Talk:The Washington Post
|
|
|
Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:The Washington Post]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:The_Washington_Post&action=purge) | edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:The_Washington_Post/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:The_Washington_Post/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:The_Washington_Post&action=purge) | |
|---|---|---|
Re recent edits: point taken that the march was well described in an existing article. However, the reason why I didn't find that article earlier is that IMHO the title is incorrect. The title of Sousa's piece of music is simply "The Washington Post", not "The Washington Post March".
I think it would be overkill to create a disambiguation page for the two, since the newspaper is a) clearly the primary referent for the name, and b) the article is short enough that it is easy to include a pointer to the article on the march on the newspaper page.
Accordingly, I've moved The Washington Post March to The Washington Post (march). I've reworded the line in The Washington Post to begin
- The Washington Post is also...
to reflect the fact that the march and the newspaper both have the same name. Dpbsmith 13:19, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Militant?
As the French newspaper Libération is currently being characterized as "militant" in its article I would like to know whether the Washington Post's attempt to insult UN Secretary General Kofi Annan by publishing an article with the headline "Annan's Offense" by Charles Krauthammer - an offense reflected wholly in Annan's concern for the lives of innocent civilians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39937-2003Mar27.html) would qualify this newspaper as "militant" as well? Just a rhetorical question... Get-back-world-respect 15:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
left-leaning
I just reverted a section titled "opinion" which, in my opinion, gave the writer's opinion about the paper. But certainly this article needs mention of the general perception that the Post is liberal-leaning - although as the New York Times article shows, that sort of discussion can turn into an argument that swamps the whole article. - DavidWBrooks 15:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It should not be left out though, just because people can get into an argument. This is the kind of information that can be hard to find other places and I think The Economist works as a good example of how this can be done. --Vikingstad 17:16, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)