Talk:Free Republic/Archive 4

Informal mediation
I have been asked by one of the involved editors, to assist as an informal mediator. Before I commit the time and effort that will be required, and to help me understand the basis of dispute, I would appreciate if each side can make a succinct description of the dispute. Note that my acceptance of this role, would be very much based on the ability of editors to express their viewpoints concisely and devoid of personal comments about other editors' motivations, POVs or the like. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments

The dispute is that the members of Free Republic who are present here as editors think that the WP:RS and WP:V sources of criticism in the present article are unbalanced and paint FR in a negative light, and that this makes the article NNPOV. However they cannot find any WP:RS and WP:V articles praising FR to add. Therefore they want the criticism deleted. I believe that if the only reliable and verifiable sources paint a negative view of something, then that negative view must represent the truth, or at least, the mainstream point of view on that thing. Therefore all of the criticism ought to remain. Basically, they want the piece to read like a whitewashed bright and shiny PR piece. I refuse to let that happen. I also refuse to acknowledge a consensus made up of probable sock puppets. Especially who flout the rules of Wikipedia by deleting notifications properly placed on their pages in accord with WP:SOCK --BenBurch 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not cast any aspersions on the motivations of any editors. What I will say is that I agree with Ben's statement that there being no reliably sourced praise is not a reason to remove reliably sourced criticism.  Criticism is balanced not just by praise but by the entire article itself. Lawyer2b 03:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The other side

Jossi, allowing a community of nearly 100,000 partisan, but law-abiding people to be characterized by the actions of a handful of criminals like Chad Castagana and a malcontent like the Bahraini individual. who demands nothing less than a federal government violation of the First Amendment rights of that entire community, is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Posting self-published articles by William Rivers Pitt and Michael Niman that do exactly that -- characterize Free Republic by the actions of a handful of criminals -- and were published on opposing partisan websites, is obviously a violation of WP:V. It is true that Pitt does have a few works that are not self-published; but those aren't the ones that BenBurch and FAAFA keep re-posting. BenBurch and FAAFA have demanded that I obey the dictates of a consensus when it was the two of them against me; but now that it's five of us against two of them, they ignore it and revert the changes that the new consensus has created.

Regarding the claim that these edits would remove all criticism, BenBurch and FAAFA have themselves removed three paragraphs of material that I have absolutely no objection to. They cleverly moved it to a different section, to make it look as though the five of us don't want any criticism posted at all. These three paragraphs are: (1) the observation that many FR posts are devoted to the ridicule of people or causes that the authors find are anathema to conservatives; (2) Jim Robinson's own statements about gays, the teaching of evolution in our schools, and other topics, which illustrate his own extremism; and (3) a brief passage from an article in the Globe and Mail. Those belong in the article under "Criticism" because they are fair criticism of Free Republic. Throwing in every bad thing that ever happened that can be remotely linked with Free Republic unbalances the article.

I join the new members in requesting a complete investigation of BenBurch's sock puppet accusations. I believe that DP1976's claim will be found to be correct. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bryan, I think you may be incorrect about who removed the material you 'didn't object to' and that it was in fact removed by Lawyer2b (who I hope will not disagree or object when I describe him as a 'conservative') and that he correctly removed it because it was 'original research'. He's pretty strict about that. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I would disagree, as I know myself to be libertarian; an anarcho-capitalist I might add. That notwithstanding, I appreciate your recognition of my desire to keep all original research out of wikipedia. Lawyer2b 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments What I think about Free Republic or what editors who happen to be members or supporters of Free Republic are not germaine to an encyclopedia that mainly relies on secondary and tertiary sources. Some of the editors new to this article and Wiki do not seem to realize this. The fact of the matter is that the 'majority view' of inclusionable RS V third party sources, including many conservative sources like Sean Hannity and others assert that Free Republic is an extremist fringe site and primarily note the extremism, death threats, and level of hateful vitriol. From 1999: "Drudge, Goldberg and several other [conservative] Free Republic stars have left; visits are reportedly down to less than half what they were a year ago; Free Republic's founding guru, Jim Robinson, has been sued by the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times; and a swelling number of haters have turned up the volume of death threats, gay-bashing, name-calling and conspiracy theories tying the father of Republican front-runner George W. Bush to drug-dealing by the CIA." I allege there is an active effort by certain editors (most of them who joined in the last three days) to introduce a POV that does not reflect reality, and the 'majority view' of RS V sources. These same editors are also making spurious claims to support their deletions like arguing that Will Pitt's articles on Truthout are self published. I look forward to Jossi's informal mediation. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for your comments, although I would have preferred to have your comments " devoid of personal comments about other editors' motivations, POVs or the like." Nonetheless, I think that I have just enough information to try and lend a hand.

Some issues you may want to consider:
 * 1) This article relies almost solely on what we call "self-published" sources. Self published sources are permissible under certain conditions (See WP:ATT)
 * 2) A Wikipedia article cannot be based solely on self-published sources. If this website is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia (See WP:WEB), surely there should be a substantial number of secondary sources that describe the website, the people behind it, their views, etc. If such secondary sources are not available, then the article needs to be reduced in size to include just basic information from the self-published source (in this case the website "About us" or similar web pages.)
 * 3) In Wikipedia we describe all significant viewpoints about a subject, so that the article can achieve a WP:NPOV status. We do that by finding secondary sources that describe these significant viewpoints, as well as describing the viewpoints expressed by the subject of the article (again, under the conditions set by the use of self-published sources.) This include, of course, any criticism, provided that such criticism is attributed to a reliable source and not asserted as a fact.

I would also want to dispel any misunderstandings about consensus. Consensus is not 5 to 3 or even 5 to 1 as I have seen people describing it in edit summaries and in this page. Consensus is the way that Wikipedia works: we building consensus through polite discussion and negotiation, with the caveat that editor's consensus cannot trump Wikipedia guidelines of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR (or any other policy).

From reading the discussions in this page, one could assume that there are editors that may be associated with the website itself. If that is the case, a warning may be needed: you may be in a conflict of interest. (See WP:COI). ''A conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the concerns or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can or might be justifiably assumed based on the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged.''

Other editors may be "too close to the subject" (e.g. notable critics), and although this does not mean they are incapable of being neutral, they need to be aware that it may incline them in that direction.

As for the accusations of sockpuppetry, please note that it is remarkably simple to find out if there is such abuse (See WP:RFCU), and although using sockpuppets may be useful in some situations, using that as a subterfuge to bypass the three revert rule, is considered disruptive and may be basis from removing your editing privileges.

Hope the above is useful information.

Having said all of that, a first step for involved editors would be to agree on some basic ground rules:


 * Discuss the article, not the subject;
 * Discuss the edit, not the editor;
 * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
 * If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

In my experience, if such ground rules are not accepted, editing articles about which there is controversy and strong POVs, is not only very unpleasant, but seldom achieves anything (besides stress and anger, that is).

