Talk:Republican-American

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Connecticut
 This article is part of WikiProject Connecticut, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Connecticut, United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Journalism
Journalism Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Editorial Stance

While the current description of the Rep-Am may violate NPOV (and if it does, that's largely my fault, since I wrote much of it), there needs to be a way to indicate that the paper is quite possibly the most right-wing, reactionary daily in the United States. If it were simply a conservative paper, its point of view might not deserve commenting, but the Republican American (which still sees communist conspiracies everywhere) is really in a league of its own. Thoughts? Suggestions?--Francisx 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The section deleted (for discussion):

The paper is known for a hard-right editorial page that frequently rails against liberals, Democrats and perceived-Communists (c.f. [1]). The paper also was criticized for an August 2006 editorial labeling moderate Democratic senatorial candidate Ned Lamont a Marxist. An August 2005 editorial called "Is New Orleans Worth Reclaiming?" was also criticised. The New Orleans Times-Picayune replied in an editorial the next day titled "Yes, We're Worth It", labelling the paper "heartless" and asking "How dare they?" [2]. In response to the 33 anti-gay editorials and opinion pieces that the Republican-American published between 2004 and 2006, residents of Washington, Connecticut asked the local board of selectmen [3] to stop publishing legal notices [4] in the paper.

Well, they're not like some papers who like to claim objectivity - it says Republican right in the name... — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 11:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
If you've read the Rep-Am, you'd know that the paper's stance is well to the right of the mainstream of the Republican Party. The radical right-wing editorial stance isn't just a footnote, it's essentially what defines the paper. There are plenty of more important newspapers with conservative editorial boards (The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the New York Post) but there are no newspapers anywhere near as radical as the Rep-Am.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisx (talk • contribs)
I have read it. I delivered it for about 5 years too. I am not doubting its leanings, I am saying that their title pretty clearly lets you know they are planning on leaning. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Except that's not true. Once upon a time, newspaper's names reflected their partisan slant. But that hasn't been true in 150 years and it's unlikely readers will understand the Rep-Am's slant from the name of the paper. Just for one example, look at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, which endorsed George Bush in 2004, and the Springfield Republican which endorsed John Kerry. We need to discuss the paper's POV clearly and without prejudice, not assume that it's implied by the title.--Francisx 17:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Instead of a full revert, I've taken the compromise step of removing most of the POV material but leaving in the reference to the 33 reportedly anti-gay editorials between 2004 and 2006 (even though a full confirmation is time-consuming). However, if the POV material is restored again, I'll put up a NPOV warning up top, rather than risk a series of reverts.

By the way, I don't work for the RepublicanAmerican or subscribe to it, so I am a true neutral in this matter.

- HowardLive, Oct. 5, 2006

NPOV does not mean no critical material must appear in the article. Please explain specifically why the material is supposedly POV or stop removing it. Gamaliel 03:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Using the term "hard-right" instead of "right-wing" is inflammatory. That is one example of why I said I'd put up the NPOV alert if the old material were restored. It was, so I have.

And to reiterate, I have no rooting interest in the RepublicanAmerican.

- HowardLive, Oct. 5, 2006

I have no objection if you wish to replace "hard-right" with "right-wing". Gamaliel 21:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to make that change and then remove the POV tag. Gamaliel 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

NOTE:The source used to substantiate the claim the newspaper editorializes against public transportation has no validity since it is clearly an opinion with no facts to back-up the claim. It should be removed

[edit] Weasel Words

Specfically, what weasel words are in this article? I think we've done a pretty good job of attributing all criticisms of the paper. As for the right wing editorial stance, the editors of the paper would be the first to admit it, and subsequent cites indicate the position fairly clearly. --Francisx 21:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see some of it is cleaned up now. "Is known for" is gone, but we still have an unattributed "has" stated as fact (according to whom?), and weasle words accused, claims, and frequently. Remaining problems are:
  1. "The Republican American has a right wing editorial stance." Unless this is attributed correctly (as in, according to so-and-so, or so-and-so says) and referenced, it is editorializing, opinion, and original research.
  2. "It has accused Senator Chris Dodd of being "chief apologist for the communist tyrants ... " WP:WTA, claimed, encyclopedic language would be something more along the lines of "It says ... "
  3. "Senate candidate Ned Lamont of being a Stalinist" - not what the editorial says.
  4. "and claimed "Marxists-Socialists" control the Democratic Party" WP:WTA, claimed --> called or says.
  5. "It frequently editorializes against " Frequently is original research, opinion, weasel word, unless attributed to a reliable source. One communist example does not a "frequently against gays" make.
  6. "which called for the abandonment of New Orleans post-Katrina" --> which it says called for, unless you can point us to this article, and it actually says those exact words, which hasn't been the track record of the writing in this entry.
  7. "The New Orleans Times-Picayune criticized " ... according to the Editor and Publisher, unless you can point to the exact source.

The entry is improving, but uses to weasle words to convey a definite POV, including original research. Sandy 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

Although the newspaper's masthead/nameplate reads "RepublicanAmerican", when referring to itself in text the newspaper calls itself "the Republican-American". (See here for examples.) I suggest that the "RepublicanAmerican" styling is merely a typographic affectation, rather than a representation of the newspaper's actual name, so the article should be moved (back) to Waterbury Republican-American. Opinions? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I had even ctrl-C'd the exact same page you cited to put on this talk page. However, I'm going to move this to "Republican-American" in keeping with the usual practice of omitting the city name when the Page 1 nameplate also does so (compare with The Herald News and The Sun Chronicle). ``` W i k i W i s t a h W a s s a p ``` 06:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] center-right

A party which calls the Democrats stalinists is "center-right"? Seriously? That's ridiculous. john k (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the criticism of "right wing" posed earlier - that it's OR unless it can be cited - applies just as easily to any other ideological descriptor. The positions described clearly make "right wing" appropriate - if this paper is not right wing, then there is nothing in American politics which is. john k (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)