Talk:Free Dominion

Untitled

Hi there. I joined Free Republic back in 2001 and soon heard about Free Dominion there. I participated for several years in Free Dominion under the username "Ipberg" and generally agree with the conservative viewpoint of its administrators and majority of members. However I was banned from Free Dominion so I'm unconvinced about its claim to be a haven for free speech.

-

Hey Ipberg.

Fixed the status by deleting the paragraphs that pertain to the 'haven of free speech.' I agree it's not always up to standard. - Knave.

I was recently banned too, under the 'hairyvarmit' username, apparently for repeatedly bringing up the Conservative Party's support for Iraq in 2003. I pointed out that while support for the war was strong when it began, two and a half years later they will only say that if elected, they will not send troops to Iraq. It seems that tight party discipline is being enforced to try to suppress any discussion of previous support for the Americans in Iraq because it would have a negative effect on the 2006 election campaign.

Yes, it does make their claim to be a haven for free speech look a bit thin.

Parts of being banned for having different views is completely bias, and should be left out in the interest of being neutral.

Grammar

This sentence:

However, both sides of the abortion debate (but predominantly pro-life activists), religious groups, Western and Albertan secessionists, some annexationists, and some libertarians, among many others.

needs to be corrected for improper grammar.

Conservatives versus Tories

The sentences

Tories, Red Tories, and other moderate conservatives are not generally welcome on the site, and users consistently posting comments contrary to the viewpoints of the forum's owners are banned from further posting.

and

The foremost federal political party supported is the Conservative Party, but supporters for smaller conservative parties participate as well. There have been a small number of contributors who are linked to far-right extremist groups.

seem to be in conflict, as "Tory" is a colloquial term for "supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada". GCarty 09:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Colloquial it may be, but that does not make it correct from a philosophical or historical point-of-view. Tory and Red Tory have a much different meaning than the warmed-over Republicanism of the CPC. See the Tory and Red Tory articles in Wikipedia. As well, I am a life-long and seventh-generation Canadian Conservative who rejects the new-conservative ideology of the CPC. There are many more like me. That is why Harper cannot get a majority, and continues to struggle in Ontario and the East.TrulyTory 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The sentence also goes against NPOV. It is the personal view of the poster that he or she were banned based on their political views, but could be for a very different reason.

What a bunch of nut jobs.

Unnecessary demands for citation

This is about the unncessary and unjustified demand for citation for this paragraph:

"A fringe element of contributors have been linked to far-right extremist groups, and some of the more controversial posts have incuded holocaust denial, advocacy of violence, racial jokes and hatred against Muslims and homosexuals. Some users who have made overtly racist comments, used offensive language in posts, or promoted violence have been banned from posting.[1] Others have been tolerated or defended by the moderators. [citation]",

There are examples of this kind of stuff all the time on the Free Dominion forum. Anyone who denies this is ignorant or a liar. The recent thread on White Nationalism is a perfect example of that. The long-gone threads by Pity Sing about Olivia Chow, which were full of disgusting racism and sexism, were defended by the site owners as humourous. Almost every single thread on Muslims or gays also displauys a lot of bigotry and hatred.

Besides, a link to a particular thread might end up being useless later on, because the moderators have a habit of deleting entire threads that turn out to be embarassing after awhile. Either that, or the thread might disappear the next time the site crashes, which seems to be every few months.

It's not an "unnecessary and unjustified demand for citation". It's Wikipedia policy. If the link becomes useless later on because the thread has been deleted, then any mention of it must be deleted from Wikipedia. Otherwise we'll have no way to verify it. Please brush up on Wikipedia policy. --Cyberboomer 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV

Some superfluous and unnecessary paragraphs pertaining to content on Free Dominion has been deleted. Some paragraphs do not need as detailed explanations as posted. This is in the interests of maintaining a neutral POV. Knave 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Those paragraphs are not unnecessary. They are based on fact, not point of view. I re-deleted the one sentence that hasn't been verified though. Spylab 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This line;

"A fringe element of contributors have been linked to far-right extremist groups, and some of the more controversial posts have incuded holocaust denial, advocacy of violence, racial jokes and hatred against Muslims and homosexuals."

Is without citation. That was one of the targets of editing the last time, simply because they did not have links which backed them up. The lines afterward, I have no problem with as they're cited.

Knave 16:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation 1 and 2 (which you wanted to delete along with the lines you supposedly "have no problem with") address the topic of far-right groups, Holocaust denial, and racial jokes. As for the reference to anti-gay and anti-Muslim comments, and promotion of violence against political opponents, the Free Dominion forum is chock-full of them. To deny that is to deny reality, and would comprimise the neutral point of view.Spylabspylab

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification - I was merely looking for specific examples of political violence and anti-Muslim jokes, not just off-hand assertions that the forum is "chock full of them." I'll take your word for it, though... so don't get your back up.

Thank you.

Knave 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent attempts at rewriting

I understand how some people might view the current stable version as being anti-FD, and I'll admit that I agree to some extent, but it is important to write a neutral article instead of replacing one POV with another.

Correcting the article is more productive as it keeps the links, both internal and external. An unsourced text with no sources and no internal links cannot be described as a progress in any case. — ABCXYZ (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is uniformly hostile. I myself have been banned from Free Dominion, but I think it is a haven of free speech compared with other websites here in Canada. I don't think we should rely on those who are bitter to FD to contribute to the article. Like it or not, it is an excellent board, with considerable discussion on all matters of interest to conservatives. It does not parrot the party doctrine of the Conservatives, and openly questions both the motivations and the success of their policies. In any case, discussions on content are counterproductive, as there is such a wide and broad range it is impossible to get an accurate survey in such a short article. Benkenobi18 21:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Errors in the Free Dominion page

I'm not going to edit it myself for obvious reasons, but there are some errors in the Free Dominion page.

First, it should be clarified that it was Mark Fournier, not Connie Fournier who ran for the Freedom Party in the Ontario election several years ago.

Also, there were five lawsuits, not two. And, the details are all mixed up between the two that are described in the article.

Richard Warman filed a defamation lawsuit against Free Dominion, Ezra Levant, the National Post and others. The other defendants have settled, but the Fourniers are still fighting it and expect a trial shortly.

Richard Warman and Warren Kinsella filed a defamation lawsuit against Free Dominion in 2008 and nothing has happened with it since.

Richard Warman filed a defamation lawsuit against Free Dominion and several John Does. That case was heard and the jury found for Richard Warman. It is currently under appeal and will likely be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the fall of 2015.

Richard Warman and the National Post filed a copyright lawsuit in Federal Court against Free Dominion. Free Dominion won that lawsuit and they appealed, then dropped it just before the appeal was set to be heard.

John Baglow (aka Dr. Dawg) filed a defamation lawsuit against Free Dominion and Roger Smith. It was dismissed on a summary judgment, appealed, sent back for a full trial, and decided in favour of Free Dominion.

The details in the article about Justice Kershman have to do with a motion within the John Doe case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connie Fournier (talk • contribs) 02:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Legal Section has a lot of errors

There were actually four lawsuits with Richard Warman (three for defamation and one for copyright). There was another one with John Baglow.

All of the lawsuit details are mixed up in the article. I don't think it is appropriate for me to edit the article myself, but the sections should either be deleted, or I can provide accurate information to someone if they want to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnieJFournier (talk • contribs) 21:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Connie Fournier article merge

Connie Fournier is principally know for Free Dominion and even her campaign against C-51 was notable, if at all, because she reopened the forum for that purpose. Is there any reason the articles can't be merged? 192.235.252.195 (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

IP 192.235.252.195 has followed the removal of much sourced content by tagging the article with "merge with Free Dominion article", THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY THE MERGER PROPOSAL IS A BAD IDEA:

• The merge proposal is unjustified: The Connie Fournier article amply satisfies the WP criteria to exist independently as a BLP.
• It is Connie Fournier who is the subject of the several Canadian national-media articles. It is Connie Fournier who was awarded the national Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal. It is Connie Fournier who was given the 2015 annual Ontario Civil Liberties Association award. It is Connie Fournier who is identified as having "eroded" the Stephen Harper base using her book Betrayed: Stephen Harper's war on principled conservatism: Harper Races Against Cracks Eroding His Base, The Tyee, 2015. The Connie Fournier article is not, contrary to the IP's additions, about "the Fourniers", nor is it about the lawsuits, except that Connie Fournier was a defendent.
• The BLP content about Connie Fournier does not belong in the Free Dominion article.
• The IP's allegations of COI are a separate matter that is irrelevant to the merge/delete question. I ask the IP to stop conflating these two distinct issues. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, two of the national media articles you cite are actually op-ed pieces (basically the same op-ed piece at that) by Connie Fournier herself.[1][2]. The Maclean's article mentions her in passing, at the very end, and in reference to the Free Dominion site: Open Media’s Steve Anderson eventually appeared along with Connie Fournier, who founded the Free Dominion website, which describes itself as a forum for the discussion of conservative philosophy and activism​" referring to their appearance at a paraliamentary committee hearing on C-51[3], The Tyee article also mentions her in reference to Free Dominion "Connie Fournier, founder of Free Dominion, said there are many Canadian conservatives who don't support the proposed Anti-Terrorism Act" and the same parliamentary hearing [4] and goes on to talk more about Free Dominion. The remaining three articles all deal with Free Dominion court cases[5][6][7]. The self-published book you mention is sold on Amazon but there are no reliable sources referencing it, no book reviews on any credible sites. As for the Queen's Jubilee Medal, over 60,000 of them were given out in Canada to all and sundry, receiving one is not justification for an article. The Connier Fournier article is basically a content fork of Free Dominion and so a merger is justified. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 13:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I should point out that User:Denis.g.rancourt is the COI editor who created the Connie Fournier article. He is part of an organization called the Ontario Civil Liberties Association and personally organized an award ceremony with her and also personally presented her with an award on behalf of the OCLA (as he mentions on his own page but is also information available online). 192.235.252.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

IP 192.235.252.195, I give the source for the book above: Harper Races Against Cracks Eroding His Base, The Tyee, 2015. It is the same and reliable media-venue that you use to argue merging: Right-wing Website Reboots to Fight Bill C-51, The Tyee, 2015.

Canada has four major established national media: CBC, Globe & Mail, National Post, and Macleans. Connie Fournier contributes to and is written about in all four.

Being a co-owner and founder of Free Dominion only adds to the BLP notability of Connie Fournier, it does not negate notability.

Your selective quotes from selected media are, in my view, self-serving, and do not represent the coverage of Connie Fournier.

The national medal was only given once, in the Jubilee anniversary year, to selected citizens, for contributions to Canada.

Your allegations about COI contain false statements and are not relevant to the question of your proposed merger. You were blocked from editing Ontario Civil Liberties Association for one month, and barred from WP for 31 hours, for persistently making such irrelevant allegations or disruptive edits. Please don't repeat that behaviour here. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You hosted the event on Facebook and this page says you organized it. I think your COI is fairly clear and, yes, it is relevant. If you like we can raise it at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard where you were previously noted to be in COI around the Ontario Civil Liberties Association article. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It would not matter if I had given birth to Connie Fournier, let alone co-host a Facebook event page for the OCLA award. The WP criteria for a BLP article are entirely based on sourced content. Again, stick to that. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

You were also asked by a senior editor to refrain from editing the Connie Fournier article. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Contributing to a media outlet is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia, if articles in which they're the bylined author of the content, rather than the subject of it, are your sources for their status as contributors. Writing a book is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia, if the publication details of the book, rather than media coverage about the book, are your sourcing for the book. Nor does a person get into Wikipedia by having their existence namechecked in coverage that isn't about them. Of all the sources you've added to this article, just four of them (#5, #7, #8 and #9) actually count for anything at all toward WP:GNG — and all four of those sources are covering her in the context of the website rather than as a separate topic in her own right. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to warrant spinning Connie Fournier off into a standalone article of her own as a separate topic from Free Dominion — it's the kind of sourcing that supports briefly discussing her in Free Dominion's article and not as a separate article in her own right. And yes, per our conflict of interest rules, it does matter if you have a direct affiliation of any kind with the article subject — while you're correct that our notability criteria for a standalone article are based on the quality of sourcing present in the article, your affiliation with the topic is leading you to an incorrect conclusion about whether our notability criteria have been passed by this sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I see reliable independent sources that mention or feature Fournier's contributions in matters distinct from Free Dominion: (1) on-going battle against Bill C-51, (2) opposition to Prime Minister Harper during a federal election using her book and despite being a known Conservative activist, and (3) successful campaign against the hate-speech provisions of the federal human rights code. In addition, she was a main defendant in major lawsuits tied to Free Dominion, which sources satisfy notability. The article's category is "Canadian activist" and few if any in this category have won three awards given for activism, including a national medal and a provincial civil liberties association award. I wonder if the WP notability test is not being taken too far here, especially in light of:

(A) the WP policy for proposed deletion of biographies of living people: "All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it may be proposed for deletion. The tag may not be removed until a reliable source is provided, and if none is forthcoming, the article may be deleted after seven days. This does not affect other deletion processes mentioned in BLP policy and elsewhere."

(B) The WP practice for the "Canadian activist" category has not been to negate BLP pages in such cases as this one. In fact, as I examine the articles in the "Canadian activist" category, I find that approximately 30-50% of the articles are much less supported by sources and outward signs of notability than the Fournier article. For example: Mark Freiman, Sylvain Abitbol, Herbert Brownstein, Hershell Ezrin, Moshe Ronen, and many many others.

You can disagree on my arguments without reference to COI: The arguments are either valid or flawed in their own right, irrespective of anything else. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• A new deletion tag/discussion has now been added by a new user to the Connie Fournier article, which I question as: How is this deletion discussion (Delete discussion page HERE) not a multiple-forum abuse? There is an extensive unresolved merge discussion for this article: HERE. The two discussions address the same question, independent notability of the BLP article. Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect: My vote is for redirect, with the lawsuit info merged (that which is not already there). Not quite forum-abuse, but damn close, I think - and it doesn't impress me, especially as their sole contributions are to this topic area. It's fair enough that you've pointed out the relevant discussion here. We really should keep this content focused, however. Chrisw80 (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)