Talk:The Wall Street Journal

RfC

This discussion is closed.

Should the caveated highlighted text appear: A) In the lede. B) In the body. C) Nowhere in the article. The Journal's editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos, although its conservative-sceptical framings on climate change have declined since the 2000s. Nesher (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC) References Let's slow down. Just running another RfC isn't going to fix things. Let's have the discussion first. A number of editors have objected to the way the lead handles this information (@Loksmythe, LilBillWilliams, and Clayjamieson:). Calton you are correct to say this edit[1] has been challenged and thus revert per NOCON. Can you explain your WP:PRIMARY concern? Would that same concern apply to Naomi's book cited in the lead? Anyway, rather than just run another RfC with no discussion I would suggest we actually talk about the topic, see if we can't come up with a consensus solution that we can all live with vs trying to do all in/out RfC solution. Springee (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Seems reliable sources into the 2000s still do say that the WSJ tends to take a climate-denying (or downplaying) stance on things,[2][3][4][5][6][7] so regardless of whatever is decided about the reliability of that paper I don't think it's perspective should be afforded that much weight if it tends to disagree with reliable sources. Skimming over it though, it seems to essentially be saying that the WSJ's conservative framing (scare quotes intentional) of climate change is on the downturn, not that it doesn't exist. More to the point about the lead, I really do not understand why a few pages in a ~300 page book discussing some editorials published in the WSJ (among many other publications) deserves to have a whole lengthy sentence dedicated to it in the lead. How on earth is that in WP:PROPORTION to the coverage of the WSJ in reliable sources? I can find a lot in reliable sources discussing the WSJ and climate change denial (see above), but almost nothing on asbestos or second-hand smoke or the like. For instance, there is another journal article in the body of the text[8] about second-hand smoke, with a single paragraph in a long paper about the media and medical institutions generally, discussing one editorial published in the WSJ in 1994 (as a comparison, it spends about three times as long talking about three different editorials published in the NYT). It makes absolutely no sense to me why all that other obscure stuff is there in the lead with climate change, which reliable sources do actually tend to mention. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC) Here's a consensus solution: completely eliminate any mention of the WSJ editorial board from the lead. I think a pretty clear and compelling case has been made by multiple editors on why this sentence is problematic and biased ANYWHERE in the article, but if we really have no choice but to keep it, then I think a fair solution is to simply take it out of the lead and move it to the (bizarrely long and detailed) section on the WSJ's editorial pages. The Wikipedia pages for fellow newspapers of record the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today do not provide any information at all about the papers' respective editorial pages in their leads. And rightly so- as has already been discussed in this talk page, an encyclopedic entry on a newspaper should accurately reflect the strict division maintained between the news desk and the editorial board. And a note about the use of the phrase "editorial board:" this article is now being held hostage by people actively trying to maintain a false statement on Wikipedia. Not good. As has already been pointed out, some of the articles on scientific issues cited as "being promoted by the editorial board" were not even written by the editorial board. Somebody falsely claimed that the publication of an article on editorial pages constitutes approval or promotion by the editorial board-- this person does not understand how newspaper editorials work. Only articles written by "The Editorial Board" reflect the institution's opinion. This is a falsehood right in the lead of a frequently read Wikipedia article. Another note: Hob Gadling repeatedly cited the OTHERTHINGSEXIST guidance on why we shouldn't look at other Wikipedia pages for consistency and neutrality in tone-- well, this guidance only covers the question of the existence of a page. For all his repetition, this editor fails to even understand the guidance he is peddling. And a final note: seeing this specific paragraph in this specific article was one of the things that caused me to set up an editor account with Wikipedia-- I love Wikipedia, and while reading through different articles on American news sources, I was shocked that something so weirdly warped and apparently maliciously-placed would be situated in such a prominent position in an article on a newspaper of record, so I figured I should fix it and help maintain Wikipedia as a neutral and credible source. See Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on the Wall Street Journal (itself longer than this Wikipedia lead) for an example of a highly-edited, highly neutral overview of this news source. The ability of a couple impassioned editors to sabotage an article and refuse to budge despite many others' clear arguments has really made me lose faith in the Wikipedia editorial process (and, more generally, in the neutrality and reliability of this website). To those who are still insisting on keeping this in the lead: something is very, very, very wrong if your editing was so poor that it inspired somebody to enter the mess that is Wikipedia editing just to fix your work. Clayjamieson (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Clayjamieson I certainly think the editorial board should have no mention in the lead (no other major newspaper's lead mentions their editorials), but there is already an RfC on removing some specific stuff, and until that is removed, another frivolous RfC with an addition that nobody besides you wants, is completely pointless and should be closed. Bill Williams (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I started another Talk Section below to cover this topic: "Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary". Please comment if you would like to contribute to the conversation. Stallion55347 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"a litany of falsehoods"

This discussion is closed.
is exactly WTF they are. "The news sources described the contents..."? HAHAHA! https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_Wall_Street_Journal&diff=1052392942&oldid=1052389115 soibangla (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC) We don't use hyperbolic language. It violates IMPARTIAL. 23:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC) HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary.

How should the below text appear in this article:

"The Journal's editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos.[13]"

• A) In the lede.
• B) In the body.
• C) Nowhere in the article.

Stallion55347 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Editorial opinions for the New York Times and Washington Post are outlined in Editorial / Opinions section of their article are not contained within the initial summary. This is the standard that the Wikipedia editorial committee is using for the Washington Post and the New York Times. To maintain consistency, shouldn't this be handled exactly the same way for the Wall Street Journal. Stallion55347 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• ^ This is a single-purposed account who made their first edit last month. Their vote should not be counted in this RfC. Furthermore, the editor does not provide a guideline-related rationale for removing the content from the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• See also Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive 4 § RfC: WSJ editorial board's promotion of fringe science. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Lots of good feedback on that discussion page. Though none of it addresses the main concern, the Wikipedia editorial committee has provided a clear outline on how a statement like this should be handled. Is there a compelling reason why we should not adhere to it? Stallion55347 (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, could you give a link to the “Wikipedia editorial committee” or the relevant guideline? I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to. — HTGS (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Check out the articles written by “WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors”. They include many helpful tips on updating the Lead Section in articles:

  Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section Key takeaways:

  • There should not be anything in the lead that does not refer to specific content in the article and is not backed up by specific references found in the article.
  • Try to keep the number of references to a minimum, if used at all. Keeping references out of the lead makes it easier to read, and keeps it free of clutter and easier to edit.
  • There should not be any references in the lead which have not first been used in the body

  Wikipedia:Writing better articles Key takeaways:

  • First change the body, then update the lead to summarize the body.
  • This keeps the lead in sync with the body
  • Best way to summarize material usually only become clear after that material has been written in the body
  • It's much harder to justify high-level statements in the lead when you don't share common understanding of the lower-level information that they summarize. Stallion55347 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  But the line in question is covered in the body…? Perhaps the section needs expansion, but I don’t think that invalidates its being mentioned in the lead. — HTGS (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely no reason to have any opinions of the editorial board in the lead, because that is not the case in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today or any other major newspaper for that matter. No reason whatsoever as to why the Wall Street Journal is magically different enough to have any of its editorial opinions in the lead. Bill Williams 04:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• A quote from what I posted in a previous RfC sums this whole section up perfectly: "The sources regarding the board's views on climate change are much more recent, and therefore that portion can stay included. On the other hand, the source concerning asbestos and pesticide isn't even referring to the editorial board[9][10][11][12][13][14] but instead individual guest columnists, and therefore "the editorial board has promoted" is not at all accurate because it was individual guest columnists and not the editorial board. The opinions regarding acid rain and ozone depletion are based on 31+ year old articles,[15] even though the article states that the board changed its opinion on acid rain 20 years ago, the source regarding second-hand smoke mentions articles from 27+ years ago,[16] that are not even by the editorial board, but editorials written by guest columnists. Simply googling "Wall Street Journal" "editorial board" "asbestos" or "pesticides" doesn't even come up with a single criticism other than the Wikipedia article.[17][18] How does that warrant its noteworthy inclusion in the lead? Including a criticism of them "promoting" incorrect views on "acid rain" like writing "The New York Post has promoted liberal views" in its lead when it hasn't since 40 years ago." Bill Williams 05:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Since you are just repeating the same arguments again and again, I will do the same:

  • So you are still using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning? Maybe I should suggest again that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:IDHT. When you are finished reading WP:IDHT, let's continue here. Regarding the 26 years, if I may, let me explain something about encyclopedias, which will probably a surprise to you after I have told you a few times and you actually are aware of it (see WP:IDHT). Encyclopedias are different from daily or weekly papers, insofar as they contain not what happened yesterday or last week, but all the relevant stuff that happened, even old stuff. Since you are such a fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just as an example, please note that our article Isaac Newton still contains the sentence Newton's postulate of an invisible force able to act over vast distances led to him being criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science although it is about something Newton wrote 442 years ago.
    — User:Hob Gadling 06:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Kleinpecan (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • What are you even talking about? What Newton did is used constantly to this day by engineers across the world? Are you legitimately trying to claim that what the Wall Street Journal said about acid rain and ozone decades ago is still relevant today? How in the world is that comparable to Newtonian physics? What the WSJ editorial board said on these issues is NOT NOTEWORTHY for the lead. It is simply absurd to insult its reliability in the lead by putting decades old claims of its that are cited NO WHERE in the media besides one book and one website a DECADE ago. If you have a single reliable source that still cares at all about this, or ever even did, please provide it, otherwise this is undue. Bill Williams 05:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

extended discussion on age of sources and opinion articles

Are you legitimately trying to claim that what the Wall Street Journal said about acid rain and ozone decades ago is still relevant today?—yes, it certainly is notable when a seemingly reputable newspaper persistently publishes misinformation about science for ideological or commercial purposes. (And please, read WP:INDENTMIX.) Kleinpecan (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Provide a single reliable source that backs your claim that it is notable by showing that it is actually publicized and not just stated in a single book and website a decade ago. Otherwise, it is UNDUE and your ORIGINAL RESEARCH does not belong in the article on it supposedly being significant enough for the lead. If it is notable, then prove that other sources report on the WSJ "persistently publishing misinformation." Bill Williams 05:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Once again: read WP:INDENTMIX. I have no idea what "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" you are talking about—care to point it out? The references showing WSJ's persisent promotion of misinformation are contained in § Science. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Give me a single reliable source besides a decade old book and a decade old website that implies at all that this is relevant for the lead, otherwise it is UNDUE in its entirety. You cannot include insulting information to the newspaper in the lead if literally no reliable sources are talking about it. Bill Williams 03:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "Literally no reliable sources are talking about it"—there are, in fact, reliable sources talking about it. Sources do not become unreliable merely because they are old. Since you are just repeating the same arguments ad nauseam, I am not going to reply further. (By the way, did you read WP:INDENTMIX? Or do you suffer from a particularly severe WP:IDHT case?) Kleinpecan (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Age actually is a legitimate reason to remove this from the lead. Over time things change and we can adjust weight accordingly. Springee (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC) It doesn't matter if it's not still relevant today. WSJ is 132 years old, and though ozone, acid rain, asbestos and pesticides aren't major issues we hear a lot about today, they certainly were very big topics 40+ years ago. And inclusion reflects the editorial board's longstanding denial of environmental problems that require expensive remediation, which typically means regulation, which they staunchly oppose as a pro-business organization. Anyone who has read their editorial pages for a while knows it's a defining aspect of who they are. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. soibangla (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC) That is completely false, not a single reliable source is reporting on this besides one website and one book a decade ago, therefore it is UNDUE and this supposed controversial opinion by the editorial board does not belong in the lead. Additionally, the editorial board never said anything about asbestos or pesticides in the one website or one book you can find that even mentions this, only a few random opinion editors did, and a few random opinion editors writing a couple articles would mean we need to add numerous things to numerous articles. Bill Williams 04:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC) I am not addressing whether the content is adequately sourced. Assuming it is, even with fifty year-old reliable sources, I argue it belongs in the lead. soibangla (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "Assuming it is" but it isn't, as I have said repeatedly, unless you can provide more sources than the one decade old book and decade old media matters web article that are NEVER covered in other major reliable sources, meaning it is UNDUE for the lead because no reliable source cares, only you and other Wikipedia editors. If you try to research the supposed WSJ propaganda the most results you will get is just this Wikipedia article, then you might find the other two decade old papers. Bill Williams 04:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC) You can find two sources to make literally any claim you want, but if nobody else is covering that controversial claim, it is not relevant for the lead of an article. Can you provide more than a few sources on this topic? Otherwise it is UNDUE. Bill Williams 04:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC) I just told you what I am arguing and what I am not. Why continue talking to me about what I just told you I'm not talking about? soibangla (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC) a DECADE ago Did you know that encyclopedias contain not what happened yesterday or last week, but all the relevant stuff that happened, even old stuff? Surprising, isn't it? If you don't want to accept that, maybe you should join a newspaper instead of trying to stop Wikipedia editors from building an encyclopedia? BTW, most of Newton's ideas, i.e. his biblical chronology and alchemy, are not used by engineers today. They are still mentioned in the article about him. The WSJ's unreliability in scientific matters is still highly relevant. I suspect that if you succeeded in removing it, the next step would be to introduce denialist propaganda in articles about climate change, ozone hole, and acid rain, sourced to the WSJ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Give me a single reliable source besides the decade old book and website article that implies this is "highly relevant" for the lead. A major American newspaper's supposed controversial publicizations is not relevant for the lead if literally no reliable sources are discussing it. Also, your absolutely nonsensical slippery slope fallacy is the dumbest thing I've heard all day. Nobody has introduced their alleged "denialist propaganda" into any Wikipedia article because an editorial board is not a reliable source to cite in Wikipedia to begin with, so please refrain from making baseless claims. Bill Williams 03:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Did I mention WP:IDHT? I really think you should read WP:IDHT. Also, WP:IDHT and WP:IDHT. Maybe you could also have a look at WP:IDHT. After you have grasped all that, then you should read the reasoning responding to your "decade-old" fluff and ponder on whether it is wise to repeat your already-refuted "decade-old" fluff. And read WP:IDHT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think it’s becoming clear that this particular line doesn’t belong in the lead. Here’s another example that makes the case: the New York Times has a whole section covering Controversies on its main page. Plus, there’s a link to a child article that’s dedicated to a couple dozen more. Yet, none of this is covered in its lead because those controversies do not define the NYT. The comments above about Newton are in the article about him but not in the lead, because those comments don't define him. These editorials, while controversial, do not define the entirety of the Wall Street Journal. This line needs to be removed from that position.Stallion55347 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Now, as to the question of whether or not this line belongs in the article at all? I would suggest that a heavily edited version of it could exist under these circumstances:
  • The quote needs to include more context like the year that the editorials are from. Without that context most readers would assume that these opinions are recent. Using the NYT’s Controversies page as an example, all of them include the year that they happened.
  • Make sure that opinions stated by the board and guest columns are clearly defined as such.
  • Provide more details or context about exactly what was said that was at odds with the scientific consensus vs. just claiming the opinion was. Include expert’s comments or link to other sources confirming this.
  • I would also suggest using more than one source for all this. It's not a good practice to use the same source continuously throughout an article.Stallion55347 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• In body, not lead. This has been argued a number of times. Wikipedia suggests we should look to the outside world to help understand weight of a topic. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica makes no mention of this topic what so ever [19]. It's not as comprehensive an article as ours but the fact that it didn't make it to the body of that one suggests that our editors might be out of touch to put it in the lead. The same is true if we look at Encylopedia.com [20]. Springee (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No reliable sources talk about this supposed major controversy besides one book and one website a decade ago, so I agree that it is completely UNDUE for the lead. Almost NO MAJOR NEWSPAPER has anything about its editorial opinions in the lead to begin with, much less controversies. I think Stallion55347 is in agreement when I say it belongs in the body and not the lead. Bill Williams 04:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Almost NO MAJOR NEWSPAPER has anything about its editorial opinions in the lead Are you familiar with recent controversies about the editorial board not factchecking their pages? Are you aware they essentially gave a Bronx cheer to the idea that their stuff needs to be factual? Are you also aware that they stand practically alone among major broadsheet dailies in that regard? Maybe that would explain why other papers don't have anything comparable in their leads, eh? soibangla (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm not disagreeing with you on whether this information should be included in the article. Just not the lead. Plus, it needs a significant amount of work before it should be added anywhere within this article - see comments above - as the statement is misleading and dated Stallion55347 (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    • "Almost NO MAJOR NEWSPAPER has anything about its editorial opinions in the lead" because, unlike WSJ, those major newspapers have not repeatedly promoted anti-science nonsense. It is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia when a mainstream, widely-read newspaper follows mainstream, widely-agreed-upon science—this is the natural state of things. Kleinpecan (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, you clearly cannot comprehend the basics of Wikipedia policy. If something is not covered by reliable sources enough to make it major for highly viewed article, it does not belong in the lead. You have NOT A SINGLE SOURCE that states the Wall Street Journal "repeatedly promoted anti-science nonsense," because once again if you even read the decade old article or book that are literally the only citations on the matter, no other reliable source repeated those claims, making them completely UNDUE for the lead. Bill Williams 15:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• • The only thing it suggests is that Wikipedia, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Encyclopedia.com are different encyclopedias (duh), have different rules and guidelines, and are not required to be complete replicas of each other. See also: Wikipedia is not paper. Kleinpecan (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Lets clean it up and put it in the body please Stallion55347 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• In the body, not lead per above. Bill Williams 04:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, in the lead. It's important, and discussed at sufficient length in the body that a summary in the lead would be standard practice. We don't have a standard lead template for all articles on media organizations; instead, we write leads that present the important points of the respective articles in a clear and concise way. The lead for the article about one newspaper or cable network or social-media service can look different than the lead for another, simply because there are different things to say. Ignoring controversies just because they happened a few years ago is recentism, which is bad. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • XOR'easter please provide a single reliable source that says these are "controversies that happened a few years ago." Two sources in this article, media matters and some book, which were written a decade ago and rarely covered anywhere online or in the news besides this Wikipedia article, are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Should we include every "controversy" that one or two sources mention in the lead of every single news article? The pesticide, asbestos, and second hand smoking are not even referring to the editorial board, but random opinion editors, so it is quite literally false to say that the editorial board promoted them. Please read the only source provided in this article describing them, and I hope you reconsider. Bill Williams 16:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

