Talk:The Washington Post

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)

It says at the top of this page: This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Washington Post. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Washington Post at the Reference desk. Vmelkon (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2023 (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)

Why is this publication not classified as liberal alignment when the new york post is labeled as conservated?

This publication is one of the most left leaning major pubs in the country 2A10:8012:7:6098:710A:204E:58C4:A254 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Political alignment

Per WP:BRD, I've removed an addition to the lead made by The Hammering Hammer claiming WaPo is considered to hold principally liberal positions, as I don't believe the claim was appropriate for inclusion in the lead section. IMO such a statement would be more suitable for the "political stance" section. The addition was sourced to a research guide published on the University of Michigan's website. Given the gravity of the claim, I don't think this source is sufficient to support it. If such an addition were to be made, I would expect it to be backed up by multiple citations to high-quality sources, such as meta-analyses published in politically independent peer-reviewed journals. I also think a wording similar to has been characterized as would be more suitable than is considered. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)