Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 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)
Any material which was covered by the media (in this case, the Sun article) can be included in the article. — goetheanॐ14:32, 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. — goetheanॐ14:51, 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. JamesMLanetc15:03, 8 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 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. JamesMLanetc00:57, 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)
Removed some lead text.
"For each article, the forum's main page typically shows its headline, plus the first 100 words of the article as posted to Free Republic. Users can see the full article at its original source by clicking a hyperlink beneath the headline." This seemed to go against wikipedia's "what wikipedia is not" guideline; specifically, about a how-to manual type thing. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}
