Talk:The Hill (newspaper)

message: 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)
thread_title: Weekly Newspaper?

message: :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.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for File:The Hill Frontpage.jpg

message: 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)
replies: text: Actually I just undid the revision by 98.108.220.96 . . . so, problem solved. Alphachimera (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but it is worth noting if there are other reliable sources that consider The Hill to be conservative, or non-partisan, or whatever. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Conservative Bias 

message: Following the link, Jerry Finkelstein died in 2012.   
The Hill lists James Finkelstein as the Chairman
http://thehill.com/contact/about-us
Presumably that is the son of Jerry...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.109.144 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: Thanks  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)
thread_title:  Conservative Popularity 

message: The slight to moderate liberal bias has been validated by an acknowledged and trusted source:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/
I see no valid reason to omit this relevant information for users' information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.131.132 (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the discussion above where some users thought it was conservative bias.  Your source really has it as just off center, so I wouldn't describe it as a liberal bias based on that.  I'm not sure what your source for that website being "acknowledged and trusted is".  Other sources, such as https://www.allsides.com/news-source/hill have it as center biased.  So, I don't see anything as clearly establishing it as liberal biased.  Especially not to go in as a definitive statement in the lead. meamemg (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that The Hill has a bias, although not nearly as virulent or pronounced as in many other media entities. Quis separabit? 16:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal-leaning bias 

message: The Hill is knowingly using employees of Disqus Commenting systems to post comments and the public should know. https://disqus.com/by/disqus_CkHtcm02kn/
Laws are not meant to “stop” anything. They are intended to deter. To wit - if drunk driving laws were intended to “stop” drunk driving”, they would have been abandoned long ago, because people still drive drunk.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.12.102.84 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2018‎ 
:I don't entirely understand this, and that link doesn't prove anything at all as far as I can tell. Regardless, this talk page isn't the place to share original research. User-generated content, such as forum comments, are almost never reliable sources on Wikipedia.  If you have a reliable source explaining this, post it. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hill using fake comments  

message: Shouldn't Rising with Krystal Ball and Saagar get its own page? 2601:185:8200:CEE0:7C8A:5845:C1FE:9DB7 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide sources that mention the YT channel? Wei4Green · 唯绿远大 19:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rising YouTube channel 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Hill which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Propublica has been running some stories that apparently the Hill has some stuff going on with Giuliani.   –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: The citation for The Hill having a moderately conservative readership does not directly gather data showing this. Instead it outsources this classification to two other media critic organizations. Per the cited source: "2) Two independent coding schemes — Media bias/Fact check (MBFC) and Allsides (AS) 
— were used to assign each source as liberal, moderate or conservative." If either MBFC or AS has transparent data behind the classifications they have assigned, then those could be substituted here and the text edited according to what the sources actually show. Jmaranvi (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. There was no edit summary with it's addition and no corresponding content in the article body. Media bias/Fact check and Allsides are not reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Citation Re: Moderate/Conservative Readers 

message: Earlier this year, The Hill discontinued the Comment section that was provided by Disqus. Shouldn't that be included in this article? How has that impacted online readership? Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Hill's owners reported setting new online audience / readership records in November 2022: https://www.nexstar.tv/the-hills-midterm-election-coverage-sets-new-audience-record/ ~~~~ Storyteller23 (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disqus Comments Discontinued