Talk:The New Republic

message: The notion that TNR is liberal is simply bizaare. Liberal Republican, maybe. Left of center? If Pat Buchanan is the center, then perhaps. 72.88.63.106 05:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you read the TNR often but it is quite obviously a liberal (center-left) magazine. Signaturebrendel 01:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree and support your idea. —thames 13:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I also agree we should get rid of the mention of the Star Wars article.  However, I'm not so sure that more people know about Even The Liberal New Republic vs. the Star Wars New Republic (which has several orders of magnitude more readers). Makgraf 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Republic 

message: The article currently states that Simpsons creator Matt Groening "wrote for TNR" in the "Trivia" section at the end of the article.  A search of TNR's archives, however, reveals no pieces written by Groening.  Perhaps his contribution, if any, was limited to illustrations, maybe a magazine cover?  If so, the wording in the article needs to be changed.  I am unable to confirm that Groening has done any work for TNR at present. - Jersyko talk 17:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he was a cartoonist for them, but I don't have any data to back that up. Makgraf 18:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groening 

message: I remember this sticking out as an interesting fact presented in Shattered Glass. Does this still stand.. eevn if it no longer does .. I think it should be mentioned.
:However frequently it was carried on AF1, I think the phrase is more cliche than factoid. Andersem 03:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In flight magazine for Air Force Once? 

message: After identifying a couple more notable scandals at TNR, I created a "Scandals" section.  I'm not wedded to this organization, so feel free to put it back under "History" or squash it under a single heading or whatever.  Cheers. — BozoTheScary 00:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandals 

message: No mention of TNR Conservative Summit in DC???--Gkklein 03:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I believe you're thinking of the National Review, the other TNR, not The New Republic ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right.  Thank you very much--Gkklein 04:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TNR Conservative Summit in DC??? 

message: The New York Times has an article on cutbacks at TNR. (New Republic Cuts Back, but Bulks Up Its Image) The article should be updated to reflect this. I don't know when I will have a chance to do so myself. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the relevant info.  On a different note, please don't post such a large amount of copyrighted text on Wikipedia.  Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NYT Article on cutbacks 

message: Especially as these controversies recede into history, it seems appropriate that they be combined into it. I see no reason to cut back on the information in "Controversies" (if anything, a bit might be added), but it seems to present a clearer picture of the history if the information is included there. I'll do it myself if I don't hear an objection after, say, a week or two. Are there any downsides to merging those sections? Noroton 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, since there seems to be another one emerging now (re: 'Scott Thomas'). Alcarillo 17:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "controversies" section should be incorporated into the history section

message: I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia policy, but isn't it POV to identify Scott Thomas Beauchamp as "freelance writer, soldier, prevaricator" in the notable contributors section.  Althought the Army has determined the stories to be false, my understanding is there's still some controversy (I'm pretty sure that TNR still stands behind the story).  And even if the story is false, putting "prevaricator" in the same context as his occupations seems a bit odd, as it seems to suggest that he's a "prevaricator" in a much more fundamental way than just having made one or two false statements.  Presumably not everything he says is a lie, lots of people (everyone?) have said false things, but we shouldn't necessarily label them as a liar.  Especially since there still seems to be dispute as to whether or not he did lie.  Does anyone else agree? 71.116.89.88 06:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prevaricator" 

message: How can New Republic have endorsed Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman in the 2004 Democratic Convention? Bill Clinton served his two temrs ending in 200! Does the writer mean Al Gore instead of Bill Clinton, or is the date in error, or what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.138.10.205 (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing endorsement 

message: Recently two editors have removed the term modern from the intro. Just to clarify: Modern liberal means social liberal or left-liberal (what Americans usually just call liberal). This is opposed to "classic liberal" (which is usually called "libertarian" or often "laissez-faire conservative" in the U.S.). "Modern liberal" is the most commonly used term to distinguished the type of liberalism that is dominant in the U.S. today, from classic liberalism or other forms of liberalism. It is the most accurate and precise term that can be given. While for an American audience the term "liberal" by itself is sufficient, as the term is only applied to modern liberals here, I was thinking of an international audience, who may like some clarification on what brand of liberalism we are talking about. Signaturebrendel 04:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to revert this either way, but could you please provide one or two links that show people outside the US saying this?  There are a number of terms that Wikipedia loves but are never used elsewhere, and I've never seen "modern liberal" used in British newspapers or whatever, so I'm kind of skeptical.P4k (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, from seeing the term used in The Guardian, liberal is often used to describe social liberalism as well. I have print sources for the term "modern liberal;" one being John McGowan's American Liberalism (University of NC Press); come to think of it, perhaps it is not neccessary for me to specify the type of liberalism, since this is a U.S. magazine - thus, one would expect the term liberal to mean modern liberalism, since that's what's understood as "liberal" in the U.S. Signaturebrendel 04:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the term "liberal" to "centre-left."  TNR tends to be more pragmatic and less easily categorized into an American liberal or conservative paradigm, though on average it tends to drift slightly left of the centre.  --24.7.71.43 (talk) 09:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually "modern liberal" is a pragmatic "ideology" (as matter of fact, one may argue that it is the ideology's most prominent feature) & the mag is quite obviously (and proudly) "liberal." Considering the stances the magazine takes on taxes, health care, gay marriage, etc... is fits into the "American liberal paradigm" quite nicely. But your edits gave me an idea, why not have it say "Center-left, liberal" - that makes it crystal clear that we're talking about neither classic liberalism nor social democracy (which too many people confuse with modern liberalism). Signaturebrendel 09:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I think a neologism I might use is "paleoliberal" -- this would be in the mold of (for example) Thom Hartmann in "What Would Jefferson Do?", and I think his characterization of progressive ideas as "common sense from the radical middle" is somewhat descriptive of TNR. I also note some striking similarities (along with the expected stark contrasts) between TNR and Cato Institute, which also draws heavily on Jeffersonian ideals -- albeit intermittently. WNDL42 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern liberal 

message: CanWest implemented major changes to the magazine in order to increase circulation. One of the changes was to file to remove itself from the Audit Bureau of Circulations. 
Though this may be true, it's speculation. In the cited source, the magazine's publisher offers another reason entirely.  Beginning with the "decline of 41 percent since 2000", the tone of this section expresses a PoV.  The paragraph after the circulation table should probably be removed. 
DRE (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation 

message: ...states, that, as did 'Commentary', this publication long ago moved right to a Neo-Conservative stance...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Recent Nation/Alterman article... 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The New Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070227123518/http://www.tnr.com:80/change/ to http://www.tnr.com/change/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The New Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071211194043/http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51f6dc92-7f1d-4d5b-aebe-94668b7bfb32 to http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=51f6dc92-7f1d-4d5b-aebe-94668b7bfb32
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The New Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070313202808/http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070319&s=peretz031907 to http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070319&s=peretz031907
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070110054006/https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060807&s=diarist080706 to https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20060807&s=diarist080706
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some of the earlier comments bring up the variety of liberalism this magazine advocates.
The term for it is and has been "neo-liberal". It's not quite the same as just "liberal" or "center-left".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.153.129 (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use "neo-liberal" for New Republic 

message: In the last sections of the article, it is told that the magazine moved to New York. Nowhere it is told where it was based before that move. It seems to have been based in Washington for 100 years, or wasn't it? Bever (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on The New Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061101094820/http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=22305 to http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=22305
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212030203/http://www.magazine.org/content/Files/ALLABC2001VS2000.xls to http://www.magazine.org/content/Files/ALLABC2001VS2000.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070416075500/http://www.magazine.org/content/Files/ALL%20ABC%20CIRC%20FY%202002%20Table.xls to http://www.magazine.org/content/Files/ALL%20ABC%20CIRC%20FY%202002%20Table.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415041553/http://www.magazine.org/content/Files/2003allabccirc.xls to http://www.magazine.org/content/Files/2003allabccirc.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070417060219/http://www.magazine.org/content/files/2004circallabc.xls to http://www.magazine.org/content/files/2004circallabc.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316033426/http://www.magazine.org/content/Files/AllcircABC05.xls to http://www.magazine.org/content/Files/AllcircABC05.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526231951/http://www.magazine.org/content/Files/FYABC2006ALLCIRC.xls to http://www.magazine.org/content/Files/FYABC2006ALLCIRC.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100327012254/http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/magazines_opinion_magazines.php to http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2010/magazines_opinion_magazines.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is a deeply embarassing hack job. I do not feel well and objectively informed. Some kind of ideolocial battle about the political tendendies of the magazine seem to take place in the edits.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:1C37:8400:6805:3F27:CC5F:9D2F (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird article 

message: Can we have a newer cover pic? This one is over 10 years old…  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:CA:2CE5:1:6422:BB99:A758:D3D4 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover pic