Talk:Free Republic: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 17:23, 26 January 2007 editDHeyward (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,753 edits →Dino says, "Let's review"← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 09:56, 23 December 2024 edit undoExtraordinary Writ (talk \| contribs)Administrators75,338 edits replace with the intended template; no sanctions were ever logged aside from the now-repealed "article probation"
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk"
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|1=
	\|-
			{{WikiProject Blogging\|importance=Mid}}
	\|align="center"\|
			{{WikiProject Websites}}
	]
			{{WikiProject Conservatism\|importance=Mid}}
	\|align="center"\|
			{{WikiProject United States\|importance=Low}}
	'''This is a ] topic''', which may be ]. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. <br><small>(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)</small>
			}}
	\|}<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>
	{{~~TrollWarning~~}}		{{controversial}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|ap}}

			== Attacks on Obama family ==
	'''Note: Other relevent comments may exist at ]. Consider reading that page, too, before taking any brash action.'''
			This section seems to be unnecessary and not notable. It concerns a single thread on a site that has thousands of them. One effect of it, intended or not, is to demean the subject of the article. Unless there is some reasoned opposition, I intend to delete it. --] (]) 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

			:The incident received media coverage and can be kept in the article.—] ] 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
	Part of the history of this page is now at ], following ]. ] ] 04:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

			::And why should it be kept? And if it is kept, why shouldn't the material from the posts be included? --] (]) 04:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
	<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->
	<div class="infobox" style="width: 315px">
	<div style="text-align: center">]<br />
	]
	</div>
	----
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]

			:::Any material which was covered by the media (in this case, the ''Sun'' article) can be included in the article.—] ] 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
	</div><!--Template:Archivebox ends-->

			:::The quotations in the Vancouver Sun give a taste of the tone (excuse the mixed metaphor) of the discussions on the website which is the subject of the article. I think that the article should include more quotations from the thread which were covered by the news article. The quotations give insight regarding the subculture which the website cultivates --- an angry, racist, irrational group.—] ] 14:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
	==The Bryan Affair==

			::::I agree with goethean that the material now in the article should remain. The site has thousands of threads but very few of them attract coverage in other media. This is an opportunity for us to give our readers information about the site by reporting the observations of a third party.
	::I thought you all might like to know that ], who edited this article a few hours ago (and was immediately blocked indefinitely for impersonating a Wikimedia staff member), is now known as ]. Her account has been unblocked by ]. She really does work for the Wikimedia Foundation.

			::::On the other hand, the coverage doesn't need to be extremely detailed. We now have one quotation from the Free Republic thread. I'm skeptical about whether additional quotations would add much; I suggest that proposed language be posted her for discussion. ]<small> ] ]</small> 15:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
	::The article at AmericanPolitics.com that was allegedly written by TJ Walker does not exist. Click on the link you provided. It's a blank page. I believe that Misplaced Pages has been the victims of a carefully crafted hoax. I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately. ] 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

			:::::Concur. --] (]) 22:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
	I have restored the cut made by Carolyn, since there are some larger issues involved. She removed that paragraph for a very, very good reason. Please do not second guess her. ] 22:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

			::::::The author of the '']'' article, Chris Parry, is a member of a rival progressive website and has made extremely inflammatory and contemptuous posts there. His bias against Free Republic has been thoroughly exposed. If we're going to include his article as a reliable source, and quote from it for an entire paragraph, then we'll need to qualify all that with information about Parry's bias. ] (]) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
	::I'll contact TJ to confirm the info posted by 'Dino'. The Salon piece documents death threats too, so it shouldn't be much of a problem to use that, if we have to. Not much time today. - ] 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

			:::::::I don't think it's necessary to talk about the author; it's not as if he needs to spin comments like "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds." Besides, if you were to document the bias of every writer cited in wikipedia in the very article, it would take years to do the whole wiki. ] (]) 17:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
	=== TJ Walker article - Free Republic Death Threats ===

			== Cheap shot ==
	Jeff Stein in salon.com July 13, 1999 writes:
			"One thing that apparently won't result in a ban: using the site solely to boost Web ranking for your child porn site." Quite an accusation, given that an actual child porn site would be illegal. Sitting there in the article with little context, and effectively having the last word.

