Talk:RedState/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

Red State - a Reliable Source on Wikipedia ?

• Does Red State fit the criteria for Reliable Sources ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

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)

• Okay. I was curious specifically about this article - Ronnie Earle, Travis Co. (TX) DA, Dances Naked With Other Men While Beating Cooked Chickens Does that fit the criteria as a source ? It looks like they in turn are citing Houston Press, Naked Men: The ManKind Project and Michael Scinto, The organization was supposed to make him a better man. Instead, his parents say, it made him a dead one. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:20, 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)

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)

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)

Non-notable Bannings

Banning is common on any major political message blog, and I'm not sure why the bans of Adam Bonin or a poster going by the name 'lonewacko' are notable. Neither are well-known bloggers with any significant internet presence. (See their blogs for proof.) Absent any objection, I would like to remove those paragraphs from the article. -User:Umdunno 18:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

As an active member of DailyKos, I can attest that the site also takes a hard stance against significantly differing opinions. Markos Moulitsas has said himself that DK is devoted to electing "more and better Democrats", and that anyone who does not share that devotion is unwelcome on it. From my perspective, RedState and DailyKos are similar in that regard. StanHater (talk) 02:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning in the lede

I noticed that all references to banning at RedState were removed from the lede. In my opinion this creates a biased view of RedState that omits information required for neutrality. Unlike many collaborative blogs, this one apparently has no specific policies governing banning: moderators make up their own rules and users may not even know they have done anything wrong until their account and all their work is deleted. So when parties interested in the blog or in writing on the blog read about it, they really need to know that there are no standards for banning and they can be ejected and insulted by moderators without warning for taking even conservative positions. This Wikipedia page is not supposed to be a RedState advertisement. The lede should mention both positive and negative aspects. —Othniel Kenaz 00:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing the bit on Moe Lane's homosexuality.

...being as I'm, well, Moe Lane; and the last time I checked, I wasn't gay. I don't know what the code is for that, sorry: NPOV?

Honestly, I'd leave it up if it had turned out to be a Left-troll we banned who dumped all over your site; but judging from the IP it was a disgruntled Right-troll who did it, which takes some of the fun out of the whole thing. --MoeLane (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

that is original research. Please do not do that. I will revert back. If you can provide citations from third party sources that contain NPOV on the topic then I will not object to the removal. If you wish to contribute you should not edit or tamper with your own biography. Since that is highly against NPOV as well as self promotion through beautification of articles pertaining to you. If you wish to help, please post sources such as how you used false names to register domain names under another persons account, how you are into renaissance fairs, how your hobbies of recreating and wearing royal drab (ancient cosplay) as well as playing AD&D has been one of your biggest hobbies for over 30 years. Please provide legitimate sources for such so I, or others, may evaluate the merits of it in whether to include it or not.

Since you have kept your identity rather anonymous. Then, I (as well as others) will take your word that you are the person who uses the handle "Moe Lane". Then the comments will be restored in relation to your handle and the actions and comments that are attributed to it. Please contact me on my talk page so we can discuss this and I can then make this a better article as well as fix any problems you perceive are wrong. Until then I will have to revert to that allegation and if no citation is presented then I will note that it requires a citation. You can not claim vandalism and just blank a section of an article arbitrarily.

PS: This is about creating a better article and not about you or your trolling. Please don't try to be a netdetective or out other users by announcing and or exposing the identity of users here through IP address or any other method. You should know better as a web administer that such actions are highly frowned upon. If you do any of the things I warned you about again I will have to contact moderation to deal with your multiple violations. --General Choomin (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but I mostly just find this funny, and not really worth the time to learn the jargon of your site. I would suggest that you slap the infamous [citation needed] on the homosexual thing, though: surely Wikipedia follows the "pics or it didn't happen" standard, right?

MoeLane (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Read all blog entries on the day of the dead link. Didn't find anything. Removing per WP:BLP Lionel (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the article with regards to NPOV, Primary usage of one source, and notability.

This article needs to provide sources other then those from a moderator of the site(1 source(dead link)) or from the primary site (10 sources). Using mainly pages contained on the blog leads to NPOV since it consists of material from the site as well as contributors. There are only 4 third party sources in which 3 of them only discuss "banning". This article in the sense of it's quality in quite terrible. With even users such as "Moe Lane" editing information out pertaining to the site he/she runs as well as his/her participation in said site by blanking it. Something, which last I heard, was forbidden.

There are a lot of problems with this article that extend beyond what I listed. As it currently stands, I feel it is not a notable site since more then 2/3 of the references come from the site itself.

If someone wishes to improve the article I am willing to help. Please contact me at my talkpage. --General Choomin (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The article does need a lot of work. However, it is notable. It is covered in independent sources as a Google search indicates: just because those sources aren't in the article doesn't affect notability. I'd like to suggest that collaboration on the article take place on the Talk page here, that's what it's for. A possible strategy could be to create a subpage and rewrite the article there. Removeing the tag. Lionel (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Here's a source - while it lasts. I got banned in a day. 601 Database redigestation error. I got a warning after the first post, included here in its entirety:

Aliou Niasse, a Senagalese Muslim immigrant who works as a photograph vendor on Times Square, was the one who alerted the police to the smoking van.

I don’t think the US is currently killing Senagalese civilians with Predator drones.

I was courteous and respectful. I stuck to the facts and my opinions, never questioning other people's intellect, morals, or motives. But I had an honest disagreement about US foreign policy, and that got me banned almost immediately.

You can see the whole exchange here ([1]) unless they push it down the memory hole. Jive Dadson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

Oh, and by the way. That was the first time I've been banned from anywhere on the web ever, or on the net before the web existed for that matter. I've been connected since 1986, when there were maybe 50,000 of us total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jive Dadson (talk • contribs) 22:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say that Red State is famous for banning people. The sources cited give examples, and the moderators often make public declarations of the recent users who have been banned.69.255.44.231 (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

{{request edit}}

   A paragraph to be added to the "Notable incidents" section: In October 2019, RedState alleged two extramarital affairs on the part of California politician Katie Hill, with a member of her campaign staff and a member of her US House staff. RedState published a redacted intimate picture in its coverage, which was reported as potentially in violation of revenge pornography laws. Hill admitted an affair with the campaign staffer, but denied involvement with the House staffer, and the latter allegation became the subject of a House Ethics Committee inquiry.
   Explanation of issue: Although I'm using this template, I have no conflict of interest. I'm simply uncomfortable posting this material under my existing account and hoping someone else will check the sources and make the edit.

49.36.15.167 (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm inactivating the template since you've stated that you're not under a conflict of interest. If you remain disinclined to make the change yourself your request can remain here for local editors to choose whether or not they wish to add it for you. Regards,  Spintendo  22:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I guess that's up to you, but I believe adding this material will require pretty much the same kind of vetting that a COI suggested edit would. In case I wasn't completely clear, I have an account and so it would be problematic for me to make this edit as an IP editor. 2405:201:2801:B6AF:444E:C17B:510C:CFC7 (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@XavierItzm and Snooganssnoogans: Thanks for adding this material and citing further sources. Hopefully the situation described in your recent edit summaries as an edit war can come to an end. 49.36.9.241 (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I would not at all characterise it as an edit war. Snooganssnoogans kept on deleting well-sourced WP:RS material from CBS News without any sort of rationale nor attempt at justification, but finally ceased and desisted. All is well that ends well. XavierItzm (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

References