Talk:Free Republic: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:16, 20 June 2010 editBenBurch (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users3,364 edits →Attacks on Obama family: concur← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:13, 25 June 2010 edit undoJmabel (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators90,299 edits →Cheap shot: new sectionNext edit →
Line 48:		Line 48:

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

			== Cheap shot ==

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

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

Revision as of 18:13, 25 June 2010

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

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

Article policies

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

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

Blogging (inactive)

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

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages, please.)

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions.

Archives

For additional early discussions (April 14, 2005–October 11, 2006), which overlap those in Talk:Free Republic/Archive 1 (July 9, 2004–July 9, 2006) and Talk:Free Republic/Archive 2 (July 9, 2006–November 16, 2006), see Talk:James Robinson.

Attacks on Obama family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheap shot

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

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

Category:

Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions