Template:TrollWarning

Note: Other relevent comments may exist at Talk:Jim_Robinson. Consider reading that page, too, before taking any brash action.

Part of the history of this page is now at Talk:Free Republic/pagehistory, following Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Freeploaders. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

---

1. Talk:Free Republic/Archive1
2. Talk:Free Republic/Archive2

I am a newcomer to Wikipedia. I have just added information concerning the authenticity of the Killian memos and it was immediately removed. I am a professional typesetter, having used the IBM Selectric Composer for about five years in the late 1970s and early 1980s before switching to more modern equipment. I have some expertise in this area and can personally guarantee that the Killian memos were not prepared on a Selectric Composer. The superscript "th" in "111th Fighter Intercept Squadron" matches Microsoft Word product, but does not match Selectric Composer product. I have just learned that you have a "revert" function and I encourage whomever "reverted" it to restore my comments. Thank you. 68.253.143.93 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too was a typesetter. The th superscript does not match what you can do with Word at all. And is JUST what you would get with that model Selectric. Other documents from that base in that era have been shown to have that superscript. Not to mention that they were signed by somebody who passed away before Desktop Publishing even existed. BenBurch 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BenBurch, but those memos were not produced on a Selectric Composer. This is the definitive source on the controversy. http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm The signature of a dead man can be forged. If the Wikipedia editors are genuinely unbiased, the article will reflect the fact that the memos are definitely forgeries. The content of the memos was disputed by Killian's son. I feel that the editors may have a liberal bias and I look forward to a candid discussion and resolution of this issue. 68.253.143.93 23:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Totally wrong. We have memos from that era that are direct matches. It is very easy to produce that superscript on that typer. Likely they are not forgeries though they have no chain of custody that proves otherwise, so the matter will always be in doubt. BenBurch 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these alleged "memos from that era that are direct matches"? I am intimately familiar with the equipment, having used it every day for five years. Furthermore, the Selectric Composer cost about $4000 in pre-Jimmy Carter dollars, roughly equivalent to $20,000 today, and was used by printing and typesetting shops -- generally not found on Air Force bases. Have you reviewed the Flounder.com article? 68.253.143.93 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, your position is indefensible. There have been many generations of Times New Roman typeface, but they weren't using 11.5-point in 1972. Also, they used ABC widths that were not in use until development of TrueType fonts in the 1990s. The so-called "Killian memos" are forgeries and there is no question about that. I look forward to your production of these "memos from that era that are direct matches." If you can produce an exact match of these memos with a Selectric Composer, then you should go to http://www.defeatjohnjohn.com and claim the $50,000 reward -- it's been more than two years now and nobody's been able to do it. Furthermore, while Killian's personal secretary vouched for the content of the memos, Killian's son disputes it. And there are other articles here at Wikipedia, specifically dealing with the memo authenticity issues rather than Free Republic, that acknowledge the memos are forgeries. I realize that there are a lot of people who have an ideological investment in believing that the memos are genuine. I understand from your continued silence at this point that I've given you a lot to think about. I am replacing the content with a citation to the Flounder.com site. Use Occam's Razor, consider the internal consistency of Wikipedia (with regard to other articles dealing specifically with the Killian memos and their authenticity), and try to have a neutral POV. 68.253.143.93 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Documents in that font exist from the late 60s through 70s. The government sector had whatever typefaces it wanted and IBM supplied them. Period. You are at best very mistaken. And the superscript is trivially easy to make identical to that one. If you don't know how, you are not what you represent yourself to be. BenBurch 04:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and infer nothing by my silence. Unlike some others on Wikipedia, I have a life and a job. I'll respond to things when I have some time not spent doing more productive things like training my dogs or target practice at the range. BenBurch 04:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivially easy"? Then claim the $50,000 reward he was talking about, Ben. It stands unclaimed. Anyone who can duplicate the Killian memos, using equipment available in 1972, can claim the $50,000 reward. That would buy a lot of dog food. I'm not an expert, but I defer to the experts. For a detailed analysis of these issues, see Killian documents authenticity issues. The only expert standing up for the possible authenticity of these forgeries, Dr. David Hailey, donated $250 to the Kerry campaign; and while he claims that they were prepared on "a typewriter," he refuses to identify the make and model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity_issues#Dr._David_Hailey.27s_analysis The rest of the typography experts who have weighed in on this range from disagreement with Dr. Hailey, to calling him a fraud outright. Dr. Joseph Newcomer, a document expert who produced an extensive analysis asserting the memos were forgeries, called Hailey's study "deeply flawed." http://www.flounder.com/bush2b.htm "Paul" at Wizbangblog.com caught Hailey forging his proof and leaving the work in progress on an open folder on his website. http://wizbangblog.com/2004/09/30/fact-checking-the-boston-globe-in-advance.php I have replaced the disputed passages in the article with the following: "For a detailed analysis of these issues, see Killian documents authenticity issues."

Also, Ben, I've reviewed your track history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BenBurch Front and center, you've been accused of "making bad faith edits to the Democratic Underground page" and asked to "conduct yourself in a mature manner." The typographer who started this section said, "I realize that there are a lot of people who have an ideological investment in believing that the memos are genuine." Apparently you're one of those people, Ben. Until the two of you can work out your differences amicably, I see no constructive purpose in allowing you to continue this editing war. BryanFromPalatine 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bryan. I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia, and accept the citation of Killian documents authenticity issues as a reasonable compromise. It is quite comprehensive. I had no idea that Ben is a "problem child" here at Wikipedia. The comments on his personal page indicate that this isn't his first rodeo. Yes, if he finds duplicating the Killian memos with 1972 equipment to be "trivially easy," then by all means he should claim the $50,000 reward without further delay. And I'm looking forward with breathless anticipation to his production of these alleged "memos from that era that are direct matches." 68.253.143.93 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben's no 'problem child'. Most editors who work on contentious political articles get accused of something or other. Par for the course. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While free republic statements about free republic posts are reliable sources, they are not reliable sources for anything else. Beyond this, the statement about the APJ posters being moles was not sourced, at all. No edit that attempts to improve the encyclopedia can be vandalism - please do not lable mine as such. JBKramer 19:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further comments. I think this is a bad course of action. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JB - Here are my thoughts. If an issue is not an 'extraordinary claim' is a 'generally accepted truth' and lacks really good sourcing, but has dozens of less-that-perfect sources - and the issue is confirmed by the subject - and there are no RS's claiming the issue false -then the multiple arguments can be weighed together to meet RS V. It is a 'generally accepted fact' that members of FR were instrumental in investigating and even solving the 'Killian Documents' incident. Were their important contributions documented by the NY Times, or even the Washington Times? No. AFAIK the only 'paper' that claimed this was a tiny newspaper in the south, sold at about 50 locations like gas stations and Quiky marts. [1] Now is that paper a more RS than 50 well-respected blogs? I don't think so. I contend that FR can be a RS on FR issues, if that issue is not 'in contention'. Therefore, with a preponderance of evidence claiming that FR was instrumental in 'solving' the Killain Docs, and NO ONE claiming otherwise - these arguments weighed together add up to WP RS V. Same with the Chad Castagana issue. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe in 'generally accepted fact'. Source or remove. If it's not reported by an WP:RS, it didn't happen. Blogs are not reliable sources. The threashold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If you don't like the policies that make blogs not acceptable as sources, fork the project.JBKramer 22:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JB - regarding your revert - "Chad Castagana left comments (including one stirring endorsement of Katherine Harris) at conservative websites with names like Expose The Left and Free Republic." huffington Post This combined with Jim Rob's admission combined with DOZENS of blogs, combined with NO ONE denying it = RS V. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please include that cite in this article. If you'd like to draft a proposed paragraph here, I will review it. JBKramer 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. FR 'admitted' Chad was a Marc Costanzo the Freeper. Dozens of blogs say so. NO ONE is claiming otherwise. If ONE person writing on RS claimed "I know that wasn't Chad writing as Marc Costanzo - I know for a fact that he was climbing Mt Everest and didn't take his laptop". We couldn't accept it as 'truth'. The fact that there are NO opposing claims changes much. (Same with Killian docs) IMHO) - F.A.A.F.A. 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not FR saying that, it's some guy posting on their message boards. JBKramer 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) Jim Robinson is the founder and owner of of FR, and speaks for FR. When he admits that Chad was a Freeper and admits that ON FR using his real name - on a highly monitored and moderated site with logins and usernames, and NO one is questioning that is was in fact Jim Robinson posting as Jim Robinson - it's Jim Robinson. No? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just reasonable. - Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How's this JB?

Chad Castagana, arrested by the FBI for allegedly sending profane and death-threatening letters containing 'white powder' to Liberal politicians, journalists, and celebrities[2] was a registered user of Free Republic,[3] and had previously been banned from Free Republic several times under various usernames. His last username, as confirmed by Free Republic's founder and owner Jim Robinson, was Marc Costanzo, and the posts in question were determined to be Castagana's through an examination the IP logs.[4] Castagana wrote about the threatening letters on Free Republic, in one case writing about Keith Olbermann's reported reaction to receiving one of the letters. Castagana, posting as Costanzo whose sig line read "Name your poison", wrote on Free Republic on 10-30-2006 regarding the Olbermann letter-threat "I do not believe he sent it to himself. But that is just guess work." and "I heard from a liberal blog that Olbermann was a prima donna at the hospital.." [5]

F.A.A.F.A. 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A problem here I think is that you are the one who is making the determination that Castanga is "alluding" to the alleged crimes, not a reliable source. It seems to me to be correct, but it is not at this point verifiable.--RWR8189 01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK I changed alluded to to wrote about which assigns no connection. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accoring to: RWR8189 (Talk | contribs) (this section cannot be included, not only because of WP:V WP:RS and WP:NOR, but because of WP:BLP accusations made against this person must be verified) Even that Jim Robinson claims it was the same guy, you can't include his name. Period. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I think the problem is that you are making the connection Costanga's postings and the alleged crime and not a reliable source, the nuance of the wording isn't really relevant. Even though the plain text of his posting obviously seems to indicate some connection to the alleged crime, no cited reliable source has come out and said as much.--RWR8189 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still makes the assumption that a crystall ball is used to figure out his posting was an allusion to his crime. It still unfairly links FR to a act of terrror it did not participate it and is inherently PoV. However fairness is not an issue, the issue is the prejudice that FR breeds terrorists. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington is a blog and not an acceptable source on wikipedia. We still have some standards here. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) The new wording does NOT indicate that he 'alluded' to it. It says he wrote about the incidents. Just like anyone else on FR wrote about the incidents. Dominick you aren't even reading before you revert. THE VERY FIRST CITE - The Daily News, a major paper in L.A, wrote 'death threats' and most other articles say 'death threats' - F.A.A.F.A. 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not usuing WP:FAITH I read it it cant be included.

RWR8189 (Talk | contribs) (this section cannot be included, not only because of WP:V WP:RS and WP:NOR, but because of WP:BLP accusations made against this person must be verified) Cant use the metion of the name, sorry. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're verified in the FBI affavdavit linked to. Dom, you don't want to start an edit war. The whole Killin Doc issue is similarly sourced using FR as a source on FR. The next time you revert, I will have to apply the same understanding of RS that you are using to the Killian section, and the ENTIRE article. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FR is acceptable accotding to wikipedia policy as a source for the FR article. Read the policy. Huffington is a source for her blog's article. Find another source and WP:NPA. Threats are pointless, I guess you are out of proper arguments. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dom{you removed sourced material without even bothering to follow the links.[6] The daily news and the affadavit said death threats but you challenged me with the inane edit summary - prove it was a death threat without a fortune teller blogs are not sources). I am dissapointed that you are acting in such a manner. If this application of RS policy as to not accepting FR as a RS on FR is being used on Chad Casatagana, it's going to be applied to the Killian Docs too. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA I am afraid you are not being polite. On Killian the action was on FR. If your bias leads you to do that I imagine people will fight with you there. If the FBI affidavit is a matter of public record, then find a public source and not a blog. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already cut the death-threats baby in half. JBKramer 20:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, JBK - Since you're using the same application of not accepting FR as a source on FR for the Killian Doc issue as well, I accept that WP is being applied fairly, even though I don't agree with it. Will you please do the same for the 2 Killian Doc articles which have numerous claims, cites and links to FR? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I decline. I think you all are well on your way to making this article a good example of how wikipedia should not work. Activists should not be allowed to win on the basis of the shrillest voice. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was directed to JBKramer, not you. AGF please.- F.A.A.F.A. 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do AGF until you showed to the contrary. Your assumption about FR clouds your judgement. You don't hurt FR here, you hurt Wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop! I find Free Republic very entertaining and spend at least a half hour there every day. I assume nothing about FR as I am continually surprised by what I read there. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chad problem will solve itself if editors refrain from using sources that are not reliable. No blogs. No blogs. No blogs. NO BLOGS. JBKramer 20:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - check here:

Chad Castagana 39, of Woodland Hills, California was arrested on 11-12-2006 by a Joint Terrorism Task Force comprised of FBI agents from both New York and California, along with US Postal authorities, for allegedly sending profane and death-threatening letters containing 'white powder' to Liberal politicians, journalists, and celebrities.[7] Castagana was a registered user of Free Republic and had previously been banned several times under various usernames. His last username, as confirmed by Free Republic's founder and owner Jim Robinson, was Marc Costanzo, and the posts in question were determined to be Castagana's through an examination of the IP logs.[8] Castagana wrote about the threatening letters on Free Republic, in one case noting Keith Olbermann's reported reaction to receiving one of the letters. Castagana, posting as Costanzo whose sig line read "Name your poison", wrote on Free Republic on 10-30-2006 regarding the Olbermann letter-threat "I do not believe he sent it to himself. But that is just guess work." and "I heard from a liberal blog that Olbermann was a prima donna at the hospital..." [9]

Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is a bias by this editor, on a predeterming notion that FR is a hate site. I guess a hatchet job this article will be... Dominick ^(TALK) 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT??? I don't think FR is a hate site! You're not AGF. I love reading FR! I spend at least 30 minutes there every day. It's highly entertaining! - F.A.A.F.A. 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not better than the current paragraph. The quotes from Costano are WP:OR. JBKramer 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted that when I still thought that FR could be used as a RS on topics related to RS, if they're not 'in contention'. As long as this application is applied fairly to all the Killian claims as well (please see the other 2 related articles) I can't argue about bias being shown in an effort to include 'good' but exclude 'bad'. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are not facts about FR, they are facts about Chad. JBKramer 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the controversy is here. A quick google search turns up hundreds of news stories from the time linking Buckhead to the discovery of the forgery. Here's one.[10]--RWR8189 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like another one? [11] This seems very silly.

Actually this seems like the perfect source needed to reinsert that entire paragraph--RWR8189 01:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove the source you cited in that paragraph as it is not a WP:RS and is just some guy's blog. Find a peer-reviewed paper or published article in a WP:RS source that says this and does not merely provide reportage of what blogs said. Blogs are no longer an acceptable source. I'm betting you can find one if you do a Nexus/Lexus search. However, if you cannot I think the paragraph must be stricken BenBurch 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Weekly Standard is not "some guy's blog" it is a magazine published weekly. This article[12] was published in the September 27, 2004 issue. The other article was printed in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette [13]--RWR8189 02:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the source I removed! --BenBurch 02:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, those are the only sources I entered, the rest I just reinserted from an earlier version.--RWR8189 03:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --BenBurch 03:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You CAN mention the issue, however, if you do not make authoritative claims about the document. You must say things like; "It was widely reported that...", but not "100% identical" which you would need a peer-reviewed paper to establish. --BenBurch 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the paragraph looks like it could use a rewrite, its hard to follow, but here some useful links for someone who would like to. CBS stands by documents authenticity CBS no longer stands by authenticity

I don't know much about the typewriter issues, someone else can deal with that.--RWR8189 03:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the RS V sourcing for this claim? "Nineteen minutes after its broadcast began, poster "TankerKC" questioned the documents on-line, stating they were "not in the style that we used when I came into the USAF." A quick read of the articles only found Buckhead, not TankerKC either. Thanks - I don't think the article can link to the thread in FR either, if I am understanding JB's interpetation of WP correctly. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekly Standard is a reliable source. They are using the FR thread to cite their quotes, there's nothing wrong with that. Here is an article[14] from the Columbia Journalism Review highlighting TankerKC's role in the affair.--RWR8189 08:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Weekly Standard - which that thoroughly disproven Conspiracy Theorist Stephen Hayes writes for - a RS??? I guess we'll have to disagree on that! Thanks for adding the CJR link to cite the '19 minute' claim. - F.A.A.F.A. 09:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the typewriter aspect of the story, the above Weekly standard describes the source that was removed earlier as such:

The biggest news of the day came again from the Internet, where Joseph M. Newcomer posted on his website (www.flounder.com/bush.htm) an incredibly detailed, scientific, 7,000-word explanation of why the documents were necessarily forgeries. Today his account remains definitive.

I'm posting this because I don't know if this satisfies WP:RS, and if it does how the paragraph could be written to include this information.--RWR8189 08:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this some thought, and I cannot see how a tertiary reference to something that is original research and not peer-reviewed could ever elevate the material to WP:RS. I suggest that you write to the owner of that page and suggest that he submit the paper he assembled to a peer-reviewed forensics journal. If they will publish it, then it becomes a WP:RS, and at least colorable as science, but until them, it is just some guy's opinions. --BenBurch 02:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can, of course, say that "The Weekly Standard quotes a blogger named Joseph M. Newcomer as having prepared a 7000 word assertion that the documents were forgeries." and then link the WS article. The reader can find the link in the reference if he or she cares to. But a RS mentioning a link to a non-RS cannot make it a RS. If it COULD, I have a friendly RS who would elevate anything I wanted to use on Wikipedia... --BenBurch 02:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Ben's Citation Requests

The very first post attacking the memos — nineteen minutes into the 60 Minutes II program — was on the right-wing Web site FreeRepublic.com by an active Air Force officer, Paul Boley of Montgomery, Alabama, who went by the handle “TankerKC.”[15]

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

The identity of "Buckhead," a blogger known previously only by his screen name on the Web site freerepublic.com... [16]--RWR8189 00:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Cite them HERE, Silly!

Cite them in the article! I believe you when you say something, but in 20 years somebody else might not! Cite the cites where you make the assertion of fact. Especially where you are naming a name in a way that might excite some WP:BIO concerns! --BenBurch 01:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the battle over the Killian document "authenticity" issues continues to rage, two years after most people (including CBS) have moved on to other topics. I also notice that three weeks after BenBurch claimed that duplicating the superscript in the Killian memos with early 1970s equipment would be "trivially easy," he still hasn't claimed the $50,000 reward for doing it; and that three weeks after claiming that there are "memos from that era that are direct matches," and being asked where they are, he has been unable to respond. And he tries to discredit Dr. Joseph M. Newcomer, one of the nation's leading authorities in Microsoft document analysis ( http://www.flounder.com/resume.htm ), as "some blogger" because Dr. Newcomer is puncturing one of his most cherished self-delusions: that the Killian documents are genuine. Ben, you're far too emotionally invested in this to be objective. It appears that you've made it your mission in life to portray Free Republic in the most negative way that you can, and revert any changes that others might make in seeking a NPOV. I have also noticed that in the preceding Wiki section, "Influencing polls," the word "vandalism" was used twice. But the FR threads that are linked contain admonitions to fellow Freepers to be polite and civil, and engage in constructive actions. In my opinion, use of the word "vandalism" is inflammatory and distorts what actually happened. I am replacing it with the word "action."