extended discussion on secondary sources describing WSJ editorials

I re-evaluated all the pertinent sources the last time this topic came up on this very Talk page. My opinion stated here is already reconsidered. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC) And I am still asking you to provide a single reliable source that claims these are major controversies of the Wall Street Journal worthy of the lead of this article. Otherwise, one book and one website from a decade ago that were never else repeated in reliable sources is not sufficient for the lead of one of the largest newspapers in the United States's Wikipedia article. Bill Williams 16:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC) I hope you understand that your incessant repetition of the same argument to almost every single user in this thread is disruptive. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) The statements in Merchants of Doubt were indeed repeated in other reliable sources elsewhere, e.g., [21][22][23]. It's an influential book, cited in excess of 5,000 times on Google Scholar, and a few hundred of those results mention the WSJ explicitly too, so there are plenty more possibilities to dig through than I have time for today. As for other discussions in the same vein, a casual news search find the following: [24][25][26][27][28]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Not a single one of these sources can be used for the lead. Forbes contributors are not reliable sources, one of your "sources" was literally just the book I already mentioned, and the de gruyter doesn't even talk about what the actual editorial board has stated, making that source irrelevant as well. The Scientific American article says nothing about the editorial board, only that one random man published one article in an opinion piece, once again a single opinion piece of irrelevant for the lead, which is the same thing for the houston article talking about the same one opinion piece, the new republic article is again not talking about the wall street journal editorial board, but a single man who wrote a single opinion article, and then you cite the guardian twice when again it mentions a different, but still single opinion piece on the issue, and mentions how the Wall Street Journal has published similar opinion pieces in the past. Not one source states anything about the editorial board publishing all the things claimed in the lead of this article, including ozone, acid rain, second hand smoking, asbestos and pesticides, besides climate change specifically, and even that was only mentioning specific opinion articles and not the editorial board "promoting" anything. Please provide actual sources relating to this claim. Bill Williams 17:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC) The particular Forbes item I provided would be admissible per WP:SPS. I did not suggest Merchants of Doubt itself as a source, but rather commentaries upon it. All of the other sources are indeed relevant to the topic at hand, i.e., the views promoted by the newspaper. If tweaking the phrasing from "the editorial board" to something else would clarify matters, then we can discuss that, but honestly, it sounds like special pleading; somebody has to decide what opinion pieces they will run. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC) That is not some minute difference. The Journal promoting these random things is completely different from them publishing opinion articles by people, since this would be like saying that The New York times promotes abolishing or defunding the police just because they have published opinion articles on the matter. Again, the sources are all referring to random different opinion articles, which is not noteworthy for the lead, because opinions of the articles are not the opinions of the company, as stated in literally every newspaper editorial section in existence. Bill Williams 17:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Yes, the official position of the corporation is not legally the same as the opinion voiced in any given column. But a documented pattern of what the corporation is willing to associate itself with is itself worthy of comment. XOR'easter (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Noteworthy according to whom? Has there been significant coverage on second hand smoking, asbestos, pesticides, ozone, and acid rain pseudoscience by the Wall Street Journal? There is some minimal amount of coverage on the opinion articles on climate change written by WSJ opinion editors, but all those other topics are almost never covered by reliable sources. And again, "a documented pattern of what the corporation is willing to associate itself" is still false unless you have some quote of them saying they agree with the opinion articles. Does the New York Times promote abolishing or defunding the police just because numerous[29][30][31][32] opinion articles of theirs have supported this? Bill Williams 17:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC) If we had the same kind of documentation that the NYT were giving time and space to people with a particular view (whether that's "defund the police" or "Send in the troops"), then yes, it could in principle become lead-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC) What "documentation" is there about the WSJ "promoting" these views? Do you have a single source that states this? Again, opinion articles is not equivalent to the Journal promoting anything. You cannot use the word "promote" without a source because that is highly misleading. Bill Williams 18:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC) How is it misleading to talk about the views that the WSJ puts in front of people's eyeballs? Yes, there's a difference between an op-ed column by a guest contributor and a signed statement by the editorial board, but both count as bringing attention to a viewpoint. Should some of the places where this article says "editorial board" instead say "editorial board and pages"? Possibly. Given the content of the relevant sections in the body, the lead should perhaps say something like, "The opinion and editorial pages are known for...". But that's a comparatively minor detail of phrasing. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC) The board decides which columns and op-eds to run, so referencing the board should be understood to mean anything in the last three pages of section A. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC) That is completely irrelevant to the board promoting something. Give a single source stating that the board promoted these second hand smoke etc. things. Numerous articles are allowed to be published that literally oppose in opinion. Does the board both oppose and support Donald Trump and Joe Biden because they have published different opinion articles on these issues? Bill Williams 18:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Once again, you are talking to me about something I was not discussing, in my specific response to XOR'easter's specific comment. I find your behavior here to be badgering and disruptive, which Kleinpecan has also observed. soibangla (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC) I am simply commenting on the facts of the situation. You have repeatedly gone on talk pages to reply "HAHAHA" when you disagree, so please refrain from trying to claim that I am badgering and disruptive when you have been constantly. Bill Williams 18:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC) You want to discuss only the facts you choose to discuss in a multifaceted topic as you badger others to focus only on what you want to focus on. I have done nothing of the sort comparable. soibangla (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Bill Williams's question is legitimate. If RSs summarizing the WSJ don't emphasize this point then how can we justify that we are giving DUE/UNDUE weight to topics about the WSJ per RSs? Editors here are deciding this is a critical topic vs the weight of external sources describing the paper. Springee (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The ideal way to go about it would probably be to write the article body text first, basing it on appropriate RS's, and if that text becomes sufficiently lengthy relative to the rest of the page, it probably deserves a summary in the lead. Of course, actual editing is apt to be much sloppier than that ideal, with changes in one place not always reflected elsewhere, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere Any newspaper or publication will have questionable editorials throughout its history. The New York Times has infamously covered up the Holocaust at the time [33], and collaborated to the justification for the invasion of Iraq, or falsely accused someone for the anthrax attacks based on absolutely no evidence [34] . These aren't mentioned in their lede, nor pretty much anything negative is, why should the WSJ article be any different? Loganmac (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Arguments on NYT are pure whataboutism.Cinadon36 18:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not, it's basic style consistency. We can't have totally conflicting style differences for no apparent reason on comparable articles. Loganmac (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The reason is entirely apparent. Different articles have different contents and thus different introductory sections. And even if the two ought to read the same, perhaps it's the other page that should be brought into alignment with this one, rather than the other way around. It's also a bit misleading to consider only articles about newspapers and not news more generally. The leads of Fox News and MSNBC both include remarks about accusations of political bias, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• B for now. Sometimes Wikipedians fixate on isolated news articles or controversies (WP:RECENTISM), devote undue weight to such incidents in the article, and then use this imbalance to justify inclusion in lead, which risks perpetuating a bias feedback loop in which editors seek to find additional sources to reinforce this aspect without considering the overall prominence. We cannot confuse verifiability of a view or a fact with relevance. First we should critically assess the article to ensure the body has proportionate coverage of major aspects (including controversies) without cherry-picking, white-washing, coat-racking, or dirt-piling, then determine which aspects stand out as lead-worthy. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

During the 1920s, 1930s and early 1940s the NYTs provided cover for Adolf Hilter and the Nazis party. Their very first article on Hitler was written in 1922 and even then they dramatically downplayed his anti-Semitism. While they did cover some of the negative aspects of what was happening in Germany during that time, they deliberately buried those articles in their newspaper. They admitted they engage in a coordinated anti-Semitic effort for over 2 decades and deliberately mislead the American public that entire time. The 2005 book "Buried by the Times" by Laurel Leff covers it all. It’s one of the most morally objectionable things any media organization could ever do. Yet, this is not in the Lead. The stuff we’re discussing, questionable opinions made by mostly guest op eds, doesn’t even remotely compare to this. In the body, not lead. I'm honestly shocked that were still discussing this. Stallion55347 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

they engage in a coordinated anti-Semitic effort Says here the book found the actual reason is that Jewish publisher Arthur Sulzberger did not want the paper to appear to be championing a Jewish cause. So there's that.[35] soibangla (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• • You are correct, the publisher did not want to appear to be championing a Jewish cause. I’m not sure what your point is here? Are you actually stating that everything the Times did was “Ok” because they had a Jewish publisher? Stallion55347 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that they engage in a coordinated anti-Semitic effort and were thus on Hitler's side is highly dubious. soibangla (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I never said they were on Hitler's side. That's a straw-man argument and completely missing my point. Do you believe what the NYT did was bad or not? If you do, should it be mentioned in the lead? Stallion55347 (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

You could say the editorial board allowed for opinion articles on climate change to be published to appear neutral to readers, considering it has also published opinion articles that state climate change is a threat. Numerous other "controversies" like the NYT one mentioned by Stallion would have to be added to various leads of articles according to the reason they are in this article. This is not a whataboutism comparing WSJ to NYT specifically, but to every single newspaper article on Wikipedia, none of them mention editorial controversies in the lead. Bill Williams 23:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

And yet again, nothing you just said has any bearing whatsoever on what you responded to. You continue to badger and bludgeon. soibangla (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You mentioned something about the NYT, and I stated how that is comparable to the WSJ. Do you disagree that the NYT mentions nothing about its editorial board or other controversies in the lead, same with every other major newspaper article besides the WSJ? Bill Williams 23:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned a specific clarification about the conclusion Stallion55347 asserted about the book and you responded with a total non sequitur to bludgeon the same argument you've made ad nauseam. soibangla (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla and Kleinpecan, I get that you both have a lot of passion for this topic. But I still don't understand your logic around putting a statement in the lead with 6 separate accusations (are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, ozone depletion, health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos) all from a single source that’s referencing information that in many cases is over 20 years old. These are not all opinions of the Journal's editorial board as some are from guest op eds. A few of these topics aren't even covered in the body of this article or are just using the same single source used here.

At this point it's up to you to prove to everyone taking part in this discussion that this statement, as it’s constructed today, deserves placement in the lead of a highly reputable publication with over 132 years of history. I’m looking forward to your thoughts. Stallion55347 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• B Body only. The same principles which govern content also apply to the lead, and doubly so, since that is the first, and often only, content read by our readers. The mainstream view should get the most weight, so the due weight of the article should read in favor of the mainstream view. This singular dated opinion is not a mainstream view notable enough for inclusion in the lead. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• A In the lede. It gets significant coverage in the main body, hence it warrants inclusion in the lede. Cinadon36 07:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Just because one part of the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to something doesn't mean the rest of the article should. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• In the lede - the notion that other newspapers do not have such content is fallacious in the sense that it assumes that all newspapers have at least an equal amount of controversial editorial content. A colorful history of going against scientific consensus is certainly noteworthy. If other newspapers have done this, we should be looking at them also. starship.paint (exalt) 07:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• B In the body, per Bill Williams, and the body should clarify which columns were written by the editorial board and which were op-eds. I hate Rupert Murdoch as much as the next guy, but I don't think that there is enough coverage of this in reliable sources to justify it being in the lede. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• A. In the lead. For reasons explained in multiple other RfCs on this exact topic. That the editorial pages of the WSJ are a prominent disseminator of science misinformation has been noted by countless reliable sources (in particular, academic publications on climate change and science misinformation) and is a key aspect of this organization. What makes it even more notable than the disinformation published by outlets like the Daily Mail and Breitbart is that the actual news reporting in the WSJ is of the highest journalistic standards – which makes the insanity of the WSJ editorial pages all the more noteworthy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• A in the lead, per my previous comments here.

  More than 280 journalists, editors and other employees at The Wall Street Journal sent a letter to their publisher expressing concerns about misinformation in the paper's opinion section. The letter says that “opinion’s lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources.”[36]

  soibangla (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That's great information. Thank you for adding it to the discussion. Though you are actually only proving my point that the information in the original statement we are discussing is way too specific for the lead section, and if we agree to keep it, the statement should be modified to provide a wider view.Stallion55347 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• B In the body
  • There is already a statement in the lead that summarizes the viewpoints of the WSJ editorial pages: "The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position." Anything beyond that is an unnecessary elaboration in a lead section.
  • Other than the topic of "Climate Change Denial", all remaining subjects listed have little to no additional content in the body which means they should in no way be covered in a lead statement.
  • Editorial pages in newspapers are supposed to provide viewpoints outside the mainstream, especially from guest writers. Even if you disagree with them, they are put there intentionally to drive conversation and discussion. Criticizing them for statements made over 20 years ago seems undue. Stallion55347 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• A In the lead, but summarized a bit more as: The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on a number of health and environmental issues. I think it's too much of a restatement of what is in the body, which basically contains the same list (maybe it uses slightly longer descriptions, but it's not like every issue is individually expanded upon). I also think the consensus at the present invokes the supremely Boomer issues of acid rain, asbestos, and secondhand smoke, as if they are the same threat that they used to be. I do think my proposed replacement has slightly loaded language: "environmental" has undertones of politically-motivated science from the left, while "health" in my opinion is more of a bipartisan term. I don't think this is all that big of an issue. I think those for and against the consensus on the lead would have reason to approve of my change. Per WP:LEAD, it must summarize the article. I don't think the deletionists/those advocating for a move to the body have much of a case here, and though all editors here I presume are motivated to reach consensus properly per WP:AGF, I'd be surprised if anyone isn't also motivated to participate due to some degree of personal belief. The WSJ is pro-business and regulation more often than not is in opposition to the idealized humming of industry. I think it's fine to own that, and this lead sentence shouldn't irk anyone of the pro-business faith. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, also has an obligation to place generalizable knowledge about science above political commentary on it, and decades of snubbing science by a newspaper's opinion wing is not undue in the article nor the lead in this case. There are kooky opinion pieces in all newspapers, and if it reaches a fever pitch in the nyt/wapo/lat and deserves coverage on another article, go through the proper process to add it. This is by no means a middle ground; I actually think those in favor of the consensus have a strong case. Nobody should ever take opinion pieces from any paper too seriously, including the editors here. I think we're missing the forest for the trees here, being so caught up in this that we're forgetting how tacky it is to have this list redundantly in both the lead and the body. I think we should summarize it because that's what leads are for. 174.193.195.141 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC) and due to dynamic IP, I am also 2600:1012:B068:D777:3172:6FCB:3354:9A46 (talk)
  • I still think the current version is better because it is more specific and precise, even though it introduces a bit of redundancy to the article, but I'm fine with your proposal too. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I can live with that, though "a number" should be changed to "several." I hate "a number," which could mean 3, or 17, or 5,371. soibangla (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

OP here, per these suggestions and others, we can consider:

The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on several health and environmental issues, including anthropogenic climate change.

2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

And of course, climate change is the only issue that is expanded upon in the body! Someone suggested that on the noticeboard post, see my reply using this IP. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That phrasing isn't bad, IMO. XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I support the status quo consensus version of the lead over compromise proposal. There is neither a consensus to remove the content from the lead nor change the language of the content. The status quo proposal is specific, provides historical context and clarifies to readers what kinds of issues that the WSJ editorial board has misled readers on. The compromise version makes it unclear what kinds of issues that the WSJ editorial has misled its readers on. It is more informative to readers to learn that the WSJ editorial board ran propaganda for tobacco companies and campaigned against efforts to mitigate ozone depletion than to force readers to imagine what kinds of issues that the WSJ editorial board was at odds with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

OP here, leads aren't supposed to be the whole article, so if the reader has to go past the lead to learn more, it's totally fine, and I disagree with the idea that the proposal leaves readers hanging. The proposal is a quite intelligible summary of what is contained in the article. The status quo is mostly a restatement, and parsimonious editors/deletionists would say it's redundant, and that one of the lists has to go. This article presents the same list of things twice! That is bad form for an encyclopedia. I don't quite understand why you'd try to delegitimize this discussion by saying there is a lack of consensus to change it or that this isn't an RfC, if so, why are you commenting here? There's always room for improvement, but beyond your procedural argument is an argument that the reader is being deprived of information, which I disagree with. I think the status quo is needlessly detailed and invokes a litany of archaic issues readers may not care about. You may very well be right that your preferred sentence is the best one, but excessive deference to your logic in all situations would make this encyclopedia quite stagnant, in a bad way. Here's another, more informative proposal (yes, causation has been established for almost every one of those issues):

The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has historically promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on several health and environmental issues, including anthropogenic climate change, and in alignment with the interests of the industries causing them.

Let's try and improve this, comeon...I firmly believe people won't keep bringing this up if the sentence was improved...encyclopedic aesthetics are a universal value. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

And another:

The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has historically promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on a variety of health and environmental issues, while in alignment with the interests of the industries causing them.

I guess you can sprinkle in the list of issues into this sentence, but this is far more informative if we're trying to say the WSJ editorial board is a mouthpiece for industry. The status quo doesn't even explain why they took these unorthodox stances. Some readers might think they're actually crazy, like a white shoe version of Alex Jones, and not just extremely sane and slightly evil. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This "compromise" proposal both increases the length of the lead (from 36 words to 50 words) while communicating less information to readers and adding original research speculation about the true intent of the WSJ editorial board. The status quo version, on the other hand, is both brief and packed with concrete information. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

My proposal isn't a compromise one, to be clear. I was told to comment here after trying to chance the sentence, but my change has nothing to do with the original intent of the RfC. Yes, fewer words is one way to measure succinctness, but even a compact list can be densely packed with info and as hard to process as a lengthy but well-written sentence. There's a funny video online of a (very healthy looking), likely schizophrenic guy on the street, who goes into a rant after someone asks him "what is your name"; I tried to do an impression of him once, and could not even remember it well enough to say a single phrase, it was so jumbled. It is far easier, on the other hand, to remember and recite poetry. Phrasing that flows naturally is easy to remember, and lists don't necessarily flow, is my point, so just because it's shorter, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a better summary. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Not in the lead. The content would give undue weight to certain viewpoints, and seems to be based on original research (likely misrepresentation of sources).
  Page 94 of the Merchants says that WSJ "ran a piece [about acid rain] on its editorial page by a consultant". So, it's a semi-random person writing an opinion, not the editorial board. And the story continues: WSJ published debunking to the piece, a letter to the editor by a forest ecologist. So WSJ was in fact promoting science!
  Page 126 and 135 (about ozone) refers to Fred Singer and "a man named Kent Jeffreys", also not members of the editorial board.
  Page 146 refers to Singer and other columnists, but it's kind of hard to precisely decipher the context WSJ (and Investor's Business Daily, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The New Republic, The New York Times, and Time) is mentioned. I mean, it's unlikely and not obvious that the page refers the editorial board of WSJ (or NYT etc.).
  Page 244 refers to Arthur and Zachary Robinson. They are chemists.
  I couldn't go on, because it became clear I don't buy the argument some Wikipedia merchants are selling. Politrukki (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  There's more in Merchants of Doubt than that, for example, publishing an op-ed accusing a scientist of misconduct and then only printing a portion of the scientist's defense while giving another round to his accusers (pp. 3–4, 208–211). The bit on p. 94 about the "consultant" writing an editorial on acid rain indicates that the consultant had no scientific background and previously worked for the tobacco industry; printing a letter from an actual ecologist doesn't change who they gave space to first. P. 126 notes that Singer's dismissal of the "ozone scare" ran on page 1, a deliberate editorial choice. P. 135 describes an ongoing pattern: The Wall Street Journal kept up the drumbeat for several years with articles and editorials having titles such as "Bad Climate in Ozone Debate," and "Ozone, CFCs, and Science Fiction," "The Dreaded Ozone Hole," and, after the Nobel award to Rowland and his colleagues, "Nobel Politicized Award in Chemistry." If anything, the current text of the article downplays the criticisms that the source has of the WSJ. XOR'easter (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Now you are backtracking; you have already conceded that "there's a difference between an op-ed column by a guest contributor and a signed statement by the editorial board", but your suggestion of using "are known for" would unduly emphasise something – publishing dumb opinion pieces – that has happened relatively rarely over the years. Politrukki (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  This is a deceptively misleading recounting of how Merchants of Doubt portrays the WSJ. I count at least 24 instances where the WSJ is mentioned by its full name in the body of the book in the context of promoting disinformation about various science issues (this is not counting footnotes and endnotes that point to WSJ op-eds). The book mentions four prominent "merchants of doubt" and lists the WSJ as the first outlet in a list of outlets that three of them published in and the WSJ as the second in a list of outlets that one of them published in (a British merchant of doubt who published primarily in the Daily Telegraph, a British outlet). Here are various mentions of the WSJ:

  Various: “Frontline Perpetuates Pesticide Myth,” “Earth Summit Will Shackle the Planet, Not Save It,” and other articles from the Wall Street Journal variously attacked efforts to control pesticides, stop global warming, and limit the risks of asbestos.” + “It’s not surprising, then, that Russell Seitz’s broadsides against science were promoted in business-oriented journals, or that Jastrow’s early defense of SDI was published in Commentary (a principal voice of neoconservatism) and in the Wall Street Journal. Indeed, in 1986, the Wall Street Journal published a twenty-four-hundred-word version of Seitz’s attack on science—on page 1.”

