Talk:The Washington Times

WP:Undue coverage of specific incidents in the lead

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 The Seth Rich incident is literally one op-ed which was retracted, and the Obama issues is based on a handful of op-eds published by one author, Frank Gaffney, who is removed.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)

• You know, it's one thing for a paper to get something wrong. These incidents aren't just "getting something wrong", though. You are welcome to start an RfC on this, I suppose. For now, though, merely saying "it's a conservative paper" is simply not telling the whole truth, so you're also welcome to propose new phrasing for the lead, something that includes spreading conspiracy theories, rejecting science, promoting white nationalism, and printing racist stuff. Seriously? Obama a Muslim, in the paper? Drmies (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

Moxy, 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)

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)

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)

The lede should summarize the body. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed so. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

Separate political view section?

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)

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)

The section on white supremacy etc. should probably be merged into the history section then.PopSci (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks. I think the article is better and more readable now.PopSci (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Reporters from other papers mentioned a lot

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)

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)

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)

I'll change a few as well.PopSci (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Wash Times editor lauds white supremacists - irrelevant?

Marquis has repeatedly removed[1] 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)

RS content also keeps getting removed which contrasts the Washington Examiner's condemnation of Francis in its obituary to the fawning obituary that the Wash Times wrote for Francis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Here is the Wash Examiner obituary which responds to the Wash Times' fawning obituary of an unabashed racist[2]: "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)

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)

Did Francis "resign" or was he fired?

Per the editor of the Wash Times himself, Francis resigned. This is the relevant portion from WaPo's reporting[3]:

• 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)

David Ignatius column in WP

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)

It's fine to include the content if it's attributed to a Ignatius column. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Birtherism and Obama=Muslim are not falsehoods?

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".[4] More edits in a series of inexcusable and shocking edits by this editor. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sub-sections should be about content, not authors

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)

Done Marquis de Faux (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

RfC about Lede sentence on columns rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus in favor of including the text. (non-admin closure) --DannyS712 (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

References

Please indicate your support or opposition of including the bolded text in the Lede. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Not WP:Due or WP:Lead to be included in the lead section. There is no reason this specific stance should be singled out, and this is very atypical amongst Wiki articles for newspapers. The body in the article for Wall Street Journal, for example, includes similar descriptions of articles that don't acknowledge the scientific opinion on climate change, but it clearly does not meet the standards to be included in WP:Lead. The Huffington Post also has a body section on pseudoscience and related controversies. You would probably find similar articles in most right-leaning publications in the US. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support but other topics should be mentioned in the lede as well.PopSci (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The body of the article goes into great detail on The Times' role in pushing climate change disinformation. The Times and climate change disinformation is a subject that has been covered not only by RS news outlets, but in academic outlets and by scientists. The Times doesn't just push climate change disinformation, but is prominent for doing so. The Times plays a prominent role in the book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University, and Erik M. Conway, historian of science at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology, for its role in propagating falsehoods and fringe viewpoints on climate change. I agree with PopSci that more topics should be mentioned in the lede. As for Marquis de Faux's comments about the WSJ Wiki article, it's irrelevant what other Wikipedia pages (and for what its worth, the WSJ Wiki article should obviously mention that the editorial page of the paper pushes climate change nonsense). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Support. Positions that are clearly anti-science and anti-reality are an important aspect of publications, affecting their credibility. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose At least in part because op-edd pieces are often not edited by the news staff (nor can I see how articles from 80 years ago are relevant to today's climate debate).Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  The Washington Times is approximately 35 yrs old. Most of the sources about its climate change denial content relates to articles published since the 2000s and up to this day. The sources do not specify that this is all opinion editorials. For example, this was just published yesterday[5]. The sentence in the lede can be reworked to "The Washington Times is known for publishing content that casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate, including editorials from the editorial board that refer to anthropogenic climate change as a "scam", "fudged science" and "unproven theory"". This rework would clarify that the Wash Times doesn't just publish editorials that promote climate change denial, but also news reporting that seeks t cast doubt on the scientific consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

That would be even more WP:Undue to mention specific wording used. Marquis de Faux (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - and if it doesn't stand out because they reject even more established science then the sentence should be made stronger instead of being removed. The climate change denial has its own significant paragraph, a summary in the introduction is good. --mfb (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support - clearly a notable part of the paper's coverage which they are presumably proud of. Suggest also linking out the term of art, scientific consensus, which is relevant.Happy monsoon day 19:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Saw this at RSN. Seems fine, even - per WP:PSCI - needed. Alexbrn (talk) 20:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Query: Is the pseudoscience promoted by the Washington Times most reliably identified as climate change denial only? I thought they also tended to support creationism especially through the time they were controlled by the Moonies who, famously, bankrolled Jonathan Wells. jps (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  From what I gather the Washington Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus behind ozone depletion and second-hand smoke in the 1990s. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  Seems to me, then, that we should cast a more broad statement: It has published columns rejecting the scientific consensus positions when certain American conservative political positions have clashed with it including columns denying climate change, rejecting evolution, denying adverse health effects of tobacco, and denying that human industry was destroying the ozone layer . or something to that effect. Broader is better. jps (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  This would all need to be substantiated with text and sources in the body though. I looked into Wash Times' fringe coverage on second-hand smoke, and could only find two secondary RS to substantiate it (despite stumbling upon lots of primary source fringe article by Wash Times). It's often difficult to find RS for stuff from the 80s and 90s. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

  I think two sources is good enough. It seems that the sources exist. Limiting this to just global warming denial is missing the broader point that this publication explicitly supports pseudoscientific claims whenever politically convenient. There are plenty of sources which document the instances of this general trend. jps (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support, with an appropriate tweak or two. Contra-factual reporting, conspiracy theories and the rest aren't "conservative politics" as such, and don't properly flow from the setup as written. It should instead say that the paper is known for its conservative POV - give an example or two of that - and further, that it promotes a variety of unscientific or conspiratorial points of view, then segue to conspiracies, climate change, etc. JohnInDC (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

  I agree. The lede also needs to note (and the body has to go into greater depth on) the relationship between the Moon Church and how it affected coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support. It seems to me that approval/rejection of scientific consensus on anything has become a sort of litmus test for "contrafactuality" (i.e., untruth, or as Hob Gadlilng said, "anti-reality"), and therefore is suitable for mentioning in the lead. Slatersteven's comment that op-ed opinions are separate from the news ‒ I believe the implicit argument is that they should not be held as reflecting poorly on the paper's news coverage ‒ is also "anti-real", as 1) op-ed is just as much a part of the WT as its news coverage, and 2) there is an influence. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Per WP:UNDUE -- this info should be mentioned in the "Political stance, content and controversies" section, not in the intro paragraph. There are many different political issues (immigration, guns, trade, abortion, foreign policy, etc.), and climate change politics is just one of them. I don't see how this one issue merits mention in the article's intro section while these other notable issues do not. The intro should be a brief, non-detailed overview of the entire article. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

It is not a "political stance", it is a politically motivated anti-scientific stance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support Well-sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. This is properly sourced, an important aspect of the newspaper's history and background, and summarizes material in the body; thus, one sentence in the lead section is proper. Neutrality^talk 18:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Undecided. Coming here from noticeboard. To me, the pivotal question, which I don't currently know enough to answer, is whether or not the Times is known specifically for their stance on climate change, rather than just their stance on climate change being an example of their conservative views. It probably wouldn't be appropriate to include an entire sentence in the lead if it's just one example among many, but it might if it's an especially prominent example, and it probably is if it's something they're specifically known for. - Sdkb (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
• Sigh. The RfC is worded as a yes-or-no question, not as a statement to support or oppose. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think there is any ambiguity in the existing comments. --mfb (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. It's a short statement summarizing what's covered in more detail in the article; this is exactly what leads are for. I notice that there's even more to the sentence beyond what the RfC is proposing. I'm going to guess (without digging through the history and checking dates) that this was added after to reflect the section as a whole, and I think that's certainly good to have as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support addition, per JohnInDC and J. Johnson. Denial of scientific consensus is not in and of itself an example of conservatism (although in the specific case of the climate crisis the correlation is rather strong), and since it is the Times ' editorial policy to publish such disinformation, even if only as op-eds, then it is certainly relevant in the lead. — Define Real (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The use of the phrase "scientific consensus" seems like a needless injection of bias, and possibly synthesis as well - unless there's some survey of scientists' thoughts about the specific statements of The Washington Times. Mentioning their views on climate change is fine, but I don't see any reason to include the phrase "scientific consensus" in there. If people want to find out about the scientific thinking around climate change, there are various dedicated articles they can go to for that. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  We know what the scientific consensus is (and if someone wants to look it up: We have a link to a description there), and it is well-documented with all the references that the Washington Times promotes something else. --mfb (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

• Support. It's not Wikipedia's job to soothe the feelings of fossil fuel lobbyists who wish that the scientific consensus on climate change were more commercially advantageous for them. Guy (Help!) 01:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per J Johnson. If it is true that rejecting scientific consensus is a sign of counterfactuality, and further if it is significant for a news site to be publishing counterfactuals (and I think both of these are true), then this information is worth placing in the lede. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. For a newspaper to allow its political positions to influence it so much that it publishes counterfactual misinformation....Wow! That's what Fox News, Breitbart, InfoWars, etc. do, and although we consider Breitbart and InfoWars to be unreliable, we haven't deprecated Fox for politics yet. That's really bad. We are failing! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The sources used for the claim that the newspaper "has published many columns rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change" only involves a few articles. For instance, the New Yorker article only cited or focused on Richard Rahn's op-ed. The ClimateFeedback source only cited one article and the case is the same for the Los Angeles Times story. Moreover, these articles did not refer to a pattern of climate change rejection in "many" of The Washington Times columns. I am not saying that this claim is not true, only that the sources used do not reflect the insinuation. If anyone can find notable sources citing a study or a survey of the paper's articles that reveal it is giving undue emphasis on climate change rejection then I will give this my support. At this point, putting this info on the lead is like Wikipedia is making its own conclusion based on the content of some of the mentioned columns. Darwin Naz (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The lede largely mirrors the content in this section, not necessarily the three sources cited specifically in the lede[6]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - The material is properly sourced and it is a significant point covered in the body of the article. - MrX 🖋 12:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:LEADREL. The other pseudoscience might not be due; it is borderline. Unlike the 3-4 negative articles about Obama, this stuff spans decades, and since there are more examples of bad reporting than good reporting, this is controversial and a pattern easy to spot. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 18:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support in spirit; no strong opinion on the specific wording. In addition to the above, there's stuff like this review in Science talking about how The Merchants of Doubt authors "identify the ways in which the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal have nourished the public sense that anthropogenic climate change is a matter of dispute, how they have given disproportionately large space to articles and opinion pieces from the “merchants of doubt,” and how they have sometimes censored the attempts of serious climate scientists to set the record straight." And in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society: "The conservative media assault on climate science also occurs in print media, especially conservative newspapers such as [Wall Street Journal, New York Post,] and the Reverend Moon's Washington Times." In Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives: "For much of the past quarter-century, key outlets for climate change denial have been conservative newspapers (e.g., Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Washington Times)...". These don't even include the many stories about specific articles/op-eds the Times has run (some of which are linked above). The bad coverage of climate science isn't limited to clearly labeled opinion pieces, either. e.g. NBC News host says no air time for climate 'deniers' on "Meet the Press': 'Science is settled' in the Culture section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

  I added the Oxford Handbook source to the body of the article. I unfortunately can't access the other book on Google Books. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. Pertinent (under MOS:LEADREL), reliably sourced, and well-supported with the Climate change denial section. — Newslinger talk 04:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Times?

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)

Support this change.Happy monsoon day 21:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not mind this change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

It has now been changed back, don't know what the reasoning is. PopSci (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

It should stand "The Washington Times"!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

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)

Undue weight in controversies section

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)

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)

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)

• I took off one incident that didn't seem to be much of a controversy.2601:648:8400:C040:C437:981D:8FB8:A9C9 (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Mass-removal of anti-Muslim content

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)

I think the information should be in the article, but label CAIR's opinion as opinion. PopSci (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

Merger proposal

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)

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)

Staff section is too long

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)