Talk:Free State Project/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV

I found these two sentences that strongly paint Democrats as those advocating big government on social and economic issues, and Republicans as those advocating smgovernment on both issues:

The movement, however, has drawn criticism from New Hampshire residents, mostly Democrats and those in towns with spending problems, concerned about population pressure and backlash to increased taxation. Republicans, on the other hand, have responded more favorably to the project, due to their agreement on small government and individual rights.

However, the former views belong to Totalitarians and the latter to Libertarians, with Democrats and Republicans believing in strong government intervention only on economic and social issues, respectively. 68.35.55.55 (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

In response to the Article Removal Request by Maveric149 due to Copyright Infringement:

I have no explicit permission to use the original F.S.P. self-description under the GPL specifically.

However, I have permission to spread at least an almost identical version of the description "wherever":

Distribute information about the FSP to friends, family, or fellow pro-freedom political activists at liberty-friendly events, gun shows, rallies, meetings, wherever. [1]

The above statement regards, amongst others, this brochure specifically.

-- 6birc 09:29 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

I would like to add a link to a 'sister project' in recently staring in Europe: http://www.europeanfreestate.org/ Where should I put it? In the external links section, ar in some above section? You can contact me with Jabber: miernik@histeria.pl

Number has already been purged

"but this number is expected to go down for one time when the number of members who didn't vote for the state and didn't confirm their commitment in time are substracted."

I think the number has already gone down in this way; my understanding is that the FSP has already purged those members who opted-out of New Hampshire. (BTW, it's not members who didn't vote for NH who will be removed; just those who opted-out of going. And even they can rejoin now that they know what the state is.)

This statement was only true for a brief period of time, in October 2003, and I believe it can and should be removed now.

It's true that the number went down once after such a purge, but there were members who simply signed up and never bothered to vote which made them suspicious enough for a request for confirmation. Those who didn't comply were supposed to be stricken from the record around this time. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Libertarians: Not exception to the rule

It's important for people to see that this is a NON-Governmental organization. Although Led by libertarians because of their natural leadership and moderation skills this project wants people of all viewpoints and religions etc. to join in the fun. The purpose is to moderate an environment where not one group rules over another similar to a message-board or forum environment. Libertarians are good at this but their not the exception to the rule.

Please take your propaganda somewhere else. How is that information encyclopedic at all? Are libertarians really better at leadership and moderation? Pathetic.173.24.227.245 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Libertarians run the gamut from far left to far right, I'd say that they are more prone to moderation and inclusiveness than any other political organization. OBTW, I find it noteworthy that the gent who made the "Pathetic" comment didn't have the backbone to sign his post. Instead, he hid behind a single-use dotted quad address. Trasel (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder that this Talk page is for discussing the article, not the topic. - DavidWBrooks 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Migrations: NPOV violation

Someone has chosen to only list migrations which would put the FSP in comparison to theocrats, racists, supremacists, and genocidal maniacs. This is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.183.96 (talk • contribs)

Exactly.FSP is peaceful community building effort and has little to do with forced migrations,population transfer,or political migrations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.206.44 (talk • contribs)
Removed. -- Миборовский 03:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the point had anything to do with racism or genocide, which were just historical facts in those cases. I agree that there were too many examples given, but I think at least a handful are useful. And to reiterate, I don't think the section was there to imply that FSP is in some way or another evil -- to me it's not POV. --Daniel11 03:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I could see including any migration that was undertaken voluntarily, with coordinated planning, and for a political aim, regardless of what that aim might be. --Jsorens 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added some clarification to the section introduction, and trimmed down the list. Would something like this satisfy everyone? The list could still be cut down more (say, to meet Jsoren's criteria, although I personally think that's unnecessarily restrictive), but I think it's germane and informative, and shouldn't be deleted entirely. How would that work for all of you?
By the way, assuming you're the Jsorens, I guess I have the opportunity to thank you for the idea and the work you've put into it, I think it's a brilliant idea, and I hope your research and FSP activity are going well! --Daniel11 23:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel! :) --Jsorens 19:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible antecedents

