Talk:The Washington Post

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. Neutrality^talk 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)

Non lethal weapon .com on citizens

I am a 61 year old disabled Pa resident who has been targeted by non lethal microwave weapons for 12 years. I have tried many avenues to make this stop but I am not a government employee, no Havana Syndrome, so it continuex. Life is HELL. Please do a story to make it stop and make the public aware of what does happen. They have trashed my car, poisoned my tree with yellow catipillars, follow me and zap me everywhere I go. It is a living help and I have no recourse. The police have 302ed me when I reached out for help, medical co pays have broken me. I need help desperately. I have never hurt anyone or fought ..I would love to talk to you . Please help me. 71.253.64.231 (talk) 13:37, 8 September 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)

Using The Washington Post as a source and cutting unnecessary bulk

This article on The Washington Post uses the Post as its own source no fewer than 68 times. That is unheard of. We must find other sources for the statements of fact to which the Post is sourced, and if an independent source cannot be found, the content should be deleted unless the content is critical the for readers' understanding of the subject. Because of the nature of being one of the leading mainstream news sources in America, there will always be more and more content that can be added because news will always be happening at the Post. Wikipedia policy dictates that Wikipedia articles should be a "summary" of the subject and not a detailed accounting. (WP:NOTEVERYTHING "A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Also according to Wikipedia policy, we don't use facts just because we know them. (WP:NOTEVERYTHING "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." This article needs to be greatly reduced. I am going to make these bold edits and reductions. I just wanted all those who are interested in this article to understand why I am doing so. I invite thoughtful editors to join me in this endeavor. It is overwhelming. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)