Once editors agree to these ground rules, we could proceed to do some research to find out what secondary sources say about this subject and clean up the article from poorly sourced material.

If there are any questions about the above, I will be happy to address them.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please state below your willingness to abide by these ground rules. Your signature will suffice
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * - F.A.A.F.A. 01:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * --BenBurch 01:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * -- BryanFromPalatine 04:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Lawyer2b 21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) I don't know if my Johnny-come-lately status makes me a party to this mediation or not but I would agree to such sound ground rules anytime on principle alone! :-)
 * --RWR8189 22:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ArlingtonTX 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * DP1976 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerns
Jossi you wrote:


 * If this website is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia (See WP:WEB), surely there should be a substantial number of secondary sources that describe the website, the people behind it, their views, etc. If such secondary sources are not available, then the article needs to be reduced in size to include just basic information from the self-published source (in this case the website "About us" or similar web pages.)

My looking for RS V secondary sources has found that the vast majority of them (even from conservatives) are critical or negative and that, IMHO, this constitutes the 'majority view'. I'm know that FR has done some good things like send gifts to troops in Iraq, but these do not get covered by RS V secondary sources, as opposed to a Freeper making a death threat against the Clintons, the person that got Jenna Bush arrested for underage drinking, or the recent case of Chad Castagana the Freeper who mailed fake anthrax and death threats to 13 individuals. How is the editing of article handled when the vast majority of RS V secondary sources are negative and critical of the subject? Is this considered that 'majority view'? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi - I am not actually clear that this website is notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page at all. There are a very few sources, and as FAAFA has already noted, they are almost universally critical of the web site. I could support an AfD process for this page if you think that would be the best action to take, but I would prefer a neutral and unbiased article based upon the few RS and V sources we do have. I believe that we should find somebody with Lexis/Nexis access to see if there are some printed sources that cannot be found by internet search engines. --BenBurch 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think that we should be concerned with a "majority view". We should be concerned with significant viewpoints. The first significant viewpoint, is of course, the one presented by FreeRepublic.com. After all this is an article about the site. Think of the reader: a reader would want to know (a) what FR say about themselves; and (b) what other sources say about them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good. Every time I try to cite viewpoints derived from the site itself I am faced with the question of if that constitutes Original Research or not.  Lawyer2b, for example, wants to remove the paragraph where the site's owner's viewpoints on homosexuality and evolution are discussed.  I think that those are Significant points of view, personally, much moreso than anything posted by Chad Castanga.  (aka the Una-freeper)


 * In any case it sounds like a complete re-write is what you are saying we need to do. How should we proceed to do this right and fairly? --BenBurch 02:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First I would want all other participants to agree on the ground rules. Then I would work with all of you to agree on the process for re-writing the article, by proposing first to create a basic stub (meaning removing most of the information currently in the article), agree on a structure for the article, and then start working on the sections by suggesting assigning different tasks to all involved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'stated' viewpoint of FR is not the 'actual' view. One would expect that a site that claims its "pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights" would oppose the Patriot Act, Warrantless Wiretaps and Bush's Presidential power-grabs, like libertarian conservatives such as Republican Ron Paul do, but that's not the case. A lot of members who do not support George Bush and his 'big government' have been banned. I know that several forums have been started by disguntled Freepers many who felt that FR was way too intolerant of anyone who dared to criticise Bush. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone can convince me as to why the founder's personal political views are germane to an article about the organization/website he founded, I would be fine with seeing them included. Also, my problem is that some of what is being labeled as criticism of the organization/website is not really criticism of the organization/website but rather criticism of some individual members.  I have added a section on "Controversial Actions by Members" which I think is a more appropriate place to put things like the "death threats" and "cyberstalking". Lawyer2b 02:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As the site is really an open (although moderated) online forum, we should not attempt to describe the opinions of the posters, but the opinion of the site owners, their aims, objectives, etc. That is what may be so challenging with this article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I must disagree. Unless there is something explicitly connecting the owner's opinions with the purpose and aims of the organization I don't see why they are suitable for inclusion.  To include them without a link is to make an inappropriate leap of faith that the two are related.  While it is likely the founder of Free Republic formed the organization to promote some of his views, it is just as likely he didn't; or at least not to promote all his views.  Who are we to say which (if any)?  Lawyer2b 03:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Jim Robinson is not JUST a founder. He is an owner, administrator and moderator.  Nothing may happen at Free Republic that he objects to, or at least, nothing will REMAIN at FR that he objects to.  He has demonstrated that rather often.  Therefore his POV is über-significant.  Just as MY POV is über-significant if you are talking about MY web site.  "The King and The Land Are One." --BenBurch 03:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ben, you may be über-right, but I don't want (and wikipedia readers aren't supposed to) take your word for it that Robinson's political views control what goes on at the website. I don't think simply stating that he is an "owner, administrator, and moderator," q.e.d. "his political opinions control Free Republic" is enough.  I would like to see some reliably sourced material that states his opinions have so much influence on the website as to be notable. Lawyer2b 03:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. We have to find a way to make a distinction between the viewpoints held by the owners of the site and the viewpoints of the posters. It will not be easy, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I observe that the objectionable material is being pared down, but not entirely removed. For example, the person who posted personal info about the manager of Chuy's was promptly banned, even though the information was in the public domain (due to bankruptcy filings posted at http://www.thesmokinggun.com ); the fact that he was banned has been somehow overlooked. But the fact that he did briefly participate at FR is stated clearly. Jossi, I will restate my objection: that the inclusion of such material unfairly identifies nearly 100,000 law-abiding people with the misconduct of a tiny number of outcasts. It is a violation of WP:NPOV. If John Wayne Gacy, William Jefferson, Mel Reynolds, Austin J. Murphy, Dan Rostenkowski and the other 19 Democratic congressmen convicted of crimes in the past 40 years don't belong in the Democratic Party (United States) article, then the Chuy's incident, the Chad Castagana information and the death threats to the Clintons don't belong here. No one who engaged in that misconduct held positions of trust or authority at FR, and all of them were banned promptly; Castagana has been banned repeatedly. The website's TOS forbids such misconduct. What more can a website's administrators do except forbid misconduct, and ban those who are guilty of such misconduct? -- BryanFromPalatine 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite the political historian! I didn't know Jefferson had been convicted! Hell, I didn't even know he'd been charged yet! When did that happen? John Wayne Gacy a Democratic congressman? Damn! Did you read all that on Free Republic? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bryan, I think that the incidents involving Chuy's and Castagana are notable and unfortunately the reality is that they involved members of Free Republic. To that extent, others members will be identified with them. While I don't think it reasonable to not have these incidents mentioned at all, what I think is reasonable is that are included in such a way as to not indict other members or the organization itself. Lawyer2b 04:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. When a forum member does something so notable that the MSM picks up on it, thats notable. It's happened on DU several times, and its in the DU article. Some nut suggested the Thailand Tsunami might have been a US gov plot, and someone posted, after Reagan's death, that they hoped he 'Rots in hell'. Those comments were picked up by RS V sources, so they're 100% inclusionable. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite the political historian! I didn't know Jefferson had been convicted! Hell, I didn't even know he'd been charged yet! When did that happen? John Wayne Gacy a Democratic congressman? Reynolds, Rostenkowski and Murphy were, in fact, Democratic congressmen who were convicted of crimes. Those three names were listed last, adjacent to the phrase, "and the other 19 Democratic congressmen convicted of crimes in the past 40 years ..." Jefferson is a Democratic member of Congress caught on video committing a crime. Gacy was an elected official in the Democratic Party, convicted of murdering 28 young men and boys. The way I constructed the sentence was ambiguous. Your ridicule in violation of WP:CIV is duly noted. ... member does something so notable that the MSM picks up on it ... According to that standard, all the Democratic scandals I've listed should be in the Democratic Party (United States) article. But that notion was instantly rejected because of concerns regarding WP:NPOV. Imagine that. -- BryanFromPalatine 07:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the Chuy and Castagana incidents are inherently different. The Chuy incident is notable because the notable act took place on Free Republic.  This is where the information was posted, and this is what is reported by news organizations.  Castagana's relationship to Free Republic is purely incidental and not notable.  Nothing about his alleged crime is related to Free Republic and the only thing that makes Castagana notable is his alleged crime which is not connected to Free Republic.  His association with FR neither adds nor detracts from his notability, we do not need to document every organization Castagana has had any relation to in his life on Wikipedia. -- RWR8189 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition to the concerns I've already raised about negative incidents in general, there is this specific concern about the Chuy's reporting: it doesn't have a RS. Yes, the link goes to Salon -- but the Salon article is second-hand reporting from Pamela Parker (comic book alliteration, anyone?) of the American Politics Journal, which I've never heard of before now. Miss Parker's bias against all things conservative is evident:


 * Parker says the Free Republic thread is just more "mob thuggery" from Bush supporters, on display "most recently in post-election Florida. The 'skills' of demonization, propaganda and pack assaults are nurtured by right-wing hate-filled press such as the FOX News Channel, talk radio, and certain Internet sites, including those named above. Eight years of vicious attacks on the Clinton family were only the baby steps of political warfare, it appears."


 * Finding a RS that will include all of the mud Ben and FAAFA seek to sling would be really nice as a first step. Then we'll talk about WP:NPOV. -- BryanFromPalatine 09:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BrianFromPalatine Do not delete that notice again.
That notice properly links to the evidence page as required by the rules. If you delete that sock puppet investigation notice again, I will see to it that you are blocked. I have followed all of the forms of this process. You do the same. --BenBurch 23:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bring it on with your sock puppet investigation. I want all of the results published right here. And when it's proven that these five people are posting from five separate IP addresses, I will expect your apology. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I owe you no apology for anything. I have already proven that you violated the rules already when you used an IP address to get around a 24 hour block.  You have no honor left here. --BenBurch 00:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have already proven that you violated the rules already when you used an IP address to get around a 24 hour block. Really? There are over 70,000 people in Palatine and hundreds of thousands more who pass through. Since you're from Elgin, you're probably one of them. And that isn't my IP address. You have proven nothing except that there's another person in Palatine, Illinois who is interested in this dispute -- one who is an expert typesetter, and got involved in this dispute even before I did. Furthermore, as William M. Connolley observed, that IP address wasn't used to edit the main page of the article; so even if it was me, it wasn't used to evade the 24-hour block. You have exhibited an impressive level of skill in ignoring certain inconvenient facts and distorting others in pursuit of your false accusations, a signature trait of long-term members of the Internet left. This reminds me of the witch hunt against Karl Rove. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This sock puppet accusation would be really funny if it wasn't so pathetic. 12ptHelvetica 00:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jim Robinson's views
I can't believe that RWR would remove these, but here they are again, with sources.

His 1999 views:

"the top extremist, in the estimate of the disenchanted, is its founder, Robinson, a wheelchair-bound Navy veteran of the Vietnam War who operates the site with his son and an unpaid helper from his home in Fresno, Calif. When Robinson unleashed a windy jeremiad linking Texas Gov. Bush with alleged CIA-connected drug-running under his father, a former CIA director (1975-77), vice president (1981-89) and president of the United States (1989-93), all cyber-hell broke loose.''

Meanwhile, Robinson says he'll continue to make his own points about the Bush-CIA past.

"The theories of the CIA's involvement with drug runners and terrorists in Southeast Asia and Central and South America are well known and have been around for many years," he answered a query from Salon News. "And many of the stories we've heard are probably true or at least are grounded in fact and I, for one, would like to get to the bottom of it and put a stop to it."

SOURCE

Here's a 1999 post by Jim Robinson crticising George Bush:


 * To: Freedom Wins


 * So, it doesn't matter if he [Bush] snorted coke as a youth? It was a long time ago, a youthful in-discretion? Kinda like people who frequented sneakeasies during prohibition? Kind of a cute story, eh? Well, how about all the people whose lives have been destroyed by being arrested for the felony of drug possession? What about the millions of people who are rotting away in your filthy drug infested prisons at this very moment?


 * Well, by God, if you people insist on electing another cokehead as President, you damned well better throw open all the prison cell doors and free every man, woman, and child you're holding on drug charges. And if you're gonna elect another drug felon as President, you'd better rescind each and every one of your unconstitutional drug laws now on the books, including all of your unconstitutional search and seizure laws, and your asset forfeiture laws, and your laws that enable your unconstitutional snooping into our bank accounts and cash transactions. Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Conservatives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non-thinking hypocrits! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!"


 * And, I, for one, am tired of taking orders from cokeheads and felons! Elect another one and I'll tell you what. I'll be ready for war! It'll be time to take up arms and run the filthy lying bastards out!


 * Posted on 08/20/1999 03:19:31 PDT by Jim Robinson [www.freerepublic.com/forum/a37bd2556430e.htm SOURCE]

His post 9/11 views: (his words)

"Lots of grumbling lately about deleted posts. Well, my friends, the simple truth is the game has changed. We are now at war. We have been attacked by a vicious cold-blooded force of international terrorists who want to destroy our nation, our freedom and our way of life. There is no doubt about this. Knowing this, I am alarmed to read some of the stuff that has been posted to FR in the last few days. This is not the time to raise doubts about our leaders. This is not the time to raise conspiracy theories. This is not the time to second guess our intelligence agencies. This is war. This is survival of our way of life. We must unite behind our Commander-in-chief and do all we possibly can to support him and our war efforts. We do not have a choice in this matter. [...]" [www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602045/posts?page=314 SOURCE]


 * Thosewho are coming in here to post a bunch of propaganda to smear Bush or otherwise harm the war effort are going to be deleted.


 * I guess you missed my posts where I said that I am 100% behind our President and the war. I don't care if it's Ron Paul, Larry McDonald, or the head of the John Birch Society himself. I do not want it on FR. And I do not want a bunch of 40 year old conspiracy crap. Not interested. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/602045/posts?page=314 source]

CA 2003 "Bill and Hillary Clinton and their minions still wield a tremendous amount of power and influence over the Democrat Party, the socialist movement and the national press. Their goals are to completely eliminate our rights to free speech, free religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, etc., and these are just for starters."

"I believe the overall goal of their movement is to completely do away with the U.S. Constitution and in its place, install socialist/totalitarian rule over America. Furthermore, I believe they wish to do away with our national sovereignty altogether and subject America to domination by the U.N. and other world bodies."

"Now you may call me a nutcase if you wish, but that's the way I see it....I believe that as long as Bill and Hillary Clinton and their like minded socialist minions have any influence or power over the government or either of the two major political parties, our nation and all of our freedoms are in extreme danger.

[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1004710/posts source]

Are these relevant? Do they reflect the views of FR? If Jim alleged in 1999 that Bush I and II were involved CIA drug running, does that make him a Conspiracy Theorist? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I will re-post a point that I made two days ago: "Robinson's signed statements on his own website should be considered a reliable source concerning his own extremism -- and, by implication, the kind of extremism he's willing to tolerate on his website. He hangs himself with his own rope with these statements." -- BryanFromPalatine 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * These may be used to present the owner's viewpoints, if these are representative, verifiable, and not cited out of context. As for the question about "Conspiracy Theorist", we need to leave that conclusion to the readers to make, or, if there is a reliable source, that describes him as such, we can cite that source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: When discussing living people, please be aware of our policy about living people. Thank you for your consideration to this matter. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I will simply stress what I have posted above: Unless the viewpoints of the owner/founder of the organization can be explicitly tied to the organization itself, I don't think they are notable with regards to an article about the organization.  The only way I can see them being included under policy is in a section solely about the owner/founder himself. Lawyer2b 04:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel they both have to be considered. My understanding that Jim Rob's change from the 1999 'Bush-is-a Big Gov liberal and a CIA Drug Runner' Jim Rob to the Post 9/11 'Bush-is-the-messiah who must not be criticized' Jim Rob has been a source of many people leaving, new competing forums starting, and much disaffection. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As in the past, Fairness, support your facts with some reliable sources and you will find me at your service to see them included. :-) Lawyer2b 05:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just Google "Free Republic" + "Jim Robinson". Here's some harsh criticism from the right. Too bad it's not inclusionable. linky One of the editors active here who just happens to be a Freeper just recently AfD'd an article on Liberty Post, one of the forums started by disaffected Freepers. Now it's gone. Too bad. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not have the time for expanded responses right now, but unless you can find such quotes from verifiable and reliable sources, they have no place in this article, or really even this discussion. Please be aware of WP:BLP.  And you seem to be unaware of the AfD process, I nominated LP for deletion along several other non-notable political discussion boards or blogs from all sides of the political spectrum in the time that I have been here that in no way satisfy WP:WEB, I did not delete them, consensus within the community demanded it.--RWR8189 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed all unverified quotes you assert are from Jim Robinson per WP:BLP. Do not reinsert them in the article or the talk page until you provide reliable sources linking to them.


 * They're all sourced now. Did you actually think he didn't write those? Why didn't you 'Google' before you removed them? - F.A.A.F.A. 10:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why you would add what you believe to be controversial statements by a living person without sourcing them. WP:BLP is a very important policy, thank you sourcing the remarks.--RWR8189 10:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They're not controversial for him. They're standard fare, and common knowledge. - F.A.A.F.A. 11:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's nice. All I'm asking you to do is abide by WP:BLP, you were not doing that earlier, hopefully you will in the future.--RWR8189 11:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Informal mediation - Second step
I have started a page at Talk:Free_Republic/Informal_mediation to keep track of our progress and record agreements.

The next steps I propose is as follows:


 * 1) "Stubify" the current article to contain a very short description of the website freerepublic.com, marking the previous version as "pre-mediation". I will propose have created a version of the stub that could be considered. Talk:Free_Republic/Stub;
 * 2) Parties agree not not add material to the article until there is agreement about the structure of the new article;
 * 3) After agreeing to the new structure we will proceed to discuss the content for the different sections;
 * 4) Parties agree to only add material to the article that has the full agreement of all involved. This will mean that we may end up with an article that you may not be 100% happy with, but that you "can live with";

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You should "Stubify" the current article immediately. Then start replacing sections that everyone can agree on. It looks like more than half of the article isn't even disputed. 12ptHelvetica 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please state below your agreement with the proposal above. Your signature will suffice
 * ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * --BenBurch 18:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * - F.A.A.F.A. 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12ptHelvetica 00:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * --RWR8189 01:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * --Lawyer2b 02:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Sounds like a plan to me. :-)
 * DP1976 18:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * -- BryanFromPalatine 02:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for User:Lawyer2b agreement to proceed. In the meantime it would be much appreciated by your fellow editors, if you subscribe to the established ground rules for this informal mediation, by signing your name at Talk:Free_Republic/Informal_mediation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Implementing second step
First, let me thank you for your prompt and positive response so far. Now, we need to roll our sleeves and do some copyediting. A proposed structure is now available at Talk:Free Republic/Sandbox, as follows


 * 1) Lead (the current text in the stub article)
 * 2) Origins
 * 3) Jargon, modus operandi and user terminology
 * 4) Political influence
 * 5) Organization of protests (Freeps)
 * 6) Influencing on-line polls
 * 7) Controversial aspects
 * 8) Controversial postings
 * 9) Criticism in the media

My proposal to move forward with the editing of these section is to use the technique of writing for the enemy. The idea is that supporters of Free Republic amongst involved editors, get to edit the section on "Controversial Aspects", and critics of Free Republic get to edit the Origin, Jargon, and Political influence sections. We will do this over the next two days, with the understanding that editors will not revert any other editor's contributions in the Talk:Free Republic/Sandbox, and will refrain from editing those sections not assigned to them.

This may be a bit unorthodox, but will give editors a chance to show/sharpen their skills in NPOV editing, and will assist greatly in moving towards consensus. Please avoid commenting on other editors edits for the next 48 hrs, after which point we will caucus in talk page and assess the progress we have made. Needles to say, make efforts to make your edits compliant with our content policies and use as brilliant a prose as you can.

If you have any questions for me, please place them at Talk:Free_Republic/Questions for informal mediator

Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Jossi, I am concerned about the condition that any material added to the new article must have "the consent of all involved." Does this really have to be unanimous? Isn't a consensus sufficient? That's the only issue that makes me hesitate to sign. Also I would add a sentence to the lead (current stub) at the start of the second paragraph, concerning the role of two Freepers in revealing that the Killian memos were forgeries. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please keep the stub as is, and focus on the work at hand. Consensus in this specific case would be that there is agreement between all of us that the resulting article is fair, neutral and informative. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Bryan, but that is how things are done here. This is not some new requirement.  And I do not consent to your proposed addition to the stub. That will come in its own section in good time IF we can find the appropriate sources in the Main Stream Media to prove it happened. Otherwise it will not be in the article. --BenBurch 14:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I stubified a bit more severely, I hope you don't mind. Things removed can be added back in as warranted by the text added.  I just thought that See Also and External Links not referenced should be gone until referenced.  Also I added the Skeleton.  --BenBurch 15:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, missed the comment about the Sandbox. Moved my edits there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BenBurch (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

When adding references to the article in the Sandbox please use the appropriate templates:


 * Cite book:  
 * Cite web:  

Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK, I'll change my ref tags to use cites later today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBurch (talk • contribs)


 * Seeing as no citations were found for Free Republic's association with the Wise Use movement and the reference was deleted from that article, I think it would be non-controversial to delete the link from this article.--RWR8189 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My proposal to move forward with the editing of these section is to use the technique of writing for the enemy. The idea is that supporters of Free Republic amongst involved editors, get to edit the section on "Controversial Aspects" ... I've edited the section on "Controversial Aspects" within the 48-hour period prescribed, which has now expired. If neither BenBurch nor FAAFA edits the other sections within the next 12 hours, I'll go ahead and edit those too. Then we can talk and see how close we are to the consensus that BenBurch and FAAFA have previously defended. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remove the comments from Jim Robinson from the Controversial postings section, as was discussed earlier, it is original research to call those postings controversial unless it is termed that way by a reliable source. Perhaps there is another place for it in the article, but not here.--RWR8189 12:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not. The agreement is that editors will only edit "the opposing side" of the dispute. Once we are done, we shall evaluate the edits. Thank you for your cooperation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I believe that the article should be organized as follows:


 * 1) Lead (the current text in the stub article, plus a mention of Rathergate at the start of the 2nd paragraph)
 * 2) Origins
 * 3) Jargon, modus operandi and user terminology
 * 4) Political influence
 * 5) RATHERGATE
 * 6) Organization of protests (Freeps)
 * 7) Influencing on-line polls
 * 8) Controversial aspects
 * 9) Controversial postings
 * 10) Criticism in the media


 * Good job so far, everyone. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bryan. I would advise some patience, and if the 48hrs expire, we could extend it for another 48hrs. We are all volunteers and sometimes things happen that do not allow us to indulge in Wikipedia editing. There is no rush, is it? The whole idea is to gain buy-in from all editors for the result of collaboration by actively engaging in editing. Lack of collaboration could mean two things (a) some people are busy and did not have the time (WP:AGF); or (b) By not participating they "reserve the right" to attack the article later when we are done with the editing. Let's assume good faith and make time and space so that all editors engage. If they do not engage now, and engage later as per (b), we will all know how to deal with it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do extend it another 48 hours. Like Ben, I'm having a hard time finding MSM sourcing. The previous article had a lot of 'generally accepted but undocumentable "truths"' that neither supporters or critics of FR disputed. Are these to be avoided in this version? - F.A.A.F.A. 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm fine extending the deadline by a week. Lawyer2b 23:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's try to remember that for every day that this editing process lasts, that's another day that the full article is unavailable to the millions of casual users of Wikipedia. Some extension is called for, but let's not make this open-ended. -- BryanFromPalatine 18:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Let's regroup on Sunday and see where we are at. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure let's talk on Sunday. ArlingtonTX 00:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Working on what we have
Lawyer2B, I am opposed to including the "Bahrain Centre for Human Rights," "Death Threats" and "Cyber Stalking" sections as violations of WP:NPOV. The entire organization should not be characterized by the actions of a handful of eccentrics who violated FR policy and were immediately banned for it. FR has done everything that any reasonable person could expect to protect its reputation. Also, I think the lawsuit by The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times might deserve further scrutiny. The plaintiffs won over $2,000,000 through summary judgment; and then it was appealed; and after oral arguments but before the appellate court decided the case, the newspapers' attorneys settled for $10,000. That's a reduction of over 99.5% of the summary judgment. Something happened in the appellate court that scared the hell out of the newspapers' attorneys. They thought they were going to lose. That is the only possible explanation for a reduction of over 99.5% in a negotiated settlement. -- BryanFromPalatine 02:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There might be a story there. But you'd have to get a reliable source. I am opposed to the three sections you've mentioned, and for the same reasons. ArlingtonTX 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Bryan has a case with regards to the "Bahrain Centre for Human Rights," and "Death Threats" as being too large and therefore violations of WP:NPOV. For as much media attention they received, those incidents really aren't notable enough for their own articles; they could be summarized with a sentence or two. I'm not sure about the "Cyber Stalking".  Bryan, are you proposing no mention of those incidents at all? With regards to the lawsuit, why not just include the settlement info? Lawyer2b 10:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to any mention of these three incidents at all. Remember, on the Democratic Party (United States) article, I introduced a list of 23 Democratic members of Congress in the past 40 years who have been convicted of crimes while in office, ranging from accepting bribes to election fraud to sexual solicitation of a minor. These were elected officials, with positions of great power, authority and trust in the party, and there was certainly no shortage of MSM attention. But the guardians of that article, in their infinite wisdom, eradicated any mention of such incidents as violations of WP:NPOV. Dangerous cranks such as Chad Castagana never held any such position of trust and authority at Free Republic; and in comparison to these Democratic Party scandals, MSM attention has been minimal.
 * Furthermore, Democrats have a way of rallying around their members who are accused of crimes and defending them. They fought tooth and nail against the impeachment of Bill Clinton despite solid evidence of perjury, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. refactored as per WP:BLP And of course [[Ted Kennedy] continues to serve as senator from Massachusetts, despite being convicted for leaving the scene of an accident that caused injuries nearly 40 years ago -- the death of Mary Jo Kopechne -- and to my everlasting astonishment, William Jefferson has now been re-elected, despite appearing on an FBI videotape accepting a $100,000 bribe. Democrats have a culture of tolerance that extends to suspected and even convicted felons. In stark contrast, Free Republic instantly banned each and every one of the people involved in these three incidents. Castagana, in particular, has been banned repeatedly.
 * There is already a sentence in the article lead as follows: "The website has attracted controversy for what their critics consider inappropriate calls to action posted by some of its by members, and what they view as political extremism." I believe this is sufficient weight to be accorded to such incidents, particularly since they are extremely rare and there is no similar sentence in the lead of even the Democratic Underground article. -- BryanFromPalatine 14:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am opposed to the three sections you've mentioned, and for the same reasons. Careful there, Tex. Anyone who agrees with me about anything runs the risk of being called "sockpuppet." -- BryanFromPalatine 18:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A summary of the these controversial posts can be added to the "Controversial actions by members" without having subsections for each case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Democratic Party (United States) article has been completely expurgated of even a brief whisper of scandal involving anyone but a sitting president. In fact, there is absolutely no mention of Andrew Johnson anywhere in the article; and the entire, nationally humiliating Bill Clinton spectacle of scandal after disgraceful scandal, impeachment in the House, and acquittal in the Senate merits just a single sentence. Think about all the MSM attention paid to Clinton's many scandals, and it all boils down to one sentence. According to that standard, if Jim Robinson himself didn't post those death threats against the Clintons, or those personal details about the manager of Chuy's, they deserve no mention at all here; and even if he did, they'd get one sentence -- if, and only if, Jim Robinson's posts were the lead story on the evening news on CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN, banner headlines above the fold on the front pages of every daily newspaper in the country, and the entire front covers of Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report. -- BryanFromPalatine 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about one of the two main political parties in the US, that started in the 1800's, but about a discussion forum that started in 1996. I would say that the comparison is not appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Democratic Party is indeed an organization that is much larger, much older and much more influential than Free Republic. That's no excuse for sanitizing the article and leaving Free Republic twisting in the wind. When members such as William Jefferson, Ted Kennedy, Mel Reynolds, Patrick Kennedy and Dan Rostenkowski break the law, the consequences for their victims can be much greater as well. I would respectfully suggest that when someone like William Jefferson accepts a $100,000 bribe to change his vote on federal legislation, it can affect 300 million people; but when someone at Free Republic (who might have been a mole from Democratic Underground) posted personal information about the manager of Chuy's, one person was affected. -- BryanFromPalatine 14:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling someone would make this argument: that the Democratic Party is somehow better than Free Republic and therefore deserves to have its Wiki article "santitized," while Free Republic does not. I agree with Bryan. This material about the alleged cyberstalking, the personal info and the death threats to the Clintons does not belong in the article. The only reason I go along with including the Jim Robinson quotes is that the impeachment of Bill Clinton did get one sentence in the Democratic Party article. So keep your mention of Jim Robinson down to the same length. One sentence. You can provide four or five different links, to four or five different statements you find objectionable, at the end of that one sentence. 12ptHelvetica 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would still argue that the comparison is not relevant. This is a discussion forum, the other is one of the main political parties in the US. A 2,000 words article on the Democratic party (or any other party for that matter) include only the most notable aspects of that party. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Going around fishing for "objectionable" statements by Jim Robinson is original research. A statement is not objectionable or controversial unless it is termed that way by a reliable source.  As I have argued earlier, the Castagana incident should have no mention here, his relationship to Free Republic is as incidental to his alleged crimes as his membership at the local YMCA.  We need to look at the other incidents and determine their notability, if they are reported by a reliable source, then they should probably get some mention in the article.  This could probably be accomplished in one paragraph so as not to give the incidents undue weight.--RWR8189 20:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(UI)I urge the editors here to look at the articles on Democratic Underground and Daily Kos - they both include claims about contoversial statements and actions by their members - BECAUSE these statements or actions were so notable that OTHER sources documented them. The inclusion of info on Castagana, Chuy's, Islamophobia and Clinton Death threats is similarly documented and inclusionable. I encourage Bryan to look to articles like THESE and other political blogs-forums for precedent, not the article on the democratic party which has no similarity to an article on a blog. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "OTHER sources documented them." What is the nature of the OTHER sources that documented these controversial statements and actions? One of the purposes of Free Republic is to expose hypocrisy and bias in the news media. There are news media sources such as CBS, the Washington Post and LA Times (and their parent company, Tribune Co., which owns many of the largest daily papers in the country), that may have an axe to grind due to their previous encounters with people like Buckhead and TankerKC. They may be putting their own spin on these events, and therefore may not be reliable. This concern is in addition to the "undue weight" concern. The Bahrain Centre for Human Rights source is particularly questionable. Free Republic members were criticizing BCHR for possible links to an Islamic terrorist group. ArlingtonTX 22:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * FAAFA, I notice that there is no mention of any "controversial posts" or other "criticism" in the article lead for either DU or Kos. Would you explain that, please? The lead paragraph or two are the most important parts of the article; and for DU and Kos, they're just as sanitized as the entire Democratic Party article. Furthermore, there's no indication that DU or Kos has ever banned their cranks and eccentrics; while the posts get deleted, and even the entire threads get deleted, the conspiracy theorists remain as welcome and honored members of DU, as long as they never, ever say anything decent or kind about a Republican. Again, the culture of tolerance on the left is evident. But in each and every FR case you've mentioned, Robinson banned the people responsible for life.


