Talk:Washington Examiner

Untitled

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)

There really needs to be a separate article for the Baltimore Examiner. Yes, it is owned by the same company and has the same format, but the articles, staff, and distribution systems are all different. The fact that the newspaper masthead adorns an office building in downtown Baltimore also indicates a separate physical/geographic identity and base of operations from the paper in Washington, or the one in San Francisco. --Apostlemep12 14:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI Re "This is a hard-hitting newspaper, with top-notch reporting, writing and editorial work.". https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/ has a reasonably objective analysis of the current status. Extremely "loaded" headlines; 100% "Right" POV (no balance); frequent omitting of inconvenient facts that don't fit that POV. Another very bad symptom (re their reliability as a news source) is their "war" with fact-checking sites (Politifact and Snopes), which they vilify. [Example: "Move over, PolitiFact. You are no longer the most hilariously incompetent and obviously dishonest fact-checking outfit in town."] I'm not prepared to decide what would be a properly sourced, and neutral POV, addition to the article re this; so for now I just place this here as an FYI. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

A little...

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)

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)

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)

Their spin on news stories seems pretty obviously right wing. Compare their reporting of the CEI release to the NYT: [1] vs [2]. 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) (lionfish)

It's been done again! This time about the sketchy paper [3] 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) (lionfish)

When we find a reliable source that does so, and not before. —D. Monack ^talk 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Examiner Frontpage 18SEP06.png

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)

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)

Comparing circulation

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. MrZaius^talk 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

examiner.com discussion at reliable sources noticeboard

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)

exclusively white

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)

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)

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)

Controversy section

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)

Lead paragraph issues.

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)

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)

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)

POV WP:OR in "Richest"

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)

I agree, and removed that wording. It was a prime example of peacock terms. —D. Monack ^talk 20:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Distribution Section

/* 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)

I removed the line "It lacks a copy desk, instead using section editors to handle the copy-editing function" as it's not only unsourced but completely untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.127.127 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

BS24

BS24 is on indefinite block, but likely to return as a sock.[4] The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange formatting problem

The section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Examiner#Political_views

has a problem, as illustrated below:

When Anschutz started the Examiner in its current format, he envisioned creating aconservative competitor to The Washington Post. According to Politico.com, "When

Even though I have tried to put a space between the 'a' and the 'conservative' in 'aconservative', even though it "looks OK" when you look at it in the WikiPedia window, if you copy it and paste it into another program, like a word processor or an email program, the space disappears and all you get is 'aconservative'.

I do not know what is going on. Perhaps it is a problem with the WikiPedia software.

I did make sure that there are no invisible characters in my correction. I "zapped gremlins" using BBEdit.

I do not know what is going on.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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 ^Notify_Online 17:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

POV-lead tag

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)

Requested move 16 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (WP:SNOW) (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 12:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The Washington Examiner → Washington Examiner – I don't know if there's a written guideline, but the titles of articles about publications appear to consistently use whatever is on the publication's nameplate (masthead). The New York Times, but Chicago Tribune. The Guardian, but Daily Mail. And so on. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support as requester. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Technically you don't have to state that. It's assumed you support as proposer unless stated otherwise. oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but it establishes the standard format in case incoming editors aren't aware of it. And we use "Support as proposer" in proposals, and "Support as nominator" in AfDs, etc, and I don't see why we need the added complication requiring editors to memorize where it's needed and where it's not. The project has way too much unnecessary complexity, and that's an excellent example. And I like !voting. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support. He current masthead does seem to omit the "The". Which is kinda annoying, as the masthead definitely sported it when I moved the article to include the "The" in the title. Seems that they've waffled on its inclusion over the years. Grumble. oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support move. Though I acknowledge they've gone back and forth, the current masthead omits the "The". WP:THE states that the "The" should be excluded here. ONR (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link, I'll try to remember that. "For newspapers, the general rule is to follow the name of the publication as it actually appears on the masthead. [...] an article about a newspaper should never be titled with The if it is not present in the masthead." That appears to make this move uncontroversial, but I'll let the RM play out anyway now that it's started. Somebody may know something we don't. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. It does indeed appear to be uncontroversial.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP:THE. The masthead has excluded "the" for at least two years, as far as I recall, and I noticed the discrepency between it and the Wikipedia article a while ago. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fringe nonsense on climate change

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)

• 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)Niteshift36 Snooganssnoogans

"It is, really."

You've also watered down appropriate terms, Niteshift36, for the Examiner's inflammatory rhetoric, i.e.

lam·baste lamˈbāst,lamˈbast/ "they lambasted the report as a gross distortion of the truth"

So you see, your substituting the word "criticized" for "lambasted" minimizes an accurate description of their deliberate phraseology. The term you removed correctly characterizes the Examiner's harsher language. The same is true of "McCarthyite."

McCarthyism (From Wikionary)

"The intense opposition to, and fear and suspicion of, Communism, particularly in the United States during the 1950s." "Hypernym: anticommunism" Etymology McCarthy ‎ -ite Adjective McCarthyite (comparative more McCarthyite, superlative most McCarthyite) Of or pertaining to McCarthyism

Their editorializing to label anti-global warming activism with "commies under the bed," rhetoric is nothing short of the term I'd used. A spade needs to be called a spade. Wikipedia is not censored. Activist (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Why is the White House anonymously vandalizing this page?

https://twitter.com/whitehousedits/status/1202605873052430338 -- Jibal (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Factual Changes Needed

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" Change "Managing Editor" value from "Philip Klein" to "Toby Harnden" Remove "News editor" label and value Change "Opinion editor" label to "Executive Editor/Commentary Editor" and value to "Philip Klein"

References

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)

Description as "tabloid"

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)

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)

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)

Do not ads characterizations as conservative or right-leaning

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)

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)

StargazerAW has been banned for WP:NOTHERE -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Circulation

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)

Refutation to the Washington Examiner's editorial stance

Several editors have been taking exception with the section of this article describing the Washington Examiner's editorial stance toward climate change. In response, they have added a refutation showing how incorrect this editorial stance is. Unfortunately, the reliable source selected for the refutation does not mention the Washington Examiner. An analogy would be if CNN's Wikipedia article mentioned that CNN was pro-gun control, after which an editor refuted this editorial stance with text touting the virtues of gun ownership, supported by a source completely unrelated to CNN and which never mentions CNN. Should we go through every biography listed at w:Category:Anti-vaccination activists and find a reliable source saying these people are all idiots (citing a source which doesn't specifically mention any of them)? This goes beyond WP:NPOV into a new world where editors can roam from Wikipedia article to Wikipedia article looking for ideas they disagree with, and then add an opposing opinion supported by a reliable source completely unrelated to the Wikipedia article in question. The input of others would be welcomed. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

My view is that we should clearly identify WP:FRINGE views as such, even when secondary sources do not specifically identify a view as fringe in the context of a particular individual or group. In other words, if individual X says that vaccines cause autism, then it's OK for us to rebut that in Wikipedia's voice even if a secondary does not specifically say individual X was wrong. Anyway, I've started a discussion on the Fringe Theory noticeboard[5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOSOURCE says "Sources used should be directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Those sources which do not mention the topic of the article should be replaced with those that do." There can be some common sense flexibility about this (e.g. the article on Washington Examiner might mention a journalist called Donald Trump, and we might link to source about the journalist which doesn't mention the Examiner but that clarifies that he's not *that* Donald Trump) but it is the default rule. Also WP:COATRACK. For instance, the SciAm article cited in this article does not mention Washington Examiner at all. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change but did not see that opposition to climate change was to be considered a fringe theory. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That was ten years ago. Now, many more people know it is fringe than back then. Denialists do simply not appear in climatology journals because they have nothing worthwhile to contribute. They have the same status as creationists in biology. Skeptics now regulary debunk climate change denialists, along with astrologers, homeopaths, antivaxxers, conspiracy theorists, and so on. Denialism is an established term for a subset of pseudosciences. There is a consensus in science that climate change deniers are just another type of anti-science loons.

On Wikipedia, denialist articles are regularly pointed out to the Fringe theories noticeboard, and nobody ever uttered any doubt that it is a fringe subject - except maybe one guest or two who do not know what fringe is. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh right, if you do not allow any counter to that piece of denialist propaganda, we will have to delete it because of WP:PROFRINGE: "if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play". --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling: Has a consensus been reached that opposition to climate change is to be considered a fringe theory? I searched but was not able to find one. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not there is wiki consensus that climate change scepticism is fringe, WP:STICKTOSOURCE does not appear to have a fringe exception. Is there some other policy that supersedes it? NPalgan2 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:STICKTOSOURCE says, "research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words" So, what is "the topic"? The opinion of the WE on climate change? Then, since the WE is a denialist rag and thus not a reliable source on anything climate-related, we should use some other source. If we do not have any other source, we must be silent on "the topic", per WP:PROFRINGE. WP:STICKTOSOURCE does not come into it because it does not forbid omitting stuff. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

