Talk:Free Republic/Archive 2

This page 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.

Iranian Executions

I'm deleting the reference. WP:CITE. See especially "disputed" section. Benburch, you seem to like digging through FR archives. How about you verify this thing? This stuff shouldn't be up there without a cite. Gordongekko909 01:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Did so. Sorry for getting lazy, but I didn't think I'd have the time to research this tonight, but the repairs I was doing didn't take as long as I thought... BenBurch 01:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now. I added a link to the Wiki page dealing with that very execution, 'cause it turns out we've got one. Gordongekko909 01:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Andy Stephenson (again)

There is plenty of evidence of Freepers doubting Stephenson's claims, but is there anything actually linking FR or any of its members to "physical stalking" or "interference in fundraising?" I'm really wondering if this can get done without weasel words. Gordongekko909 02:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on it, though likely not before next week. BenBurch 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mind giving me a reason why I shouldn't qualify that paragraph with a bunch of "allegedlies," then? Damn, I hate weasel words... Gordongekko909 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

...and like I pointed out on the DU page, there's a factual dispute template sitting on top of the Andy Stephenson page itself. Any objection to me replacing the paragraph with a quick "accused of" intro and "See main article: Andy Stephenson" so people can see the factual disputes getting hammered out on the main Stephenson page, instead of reading disputed information here without notice that it's disputed? Gordongekko909 02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add the accused of and such. I'm not sure why this article is in here now as I thought we decided that it shouldn't be. But I shall try to document it. BenBurch 21:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

DUmmie FUnnies link

My only reservation is that it is totally NOT about FR. In the DU article, it might belong because it is peripherally about DU. It would be as if I added a link to my http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org site to the DU page because so many DUers visit it on a daily basis. BenBurch 21:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Reservations understood. It's about FR, though, because the ping list dedicated to DUFU is the most popular on FR. It's a big part of FR culture. Gordongekko909 03:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but aren't all of the postings ALSO on FR? And don't FR members just read them there? Perhaps a link to the FR keyword search for that blog? BenBurch 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; I'll redirect the citation. Gordongekko909 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

A quick look at the history page will show that I'm currently locked in a revert war with someone who insists that a thread linked to in the article has administrators calling for attacks on wikipedia. The thread has no such thing. There are no admins in that thread. There are normal users directing Freepers to wikipedia, though, and my version of the article reflects this. Would the anonymous user who keeps reverting please tell us exactly which post on the threads linked to are by Free Republic administrators? One more revert and I'm calling in the mods. I don't want to get it done like this, but if I can't negotiate or reason with whoever's doing this because they refuse to talk, then I have no other choice. Gordongekko909 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You will probably have to arrange for it to be protected for a while. On controversial political subjects like this one, you are bound to encounter this periodically. --Holdek ^(talk) 06:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Just requested semi-protection. This will shut the reverts down for at least four days. Gordongekko909 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Request denied; not enough recent activity. Mods in charge told me to watchlist and revert with extreme prejudice, though. Gordongekko909 00:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that YOU are the problem here, Gordon. BenBurch 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

That little outburst seems uncalled for, please assume good faith.--RWR8189 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain yourself, Benburch. --Gordongekko909 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

BenBurch, please appraise yourself of the discussion at hand.

First off, no one has cited an instance of an administrator incitation, the best we have gotten is that it is around "pg 30" whatever that means.

The only advocacy of violence I see made in the source given are tongue in cheek references. How is someone going to surround a restaurant with tanks?

There is also no need to go into such great detail about the Andy Stephenson controversy on this page, the summary makes a reader aware of the controversy and directs them to a page that explains it fully.--RWR8189 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

and I am supposed to believe this to be factual when coming from a self proclaimed Freeper,RWR8189? User talk:Gordongekko909 you and Gordon have been hacking away at anything mildly critical of your Organization. its just like the last time freepers got an ACTION ALERT and trashed the abortion page. your and Gordon's edits are blatantly pov, you should consider having some one more impartial take a look at the page. Btw Andy's is fully sourced, it's deletion is clearly an atempt at info suppression.--68.214.4.72 01:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying that I'm a member of Free Republic, I'm one out of thousands, and my membership there does not preclude me from participating on its Wikipedia article, just as BenBurch's association with DU or other sites does not preclude him from participating in those articles. You also failed to address any of the points I raised.--RWR8189 16:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, Benburch shouldn't be editing this article. He's a known DUer and William Pitt fanboy. Now you see what I just did? It's called ad hominem. And that's precisely what you're doing by pointing out my and RWR8189's Free Republic affiliation. If you don't like the actual edits, please tell us why they're POV or unnecessary. I abbreviated the Andy Stephenson section because the entire factual basis of what happened with him, including FR's involvement, is in dispute, as you can see on the Andy Stephenson page. There was no disclaimer on this page that every single facet of FR's alleged involvement is seriously lacking in any evidentiary basis. And no, "Pied Piper Pitt said so" doesn't count.

There are no administrators in the threads directing users to Wikipedia. Not even "around post 30." Our anonymous-IP "contributor" can't point out a single post by an administrator. Therefore, the statement that there were administrators in those threads lacks evidentiary basis, and so has no place in an encyclopedia.

The paragraph dealing with the petition to stop the Iranian executions can't possibly be interpreted as anything but malicious. Not only does the anonymous user's version misrepresent the controversy itself (which you can read all about on the wikipedia article about the executions), but it misrepresents Free Republic users' reactions to it. The fact that the two condemned were being executed for gang-rape, not simply for homosexuality, is simply ignored. This is an obvious effort to paint FR users' reluctance to sign the petition as homophobia, instead of what it was: lack of sympathy for rapists.

As for our anonymous user: if our edits are "blatantly POV," then you shouldn't have a hard time explaining why without resorting to ad hominem. During my time here, I've been making the article comport with the evidence, nothing more. I've been removing POV assertions that are not supported by any evidence. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is what I'm supposed to be doing. --Gordongekko909 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"Will Pitt Fanboy?" Nope. Actually, I think he's not that great a writer, and I've had moments when I was really steamed with him, but I'm happy to be friendly with him most of the time. "Fanboy?" Hardly!!! BenBurch 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now. There is no shame in fanboydom. I myself am a self-proclaimed Thomas Sowell fanboy. Admit your fanboyhood. It will set you free. --Gordongekko909 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

NNPOV edits and revert warring - Page Protected

Okay, folks. The page is now protected from edits. Settle your differences and come up with consensus WP:NPOV wording. BenBurch 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Let's start with the involvement of administrators in the Wikipedia threads. Please direct me to a single post in either of those threads by an administrator. "Around p30" won't cut it. Give me the number. --Gordongekko909 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and way to stick trolling and humor banners at the top of this talk page. Real classy. --Gordongekko909 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I call them as I see them. Now - Get on with your business here of reaching a consensus. I'll be observing. BenBurch 03:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I would remind everyone once again to remember WP:FAITH. The only people that seem to be involved in this discussion at this time are Gordon, you, our anon friend, and myself. Neither of you seem to be interested in discussion, and I am growing tired of repeating the same things without any meaningful discussion.--RWR8189 05:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry... observing? Who went and made you mediator, Benburch? I'm pretty sure you've tried this before, the result being miserable failure. --Gordongekko909 16:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. When I first read Burch's comment I thought maybe he had (somehow) been promoted to an admin level. Burch, I think your comment is inappropriate and silly. Give me a break. You're involved in editing on this page as a common editor just like everyone else. --Holdek ^(talk) 19:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Have I said otherwise? Nope. And I am not mediating anything. But I'm also not here to do more than observe you settle matters amongst yourselves now. BenBurch 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then can the repeated demands of others reaching a consensus while you observe. Otherwise, get involved and give suggestions and edit yourself. --Holdek ^(talk) 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one demanding consensus. Wikipedia does that. I was just making a comment. And I'm busy working on all of the articles on nuclear reactors. BenBurch 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Don’t change the topic Gordon you never suitably answered the question on Andy’s deletion: the facts are well established with four citations from four sources. Clearly it is all-factual and clearly you had no need to remove it. Btw if you doubt the admin endorsement then just go read the 256 pages in the link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.34.33.184 (talk • contribs) .

The Beth Ferrari and first Seattle Weekly article don't even mention Free Republic, and the second Seattle Weekly article does not accuse anyone from Free Republic of interfering in the operation. It just said that Freepers talked about Andy Stephenson and didn't believe him. That's it. The evidence provided does not establish anything that you want in the article. And may I remind you that plenty of the Andy Stephenson story is still in dipute, with no mention of this in your version of the section on him. This is why I replaced the entire paragraph with a link to the main Andy Stephenson article. If I were actually trying to "suppress the truth" or whatever, I would simply delete the whole thing, NOT redirect to a page with even more information.

Btw if you doubt the admin endorsement then just go read the 256 pages in the link.

I had to quote that because I want anyone reading this discussion to be able to see it a second time. NO, I will NOT take it on faith that there is an administrator somewhere in those 256 pages. If you're linking to the thread in the first place, you should probably be linking straight to the page where the admin is located anyway, if you're asserting that there's an admin somewhere in there. Now let's try this again: where is the admin involvement in that thread? Give me a specific post number, not a ballpark figure. --Gordongekko909 16:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I plan to do it, but it might help somebody if you specified what link you mean, and what the screen names of all the admins on FR are. BenBurch 20:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The only moderators on FR are Jim Robinson, John Robinson, and the rest have some sort of derivative of the word "moderator" in their user name such as Admin Moderator. Sidebar Moderator, or Lead Moderator

Besides which, the burden of proof is on the editor making a statement, not on everyone else.--RWR8189 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to both of the links in the "Influencing polls" section. Neither of those threads have any administrators. I'm not arguing that members haven't directed users to, for example, Wikipedia; that's self-evident from the threads. I'm also not arguing that Freepers don't "Freep" online polls in an attempt to influence their results; I myself run a ping list dedicated to doing precisely that. ;) But there isn't any admin involvement, which is why the reference to administrators ought to go.

