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. [[User:208.250.137.2|208.250.137.2]] 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
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. [[User:208.250.137.2|208.250.137.2]] 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:I agree. [[User:12ptHelvetica|12ptHelvetica]] 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:10, 9 December 2006
This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. (This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)
I'm deleting the reference. WP:CITE. See especially "disputed" section. Benburch, you seem to like digging through FR archives. How about you verify this thing? This stuff shouldn't be up there without a cite. Gordongekko909 01:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did so. Sorry for getting lazy, but I didn't think I'd have the time to research this tonight, but the repairs I was doing didn't take as long as I thought... BenBurch 01:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. I added a link to the Wiki page dealing with that very execution, 'cause it turns out we've got one. Gordongekko909 01:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Stephenson (again)
There is plenty of evidence of Freepers doubting Stephenson's claims, but is there anything actually linking FR or any of its members to "physical stalking" or "interference in fundraising?" I'm really wondering if this can get done without weasel words. Gordongekko909 02:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on it, though likely not before next week. BenBurch 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mind giving me a reason why I shouldn't qualify that paragraph with a bunch of "allegedlies," then? Damn, I hate weasel words... Gordongekko909 02:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and like I pointed out on the DU page, there's a factual dispute template sitting on top of the Andy Stephenson page itself. Any objection to me replacing the paragraph with a quick "accused of" intro and "See main article: Andy Stephenson" so people can see the factual disputes getting hammered out on the main Stephenson page, instead of reading disputed information here without notice that it's disputed? Gordongekko909 02:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add the accused of and such. I'm not sure why this article is in here now as I thought we decided that it shouldn't be. But I shall try to document it. BenBurch 21:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DUmmie FUnnies link
My only reservation is that it is totally NOT about FR. In the DU article, it might belong because it is peripherally about DU. It would be as if I added a link to my http://www.WhiteRoseSociety.org site to the DU page because so many DUers visit it on a daily basis. BenBurch 21:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reservations understood. It's about FR, though, because the ping list dedicated to DUFU is the most popular on FR. It's a big part of FR culture. Gordongekko909 03:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but aren't all of the postings ALSO on FR? And don't FR members just read them there? Perhaps a link to the FR keyword search for that blog? BenBurch 15:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; I'll redirect the citation. Gordongekko909 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert war
A quick look at the history page will show that I'm currently locked in a revert war with someone who insists that a thread linked to in the article has administrators calling for attacks on wikipedia. The thread has no such thing. There are no admins in that thread. There are normal users directing Freepers to wikipedia, though, and my version of the article reflects this. Would the anonymous user who keeps reverting please tell us exactly which post on the threads linked to are by Free Republic administrators? One more revert and I'm calling in the mods. I don't want to get it done like this, but if I can't negotiate or reason with whoever's doing this because they refuse to talk, then I have no other choice. Gordongekko909 23:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will probably have to arrange for it to be protected for a while. On controversial political subjects like this one, you are bound to encounter this periodically. --Holdek(talk) 06:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just requested semi-protection. This will shut the reverts down for at least four days. Gordongekko909 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request denied; not enough recent activity. Mods in charge told me to watchlist and revert with extreme prejudice, though. Gordongekko909 00:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that YOU are the problem here, Gordon. BenBurch 18:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That little outburst seems uncalled for, please assume good faith.--RWR8189 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain yourself, Benburch. --Gordongekko909 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BenBurch, please appraise yourself of the discussion at hand.
First off, no one has cited an instance of an administrator incitation, the best we have gotten is that it is around "pg 30" whatever that means.
The only advocacy of violence I see made in the source given are tongue in cheek references. How is someone going to surround a restaurant with tanks?
There is also no need to go into such great detail about the Andy Stephenson controversy on this page, the summary makes a reader aware of the controversy and directs them to a page that explains it fully.--RWR8189 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and I am supposed to believe this to be factual when coming from a self proclaimed Freeper,RWR8189? User talk:Gordongekko909 you and Gordon have been hacking away at anything mildly critical of your Organization. its just like the last time freepers got an ACTION ALERT and trashed the abortion page. your and Gordon's edits are blatantly pov, you should consider having some one more impartial take a look at the page. Btw Andy's is fully sourced, it's deletion is clearly an atempt at info suppression.--68.214.4.72 01:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not denying that I'm a member of Free Republic, I'm one out of thousands, and my membership there does not preclude me from participating on its Wikipedia article, just as BenBurch's association with DU or other sites does not preclude him from participating in those articles. You also failed to address any of the points I raised.--RWR8189 16:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, Benburch shouldn't be editing this article. He's a known DUer and William Pitt fanboy. Now you see what I just did? It's called ad hominem. And that's precisely what you're doing by pointing out my and RWR8189's Free Republic affiliation. If you don't like the actual edits, please tell us why they're POV or unnecessary. I abbreviated the Andy Stephenson section because the entire factual basis of what happened with him, including FR's involvement, is in dispute, as you can see on the Andy Stephenson page. There was no disclaimer on this page that every single facet of FR's alleged involvement is seriously lacking in any evidentiary basis. And no, "Pied Piper Pitt said so" doesn't count.
