Talk:Free Dominion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2nd June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Hi there. I joined Free Republic back in 2001 and soon heard about Free Dominion there. I particpated for several years in Free Dominion under the username "Ipberg" and generally agree with the conservative viewpoint of its administrators and majority of members. However I was banned from Free Dominion so I'm unconvinced about its claim to be a haven for free speech.
-
Hey Ipberg.
Fixed the status by deleting the paragraphs that pertain to the 'haven of free speech.' I agree it's not always up to standard. - Knave.
I was recently banned too, under the 'hairyvarmit' username, apparently for repeatedly bringing up the Conservative Party's support for Iraq in 2003. I pointed out that while support for the war was strong when it began, two and a half years later they will only say that if elected, they will not send troops to Iraq. It seems that tight party discipline is being enforced to try to suppress any discussion of previous support for the Americans in Iraq because it would have a negative effect on the 2006 election campaign.
Yes, it does make their claim to be a haven for free speech look a bit thin.
Parts of being banned for having different views is completely bias, and should be left out in the interest of being neutral.
Contents |
[edit] Grammar
This sentence:
- However, both sides of the abortion debate (but predominantly pro-life activists), religious groups, Western and Albertan secessionists, some annexationists, and some libertarians, among many others.
needs to be corrected for improper grammar.
[edit] Conservatives versus Tories
The sentences
Tories, Red Tories, and other moderate conservatives are not generally welcome on the site, and users consistently posting comments contrary to the viewpoints of the forum's owners are banned from further posting.
and
The foremost federal political party supported is the Conservative Party, but supporters for smaller conservative parties participate as well. There have been a small number of contributors who are linked to far-right extremist groups.
seem to be in conflict, as "Tory" is a colloquial term for "supporter of the Conservative Party of Canada". GCarty 09:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Colloquial it may be, but that does not make it correct from a philosophical or historical point-of-view. Tory and Red Tory have a much different meaning than the warmed-over Republicanism of the CPC. See the Tory and Red Tory articles in Wikipedia. As well, I am a life-long and seventh-generation Canadian Conservative who rejects the new-conservative ideology of the CPC. There are many more like me. That is why Harper cannot get a majority, and continues to struggle in Ontario and the East.TrulyTory 13:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The sentence also goes against NPOV. It is the personal view of the poster that he or she were banned based on their political views, but could be for a very different reason.
What a bunch of nut jobs.
[edit] Unnecessary demands for citation
This is about the unncessary and unjustified demand for citation for this paragraph:
"A fringe element of contributors have been linked to far-right extremist groups, and some of the more controversial posts have incuded holocaust denial, advocacy of violence, racial jokes and hatred against Muslims and homosexuals. Some users who have made overtly racist comments, used offensive language in posts, or promoted violence have been banned from posting.[1] Others have been tolerated or defended by the moderators. [citation]",
There are examples of this kind of stuff all the time on the Free Dominion forum. Anyone who denies this is ignorant or a liar. The recent thread on White Nationalism is a perfect example of that. The long-gone threads by Pity Sing about Olivia Chow, which were full of disgusting racism and sexism, were defended by the site owners as humourous. Almost every single thread on Muslims or gays also displauys a lot of bigotry and hatred.
Besides, a link to a particular thread might end up being useless later on, because the moderators have a habit of deleting entire threads that turn out to be embarassing after awhile. Either that, or the thread might disappear the next time the site crashes, which seems to be every few months.
- It's not an "unnecessary and unjustified demand for citation". It's Wikipedia policy. If the link becomes useless later on because the thread has been deleted, then any mention of it must be deleted from Wikipedia. Otherwise we'll have no way to verify it. Please brush up on Wikipedia policy. --Cyberboomer 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral POV
Some superfluous and unnecessary paragraphs pertaining to content on Free Dominion has been deleted. Some paragraphs do not need as detailed explanations as posted. This is in the interests of maintaining a neutral POV. Knave 04:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Those paragraphs are not unnecessary. They are based on fact, not point of view. I re-deleted the one sentence that hasn't been verified though. Spylab 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This line;
"A fringe element of contributors have been linked to far-right extremist groups, and some of the more controversial posts have incuded holocaust denial, advocacy of violence, racial jokes and hatred against Muslims and homosexuals."
Is without citation. That was one of the targets of editing the last time, simply because they did not have links which backed them up. The lines afterward, I have no problem with as they're cited.
Knave 16:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Citation 1 and 2 (which you wanted to delete along with the lines you supposedly "have no problem with") address the topic of far-right groups, Holocaust denial, and racial jokes. As for the reference to anti-gay and anti-Muslim comments, and promotion of violence against political opponents, the Free Dominion forum is chock-full of them. To deny that is to deny reality, and would comprimise the neutral point of view.Spylabspylab
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification - I was merely looking for specific examples of political violence and anti-Muslim jokes, not just off-hand assertions that the forum is "chock full of them." I'll take your word for it, though... so don't get your back up.
Thank you.
Knave 03:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