That demand is ridiculous. Read Climate change denial. What is fringe and what is not is not decided by Wikipedians, it is decided by reliable sources. Maybe you also want the shape of the Earth decided by a random group of Wikipedia users? --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Pointing out what wikipedia policy says is not a "ridiculous demand". Sarewitz criticized what Barone said, no need for the article to get sidetracked. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

In that case, the article must either contain the refutation by Nature or omit the fringe claim by the WE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misapprehension that my "ridiculous demand" comment was directed at you. As you could have seen from the indenting, it was not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point in history, climate-change denial is a fringe ideology on an intellectual level with the Face on Mars. If somebody were known for claiming that the Cydonian "face" was proof of ancient astronauts, it would be the duty of a good encyclopedia to point out that the whole "face" business was hogwash, whether or not a fact-checker happened to call out that guy specifically by name. It's not "synthesis" to explain what the supposed "controversy" actually is. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: Could you please point to the policy stating one of Wikipedia's duties is to highlight and refute controversial opinions made by the subject of a Wikipedia article? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY "If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether." --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The text in question isn't a discussion of a fringe theory; it's a discussion of the editorial position of a magazine. There's a different. As well, it was the consensus of the editors who wrote WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:NOTOPINION that Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs (in this case, using sources completely unrelated to the article in question). Magnolia677 (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Their claim that climatology is based on "shoddy and dishonest evidence" is a long-debunked fringe theory. "The Earth's climate is changing, as it always has. And part of the reason it is changing is due to human activity" is fringe propaganda. Demanding that Wikipedia articles should refrain from propagating fringe theories does not fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Refutations of the paper's editorial positions are synthesis unless it is mentioned in a source about the paper. Mentioning that the paper denies climate change does not, per WP:FRINGE "make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." All religions are by Wikipedia standards fringe theories, because they make claims not supported by science, but we don't spam in these objections into every article that mentions someone's religion. If you can't find the observation you want to make about a paper in reliable sources, that's because no one writing for reliable sources has found it important enough to make. TFD (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning that the paper denies climate change is not the problem. Quoting their bullshit reasoning without the context of a refutation from the mainstream is the problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

All religions are by Wikipedia standards fringe theories, because they make claims not supported by science - no. when religions make scientific claims that aren't supported by science, those are the fringe theories that need to be labeled as such. see e.g. creation science.

Has a consensus been reached that opposition to climate change is to be considered a fringe theory - it's here at scientific consensus on climate change. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. "Religion" covers a very, very broad territory, much of which is orthogonal to the concerns of the fringe theory guideline. The closest analogy there would be something like young-Earth creationism or Ayurvedic pseudo-medicine, where claims are born of a particular version of a particular religion and then promoted as science. Those are WP:FRINGE and should be treated appropriately. The only "great wrong" we are righting here is the propagation of inaccurate information — and getting good information to people is kind of the point of an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The information presented in this article about the Washington Examiner's position on climate change is absolutely correct. What is incorrect? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Wrong question. It may be correct that the WE thinks climatology is based on "shoddy and dishonest evidence", but that is not the point. Wikipedia cannot be a propaganda tool of fringe proponents, and therefore it cannot just repeat their faulty reasoning without saying what is wrong with it. The "shoddy and dishonest evidence" bit is based on the WE's false belief that during the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, the quotes from the stolen e-mails which the fences quoted out of context told a true story. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Is the CRU e-mail controversy really that important to this periodical? I am struggling to identify why there is so much emphasis on it in the article. It's not surprising that they would come down in support of climate change denial. Most conservative publications in the US have some affinity for climate change denial. But why go on about this one instance of this? I can point to a wide variety of op-eds where they promote such denialism. Secondary sources seem to consider their ideological approach as obvious given the ownership and the personalities of the editorial room. Is pressing on this properly contextualized? jps (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Questions raised about policy seem to have missed WP:WEIGHT requiring that pages "should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" snd that "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it". The Nature source is about the relation to policy making and concludes that "the imperfect science we already have will turn out to be plenty good enough to support action". The current wording of the paragraph goes against WP:GEVAL policy by implying the fringe views are equal to mainstream science – if it's to remain then, even on the basis of making necessary assumptions, we should be clear that the pundit is promoting a fringe view. . . . dave souza, talk 15:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Tabloid

RS have clearly described the paper as a tabloid even after it ceased being a physical tabloid. Andre🚐 15:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Three of the four sources that were cited were from 2009 (a conservative free daily tabloid), 2009 again (a daily tabloid), 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 tabloid-style. 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)