Talk:Free Republic/Archive 9

Disputing Forums section, Format and Policy, as well as Controversial aspects

I have edited this artice 4 or 5 times in the last 2 days to reflect the new registration policy at Free Republic, and each time, within moments, the changes have been deleted.

In the "Forums" section, under "Format and Policy" it should read "Free Republic forums are open to moderator approved registered users for discussion about political events, some conservative principles and the elimination of some government corruption and abuse. Free Republic has an official policy which requires the removal of blatantly violent, racist, or bigoted postings.

Users now must have their first comment or article approved by a moderator before they are allowed to contribute to the forum. If their first comment is critical of the Bush Administration or the Iraq war, their comment is not approved and their account is banned. This also means that only some conservative principles and some government corruption and abuse are open to discussion.

In the Controversial Aspects section, the last sentence, "Free Republic's registration process has since been altered and now new registrants are subjected to having their first post(s) moderated before being allowed full posting privileges", should also make note of the fact that if a new user's first post is critical of the Bush Administration or the Iraq War, the comment will not be approved and the new user account will be banned.

I posted supporting link to another forum where this practice was being discussed by several users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Critter183 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

The content you are trying to add is not sourced. Do you have a citation for the information? You can't put a disputed tag on the article if you are discussing uncited/OR material. Blogs are not WP:RS --PTR 17:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Shall I go register a new account and submit a post critical of the Iraq war, taking screen shots at every step, and then a screen shot of the banned account afterward? Will that be sufficient sourcing? Critter183 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would be WP:OR. You need to cite using the guidelines in WP:RS and WP:V for your content to not be reverted. The main reason it's being reverted is unsourced criticism is routinely removed. --PTR 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your informative response, and I can see the need for having to cite reliable sources, but this article contains misleading information. The citation for the misleading information is misleading itself. It is not from a reliable source, it is from Free Republic itself, a biased source. It does not reflect the true nature of the registration process. Registered users have to be approved and their first posts checked by moderators before they can be approved. If the comments do not adhere to the unstated policy of not being critical of Bush or the war, the comments are not posted and the account is banned. That one has to censor his remarks to get past the moderators should be a very prominent fact in this article.Critter183 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you find this new moderation policy detailed on FR itself (hopefully by JimRob), you should be able to include it. Note that this article uses FR as a source for several things, such as '200,000 registered users' - FREE FaAfA ! (yap)

FAAFA is right. If it's listed as their policy it can be included. If it is written up in an article meeting WP:RS and WP:V it also can be included. If it is common knowledge or personal experience, it can't be included since that would be be WP:OR. --PTR 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me like a bit of mistaken rules lawyering. Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No_original_research, and Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources ALL state that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be accompanied by a reliable source. The factual status of the current Free Republic registration process sounds entirely non-controversial here. There is no need to rules-lawyer-yank accurate information when no one objects to it. The Wiki rules exist to aid in the improvement of articles and to prevent and resolve disputes. Wikipedia:What_"Ignore_all_rules"_means: "one shouldn't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, one should consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged". I think it damaging to... with no good reason... force the article to keep an obsolete/incorrect/misleading description of the Freep registration process.

Look at WP:NOR#What is excluded?. The only item there that might apply is "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source". Note that I did not add that bolding, it was bolded in the original. I do not think the description of the registration process runs afoul of the NOR#What_is_excluded list if we drop the attempted co-edit of "Free Republic forums are open to moderator approved registered users for discussion about political events, some conservative principles and the elimination of some government corruption and abuse". Freep management are allowed to claim that they admit all conservative principles, they can have the position that the stuff they exclude does not fall within (their definition) of conservative principles. Any edit trying to say Freep only admits some conservative principles would need to cite some good source who disagrees with Freep's definition of conservative principles.

I say include the new registration process edit, exclude the "some conservative principles" edit.

I have not personally checked Freep's registration process, and this issue is about 2 months old, so I leave it to the rest of you to make or not make the edits. Alsee 20:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Founder's Statement

The paragraph inserted is only a part of the founder's statement. I think the whole thing is too long to be inserted but shouldn't there be a mention that it "reads in part..." --PTR 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. This has bothered me. It's an edited down "founder's [owner's]statement" at best. I would be inclined to include the whole statement in context, or delete it entirely. Would Tony Soprano's statement regarding the goals of Barone Sanitation be useful in an encyclopedia article on the activities and importance of the company?

It certainly would not be admissible to prove anything in court.Eschoir 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts: what differentiates this "founders statement" from any of a thousand other statements, including the Bush is a cokehead felon statement? It went through no ratification process - it's just a post, ad libbed.Eschoir 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this a citeable source?

I found a pretty good example of the type of censorship that currently exists on Freerepublic, and which I feel should be included in this article.

http://www.rationalreview.com/content/24090

Would that be a citeable source? You'll see that the author's post on FR was removed and his account banned for a roundabout criticism of the Bush administration.

Also I have been privately threatened with being banned from wikipedia for "vandalism" if I persist in trying to see the truth about Freerepublic included in this article. I don't think the threat is from wikipedia, but from a user.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Free Republic, you will be blocked from editing. Justin88 16:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Critter183 12:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Critter. Blogs are not usually considered WP:RS. This is the paragraph in regard to using blogs:

Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference.

If you want to discuss this with someone, you might want to check with an admin listed as an editor on WP:RS like jossi, Blueboar, Crum375 or SlimVirgin. Look in the history of the edits on WP:RS. --PTR 18:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I thinkn justin is BFP Eschoir 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Official Stances

What makes them official? This site is wholly owned by one guy. There is no legislature. This is a snapshot of the current fashion of his thought. Formerly he was anti-Bush and pro-Keyes and pro-legalization (proposed settling the LAT v FR litigation by assembling the litigants around a pot pipe and toking). Get rid of the Official Stances unlesss their officialness can be sourced. Eschoir 21:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

PROVOCATEURS

Here is the whole quote excerpted by ? about provocateurs:

Some of the articles posted on the site came from racist or antisemitic web sites. Conspiracy theorists also made use of Free Republic. Leftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs. "Vanity posts" became more frequent, and flame wars among members became more intense, as the site split into factions during the 2000 presidential election. Overall, civility degenerated. Some members became concerned that Free Republic had become a virtual hangout for kooks. Matters came to a head in early 2000 when Robinson (or "JimRob") speculated on George W. Bush’s connection to the airport in Mena, Arkansas where drug and gun-running allegedly took place during the 1980’s. Matt Drudge then dropped Free Republic’s link from the Drudge Report, and Goldberg took 2.000 members with her to start her own Lucianne.com.

