Talk:The Washington Post

Per WP:BRD, I've removed an addition to the lead made by {{u|The Hammering Hammer}} claiming WaPo {{tq|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 [https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 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 {{tq|has been characterized as}} would be more suitable than {{tq|is considered}}. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello to all 🙂 This page is a big searching work, very exhaustive. Bravo!

But... I am surprised that there is no info box?

I talk about a box, at the top of the page, with website link, beginning date, city, nation (even if it's obvious) name of founder, etc. Thanks! 😉 Isabeau777 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_P._Hills&redirect=no Stephen P. Hills] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 3#Stephen P. Hills}} until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This story is too big to be only put under history. 75000 subscribers leaving in two days and many major staff members quitting is huge. Ybllaw (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow this article looks to be highly out of date at this point. For example, it doesn't mention the current CEO is MIA. I will try to update it. Others should feel free too as well. It also looks to me to be minimizing current criticisms and the extent the Post's reputation has tanked. I think that's mostly just a product of it being out of date though. I will be mindful of that Wikipedia principle to not overemphasize recent events. But clearly right now this article is in desperate need of improvement, and I'm honestly rather busy and can only do a little Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I thought that the Post is a third-rate tabloid publication, famous for publishing Janet Cooke's fabricated stories about heroin addiction without doing any fact-checking. How much could the reputation of such a publication decline? Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @Ezra Fox. Thanks for your attempt to update. I really do think this article is in desperate need of going the other direction. Way too much focus on recent stuff for a subject that is over 100 years old. Were there really no controversies from 1877-1980? Why do we only have ones after that for example. So I would be really hesitant to go in the other direction.

:Also, I noticed you added a section on the current CEO under controversies. That is better suited for the history section, and seems to already be there. Is there anything in what you added that isn't covered there already? If so, can you move it and integrate it above? If not, I'll go ahead and delete that section.

:Happy editing! meamemg (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Another possibility would be to split the "Criticism and controversies" into a new article "The Washington Post controversies and criticism" and keep only a summary paragraph here. This way, the subsection on the CEO can remain in the new article assuming it's notable. Alenoach (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe. I'd rather see the important stuff moved to a relevant section and the rest just cut, per WP:NOCRIT meamemg (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::I guess I view the Washington Post as really dying slowly. Or maybe even less slowly now. And the lead doesn't mention that at all, and describes it as a newspaper of record when that's now highly in dispute. I also think some of the things in the history section maybe should be briefly talked about as a controversy if they did lead to significant criticism, loss of subscribers, and negative reporting from other papers. Maybe I'm wrong about that though. And reading it again I do understand why that would broadly be in the history section. Anyway, I did write a couple new things, but you're right most of it is old. I'll delete most of it and move a bit over. And thanks for taking my edit in good faith, I think it's usually better to try to work with someone and teach them instead of just reversing changes, and I appreciate you did that Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::alright I tried to move and integrate it. Also, reportedly Executive Editor Matt Murray instituted a policy discouraging the Post from reporting on itself. This was after his relationship with Lewis deteriorated due to Murray allowing several such articles before. Murray's reversal has led to criticism from people like Erik Wemple, The Post's media columnist. Is something like this warranted of being mentioned in the article? If so, where/how? Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for responding here and editing the article. I appreciate that you see the Post as dying. If that is really the case, I think there would be coverage in some reliable source that we could cite to for it no longer being considered a paper of record.

:::The challenge with the current structure of the article (which I know you aren't responsible for) is it makes it easy to add the negative. "This bad thing happened so I'll add a sub-section, paragraph and two sources about it under "controversies"." is easy. But something like the Pulitzer that they received with the NYT covering the Russian election interference seems at least as notable, has at least as much media coverage, yet is no where to be found in here. The Post has had significant impact in holding US politicians to account and uncovering and covering stories that have had critical impact on the world. Yet there is no mention of any of the Post's reporting since Watergate. I guess that's on me to write/source/add, when I have time.

:::I think one good test on a lot of this stuff: has anyone talked about it more than a week or two after it occurred? If not, was it really significant enough to be worth talking about? There will be news stories that establish that X happened, sure. But if X is important, someone should be writing about the fact that it was important and explaining why. If so, let's cite to that. If they aren't, why should we?

:::WP:10YEARTEST is also a good set of guidance to keep in mind.

:::meamemg (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::those are all good points. I do think it makes sense to add the things you mention. The notability thing is especially important, right now the notability guidelines are kinda unclear, I advocated for making them more clear in the talk page, peeps seemed to agree, and then nothing happened and eventually the topic was closed🤷. But in essence ur correct that while notability once established is usually permanent, in order to be established it must be more than just briefly covered at the time. I'll look into more sources when I have the time. To be clear while I think The Washington Post is dying, that's my opinion and I certainly don't think such a claim should be put in Wikipedia's own voice Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)