There are no administrators in the threads directing users to Wikipedia. Not even "around post 30." Our anonymous-IP "contributor" can't point out a single post by an administrator. Therefore, the statement that there were administrators in those threads lacks evidentiary basis, and so has no place in an encyclopedia.
The paragraph dealing with the petition to stop the Iranian executions can't possibly be interpreted as anything but malicious. Not only does the anonymous user's version misrepresent the controversy itself (which you can read all about on the wikipedia article about the executions), but it misrepresents Free Republic users' reactions to it. The fact that the two condemned were being executed for gang-rape, not simply for homosexuality, is simply ignored. This is an obvious effort to paint FR users' reluctance to sign the petition as homophobia, instead of what it was: lack of sympathy for rapists.
As for our anonymous user: if our edits are "blatantly POV," then you shouldn't have a hard time explaining why without resorting to ad hominem. During my time here, I've been making the article comport with the evidence, nothing more. I've been removing POV assertions that are not supported by any evidence. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is what I'm supposed to be doing. --Gordongekko909 22:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Will Pitt Fanboy?" Nope. Actually, I think he's not that great a writer, and I've had moments when I was really steamed with him, but I'm happy to be friendly with him most of the time. "Fanboy?" Hardly!!! BenBurch 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come now. There is no shame in fanboydom. I myself am a self-proclaimed Thomas Sowell fanboy. Admit your fanboyhood. It will set you free. --Gordongekko909 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NNPOV edits and revert warring - Page Protected
Okay, folks. The page is now protected from edits. Settle your differences and come up with consensus WP:NPOV wording. BenBurch 20:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Let's start with the involvement of administrators in the Wikipedia threads. Please direct me to a single post in either of those threads by an administrator. "Around p30" won't cut it. Give me the number. --Gordongekko909 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and way to stick trolling and humor banners at the top of this talk page. Real classy. --Gordongekko909 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I call them as I see them. Now - Get on with your business here of reaching a consensus. I'll be observing. BenBurch 03:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would remind everyone once again to remember WP:FAITH. The only people that seem to be involved in this discussion at this time are Gordon, you, our anon friend, and myself. Neither of you seem to be interested in discussion, and I am growing tired of repeating the same things without any meaningful discussion.--RWR8189 05:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry... observing? Who went and made you mediator, Benburch? I'm pretty sure you've tried this before, the result being miserable failure. --Gordongekko909 16:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. When I first read Burch's comment I thought maybe he had (somehow) been promoted to an admin level. Burch, I think your comment is inappropriate and silly. Give me a break. You're involved in editing on this page as a common editor just like everyone else. --Holdek(talk) 19:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have I said otherwise? Nope. And I am not mediating anything. But I'm also not here to do more than observe you settle matters amongst yourselves now. BenBurch 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then can the repeated demands of others reaching a consensus while you observe. Otherwise, get involved and give suggestions and edit yourself. --Holdek(talk) 20:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one demanding consensus. Wikipedia does that. I was just making a comment. And I'm busy working on all of the articles on nuclear reactors. BenBurch 21:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t change the topic Gordon you never suitably answered the question on Andy’s deletion: the facts are well established with four citations from four sources. Clearly it is all-factual and clearly you had no need to remove it. Btw if you doubt the admin endorsement then just go read the 256 pages in the link.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.34.33.184 (talk • contribs) .
The Beth Ferrari and first Seattle Weekly article don't even mention Free Republic, and the second Seattle Weekly article does not accuse anyone from Free Republic of interfering in the operation. It just said that Freepers talked about Andy Stephenson and didn't believe him. That's it. The evidence provided does not establish anything that you want in the article. And may I remind you that plenty of the Andy Stephenson story is still in dipute, with no mention of this in your version of the section on him. This is why I replaced the entire paragraph with a link to the main Andy Stephenson article. If I were actually trying to "suppress the truth" or whatever, I would simply delete the whole thing, NOT redirect to a page with even more information.
Btw if you doubt the admin endorsement then just go read the 256 pages in the link.
I had to quote that because I want anyone reading this discussion to be able to see it a second time. NO, I will NOT take it on faith that there is an administrator somewhere in those 256 pages. If you're linking to the thread in the first place, you should probably be linking straight to the page where the admin is located anyway, if you're asserting that there's an admin somewhere in there. Now let's try this again: where is the admin involvement in that thread? Give me a specific post number, not a ballpark figure. --Gordongekko909 16:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I plan to do it, but it might help somebody if you specified what link you mean, and what the screen names of all the admins on FR are. BenBurch 20:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only moderators on FR are Jim Robinson, John Robinson, and the rest have some sort of derivative of the word "moderator" in their user name such as Admin Moderator. Sidebar Moderator, or Lead Moderator
Besides which, the burden of proof is on the editor making a statement, not on everyone else.--RWR8189 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to both of the links in the "Influencing polls" section. Neither of those threads have any administrators. I'm not arguing that members haven't directed users to, for example, Wikipedia; that's self-evident from the threads. I'm also not arguing that Freepers don't "Freep" online polls in an attempt to influence their results; I myself run a ping list dedicated to doing precisely that. ;) But there isn't any admin involvement, which is why the reference to administrators ought to go.
