Talk:RedState

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Deletion

RedState is a major presence in the world of U.S. political blogging (which is itself an important force in the broader world of U.S. politics). I think it clearly qualifies as notable, in that "it is known outside a narrow interest group or constituency, or should be because of its particular importance or impact." I'm removing the deletion notice. --Christopher M 00:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but as it stands now it seems somewhat of an advert, or at the very least a tad bit on the biased side. If thats cleaned up, and a good arguement for notability is made (perhaps saying how many hits or how many sites refer to this one) and I'd support keeping this article. Galactor213 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RedState's location in the political spectrum

I think this line from the article is inaccurate: "While open to differing political and philosophical perspectives, the tenor of the site skews towards a distinctly moderate and moderately conservative Republican agenda."

Location on a political spectrum is a hard think to characterize in a NPOV way, because it tends to be relative to the person doing the characterizing. But I think RedState is clearly a generally conservative forum -- not "moderate" -- and it acknowledges that itself. Its "About" page (http://www.redstate.com/story/2004/7/10/122032/263) says: "While we are great believers in the big tent of the Republican Party, we know that Republicans do best -- as candidates and as leaders -- when they stand for, and uphold, conservative principles."

I'm inclined to change the language quoted above to "While open to differing political and philosophical perspectives, the tenor of the site skews towards a distinctly conservative Republican agenda." Objections?

I agree, for the most part.
Describing it as conservative wouldn't be inaccurate, although I'm sure that some people would beg to differ, or at least qualify that description with the phrase "center-right."
My problem is that the site-while conservative-is more of a vehicle for Republican Party candidates and initiatives.
Witness the vituperative reaction to Michelle Malkin-generally considered to be much more of a conservative than a Republican-when she questioned one of their editors, i.e. Ben Domenach, with respect to his alleged plagiarism.
Also, the relatively benign view many members take of President Bush's amnesty proposal, which conservatives oppose, almost without exception.
I don't object to adding the appellation "conservative," but I do think that it should be noted that allegiance to Republican Party policies and objectives takes precedence among Red State editors, if not users.

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I edited the sentence to read "While open to differing political and philosophical perspectives, the tenor of the site skews towards a distinctly conservative—and above all, Republican—agenda." Hopefully that addresses my concern as well as Ruthfulbarbarity's. Christopher M 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

mkrempasky

Deleted the final paragraph, "Redstate is, regardless of its fiscal, immigration or foreign policy differences, a socially conservative website...." While not only inaccurate as a matter of substance (RedState is not primarily a socially conservative site and is instead fairly broad in its emphasis of the conservative coalition), the specifics of the referenced posting don't accurately reflect the site. It was not the site's "authors" that posted the inflammatory article, but a diarist (which is open to the public). The "authors" or "Directors" closed that discussion soon after its inception. (my apologies if I've erred in the editing process, I'm not a regular Wiki participant, although I am connected to RedState.

[edit] Plagiarism

In the fourth paragraph, I changed the last clause of the first sentence, removing the word "allegedly" from "some of which were allegedly plagiarized." Domenech himself has admitted the plagiarism: http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/3/24/231559/931 Tms31 04:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

I tend to think that this whole section is kind of trivial. They sometimes kick people off the site? That doesn't seem very notable to me. Steve Dufour 00:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It also has nearly no sources. --Delirium (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red State - a Reliable Source on Wikipedia ?

It would seem to me to be a blog, so my guess would be that the only argument for using it as a source would be the personal authority of the individual author of the blog post. Otherwise it runs afoul of the rules against using blogs as sources. --Pleasantville 19:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the Houston Press would be the source to use. --Pleasantville 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, that is what I ended up using. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

It's not ok as a source, as it is a single purpose political blog. • Lawrence Cohen 13:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Shouldn't be a problem here; Redstate is notable. I removed the tag per this search. Someone can source it up from that. • Lawrence Cohen 13:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Publishing Articles

The fact is, anyone can register, log in, and immediately start posting articles on Red State. Whoever reverted the change which said contrary, is wrong. Neither article linked in that paragraph about homosexuality, etc. was posted in a way that any 5 minute wonder at Red State couldn't do. That's the nature of the site: Anyone can post 'blogs' (also known as 'diaries'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.225.149 (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

A comparison between the RedState entry and the DailyKos entry is informative. Over half the RedState entry is devoted to the Criticism section. DailyKos, on the other hand, only has a Controversy section.

Wikipedia is rapidly developing a reputation for rigidly enforcing a liberal/left POV. Examples like this undermine the credibility of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.125.175 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)