Robinson decided to clean up his website and, like any good sheriff, deputized a posse of site moderators to remove offensive posts, threads, and articles and to ban those who posted them. But they did not stop there. Soon, they had banned the posting of any articles from certain websites that they deemed taboo, such as VDare.com ("too divisive"), LewRockwell.com, DixieNet.org (the League of the South’s website) , and the Free State Project’s website (www.FreeStateProject.org)

It would be easy to conclude that Robinson and his monitors simply went overboard in an effort to clean up the excesses of Free Republic, but there is more to it than that.

Because of its significant growth, Free Republic costs $240,000 annually to maintain. As a non-profit, Free Republic depends on donors, large and small, for its survival. No doubt the embarrassment of being dropped from the Drudge Report and Goldberg’s public break with the site concerned Robinson, and lie feared that funds might dry up if his site were perceived to he on the fringe. In addition, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times sued Free Republic for copyright infringement. The case was settled out of court. It was only natural for Robinson and his site administrators to want to look good for prospective donors.

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, Robinson has made it clear where he stands: "I see that the only Party capable of blocking arid defeating the evil Democrats is the Republican Party. I see that many races are so close hat as little as a one percent siphon of conservative votes to a third party could be the difference between success and failure. I see allowing a Democrat to remain in power when it could have been prevented as a triumph of evil."

Since the link to Chronicles doesn't get to the article cited, only a FR thread, Chronicles doesn't archive the article, and since the quote is misleading, I propose two solutions: 1) eliminate the quote OR 2) include the bolded text in the article along with the original quote.

I will so edit after a one week waiting period for editorial comment. I will then edit the "official stances" and "founders statement" as well.Eschoir 23:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Mooted already. Eschoir 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Robinson Democrat

Prodego, is there a sourcing problem on the Democratic affiliation of Mr. Robinson? It is an admission, against interest, and I would think it admissible. What's the problem? Eschoir 02:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you shouldn't cite Free Republic about itself in all but the most simple cases. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, we should only publish what has already been published. If you can find a reputable third party cite about that, feel free to included it. It may not be entirely relevant, since it isn't about FR directly, but it should be close enough. Prodego ^talk 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand. That being the policy (and I support it), then Founder's Statement and Official Stances have to go. Besides being of dubious relevance, they are citations to the subject of the article about itself.

Do you agree? Eschoir 03:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Founders statements and published policies are simple cases relevant to the article about free Republic. Robinson's one-off statement that, as you said is "against interest" and therefore not as readily obvious as being simple, is more complicated and would require a better source. It's a form of Original Research. --Tbeatty 03:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not simple to me. The Founders Statement is somebody's 91 word excerpt of a 568 word diatribe, first of all. Here is the original post verbatim:

"I posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I'm receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I'm NOT fair and balanced. I'm biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps.

"Statement by the founder of Free Republic:

"In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side. Believing that the best defense is a strong offense, we (myself and those whom I'm trying to attract to FR) support the strategy of taking the fight to the enemy as opposed to allowing the enemy the luxury of conducting their attacks on us at home on their terms and on their schedule.

"Therefore, we wholeheartedly support the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on known terrorist states and organizations that are believed to present a clear threat to our freedom or national security. We support our military, our troops and our Commander-in-Chief and we oppose turning control of our government back over to the liberals and socialists who favor appeasement, weakness, and subserviency. We do not believe in surrendering to the terrorists as France, Germany, Russia and Spain have done and as Kerry, Kennedy, Clinton and the Democrats, et al, are proposing.

"As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.

"Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity. We sell no merchandise, product or service, and we offer no subscriptions or paid memberships. We accept no paid advertising or promotions. We are funded solely by donations (non tax deductible gifts) from our readers and participants.

"We aggressively defend our God-given and first amendment guaranteed rights to free speech, free press, free religion, and freedom of association, as well as our constitutional right to control the use and content of our own personal private property. Despite the wailing of the liberal trolls and other doom & gloom naysayers, we feel no compelling need to allow them a platform to promote their repugnant and obnoxious propaganda from our forum. Free Republic is not a liberal debating society. We are conservative activists dedicated to defending our rights, defending our constitution, defending our republic and defending our traditional American way of life.

"Our God-given liberty and freedoms are not negotiable.

"May God bless and protect our men and women in uniform fighting for our freedom and may God continue to bless America.

"Jim Robinson"

Is it simple to call the 91 word excerpt "The Founder's Statement"?

The Official stances are additional edit jobs. A link to the home page would be more than adequate in-kind contribution to the site's publicity.

And what is Free Republic calls itself "the premier on-line gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web." According to Free Republic, as of January 2007, over 200,000 users have registered doing there? Free Republic as I understand the Wiki ethos is not to be the source of information about its own article. Eschoir 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that Billy H put the wikilinks back in the founder's statement. Someone else had deleted them asserting that quote material should never include Wikilinks. Is that correct or not? Why do people like to wikilink things like 'striper lakes' (which is about fishing!) that are never likely to be linked? Is that proper? Thanks - FaAfA yap 06:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted 'Gathering of Eagles ' as OR

Today's FaAfA factoid....

'Aloha' means hello AND goodbye!

I deleted the Gathering of Eagles subsection as unsourced OR. Neither source even mentioned Free Republic and the link to the site itself is dead. Wasn't that event spearheaded and orchestrated by Move America Forward or Right March, not FR, anyway?

Aloha - FaAfA yap 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Take care, and I guess we'll see you next year. - Merzbow 21:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aloha! --BenBurch 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Model Article

I looked at the McDonalds article as a model for wiki objectivity on commercial operations. I propose its neutrality at least at the top of the article would be something to emulate here. There are no "founders statements" or other self-serving fluff in that article. Just facts.

Need I remind you Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information? Eschoir 01:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee decision

The Arbitration Committee has rendered a decision affecting this article. As noted above, this article has been placed on article probation. It is expected that the article will be improved to conform with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, that information contained in it will be supported by verifiable information from reliable sources. The article may be reviewed on the motion of any arbitrator, or upon acceptance by the Arbitration Committee of a motion made by any user. Users whose editing is disruptive may be banned or their editing restricted as the result of a review. The complete decision can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic. This notice is given by a clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 21:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Tony Snow

the paragraph on Snow doesn't appear to be supported by the footnotes. This is all I get from the two footnotes.

