Talk:Free Republic/Archive 3

Selectric Composer

I am a newcomer to Wikipedia. I have just added information concerning the authenticity of the Killian memos and it was immediately removed. I am a professional typesetter, having used the IBM Selectric Composer for about five years in the late 1970s and early 1980s before switching to more modern equipment. I have some expertise in this area and can personally guarantee that the Killian memos were not prepared on a Selectric Composer. The superscript "th" in "111th Fighter Intercept Squadron" matches Microsoft Word product, but does not match Selectric Composer product. I have just learned that you have a "revert" function and I encourage whomever "reverted" it to restore my comments. Thank you. 68.253.143.93 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I too was a typesetter. The th superscript does not match what you can do with Word at all. And is JUST what you would get with that model Selectric. Other documents from that base in that era have been shown to have that superscript. Not to mention that they were signed by somebody who passed away before Desktop Publishing even existed. BenBurch 23:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks BenBurch, but those memos were not produced on a Selectric Composer. This is the definitive source on the controversy. http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm The signature of a dead man can be forged. If the Wikipedia editors are genuinely unbiased, the article will reflect the fact that the memos are definitely forgeries. The content of the memos was disputed by Killian's son. I feel that the editors may have a liberal bias and I look forward to a candid discussion and resolution of this issue. 68.253.143.93 23:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Totally wrong. We have memos from that era that are direct matches. It is very easy to produce that superscript on that typer. Likely they are not forgeries though they have no chain of custody that proves otherwise, so the matter will always be in doubt. BenBurch 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are these alleged "memos from that era that are direct matches"? I am intimately familiar with the equipment, having used it every day for five years. Furthermore, the Selectric Composer cost about $4000 in pre-Jimmy Carter dollars, roughly equivalent to $20,000 today, and was used by printing and typesetting shops -- generally not found on Air Force bases. Have you reviewed the Flounder.com article? 68.253.143.93 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben, your position is indefensible. There have been many generations of Times New Roman typeface, but they weren't using 11.5-point in 1972. Also, they used ABC widths that were not in use until development of TrueType fonts in the 1990s. The so-called "Killian memos" are forgeries and there is no question about that. I look forward to your production of these "memos from that era that are direct matches." If you can produce an exact match of these memos with a Selectric Composer, then you should go to http://www.defeatjohnjohn.com and claim the $50,000 reward -- it's been more than two years now and nobody's been able to do it. Furthermore, while Killian's personal secretary vouched for the content of the memos, Killian's son disputes it. And there are other articles here at Wikipedia, specifically dealing with the memo authenticity issues rather than Free Republic, that acknowledge the memos are forgeries. I realize that there are a lot of people who have an ideological investment in believing that the memos are genuine. I understand from your continued silence at this point that I've given you a lot to think about. I am replacing the content with a citation to the Flounder.com site. Use Occam's Razor, consider the internal consistency of Wikipedia (with regard to other articles dealing specifically with the Killian memos and their authenticity), and try to have a neutral POV. 68.253.143.93 00:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Documents in that font exist from the late 60s through 70s. The government sector had whatever typefaces it wanted and IBM supplied them. Period. You are at best very mistaken. And the superscript is trivially easy to make identical to that one. If you don't know how, you are not what you represent yourself to be. BenBurch 04:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and infer nothing by my silence. Unlike some others on Wikipedia, I have a life and a job. I'll respond to things when I have some time not spent doing more productive things like training my dogs or target practice at the range. BenBurch 04:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Trivially easy"? Then claim the $50,000 reward he was talking about, Ben. It stands unclaimed. Anyone who can duplicate the Killian memos, using equipment available in 1972, can claim the $50,000 reward. That would buy a lot of dog food. I'm not an expert, but I defer to the experts. For a detailed analysis of these issues, see Killian documents authenticity issues. The only expert standing up for the possible authenticity of these forgeries, Dr. David Hailey, donated $250 to the Kerry campaign; and while he claims that they were prepared on "a typewriter," he refuses to identify the make and model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity_issues#Dr._David_Hailey.27s_analysis The rest of the typography experts who have weighed in on this range from disagreement with Dr. Hailey, to calling him a fraud outright. Dr. Joseph Newcomer, a document expert who produced an extensive analysis asserting the memos were forgeries, called Hailey's study "deeply flawed." http://www.flounder.com/bush2b.htm "Paul" at Wizbangblog.com caught Hailey forging his proof and leaving the work in progress on an open folder on his website. http://wizbangblog.com/2004/09/30/fact-checking-the-boston-globe-in-advance.php I have replaced the disputed passages in the article with the following: "For a detailed analysis of these issues, see Killian documents authenticity issues."

Also, Ben, I've reviewed your track history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BenBurch Front and center, you've been accused of "making bad faith edits to the Democratic Underground page" and asked to "conduct yourself in a mature manner." The typographer who started this section said, "I realize that there are a lot of people who have an ideological investment in believing that the memos are genuine." Apparently you're one of those people, Ben. Until the two of you can work out your differences amicably, I see no constructive purpose in allowing you to continue this editing war. BryanFromPalatine 17:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bryan. I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia, and accept the citation of Killian documents authenticity issues as a reasonable compromise. It is quite comprehensive. I had no idea that Ben is a "problem child" here at Wikipedia. The comments on his personal page indicate that this isn't his first rodeo. Yes, if he finds duplicating the Killian memos with 1972 equipment to be "trivially easy," then by all means he should claim the $50,000 reward without further delay. And I'm looking forward with breathless anticipation to his production of these alleged "memos from that era that are direct matches." 68.253.143.93 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben's no 'problem child'. Most editors who work on contentious political articles get accused of something or other. Par for the course. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Free republic posts not rs

While free republic statements about free republic posts are reliable sources, they are not reliable sources for anything else. Beyond this, the statement about the APJ posters being moles was not sourced, at all. No edit that attempts to improve the encyclopedia can be vandalism - please do not lable mine as such. JBKramer 19:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no further comments. I think this is a bad course of action. Dominick ^(TALK) 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

JB - Here are my thoughts. If an issue is not an 'extraordinary claim' is a 'generally accepted truth' and lacks really good sourcing, but has dozens of less-that-perfect sources - and the issue is confirmed by the subject - and there are no RS's claiming the issue false -then the multiple arguments can be weighed together to meet RS V. It is a 'generally accepted fact' that members of FR were instrumental in investigating and even solving the 'Killian Documents' incident. Were their important contributions documented by the NY Times, or even the Washington Times? No. AFAIK the only 'paper' that claimed this was a tiny newspaper in the south, sold at about 50 locations like gas stations and Quiky marts. [1] Now is that paper a more RS than 50 well-respected blogs? I don't think so. I contend that FR can be a RS on FR issues, if that issue is not 'in contention'. Therefore, with a preponderance of evidence claiming that FR was instrumental in 'solving' the Killain Docs, and NO ONE claiming otherwise - these arguments weighed together add up to WP RS V. Same with the Chad Castagana issue. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe in 'generally accepted fact'. Source or remove. If it's not reported by an WP:RS, it didn't happen. Blogs are not reliable sources. The threashold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. If you don't like the policies that make blogs not acceptable as sources, fork the project.JBKramer 22:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

JB - regarding your revert - "Chad Castagana left comments (including one stirring endorsement of Katherine Harris) at conservative websites with names like Expose The Left and Free Republic." huffington Post This combined with Jim Rob's admission combined with DOZENS of blogs, combined with NO ONE denying it = RS V. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Please include that cite in this article. If you'd like to draft a proposed paragraph here, I will review it. JBKramer 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - but please explain why FR isn't a reliable source about what happened on FR when the issue is NOT ' in contention'. My understanding is blogs are OK as sources on themselves, when there is no denial of what is being claimed. FR 'admitted' Chad was a Marc Costanzo the Freeper. Dozens of blogs say so. NO ONE is claiming otherwise. If ONE person writing on RS claimed "I know that wasn't Chad writing as Marc Costanzo - I know for a fact that he was climbing Mt Everest and didn't take his laptop". We couldn't accept it as 'truth'. The fact that there are NO opposing claims changes much. (Same with Killian docs) IMHO) - F.A.A.F.A. 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not FR saying that, it's some guy posting on their message boards. JBKramer 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(UI) Jim Robinson is the founder and owner of of FR, and speaks for FR. When he admits that Chad was a Freeper and admits that ON FR using his real name - on a highly monitored and moderated site with logins and usernames, and NO one is questioning that is was in fact Jim Robinson posting as Jim Robinson - it's Jim Robinson. No? I'm not trying to be argumentative, just reasonable. - Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In the context of FR operational matters, Jim Robinson, posting under that name, can be taken to be the authentic Jim Robinson, to speak FOR FR's owners, and to be an expert in what he is saying about FR. In short a RS. BenBurch 00:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. Jim Robinson is the owner of Free Republic and is in the capacity to speak for the site.--RWR8189 01:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Revised Chad Castagana Paragraph

How's this JB?

Chad Castagana, arrested by the FBI for allegedly sending profane and death-threatening letters containing 'white powder' to Liberal politicians, journalists, and celebrities[2] was a registered user of Free Republic,[3] and had previously been banned from Free Republic several times under various usernames. His last username, as confirmed by Free Republic's founder and owner Jim Robinson, was Marc Costanzo, and the posts in question were determined to be Castagana's through an examination the IP logs.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738800/posts] Castagana wrote about the threatening letters on Free Republic, in one case writing about Keith Olbermann's reported reaction to receiving one of the letters. Castagana, posting as Costanzo whose sig line read "Name your poison", wrote on Free Republic on 10-30-2006 regarding the Olbermann letter-threat "I do not believe he sent it to himself. But that is just guess work." and "I heard from a liberal blog that Olbermann was a prima donna at the hospital.." [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727261/posts?page=230#230]

F.A.A.F.A. 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A problem here I think is that you are the one who is making the determination that Castanga is "alluding" to the alleged crimes, not a reliable source. It seems to me to be correct, but it is not at this point verifiable.--RWR8189 01:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I changed alluded to to wrote about which assigns no connection. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Accoring to: RWR8189 (Talk | contribs) (this section cannot be included, not only because of WP:V WP:RS and WP:NOR, but because of WP:BLP accusations made against this person must be verified) Even that Jim Robinson claims it was the same guy, you can't include his name. Period. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Still, I think the problem is that you are making the connection Costanga's postings and the alleged crime and not a reliable source, the nuance of the wording isn't really relevant. Even though the plain text of his posting obviously seems to indicate some connection to the alleged crime, no cited reliable source has come out and said as much.--RWR8189 10:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It still makes the assumption that a crystall ball is used to figure out his posting was an allusion to his crime. It still unfairly links FR to a act of terrror it did not participate it and is inherently PoV. However fairness is not an issue, the issue is the prejudice that FR breeds terrorists. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Huffington is a blog and not an acceptable source on wikipedia. We still have some standards here. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(UI) The new wording does NOT indicate that he 'alluded' to it. It says he wrote about the incidents. Just like anyone else on FR wrote about the incidents. Dominick you aren't even reading before you revert. THE VERY FIRST CITE - The Daily News, a major paper in L.A, wrote 'death threats' and most other articles say 'death threats' - F.A.A.F.A. 20:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not usuing WP:FAITH I read it it cant be included.

RWR8189 (Talk | contribs) (this section cannot be included, not only because of WP:V WP:RS and WP:NOR, but because of WP:BLP accusations made against this person must be verified) Cant use the metion of the name, sorry. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

They're verified in the FBI affavdavit linked to. Dom, you don't want to start an edit war. The whole Killin Doc issue is similarly sourced using FR as a source on FR. The next time you revert, I will have to apply the same understanding of RS that you are using to the Killian section, and the ENTIRE article. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

FR is acceptable accotding to wikipedia policy as a source for the FR article. Read the policy. Huffington is a source for her blog's article. Find another source and WP:NPA. Threats are pointless, I guess you are out of proper arguments. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dom{you removed sourced material without even bothering to follow the links.[4] The daily news and the affadavit said death threats but you challenged me with the inane edit summary - prove it was a death threat without a fortune teller blogs are not sources). I am dissapointed that you are acting in such a manner. If this application of RS policy as to not accepting FR as a RS on FR is being used on Chad Casatagana, it's going to be applied to the Killian Docs too. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA I am afraid you are not being polite. On Killian the action was on FR. If your bias leads you to do that I imagine people will fight with you there. If the FBI affidavit is a matter of public record, then find a public source and not a blog. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already cut the death-threats baby in half. JBKramer 20:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, JBK - Since you're using the same application of not accepting FR as a source on FR for the Killian Doc issue as well, I accept that WP is being applied fairly, even though I don't agree with it. Will you please do the same for the 2 Killian Doc articles which have numerous claims, cites and links to FR? Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 20:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I decline. I think you all are well on your way to making this article a good example of how wikipedia should not work. Activists should not be allowed to win on the basis of the shrillest voice. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That was directed to JBKramer, not you. AGF please.- F.A.A.F.A. 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I do AGF until you showed to the contrary. Your assumption about FR clouds your judgement. You don't hurt FR here, you hurt Wikipedia. Dominick ^(TALK) 23:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop! I find Free Republic very entertaining and spend at least a half hour there every day. I assume nothing about FR as I am continually surprised by what I read there. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Chad

The Chad problem will solve itself if editors refrain from using sources that are not reliable. No blogs. No blogs. No blogs. NO BLOGS. JBKramer 20:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - check here:

Chad Castagana 39, of Woodland Hills, California was arrested on 11-12-2006 by a Joint Terrorism Task Force comprised of FBI agents from both New York and California, along with US Postal authorities, for allegedly sending profane and death-threatening letters containing 'white powder' to Liberal politicians, journalists, and celebrities.[5] Castagana was a registered user of Free Republic and had previously been banned several times under various usernames. His last username, as confirmed by Free Republic's founder and owner Jim Robinson, was Marc Costanzo, and the posts in question were determined to be Castagana's through an examination of the IP logs.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1738800/posts] Castagana wrote about the threatening letters on Free Republic, in one case noting Keith Olbermann's reported reaction to receiving one of the letters. Castagana, posting as Costanzo whose sig line read "Name your poison", wrote on Free Republic on 10-30-2006 regarding the Olbermann letter-threat "I do not believe he sent it to himself. But that is just guess work." and "I heard from a liberal blog that Olbermann was a prima donna at the hospital..." [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727261/posts?page=230#230]

Thanks - F.A.A.F.A. 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is a bias by this editor, on a predeterming notion that FR is a hate site. I guess a hatchet job this article will be... Dominick ^(TALK) 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WHAT??? I don't think FR is a hate site! You're not AGF. I love reading FR! I spend at least 30 minutes there every day. It's highly entertaining! - F.A.A.F.A. 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not better than the current paragraph. The quotes from Costano are WP:OR. JBKramer 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted that when I still thought that FR could be used as a RS on topics related to RS, if they're not 'in contention'. As long as this application is applied fairly to all the Killian claims as well (please see the other 2 related articles) I can't argue about bias being shown in an effort to include 'good' but exclude 'bad'. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

These are not facts about FR, they are facts about Chad. JBKramer 21:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Killian Documents

I don't know what the controversy is here. A quick google search turns up hundreds of news stories from the time linking Buckhead to the discovery of the forgery. Here's one.[6]--RWR8189 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you like another one? [7] This seems very silly.

Actually this seems like the perfect source needed to reinsert that entire paragraph--RWR8189 01:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I had to remove the source you cited in that paragraph as it is not a WP:RS and is just some guy's blog. Find a peer-reviewed paper or published article in a WP:RS source that says this and does not merely provide reportage of what blogs said. Blogs are no longer an acceptable source. I'm betting you can find one if you do a Nexus/Lexus search. However, if you cannot I think the paragraph must be stricken BenBurch 01:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the Weekly Standard is not "some guy's blog" it is a magazine published weekly. This article[8] was published in the September 27, 2004 issue. The other article was printed in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette [9]--RWR8189 02:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not the source I removed! --BenBurch 02:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, those are the only sources I entered, the rest I just reinserted from an earlier version.--RWR8189 03:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --BenBurch 03:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You CAN mention the issue, however, if you do not make authoritative claims about the document. You must say things like; "It was widely reported that...", but not "100% identical" which you would need a peer-reviewed paper to establish. --BenBurch 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The end of the paragraph looks like it could use a rewrite, its hard to follow, but here some useful links for someone who would like to. CBS stands by documents authenticity CBS no longer stands by authenticity

I don't know much about the typewriter issues, someone else can deal with that.--RWR8189 03:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the RS V sourcing for this claim? "Nineteen minutes after its broadcast began, poster "TankerKC" questioned the documents on-line, stating they were "not in the style that we used when I came into the USAF." A quick read of the articles only found Buckhead, not TankerKC either. Thanks - I don't think the article can link to the thread in FR either, if I am understanding JB's interpetation of WP correctly. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is a reliable source. They are using the FR thread to cite their quotes, there's nothing wrong with that. Here is an article[10] from the Columbia Journalism Review highlighting TankerKC's role in the affair.--RWR8189 08:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard - which that thoroughly disproven Conspiracy Theorist Stephen Hayes writes for - a RS??? I guess we'll have to disagree on that! Thanks for adding the CJR link to cite the '19 minute' claim. - F.A.A.F.A. 09:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• As for the typewriter aspect of the story, the above Weekly standard describes the source that was removed earlier as such:

The biggest news of the day came again from the Internet, where Joseph M. Newcomer posted on his website (www.flounder.com/bush.htm) an incredibly detailed, scientific, 7,000-word explanation of why the documents were necessarily forgeries. Today his account remains definitive.

I'm posting this because I don't know if this satisfies WP:RS, and if it does how the paragraph could be written to include this information.--RWR8189 08:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've given this some thought, and I cannot see how a tertiary reference to something that is original research and not peer-reviewed could ever elevate the material to WP:RS. I suggest that you write to the owner of that page and suggest that he submit the paper he assembled to a peer-reviewed forensics journal. If they will publish it, then it becomes a WP:RS, and at least colorable as science, but until them, it is just some guy's opinions. --BenBurch 02:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You can, of course, say that "The Weekly Standard quotes a blogger named Joseph M. Newcomer as having prepared a 7000 word assertion that the documents were forgeries." and then link the WS article. The reader can find the link in the reference if he or she cares to. But a RS mentioning a link to a non-RS cannot make it a RS. If it COULD, I have a friendly RS who would elevate anything I wanted to use on Wikipedia... --BenBurch 02:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

*Ben's Citation Requests

The very first post attacking the memos — nineteen minutes into the 60 Minutes II program — was on the right-wing Web site FreeRepublic.com by an active Air Force officer, Paul Boley of Montgomery, Alabama, who went by the handle “TankerKC.”[11]

But it did not come from an expert in typography or typewriter history, as some first thought. Instead, the Los Angeles Times has found that it was the work of Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes. He helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar then-President Bill Clinton following the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The identity of "Buckhead," a blogger known previously only by his screen name on the Web site freerepublic.com... [12]--RWR8189 00:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't Cite them HERE, Silly!

Cite them in the article! I believe you when you say something, but in 20 years somebody else might not! Cite the cites where you make the assertion of fact. Especially where you are naming a name in a way that might excite some WP:BIO concerns! --BenBurch 01:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that the battle over the Killian document "authenticity" issues continues to rage, two years after most people (including CBS) have moved on to other topics. I also notice that three weeks after BenBurch claimed that duplicating the superscript in the Killian memos with early 1970s equipment would be "trivially easy," he still hasn't claimed the $50,000 reward for doing it; and that three weeks after claiming that there are "memos from that era that are direct matches," and being asked where they are, he has been unable to respond. And he tries to discredit Dr. Joseph M. Newcomer, one of the nation's leading authorities in Microsoft document analysis ( http://www.flounder.com/resume.htm ), as "some blogger" because Dr. Newcomer is puncturing one of his most cherished self-delusions: that the Killian documents are genuine. Ben, you're far too emotionally invested in this to be objective. It appears that you've made it your mission in life to portray Free Republic in the most negative way that you can, and revert any changes that others might make in seeking a NPOV. I have also noticed that in the preceding Wiki section, "Influencing polls," the word "vandalism" was used twice. But the FR threads that are linked contain admonitions to fellow Freepers to be polite and civil, and engage in constructive actions. In my opinion, use of the word "vandalism" is inflammatory and distorts what actually happened. I am replacing it with the word "action."

TO THE EDITORS: I HAVE REQUESTED MEDIATION. PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN MEDIATION.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Free_Republic

Let's talk about reaching a consensus on NPOV and RS regarding the Killian memos and Chad Castagana, produce a semi-finalized version that exemplifies everything Wikipedia is supposed to be, and LOCK IT UP to prevent further reverts and editings by people whose sole purpose in life is to smear Free Republic. BryanFromPalatine 17:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I see that BenBurch is engaging in a revert war, going so far as to revert my capitalization of the word "american," and my correction of the misspelled word "aappears." Citation of the Killian documents authenticity issues Wikipedia article should be perfectly acceptable. Dr. Newcomer's credentials are easily verified by contacting Carnegie-Mellon University. Ben, do you need their phone number? BryanFromPalatine 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Political Violence

Who removed the section documenting the FR's love of political violence? That's one of the main undercurrents of the website!!! I will restore it. I am a FReeper by the way, but I do not support the site's wanton encouragement of violence. Grrr! - unsigned note from User:68.33.185.185 .

Feel free to add it in if you can make the entry conform with the rules.--BenBurch 04:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's too bad that the account of the incident where someone published Martin Sheen's home address on FR, and several Freepers then discussed which rifle round was best for both 'hunting' and 'target practice', in the same thread can't be linked to, but it wouldn't pass RS V, even though it has the poster's usernames and timestamp etc. I think the FR consensus was that a .308 would suit 'the job' best. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Create a web site documenting those things. If you like, I'll give you some space for it.--BenBurch 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be able to add FR threads as documentation. 99.999% of FR's work is done online on those message boards anyway, so it's only fair that they be used as evidence.

Review WP:RS. Forum posts are not reliable sources. JBKramer 18:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sigh.

Stuff with source tags

I think it would be a good idea to strip the article of all things with source tags, and re-build it just with properly sourced material. The present article is largely without sourcing, and I don't think people will be motivated to source it until it is stripped down to just the facts. Note, this is NOT an attempt to censor the article. I firmly believe that acceptable sources can be found for most of what is now here, but this is not presently an encyclopedic article, and that needs to be fixed. BenBurch 14:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

poll not RS

The poll speaks to the composition of the user base, not the beliefs of Free Republic the website. Free Republic's published pages can be used to make statements about Free Republic only. Polls of their user base cannot be used for anything. JBKramer 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the alleged consensus

I can get myself in trouble without your help, if indeed this was meant as help. You are making it very hard for me to argue against these anti-consensus edits. --BenBurch 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's a consensus here, it was reached without my participation. I want to reopen the discussion of this consensus. I can't be here 24/7. My last participation here was November 16 and evidently, in the time that has passed since then, a consensus was reached in my absence. I suggest that the word "vandalism" is inflammatory, particularly since the threads that are linked do not advocate vandalism; that citation of the Wiki article Killian documents authenticity issues is perfectly acceptable; and that citation of Dr. Newcomer's credentials is also perfectly acceptable, in light of certain efforts to discredit him as "some blogger." -- BryanFromPalatine 21:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we declare a moratorium on the reverts until a new consensus is reached? Cease-fire anyone? Also, would anyone care to specify your objections to the changes I've made: (1) changing two uses of the word "vandalism" to "action," since there's no evidence vandalism was encouraged; (2) citing Dr. Newcomer's credentials (Microsoft MVP since 1993; doctorate in computer science from Carnegie-Mellon University), in light of efforts to discredit him as "some blogger"; and (3) citing another Wikipedia article, Killian documents authenticity issues. Please speak with candor. What is the nature of your objections? Is it because they take one baby step toward making it a genuinely NPOV article, or because they make too much sense?

Also, I've noticed that the entire article consists of about one-third "definition of Free Republic," and two-thirds "laundry list of everything negative that can be even remotely associated with Free Republic," the ongoing effort to include every detail about Chad Castagana being only the most recent symptom. There is absolutely no mention of anything positive about Free Republic, or the many positive things they have done (such as fundraiser after fundraiser for victims of natural disasters). To the best of my knowledge, this has never been done to any organization that is left of center. For example, the serial killer John Wayne Gacy was a Democratic precinct committeeman. That fact is mentioned in his Wiki article, but not in the Wiki article for the Democratic Party. If you're going to mention that Chad Castagana was a freeper in the Free Republic article, I'm going to start rummaging through all the articles about left-of-center organizations and making sure that their John Wayne Gacys are mentioned prominently.

And one other thing: let's talk about the "External Links" at the bottom of the article. Why are all the articles about Free Republic from non-FR sources written by people like William Rivers Pitt and Michael Niman, who clearly harbor a tremendous amount of animosity toward Free Republic? Aren't you able to find any unbiased or friendly articles about Free Republic, to balance those out? In general, this isn't an encyclopedia article; it's a hit piece. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You wote "To the best of my knowledge, this has never been done to any organization that is left of center." LOL! EVERY notable Wiki article with contentious political content is a battlefield - Right and left. Check the ACLU article, and the talk page where one POV warrior claims that 18% of the ACLU's donations come from al Qaeda! If you can find some RS V sources that praise Free Republic please include that info. - F.A.A.F.A. 03:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "If you can find some RS V sources that praise Free Republic please include that info." Evidently nobody here has even tried to find such articles. Without very much effort at all, I've found a few. I'll be adding them after I've done a complete search. -- BryanFromPalatine 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If they do not correspond to the LETTER of WP:RS & WP:V they will be removed rather quickly. Make certain you have read that non-optional policy and actually understand it. --BenBurch 03:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I'd like to thank you for pointing out the stringent standards of WP:RS. On those grounds, William Rivers Pitt and Michael Niman are disqualified as RS. I'm deleting them.

Regarding the inclusion of Chad Castagana material in this article, I've journeyed to the article about the Democratic Party and added a section about John Wayne Gacy, as well as two Democratic presidents who have been impeached, and 23 Democratic Congressmen who have been convicted on criminal charges in the past 40 years. It was almost instantly the target of multiple reverts, even after my first revert left out the information about Gacy. All of the others were federal elected officials of the Democratic Party, but information about them was still reverted by the guardians of that article.

Chad Castagana has never held the same level of importance, leadership or trust at Free Republic as William Jefferson Clinton, and such members of Congress as Edward M. Kennedy, Dan Rostenkowski and Mel Reynolds have held within the Democratic Party. Therefore the following admonition by Jersyko, paraphrased to apply to the facts in the FR article debate, makes an even more compelling argument that all information about Chad Castagana and the Chuy's personal info posts must be deleted from this article:

"BenBurch and friends recently added the Chad Castagana material and the Chuy's material about specific scandals involving individuals who just so happen to be former members of Free Republic who were repeatedly banned. While I strongly believe that articles about political organizations should discuss major scandals intimately tied to those organizations (Watergate should obviously be discussed in the Republican Party's article, for instance), the "scandals" added by BenBurch and friends are not, in fact, "Free Republic scandals," but rather scandals involving individuals who just so happen to be former members of Free Republic who were repeatedly banned. Thus, the additions, in my view, easily violate WP:NPOV and are inappropriate to list in *this* article (but not in Chad Castagana's article) per WP:NPOV#Undue weight (on top of the fact that the Castagana material and the Chuy's personal info material are unencyclopedic, or at least written as such). Finally, both scandals are essentially entirely unreferenced, causing WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP problems. Though the lack of citations could be cured, the NPOV problem cannot. On top of all of the above is the fact that it's just a bad idea to set a precedent where editors go to political organization articles and add subsections full of things like "Democratic member of Congress, MAIL FRAUD"."

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Turnabout is fair play. What goes around, comes around. If it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include information about Chad Castagana and the Chuy's personal information posts in the FR article, then it is appropriate to include information about every registered Democratic voter who was ever arrested for a crime in the Democratic Party article; it is appropriate to include information about every person who ever had an account at DU and was ever arrested for a crime in the DU article; etc., etc. Pick a policy and apply it equally across the board.

Regarding the material on Bahrain -- under the inflammatory headline, "Call for US authorities to end Free Republic's 'misuse' of the net" -- only one citation to any source was provided that may, at one time, have had something to do with Free Republic. Currently it links to an empty page at a "Gulf News" website of questionable reliability. There are two other links providing information on a Bahraini terrorist group with absolutely no mention of Free Republic. I have added {{Fact}} to that section in the spot where the blank "Gulf News" page used to be linked. If no one can produce a RS to support this claim within 24 hours, I'll be deleting that section as well.

And here's another issue: BenBurch is continuing to delete the sentence, "For further information on these issues, see Killian documents authenticity issues." I'd like to know why anyone has a problem with citing another Wiki article that is directly relevant, provides a wealth of additional information, and is an outstanding exemplary NPOV article to boot. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you FRiend, just remember to keep WP:POINT in mind while editing.--RWR8189 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• You went far beyond adding in that sentence to removing significant material from the article. I have reverted it. You do appear to be attempting to make a WP:POINT here. I referenced the article you mention in a MUCH less clumsy manner by making it a hyperlink from the text of the paragraph itself. --BenBurch 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Removing significant material" that is not just a significant, but substantial violation of Wikipedia standards regarding WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The only WP:POINT I'm trying to make here is that you are treating Free Republic differently. You insist on including the kind of material that, for any article about a liberal political organization, would be reverted off the page instantly. And for the Bahrain BS, you're still trying to link a blank page on a website of questionable reliability. BryanFromPalatine 04:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree. Please note that editors allowed to be bold in making their edits. However, the Gulf Daily News is not unlike many British news sources, particularly The Sun. Bryan, please do not blank entire sections. You cannot deny that, at least, some of the criticism must be included. If you wish to trim it down, then please discuss on the talk page first. --Strothra 04:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Castagana incident is as relevent as the Killian documents because both issues were discussed in the news, on FR by the principles, the membership of FR, and by Jim Robinson. As noted: Castagana wrote about the letter-threat incidents on Free Republic, in one case noting Keith Olbermann's reported reaction to receiving one of the letters Castagana is alleged to have sent. Castagana, posting as Costanzo whose sig line read "Name your poison", wrote on Free Republic on October 30, 2006 regarding the Olbermann letter-threat "I do not believe he sent it to himself. But that is just guess work." and "I heard from a liberal blog that Olbermann was a prima donna at the hospital..." That's notable and worthy of inclusion. - F.A.A.F.A. 05:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to Bryan. Here is the Gulf News Article Let Juma die says US website. By the way, Will Pitt is a notable published author, thus his articles on FR are 100% inclusionable. - F.A.A.F.A. 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"You cannot deny that, at least, some of the criticism must be included." Strothra, removing the entire sections on Castagana, Chuy's and Bahrain still leaves abundant criticism. Jim Robinson's own comments speak for themselves. If political incorrectness is a crime, he hangs himself with his own rope. But this article, except for a couple of paragraphs at the beginning, consisted of nothing but criticism. "The Castagana incident is as relevent as the Killian documents because both issues were discussed in the news, on FR by the principles ..." John Wayne Gacy was also discussed in the news, and in the Democratic Party by its principles. But I've been instructed that mentioning him in the Democratic Party's Wiki article violates Wikipedia's standards regarding WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

"Here is the Gulf News Article ..." It's a cached Google copy from the Bahrain organization's own website, not the "Gulf News" website. It's double hearsay -- first passing through the Bahrain organization's hands, then Google's. Furthermore, if some self-styled "human rights activist" in Bahrain demanded that the US government shut down Democratic Underground for its "misuse of the Internet," do you believe for one microsecond that its inclusion in the DU Wiki article would be tolerated? Focusing the entire FR article on such incidents is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight.

"By the way, Will Pitt is a notable published author, thus his articles on FR are 100% inclusionable." In your dreams. Will Pitt's work is almost entirely self-published. Specifically, the articles you're seeking to include in this Wiki article are published by an extremely biased source. If Rush Limbaugh wrote poison pen articles about DU and they were published on FR, should they be included in the DU article here at Wiki? See WP:V#SELF. Also, I observe that when reverting the citations of Will Pitt, you also reverted the citations of Michael Niman, a self-published nobody whom you haven't even attempted to defend. The Salon article is RS and I've left it in. -- BryanFromPalatine 09:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Will Pitt's work is almost entirely self-published" LOL! Will Pitt's books

"It's a cached Google copy from the Bahrain organization's own website, not the "Gulf News" website. It's double hearsay -- first passing through the Bahrain organization's hands, then Google's."

"When a link in the Reference section (a link to a source for information in the article) "goes dead", it should be repaired or replaced if possible - If you cannot find the page on the Internet Archive, remember that you can often find recently deleted pages in Google's cache." Dead Links

Bryan, meaning no disrespect, I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wiki Policy. It will help you avoid mistakes and misperceptions. You already admitted to violating WP:POINT with your edits to the DNC article. I wouldn't want to see you get banned. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your assertion that:

"removing the entire sections on Castagana, Chuy's and Bahrain still leaves abundant criticism"'

Shows a basic misunderstanding of WP. If its notable, verifiable and sourced, its inclusionable. Why don't you find some praise for Free Republic for inclusion? Certainly David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, Pat Robertson, or some other notable conservative must have written something nice about FR. - F.A.A.F.A. 10:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FAAFA, regarding the "dead link": you're carefully ignoring the fact that it's not even a Google cache of the "Gulf News" website. It's a Google cache of some unknown website of questionable reliability. And who's being quoted? Is he the Bahraini version of Paul Simon, or Lyndon LaRouche? Is he regarded as a voice of progressive reason, or a voice of lunacy? Anyone can demand that the US government shut down some publication that criticizes him or his sacred cow. Whether that demand should be included in a Wiki article about that publication depends on who's making the demand, particularly since what he's demanding would be a sweeping violation by the federal government of the First Amendment rights of thousands of very partisan, but 100% law-abiding American citizens.

Regarding Will Pitt, three books published by Pluto Press, Context Press and PoliPoint Press (rather than Random House or Ballantine, for example) plus regular, almost daily self-publication on Truthout.com for six solid years means his work is "almost entirely self-published." Like his tremendous body of self-published work on Truthout.com, you carefully ignore another point I made: that the articles you seek to include in the Wiki article were self-published in an extremely biased, partisan source.

I don't care whether Pitt has a tiny number of other works that were published by tiny little publishing houses that he doesn't happen to control. The works you're posting here, at Wikipedia, were in fact self-published. Like any other clever self-promoter, Pitt tailors his communicating style. In order to get published in the mainstream press (and make the "name" for himself that you're now flaunting), he tones down his partisan rhetoric. In all other venues, specifically in the extremely biased self-published source you're posting, he lets his freak flag fly. This is an obvious WP:V#SELF violation. The work you're posting wasn't even published by Pluto Press. It was published by Truthout.com.

I've noticed that you deleted a couple of Salon articles that were actually balanced, replacing them with Will Pitt's hit pieces. What was wrong with the Salon articles? Also, you keep sneaking in that Michael Niman hit piece. Who is Michael Niman? Is he a Paul Simon, or a Lyndon LaRouche? And regarding Castagana, Chuy's etc. you persistently ignore and repeat the obvious WP:NPOV#Undue weight violation. -- BryanFromPalatine 12:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On use of my quote and more

BryanFromPalatine "paraphrases" my statement at Talk:Democratic Party (United States) above. My actual comment (which is not entirely relevant to the discussion on this talk page), is the first one in this subsection, and a follow up comment (which might be relevant to this Free Republic discussion), is [13].

The policies at play in the Democratic Party article that BryanFromPalatine violated with the addition to the Democratic Party article are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I have no idea what action these policies compel in this article. In the Democratic Party article, however, these problems could be cured by: (1) the first three by simply citing references and (2) while undue weight could likely not be cured completely in that particular circumstance, the *major* Democratic Party scandals (e.g., impeachment of Clinton) should be (and now are) discussed in the article text, but not in a list.

My impression of the situation in the Free Republic article (and I'm not completely aware of the situation here, nor, frankly, do I want to be) is that there is one scandal involving a prominent (?) Free Republic member. Assuming citations to reliable sources can be found, the verifiability, original research, and BLP problems are easily cured. Because it's only one scandal (or at least a small number of scandals), and assuming a reasonable amount of text is devoted to it here (as opposed to an excessive amount), there is no undue weight problem. The only decision left is one of editorial judgment--is the scandal closely enough related to Free Republic to discuss it in this article, or is it's relationship to Free Republic so tangential that it really needs to be discussed only in the article on the individual involved in the scandal?

This was a question I answered in the negative for most of the additions to the Democratic Party article in the main, but in the positive for major Democratic Party scandals (impeachment). As I've demonstrated, however, the situations in the Democratic Party article and the Free Republic article are, I think, very different, in that the addition to the Democratic Party article necessitated both editorial judgment and the application of numerous policies, including undue weight, whereas the situation here, assuming the addition is referenced, will only call for editorial judgment as there is likely no undue weight problem.

Finally, I would appreciate it if (1) no one attempts to use my editorial judgment or interpretation of policy AS policy, as no one on Wikipedia has such power (other than perhaps Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee), and (2) no one "paraphrases" my words such that my original quotation is taken out of context or its meaning is otherwise twisted. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing: I'm not certain if this is relevant to this article or not, but if sourced criticism is being removed wholesale from this article (i.e., criticism of Free Republic in general, not relating to a single-member scandal), there is a de facto WP:NPOV violation (completely unrelated to undue weight). Undue weight merely commands that we not devote *excessive* amounts of attention to something. It does NOT excuse deletion of sourced criticism completely. If there is not one already, an RFC might be a good idea. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... A consensus suddenly no longer being a consensus based upon one person's opinion. Where have I heard that before? Just wondering. Jinxmchue 20:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Latest Edits

RWR, your edits to the Castagana info are OK with me, and as an act of good faith, I reduced them some more. I think the title of the section on the Bahrain claims could be changed to be more accurate, and reflect their actual concerns as well. Maybe something like Charges of Islamophobia. I'm open to other suggestions too. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This section needs to go:

Many posts on Free Republic are devoted to the ridicule of persons or groups perceived as anathema to conservatives. The site's officially stated policy is to remove blatantly racist or bigoted postings. [www.freerepublic.com/help.htm#guidelines]

Jim Robinson, the founder of the forums, has publicly called for all homosexuals to be removed from "churches, universities, schools, the military, the Boy Scouts" and other public institutions. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1713830/posts] He has endorsed what many people would consider to be anti-science views. He has described the theory of evolution as not being science, but "socialist dogma" which is imposed "on our school children". [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725737/posts?page=91#91] He has also equated the theory with homosexuality, paganism, and Islamic extremism. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1725737/posts?page=194#194]. He further asserts that the theory of evolution can't be true because it makes the Bible a lie, the Declaration of Independence a lie, the Bill of Rights a lie, and in fact, all history a lie [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732037/posts?page=84#84].''

It is all originial research. Find a reliable source making these criticisms and it can come back.--RWR8189 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Jim Robinson is a reliable source on Jim Robinson. Period. --BenBurch 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but the person classifying what he said as "criticism" is original research. He did not classify it as criticism, nor did a reliable source, only the editor that inserted in the article found it to be critical or controversial.--RWR8189 02:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will re-cast those issues in a more acceptable manner. --BenBurch 03:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"My impression of the situation in the Free Republic article ... is that there is one scandal involving a prominent (?) Free Republic member." No, Chad Castagana was never a "prominent" FR member. In fact, Robinson has said that Castagana has been repeatedly banned. He is persona non grata and he never held a position of any trust or authority. If Jim Robinson himself had mailed those bogus anthrax envelopes rather than Castagana, and if Robinson himself had been arrested and indicted for it, including this incident would be within bounds. But Chad Castagana is, and always has been, a nobody to them. On the other hand, removing Robinson's statements about creation, gays etc. takes away the only "criticism" posted here that doesn't violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It is properly linked to Robinson's own statements. Robinson's signed statements on his own website should be considered a reliable source concerning his own extremism -- and, by implication, the kind of extremism he's willing to tolerate on his website. He hangs himself with his own rope with these statements. But hanging Castagana and the Chuy's incident around his neck tells us that every political organization is going to be held responsible for the misconduct of even its most erstwhile outcasts and newbies. It says that a list of Democratic scandals should be posted at the Democratic Party article under the header, "Criticism"; and that even John Wayne Gacy's crimes should be included. If it's inappropriate for the Democratic Party article, it's inappropriate for the Free Republic article. My objections to the self-published comments of Will Pitt, Michael Niman and an unknown Bahraini are well summarized by WP:V#SELF. I realize that a lot of you have worked hard on these sections. It's as though this is 1905 and you've been designing the perfect horse-drawn carriage for the past five years, ignoring the automobiles as they rumbled by on the streets in ever increasing numbers. -- BryanFromPalatine 02:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I too have problems with the criticism section, specifically its inclusion and characterization of some of the founder's posts on the website:

1) First of all, I question whether his opinions are even notable. He doesn't have his own article in wikipedia nor even a section of the article on the organization he founded, Free Republic.

2) While I (and obviously the person who included them) believe his views are extremist, to describe them factually as such is at best espousing a non-neutral point of view. I think anytime someone's views are labeled it is a good idea to source who is doing the labeling. In this case, there is no reliable source and hence I believe this to be violation of at least WP:NPOV and probably WP:OR.

3) Lastly, I don't see any notable criticism in either this section of the article or the sources themselves. How can they be included in a criticism section when there is no criticism?

I have removed this section of the criticism section. Lawyer2b 21:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What I left on BFP's user talk page

“ Your change was determined to be unhelpful and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Indeed, you made a mess of the article by not reading it before you edited it, and by blanking sections that you had been warned by several other editors not to blank. Please don't do this. You do not own the Free Republic article by virtue of being a member of that august body, nor are you the first person who objected to the material that you are trying to censor. This article had been a bone of contention here before you ever heard of Wikipedia, and will be probably long after you have given up on it, and is the way it is because of consensus. And I think you can see that all you are doing is motivating the addition of more material of the sort you object to. Now, please try to calmly discuss changes and convince the rest of us why you think they are a good idea. You will find us not unreasonable if you are not trying to be a confrontation bully who refuses to accept the good faith efforts of others, which is all we have seen of you to date.

”

--BenBurch 05:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Freeptard

Um... RWR8189? Freeptard gets over 1500 ghits. It is used. I've seen it used a dozen times in the last month on different boards. It's just as relevant as DUmmie for a DUer. --BenBurch 05:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It gets the exact same number of hits as Freeploader, 1570, with many, many more non-FR hits. I also agree that it's just as relevant as 'DUmmie' - F.A.A.F.A. 06:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see he reverted it. Thanks, RWR. --BenBurch 06:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Informal Mediation?

I see that formal mediation for this article was rejected. When I was involved in disputes on the Protest Warrior article, two different Admins helped informally mediate.

They were:

Kuzaar

and

≈ jossi ≈

Should we request informal mediation from one of these two admins? - F.A.A.F.A. 06:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

YES. Ask both -- that way, we can be fairly sure that at least one will participate. And I will clarify that formal mediation was requested by me, and rejected by BenBurch. I sought an amicable resolution early and repeatedly, and that effort was rejected repeatedly. -- BryanFromPalatine 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing from you has been amicable whatsover. From you we have gotten only hostility and assertions of entitlement. --BenBurch 16:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Read my comments on November 16. Zero hostility. Notice my use of the word "amicably" in my attempt to informally mediate your dispute with an expert typesetter who apparently hasn't set up a Wiki account. I've never made any assertions of entitlement -- only assertions of your own hypocrisy. Pick a policy and apply it equally across the board. If you want it applied to the FR article, I want it applied to the Democratic Party article, the DU article, the Truthout article, the Daily Kos article, the Smirking Chimp article, the Bartcop article, etc., etc. Any mention of Chad Castagana in this article is exactly like mentioning John Wayne Gacy's service as a Democratic precinct committeeman in the Democratic Party article, with one important exception: Gacy was elected to a position of trust and authority by the Democratic Party. Castagana held no such position at Free Republic.

I notice that you've removed your "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on" comment and the associated exchange on your own talk page. Was that hostility, Ben? Have I ever, before or after, approached that level of hostility? I'm reverting the obvious violations of WP:NPOV#Undue Weight and WP:V#SELF once again. It is disputed material and it should be left out until the dispute is resolved. If you insist on including that material, justify it to an informal mediator first. I'll be happy to participate and I will be a model of civility. As the article now stands at this moment, it is balanced. It contains plenty of criticism concerning FR policy about comments on homosexuals, the teaching of evolution, liberalism, etc. Including more -- and, in particular, including material about Castagana and the Chuy's incident (thereby identifying FR with them, in the same way that identifying the Democratic Party with Gacy has been rejected) -- would make it the hit piece that you and FAAFA evidently want. -- BryanFromPalatine 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked Kuzaar to mediate. If he doesn't show up with 24 hours, I'll ask Jossi. BFP, meaning no disrespect, but you are what Wiki considers a 'single purpose account' with your edits on FR, and your passion for FR may be influencing your POV. Each article stands on its own, There no way to argue that since the DNC article doesn't mention John Wayne Gacy, then the FR article can't mention Chad Castagana. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Single Purpose Account?

--BenBurch 21:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

BFP, have you been looking for praise of FR for inclusion? I did last night, and only found more criticism. IMHO, the best way for the article to achieve the 'balance' you think it needs is to find MSM articles praising FR from notable sources. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that this issue has been the subject of much contention since I last looked in on November 16, and that the discussion has spread to other elements of the article. I am an expert typographer, having used the IBM Selectric Composer every day for five years and I have over 30 years of experience in the typesetting industry. There is no question that the "Killian memos" are forgeries. I fully support BFP and the changes he seeks to make, so consider the fact when calculating consensus. BFP's changes will improve this article from the standpoint of "neutral point of view." Leaving out all of the Chad Castagana material and the William Pitt and Michael Niman links would still leave a great deal of criticism, and a great deal more that reasonable people would criticize on sight, such as Robinson's comments about gays and about teaching evolution in schools. Much of what some of the other editors have described here about Free Republic was delivered in a snarky, snotty tone -- not just in the "Talk" pages here, but in the article itself. Your left-wing bias drips from every pore like sweat on an August day. 208.250.137.2 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Count my vote in the consensus as a vote in favor of the changes Bryan wants to make. 12ptHelvetica 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about the Killian Memos but find it interesting that Little Green Footballs and Powerline are named in a WAPO and other articles as the chief contributors to solving the puzzle, not FR. By the way, continued comments like "Your left-wing bias drips from every pore like sweat on an August day." will get you nowhere but into 'the penalty box' on Wiki. You might also try a username if you wish to be taken seriousely here. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note that DNSstuff.com reports that 208.250.137.2 is in Palatine, IL, the same place that BryanFromPalatine claims to be from... --BenBurch 12:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock Puppet? Well then, Bryan has about 66,000 other sock puppets at FreeRepublic.com. Sure, I'm a sock puppet if that's what you're calling us these days. Count me in. -- ArlingtonTX 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the right term for when he goes off and recruits living bodies is "Meatpuppet". It is still not a valid way to form a consensus. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets --BenBurch 01:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder, it is a violation to get around a block by using an IP address...

A word to the wise. --BenBurch 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, continued comments like "Your left-wing bias drips from every pore like sweat on an August day." will get you nowhere but into 'the penalty box' on Wiki. I think it was an accurate comment. I've read all of your comments and all of BenBurch's comments in these Talk pages, and I've read the biased Free Republic article that you're fighting so diligently to defend. I've compared it with the Democratic Party article, the Democratic Underground article, and the articles about the other left-wing websites that Bryan mentioned. Free Republic is being singled out for ridicule, and being linked with every miscreant who ever had an account there. Your left-wing bias really does "drip from every pore like sweat on an August day." Treat Free Republic with the same respect that other Wiki editors have treated the Democratic Party and other liberal groups, and Bryan won't have a leg to stand on. 12ptHelvetica 22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not my fault that Free Republic is viewed as so extreme that even mainstream conservatives like Sean Hannity pointed it out for criticism: "He then tells a story about how years ago he used to follow the Freepers, but left the board (and everyone he knows left it as well) because of “childish, immature personal attacks.” He then alludes that the Freepers have a “propensity to eat their own” and is adamant that his bulletin board will not be taken over by “fringe people” I.E. the Freepers." [14] The attempts to paint an extremist site like FR as some sort of big tent conservative forum that reflects the diversity of the views contained in the conservative movement like those of Gay Conservatives, Arab American Republicans, or centrist Republicans like Guiliani or Mccain is dishonest. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

So many sock puppets. Who next? Ollie Dragon? Or Lambchop? --BenBurch 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• A formal allegation of sockpuppetry to get around an administrator 3rr block has been filed. Not honest enough to wait the 24 Hrs for the block to expire? For shame! --BenBurch 12:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you didn't post the evidence page, I was allowed to delete the notice. There are thousands of real, live conservatives at Free Republic -- what in the world makes you think I'd ever need sock puppets? And I've used my first revert of the day. 12ptHelvetica, welcome aboard. Kindest regards, everyone -- BryanFromPalatine 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Bryan: have you been looking for praise of FR for inclusion, like I suggested? What have you found? I did, and only found more criticism, even from conservatives like Hannity who called it fringe and left FR because it was so extreme. The best way for the article to achieve the 'balance' you think it needs is to find MSM articles praising FR from notable sources. I suggest you do just that, because I've found even more mainstream and conservative criticism, and when this article goes to mediation or an RfC, and I present 10+ RS V sources documenting that FR is extremist site which has a history of Islamophobia, death threats, calls to violence, etc etc, your unsubstantiated claims about how great Free Republic are not going to be given much credence. Good luck. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Brian, I don't want you to end up getting blocked again, so please review WP:3RR, the three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence. Everyone in this discussion needs to act rationally, assume good faith and try to hammer out a consensus.--RWR8189 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is established. Count the votes. Bryan, 12ptHelvetica, RWR8189 and myself against F.A.A.F.A. and Ben Burch. Four votes to two. -- ArlingtonTX 21:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Make that five votes to two. And before BenBurch starts crying about sock puppets, I would like to urge Bryan, 12ptHelvetica, RWR8189 and ArlingtonTX to join me in requesting a thorough investigation. We are all very real, live, breathing, flesh and blood human beings. There is nothing of the sock or the puppet about us. We are all posting from different IP addresses. May the Wiki gods investigate those statements and confirm that they are true. DP1976 22:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(UI) I've asked Jossi to informally mediate as I think Kuzaar might be out of town. I notice three 'brand new' editors, who seem to already know the issues and people invloved in the dispute here. DP1976, ArlingtonTx, and 12pt, can you tell us how you all happened to sign up on Wiki and find this article in the same short space of time? A post on Free Republic? A ping list? Thanks. - F.A.A.F.A. 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice three 'brand new' editors, who seem to already know the issues and people invloved in the dispute here. They can read. The dispute is right out there in exquisite detail for everyone to read, with the names of all the people involved and all of the issues carefully itemized. Wikipedia is a well-known website with a lot of traffic. It should come as no surprise to you that there are three new accounts appearing on the same weekend, from Wikipedia users who happened to notice the revert war and decided to get involved.

DP1976, ArlingtonTx, and 12pt, can you tell us how you all happened to sign up on Wiki and find this article in the same short space of time? A post on Free Republic? A ping list? If I posted something on Free Republic or used a ping list, there would be dozens of them, maybe even hundreds. There are three. -- BryanFromPalatine 00:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)