Talk:Washington Examiner

message: This is a hard-hitting newspaper, with top-notch reporting, writing and editorial work.  To call it a "tabloid," as one Wikipedia "editor" sought to do, is libelous.  It is far less a "tabloid" than the Washington Post and New York Times, where editorials with pseudo-literary affectations are routinely featured on the front page in the guise of news.
:According to tabloid, a tabloid is a newspaper "that uses the tabloid format, which is roughly 23½ by 14¾ inches (597 by 375 mm) per spread.".  Since the Examiner clearly does so, this statement is factual. I've reinserted it. Meelar (talk) 16:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
The term "non-union newspaper" is bizarre, because very few major newspaper operate under unions anymore. Is there any reason this should be here?
:Agreed. Phrase removed. — Linnwood 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Is it worth mentioning the political position of the editorial board? They are all conservative, especially by D.C. standards. When it first came out as the Examiner they all wrote conservative editorials. 
What's the policy on mentioning political positions of publications? I see that it could be problematic because it is hard to assess, and some terms are used pejoratively, but I think it's something people want to know about publications; there's also a difference between papers like the Examiner with conservative editors but neutral news (they pull most of their stories off the wire) and something like the Washington Times or Village Voice where the whole paper tends toward one side. IceJew 07:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They've endorsed McCain, so I'd say they're anything but neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.224.161 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my. While I agree the Examiner has a conservative editorial board, almost every newspaper endorses candidates. If they're anything but neutral, so is every other newspaper in America. APK straight up now tell me 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Their spin on news stories seems pretty obviously right wing. Compare their reporting of the CEI release to the NYT:  vs . Indeed they only seem to quote/use the Competitive Enterprise Institute's information, whereas the NYT's reporting has everyone's opinion. Surely with articles like this their bias must be made more clear on their wikipedia page? - I guess my ruminations are an example of original research, I'm not really sure how to proceed. Thanks! 82.41.200.77 (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been done again! This time about the sketchy paper  again failing to ask a single climate scientist their opinion. At what point do we put a health warning on the article? 129.215.25.154 (talk) 10:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: When we find a reliable source that does so, and not before. —D. Monack talk 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Also, a few points about that link: (1) It's an editorial which by definition is one-sided. You'll find the same stuff in NY Times and Washington Post editorials. (2) The paper is not "sketchy"; it was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, a highly respected scientific journal not known for global warming skepticism. (3) The editorial includes the opinions of several climate scientists, namely the three that wrote the paper. —D. Monack talk 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A little...

message: :Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 14:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png

message: :Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png

message: :Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 00:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png

message: :Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png

message: :Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is still in the data base. I don't feel like figuring out how to do this, if someone else wants to, in order to put photo back. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png

message: Are public figures available to provide for a comparison between the circulation of the Examiner and the Express? It'd be nice to see it move out of the See also and into a more full-fledged statement in the prose above. MrZaiustalk 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparing circulation

message: I posted to a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#examiner.com = paid blogging, no editorial oversight that I'd like some input on if anyone's interested. I think the website will ultimately go the way of ehow.com, but I think there is and will be confusion that this new website is related to the print newspapers owned by the same company...Clarity Media. I've also noticed that many of the DCExaminer.com links are dead, and at least some of the live Baltimore article links appear to now go to examiner.com. Flowanda | Talk 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: examiner.com discussion at reliable sources noticeboard

message: I wonder about this sentence (the link in the citation is broken, or seems to be): 
:When the Examiner launched in late 2005, Washington City Paper writers Erik Wemple and Jeff Horwitz surveyed Washington, D.C. neighborhoods and discovered that free home delivery of the Examiner occurred in exclusively white, affluent neighborhoods, while "majority-black neighborhoods are lucky to get even spotty service."[4]
Are there really "exclusively white" neighborhoods in Washington? I find that hard to believe. Did they mean to say "delivered exclusively in affluent, majority-white neighborhoods"?  That would make more sense but there is now no way to check the source. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Segregation (de jure and de facto) in Washington ended decades ago and there are no "exclusively white" neighborhoods. I reworded the statement in the article and slapped the citation needed warning on it. The City Paper's website says all articles going back to 1995 are searchable but I couldn't find this one. —D. Monack talk 21:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It sounds like they are making a perfectly reasonable business decision doing this, if they are doing it.  There is no reason to imply racism, which what was kind of implied before. BTW the whole distribution controversy section is kind of silly. It sounds like some activists were trying to make what we on WP would call a "point."  All kinds of newsletters, ads, etc. are distributed door to door all over the country and people don't make a fuss about it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: exclusively white

message: The material here seems to be mainly minor complaints, nothing illegal or even unjournalistic is charged. How about removing the whole section? Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: The meanings of the word "conservative" depend on where in the world you are. A conservative in Finland would be considered a liberal in the US. Right wing is neutrally descriptive of relativity to the US political spectrum and as I understand US politics conservatives are on the right and not the left or the center.  This is why "right wing" is better for an international readership.
On the issue of ownership by one of the world's richest men (partial or full), which an ip address user has continually tried to remove this from the lead, it matters not that the reference is already in the article. The lead is intended to summarise key points from the article and the ownership of a newspaper is highly relevant to its news and opinion agenda and is included in other newspaper articles.--Hauskalainen (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the ownership description is in the History section of the article where it is more appropriate.  Please stop edit-warring. 68.25.103.189 (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully I wish to disagree. The lead is supposed to summarise. The ownership of a small circulation paper based with a D.C. title with an internet presence which is owned by one of the world's most richest men is highly relevent to gaining a quick understanding of this news source. It certainly warrants being in the lead. See also New York Times. As I say (and you seem to ignore) the lead paragraphs are meant to sum up the key content in lower sections and it is therefore to be expected that the lead paragraphs will repeat material lower down. And no, I will continue to rebuff your attempts to prevent me following WP policy.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead paragraph issues.

message: You need a source to say he is "one of the richest men in the world. Replacing deleted unsourced material without providing a source is vs. wikipedia policy. There are a couple thousand billionaires in the world. It's subjective WP:OR for an editor to decide he is "one of the richest" and probably some sort of POV against people who are rich owning newspapers or something. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and removed that wording. It was a prime example of peacock terms. —D. Monack talk 20:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV WP:OR in "Richest"

message: /* Distribution */ Reference to webpage added - Adds reference to webpage, "Alex. Model Newspaper Delivery Law" and moved existing statute reference to "Code 9-14" .  - This was done because the webpage explains the logic behind the Alexandria ordinance.  The subject matter does not rise to the level of a Wikipedia article or even a section in the existing article, and so would either be an external link or a reference.  Since it only pertains to the city code (as far as the Wikipedia article is concerned), it was linked as an in-line citation.  The .pdf copy of code 9-14 was moved to those words, since "model newspaper ordinance" now has its own citation. - Unitacx (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Distribution Section

message: BS24 is on indefinite block, but likely to return as a sock. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: BS24

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://web.archive.org/web/20050910005322/http://www.examiner.com/
*:Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: The lead puts undue emphasis on the Examiner's conservative ties/views. Half the lead is devoted to it; it reads as if we're going out of our way to point out the conservative links. If there's reliable sourcing that the Examiner is conservative then this should be communicated in a word or two ("conservative" or "politically conservative"). If it's more complicated then that then I'd be okay with a single sentence explaining the situation but no more. A detailed explanation can always go in the body. And btw I'm uncertain whether the DCist source is reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-lead tag 

message: That an outlet that purports to be a credible news outlet publishes climate change misinformation is WP:DUE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Is it really? Or does it just fit what you want to paint the outlet to be? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

text: *Sorry, but this isn't your personal screed. Lambaste is a charged word and this whole "McCarthyism" thing is nothing less than POV pushing. You say it's calling a spade a spade, but I'll bet NPOVN sees it differently. This isn't censoring, it's the core pillar of neutrality. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. Is the Examiner a shitty mouthpiece that engages is factually invalid deniailism? Yes. But using loaded terms and junk like that in Wikipedia is completely unaccptable. oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *What about quoting actual sentences used in the Examiner? Given the lack of balance in Examiner's POV, and the loaded/histrionic tone of their editorials, virtually any editorial demonstrates the point made by Snooganssnoogans at the start of this section. Comments on this? Or is it necessary to instead quote a secondary source's statements about the Examiner's editorializing? ToolmakerSteve (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe nonsense on climate change 

message: https://twitter.com/whitehousedits/status/1202605873052430338 -- Jibal (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the White House anonymously vandalizing this page?

message: There are factual changes that need editing:
Change "Publisher" label to "Chairman" 
Change "Editor" label to "Editor in Chief" and change value "Seth Mandel" to "Hugo Gurdon" https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/staff
Change "Managing Editor" value from "Philip Klein" to "Toby Harnden" https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/staff
Remove "News editor" label and value
Change "Opinion editor" label to "Executive Editor/Commentary Editor" and value to "Philip Klein" https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/staff
The page is locked so I suggest these factual changes on the Talk page in the hopes of getting it updated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrentDPayne (talk • contribs) 19:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Changes Needed 

message: The page refers to the Washington Examiner as a "tabloid".  Previous conversation on this talk page indicates the use of this term was tied to the physical size of the publication.  However, the publication is currently a standard magazine size of about 9" by 11.5", which conforms more closely to the definition of a "magazine" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine).  As such, the first line should be changed to say "The Washington Examiner is an American conservative news website and weekly magazine..." Davidlindsey0118 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Chnaged. That it was once a tabloid-sized newspaper is already covered in the second paragraph. The lead sentence should state its present format. oknazevad (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

text: I would agree that "magazine" is more reasonable here. That it was formerly a tabloid-sized newspaper is given, but we should not confuse that with this currently being a newspaper printed on tabloid paper. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description as "tabloid" 

message: Please do not add characterizations of The Washington Examiner as conservative or right-leaning to the lead sentence. This issue has already been discussed at length and your edits will be reverted. StargazerAW (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you removed this characterization on this article but added a similar characterization at the CNN article at the same time, it sure seems like you're only editing to make a point. I'll be reverting your edit shortly. (Also, the link you provided doesn't discuss The Washington Examiner anywhere.) Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

text: StargazerAW has been banned for WP:NOTHERE -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not ads characterizations as conservative or right-leaning 

message: The circulation stat of 45,000 is not referenced (anecdotally it seems a bit high to me, though perhaps I'm underestimating Washington Examiner's reach of late). Is the only source that the publisher mentioned this as a target for the publication several years ago? My apologies if I'm missing anything. Dsakey1978 (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circulation 

message: RS have clearly described the paper as a tabloid even after it ceased being a physical tabloid. Andre🚐 15:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Three of the four sources that were cited were from 2009 (), 2009 again (), 2013 (lamenting the ceasing of production of the tabloid newspaper). The only one that is more recent is a first-person opinion piece from Slate (WP:RSOPINION), but does indeed refer to it as . Nevertheless, that's zero WP:RS for the claim, a particular oddity if we're making it in the first sentence of the lead. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabloid