Free Republic
It's nice to see FR in the Wikipedia. I'll keep my eyes open for anything worth contributing. (by Mosquito ringtone User:Paul Klenk/Paul Klenk, October 17, 2003)
It was interesting to see that someone really believed FR had a problem with racism. March 4, 2004
To anonymous deleter - if you think there is something wrong with what is written in the article, please explain here. Sabrina Martins DJ Clayworth/DJ Clayworth 14:20, 7 Apr 2004
''The organization has an official policy of not permitting any racism, however, racism is allowed. Examples are that Palestinian children can be called "bombs still growing", there is a SONG PARODY: Crying (frying Abu-Jamal), and the French are frequently referred to as weasels.''
This is not just inaccurate, but a misuse of the word racism. Palestianian and French are ''nationalities'', not races, and freeper objections refer to Palestinian and French political policies, not intrinsic racial characteristics.
That being said, ''Abu-Jamal'' refers to racial (Arab) characteristics, thus the argument for racism for that example stands. P.S., I am not the previous anonymous deleter, I always claim my work.Nextel ringtones User:Tom Merkle/Tom Merkle
:If you have a subtler word for hatespeech against Palestinians and French please use it, but do not delete accurate information. Freepers' objections do not only refer to Palestinian and French political policies as the examples clearly show. Abbey Diaz Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 00:16, 11 May 2004
::The examples clearly show it not to be racism. The "bombs still growing" comment, while offensive, refers to the fact that many Palestinian children become suicide bombers relatively early. It is not a racial reference, as Palestinians are racially Semitic, and there is no implication that all Semites are suicide bombers (there isn't even an implication that all Arabs are). It's more of an example of a national stereotype—"Americans are fat and stupid"; "Palestinians are suicide bombers"; "Japanese are highly concerned with honor"; "Germans are beer-guzzling drunkards"; etc. That's not racism, although it may indeed be highly offensive (depending on the stereotype). Free ringtones Delirium/Delirium 22:11, May 24, 2004
:::Cf. Majo Mills racism: The United Nations uses a definition of racist discrimination, laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1965:
:::"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
:::So the excuse that Palestinians and French are not races does not make it less racist. Arians as defined by the Nazis are not a race either. Mosquito ringtone Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 07:19, 25 May 2004
The fact of the matter is that most English-speaking peoples recognize 'racism' as being rooted in ethnicity and the snubs being discussed in this entry are concerned with nation-based politics rather than any kind of imagined 'innate' racial characteristics. Since I don't see evidence of anyone trying to portray Palestinian children ubiquitously as 'future human explosives' or the like, I hesitate to adopt your term. The comments are certainly discriminatory and hastily generalized, perhaps, but don't stereotype or insinuate that one of people is clearly 'inferior' in some way or another because of its ethnicity (Palestininans are not all of one race, of course), so they don't qualify as 'racist' in general usage. Ditto for the comment about the French, which is more of a jab about France's recent political plays (especially regarding the Iraq war) than any physiological similarities between the French people and weasels.
The articles of the 1965 convention are also largely inapplicable to the members of a private online community. It is concerned with limiting unfair discrimination / disenfranchisement in the public sphere as a matter of policy (as it makes clear early on); therefore, it only makes sense to make the definition of race and racism as broad as possible in this case, broader than general usage in which I would include Freerepublic's forum allows. anonymous.
::::Some people seem to have problems with the article mentioning racism. Why do you not go to "free"republic.com and complain there? A simple google search will show you hundreds of examples. Sabrina Martins Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 22:36, 25 May 2004
Summer Clean Up of the FR article
I took it that this article needed some help. I am on Free Republic as well, so an insider's viewpoint may help make this a decent NPoV article. Many details were missing and I supplied them. Some people on FR come from left but most are conservative. There are a few places where the language showed bias, and some places were not as relevant any more, like Poll FReeping. Lately, Moveon and other Democratic Party front organizations do it a lot more effectivly. I too don't understand the racism, but future edits and discussion can help fix things up. Nextel ringtones Dominick/Dominick 23:51, 9 Jul 2004
:Hi Dominick, thanks for your changes. I changed some parts where you used FR-terminology not known to many others (ping...) Since racism is such a striking issue at FR I reincluded that "many" rather than "few" entries show it. You also wrote "''it has been charged'' that moderators often ban". That is a frequent policy and moderators do not make a secret about it. About freeping polls I agree that it is not unique to the FR community but since this is an article about FR a short neutral note should be sufficient. Abbey Diaz Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 00:32, 10 Jul 2004
::Hm, someone was quicker than I was. Cannot quite see why the whole edit should be reverted? Cingular Ringtones Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 00:34, 10 Jul 2004
:::reverting the whole edit is wrong, unless someone wanted to remove a NPoV article. boys want Dominick/Dominick 06:48, 10 Jul 2004
::::Reverting changes, especially explained ones, without explanation is not helpful either. Why do you insist that the "electronic townhall" is not "self-described"? Was there anyone else who called it so? What makes you disagree about a short neutral note being sufficient for poll manipulation by others than freepers? base stretches Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 11:35, 10 Jul 2004
:::::I put them in change comments. Going back and forth with me reverting edits I put in is absolutly wrong. It makes for bad feelings, and starts edit wars. Recall Wikipedia is collaberative I expect editing but not reverting for reasons I already gave in those comments. The term "Self-appointed" doesn't add any facts and only puts in PoV, all webpages are "self-appointed" wikipedia is the "self-appointed" encyclopedia. Claiming the DNC front orginizations do not manipulate pools isn't the point, I think claiming that ONLY FR does this or slanting the article this way is wrong, and PoV. This is a minor part of Free Republic. Wiki has one non-negiotable part, everything must be NPoV, not leftist PoV, I still think the specific examples of racism don't belong and the inordinate amount of time spent talking about FReeping a poll weaken the article. I can't fathom ANY reason why the main forum titles were delected, and some of the items are retained escape me. The main two parts I like about FR is getting links to interesting articles and having a way to discuss them, many are totally non-political. FR has gone from pure activism to a community. This article should reflect this bent. is wickedly Dominick/Dominick 12:40, 10 Jul 2004
::::::Do you think "self-appointed" is a derogatory term? Your analogy with wikipedia does not quite fit given that no one would question that wikipedia is an encyclopedia while few would come to the idea that FR is an "electronic townhall". No one claims "only" FR manipulated polls, it is already mentioned. But explicitly mentioning others here is not appropriate, this article is about FR. I deleted the list of sections because if people want to know about it they can check on their own. This is an encyclopedia article, so just the basics should be included. Articles about books do not include the titles of the chapters either. You exchanged "The group is funded through quarterly donations drives ''which mimic'' public television and or against PBS." by ''similar to''. Obviously a donation drive is not similar to public television. "Unfortunatly, Wikipedia is one of those banned sources." is not encyclopedia style. It includes a judgment and names without any good reason a particular source. Please do not have bad feelings if your changes do not stay. It can be discussed here. Collaborative means people work together, that includes that the way to consensus is not always direct. starr if Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 13:18, 10 Jul 2004
:::::::NO I like being edited. I don't like seeing an injustice about FR dont from a self-appopinted activist. Activism isn't welcome here, and having information removed doesn't add to the article. Self appointed doesn't add any infomration, and the term town hall meets a meeting between people. I may edit out the term all together. The Basics isn't a good reason to remove data either, considering some of the minutae listed here. Lets let others look t the article before we continue back and forth edits. If this stews a bit we may both be satified. ejaculate the Dominick/Dominick 13:25, 10 Jul 2004
Wikiczar
Perhaps you may read the months lieberman Talk Etiquette FAQ again. You have an activist's goal of exposing Free Republic, controling the article as a one-man show, and removing edits you don't like The one thing I do like about wiki is the collaberative effect, which you are stifling as a self-appointed Czar. You need to let this rest and have others pipe in. putt now Dominick/Dominick 13:32, 10 Jul 2004
: Wiki policy is will nt No_personal_attacks/No personal attacks. "Wikiczar" is unacceptable. Unfortunately you did not respond to my argumentation - explicitly mentioning others manipulating polls inappropriate, donation drive not similar to public television, "unfortunatly" being a judgment. While "largely" measures quantity, "often" measures frequency. An online community is better described by the majority of its users, so it is better said that they are ''largely'', but not exclusively, united on certain issues. Again, ''please do not have bad feelings if your changes do not stay. It can be discussed here. Collaborative means people work together, that includes that the way to consensus is not always direct.'' s zach Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 14:02, 10 Jul 2004
:: Edits others have made have been reverted and changed by you, I am not the only one wronged. I am happy to have this moderated or have others come in and look. to that end I invuted a poll here, if you think this needs escalation fine. Get a third party in here. korea banks Dominick/Dominick 14:49, 10 Jul 2004
:::I do not see why you think there is anything like "escalation". This is just discussion, if you do not want to join it, fine. reedmen eric Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 15:51, 10 Jul 2004
::::I meant going up the dispute resolution path. birds can Dominick/Dominick 16:33, 10 Jul 2004
:::::In cases of disagreements the first attempt should always be resolving it at the discussion site. state agriculture Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 18:47, 10 Jul 2004
Poll
Start discussion here: ll excerpt Dominick/Dominick 13:39, 10 Jul 2004
Just for convenience, here's a comparison between the current revision and Domonick's last edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Free_Republic&diff=0&oldid=4544057]. If there's a more representative comparison, please list it, because this is pretty complicated. cut zucchini Mackerm/Mackerm 16:43, 16 Jul 2004
=Abstain=
# POV edit wars do not belong in sport the Current_polls. borneo chartered Yath/Yath 04:25, 23 Jul 2004
Racism
There was a paragraph written about anti-black racism in the discussion. It was difficult to understand and not neutral. I agree that racism is a striking issue at the site, but please improve on the writing. control chain Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 23:29, 11 Jul 2004
:I was pinging the Leader of the Black Conservative group at FR. Specifially, what racism? I have seen more than a few racists get booted. I don't consider the examples posted as racist, per se. A few others here have agreed.sides labeled Dominick/Dominick 01:31, 12 Jul 2004
::As the edits by anonymous http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Contributions&target=65.27.204.208, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Free_Republic&diff=3726712&oldid=3725752, Neutrality and Tom Merkle (''Abu-Jamal refers to racial (Arab) characteristics, thus the argument for racism for that example stands'') clearly showed, there are more people who agree about racism at FR. Racism against Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims and French is the most frequent I know about, so a Black Conservative is probably not the best person to ask. Also, if the person was not a racist but still at FR she or he is unlikely to perceive racism, a more objective statement would need a less biased sample of opinions. If you disagree about what racism is, please read the wiki article. Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 01:35, 13 Jul 2004
Description of typical posts
My edit has been labled as "POV" by a couple of users. As far as I can tell, the describing of most posts on Free Republic as "one or two sentence-long ad hominem insults about liberal political figures, institutions, ideology, and liberals in general, with some posts of longer length and substance." is not an NPOV violation. If you have a better way of phrasing it, please feel free, but before reverting my edits further, please post your objections here for discussion. Holdek/Holdek 04:50, 10 Feb 2005
:There really isn't much to discuss. You removed a lot of pertinent information and replaced it with a broad generalization about the character of the discussion there. Rhobite/Rhobite 05:47, Feb 11, 2005
::No, look at the article, I've just restructured it and explained it. Your version duplicates entire sentances. Holdek/Holdek 06:33, 11 Feb 2005
:::Oops, I didn't notice the duplicated information. Sorry about reverting. I have rephrased the sentence a little and moved it to the paragraph where it best fits. Rhobite/Rhobite 06:49, Feb 11, 2005
I recieved this response when I posted a similarly worded insert into Democratic Underground:
Characterizing the posts as insults is POV and inaccurate. The comment that posts are short is vague we've said it's a message board so no one would be expecting lengthy essays. I don't see that we need to assure the reader that there are posts of varying length; that's what anyone would expect
The same principle should apply here.
::::I think Rhobite's version is a good compromise, and he's restructured so as to eliminate POV complications. Most of the posts on Free Republic ''are'' insults, and are of the length described. And I don't think most Freepers would object to this description; it's one of the primary purposes of Free Republic (to give conservatives a place to vent their frustrations.)
::::Your repost of the Democratic Underground material is not very usefull. It's a completely different article. Holdek/Holdek 19:29, 11 Feb 2005
:::::I also have to wonder whether anyone would object to this characterization. It's still a generalization, but it's based in truth. A semi-random sampling of tonight's comments confirms that yes, Freepers still post one-line comments expressing their disapproval of liberals, gays, environmentalists, and uh, Mexico. Rhobite/Rhobite 06:42, Feb 12, 2005
Judging by the frequency of the caricaturing, I have an overwhelming hunch that this entry (as of 2/15/05) was written by a NON-Freeper...