White House Press Secretary and former Fox News commentator Tony Snow was a poster on the forum in 2000.[13] [14]

Eschoir 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And THAT's not even true. He e-mailed a poster in 2000, according to this www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bbe0eb64b6.htm Eschoir 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Found a possible corroboration. http://shii.wordpress.com/2006/04/27/deleted-posts-by-tony-snow/ Eschoir 22:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC) And this www.freerepublic.com/~tonysnow/ Eschoir 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

logo

The logo doesn't appear anywhere on Free Republic in any official capacity, it appears to be taken from a copyrighted image on speakeasy.org/~jp99 - I propose its presence is against wiki policy. Eschoir 23:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I just looked and found it on their home page. I think the use is covered by fair use. Most of the corporations on wiki incorporate their respective logos under the same policy (i.e. ford, yahoo, etc. The relevant policy is WP:LOGO. I've not scoured the policy and the fr logo for compliance, but a casual look-see to seems to be ok.Dman727 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you find the identical logo, or one that says "Support Free Republic"? Eschoir 21:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea, its right here www.freerepublic.com/home.htm in the upper right corner. The size is slightly different, but otherwise its identical. Dman727 22:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ok..strike that. I looked it at multiple times and didnt see it, but your right. The one on their home page has "support" written across it. Given that, Im not sure. I don't think its a copyright issue per fair use, and it might be an older logo and it would seem strange that someone would go through so much trouble to create an identical one with a different word in it. Proably the best thing would be if someone uploaded an identical one to the one that is used on the website. Dman727 22:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree.Eschoir 22:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a HATE site!

Whenever theres a news item posted about the so called "homosexual agenda" it doesn't take long for the bigots to come out of the word work with their petty snide little jokes at "gay" men's expense based on homophobic stereotypes. Only homosexual males are targetted for this form of abuse. Lesbians are always ignored even with most articles are about both genders. Words like faggot, queer, fudgepacker etc are also thrown around with "gay abandon". Views expressing all homos as pedophiles, AIDS infested or sex crazed perverts are common. I'm no fan of the homosexual agenda I think liberal "gays" are their own worst enemies but this site is extremely frustrating in its refusal to crack down on obvious bigoted posts and posters. This article should label this site clearly for what it is: a homophobic, sexist, and anti islamic racist hate site. Most of all it is anti-homosexual males. Such appaling filth should be shut down immediately or at least properly moderated! YourPTR! 08:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Try to improve the article through verifiable and reliable sources, not rants.--RWR8189 12:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You only have to check out the site itself for a verifiable and reliable source. It's appaling and you should see some of the keywords that are attached to some of the articles! YourPTR! 19:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is original research. When editing Wikipedia you should keep the core policies of nuetral point of view, verifiability and no original research in mind.--RWR8189 17:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

From a neutral point of view it is easy to verify that FreeRepublic is a hate site. It has no regard for freedom and no respect for anyone who isn't a white, Christian, narrow-minded, middle-American bigot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MonkeyInTheBath (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

I find this line very strange: "Free Republic has an official policy which requires authorized moderators to remove postings identified as blatantly violent, racist or bigoted." Considering the amount of Islamophobic, homophobic, anti-immigrant and outright racist postings on the site, they are not exactly applying this policy in a fair and unbiased way!--MonkeyInTheBath 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked the source ands it simply says they "may" remove such posts, not that they "require" doing so. I changed our text to reflect that. -Will Beback · † ·

It’s clearly become a hate site. It didn’t used to be. Now, with most of the reasonable people purged, the people remaining are the ones who say things like “we need to mine the border,” “shoot them all and let God sort the out,” or “put a bounty on Mexican pelts” as solutions to illegal immigration. These are the kind of people that Jim Robinson has decided are welcome on his site. --64.13.192.13 02:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. If you find a reliable source that indicates this, then add it to the article. Otherwise the discussion is just idle chatter more suited to a forum (i.e. not an encylopedia). Dman727 04:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, labeling "hate sites," "hate speech," "hate groups" has very little meaning except that the speaker/writer ~hates~ them. It is an attempt to define a box into which people can be put to effectively shut down their participation in the public conversation. Sure, there is hateful speech, but there are also hateful groups, e.g. the Southern Poverty Law Center, that have built little empires out of the politically and economically motivated castigation of alleged "haters." "Hate" is a subjective category, at best. At some point, I suppose, it is legitimate for an encylopedia entry to take note that an entity had been widely criticized as a "hate" entity. But an objective reference work would be wise to avoid directly accepting this adjective as part of the definition of anyone or any group and would be careful to balance any such interpretation with evidence that the entity is serious and respectable, if such evidence exists. Especially in today's climate where the word has been so widely used as an essentially political weapon. And it is always worth noting that the SPLC, the leading authority on "hate," has been strongly criticized for hypocrisy and greed in Harper's Magazine, among other places. (Now, IMO, the problem with FR is not so much "hate" as it is dogmatism and the prevalence of ignorance and tastelessness. But I do not expect, as do people who truck with the adjective "hate," that my opinion will become permanently attached their name.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.90.229.120 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 4 May 2007

Judge refuses bail to armed protester

Judge refuses bail to armed protester

Alan J. McCombs, The Examiner 2007-05-05 03:03:00.0 Current rank: # 5,635 of 5,893 WASHINGTON -

A D.C. Superior Court judge refused on Friday to offer bail to the man police say brought a rifle and two knives to a counter protest of an immigration rally on May 1.

Tyler Froatz II, an Eagle scout and District resident for the past 18 months, will be held in police custody until a May 17 court date after Judge John Hess expressed concern over whether Froatz posed a threat to the area.

Police say that on Tuesday, Froatz, was counter protesting at an immigration rally in Meridian Hill Park when he became embroiled in a fight with immigration rally organizer. According to police, Froatz bent the organizer's left arm and scratched her hand, before leaving the area to don dark camouflage clothing. Police arrived and arrested Froatz and found a host of weapons on him including a hammer, taser, and a loaded flare gun. In addition, Detective Robert Freeman of the U.S. Park Police testified that Froatz was carrying two knives including a "12 inch dagger-style knife."

A search of Froatz's nearby Jeep recovered a loaded M-1 rifle and ammunition. A map of a local embassy and a detailed, hand-drawn sketch of the park with lines pointing towards the center of the protest was found in the front seat of the Jeep, Freeman said.

But those items were overshadowed by what investigators discovered in Froatz's apartment in the 5300 block of 8 th St. NW. Freeman described a home bristling with a variety of bladed weapons, 13 guns and more than 2,000 rounds of ammunition. Froatz did not have a permit for the guns which include a fully-loaded 12-gauge shotgun and a .45-caliber pistol.

Police also discovered an explosive resembling a Molotov cocktail. The cocktail was found in a Welch's grape juice bottle wrapped in a t-shirt and appeared to be a mix of gasoline with a jelly-like substance which if it exploded would stick to a person "like napalm," Freeman explained.

Kristinn Taylor, a friend of Froatz who attended the hearing, expressed shock that the "nonthreatening," and chatty 24-year-old could hurt anyone.

"Like a lot of people who feel strongly about the immigration issue, he was out protesting," Taylor said, who added Froatz was not working for Free Republic during his protest.

