Talk:The Washington Post

Didn't Washington Star Publish Daily from 1850s?

Article states the Post was the first DC paper to publish daily. Didn't the Evening Star publish on a daily basis going back to the Civil War? Walt Whitman commented that he first became aware of the assasination of Lincoln from that source.Tom Cod

The Evening Star published daily, except on Sundays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B014:FF66:A51E:7AFA:F17E:7962 (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Since when is the Washington Post fake news?

This sentence is from the Wikipedia article on the Washington Post: "The Washington Post is an American Fake news." WTF Looks like a troll has make at least one change to this article. If I knew how to fix it, I would. 2601:282:202:7D00:9044:2943:1122:4D3A (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Thanks meamemg (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post is fake news. They lie daily about the president and call it "journalism". Too bad Wikipedia is allergic to the truth. 47.137.185.148 (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Largest circulation claim in intro

The intro currently claims that the WaPo has the "largest circulation in the Washington metropolitan area" without a citation. This could be saying three things:

1. WaPo is distributed more in the DMV than it is in any other place. (true)
2. Of the newspapers in the DMV, WaPo has the largest circulation in the region. (probably true, but needs citation)
3. Of the newspapers in the DMV, WaPo has the largest total circulation. (false, since US News, published across the river, has larger circulation)

I'd argue that the second claim is the one we should be going for if we can cite it, since it's the most significant claim that's also probably true. Regardless, the ambiguity needs to be cleared up. - Sdkb (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

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.

 

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)

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)

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)

RfC about WaPo abbreviation in the first sentence

Should the abbreviation WaPo be placed in the first sentence? KyleJoan^talk 05:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

Note: ImUglyButPrettyUgly has been checkuser-blocked. KyleJoan^talk 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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. KyleJoan^talk 16:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)