Talk:Free Republic/Archive 7

An outside comment

I strongly second the recommendation for mediation. The dispute at this talk page has been "hot" far too long. Arbitration is a reasonable option here. I've initiated arbitration on another dispute that was intractable and the committee accepted the request and heard the case. That's a solution I've seriously contemplated for this dispute. If the participants here make some earnest effort at an alternative resolution I'll respect that. If the users here believe their content edits are neutral and exemplary, please demonstrate equivalent skill at dispute resolution. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing, even though I'd love to wash my hands of this article. Maybe if we do this we can get RWR back here. I respect him as an editor and he represents the "other side" in this very well. --BenBurch 23:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The only people really fighting tooth and nail are the sock or meat puppets of two users (one banned) trying to whitewash the article. They have a clear COI with FR, and even a history of fund raising for them. The others have come here to support them, or because they oppose BB and I from other interactions. Long term editors who are also active Freepers like RWR have raised no objections to the current article, which I feel is finally in pretty good shape. Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to author the RFM then? --BenBurch 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs formal mediation. I'd like to see RWR return and have an admin informally mediate, maybe asking for some third party opinions - insuring that this does NOT attract POV warriors from EITHER the left or the right. - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Formal mediation means that if we come up with a form of the article some warrior objects to, and he does the reversion game and the meat puppet game on it again, there will be consequences. I think we had a good article here finally after all this hassle, and if we are going to go through all of this again I want some insurance against sock puppets of Dino/Bryan. It might be a lack of AGF, but I just don't feel that episode is over yet. --BenBurch

Regarding Durova's comment, I would argue that editors of this article have a lot to lose if this ever goes to arbitration. A good mediator will be able to assist you in finding common ground. The additional advantage is that you get to learn to state your case to a non-involved person, and through that process hopelfulyl learn about the other side as well. Give a try, you may be surprised at the result. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi - you put in a lot of work mediating before a sock army invaded and derailed mediation - and are aware of the issues. Would you be willing to again, informally mediate? If so, I will make my best effort to keep my comments focused only on article related issues. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this case has gone beyond what an informal mediator can handle. In this case, an experienced mediator is required (not that Jossi isn't experienced), and formal mediation will move this forward in the dispute resolution process, should arbitration eventually be needed. However, I do not speak for Jossi of course. Prodego ^talk 23:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If I am going to spend any more time on this it has to be with a formal mediator. Otherwise Free Republic will be out of business and its domain name hosting detergent coupons before this article achieves anything like a good and permanent state. --BenBurch 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dino just announced he was going on Wikibreak, and I plan on waiting to hear from TJ Walker/APJ regarding Dino's 'claims' before I agree to enter any mediation with him. Lets see where things stand at the end of this week. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The only trouble I have with him taking a break is that the LEGAL THREAT is still on his user talk page. If he does not remove that before going, he ought to come back to an indefinite block. You just cannot do that sort of thing and be allowed to get away with it. --BenBurch 00:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure you can get away with it. You need to remember blocks are not punitive, they are preventive. If he is not explicitly threatening to sue Wikipedia, then he is not harming Wikipedia, and therefore, does not need to be blocked. Especially if he is not editing. No one should ever "come back" to an indefinite block. Prodego ^talk 00:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

But he *is* explicitly threatening Wikipedia as I read what he wrote there. I'm going to drop this now, but it does not make me happy whatsoever. --BenBurch 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Convincing the Wiki bookkeeper (who isn't even an active editor) to edit the article on his behalf, to his POV, based on his claims that he spoke to a noted author who supposedly 'admitted' to him that he plagiarized (or worse) one of his own articles, under threats or implications of a lawsuit from the org that he claims to be an attorney for IS NOT HARMING WIKIPEDIA??? (sorry for shouting ;-) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to think it is. I dearly wish I could just forget about all of this! If I did not think that he was doing harm by those actions I would have done so long ago. I am sick to my core over this. --BenBurch 01:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Then file the RfM. Prodego ^talk 01:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't file an RfM or agree to one until I hear from TJ Walker/APJ. I just removed my name from the sandbox version too. - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Please don't edit that (since you are certainly involved) unless you intend to file it. If it is filed, then you can decline it if you wish, but until then it is in my userspace, and... Prodego ^talk 01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - sorry - I thought my name being on it meant I agreed to it. - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Nope, that goes in the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section. Is anyone interested in filing this case? Prodego ^talk 01:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If I decide to stay on Wikipedia, I'll file it. But I think I am just going to say "Fuck It" because Between the revenge RfC and the fact that sock puppets get to play here and make legal threats I am about totally fed up with this whole process. --BenBurch 02:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I take the allegation about a banned user evading the ban very seriously. Please submit specific evidence with page diffs at my user talk if you'd like me to investigate that. Due to the time that's elapsed since the original account was banned this would probably require old fashioned gumshoe work instead of checkuser. Due to hardware difficulties my responses may be slow. Durova^Charge! 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There has already been a checkuser. Prodego ^talk 02:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I regret I ever tried to keep BryanFromPalatine from abusing use with sockpuppets. I should just have washed my hands of it right then. Because all of the grief I have been having these last three months has been from pursuing his sock puppets and they are many. This just sucks. I try very hard to keep this sort of thing off Wikipedia and it becomes a reason to abuse me. --BenBurch 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't let him get to you... keep your cool, let him continue to self-destruct, and justice will take its course. I've been there, done that, the process works... eventually. - Merzbow 04:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm working 15 hour days here running two different radio networks and my archives too. I am about worn down by this whole thing. What I fail to understand at all is how DeanHinnen who is almost certainly a sock of BryanFromPalatine is allowed to remain here. And allowed to threaten us legally. And allowed to create new socks all the time with the claim that each and every one is some other family member. Man, I filed process after process on these sock puppets and the checkuser checks almost always came back positive and now, suddenly, I'm the bad guy because I did that. Worse, I am an evil cabal. And almost nobody wants to say anything nice about me in my RfC, so what am I to think? Maybe I don't belong here. I have RJensen in the RFC saying things about my activity in the Henry Ford article that are simply not so and I cannot even respond as I am not allowed to even edit in that section, and I feel helpless. And TBeatty goes and certifies the basis for the dispute AFTER he had written a comment on it, and that was irregular as hell and nobody says a damned thing. And he was never party to the dispute to begin with, he just joined as a way to abuse me further. So what am I to think, eh? --BenBurch 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - you guys don't realise that what we are going through now, we (Ben more than I) went through with EACH of Bryan's sock puppets - one after another - hours and days and WEEKS of BULLSHIT. Wiki is BROKEN. It FAVORS trolls and sockpuppets through anonymity and by letting people create DOZENS of accounts. For Wiki to work again, EVERY post should show the IP of the poster. (maybe for the first 90 days of each new account) and NO anon posting. You don't sign up for an account - you don't post. Fairness & Accuracy For All 05:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

RFM

I started a page to work on the RfM here the filing party (whoever is first I suppose) should start to fill it out there, until it is complete. Then follow the instructions to file it. No other involved party should edit it until it is complete and filed. Obviously who ever files may edit how they wish, but what is filled is should be done correctly (unless I screwed up), so you probably should just ignore that. Prodego ^talk 00:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Tuesday

FAAFA, has there been any response from AmericanPolitics.com or TJ Walker? If not, I expect you to honor your promise and remove the reference to that libelous article. Thank you. I've also posted my portion of the RfM. If either of you have any gripes about me, post them there after it's filed. Dino 14:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm... Dean, my good friend, that article was removed from this article long ago. --BenBurch 14:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Under "References," please look at #3: "^ Walker, TJ. "DeathThreat.com" (archive link, was dead; history) , American Politics Journal." Carefully preserved with a link to an archived copy of the libelous article, even though AmericanPolitics.com, a partisan left-wing website, was prudent enough to remove the libelous article from their own pages weeks ago. That article is still in this article. Not just in the article, but in THE LEAD of the article, with the words "death threats." Something I notice that the Democratic Underground article has been spared from experiencing, despite the fact that death threats against government officials have been posted there as well, and much more recently.