"He didn't say anything about killing illegals or nothing like that."

http://www.examiner.com/printa-711301~Judge_refuses_bail_to_armed_protester.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pimmelkopf (talk • contribs) 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

The reference to Free Republic in the Examiner article is kind of confusing. Taylor, the terrorist's buddy, is (or was) the head of FR's chapter in Washington, D.C. In the article, though, he seems to be denying an accusation that hasn't been mentioned earlier in the article, namely a direct connection between FR and the terrorist. I think we need to pin that down before we can include anything about this incident in the Wikipedia article. Taylor is clearly connected with FR, but if the only connection between FR and Froatz is that Taylor is a personal friend of Froatz, I'd say that's too attenuated to merit mention in our article. JamesMLane t c 10:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the editor who posted this is now blocked indefinitely. - Crockspot 16:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why should anyone bear that in mind? I followed the link. The article actually says what the banned editor said it says. The Washington Examiner is no Indymedia. It's a corporate-owned, advertiser-supported, right-wing-leaning medium (see this editorial disparaging liberals). In short, it's the type of publication that no one ever quarrels with using as a source. It doesn't lose its acceptability under WP:RS just because it's cited by a blocked editor. The question for us is the nature of the tie between the terrorist and FR. Ad hominem attacks on one editor don't contribute to answering that question. JamesMLane t c 23:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Seem reasonable to bear in mind. No sense replying to a banned, vandalism only account, and the link posted is too attenuated to merit mention in the article. Not quite sure why theres even an argument. Dman727 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks really bad. Heck it is really bad. There was no reason for that M-1 or map unless you planned to be a sniper. And the EMBASSY map? This really must be looked upon as an act of domestic terrorism that we caught. GOOD JOB DC COPS! --BenBurch 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does the opinion of Ivor Tossell deserve mention?

The quote of Ivor Tossell is given undue weight and does not deserve mention. There is nothing about him that elevates his political opinions to the point where they deserve more weight than those of the average person. He gave his opinion about FreeRepublic and has had it published in his column. But that doesn't make him an authority worthy of citation in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mc6809e (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree. He doesn't seem to be a particularly notable person, (technology columnist?), and he's not stating anything in the way of facts--he's just saying that he hates the place. So, his comments don't even really qualify as a 'controversy', as I'd see things. Marieblasdell 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani supporter bannings

The current version of this incident reads:

"On April 21 founder Jim Robinson started a thread critical of 2008 Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani and began banning any members who announced their intention of voting for Mr. Giuliani. By some accounts 30-50% of the Free Republic user base has been banned in recent weeks."

The overall situation seems important enough to be mentioned, but I'm suspicious of this version's phrasing of it, especially the last sentence. I don't think that a comment in a blog is valid sourcing, either.

I'd suggest something that reads more like:

"On April 21, founder Jim Robinson started a thread critical of 2008 Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani. It aroused much controversy, and as a result, many members were banned or resigned."

What does everyone else think? Marieblasdell 21:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The content is fine provided theres a WP:RS to back it up. So far this content has been posted with only a blog as a source which fails WP:RS. Dman727 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I believe this at all. I'm an atheist/evolutionist who's posted plenty on FR and I've never even been threatened with being banned. I doubt I'm less objectionable than a Giuliani supporter. 4.88.77.154 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the version that was posted was not believable--30 to 50 percent? There couldn't have been that many members who WERE Giuliani supporters! But I think that the version I suggested could be documented by a link to the thread in question--unless that'd be considered original research. To me it would seem more like a primary source than original research. Marieblasdell 03:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Robinson's purge has now been reported in the MSM, specifically the New York Observer: see this story. On that basis, I've restored it to the article, with a verbatim quotation from the source so that no one can claim original research. JamesMLane t c 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

History Section

Most of the "facts" in this section have not been established. I propose stripping it to the statements where there are cites. --BenBurch 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Memogate

I have no overall interest in this particular wiki, but I do in things related to the Killian Documents. I cleaned up the "Memogate" section a little bit and added a couple of references, including a link to the original Buckhead post and another to an IEEE article (via the author's home page) showing that Buckhead's assertions regarding office technology were completely and utterly wrong. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 19:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Coming to the conclusion that you made in the document amounts to Original research and use of the lin k (which was interesting btw), is wp:SYN. To support your conclusion, you need a reliable source which draws the conclusion that you reached based on that document. Just finding a compelling document and drawing your own conclusions isnt enough for inclusion.Dman727 20:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh-uh, sorry. Buckhead's original assertion regarding 70's office tech was wrong in every way possible. The extensively footnoted and researched IEEE article rather (so to speak) explicitly shows this. Pointing this out is not WP:SYN in any way and it's not my fault that this undermines a lot of extremely faulty notions and claims that had been made to the contrary, and which, I should point out, have never been backed up with any hard evidence. If that article was perhaps too technical and long for you, maybe these might help you better to understand: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7] (if you don't like these coming from that source, go hit a library or complain to IBM about getting their research site back up). If you are trying to claim that the IEEE article is not from a reliable source, you might have a bit of a problem defending that.

I will allow you and others some time to discuss this a little bit more, but unless you can come up with a fact-based reason not to, some sort of a disclaimer regarding the contents of Buckhead's original post will have be added back in order to keep true to the purpose of having an up-to-date encyclopedia. I'm open to suggestions as to the wording, but it can't be left as is since it's highly misleading -BC aka Callmebc 20:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Buckhead may very well be wrong. I'm not supporting his assertion or refuting it. Yes, IEEE is a reliable source. It would make a fine inclusion into many documents on word processing, IBM and document production. However the document that you posted does not draw the conclusions that you are asking of it. Its a fine line but one that WP:SYN covers. The IEEE document gives a nice long discussion of word processor technology and Buckhead makes certain claims (which are quite possibility 100% wrong). But..and this is where WP:SYN comes into play, the IEEE document does not claim that Buckhead is wrong. To put that Buckhead is wrong in the article, requires WP:SYN be performed using your link. Silly? Bad Policy? Maybe, but it is what it is.

What we put into the article, is what we backup with sources, not the conclusions we draw based on those sources. Find a RS that states that Buckhead is wrong, and I'm all for including it.Dman727 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes or no -- did Buckhead make certain claims about 70's office technology to form the basis of his claim that the memos were forged?

Yes or no -- does that IEEE article (along with those other links) show that Buckhead was completely and utterly wrong?

Yes or no -- if "yes" to the second question, would it be utterly irresponsible to not at least refer to this in some fashion in an encyclopedia article on the matter?

Well? -BC aka Callmebc 21:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not noteable and my answer to your questions isn't good enough for inclusion to the article. If you want to make a statement regarding Buckheads claims, link a RS that discusses and refutes his claims. Given the amount of attention on this issue at the time, that should be pretty easy. Any assertions about Buckheads claims that you or I make are simply WP:OR and WP:SYN. Dman727 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being evasive. You're the one who reverted by claiming WP:OR/SYN, so you're the one who has to defend your actions and rationale. The IEEE article refutes Buckhead's claims, no ifs or buts, does it not? This isn't exactly an "assertion": while it doesn't discuss Buckhead in particular, it does quite clearly and very neutrally show that Buckhead's claims regarding 70's office technology were utterly wrong. If you can't refute this, then what would be your objection in putting a reference to this back in? Well? And I should mention that the more time I have to spend on this, the less likely I'll be in the mood to compromise much. -BC aka Callmebc 22:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not being evasive at all...Your just missing the point. There is no need to discuss my assertions..they don't matter. You see, my assertion and your assertion doesnt matter. The only assertion that matter are those that are covered by a RS. BTW, I hope your mood doesnt decline to much. Take a look at the top of this talk page. This article is on probation from the Arbitration Committee and its likely you'll get a block if you refuse to play well with others on this page.

You are being evasive -- I want to supply a link to an authoritative reference rather (so to speak again) highly relevant to a key part of the article, and you apparently just want to block it for reasons not too hard to guess at. You had reverted with the comment "rv based on wp:SYN" but refuse to defend that. It's quite likely that I'm not going to be the one to be blocked if you don't come up with some rationale or justification for your attitude, especially since you seem to be the only obstructionist here and I've been publicly willing to compromise. You can word the reference bit however you want, but the IEEE article absolutely belongs in there in one manner or the other.

FWIW, Im inclined to agree that with the conclusions that you have drawn. Considering the press coverage those papers received it should be a trivial matter for you to find a RS that discusses Buckheads claims and refute them. Dman727 23:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You're making the baseless assumption that the mainstream media did more than supply "coverage" of the controversy. And why do you keep asking for a "Reliable Source" when the IEEE article more than meets that category? I don't want to dawdle here much longer -- please quit being evasive & stalling, and instead think long and hard about how you can word the IEEE reference to your liking, or else try to come up with a genuinely logical and applicable reason not to include it. -BC aka Callmebc 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The IEEE document is a reliable source for many things, but it does not address Buckheads statements at all - therefore it is not reliable source to state a conclusion on the accuracy Buckheads statement. Currently the article does not even endorse Buckhead. It just reflects what he states which previous editors have deemed noteworthy enough for inclusion. You really need to read WP:SYN. If you havent, thats ok. I'll make one more attempt to explain to you. Putting a statement in the article that Buckhead is wrong requires that you combine the original source of Buckheads source statement, along with the IEEE source. It requires that you come to a conclusion based on the *combination* of two sources. THAT is WP:SYN. ALL YOU NEED IS A RS THAT STATES THAT BUCKHEAD IS WRONG. Thats all..really a very lowbar. If you cannot find such a document, that is a huge cluebat hitting you upside the head that is telling you that you are performing original research. That also is ok, but you can't use Wiki to publish your own particular conclusions.

I'm curious to see what other editors think. I think that we've both restated our position enough times now. I understand where you are coming from....I even agree with your conclusions. I'm just saying having the article reflect your conclusions is contrary to wiki WP:OR policy for inclusion. Dman727 05:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote The IEEE document is a reliable source for many things, but it does not address Buckheads statements at all - therefore it is not reliable source to state a conclusion on the accuracy Buckheads statement. But look at what Buckhead had written [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/replies?c=47]:

To: Howlin

Howlin, every single one of these memos to file is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman.

In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used monospaced fonts.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old.

This should be pursued aggressively.

Buckhead makes a lot of claims about office technology from the year 1972 on. Are these claims true or not? If someone reads that wiki article and gets legitimately curious about this, what can that person do to get more info? The IEEE article [8] completely addresses all of this so, again, why are you being evasive and stalling about including a reference to it? Do you know of any other online source for the info that can be used in place of it? Would you rather just change the main article to read Buckhead "...mentioned the memos' proportional spacing and made the unsupported claim that such printing was..."? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 12:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I read the IEEE article. It mentions proportionally spaced text only two times. The first time is when it talks about the MT/SC "composer" and tells us that it was more expensive than $7,800 -- in 1972, no less. That suggests that the tech was not widespread at the time. The second mention in in connection to Xerox Parc's Bravo Text Editor. It goes on to say the technologies were in daily use inside Xerox Parc by 1977. That's it. There's nothing in that cited article to suggest the technology of proportionally spaced fonts, used in the context of typed memos, was widespread. If anything the prices given in the article point us to the opposite conclusion -- that the use of proportionally spaced fonts in typewriting or wordprocessing, while technologically possible, was economically out of the reach of most people. And that was Buckhead's point.Mc6809e 19:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, you can't go by things cost in 1972 to make any assumptions about how common or uncommon things were. If you applied that rationale to typewriters, you could also claim that since typewriters, especially those made by IBM, cost so much, ~$1000+, that would "suggest" that typewriters, especially those made by IBM, were not widespread at the time. And if you look at how much Xerox copiers cost back then, ~$15k, you would think only huge corporations would be buying them and using them sparingly. Also, the article did skip over one particular IBM model of note: the MC/ST that IBM sold beginning in 1972 -- I'll let you look up what it could do: [9]. The problem is that you're making "assumptions" based on absolutely no evidence and are just as completely off base as Buckhead was. You have a big library near you? Go research in detail what common office tech was and could do back in the 70's. -BC aka Callmebc 23:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• WELL....Based on my own personal research using the IEEE document, it looks like Buckhead was right on a few things, wrong on a few things, and inconclusive on some others. I looked over the IEEE document again. I did not find Buckhead, Killian, Free Republic, Bush, or Air National Guard referenced. To have the article state a conclusion on the accuracy of Buckheads statement based on the IEEE would be a classic example of WP:OR. Right now the article is silent on Buckheads accuracy. Once we have a RS evaluating his statements, we can include that evaluation in the article. Dman727 20:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, what exactly was Buckhead right about? I think you need to be slightly more specific than stating your conclusion without mentioning anything to back it up. -BC aka Callmebc 23:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And, doing a bit of 'syn', myself--a private memo would be less likely to use cutting-edge technology than an 'official' document. That technology exists is no proof that it was used. (The technology necessary to give me a ride in the space shuttle has existed for a number of years, but that doesn't prove that I've flown.) Likewise, the IEEE article shows that the technology existed, but does not show that it was likely that it was used. Marieblasdell 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't quit your day job -- your "analysis" makes totally unsupported and not very well thought out assumptions: there was nothing "cutting edge" about the early 70's word processors -- they simply evolved from the Mag Tape/Card systems that IBM had been selling since the mid-60's, [10], and these systems weren't exactly rare, [11] (and according to one document I saw, IBM was making more money selling them by 1972 than their typewriters); IBM's early competitors were compatible enough for a document created and saved to 60's IBM Mag Tape unit to be read and printed out on a much more advanced 70's Redactron Redactor, a unit almost nobody remembers despite Redactron selling 10,000 of them by 1975 -- [12]; and actually what few old "Memorandums for Record" I've found on the Internet are mostly proportionally printed -- [13] and [14], as well as this gem, even it it isn't a memo per se -- [15].

