Talk:Science Femme

Redstate as source

User objects to citing Redstate as unreliable.

• special:diff/1036159663/1104496896

The situation is that article subject posted in Twitter. Redstate is a publication which praised the subject's post. NPR also reacted to the original post and that is cited.

Why remove? Bluerasberry (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Per discussions, as summarised on WP:RSP: generally unreliable, "There is consensus that RedState should not be used as a source of facts. Opinion pieces from RedState are likely to be undue." The opinion isn't even attributed to a notable writer, and literally calls the source a "blog." There is no reason for this source to be quoted here, and reasons against doing so - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Great arguments. Your position is orthodox, and it is on me to say why this is case an exception.

This case is an exception because RedState is cited to back the narrow claim that it as a publication endorsed a protest, and that mentioning that endorsement is due because we have an NPR source describing that same protest. This protest took the form of a twitter thread retweeted 15,000 times. That scale - 15,000 tweets - matches the scale of RedState's influence as the most notable publication endorsing the protest, even while this is not major news. I mean to say that RedState is not a publication with standing to comment on major world issues, but university drama in twitter is a match for their place in the media environment. If we took away RedState and just left NPR, we miss the minority but significant perspective of that publication in this context. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing RedState even mentioned in the NPR article. This all sounds a bit OR - David Gerard (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@David Gerard: RedState is not mentioned in the NPR article. The intersection is that both NPR and RedState are talking about the same twitter thread. NPR comments that it got 15k retweets. RedState republishes the thread and gives commentary on it. Here is the archive of the tweet showing that it had 15k retweets.

• https://web.archive.org/web/20200911171403/https://twitter.com/piney_the/status/1278164646726447104

Yes, it is original research for me to conclude that NPR and RedState are discussing the same twitter thread when RedState does not mention the retweet count and NPR does not actually link to the tweet. Still, this is a kind of original research which Wikipedia allows, as it is a case of recognizing that two articles are discussing the same topic by different names. If you identified another problem speak up and I will try to address. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

So you have no actual solid verifiable source that justifies the Redstate cite in any way? If it's about a Twitter thread and the RS talks about it, then we use the RS. The RS is sufficient. We don't add a GUNREL blog when we already have an RS NEWSORG because it's talking about the same thing. I'm still really not seeing how Redstate is justified here per policy, guidelines or practice - David Gerard (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@David Gerard: NPR says that the behavior is inappropriate. RedState says that the behavior is appropriate. If you delete RedState, then you just leave one perspective, and the context changes because now there is just one side speaking for the entire situation.

WP:GUNREL says "The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions". That is what is happening here. The claim is "conservative political blog RedState praised Science Femme for countering university activism", which is an "uncontroversial self-description". Bluerasberry (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

lol no, that's obviously an UNDUE opinion from an unreliable source. It's not a notable perspective. It absolutely isn't a self-description - that means to support statements about RedState itself in e.g. RedState, not whatever opinion RedState happens to post on something. What RedState thought of the matter is not DUE because it's not merely just a blog, it's a blog that's specifically been found to be generally unreliable - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I interpret those guidelines differently.

Is it your position for this case that "unreliable for fact checking" means also "undue and not a notable perspective?" I see RedState as a relatively high profile publication and I see its staff writers taking a position on a specific issue discussed by NPR. I agree with you that RedState does not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, but am I correct in understanding that you feel their low-reliability is the factor which excludes repeating the views of the publication itself? Bluerasberry (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, it self-describes as a blog, so it's prima facie not an opinion of note. You're really not showing it is of note.

Also, is this the best example you can find of this viewpoint? Is there really no expression of it in publications of any greater quality or note? Is one unreliable blog the most prominent example of the opinion that exists? If so, then that itself suggests it's a negligible viewpoint and shouldn't go in - your reasoning (If you delete RedState, then you just leave one perspective) appears to be a textbook example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. On the other hand, if you have a source that isn't this obviously terrible for the viewpoint, then I'd suggest using that instead - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I hear you about WP:RS and I agree, this is not a reliable source. However, I do not think reliability is a factor here, because the claim to verify is that RedState itself as a publication took an ideological position. Any source is reliable for talking about itself.

I request that you either withdraw or justify your criticism about this being a blog, because I do not think it applies. WP:BLOG refers to self-published sources, which this is not. "Blog" is a publishing medium, and many are self-published which is why we have the rule. RedState is not like this, and is the 1 in 10,000 which has staff writers and is part of a hierarchy where RedState is part of Townhall which is part of Salem Media Group. This is not the kind of blog to which Wikipedia's WP:BLOG rule applies.

Please also re-check WP:FALSEBALANCE which I think does not apply. That rule refers to extreme or fringe positions; for this case there is a simple media controversy and the only positions we are examining are for and against. This article is improved with a balance. NPR takes one side of the issue, and RedState is the highest profile media source which I identified which takes the other side.

I am not sure that I want to invoke WP:IAR, but stepping away from the wiki guidelines, the trend in Wikipedia is that publications like RedState which publish hatemongering are not reliable and yet are a significant part of the media ecosystem. I think it is worthwhile to log their positions in Wikipedia especially in the context of political protest. I had a similar issue with the protest Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality where Breitbart protested it, but another editor felt that since Breitbart was not reliable then we should only list protestors and not that publication as a counter-protestor. If we just keep NPR, then Wikipedia tells a story that NPR is protesting nothing as we have no records that there ever was an opposing media narrative. I support WP:BLOG when it applies to independent one-person blogs and social media posts, and I would not cite those, but when the discourse rises to a media house which itself is WP:N, then I feel that we are good to list which media houses stated a position.

Thoughts? Bluerasberry (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

RedState literally self-describes as a blog, its WP article describes it as a blog, its WP:RSP entry describes it as a blog. Your objection to calling a blog a "blog" seems unfounded.

There are multiple justifications in policy, guidelines and practice against including RedState here. You're repeating again that you want to add it because you feel its view is needed. But I've asked, and you've failed to justify, that this viewpoint is in fact DUE. It's an unreliable source. If this is literally the best example, then you don't have a justification to include it as a noteworthy viewpoint. Because it literally isn't one. This is quintessential false balance.

If there was a "opposing media narrative", then you need to find evidence of it in Reliable Sources.

You can claim "IAR", but you're doing so in the face of multiple justifications in policy, guidelines and practice against including RedState here.

You need to find a real source, not an unreliable source. If that's the best you have, you don't have a source. - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Again, we both agree that RedState is unreliable. To clarify- I am arguing to cite this unreliable source, and I know that if that were to happen, I need consensus over every objection.

The "WP:BLOG" guideline you are referencing is not actually a prohibition on blogs, but rather a prohibition on WP:SELFPUBLISH. Can you please react to WP:NEWSBLOG and "RedState is part of Townhall which is part of Salem Media Group", by confirming whether you think that WP:BLOG really applies? I do not think it does. If you do, then I would like to seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to add another opinion, the problem is that there don't seem to be any reliable sources which treat RedState's opinion here as notable. The closest I can find is https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-science-femme-was-allegedly-a-white-male-professor-who-posed-as-woman-of-color-and-bullied-women but that's only a passing mention, plus The Daily Beast isn't a great source. If there were better sources indicating it was a notable opinion perhaps you'd have some argument for carefully additionally citing RedState as a primary source if it improved the article and there wasn't an alternative, but we haven't established that there's a need to mention them at all yet. JaggedHamster (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep. And even that wouldn't warrant giving a link to RedState itself.

Bluerasberry, I've asked repeatedly for evidence that this viewpoint is even worth noting, and you've done everything except provide that - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a reliable source on its own (thought perhaps in conjunction with others) and provides no expression of the viewpoint in publications of sufficient quality.--IndyNotes (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Argument for keeping RedState

To review, this is the controversial statement we are discussing:

In July 2020, conservative political blog RedState praised Science Femme for countering university activism.

References

Here are the reasons to keep this:

1. Wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This is a simple case of a political issue with two major positions, a right and a left. For this issue, Both RedState and another source cited, NPR, talk about the same event. One supports, the other opposes. By omitting one side we fail NPOV and WP:DUE.
2. RedState is an adequate source. It fails WP:Reliable source guidelines, but only for factchecking, not for lack of social standing. Wikipedia does not have good guidance for managing citations to propaganda, fascist publications, or hatemongering, but there are short notes such as Wikipedia:Generally unreliable which give exceptions that apply to claims which do not need factchecking. This claim is an opinion and WP:ABOUTSELF, so there is no factchecking to be done and most of WP:RS does not apply.
3. RedState is WP:DUE because it has high social standing as a publication. It passes WP:Notability and has its own Wikipedia article, RedState. As part of Townhall which itself is part of Salem Media Group, it is mainstream corporate national media, and among the most powerful, prominent, and successful media houses in the United States. This is not fringe, but rather, this is American media.
4. No Wikipedia rule prohibits keeping this claim or citing RedState in this way.

@IndyNotes, David Gerard, and JaggedHamster: Thanks for your comments till now. Bluerasberry (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No, this is all spurious. 1. is ascertained by reference to RSes, not to GUNREL sources. 2. is you trying to construct an exception that will get this undue opinion in. ABOUTSELF refers to facts about a publication itself, not about the contents of the publication - that's literally what the rule says. 3. doesn't work, we don't put in opinion pieces from The Sun or the Daily Mail unless and until those specific opinions achieve note in actual RSes. 4. It's not literally prohibited, but we've detailed at exhaustive length above the precedent against using this.

controversial statement The only "controversy" is that you want this in and have failed to convince anyone else.

There is no reason to include this source, and considerable reason not to - David Gerard (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)