This libelous material should be out of the article, and the lead of the article should more closely resemble the lead to the Democratic Underground article. Let's start with that. I'm going to get back to my Wikibreak. Dino 15:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is only libelous if untrue. Nothing untrue about it that I can see. --BenBurch 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Republic policy is to delete any threat of violence instantly and ban the person who posted it. You are aware of that policy. The allegation is that a death threat against a sitting President and his wife and daughter were allowed to exist on that website for several months, and only removed under political pressure. It is a false allegation and, in fact, it is an exceptional claim. Dino 15:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a true claim. Proof of the truth is that you never sued for Libel in the seven years since publication. Policy as stated is not a defense against policy as implemented. You should have learned that in your Torts class. --BenBurch 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Dino - I've heard from them. You requested that they address your claims of plaigarism in a verifiable manner. That will happen soon. You were already informed that the claim had been removed from the article and acknowledged so. The last TJ link was also just removed pending the verification from APJ/TJ. Maybe I'll add this one tonight. I'm pretty sure Raw Story has been deemed to be RS V. Posters at right-wing board threaten to kill Times editors, reporters - Fairness & Accuracy For All

The Wiki article doesn't claim that anymore, and I'm not even sure when the last time it did was. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

But by scouring the Internet until you found a cached copy and fighting tooth and nail to keep it linked here, you ensure that the libel is distributed by Wikipedia. Therefore you place Wikipedia at risk. Dino 12:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My advice to you Dino (et al) is 'pack your bags'. (for your Wikivacation, that is) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 15:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an exceptional claim by a partisan source. Read this and this.

Its a true claim. Proof of the truth is that you never sued for Libel ...

Declining to sue a small-circulation outfit like AmericanPolitics.com proves nothing. Wikipedia has a far greater circulation.

You requested that they address your claims of plaigarism in a verifiable manner.

Please link to the diff where I accused anyone of plagiarism. But thank you for finally removing the last link to the libelous article. Dino 15:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

per Mr. Hinnen's request: "I believe that Wikipedia has been the victims of a carefully crafted hoax. I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately. User:DeanHinnen 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC) Link. This libelous and defamatory, actionable claim against Mr. Walker (and as its against his professional reputation, its even more serious) was repeated multiple times in numerous places over the course of several days by Mr. Hinnen. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

And I suspect that TJ Walker will have his representatives dealing with that tort presently. But that's just a guess. --BenBurch 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This libelous and defamatory, actionable claim against Mr. Walker (and as its against his professional reputation, its even more serious) ...

As always, going from what I said to what you've claimed that I said took a lot of distortion and misconstruction. I related what he said. That's all. Dino 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"I related what he said." I predict that you are going to wish that you had chosen the 'Libby option' (that you mis-remembered what you think might or might not have been said) - as I cordially I advised you last week, Mr. Hinnen. Unfortunately, it's too late now. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My Palatinian Friend- Not too late to un-ring this bell if you want to come clean. I think I could convince people to forget about this incident. I am willing to try, but we need a complete confession. Nothing held back this time. --BenBurch 23:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

TJ Walker will have his representatives dealing with that tort presently.

Perhaps you should review the No Legal Threats policy. No legal threats against Wikipedia or its users. This is very broadly construed, as the recent review of my User page confirmed. Both of you might consider refactoring your legal threats before an admin sees them. Dino 23:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, are you going to agree to mediation? Dino 23:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I plan on refactoring nothing. I can observe an offense and guess at somebody else's reaction like anybody else can. I've never spoken with TJ Walker, but I do see that FAAFA is right in his assessment about what you did. Unlike you I did not sleep through Torts. As for mediation, I have six more days to decide. And I will decide before the time limit expires. --BenBurch 23:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

As BB says - plenty of time. No hurry. Fairness & Accuracy For All

• Yes, Raw Story is absolutely a RS. --BenBurch 15:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

More hysteria from a partisan left-wing source. Click on the link at the Raw Story page and half of the posts Raw Story claims to be there aren't there. The other half do not threaten murder or lynching; they contemplate trials for treason followed by a judicial death penalty. Not the sort of thing one thinks of when reading the histrionic headline, "Death Threats at Free Republic!!!!!" Another exceptional claim from a partisan source. Try reading WP:RS, particularly this and this. Dino 23:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought you went on Wikibreak? I think I'm going to go on a short Wikibreak to 'recharge my batteries'. If you're not here when I get back, Mr. Hinnen, take care. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with that Raw Story article because it's anonymous; there is no byline attached. At least with the APJ article we had a name attached to it, T. J. Walker, a person who can be queried. - Merzbow 23:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The story links to a still present FR thread though - and the threatening messages were 'removed by moderator'. Note other messages that constitute 'hate speech' are still present. We can discuss its inclusion when I get back from Wikibreak. (I think I'm taking one) Thanks for weighing in MB. PLEASE participate more. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt that the story is reporting on a thread/responses that actually exist (or did exist), but that fact doesn't affect the issue of the reliability of the source. Salon is certainly good enough, but I don't think anonymous articles from a web publisher qualify. - Merzbow 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A fair enough concern! I could ask Ms. Alexandrovna if the article could be attributed if that would be proper. --BenBurch 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If they can put a name on it then my concerns would be addressed. - Merzbow 02:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC over.