But all of that is semi-original research and not that relevant to the current issue here: you have on one hand a Wikipedia article mentioning a person who famously made a number of claims regarding 70's and later office technology; and on the other you have an extremely well-researched article regarding that same office technology -- if you going to mention one, it would be irresponsible to not at least reference the other. Look at what Wikipedia's own entry for encyclopedia [16] says: Works of encyclopedic scope aim to convey the important accumulated knowledge for their subject domain. Works vary in the breadth of material and the depth of discussion, depending on the target audience. I don't seem to find anything in the article about maintaining ignorance. Whether you have a political agenda or not, you have to ask yourself: will someone coming here for knowledge and information be well served? -BC aka Callmebc 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what this controversy is all about. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The article mentioned may contradict things said by Buckhead, but until two and two are put together by a reliable source it is original research and WP:SYN. I mean WP:SYN makes it pretty clear: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. The discrepancy can exist, but as long as there is no verifiable source making the claim, it cannot be included in the article.--RWR8189 00:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The IEEE article supports it's depiction of 70's office tech with research, footnotes, and sources. Buckhead's depiction of 70's office is supported by....nada, squat, nothing.

By Wikipedia's reliable source description: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. In other words, an IEEE article on 70's tech meets any definition of a reliable source.

By Wikipedia's original research description: Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified). In other words, using an earlier publication, in this case the IEEE article, to present existing knowledge to counter the claims made by especially a less authoritative source is not original research. When editing any Wiki article, and correct me if I'm wrong, I do believe that it's encouraged to use the best, most up to date, and most reliable references available.

Now, Wikipedia's by WP:SYN description goes: Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. In this case, though, there is no A or B in terms of reliable sources: you have on one side a widely distributed depiction of 70's office technology coming from, by any definition, a totally unreliable source -- an anonymous (at the time) blogger named Buckhead; but on the other side, you have an authoritative depiction of 70's office tech by a truly authoritative source, the IEEE. In other words, there is only an "A" because that is only one reliable source at issue, the one that you guys are trying to block from inclusion.

What exactly are you not understanding? -BC aka Callmebc 02:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Freerepublic source is A. IEEE source is B. Your statement that he is wrong is C. WP:SYN. Dman727 03:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to claim that a posting, with no source support, by an anonymous blogger on the Free Republic blog site constitutes a reliable source? Remember that WP:SYN only applies to reliable sources. -BC aka Callmebc 03:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The posting, with no source support, by an anonymous blogger on the Free Republic blog site is obviously a reliable source, insofar as we're discussing the history of Free Republic, as this page is. Marieblasdell 04:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The posting on the Free Republic website is not a reliable source, however the post did receive coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, we are writing about press accounts of the post not the actual post itself.--RWR8189 04:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now we're finally getting somewhere. My only points here have been in regards to the contents of Buckhead's posting, which are here on the Wikipedia, and not the press it instigated. And in terms of an information source regarding 70's office technology, Buckhead is by no definition a reliable source. Which means that WP:SYN has no applicability here since there is no reliable source "B" to synthesize with reliable source "A," the IEEE article. And as I also pointed out, WP:RS & WP:OR can't be used either since we're only talking about including a published report from a reliable source, the IEEE article, as a reference regarding the very 70's office tech claims made by Buckhead.

So is there any other WP:blah, blah, blah anybody here wants to try to leverage into blocking inclusion of the IEEE piece? Well? -BC aka Callmebc 04:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue of having a reliable source for Buckhead statement is valid. Just did a quick google search and found one at Seattle Times.[17] This renders moot any wikilawyering that WP:SYN doesnt apply. We now have a reliable source for Buckhead statement. Dman727 05:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so fast there, Inspector -- that reference of yours points out that It was the first public allegation that CBS News used forged memos in its report questioning President Bush's National Guard service — a highly technical explanation [um, no...] posted within hours of airtime citing proportional spacing and font styles.

But it did not come from an expert in typography or typewriter history as some first thought. Instead, it was the work of Harry MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes and who helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Los Angeles Times has found.

So what this does is simply confirm that Buckhead, aka Harry MacDougald, is by no means any sort of recognized expert on 70's office technology, therefore eliminating the use of WP:SYM here because this whole discussion is about including an authoritative article on 70's technology, which is the topic central to the "Buckhead" post. There is only one reliable source under discussion here, the IEEE article, so WP:SYM cannot be applied in this situation. Ipso facto, oui? -BC aka Callmebc 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats what I've been saying all along. Just get a reliable source that evaluates Buckheads statement and the WP:SYM and WP:OR problems go away. Dman727 13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- can you point out the Wikipedia policy that states that a reliable source reference has to also specifically evaluate another reference and not just the topic covered? And as I already pointed out, WP:SYM and WP:OR don't apply here by their very own wording. -BC aka Callmebc 15:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash this all over again. Read WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYM. I've explained them 4 or 5 times now so its futile to me to repeat myself (perhaps someone else can do a better job at explanation than I). These rules alway apply. REGARDLESS, there is now a reliable source that questions Buckheads accuracy so a sentence or two conveying that in the article is appropriate (which I THINK was your goal). On the other hand if your goal is only to get the IEEE document showcased on wiki, the word processor and typewriter articles are proably a better venue. Dman727 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we've proven that the applicability of WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYM in this case is certainly debatable. But actually I wasn't really intending, believe it or not after all this, to even insert a whole sentence or two regarding the accuracy of Buckhead's post. All I intended was a passing mention and a link to something a bit more informative and authoritative regarding 70's office tech as a reference for someone curious about Buckhead's claims. That's it. As I stated at the beginning, my interest isn't with this Wiki article, just the Killian bit, no more, no less. I don't know how many of you guys are Freepers, but I have to say that the debate here was far more on point and far, FAR less hostile than what I went through recently with some LGFers. That turned into month-long battle royale that I ended up eventually winning (I think....), but what a colossal, time-sucking PITA it was. This debate in contrast got actually kind of fun, and for that I'm very appreciative -- so much so that I would be OK (within limits) to let you or whoever add the reference link and word it however you want. You guys also gave me a couple of ideas that I think may be somewhat useful not too far down the road, so thanks for that as well. -BC aka Callmebc 17:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... there is no reference to back up the "while his claims may not be entirely accurate" comment. How about this: While his claims may not be entirely accurate, [18], his posting spurred.... Alternatively, I wouldn't object to including instead this Wikipedia article on Word Processors, [19], which includes a reference to the IEEE article at the bottom. -BC aka Callmebc 19:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Small point re: Memogate

I didn't want to interrupt the discussion above, but the following sentence doesn't make sense in its current form:

'His post on Free Republic, mentioning the memos' proportional spacing and he made the claim that such printing was "not widespread until the mid to late 90's," was made during the CBS News broadcast.'