 * In any event, I would immediately object on the basis of WP:NPOV if the mention of all such incidents combined amounted to more than one sentence. Don't fail to point out the fact that such misconduct is forbidden by FR policy and that everyone was banned, and compose your sentence. Then we'll see. -- BryanFromPalatine 23:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One sentence? LOL! Criticism and controversy make up about 25% of the body of the DU and Kos articles. The 4 or 5 FR incidents deserve several sentences EACH. The info on Castagana, and Chuy's did say the users were banned. Regarding the intro, the claim about controversial posts was already in the stub. I added the part about FR's and Jim's radical change from being 100% anti-Bush to 100% Pro-Bush, and that needs to stay, as many REAL conservatives left FR because of that, and Jim's and FR's claim about it being the 'premiere grass roots conservative' site is demonstrably false. It's NOT Conservative. It's Pro Bush, Pro GOP, and many members have been banned for criticising Bush's 'liberal' policies such as his massive spending, immigration, 'no child left behind' and medicare. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Criticism and controversy make up about 25% of the body of the DU and Kos articles. And your inventory of everything controversial and extremist that Jim Robinson has ever posted takes up a lot of space. I have never had any objection to including Robinson's own statements in this article. As I've said repeatedly, he hangs himself with his own rope. But that doesn't leave much room for everything else you want to include. Boil the everything else down to one sentence. Then we'll see. The 4 or 5 FR incidents deserve several sentences EACH. That would make quite a stark contrast to the Democratic Party (United States) article. The info on Castagana, and Chuy's did say the users were banned. Only because I personally added the sentence at the end of each paragraph stating that they were banned. Before I came along, you and Ben were leaving the impression that they were still welcome and beloved members of FR. It's NOT Conservative. That's your opinion. Find a reliable, unbiased source that confirms it and we'll see. -- BryanFromPalatine 23:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "For many months, FreeRepublic served as "an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America" (front page mission statement). Lately, however – dating back to the [2000] GOP primary Presidential campaigns – it appears to many that the "independent, grassroots conservatism" emphasis has been replaced by a rank-and-file boostership for the Republican National Committee and all that President Bush sees fit to offer for the nation – an increasingly liberal (Big Government) vision, in the eyes of many "grassroots conservatives'." The Bell Tolls for FreeRepublic.com - F.A.A.F.A. 00:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * An opinion column? By Todd Brendan Fahey? Are you serious? Fahey was all but predicting the complete "Error 404" demise of Free Republic. It's six years later and FR is still quite healthy. Google his name, read some more of his stuff, read this and this  and this  and then try to tell me that he's a reliable source. -- BryanFromPalatine 01:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(UI) In those links Fahey seems to be alleging some kind of high level government, or CIA conspiracy..... just like Jim Robinson did!

"the top extremist, in the estimate of the disenchanted, is its founder, Robinson, a wheelchair-bound Navy veteran of the Vietnam War who operates the site with his son and an unpaid helper from his home in Fresno, Calif. When Robinson unleashed a windy jeremiad linking Texas Gov. Bush with alleged CIA-connected drug-running under his father, a former CIA director (1975-77), vice president (1981-89) and president of the United States (1989-93), all cyber-hell broke loose.

Meanwhile, Robinson says he'll continue to make his own points about the Bush-CIA past.

''"The theories of the CIA's involvement with drug runners and terrorists in Southeast Asia and Central and South America are well known and have been around for many years," he answered a query from Salon News. "And many of the stories we've heard are probably true or at least are grounded in fact and I, for one, would like to get to the bottom of it and put a stop to it."'' SOURCE - F.A.A.F.A. 02:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So what? Are you saying that because Robinson and Fahey are both conspiracy theorists, that makes Fahey a reliable source about Robinson? Fahey has been accused of stalking by Barbara Hartwell, an individual I find credible; Hartwell claims that he has been removed from her property by the police twice -- once while he was under the influence of alcohol. You might also find this  educational regarding your trusted source. Furthermore, as far as I can tell from the Salon article you've cited, Robinson didn't necessarily believe the CT about Bush; he only called them "theories ... [some of which were] probably true or at least ... grounded in fact." -- BryanFromPalatine 03:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, FAAFA, you've signed on for this mediation by Jossi. He wanted you and Ben to work on the first half of the article, and the rest of us (12pt, ArlingtonTX, RWR & Lawyer2b) to work on the "Controversial aspects" in the second half. And yet you are magnetically, irresistibly attracted to a discussion of FR's controversial aspects for some unexplained reason. I have a theory about that magnetic, irresistible attraction ... but finish your own section and then get back to me. By the way, how much time do you need for that? You had your 48 hours, and then you got a four-day extension, and now even that has expired. With every click to an empty article, Wikipedia loses readers. -- BryanFromPalatine 03:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Me? LOL! You objected to L2B - a fellow FR supporter - contibutions and claimed you want the mentions of user conduct restricted to 'one sentence'. Another of your 'friends' claims that we are not to assume that the Washington Post or L.A. Times are 'reliable sources' - but apparently Free Republic is! LOL! I am waiting for the mediator to comment on todays assertions and attempt to bring some order to this chaos before I spend any more time on this article. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation (cont)
We agreed a few days ago that "supporters of Free Republic amongst involved editors, get to edit the section on 'Controversial Aspects', and critics of Free Republic get to edit the Origin, Jargon, and Political influence sections."

In checking the status of Talk:Free Republic/Sandbox, I see that the sections "Jargon, modus operandi and user terminology" and "Political influence" are still void of content.

How do you want to proceed from here? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been working on this offline to some extent, and can add it tonight, but please read above. One editor says that the entire criticism of member conduct (that a supporter added) will have to be reduced to 'one sentence' and repeatedly tries to compare this article to the dissimilar article on the Democratic party, rather than the similar Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. Another claims that WAPO and the L.A Times are suspect. Another disputes your administrative wisdom and guidance. I have lost my assumption of good faith in several of the editors here based on their actions and claims. How DO we proceed? - F.A.A.F.A. 04:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about Lewrockwell meeting the criteria for WP:RS. Speaking in terms of shaky sources when we talk about reliability, I think Salon is probably superior to Rockwell.--RWR8189 06:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't mind, I will continue to correct spelling and punctuation in the article and in people's comments. I've been doing it for three years and it's something I do well. FAAFA, there are a couple of subtle but important distinctions to be made here. First: the FR article is indeed similar to the DP article. Both are articles about political organizations that cannot control the conduct of individual members. Treat FR more harshly than the DP and you lend support to those who claim that Wiki has a left-wing bias. Second: In the FR article, but not the DU or Kos article, we find an explicit reference to extremism, calls to action, controversy, etc. in the lead paragraphs. Most people don't even read beyond the first couple of paragraphs, so they would never know that DU or Kos has ever been the subject of any controversy. The article lead is vitally important. Also, there is no evidence that DU banned its conspiracy theorists who believed that the Indonesian tsunami was a hoax. But FR instantly banned Chad Castagana, the person who posted personal info about the manager of Chuy's (and may have been a DU mole), and the person who posted death threats against the Clintons. DU embraces its cranks; FR throws them out as quickly as they're spotted. If you're going to claim that Kos, DU and FR are being treated the same, try to make sure that they're being treated the same first. Thank you. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think comparing articles on the Free Republic and Dkos to articles on political parties is a fair comparison. Comparing the Free Republic article with the Dkos article is.  (Comparing the Democratic Party article to the Republican Party article is a fair one as well, I believe.)  I do agree with Bryan viz-a-viz the lead paragraph.  I think both organizations have had roughly equal amounts of controversy/criticism and therefore it is fair to want both their lead paragraphs to be similarly structured with regards to mentions of criticism.
 * What seems to be the hold-up in editing the non-negative sections of the article? Lawyer2b 18:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the empty section written by critics as agreed. Then we can take a look and engage on a debate based on the material available in the sandbox. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If I'm not mistaken, Ben and FAAFA have had at least seven days to rewrite that section: an initial 48 hours and a four-day extension, plus today. During that period, they've had plenty of time to pursue their bogus sockpuppet accusation against me; one would think that since they've requested informal mediation, they'd follow through on this process. If they can't post their rewritten section in another 24 hours, I'd like to take a shot at it. -- BryanFromPalatine 20:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are so many claims and innaccuracies I don't know where to start, but here goes.


 * Where is the research that says most people don't read beyond the first few paragraphs?


 * FR only banned castagana after he was arrested. He was posting on FR with a sig line that said name your poison while mocking the people he himself had sent the terrorist threats to, and making light of people receiving death threats filled with what they thought was anthrax. Indefensible!


 * There is no proof or even any valid suspicion that the Chuy's info was posted by a DU Mole. DU locked the threads on the tsunami conspiracy theories, and actively DIScourages such posts see not 'embraces' them. Why would they 'ban' them posters who wrote them"? Thats not even remotely similar to posting a death threat, or a call to violence.