  Climate change: “it was the Wall Street Journal spreading the attack on Santer and the IPCC” + “the Marshall Institute claims were taken seriously in the Bush White House and published in the Wall Street Journal, where they would have been read by millions of educated people.” + “Most public—and most publicized—was an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal, accusing Santer of making the alleged changes to “deceive policy makers and the public.”3 Santer had made changes to the report, but not to deceive anyone. The changes were made in response to review comments from fellow scientists.”

  Ozone disinformation: "The Wall Street Journal kept up the drumbeat for several years with articles and editorials having titles such as “Bad Climate in Ozone Debate,” and “Ozone, CFCs, and Science Fiction,” “The Dreaded Ozone Hole,” and, after the Nobel award to Rowland and his colleagues, “Nobel Politicized Award in Chemistry."

  Furthermore, the RfC text does not say that the editorial board wrote all the pseudoscientific editorials, but rather that it promoted pseudoscientific views, so the rationale in your vote is bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  You just easily explained why your views are completely false on the matter. You found three op-ed articles published in the WSJ that only one decade old book talked about, and used that to imply it is due weight to put this in the lead. You can find one or two sources describing a controversial op-ed in any newspaper. Since the New York Times once published an op-ed by Tom Cotton that was considered controversial, it later apologized for doing so. Does this mean it belongs in the lead with some sentence like "The New York Times has promoted right-wing views"? No, because the op-ed being published does not mean the editorial board agreed, unless you can provide a source stating so. Again, the New York Times has published multiple op-eds on how the police should be abolished or defunded, yet not a single reliable source says that they "promoted" these views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Williams (talk • contribs) 00:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  "You found three op-ed articles" – Please stop bludgeoning this RfC with straight-up lies. Your behavior is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  If you wish to comment on the editor please do it off the article talk page. Accusing editors of lying is not appropriate. Springee (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  You just described your own editing in the lead of that article you linked, "partisan, biased, or skewed" considering again, you did original research to use a book that almost no other reliable source cites and claim it was due for the lead. I miscounted what you said, but accusing me of lying is a personal attack, when all I did was make a mistake. Either way, your point is absurd considering even a dozen op-eds has no relevance to the lead when the WSJ published thousands of op-eds and you found a couple you didn't like. Bill Williams 14:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  "use a book that almost no other reliable source cites" – Please stop lying. Merchants of Doubt has more than 5,000 academic citations in the span of 10 years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  I remember when Hob Gadling also made a mistake and you then claimed that he did not know how to read. Talk about hypocrisy. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  With regards to The New York Times, exactly. Similarly, the its editorial board promoted debunked theories about Sarah Palin – theories that even the newsroom had debunked, if I recall correctly – and the canard has been widely covered. I still don't think that should be covered in the lead of The New York Times. Politrukki (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  TLDR. It's not my fault that some Wikipedia editors have written deceptive summaries by referring to the "editorial board". I analysed some of the pages that are currently cited from the book. They don't seem to support the claim. It's also not my fault if you further support deceptive summaries by support "status quo consensus version of the lead", and are not open to improving the body. Politrukki (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Lead. It is very important when a major paper, confronted with the choice between truth and propaganda, chooses propaganda often enough to deserve several mentions in a highly influential book on disinformation. The untrustworthiness of a medium in scientific questions, especially when its misleading reporting has had an influence on governments, is notable for the lead, obviously. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Provide a single reliable source claiming the WSJ "chooses propaganda over truth" or else that is a completely false claim. A few op-eds that had pseudoscience is irrelevant for the lead when they publish thousands of op-eds, and like every other newspaper, a number are controversial. Bill Williams 14:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I will not feed you anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• We've been discussing this for a week now. The voting now closed. The totals are as A) 6, B) 6, C) 1. Given the totals, and the single vote to remove it completely, it would be fair to state that it should be removed from the lead. Stallion55347 (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Appears to me the matter is still in active discussion with a compromise proposal on the table. soibangla (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes. We operate by consensus, not numerical votes, and the compromise is sensible enough that it deserves hearing. A lack of consensus is exactly the wrong situation in which to stop discussing. XOR'easter (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • To add to the above: you are involved, so you should not close this RfC. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not a valid RfC. Editors can't be expected to participate on the same issue over and over again. There was an RfC on this exact issue very recently and there was not a consensus to remove the content from the lead. This is long-standing content which was added to the lead after a consensus supported its inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Where is the recent RfC? I see one from 2019 and it seems this content has been in dispute ever since. Additionally a no consensus on removing the content from the lead doesn't preclude changing the specific text in the lead. Springee (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is an anonymous collective of volunteers; nobody is forcing or expecting anyone to participate, and nobody is forcing or expecting anyone to not. I'm by no means suggesting that you leave at all, of course, but I fail to see the harm with periodic RfCs; the world does change and the sanctity of "long-standing content" seems overrated...2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's the compromise I'm proposing: *The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has published views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on several health and environmental issues.

• I would suggest adding this to the references: [37] Stallion55347 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Environmental issues should not even belong in the lead when it is rarely an issue brought up by reliable sources. But if people will nonsensically demand it goes there, in completely undue manner, then at least remove "health issues" because not a single source describes the editorial board as regularly promoting pseudoscience on health issues. The one source, which apparently editors now think is enough to put in the lead of one of the largest newspapers in the U.S. and insult it, only describes a couple opinion articles, and it is completely false to say the editorial board promoted these views on health issues when the source does not describe it that way. On the other hand, even though it is a decade old and rarely mentioned anywhere in reliable sources, the media matters article does specify that the editorial board promoted pseudoscience on environmental issues. Bill Williams 01:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, the link you provided states nothing about the issue at hand, and makes no mention of the editorial board at all. Bill Williams 01:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Secondhand smoke is a health issue. Ozone depletion is too; UV rays cause cancer, and ozone dissipates it, crucially. Asbestos is a health issue, that's what all those mesothelioma commercials are for. Pesticides are a health issue...paraquat causes Parkinson's, and Roundup causes cancer. I don't think global warming is directly a health risk, and wince every time someone tries to claim it is one, but the other stuff absolutely is. I haven't looked through every souece for the phrase "health issue", but common sense is not original research, and I would think this falls under that umbrella. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ozone depletion is far more accurately described as an environmental issue than a health one, and asbestos and pesticides are mention in one single source on the entire internet that is actually cited anywhere (this article being the one place), which is completely undue for the lead, not to mention it says absolutely nothing about the editorial board so that would be a complete falsehood to say the editorial board promoted anything relating to that unless you can find a source stating that it did, because that book is referring to one or two opinion editors on asbestos and pesticides, and one or two articles is completely absurd to shove in the lead of a newspaper that has published tens of thousands. Bill Williams 04:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Dismissing concerns with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is nonsense. The essay is not justification for editors to present comparable topics in a prejudicial manner. Given the contentious nature of Mass Media in the modern era, uniformity and consistency should absolutely be the goal in presenting information to readers. Slywriter (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  That does not qualify as reasoning, not even as bad reasoning. You just claim something is nonsense without giving a reason, then you claim that something is not justified without giving a reason, then you wave your hands about contentiousness, and then you claim that different articles need to be the same in some vague way.

  No, articles about different subjects will not say the same things about those different subjects when reliable sources say different things about those different subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am making a simple claim, editors need to stop using OtherStuffExists as a rationale for ignoring inconsistent presentation of similar topics. We are editors, not propaganda artists. Editors SHOULD strive to present material in a similar manner so readers can compare apples to apples. That's what EDITORS do. So stop saying it an empty claim that WSJ, FoxNews and OAN(though most deserved) are treated differently than CNN,NBC, etc. Editorial discretion in presenting the lede is not the same as following reliable sources especially when editors consistently seek to misuse the lede of one set of media articles to overemphasize controversy while minimizing those controversies in other similar articles. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You are calling it inconsistent presentation of similar topics, I call it different content based of different facts gathered from different descriptions in reliable sources. By your reasoning, we would not be allowed to write that Andrew Wakefield is a fraud in the lede because articles about other doctors (yes, I know, he is not a doctor anymore) do not say that about them.

As far as I know, there is no rule that says articles have to be "consistent" in the way you define it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Because it was mentioned as a justification to be inconsistent, OTHER STUFF EXISTS is an essay on article deletion. I don't think it addresses consistency of presentation across similar articles. I may be mistaken but I think there is an essay that argues articles about similar subjects don't have to be the same as well as another essay which argues we should try to be similar. I think we all would agree the ideal is likely in the middle, a general consistent presentation with deviations on a case by case basis. In this case I would suggest we look to outside sources that are about the WSJ as a whole and see how much weight they apply to various aspects. Springee (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah. This reasoning is much better than Slywriter's. You are right, it was the wrong link, and it should have been WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling "While these comparisons [to other articles] are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this" it literally states right in what you continue to claim destroys my entire argument that comparisons can form part of a cogent argument. My argument is not solely a comparison but also based on the fact that reliable sources almost never comment on this issue, meaning it does not belong in the lead. Instead of repeatedly accusing me of disruptive editing for commenting in an RfC, you should actually read the policies you attempt to cite against me. Bill Williams 15:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

You do not need to ping me, I have a watchlist.

may form part of a cogent argument is not the same as "automatically are part of a cogent argument". That reliable sources almost never comment on this issue shows that when they do, as in this case, it is important. The WSJ is an important cog in the denial machine that has prevented action on the climate problem, and Oreskes pointed that out in her important book. This misinformation by the WSJ is not just some typo that was corrected in the next issue. The paper has consistently misled its readers about scientific consensus, pretending that the handful of denialist tinfoil hatters who supplied them with misleading articles are a serious part of the scientific community, a behavior that is at odds with its status as a mainstream paper. This is a very noteworthy thing. Comparisons with other media are worthless if you cannot show that those other media have also consistently misled the public in a similarly egregious way as noted by reliable sources. That last sentence is something I have repeated, in other words, and you have ignored. Instead you deflect attention from the issue by guideline exegesis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has participated in this discussion. It has been informative and very extensive. Unfortunately, we have not made nearly enough progress to build a consensus and finalize a decision. At some point the investment in time and energy becomes prohibitive. The last thing we want is for this conversation to become unproductive, combative, or spalling to the point of spinning out of control.

Next steps: if we can't come to a reasonable consensus by EOD Tuesday, I'm going to move this issue to an outside impartial resource for dispute resolution. Hopefully this is unnecessary, and we make significant progress over the next few days. Until that time, thanks again. Stallion55347 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

What "outside impartial resource" is there? Too many people have been involved for it to fit at DRN (and moving it over there might be considered forum-shopping). It's a content dispute, not a conduct one, so WP:ANI is not suitable. Notices have already been posted on the appropriate noticeboards (WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN). The Talk page attached to an article is the appropriate place to discuss an issue specific to that article, and the thread was opened 10 days ago, which is only a third of the time that many RfC's typically run. XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Let the record show that I have previously reverted removals of the lead content even though the content looked silly to me: [38] I did solely based on the 2019 RFC. If there is a clear consensus against removing the content, I will restore the text, even if it goes against my arguments in this RFC. If someone takes an issue with that, they are cordially invited to my user talk page. Politrukki (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

WSJ's Reputation

A new section was added commenting on the widely reguarded reputation of the Wall Street Journal as being one of the most respected and least biased new sources available. Kleinpecan has concerns about sourcing. Does anyone have suggestions one how this section can be improved? Does it need to be improved?

• =Reputation==

As a newspaper of record, The Wall Street Journal is regarded as one of the top newspapers in the world.

• https://www.zestvine.com/top-newspapers-in-the-world/
• https://blog.bizvibe.com/blog/top-newspapers-world
• https://www.innfinity.in/limitless/top-10-newspapers-in-the-world/

It has a world-wide reputation for being unbiased source of news and for reporting the news “as it is."

• https://towardsdatascience.com/how-statistically-biased-is-our-news-
• https://www.makeuseof.com/top-unbiased-news-sources/
• https://techboomers.com/learn/news-sites-with-unbiased-stories
• https://clickitornot.com/most-unbiased-news-sources/

In a ranking of over 800 news sources, both All Sides Media and The Media Bias Chart rate the Wall Street Journal as ones of the least biased newspapers in the US.

• https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_
• https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

This is a critical advantage during a time when many other U.S. media sources have suffered because of a decline in public perceptions of credibility in the U.S. For example, Democrats say they believe that just 44% of news on TV, in newspapers, and on the radio is biased, while Republicans say they believe 77% of it is biased.

• https://knightfoundation.org/reports/perceived-accuracy-and-bias-in-the-news-media/

Forbes has noted that since 2016, the percentage of Republicans who say they have at least “some” trust in national news organizations has plummeted from 70% that year to just 35% in 2021. Democrats trust has moved from 83% to 78% during the same period.

• https://www.forbes.com/sites/andymeek/2021/09/06/republicans-are-abandoning-the-national-mainstream-media-in-droves-because-they-dont-trust-it/?sh=4d410bf25889

One exception to this trend is the Wall Street Journal, who was the only media organization that both Democrats and Republicans rated favorably in a study that was done on media bias in 2018. The Wall Street Journal received favorable scores in both accuracy and for being unbiased.

• https://knightfoundation.org/reports/perceived-accuracy-and-bias-in-the-news-media/Stallion55347 (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

WSJ is an excellent news source, I routinely cite it. The editorial pages? Not so much. Two different worlds, an even more stark contrast than between Fox News daytime and primetime. I support a paragraph that would contrast the reputations of both its news and editorial divisions, as I occasionally see editors cite a dubious WSJ op-ed/editorial while insisting it's one of the best papers in the world. But except for Gallup/Knight, all the above sources are very weak. soibangla (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If the WSJ is an excellent news source, then we do not need these insulting claims in the lead, because once again, not a single major news article on Wikipedia, e.g. New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, says a single thing about what the editorial board has published in the lead, because every single editorial board clearly states "these are the opinions of the editorial writers and not the newspaper." Unless you can cite reliable sources such as the ones I just hyperlinked claiming that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is somehow NOTEWORTHY for being pseudoscientific on asbestos, pesticides, second-hand smoking, acid rain, or ozone depletion, then it is completely UNDUE for the lead and only belongs in the body, because nobody else is reporting on it outside of Wikipedia, and you are not a reliable source with your own original research that you use to claim this is noteworthy. Bill Williams 15:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart are red-listed at WP:RSP; to put it bluntly, their word is good for nothing. The "perceived accuracy and bias" results from the Knight Foundation survey are interesting and worth including in the article, but they don't override documented cases of actual bias. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Scrubbing peer-reviewed studies from body

The editor 'Bill Williams' has upped their tendentious editing from repeatedly pushing to alter the lead of the article to now edit-warring to scrub content sourced to peer-reviewed studies from the body of the article and rewording content so that the article no longer says that the WSJ editorial board rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[39] This is a violation of WP:FRINGE by obfuscating about what the WSJ editorial board is doing. The editor is also scrubbing content sourced to peer-reviewed publications that characterize the WSJ editorial pages as a forum for climate change denial. 'Bill Williams' claims that this "is not at all what most reliable sources claim" – this is a falsehood. A multitude of reliable sources characterize the WSJ editorial board in this way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Completely false characterization of my edit. I removed "is regarded as a forum for climate change deniers" because reliable sources do not "regard it" this way, and putting that in Wikipedia's voice is completely NPOV. Also, I reverted you once, which does not qualify as "edit warring." Bill Williams 23:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society literally describes the editorial pages of the WSJ as "a regular forum for climate change denial" (p. 152). The many other peer-reviewed publications in the article characterizes the WSJ in a similar way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"describes the editorial pages of the WSJ" is not what was in the article. The article stated "" The Journal is regarded as," not the editorial pages specifically. Additionally, you can state "Oxford has stated that the Wall Street Journal editorial pages are" but saying "is regarded as" without saying from whom implies that it is in Wikipedia's voice because numerous reliable sources use that term, which is false. Bill Williams 00:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I kept "The Journal has published articles by individuals that reject the scientific consensus on climate change in its op-ed section" because that is a fact... Bill Williams 23:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless the source is biased for some reason, we can state its conclusion without in-text attribution, generally speaking. Stating an Oxford Handbook claim in wiki-voice is not too much of a stretch, honestly. XOR'easter (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The source does not even state what he claims. It states, on page 126 of the PDF document of the book, under the section "2.5 Conservative Media," "Wall Street Journal (whose editorial pages have become a regular forum for climate change denial." That is not at all equivalent to "The Journal is regarded as a forum for climate change denial" if only its editorial pages specifically are. Additionally, this book is from 2012, so unless you can provide other sources calling it a "forum," then this decade old source is by itself not noteworthy enough to say "is regarded as" in Wikipedia's voice. Bill Williams 00:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Bill Williams 00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