			I'm no friend of Free Republic, but this is not appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. - ] \| ] 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
	<blockquote> "T.J. Walker, an online columnist who dug up a passel of ominous posts on the Clintons in the past few months (another sample: "People, we are going to have to go to Washington, and kill this horrible bastard ourselves!"), claimed that Free Republic's "political influence is rising even as death threats occur more frequently on its message boards." As evidence, he cited the upcoming "Treason is the Reason" rally that, in addition to featuring Barr and Hitchens, is also touting speeches by Rep. James Rogan, R-Calif., another failed House impeachment manager."</blockquote>

			:I'm going back on forth on whether to include it. I decided to leave it in, but am certainly open to a debate on the subject. I would ordinarily consider it a non-notable criticism, but it is likely more notable here when charged against a website full of "morality police." I also tried to make the statement a little less ambigous. I've removed the weasel word "critics" and named the specific critic. There may be other "critics" who have made a similar point, but the one I linked was where the quote actually came from. If we are going to include a direct quote, then we should definitely credit the quote in-line. The sentence has become a bit unweildy and someone with a better command of proper grammar may wish to take a look and rearrange it a bit. ] (]) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
	I think 'Dino' might be pulling our collective legs. - ] 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

			::This is an opinion, and we report facts about opinions. The mainstream media don't give much coverage to political message boards, so when they do, any such criticism is probably notable enough to be reported. The way to balance it would be to include anything that Robinson or some FR supporter has said on the subject. ]<small> ] ]</small> 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
	::Wow, we have our very own Willy On Wheels here. --] 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
			The line is absolutely a cheap shot, out of context and placed without response at the very end to make it appear Free Republic supports child porn. Given that Free Republic is a Judeo-Christian site with a strong Second Amendment focus, the last place in the world a child pornographer would want to show up is on Free Republic, they'd be hunted down like vermin. If this is the quality of editing, I hope to be fair you will edit the Planned Parenthood entry to reflect they are child killers, and since the ACLU represents NAMBLA surely they must supprt child sodomy. I mean, why not add a throw away line claiming everyone on the right is a child molester (though sexual freedom has long been a cause of the left), why be fair when you can just make up some thin accusation to sully an organization's name for political reasons. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			If you think it's a cheap shot, take it up with the Salon article, wherein it is demonstrated that accounts linking to child pornography remain unhindered on Free Republic even while "RINOs" are banned en masse. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	=== What the heck is going on here? ===

			I agree, while Free Republic is filled with troglodyte opinions, they aren't child pornographers. It should be removed. -GMcG
	Why are Wikimedia folks involved in removing sourced paragraphs from this article? No explanation or edit summary was left other than somebody else saying that there are "larger issues" involved. WHAT are the "larger issues"? Misplaced Pages is not censored is a key element of the creed here. --] 23:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
			::I also agree it should be removed. And I've belonged to DU since '03.] (]) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

			== History of purges ==
	:Apparently T.J. Walker's article was a hoax or something - see ]. - ] 23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
			I have not been to this article in quite a while, but I thought that I remembered once there was at least a capsule history of "purges" that have happened frequently on the Free Republic forum, often of high-profile "Freepers" or forum members. This is a pretty important topic essential to the understanding of Free Republic's history. The arbitrary nature of the Free Republic ownership in conducting these purges is noteworthy. ] (]) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

			== Removed some lead text. ==
	::Hmm I just read the above threads - I now have no clue what's going on here. - ] 23:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
			"For each article, the forum's main page typically shows its headline, plus the first 100 words of the article as posted to Free Republic. Users can see the full article at its original source by clicking a hyperlink beneath the headline." This seemed to go against wikipedia's "what wikipedia is not" guideline; specifically, about a how-to manual type thing. ] (]) 08:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

			== Free Republic blacklisted by Misplaced Pages?!?! ==
	* I suspect that some blocked user from here called American Politics and claimed to represent TJ Walker to get the article pulled. Use the Salon sources and re-create the paragraph. --] 23:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

			My eyes widened in disbelief when I got the following "Spam filter notice" while making a link to a Free Republic page (dated ]) from another Misplaced Pages talk page: "The following link has triggered a protection filter: www freerepublic com.
	:* Do '''not''' do that until it is clarified whether Carolyn was operating under ]. If she was, reverting her will have dire consequences. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
			Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked."

			FYI, the incriminated post, part of which is , is the following, on the ] page, and perceptive readers will note that, ironically, it discussed… ]!
	::In fact, I just did. ] 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			:I was amazed to see the use of the word "alleged" in the following External Links item:
	:::I commented it out for now. This whole matter has become weird, and I suspect that Wikimedia Offices may have been hoaxed by a fraudulent caller. --] 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
			" An expose film of alleged human rights abuse presented by Vladimir Bukovsky (2006)".

			So now the ] must be given the benefit of the doubt, not only during the period that the ]'s police did its (mis)deeds, but even 21 years (!) after the ] collapsed?!
	::::The APJ site is full of blank pages and html errors. I don't think '''anything''' was pulled. The page is still there and take a look at the headers

			:In light of the — continued — whitening of the ], along with , no wonder ] published an article ( by ], 29 December ]) speaking of the times that Vladimir Bukovsky "was subjected to the ]’s infamous psychological and biochemical torments during his years in prison and the camps." And you still believe that "alleged" belongs in the description of that exposé film?!
	:::::<nowiki><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Author content="Free Republic"><meta name=Description content="Free Republic's Latest Stunt: Death Threats Directed Against Hillary Clinton"><meta name=keywords content="American Politics Journal,Free Republic,freerepublic.com"><link rel="SHORTCUT ICON" href=http://apj.us/apj.html><title>American Politics Journal</title><style><!--a{text-decoration:none;}body{background-color:#fff;}--></nowiki>

			:Then, of course, it's easier to understand when one learns that the Russian cannot get certain books published in the West because they reveal Soviet support of Western leftists ] being ''impossible'' on this page because a conservative internet forum is… !!] ("Vladimir Bukovsky has written a richly detailed, heavily documented account of how the Soviet Union aided ] militants, ] revolutionaries, and even America's ] movement. Based on materials unearthed in ] archives, 'Judgment in Moscow' also discloses ]'s clandestine efforts to manipulate public opinion throughout the West."). ] (]) 13:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::::Headers and invisible text are legally the same as visible text, when it comes to libel slander etc. This page and these headers would NOT be there if they 'pulled the article'. - ] 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			== Arbitration motion ==
	:::::Hmmm, no, unless Bryan actually hacked the site it looks like APJ did pull the article. The question of what prompted them to do so is of course the question. - ] 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
			The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at ] where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;">] ]</sup> 20:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::::::I suspect that somebody faked a call to them. --] 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	:::::::If APJ were going to pull the article, they would pull the whole '''page''', not leave headers that carry the same legal ramifications as visible text. The Bryantroll hacked into and posted through a myspace type site to get a new IP, so he has some technical expertise. I suspect he hacked the page. - ] 01:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::::::::Pretexting is always easier than hacking. Most hackers know this. --] 01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227012239/http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/3408 to http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/3408

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	:::::What makes you think that the IP of that site is what the attack is from? They look separate ti me, based on whois info. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	::::::No, the threat against Ben was posted through a proxy using blnk.com (similar to myspace) so this troll has some expertise. - ]

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 08:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
	:::::The IP is ], correct? It is an open proxy (I should know, I blocked it), but I don't see how you are connecting it to blnk.com. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			== Racist site ==
	::::The traceroute ended up at "16 images0.paxed.com (38.119.66.207)" part of blnk.com. - ] 01:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			Shouldn't Free Republic be described as an overtly racist site? The things people write about minorities, especially Muslims, is extremely racist. (] (]) 10:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC))
	:::I follow you through the traceroute, but I do not see a connection between images0.paxed.com and blnk.com. Where is that coming from? ] <sup>]</sup> 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::Oh.... Never mind, I see. The IP might have just been misconfigured though, not necessarily a hack. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	===Here is the huge question===

			I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	How does Dino (aka Bryan) know what TJ Walker told Wikimedia Foundation??? --] 00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070523150304/http://www.psnw.com/~jimrob/resume.htm to http://www.psnw.com/~jimrob/resume.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111203722/http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowLpllcAllList?QueryLpllcNumber=199825410007 to http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowLpllcAllList?QueryLpllcNumber=199825410007
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929144338/http://archive.salon.com/politics/red/2001/04/02/blue/index.html to http://archive.salon.com/politics/red/2001/04/02/blue/index.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112021723/http://home.att.net/~alanj.hall/BushInaugural/PhotoPage3.html to http://home.att.net/~alanj.hall/BushInaugural/PhotoPage3.html
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324052314/http://www.presidential-inauguration.com/freerball.htm to http://www.presidential-inauguration.com/freerball.htm
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212083713/http://www.citypaper.com/film/story.asp?id=12989 to http://www.citypaper.com/film/story.asp?id=12989