Is there any evidence that anyone has actually compared the FSP to any of these or is it more or less self aggrandizing original research? Its also inherently NPOV to go out and compare yourself to any historical migration before any of the migration has taken place or any real history has been made. This MAY have a historical context many years down the road, but that would be crystal balling. My feeling is that the section should go. Don't get me wrong, I actually empathize the movement to concentrate libertarians so that they actually have an impact on even a small area. But c'mon Viking Settlements and American Colonization? Montco 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that some member of the FSP has to express an intent to imitate, say, the Viking Settlements, in order for the latter to be a historical political migration that was an antecedent to the FSP. Maybe the section heading should change, though. --Daniel11 02:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying the FSP is trying to imitate these migrations. The article implies that there is some sort of link to this various historical migrations. Is this a link asserted by any verifiable source or is this some sort of original research or did the authors just make this up? Montco 02:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The section reflects antecedent movements of the same type. I don't see why it would imply that there's a direct link of any kind. An entry on a modern religious reformation might describe the Protestant Reformation, since it's an important historical precedent, even if the modern one is some New Age thing and bears no relation to the Protestant one, and hasn't achieved significant success yet, etc. I think that's a pretty good comparison, although others would do, too. I agree that any language in the section in question that asserts some original research like an otherwise non-existant direct link to the previous movements should be removed, but I think otherwise it's fine. Thoughts? --Daniel11 20:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If there is no link then why is it in there? This is an article about the FSP not political or religius migration. And again, its you (or the article creator) making the comparison, rather than unbiased research. That constitutes original research.Montco 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's there because it's relevant background information, even if the FSP doesn't directly derive from it. It's hardly original research to provide information on political migrations in an article about a political migration. --Daniel11 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You are asserting that these migrations bear some relevance to the FSP. You are asserting that there is a link. And you can't draw that link without any evidence. You have no evidence of a link to any of these unless you do historical research. I would say that if you want to do that, you should use Political migration and place it under a See also header. Montco 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As I explained above, the FSP is a political migration, and thus there is no original research involved in discussing the FSP's background as an aspect of the FSP. Similarly there is no original research involved in discussing a lager as a kind of beer, and mentioning that other types of beer include ales, lambics, etc. If you're still insistent, how about this as a compromise: we move a brief part of the antecedent political movements section under the history of the FSP as a subsection, and move the rest of the text to the entry on political migrations? --Daniel11 06:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Free Town Project is bogus, not related to the FSP

I removed the reference to the Free Town Project. They have nothing to do with the FSP, and the FTP members have no intention of moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. (Since they had no intention of moving, I can only speculate that their intent was to stir up trouble, but who knows?) Those responsible for the FTP are not participants in the Free State Project. [This sentence is patently untrue. The following supporters of the Free State Project live full time or part time in Grafton: Bob Hull, Tim Condon, Russell and Kat Kanning, John Babiarz and his wife, Jay Boucher, Lloyd Danforth, Brian and Dawn Fellers, Bob Constantine.]

The fact that the FTP isn't officially connected to the FSP doesn't mean that they don't have anything to do with each other. The FTP is very clearly inspired by the FSP and, while not as well-known, has been in the public eye and appeared in multiple non-trivial media venues. It's probably not big enough to sustain its own article, but it's definitely notable. Verifiability, not truth, is the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia; it's certainly verifiable that a bunch of people said they were going to move to Grafton and form a libertarian paradise and that the mainstream media gave them a fair bit of attention. As you're better-versed in the specifics than I am, I invite you to make the distinction between the two organizations clearer and, if you have reputable sources, establish that it the project is intended to stir up trouble. Stilgar135 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I moved the Free Town Project to it's own article. As it was, the projects are confusingly similar, except in the fact that the Free Town Project is much more radical than the Free State Project, and thus casts it in a bad light. For example: on this recent blog post mocking the Free Town Project, a comment reads: "Sorry, the Wikipedia article on the FSP mentions this and in no way indicates it wasn't serious. If you know more about it and have facts, the article could probably use some edit love." Indeed it could. I replaced it with a splinter groups section. Also, that postings allege it was never serious, that it was just meant to discredit the FSP, an accusation brought by the FSP's former president.TheWama 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The FTP is not bogus. Robert Hull has several hundred acres of land , and has sold to several FSP members, including Tim Condon. Robert Hull lives in Grafton, NH. The only thing that indicates that the FTP is over, is that the FSP says it is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoneyDollars (talk • contribs) 01:54, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Less emphasis on the 20,000 number

I think there should be less emphasis on the 20,000 number - it was an initial estimate, not a definitive goal. Thanks for fixing the project motto, which should be ""Liberty in our Lifetime", not "20,000 People Can Make a Difference" [2]. -AlexLibman 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That number *is* in the mission statement, which seems pretty goal-like to me. But I have removed the number from the paragraph that I recently added (about the Jan. 2007 figures) because you're right, it was excessive / redundant. - DavidWBrooks 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Intro Header Text Change

Suggest changing:

"The Free State Project (FSP) is a plan to have 20,000 or more libertarians move to a single state of the United States, with the intent of influencing local politics and policy."

to

"The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire."(1)


Reason for changing:

The Free State Project is not affiliated with any single political philosophy or the Libertarian Party(2).

References:

1. www.freestateproject.org - quote from front page under "A New Strategy For Liberty In Our Lifetime."

2. http://www.freestateproject.org/about/faq.php#who

Also see: http://www.freestateproject.org/about/faq.php#where Q: "Why don't we try "taking over" a city, a county, a group of counties, or a foreign country?"

--Scudiac 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

FSP not a secessionist organisation

The article was marked as pertaining to the category "Secession in the United States". I removed this tag, as the official stance of the FSP is that it is not a secessionist organisation.

Q: Does the Free State Project promote secession?
A: No, the Free State Project is not promoting secession.

--Naconner 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

News

Where should we put the latest news about the Free State Project. It seems a shame not to have anything about the upcoming Porcupine Festival June 18-24 at Gunstock.

Wikipedia's not an announcement board, so I'd say no. We don't list every gathering organized by every group that has an article. If this is an important policy gathering - if they were, say, discussing whether to disband the group or switch to another state, or something like that - then it would be worthy of mention, but if it's just a whip-up-troop-morale get together it doesn't belong here. - DavidWBrooks 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC){{subst:image source|Image:1st1000.gif)) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{{missing rationale|Image:1st1000.gif

Fair use rationale for Image:Fsp.jpg

Image:Fsp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Free Talk Live on satellite radio?

I think that it should be pointed out that while you can listen to free talk live via sattilite with Required equipment - S.C.P.C. receiver (analog) and a C-Band Dish. Or 12 foot stationary dish, and Starguide III receiver. The show is not available on XM or SIRIUS satellite stations. - 24.7.172.208

Let's dump those antecedents

It has been discussed by others above, but I think the "Antecedent political migrations" list is all wrong, both too much and too little. I'd like to ditch it and replace it with something like this. It's a first draft - i.e., it's too long - and it may verge on original research:

Many groups throughout history have moved to a new place to create a new society from scratch, ignoring or displacing any existing people. Famous examples include the Pilgrims in what is now the United States, the Great Trek of Boers in what is now South Africa, and the Green March of Moroccans into Western Sahara.
Many groups throughout history have tried to reshape an existing society where they are already living, through peaceful, democratic means. Examples include all newly created political parties.
The Free State Project appears unique in combining these two: moving to a new area to create a new society, but doing it by reshaping an existing society through peaceful, democratic means.

Are there any examples that fit both, rather than just one, of the defining criteria? I can't think of any but am not a historian; any that exist should be listed as true antecedents.

The current list is pretty irrelevant, I think, because the examples destroyed or ignored any existing society, rather than reshaping it through voting. The creation of the Republican or Democratic parties is just as much an antecedent as the Vikings or Pilgrims, because new political parties have the aspect of "our group tries to reshape society through voting together", which is just important as the aspect of "our group moves somewhere together".

Obviously, this would be a big change and needs some support before it's done.- DavidWBrooks 13:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So far the idea doesn't seem to be generating a lot of heat. Anyone? - DavidWBrooks 01:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Guess not. I'll make the replacement and see what happens. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the edit in general. I can think of one antecedent to the FSP that fits both of the criteria: the Georgist effort to concentrate in Delaware in the late 19th century. Don't know if there's a Wikipedia article on that, though. The town of Arden is apparently still run on Georgist principles.--Jsorens (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing little-known information like that is one of the things that keeps me playing around with - er, contributing to wikipedia. I look forward to the addition. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I liked the old antecedents section better. The new one talks about "displacing or ignoring" people already living in the target area, which is NOT what the FSP is about. Second, it says that some people use democratic means, "examples include political parties." How is that information helpful. I think the older version was more informative and interesting. user:tekken_warrior

Maybe it's not clearly written, but I think it agrees with you, saying that "displacing or ignoring" is not what FSP does. That's exactly why the previous list of antecedents was pointless or misleading: All of them did displace or ignore the existing population, and therefore were not true antecedents of FSP. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tried re-writing it, putting the FSP's uniqueness first, to avoid that confusion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While I am relatively ignorant on how the other movements progressed, I believe that the Green March shouldn't be listed here. The Green March was a deployment of colonists from the Moroccan government into the Sahara to displace the saharian people living there, and is more akin to the situation in Gaza with the israeli colonists. If the Green March is listed here, so should the Israel colonies be (and that will bring much heated debate, I foresee). Gatonegro (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The list isn't supposed to be exhaustive, so listing one does not mean we have to list the other. We can pick and choose; it's just a short representative sampling. The main point of including the Green March, IMHO, is that it doesn't involve a Western government, which makes it different. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lauren Canario's arrest is not relevant to the FSP

I think the new section regarding Lauren Canario's arrest should be removed for 3 main reasons

1 - It's not particularly relevant. It has very little to do with the FSP as a whole, especially since the FSP doesn't endorse any form of activism or take positions on issues. This snippet is misleading, and may lead people to think the FSP supports the actions of Lauren Canario.

2 - Why report just on civil disobedience? Free staters are doing a lot of different kinds of activism, and civil disobedience is just one type of way that a handful of free staters go about it. I think mentioning the civ dis, but not the political activism gives a skewed picture

3 - Why report just Lauren's arrest? FSP participants have been arrested numerous times for numerous acts of civil disobedience. - Tekken_warrior

Only because it was recent and well-publicized, at least in New England. But you may be right. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's old news now. I think it should be dumped, especially since there was public disagreement in the FSP about her protest [3]

Cleanup Clarification

I just removed nearly all of the references. All but one were self-published sources. See WP:Reliable Source for an explanation of why these are not acceptable. These sorts of links, if they belong on the page at all, belong under an "External Links" heading.

The article also reads like blatant promotion of the organization/cause. I am going to proceed to gut the article and start basically from scratch. This topic seems notable so I don't think we should delete it. A good place to start is the 300+ published news articles about this topic: [4] Cazort (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The organization's own website is surely an acceptable source of information!--Jsorens (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the page should not have been eviscerated like that. But it is still in considerable need of improvement: More NPOV, more references, and so forth. Trasel (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves can be helpful here. Here we are using a self-published source as a source on itself...which is acceptable so long as, (and I think the relevant issues here are): (1) "the material is not unduly self-serving", (2) "the article is not based primarily on such sources." I agree with you that if we can clean this up, the organization's website would serve as an appropriate source for certain topics. Like I said above, there are still a lot of news sources covering this topic that have not yet been integrated into the page. Cazort (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you on the relevant issues here. Incorporating more of the press coverage would be helpful in both regards.--Jsorens (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of all my edits

If you don't agree with my edits then I would recommend selectively re-adding material, and especially not deleting material that I have meticulously sourced and taken great efforts to make NPOV, in comparison to the current page which now reads like a blatant advertisement. I understand that you feel my edits were overly severe--and you may be right. But if this is true, the most constructive approach would be to selectively re-incorporate the deleted material, providing justifications and third-party sources. My main objections with the original material:

If you still disagree with me, this is probably a good thing. So let's make the page better by editing in more detail. I will start by reverting the last, but then working to re-integrate some of the original material into the page in a more balanced way. Cazort (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

From a sheer workload point of view, it's easier to return everything and selectively remove/rewrite/reorganize it, than to remove everything and then re-create it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

article

Someone has removed an edit (which I just replaced) in the "History" section which links to an April 27, 2009 article by Pam Martens which appeared on the political web site, CounterPunch. That article documents that Tim Condon, then the Director of Member Services for the Free State Project, initiated the idea of the Free Town Project and assisted in implementing it. The article also provides important new information that the founder of the Free State Project, Jason Sorens, has been funded by the corporate-backed Mercatus Center since at least 2002. Also, the Free Town Project is very much alive in Grafton, New Hampshire, still attempting to "take over" local government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McLibertyPlan (talk • contribs) 12:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC) May 10, 2009: Reference and link to CounterPunch article by Pam Martens was again deleted and just replaced. Why is someone in the FSP hostile to freedom of the press and the First Amendment?

I have not had anything to do with those edits and have no opinion about whether your material is appropriate, but I do have a couple of comments. First, don't try to wrap your edit dispute in a higher cause, because it's silly and turns people off. "Freedom of the press and the First Amendment" have nothing to do with wikipedia, a private non-profit group. Disagreements among volunteer editors about what belongs in an article are the essence of wikipedia; if you don't approve, then you shouldn't participate.
I would suspect that part of the problem is that your wording came across as extremely aggressive and opinionated, and was supported by just one online post by one person. Political articles attract a lot of folks who want to make a point rather than develop a full-fledged article, and your wording sounded like one of those. Perhaps you could work on the wording so it doesn't sound like a talk-show argument. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Counterpunch is a gossip mag, and the piece referenced is an opinion piece, not a reliable source per WP:RS. The article also happens to be false in several key respects. You'll also want to consider Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Reliable sources and WP:OR.--Jsorens (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if the source was reliable, it gives no indication of how much funding Jason Sorens received, nor any evidence that any money at all was received. It is just sort of implied. Paul Studier (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
May 10, 2009: This is now the third time in a week that someone has removed the following statement from the History section. Why are the Free Staters hostile to free speech? "On April 27, 2009, the political web site, CounterPunch, published an article by Pam Martens exposing the fact that the founder of the Free State Project, Jason Sorens, was funded by the corporate backed Mercatus Center along with previously unpublished details on the attempted takeover of the town of Grafton, New Hampshire by Free Staters. http://www.counterpunch.org/martens04272009.html"
The cited reference, [5], is nothing but an opinion blog, not a reliable source. Again for the sake of redundancies sake, the source asks How much exactly has Dr. Sorens received from the Mercatus Center, the Institute for Humane Studies, and George Mason University Foundation?, without giving an answer. It implies, without making an actual claim. Paul Studier (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Despite the apparent consensus reached above and repeated requests for discussion on the user page, user 64.222.163.104 continues to engage in edit warring, restoring the exact same, clearly POV content that was deleted months ago. I fear I have no choice but to report this user to Wikipedia administration.--Jsorens (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New Hampshire Liberty Alliance unnecessary

The reference to the NHLA at the beginning is out of place, and if anything, belongs in the "Sub groups" section, along with FreeKeene, and Tea Party. The FSP and the NHLA are two totally separate organizations, with two totally different agendas. The FSP encourages people to move to New Hampshire, and the NHLA is a political action organization.AnarchoJesse (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Left Alternative?

The strategy advocated by the Libertarians of the Free State Project could just as easily be used by others on the political spectrum. Is there a contemporary initiative on the part of progressives, socialists & such to move to N.H. or any other state of low population?

In the history of the U.S., there was a comparable controversey when Kansas was about admitted to the Union. Anti-slavery & Pro-slavery elements moved to Kansas establishing alternative communities and endeavoring to claim the State ultimately as Free or Slave. LAWinans (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting historical parallel, that's probably worth mentioning in this article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Mentioning the parallel in the article would be original research, something not allowed, unless a reliable source can be cited where a comparison between this project and the Kansas situation is actually discussed. (Since there is no organized pposing movement of non-Libertarians into New Hampshire, I fail to see the parallel - and of course the Kansas situation involved a lot of violence, all of which is beside the point - Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not on opinions of its editors.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Participants - what does that mean?

What does the number of "participants" mean? The figure gets updated constantly from the FSP website by anonymous IPs; as far as I can tell, it counts people who have filled in a form on the Website, although I'm not even sure about that. Could we be more specific in the article about what is involved?