And yeah, the burden of proof is on the person trying to INCLUDE information in an article. Observe. --Gordongekko909 20:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And you still didn't say what thread. I did observe Jim Robinson comparing Wikipedia to the Washington Post on one of the linked threads, and saying both were worthless, but neither of those threads has 256 pages! BenBurch 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1549132/posts] It's 256 pages. Our anonymous contributor claims that there are admins in there urging Freepers to go forth and conquer, and can't point us to a single post by a single admin urging such action. And while we're on that subject, why is the word "racial" in the description? The only remotely "racial" Wiki article referred to is the Kwanzaa article. This hardly merits a "racial," let alone a "primarily racial." "Political" I understand. But the inclusion of "primarily racial" is an obvious smear attempt. --Gordongekko909 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's my confusion; That is 256 replies not 256 pages. It is only a half-dozen pages. Here is Jim Robinson on that thread, but I don't think it amounts to more than a very passive endorsement if that. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1549132/posts?q=1&&page=101#119] BenBurch 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, bleh, you're right. 256 replies, not pages. I need to eat something. :/ 'kay, so it doesn't look like we have admin endorsement of an "attack." All it is is a comment on the NPOV policy. This certainly doesn't merit the word "often," nor does it merit even pluralizing "administrators." Assuming that it merits a mention of FR's administration at all. Which I say it doesn't. -Gordongekko909 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here, have a bag of pre-sliced organic apples... BenBurch 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine if it means so much to you we can replace the word administrator with moderator. It’s interesting to note that Jim Robinson never shut down threads that called for vandalism and posted on the threads and did not advise against vandalisim , that sounds to me like support. But as for the Restaurant/ Andy affairs you never did give a good reason for removing/relocating it the factual accuracy of both of those shouldn’t’ be a dispute . If you’re interested here are a few more pages that reinforce the Andy claim.(all are from an earlier part of this archive.) "Conservative Underground: BUM FIGHTS was Andy Wars" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 1" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 2" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 2 - WILL PITT RESPONDS" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 3 - Questions" "Andy Resource Center"

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1425289/posts?q=1&&page=1#1
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1424310/posts
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1423092/posts
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1422536/posts
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1422004/posts
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1421322/posts

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501360/posts--67.34.33.184 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, NOT replace "administrator" with "moderator," because as you can see from the discussion that Benburch and I had above, the threads in question had neither administrators nor moderators doing any of the things the article's current form describes them as doing. Hence, replace "administrators" with "members."

The CU threads you posted are not FR threads, and therefore not exactly relevant. I'm not going to dig through those FR threads for evidence of "cyberstalking and physical stalking" of Andy Stephenson by Free Republic members, as well as evidence of Free Republic members interfering in fundraising.

Same goes for posts advocating violence towards Chuy's patrons and physical destruction of the restaurant. No, tongue-in-cheek calls to "ring the restaurant with tanks" and "turn it into a barbeque" are not evidence of advocacy of physical destruction of the restaurant. 'course, if consensus here ends up dictating that they are, then I am going to have a great time over at the Democratic Underground article, citing to threads that call for the overthrow of the United States government [1] (just look at the poll), advocacy of vandalism against Diebold property [2], and advocacy of violence towards religious people [3] (post 16). You want that description in, you provide the evidence. You know the drill: give me post numbers or a straight link to the post itself, not just the threads. --Gordongekko909 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought a previous consensus process ruled the Andy stuff out of this article? I suppose, though, that it can always be revisited. And you KNOW that Andy was a friend of mine, and I was involved in that process. There WAS physical stalking, and some very disturbing things that I cannot talk about, but we do not know for fact that the physical stalkers were freepers, though we can suspect it. We do know that those who lead the cyberstalking were freepers, but, honestly, I am content to let those people live with themselves. What they did was reprehensible, but it was not centered on Free Republic though parts of it happened there. As for whether the people who did that killed him? No. They did make his last days on earth misery, though. Andy had a type of pancreatic cancer than nobody has ever survived. Ever. Of course we did not know that before the surgical biopsy. There are also a lot of things afoot here that I am not at liberty to speak about that might be relevant, but even were I at liberty to speak of them, they would be original research, and not suitable for Wiki. BenBurch 02:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The previous consensus did exclude the Stephenson section, but given the sheer number of "allegedlies" being thrown around, I thought the best thing to do would be to just link to the main Andy Stephenson article while what happened with him gets ironed out over there. Hell, the entire section was already there when I started editing this page, and I thought it would be a bit drastic for me to just delete the whole thing. If it turns out there is no evidence of Freepers physically stalking Stephenson, and if no evidence of cyberstalking by Freepers is forthcoming, then yeah, I'd be in favor of removing the entire section dealing with him from this article. For the time being, though, that evidence fight should be going down at the Andy Stephenson article. Not here.

I am aware of the nature of your relationship with Mr. Stephenson. I'll take your word for it that some nasty things were done to him. But that doesn't mean that Freepers were doing them. The evidence on hand points to Freepers doubting his claims, which probably doesn't amount to cyberstalking. If merely talking about someone and doubting things they said were acts of cyberstalking, then every journalist, political blogger, and member of any political message board ever would be a cyberstalker. This just doesn't make sense. And as we both know, there was plenty of doubting of Stephenson's claims going on at DU as well, some of it by high-profile DUer William Pitt. This would merit an "accusations of cyberstalking" section in the DU article as well. So count this as a vote for the abbreviated version of the Stephenson section, pending removal of it later if it turns out that there was no stalking of him by Freepers. --Gordongekko909 19:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Clown Posse

I know this page is protected, but could one of the admins here replace the (dead) link to CP, which has relocated?

Here's a link to their new board:

http://www.clownposse.org/colloquy/index.php4

72.80.102.247 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No objection here. --Gordongekko909 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Neoconservatives?

I have to take exception to the statement that most of the posters at FR are "neoconservatives." Generally, neocons are hawks on foreign policy but are not fanatically opposed to the welfare state, legal abortion, and homosexuality. Sometimes they are not opposed to them at all; other times they may express token opposition, but it is not a passion with neocons. FReepers don't fit in this category. In fact, most of them don't fit into any normal categorization of conservative; "reactionary nationalist" would be more accurate. In any event, we ought to rethink the whole "neocon majority" angle. St. Jimmy 01:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, neoconservatism is mainly a foreign policy ideology, and if you look at it as strictly a foreign policy ideology, most Freepers are definitely neoconservatives. Neoconservatism as an "ism" simply doesn't focus heavily on domestic policy, and given that many early neocons were former socialists, it should be no surprise that many neocons have not been heavily opposed to big government. This, however, is purely incidental. As far as domestic policy goes, FR has a rather vocal Libertarian minority, but most FR members are social conservatives as well as foreign-policy neocons.

Neoconservatism's bailiwick is foreign policy; nothing else is all that relevant as far as the ideology itself goes. I say leave it. --Gordongekko909 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of Extremism

I would also like to add a further note in the extremism subsection noting that many Freepers despise Martin Luther King Jr. with appropriate links to multiple threads to prove it, because many Freepers considered King a " communist " and an "interloper".

I think this is a good idea. I would also reference threads regarding a proposed memorial to Dr. King, that contain mostly criticisms and slurs, even though Dr. King is generally and widely considered an American hero. --Holdek ^(talk) 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And Emmett Till. Some of the threads regarding the investigation of his murder on FR are repulsive at best. Here's one for starters: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421309/posts?q=1&&page=51 Hesperides 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bring the evidence. Alleging the existence of these threads alone won't cut it. --Gordongekko909 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: Free Republic links are restored to some previously deleted material. However, noted comments should remain on wiki even if Jim Robinson again deletes his own comments, as he shouldn't be able to control the public record of his own public remarks.Jlogajan 17:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jlogajan, I have edited that last sentence you wrote on the grounds it violates non-neutrality and non-sensationalism. "His now fully public anti-science attitude has precipitated a schism..." smacks of subjectivity. I have done what I could to bring some objectivity to that last sentence or two, while leaving the evidence in tact. Gregarious Lonewolf 17:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's some evidence of Free Republicans' antipathy towards MLK and Coretta Scott King. Lots of communist-baiting, racism, distortions and unproven fabrications about King's personal life and political activities, and general hostility for the civil rights movement and African-Americans. Please feel free to use information from these threads as evidence. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587753/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586918/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582990/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1579513/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574190/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1571776/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569318/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559640/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559449/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1556154/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559688/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550529/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558270/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1693196/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559124/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1577296/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1645680/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1570160/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1714439/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559333/posts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) .

Original research and unsupported information in Criticism section

This is the first time I've looked at this article but I see some glaring examples of original research (forbidden by WP:NOR) and unsupported material.

1)There is no cite for Free Republic being accused of bigotry.

2) The example of the supposed bigotry is simply a post from the website with no supporting citation as to what external source said this was an example of bigotry. This is "textbook" original research. Lawyer2b 14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What a bunch of loons.

Terminology

"Freeptard" has been added and deleted several times. A source has been found for it. OTOH, the other terms are unsourced. Why are we deleting just that one term? If we don't have reliable sources maybe all the whole section should go. -Will Beback 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more a case of terminology specific to Free Republic itself, although I realize there is an entirely different jargon associated with critics of Free Republic, which might or might not merit inclusion under a separate section.

However, I have a much bigger problem with the Andy Stephenson section.

After extensive-and often acrimonious-debate the individuals who are insistent upon the inclusion of the "stalking" section still haven't provided any substantive, tangible evidence that Free Republic members-either individually or en masse-"stalked" Andy Stephenson.

At best it is a disputed assertion, and at worst it is demonstrably false. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss separate issues separately. "Freeptard" is used on the FR site, as a quick Google check shows. The term certainly isn't use to refer to any other webiste or movement, at least that I am aware of. Can anyone give a good reaon why it's being deleted? -Will Beback 10:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that a Google search for "Freeptard" yields 1,490 hits. If the complaint is that there's "only one source" we can add hundreds. I think the Urban Dictionary link is the best one, though. It constitutes an tabulation of public opinion. When the question is the currency and meaning of a contemporary slang term, that's a reliable source. JamesMLane t c 11:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think this is a rather trivial issue.

The poorly sourced Andy Stephenson accusations, however, are another matter altogether.

Is there an objective, unbiased source that has documented "stalking," i.e. physical harrassment, of the late Mr. Stephenson on the part of individual FReepers?

I'm aware of the Paypal issue, but questioning the severity of his medical condition does not constitute "stalking." Ruthfulbarbarity 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, let's discus issues one at a time. I won't refactor these commetns, but I suggest that disucssions of Stpehenson and Paypal my be started below. Getting back to the matter at hand, does Ruthfulbarbarity mean that "Freeptard" is not objectionable in the article? -Will Beback 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

User:RWR8189 wrote about a term 'Reaper' saying ``never heard of this one, besides which, do we need a laundry list of terms in this article?

I don't object to Freeptard. I've heard it plenty of times before on DU, and a google search turns up lots of hits. However, there's a new entry for a term "Reapers" that I can't say I've heard used much on DU. Is it from another site? One that I have heard used a lot is "Repug" but that is used for Republicans in general, not just people from Free Republic. So, I mildly object to "Reaper" on the grounds that it is not widely used slang on FR or DU.

Full disclosure: I am the one who posted the term "DUmmie"

Lastly, I do think a lexicon is a useful section to have. Many sites have their own jargon, and FreeRepublic.com is no exception. I think the DU page could use a lexicon, as well. Gregarious Lonewolf 03:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been looking around on DU and FR and have not seen the term Reaper used. I'm not sure there is justification to put this in the lexicon, and unless someone objects, I amd going to remove it. Gregarious Lonewolf 21:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Andy Stephenson

Here is a place to discuss the Stephenson matter. -Will Beback 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

immigration

The moderators on Free Republic often ban, without warning or explanation, posters who criticize...the Bush Administration's policies on immigration

Completely and totally WRONG. Most of FR members are vehemently opposed to President Bush's immigration proposals. They are very rarely banned.

Anthrax arrest and FR

We'll have to wait for confirmation from WP RS V sources, but this should have legs.

Man arrested in fake anthrax attacks an avid free republic poster - F.A.A.F.A. 07:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This information cannot be included in the article until it is verified by a reliable source. This is all original research and cannot be included in the article. Even if it is correct, remember that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --RWR8189 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also note that by implicating this FR poster with the man arrested without verification violates WP:BLP and can be removed with impunity and is not subject to the 3RR rule.--RWR8189 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I personally despise freepers. But it's unfair to blame entire FR for the acts of one of its users.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lamrock (talk • contribs) .

Expanding that section to take up half the article is a travesty. That it is even in the article at all is questionable, but putting in forum posts as sources is rabidly unnaceptable. Stop. JBKramer 21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The current paragraph is perfect until and unless something is proven, and even then it should only be changed in detail and not size. BenBurch 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Radar copying and pasting the unverified claims made on DU or other blogs does not satisfy WP:BLP and is potentially libelous. Until the connection is verified it should not be mentioned in the article.--RWR8189 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not an accurate reading of the purpose of WP:BLP. The claim is that radar reported x. Radar is a reliable source. They reported x. We are safe from charges of libel and defamation. JBKramer 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That is how I read this too. Just as if the NYT or WP had reported it. BenBurch 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

After re-reading WP:BLP I agree that the current wording is sufficient for now.--RWR8189 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

While I won't engage in any more edit warring, I will ask that this portion of WP:BLP be remembered:

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we? --RWR8189 21:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree *COMPLETLY* - the section is *INCREDIBLY* lame to include in this article. However, as you well know, people with important political fights to engage in on wikipedia will insist that something be included - links to non notable blogs, paragraphs about irrelevent lawsuits, stuff like that. Hell - I can't even keep the longer, BLP violating version of the paragraph out, because some revert warrior is logging out to try to undo it. So much for compromise - if only both sides could be flexible. JBKramer 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this dispute to WP:BLPN.--RWR8189 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm adopting a 'wait and see' approach regarding this issue, as I'm condfident more notable sources will pick it up soon - but do want to note that the FR 'friendly' editors seem to have had very few concerns over the flimsy sourcing contending that FR and some of the posters there were instrumental in exposing the 'Killian Documents' incident. (Rathergate) - F.A.A.F.A. 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Gee, if only everyone could be flexible. JBKramer 22:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am watchlisting and will revert to the consensus version if I see it change. BenBurch 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's more documentation from the Raw Story Raw Story Anthrax Arrest - F.A.A.F.A. 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, in spite of my being a friend of Larissa's, that Raw Story qualifies as [[WP:RS}}. Has that ever been determined? BenBurch 00:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

- Go ahead and leave it as long as you are consistent. If someone who has edited Wikipedia ever does anything you need to put that in the Wikipedia article, and the same for every MySpace incident, and Democratic Underground. You must treat every website consistently or its not NPOV.24.144.27.33 00:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We are likely to have an article about the suspect, Castagana, at some point. His participation in FR and other online forums should be a major part of that article. But from what I can tell he was not a significant participant of FR. He wasn't a moderator or even a prolific contributor. However FR has been mentioned in the coverage, so it is relevant to mention the case here due to the notoriety. As of this writing, the text is just one long sentence. And yes, Larisa Alexandrovna is a respectable journalist. -Will Beback 00:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