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	:Psychic powers? - ] 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	'''Note''': 'Dino' claimed ''"I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not."'' Of course not? Salon quotes him, and here's something TJ wrote at about the same time he 'didn't' write the FR Death Threat article : ''"Don't get me started on the Fox News Channel, but when host Bill O'Reilly went on vacation recently, who was the replacement? Former Congressman Bob Dornan, the wife-beating, right wing wacko who has been ostracized by Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay for being "too out there." Enough said."'' We're being played for rubes. - ] 00:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
	:I suspect there are multiple admins working behind the scenes right now with WMF to get to the bottom of this... before any of us attempt any external actions I suggest we wait a day for updates. - ] 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			== Pro-Russian and Pro-Putin bias ==
	::I hope so! Something here smells worse than a week-old trout. --] 01:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

			Starting with the February 24, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine the site has noticeably demonstrated a prevailing bias in favor of Russia and in favor of Vladimir Putin. While some posters are tolerated for pro-Ukrainian stances several pro-Ukrainian posters have been banned from the site.
	:::Trust me, there is no vast hidden force of admins investigating this, just ], and I <!-- unless someone is silent in the background -->. Jossi is requesting information from ] as well as ], which we are waiting on. Other then that this page is largely on its own. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
			Many of the pro-Russian posters state consistently anti-American views which would seem to be at odds with the founding principles of the site.

			While unsubstantiated there have been recurring allegations that some of the pro-Russian posters are paid 'trolls' due to apparently coordinated messaging among the pro-Russian posters. ] (]) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
	:::Correct. No need to speculate. Let's wait to see what Danny says (See ]), and what explanations are forthcoming about ]'s deletion of that material. ] <small>]</small> 02:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	===So TJ Walker 'didn't' write that article, huh?===

	It's sure odd that TJWalker.com '''LISTS''' that very article : ''"7-6-99 Is the FreeRepublic.Com Really DeathThreat.Com? "''' Although none of the links work, I'd say that's conclusive proof. - ] 04:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Here it is via archive.org;

	:So, he DID WRITE THIS PIECE. This is conclusive. We have been played. --] 05:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Think how that poor woman in the Wiki office is gonna feel! - ] 07:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== Replaced text ===
	Pending any further information:
	* We have a standard for ] that is not met by a purported phone call, or confirmed by amateur detective work. The citation quotes TJ Walker, in the absence of a better source otherwise we stick with verification not truth.
	* Don't guess if something is an office action. If it's not explicitly such, treat it like a normal edit. Yes, this might get you de-sysopped or whatever, but it's the only rational way to proceed.
	I've edited the section (since it was a blatent copyvio) and added it back in.<br/>
	<font color="black">]</font> 00:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

	::That makes perfect sense. (And in any case we have the original on TJs web site via archive.org) ] 13:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

	=== ] appealing his block for sockpuppetry and disruption ===

	See his talk page. ] 13:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

	Result was unblock denied. Too bad, really, I would rather he had decided to abide by the rules here, apologized, and gotten unblocked. He's a smart kid, and likely could contribute significantly to this effort had he tried. --] 17:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Hathorn ==

	I don't see anything POV about Hathorn's edits. Everything outside of the 2nd paragraph is pretty much straight copyediting, can we restore that to begin with, and then discuss that? - ] 19:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Okay. ] 19:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	::I thought it was accurate, but unsourced. (more sourcing now - good) - ] 21:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	I have a problem with the following sentence ''"Some liberal critics claim that Free Republic has posted calls for inappropriate action by some of the members whom the opponents contend advocate political extremism."'' The death threats are '''documented''' by Salon, and other RS V sources. This sentence needs a rewrite, and mention of 'death threats' IMHO. - ] 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	:I rewrote it. Please comment. - ] 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

	::That's good. - ] 00:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Added a lot of content ==

	Jerome Corsi (which used to be in the article), Tony Snow, and Dixie Chicks.

	Please help rewrite, and linkify. I have to find the link on FR where JimRob admits that Tony asked him to pull all his posts, and close the account. Apparently he never wrote anything really bad, and pulling the posts of somone who just got a high profile admin job is not unusual. Comments, objections, praise welcome. ] 06:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Good job! ] 06:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


	== Reverted Jim Robinson bio paragraph. ==

	Please check my edits, but I don't think either of those sources qualify as RS, and I don't think we need any information about Robinson here in this article which is NOT about him. Thanks! ] 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

	:There might be a place for some of it - like if his Vietnam service affected his political views - but not in the intro. - ] 00:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
	::We still need an RS for it, though. I know of none. ] 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	== FR currently being investigated by WI law enforcement for DOS attack ==

	As of 1/21/07, against an Arab-American owned business that supports a U.S. redeployment in Iraq<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2\|}}}\| {{{2}}}\|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

	:Until there is a ] stating that, it cannot be in the article.--] 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	::From what I read, the cause is the firm's insulting e-mail to a U.S. 1st Cav Division NCO who wanted to buy the firm's product, but was rebuffed. Free Republic never urged a DoS attack, though a poster did pist the firm's contact info. --] 04:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::A "dead agent" attack then. You don't have to kill a secret agent, just publish his contact information. The mere outing is an invitation to attack. This was similar. But I still need to see a RS. --] 07:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::Oh, okay. So should Snopes be held responsible since they published the contact information, too? ] 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Of course not! Once the cat is out of the bag it is no longer private. You can make a cucumber into a pickle, but you cannot make it back into a cucumber. --] 00:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::::Well, guess what, Ben. FR didn't break the story or first publish the information. ] 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	Here is a reliable source regarding the death threats. Though it isn't stated explicitly in the article, my sources in WI law enforcement tell me that Free Republic is being focused on as a source of a hacker attack and several death threats: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=555527

	Per the news story,

	West Allis police said Monday that they were aware of the controversy. "We're monitoring the situation, in case somebody decides to retaliate," Capt. Tom Kukowski said." <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 18:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

	:Sorry, but that article states the site was taken down by the owners, not a DOS attack: "Bargain Suppliers of West Allis said its discount-mats.com Web site had to be taken down Monday to address the thousands of e-mails it's received since news of the exchange - in which an employee voiced opposition to the war in Iraq - began circulating on the Internet last week." ] 18:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	:BTW, got any names for your "sources in WI law enforcement" so we can verify your claims? ] 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

	The person I spoke to relayed my query to Captain Ponzi (not sure I got the spelling right) and informed me that FR is one of the groups they're looking at.

	:Oh, it's only one of several groups. So have you been endorsing adding this information to any Wiki pages for those other groups? ] 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Here is the source of that quote, as google would have shown you, Jinxie; "Anti-War E-Mail To Soldier Causes Backlash" via the Associated Press. Sounds like a Reliable Source to me... --] 00:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::Still says absolutely nothing about Free Republic, Ben. Please review the discussion and try again. ] 05:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	== 'hate group' settlement ==

	What happened to RWR1889? He seems to have lost interest in anything Freepalicious except for reverting vandalism. Tough times! I found a RS V source for the $60,000 settlement that the City of Fresno paid JimRob for calling FR a 'Hate Group'. Did he really spend it on an RV? Maybe one of you guys can add it to the article. - ] 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Well, if he did, isn't that OK? He is a special needs person, and travel must be hard for him. --] 07:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	::'Free Republic' got defamed, not him. He could have rented a really nice RV for a month for $5000, and refunded the rest to the members. There have been lots of questions about FR 'fundraising' - it could have put some of those ugly rumors to rest, and bought him some 'good faith'. Check out this thread. LOL ! - ] 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::Agreed he COULD have done that. Maybe SHOULD have. But as he is the sole owner, he didn't HAVE to. And I do have sympathy for anybody in a wheelchair. --] 18:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	::::Me too. Did you read that thread? AFAICT, the far right criticize JimRob and FR MUCH more harshly and frequently than the left do. - ] 21:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::::Yes I did. It was a stitch! I almost choked on my coffee laughing. --] 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

	==I've been unblocked==

	After contacting the ever patient and cooperative Carolyn Doran (several times) and Attorney Brad Patrick (once) at the Wikimedia Foundation, and working patiently at Unblock-en-l with ], ] and another admin that I only know as "Larry," I've been unblocked.