If these are people who have paid money, attended a meeting, or done something like that, then it's very significant - if it's just a count of Web visitors or a version of Facebook "fans", then it's pretty minimal. If it's somewhere in between, we should let the reader know. "Participants" is a very vague term. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed existing Criticism paragraph. Not against in general the concept of a criticism section but the article that is referenced here is pretty clearly s POV hit piece against the group where the author characterizes as 'astute' a question as to why the group does not perform background checks to make sure they are not importing 'rapists'. This is not journalism. This is 'when did you stop beating your wife' pseudo journalism. The free state project does not 'import' anyone as the neither the concept of the free state project nor its associated FSP entity 'import' anyone. The entry for 'wikipedia' itself does not have a criticism paragraph, nor does the Cato institute, the ACLU, the Republican Party, etc. It was not until I went as far as looking up "NAMBLA" that I found a group where contributors have felt that a top level criticism paragraph was required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcreem (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The article certainly does have a POV but it's not just POV. It is sourced and makes some points that don't exist in the article, even if they're not necessarily the truth/whole truth/nothing but the truth. It's not just an FSP foe ranting (there are plenty of such rants around which would not be worthy here). That's why it seems worthy of a single sentence mention near the bottom of the article, which otherwise veers close to a publicity pamphlet. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the source is unreliable and indeed libelous. The claims made in the article aren't supported by the sources used. I would support this section's removal, but then I'm hardly impartial, as the central target of the writer's attempted character assassination. I will leave the decision to other Wikipedia editors.Jsorens (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Kudos, Jsorens, for your restraint and maturity in your response above.
I have no opinion one way or the other about FSP and my knowledge of the critic's article comes only from reading it. It does not seem wildly unreliable, quoting actual events and people. It certainly does sound angry and anti-FSP, but after all, it is labelled "criticism". Libelous, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
My alarms went off about that item because it has been removed a couple of times by unregistered IPs, which is often a sign of semi-organized "remove anything critical of our group/company" wikipedia-whitewashing. Jcreem's comment above was the first real discussion about it, and he/she seems mostly irritated by the word "import".
Incidentally, I'm more likely to be suspicious bcause this whole FSP article has a whiff of organized publicity release, featuring a bland mission statement quote, anonymous IPs that frequently make small numerical upticks but don't add anything of significance, and good news not being updated if it turns sour - e.g., the Liberty Forum is still listed as being held each winter even though it was cancelled this year, information that I have to assume is known to somebody who cares enough to update participation numbers every week or two. Then there's Joel Winters' success and re-election, which was put prominently in the introduction (for good reason, as it's real news) but then never updated when he was defeated. I added it because I thought two-year-old election information should be updated; I had assumed he was still in office. I'm also curious about the fate of those six reps elected in 2008; information that old would be updated or removed from a good article, but I don't know who they are so I can't look them up on the Secy of State's page and fix it myself. Does anybody know? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I should have looked back in the history more to see that there had been some prior removal attempts/discussions of removal. Certainly agree that the page has a bit of a publicity release to it however there is little sourced information pro or con on which to base meaningful content. I had multiple issues with the referenced article beyond the 'import'.
  • The criticism is more directed at Jsorens directly than the group as a whole and I suspect that were this on a Bio page there would be agreement that it does not belong.
  • Opening paragraph strongly implies purpose is to return NH to (R) control as it us 'currently' (D). Problem with his is that when NH was selected, it was not (D) controlled. So misleading and POV.
  • Paragraph 4 simply asserts things that free staters 'widely' believe with nothing to back it up. Were this on wikipedia itself, it would be stricken as POV and not sourced but linking to it makes it ok?
  • We then get 'background checks/rapists/imports paragraphs.
  • Next multiple paragraphs talking about the free town project which is not the FSP. Understand it was started by a participant of the FSP (however, on this very discussion page, you've mused that that probably means website visitors or something). In any case, it is fair to say that a free state participant played a role in this. However, the lead into the reference in this article is not referencing this at all but rather the vast right wing consipiricy theory.
  • Remaining paragraphs are the the smokey rooms conspiracy attacks on Sorens directly
So, in the end, while I certainly appreciate the format of a pro/con article, the referenced criticism writeup fell short of the quality I'd like to see here. Now, I am often disappointed by the quality of various entries and/or my own babble on a discussion page so I promise I am not going to get involved in any sort of remove/delete war on the entry. I will say though that I think we can do better than this...eventually.
On a related note, interesting that you mention the Joel Winters sentences. I actually had started to try to re-write as well but got a bit lost in the language. His success as the first elected participant is noteworthy but I do think this needs some cleanup for the 2010 results. Issue here being can't find reference to backup the 'at least 12' freestaters elected. Jcreem (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, having read through it again and checked what you say, I have to admit you're right. I over-estimated the article's heft and follow-through; it probably doesn't belong here.
On a semi-related note, it would be nice to include some of the concern that was expressed earlier in the FSP history, expressing the feeling that it was a bunch of "foreigners" coming in to tell NH how to run itself. That seems to have faded, or at least I don't notice it any more, but it was a big deal for a while. What little I've tried to find was in newspaper articles which are now behind paywalls, though, so it's tough to reference. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
And on another semi-related note, talking about feeble press-release tone of this article, the recent additional of two quotes that are nothing more than "somebody famous liked us several years ago" is really ridiculous. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC) I just had to remove Penn/Teller's comments, which were an absurd entry. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

New Criticism Section

I added a new criticism section with references. Feel free to clean it up, but if you do please address what I've already written. I tried to make it as balanced as possible, but I do think that the criticisms of the FSP shouldn't be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebigredshoe (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

citation for No. of FSP in state House

I believe that a number of people associated with the FSP read this article - could one of them please add some sort of citation about the number of FSP folks elected to the state House in 2010? It has been seeking a citation for months, and that's the sort of exact-but-unsupported strong statement that really needs a reference or it will be yanked.

As an example, if somebody wrote in the article that 15 members were elected to the House on anti-FSP platforms but didn't give a reference, the statement would be deleted in about two minutes. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Whatitisallabout (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Koch reference

User:Psuedo_left, would you like to say why you think that Koch brother link should go into the story? It has been reverted a whole bunch of time by a few people; we should talk about it here instead of just in the Edit summaries.

I revereted it because some of your descriptions struck me as incomprehensible to general readers (e.g., "inside-the-beltway libertarians") that seemed to be trying to make some sort of point. Others have called the reference unsuitable, or not supporting your statements.

Since you've edited this page almost exclusively since you became an editor, you obviously care about FSP. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Stats and Slate Article

Perhaps, the numbers referenced in the Slate article and the citation of the article should be removed? They numbers are becoming increasingly dated as people continue to sign up and move at a somewhat steady, slightly increasing, pace. Given that curated near real time official statistics are displayed by the project itself, it seems more accurate and timely to cite those.

