Talk:RedState

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.

RedState is clearly a neoconservative website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.213.23 (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please provide support for that position prior to adding "neoconservative" back into the article. Consensus is that it is a conservative, not neoconservative, and continuing to add neocon back to the article without reliable sources support that position could be considered vandalism.  Regards,  GregJackP   Boomer!   21:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

April 2012 cleanup
This article badly needs some work. Citing blogs re third-party claims is not acceptable, but we even had cites to blog comments! And it failed my favorite NPOV-test: mentioning criticism but not the target's response.

I've made a start. I removed the invalid refs and reorganized much of the "Content" section. I deleted the text about Erickson's role in the Va Senate primary, mostly because it should be (and is) covered in the Erick Erickson article, not here (and also, to be honest, because summarizing the "easy way out" part of this was too hard).

I welcome further edits. For consideration: is NewsOne a WP:RS? I suspect not. Cheers, CWC 13:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The line "This openness" follows a sentence about how they ban people with differing points of view. It's true. They do ban people who differ with them, but that doesn't strike me as openness.Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I've rewritten that bit accordingly, moved it to a new para, and tried to improve the explanation of their policy to 'allow everyone then ban unwanted contributors'. Any comments on (or corrections to) the new version? Thanks Jason—CWC 06:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's much improved. Nice job. Technically, their propensity towards banning users has more to do with readers who post comments on existing blog posts. In other words, they ban readers who post opposing viewpoints to their vetted content (they do vet their content) on a regular basis, thus shutting down actual debate. The statement around Ron Paul is accurate and should remain, but it's really ancillary to their larger ideology of banning any reader who posts opposing points of view. That's what I believe the bulk of the references refer to.Jasonnewyork (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't agree with the line "allowing unscreened content." They regularly screen all content. The site has very active moderators who decide what content gets promoted to the first page, what doesn't and what gets banned or deleted. That isn't unscreened content.Jasonnewyork (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops. Yes, you're quite right. I'm trying to highlight the "let everyone in then retroactively ban problem people" approach, mostly because that's the bit that interests me personally, but I keep stuffing up the wording. Actually, we really need a WP:RS that talks about the site's policies before we put too much in the article, so it's probably wise to not address the issue, just as in your last edit. Thanks again, CWC 16:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

hi, guys. I'm streiff and other than being a bit torqued at having my hard work ignored I'd like to point out that the discussion here demonstrates the people writing this entry have 1) no idea at all of how RedState works, 2) have never read our site mission, and 3) couldn't be bothered to ask us as making stuff up is a lot more fun.

1. The only material that makes it to the front page regularly is from the small group of Contributors. You can identify that content by clicking the "front page writers" tab at the top of the page. Periodically we promote content we like from the diaries posted by users. 2. Our site purpose is not debating people who don't agree with us. We are focused on conservative activism to elect conservative candidates. That should give you a clue as to why people get banned. 3. The chickenhawking statement is just stupid. Several contributors, myself among them, are military veterans. Unfortunately, federal law prohibits you from grabbing a gun and taking off to fight a war if you aren't in the military and once you are out it is difficult to return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.227.9 (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Original Research?
Hi, I'm Neil Stevens. I'm looking at the Content part of this post. Is there a WP:RS for what is said here, for example in the sentence about me? There is a link given, but all I see is a blog post with a comment from some individual, that doesn't even make all of the claims in question. For example there is no mention of a "former Marine" on the cite. "Bested" like a point of view, besides. Y'all let any old crank with a grudge post here, don't you? 98.204.181.240 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Exclusion of Trump from the latest meetup
This needs to be added to the article, as well as Trump's team's response. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)