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
3. Talk:Free Republic/Archive3
4. Talk:Free Republic/Archive4
5. Talk:Free Republic/Archive5

From the Stony Brook Press on Dec 3, 2006:

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

More recent criticism of Free Republic Although I don't feel this material is inclusionable, its further corroboration of the statements in article concerning bannings and Bush backing. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More criticism and praise

The reviews of FR on Amazon provide a good source of views from informed users on how they feel about FR. There are numerous reviews praising it and criticising it: A pro FR review:

"I have made over 4,000 posts on Free Republic. I am not a Republican. I am not a Bush Bot. I have argued against Republican statism, Bush diplomacy, the Supreme Court nominations, the Commerce Clause decision, The Patriot Act, the WOT, the WOD, and the culture wars of the Christian right.

I have never been accused of being a troll or zotted. Free Republic is not a Republican forum. It is a Conservative forum and there are just as many Libertarian Conservatives as Republicans on Free Republic. There are even a few bleeding heart Liberals who have been posting there for years.

No other political forum has the diversity that Free Republic has. Those who complain of being zotted or branded trolls are almost always guilty of racism or personal attacks on others. Anti-semitic white power types get zotted immediately, those with legitimate complaints about the government of Israel do not.

An anti FR review:

"FreeRepublic, back in the Clinton days, used to be the premiere news forum. A true government watchdog full of reasoned debate and rational thought.

Now, it's basically a Bush cheerleading site. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Back before election 2000, site owner Jim Robinson was very vocal in his dislike of Bush, even calling him a coke user and threatening armed revolt should Bush get elected. Now, however, posters who dare criticize Bush in any way are censored or banned. Old-time posters are being banned or leaving in droves, usually around the quarterly "Freep-a-thon" (fundraiser).

In fact, Robinson has openly declared that the goal of FreeRepublic is to re-elect Bush. This would seem to nullify their claims to be a a non-profit site (which wouldn't be allowed to promote political candidates), and throws their "fair use" justification for posting copyrighted articles into doubt.

It's really with a heavy heart I write those words. FreeRepublic, in my mind, could have changed the world. Now it's just an official web presence for the RNC."

Amazon user reviews of FR

Obviously, the allegations that FR and JR have become nothing more than rubber stamps for Bush, The Neocons and and the GOP is a divisive and hotly contested issue, and its as hotly contested right here, if the objections of the FR members and supporters are to be understood that they deny this as fact. I'm not sure if this is the case as they have objected to the Fahey info as being Non RS, but haven't argued that its untrue. (AFAIK) How do we solve this difference of opinion? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, RS is bedrock Either it is or it isn't RS. The concept being that if we concern ourselves with RS and V and NPOV we will eventually approximate the truth. If it isn't RS, then obviously it does not belong in the article. However, I think it likely is RS. --BenBurch 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User reviews at Amazon.com are not reliable sources, for very obvious reasons. You may only say that Amazon.com reviews exist, but that's about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we say something like "many Amazon reviews of Free Republic from those who claim to be members or ex-members corroborate the claims of bannings, censorship, and FR's and JR's shift from anti-Bush to pro-Bush, but many also deny it" with a link? ( I don't think we need it - just wondering ) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you could say anything like that. The sources are not reliable. I will again repeat the fact that Fahey is unreliable, and I'm editing out any material that's based on his scribblings.(removed BLP violations) FAAFA

Your claim that "Jossi left it in, therefore it must be RS" is a complete failure because the first thing you did when Jossi posted that so-called "compromise" version was to start editing the section about the LA Times lawsuit. He put that section in there, but you immediately started advocating changes. So it's clear that you don't believe Jossi's opinions were chiseled on stone tablets on Mt. Sinai.

Find a reliable source for these claims.

Find a reliable source for these claims.

Find a reliable source for these claims.

How many times do I have to say that? Banned Freepers are, by definition, NOT reliable sources. Remember, it's human nature to keep the good and get rid of the bad. When Jim Robinson banned them, it's reasonable to conclude that he was getting rid of the bad.

Among the ranks of the banned Freepers are the dregs of the extreme right-wing. The conspiracy theorists (like Fahey), the misfits, the anti-Semitic, the white supremacists, incorrigible trolls, racists and Klansmen. Are these the people you trust? There's one who posted an implied death threat against the Clintons. There's another who posted personal information about the manager of Chuy's restaurant. Do you really think these people are going to be honest about the reasons why they were banned?

In this case as much as any other, perhaps more than any other, you need a RELIABLE SOURCE. Fahey isn't going to serve as a placeholder until you find one. If you find one, we can always put that sentence back in. ArlingtonTX 22:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response not merited. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is not negotiable. The Amazon reviews and the Fahey piece have no place in this article.--RWR8189 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned Freepers, as a group, are no less reliable than current Freepers. Neither should be used unless they are part of a reliable source. Amazon user book reviews are not reliable sources. -Will Beback · † · 07:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely somebody has published a FR Lexicon somewhere that is RS-V? I cannot find one. Otherwise I'll try to document each term individually. --BenBurch 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt something like that could be found in a RS. The closest thing I could find was this, and whether it satisfies WP:RS#Self-published sources in articles about themselves is questionable.--RWR8189 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting. I needed a laugh, and I got one when I read that in August 06, Freepers were still living in fear of 'The Clenis' and are still tin-foil hat wearing, black helicopter and contrail seeing moonbats ;-) '"Arkancide = Mysterious death that somehow manages to happen to former friends of Bill and Hillary Clinton / CDS = Clinton Death Squad / FOB = Friend of Bill, someone who gets special favors for doing Clintons dirty work, but sometimes end up dead" - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Fahey discussion

Todd Brendan Fahey is a RS as is Lew Rockwell.com "(LRC) is a paleolibertarian web magazine run by Lew Rockwell, Burton Blumert, and others associated with the Center for Libertarian Studies. The site, which is also closely associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute"

Fahey Bio:

• "Todd Brendan Fahey is a Ph.D. candidate in English at University of Southwestern Louisiana, holds the Master's in Professional Writing from University of Southern California, received his Bachelor of Science, cum laude, in Justice Studies from Arizona State University and studied in 1985 at The University of London-Union College. He began graduate coursework in The Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State, before his acceptance into the prestigious Professional Writing Program at USC.

• Fahey has served as aide to Central Intelligence Agency agent Theodore L. "Ted" Humes, Division of Slavic Languages, and to the late-Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief Lt. General Daniel O. Graham; to former Arizona Governor Evan Mecham (R-AZ), former Congressman John Conlan (R-AZ) and others. He is currently stationed in South Korea as a strategic writer."

He is also one of the most respected experts regarding CIA drug and 'mind control' experiments. Fahey on CIA Drug Experiments, and helped debunk the claims of a disturbed woman who alleged that she was a CIA 'mind control' victim, and that Dick Cheney kept her sister hostage as a sex slave in a cheap and tawdry hotel room somewhere. (A true patriot to clear 'Dead Eye' Dick's impugned reputation!) As I argued, if Fahey were making an 'exceptional' claim, like Jim Rob is an Alien from Planet Xenu, I would agree with you, but he is documenting 'generally accepted truths' corroborated by dozens of other sources, that unlike Fahey and Rockwell, aren't RS V sources, but add to the veracity of his claims. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you convinced me. --BenBurch 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was easy. Fahey's self-serving bio was already posted here. But since reviewing his self-promotion efforts convinced you so easily, you should read the negative things that he brags about. For all practical purposes, he is self-published. After every publishing house in New York rejected his first novel, he founded his own publishing company. [1] He seems to be proud of the quantity and variety of illegal drugs and alcohol he's used, and describes himself as a propagandist. [2] [3] "While I sucked lungsful of blonde Lebanese hash in London ..." [4]

I have a deeply-embedded fear of being 'straight.' I'll be frank about it. I have been enamored of chemicals since my childhood and it is surely the bane of my existence. I lost my wife over it just this past year. I love her and respect her enough to have finally told her, 'l can't promise I will change & a promise is what you want.' So, we divorced after 5 1/2 years of a rewarding and tumultuous marriage. She did not know about my LSD intake during the writing of Wisdom's Maw. I hid it from her - an LSD addicton that sometimes went for 40 days in a row ...

My relationship with chemicals is an uncomfortable one. To be very honest I am either bored of the "sober life," or else it scares the shit out of me. I don't know which. From the age of seventeen, I don't think I've been straight more than a week at any given period. My survival is a testament to the strength of the human will. I had a hideous relationship with alcohol from 1982-1986 (from the age of 17 to a wizened 22, when I went through rehab.) I relapsed to the bottle in '93, after about the 120th rejection of Wisdom's Maw. I 'drank-to- die' until Thanksgiving of '95 - a fifth of Wild Turkey a day. ...

I wrote my first book-length nonfiction 'novel' - a thing called Hell Bottled Up: Chronicles of a Late Propaganda Minister - in 1988, in my first semester at USC. Wrote it in a white-heat in six months, basically smashed on acid. ... So, I went to Amsterdam, started getting REALLY out of my head, like I hadn't in several years. (For the record, I stopped eating LSD in the summer of 1994 and, Bog willing, I will never pick up the habit again. Too many reminders. Too much psychic trauma. I'll probably do it again, 'cause I did it in Amsterdam - some incredibly pure & powerful stuff - but not as a "means of writing.") [5]

This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?

Publication at LewRockwell.com is also no guarantee that Fahey is reliable. While it has published articles by many reliable people, it has also published articles by unreliable people:

Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute has criticized the blog for carrying columns by controversial figures, such as Gary North, whom Palmer calls "one of the oddest of oddballs" (North has called for the stoning of homosexuals and women who have abortions) and Joseph Sobran, who, he writes, "speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review". Sobran was fired from National Review by William F. Buckley following a furor over Sobran's opposition to the 1991 Gulf War and what some considered to be anti-semitism. [6]

-- BryanFromPalatine 11:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have another source (a notable RS V print magazine) that confirms these allegations and more, which I'll post later. (that CIA LSD experiment documentation is staggering, huh?) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 00:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Chronicles_(magazine) is a U.S. monthly magazine published by the paleoconservative Rockford Institute. Its full current name is Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. The magazine is known for promoting anti-globalism and anti-intervention stances within conservative politics.[7] The editor is Thomas Fleming; the executive editor is Scott P. Richert. Aaron D. Wolf is associate editor, and Chilton Williamson is the senior editor for books. Chronicles was founded in 1976, soon after the Institute's establishment earlier that year."

I found this article (published in the Dec 2002 issue) a few weeks ago, but mistakingly thought that it was only a forum post.

Notable quotes:

"Matters came to a head in early 2000 when Robinson (or "JimRob") speculated on George W. Bush’s connection to the airport in Mena, Arkansas where drug and gun-running allegedly took place during the 1980’s. Matt Drudge then dropped Free Republic’s link from the Drudge Report, and Goldberg took 2.000 members with her to start her own Lucianne.com."

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

"Many banned Freepers have turned to such sites as Liberty Post (www.libertypost.org) and Liberty Forum (www.libertyforum.org) where members can post articles from anywhere and comment without interference from the thought police or fear of Siberian banishment."