How about removing the sentence that references the Slate figures and changing the immediately following sentence in the second paragraph to:

As of October 2012, according to the FSP official statistics, over 13,000 people have signed this statement of intent and more than 1,100 participants have moved to New Hampshire. [ref: FSP website] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrennen (talk • contribs) 18:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

External links

per WP:EL wikipedia is not here to be a wall of external links. each link must be specifically justified. the links must be content about the specific subject of the article and not vagueley related orgs/movements. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

re [6]. A neutral and factual documentary could be "the documentary film is exactly the sort of thing that External links are for" , however, this particular documentary is not even notable in itself. How do we know that it is factual and neutral and not a political screed posing as a documentary? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, RedPen - we debate again! Your argument is, I fear, kind of silly: "We don't know it isn't bad, so kill it". By that argument, any reference that hasn't been read through by editors must go (and the supporting statement). It's a documentary specifically about the article's topic; there's really no debate whether it belongs as an external link. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." and further down under links to be avoided "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, " mm yeah, there ARE indeed LOTS of external links that should go and if we dont know this is a good resource for our readers, this one should too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

and the above would be applicable if it were to a streaming version of the documentary, but its not even that, its to a commercial site to buy the movie which is utterly prohibited. i have removed it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
You started out with a strawman argument - a single movie is not "a lengthy or comprehensive list" - and then a fallacious argument, since the burden of justification is more than proved by the fact that it is the only (easily findable, anyway) documentary dealing directly with the topic of the article, which sure sounds like "unique resource" to me. Burden of proof doesn't mean somebody has to write a thesis justifying whatever annoys another editor in order to keep it.
But you end up with a winning argument; I thought there was a streaming version on the site but you're correct that it's just an ad for the video. Not external link-worthy.
Having said that, the documentary should be mentioned in the article as a demonstration of interest in the topic, using the site as a reference. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
the documentary should only be mentioned if there is third party coverage of the documentary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Converting to a link to IMDB is also a fail EL guidelines. There is nothing on the IMDB page for the movie that gives any Reliable information about the subject of THIS article, the Project - just information about the movie. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Update on state representative numbers?

Is anybody with knowledge able to update the number of Free State folks in the NH house after the 2012 election, which tossed out a ton of Republicans? It would be interesting to know. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that not all Free Staters are Republicans; this article mentions two Democratic FS state representatives, Tim O'Flaherty and Joel Winters. Rostz (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
True - which makes the question all the more interesting! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

potential source

for any one who wants to add content that I am too lazy to add.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

what's the right term for a member of the Free State Project?

What is the correct term to use to describe a member of the Free State Project? I have heard them referred to (especially by each other) as "Free State Project movers." But I have also heard them referred to as "Porcupines," "Free Staters" and (more commonly) "Free Statists." Timothy Horrigan (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Free State Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Free State Project. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Free State Project. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 05:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Free Keene

Free Keene redirects here, but, at the moment, there's no explanation of the term in the article until we get to the "Responses" section, and it's not very prominent there. I'd like to propose updating the lede to read something like:

The Free State Project (FSP), also known as the Free Keene group (after Keene, New Hampshire), is a proposed political migration...

The alternative would be to change the redirect to point directly to Keene, New Hampshire. Tevildo (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Good point on the redirect. Although there once was a Free Keene section in this article, the Free State Project and Free Keene are separate organizations run by different people. Free Keene is now covered in a section of the Keene, New Hampshire article, so I just updated the redirect to point to that section. -LiberatorG (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"Neutrality" cleanup tag

@TimothyHorrigan: I'm not sure if I understand this "neutrality" cleanup tag here. Are there any controversial statements in this article that need to be revised? Jarble (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Relationship between the FSP and the Free Town Project

I just added a "Free Town Project" section. In my opinion, the least-source-supported fact from the content is whether and how the Free State Project and Free Town Project are associated with each other. Here's what different sources say:

(this seems off since the Free State Project predates the Free Town Project, does it not?)