	I will not abuse their trust, and I am grateful for their intervention on my behalf. Let's all relax for a moment, have a cup of coffee or a glass of wine if you're inclined, and decompress. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

	I refer everyone who has any questions (or snarky remarks) to on my Talk page. ] 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	:And you're already violating WP on your first day back! Well done! Your edits to the 'conclusions' section of an investigation page reserved for Admins (now moved), and then your misrepresentation that this investigation had been concluded through 'consensus' are amusing, but violations of WP protocal. Keep up the good work! I am still waiting to hear Carloyn's explanation about the removal of the TJ Walker material beacuse of a mysterious phone call at the same time as you were posting that another mysterious phone call to TJWalker resulted in him denying that he had written the article. - ] 20:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	::I un-archived some recent discussion - and unsettled issues regarding TJ Walker, as they han't been addressed and shouldn't be archived until they are. Please do not re-archive them Dino. Thanks. ]

	:::<i>Your edits to the 'conclusions' section of an investigation page reserved for Admins (now moved) ...</i>

	:::Please guide me to the Misplaced Pages policy that reserves the "conclusions" section for admins only. Otherwise, revert your relocation of my conclusion. Thanks. ] 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::<i>... and then your misrepresentation that this investigation had been concluded through 'consensus' ...</i>

	:::I call 'em as I see 'em. It looks like a consensus to me. You didn't even try to deny it. Everyone else who participated in the discussion agreed that you have abused other Misplaced Pages editors. The evidence that you have acted in collaboration with BenBurch is most compelling. Sorry, but that's not how things are done around here. You've been warned many, many, many times about your abusive posting habits. ] 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	:::<i>I am still waiting to hear Carloyn's explanation about the removal of the TJ Walker material beacuse of a mysterious phone call ...</i>

	:::There's nothing "mysterious" about it and in response to accusations made earlier, I called Carolyn but most certainly did not impersonate TJ Walker. I spoke with her four times that day, clearly identifying myself each time; and we were most amused when she was permablocked for impersonating a WMF employee. I can only conclude that after my first call to her, she called TJ Walker herself and reached her own conclusions about the authenticity and reliability of that source, and made the edit. It should be removed because it is libelous. It no longer appears at AmericanPolitics.com because it is libelous. It no longer appears at TJWalker.com because it is libelous.

	:::When a particular article or other publication is withdrawn, a cached copy can often be found lingering on the Internet somewhere, much like the City of Fresno press release referenced above that labeled Free Republic as a "hate group." That does not mean it is still a reliable source under ]. It only means that it's impossible to completely remove all traces of a libelous statement from the Internet. ] 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

	'''Dino:''' You claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that '''YOU''' contacted TJ Walker, the author of the contested article and that TJ told you that he never wrote that article! '''''" I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not."''''' (when TJ Walker certainly did write the article - and it's even archived from his website on the www! ) TJ Walker is a published notable author and RS whose work has recently appeared on and Here is a list of the dozens of articles, including the one in question. from the time period in question.

	Could you explain the inconsistancy between your claim of TJ saying he didn't write the article, and '''the truth''', and chronicle any interactions you had with TJ Walker ? Thanks ! There's a new investigation into these actions by the way - and it WILL involve TJ, since your hollow denials and phony claims demand so. By the way, TJ Walker doesn't suffer fools and liars lightly. - ] 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:When you guide me to the section of Misplaced Pages policy that reserves the ] Conclusions section for admins only, I'll consider answering these questions. Thanks. ] 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::In the meantime, let's remove these libelous statements and references from the article. Prior to mid-2001, Free Republic was not incorporated. It was a sole proprietorship. Jim Robinson was its only moderator and he monitored the site 16 hours a day. Any article about Free Republic covering the period prior to mid-2001 is therefore a biography of a living person named Jim Robinson, ] applies as official Misplaced Pages policy, and any false and defamatory material therein is libelous. The publication date of the alleged "TJ Walker article" is in 1999. The is on you to prove that the article was removed from TJWalker.com and from AmericanPolitics.com for reasons other than the fact that it was libelous. Until you satisfy that burden of proof, every reference to that article should be eradicated completely from this one. This transcends questions of consensus and is not negotiable. ] 15:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::The following three sections have been reposted from ] and I encourage you to read them, as well as my review at the end. I have boldfaced the more important passages relevant to the present dispute. ] 15:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	==Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material==
	Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in ], or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. <b>In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an ].</b> These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the ] and ].

	Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see ] criterion G10 for more details).

	] has said:

	:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." <ref name=Jimbo/>

	He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

	:"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." <ref name=Jimbo2>Jimmy Wales. , May 19, 2006</ref>

	==Reliable sources ==
	Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without ] third-party sources, a biography will violate ] and ], and could lead to ] claims.

