Jump to content

Talk:The Washington Post/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Contributors list

Probably ought to be split into current and past; Bernstein, Brown, Buchwald and others have not been with The Post for sometime; in Buchwald's case, he's deceased. Also, should people who only contribute to the Web site (Froomkin, Steiner) be in a separate section, or listed on the Washington Post.Newsweek Interactive page instead of here? They're separate companies, if that makes any difference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.47.123.121 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

March

Re recent edits: point taken that the march was well described in an existing article. However, the reason why I didn't find that article earlier is that IMHO the title is incorrect. The title of Sousa's piece of music is simply "The Washington Post", not "The Washington Post March".

I think it would be overkill to create a disambiguation page for the two, since the newspaper is a) clearly the primary referent for the name, and b) the article is short enough that it is easy to include a pointer to the article on the march on the newspaper page.

Accordingly, I've moved The Washington Post March to The Washington Post (march). I've reworded the line in The Washington Post to begin

The Washington Post is also...

to reflect the fact that the march and the newspaper both have the same name. Dpbsmith 13:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Militant?

As the French newspaper Libération is currently being characterized as "militant" in its article I would like to know whether the Washington Post's attempt to insult UN Secretary General Kofi Annan by publishing an article with the headline "Annan's Offense" by Charles Krauthammer - an offense reflected wholly in Annan's concern for the lives of innocent civilians would qualify this newspaper as "militant" as well? Just a rhetorical question... Get-back-world-respect 15:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not really, Krauthammer is a op-ed conservative columnist, so the "headline" in question was above his personal political commentary on the op-ed page.Tom Cod 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Political leanings

I just reverted a section titled "opinion" which, in my opinion, gave the writer's opinion about the paper. But certainly this article needs mention of the general perception that the Post is liberal-leaning - although as the New York Times article shows, that sort of discussion can turn into an argument that swamps the whole article. - DavidWBrooks 15:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should not be left out though, just because people can get into an argument. This is the kind of information that can be hard to find other places and I think The Economist works as a good example of how this can be done. --Vikingstad 17:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of this section, the second paragraph thereof is wishy-washy and of no real content. Someone needs to find examples of support/criticism of the Post's news coverage, or just take out the paragraph altogether. --zenohockey 03:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I edited this section, mostly by restructuring pre-existing material, to conform with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I am not as confident of any "general perception" or consensus "that the Post is liberal-leaning" as the previous editor, and would propose on the contrary an equally widespread perception of the Post's implication in conservative-corporate power. If the purpose of this section is to empirically establish the Post's political leanings beyond dispute, it's going to fail. I think a better approach is to identify conflicting perceptions of the Post, ideally with citations, and let the readers judge for themselves. To this end, I restructured the paragraph as a series of points and counterpoints, and included a Manufacturing Consent link to substantiate the liberal criticism of the Post. Someone ought to link the "liberal media" quote as well. --Jdfawcett 05:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove two statements in this article : "dominated by conservatives" and "many of Bush's other policies". They can be put back into the article if someone provides a citation for the allegations. I do not know about the former, but from my reading WaPo's unsigned editorials they do not seem to "stedfastly support. . . many of Bush's other policies" and even their support on Iraq is wavering. Without any citations supporting those allegations, the article not only violates a neutral point of view, it could present an inaccurate point of view. (The sentence as it appeared on 3:46am EDT, July 3, 2006 was: "As well, the Post's editorial board, dominated by conservatives[citation needed], has steadfastly supported the invasion of Iraq and many of President Bush's other policies[citation needed].")-- SterlingNorth 07:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This section is awful. Pretending that the Post is anything other than a stalwart of the east coast liberal media is specious. VaGuy1973 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


It is interesting to compare this article to that of The Washington Times, which wikipedia cites is blatantly liberally conservative. Why does the Post's article take the victim stance by saying it is being attacked by conservatives about bias, while the Times' article just states that it's politically biased? You have to be fair here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.96.98 (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The article says: "The Post's editorial positions on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative bent". Are you serious? This line harms Wikipedia's claim to neutrality and encyclopedia-ness more. Certainly it's not the perception of the Post's readers, who write in every week with examples of liberal bias. Nor does it seem to jibe with the Post's editorial endorsements of Democratic candidates in virtually every contested race, including Gore, Kerry, and Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajita (talk • contribs) 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable Contributors

Is the list of notable contributors intended to include past contributors as well? Anson2995 18:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence

The majority of the paper's political endorsements have historically been awarded to Democratic candidates

the Post has never endorsed a canadate

What are you talking about? It endorses lots of candidates! I've returned it. - DavidWBrooks 13:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Please cite one example of when the Post has endored any canadate. Phil Graham and JFK were friends, yet even then they did not endorse him. The same thing happened with LBJ and Kay. Are you confusing a positive editorial with an endorsement? I have removed it again, please have some evidence before putting it back.
Washington Post endorses John Kerry: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57584-2004Oct23.html - DavidWBrooks

Generally when a paper endorses a canadate the Publisher writes it and it does not apper in the editoral section. I don't think that is a edorsement, it is a positive editoral.

In most U.S. newspapers, the endorsements are written the same way editorials are: unsigned, so they carry the image of being from the newspaper as an institution, rather than from an individual. But they're still endorsements, in the sense that they urge voters to support a particular person. (I don't know that Donald Graham has ever bylined anything in the Post's pages.) The Post provides similar endorsements in local gubernatorial races and DC mayoral races, and possibly other DC-region races. - DavidWBrooks 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents here - Katherine Graham's book "Personal History" makes a very specific point of mentioning, several times, that the Post did not endore candidates for the presidency. On page 148 of "Personal History", there is this quote from Ms. Graham: "In the Truman-Dewey election, the Post maintained its tradition, begun under my father's independent ownership, of not endorsing a candidate for the presidency. Rather, the paper commented editorially on both candidates." It could be that what people are perceiving as endorsements are actually editorials. Or, the Post may endorse local candidates, etc. - these passages simply say the paper does not endorse a candidate for president. NickBurns 22:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up - the section is much improved

Graham died in 2001 - three years before the Kerry presidential endorsement cited above. - DavidWBrooks 22:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

David - thanks for pointing that out. I like the change you made - acknowledges the historical tendency not to endorse - adds the 04 Kerry endorsement - maybe policy has changed. NickBurns 02:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of endorsements: [1] Op-Ed columnist Fred Hiatt "How We Endorse, and Why" - DavidWBrooks 19:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Per the to-do note...