And yeah, the burden of proof is on the person trying to INCLUDE information in an article. Observe. --Gordongekko909 20:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you still didn't say what thread. I did observe Jim Robinson comparing Wikipedia to the Washington Post on one of the linked threads, and saying both were worthless, but neither of those threads has 256 pages! BenBurch 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here.[1] It's 256 pages. Our anonymous contributor claims that there are admins in there urging Freepers to go forth and conquer, and can't point us to a single post by a single admin urging such action. And while we're on that subject, why is the word "racial" in the description? The only remotely "racial" Wiki article referred to is the Kwanzaa article. This hardly merits a "racial," let alone a "primarily racial." "Political" I understand. But the inclusion of "primarily racial" is an obvious smear attempt. --Gordongekko909 21:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my confusion; That is 256 replies not 256 pages. It is only a half-dozen pages. Here is Jim Robinson on that thread, but I don't think it amounts to more than a very passive endorsement if that. [2]BenBurch 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, bleh, you're right. 256 replies, not pages. I need to eat something. :/ 'kay, so it doesn't look like we have admin endorsement of an "attack." All it is is a comment on the NPOV policy. This certainly doesn't merit the word "often," nor does it merit even pluralizing "administrators." Assuming that it merits a mention of FR's administration at all. Which I say it doesn't. -Gordongekko909 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here, have a bag of pre-sliced organic apples... BenBurch 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, NOT replace "administrator" with "moderator," because as you can see from the discussion that Benburch and I had above, the threads in question had neither administrators nor moderators doing any of the things the article's current form describes them as doing. Hence, replace "administrators" with "members."
The CU threads you posted are not FR threads, and therefore not exactly relevant. I'm not going to dig through those FR threads for evidence of "cyberstalking and physical stalking" of Andy Stephenson by Free Republic members, as well as evidence of Free Republic members interfering in fundraising.
Same goes for posts advocating violence towards Chuy's patrons and physical destruction of the restaurant. No, tongue-in-cheek calls to "ring the restaurant with tanks" and "turn it into a barbeque" are not evidence of advocacy of physical destruction of the restaurant. 'course, if consensus here ends up dictating that they are, then I am going to have a great time over at the Democratic Underground article, citing to threads that call for the overthrow of the United States government [3] (just look at the poll), advocacy of vandalism against Diebold property [4], and advocacy of violence towards religious people [5] (post 16). You want that description in, you provide the evidence. You know the drill: give me post numbers or a straight link to the post itself, not just the threads. --Gordongekko909 00:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought a previous consensus process ruled the Andy stuff out of this article? I suppose, though, that it can always be revisited. And you KNOW that Andy was a friend of mine, and I was involved in that process. There WAS physical stalking, and some very disturbing things that I cannot talk about, but we do not know for fact that the physical stalkers were freepers, though we can suspect it. We do know that those who lead the cyberstalking were freepers, but, honestly, I am content to let those people live with themselves. What they did was reprehensible, but it was not centered on Free Republic though parts of it happened there. As for whether the people who did that killed him? No. They did make his last days on earth misery, though. Andy had a type of pancreatic cancer than nobody has ever survived. Ever. Of course we did not know that before the surgical biopsy. There are also a lot of things afoot here that I am not at liberty to speak about that might be relevant, but even were I at liberty to speak of them, they would be original research, and not suitable for Wiki. BenBurch 02:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The previous consensus did exclude the Stephenson section, but given the sheer number of "allegedlies" being thrown around, I thought the best thing to do would be to just link to the main Andy Stephenson article while what happened with him gets ironed out over there. Hell, the entire section was already there when I started editing this page, and I thought it would be a bit drastic for me to just delete the whole thing. If it turns out there is no evidence of Freepers physically stalking Stephenson, and if no evidence of cyberstalking by Freepers is forthcoming, then yeah, I'd be in favor of removing the entire section dealing with him from this article. For the time being, though, that evidence fight should be going down at the Andy Stephenson article. Not here.
I am aware of the nature of your relationship with Mr. Stephenson. I'll take your word for it that some nasty things were done to him. But that doesn't mean that Freepers were doing them. The evidence on hand points to Freepers doubting his claims, which probably doesn't amount to cyberstalking. If merely talking about someone and doubting things they said were acts of cyberstalking, then every journalist, political blogger, and member of any political message board ever would be a cyberstalker. This just doesn't make sense. And as we both know, there was plenty of doubting of Stephenson's claims going on at DU as well, some of it by high-profile DUer William Pitt. This would merit an "accusations of cyberstalking" section in the DU article as well. So count this as a vote for the abbreviated version of the Stephenson section, pending removal of it later if it turns out that there was no stalking of him by Freepers. --Gordongekko909 19:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clown Posse
I know this page is protected, but could one of the admins here replace the (dead) link to CP, which has relocated?
