This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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
On the "advice" for Electoral College members to deviate from the results of their states
First i'd suggest you find a different title for the subsection. I don't know what "going rough" means. It does not seem to me to be an encyclopedic term. Remember, we write in a formal tone here. Do you mean the Post is advising that the electors "get nasty"? (also not an encyclopedic term) Or that it's "going rough" for the Post? In any case this wording needs to be changed. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Would anyone like to be an elector now? Read Electors under siege form POLITICO. For me, WAPO is now Liberal-In-Name-Only! --Fb8cont (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
The system must be transparent and democratic: Either the electors are only envoys and have no authority to deliberate over the voter's choice; or the voters should have the opportunity to choose among different electors for the party ticket in the "presidential [electors] election" --Fb8cont (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC).
This topic has been deleted from the article per WP:RECENT (I would argue that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER also applies). And your text above seems to be much more about your reaction to the WaPo's articles and editorials about this than it is about the paper itself. Writing about your reaction is not what WP talk pages are for. So per WP:NOTFORUM this subject would appear to be inappropriate here. If you want to include in the article something regarding the paper's news or opinion coverage of this topic, you really need to find other reliable sources' reactions to it.
This is particularly true since you yourself clearly find the paper's position highly objectionable. Per WP:NPOV we're supposed to "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Writing just from your viewpoint would not be that. If you want to advocate for one evaluation or another, neither the article nor this talk page are appropriate places, regardless of how strongly you hold your opinion or your reasons for holding it. Jeh (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't hide my opinion that this isn't o.k. But that doesn't change the facts: The Post's excessive campaigning for what "it" deems (for whatever reason) a righteous cause (pro Iraq war, against Sanders, against the Republican candidate, and now against the outcome of the presidential election) --Fb8cont (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[[Federalust
P.S. And is the Post's invocation of Alexander Hamilton any better then NRA's invocation of Thomas Jefferson? Both lived centuries ago, the circumstances have changed (for example: "Foreign intervention" in Hamilton's time did mean much more than e-mail hacks!). --Fb8cont (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Neither this article or its talk page are for you to write about your opinions, regardless of how well-founded you think they are, regardless of how important you think it is that we carry them. Please review my comments above. Wikipedia absolutely does not publish its own editors' opinions. If you want this article to include coverage of the Post's advocacy here, you need to find what other reliable sources are saying about it - and per WP:NPOV you must find some on each side, and whatever is included in the article must "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It does not appear to me that your missives here are written with that intention. Jeh (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
First: When was the last time, the Washington Post or any other major newspaper published multiple opinion pieces that advised the electors to deviate from the outcome of the election in their state? When was the last time there had been seven electors (and one elector who was replaced) that deviated from the outcome? When was the last time electors complained about threats? When was the last time a major newspaper ran a series of 16 negative stories in 16 hours during the primaries like WAPO did on Sanders?
"When was the last time..." all of that is about your reaction to the WaPo, not about anybody else's. We don't publish our own editors' reactions.
"Missive" is defined by Merriam-Webster  as "a written communication : letter". Why you think that is "insulting language" is a mystery to me, but is not my problem.
Re your "sources", your first doesn't mention the Washington Post, and the second doesn't mention "electors", so both would seem to be off point for your topic here. You have yet to come up with anything suitable for inclusion in WP, particularly considering WP:NPOV. Jeh (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
You were flatly wrong to accuse me of using "insulting language". Can we get back on topic? Jeh (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (Disagreement on relevance of Electoral College coverage by The Washington Post):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on The Washington Post and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.
Fb8cont considers that The Washington Post's coverage of the Electoral College "going rogue" (note: he writes it as "going rough") during the 2016 US presidential election is relevant enough to mention in the article as a controversy. Jeh disagrees per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Based on the discussion and evidence provided, I agree with Jeh that Fb8cont's proposed insertion is not appropriate at the moment because it does not conform with Wikipedia's policy on original research. Also, the few sources provided to support the addition do not meet Wikipedia's standard for reliability, which states the following: "Please keep in mind that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources, and this is policy" (please see note 2 on WP:RS). Thank you for requesting a third opinion. Happy holidays!-- MarshalN20Talk 01:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment! --Fb8cont (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
An editor recently added, "The paper is considered by both academia and social critics as having a left-liberal bias in comparison to other American periodicals and news organizations."
While it appears to be supported by sources, there is a long standing Wikipedia precedent for keeping such information relegated to body sections, and not placed in the lead. For example, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post and the New York Times articles both keep bias and editorial stances out of the lead.
I would argue this is WP:Undue out of deference to WP precedent as well as the fact that the Post's political leanings are well documented in the body of the article. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Both Rt news and Huffington Post have their ideological leanings (and in RT's case, extended criticism) in their ledes, so I disagree that this precedent even exists. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
If you think that RT and HuffPo are comparable in any way to the Washington Post, I urge you to do a lot more reading and thinking. Neutralitytalk 21:53, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree and have removed. The sources cited don't support that statement made: "The paper is considered by both academia and social critics as having a left-liberal bias in comparison to other American periodicals and news organizations." The sources are not reliable for this proposition. The statement inaccurately conflates (1) editorial stance with (2) reporting bias, which is misleading. None of the sources are "academic" (a handout distributed by librarians is not academic). Nor are any "social critics" actually cited.
Source #1, the website here, merely cites to this source, which is a non-peer-reviewed PDF put out by the library at Harold Washington College. No author is cited - the compilation is merely "HWC Reference Librarians." And the document says that the paper has a liberal editorial stance - not that it has a "bias."
Source #2, here, is an opinion piece in Vanity Fair by ex-media executive Ken Stern. All it says about the Washington Post is that (1) it is a mainstream newspaper; and (2) "there has always been, at the very least, a concerted effort at places like ... The Washington Post to offer a balanced view, even if that effort is occasionally undermined by inevitable group think and lack of connection with parts of the country."
Source #3, here, is another unsigned, non-academic piece. The "About Us" and "Who We Are" pages indicates that this was a class project by college kids! The misspellings ("legitamate sources"; "acutally work") really take the cake. The unreliability here should be obvious to anyone. Neutralitytalk 21:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I had already removed, on similar grounds, two of the "sources" provided for that claim but hadn't looked as far into these. The entire addition seemed pretty POV-pushy. Jeh (talk) 07:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
What does "If you think that RT and HuffPo are comparable in any way to the Washington Post, I urge you to do a lot more reading and thinking." mean? What are you implying? Stevo D (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Should the slogan be included in the infobox or not? The placement seems very odd and visually disconcerting to me, and other newspapers don't have their slogans placed there. The New York Times slogan, "All the News That's Fit to Print", for example, is included in the article, not the infobox. Same case with Washington Times and Chicago Tribune. Marquis de Faux (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
"Slogan" is not a valid parameter for that template, so I removed it. "Motto", however, is. Given that it is a valid parameter, which presumably had consensus for its presence at least at one time, there is little rationale for saying it shouldn't be used here. The right thing would be to add it to the templates in the articles where it's missing - or, you could go over to template talk:infobox newspaper and argue for its removal, or for a different way of displaying it. I do agree that at present it just seems to be stuck up there. Personally I would italicize it and put it in quotes, the latter to make it clear that we (WP) didn't make it up. Jeh (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
""By the Post's own admission, in the months before the war, it ran more than 140 stories on its front page promoting the war, while contrary information "got lost," as one Post staffer told Kurtz.""
The "Meyer-Graham period" covers the time up to when Jeff Bezos bought the paper, which is the next section. Feel free to restore any content that was removed and isn't already in the article. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)