	<b>Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in ] books, ]s or websites/]s should never be used ...</b>

	==Biased or malicious content==
	Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

	<b>The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of ]. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.</b>

	Content should be sourced to ] and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on ].

	==Dino says, "Let's review"==

	This is a contentious, emotionally charged, politically delicate topic. Based on the experiences of the City of Fresno regarding their "hate group" allegation, Jim Robinson will not hesitate to take legal action to protect his name and reputation, and those of Free Republic; I am doing my very best to prevent that from happening. When writing about such litigious people and organizations, it is best to err on the side of caution.

	The alleged "TJ Walker article," <b>even if it was written by TJ Walker,<b> was self-published; and as you've mentioned, TJ Walker is a liberal. That, by itself, is sufficient grounds for removing it under ]. That article was then published on AmericanPolitics.com, a highly partisan left-wing website. This is also sufficient grounds for removing it under ].

	Even if ] does not apply, ] surely applies. While it is not yet Misplaced Pages policy, it has been proposed as policy and that proposal should meet favorable responses. It closely follows ] and in many places, it is a word-for-word copy. ] 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	::Coming from a member of the FR legal team, that is a LEGAL THREAT. --] 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	:Sounds good. Let's remove it. ] 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

	== Ignoring Dino ==

	I plan to totally ignore any comments here by ] and in fact, to totally ignore his existence henceforth. He can say whatever he wishes to say about this article, but I will edit it as though he never had said a word. --] 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:56, 23 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Free Republic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Attacks on Obama family

This section seems to be unnecessary and not notable. It concerns a single thread on a site that has thousands of them. One effect of it, intended or not, is to demean the subject of the article. Unless there is some reasoned opposition, I intend to delete it. --Lou Sander (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The incident received media coverage and can be kept in the article.—goethean ॐ 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And why should it be kept? And if it is kept, why shouldn't the material from the posts be included? --Lou Sander (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Any material which was covered by the media (in this case, the Sun article) can be included in the article.—goethean ॐ 14:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The quotations in the Vancouver Sun give a taste of the tone (excuse the mixed metaphor) of the discussions on the website which is the subject of the article. I think that the article should include more quotations from the thread which were covered by the news article. The quotations give insight regarding the subculture which the website cultivates --- an angry, racist, irrational group.—goethean ॐ 14:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with goethean that the material now in the article should remain. The site has thousands of threads but very few of them attract coverage in other media. This is an opportunity for us to give our readers information about the site by reporting the observations of a third party.

On the other hand, the coverage doesn't need to be extremely detailed. We now have one quotation from the Free Republic thread. I'm skeptical about whether additional quotations would add much; I suggest that proposed language be posted her for discussion. JamesMLane t c 15:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur. --BenBurch (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The author of the Vancouver Sun article, Chris Parry, is a member of a rival progressive website and has made extremely inflammatory and contemptuous posts there. His bias against Free Republic has been thoroughly exposed. If we're going to include his article as a reliable source, and quote from it for an entire paragraph, then we'll need to qualify all that with information about Parry's bias. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to talk about the author; it's not as if he needs to spin comments like "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds." Besides, if you were to document the bias of every writer cited in wikipedia in the very article, it would take years to do the whole wiki. 188.95.42.176 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheap shot

"One thing that apparently won't result in a ban: using the site solely to boost Web ranking for your child porn site." Quite an accusation, given that an actual child porn site would be illegal. Sitting there in the article with little context, and effectively having the last word.

I'm no friend of Free Republic, but this is not appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going back on forth on whether to include it. I decided to leave it in, but am certainly open to a debate on the subject. I would ordinarily consider it a non-notable criticism, but it is likely more notable here when charged against a website full of "morality police." I also tried to make the statement a little less ambigous. I've removed the weasel word "critics" and named the specific critic. There may be other "critics" who have made a similar point, but the one I linked was where the quote actually came from. If we are going to include a direct quote, then we should definitely credit the quote in-line. The sentence has become a bit unweildy and someone with a better command of proper grammar may wish to take a look and rearrange it a bit. Sperril (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an opinion, and we report facts about opinions. The mainstream media don't give much coverage to political message boards, so when they do, any such criticism is probably notable enough to be reported. The way to balance it would be to include anything that Robinson or some FR supporter has said on the subject. JamesMLane t c 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The line is absolutely a cheap shot, out of context and placed without response at the very end to make it appear Free Republic supports child porn. Given that Free Republic is a Judeo-Christian site with a strong Second Amendment focus, the last place in the world a child pornographer would want to show up is on Free Republic, they'd be hunted down like vermin. If this is the quality of editing, I hope to be fair you will edit the Planned Parenthood entry to reflect they are child killers, and since the ACLU represents NAMBLA surely they must supprt child sodomy. I mean, why not add a throw away line claiming everyone on the right is a child molester (though sexual freedom has long been a cause of the left), why be fair when you can just make up some thin accusation to sully an organization's name for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.244.157 (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's a cheap shot, take it up with the Salon article, wherein it is demonstrated that accounts linking to child pornography remain unhindered on Free Republic even while "RINOs" are banned en masse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.242.54.162 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, while Free Republic is filled with troglodyte opinions, they aren't child pornographers. It should be removed. -GMcG