(RFC not certified by two editors who have demonstrated that they have tried and failed to resolve their disputes)

Thank you all for your support. --BenBurch 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

A needless RfC. Congrats on the quick resolution. I expect more resolution in the coming days. (I made your link shorter so I can view this page on my cell phone tomorrow. Hope you don't mind) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. I forget about cellphone users and I shouldn't. (Never been able to afford web access for this thing...) --BenBurch 13:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I've removed no material and didn't rewrite anything. I've moved some paragraphs around so the article is more encyclopedic in layout. Intro about who they are, history etc. --PTR 14:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You moved all info that could be considered 'negative' to a less prominent position while leaving all the info that could be considered 'positive'. I moved this info - Killian and 'gained popularity' part to the same place as you moved the other info. Having only info there which is 'positive' is POV. The Killian part is debatable anyway. Freepers like to claim how important their role was, but most other sources credit LGF and Powerline more than FR. (back to my WikiBreak)- Fairness & Accuracy For All 15:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your change is good. I thought the rise to popularity could go in either section and flipped a coin. I wasn't trying to move positive or negative information but the info just seemed to fit better in history.--PTR 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

FAAFA: LGF and Powerline themselves credit Buckhead and Free Republic. Rathergate is the event for which Free Republic is most notable. That Ivor Tossell quotation should be put back into the lead of the story, and the section on Rathergate should be moved up. Suppressing such information, and crowding it out with negative material written by racists and death threat authors who were banned from FR, is what's POV about this article, sir. Read the following (credit to Paul Klenk for compiling it). I will also get back to my Wikibreak. Dino 15:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Original FR thread, titled "Documents Suggest Special Treatment for Bush in Guard," started by Howlin, posted to by Buckhead (post 47). Notice the date and time of Buckhead's post (Fresno time), about 25 minutes after CBS first showed the so-called Killian memos on America's TV screens:

• [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/posts]

Original Power Line blog:

NYU Journalism mention:

• journalism.nyu [4]: "And now, thanks to LA Times, it looks like, yes indeed, Rather was either punked by a freeper lawyer who goes my the moniker Buckhead or this guy knows who is the punker ( Blogger Who Faulted CBS Documents Is Conservative Activist )."

This is the blog that got the national story. It credits Buckhead:

• powerlineblog [5]: "It started on the morning of September 9th. We're a group blog; there are three of us who do Powerline. My partner, Scott Johnson, got up early in the morning, and one of the first things he did was to check all the e-mails that readers had sent to us overnight looking for something interesting to follow up on. And one of those e-mails quoted from and linked to a post which somebody called BuckHead had done on a message thread at the Free Republic site, which is basically a message board.

This is another blog agreeing and laying out the timeline:

• greatestjeneration blog: [6] "These days, CBS News anchor Dan Rather and his colleagues at the network's magazine program "60 Minutes II" are enduring an unusual wave of second-guessing by some of the public and fellow journalists. For that, they can thank "Buckhead." [Buckhead is the Freeper whose "hints" about what was wrong with the "60 Minutes" memos put web detectives on the road to discovery.--Jen" "But Buckhead is vehement about one thing: He acted alone when he posted, to the conservative website FreeRepublic.com, what was widely believed to be the first allegation that the CBS report relied on documents that could have been forged." "Intrigued, Johnson, whose online ID is "The Big Trunk," put a link on his site, PowerLine Blog.com, to Buckhead's post. Then the floodgates opened.

WP

• Rathergate: "Buckhead," who gained Internet notoriety, would later be identified as Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta attorney."

Powerlineblog:

• [7]: "Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten meticulously reconstructs the events of this past Thursday following the CBS 60 Minutes broadcast Wednesday evening that have led to the exposure of the "new" documents featured in the Air National Guard story as forgeries: "No disputing it: Blogs are major players." Wallsten prominently credits our role in the development of the story: Early Thursday morning, Minneapolis lawyer Scott Johnson was in his basement home office, preparing to link some morning news reports to the site he co-authors, when a reader sent an e-mail about Buckhead. Intrigued, Johnson, whose online ID is "The Big Trunk," put a link on his site, PowerLine Blog.com, to Buckhead's post. Then the floodgates opened."

Enterstageright.com

• [8]: ""Buckhead" vs. Dan Rather: Internet David slays media Goliath": "Buckhead" and Post #47" -- As soon as CBS put the "documents," or rather photocopies of them on its Web site, a FReeper (denizen of the conservative/Republican Web site, Buckhead argued, "Howlin [another FReeper's username], every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. That was the first blow, from which all the others followed. Several FReepers in the "Pajama Posse" researched the matter further on a series of threads that night, to be joined by a number of bloggers, among them Ratherbiased.com, PowerLineBlog.com, LittleGreenFootballs.com and Instapundit.com.

• I have no problem "crediting" Free Republic with this. However, I think this will blow up in their faces in a few months when a book on this subject I am aware is in production appears and proves the documents to have been real. --BenBurch 17:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

-Sigh- With the possible exception of NYU every single source cited by Mr. Hinnen fails to meet RS V as they're blogs, and partisan blogs as well. Fairness & Accuracy For All

Removing false accusation of sockpuppetry

Fensteren was CLEARED by Check User of your false accusation of sockpuppetry, and I'm confident that he will also be cleared by Unblock-en-l; he has already contacted that committee, and I will be addressing them as well. In the meantime, taunting and baiting serve no constructive purpose here and should not be allowed to continue. Dino 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I could not find a mention of this user at WP:RFCU. Could you please provide a pointer? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, here are all of the links you will need;

Several checkuser requests all to be found here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine

Here are his SSP investigations;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalantine_%28new%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%283rd%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BryanFromPalatine_%284th%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/ArlingtonTX

The revenge Checkuser his suspected sock filed against me (and which his confirmed sock RE-filed);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BenBurch

--BenBurch 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the only RFCU you need to see, Jossi

"Confirmed except for Fensteren." Fensteren, after being cleared and understandably enraged by the false sockpuppet accusation made by BenBurch, pursued the matter: " 'Sorry' just doesn't cut it, mister." This led JzG to believe he was a sockpuppet, even though Fensteren had his own motive for going after BenBurch. That's what happens when people indiscriminately throw around false accusations and personal attacks. The targets get angry. Dino 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, please get this person under control. Dino 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Under control? Not likely ...

That remark speaks for itself. Dino 18:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Fernstern's puppetry

Please see uninvolved third-party-neutral Admin Guy's discussion with DeanHinnen (no index on his talk page so no hotlink to the specific section) Guy/JzG

Guy to DeanHinnen regarding Fernstern

See Fensteren: A couple of edits to Panther tank, one to M1 Garand rifle, nothing for a week, reply to a welcome message, and his sixth edit was to the vexatious BenBurch sockpuppet investivgation started by User:BryanFromPalatine using his block-evading sockpuppet User:ClemsonTiger and pursued by you. Actually that's not the whole story - on Jan 24, Fensteren created BenBurch : using the RFCU boilerplate - in other words we have an account created, makes a couple of trivial edits and can then create a new page, in this case an RFCU request. You're asking me to believe that this is an independent user who just happens to know lots about Wikiprocess and pursue precisely the same vendetta as BryanFromPalatine? Seriously? Ask ArbCom to review that one, I'm not unblocking it. Guy

then

The incidence of genuinely new users who pitch straight into long-running disputes with evident knowledge of Wikiprocess is vastly lower than the incidence of sockpuppets and meatpuppets doing the same. So much so that the latter is the default assumption, especially we are talking about a user who has a dozen or so confirmed or suspected sockpuppets already. And when they are congratulated for their perceptive input before they've made it, the obvious becomes the farcical. You want to argue this case? Take it to ArbCom. -snip-

