Talk:The Washington Times

message: The particular text in question:
The Washington Times has published conspiracy theories that President Barack Obama was not born in America and that he was a secret Muslim, promoted conspiracy theories about the murder of Seth Rich (which the paper apologized for and retracted after a lawsuit), and published numerous columns that reject the scientific consensus on climate change. Under Wes Pruden's editorship (1992-2008), The Washington Times was noted for its association with white supremacism, as it regularly printed excerpts from white supremacist publications, published laudatory pieces about white supremacists and the Confederacy, and published racially incendiary commentary about President Barack Obama.[11] 
The lead is supposed to summarize the body, not list specific incidents. The Seth Rich incident is literally one op-ed which was retracted, and the Obama issues is based on a handful of op-eds published by one author, Frank Gaffney, who is removed. Plenty of the articles cited about Frank Gaffney don't even talk about The Washington Times. Fox News also covered the Seth Rich incident, and to an even greater extend beyond a mere op-ed, obviously it would be Undue to list that in the Fox News lead. Listing these two controversies in the lead for a newspaper that has existed since the 1980s is akin to listing all the incidents of the "controversy" section of the New York Times article, and is no way proportional, especially since this text amounts to over a third of the lead. No one is questioning the fact that RS has covered these incidents, the issue is about weight. The sources cited report on these incidents no more that what the typical run-of-the-mill reporting of coverage of a short-term news story, and there is nothing that justifies it being in the lead. Furthermore, everything about the Times' alleged past association with white supremacists is based on a single article, which does not justify it being so prominently placed in the lead. Multiple issues with this, mainly not WP:Lead and WP:Recent Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't foresee a problem mentioning  conspiracy theories in the lead but why go into specifics about certain ones? The lead should be a generalization without specifics. The foxnews page dispte the content being full of  play-by-play daily Headline News the  lead isn't actually  all that bad... just a generalization.--Moxy (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , by all means, propose a statement. I'm not opposed to a general statement, but the difference between this and Fox is of course that Fox has a laundry list of issues. The lead, which right now mentions all the ones in the article (I think), isn't unduly long, but you do have a point of course. I wonder also if this isn't a bit recentist, but I can't judge that easily right now. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

text: If you are referring to climate change, that is hardly a unique feature among US news publications, look at the article for Wall Street Journal for example. The Seth Rich stuff is indeed a specific incident that is also not unique to the Times (Fox News and others covered it as well), and also stems from one opinion piece. Worth mentioning in the body, certainly, but certainly undue for the lead. The Obama Muslim stuff came from a few articles by one columnist, Frank Gaffney, who was a Reagan administration official who was featured prominently in a number of conservative publications before he went nuts. The dude was writing for the paper since the 1990s, and was slammed by the Times' opinion editor in this piece for being a conspiracy nut https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/17/david-keene-when-conspiracy-nuts-do-real-damage/. Again, something worth mentioning in the body, but not in the lead. The "white supremacism" stuff is also pretty much all based on one anti-Pruden article, most of which is opinion rather than reporting. For example, the source claims the coverage of the American Renaissance conferences as "laudatory", citing one article from 1998, however whether coverage is "laudatory" or not is certainly up to interpretation. Again, this is an opinion that is worth citing and attribution in the body, as has been done, but does not have due weight for specific mentions in the lead. I am not opposed to a brief mention, however, in the context of summarizing the Times' general history. For example, "Widely described as a conservative newspaper, The Washington Times has had close ties to Republican administrations and has been described by the New York Times as a "a crucial training ground for many rising conservative journalists and a must-read for those in the movement." Under the Wesley Pruden editorship (1992-2008), the paper was known for its strongly conservative editorial stance and faced accusations of pushing nativism." Marquis de Faux (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Leads should be limited to defining features of a subject, as evidenced by a general consensus among sources that such things are crucial to understanding it as a whole. The contentious bit seems undue here, longer than any other lead statement and cited entirely to a single critic from five years past, who made no attempt to hide her bias against Pruden, an editor for less than half of the paper's existence. She also doesn't claim anything about conspiracy theories or racially incendiary commentary, beyond sensing a tinge of animus in Pruden's own opinion writing. This review could make sense (accurately relayed) in Wesley Pruden#Controversies, but doesn't seem to here. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