 * I will not add to this re-write until all editors agree that notable posts and actions which were covered by RS V secondary sources will be included to roughly the same extent that they are covered in other similar articles, like DU and Kos. One editor has repeatedly asserted that such criticism will be limited to 'one sentence'. I am not going to participate in an article that is designed to 'whitewash' Free Republic. If we can all agree to that, I'm amenable to moving the criticism out of the lead paragragh, and getting back to work. If not, Bryan and the other FR members and supporters can write the glowing tribute they apparently want. I can deal with it later. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You said "I will not add to this re-write until all editors agree ..." If that's your attitude then don't bother. Unanimous decisions come very hard. We can re-write it without you. There are two sections of criticism and controversy (C&C) that seem to be approved by everyone: the statements by JimRob and the excerpt from the Globe and Mail. After putting those in, there's not much room left for more C&C if a 25% limit on criticism and controversy (established by the Dkos and Democratic underground articles) is to be obeyed. It means C&C incidents are "included to roughly the same extent that they are covered in other similar articles, like DU and Kos." ArlingtonTX 23:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? What statements by Jim Robinson? This is the 'work in progress'.sandbox Where are these 'statements by JimRob' you refer to? Everyone agreed? Wrong! RW and L2B DON'T think that Jim Rob's views and comments belong in the article. Maybe that's why they're NOT in the article despite your claims to the contrary.- F.A.A.F.A. 00:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere
FR only banned castagana after he was arrested. Wrong. FR repeatedly banned Castagana. The last time they did it was indeed at the time he was arrested. He was posting on FR with a sig line that said name your poison ... In your neighborhood bar, that means, "What can I get you to drink, Sir? Your usual Jack and Coke?" By itself that remark means nothing. ... while mocking the people he himself had sent the terrorist threats to ... Mockery is a cornerstone of DU and Kos. ''... and making light of people receiving death threats filled with what they thought was anthrax. Indefensible!'' Castagana's overall conduct is indeed indefensible. But did he reveal, in his FR posts, that he had sent the death threats?

There is no proof or even any valid suspicion that the Chuy's info was posted by a DU Mole. Ask the Sysops and administrators at FR. Believe it or not, when you click on a link at DU that takes you to FR and you start posting, the FR Sysops can tell that you're from DU. It's a software thing, maybe you wouldn't understand. DU locked the threads on the tsunami conspiracy theories, and actively DIScourages such posts see not 'embraces' them ... But did they ban the members who posted tsunami theories?

I will not add to this re-write until all editors agree that notable posts and actions which were covered by RS V secondary sources will be included to roughly the same extent that they are covered in other similar articles, like DU and Kos. Well, if you want to hold the editing process hostage to your demands, I don't think you're participating in the mediation process in good faith. But let's do this. The section containing Jim Robinson's controversial posts is 112 words long. The section containing the MSM criticism in the Globe and Mail is 118 words long. The section containing the LA Times lawsuit is 267 words long. Let's follow the 25% rule you suggested.


 * 112 + 118 + 267 = 497


 * 497 x 3 = 1,491

FAAFA, you need to write 1,491 words of nothing but sweetness and light about FR to match all of the criticism and controversy that we're already including. If you can write 1,581 words, we might squeeze in a 30-word sentence about the Chuy's incident, the death threat incident, and the fact that the people who posted that stuff were banned.

''One editor has repeatedly asserted that such criticism will be limited to 'one sentence'. I am not going to participate in an article that is designed to 'whitewash' Free Republic.'' And I'm not going to participate in an article that is designed as a hit piece against Free Republic -- which is exactly what this was until I showed up. If we can all agree to that, I'm amenable to moving the criticism out of the lead paragragh ... That isn't even negotiable. It is a precondition to anything else, since the Kos and DU articles never contained such negative press in their lead paragraphs. I'm removing the negative press from the lead right freaking now, along with your ridiculous Todd Brendan Fahey sourcing, and I never want to see it there again.

''Huh? What statements by Jim Robinson? ... Where are these 'statements by JimRob' you refer to?'' Somebody took them out. I've just put them back in. Robinson hangs himself with his own rope. He is the founder of the website and it reflects his personal views. His remarks belong in the article. ''Everyone agreed? Wrong! RW and L2B DON'T think that Jim Rob's views and comments belong in the article.'' RWR is a DU member with thousands of posts, just like you and BenBurch. He shouldn't even be working on what Tex calls "C&C." Furthermore, RWR and L2b are outvoted by me, 12pt and Tex. And by you. After all, the person who first put Robinson's comments into this article was named FAAFA. I know I can count on your vote in consensus, since you've previously fought so hard to include them. Thank you. -- BryanFromPalatine 02:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * At DU I guess you could say I'm a deep mole. I espouse the most conservative views possible without getting banned, its mostly for my own amusement.  I am also a member and donor in good standing of Free Republic, under the same handle as here.  Jim can hang by his own words if he wishes, but it is simply original research to call his postings controversial or extremist, you can't get around it.--RWR8189 02:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * RWR, you're outvoted in committee, and overwhelmed out on the floor. We need to wrap this up. Jossi's stub indicates that the "major editing" process will be completed no later than December 20. That's about 24 hours. -- BryanFromPalatine 02:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * lol sorry, consensus cannot overrule an official policy.--RWR8189 03:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I withdraw from this 'mediation' until the admin regains control. Bryan, your claims, allegations and conduct, even in regards to a fellow conservative who features a picture of Ronald Reagan on his user page for Christ's sake, are beyond absurd. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Until the admin regains control"? FAAFA, Jossi has always had control and I've always participated within his guidelines. He has never expressed any feeling that he's lost control of the process. That's your opinion -- and by the way, wasn't Jossi's mediation your idea in the first place? RWR, even official policy is subject to interpretation, and some of Jim Robinson's comments are what any reasonable person would call controversial. -- BryanFromPalatine 04:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that I believe the comments to be controversial and a reasonable person might make that same inference. However, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia verifiability not truth.--RWR8189 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * FAAFA, you were the original advocate in favor of including these remarks. Did you ever find a reliable source that described Robinson's remarks as "controversial"? Without them, the C&C section is only 385 words long -- and you'd only have to write 1,155 words of sweetness and light about FR to match them. -- BryanFromPalatine 05:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawing from mediation and rewrite
(UI) I'm officially withdrawing from the re-write and mediation. Write whatever you want. I'll edit it after. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: IMHO this mediation has been 'hijacked' and is no longer workable. When and if some semblance of order returns, I may participate further. - F.A.A.F.A. 19:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then please bear in mind what the mediator you selected, ≈ jossi ≈, had to say about such tactics: Lack of collaboration could mean ... [that] (b) By not participating they "reserve the right" to attack the article later when we are done with the editing. ... If they do not engage now, and engage later as per (b), we will all know how to deal with it. I've changed both the sandbox version and the "stub" version to satisfy the 12/20 deadline, removing the Robinson quotes that RWR finds objectionable. Kindest regards as always, and have a very Merry Christmas. -- BryanFromPalatine 11:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bryan, FAAFA may have withdrawn, but there are other editors involved, and he may come back. Please do not take unilateral decisions on the article as you have done with the stub and the Sandbox. Let's move forward as agreed by all of us.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)