here on the Talk page. If he's concerned about sockpuppetry, the place for that is WP:RFCU or WP:SSP. I've been watching both pages and he hasn't even tried to file his case. Samurai Commuter (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but the sourcing of WHAT??? What is the specific claim, or content, or whatever, that people are arguing over? Lou Sander (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again:

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. 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)


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. [3]

Are you citing a blog?

I'm citing a blog . . .70.9.56.94 (talk) 18:406, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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."

Eschoir (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. It's a duck, because the vest has no sleeves. Lou Sander (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir, now that the article is protected we have a brief window of opportunity to work out our differences, should you choose to take advantage of it. Please stop chopping my Talk page edits into an incomprehensible mess and throwing around sockpuppet accusations. This is disrespectful and disruptive, and it violates Wikipedia policy.

The edit warring must stop. Propose your article edits here before making them, and see whether you get any support from anyone. If you don't, then it wouldn't be wise to assume that you have consensus.

You are relying on an anonymous Freeper to support your claim that the Scallon article was an LTTE. You have no other proof. Even if it really is an LTTE, please cite a section of WP:V that forbids its use as a source. If you liked the Freeper post on that thread you linked, then you'll love this one: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/793011/posts?page=195#195 "Moreover,] if you knew the magazine then you'd also know that the Scallon article was not a 'Letter to the Editor' -- each month Chronicles runs a few short bits after its correspondence section on a variety of topics."

You'd like to include the Scallon quote about "reduced to the musings of neoconservatives etc." because it makes the subject of the article look bad. This is a constant and very easily identified pattern in your edits. That position is well represented by the many strongly worded quotes you've already added, from such critical voices as Salon and the New York Observer. Samurai Commuter (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

More on improving the lead

I propose to make some changes to the lead. I claim to have the skills to make them in an accurate, neutral way. If one or two others are interested in seeing these changes, I'll come up with a draft and put it here for comment.

1) Currently, the lead says little about the articles that are posted on Free Republic. They are from diverse points of view, and from what WP would call reliable sources, from all around the world. IMHO we do a disservice by not describing this situation. I propose to describe it, using one or two sentences.
2) The current lead spends many words describing the specific "interest area" posts that appear on FR. It specifically lists ten of them. IMHO this is too much detail. It also gives undue weight to these posts, which are much less numerous than the diverse news articles mentioned in 1) above. I propose to move the list of "interest area" posts downward in the article, retaining a brief summary in the lead.
3) The conservative nature of the site isn't necessarily well-described in the current lead. Somebody has even asked for a citation. I propose to work on this, and to find a way of properly describing it.

I undertake this work with the purpose of improving the article and making it accurately descriptive of the Free Republic site. If that is your goal, too, I hope you'll respond. If you seek to disrupt the effort to make a good article, or to present other than an accurate description of the Free Republic site, I hope you'll stay away. Lou Sander (talk) 04:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy is in the mind of the beholder. Stick to accurate references to Reliable Sources and verifiability.

1. How do you propose to do an article inventory using RS and not OR? You reveal your preconception when you say "They are from diverse points of view, and from what WP would call reliable sources, from all around the world." Does that include vanity posts, and hobbit chat? How about "Among the articles for prayer requests and zotting viking kitties with 20000 page views and 534 replies, one can also find articles from from diverse points of view, and from what WP would call reliable sources, from all around the world, with 3 page views and no replies."

It would seem to require OR.

2. Move it, but not for Undue Weight.

3. Find a Reliable source. I've got one, BTW. Named Scallon. I'm told he's verifiable. Eschoir (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I justlooked for the ten interest areas - they are no more linked in the home page! No hobbit chat! Delete it. There seem to be eight named fora, one for news articles. Eschoir (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.