TO THE EDITORS: I HAVE REQUESTED MEDIATION. PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN MEDIATION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Free_Republic

Let's talk about reaching a consensus on NPOV and RS regarding the Killian memos and Chad Castagana, produce a semi-finalized version that exemplifies everything Wikipedia is supposed to be, and LOCK IT UP to prevent further reverts and editings by people whose sole purpose in life is to smear Free Republic. BryanFromPalatine 17:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see that BenBurch is engaging in a revert war, going so far as to revert my capitalization of the word "american," and my correction of the misspelled word "aappears." Citation of the Killian documents authenticity issues Wikipedia article should be perfectly acceptable. Dr. Newcomer's credentials are easily verified by contacting Carnegie-Mellon University. Ben, do you need their phone number? BryanFromPalatine 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed the section documenting the FR's love of political violence? That's one of the main undercurrents of the website!!! I will restore it. I am a FReeper by the way, but I do not support the site's wanton encouragement of violence. Grrr! - unsigned note from User:68.33.185.185 .

Feel free to add it in if you can make the entry conform with the rules.--BenBurch 04:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's too bad that the account of the incident where someone published Martin Sheen's home address on FR, and several Freepers then discussed which rifle round was best for both 'hunting' and 'target practice', in the same thread can't be linked to, but it wouldn't pass RS V, even though it has the poster's usernames and timestamp etc. I think the FR consensus was that a .308 would suit 'the job' best. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create a web site documenting those things. If you like, I'll give you some space for it.--BenBurch 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be able to add FR threads as documentation. 99.999% of FR's work is done online on those message boards anyway, so it's only fair that they be used as evidence.

Review WP:RS. Forum posts are not reliable sources. JBKramer 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.

I think it would be a good idea to strip the article of all things with source tags, and re-build it just with properly sourced material. The present article is largely without sourcing, and I don't think people will be motivated to source it until it is stripped down to just the facts. Note, this is NOT an attempt to censor the article. I firmly believe that acceptable sources can be found for most of what is now here, but this is not presently an encyclopedic article, and that needs to be fixed. BenBurch 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The poll speaks to the composition of the user base, not the beliefs of Free Republic the website. Free Republic's published pages can be used to make statements about Free Republic only. Polls of their user base cannot be used for anything. JBKramer 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can get myself in trouble without your help, if indeed this was meant as help. You are making it very hard for me to argue against these anti-consensus edits. --BenBurch 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a consensus here, it was reached without my participation. I want to reopen the discussion of this consensus. I can't be here 24/7. My last participation here was November 16 and evidently, in the time that has passed since then, a consensus was reached in my absence. I suggest that the word "vandalism" is inflammatory, particularly since the threads that are linked do not advocate vandalism; that citation of the Wiki article Killian documents authenticity issues is perfectly acceptable; and that citation of Dr. Newcomer's credentials is also perfectly acceptable, in light of certain efforts to discredit him as "some blogger." -- BryanFromPalatine 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we declare a moratorium on the reverts until a new consensus is reached? Cease-fire anyone? Also, would anyone care to specify your objections to the changes I've made: (1) changing two uses of the word "vandalism" to "action," since there's no evidence vandalism was encouraged; (2) citing Dr. Newcomer's credentials (Microsoft MVP since 1993; doctorate in computer science from Carnegie-Mellon University), in light of efforts to discredit him as "some blogger"; and (3) citing another Wikipedia article, Killian documents authenticity issues. Please speak with candor. What is the nature of your objections? Is it because they take one baby step toward making it a genuinely NPOV article, or because they make too much sense?

Also, I've noticed that the entire article consists of about one-third "definition of Free Republic," and two-thirds "laundry list of everything negative that can be even remotely associated with Free Republic," the ongoing effort to include every detail about Chad Castagana being only the most recent symptom. There is absolutely no mention of anything positive about Free Republic, or the many positive things they have done (such as fundraiser after fundraiser for victims of natural disasters). To the best of my knowledge, this has never been done to any organization that is left of center. For example, the serial killer John Wayne Gacy was a Democratic precinct committeeman. That fact is mentioned in his Wiki article, but not in the Wiki article for the Democratic Party. If you're going to mention that Chad Castagana was a freeper in the Free Republic article, I'm going to start rummaging through all the articles about left-of-center organizations and making sure that their John Wayne Gacys are mentioned prominently.

And one other thing: let's talk about the "External Links" at the bottom of the article. Why are all the articles about Free Republic from non-FR sources written by people like William Rivers Pitt and Michael Niman, who clearly harbor a tremendous amount of animosity toward Free Republic? Aren't you able to find any unbiased or friendly articles about Free Republic, to balance those out? In general, this isn't an encyclopedia article; it's a hit piece. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wote "To the best of my knowledge, this has never been done to any organization that is left of center." LOL! EVERY notable Wiki article with contentious political content is a battlefield - Right and left. Check the ACLU article, and the talk page where one POV warrior claims that 18% of the ACLU's donations come from al Qaeda! If you can find some RS V sources that praise Free Republic please include that info. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "If you can find some RS V sources that praise Free Republic please include that info." Evidently nobody here has even tried to find such articles. Without very much effort at all, I've found a few. I'll be adding them after I've done a complete search. -- BryanFromPalatine 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they do not correspond to the LETTER of WP:RS & WP:V they will be removed rather quickly. Make certain you have read that non-optional policy and actually understand it. --BenBurch 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I'd like to thank you for pointing out the stringent standards of WP:RS. On those grounds, William Rivers Pitt and Michael Niman are disqualified as RS. I'm deleting them.

Regarding the inclusion of Chad Castagana material in this article, I've journeyed to the article about the Democratic Party and added a section about John Wayne Gacy, as well as two Democratic presidents who have been impeached, and 23 Democratic Congressmen who have been convicted on criminal charges in the past 40 years. It was almost instantly the target of multiple reverts, even after my first revert left out the information about Gacy. All of the others were federal elected officials of the Democratic Party, but information about them was still reverted by the guardians of that article.

Chad Castagana has never held the same level of importance, leadership or trust at Free Republic as William Jefferson Clinton, and such members of Congress as Edward M. Kennedy, Dan Rostenkowski and Mel Reynolds have held within the Democratic Party. Therefore the following admonition by Jersyko, paraphrased to apply to the facts in the FR article debate, makes an even more compelling argument that all information about Chad Castagana and the Chuy's personal info posts must be deleted from this article:

"BenBurch and friends recently added the Chad Castagana material and the Chuy's material about specific scandals involving individuals who just so happen to be former members of Free Republic who were repeatedly banned. While I strongly believe that articles about political organizations should discuss major scandals intimately tied to those organizations (Watergate should obviously be discussed in the Republican Party's article, for instance), the "scandals" added by BenBurch and friends are not, in fact, "Free Republic scandals," but rather scandals involving individuals who just so happen to be former members of Free Republic who were repeatedly banned. Thus, the additions, in my view, easily violate WP:NPOV and are inappropriate to list in *this* article (but not in Chad Castagana's article) per WP:NPOV#Undue weight (on top of the fact that the Castagana material and the Chuy's personal info material are unencyclopedic, or at least written as such). Finally, both scandals are essentially entirely unreferenced, causing WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP problems. Though the lack of citations could be cured, the NPOV problem cannot. On top of all of the above is the fact that it's just a bad idea to set a precedent where editors go to political organization articles and add subsections full of things like "Democratic member of Congress, MAIL FRAUD"."

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Turnabout is fair play. What goes around, comes around. If it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include information about Chad Castagana and the Chuy's personal information posts in the FR article, then it is appropriate to include information about every registered Democratic voter who was ever arrested for a crime in the Democratic Party article; it is appropriate to include information about every person who ever had an account at DU and was ever arrested for a crime in the DU article; etc., etc. Pick a policy and apply it equally across the board.

Regarding the material on Bahrain -- under the inflammatory headline, "Call for US authorities to end Free Republic's 'misuse' of the net" -- only one citation to any source was provided that may, at one time, have had something to do with Free Republic. Currently it links to an empty page at a "Gulf News" website of questionable reliability. There are two other links providing information on a Bahraini terrorist group with absolutely no mention of Free Republic. I have added ^{[citation needed]} to that section in the spot where the blank "Gulf News" page used to be linked. If no one can produce a RS to support this claim within 24 hours, I'll be deleting that section as well.

And here's another issue: BenBurch is continuing to delete the sentence, "For further information on these issues, see Killian documents authenticity issues." I'd like to know why anyone has a problem with citing another Wiki article that is directly relevant, provides a wealth of additional information, and is an outstanding exemplary NPOV article to boot. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you FRiend, just remember to keep WP:POINT in mind while editing.--RWR8189 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You went far beyond adding in that sentence to removing significant material from the article. I have reverted it. You do appear to be attempting to make a WP:POINT here. I referenced the article you mention in a MUCH less clumsy manner by making it a hyperlink from the text of the paragraph itself. --BenBurch 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Removing significant material" that is not just a significant, but substantial violation of Wikipedia standards regarding WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The only WP:POINT I'm trying to make here is that you are treating Free Republic differently. You insist on including the kind of material that, for any article about a liberal political organization, would be reverted off the page instantly. And for the Bahrain BS, you're still trying to link a blank page on a website of questionable reliability. BryanFromPalatine 04:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Please note that editors allowed to be bold in making their edits. However, the Gulf Daily News is not unlike many British news sources, particularly The Sun. Bryan, please do not blank entire sections. You cannot deny that, at least, some of the criticism must be included. If you wish to trim it down, then please discuss on the talk page first. --Strothra 04:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Castagana incident is as relevent as the Killian documents because both issues were discussed in the news, on FR by the principles, the membership of FR, and by Jim Robinson. As noted: Castagana wrote about the letter-threat incidents on Free Republic, in one case noting Keith Olbermann's reported reaction to receiving one of the letters Castagana is alleged to have sent. Castagana, posting as Costanzo whose sig line read "Name your poison", wrote on Free Republic on October 30, 2006 regarding the Olbermann letter-threat "I do not believe he sent it to himself. But that is just guess work." and "I heard from a liberal blog that Olbermann was a prima donna at the hospital..." That's notable and worthy of inclusion. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Bryan. Here is the Gulf News Article Let Juma die says US website. By the way, Will Pitt is a notable published author, thus his articles on FR are 100% inclusionable. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You cannot deny that, at least, some of the criticism must be included." Strothra, removing the entire sections on Castagana, Chuy's and Bahrain still leaves abundant criticism. Jim Robinson's own comments speak for themselves. If political incorrectness is a crime, he hangs himself with his own rope. But this article, except for a couple of paragraphs at the beginning, consisted of nothing but criticism. "The Castagana incident is as relevent as the Killian documents because both issues were discussed in the news, on FR by the principles ..." John Wayne Gacy was also discussed in the news, and in the Democratic Party by its principles. But I've been instructed that mentioning him in the Democratic Party's Wiki article violates Wikipedia's standards regarding WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