I warned Mr. Hinnen about 'Turnip Trucks' but perhaps he didn't believe me. It's evident that rather than sitting percariously on the back of the Turnip Truck, Admin Guy is planted firmly in the driver's seat. ( I was going to add a pic of an old rickity truck - but thought better of it ;-) Back to break - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I filed a SSP investigation

Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DeanHinnen --BenBurch 21:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My Wikibreak has just been extended

... until the moment that an administrator takes EFFECTIVE action against BenBurch for all of his false accusations, baiting and taunting. This has got to stop. A 24-hour slap on the wrist did no good at all. Dino 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to see you go. --BenBurch 21:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben this is your absolute last warning. If you continue to make disruptive and uncivil statements, like the one above, you will be blocked again. Prodego ^talk 22:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Like that's going to work. His Talk page archives are wallpapered with warnings, he deletes more warnings from his Talk pages on almost a daily basis (not just from me) and he just returned from a 24-hour block. I can see that there will be no effective action here. I will proceed with RfM and if that fails, ArbCom. Dino 22:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Hinnen, although Ben might show a slight bit of impatience with you - probably since your 'brother' wasted weeks of our time and exhausted our good faith (and that of numerous admins) by creating a small army of sock puppets, (All In The Family, eh?) Ben has said that he welcomes your participation as a single user. Truly a magnanimous stance -and one I freely admit that I do not share. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that. I am happy to have Dean here to comment (only) on this subject, but only one of him. But I am NOT going to tolerate sock puppets. And that's final. And I am NOT going to tolerate being made the "bad guy" for having used the mechanisms provided in pursuing any sock puppet that I detect. I am trying to enforce the RULES of Wikipedia for the betterment of the project here. And I have paid a price for having done so. --BenBurch 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What would really be good

...would be if all parties on this talk page stopped with the cross accusations of who is or isn't a puppet, a bad faith contributor, etc. etc... I tried to read this talk page to see what substantive issues there are with the article, and all I see is stuff being hurled back and forth. I won't say everyone is equally guilty ... that's besides the point. But everyone has some responsibility for making this a better place. I seriously mean everyone. How about dropping all of that and focusing on the article and reaching consensus on what needs doing to it? I for one would really appreciate it. ++Lar: t/c 21:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll drop it. But I know that this is not likely to stop even if I do. --BenBurch 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is in accurate and NPOV now. After recently researching, compiling, writing and adding info on Tony Snow and the Dixie Chicks - info that reflects on FR is a positive light, I suggested to the FR supporters that they format the refs, and I'm not proficient at that. None of the FR partisans stepped up to the plate to do so. Disappointing. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at the sandbox version. I've already formatted half of the references. Of course that was overlooked in the witch hunt. Dino 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what you did. (below) (with all the refs you 'formatted') (#1 and 2 are not his - but refs being picked up from somehere else on this page) Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Many of the posts have been archived and show that Snow was not afraid to 'mix it up' with the outspoken Freepers who sometimes disagreed with his political philosophy.

I can do that. - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Moved text

Fairness, I had moved the text regarding death threats to the forum section. It seemed to belong there. Now it's in the history and forum sections. Can you remove it from one or the other? --PTR 21:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing this out. I look forward to more contribution and input from you. Back to my attempted Wikibreak (from this talk page anyway) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup of poorly sourced stuff and OR

I'm sure a lot of the problems here can be sorted out if everyone just applies WP policy in a good faith manner. <<-armon->> 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Armon, I'm sure you meant well, but your edits did things like remove the Scalon article and cite, which was a printed article from a notable magazine, transcribed and posted several different places on the www by different people - all with the exact same wording. It was decided to use the FR version of the article for even more veracity. Thus it is not a primary source, nor OR. You replaced it however, with an article by and cite to TJ Walker, which has been argued over for the last two weeks, and was removed by consensus until the the author and publisher can affirm that he wrote it. As I said, I'm sure you meant well, but to make major edits without researching the history and extended discussion of this article and the issues was not helpful. I reverted. Please explain each removal of what you claim is 'poorly sourced' and 'OR', and we can discuss them. Thanks - Fairness & Accuracy For All 05:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't actually think I'd actually put anything IN -but OK. What I do suggest watching out for is stuff like linking to threads on the website, then making claims based on that. <<-armon->> 05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC) (moved here from my talk)

sourcing for Repubs + Neocons

From the Scalon article in a conservative magazine. (Scalon is an actual, real, genuine conservative - you know ... small gov, civil liberties, states rights, balanced budgets, limited federal power, habeas corpus, 4th amendment, free speech - not 'free speech zones', foreign wars only to defend the USA, etc etc. That type... a real conservative )

• "With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, Zionists, Republicans who act is if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer daily prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders..."

I guess I could work this whole quote into the article - it IS the generally accepted truth to everybody except Freepers. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/793011/posts?page=51,50 link] - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how "genuine" a conservative this Scalon guy is. However he IS critical of a perceived move to the centre(?) by FR. Assuming it's from an RS, we should attribute that POV to him -not write the article according to it. <<-armon->> 12:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't work in the whole quote (which is prejudicial), just say that "<conservative whatever> Scalon believes that..." and source it, assuming Scalon indeed is a notable enough conservative. - Merzbow 04:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

One lamenting opinion does not an established view make. Sorry, must go. --Tbeatty 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys can spin and twirl all you want - but FR is NEOconservative. Take a gander how they treat one of THE most conservative presidential hopefuls, Sam Brownback, just for daring to stand up against bush's disastrous war on Iraq. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774690/posts 'treasonous filth' .. 'traitor'] - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're falling into the tiresome and worn-out Democratic Underground routine of searching out the most extreme, mean-spirited and ridiculous remarks you can find, and presenting them as the remarks of the "typical Freeper," or "all Freepers," or even "the official position of Free Republic."

The overwhelming majority of Freepers are ordinary conservatives. You can spin and twirl all you want about that, but the fact remains unchanged. They hold bake sales, they drive their kids to soccer practice in minivans, they coach Little League teams, they mow their lawns and wash their cars, they serve as Den Mothers for their local Cub Scout packs, they put fresh coats of white paint on their picket fences, and they vote Republican. Think of Ward and June Cleaver.

They support George W. Bush because he is a Republican and because he is the president, not because they fit your contrived definition of "neocon." Dino 18:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Every community of 100,000 people has a lunatic fringe. You're presenting the lunatic fringe as representative of the entire community. Dino 14:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Here's JimRob (FR owner) himself calling John McCain (5+ years as a POW) a "treasonous bastard" and a "traitor". [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601416/posts John McCain, you treasonous bastard] I can understand criticising him, but for a vet like JimRob to call a fellow vet (who was a POW and war hero) and republican a 'traitor' is beyond the pale. Lunatic fringe. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 18:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work. You've finally found an inflammatory statement by Jim Robinson at the top of a thread. Therefore it can be reasonably inferred to be the official position of Free Republic. If McCain turns out to be the Republican presidential nominee, it might be notable enough to include in the article. Dino 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I still prefer this JimRob quote though! "And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!" Jim Robinson 1999 - [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm cokeheads and felons] - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's even less notable. That is obviously the opinion of Jim Robinson, just another member of Free Republic voicing his opinion ... rather than Jim Robinson, the founder and CEO of Free Republic, making an official Free Republic policy statement. Dino 22:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious conselor, you're an attorney (right?) - since bush WAS elected, did JimRob's threat 'to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!' technically violate the Smith (Sedition) Act? "(a) It shall be unlawful for any person- 1) to knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government" Dennis v US - Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This paragraph is incited, does anyone have a citation?