text: The lede should summarize the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed so. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed... In case it needed any further input... Not that the criticism should not be enumerated and at length according to RS applicability, but the lede is not for a list of specific transgressions.Happy monsoon day 18:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am collapsing the "association with white supremacism and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy" into "racially charged content". First of all, "association" with "white supremacism" is too strong of a word, even for the sources cited. The sources cited and the relevant sections of the article accuse the Times of positive coverage of AmRen conferences and printing quotes from white nationalists in a Culture Briefs section. Association implies some sort of direct relationship or overt support, which the sources do not imply. Secondly, the sources cited that support the "white supremacism" claim stem from the CJR article by Mariah Blake and the Nation article by Max Blumenthal. Max Blumenthal and The Nation are openly ideological sources (ideologically opposed to The Times), and while they can be reliable, must be properly attributed and the bias must be taken into consideration when weighting. CRJ is a reliable source but Mariah Blake's openly anti-Pruden argument is also only perspective, and she also writes for Salon, The Nation, Mother Jones, and other ideological sources. Thus, her opinion that the paper depicted the events favorably should be considered and properly attributed but is hardly DUE WEIGHT to the illustrated in the lead. Again, even Blake does not go as far as to characterize the Times as directly associated with white supremacism. The Confederacy claim is based on the same POV sources, and is also far too specific to be included in WP:Lead. The Confederacy claim is a small subpart of the white nationalism paragraph, and in the grand view of how long the article is certainly not Lead content. No other article on Wikipedia about any other newspaper goes lists such a specific claim that is barely mentioned in 1-2 sentences. Furthermore, it is a subcategory of the "white supremacism" claim and that is already mentioned. "Racially charged content" adequately covers this content in way that is both more accurate and encompassing of what the sources say and WP:Due_weight given the proportion of the content in the body as well as the POV of the sources cited. The consensus of the editors here seems to be that there are weighting issues with the sources based on the responses and lack of responses on this page. "Racially charged content" is good compromise language. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The body covers the Moonie Times' printing of white supremacist and neo-Confederate screeds, laudatory coverage of white supremacists and neo-Confederates, and it association with white supremacists at great length. The section is sourced to more than a dozen RS, including peer-reviewed publications. The content clearly meets WP:DUE and is covered at sufficient length and depth both in the body and in RS that it belongs in the lede.  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not in fact "more than a dozen RS" that characterize the Times as having associations with white supremacy or neo-Confederatism. Associations with individuals who at some point had associations with white supremacism is also not the same as the Times itself being associated with white supremacism. In the update section, most of those "dozen RS" you added talk about Samuel T. Francis and barely mention the Times, mostly just mentioning that Francis at one point worked for the Times and was fired. Those do not give weight to what the idea that the Times is associated with white supremacy, especially not in its LEAD. The sources that come close to characterizing the times as being known for "associations" are the Max Blumenthal and David Neiwart sources, which are avowedly POV, and the CJR article which is not WP:DUE for LEAD content. Unless you can find multiple non-POV sources that explicitly say the Times was known for and distinguished by white supremacism, the most the sources support is "racially charged content." You are welcome to start an RFC. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sourcing is perfectly fine. Of course sources cover the fact that the Moonie Times had a literal white supremacist on its payroll, and then lauded him when he died. The Wash Times' glowing obituary of him is covered in an academic book chapter on white nationalism in America. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  Also, there's not a single RS for your WP:OR that Neiwert, author a book by the academic publisher Routledge, is a "progressive" journalist. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly related to the current dispute, but User:Snooganssnoogans I think it's inappropriate to use terms like Moonie Times, and it makes you appear biased against the publication. Let's all strive for a calm and neutral tone, both in the articles and on talk pages.Happy monsoon day 23:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

text:  Francis was fired, and an obituary does not justify Lead content. I agree those issues are notable to be covered in the body, and they are. Where I disagree is whether "white supremacism" issues are WP:Due enough to be explicitly stated in the Lead beyond the current lead language of "racially charged content". Again, you are welcome to start an RFC. Cheers Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Francis was fired, and an obituary does not justify Lead content. I agree those issues are notable to be covered in the body, and they are." This same Wiki editor just deleted the Wash Times managing editor's comparison of Francis to the Founding Fathers (after he was fired). Notable to be covered? Apparently not. After the removals by Marquis, the text misleadingly suggests that the editors at the Wash Times only wrote a glowing obituary of Francis, and that this was the extent of their support for this unabashed racist. The support went further than that, with the Wash Times editor comparing his brilliance to the Founding Fathers at a separate occasion (and while still editor at the Wash Times). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Times employment and relationship with Francis is notable to be covered in the body, and they are. That is what I said. Just because I disagree with you on the inclusion of one specific quote does not mean I don't believe Francis should not be covered. Please do not straw man. "Editors" is also misleading, it was one guy who was ousted pretty soon in 2006. I would suggest an RFC if you wish to pursue this further because clearly there's not going to be a consensus reached here between you and me. Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coombs was the "long-time managing editor" of TWT, serving in the role from 1997 to 2007. Not just "one guy who was ousted pretty soon". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Undue coverage of specific incidents in the lead 

message: The Times is mainly known for its conservative, or right-wing, political views.  Would it be better to merge the material in the "political views" section with the rest of the article, which is organized historically?  Right now it reads like two articles:  "The history of the WT" and "The views of the WT." PopSci (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Most Wikipedia articles on newspapers have a section for editorial stance. It is clearer that way. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The section on white supremacy etc. should probably be merged into the history section then.PopSci (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the top part about the Political Stance should be separated, making Controversies and criticism its own section. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, absolutely no reason to do this. Content and controversies go together, given that most if not all the controversies relate to the content that this outlet puts out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I hadn't seen this section before I re-organized earlier today, but I re-organized the article whereby I kept all the content specifically about the changes at the newspaper in the History section and moved all the obviously 'stance'/'content' text to the 'Content' section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I think the article is better and more readable now.PopSci (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate political view section?

message: I just counted 7 reporters from other newspapers and magazines (besides the WT) mentioned and most often wiki-linked in this article.  I'm not saying it's wrong but it does seem a little unusual.PopSci (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked out The Washington Post and that article does the same thing.  Maybe it's just the nature of the business.PopSci (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

text: If things need to be attributed, they should preferably be attributed to outlets rather than reporters. Otherwise it might mislead readers into thinking that the reporting in question is just opinion editorials. Do you have any specific instances in mind? In my series of edits earlier today, I fixed some instances where reporting by RS was characterized as "criticism". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change a few as well.PopSci (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reporters from other papers mentioned a lot

message: Marquis has repeatedly removed RS content about Fran Coombs, the managing editor of the Times, lauding white supremacist Samuel T. Francis, who himself is a former columnist for the Times. The Wiki editor claims the Wash Times editor lauding a former white supremacist from the Wash Times has nothing to do with the Wash Times because the praise wasn't specifically printed in the Wash Times, but instead published on a website. This is of course absurd - the RS clearly note that a Wash Times editor - and the coverage of Coombs' endorsement would only be notable because of his role at the Wash Times. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is questioning that the sources are RS, we get it's an RS. The question is about due weight and relevance. The Times managing editor Fran Coombs wrote positive things about Francis on a promotional website advertising Francis' book. This activity by Fran Coombs was done completely outside of The Times and is thus irrelevant to this main article about the Times. If a CNN anchor wrote an review for an ad outside of his job as a CNN anchor, you would quote the ad on his main page, not the main CNN article. Secondly, the coverage of Francis here is already extremely detailed and dense, it's not like there is a lack of quotes or coverage. The quote from Washington Examiner's obituary is also not relevant, the point of a Wiki article is not to print quotes from other publications to draw contrasts with the Times. Noting that the Times obituary was positive, as the article does, is enough. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the managing editor of the NY Times endorses a book by an unabashed racist, as part of a long and troubling pattern of pushing white supremacism in the NY Times, it would definitely be on the NY Times main article. Given that you have now edit-warred for days and weeks with claims that the Wash Times did not have a problem with white supremacism and that their relationship with white supremacist after white supremacist are not notable, I would have thought that you of all people would appreciate the stark contrast drawn between a somewhat reputable conservative news outlet versus what the Wash Times is. That the Wash Examiner calls Francis a "racist" point blank while the Wash Times lauded Francis is important context, just as it's important context for any news outlet when coverage on a particular issue is drastically out of sync with other news outlets. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would expect the instances of white nationalism where the NY Times is involved to be documented in the NY Times article, and the managing editor's outside review to be on the page for the managing editor, especially full quotes from the managing editor that don't have to do with the NY Times. I believe the current statement on the Times' obituary quite adequately describes it, I don't see anyone getting confused or misinterpreting it without quotes from other newspapers on the same subject. Cheers and happy holidays. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I would expect the instances of white supremacism where the NY Times is involved to be documented in the NY Times article, and the managing editor's outside review to be on the page for the managing editor, especially full quotes from the managing editor that don't have to do with the NY Times." You expect wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

