Talk:The Washington Post

Paper of Record

All the sources that justify calling the Post a paper of record are at least nearly a decade old. Coincidentally, The paper’s prestige and reputation has taken a massive decline this past decade. I think if that claim is to remain it should at least have an academic source from the past two or three years. Thoughts? 2600:1700:7AA4:1430:90B3:1C3B:282B:9B4D (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I would think that if a paper as well known as the post was no longer considered a paper of record for the country, there would be reliable sources discussing the change. Do you know of any? See also the discussion in the "out of date" section up above. meamemg (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

There are some relatively recent sources that call it a newspaper of record, but they often also acknowledge that the journal is currently facing difficulties: . Should we add one of these? Should we remove the or the sentence? Alenoach (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware a paper of record is just any newspaper that publishes legal notices, which the Washington Post does. I agree the sources show the papers facing difficulties, but it still has one of the largest audiences in the U.S and is considered trustworthy. The controversy has been limited to the op-ed pages. GavinTG (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed the "better source needed" tag following your comment. Alenoach (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The term has multiple meanings. See Newspaper of record. Unless we clarify that we mean public record (and virtually all newspapers in the US meet that definition, so why would we?), I don't think we can consider this resolved on that basis. meamemg (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Although GavinTG's reply mentions the legal definition, I think the focus here is on the term "newspaper of record" by reputation, not on the legal meaning (public record). This is what the sources are about. Alenoach (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

So since the editorial staff has been fired, will Wikipedia Admins claim it is now far right

Asking how it will be handled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:3EF0:8DD0:1894:D14A:DFF7:29CC (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Fifteen firings in their Opinion department, not all editorial staff. Since opinion-style coverage is seldom relied on for articles, I don't expect the change to impact WaPo's status as a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

As of February 2026, more than 300 journalists have now been let go. "Democracy Dies in Darkness", indeed. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Split discussion

@Theleekycauldron proposed a split of the subsection "Jeff Bezos era (since 2013)" to a new article "The Washington Post under Jeff Bezos". I started this discussion to debate whether to make the split. Alenoach (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. Seems like doing so will just codify WP:RECENTISM concerns. meamemg (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

As part of the shift in tone, in 2023 the paper closed down the "KidsPost" column for children

The article claims KidsPost was eliminated in 2023. I'm a Sunday-only subscriber, and I just received a KidsPost insert 2 weeks ago. GRrouillier (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like it was restored last summer. meamemg (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Ann Telnaes content forking

I think her decision to resign from whatever job she had is adequately addressed in the article on her. (with several hundred views per month) I don't think it needs to be tacked into more prominent articles with tens of thousands of views. Graywalls (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2026 (UTC)