It was interesting to see that someone really believed FR had a problem with racism. March 4, 2004
To anonymous deleter - if you think there is something wrong with what is written in the article, please explain here. Sabrina Martins DJ Clayworth/DJ Clayworth 14:20, 7 Apr 2004
''The organization has an official policy of not permitting any racism, however, racism is allowed. Examples are that Palestinian children can be called "bombs still growing", there is a SONG PARODY: Crying (frying Abu-Jamal), and the French are frequently referred to as weasels.''
This is not just inaccurate, but a misuse of the word racism. Palestianian and French are ''nationalities'', not races, and freeper objections refer to Palestinian and French political policies, not intrinsic racial characteristics.
That being said, ''Abu-Jamal'' refers to racial (Arab) characteristics, thus the argument for racism for that example stands. P.S., I am not the previous anonymous deleter, I always claim my work.Nextel ringtones User:Tom Merkle/Tom Merkle
:If you have a subtler word for hatespeech against Palestinians and French please use it, but do not delete accurate information. Freepers' objections do not only refer to Palestinian and French political policies as the examples clearly show. Abbey Diaz Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 00:16, 11 May 2004
::The examples clearly show it not to be racism. The "bombs still growing" comment, while offensive, refers to the fact that many Palestinian children become suicide bombers relatively early. It is not a racial reference, as Palestinians are racially Semitic, and there is no implication that all Semites are suicide bombers (there isn't even an implication that all Arabs are). It's more of an example of a national stereotype—"Americans are fat and stupid"; "Palestinians are suicide bombers"; "Japanese are highly concerned with honor"; "Germans are beer-guzzling drunkards"; etc. That's not racism, although it may indeed be highly offensive (depending on the stereotype). Free ringtones Delirium/Delirium 22:11, May 24, 2004
:::Cf. Majo Mills racism: The United Nations uses a definition of racist discrimination, laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1965:
:::"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."
:::So the excuse that Palestinians and French are not races does not make it less racist. Arians as defined by the Nazis are not a race either. Mosquito ringtone Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 07:19, 25 May 2004
The fact of the matter is that most English-speaking peoples recognize 'racism' as being rooted in ethnicity and the snubs being discussed in this entry are concerned with nation-based politics rather than any kind of imagined 'innate' racial characteristics. Since I don't see evidence of anyone trying to portray Palestinian children ubiquitously as 'future human explosives' or the like, I hesitate to adopt your term. The comments are certainly discriminatory and hastily generalized, perhaps, but don't stereotype or insinuate that one of people is clearly 'inferior' in some way or another because of its ethnicity (Palestininans are not all of one race, of course), so they don't qualify as 'racist' in general usage. Ditto for the comment about the French, which is more of a jab about France's recent political plays (especially regarding the Iraq war) than any physiological similarities between the French people and weasels.
The articles of the 1965 convention are also largely inapplicable to the members of a private online community. It is concerned with limiting unfair discrimination / disenfranchisement in the public sphere as a matter of policy (as it makes clear early on); therefore, it only makes sense to make the definition of race and racism as broad as possible in this case, broader than general usage in which I would include Freerepublic's forum allows. anonymous.
::::Some people seem to have problems with the article mentioning racism. Why do you not go to "free"republic.com and complain there? A simple google search will show you hundreds of examples. Sabrina Martins Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 22:36, 25 May 2004
Summer Clean Up of the FR article
I took it that this article needed some help. I am on Free Republic as well, so an insider's viewpoint may help make this a decent NPoV article. Many details were missing and I supplied them. Some people on FR come from left but most are conservative. There are a few places where the language showed bias, and some places were not as relevant any more, like Poll FReeping. Lately, Moveon and other Democratic Party front organizations do it a lot more effectivly. I too don't understand the racism, but future edits and discussion can help fix things up. Nextel ringtones Dominick/Dominick 23:51, 9 Jul 2004
:Hi Dominick, thanks for your changes. I changed some parts where you used FR-terminology not known to many others (ping...) Since racism is such a striking issue at FR I reincluded that "many" rather than "few" entries show it. You also wrote "''it has been charged'' that moderators often ban". That is a frequent policy and moderators do not make a secret about it. About freeping polls I agree that it is not unique to the FR community but since this is an article about FR a short neutral note should be sufficient. Abbey Diaz Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 00:32, 10 Jul 2004
::Hm, someone was quicker than I was. Cannot quite see why the whole edit should be reverted? Cingular Ringtones Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 00:34, 10 Jul 2004
:::reverting the whole edit is wrong, unless someone wanted to remove a NPoV article. boys want Dominick/Dominick 06:48, 10 Jul 2004
::::Reverting changes, especially explained ones, without explanation is not helpful either. Why do you insist that the "electronic townhall" is not "self-described"? Was there anyone else who called it so? What makes you disagree about a short neutral note being sufficient for poll manipulation by others than freepers? base stretches Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 11:35, 10 Jul 2004
:::::I put them in change comments. Going back and forth with me reverting edits I put in is absolutly wrong. It makes for bad feelings, and starts edit wars. Recall Wikipedia is collaberative I expect editing but not reverting for reasons I already gave in those comments. The term "Self-appointed" doesn't add any facts and only puts in PoV, all webpages are "self-appointed" wikipedia is the "self-appointed" encyclopedia. Claiming the DNC front orginizations do not manipulate pools isn't the point, I think claiming that ONLY FR does this or slanting the article this way is wrong, and PoV. This is a minor part of Free Republic. Wiki has one non-negiotable part, everything must be NPoV, not leftist PoV, I still think the specific examples of racism don't belong and the inordinate amount of time spent talking about FReeping a poll weaken the article. I can't fathom ANY reason why the main forum titles were delected, and some of the items are retained escape me. The main two parts I like about FR is getting links to interesting articles and having a way to discuss them, many are totally non-political. FR has gone from pure activism to a community. This article should reflect this bent. is wickedly Dominick/Dominick 12:40, 10 Jul 2004
::::::Do you think "self-appointed" is a derogatory term? Your analogy with wikipedia does not quite fit given that no one would question that wikipedia is an encyclopedia while few would come to the idea that FR is an "electronic townhall". No one claims "only" FR manipulated polls, it is already mentioned. But explicitly mentioning others here is not appropriate, this article is about FR. I deleted the list of sections because if people want to know about it they can check on their own. This is an encyclopedia article, so just the basics should be included. Articles about books do not include the titles of the chapters either. You exchanged "The group is funded through quarterly donations drives ''which mimic'' public television and or against PBS." by ''similar to''. Obviously a donation drive is not similar to public television. "Unfortunatly, Wikipedia is one of those banned sources." is not encyclopedia style. It includes a judgment and names without any good reason a particular source. Please do not have bad feelings if your changes do not stay. It can be discussed here. Collaborative means people work together, that includes that the way to consensus is not always direct. starr if Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 13:18, 10 Jul 2004
:::::::NO I like being edited. I don't like seeing an injustice about FR dont from a self-appopinted activist. Activism isn't welcome here, and having information removed doesn't add to the article. Self appointed doesn't add any infomration, and the term town hall meets a meeting between people. I may edit out the term all together. The Basics isn't a good reason to remove data either, considering some of the minutae listed here. Lets let others look t the article before we continue back and forth edits. If this stews a bit we may both be satified. ejaculate the Dominick/Dominick 13:25, 10 Jul 2004
Wikiczar
Perhaps you may read the months lieberman Talk Etiquette FAQ again. You have an activist's goal of exposing Free Republic, controling the article as a one-man show, and removing edits you don't like The one thing I do like about wiki is the collaberative effect, which you are stifling as a self-appointed Czar. You need to let this rest and have others pipe in. putt now Dominick/Dominick 13:32, 10 Jul 2004
: Wiki policy is will nt No_personal_attacks/No personal attacks. "Wikiczar" is unacceptable. Unfortunately you did not respond to my argumentation - explicitly mentioning others manipulating polls inappropriate, donation drive not similar to public television, "unfortunatly" being a judgment. While "largely" measures quantity, "often" measures frequency. An online community is better described by the majority of its users, so it is better said that they are ''largely'', but not exclusively, united on certain issues. Again, ''please do not have bad feelings if your changes do not stay. It can be discussed here. Collaborative means people work together, that includes that the way to consensus is not always direct.'' s zach Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 14:02, 10 Jul 2004
:: Edits others have made have been reverted and changed by you, I am not the only one wronged. I am happy to have this moderated or have others come in and look. to that end I invuted a poll here, if you think this needs escalation fine. Get a third party in here. korea banks Dominick/Dominick 14:49, 10 Jul 2004
:::I do not see why you think there is anything like "escalation". This is just discussion, if you do not want to join it, fine. reedmen eric Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 15:51, 10 Jul 2004
::::I meant going up the dispute resolution path. birds can Dominick/Dominick 16:33, 10 Jul 2004
:::::In cases of disagreements the first attempt should always be resolving it at the discussion site. state agriculture Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 18:47, 10 Jul 2004
Poll
Start discussion here: ll excerpt Dominick/Dominick 13:39, 10 Jul 2004
Just for convenience, here's a comparison between the current revision and Domonick's last edit. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Free_Republic&diff=0&oldid=4544057]. If there's a more representative comparison, please list it, because this is pretty complicated. cut zucchini Mackerm/Mackerm 16:43, 16 Jul 2004
=Abstain=
# POV edit wars do not belong in sport the Current_polls. borneo chartered Yath/Yath 04:25, 23 Jul 2004
Racism
There was a paragraph written about anti-black racism in the discussion. It was difficult to understand and not neutral. I agree that racism is a striking issue at the site, but please improve on the writing. control chain Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 23:29, 11 Jul 2004
:I was pinging the Leader of the Black Conservative group at FR. Specifially, what racism? I have seen more than a few racists get booted. I don't consider the examples posted as racist, per se. A few others here have agreed.sides labeled Dominick/Dominick 01:31, 12 Jul 2004
::As the edits by anonymous http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Contributions&target=65.27.204.208, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Free_Republic&diff=3726712&oldid=3725752, Neutrality and Tom Merkle (''Abu-Jamal refers to racial (Arab) characteristics, thus the argument for racism for that example stands'') clearly showed, there are more people who agree about racism at FR. Racism against Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims and French is the most frequent I know about, so a Black Conservative is probably not the best person to ask. Also, if the person was not a racist but still at FR she or he is unlikely to perceive racism, a more objective statement would need a less biased sample of opinions. If you disagree about what racism is, please read the wiki article. Get-back-world-respect/Get-back-world-respect 01:35, 13 Jul 2004
Description of typical posts
My edit has been labled as "POV" by a couple of users. As far as I can tell, the describing of most posts on Free Republic as "one or two sentence-long ad hominem insults about liberal political figures, institutions, ideology, and liberals in general, with some posts of longer length and substance." is not an NPOV violation. If you have a better way of phrasing it, please feel free, but before reverting my edits further, please post your objections here for discussion. Holdek/Holdek 04:50, 10 Feb 2005
:There really isn't much to discuss. You removed a lot of pertinent information and replaced it with a broad generalization about the character of the discussion there. Rhobite/Rhobite 05:47, Feb 11, 2005
::No, look at the article, I've just restructured it and explained it. Your version duplicates entire sentances. Holdek/Holdek 06:33, 11 Feb 2005
:::Oops, I didn't notice the duplicated information. Sorry about reverting. I have rephrased the sentence a little and moved it to the paragraph where it best fits. Rhobite/Rhobite 06:49, Feb 11, 2005
I recieved this response when I posted a similarly worded insert into Democratic Underground:
Characterizing the posts as insults is POV and inaccurate. The comment that posts are short is vague we've said it's a message board so no one would be expecting lengthy essays. I don't see that we need to assure the reader that there are posts of varying length; that's what anyone would expect
The same principle should apply here.
::::I think Rhobite's version is a good compromise, and he's restructured so as to eliminate POV complications. Most of the posts on Free Republic ''are'' insults, and are of the length described. And I don't think most Freepers would object to this description; it's one of the primary purposes of Free Republic (to give conservatives a place to vent their frustrations.)
::::Your repost of the Democratic Underground material is not very usefull. It's a completely different article. Holdek/Holdek 19:29, 11 Feb 2005
:::::I also have to wonder whether anyone would object to this characterization. It's still a generalization, but it's based in truth. A semi-random sampling of tonight's comments confirms that yes, Freepers still post one-line comments expressing their disapproval of liberals, gays, environmentalists, and uh, Mexico. Rhobite/Rhobite 06:42, Feb 12, 2005
Judging by the frequency of the caricaturing, I have an overwhelming hunch that this entry (as of 2/15/05) was written by a NON-Freeper...
posted at 8:00 PM
0 comments
