![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'll work on it, though likely not before next week. BenBurch 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Good idea; I'll redirect the citation. Gordongekko909 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) .
Fine if it means so much to you we can replace the word administrator with moderator. It’s interesting to note that Jim Robinson never shut down threads that called for vandalism and posted on the threads and did not advise against vandalisim , that sounds to me like support. But as for the Restaurant/ Andy affairs you never did give a good reason for removing/relocating it the factual accuracy of both of those shouldn’t’ be a dispute . If you’re interested here are a few more pages that reinforce the Andy claim.(all are from an earlier part of this archive.) "Conservative Underground: BUM FIGHTS was Andy Wars" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 1" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 2" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 2 - WILL PITT RESPONDS" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 3 - Questions" "Andy Resource Center"
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501360/posts-- 67.34.33.184 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
72.80.102.247 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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".
Bring the evidence. Alleging the existence of these threads alone won't cut it. -- Gordongekko909 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Here's some evidence of Free Republicans' antipathy towards MLK and Coretta Scott King. Lots of communist-baiting, racism, distortions and unproven fabrications about King's personal life and political activities, and general hostility for the civil rights movement and African-Americans. Please feel free to use information from these threads as evidence. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587753/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586918/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582990/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1579513/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574190/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1571776/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569318/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559640/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559449/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1556154/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559688/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550529/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558270/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1693196/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559124/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1577296/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1645680/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1570160/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1714439/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559333/posts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 ( talk • contribs) .
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)
What a bunch of loons.
"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)
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)
Here is a place to discuss the Stephenson matter. - Will Beback 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
We'll have to wait for confirmation from WP RS V sources, but this should have legs.
Man arrested in fake anthrax attacks an avid free republic poster - F.A.A.F.A. 07:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Here's more documentation from the Raw Story Raw Story Anthrax Arrest - F.A.A.F.A. 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Another Source - http://www.nypost.com/seven/11142006/news/regionalnews/air_america_mail_scare_regionalnews_.htm BenBurch 14:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Another Source (video) - http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??g=d477c361-28d0-4b61-9acb-4c6ee61cd12e&f=00&fg=copy Right after the Borat piece that leads this. I am not even sure how one would cite a video (or audio) on Wiki! BenBurch 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'M CURIOUS
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)
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)
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)
Rather biased for a wiki article, and is tangentally related to FR. Dominick (TALK) 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738800/posts
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'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)
(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)
(UI) AGF. I have no such goal, and I ask that you quit insulting me and violating WP. AGF is not an option.
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 :-))[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727261/posts?page=230#230 see]
Please don't delete this sourced, documented content again. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 04:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
I'll work on it, though likely not before next week. BenBurch 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
...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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Good idea; I'll redirect the citation. Gordongekko909 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) .
Fine if it means so much to you we can replace the word administrator with moderator. It’s interesting to note that Jim Robinson never shut down threads that called for vandalism and posted on the threads and did not advise against vandalisim , that sounds to me like support. But as for the Restaurant/ Andy affairs you never did give a good reason for removing/relocating it the factual accuracy of both of those shouldn’t’ be a dispute . If you’re interested here are a few more pages that reinforce the Andy claim.(all are from an earlier part of this archive.) "Conservative Underground: BUM FIGHTS was Andy Wars" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 1" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 2" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 2 - WILL PITT RESPONDS" "Conservative Undergorund: the OFFICIAL Andy thread part 3 - Questions" "Andy Resource Center"
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501360/posts-- 67.34.33.184 17:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
72.80.102.247 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
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)
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".
Bring the evidence. Alleging the existence of these threads alone won't cut it. -- Gordongekko909 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Here's some evidence of Free Republicans' antipathy towards MLK and Coretta Scott King. Lots of communist-baiting, racism, distortions and unproven fabrications about King's personal life and political activities, and general hostility for the civil rights movement and African-Americans. Please feel free to use information from these threads as evidence. www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1587753/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586918/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1582990/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1579513/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574190/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1571776/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1569318/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559640/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559449/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1556154/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559688/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550529/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558270/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1693196/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559124/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1577296/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1645680/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1570160/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1714439/posts www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1559333/posts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.185.185 ( talk • contribs) .
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)
What a bunch of loons.
"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)
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)
Here is a place to discuss the Stephenson matter. - Will Beback 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
We'll have to wait for confirmation from WP RS V sources, but this should have legs.
Man arrested in fake anthrax attacks an avid free republic poster - F.A.A.F.A. 07:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Here's more documentation from the Raw Story Raw Story Anthrax Arrest - F.A.A.F.A. 23:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Another Source - http://www.nypost.com/seven/11142006/news/regionalnews/air_america_mail_scare_regionalnews_.htm BenBurch 14:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Another Source (video) - http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??g=d477c361-28d0-4b61-9acb-4c6ee61cd12e&f=00&fg=copy Right after the Borat piece that leads this. I am not even sure how one would cite a video (or audio) on Wiki! BenBurch 18:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I'M CURIOUS
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)
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)
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)
Rather biased for a wiki article, and is tangentally related to FR. Dominick (TALK) 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738800/posts
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'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)
(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)
(UI) AGF. I have no such goal, and I ask that you quit insulting me and violating WP. AGF is not an option.
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 :-))[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727261/posts?page=230#230 see]
Please don't delete this sourced, documented content again. Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 04:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)