Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:49, 17 May 2011

	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

Conservatism C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

1. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 1
2. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 2
3. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 3
4. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 4
5. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 5
6. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 6
7. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 7
8. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 8
9. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 9
10. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 10
11. Talk:Free Republic/Archive 11

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)

The author of the Vancouver Sun article, Chris Parry, is a member of a rival progressive website and has made extremely inflammatory and contemptuous posts there. His bias against Free Republic has been thoroughly exposed. If we're going to include his article as a reliable source, and quote from it for an entire paragraph, then we'll need to qualify all that with information about Parry's bias. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to talk about the author; it's not as if he needs to spin comments like "To entertain her daughter, Michelle Obama loves to make monkey sounds." Besides, if you were to document the bias of every writer cited in wikipedia in the very article, it would take years to do the whole wiki. 188.95.42.176 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2011 (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)

I'm going back on forth on whether to include it. I decided to leave it in, but am certainly open to a debate on the subject. I would ordinarily consider it a non-notable criticism, but it is likely more notable here when charged against a website full of "morality police." I also tried to make the statement a little less ambigous. I've removed the weasel word "critics" and named the specific critic. There may be other "critics" who have made a similar point, but the one I linked was where the quote actually came from. If we are going to include a direct quote, then we should definitely credit the quote in-line. The sentence has become a bit unweildy and someone with a better command of proper grammar may wish to take a look and rearrange it a bit. Sperril (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an opinion, and we report facts about opinions. The mainstream media don't give much coverage to political message boards, so when they do, any such criticism is probably notable enough to be reported. The way to balance it would be to include anything that Robinson or some FR supporter has said on the subject. JamesMLane t c 00:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The line is absolutely a cheap shot, out of context and placed without response at the very end to make it appear Free Republic supports child porn. Given that Free Republic is a Judeo-Christian site with a strong Second Amendment focus, the last place in the world a child pornographer would want to show up is on Free Republic, they'd be hunted down like vermin. If this is the quality of editing, I hope to be fair you will edit the Planned Parenthood entry to reflect they are child killers, and since the ACLU represents NAMBLA surely they must supprt child sodomy. I mean, why not add a throw away line claiming everyone on the right is a child molester (though sexual freedom has long been a cause of the left), why be fair when you can just make up some thin accusation to sully an organization's name for political reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.244.157 (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think it's a cheap shot, take it up with the Salon article, wherein it is demonstrated that accounts linking to child pornography remain unhindered on Free Republic even while "RINOs" are banned en masse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.242.54.162 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, while Free Republic is filled with troglodyte opinions, they aren't child pornographers. It should be removed. -GMcG

History of Purges

I have not been to this article in quite a while, but I thought that I remembered once there was at least a capsule history of "purges" that have happened frequently on the Free Republic forum, often of high-profile "Freepers" or forum members. This is a pretty important topic essential to the understanding of Free Republic's history. The arbitrary nature of the Free Republic ownership in conducting these purges is noteworthy. B. Polhemus (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• C-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions