Talk:Free Republic

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free Republic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Attacks on Obama family

This section seems to be unnecessary and not notable. It concerns a single thread on a site that has thousands of them. One effect of it, intended or not, is to demean the subject of the article. Unless there is some reasoned opposition, I intend to delete it. --Lou Sander (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The incident received media coverage and can be kept in the article.—goethean ॐ 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why should it be kept? And if it is kept, why shouldn't the material from the posts be included? --Lou Sander (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any material which was covered by the media (in this case, the Sun article) can be included in the article.—goethean ॐ 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations in the Vancouver Sun give a taste of the tone (excuse the mixed metaphor) of the discussions on the website which is the subject of the article. I think that the article should include more quotations from the thread which were covered by the news article. The quotations give insight regarding the subculture which the website cultivates --- an angry, racist, irrational group.—goethean ॐ 14:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with goethean that the material now in the article should remain. The site has thousands of threads but very few of them attract coverage in other media. This is an opportunity for us to give our readers information about the site by reporting the observations of a third party.

On the other hand, the coverage doesn't need to be extremely detailed. We now have one quotation from the Free Republic thread. I'm skeptical about whether additional quotations would add much; I suggest that proposed language be posted her for discussion. JamesMLane t c 15:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. --BenBurch (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the Vancouver Sun article, Chris Parry, is a member of a rival progressive website and has made extremely inflammatory and contemptuous posts there. His bias against Free Republic has been thoroughly exposed. If we're going to include his article as a reliable source, and quote from it for an entire paragraph, then we'll need to qualify all that with information about Parry's bias. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary to talk about the author; it's not as if he needs to spin comments like "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds." Besides, if you were to document the bias of every writer cited in wikipedia in the very article, it would take years to do the whole wiki. 188.95.42.176 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheap shot

"One thing that apparently won't result in a ban: using the site solely to boost Web ranking for your child porn site." Quite an accusation, given that an actual child porn site would be illegal. Sitting there in the article with little context, and effectively having the last word.

I'm no friend of Free Republic, but this is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going back on forth on whether to include it. I decided to leave it in, but am certainly open to a debate on the subject. I would ordinarily consider it a non-notable criticism, but it is likely more notable here when charged against a website full of "morality police." I also tried to make the statement a little less ambigous. I've removed the weasel word "critics" and named the specific critic. There may be other "critics" who have made a similar point, but the one I linked was where the quote actually came from. If we are going to include a direct quote, then we should definitely credit the quote in-line. The sentence has become a bit unweildy and someone with a better command of proper grammar may wish to take a look and rearrange it a bit. Sperril (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an opinion, and we report facts about opinions. The mainstream media don't give much coverage to political message boards, so when they do, any such criticism is probably notable enough to be reported. The way to balance it would be to include anything that Robinson or some FR supporter has said on the subject. JamesMLane t c 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The line is absolutely a cheap shot, out of context and placed without response at the very end to make it appear Free Republic supports child porn. Given that Free Republic is a Judeo-Christian site with a strong Second Amendment focus, the last place in the world a child pornographer would want to show up is on Free Republic, they'd be hunted down like vermin. If this is the quality of editing, I hope to be fair you will edit the Planned Parenthood entry to reflect they are child killers, and since the ACLU represents NAMBLA surely they must supprt child sodomy. I mean, why not add a throw away line claiming everyone on the right is a child molester (though sexual freedom has long been a cause of the left), why be fair when you can just make up some thin accusation to sully an organization's name for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.244.157 (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's a cheap shot, take it up with the Salon article, wherein it is demonstrated that accounts linking to child pornography remain unhindered on Free Republic even while "RINOs" are banned en masse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.242.54.162 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, while Free Republic is filled with troglodyte opinions, they aren't child pornographers. It should be removed. -GMcG

I also agree it should be removed. And I've belonged to DU since '03.198.228.228.27 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of purges

I have not been to this article in quite a while, but I thought that I remembered once there was at least a capsule history of "purges" that have happened frequently on the Free Republic forum, often of high-profile "Freepers" or forum members. This is a pretty important topic essential to the understanding of Free Republic's history. The arbitrary nature of the Free Republic ownership in conducting these purges is noteworthy. B. Polhemus (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some lead text.

"For each article, the forum's main page typically shows its headline, plus the first 100 words of the article as posted to Free Republic. Users can see the full article at its original source by clicking a hyperlink beneath the headline." This seemed to go against wikipedia's "what wikipedia is not" guideline; specifically, about a how-to manual type thing. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic blacklisted by Wikipedia?!?!

My eyes widened in disbelief when I got the following "Spam filter notice" while making a link to a Free Republic page (dated 2001) from another Wikipedia talk page: "The following link has triggered a protection filter: www [dot] freerepublic [dot] com. Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked."

FYI, the incriminated post, part of which is blacklisted by… Wikipedia, is the following, on the Vladimir_Bukovsky page, and perceptive readers will note that, ironically, it discussed… censorship!

I was amazed to see the use of the word "alleged" in the following External Links item:

"Voices of Dissent An expose film of alleged human rights abuse presented by Vladimir Bukovsky (2006)".

So now the KGB must be given the benefit of the doubt, not only during the period that the Kremlin's police did its (mis)deeds, but even 21 years (!) after the Soviet Union collapsed?!

In light of the — continued — whitening of the KGB, along with charges of Bukovsky lying, no wonder Pajamas Media published an article (The Greatest Subversive of Our Times by Michael Ledeen, 29 December 2012) speaking of the times that Vladimir Bukovsky "was subjected to the KGB’s infamous psychological and biochemical torments during his years in prison and the camps." And you still believe that "alleged" belongs in the description of that exposé film?!

Then, of course, it's easier to understand when one learns that the Russian cannot get certain books published in the West because they reveal [the following five words linked to www dot freerepublic dot com /focus/f-news/536808/posts] Soviet support of Western leftists [a direct redirect link being impossible on this page because a conservative internet forum is… blacklisted by… Wikipedia!!] ("Vladimir Bukovsky has written a richly detailed, heavily documented account of how the Soviet Union aided Palestinian militants, Latin American revolutionaries, and even America's Black Panther movement. Based on materials unearthed in Russian archives, 'Judgment in Moscow' also discloses Moscow's clandestine efforts to manipulate public opinion throughout the West."). Asteriks (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion

The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227012239/http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/3408 to http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/3408

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Racist site

Shouldn't Free Republic be described as an overtly racist site? The things people write about minorities, especially Muslims, is extremely racist. (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:5075:628B:59FB:3143 (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Free Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Russian and Pro-Putin bias

Starting with the February 24, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine the site has noticeably demonstrated a prevailing bias in favor of Russia and in favor of Vladimir Putin. While some posters are tolerated for pro-Ukrainian stances several pro-Ukrainian posters have been banned from the site. Many of the pro-Russian posters state consistently anti-American views which would seem to be at odds with the founding principles of the site. While unsubstantiated there have been recurring allegations that some of the pro-Russian posters are paid 'trolls' due to apparently coordinated messaging among the pro-Russian posters. 2600:1700:C870:4950:3599:9F2D:AA93:CE01 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]