He was a fairly prolific commenter, I'd say--he wrote 1141 posts over a period of 262 days. At one point he even mentioned that 'someone' should find out where Olbermann lives and "mail him a Ted Kazcinski (sic) letter", yet was never banned. -- Anonymous, 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Will, I will add RawStory's article as a link. BenBurch 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I keep having to revert this article. I have one more left today, then somebody else will have to revert it. BenBurch 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The information that 68.82.82.248 constantly adds is in violation of WP:BLP and can be reverted with impunity.--RWR8189 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Somebody keeps adding a Clown Posse link that I think was removed by consensus long ago. How should we deal with that? I think, like the similar links in other articles, links to blogs and message boards are not appropriate. BenBurch 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

IIRC consensus was reached on that link a while ago as well, and I agree with your edit summary. Either way the anon editor violates 3RR next time he puts it back in.--RWR8189 02:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The only link to FR seems to be the Raw Story article. The Raw Story article doesn't confirm it's him, rather it reports that "bloggers are convinced". Hardly seems enough to implicate Free Republic although it desereves mention on Keith Olbermann page (sans FR mention) until confirmed. This is a "false light" libel argument and unless someone can provide more concrete evidence that the arrested person is exactly the poster on FR, it should be removed from the article. Tbeatty 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means, look into it. The Free Republic account was originally found by searching for text from known Chad Castagana posts. They share penchants for Science Fiction, electronics, and Katherine Harris. The e-mail address listed on Marc Costanzo's Free Republic profile was most recently maldarrin@aol.com, and previously Zopix2@yahoo.com. The first e-mail address is also tied to posts at the Yahoo! Ann Coulter fan club group (made under Yahoo! account Zopix2) and posts at the IMDB as Maldarrin, where he approvingly mentions Joe Bob Briggs--much as Chad Castagna does. And it just goes on and on like that... -- Anonymous, 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this has been my preferred position since its inclusion in the article.--RWR8189 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Would Jimrob have diced the account if it were not the same person? BenBurch 04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd have to ask him. Inferring that is the reason he did is original research.--RWR8189 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly if the account holder requested it. Imagine the hate mail that account would have received. I would request that Wikipedia delete my account if I was getting the kind of attention (i.e. linked to felony). And if I was Jimbo I would delete an account that was causing that much negative publicity to the site regardless of guilt or innocence. I would ask them to create a new account if they wanted to continue participating. --Tbeatty 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Original Research AND Crystal Ballism! Hmmmmm - Isn't Will Berback (who argues the short paragraph is OK) some kind of Super Admin? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Speculating about why the account was deleted is Crysal Ball work. Speculating about the owner of the account is Original Research. And Will Bebacks contribution is here and doesn't say anything of the sort of what you said. Why is this paragraph in there again? Tbeatty 04:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't say anything of the sort? "However FR has been mentioned in the coverage, so it is relevant to mention the case here due to the notoriety. As of this writing, the text is just one long sentence. And yes, Larisa Alexandrovna (Raw Story) is a respectable journalist. -Will Beback" What's your interpetation of what he's 'saying' Beatty?- F.A.A.F.A. 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Source - http://www.nypost.com/seven/11142006/news/regionalnews/air_america_mail_scare_regionalnews_.htm BenBurch 14:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Another Source (video) - http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??g=d477c361-28d0-4b61-9acb-4c6ee61cd12e&f=00&fg=copy Right after the Borat piece that leads this. I am not even sure how one would cite a video (or audio) on Wiki! BenBurch 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'M CURIOUS

I haven't spent much time on this article, and I had never even heard of the 'Clown Posse Forum' until just now. Why is it that a link to the Clown Posse forum (forum critical of FR) is prohibited for this article, but links to CU, and DUFU (DU critical sites) are allowed for the DU article? No Comprende! - F.A.A.F.A. 04:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Look around that forum, I don't see any connection to FR either implied or expressed.--RWR8189 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep looking it's there, RWR8189. I recall they named that section "Kook Kronicles". However, the DUFU link doesn't belong on the DU article. And I won't make a different judgement on this equivalent link here even though there isn't much chance of having DUFU removed from the DU article. BenBurch 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like that section discusses a variety of conservative forums, not just FR, definitely not an equivalent to DUFU IMO.--RWR8189 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Clown Posse is the only site founded and maintained by and for the original Anti-Freepers - a group founded in 1999. I understand how one might miss that fact after a perfunctory perusal of CP, but would be happy to direct any questioners to the numerous threads and posts which prove it. Many of those threads are hidden in the CP archives, which wouldn't be "archives" were it not for the fact that *freepers* have managed to stifle our criticisms and exposure of them, forcing us to move from server to server, until now. I would think the matter of FReepers' stifling of free speech would be noteworthy in and of itself. ;) - Previous unsigned comment by User:Damsel cp