"Here is the Gulf News Article ..." It's a cached Google copy from the Bahrain organization's own website, not the "Gulf News" website. It's double hearsay -- first passing through the Bahrain organization's hands, then Google's. Furthermore, if some self-styled "human rights activist" in Bahrain demanded that the US government shut down Democratic Underground for its "misuse of the Internet," do you believe for one microsecond that its inclusion in the DU Wiki article would be tolerated? Focusing the entire FR article on such incidents is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

"By the way, Will Pitt is a notable published author, thus his articles on FR are 100% inclusionable." In your dreams. Will Pitt's work is almost entirely self-published. Specifically, the articles you're seeking to include in this Wiki article are published by an extremely biased source. If Rush Limbaugh wrote poison pen articles about DU and they were published on FR, should they be included in the DU article here at Wiki? See WP:V#SELF. Also, I observe that when reverting the citations of Will Pitt, you also reverted the citations of Michael Niman, a self-published nobody whom you haven't even attempted to defend. The Salon article is RS and I've left it in. -- BryanFromPalatine 09:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Will Pitt's work is almost entirely self-published" LOL! Will Pitt's books

"It's a cached Google copy from the Bahrain organization's own website, not the "Gulf News" website. It's double hearsay -- first passing through the Bahrain organization's hands, then Google's."

"When a link in the Reference section (a link to a source for information in the article) "goes dead", it should be repaired or replaced if possible - If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache." Dead Links

Bryan, meaning no disrespect, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wiki Policy. It will help you avoid mistakes and misperceptions. You already admitted to violating WP:POINT with your edits to the DNC article. I wouldn't want to see you get banned. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that:

"removing the entire sections on Castagana, Chuy's and Bahrain still leaves abundant criticism"'

Shows a basic misunderstanding of WP. If its notable, verifiable and sourced, its inclusionable. Why don't you find some praise for Free Republic for inclusion? Certainly David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, Pat Robertson, or some other notable conservative must have written something nice about FR. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA, regarding the "dead link": you're carefully ignoring the fact that it's not even a Google cache of the "Gulf News" website. It's a Google cache of some unknown website of questionable reliability. And who's being quoted? Is he the Bahraini version of Paul Simon, or Lyndon LaRouche? Is he regarded as a voice of progressive reason, or a voice of lunacy? Anyone can demand that the US government shut down some publication that criticizes him or his sacred cow. Whether that demand should be included in a Wiki article about that publication depends on who's making the demand, particularly since what he's demanding would be a sweeping violation by the federal government of the First Amendment rights of thousands of very partisan, but 100% law-abiding American citizens.

Regarding Will Pitt, three books published by Pluto Press, Context Press and PoliPoint Press (rather than Random House or Ballantine, for example) plus regular, almost daily self-publication on Truthout.com for six solid years means his work is "almost entirely self-published." Like his tremendous body of self-published work on Truthout.com, you carefully ignore another point I made: that the articles you seek to include in the Wiki article were self-published in an extremely biased, partisan source.

I don't care whether Pitt has a tiny number of other works that were published by tiny little publishing houses that he doesn't happen to control. The works you're posting here, at Wikipedia, were in fact self-published. Like any other clever self-promoter, Pitt tailors his communicating style. In order to get published in the mainstream press (and make the "name" for himself that you're now flaunting), he tones down his partisan rhetoric. In all other venues, specifically in the extremely biased self-published source you're posting, he lets his freak flag fly. This is an obvious WP:V#SELF violation. The work you're posting wasn't even published by Pluto Press. It was published by Truthout.com.

I've noticed that you deleted a couple of Salon articles that were actually balanced, replacing them with Will Pitt's hit pieces. What was wrong with the Salon articles? Also, you keep sneaking in that Michael Niman hit piece. Who is Michael Niman? Is he a Paul Simon, or a Lyndon LaRouche? And regarding Castagana, Chuy's etc. you persistently ignore and repeat the obvious WP:NPOV#Undue weight violation. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On use of my quote and more

BryanFromPalatine "paraphrases" my statement at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) above. My actual comment (which is not entirely relevant to the discussion on this talk page), is the first one in this subsection, and a follow up comment (which might be relevant to this Free Republic discussion), is [17].

The policies at play in the Democratic Party article that BryanFromPalatine violated with the addition to the Democratic Party article are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I have no idea what action these policies compel in this article. In the Democratic Party article, however, these problems could be cured by: (1) the first three by simply citing references and (2) while undue weight could likely not be cured completely in that particular circumstance, the *major* Democratic Party scandals (e.g., impeachment of Clinton) should be (and now are) discussed in the article text, but not in a list.

My impression of the situation in the Free Republic article (and I'm not completely aware of the situation here, nor, frankly, do I want to be) is that there is one scandal involving a prominent (?) Free Republic member. Assuming citations to reliable sources can be found, the verifiability, original research, and BLP problems are easily cured. Because it's only one scandal (or at least a small number of scandals), and assuming a reasonable amount of text is devoted to it here (as opposed to an excessive amount), there is no undue weight problem. The only decision left is one of editorial judgment--is the scandal closely enough related to Free Republic to discuss it in this article, or is it's relationship to Free Republic so tangential that it really needs to be discussed only in the article on the individual involved in the scandal?

This was a question I answered in the negative for most of the additions to the Democratic Party article in the main, but in the positive for major Democratic Party scandals (impeachment). As I've demonstrated, however, the situations in the Democratic Party article and the Free Republic article are, I think, very different, in that the addition to the Democratic Party article necessitated both editorial judgment and the application of numerous policies, including undue weight, whereas the situation here, assuming the addition is referenced, will only call for editorial judgment as there is likely no undue weight problem.

Finally, I would appreciate it if (1) no one attempts to use my editorial judgment or interpretation of policy AS policy, as no one on Wikipedia has such power (other than perhaps Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee), and (2) no one "paraphrases" my words such that my original quotation is taken out of context or its meaning is otherwise twisted. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing: I'm not certain if this is relevant to this article or not, but if sourced criticism is being removed wholesale from this article (i.e., criticism of Free Republic in general, not relating to a single-member scandal), there is a de facto WP:NPOV violation (completely unrelated to undue weight). Undue weight merely commands that we not devote *excessive* amounts of attention to something. It does NOT excuse deletion of sourced criticism completely. If there is not one already, an RFC might be a good idea. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... A consensus suddenly no longer being a consensus based upon one person's opinion. Where have I heard that before? Just wondering. Jinxmchue 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RWR, your edits to the Castagana info are OK with me, and as an act of good faith, I reduced them some more. I think the title of the section on the Bahrain claims could be changed to be more accurate, and reflect their actual concerns as well. Maybe something like Charges of Islamophobia. I'm open to other suggestions too. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to go:

Many 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. [18]

Jim Robinson, the founder of the forums, has publicly called for all homosexuals to be removed from "churches, universities, schools, the military, the Boy Scouts" and other public institutions. [19] He has endorsed what many people would consider to be anti-science views. He has described the theory of evolution as not being science, but "socialist dogma" which is imposed "on our school children". [20] He has also equated the theory with homosexuality, paganism, and Islamic extremism. [21]. He further asserts that the theory of evolution can't be true because it makes the Bible a lie, the Declaration of Independence a lie, the Bill of Rights a lie, and in fact, all history a lie [22].''

It is all originial research. Find a reliable source making these criticisms and it can come back.--RWR8189 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Jim Robinson is a reliable source on Jim Robinson. Period. --BenBurch 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the person classifying what he said as "criticism" is original research. He did not classify it as criticism, nor did a reliable source, only the editor that inserted in the article found it to be critical or controversial.--RWR8189 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will re-cast those issues in a more acceptable manner. --BenBurch 03:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"My impression of the situation in the Free Republic article ... is that there is one scandal involving a prominent (?) Free Republic member." No, Chad Castagana was never a "prominent" FR member. In fact, Robinson has said that Castagana has been repeatedly banned. He is persona non grata and he never held a position of any trust or authority. If Jim Robinson himself had mailed those bogus anthrax envelopes rather than Castagana, and if Robinson himself had been arrested and indicted for it, including this incident would be within bounds. But Chad Castagana is, and always has been, a nobody to them. On the other hand, removing Robinson's statements about creation, gays etc. takes away the only "criticism" posted here that doesn't violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It is properly linked to Robinson's own statements. Robinson's signed statements on his own website should be considered a reliable source concerning his own extremism -- and, by implication, the kind of extremism he's willing to tolerate on his website. He hangs himself with his own rope with these statements. But hanging Castagana and the Chuy's incident around his neck tells us that every political organization is going to be held responsible for the misconduct of even its most erstwhile outcasts and newbies. It says that a list of Democratic scandals should be posted at the Democratic Party article under the header, "Criticism"; and that even John Wayne Gacy's crimes should be included. If it's inappropriate for the Democratic Party article, it's inappropriate for the Free Republic article. My objections to the self-published comments of Will Pitt, Michael Niman and an unknown Bahraini are well summarized by WP:V#SELF. I realize that a lot of you have worked hard on these sections. It's as though this is 1905 and you've been designing the perfect horse-drawn carriage for the past five years, ignoring the automobiles as they rumbled by on the streets in ever increasing numbers. -- BryanFromPalatine 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too have problems with the criticism section, specifically its inclusion and characterization of some of the founder's posts on the website:

1) First of all, I question whether his opinions are even notable. He doesn't have his own article in wikipedia nor even a section of the article on the organization he founded, Free Republic.

2) While I (and obviously the person who included them) believe his views are extremist, to describe them factually as such is at best espousing a non-neutral point of view. I think anytime someone's views are labeled it is a good idea to source who is doing the labeling. In this case, there is no reliable source and hence I believe this to be violation of at least WP:NPOV and probably WP:OR.

3) Lastly, I don't see any notable criticism in either this section of the article or the sources themselves. How can they be included in a criticism section when there is no criticism?

I have removed this section of the criticism section. Lawyer2b 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--BenBurch 05:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... RWR8189? Freeptard gets over 1500 ghits. It is used. I've seen it used a dozen times in the last month on different boards. It's just as relevant as DUmmie for a DUer. --BenBurch 05:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gets the exact same number of hits as Freeploader, 1570, with many, many more non-FR hits. I also agree that it's just as relevant as 'DUmmie' - F.A.A.F.A. 06:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see he reverted it. Thanks, RWR. --BenBurch 06:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that formal mediation for this article was rejected. When I was involved in disputes on the Protest Warrior article, two different Admins helped informally mediate.

They were:

Kuzaar

and

≈ jossi ≈

Should we request informal mediation from one of these two admins? - F.A.A.F.A. 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES. Ask both -- that way, we can be fairly sure that at least one will participate. And I will clarify that formal mediation was requested by me, and rejected by BenBurch. I sought an amicable resolution early and repeatedly, and that effort was rejected repeatedly. -- BryanFromPalatine 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing from you has been amicable whatsover. From you we have gotten only hostility and assertions of entitlement. --BenBurch 16:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comments on November 16. Zero hostility. Notice my use of the word "amicably" in my attempt to informally mediate your dispute with an expert typesetter who apparently hasn't set up a Wiki account. I've never made any assertions of entitlement -- only assertions of your own hypocrisy. Pick a policy and apply it equally across the board. If you want it applied to the FR article, I want it applied to the Democratic Party article, the DU article, the Truthout article, the Daily Kos article, the Smirking Chimp article, the Bartcop article, etc., etc. Any mention of Chad Castagana in this article is exactly like mentioning John Wayne Gacy's service as a Democratic precinct committeeman in the Democratic Party article, with one important exception: Gacy was elected to a position of trust and authority by the Democratic Party. Castagana held no such position at Free Republic.

I notice that you've removed your "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" comment and the associated exchange on your own talk page. Was that hostility, Ben? Have I ever, before or after, approached that level of hostility? I'm reverting the obvious violations of WP:NPOV#Undue Weight and WP:V#SELF once again. It is disputed material and it should be left out until the dispute is resolved. If you insist on including that material, justify it to an informal mediator first. I'll be happy to participate and I will be a model of civility. As the article now stands at this moment, it is balanced. It contains plenty of criticism concerning FR policy about comments on homosexuals, the teaching of evolution, liberalism, etc. Including more -- and, in particular, including material about Castagana and the Chuy's incident (thereby identifying FR with them, in the same way that identifying the Democratic Party with Gacy has been rejected) -- would make it the hit piece that you and FAAFA evidently want. -- BryanFromPalatine 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Kuzaar to mediate. If he doesn't show up with 24 hours, I'll ask Jossi. BFP, meaning no disrespect, but you are what Wiki considers a 'single purpose account' with your edits on FR, and your passion for FR may be influencing your POV. Each article stands on its own, There no way to argue that since the DNC article doesn't mention John Wayne Gacy, then the FR article can't mention Chad Castagana. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--BenBurch 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BFP, have you been looking for praise of FR for inclusion? I did last night, and only found more criticism. IMHO, the best way for the article to achieve the 'balance' you think it needs is to find MSM articles praising FR from notable sources. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this issue has been the subject of much contention since I last looked in on November 16, and that the discussion has spread to other elements of the article. I am an expert typographer, having used the IBM Selectric Composer every day for five years and I have over 30 years of experience in the typesetting industry. There is no question that the "Killian memos" are forgeries. I fully support BFP and the changes he seeks to make, so consider the fact when calculating consensus. BFP's changes will improve this article from the standpoint of "neutral point of view." Leaving out all of the Chad Castagana material and the William Pitt and Michael Niman links would still leave a great deal of criticism, and a great deal more that reasonable people would criticize on sight, such as Robinson's comments about gays and about teaching evolution in schools. Much of what some of the other editors have described here about Free Republic was delivered in a snarky, snotty tone -- not just in the "Talk" pages here, but in the article itself. Your left-wing bias drips from every pore like sweat on an August day. 208.250.137.2 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Count my vote in the consensus as a vote in favor of the changes Bryan wants to make. 12ptHelvetica 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the Killian Memos but find it interesting that Little Green Footballs and Powerline are named in a WAPO and other articles as the chief contributors to solving the puzzle, not FR. By the way, continued comments like "Your left-wing bias drips from every pore like sweat on an August day." will get you nowhere but into 'the penalty box' on Wiki. You might also try a username if you wish to be taken seriousely here. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that DNSstuff.com reports that 208.250.137.2 is in Palatine, IL, the same place that BryanFromPalatine claims to be from... --BenBurch 12:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet? Well then, Bryan has about 66,000 other sock puppets at FreeRepublic.com. Sure, I'm a sock puppet if that's what you're calling us these days. Count me in. -- ArlingtonTX 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the right term for when he goes off and recruits living bodies is "Meatpuppet". It is still not a valid way to form a consensus. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets --BenBurch 01:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A word to the wise. --BenBurch 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, continued comments like "Your left-wing bias drips from every pore like sweat on an August day." will get you nowhere but into 'the penalty box' on Wiki. I think it was an accurate comment. I've read all of your comments and all of BenBurch's comments in these Talk pages, and I've read the biased Free Republic article that you're fighting so diligently to defend. I've compared it with the Democratic Party article, the Democratic Underground article, and the articles about the other left-wing websites that Bryan mentioned. Free Republic is being singled out for ridicule, and being linked with every miscreant who ever had an account there. Your left-wing bias really does "drip from every pore like sweat on an August day." Treat Free Republic with the same respect that other Wiki editors have treated the Democratic Party and other liberal groups, and Bryan won't have a leg to stand on. 12ptHelvetica 22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault that Free Republic is viewed as so extreme that even mainstream conservatives like Sean Hannity pointed it out for criticism: "He then tells a story about how years ago he used to follow the Freepers, but left the board (and everyone he knows left it as well) because of “childish, immature personal attacks.” He then alludes that the Freepers have a “propensity to eat their own” and is adamant that his bulletin board will not be taken over by “fringe people” I.E. the Freepers." [23] The attempts to paint an extremist site like FR as some sort of big tent conservative forum that reflects the diversity of the views contained in the conservative movement like those of Gay Conservatives, Arab American Republicans, or centrist Republicans like Guiliani or Mccain is dishonest. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So many sock puppets. Who next? Ollie Dragon? Or Lambchop? --BenBurch 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A formal allegation of sockpuppetry to get around an administrator 3rr block has been filed. Not honest enough to wait the 24 Hrs for the block to expire? For shame! --BenBurch 12:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't post the evidence page, I was allowed to delete the notice. There are thousands of real, live conservatives at Free Republic -- what in the world makes you think I'd ever need sock puppets? And I've used my first revert of the day. 12ptHelvetica, welcome aboard. Kindest regards, everyone -- BryanFromPalatine 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan: have you been looking for praise of FR for inclusion, like I suggested? What have you found? I did, and only found more criticism, even from conservatives like Hannity who called it fringe and left FR because it was so extreme. The best way for the article to achieve the 'balance' you think it needs is to find MSM articles praising FR from notable sources. I suggest you do just that, because I've found even more mainstream and conservative criticism, and when this article goes to mediation or an RfC, and I present 10+ RS V sources documenting that FR is extremist site which has a history of Islamophobia, death threats, calls to violence, etc etc, your unsubstantiated claims about how great Free Republic are not going to be given much credence. Good luck. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I don't want you to end up getting blocked again, so please review WP:3RR, the three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence. Everyone in this discussion needs to act rationally, assume good faith and try to hammer out a consensus.--RWR8189 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is established. Count the votes. Bryan, 12ptHelvetica, RWR8189 and myself against F.A.A.F.A. and Ben Burch. Four votes to two. -- ArlingtonTX 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that five votes to two. And before BenBurch starts crying about sock puppets, I would like to urge Bryan, 12ptHelvetica, RWR8189 and ArlingtonTX to join me in requesting a thorough investigation. We are all very real, live, breathing, flesh and blood human beings. There is nothing of the sock or the puppet about us. We are all posting from different IP addresses. May the Wiki gods investigate those statements and confirm that they are true. DP1976 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) I've asked Jossi to informally mediate as I think Kuzaar might be out of town. I notice three 'brand new' editors, who seem to already know the issues and people invloved in the dispute here. DP1976, ArlingtonTx, and 12pt, can you tell us how you all happened to sign up on Wiki and find this article in the same short space of time? A post on Free Republic? A ping list? Thanks. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice three 'brand new' editors, who seem to already know the issues and people invloved in the dispute here. They can read. The dispute is right out there in exquisite detail for everyone to read, with the names of all the people involved and all of the issues carefully itemized. Wikipedia is a well-known website with a lot of traffic. It should come as no surprise to you that there are three new accounts appearing on the same weekend, from Wikipedia users who happened to notice the revert war and decided to get involved.

DP1976, ArlingtonTx, and 12pt, can you tell us how you all happened to sign up on Wiki and find this article in the same short space of time? A post on Free Republic? A ping list? If I posted something on Free Republic or used a ping list, there would be dozens of them, maybe even hundreds. There are three. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked by one of the involved editors, to assist as an informal mediator. Before I commit the time and effort that will be required, and to help me understand the basis of dispute, I would appreciate if each side can make a succinct description of the dispute. Note that my acceptance of this role, would be very much based on the ability of editors to express their viewpoints concisely and devoid of personal comments about other editors' motivations, POVs or the like. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The dispute is that the members of Free Republic who are present here as editors think that the WP:RS and WP:V sources of criticism in the present article are unbalanced and paint FR in a negative light, and that this makes the article NNPOV. However they cannot find any WP:RS and WP:V articles praising FR to add. Therefore they want the criticism deleted. I believe that if the only reliable and verifiable sources paint a negative view of something, then that negative view must represent the truth, or at least, the mainstream point of view on that thing. Therefore all of the criticism ought to remain. Basically, they want the piece to read like a whitewashed bright and shiny PR piece. I refuse to let that happen. I also refuse to acknowledge a consensus made up of probable sock puppets. Especially who flout the rules of Wikipedia by deleting notifications properly placed on their pages in accord with WP:SOCK --BenBurch 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will not cast any aspersions on the motivations of any editors. What I will say is that I agree with Ben's statement that there being no reliably sourced praise is not a reason to remove reliably sourced criticism. Criticism is balanced not just by praise but by the entire article itself. Lawyer2b 03:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other side

Jossi, allowing a community of nearly 100,000 partisan, but law-abiding people to be characterized by the actions of a handful of criminals like Chad Castagana and a malcontent like the Bahraini individual. who demands nothing less than a federal government violation of the First Amendment rights of that entire community, is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Posting self-published articles by William Rivers Pitt and Michael Niman that do exactly that -- characterize Free Republic by the actions of a handful of criminals -- and were published on opposing partisan websites, is obviously a violation of WP:V#Self. It is true that Pitt does have a few works that are not self-published; but those aren't the ones that BenBurch and FAAFA keep re-posting. BenBurch and FAAFA have demanded that I obey the dictates of a consensus when it was the two of them against me; but now that it's five of us against two of them, they ignore it and revert the changes that the new consensus has created.

Regarding the claim that these edits would remove all criticism, BenBurch and FAAFA have themselves removed three paragraphs of material that I have absolutely no objection to. They cleverly moved it to a different section, to make it look as though the five of us don't want any criticism posted at all. These three paragraphs are: (1) the observation that many FR posts are devoted to the ridicule of people or causes that the authors find are anathema to conservatives; (2) Jim Robinson's own statements about gays, the teaching of evolution in our schools, and other topics, which illustrate his own extremism; and (3) a brief passage from an article in the Globe and Mail. Those belong in the article under "Criticism" because they are fair criticism of Free Republic. Throwing in every bad thing that ever happened that can be remotely linked with Free Republic unbalances the article.

I join the new members in requesting a complete investigation of BenBurch's sock puppet accusations. I believe that DP1976's claim will be found to be correct. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan, I think you may be incorrect about who removed the material you 'didn't object to' and that it was in fact removed by Lawyer2b (who I hope will not disagree or object when I describe him as a 'conservative') and that he correctly removed it because it was 'original research'. He's pretty strict about that. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would disagree, as I know myself to be libertarian; an anarcho-capitalist I might add. That notwithstanding, I appreciate your recognition of my desire to keep all original research out of wikipedia. Lawyer2b 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments What I think about Free Republic or what editors who happen to be members or supporters of Free Republic are not germaine to an encyclopedia that mainly relies on secondary and tertiary sources. Some of the editors new to this article and Wiki do not seem to realize this. The fact of the matter is that the 'majority view' of inclusionable RS V third party sources, including many conservative sources like Sean Hannity and others assert that Free Republic is an extremist fringe site and primarily note the extremism, death threats, and level of hateful vitriol. From 1999: "Drudge, Goldberg and several other [conservative] 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." I allege there is an active effort by certain editors (most of them who joined in the last three days) to introduce a POV that does not reflect reality, and the 'majority view' of RS V sources. These same editors are also making spurious claims to support their deletions like arguing that Will Pitt's articles on Truthout are self published. I look forward to Jossi's informal mediation. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thank you for your comments, although I would have preferred to have your comments " devoid of personal comments about other editors' motivations, POVs or the like." Nontheless, I think that I have just enough information to try and lend a hand.

Some issues you may want to consider:

1. This article relies almost solely on what we call "self-published" sources. Self published sources are permissible under certain conditions (See WP:ATT#Questionable_or_self-published_sources)
2. A Wikipedia article cannot be based solely on self-published sources. If this website is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia (See WP:WEB), surely there should be a substantial number of secondary sources that describe the website, the people behind it, their views, etc. If such secondary sources are not available, then the article needs to be reduced in size to include just basic information from the self-published source (in this case the website "About us" or similar web pages.)
3. In Wikipedia we describe all significant viewpoints about a subject, so that the article can achieve a WP:NPOV status. We do that by finding secondary sources that describe these significant viewpoints, as well as describing the viewpoints expressed by the subject of the article (again, under the conditions set by the use of self-published sources.) This include, of course, any criticism, provided that such criticism is attributed to a reliable source and not asserted as a fact.

I would also want to dispel any misunderstandings about consensus. Consensus is not 5 to 3 or even 5 to 1 as I have seen people describing it in edit summaries and in this page. Consensus is the way that Wikipedia works: we building consensus through polite discussion and negotiation, with the caveat that editor's consensus cannot trump Wikipedia guidelines of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR (or any other policy).

From reading the discussions in this page, one could assume that there are editors that may be associated with the website itself. If that is the case, a warning may be needed: you may be in a conflict of interest. (See WP:COI). A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the concerns or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.

Other editors may be "too close to the subject" (e.g. notable critics), and although this does not mean they are incapable of being neutral, they need to be aware that it may incline them in that direction.

As for the accusations of sockpuppetry, please note that it is remarkably simple to find out if there is such abuse (See WP:RFCU), and although using sockpuppets may be useful in some situations, using that as a subterfuge to bypass the three revert rule, is considered disruptive and may be basis from removing your editing privileges.

Hope the above is useful information.

Having said all of that, a first step for involved editors would be to agree on some basic ground rules:

• Discuss the article, not the subject;
• Discuss the edit, not the editor;
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

In my experience, if such ground rules are not accepted, editing articles about which there is controversy and strong POVs, is not only very unpleasant, but seldom achieves anything (besides stress and anger, that is).

Once editors agree to these ground rules, we could proceed to do some research to find out what secondary sources say about this subject and clean up the article from poorly sourced material.

If there are any questions about the above, I will be happy to address them.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please state below your willingness to abide by these ground rules. Your signature will suffice

• ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• - F.A.A.F.A. 01:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• --BenBurch 01:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• -- BryanFromPalatine 04:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• -- Lawyer2b 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) I don't know if my Johnny-come-lately status makes me a party to this mediation or not but I would agree to such sound ground rules anytime on principle alone! :-)[reply]
• --RWR8189 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Jossi you wrote:

If this website is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia (See WP:WEB), surely there should be a substantial number of secondary sources that describe the website, the people behind it, their views, etc. If such secondary sources are not available, then the article needs to be reduced in size to include just basic information from the self-published source (in this case the website "About us" or similar web pages.)

My looking for RS V secondary sources has found that the vast majority of them (even from conservatives) are critical or negative and that, IMHO, this constitutes the 'majority view'. I'm know that FR has done some good things like send gifts to troops in Iraq, but these do not get covered by RS V secondary sources, as opposed to a Freeper making a death threat against the Clintons, the person that got Jenna Bush arrested for underage drinking, or the recent case of Chad Castagana the Freeper who mailed fake anthrax and death threats to 13 individuals. How is the editing of article handled when the vast majority of RS V secondary sources are negative and critical of the subject? Is this considered that 'majority view'? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi - I am not actually clear that this website is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page at all. There are a very few sources, and as FAAFA has already noted, they are almost universally critical of the web site. I could support an AfD process for this page if you think that would be the best action to take, but I would prefer a neutral and unbiased article based upon the few RS and V sources we do have. I believe that we should find somebody with Lexis/Nexis access to see if there are some printed sources that cannot be found by internet search engines. --BenBurch 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that we should be concerned with a "majority view". We should be concerned with significant viewpoints. The first significant viewpoint, is of course, the one presented by FreeRepublic.com. After all this is an article about the site. Think of the reader: a reader would want to know (a) what FR say about themselves; and (b) what other sources say about them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Every time I try to cite viewpoints derived from the site itself I am faced with the question of if that constitutes Original Research or not. Lawyer2b, for example, wants to remove the paragraph where the site's owner's viewpoints on homosexuality and evolution are discussed. I think that those are Significant points of view, personally, much moreso than anything posted by Chad Castanga. (aka the Una-freeper)

In any case it sounds like a complete re-write is what you are saying we need to do. How should we proceed to do this right and fairly? --BenBurch 02:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I would want all other participants to agree on the ground rules. Then I would work with all of you to agree on the process for re-writing the article, by proposing first to create a basic stub (meaning removing most of the information currently in the article), agree on a structure for the article, and then start working on the sections by suggesting assigning different tasks to all involved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'stated' viewpoint of FR is not the 'actual' view. One would expect that a site that claims its "pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights" would oppose the Patriot Act, Warrantless Wiretaps and Bush's Presidential power-grabs, like libertarian conservatives such as Republican Ron Paul do, but that's not the case. A lot of members who do not support George Bush and his 'big government' have been banned. I know that several forums have been started by disguntled Freepers many who felt that FR was way too intolerant of anyone who dared to criticise Bush. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can convince me as to why the founder's personal political views are germane to an article about the organization/website he founded, I would be fine with seeing them included. Also, my problem is that some of what is being labeled as criticism of the organization/website is not really criticism of the organization/website but rather criticism of some individual members. I have added a section on "Controversial Actions by Members" which I think is a more appropriate place to put things like the "death threats" and "cyberstalking". Lawyer2b 02:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the site is really an open (although moderated) online forum, we should not attempt to describe the opinions of the posters, but the opinion of the site owners, their aims, objectives, etc. That is what may be so challenging with this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree. Unless there is something explicitly connecting the owner's opinions with the purpose and aims of the organization I don't see why they are suitable for inclusion. To include them without a link is to make an inappropriate leap of faith that the two are related. While it is likely the founder of Free Republic formed the organization to promote some of his views, it is just as likely he didn't; or at least not to promote all his views. Who are we to say which (if any)? Lawyer2b 03:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Robinson is not JUST a founder. He is an owner, administrator and moderator. Nothing may happen at Free Republic that he objects to, or at least, nothing will REMAIN at FR that he objects to. He has demonstrated that rather often. Therefore his POV is über-significant. Just as MY POV is über-significant if you are talking about MY web site. "The King and The Land Are One." --BenBurch 03:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, you may be über-right, but I don't want (and wikipedia readers aren't supposed to) take your word for it that Robinson's political views control what goes on at the website. I don't think simply stating that he is an "owner, administrator, and moderator," q.e.d. "his political opinions control Free Republic" is enough. I would like to see some reliably sourced material that states his opinions have so much influence on the website as to be notable. Lawyer2b 03:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We have to find a way to make a distinction between the viewpoints held by the owners of the site and the viewpoints of the posters. It will not be easy, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I observe that the objectionable material is being pared down, but not entirely removed. For example, the person who posted personal info about the manager of Chuy's was promptly banned, even though the information was in the public domain (due to bankruptcy filings posted at http://www.thesmokinggun.com ); the fact that he was banned has been somehow overlooked. But the fact that he did briefly participate at FR is stated clearly. Jossi, I will restate my objection: that the inclusion of such material unfairly identifies nearly 100,000 law-abiding people with the misconduct of a tiny number of outcasts. It is a violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If John Wayne Gacy, William Jefferson, Mel Reynolds, Austin J. Murphy, Dan Rostenkowski and the other 19 Democratic congressmen convicted of crimes in the past 40 years don't belong in the Democratic Party (United States) article, then the Chuy's incident, the Chad Castagana information and the death threats to the Clintons don't belong here. No one who engaged in that misconduct held positions of trust or authority at FR, and all of them were banned promptly; Castagana has been banned repeatedly. The website's TOS forbids such misconduct. What more can a website's administrators do except forbid misconduct, and ban those who are guilty of such misconduct? -- BryanFromPalatine 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the political historian! I didn't know Jefferson had been convicted! Hell, I didn't even know he'd been charged yet! When did that happen? John Wayne Gacy a Democratic congressman? Damn! Did you read all that on Free Republic? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan, I think that the incidents involving Chuy's and Castagana are notable and unfortunately the reality is that they involved members of Free Republic. To that extent, others members will be identified with them. While I don't think it reasonable to not have these incidents mentioned at all, what I think is reasonable is that are included in such a way as to not indict other members or the organization itself. Lawyer2b 04:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When a forum member does something so notable that the MSM picks up on it, thats notable. It's happened on DU several times, and its in the DU article. Some nut suggested the Thailand Tsunami might have been a US gov plot, and someone posted, after Reagan's death, that they hoped he 'Rots in hell'. Those comments were picked up by RS V sources, so they're 100% inclusionable. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the political historian! I didn't know Jefferson had been convicted! Hell, I didn't even know he'd been charged yet! When did that happen? John Wayne Gacy a Democratic congressman? Reynolds, Rostenkowski and Murphy were, in fact, Democratic congressmen who were convicted of crimes. Those three names were listed last, adjacent to the phrase, "and the other 19 Democratic congressmen convicted of crimes in the past 40 years ..." Jefferson is a Democratic member of Congress caught on video committing a crime. Gacy was an elected official in the Democratic Party, convicted of murdering 28 young men and boys. The way I constructed the sentence was ambiguous. Your ridicule in violation of WP:CIV is duly noted. ... member does something so notable that the MSM picks up on it ... According to that standard, all the Democratic scandals I've listed should be in the Democratic Party (United States) article. But that notion was instantly rejected because of concerns regarding WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Imagine that. -- BryanFromPalatine 07:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Chuy and Castagana incidents are inherently different. The Chuy incident is notable because the notable act took place on Free Republic. This is where the information was posted, and this is what is reported by news organizations. Castagana's relationship to Free Republic is purely incidental and not notable. Nothing about his alleged crime is related to Free Republic and the only thing that makes Castagana notable is his alleged crime which is not connected to Free Republic. His association with FR neither adds nor detracts from his notability, we do not need to document every organization Castagana has had any relation to in his life on Wikipedia. -- RWR8189 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the concerns I've already raised about negative incidents in general, there is this specific concern about the Chuy's reporting: it doesn't have a RS. Yes, the link goes to Salon -- but the Salon article is second-hand reporting from Pamela Parker (comic book alliteration, anyone?) of the American Politics Journal, which I've never heard of before now. Miss Parker's bias against all things conservative is evident:

Parker says the Free Republic thread is just more "mob thuggery" from Bush supporters, on display "most recently in post-election Florida. The 'skills' of demonization, propaganda and pack assaults are nurtured by right-wing hate-filled press such as the FOX News Channel, talk radio, and certain Internet sites, including those named above. Eight years of vicious attacks on the Clinton family were only the baby steps of political warfare, it appears."

Finding a RS that will include all of the mud Ben and FAAFA seek to sling would be really nice as a first step. Then we'll talk about WP:NPOV#Undue weight. -- BryanFromPalatine 09:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That notice properly links to the evidence page as required by the rules. If you delete that sock puppet investigation notice again, I will see to it that you are blocked. I have followed all of the forms of this process. You do the same. --BenBurch 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it on with your sock puppet investigation. I want all of the results published right here. And when it's proven that these five people are posting from five separate IP addresses, I will expect your apology. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you no apology for anything. I have already proven that you violated the rules already when you used an IP address to get around a 24 hour block. You have no honor left here. --BenBurch 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already proven that you violated the rules already when you used an IP address to get around a 24 hour block. Really? There are over 70,000 people in Palatine and hundreds of thousands more who pass through. Since you're from Elgin, you're probably one of them. And that isn't my IP address. You have proven nothing except that there's another person in Palatine, Illinois who is interested in this dispute -- one who is an expert typesetter, and got involved in this dispute even before I did. Furthermore, as William M. Connolley observed, that IP address wasn't used to edit the main page of the article; so even if it was me, it wasn't used to evade the 24-hour block. You have exhibited an impressive level of skill in ignoring certain inconvenient facts and distorting others in pursuit of your false accusations, a signature trait of long-term members of the Internet left. This reminds me of the witch hunt against Karl Rove. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sock puppet accusation would be really funny if it wasn't so pathetic. 12ptHelvetica 00:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that RWR would remove these, but here they are again, with sources.

His 1999 views:

"the top extremist, in the estimate of the disenchanted, is its founder, Robinson, a wheelchair-bound Navy veteran of the Vietnam War who operates the site with his son and an unpaid helper from his home in Fresno, Calif. When Robinson unleashed a windy jeremiad linking Texas Gov. Bush with alleged CIA-connected drug-running under his father, a former CIA director (1975-77), vice president (1981-89) and president of the United States (1989-93), all cyber-hell broke loose.

Meanwhile, Robinson says he'll continue to make his own points about the Bush-CIA past.

"The theories of the CIA's involvement with drug runners and terrorists in Southeast Asia and Central and South America are well known and have been around for many years," he answered a query from Salon News. "And many of the stories we've heard are probably true or at least are grounded in fact and I, for one, would like to get to the bottom of it and put a stop to it."

SOURCE

Here's a 1999 post by Jim Robinson crticising George Bush:

To: Freedom Wins

So, it doesn't matter if he [Bush] snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh? Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment?

Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead 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!

Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson SOURCE

His post 9/11 views: (his words)

"Lots of grumbling lately about deleted posts. Well, my friends, the simple truth is the game has changed. We are now at war. We have been attacked by a vicious cold-blooded force of international terrorists who want to destroy our nation, our freedom and our way of life. There is no doubt about this. Knowing this, I am alarmed to read some of the stuff that has been posted to FR in the last few days. This is not the time to raise doubts about our leaders. This is not the time to raise conspiracy theories. This is not the time to second guess our intelligence agencies. This is war. This is survival of our way of life. We must unite behind our Commander-in-chief and do all we possibly can to support him and our war efforts. We do not have a choice in this matter. [...]" SOURCE

Thosewho are coming in here to post a bunch of propaganda to smear Bush or otherwise harm the war effort are going to be deleted.

I guess you missed my posts where I said that I am 100% behind our President and the war. I don't care if it's Ron Paul, Larry McDonald, or the head of the John Birch Society himself. I do not want it on FR. And I do not want a bunch of 40 year old conspiracy crap. Not interested. source

CA 2003 "Bill and Hillary Clinton and their minions still wield a tremendous amount of power and influence over the Democrat Party, the socialist movement and the national press. Their goals are to completely eliminate our rights to free speech, free religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, etc., and these are just for starters."

"I believe the overall goal of their movement is to completely do away with the U.S. Constitution and in its place, install socialist/totalitarian rule over America. Furthermore, I believe they wish to do away with our national sovereignty altogether and subject America to domination by the U.N. and other world bodies."

"Now you may call me a nutcase if you wish, but that's the way I see it....I believe that as long as Bill and Hillary Clinton and their like minded socialist minions have any influence or power over the government or either of the two major political parties, our nation and all of our freedoms are in extreme danger.

source

Are these relevant? Do they reflect the views of FR? If Jim alleged in 1999 that Bush I and II were involved CIA drug running, does that make him a Conspiracy Theorist? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will re-post a point that I made two days ago: "Robinson's signed statements on his own website should be considered a reliable source concerning his own extremism -- and, by implication, the kind of extremism he's willing to tolerate on his website. He hangs himself with his own rope with these statements." -- BryanFromPalatine 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These may be used to present the owner's viewpoints, if these are representative, verifiable, and not cited out of context. As for the question about "Conspiracy Theorist", we need to leave that conclusion to the readers to make, or, if there is a reliable source, that describes him as such, we can cite that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When discussing living people, please be aware of our policy about living people. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will simply stress what I have posted above: Unless the viewpoints of the owner/founder of the organization can be explicitly tied to the organization itself, I don't think they are notable with regards to an article about the organization. The only way I can see them being included under policy is in a section solely about the owner/founder himself. Lawyer2b 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel they both have to be considered. My understanding that Jim Rob's change from the 1999 'Bush-is-a Big Gov liberal and a CIA Drug Runner' Jim Rob to the Post 9/11 'Bush-is-the-messiah who must not be criticized' Jim Rob has been a source of many people leaving, new competing forums starting, and much disaffection. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As in the past, Fairness, support your facts with some reliable sources and you will find me at your service to see them included. :-) Lawyer2b 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just Google "Free Republic" + "Jim Robinson". Here's some harsh criticism from the right. Too bad it's not inclusionable. linky One of the editors active here who just happens to be a Freeper just recently AfD'd an article on Liberty Post, one of the forums started by disaffected Freepers. Now it's gone. Too bad. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the time for expanded responses right now, but unless you can find such quotes from verifiable and reliable sources, they have no place in this article, or really even this discussion. Please be aware of WP:BLP. And you seem to be unaware of the AfD process, I nominated LP for deletion along several other non-notable political discussion boards or blogs from all sides of the political spectrum in the time that I have been here that in no way satisfy WP:WEB, I did not delete them, consensus within the community demanded it.--RWR8189 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all unverified quotes you assert are from Jim Robinson per WP:BLP. Do not reinsert them in the article or the talk page until you provide reliable sources linking to them.

They're all sourced now. Did you actually think he didn't write those? Why didn't you 'Google' before you removed them? - F.A.A.F.A. 10:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you would add what you believe to be controversial statements by a living person without sourcing them. WP:BLP is a very important policy, thank you sourcing the remarks.--RWR8189 10:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not controversial for him. They're standard fare, and common knowledge. - F.A.A.F.A. 11:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. All I'm asking you to do is abide by WP:BLP, you were not doing that earlier, hopefully you will in the future.--RWR8189 11:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a page at Talk:Free_Republic/Informal_mediation to keep track of our progress and record agreements.

The next steps I propose is as follows:

1. "Stubify" the current article to contain a very short description of the website freerepublic.com, marking the previous version as "pre-mediation". I will propose have created a version of the stub that could be considered. Talk:Free_Republic/Stub;
2. Parties agree not not add material to the article until there is agreement about the structure of the new article;
3. After agreeing to the new structure we will proceed to discuss the content for the different sections;
4. Parties agree to only add material to the article that has the full agreement of all involved. This will mean that we may end up with an article that you may not be 100% happy with, but that you "can live with";

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please state below your agreement with the proposal above. Your signature will suffice

• ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• --BenBurch 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• -F.A.A.F.A. 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 12ptHelvetica 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• --RWR8189 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• --Lawyer2b 02:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Sounds like a plan to me. :-)[reply]
• -- BryanFromPalatine 02:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should "Stubify" the current article immediately. Then start replacing sections that everyone can agree on. It looks like more than half of the article isn't even disputed. 12ptHelvetica 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for User:Lawyer2b agreement to proceed. In the meantime it would be much appreciated by your fellow editors, if you subscribe to the established ground rules for this informal mediation, by signing your name at Talk:Free_Republic/Informal_mediation#Ground_rules. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing second step

First, let me thank you for your prompt and positive response so far. Now, we need to roll our sleeves and do some copyediting. A proposed structure is now available at Talk:Free Republic/Sandbox, as follows

1. Lead (the current text in the stub article)
2. Origins
3. Jargon, modus operandi and user terminology
4. Political influence
   1. Organization of protests (Freeps)
   2. Influencing on-line polls
5. Controversial aspects
   1. Controversial postings
   2. Criticism in the media

My proposal to move forward with the editing of these section is to use the technique of writing for the enemy. The idea is that supporters of Free Republic amongst involved editors, get to edit the section on "Controversial Aspects", and critics of Free Republic get to edit the Origin, Jargon, and Political influence sections. We will do this over the next two days, with the understanding that editors will not revert any other editor's contributions in the Talk:Free Republic/Sandbox, and will refrain from edit those sections not assigned to them.

This may be a bit unorthodox, but will give editors a chance to show/sharpen their skills in NPOV editing, and will assist greatly in moving towards consensus. Please avoid commenting on other editors edits for the next 48 hrs, after which point we will caucus in talk page and assess the progress we have made. Needles to say, make efforts to make your edits compliant with our content policies and use as brilliant a prose as you can.

If you have any questions for me, please place them at Talk:Free_Republic/Questions for informal mediator

Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, I am concerned about the condition that any material added to the new article must have "the consent of all involved." Does this really have to be unanimous? Isn't a consensus sufficient? That's the only issue that makes me hesitate to sign. Also I would add a sentence to the lead (current stub) at the start of the second paragraph, concerning the role of two Freepers in revealing that the Killian memos were forgeries. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the stub as is, and focus on the work at hand. Consensus in this specific case would be that there is agreement between all of us that the resulting article is fair, neutral and informative. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bryan, but that is how things are done here. This is not some new requirement. And I do not consent to your proposed addition to the stub. That will come in its own section in good time IF we can find the appropriate sources in the Main Stream Media to prove it happened. Otherwise it will not be in the article. --BenBurch 14:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I stubified a bit more severely, I hope you don't mind. Things removed can be added back in as warranted by the text added. I just thought that See Also and External Links not referenced should be gone until referenced. Also I added the Skeleton. --BenBurch 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, missed the comment about the Sandbox. Moved my edits there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

When adding references to the article in the Sandbox please use the appropriate templates:

• Cite book: {{cite book | last= | first= | coauthors= | year= | title= | publisher= | location=| id = | pages=}}
• Cite web: {{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2006-12-11 |publisher= }}

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, I'll change my ref tags to use cites later today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBurch (talk • contribs)

Seeing as no citations were found for Free Republic's association with the Wise Use movement and the reference was deleted from that article, I think it would be non-controversial to delete the link from this article.--RWR8189 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal to move forward with the editing of these section is to use the technique of writing for the enemy. The idea is that supporters of Free Republic amongst involved editors, get to edit the section on "Controversial Aspects" ... I've edited the section on "Controversial Aspects" within the 48-hour period prescribed, which has now expired. If neither BenBurch nor FAAFA edits the other sections within the next 12 hours, I'll go ahead and edit those too. Then we can talk and see how close we are to the consensus that BenBurch and FAAFA have previously defended. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the comments from Jim Robinson from the Controversial postings section, as was discussed earlier, it is original research to call those postings controversial unless it is termed that way by a reliable source. Perhaps there is another place for it in the article, but not here.--RWR8189 12:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not. The agreement is that editors will only edit "the opposing side" of the dispute. Once we are done, we shall evaluate the edits. Thank you for your cooperation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe that the article should be organized as follows:

1. Lead (the current text in the stub article, plus a mention of Rathergate at the start of the 2nd paragraph)
2. Origins
3. Jargon, modus operandi and user terminology
4. Political influence
   1. RATHERGATE
   2. Organization of protests (Freeps)
   3. Influencing on-line polls
5. Controversial aspects
   1. Controversial postings
   2. Criticism in the media

Good job so far, everyone. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brian. I would advise some patience, and if the 48hrs expire, we could extend it for another 48hrs. We are all volunteers and sometimes things happen that do not allow us to indulge in Wikipedia editing. There is no rush, is it? The whole idea is to gain buy-in from all editors for the result of collaboration by actively engaing in editing. Lack of collaboration could mean two things (a) some people are busy and did not have the time (WP:AGF); or (b) By not participating they "reserve the right" to attack the article later when we are done with the editing. Let's assume good faith and make time and space so that all editors engage. If they do not engage now, and engage later as per (b), we will all know how to deal with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do extend it another 48 hours. Like Ben, I'm having a hard time finding MSM sourcing. The previous article had a lot of 'generally accepted but undocumentable "truths"' that neither supporters or critics of FR disputed. Are these to be avoided in this version? - F.A.A.F.A. 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm fine extending the deadline by a week. Lawyer2b 23:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to remember that for every day that this editing process lasts, that's another day that the full article is unavailable to the millions of casual users of Wikipedia. Some extension is called for, but let's not make this open-ended. -- BryanFromPalatine 18:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's regroup on Sunday and see where we are at. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working on what we have

Lawyer2B, I am opposed to including the "Bahrain Centre for Human Rights," "Death Threats" and "Cyber Stalking" sections as violations of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The entire organization should not be characterized by the actions of a handful of eccentrics who violated FR policy and were immediately banned for it. FR has done everything that any reasonable person could expect to protect its reputation. Also, I think the lawsuit by The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times might deserve further scrutiny. The plaintiffs won over $2,000,000 through summary judgment; and then it was appealed; and after oral arguments but before the appellate court decided the case, the newspapers' attorneys settled for $10,000. That's a reduction of over 99.5% of the summary judgment. Something happened in the appellate court that scared the hell out of the newspapers' attorneys. They thought they were going to lose. That is the only possible explanation for a reduction of over 99.5% in a negotiated settlement. -- BryanFromPalatine 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]