I also agree it should be removed. And I've belonged to DU since '03.198.228.228.27 (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

History of purges

I have not been to this article in quite a while, but I thought that I remembered once there was at least a capsule history of "purges" that have happened frequently on the Free Republic forum, often of high-profile "Freepers" or forum members. This is a pretty important topic essential to the understanding of Free Republic's history. The arbitrary nature of the Free Republic ownership in conducting these purges is noteworthy. B. Polhemus (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed some lead text.

"For each article, the forum's main page typically shows its headline, plus the first 100 words of the article as posted to Free Republic. Users can see the full article at its original source by clicking a hyperlink beneath the headline." This seemed to go against wikipedia's "what wikipedia is not" guideline; specifically, about a how-to manual type thing. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Free Republic blacklisted by Misplaced Pages?!?!

My eyes widened in disbelief when I got the following "Spam filter notice" while making a link to a Free Republic page (dated 2001) from another Misplaced Pages talk page: "The following link has triggered a protection filter: www freerepublic com. Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked."

FYI, the incriminated post, part of which is blacklisted by… Misplaced Pages, is the following, on the Vladimir_Bukovsky page, and perceptive readers will note that, ironically, it discussed… censorship!

I was amazed to see the use of the word "alleged" in the following External Links item:

"Voices of Dissent An expose film of alleged human rights abuse presented by Vladimir Bukovsky (2006)".

So now the KGB must be given the benefit of the doubt, not only during the period that the Kremlin's police did its (mis)deeds, but even 21 years (!) after the Soviet Union collapsed?!

In light of the — continued — whitening of the KGB, along with charges of Bukovsky lying, no wonder Pajamas Media published an article (The Greatest Subversive of Our Times by Michael Ledeen, 29 December 2012) speaking of the times that Vladimir Bukovsky "was subjected to the KGB’s infamous psychological and biochemical torments during his years in prison and the camps." And you still believe that "alleged" belongs in the description of that exposé film?!

Then, of course, it's easier to understand when one learns that the Russian cannot get certain books published in the West because they reveal Soviet support of Western leftists ("Vladimir Bukovsky has written a richly detailed, heavily documented account of how the Soviet Union aided Palestinian militants, Latin American revolutionaries, and even America's Black Panther movement. Based on materials unearthed in Russian archives, 'Judgment in Moscow' also discloses Moscow's clandestine efforts to manipulate public opinion throughout the West."). Asteriks (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion

The Arbitration Committee are reviewing the discretionary sanctions topic areas with a view to remove overlapping authorisations, the proposed changes will affect this topic area. Details of the proposal are at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Overlap of Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 20:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131227012239/http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/3408 to http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/3408

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Racist site

Shouldn't Free Republic be described as an overtly racist site? The things people write about minorities, especially Muslims, is extremely racist. (2A00:23C4:6384:FE00:5075:628B:59FB:3143 (talk) 10:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Free Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Russian and Pro-Putin bias

Starting with the February 24, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine the site has noticeably demonstrated a prevailing bias in favor of Russia and in favor of Vladimir Putin. While some posters are tolerated for pro-Ukrainian stances several pro-Ukrainian posters have been banned from the site. Many of the pro-Russian posters state consistently anti-American views which would seem to be at odds with the founding principles of the site. While unsubstantiated there have been recurring allegations that some of the pro-Russian posters are paid 'trolls' due to apparently coordinated messaging among the pro-Russian posters. 2600:1700:C870:4950:3599:9F2D:AA93:CE01 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Categories: