Jump to content

Talk:The Washington Post

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Widefox (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 25 October 2021 (→The Post: f). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why Trump vs. WaPo? Both share the same value: Vengeance is supreme. --Ftzg (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Note: ImUglyButPrettyUgly has been checkuser-blocked. KyleJoantalk 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Comment why restart it? We appear to have already arrived at a consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

"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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Post

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

  • we use our own capitalisation and italics rules, not those of the source.
    • MOS caps/naming
    • MOS italics in this way:

As example: The Guardian, so my interpretation is this should be either The Post (done here [1]), or if the "the" isn't part of the alternative proper name, then the Post (presumably incorrect). My edit undone [2] by User:Coolcaesar, so proposing again here. Widefox; talk 14:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ping original author User:Piotr Jr.. Widefox; talk 16:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Washington_Post&oldid=1051793628"