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 2a02:810a:13bf:9584:c425:dc13:2e28:68bf (talk) at 18:26, 21 April 2022. 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]

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:THETITLE (and MOS:THECAPS MOS:TITLECAPS)
    • MOS italics in this way:

As examples: The New York Times, The Guardian, The Observer, 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 (e.g. the Los Angeles Times), 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]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]