text: Edit: For those of you who don't know what we are referring to, the Examiner reference in question is: "In contrast, editorial page editor David Mastio for the conservative Washington Examiner wrote in an obituary that "Sam Francis was merely a racist and doesn’t deserve to be remembered as anything less." Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is the Wash Examiner obituary which responds to the Wash Times' fawning obituary of an unabashed racist: "A Washington Times editor called Sam a "scholarly, challenging and sometimes pungent writer." In reality, Sam Francis was merely a racist and doesn't deserve to be remembered as anything less." The Wash Examiner's pointed remarks were covered by Adweek (a RS). This clearly meets WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for providing the direct quote from the Examiner. I now agree with its inclusion as it specifically mentions the Times. Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wash Times editor lauds white supremacists - irrelevant? 

message: Per the editor of the Wash Times himself, Francis resigned. This is the relevant portion from WaPo's reporting:
* Sources at the paper say Editor in Chief Wesley Pruden decided he did not want the Times associated with such views after looking into other Francis writings, in which he advocated the possible deportation of legal immigrants and forced birth control for welfare mothers. "We mutually decided we had irreconcilable differences, and Sam resigned and we accepted his resignation," Pruden said.
Thus, the text in the article should say Francis "resigned", although it would be fine to also add context suggesting he was forced out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Francis "resign" or was he fired? 

message: I just read this column which is now used as the source of a quote, as if it was just Mr Ignatious's opinion.  There is actually a lot more information in the column which is relevant to the history of the WT and if we accept it as a reliable source I think it should be included, not just as some guy expressing his opinion.PopSci (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine to include the content if it's attributed to a Ignatius column. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Ignatius column in WP 

message: The editor Marquis has made the ballsy move of insisting that the Wash Times' promotion of claims that Obama is not an American and that he's Muslim should not be considered "falsehoods" and "conspiracy theories". The editor feels that descriptions of Obama as an unAmerican half-breed (by Pruden) and a foreign-born Muslim (by Gaffney) should be summarized with the header "Coverage of Obama administration". More edits in a series of inexcusable and shocking edits by this editor. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: These claims are obviously false and widely documented as such by RS... Though I'm a little confused as to whether we should say 'RS consider these statements deliberate falsehoods' or simply declare them falsehoods in Wikipedia's voice as part of a subhead or summary. I lean toward the latter, given how egregiously false the claims are.Happy monsoon day 23:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are indeed declared as falsehoods in the summary. What I had a problem with is that there was other content in that section, such as the Ted Nugent columns, that simply were inflamed language rather than falsehoods or conspiracy theories, and therefore the section title is too narrow and would not fit. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The solution here is to create a "sub-section 1" titled "Hostility towards Barack Obama" with two "sub-section 2" headers titled "Birther conspiracy theories" and "Ted Nugent columns". The relevant Frank Gaffney content should be restored to the "Birther conspiracy theories" sub-section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

text: The Ted Nugent columns are also under that section. Those are not falsehoods, simply inflamed language. The claims that you referred to are indeed falsehoods that's why they are described as such. I have not attacked you personally, and have sought to abide by WP:Civil. I would ask you to do the same. Cheers. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see absolutely no problem with placing the hiring of a racist who has insinuated killing Obama in a separate "sub-section 2" header under a "sub-section 1" header titled "Falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Obama". If that's a huge problem for you, it would be better to have a separate "sub-section 1" about Ted Nugent. Calling sub-section 1 "Coverage of the Obama administration" is absurd. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reorganized it by subdividing into further subsections. I think the article is clearer now. Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birtherism and Obama=Muslim are not falsehoods? 

message: Marquis re-organized the 'Political stance, content and controversies' section in a way where content about Frank Gaffney's conspiracy theorizing and falsehoods were moved out of sub-sections on 'Falsehoods and conspiracy theories about Obama' and 'Anti-Muslim content' into a separate 'Frank Gaffney columns'. This re-organization is not helpful to readers, as no one is interested in reading about Frank Gaffney per se, but rather the kinds of content that the Wash Times puts out on various issues. If a reader clicks on the TOC to see how the Wash Times covered Obama, they won't see that this outlet described him as a foreign-born Muslim. If a reader clicks on the tOC to see how the Wash Times covered Islam, they won't see that this outlet pushed cancerous conspiracy theories about Muslims. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-sections should be about content, not authors 

message: Should the text in bold be included in the lede paragraph?
Throughout its history, The Times has been known for its conservative political stance. It has drawn controversy for publishing racially charged content, including racially incendiary commentary and conspiracy theories about United States president Barack Obama. It has published many columns rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change.
Please indicate your support or opposition of including the bolded text in the Lede. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Having coverage in some academic books is due weight for the body. Those sources cited do not specifically single out The Washington Times, but list it among a number of media outlets. The Washington Times is not famous or well-known for its climate change coverage, which is what would give it due weight to be in the lead. News publications take positions on issues and are criticized all the time, The Times would have to be very well known and prominent for its climate change coverage in a way that "conservative political stance" does not usually imply already. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be even more WP:Undue to mention specific wording used. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

text: I dunno; I think if it's offered as an example of counterfactual or conspiratorial reporting, then it's okay.  JohnInDC (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

text: It is not a "political stance", it is a politically motivated anti-scientific stance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I don't think any of the three references provided support this statement. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

text: The lede largely mirrors the content in this section, not necessarily the three sources cited specifically in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC about Lede sentence on columns rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change 

message: This article refers to the subject as "the Times" throughout. There are a number of publications called The Times. In the U.S., "The Times" is typically a colloquial reference to The New York Times. Does anyone object to changing all instances of "the Times" to "The Washington Times" to give the article more of an encyclopedic tone? - MrX 🖋 13:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Support this change.Happy monsoon day 21:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

text: I do not mind this change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  It has now been changed back, don't know what the reasoning is. PopSci (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The consensus seemed to be for "The Washington Times". It was changed without discussion.  I will change it back.  If someone objects they can change it some more, or comment here, of course. SpecInterest (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should stand "The Washington Times"!--౪ Santa ౪99° 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

text:  In the United States, "the times" refers almost universally to The New York Times.  I've never heard anyone say "the times" and mean The Washington Times.  As a source: Google "the times".  The New York Times is a top result.  I don't see The Washington Times anywhere in even the first 10 pages.  Fogsparrow (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Times? 

message: The "controversies" section takes up about half the article. 
I don't dispute the facts in the controversies, but this section should be trimmed dramatically.
*You are welcome to give it a try.PopSci (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there are too many long quotes in the section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8400:C040:9413:DC18:25FD:8F59 (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out one of the quotes.  It was before the person worked for the times and also would be offensive to some readers.2601:648:8400:C040:E1EF:656F:9BF:AEAE (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight in controversies section 

message: A new editor mass-removed longstanding text on the Moonie Times' anti-Muslim coverage for spurious reasons. I restored the longstanding content. Another editor, Korny O'Near, subsequently reverted the content again with an edit summary that falsely characterized the content as being solely sourced to CAIR. Not only is CAIR not the source of any of the content, but the editor's removal included peer-reviewed research published in top academic presses. The content in question should be restored ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the information should be in the article, but label CAIR's opinion as opinion. PopSci (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did the content in question rely on CAIR? Certainly not the peer-reviewed studies (which I originally added). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass-removal of anti-Muslim content 

message: I propose to merge Insight on the News into The Washington Times.  Insight was a weekly news magazine published by the WT.  Sources mostly never mentioned it without its relationship to the WT.  Merging would put all the information into one place and make it easier for readers.SpecInterest (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose The articles are fine the way they are.  Maybe some info on the "Clinton-Obama" controversy could be included here, but only as sources relate it to the Washington Times.PopSci (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Do we really need to list every Tom, Dick or Harry that ever had a byline? I would suggest triming to just include the editors-in-chief. IrishStephen (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staff section is too long 

message: This should up 1990s above section. BookeWorme (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: 21 years section

message: His comments could in section for comments. BookeWorme (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nelson Mandela