I have to take exception to the statement that most of the posters at FR are "neoconservatives." Generally, neocons are hawks on foreign policy but are not fanatically opposed to the welfare state, legal abortion, and homosexuality. Sometimes they are not opposed to them at all; other times they may express token opposition, but it is not a passion with neocons. FReepers don't fit in this category. In fact, most of them don't fit into any normal categorization of conservative; "reactionary nationalist" would be more accurate. In any event, we ought to rethink the whole "neocon majority" angle. St. Jimmy 01:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, neoconservatism is mainly a foreign policy ideology, and if you look at it as strictly a foreign policy ideology, most Freepers are definitely neoconservatives. Neoconservatism as an "ism" simply doesn't focus heavily on domestic policy, and given that many early neocons were former socialists, it should be no surprise that many neocons have not been heavily opposed to big government. This, however, is purely incidental. As far as domestic policy goes, FR has a rather vocal Libertarian minority, but most FR members are social conservatives as well as foreign-policy neocons.
Neoconservatism's bailiwick is foreign policy; nothing else is all that relevant as far as the ideology itself goes. I say leave it. --Gordongekko909 01:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of Extremism
I would also like to add a further note in the extremism subsection noting that many Freepers despise Martin Luther King Jr. with appropriate links to multiple threads to prove it, because many Freepers considered King a " communist " and an "interloper".
I think this is a good idea. I would also reference threads regarding a proposed memorial to Dr. King, that contain mostly criticisms and slurs, even though Dr. King is generally and widely considered an American hero. --Holdek(talk) 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bring the evidence. Alleging the existence of these threads alone won't cut it. --Gordongekko909 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Free Republic links are restored to some previously deleted material. However, noted comments should remain on wiki even if Jim Robinson again deletes his own comments, as he shouldn't be able to control the public record of his own public remarks.Jlogajan 17:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jlogajan, I have edited that last sentence you wrote on the grounds it violates non-neutrality and non-sensationalism. "His now fully public anti-science attitude has precipitated a schism..." smacks of subjectivity. I have done what I could to bring some objectivity to that last sentence or two, while leaving the evidence in tact. Gregarious Lonewolf 17:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research and unsupported information in Criticism section
This is the first time I've looked at this article but I see some glaring examples of original research (forbidden by WP:NOR) and unsupported material.
1)There is no cite for Free Republic being accused of bigotry.
2) The example of the supposed bigotry is simply a post from the website with no supporting citation as to what external source said this was an example of bigotry. This is "textbook" original research. Lawyer2b 14:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a bunch of loons.
Terminology
"Freeptard" has been added and deleted several times. A source has been found for it. OTOH, the other terms are unsourced. Why are we deleting just that one term? If we don't have reliable sources maybe all the whole section should go. -Will Beback 21:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more a case of terminology specific to Free Republic itself, although I realize there is an entirely different jargon associated with critics of Free Republic, which might or might not merit inclusion under a separate section.
However, I have a much bigger problem with the Andy Stephenson section.
After extensive-and often acrimonious-debate the individuals who are insistent upon the inclusion of the "stalking" section still haven't provided any substantive, tangible evidence that Free Republic members-either individually or en masse-"stalked" Andy Stephenson.
At best it is a disputed assertion, and at worst it is demonstrably false. Ruthfulbarbarity 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss separate issues separately. "Freeptard" is used on the FR site, as a quick Google check shows. The term certainly isn't use to refer to any other webiste or movement, at least that I am aware of. Can anyone give a good reaon why it's being deleted? -Will Beback 10:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that a Google search for "Freeptard" yields 1,490 hits. If the complaint is that there's "only one source" we can add hundreds. I think the Urban Dictionary link is the best one, though. It constitutes an tabulation of public opinion. When the question is the currency and meaning of a contemporary slang term, that's a reliable source. JamesMLanet c 11:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think this is a rather trivial issue.
The poorly sourced Andy Stephenson accusations, however, are another matter altogether.
Is there an objective, unbiased source that has documented "stalking," i.e. physical harrassment, of the late Mr. Stephenson on the part of individual FReepers?
I'm aware of the Paypal issue, but questioning the severity of his medical condition does not constitute "stalking." Ruthfulbarbarity 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, let's discus issues one at a time. I won't refactor these commetns, but I suggest that disucssions of Stpehenson and Paypal my be started below. Getting back to the matter at hand, does Ruthfulbarbarity mean that "Freeptard" is not objectionable in the article? -Will Beback 23:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:RWR8189 wrote about a term 'Reaper' saying ``never heard of this one, besides which, do we need a laundry list of terms in this article?
I don't object to Freeptard. I've heard it plenty of times before on DU, and a google search turns up lots of hits. However, there's a new entry for a term "Reapers" that I can't say I've heard used much on DU. Is it from another site? One that I have heard used a lot is "Repug" but that is used for Republicans in general, not just people from Free Republic. So, I mildly object to "Reaper" on the grounds that it is not widely used slang on FR or DU.
Full disclosure: I am the one who posted the term "DUmmie"
Lastly, I do think a lexicon is a useful section to have. Many sites have their own jargon, and FreeRepublic.com is no exception. I think the DU page could use a lexicon, as well. Gregarious Lonewolf 03:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking around on DU and FR and have not seen the term Reaper used. I'm not sure there is justification to put this in the lexicon, and unless someone objects, I amd going to remove it. Gregarious Lonewolf 21:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Stephenson
Here is a place to discuss the Stephenson matter. -Will Beback 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
immigration
The moderators on Free Republic often ban, without warning or explanation, posters who criticize...the Bush Administration's policies on immigration
Completely and totally WRONG. Most of FR members are vehemently opposed to President Bush's immigration proposals. They are very rarely banned.
Anthrax arrest and FR
We'll have to wait for confirmation from WP RS V sources, but this should have legs.
This information cannot be included in the article until it is verified by a reliable source. This is all original research and cannot be included in the article. Even if it is correct, remember that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --RWR8189 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that by implicating this FR poster with the man arrested without verification violates WP:BLP and can be removed with impunity and is not subject to the 3RR rule.--RWR8189 20:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally despise freepers. But it's unfair to blame entire FR for the acts of one of its users.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lamrock (talk • contribs) .
Expanding that section to take up half the article is a travesty. That it is even in the article at all is questionable, but putting in forum posts as sources is rabidly unnaceptable. Stop. JBKramer 21:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current paragraph is perfect until and unless something is proven, and even then it should only be changed in detail and not size. BenBurch 21:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Radar copying and pasting the unverified claims made on DU or other blogs does not satisfy WP:BLP and is potentially libelous. Until the connection is verified it should not be mentioned in the article.--RWR8189 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an accurate reading of the purpose of WP:BLP. The claim is that radar reported x. Radar is a reliable source. They reported x. We are safe from charges of libel and defamation. JBKramer 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is how I read this too. Just as if the NYT or WP had reported it. BenBurch 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading WP:BLP I agree that the current wording is sufficient for now.--RWR8189 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I won't engage in any more edit warring, I will ask that this portion of WP:BLP be remembered:
Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we? --RWR8189 21:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree *COMPLETLY* - the section is *INCREDIBLY* lame to include in this article. However, as you well know, people with important political fights to engage in on wikipedia will insist that something be included - links to non notable blogs, paragraphs about irrelevent lawsuits, stuff like that. Hell - I can't even keep the longer, BLP violating version of the paragraph out, because some revert warrior is logging out to try to undo it. So much for compromise - if only both sides could be flexible. JBKramer 21:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted this dispute to WP:BLPN.--RWR8189 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adopting a 'wait and see' approach regarding this issue, as I'm condfident more notable sources will pick it up soon - but do want to note that the FR 'friendly' editors seem to have had very few concerns over the flimsy sourcing contending that FR and some of the posters there were instrumental in exposing the 'Killian Documents' incident. (Rathergate) - F.A.A.F.A. 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, if only everyone could be flexible. JBKramer 22:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am watchlisting and will revert to the consensus version if I see it change. BenBurch 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, in spite of my being a friend of Larissa's, that Raw Story qualifies as [[WP:RS}}. Has that ever been determined? BenBurch 00:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and leave it as long as you are consistent. If someone who has edited Wikipedia ever does anything you need to put that in the Wikipedia article, and the same for every MySpace incident, and Democratic Underground. You must treat every website consistently or its not NPOV.24.144.27.33 00:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are likely to have an article about the suspect, Castagana, at some point. His participation in FR and other online forums should be a major part of that article. But from what I can tell he was not a significant participant of FR. He wasn't a moderator or even a prolific contributor. However FR has been mentioned in the coverage, so it is relevant to mention the case here due to the notoriety. As of this writing, the text is just one long sentence. And yes, Larisa Alexandrovna is a respectable journalist. -Will Beback 00:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was a fairly prolific commenter, I'd say--he wrote 1141 posts over a period of 262 days. At one point he even mentioned that 'someone' should find out where Olbermann lives and "mail him a Ted Kazcinski (sic) letter", yet was never banned. -- Anonymous, 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Will, I will add RawStory's article as a link. BenBurch 01:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I keep having to revert this article. I have one more left today, then somebody else will have to revert it. BenBurch 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information that 68.82.82.248 constantly adds is in violation of WP:BLP and can be reverted with impunity.--RWR8189 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Somebody keeps adding a Clown Posse link that I think was removed by consensus long ago. How should we deal with that? I think, like the similar links in other articles, links to blogs and message boards are not appropriate. BenBurch 02:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC consensus was reached on that link a while ago as well, and I agree with your edit summary. Either way the anon editor violates 3RR next time he puts it back in.--RWR8189 02:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only link to FR seems to be the Raw Story article. The Raw Story article doesn't confirm it's him, rather it reports that "bloggers are convinced". Hardly seems enough to implicate Free Republic although it desereves mention on Keith Olbermann page (sans FR mention) until confirmed. This is a "false light" libel argument and unless someone can provide more concrete evidence that the arrested person is exactly the poster on FR, it should be removed from the article. Tbeatty 03:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, look into it. The Free Republic account was originally found by searching for text from known Chad Castagana posts. They share penchants for Science Fiction, electronics, and Katherine Harris. The e-mail address listed on Marc Costanzo's Free Republic profile was most recently maldarrin@aol.com, and previously Zopix2@yahoo.com. The first e-mail address is also tied to posts at the Yahoo! Ann Coulter fan club group (made under Yahoo! account Zopix2) and posts at the IMDB as Maldarrin, where he approvingly mentions Joe Bob Briggs--much as Chad Castagna does. And it just goes on and on like that... -- Anonymous, 04:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this has been my preferred position since its inclusion in the article.--RWR8189 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would Jimrob have diced the account if it were not the same person? BenBurch 04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask him. Inferring that is the reason he did is original research.--RWR8189 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly if the account holder requested it. Imagine the hate mail that account would have received. I would request that Wikipedia delete my account if I was getting the kind of attention (i.e. linked to felony). And if I was Jimbo I would delete an account that was causing that much negative publicity to the site regardless of guilt or innocence. I would ask them to create a new account if they wanted to continue participating. --Tbeatty 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research AND Crystal Ballism! Hmmmmm - Isn't Will Berback (who argues the short paragraph is OK) some kind of Super Admin? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't say anything of the sort? "However FR has been mentioned in the coverage, so it is relevant to mention the case here due to the notoriety. As of this writing, the text is just one long sentence. And yes, Larisa Alexandrovna (Raw Story) is a respectable journalist. -Will Beback" What's your interpetation of what he's 'saying' Beatty?- F.A.A.F.A. 05:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't spent much time on this article, and I had never even heard of the 'Clown Posse Forum' until just now. Why is it that a link to the Clown Posse forum (forum critical of FR) is prohibited for this article, but links to CU, and DUFU (DU critical sites) are allowed for the DU article? No Comprende! - F.A.A.F.A. 04:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look around that forum, I don't see any connection to FR either implied or expressed.--RWR8189 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking it's there, RWR8189. I recall they named that section "Kook Kronicles". However, the DUFU link doesn't belong on the DU article. And I won't make a different judgement on this equivalent link here even though there isn't much chance of having DUFU removed from the DU article. BenBurch 05:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like that section discusses a variety of conservative forums, not just FR, definitely not an equivalent to DUFU IMO.--RWR8189 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clown Posse is the only site founded and maintained by and for the original Anti-Freepers - a group founded in 1999. I understand how one might miss that fact after a perfunctory perusal of CP, but would be happy to direct any questioners to the numerous threads and posts which prove it. Many of those threads are hidden in the CP archives, which wouldn't be "archives" were it not for the fact that *freepers* have managed to stifle our criticisms and exposure of them, forcing us to move from server to server, until now. I would think the matter of FReepers' stifling of free speech would be noteworthy in and of itself. ;) - Previous unsigned comment by User:Damsel cp
It is still a blog, and as such, still not notable. Dominick(TALK) 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dominick , Would you join us at [Talk:Democratic Underground] please? I think your view on the matter of the blog links there would be valuable. BenBurch 16:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A dispute here does not match the dispute there. CP and Dummie Funnies are different animals. DUFU is a direct satire. If it is not obvious to a very casual reader that CP is a FR satire site, or that CP is as notable DUFU. they it is a different grey area. Frankly, wikipedia doesn't need blog sources, and frankly half the MSM sources we use would also get removed IF I were king. Dominick(TALK) 19:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that there are differences, and that the blogs are very different animals. They are both still blogs. I think the ONLY way a blog should make it into an article not about itself is if multiple mainstream sources cite that blog on a matter that would be in the article anyway, and where that citation is required to make sense of the matter, or if the article could not stand on its own without. For example an article about DUFU *must* mention DU because that is the only reason DUFU exists and the article could not stand without such mention. The criticism of Clown Posse is not required to make sense of the FR article, and the satire of DUFU is not required to make sense of the DU article. Now, mentioning DUFU in its context as a regular feature on Free Republic is FINE, and as FR is appropriately linked on the DU article, the information remains accessible without bruising the no blogs rule! Were Clown Posse to be a regular popular feature on DU (fat chance) then there would be an analogous situation. BenBurch 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Anthrax' dicussion - day two
I'm changing the name of this section to 'man arrested in bioterror threats alleged to have been FR member'
1) he was arrested and charged for this. 2) He sent letters to senators, Why was olbermann the only name listed? - F.A.A.F.A. 19:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More documentation AND some levity - funny graphic Zaius Nation - F.A.A.F.A. 23:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - Started an article on Chad. Big segment on him and FR on Keith Olbermann just now. John Cook from Radar Online interviewed. FR was directly mentioned. Transcript should be up tomorrow. Chad Castagana - F.A.A.F.A. 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather biased for a wiki article, and is tangentally related to FR. Dominick(TALK) 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Dominick, I am certain that "Mercilessly Edited" will kick in for that article presently. :-) BenBurch 06:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Captkangeroo is quite the writer! - F.A.A.F.A. 06:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
update Jim Bob has admiited that Castagana was a member "Unfortunately, looks like this guy did have an FR account. And even more unfortunately, we had not caught him yet. Chasing down Marc Costanzo's IP address and other Internet footprints, looks like he had at least four earlier FR accounts, each of which had been banned. He was a "retread troll." It happens. Jim Robinson"thread - F.A.A.F.A. 06:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the fake anthrax antics were not planned on FR, they only have a tangential relationship. I would like to say this is not worthy of inclusion here. If they are, then did he have an AOL account? Did he read the NY Times? Did he eat at McDonalds? If it is worthy of inclusion here then anyhting he may have been participaring in should have his inclusion. Including him is a partisan attempt to unjustly link Free Republic with an act of terrorism. Dominick(TALK) 12:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, several Freepers are going to try vandalizing the article today. I'd suggest adding the Jim Robinson reference and then locking it. At least until the next death threat from the group. So basically, lock it for 2 hours. lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 (talk • contribs) .