It is still a blog, and as such, still not notable. Dominick ^(TALK) 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dominick , Would you join us at [Talk:Democratic Underground] please? I think your view on the matter of the blog links there would be valuable. BenBurch 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A dispute here does not match the dispute there. CP and Dummie Funnies are different animals. DUFU is a direct satire. If it is not obvious to a very casual reader that CP is a FR satire site, or that CP is as notable DUFU. they it is a different grey area. Frankly, wikipedia doesn't need blog sources, and frankly half the MSM sources we use would also get removed IF I were king. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur that there are differences, and that the blogs are very different animals. They are both still blogs. I think the ONLY way a blog should make it into an article not about itself is if multiple mainstream sources cite that blog on a matter that would be in the article anyway, and where that citation is required to make sense of the matter, or if the article could not stand on its own without. For example an article about DUFU *must* mention DU because that is the only reason DUFU exists and the article could not stand without such mention. The criticism of Clown Posse is not required to make sense of the FR article, and the satire of DUFU is not required to make sense of the DU article. Now, mentioning DUFU in its context as a regular feature on Free Republic is FINE, and as FR is appropriately linked on the DU article, the information remains accessible without bruising the no blogs rule! Were Clown Posse to be a regular popular feature on DU (fat chance) then there would be an analogous situation. BenBurch 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

'Anthrax' dicussion - day two

I'm changing the name of this section to 'man arrested in bioterror threats alleged to have been FR member'

1) he was arrested and charged for this. 2) He sent letters to senators, Why was olbermann the only name listed? - F.A.A.F.A. 19:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

More documentation AND some levity - funny graphic Zaius Nation - F.A.A.F.A. 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE - Started an article on Chad. Big segment on him and FR on Keith Olbermann just now. John Cook from Radar Online interviewed. FR was directly mentioned. Transcript should be up tomorrow. Chad Castagana - F.A.A.F.A. 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather biased for a wiki article, and is tangentally related to FR. Dominick ^(TALK) 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Dominick, I am certain that "Mercilessly Edited" will kick in for that article presently. :-) BenBurch 06:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Captkangeroo is quite the writer! - F.A.A.F.A. 06:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

update Jim Bob has admiited that Castagana was a member "Unfortunately, looks like this guy did have an FR account. And even more unfortunately, we had not caught him yet. Chasing down Marc Costanzo's IP address and other Internet footprints, looks like he had at least four earlier FR accounts, each of which had been banned. He was a "retread troll." It happens. Jim Robinson" [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738800/posts thread] - F.A.A.F.A. 06:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So the fake anthrax antics were not planned on FR, they only have a tangential relationship. I would like to say this is not worthy of inclusion here. If they are, then did he have an AOL account? Did he read the NY Times? Did he eat at McDonalds? If it is worthy of inclusion here then anyhting he may have been participaring in should have his inclusion. Including him is a partisan attempt to unjustly link Free Republic with an act of terrorism. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim Robinson confirms it was a Freeper

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738800/posts

Also, several Freepers are going to try vandalizing the article today. I'd suggest adding the Jim Robinson reference and then locking it. At least until the next death threat from the group. So basically, lock it for 2 hours. lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) .

It doesn't matter, this wasn't planned, executed or even tolerated on FR. If he was a sometime poster on DU, would that mean we include it there as well? How about if he ate breakfast at Denny's where he read a newspaper, do we edit the Denny's entry to include the fact that the fake anthrax terrorist ate at Denny's? This inclusion lacks merit on it's face. Dominick ^(TALK) 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You have a valid point. Somebody who used my website once killed his wife and then himself, and I do not feel responsible. Nutjobs hang out everywhere online. But the question arises, how then can FR take credit for the Killian documents? Sure it was posted there. But it would have been posted somewhere else had FR not been around. I think a neutral statement linking the malefactor's own Wiki page might be appropriate? Like; "Chad Castagana, accused by the FBI of sending terroristic fake anthrax letters to Liberal politicians and celebrities was a Freeper, and had been banned from Free Republic several times under various usernames." What say you good people? BenBurch 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, lets write, "Chad Castagana, accused by the FBI of sending terroristic fake anthrax letters to Liberal politicians and celebrities, eats breakfast at Dennys, uses AOL for internet, joined Sams club, had a library card and lets his wife vote on American Idol." None of the activities in question were coordinated, alluded to, or even known on FR. Nobody had any idea he was a terrorist. FR posting is tangential to this persons sick act of attacking a Congress critter. My point Ben is that he didn't use any FR resources to commit, plan, or even brag about this act. He was not a heavy poster, and he is not a chapter member as far as I know. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does look like he posted what in retrospect was a brag, but it would have been hard to see it as such at the time as violent rhetoric directed at Liberal targets is fairly common on FR, and is generally understood to be just words in venting. BenBurch 17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (Here is the link [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1706871/posts?page=6#6] BenBurch 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

I would not characterize that as indicating anthrax. As you recall Kazinski was a political liberal and used a bomb. Idiots abound. Dominick ^(TALK) 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, somebody will without a doubt keep adding NNPOV versions of this story indefinitely unless we have *some* mention here. I don't think we want to revert that until the end of time. BenBurch 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not take that as a good enough reason for inclusion. You didn't address my problem with the story. It is apparently there to make the reader conclude, as you may have, that FR breeds terrorists. IMHO, this violates NPOV by inclusion since FR had nothing to do with this moron. Anyone can register, and anyone can post. Anyone can eat at McDonalds, if he ate at McDs, does that mean hamburgers cause terrorism? Dominick ^(TALK) 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That isn't my conclusion at all! What breeds terrorists is disaffection. The malefactor in this case was a 39 year old unemployed electronics noodler who lived with his Mom and posted right-wing screeds and stalkerish peans to busty conservative media figures. All Free Republic did was provide a place where he thought he could get away with posting that sort of thing. But the story is now tied inextricably to Free Republic, even if that is not fair in the slightest. Much like the suicide of Vince Foster was tied to the Clintons, or the death of William Casey by brain cancer has been tied to the Reagan administration. Neither one is fair, but both are inextricable ties that would be appropriate for a neutral mention in articles about either. BenBurch 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There WAS something fishy about Vince Foster. (thats a joke, but it was like a sardine) My apologies, I should not have put words in your mouth. He didn't use FR for anything related to the anthrax terror scare. It is patently unfair to include it here. I would say it is linked because some people have agendas, and wikipedia should not perpetuate that. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if you don't want to have a revert war, leave my neutral mention there for at least a few weeks. This is now too widely known not to have hoards descending on this page to add paragraphs and paragraphs on this that would be NNPOV in the extreme. And I'd observe than the two other cases I mentioned were only linked because people had agendas as well. BenBurch 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that I agree completly with Dominick that any mention of "some freeper did x" is totally unnaceptable irrelevent content for this crappy article. JBKramer 19:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to edit mercilessly until it is neither crappy nor lame! That's what we are here for, right? BenBurch 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben has a point, but JBK does too. A lot of freepers think this article and wikipedia in general reflects a slant. Watch it closely, and lets monitor the debate. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

<-- It's not the slant, it's the constant low-grade edit warring by people who are not here only for the purpose of informing people about stuff. JBKramer 20:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But that is how the slant arises, isn't it? BenBurch 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

(UI)A Pro FR slant? I agree, to have a long glowing paragraph about how important certain FR posters, and the forum itself was in the role of exposing the 'Killian documents', but attempting to sweep this issue under the rug - a FR member who had over 1000 posts using his last FR username - a member who posted ABOUT his actions on FR after the fact - with a sig line that said 'name your poison' is WAY POV and slanted in FR's favor. Lets try to reach a NPOV. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV would be to remove it entirely. Like I said over and over again, he did not use FR or talk on FR concerning his attack. The only reason for inclusion would be to try and smear FR with a terrorist link. Accusing a site like FR with supporting or fostering terrorism by linking it with a sometime user lunatic is POV. Counts of 1000 postings on FR is nothing for most users. If we link him with FR, like I said before, then we have a million things that he can be linked. Does he eat at Dennys for example. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say he didn't talk about the attacks on FR . I thought it was fairly clear that he'd done so before and after sending the letters. -Will Beback · † · 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed he did mention the letters and talked of anthrax. He never did say "I sent them," but clearly he was fishing for validation and got some. BenBurch 22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

To contend that any editor here is 'accusing FR with supporting or fostering terrorism', is the antithesis of AGF. This is a notable event in FR's history and as such, inclusion is mandated. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to link FR with a terrorist to support a foregone conclusion, then it must be included. So much for fairness. We wonder why people come here and criticize the article, it is because of this bias. If the person was in a yahoo chatroom doing this would we include his crimes on the yahoo page? If he discussed it over breakfast at Waffle House should we not post he did this and talked at Waffle House?Dominick ^(TALK) 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if Waffle House had the sort of press for his eating there that FR has had for him being a poster, you could reasonably include that in the article on Waffle House. BenBurch 23:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So now that your claim that Castagana "did not talk on FR concerning his attack" has been proven flase, you are arguing that documenting his link to FR means that it's a 'foregone conclusion' that anyone reading the article will think FR supports terrorism? I don't agree. Doesn't FR have some sort of warning about not threatening people, posting libelous claims, etc? If so, we could include that too, so people understand FR does not support terrorism. OK? (I wish we had the Waffle House chain in California! I love waffles!) - F.A.A.F.A. 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing was proven false. He did not coordinate these attacks on FR. Your goal is to link FR to a terrorist attack and it is inherently PoV. Dominick ^(TALK) 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(UI) AGF. I have no such goal, and I ask that you quit insulting me and violating WP. AGF is not an option.

Re Olbermann and Chad:

Last September, Keith Olbermann got a threatening letter in his mail which spewed out white powder, Olbermann freaked out :-0 ""That Monosodium Glutamate will kill you every time :-)

Keith is a whiny little b@tch !

Accepting that, I do not believe he sent it to himself .

But that is just guess work . 215 posted on 10/28/2006 10:10:28 AM PDT by marc costanzo (Name your poison :-))[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727261/posts?page=230#230 see]

Please don't delete this sourced, documented content again. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 04:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So much for fairness, currently you cant list things about a person that take inference or sourced directly. Thats is WP:BIO says you can't use a crystal ball to tar an individual. Text removed. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)