I'm going to try and add a concise section about Deep Throat and Watergate to the article. I have a few books as source material (including the Graham autobio). NickBurns 16:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comics

Isn't the Washington Post known for its comics pages? Should there be a mention of that? 72.75.9.37 04:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Post and 1919 Race Riot

As the Post in contemporary times has conceded, it's most shameful moment came in 1919 when it served to inflame white racist mobs during the race riot of that year during which many were killed. [[2]] Tom Cod 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol

I don't think Maryland would appreciate being called a suburb of D.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.172.17 (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

er, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties are most certainly suburbs of D.C. john k (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Political leanings again

Until just now, there was a claim that the Post editorial board had "some" center-left writers and "a few" center right writers. This is rather misleading. Clearly, looking at the list of columnists, on the right you have Krauthammer, Gerson, Novak, Samuelson, and Will. For people clearly on the left you have King, Dionne, Meyerson, and maybe Eugene Robinson, I think. The rest are centrists of various colors. Cohen is kind of sort of a liberal, for instance, but rather mushy and poor one - no actual liberals seem to like him very much at this point, notably. People like Jim Hoagland and Anne Applebaum (and Fred Hiatt, of course) are mostly notable for being hawks, and have no noticeable left-wingness on domestic policy to distinguish them. I suppose if "not clearly a paid agent of the Republican Party" qualifies one as "on the left," then there's more leftists than rightists on the Post's editorial page. But it's pretty ridiculous to consider David Broder to be on the left.

Beyond this, the section is disconnected and not very well written. The key things, I think, about the Wa Post editorial board is that they are a) very hawkish on foreign policy; b) generally socially liberal, but they rarely actually write about such things; c) pretty determinedly centrist on domestic policy - they're deficit hawks; and d) very strongly pro-development in local issues. Except on social issues, this isn't a very liberal profile, but it's obviously not the sort of "obvious tool of the Republican party" profile that gets one labelled a conservative editorial page, either. It's a very establishment editorial page. Anyway, ideally, we should find some good sources on the subject so we can turn it into something besides a mess of quotes and isolated mentions of different endorsements through the years. john k (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

mia hamms background

mia hamm spent her childhood on a air force base with her mom and her five siblings she organized and plyayed sports at a very young ge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.42.165 (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

There needs to be information on the WPOST's editorial positions in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Some accuse it of being pro-Zionist, while others say it is anti-Zionist. However, the Washington Post has the same owners as Newsweek, which is apparently pro-Israel/Zionist. ADM (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange reference in Google Search Engine Results Page

Searching Google for [washington post] returns this result for the Wikipedia entry:

The Washington Post - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 6:21am
The Washington Post LIAM SHEPLEY WAS HERE 23BC is the newspaper with the largest circulation in Washington, D.C., United States and is the city's oldest ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post - 96k - Cached - Similar pages -

Who is LIAM SHEPLEY and why is Google picking up that phrase in the page description for this entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmjohnson (talk • contribs) 14:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I just made a couple of changes. I don't think anyone would dispute that the Post is DC's leading newspaper. No need to compare it to the Washington Times in the opening sentence. I also added that Washington is the capital of the USA. Yes, I know that everybody already knows that. However I think it is a good thing to remind them why Washington is important. Redddogg (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I reverted. I'm not sure what is meant by "leading"? The prior version said it was the most widely circulated. An alternative would be to say the most popular in D.C. or something along those lines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I intended "leading" to mean the one most people read. By saying "widely circulated" you are drawing attention to the number 2 paper in DC, the Times, which is a distraction. On my other change, I think it is a good thing to remind people what Washington DC is because this is an important factor letting them know why the Post is important. Redddogg (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
How about saying it is the most popular? Leading is a bit POV and ambiguous. And as far as addressing its importance, I think it's fine to say it's the largest and most successful newspaper in the capitol of the U.S. in another sentence. Perhaps there's already a source supporting this in the article? As it is a value judgement it should probably be sourced. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I moved the expression "capital of the United States" down the page to see how it would work there.Redddogg (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Very reasonable. I appreciate your willingness to collaborate. I took a stab at working the issue into the introduction. See what you think. I also tried to excise the unencyclopedic wording. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper of record?

The lead calls it a "newspaper of record". Does this mean it is a "newspaper of public record" or that it is D.C.'s most-widely circulated newspaper (i.e. a de facto newspaper of record)? Either way, I think instead of using this phrase it should just be stated explicitly, as it is a rather ambiguous term. Strikehold (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you read the Newspaper of Record article, you'll find that the United States isn't technically able to have one in the true definition of the phrase. Additionally, I find that the source claiming The Washington Post to be a Newspaper of Record in this article may not hold up; it is pretty much some guy saying so in some article. Anyone concur?--131.58.64.193 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


I was under the impression that no newspaper in the United States could legally claim to be the "newspaper of record" anymore but that most Americans would instantly recognise the phrase as being clearly associated with (although obviously not technically copyrighted by) the New York Times. Is this true? Mardiste (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ombudsmen

This section was removed by another editor, but I think it would be good to include if a cite can be rustled up:

According to the Organization of News Ombudsmen, in 1971 the Post became one of the first newspapers in the United States to establish a position of "ombudsman", or readers' representative, assigned to address reader complaints about Post news coverage and to monitor the newspaper's adherence to its own standards. Ever since, the ombudsman's commentary has been a frequent feature of the Post editorial page.

ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

whorunsgov.com

Last week, the Washington Post launched http://www.whorunsgov.com

http://www.whorunsgov.com/about_us

it is Wiki based!

Reliefappearance (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem sentence

"The Post is generally regarded among the leading daily American newspapers, along with The New York Times, which is known for its general reporting and international coverage, and The Wall Street Journal, which is known for its financial reporting." This is both true and important information for readers to understand the Post's importance. However it is not sourced. It seems to me that a source could be found however, maybe a book on newspapers in the USA. I just reverted a change which toned the wording down to say only that the Post was "compared" to the other papers. This failed to give the information readers need. After all just about anything can be compared to anything else. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post editorial integrity questioned

cross-posted at Talk:The Wall Street Journal

On the intelligence website globalreports.org senior intelligence analyst and editor of that service, Christopher Story, writes:[3]

On or approximately 11th January 2010, Mr A. Clifton Hodges, of Hodges and Associates, Pasadena, California, lawyers for the CMKM/CMKX Plaintiffs in their suit against the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] [Case Number: CV10-00031 JVS (MLGx)] filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, sent copies of the Complaint seeking monetary payment of $3.87 trillion in the biggest financial fraud case in world history, to the following two US newspapers:

My question to other editors of this article is: If this is correct, doesn't this omission by the two major papers constitute a glaring and rather incontrovertible evidence of negligence and breach of professional ethics on the part of the papers, i.e. the editors-in-chief?

Apart from soliciting other WP editors' assessment of the importance of this incident and relevance for inclusion in our article(s) (I'm judisciously cross-posting this on the two newspapers' articles' talk pages), what would be required in terms of WP:V and WP:RS to meet our requirements? __meco (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence

Located in the nation's capital, The Post has

Which nation? Or the English Wikipedia talks about one and the same nation by default, unless specified otherwise? --195.214.249.6 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

B class, but still needs work. The list of contributors perhaps should become a category. The history and political stance sections lurch around a bit. Well sourced, though, and well-covered. --M@rēino 20:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusations

Who the heck is "American Thinker" and what is their credibility on any subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.120.62 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Post Graham Period

This section is jumbled, describing several events that took place a decade previously, and several other topics which are not relevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.120.62 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Capital Weather Gang

Hi. Does a mention of Capital Weather Gang make sense in this article? If so, maybe we could have a redirect from Capital Weather Gang to a blogs section in the article. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Its first-ever front page advertisement???

Didn't Kay Graham state in her memoir that when her father bought the Post at an auction sale, it had routinely published ads on the front page??? Perhaps research is needed here.johncheverly 05:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in reading the difference in orientation between the Post and the New York Times..

Despite the article's emphasis on the Post's conservativism, as a general reader, I feel the Post often has a progressive edge over NYT. I can't pinpoint it, but it's the general impression I receive from reading the Post's article. I'm interested in reading the comparison between the two ..(even though of course the Post doesn't seem to have as much resources as NYT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yayoikoi (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


THere is no difference between the NYT and the Wash Post. From this article you'll get the usual wikipedia tripe though. The section on the WashPo's political bias is about 2/3rds filled with examples of their conservatism, lol. Another joke of an article by a joke of a website. 107.36.49.129 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post has always been -- and remains, even by the admission of its own ombudsman --a liberal paper. For the Post to get excited about any abuse of power, a Republican needs to be in the White House. With a Democrat in the White House, the Post is content because it is in ideological accord. Of course, if any such change were made to note this in the article, it would simply be dubbed sabotage and instantly reverted to the usual liberal viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.69.229 (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Introduction of color

The article states that the first color photo on the front page was used on January 28th 1999, however there is no mention of what the image was. I believe this would be interesting information, and it must be available somewhere. My memory was that the photo was one of the first images from the Hubble telescope, however the Hubble_Space_Telescope article clearly proves the weakness of my memory.

--- If my memory is correct, science writer John Schwartz told me that the article featuring my work was the first color photo in the Post. I would like to verify this, but not sure how. It must be one of the early photos at least. This is the reference: "Flickering on the CAVE Walls, Reality in Another Dimension" Nov 28, 1994 --Rgillilan (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Paywall not mentioned?

I think wp's paywall policy(something like 10 to 20 pages per day for free) is worth adding to the article, but I for myself never wrote satisfactory quality to fit in wikipedia style. I hope someone knowledgeable enough could add accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.36.42.130 (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Mistake

The sentence "Katharine Graham Weymouth now serves as publisher and chief executive officer" is confusing. There is no such person. There's Katharine Meyer Graham, there's Katharine Meyer Graham's daughter Elizabeth Morris "Lally" Graham Weymouth, and there's Elizabeth Morris "Lally" Graham Weymouth's daughter Katharine Bouchage Weymouth. Not one of these people is named "Katharine Graham Weymouth" and so who knows what you mean?76.8.67.2 (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on The Washington Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Are the bias accusations from Senator Bernard Sanders (I-VT) worth mentioning?

If we were to list grievances against news outlets from every single political campaign, the list would be endless. Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems to be a case of WP:RECENT. meamemg (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Kerfuffle with Trump

There was a very large, multi-paragraph section about the recent blow up with Trump. This was hugely UNDUE for an article about a newspaper that's been around for 100+ years. Such info belongs on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, not here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@217.120.219.67: You reverted me (which is fine, BRD and all). So let's discuss. You appear to be a major contributor to that section. What is your justification for including it? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
It's the 2nd biggest political battle (after Nixon) in the paper's history. That's an important issue that needs coverage. Rjensen (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC).
Nixon was a two-term sitting president who was forced out of office in a scandal in which the Post played a very pivotal role. Trump is only a candidate (who is unlikely to be elected to the presidency, according to the prediction markets) and nothing substantial has happened to him that was caused by the Post (or vice-versa). That is not in the same league – it's just this week's story. Nixon is also mentioned only once in the body of the article (and once in the lead to summarize what is in the body). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
well thank god we don't have another Watergate! However that does not mean an attack on the freedom of the press by a major party candidate should be covered up. It's not "recent" --proof: CNN Jun 14, 2016 states: Donald Trump has been denying press credentials to news outlets for nearly a year. CNN source Rjensen (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The newspaper is 139 years old, so anything in the last decade or two of its history is WP:RECENT, and I'm sure there are many candidates and in-office politicians over the last few decades who have attempted to control the Post's access to their campaigns or complained about the newspaper's coverage – including Mr. Trump's Democratic party opponent, who is well known for not giving press conferences and sticking to a strict set of talking points to control coverage. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:recent deals w breaking stories a few hours or days old. this item covers practically all of Trump's presidential campaign, which we extensively cover. are there many such candidates who eject reporters from speeches and rallies? Not according to the media. As for Clinton, her behavior should be covered in her article, especially if she singles out certain papers for hostile treatment as Trump did. Rjensen (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. WP:RECENT deals with all cases where the more recent has too heavy of a focus. It says "For large-scale topics, such as Slavery, Marriage, or War, the stress might be on simply the last few centuries, though the subject matter of the article might have a history of thousands of years." meamemg (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
the 2016 election is "recent"--well yes compared to George Washington and Charlemagne. Wiki editors are unanimous it should be covered in depth over the last 12+ months (not just the last 12 days) --and this exclusion of specified news media has been going on for over a year now. Rjensen (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Put the Trump ban stuff in the Trump presidential campaign article, not here, as it is not particularly relevant to the paper's political bias or editorial stance. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to try to confuse the question of the Post's bias. What it did prior to its acquisition by Bezos is only marginally relevant to how it is biased today. Perhaps more attention should be paid to how it has changed (if it has) over time by including a historical section discussing editorial content. FWIW, the Post has swung left and is definitely not what I'd consider Moderate in either its News and Editorial content. The Editorial bias is less troubling than its News bias, imho. Also, any discussion of its accomplishments should include its historical size (circulation, number of employees, income) since this has changed radically over time. The Post is not the same as it was under Katherine.Abitslow (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion. I'm not sure the question of "how it is biased today" is the key question for determining what is appropriate to include (I'm assuming that you are referring to the content of the "Political stance" section). The history of the post's political stance is relevant in its own right, to help readers frame the history section, if nothing else. That said, I wouldn't see any issue in separating out the Political Stance sections into similar subgroups as the history section has (or even moving some of the content into the history section). I think, as it is, the Bezos period section of the article is already overly long in comparison to the rest of the article. If you have information on the historical size, I think adding that in a few places could be very useful. meamemg (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the "Political stance" section itself is extremely long and ought to be divided up by era, with a sentence or two at the top about the general . Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Perceived bias in reportages/op-eds concerning the 2016 presidential election: The Washington Post seems to be biased in the 2016 presidential election. When the Republican candidate was accused, the WAPO issued more than 12 articles against him on their website (frontpage) on 15 October 2016 (see old entry). When the Democratic candidate was in trouble because of the e-mail issues (as a non-American I honestly think that the e-mail issue is overblown, but so are other issues, too), the WAPO shot against FBI director in the harshest way: James Comey is damaging our democracy. --Fb8cont (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
"bias" is a problem when Wikipedia editors are involved, but not when reliable sources are involved. Very well informed RS make judgments based on a lot of facts that they spend a great deal of time gathering and evaluating. Therefore wiki editors should not call expert evaluations a "bias" because that term implies preconceived notions made up before looking at the facts. Rjensen (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I've written perceived bias. If I see a website that has more than 12 articles (reports and op-eds) against someone and none in defense or with neutral standpoint and almost no article about other issues like the WAPO on 15 October 2016, than it looks overly engaged. Doesn't it? And then that very newspaper calls a mere notification (from a FBI director) a damage/threat to democracy. And that creates the impression of overt bias. (Overt bias is less damaging than concealed bias but I don't like the WAPO to become a party paper or something like the news-channel "foxnews", either.) --Fb8cont (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Why does the WAPO go ad personam against the FBI director? It would be much more effective to question the veracity of the underlying claim that the private e-mail server was less secure. It could have been (and presumably was) hacked, true. But the server of the foreign office could have been (or is already) hacked, too. And what about Snowden? He didn't even need to hack! At least a private e-mail server reduces the access of non-hackers. --Fb8cont (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S.2 The picture of the print edition in the wiki article is spot-on. --Fb8cont (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S.3 Like in foxnews, today's earthquake in Italy isn't main news for WAPO, their political articles come first. --Fb8cont (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

yes, the other day it was [Wikipedia as 2016 election guide].. the picture is spot-on. agreed. ^^ SashiRolls (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the Current Page Image Appropriate?

Showing the headline "Hillary Clinton Celebrates Victory" makes it look like The Washington Post printed their papers too early à la "Dewey Defeats Truman." The image may be talking about her victory in the Democratic primary, but at first glance it characterizes the newspaper as incompetent, instead of simply showing what a typical cover for the Post looks like. I apologize if there is some protocol for selecting images for newspaper articles that I do not know about, but I just thought it was a grievance worth addressing.100.33.119.211 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I do think it's an odd choice for a picture. It does make it look like they published the paper based off the expected results instead of what happened. The only criteria I know of for selecting a newspaper/magazine/book cover is that it must be uploaded under fair use, since it's almost always under copyright. White Arabian Filly Neigh 23:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Created new article on controversial group PropOrNOt

Created new article on controversial group PropOrNot that was reported on in The Washington Post.

Please feel free to help out at article PropOrNot.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

On the "advice" for Electoral College members to deviate from the results of their states

Do the Post's and other news media's opinion pieces constitute a suggestion, an advice or undue distress? There's even a website with the names of the electors of each state and a commentary section where anonymous people can post messages: Look at the "article" Electoral College Names: Who Are the Electors Who Will Vote for President? from "www.heavy.com". And "www.heavy.com" seems to have some ties with the Washington Post, as it embedded a live stream from the Post in its article Presidential Debate Live Stream: Watch the Debate Online Tonight for Free. ("You can watch The Washington Post’s debate livestream above.") That's hmm. --Fb8cont (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

First i'd suggest you find a different title for the subsection. I don't know what "going rough" means. It does not seem to me to be an encyclopedic term. Remember, we write in a formal tone here. Do you mean the Post is advising that the electors "get nasty"? (also not an encyclopedic term) Or that it's "going rough" for the Post? In any case this wording needs to be changed. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
It's about these articles/opinion pieces: The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton., The electoral college should be unfaithful, The electoral college should think hard before handing Trump the presidency, Should the electoral college stop a Trump presidency? Depends whom you ask., In last-shot bid, thousands urge electoral college to block Trump at Monday vote and similar articles. One or two articles for information on the theoretical possibilities that may perhaps be applied in a worst case scenario is sound information. But so many articles about that in a situation that may be hmm but is not a worst case scenario is way over the top: Since when are the people of the States of the USA declared unfit to choose the candidate? Even in 1860 the electors abstained from that! WAPO tries to be become a liberal copy of Breitbard, but that's impossible. --Fb8cont (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Would anyone like to be an elector now? Read Electors under siege form POLITICO. For me, WAPO is now Liberal-In-Name-Only! --Fb8cont (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The system must be transparent and democratic: Either the electors are only envoys and have no authority to deliberate over the voter's choice; or the voters should have the opportunity to choose among different electors for the party ticket in the "presidential [electors] election" --Fb8cont (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC).
This topic has been deleted from the article per WP:RECENT (I would argue that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER also applies). And your text above seems to be much more about your reaction to the WaPo's articles and editorials about this than it is about the paper itself. Writing about your reaction is not what WP talk pages are for. So per WP:NOTFORUM this subject would appear to be inappropriate here. If you want to include in the article something regarding the paper's news or opinion coverage of this topic, you really need to find other reliable sources' reactions to it.
This is particularly true since you yourself clearly find the paper's position highly objectionable. Per WP:NPOV we're supposed to "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Writing just from your viewpoint would not be that. If you want to advocate for one evaluation or another, neither the article nor this talk page are appropriate places, regardless of how strongly you hold your opinion or your reasons for holding it. Jeh (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I find the paper's position objectionable, but that is based on facts, not speculation. When was the last time a newspaper called on electors to disregard the outcome of the elections? And it wasn't one or two opinion pieces / "reports" but many. To add one more "report" to the pervious list: Donald Trump will face one, some or 20 faithless electors, depending on what random story you read and I guess there are many more but I'm tired of presenting them all. Even if one would say that the freedom of speech means that the Post has the right to advice the electors to disregard the outcome according to the regulation of their states (it's up to the states to change the rules and adopt for example the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact), it is at least a fact that the Post took these to the extremes. And that's not the only extreme: See more than 140 stories on its front page promoting the [Iraq] war or the old (now deleted) article entry: On March 8th, 2016, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting published links to 16 purportedly negative articles on Bernie Sanders published in the on-line version of the paper during a period of 16 hours from March 6th to March 7th.Johnson, Adam (8 March 2016). "Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours". fair.org. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved 16 September 2016.
I didn't hide my opinion that this isn't o.k. But that doesn't change the facts: The Post's excessive campaigning for what "it" deems (for whatever reason) a righteous cause (pro Iraq war, against Sanders, against the Republican candidate, and now against the outcome of the presidential election) --Fb8cont (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[[Federalust
P.S. And is the Post's invocation of Alexander Hamilton any better then NRA's invocation of Thomas Jefferson? Both lived centuries ago, the circumstances have changed (for example: "Foreign intervention" in Hamilton's time did mean much more than e-mail hacks!). --Fb8cont (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Neither this article or its talk page are for you to write about your opinions, regardless of how well-founded you think they are, regardless of how important you think it is that we carry them. Please review my comments above. Wikipedia absolutely does not publish its own editors' opinions. If you want this article to include coverage of the Post's advocacy here, you need to find what other reliable sources are saying about it - and per WP:NPOV you must find some on each side, and whatever is included in the article must "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It does not appear to me that your missives here are written with that intention. Jeh (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
First: When was the last time, the Washington Post or any other major newspaper published multiple opinion pieces that advised the electors to deviate from the outcome of the election in their state? When was the last time there had been seven electors (and one elector who was replaced) that deviated from the outcome? When was the last time electors complained about threats? When was the last time a major newspaper ran a series of 16 negative stories in 16 hours during the primaries like WAPO did on Sanders?
Second: I would be thankful, if you stop the usage of insulting language, like "missives" and if you stop declaring that there are no sources: See Electors under siege and Johnson, Adam (8 March 2016). "Washington Post Ran 16 Negative Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours". fair.org. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved 16 September 2016.--Fb8cont (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
"When was the last time..." all of that is about your reaction to the WaPo, not about anybody else's. We don't publish our own editors' reactions.
"Missive" is defined by Merriam-Webster [4] as "a written communication : letter". Why you think that is "insulting language" is a mystery to me, but is not my problem.
Re your "sources", your first doesn't mention the Washington Post, and the second doesn't mention "electors", so both would seem to be off point for your topic here. You have yet to come up with anything suitable for inclusion in WP, particularly considering WP:NPOV. Jeh (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
According to Cambridge Dictionary a missive is "an official, formal, or long letter" (e.g. "She sent a ten-page missive to the committee, detailing her objections."). As a few lines on Wikipedia talk page cannot constitute an official, formal, or long letter, I thought that you meant quite the opposite. Was I wrong on that? --Fb8cont (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
You were flatly wrong to accuse me of using "insulting language". Can we get back on topic? Jeh (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on relevance of Electoral College coverage by The Washington Post):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on The Washington Post and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Fb8cont considers that The Washington Post's coverage of the Electoral College "going rogue" (note: he writes it as "going rough") during the 2016 US presidential election is relevant enough to mention in the article as a controversy. Jeh disagrees per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Based on the discussion and evidence provided, I agree with Jeh that Fb8cont's proposed insertion is not appropriate at the moment because it does not conform with Wikipedia's policy on original research. Also, the few sources provided to support the addition do not meet Wikipedia's standard for reliability, which states the following: "Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy" (please see note 2 on WP:RS). Thank you for requesting a third opinion. Happy holidays!-- MarshalN20 Talk 01:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment! --Fb8cont (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of political leanings in lead

An editor recently added, "The paper is considered by both academia and social critics as having a left-liberal bias in comparison to other American periodicals and news organizations."

While it appears to be supported by sources, there is a long standing Wikipedia precedent for keeping such information relegated to body sections, and not placed in the lead. For example, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post and the New York Times articles both keep bias and editorial stances out of the lead.

I would argue this is WP:Undue out of deference to WP precedent as well as the fact that the Post's political leanings are well documented in the body of the article. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Jeh (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Both Rt news and Huffington Post have their ideological leanings (and in RT's case, extended criticism) in their ledes, so I disagree that this precedent even exists. 73.93.140.197 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If you think that RT and HuffPo are comparable in any way to the Washington Post, I urge you to do a lot more reading and thinking. Neutralitytalk 21:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree and have removed. The sources cited don't support that statement made: "The paper is considered by both academia and social critics as having a left-liberal bias in comparison to other American periodicals and news organizations." The sources are not reliable for this proposition. The statement inaccurately conflates (1) editorial stance with (2) reporting bias, which is misleading. None of the sources are "academic" (a handout distributed by librarians is not academic). Nor are any "social critics" actually cited.
Source #1, the website here, merely cites to this source, which is a non-peer-reviewed PDF put out by the library at Harold Washington College. No author is cited - the compilation is merely "HWC Reference Librarians." And the document says that the paper has a liberal editorial stance - not that it has a "bias."
Source #2, here, is an opinion piece in Vanity Fair by ex-media executive Ken Stern. All it says about the Washington Post is that (1) it is a mainstream newspaper; and (2) "there has always been, at the very least, a concerted effort at places like ... The Washington Post to offer a balanced view, even if that effort is occasionally undermined by inevitable group think and lack of connection with parts of the country."
Source #3, here, is another unsigned, non-academic piece. The "About Us" and "Who We Are" pages indicates that this was a class project by college kids! The misspellings ("legitamate sources"; "acutally work") really take the cake. The unreliability here should be obvious to anyone. Neutralitytalk 21:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I had already removed, on similar grounds, two of the "sources" provided for that claim but hadn't looked as far into these. The entire addition seemed pretty POV-pushy. Jeh (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

What does "If you think that RT and HuffPo are comparable in any way to the Washington Post, I urge you to do a lot more reading and thinking." mean? What are you implying? Stevo D (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Slogan in infobox

Should the slogan be included in the infobox or not? The placement seems very odd and visually disconcerting to me, and other newspapers don't have their slogans placed there. The New York Times slogan, "All the News That's Fit to Print", for example, is included in the article, not the infobox. Same case with Washington Times and Chicago Tribune. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Slogan" is not a valid parameter for that template, so I removed it. "Motto", however, is. Given that it is a valid parameter, which presumably had consensus for its presence at least at one time, there is little rationale for saying it shouldn't be used here. The right thing would be to add it to the templates in the articles where it's missing - or, you could go over to template talk:infobox newspaper and argue for its removal, or for a different way of displaying it. I do agree that at present it just seems to be stuck up there. Personally I would italicize it and put it in quotes, the latter to make it clear that we (WP) didn't make it up. Jeh (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Kurtz?

""By the Post's own admission, in the months before the war, it ran more than 140 stories on its front page promoting the war, while contrary information "got lost," as one Post staffer told Kurtz."[84]"

WHO? ---Dagme (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal

@Power~enwiki: Why did you remove this section from this article? Jarble (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The "Meyer-Graham period" covers the time up to when Jeff Bezos bought the paper, which is the next section. Feel free to restore any content that was removed and isn't already in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Bezos canceling health insurance, freezing pension plan

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2017

This person does not belong on the list of executive editors of Washington Post: David Swerdlick, editor (2015–present) [86]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Circulation

Any new figures? The last are from 2013! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.50.127 (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Washington Post. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Unable to find reference

Unable to find reference in Wikipedia to the date of Washington Post's (IPO) Initial Public Offering. This significant media business event is used dramatically in recent Hollywood film , but cannot verify the historicity so far. Can some editor help on this score? HARFIN 2602:30A:C0AB:8410:D9FB:A7B:416D:8801 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Jan 23, 2018

I took care of this. There's a new graph in the "Meyer–Graham period" section. 98.247.224.9 (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Since when is the Washington Post fake news?

This sentence is from the Wikipedia article on the Washington Post: "The Washington Post is an American Fake news." WTF Looks like a troll has make at least one change to this article. If I knew how to fix it, I would. 2601:282:202:7D00:9044:2943:1122:4D3A (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks meamemg (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The Washington Post is fake news. They lie daily about the president and call it "journalism". Too bad Wikipedia is allergic to the truth. 47.137.185.148 (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Didn't Washington Star Publish Daily from 1850s?

Article states the Post was the first DC paper to publish daily. Didn't the Evening Star publish on a daily basis going back to the Civil War? Walt Whitman commented that he first became aware of the assasination of Lincoln from that source.Tom Cod

The Evening Star published daily, except on Sundays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B014:FF66:A51E:7AFA:F17E:7962 (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Largest circulation claim in intro

The intro currently claims that the WaPo has the "largest circulation in the Washington metropolitan area" without a citation. This could be saying three things:

  1. WaPo is distributed more in the DMV than it is in any other place. (true)
  2. Of the newspapers in the DMV, WaPo has the largest circulation in the region. (probably true, but needs citation)
  3. Of the newspapers in the DMV, WaPo has the largest total circulation. (false, since US News, published across the river, has larger circulation)

I'd argue that the second claim is the one we should be going for if we can cite it, since it's the most significant claim that's also probably true. Regardless, the ambiguity needs to be cleared up. - Sdkb (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've come up with better wording and re-added. Still a slight chance of ambiguity, so if anyone has ideas for further improvement or wants to add a footnote, I'm open to it. Seems like I'm mostly talking to myself here tho. Sdkb (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

China Daily FARA violations

@Zaathras and Grayfell: Hello. If thirty-five Congresspersons say that the China Daily broke the law (FARA) and that China Daily has given Communist Chinese cash to the Washington Post for "ads" (specifically and mentioned by name in the two articles linked) for years while China Daily was breaking USA law, what else do you need to make this significant to Wikipedia's Washington Post article? It's not saying that the Washington Post broke the law, it's providing relevant information about the China Daily content in the Washington Post. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC) I combined the paragraphs, let me know what you think of it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be information that should be included here, but we have to be careful about how we phrase it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
@Horse Eye Jack, Zaathras, and Grayfell: Added a new sentence about an eight-page advertising supplement from the China Daily. I am resolutely opposed to careful wording-- I want correct wording, with no carefulness attached (it's a for-fun volunteer-created encyclopaedia where we present cold, hard facts from secondary sources). Let me know if you all disagree with including this new sentence. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC) (modified)
In my new sentence, I add information about a fact directly relevant to the China Daily section and a comment on that fact that comes from a conservative organization. Fox News is now mentioned three times on this page, whereas the Washington Post is mentioned twenty-seven times on the Fox News page. I include citations from Xinhua News Agency and China Daily on Wikipedia and Wiktionary all the time when the facts are mundane and not obviously biased. Can you allow Fox News to report a fact about the Washington Post? Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The WaPo is getting paid by the China Daily, a newspaper "owned by the Publicity Department of the Communist Party of China and published in the People's Republic of China." (Wikipedia), to run so-called eight page advertisements in the WaPo, that is to say, the Publicity Department of the Communist Party writes a section of the Washington Post sometimes. A conservative group thought it was unusual. Seems noteworthy. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe I have successfully integrated the sentence I originally added into the sentences immediately preceding it. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I should have been more clear, while we should talk about the supplement talking about the Media Research Center and giving them any coverage is WP:UNDUE given their fringe and unreliable nature. Your comment here didn’t mention them but your most recent edits seem to be (perhaps entirely?) based on them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the whole section is undue weight. The sourcing here is pretty bad - the Media Research Center (a right-wing group), Marco Rubio's official website, a piece about some House Republicans sending a letter making an unsubstantiated claim that the Post somehow violated the law — this is all very weak. I strongly disagree that "a conservative group thought it was unusual" meets the due-weight test in the context of an encyclopedia article about a 150-year-old newspaper. Neutralitytalk 16:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that carefulness instead of correctness ruled the day here. It's all "undue" only because it's Fox News. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC about WaPo abbreviation in the first sentence

The consensus is that the abbreviation WaPo should not be placed in the first sentence.

Cunard (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the abbreviation WaPo be placed in the first sentence? Note: Restarted on March 27, 2020. KyleJoantalk 04:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC) KyleJoantalk 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • No. Follow MOS:LEADSENTENCE guidance to avoid that. The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. Unless the subject were so totally used by the subject and known by an alternate naming that it is the article title, I think that indicates alternate namings are likely later on, if at all. In this case the Washington Post weight in Google is about 10 times the casual nickname, so I'd think perhaps a lower mention -- although I've no idea what article content could say about the nickname. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No. Washingtonians might use it, but it's not that common to be way up there in the lead. Even in the article we'd have to have a source that it is Notable.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No. I lived in Baltimore and got over to DC frequently and it was rarely used, which this was about 20 years ago. I watch cspan, msnbc, cnn who frequently have wash post people and they never use it. That said, it wouldn't be a life-changer if it were included, but I don't think it should. ImUglyButPrettyUgly (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Note: ImUglyButPrettyUgly has been checkuser-blocked. KyleJoantalk 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No. nicknames should generally not be included in the lead unless, as Markbassett noted, that a large number of people know the nickname but not the proper name. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes as proposer per MOS:BOLDSYN, which states: Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold. . .. Since the WAPO disambiguation page lists The Washington Post as a possible redirect, it is perfectly appropriate to annotate the abbreviation WaPo in the lead. Furthermore, numerous generally reliable sources per WP:RSP has referenced the newspaper by its abbreviated name, including Politico, The Associated Press, USA Today, The Daily Beast, The Atlantic, and The Hill. KyleJoantalk 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No per Markbassett. No one disputes that WaPo is used as an abbreviation for the Post, but it just doesn't have enough prominence as a nickname to including it in the lead sentence. I'd have no objection to including it somewhere in the body if we can find a way to work it in, or perhaps even lower in the lead section. Sdkb (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I checked The New York Times, and it doesn't have NYT discussed as an abbreviation except in hatnotes. That seems like something we'd include before WaPo. Has anyone checked to see whether there's been discussion over there, or whether NYT has appeared in previous revisions of that article? Sdkb (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment why restart it? We appear to have already arrived at a consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I'd personally like more comments on the discussion, especially since multiple editors stated a lower mention of the abbreviation in the article would be better. I hope that's OK! KyleJoantalk 04:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
      • That's not within the scope of the RfC, you should not have extended this just because the opinions ran against you. This extension should be reverted and the Rfc closed as consensus to omit. Zaathras (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
        • I don't personally care that the options ran against me; I simply wanted more comments. If the extension only generates more responses that don't agree with my view, then that's fine too. Is there any harm in extending? KyleJoantalk 13:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Left Wing?

This seems like a left wing paper to me, and Allsides media agrees (https://www.allsides.com/news-source/washington-post-media-bias). Just wanted to run it by everyone to see what you guys think. Wikieditor575 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"Seems to me" is original research, which doesn't fly on Wikipedia, and allsides.com is not a reliable source for Wikipedia content. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

"AllSides uses a patented bias rating system to classify news sources as left, center, or right leaning. Components of the rating system include crowd-sourcing, surveys, internal research, and use of third party sources such as Wikipedia and research conducted by Groseclose and Milyo at UCLA."[1] AllSides is more reliable than Wikipedia.

A study done by Pew Research looked at the political leanings of news organizations' audiences--which is a good indicator of the political bias of the organization--finding WaPo as left leaning. WaPo's audience leaned left, in approximately the same position as Buzzfeed.

References

  1. ^ ""Fake News," Lies and Propaganda: How to Sort Fact from Fiction". University of Michigan Library.

Trump vs. WaPo worth a mention?

Does anypony here think the fact that the current President of the United States has repeatedly accused Jeff Bezos of interfering in WaPo's editorial decisions, so much so that it has become a significant part of his political campaign, seems worthy of a mention? Despite essentially running a political war against WaPo, the President's attacks on the article and his accusations of Bezos interference do not appear even once in the article. This phenomenon has been covered by numerous reliable sources, not to mention in hundreds of Tweets by the President. TricksterWolf (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If you have the WP:RS, sure why not? Tweets are still off limits though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion for updating the photo of The Washington Post Wikipedia page to a photo of President Trump holds-up Washington Post paper titled Trump acquitted? --roger (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Why Trump vs. WaPo? Both share the same value: Vengeance is supreme. --Ftzg (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ftzg: Please note WP:TALK - this discussion page is for coordinating work on the article, not for ranting about its subject. Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
More than 150 authors say in Harper's Letter: "The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump,.." or as a non-author like me would say: Trump and WaPo - two sides of the same coin.---Ftzg (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Getting rid of overview section

The overview section has too broad a scope and duplicates the lead (which is supposed to be an overview already). It ought to be removed, with its content moved to other sections. Anyone want to help out with this? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

this should probably be covered in controversies.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-story-was-a-hoax-donald-trump-hits-out-after-stunning-washington-post-retraction/news-story/4316de0c552800a040bc59332cd79964 Transcendent Presence (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Putin obsession / war propaganda

No word in the article about the Putin paranoia this newspaper/site has? Just about every decision by Trump which doesn't feed the military industrial complex for once (leaving Syria, possible peace treaty with North Korea etc.) just must be a Putin plot. This "consensus" is also shared by other news outlets, but at least the comment sections of those sites are somewhat balanced, while the majority of WaPo reader commenters are hillariously hawkish, too (there are even "bomb Moscow" comments).

Weird times to be living in.

They are neo-cold war times, what do you expect?:S I'd be careful about mentioning Putin/Russia too, as mainstream Western media has always found a way to spin a typical outlet of theirs into one disseminating/compromised by "Russian propaganda". Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The Post

The alternative name the Post doesn't seem to conform to:

As examples: The New York Times, The Guardian, The Observer, so my interpretation is this should be either The Post (done here [5]), or if the "the" isn't part of the alternative proper name (e.g. the Los Angeles Times), then the Post (presumably incorrect). My edit undone [6] by User:Coolcaesar, so proposing again here. Widefox; talk 14:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ping original author User:Piotr Jr.. Widefox; talk 16:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I just did some research into this. It looks like although the Post is extremely common (for example, Britannica uses it), both The New York Times and The Washington Post consistently use The Post as the shorthand form for The Washington Post. On this issue, I'll concede we should defer to the practice of two of the most prestigious newspapers in the United States. So I must apologize to User:Widefox. Please feel free to revert my erroneous revert. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
My only point of fact is that the status quo ante is neither of those two options, so is therefore wrong. As to which of the two is preferable, I have no opinion. Widefox; talk 19:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is the "caused by a SUV" controversy not included?

Is that too damaging for Washington Post, the "reliable source" for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:2485:DB00:6183:E356:196:F0CD (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources discussing this so-called "controversy", Mr. Ranting IP? Kleinpecan (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Why can't Jeff Bezos be mentioned as the owner in the infobox?

Why can't Jeff Be mentioned in the infobox as the owner? I see this quote there "Do not add Jeff Bezos, his holding company owns the paper not Bezos personally. His name is mentioned plenty in the article already." What's the reasoning behind this? Why would his name being mentioned in the article several times serve as a reason why he shouldn't be mentioned? He owns Nash Holdings. In fact, he specifically created Nash Holdings as a way to buy the Washington Post. As far as I can tell, this is the sole reason for creating Nash Holdings, and the only significant action that this company has ever performed. The mediation of the sale through Nash Holdings is entirely negligible and arbitrary. Why can't the owner section of the info box read "Jeff Bezos (through Nash Holdings?)" This would be truer to the situation. The omission of Bezos as owner only obfuscates the reality of the paper's ownership. The fact that he is mentioned in the article itself is irrelevant. 2600:8807:C247:6500:B920:7BF:FB5B:4F22 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone's messed up the infobox

There's a ton of junk at the top of the article instead of as an infobox, I don't know how to fix it so can someone do that urgently so it doesn't look like an absolute mess. Kika.txt (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Fixed; vandalism reverted. Just plain Bill (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Libs of TikTok

Should Libs of TikTok be mentioned in this article? Or is it WP:UNDUE? X-Editor (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A cursory glance at the news articles on the controversy shows a lot of them, including many from reliable sources. I would say it should be included. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:C425:DC13:2E28:68BF (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it should. Add it 76.181.201.214 (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I've challenged this as undue weight. Seems clear that this is not a major episode (or even a moderately important episode) in the history of the papet. Neutralitytalk 20:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Right now, I don't think it's significant relative to the Washington Post's overall reputation and history. Maybe a single sentence could be justified somewhere, but an entire paragraph (let alone an entire section) is wildly undue. Though I would argue several other parts of the criticisms and controversies section are likewise undue - per WP:CSECTION this kind of undue emphasis on stuff just to fill the section is one of the reasons those sections aren't a great idea in the first place. Does it actually make sense to weigh these things equally to entire ownership eras of its history, or its entire history of political endorsements? There's also a clear WP:RECENTISM bias in that section, with nothing before 1980s, and massive paragraphs devoted to comparatively minor incidents or individual lawsuits in the past few years. I don't think it makes sense to devote half the article to criticisms and controversies in an article on a paper which is not primarily famous for controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Trump's stolen classified files

I would be interested to hear some estimates of how much Putin would have paid Trump for those files. 24.248.228.172 (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Bias against India

I m adding references too Het666 (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Sea of blue

This article is an appalling sea of blue, a problem specifically addressed in MOS:OVERLINKED. I am happy to undertake removing as many inappropriate links as I can. I just don't want anyone to feel their toes have been stepped upon. The overlinking in this article is incredibly distracting, and although the links have no doubt been placed by well-meaning editors, we must follow WP:MOS guidelines. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Washington_Post/Archive_1&oldid=1199604661"