It doesn't matter, this wasn't planned, executed or even tolerated on FR. If he was a sometime poster on DU, would that mean we include it there as well? How about if he ate breakfast at Denny's where he read a newspaper, do we edit the Denny's entry to include the fact that the fake anthrax terrorist ate at Denny's? This inclusion lacks merit on it's face. Dominick(TALK) 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a valid point. Somebody who used my website once killed his wife and then himself, and I do not feel responsible. Nutjobs hang out everywhere online. But the question arises, how then can FR take credit for the Killian documents? Sure it was posted there. But it would have been posted somewhere else had FR not been around. I think a neutral statement linking the malefactor's own Wiki page might be appropriate? Like; "Chad Castagana, accused by the FBI of sending terroristic fake anthrax letters to Liberal politicians and celebrities was a Freeper, and had been banned from Free Republic several times under various usernames." What say you good people? BenBurch 16:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, lets write, "Chad Castagana, accused by the FBI of sending terroristic fake anthrax letters to Liberal politicians and celebrities, eats breakfast at Dennys, uses AOL for internet, joined Sams club, had a library card and lets his wife vote on American Idol." None of the activities in question were coordinated, alluded to, or even known on FR. Nobody had any idea he was a terrorist. FR posting is tangential to this persons sick act of attacking a Congress critter. My point Ben is that he didn't use any FR resources to commit, plan, or even brag about this act. He was not a heavy poster, and he is not a chapter member as far as I know. Dominick(TALK) 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does look like he posted what in retrospect was a brag, but it would have been hard to see it as such at the time as violent rhetoric directed at Liberal targets is fairly common on FR, and is generally understood to be just words in venting. BenBurch 17:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (Here is the link [6]BenBurch 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I would not characterize that as indicating anthrax. As you recall Kazinski was a political liberal and used a bomb. Idiots abound. Dominick(TALK) 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, somebody will without a doubt keep adding NNPOV versions of this story indefinitely unless we have *some* mention here. I don't think we want to revert that until the end of time. BenBurch 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would not take that as a good enough reason for inclusion. You didn't address my problem with the story. It is apparently there to make the reader conclude, as you may have, that FR breeds terrorists. IMHO, this violates NPOV by inclusion since FR had nothing to do with this moron. Anyone can register, and anyone can post. Anyone can eat at McDonalds, if he ate at McDs, does that mean hamburgers cause terrorism? Dominick(TALK) 18:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't my conclusion at all! What breeds terrorists is disaffection. The malefactor in this case was a 39 year old unemployed electronics noodler who lived with his Mom and posted right-wing screeds and stalkerish peans to busty conservative media figures. All Free Republic did was provide a place where he thought he could get away with posting that sort of thing. But the story is now tied inextricably to Free Republic, even if that is not fair in the slightest. Much like the suicide of Vince Foster was tied to the Clintons, or the death of William Casey by brain cancer has been tied to the Reagan administration. Neither one is fair, but both are inextricable ties that would be appropriate for a neutral mention in articles about either. BenBurch 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There WAS something fishy about Vince Foster. (thats a joke, but it was like a sardine) My apologies, I should not have put words in your mouth. He didn't use FR for anything related to the anthrax terror scare. It is patently unfair to include it here. I would say it is linked because some people have agendas, and wikipedia should not perpetuate that. Dominick(TALK) 19:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but if you don't want to have a revert war, leave my neutral mention there for at least a few weeks. This is now too widely known not to have hoards descending on this page to add paragraphs and paragraphs on this that would be NNPOV in the extreme. And I'd observe than the two other cases I mentioned were only linked because people had agendas as well. BenBurch 19:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that I agree completly with Dominick that any mention of "some freeper did x" is totally unnaceptable irrelevent content for this crappy article. JBKramer 19:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, feel free to edit mercilessly until it is neither crappy nor lame! That's what we are here for, right? BenBurch 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ben has a point, but JBK does too. A lot of freepers think this article and wikipedia in general reflects a slant. Watch it closely, and lets monitor the debate. Dominick(TALK) 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<-- It's not the slant, it's the constant low-grade edit warring by people who are not here only for the purpose of informing people about stuff. JBKramer 20:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that is how the slant arises, isn't it? BenBurch 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(UI)A Pro FR slant? I agree, to have a long glowing paragraph about how important certain FR posters, and the forum itself was in the role of exposing the 'Killian documents', but attempting to sweep this issue under the rug - a FR member who had over 1000 posts using his last FR username - a member who posted ABOUT his actions on FR after the fact - with a sig line that said 'name your poison' is WAY POV and slanted in FR's favor. Lets try to reach a NPOV. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV would be to remove it entirely. Like I said over and over again, he did not use FR or talk on FR concerning his attack. The only reason for inclusion would be to try and smear FR with a terrorist link. Accusing a site like FR with supporting or fostering terrorism by linking it with a sometime user lunatic is POV. Counts of 1000 postings on FR is nothing for most users. If we link him with FR, like I said before, then we have a million things that he can be linked. Does he eat at Dennys for example. Dominick(TALK) 21:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you say he didn't talk about the attacks on FR . I thought it was fairly clear that he'd done so before and after sending the letters. -Will Beback · † · 22:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed he did mention the letters and talked of anthrax. He never did say "I sent them," but clearly he was fishing for validation and got some. BenBurch 22:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To contend that any editor here is 'accusing FR with supporting or fostering terrorism', is the antithesis of AGF. This is a notable event in FR's history and as such, inclusion is mandated. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to link FR with a terrorist to support a foregone conclusion, then it must be included. So much for fairness. We wonder why people come here and criticize the article, it is because of this bias. If the person was in a yahoo chatroom doing this would we include his crimes on the yahoo page? If he discussed it over breakfast at Waffle House should we not post he did this and talked at Waffle House?Dominick(TALK) 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if Waffle House had the sort of press for his eating there that FR has had for him being a poster, you could reasonably include that in the article on Waffle House. BenBurch 23:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So now that your claim that Castagana "did not talk on FR concerning his attack" has been proven flase, you are arguing that documenting his link to FR means that it's a 'foregone conclusion' that anyone reading the article will think FR supports terrorism? I don't agree. Doesn't FR have some sort of warning about not threatening people, posting libelous claims, etc? If so, we could include that too, so people understand FR does not support terrorism. OK? (I wish we had the Waffle House chain in California! I love waffles!) - F.A.A.F.A. 00:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was proven false. He did not coordinate these attacks on FR. Your goal is to link FR to a terrorist attack and it is inherently PoV. Dominick(TALK) 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(UI) AGF. I have no such goal, and I ask that you quit insulting me and violating WP. AGF is not an option.
Re Olbermann and Chad:
Last September, Keith Olbermann got a threatening letter in his mail which spewed out white powder, Olbermann freaked out :-0
""That Monosodium Glutamate will kill you every time :-)
Keith is a whiny little b@tch !
Accepting that, I do not believe he sent it to himself .
But that is just guess work .215 posted on 10/28/2006 10:10:28 AM PDT by marc costanzo (Name your poison :-))see
Please don't delete this sourced, documented content again. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 04:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So much for fairness, currently you cant list things about a person that take inference or sourced directly. Thats is WP:BIO says you can't use a crystal ball to tar an individual. Text removed. Dominick(TALK) 13:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Selectric Composer
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]
Free republic posts not rs
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. [7] 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]
Revised Chad Castagana Paragraph
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[8] was a registered user of Free Republic,[9] 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.[10] 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.."[11]
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.[12] 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]
Chad
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.[13] 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.[14] 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..."[15]
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]
Killian Documents
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.[16]--RWR8189 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like another one? [17] 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[18] was published in the September 27, 2004 issue. The other article was printed in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette[19]--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]
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[20] 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.”[21]
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...[22]--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.
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]
Political Violence
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.
Stuff with source tags
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]
poll not RS
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]
Regarding the alleged consensus
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 [23].
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 otalk · 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 otalk · 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]
Latest Edits
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. [24]
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. [25] 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". [26] He has also equated the theory with homosexuality, paganism, and Islamic extremism. [27]. 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 [28].''
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]
What I left on BFP's user talk page
“
Your change was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.
Indeed, you made a mess of the article by not reading it before you edited it, and by blanking sections that you had been warned by several other editors not to blank. Please don't do this. You do not own the Free Republic article by virtue of being a member of that august body, nor are you the first person who objected to the material that you are trying to censor. This article had been a bone of contention here before you ever heard of Wikipedia, and will be probably long after you have given up on it, and is the way it is because of consensus. And I think you can see that all you are doing is motivating the addition of more material of the sort you object to. Now, please try to calmly discuss changes and convince the rest of us why you think they are a good idea. You will find us not unreasonable if you are not trying to be a confrontation bully who refuses to accept the good faith efforts of others, which is all we have seen of you to date.
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]
Informal Mediation?
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.
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]
Single Purpose Account? --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]