Some posts on Free Republic are devoted to the ridicule of persons or groups perceived as anathema to conservatives, such as U.S. Senators John F. Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton of New York, Barbara Boxer of California, and the National Organization for Women. Even some Republicans, such as Senator John McCain of Arizona and former Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island have been singled out for attacks. Members have largely rejected the McCain-Feingold Act and questioned why President Bush did not veto the campaign finance limitation measure in 2002.

--PTR 16:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a template. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be deleted entirely. The paragraph uses weasel words. "Some posts"? Obviously someone is trying to say "a significant number of posts", but has no evidence that the number of posts is significant, so instead uses the word "some". If the number of posts is significant, prove it; if it's not, then take the sentence out. Ken Arromdee 14:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You will find that such weasel words are the signature of certain editors in their contributions to this article. See my previous comment about the effort to portray extremism as typical. Violations of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight are what this article is made of. For example, the word "threats" is used three times; the phrase "death threats" is used twice and for two months, was used in the lead of the article. A single, partisan source that was prudent enough to remove the claim from its own website was used to make the exceptional claim (again, in the lead of the Wikipedia article) that death threats against the Clinton family were allowed to exist on Free Republic for several months. But it has always been the policy of Free Republic to remove any threat of violence instantly, and ban the member who posted it.

This is the most extreme example of the effort to portray extremism as typical at Free Republic. But it illustrates the spirit with which certain editors have approached this article. Dino 14:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write that paragraph. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Who did? And who put it in the lead of the article? BenBurch, right? Did you try to talk him out of it? Or did you fight like the Japanese at Iwo Jima to defend it? Dino 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

LMAO! Ben didn't write it either. It appears that Billy Hawthorn, who doesn't seem to participate on the talk page, may have written it. Defend it ? Me ? LOL ! It was never even mentioned till PTR did so yesterday. I strongly encourage you to review NPA, CIVIL and AGF. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 19:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing the diffs in greater detail tonight when I have some spare time. For now, are you denying that you defended that paragraph stubbornly? If you are, I strongly encourage you to review this Talk page and its archives. That paragraph contained the link to the libelous page at AmericanPolitics.com. Does that refresh your memory? Dino 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ROFLMAO! You're SO wrong. That was the "format and policy' section in 'forums', it never had the TJ link in it. It used to say in its entirety : "Some posts on Free Republic are devoted to the ridicule of persons or groups perceived as anathema to conservatives. The site's officially stated policy is to remove blatantly racist or bigoted postings." I've never defended it. I added the 'unsourced' template to it! Give whoever wrote it chance to source it, and if they don't within another day or two, axe it. Please quit posting falsities about me. Keep your falsities relegated to FR and its 'soccer moms, minivans and bakesales', etc - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It now appears that we're talking about two different paragraphs. I changed the subject. Read my first post in this section more closely. If you feel that "soccer moms, minivans and bake sales" is a lie, when used as a description of the overwhelming majority of Freepers, then prove it's a lie. Dino 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that I said it was "incited". Meant uncited. Didn't meant to incite anything. It just seems that a paragraph with the word ridicule in it should have a citation or be set off in quotes since otherwise it's not encyclopedic. --PTR 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "ridicule," like the word "purged," is strong language and not generally encyclopedic. If it is used, it should be BOTH set off in quotes AND attributed to a reliable source describing something as "ridicule." Otherwise, "criticism" would be a more neutral (and therefore more encyclopedic) word to use. Dino 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the diff

On January 6, FAAFA doubled the length of negative commentary in the lead; added the non-encyclopedic, Todd Brendan Fahey based "rubber stamp for Bush Administration" comment to the lead, without quotation marks; added the libelous AmericanPolitics.com link to the lead; added a lengthy, libelous quotation from AmericanPolitics.com to the "Controversial aspects" section; and removed a description of the settlement (favorable to FR) in the LA Times lawsuit from the "Copyright lawsuit" section. This was the moment when the article crossed the line from a flawed but still somewhat encyclopedic article to a hatchet job.

And there it stayed, defended by BenBurch and FAAFA like the Japanese defended Iwo Jima, until the arrival of CyberAnth, PTR, Ken Arromdee and Armon. Thanks to the efforts of the latter four editors, it has been changed back into a flawed but reasonably encyclopedic article. Dino 04:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL! PTR, Ken, and I were talking about an entirely different paragraph. The one that starts with "Some posts on Free Republic are devoted to the ridicule of persons" - you know - the one he actually posted at the top of the section for discussion ? Do try to follow along more closely next time. Mr Hinnen. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I was following along. Then Ken Arromdee made a reference to "weasel words," And I observed that weasel words were the signature of certain editors, and provided a perfect illustration. Do try to follow along more closely. Sometimes the subject of discussion can change. Are you still going to claim that you didn't introduce the libelous material into the article ... particularly the lead of the article? And where's TJ Walker's bold, public and verifiable announcement that he wrote it and he still stands behind it? Dino 17:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been personally called a race traitor by Jim Robinson, for sticking up for African-Americans.

Do you have a link to that statement? Dino 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources needed

Please supply a secondary source for the bolded claim. The Scalon article claims no such thing.

• Originally libertarian in outlook, after the 9/11 attacks, Robinson and Free Republic members rallied to support President Bush. Members who questioned Bush's conservative credentials were reminded that Bush's foremost responsibility was the ongoing war on terrorism. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/793011/posts?page=51,50 Scalon]

For this c-span claim too.

• Many were also introduced to the site through an impeachment rally in Washington broadcast late in 1998 by the C-SPAN channel. [www.freerepublic.com/about.htm about fr]

Thank you for your cooperation. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

About Free Republic

Dino, you're a member of Free Republic's legal team - you should know the answer to these pressing questions. I was just reading the 'about Free Republic' page that is used as a source for FR's history.

I can't seem to find a later edition of this page. Unless there is one, these are still the official positions of Free Republic, yes?

• We call for the repeal of the Emergency and War Powers Acts, an end to all national emergencies and a ban on the unilateral creation of law by Presidential edict. We are also working for the repeal all laws created by unconstitutional and extraconstitutional devices, such as Executive Order or Presidential Directive.

• Repeal of the war and emergency powers acts and the various states of national emergencies will allow the abolishing of all unconstitutional federal law, agencies and departments. This will return us to a Federalist system of government and return many responsibilities to the States and personal rights to the citizens.

• We believe that the United States should disassociate itself from the U.N. and that the U.N. should be forced to leave the United States. Furthermore, we demand that the federal government refrain from meddling in the business and squabbles of foreign nations, unless there is an imminent threat to the people of the United States.

• We call for the repeal of the 17th amendment, which will reverse the independence of the Senate and reestablish the Senate as a representative of the State governments, as intended by the Founding Fathers. This arrangement was intended to be a critical check against illegal federal expansion over the States, and the people residing in the various States, and will act to return the powers not granted to the federal government, as enumerated in the Constitution, to the states.

• We call for the repeal of the 16th amendment and to abolish the income tax and the IRS. Revenues to the federal government should come from excise taxes and tariffs.

Please show me where these official positions have been officially disavowed or superceded. [www.freerepublic.com/about.htm www.freerepublic.com/about.htm] Thanks ! - Fairness & Accuracy For All 09:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a lengthy page, so I think a link would be sufficient. Also, I notice you overlooked this part: NOTE: Free Republic does NOT condone bigotry or violence and does NOT advocate an overthrow of the government. I'm sure that oversight was accidental. In general, there has been a tendency to steer the Wikipedia article away from what Free Republic is really all about, and focus on the statements by Jim Robinson and by the lunatic fringe. Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia, should be neutral and present a proportionate description of the subject. There have been millions of posts in the history of Free Republic and your participation here has focused on a dozen or so that are the very worst of them.

There are daily prayer threads and "canteen" threads for our troops overseas, a daily prayer thread for President Bush, prayer threads for Freepers and family members with health problems, and fund-raising threads for victims of natural disasters. Free Republic was very diligent about directing its members to the Red Cross blood drive and fund-raising efforts for survivors in the wake of 9/11. Local Free Republic chapters have turned out in force to provide donations and volunteers for Republican candidates; for example, Freepers were instrumental in helping Peter Roskam beat Tammy Duckworth three months ago, bucking the national trend.

One of the most important facets of the Free Republic experience is its "breaking news" feature, where events such as the 9/11 attacks and the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi received extensive coverage, and threads were constantly updated; people were able to express themselves to other members of the community. But somehow, in the relentless drive to find everything that is negative about Free Republic and work it into the article, these far more typical and notable activities have never been mentioned; and sections on Rathergate and the LA Times lawsuit, the two events for which Free Republic has been most notable, have been whittled down to brief mentions. Dino 17:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Er... Mr. Hinnen..... Just about every political forum has a 'breaking news' forum. That's not notable. FR is called an 'activist' site in the article. As such, its official stances and policies are notable, and when they're stances outside the mainstream like the ones listed above, they're even more notable. Please address my questions regarding these 'official stances'. There is no drive to include 'everything negative'. I compiled, researched, wrote and added the bulk of the material that reflects positively on FR, so quit your misrepresentations. I wrote the Walter Reed part, The Tony Snow part, The Dixie Chicks part, and just a few days ago, added more biographical history of JR re the Whitewater board and Prodigy. ALL 'positive' ! It's possible that you still don't understand WP. Unless a 'FR blood drive' was mentioned in RS V secondary sources, it can't even be mentioned in the article. Your Peter Roskam claim is notable. What did FR do to help elect him? Please provide some RS V sources (not FR or blogs) for me to look at, and then we can possibly include it into the article. Something like this: "MoveOn.org's Web-based phone-banking program Call for Change enabled volunteers to make more than 7 million calls leading up to the November elections -- and may have flipped a lot of races for the Dems." MoveOn's Amazing Election Tool - Thanks - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just about every political forum has a 'breaking news' forum. That's not notable.

If it's notable enough to include in the Democratic Underground article, it's notable enough to include in the FR article: "The Big Forums This section is the most active. Latest Breaking News, General Discussion, and General Discussion: Politics ..." Just like DU, FR has a Breaking News forum and it is by far the most active, but it gets no mention here. On 9/11 the FR server was running slower than usual, because of all the people posting and clicking on Breaking News. The same thing happens every Election Night when the returns are coming in. This is a community of over 100,000 people. We get 2,500 to 3,500 different accounts posting on FR on an ordinary day, and up to 5,000 on busy days.

FR is called an 'activist' site in the article. As such, its official stances and policies are notable, and when they're stances outside the mainstream like the ones listed above, they're even more notable.

Until the past couple of days, some of the most freaky posts ever to make a brief appearance on Free Republic have been presented as representative, or even "an official FR page compiled by Free Republic." You are to be commended for this effort to break out of that pattern. However, a link to the [www.freerepublic.com/about.htm "About Free Republic"] page has been a part of this article for several weeks. If you're going to describe such positions as "outside the mainstream," please find a non-partisan RS V source to back that up before you put it into the article. Thank you.

There is no drive to include 'everything negative'. I compiled, researched, wrote and added the bulk of the material that reflects positively on FR, so quit your misrepresentations.

Your efforts to include Chad Castagana, self-published hatchet jobs by partisans like William Rivers Pitt, Michael Niman and Todd Brendan Fahey, and a non-notable call for destruction of FR's First Amendment rights by someone in Bahrain, are gone but not forgotten. You've also removed or abridged a lot of material that reflected positively on FR, specifically the settlement of the LA Times lawsuit and the "shot heard around the blogosphere" in Rathergate, and you keep bringing up whatever you can find about Jim Robinson that you consider "out of the mainstream." Furthermore, even some of the positive material is spin-doctored in a way that reflects less than positively on Free Republic, such as a rally where Kristinn Taylor prepared for 10,000 people and only 100 showed up. That's more the fault of the left-wingers at The Guardian than the left-wingers at Wikipedia, but there it is. Dino 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

About that lawsuit..... "How FreeRepublic.com lost a "First Amendment" lawsuit and wasted $110,000 on a frivolous lawsuit – and how their right-wing nutcase attorney got disbarred". Since you now claim that APJ removed the TJ Walker article because it was 'libelous', this one must be 100% accurate, or, as a member of Free Republic's legal team, you would have had them remove it too. Have to go out for the rest of the day / evening, but I look forward to reading your response tomorrow. Go Colts!- Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I still dispute that this APJ is a reliable source. I don't know or particularly care if the content is accurate, but it certainly isn't verifiable. There are so many BLP issues in that article I don't see how anything from it could ever be included.--RWR8189 22:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If another editor wants to write a description of the major forums, I don't think anybody would have a problem with that, as long as its accurate, and doesn't contain unverifiable claims like that concerning Peter Roskum from Mr. Hinnen above. It might be appropriate to note the topics listing at the top of the page too - the one that contains 'homosexual agenda'. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How does this sound:

The most popular features on Free Republic are the Breaking News section and the "daily threads." Because of the number of posts and views on the Breaking News section during major events (such as Election Night coverage, the 9/11 attacks and the Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2005), the Free Republic server sometimes runs slowly under the burden of traffic, resulting in slow page downloads.

Free Republic's daily threads include a prayer thread for President George W. Bush, "A Day In the Life of President Bush" (providing news photos and news stories plus discussion), and a "Canteen thread" to entertain American troops overseas, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Canteen thread is the longest-running and most popular daily thread at Free Republic, operating since October 7, 2001, the date of the invasion of Afghanistan.

I'm not much of a writer, and I have voluntarily declined to edit this article myself due in part to WP:COI concerns. But I'm sure that someone else here could do something good with what I've started. Dino 00:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A good start, but the claims about the server running slow, and the canteen both appear to be OR. There are also at least a dozen separate topic forums. Pehaps it would be helpful to list a few more? RWR is an active Freeper. I'll leave it to him to write and add this info. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The claims about the Canteen are well sourced if you'll click on the links. I'm going to post a few more resources that I've found after using the Free Republic search engine. It's not as good as some of the other on-site search engines I've seen, but it works fairly well. First, there were a few people arguing about finding a source for the glossary of "Freeper lingo" or "Freeperese." So here are a couple of threads documenting the development of this dialect: [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39e93e4d7871.htm] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/862546/posts] Dino 00:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1) The links don't work cause you don't have a ref section. 2) The references need to be RS V sources OTHER than FR, (and NOT other blogs) or it constitutes OR. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a ref section in the article, and Free Republic is a RS about Free Republic. Something else that I've seen is a key quotation being used in italics at the start of each section of a Wikipedia article. Like this: Dino 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [see following "Political influence" subsection] Edited for clarification Dino 23:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The links you're posting here in talk don't work - like this one "Free Republic's daily threads include a prayer thread for President George W. Bush." You should read RS V and OR again. FR can be used as a primary souce for generalities like 'founded in 1996' but claims like 'there were so many users on election night that they slowed the server down!' MUST have secondary sourcing. Please read up. Thanks - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I concede that sourcing is needed on the server slowdown. But the sourcing on the second paragraph is good. I'll install a "References" section at the bottom of this page and you can see for youself. Dino 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

FR seems to be down at the moment (18:38 PST) but claims about the canteen thread being the oldest thread on FR, and that the canteen's purpose is to entertain the troops (I seem to rememember it being ABOUT the troops - but I could be wrong) need secondary sourcing. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An administrator involved in this discussion has previously stated that Free Republic is a reliable source about Free Republic. FR is working fine for me, but it's downloading a little slow, probably because of the Super Bowl. Here are the links: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/search?s=canteen&m=all&o=time] [www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=pray+Bush&ok=Search&q=quick&m=all&o=time]Dino 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No admin stated that FR is a RS on FR for anything other than general historical claims. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 06:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a general historical claim about FR. Please allow me to refresh your memory:

While free republic statements about free republic posts are reliable sources, they are not reliable sources for anything else. JBKramer 19:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - but please explain why FR isn't a reliable source about what happened on FR when the issue is NOT 'in contention'. My understanding is blogs are OK as sources on themselves, when there is no denial of what is being claimed. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In the context of FR operational matters, Jim Robinson, posting under that name, can be taken to be the authentic Jim Robinson, to speak FOR FR's owners, and to be an expert in what he is saying about FR. In short a RS. BenBurch 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Jim Robinson is the owner of Free Republic and is in the capacity to speak for the site.--RWR8189 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

When you were trying to get Chad Castagana into this article, even though his FR participation had absolutely nothing to do with his alleged crimes, FR was considered RS. But now, for routine questions that are "NOT in contention" about the anatomy, physiology and history of the site, "when there is no denial of what is being claimed," you claim that FR is not RS. If it was good enough for you to get Castagana into the article, then it's good enough to get this into the article. Dino 10:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

1) Chad Castagana ISN'T in the article. 2)No admin is quoted above. 3) I'm OK with what you want added, except for 'the oldest thread on FR', 'server slowdown' and claims regarding the Canteen's purpose. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

(1) But Castagana was in this article for more than a month, and the arguments you and BenBurch made in favor of his inclusion cannot now be abandoned as though they were never made. Free Republic is RS about Free Republic. (2) Consensus is quoted above. Isn't JBKramer an admin? (3) "The oldest daily thread on FR" and "claims regarding the Canteen's purpose" are well-sourced, if you'd bother to click on the reference links and read. Dino 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Political influence

"It's scary how much power they do have. They can take down someone singlehandedly and I don't think Americans are aware of that." — Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks speaking about Free Republic.

Free Republic posters, notably "TankerKC" (later identified as active Air Force officer Paul Boley) and "Buckhead" (later identified as Atlanta GOP lawyer Harry W. MacDougald) contributed, along with members of the blogs Powerline and Little Green Footballs, to breaking "Memogate," the controversy surrounding CBS News' use of questionable documents during the 2004 US presidential campaign. The discussion quickly spread across the Internet via blogs, and the Drudge Report (attributing Powerline) and the Associated Press later picked it up. This eventually resulted in the early retirement of Dan Rather, and the forced resignations of Mary Mapes and three other news division executives at CBS. According to Ivor Tossell of the Globe and Mail, Free Republic "was central to the network of websites that uncovered the forged memos about Bush's Vietnam service that appeared on CBS News and ultimately cost Dan Rather his job."

Further information: Killian documents authenticity issues

There you go

That is the first half of the "Political influence" section with a key quotation in italics at the start of it. That makes it more interesting to read. I hope you like it. Dino 01:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

References

There are the references, FAAFA. Click on References #3 through #12, which is what we're talking about here. The links work. Dino 02:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Official stances

I added a new sub-section, 'Official stances'. Dino - I'm OK with a section describing the major forums without the unsourced claims that such and such is the longest running thread, etc. Have RWR add it for you. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: it's not unsourced. Click on the reference links. Dino 10:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Engaging and open minded at freerepublic

So I just opened a new account and posted a message in a thread about Senator Chuck Hagel. Before my comment could actually be posted I'm told that it has to be screened by their monitors. An hour later or so I'm banned from the forum. Apparantly they don't have the tolerance to hear "in my opinion, Hagel is a war hero and a true conservative American standing up for the real Republican values."

hahah anways it was fun while it lasted. --67.130.239.56 00:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

yea. For a similiar experiment, go to their rival site (Democratic underground) and say similarly glowing about A Republican or a true conservative. You'll be banned in about the same amount of time. Free Republic is about as hard right wing as DU is hard left wing. Its not really encylopedic though either way.Dman727 02:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would never defend DU. Same irrational "us vs them" mentality I know that. But the point I'm making is at FR, just expressing nice things about one of the most conservative Republican in the Senate somehow makes their blood boil. They are neocons who namecall any Republican who wants to hold the Bush admin. accountable for the catostrophe in Iraq, a DINO or democrat in disguise. --67.130.239.56 05:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

An actual, real, dyed-in-the-wool, genuine bonafide conservative, Sean Scalon, perhaps said it best : "With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, [Christian] Zionists, Republicans who act as if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders..." - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is only word I can think of that can describe the users of that group. Delusional. I don't mean that as an insult or even as an opinion. I believe its 100% true that these guys are delusional and paranoid beyond comprehention.

Just read how those bushworshipping neocons treat one of THE most conservative presidential hopefuls, Sam Brownback, only for daring to stand up against bush's disastrous war in Iraq. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774690/posts 'treasonous filth' .. 'traitor'] - Disgraceful ! -FAAFA (The Chosen Vessel of the Remaining Bride) 12:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But the point I'm making is at FR, just expressing nice things about one of the most conservative Republican in the Senate somehow makes their blood boil.

Because that was the first remark made by a new member, you were perceived as someone who came to Free Republic to pick a fight. If it had been the 3,000th remark made by a member who had been there for five years, there's no way you would have been banned for it.

hahah anways it was fun while it lasted.

It appears that their perception was accurate.

An actual, real, dyed-in-the-wool, genuine bonafide conservative, Sean Scalon, perhaps said it best ...

Yes, he did: "Leftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs." Why is that quotation no longer in this article? Also, I'm pretty sure his name is spelled "Scallon." There was a typo by someone at Free Republic and you've chosen to repeat the error rather than correct it. Dino 11:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rudy 2008! Or Hillary 2008! Hmm... is there a difference? - Merzbow 04:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. I see very little reason for this entire section to exist on this talk page.--RWR8189 22:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They call themselves conservatives, yet in reality they hate the real principals of conservatism with a passion. Why can't this be discussed?--66.234.203.32 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Because wiki is an enclopedia, not a political forum or discussion board. If you want to discuss hatred of Republicans, go to DU and if you want to discuss hatred of Democrats, go to Free Republic). Dman727 21:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OR....If you want to READ hatred for Republicans you can just go to Free Republic and search for posts about John Warner, Chuck Hagel, Sam Brownback, or James Baker (and now Norm Coleman) If you don't COMPLETELY toe the Bush-Neocon line on Iraq - you're deemed a 'traitor' on FR. (sorry for the snarky comment - but it's 100% true) - FAAFA (standing up for REAL Conservatism - Paleoconservatism!) 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. I personally find that both sites are sad examples of extreme rhetoric, venom and hate. Its unfortunate that some from both sites take their hatred of each other to places like wiki to battle it out (albeit in futile, resulting only in disruption). Perhaps if both forums were to permit speech from their opposition they wouldnt find themselves trying to battle it out....here. Dman727 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Very astute comments, guys

Heres's what the Stony Brook Press wrote about FR only a couple months ago:

"Free Republic. HOLY CRAP IN A GOVERNMENT-APPROVED HANDBAG!!! The people of www.freerepublic.com are as psychotic as can possibly be. Now I understand that there are many conservatives that support Bush, the Iraq War, or other Bush Administration policies. But this site, its founders, and its posters take this America-worship to a new level! A new level of psycho has been achieved! Free Republic is another one of these blog sites, a right-wing one, but it’s different from the others, mainly because these people aren’t conservatives, nor are they neoconservatives. They are complete and total fascists. They abhor, though they won’t admit it, every value America was founded on. The moderator and founder, Jim Robinson, deletes any post that contradicts the opinion of himself, his members, and the Bush Administration. If you question any American policies (as long as they are Republican-made ones), you get banned. No questions asked."

Spot on ! Recent criticism of Free Republic from Stony Brook - FAAFA 22:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We have already discussed the very same quote from the very same left-wing student paper. Wikipedia policy requires that partisan criticism must be handled with the utmost care. On their "About the Press" page, they express pride in their "playful sense of humor," so there's no way to tell whether they're even making a serious criticism, or lampooning Free Republic. Dino 22:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FAAFA: How is posting this not a violation of the terms of the propopsed community ban? Georgewilliamherbert 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page. Thanks. - FAAFA 23:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

MY PROMISE

I promise to try my hardest to restrict my commentary to the article from now on, but as I strongly agree with the multitudes of libertarians and paleoconservatives who left FR over its purported shift from those leanings to the GOP/Bush/Neocon camp - this is a major issue that I feel must be addressed. Peace! - FAAFA 03:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Curious promise..you break it before finishing the sentence. Dman727

Huh? From a real conservative:

• "With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, [Christian] Zionists, Republicans who act is if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer daily prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders..." - FAAFA - (standing up for REAL Conservatism - Paleoconservatism!) 07:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

lol. You must have that snippet on hotkey status :) Best of luck and wishes of strength with your promise.Dman727 08:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah - no hot key - but its on every page at least once since I found it - so it's pretty easy to cut and paste :-) (back my 'no comment' policy) FAAFA - (standing up for REAL Conservatism - Paleoconservatism!) 10:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

... but as I strongly agree with the multitudes of libertarians and paleoconservatives who left FR over its purported shift ...

"Multitudes" are actually dozens, out of a community of at least 100,000. (There are over 200,000 registered accounts at Free Republic, but only 100,000 of them have posted in the past 18 months.) The literal meaning of the word "multitude" is one thousand. Don't believe for a moment that the volume of noise is directly proportionate to the number of people who were making it. Don't exaggerate, amplify or multiply the criticism and the so-called "exodus."

The "Stony Brook Press" site counts the hits on its pages. The current number of hits on the Free Republic criticism/lampoon (anybody's guess) page in 127. They call their hits "reads." Scroll down to the bottom of the page. How many of those 127 were yours? Three of them were mine. It is not notable.

Large Internet discussion sites that have lasted ten years are like small cities. People come, people go. Accounts become inactive. Why? Who knows? Sometimes people just lose interest for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with any "purported shift." Sometimes they just lose their passwords, for God's sake. The only ones whose reason for leaving is definitely the "purported shift" are the ones who post a final statement, or send us an e-mail, or turn up at another website and start complaining.

We keep track of these things, sir. We're very careful about keeping an accurate count, because we want to KNOW whether what we are doing is working.

Most of the people who showed up at other sites, claiming "I left Free Republic because they have betrayed real conservative values blah blah blah," were banned because of racist or other prohibited posts. The number who we can be certain left because of Jim Robinson's shifts in position would fit in my living room. I don't live at the United Center, either. And there are many who have stayed, even though they disagree with Robinson's current position, because it's still the biggest and best conservative site on the Internet. Dino 04:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL ! You must have a pretty big living room if 2000 people can fit in it. (although these 2000 left when JimRob was in his Bush-HATING phase, not his Bush-WORSHIPPING phase !)

"Drudge, Goldberg and several other Free Republic stars have left; visits are reportedly down to less than half what they were a year ago; Free Republic's founding guru, Jim Robinson, has been sued by the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times; and a swelling number of haters have turned up the volume of death threats, gay-bashing, name-calling and conspiracy theories tying the father of Republican front-runner George W. Bush to drug-dealing by the CIA.

"He's a mean shit," says Goldberg of Robinson, once her partner in exposing Clinton crimes. She launched her own Web site, Lucianne.com, taking "2,000" Freepers with her, she says. "I am not anti-abortion, I am not Y2K either. I'm not a homophobe, I'm not an anti-Semite -- Christ ... I have a Jewish husband ... I have four people who work for me and half of them are gay. I mean, this is ridiculous."

"A stinking mackerel in the garbage can of truth," says Ken Giles about Robinson. Giles, a onetime Free Republic star contributor, charges that Robinson allowed the site to become "a hate group..."

Salon.com free-for-all at free republic Yup - that sums it up pretty damn well! - FAAFA 05:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)