I feel confident that he didn't make a post on Free Republic during the CBS News broadcast, which is what the sentence says, right now. Did he actually make the claim during the CBS News broadcast, or is that intended to refer to something else entirely? I want to rewrite it, but I don't want to introduce factual errors. Marieblasdell 22:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it doesnt sound quite right. I suppose its possible that he posted simultaneous with the newscast, but that seems unlikely imo. Proably "during" should be replaced with "regarding", but I don't know either for a fact. Dman727 23:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand it a little bit more. Thank you. I'm going to try to rewrite and clarify it. I don't think that whether it was 'during' the broadcast is important. Marieblasdell 23:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

As I recall (no cite, sorry), the first post was indeed posted while the broadcast was actually going on. That's why the whole thing was almost certainly a setup. Unlearned hand 01:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it looks as though Buckhead made his post right at the end of the show, 8:59pm Pacific Time, [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1210662/replies?c=47]. It appears that the show aired on both the East and West coasts at 8pm. The Killian memos were in a standard segment, roughly about 12 1/2 minutes long, so it looks as though Buckhead made his post right after the segment aired, but while the overall show was still going on, especially considering that he probably spent at least a minute or so composing it before the time of the actual post. -BC aka Callmebc 20:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If the show aired at 8pm on the East coast, then he made his post at a time when the show (on the East Coast) had been over for almost 3 hours, so I think my phrasing of: 'on the night of the broadcast' is appropriate. Marieblasdell 23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right -- I was thinking he was on the West Coast because of the Pacific Time bit, but he's an Atlanta lawyer, so he would have seen the earlier Eastern time version. Which would put his post at 11:59pm his time, a couple of hours after the show. -BC aka Callmebc 23:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot belive they said this

I put in Tropical Cyclones and Iran in google to see how Iran is going to deal with Cyclone Gonu. Low and behold, Free Republic was in the Top 10. They were saying how this would be a good thing, and it is a shame it is not Cat 5. They were also being virulently Anti-Muslim. What they said is disgusting, and something should be said in the article about this --Lionheart Omega 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Find a WP:RS that discusses it and its fair game. Dman727 00:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

When I read your post, my reaction was, "The only thing I'd have trouble believing would be if their hate-filled messages were free of errors in spelling and grammar." I checked out the site and it didn't take long to find, for example, a post rooting for a swerve into Iran and warning of hazards if the storm hit the Persian Gulf: "Could loss some grounded oil tankers that simply cannot moore in deeper water (main channel area)." [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1845224/posts#comment?q=1] The Freeptards are venting their atavistic impulses, they're misspelling common four-letter words in doing so, and the world still revolves about its axis.

Dman727's response illustrates a problem with Wikipedia's current policy. If a few crackpots use Democratic Underground to post tsunami conspiracy theories, and the corporate media report it, then we can include it, even if the site administrators denounced the lunacy. If a greater number of Freepers use FR to hope for mass death in Iran, with no objection from Robinson, but the corporate media (a/k/a "WP:RS") don't report it, then it gets censored here, too. Unfortunately, Dman727 gives the correct interpretaton of current Wikipedia policy. JamesMLane t c 01:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Freeptards? Could you be a little more childish?--RWR8189 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Venting on the talk page helps me adhere to NPOV in editing the article. Nor does my comment violate WP:NPA. If you have a problem with a specific edit of mine, I'll be happy to discuss the point. JamesMLane t c 07:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I never accused you of violating NPA, I'm just calling your comment childish, which it was. If calling people silly little names like that makes you feel better about yourself though, more power to you.--RWR8189 22:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment could be considered a WP:NPA violation RWR, please be civil. Prodego ^talk 02:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with both of you.

RWR: By my lights, such gibes as "Freeptard" and "DUmmie" are within the bounds of acceptable razzing of adversaries. By contrast, "Moozslime" and the like, which find frequent use by your colleagues on FR, cross the line. You apparently see it the other way around. You also express no disapproval of the bloodthirsty FR posts that sparked this thread in the first place. I don't agree with your choices.

Prodego: I appreciate your desire to maintain civility on the talk page, but I don't consider RWR's comment a violation. He expressed his disagreement with a particular choice of mine (and of course I returned the favor in this very post!). We liberals agree with Justice Brennan that "debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open...." (from New York Times v. Sullivan) We reject the Bush Administration view that "all Americans ... need to watch what they say...." [20] JamesMLane t c 02:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For better or worse, Wikipedia is not a venue for public debate. We are an encyclopedia, and should be 'publishing' only facts in our articles. Talk pages exist to further this goal, not for general discussion of the topic at hand. Prodego ^talk 03:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Youthful indiscretion

Freedom isn't free: The "coke head felon" quote may go on too long, feel free to edit it, but I object to it's elimination without citation of some wiki rule it is in violation of. It is included for it's classic indiscretion along the lines of John Cleese's rant in The Architect Sketch ("I'll have you know I wouldn't become a Free Mason if you got down on your lousy stinking knees and begged me!"). It is not posted for itself but in support of the last paragraph giving the context that political purges aren't new at FR. Eschoir 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've invested some time in reviewing the history of this article, including the archives of this Talk page. You were banned and sued by Free Republic, and you've been posting elsewhere with undiluted hostility toward Free Republic for ten years, so you have a conflict of interest. James M. Lane is a Democratic Underground member and his comments here speak for themselves, so he has a conflict of interest. In my opinion, neither of you should be editing the article. The history of the article shows that the "coke head felon" quote was championed by someone who has now been banned. In spite of your claim in your edit summary, there were links provided at that time, but the consensus was that the quote should be removed. If anyone else interprets the history of this article differently, I will listen with an open mind. The wikirule that I cite is the consensus rule. FreedomAintFree 05:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RWR8189 is an active member of Free Republic, but, strangely, you don't accuse him of having a conflict of interest. For the record, I don't think that he does, but he's obviously closer to the line than I am. (I lurk there but seldom post.) As for the quotation, I have no idea whether there was a consensus as you say. My personal opinion is that the quotation should be included. Your ES "people are allowed to change their minds about a candidate" misses the point completely. The issue isn't that we report Robinson's statement if it was logically inconsistent, because we want to show him up, but if what he said about Bush was OK (because he's "allowed" to change his mind) then that makes it not worth including. We're not here to tear Robinson down or build him up. The issue is whether the quotation would be informative to a reader who came here knowing nothing of FR. Clearly, it would. A major change of position by the site administrator is more important than stupid posts by a couple of since-banned DU members, yet the latter information is still included in the Democratic Underground article. I also don't see the relevance of your contention that the quotation "was championed by someone who has now been banned." We can report on McCarthyism but we shouldn't practice it. JamesMLane t c 08:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"and you've been posting elsewhere with undiluted hostility toward Free Republic for ten years"

Please source this statement, edit it or withdraw it.Eschoir 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Freedomaintfree seems to have registered June first, yet he knows so much history. I smell a sock-puppet.Eschoir 18:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Freepers will go to any lengths apparently to suppress the cokehead felons quote.Eschoir 01:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Prodego: Thanks for the advice. I disagree. The 3rr prohibits the reversion of a single editor's work. "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor" The Freepers are guilty of violation of the 3R by proxy. So far, Fredomaintfree (a Bryan sockpuppet) has reverted me [#1], I reverted him, he reverted me[#2], I reverted him, and then proxy RWR (second editor) reverted me[#3], I reverted him, then third editor reverted me[#4], I replied with new content. Now FreedomfromPalatine has reverted my new copy [#5]!

No meaningful attempt by the freepers has been made to discuss changes. "When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance."

Check your facts. Thank you for your watchfulness.Eschoir 02:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"The Freepers"? There is no Cabal. See WP:CABAL Putting aside the issue of possible socks a moment, those are all individual editors. Personally I saw activity that caught my eye and I see sourcing issues, hence my edit and my edit summary indicated my reason. Dman727 03:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "edit" was a revert, not merely an edit. And are you not a registered un-banned participant at Free Republic?Eschoir 03:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got an account at a number of political sites including free republic and DU. I rarely partipate in most of them as I don't like sites that limit themselves to one political spectrum. Discussion limited to one spectrum like singing in an echo chamber. Dman727

I must have missed the lesson on WP:3RRPROXY...And for the record I have nearly 6,000 posts at DU as well, so hopefully I don't run into any proxy cabals if I agree with you on a matter at that article.

As this article is on probation from ARBCOM I think we should tread very lightly, there may be BLP issues involved in quoting Robinson directly from FR as well, although I have no doubt he said it, without an RS, it doesn't cut it.--RWR8189 05:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments for Inclusion in Indiscretions

Per Prodego, I propose the following text:

When Robinson was supporting Alan Keyes, who had spoken at the original March for Justice, for President in 2000, he "famously blasted George W. Bush’s presidential candidacy back in 2000, before a dramatic late-campaign about-face that saw him emerge as one of the GOP ticket’s biggest supporters." [21]

- He famously wrote "So, it doesn't matter if he snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful indiscretion? . . ."

- "Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another coke head as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions." Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!

- "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!" [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm#2]

- Robinson's shift to Bush (after posting "I do not believe a Bush Presidency will be good for our Constitution or for our Republic.") caused an internal battle analogous to the "April Purge" of 2007 "as its founder and chief administrator first cleansed commenting ranks of Bush supporters, then, later, rallied to his support."[22]

Personally, I can't see what's notable about it, for it to be worth including at all. And it goes on much too long, even if it were worth including. Marieblasdell 04:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We need to reach a consensus on whether it's intended to write an article about Free Republic, or an extensively detailed biography about Jim Robinson, listing every time he changed his mind. If the former, this text is not notable and doesn't belong in the article. If the latter, then the whole article needs a new title and a major overhaul. FreedomAintFree 04:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As I described in my edit summary, Free Republic is not a reliable source. Inclusion of Robinson's comment is limited to what is included in the Observer article, or another reliable source if it can be found. And as was noted above, this is not the Jim Robinson page, and it doesn't describe his views on every matter. If you think he notable enough to deserve his own page, go ahead and create one, although I believe it was AfD'd some time ago.--RWR8189 05:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In the article about FR, we can certainly quote FR. "Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves...." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves The conditions set in that passage of the policy are met here, because the purpose of the quotation isn't to establish that Bush is a cokehead, but rather that at one time the FR site owner said he was.

More generally, the main reason for not having a separate article about Robinson is not that statements about him don't belong on Wikipedia. The reasoning that emerges from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Robinson is that he's notable only in the context of FR, so that relevant information can go on the FR article. By "relevant information" I mean, of course, information relevant to FR. If Robinson was convicted of a felony or saved an infant from a burning building, those interesting tidbits wouldn't belong here. Given that he runs a political website and imposes some restrictions on the scope of permissible discussion based on his own opinions, however, his political opinions do become relevant to the article about the website.

The material shouldn't be presented as an "indiscretion" of Robinson's -- "Look! JimRob is bad because he changed his mind!" Also, I agree with Marie Blasdell that the text suggested above is too long. I disagree with the straw-man argument that analogizes coverage of this point to "listing every time he changed his mind" or "describ[ing] his views on every matter". No one is proposing that. We as editors make decisions all the time about what's important, and we can reasonably say that it's worth noting when the administrator of a political site reverses his opinion of one of the most important political figures of the day. JamesMLane t c 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with JamesMLane's analysis. When Robinson's political views affect Free Republic they are relevant to this article. They should not be portrayed in a sinister or mocking fashion. FR is a reliable source for its own views. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That outburst notwithstanding, I don't see any policy shift that is apparent before and after the cited quote that would make this opinion notable to FR. He evidently changed his position on a subject, but I don't see how this is entirely notable to the history of FR, policies, or indiscretions. If Skinner over at DU was to criticize Obama's past use of cannibis or cocaine and then go on to endorse him as the Democrat nominee for president, I wouldn't find that particularly notable either.

It also seems to border on original research to cherry-pick quotes and then do self-analysis claiming that positions have changed.--RWR8189 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The infamous FR troll proposes adding the cokehead felons quote, supported by the DU member who calls Freepers Freeptards. Nearly everyone else is opposed. This is a conflict of interest and it is affecting their judgment in this matter. Even though they seem to be allowed to edit the article their opinions should be given less weight when determining consensus. -- FreedomAintFree 02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any policy shift that is apparent before and after the cited quote that would make this opinion notable to FR. He evidently changed his position on a subject, but I don't see how this is entirely notable to the history of FR, policies, or indiscretions.:::

YOU don't, but you are a Freeper. The point is, the Observer does. History does. History also repeats itself, especially when unstudied. If Giuliani gets the nominations, will Giuliani opponents be banned?

And FreedomfromPalatine, I guess some editors are more equal than others, eh? For someone who has only been registered for a week, you sure are savvy to Wiki ways! Eschoir 04:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback was kind enough to post links to all the "Wiki ways" on my talk page when he noticed that I'm a newbie. When I buy something, I read the owner's manual. Even though he has had disagreements with me on this article and another, Will has been decent and welcoming, and he hasnn't called me a sockpuppet. He sets a good example for you, Eschoir. Please follow it. -- FreedomAintFree, 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)