--Hirsutism (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

conclusion of New Republic story

The author of "The Town That Went Feral ..." concludes:

... when it comes to certain kinds of problems, the response must be collective, supported by public effort, and dominated by something other than too-tidy-by-half invocations of market rationality and the maximization of individual personal freedom

Notwithstanding the presumably liberal bias of The New Republic, it is considered a reliable source. Isn't it fair to incorporate their conclusion in conjunction with the summary of this magazine article? Fabrickator (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No, that would be WP:UNDUE weight in this article. 02:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Executive Director position has been vacant since May 31st, 2021

I'm unsure what value should be used in the leader_name field in the info box, but a month ago it was announced in a blog post on the official FSP website that Vince Perfetto is stepping down and the FSP is looking for a new Executive Director. Could someone help update the article to reflect that change? Trevor Parscal (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The cited source does not indicate that the post is vacant, so there would be no basis to update the article to indicate that is the case. Fabrickator (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The source has now been updated with clear and accurate information. VincePerfetto (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

membership

Is anybody else bothered by calling unverified signatories to an online petition "membership" in the factbox? To me, membership implies something more active. In fact, I'm not sure it's really possible to measure membership in this like-herding-cats sort of a group, aside from participation in partcular events (which would way undercount those who feel themselves part of it).

Notably, I don't see (perhaps I'm mistaken) any mechanism to update the list; it's likely many of those signatories clicked years ago and have wandered off, not giving a thought to FSP; by now, a few have probably died. If, say, AARP claimed that every person who had ever been a member was still a member, it would list gazillions - and be really misleading. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently nobody else is bothered, but six months later, I still am. "Membership" has strong implications that the web signup mechanism can't support - a feature (or is it a bug?) of the FSP's loose structure. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Membership is a vague term, ultimately up to an organisation itself to decide it constitutes, from signing a list to daily actions. Presumably people who have moved to NH are relatively active members. Therefore it could be worth listing this number, or maybe the total number of Free State members in NH - 1551. BTW the reference for the membership number only point to the FSP homepage, this page is perhaps more appropriate - http://freestateproject.org/about/membership-statistics Jonpatterns (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"Membership" is the wrong word for the infobox because of the FSP structure, I think, but I'm not sure what else to put there. (Speaking of which, is there any sort of confirmation of the "moved to NH" figure, or is it strictly self-reported? I assume the latter, but it raises some questions: for example, what happens is somebody moves away again? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Movers self-report to the FSP. At that point, it's recorded internally and securely in the FSP's CRM (Contact Relationship Management software). Regarding this subject, just a moment ago, I corrected some incorrect information in the introduction section to: "As of March of 2020, approximately 2,200 participants had moved to New Hampshire for the Free State Project. [7]" VincePerfetto (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I understand your concern about the term membership. Not sure I have a better word. Note however that it would be wrong to assert that people who have moved are 'active' members as opposed to those who have not moved yet given the nature of the project. Once you move, the FSP says nothing about what you do when you get to NH. There are various meetup groups or events with movers but these also have natives and non-movers as well. In any case I think your central concern is the word membership. The FSP website calls them participants but for your concern, that seems like an even more objectionable term. Perhaps 'signers'? Not wild about that either. In any case I do agree a better term can be found. Not sure how one would verify 'moved to nh'. some people who move self report. Others may never self report and thus not be counted and still others as you suggest may move away and fail to report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcreem (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
How about pledgers or supporters? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I like "pledgers"; very specific without being pedantic. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
But you can't just rename it (I tried) - must be something in the way infoboxes work. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The template for organization infobox is here Template:Infobox_organisation. Not surprisingly pledgers isn't one of the attributes. We could either petition to have it added or use one of the current attributes. I've stuffed the information under 'remarks, which is the best I can think of at the moment. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That's probably good enough. This doesn't seem to bother anybody but me, and I don't want to end up on the "ridiculous edit wars" list! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The correct term is "participants". VincePerfetto (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Bear Attacks

This seems trivial and out-of-place:

During and shortly after the Free Town Project was active in Grafton County, there were three bear attacks.[63][64][65][66] As some Free Towners deliberately fed bears on their own property[speculation?], despite this being illegal,[63][67] several organizations reported that there was a relationship between the Free Town Project and the bear attacks, and a book was written on the subject by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling.[63][24][31][68] Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There has been no comment on this for a week now, so I'm going to delete the bear attack entry. Feel free to revert. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valgrus Thunderaxe: This got flagged by Huggle, so I'm showing up now. I think that the speculation was not good to include, so I've stripped that out of the article, though I think that the coverage of the bear attacks in the background of the project might well be due in this article in some form. If there are also sources that contest the role of the Free Towners in the bear attacks (just as there are sources that link the two), then those sources should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-tailed hawk (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

criticism

Please don't remove the paragraph describing, with references, criticism of FSP without some explanation here. And remember, "it offends me" isn't a good reason. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Is NPOV a good reason? 2603:8081:8440:CD9B:81D2:A52A:4133:E825 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_State_Project/Archive_1&oldid=1158421067"