Talk:The Hill (newspaper)
|WikiProject United States / District of Columbia||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject U.S. Congress|
From the Hill site:
- The Hill – the newspaper for and about the US Congress, is published Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday when Congress is in session and Wednesday only when Congress is out of session.
So is it fair to call The Hill a "weekly newspaper"?--Jersey Devil 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:The Hill Frontpage.jpg
File:The Hill Frontpage.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Okay, so some of the articles may lean right, but the paper officially says it is non-partisan and the son of the founder was a Democrat. So where is the "source" for the statement that it is a conservative newspaper? This needs to be sourced or removed. Alphachimera (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I just undid the revision by 18.104.22.168 . . . so, problem solved. Alphachimera (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
The conservative bias is actually borderline censorship. I have personally had polite and subject-related comments removed because they merely corrected misstatements. Finally, I noticed Disqus is able to show removed comments, and I took screenshots and posted them here.
The comments removed challenge other comments stating Germany is not committed to renewable energy. This occurs in the face of "The Hill stands alone in delivering solid, nonpartisan reporting on the inner workings of Congress and the nexus of politics and business” from the Contact Us link on their site.
I'd like to move the screenshots to the Article page, citing them as examples of censorship and conservative bias.
Furthermore, The Hill appears in numerous self-identified conservative websites, including
http://thenewrevere.com/2015/09/the-top-100-conservative-websites-in-september-2015-2/ where is listed #10 as the most conservative website.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_links where it is listed first under the Media section
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_links where it has a summary page of the days top articles
http://www.conservativeusa.org/updates where along with Breitbart is the source of conservative news
- Hi! Including these screenshots in the article would constitute Original Research and therefore wouldn't be allowed. If you have a Reliable Source that discusses The Hill's commenting enforcement, that could be considered for inclusion. Also, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of your comment. Best, meamemg (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Following the link, Jerry Finkelstein died in 2012.
The Hill lists James Finkelstein as the Chairman 
Thanks @BeenAroundAWhile: for the updates/cleaning. The only remaining source for the conservative popularity section seems to only indicate that it is a popular website. It makes no claim that it is popular among conservatives. Therefore, I'm not seeing what meaningful statement can be made in the article based on the source. I believe the section should be removed. meamemg (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)