Talk:Republican-American

Connecticut Mid‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm going to make that change and then remove the POV tag. Gamaliel 16:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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:

"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.
"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 ... "
"Senate candidate Ned Lamont of being a Stalinist" - not what the editorial says.
"and claimed "Marxists-Socialists" control the Democratic Party" WP:WTA, claimed --> called or says.
"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.
"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.
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Territory

To whom it may concern,

I actually found this article at random. I don't know much about changing it, or if I have the right to do so. But I do have to tell you the following quote is very wrong:

"The paper's main competitors are the Connecticut Post and the New Haven Register, and both of these papers have made significant inroads into the Waterbury market."

As an area resident, I can assure you that this is not true at all. It's actually the opposite. Within the last five years, the New Haven Register has withdrawn ALL coverage in the Naugatuck Valley area towns of Oxford and Beacon Falls. The New Haven Register has also greatly cut back on its coverage of the town of Cheshire and the other Naugatuck Valley towns of Seymour, Ansonia, Derby, and Shelton. Most of these communities are Waterbury Republican-American territory. So it's incorrect to say that the New Haven Register has made significant inroads into the Waterbury market. Evidence shows that the Register is actually receding from the old outskirts of its coverage area.

Further, the Connecticut Post has not made inroads into the Waterbury market either. The Connecticut Post is the successor of the Bridgeport Post, Bridgeport Telegram, and the Valley Sentinel see here. The Evening Sentinel was the centuries year old newspaper based in Ansonia and serving the Lower Naugatuck Valley. It was purchased by the parent company of the Bridgeport Post around 1989 and its doors were closed. The Bridgeport Post began to publish their own morning supplement called the Valley Sentinel. Shortly after, the Bridgeport Post and Valley Sentinel were combined to form the Connecticut Post. So it's also incorrect to say that the Connecticut Post is making inroads into the Waterbury market, when in reality it is the successor to a paper that already served the Naugatuck Valley portions of the Waterbury market.

As a lifelong area resident who reads the newspapers from all over (including the New York Times), what you have written is all wrong. I hope this may serve to clear up some confusion and misinformation. --Greyhoundsanatomy (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waterbury newspaper territory/population

(State's population growth continues to slow, Mike Puffer, Republican-American, July 10, 2008) [5]

In the Waterbury area, Oxford posted the biggest gain, up 1.9 percent to 12,527 residents. That continues a seven year, 27 percent, explosion in the town's population. Morris posted the largest loss in the area, down 0.5 percent, or 12 residents, to 2,345.

..................2006... 2007... Change

Oxford....12,283... 12,527... 244 (1.9%)

Waterbury... 106,991... 107,174... 183 (0.2%)

Wolcott... 16,238... 16,407... 169 (1%)

Middlebury... 7,118... 7,252... 134 (1.8%)

Naugatuck... 31,802... 31,931... 129 (0.4%)

Cheshire... 28,708... 28,833... 125 (0.4%)

Beacon Falls... 5,688... 5,770... 82 (1.4%)

Seymour... 16,180... 16,240... 60 (0.4%)

Southbury... 19,635... 19,678... 43 (0.2%)

Prospect... 9,250... 9,273... 23 (0.2%)

Warren... 1,371... 1,384... 13 (0.9%)

Litchfield... 8,659... 8,671... 12 (0.1%)

Watertown... 22,122... 22,128... 6 (0%)

Bethlehem... 3,544... 3,549... 5 (0.1%)

Bridgewater... 1,881... 1,884... 3 (0.2%)

Washington... 3,668... 3,671... 3 (0.1%)

Canaan... .....1,092... 1,094... 2 (0.2%)

Roxbury... 2,320... 2,319... minus 1 (0%)

Sharon... 3,026... 3,022... minus 4 (0.1%)

Derby... 12,443... 12,434... minus 9 (0.1%)

Winchester... 10,757... 10,748... minus 9 (0.1%)

Woodbury... 9,666... 9,654... minus 12 (0.1%)

Morris... 2,357... 2,345... minus 12 (0.5%)

Thomaston... 7,842... 7,818... minus 24 (0.3%)

Ansonia... 18,582... 18,550... minus 32 (0.2%)

Torrington... 35,571... 35,451... minus 120 ((0.3%)

Goshen... 3,121... 3,168... 47 (1.5%)

New Milford... 28,417... 28,439... 22 (0.1%)

Harwinton... 5,543... 5,564... 21 (0.4%)

Plymouth... 12,042... 12,011... 31 (0.3%)

New Hartford... 6,725... 6,736... 11 (0.2%)

Cornwall... 1,474... 1,480... 6 (0.4%)

Kent... 2,948... 2,952... 4 (0.1%)

Colebrook... 1,530... 1,529... minus 1 (0.1%)

North Canaan... 3,355... 3,352... minus 3 (0.1%)

Connecticut... 3.5 million... 3.5 million... 6,556 (0.2%) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyhoundsanatomy (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

A substantial part of the article was directly copied from the newspaper's website, specifically https://www.rep-am.com/about-us/history/ and was deleted by me per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Parts of article violate copyright . I'll be pursuing deletion of revisions as noted on that guidance page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've exchanged some posts with the author who added the material. It is as I kind of suspected - the author is affiliated with the newspaper and was asked to compose a history which was used for both the website and wikipedia. I've noted that this is a conflict of interest and that we can derive from the website material but not copy it wholesale. I'll look to create a replacement history section with that in mind shortly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]