The article was posted on FR:

Link on FR

More posts on it, and related.

an article on this article

another cached source

Discussion on Liberty Post - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first blush it seems to be a better article with less questions over reliability.--RWR8189 09:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA, if you're going to rely on the Chronicles article, I'm confident that you will be honest and NPOV enough to include the following excerpt from said article prominently: "Leftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs." It is believed that such "agents provocateurs" were responsible for the Chuy's incidents and many other examples that at first glance, would seem to be the very sort of thing that would feed your "criticism and controversy" section. BryanFromPalatine 12:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BenBurch, when you reverted my changes, you posted one line on the History page: "Restore consensus version - Fahey material is a RS and appears in a RS print journal." But your changes went far beyond that, and there is no consensus supporting Fahey as a RS; at best, the consensus is 50/50 with you and FAAFA on one side, and RWR8189 and I on the other side. And since FAAFA has already found the far more reliable Chronicle article, why would you continue to rely on the proudly drug-addled Fahey as your so-called reliable source?

If you're going to insist on starting a revert war over Todd Brendan Fahey, at least do me the courtesy of explaining why you would insist on using him, when a far more reliable source has been found by your inseparable friend and ally, FAAFA. As RWR8189 said two days ago, "WP:V is not negotiable. The Amazon reviews and the Fahey piece have no place in this article." WP:RS isn't negotiable either.

I would like to work with you on this. There is clearly a consensus that accepts Chronicle as RS, but if you continue to post your Fahey nonsense, and until you base the material you want to add on Chronicle or some other RS, I must treat such reversions as vandalism and respond accordingly. -- BryanFromPalatine 16:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan, I would have hoped that you read up on WP while you were blocked for sockpuppetry. Your edits to the intro and OR show that you didn't. The intro is supposed to suffice as a short 'stand alone' article, not be a place to hash out claims and counterclaims. Furthermore, there is no evidence that anyone other than genuine members made the Chuy's threats, and when I asked you to supply some, you suggested that I ask a FR sysop. By the way, WHY are you editing this article from two accounts, your BFP account, and the IP 209 account? You've been officially convicted as a sockpuppet and puppeteer. You should be more careful - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAAFA, I've read up on Wikipedia:Vandalism and when you defy consensus like that, it's vandalism. I've just reverted your vandalism. Your claim that Fahey is RS is not supported by consensus. If you simply must include claims that FR has "changed course" from anti-Bush to pro-Bush, is "not conservative" and has banned a lot of good members for simply criticizing Bush (or whatever) then base such material on reliable sources. WP:RS is not negotiable. You have just produced a reliable source at long last: the Chronicles article. Fahey was used as a placeholder in violation of WP:RS, but that is now behind us. Build your encyclopedic material from the Chronicles article. Thank you. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I observe that you've reverted again, going back to the old version with the misspelled words. And you've removed the quotations from Chronicles magazine, which you've just finished introducing as a RS! What's wrong? Have you changed your mind about its reliability so suddenly? I'm getting some administrators involved in response to your efforts to vandalize this article. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) Why are you editing this article from two accounts? Didn't you read WP:SOCK while you were blocked for sockpuppetry? Your consensus claims are fallacious as it would now have to be described as 3 to 2 for Fahey with Picaroon joining me and BB (That's not 'consensus' but I'm using your understanding so you can relate) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any statements from Picaroon for or against Fahey as RS. Nor do I see any such statements by Lawyer2b, so I didn't include him either. Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Free Republic, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (please stop)[reply]

Some advice that editors may consider. See WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. Using attribution, sometime helps give context to our readers. In particular is a statement is contentious, describing who makes that statement, can help our readers reach their own conclusions about it. I do not want to get into the discussion of this person Fahey is a reliable source or not, as that may be not the issue. Please consider evaluating if that source represents a "significant" viewpoint instead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "agents provocateurs" thing especially, while it might be a notable and reliable statement, does not belong in the opening paragraph if it comes from a biased source. Also, this is a good place to use WP:3O instead of revert warring. Ashibaka (tock) 21:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The agents provocateurs statement is a statement of fact, not susceptible to spin-doctoring. Either so-called "leftists" have done it, or they haven't. Absent some showing of bias on the part of this particular author, it should stay.

Fahey is neither RS nor a significant viewpoint. After being rejected by every publishing house in New York over the course of two years, he started his own publishing company; that, and starting his own Web pages, is the only reason he's published at all. His self-promoting "bio" is unverified. He persistently engages in bragging about the variety and quantity of illegal drugs and alcohol he has used. The fact that a witness is a drug addict or alcoholic may be used in court to impeach the credibility of the witness. US v. Cheatwood, (10th Cir. 2002), No. 00-6401; [8] US v. Contreras-Castellanos, (10th Cir. 2003), No. 02-8062. [9]

If FAAFA insists on adding one of Fahey's statements, then readers should be educated about what sort of person Fahey is. They should know that he hasn't spent seven consecutive days sober since he was 17, and that he has used LSD for 40 consecutive days. They should know that he describes himself as a "propaganda minister" and a "conspiracy theorist." Then Jossi's suggestion on attribution would work out. Otherwise, since the average person has never heard of Fahey (and for good reason), simply naming the source doesn't mean much. -- BryanFromPalatine 21:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

more criticism needed. The FR members and supporters here have agreed that this article should be similar to that of Democratic Underground as far as criticism. Take a look at that criticism section vs this one. They have cherry picked the most offensive quotes and included them verbatim like "The wife of former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards allegedly criticized members who did not feel compassion for Laura Ingraham in her fight with breast cancer. Comments about Ingraham's cancer reportedly included: "She Probably Gave it to Herself," "All that Hate, Lies, Anger," and "I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum." The FR article takes an entirely different approach and describes documented actions like death threats against Clinton (which were quoted in the article) in as mild and exculpatory manner as possible. The lawsuit info doesn't count towards 'crticism' either. It's not the members fault that Jim Rob encouraged them to ignore copyright. Where's the parity? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FR article takes an entirely different approach and describes documented actions like death threats against Clinton (which were quoted in the article) in as mild and exculpatory manner as possible. It was written up by Jossi that way. The lawsuit info doesn't count towards 'crticism' either. Perhaps not, but it counts toward "controversy." Criticism and controversy, grouped together, add up to no more than 25% of the DU and Kos articles. -- BryanFromPalatine 21:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can move all but one sentence to the LAT vs FR article then. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Jihad Against Chuy's" article on Salon is linked as a reference. If the reader wants to know what was said, he can click on the link. This is an encyclopedia article, not an exhaustive inventory of everything that was ever said at FR that offends delicate left-wing sensibilities. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That works for me. -- BryanFromPalatine 21:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me. Plenty of documentation of individual threats coming from actual FR members, (see Clinton death threats below) and NO documented threat is tied to a 'troll'.

proposed quotes to include:

"Followers of the Free Republic gained notoriety earlier for posting death threats against President Clinton. This was the most direct:"

• "People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard [President Clinton] ourselves! He is now threatening my children and grandchildren, and I will kill him, before I let him kill my kids for his non-legacy! He, Clinton, has now embroiled The United States of America in a terrorist attack on a sovereign nation, and I will not stand-by, and let him kill my offspring. You better wake up, people, he's now gonna kill our kids, and the congress and senate are not going to do A GODDAMM THING!!!!!!! We better do it now, kids, while we've still got guns, or we're gonna be doing it with torches and pointy sticks later, with a lot more casualties! Don't think I'll be posting here for a while, folks. I think I'll be talkin' to the USSS for a while, and trying to convince them to kill him!...Later, buds. Gonzo" Posted on June 10, 1999 Free Republic Death Threats

"So, it doesn't matter if he [Bush] snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? 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

Any objections? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I object. I'm sure RWR8189 will object as well. American Politics is not a RS. It is hopelessly biased against conservatives, as other passages from the site (as well as the sidebars) demonstrate with painful clarity. This same article was discussed previously on these Talk pages and it was shot down in flames. Furthermore, American Politics isn't even the original source of the article. It's TJWalker.com -- which went "Error 404" so long ago that the domain name has been reassigned to a media group. [10] -- BryanFromPalatine 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Foot in mouth again ! That website IS TJ Walker's - the same TJ Walker who wrote the article. The SAME TJ Walker whose article appears here on CBS NEWS TJ Walker - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's the same TJ Walker? Show me. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously believe that the truth of the matter is that Free Republic has been infested with enemies who are sufficiently able to sound like a coherent whatever-it-is-that-you-think-you are-there to avoid a speedy zot, but who are also the source of all extremist rhetoric and horrible grammar on Free Republic? Do you then also believe that America is still infested with Soviet deep-cover agents waiting for their "Manchurian Candidate" phone call? How about the Tooth Fairy? --BenBurch 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your mockery is duly noted. "[A]ll extremist rhetoric and horrible grammar on Free Republic?" No, of course not. Some of it? Yes. The reliable source, Chronicles, that has just been unearthed by your faithful friend and inseparable companion FAAFA has confirmed it. My sources indicate that the Chuy's incident was caused by a "leftist ... agent provocateur." But since it's OR, I'm not going to claim in the article that this particular incident was caused by a leftist AP. If I can find a reliable source, however ... -- BryanFromPalatine 22:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So unlike the fifty cents the tooth fairy left under your pillow, you have no proof whatsoever about your fairy tale? --BenBurch 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles states that during the late 1990s "[l]eftists began to infiltrate the site, posting articles or posing as conservatives to act as agents provocateurs." This is the same magazine that your friend FAAFA has just introduced as a reliable source. That is sufficient proof that SOME of the FR activities that have been criticized were the work of "leftist ... agents provocateurs." There's your fifty cents. -- BryanFromPalatine 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threat noted. --BenBurch 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when you do it, it's all right; but when I do it, it's a threat? -- BryanFromPalatine 22:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OR: BFP, please explain how this addition isn't OR. I need a good laugh. "It is possible that many of these incidents may have been the fault of such leftist ... agents provocateurs." Why are you editing this article from two accounts, BFP, and IP 209? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a statement of fact. Since Chronicles identified the existence of "leftist ... agents provocateurs," it is possible that any given incident of extremism, or inappropriate calls to action, could have been made by one of them. Chronicles is YOUR reliable source. Regarding IP 209, I've read WP:SOCK. Then I read it again. And again. You should as well. First of all, an IP address is not an account. Second, I did not use it in an abusive fashion. Even if (by some desperate stretch of the imagination) IP 209 could be described as a sock puppet "account," only sock puppets that are used in an abusive fashion are Wiki violations.

I hereby claim all edits today from the IP 209 address as my own. There was no effort to sway consensus.

Happy now? -- BryanFromPalatine 22:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles article is not a reliable source (as, say, the New York Times would be) but closer to an opinion. If we grant that it's a notable opinion, it should be restated with attribution to its owner, as I just did. Ashibaka (tock) 22:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles is a printed magazine published for the last 30 years. It is RS V. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this issue is a significant part of FR history and should be included. It also speaks to how significant FR is in the blogoshere, and even outside the blogoshere.

I haven't seen the documentary 'Shut Up and Sing' yet, but understand that it either credits (or blames, depending on your POV) FR for the 'boycott' against them. I hear that it even includes screen shots of FR posts and a discussion of FR, after Jim Rob refused to be interviewed for the documentary.

This is what was said on 'Hardball' :

Matthews: "Well, who were the people that were, let me go back to Natalie, who started this all because you were the voice that spoke? Who went out there and really tried to exploit this against you? Were there any commercial forces that compete with you that said, here's a chance to bring down the Dixie Chicks and, and take the money they'd be getting? I know it sounds Machiavellian but that's the way I am. I'm thinking who is gaining by your demise?"

Natalie Maines: "Well, personally, I think the Right did. And I think it was originally started by the Free Republic. And they were very organized in calling radio stations across the country and telling them that they would never listen to their station, when they didn't even live in that town. And we knew that. And at the beginning our manager tried to explain that to some program directors and they were not willing to listen." SOURCE

I'll write a prospective paragraph about this tonight. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have again reverted your vandalism of this page. Your changes are not supported by consensus. There was no discussion of any changes at all after Ashibaka's last edit. Discuss your proposed changes and then we will reach a consensus for or against them. Don't continue to ignore the participation of RWR8189 or my participation, or Ashibaka's, or Jossi's. If you continue to vandalize the consensus version that Administrator Ashibaka posted, I will report you for your vandalism, and seek to have you blocked. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no consensus supporting reduction of the lawsuit section, there has never been a consensus supporting Todd Fahey as a reliable source, and there is no consensus supporting the inclusion of APJ as a reliable source. I oppose all three of these edits. By posting the version that he posted, Ashibaka opposed the use of Fahey as a RS. There has been no showing that this "TJ Walker" is the same TJ Walker on CBS News and the National Review. Do you think it's impossible that there's more than one writer out there named "TJ Walker"? Don't start pretending that it's November 15, when the DU alumni were making this into a hit piece. It must be balanced, and it must have reliable sources. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks for "General Disruption" BenBurch 02:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did they block the associated IP's too??? If not, I'm sure we'll see another 'friend' or 'family member' show up and start editing! (not to mention new Anon IP users) After reading his latest 'explanations' in response to confirmed sockpuppet findings, I am convinced that he must that think everybody on Wiki, including all the admins are a bunch of gullible rubes! - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA, careful. Prodego ^talk 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but I have no doubt we haven't heard the end this. --BenBurch 02:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've received a complaint that one editor is attempting to cite an unreliable source at this article. What exactly is the argument? Durova^Charge 02:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro

• Pro Fahey argument here It's important to note that these are not 'exceptional claims'. I supplied close to a dozen NON RS V sources like blogs and forum posts confirming these 'generally accepted truths' regarding Free Republic. Here's the article.Link

Here's the gist of the claims:

"dating back to the [2000] GOP primary Presidential campaigns – it appears to many that the "independent, grassroots conservatism" emphasis has been replaced by a rank-and-file boostership for the Republican National Committee and all that President Bush sees fit to offer for the nation – an increasingly liberal (Big Government) vision, in the eyes of many "grassroots conservatives."

Corroborated by another WRITTEN RS V source, Chronicles Magazine Talk:Free_Republic#New_RS_V_Source saying:

"With so many posters banned, the diversity of thought on Free Republic has been reduced to the musings of neoconservatives, Zionists, Republicans who act is if Free Republic were an annex of GOP headquarters, those who consider George W. Bush a demigod and offer daily prayers to him, and other sycophants and cheerleaders..." - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Con

• comment here

• As the complainant has been blocked for two weeks, I'll try to make his argument here; 1. Fahey is not possibly a Reliable Source because Fahey is a substance abuser. 2. The fact that LewRockwell.com, otherwise acknowledged to be a RS, printed Fahey's piece does not confer RS status to Fahey. BenBurch 02:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We now have a source that satisfies WP:V and WP:RS in the Chronicles article, there is no longer a reason to rely on the Lewrockwell article of dubious reliability. I disagree that Lewrockwell is even a reliable source to begin with, it seems to be little more than a blog, and fails WP:RS#Self-published sources as secondary sources.

This quote from upthread further brings reliability into doubt:

Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute has criticized the blog for carrying columns by controversial figures, such as Gary North, whom Palmer calls "one of the oddest of oddballs" (North has called for the stoning of homosexuals and women who have abortions) and Joseph Sobran, who, he writes, "speaks at neo-Nazi conferences of the Institute for Historical Review". Sobran was fired from National Review by William F. Buckley following a furor over Sobran's opposition to the 1991 Gulf War and what some considered to be anti-semitism

As noted by Durova, all of those credentials do not necessarily make Fahey reliable on this subject.--RWR8189 07:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Well, being a Ph.D. candidate in English literature counts for something in the field of English literature. Other than that he appears to be mostly self-published. If he writes for a reliable source (such as a freelance feature in a reputable magazine) then that would be acceptable here. Otherwise no-go. His general sobriety doesn't interest me per se. Durova^Charge 03:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I should specify: specific content he publishes in reliable sources is acceptable, but not related content he may self-publish or publish in otherwise unreliable venues. Durova^Charge 03:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)][reply]

I ask that Jossi weigh in with his thoughts as well, as he is actively involved with rewriting RS + V to ATT. If he agrees with you I won't pursue including Fahey. IMHO, WP on RS + V is in need of serious repair. 'Reporters' who have been published multiple times, but who have been proven to be unreliable, or even conspiracy theorists (Stephen Hayes and Laurie Mylroie come to mind) are cited and linked to hundreds of times on Wiki, even though their conspiracy theories regarding Iraq and WMD, and Saddam bombing Oklahoma City have been denied be the US Gov (which officially makes them conspiracy theorists) and are accepted as RS V sources, but a reporter who has not been published much, but never proven wrong is not. Only when ARBCOM judges a source unreliable (who else besides LaRouche is on this list anyway? A few Holocaust deniers - who else? (I hope David Icke)) are they officially deemed 'unreliable' even if extensively published. Here's one of Fahey's hard news stories. Link Thanks for your help Durova, even if we do disagree :-) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the terminology again and will add the FR link as a ref. Since we are using FR as an uncontested RS for something as important as 'budget' when there have been allegations of serious financial irregularities including hundreds of thousands of dollars raised and squandered in the LAT V FR lawsuit, and $110,000 wasted alone when their lawyer filed the claim in the wrong state, Clarity Hilarity How FreeRepublic.com lost a "First Amendment" lawsuit and wasted $110,000 on a frivolous lawsuit - Fairness And Accuracy For All 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be removed, since it isn't really relevant in an encyclopedia article on the forum. It is more fitting for a guide to the site, and it doesn't really contribute anything to the article, Prodego ^talk 21:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I hadn't looked at it that way. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. BenBurch 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current issues

Issue #1

I think we need to remove the weasel words from the intro, specifically "The site has also been controverisal for what their critics consider inappropriate calls to action posted by some of its by members". Unless Freepers support death threats, which are RS V sourced, there's no need to include that, and it's actually weasely - right?

issue #2

RWR1989 good to see you back! On Dec 20 in mediation, you agreed that the crticism section be modeled after that of the Democratic Underground article. Since then, you have introduced several sourced quotes from DU members into the criticism section of that article, such as " Comments about Ingraham's cancer reportedly included: "She Probably Gave it to Herself," "All that Hate, Lies, Anger," and "I don't pray for Nazis or other Totalitarian Scum." The FR article takes an entirely different approach and describes the documented words and actions of FR members, like death threats against Clinton (which were quoted in several articles) in as mild and exculpatory manner as possible. Obviously, 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' so we need to include some actual quotes in the FR criticism section, correct? I suggest "People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard [President Clinton] ourselves! He is now threatening my children and grandchildren, and I will kill him, before I let him kill my kids for his non-legacy!" OK? - Fairness And Accuracy For All 08:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is an amazingly bad idea to include the text of explicit death threats in either the DU or FR articles; most immediately relevant is that they serve to unfairly prejudice the reader against the subject of the article. Then we have copyright concerns, BLP concerns, WP:RS concerns (i.e. giving space in an encyclopedia to the idiot writing the death threats by proxying the threats through reporters of arguable reliability themselves); perhaps even Secret Service concerns (and for the record that's not a legal threat). I went to the DU page and summarized the threats just like I did on the FR page, and will be monitoring that page as well. - Merzbow 08:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a shining example of good sense, impartiality and fairness! Thanks for your help. I look forward to more. The DU article still has the member quote hoping that Reagan 'Rots in hell', (A RWR addition AFAIK) and there's nothing of the sort here. What should we do? (as I'm sure you've figured out, both articles have the same DU and FR members and supporters (and detractors) editing them - editors who might have an unintentional COI) - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I went and summarized the Reagan comments too, and there was one other. - Merzbow 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed budget claim and link. I removed the link to the 'budget' and claims regarding it. Apparently, the link went to the FR donation page (it never loaded for me) which is a clear WP violation along with being non RS V for an issue that has been a 'bone of contention' to some former FR-members turned critics. (I don't know how that was EVER accepted) I don't think we need to document the alleged $30,000 misappropriated by the FR member whose past criminal record ('17 time convicted felon') was known to FR management who allegedly authorized her appointment to a position to handle money. [11] - Fairness And Accuracy For All 10:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe something should be included about how users at the Free Republic will urge others to 'freep' a poll, to change the results of it so it reflects their viewpoint. - Jarn 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should. That information was in the article for a long time. I see no explanation for its deletion, so I'll restore it to the article. JamesMLane t c 01:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a good cite for that fact. --BenBurch 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found one, but it's in German and I think it requires a subscription. I don't know, because I don't read German. It's linked to here. I'm not sure of the rules for sourcing, but could we use FR itself as a source? This page, for example? But if it used to be in the article and no longer is, couldn't it just be restored? - Jarn 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using [12] but I keep getting distracted. Of course, the same point is in the DU article without any citation. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a citation there, too!  :-) --BenBurch 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the information in the cite about some people voting hundreds of times, I hope that is alright. - Jarn 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Its true and its in the reference. --BenBurch 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock of BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --BenBurch 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen another editor, other than Scientologists and LaRouchians, defend an article and topic like BFP defends FR! (no offense to Scientologists or LaRouchians) How many socks has he created? 5? 6? He did express great admiration and respect for a woman who claimed she was a 'mind control' victim. Hmmmmmm. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. There is no need to comment like that on Bryan, even if he is violating the sock puppetry policy. Two wrongs don't make a right. Picaroon 22:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's a confirmed WP violating sockpupeteer with numerous confirmed puppets. I will try not to violate NPA again (if I did), but WP mandates that I should no longer should AGF regarding his participation. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that as a personal attack at all. It was a pretty clear exposition of the truth. BFP started out here with no AGF for any of those who were editing this article whom he disagreed with, but no, that does not allow us to do the same to him. But even so, look at how things ended up for him. Blocked. Disgraced. And he failed to impose his POV on this article. --BenBurch 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've just returned from a 24-hour block for edit warring in this article, I'm sure you know what it's like to be blocked and disgraced. - ClemsonTiger 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Nope. I wasn't blocked any time recently. Try again. (Just a clue. This is 2007) --BenBurch 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you know what it's like to be blocked and disgraced. There's nothing like experiencing it first hand - ClemsonTiger 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 Hrs? Minor infraction, like a speeding ticket. Disgraced is when you evade blocks by sockpuppeting and create a whole sockpuppet army, get investigated, caught, get your whole sockpuppet army (with one exception I note) banned permanently and then garner three weeks of block because you constitutionally cannot obey the rules. A 3RR block is supposed to be a correction - I took the hint, BryanFromPalatine did not. Or don't they teach ethics at Clemson any more? --BenBurch 19:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, NPA (again). Calm down, and all of you should try to make this article as NPOV as possible, even if you think FR is the best/worst site on the internet. Prodego ^talk 20:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I am STILL looking for some well sourced praise of FR to balance this article. Care to help me find some? I wish I still had Lexis/Nexis available to me. Maybe the Wiki Foundation will one day have that available to researchers. --BenBurch 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, we don't make articles NPOV by balancing them, we do it by making sure that everything shows an objective view of it all. We present information neutrally. Take a look at the article 'Nazi Germany', for example. Notable criticism should be mentioned, and explained, but it should not be a section against the subject. Prodego ^talk 21:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is my vision for this article too, but I am sensitive that, since all we can find is essentially negative. it looks like an attack piece even though that isn't the intention. If I could find some actual positive thing about FR in an RS-V source I would be happier with the result. Sadly, politics breeds more criticism than praise. --BenBurch 21:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say costing Dan Rather his job is pretty darn positive, but that's just me. :) - Merzbow 21:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That cuts both ways, so it's not an unmitigated positive. There must be SOMETHING great that FR has done, like sending ballistic armor to the troops or similar that has Main Stream mentions and which would be a good positive for this article, but I cannot find it! All I find are negatives, and I know that there must be another side to this. BenBurch 21:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(UI) Read my comments on the Dixie Chicks ban a few sections up. I have't had a chance to look for RS V sources yet. It does speak to FR's 'power' though. I think there also must be some RS V discussion about how amazingly popular they are, in terms of web traffic, and that is notable too. The issue of FR's contribution to the Killian memos is disputed. Most sources (even conservative sources) credit Powerline and LGF a lot more than they do FR. - Fairness And Accuracy Dan Rather 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on that. FR was a minor player or cheerleader in the Killian matter, but I am content to allow the current characterization of it here unless others object. BenBurch 22:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "minor player or cheerleader"? Ivor Tossell of the Globe and Mail said that "it was central to the network of websites that uncovered the forged memos about Bush's Vietnam service that appeared on CBS News and ultimately cost Dan Rather his job." He makes it sound more like a quarterback than a cheerleader to me. You've used Mr. Tossell's quotes to say, "the worst site on the Internet, political-rhetoric division" and "an exercise in political extremism that, despite being something of an anthropological train wreck, keeps popping up square in the mainstream." If Mr. Tossell is reliable enough for that purpose, then he's reliable enough to describe Free Republic as "central" in the Rathergate episode, instead of a "minor player or cheerleader." Wouldn't you agree? - ClemsonTiger 14:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's another selective use of sources that I've observed after a review of the extensive archives of this Talk page. You feel that Sean Scanlon is reliable enough to say, in the lead of the article, "The website and its founder have generated controversy for their alleged post 9/11 shift away from their libertarian-leanings and opposition to George W. Bush, to what critics feel has become a rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy, and a purported increase in censorship and banning of numerous conservative members." However, you evidently don't feel that he is reliable enough to say, "leftist ... agents provocateurs" anywhere in the article at all. What's wrong with this picture? It's a reasonable question, in my opinion and not intended as a personal attack. - ClemsonTiger 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ClemsonTiger (suspected sock puppet of BryanFromPalatine ) : all political sites have trolls from the 'other side' so its not unique to FR thus not even worth mentioning if we're only going to include a couple sentences like you want, plus the Tossel article did not claim that these trolls were responsible for any of the death threats from FR members like you tried to claim in your edits adding this info. Why don't you find something about WH PRMeister Tony Snow being a Freeper when he was still with Fox? That's kind of impressive. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who are not familiar with political sites are not aware that "all political sites have trolls from the 'other side.' " It's only fair to educate them. Educating people is one of the primary functions of an encyclopedia. I'm not familiar enough with Free Republic or its members to say anything about Tony Snow, but it seems to me that a review of the article for objectivity is called for. Prodego asks a good question: Is it objective? For example, where did the phrase "rubber stamp for Bush Administration policy" come from? Is that an objective summary of what Scanlon wrote? Understand that I'm only trying to improve the article. - ClemsonTiger 22:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note the recent addition of a comment about purges and a link to an article on that site. Comments please? --BenBurch 19:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog/foum and not notable enough, or RS V to include. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 22:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one RS V source about Tony Snow's participation on FR. Tony Snow on FR There are a lot more mentions, but all I found were blogs. It appears that after he got the WH job, they deleted all his FR posts, but many are archived. With posts like this about his boss, it's no wonder. "He (Bush) inhabits a political Oz, where the colors are happy and the tough decisions can wait until the oracle speaks. When he stumbles over abstruse matters of foreign policy, for instance, he actually jokes about his cluelessness." "This is how frat boys behave when they know the class nerd is going to take their exams for them." OUCH! (he's got an amazing command of the English language. I'd never heard of the word 'abstruse', and thought it might have been a misspelling of 'obtuse'. New word! Thanks Tony! ;-) - Fairness And Accuracy For President Bush 22:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Free Republic is used as a source for hundreds of articles.[13] In some cases it is used as a convenience link to copyrighted articles from other sources which may or may not be otherwise available on the web.[14][15] In other cases, it is used as a direct source.[16][17] I'm not sure that either use is justifiable. Are there other opinions about this? -Will Beback · † · 03:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per policy, partisan websites can only be used as sourced for articles about these partisan websites. And convenience links to such partisan websites can be used only in very specific situations, or not at all. A cleanup of these should be undertaken by involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As things are now FR probably can't be used as a reliable source. Which is a shame since FR probably has one of the largest archives of online news stories anywhere.--RWR8189 05:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of which are copyvios. I have deleted a bunch of these links, leaving some in EL sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all are/were copyvios. They were known for their flagrant disregard of copyright law: "A recent case, Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, illustrates these points. An Internet bulletin board operator posted articles from the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post on its site. The defendant, Free Republic, Fresno, California, operates www.freerepublic.com, on which members post [full text] news articles with their comments for others to read and discuss. The federal court found that this was not a fair use." fair use and online copying - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Even for the copyright material FR presents, it is still not a good source. Ignoring the copyvio issues entirely, how does anybody know that the copy posted is faithful? I think all of those references have got to go! And this is *not* a slam on FR. No message board can be trusted to have faithful copies of news stories as message boards typically have very little control over users editing practices. Same would be true if DU were used as a source. --BenBurch 06:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree to some extent. Some articles (ignoring the copyvio issues) are posted on multiple sites/forums/blogs, and are the same in every case. Most of these articles were copied and pasted from the original sources, many of which don't archive their articles, and the aricles disappear after a few months. (that's one thing great about CNN. They have articles going back a decade - like quotes from the GOP criticizing Clinton for 'attacking Sudan', when he was trying to kil OBL, his 'needless costly war in the Balkans', and his phony 'war on terror') Unless there's some kind of 'conspiracy', articles posted on multiple sites are likely to be accurate, IMHO. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But since its just Joe Nobody copying and pasting the articles its not reliable. While it isn't a reliable source, I do think the mere volume of articles going back nearly 10 years now makes for quite an interesting archive, since like you say most websites delete their stories after several months.--RWR8189 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, you know that an article does not have to be online AT ALL to be cited in Wikipedia, in fact, that seems to a degree to be preferred. So, you don't use the link, you cite the original wire service or newspaper where that is still discernible from the FR entry. What we REALLY need is to have Wikipedia Foundation make some kind of a deal with Lexis/Nexis so that some select body of editors could check such sites or conduct searches requested by others. --BenBurch 23:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please strive to maintain basic talk-page discipline. Comments about other editors, personal opinions about the subject of the article and similar discussions are not for these pages. There are other fora out there for these, that are much more suited to debates about this subject. Here we discuss the article and nothing else. I have refactored a comment by FAAA and placed a WP:NPA warning in his/her talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine. Please can we not hear from you again, Bryan, until your block expires? When that happens I am happy to work with you again on this article. --BenBurch 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, Ben, that the problem is that you don't work with him. You fight him every inch of the way. Every sock puppet investigation, and every conversation here at the Free Republic Talk page, has been littered with ridicule and personal attacks from you and your friend. The administrators just removed another personal attack against RWR8189, and posted another warning. In pushing your POV in violation of WP:NPOV, you have again and again violated not only WP:CIV and WP:NPA, but also WP:RS. - ClemsonTiger 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to talk about yourself in the third person. Per Wikipedia:blocking policy, You may come back when the block on your main account expires. Not before that. Picaroon 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it Bryan, you have no right to be here editing this talk page now. You were properly blocked for 3RR, sockpuppeting and general disruption, and this is the SECOND new sock puppet of yours that we found here since then. Please obey the rules of this institution and you won't find that the other editors here, myself included, will ever stand in the way of good, constructive edits on this or any other article. --BenBurch 00:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan, you are cruising for a community ban if you keep up the sockpuppetting. The best way to have your POV heard is to edit within the rules of Wikipedia. Please think about it. - Merzbow 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I thought he'd stop and begin to obey our rules. But I really do not think that he will unless prevented from editing at all. --BenBurch 01:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s two-week block gets reset from today, and I expect that additional time will be added on. Another week or even two is merited. If any of his proven socks like ClemsonTiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit, I expect that Bryan will get a permaban. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is policy, but we have to get an admin to take the action. Checkuser does not do this job (they do enough work cleaning up after liars without having to block them too.) BenBurch 02:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops - I spoke too soon. Bryan/Clemson/Johnny/Arlington/Helvetica/DP1976/Mishwaka/Hums/Devin/Andrew and John Does 1-99 have been permabanned. Check the block log for Head Puppeteer BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). "Justice served is justice done" - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well. Actually, I am sorry to see him go because he was smart and could have been a really good editor had he minded the rules. BenBurch 02:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, cause he didn't follow the rules from the get-go, and any user who creates numerous socks to 'vote' and sway consensus, as he tried to do, is the antithesis of a true Wikipedian. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I think that nearly anybody can redeem themselves if they start acting properly. BenBurch 02:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Oh well. Life goes on. :) - Merzbow 06:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After that little display in ANI I might have changed my mind. If that was him. BenBurch 18:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The IP address of the threat points to myspace-type provider called www.blnk.com. If that was 'Bryan', he has evidently studied up on proxies, which makes his actions all the more troubling. Evading a permaban to threaten another user is serious business. If 'Bryan' posts again, I think an admin or the Wiki lawyer should contact law enforcement and his well-known employer. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to contact a Checkuser admin privately on this issue. - Merzbow 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The threat came from an anon (visible IP), so what would a checkuser do? Prodego ^talk 22:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. Let's forget this whole matter as it deserves, and write this encyclopedia. --BenBurch 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the spirit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Back to business. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Regularize all the citations to use the cite macro or at least the ref tag to so that they all appear in the cites table.

• Attempt to find some RS-V cites to good things FR or Freepers have done. For example is there any direct quotation from Tony Snow while he was on Fox News praising FR?

• Can we find a LGPL or fair use picture of one of the DC Freeps? Seems to me I recall some of the DUers had some good ones, could somebody ask on there if the owners would upload them here and turn them over to LGPL or at least PD?

Add your own items. strike out items as they are done. Thanks! --BenBurch 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish RWR1989 would write something about the Dixie Chicks and Tony Snow. I supplied links. As a Freeper he might know resources that we don't. I think my next addition will be Free Republic's contributions to the Franklin Coverup Scandal SEE HERE and their early opposition to bush, claiming that he was involved with 'CIA Drug Smuggling'. IMHO those are as important as the Killian Docs. - Fairness And Accuracy For All 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you all might like to know that Seand59, who edited this article a few hours ago (and was immediately blocked indefinitely for impersonating a Wikimedia staff member), is now known as Carolyn-WMF. Her account has been unblocked by Danny. She really does work for the Wikimedia Foundation.

The article at AmericanPolitics.com that was allegedly written by TJ Walker does not exist. Click on the link you provided. It's a blank page. I believe that Wikipedia has been the victims of a carefully crafted hoax. I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately. Dino 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]