So, insert "the editorial pages" and say "in 2012", or change an "is" to a "has been". What's the problem? Removing the source entirely amounts to scrubbing history, or at best, indulging in recentism. XOR'easter (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I will add that back. Bill Williams 00:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

XOR'easter I have added the sentence "The Journal editorial pages were described as a "forum for climate change denial" in an Oxford book published in 2011." with the proper hyperlink for Oxford University Press and the citation for the book. Bill Williams 00:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ editorial board rejects the scientific consensus in its own columns. It doesn't just publish columns by individuals who reject the scientific consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a source that states that it currently believes climate change does not exist or is not caused by humans, as opposed to past editorials published on its pages. Bill Williams 00:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

From the WSJ ed board itself:

• WSJ ed board, 2010: "We think the science is still disputable... [there are] doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries."[40]
• WSJ ed board, 2010: "There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change."[41]

The scientific consensus is that human activity is a primary driver of climate change. There is no serious dispute among scientists about that and there wasn't one in 2010. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That was one decade ago. Please provide sources stating that it "disputes the scientific consensus" to this day in 2021, which is 11 years later, considering the editorial board still publishes articles multiple times per week and may have changed its opinion as far as your original research can show. Bill Williams 00:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you the arbiter of what current means?[42] soibangla (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Three weeks ago [43] they stated "global warming does pose problems" and "we can mitigate much of the danger threatened by climate change," meaning they do recognize that climate change exists, which makes your claim false. What is true, and what I left in the article, is that they dispute that climate change is an existential threat to humanity. Your article refers to one opinion editor and not the editorial board. Bill Williams 00:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Except you asked Please provide a source that states that it currently believes climate change does not exist or is not caused by humans. Did the board agree it's caused by humans, or simply that "global warming does pose problems," which isn't the same thing? They deny climate change from the business regulation perspective, it's the anthropogenic issue that's important to them. soibangla (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Your article refers to one opinion editor and not the editorial board. That's not how it works, they don't all sit around a conference table and write together every day. One board member writes a piece and it gets Gigot's approval and it runs. soibangla (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The board does not "promote" things just because they are published in the OP-ED section. Do they both support and oppose Donald Trump because they have had conflicting editorials on the matter? And again, please provide a source stating that they currently believe that climate change is not cauesd by humans, otherwise the article cannot say that they currently do. Bill Williams 00:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The lead has never said currently promotes, it has always said has promoted, and this is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia that must address at least the post-war period of a 132 year-old paper. Were not here to tell readers only what the WSJ has said in the past week. soibangla (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the lead says "has promoted," but this section of the talk page was not discussing that. It was discussing the part of the body that stated "The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" which means currently, and the claim that it currently does is without any sources, so I removed that. Bill Williams 01:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be original research to quote mine from some of their recent articles to locate sentences that appear to display a new editorial policy. What is needed are reliable sources that note this so that WP could add updates. —PaleoNeonate – 17:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Climate change deniers frequently use mealy-mouthed rhetoric like "global warming does pose problems" while failing to acknowledge the scientific consensus that human activity is the primary contributor to climate change. That entire editorial is about downplaying actions to reduce climate change while focusing on protecting against the harms that climate change causes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, that is purely original research of your opinion on the matter based on speculation of "climate change deniers" in general. Please provide a source that proves that the WSJ editorial board currently denies that humans cause climate change, otherwise you cannot said that it "denies" in present tense. Bill Williams 01:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

And here it is yet again: WP:IDHT CURRENTLY DOESN'T MATTER! hear it now? soibangla (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Once again, I removed "promotes," which is present tense, meaning that it claimed the WSJ currently denies that climate change exists or is caused by humans... Also, if "currently doesn't matter," should we put sentences in the lead about what the WSJ did 100 years ago that were controversial? If how current something is absolutely "doesn't matter," then the second-hand smoking denial would be considered true by some sources 50 years ago. Therefore, why is what the WSJ promoted decades ago relevant? Bill Williams 01:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

And round and round and round we go. Non sequiturs. IDHT. Ad nauseam. Please read this very carefully, as I already explained it yesterday:

WSJ is a pro-business publication. They are hardcore capitalists to maximize shareholder value. For many decades, they have strongly advocated for low taxes and low regulation. For many decades, they have staunchly opposed any imposition of regulation, which costs money to businesses, to deal with matters that threaten public health. This is the core belief system of the WSJ editorial board, and it has been as long as anyone can remember. It distinguishes their board from practically any other major broadsheet board. If it were just a single issue, like ozone, maybe it wouldn't belong in the lead. But it's a consistent pattern of denial across many issues, and a persistent denial of facts, in support of their pro-business raison d'être, over many decades. And that's why it belongs in the lead.

soibangla (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

And once again, every single major newspaper has its own editorial interests. Why does not a single other major newspaper have its editorial opinions in the lead of their Wikipedia article? I want to know why the WSJ is so unique that the few sentences in the body of this article on climate change need to be repeated in the lead when almost nothing else in the body of this article is repeated in the lead. Is climate change denial a more significant feature of the WSJ than any of its economic stances? A basic view of its editorial pages shows that economics is written about far more than climate change, so why is that not in the lead? I have repeatedly asked this basic question, which you have repeatedly ignored, so please tell me how that is "disruptive editing." Moral of the story is that editorial opinions do not belong in the lead of any Wikipedia article on a major newspaper. Bill Williams 02:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No no no. I have repeatedly asked this basic question, which you have repeatedly ignored is just plain false, and this is because of your WP:IDHT. It's not just climate change, it's a whole range of environmental issues, which I just explained to you and implored you to read, but within 6 minutes you had already composed and published your reply, which clearly shows IDHT yet again, as has been pointed out to you, and there's every reason to believe you won't hear this either, and we'll just go round and round and round forever. soibangla (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

you say "it's just plain false" that you ignored my question, yet you then continued on to not answer my basic question... Again, what differentiates the WSJ from every other major newspaper that necessitates its editorial opinions are in the lead? All you did was describe what the editorial board believes, which again is irrelevant for the lead unless it is extremely noteworthy in reliable sources, which seldom cover the WSJ editorial opinions on climate change. In fact, some sources discuss the WSJ editorial board business opinions far more, yet that is not in the lead and does not belong there either.Bill Williams 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please keep things civil. If you think this has become circular just stop replying. Springee (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I answered all your questions in that green box, as I and others had explained from numerous angles in numerous other edits over the past day or two. Over and over again. I'm done here. soibangla (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Why does not a single other major newspaper have its editorial opinions in the lead of their Wikipedia article? Because there is no other major newspaper whose editorial opinions collide with reality regularly enough that landmark publications such as Merchants of Doubt notice it and draw attention to it. If you find another book as important and as respectable as "Merchants of Doubt" remarking on consistent publication of untruths by another major newspaper, by all means add it to the lede of the article to that newspaper.

The fact that you recently tried to insert a hurrah section lauding the alleged excellence of WSJ (with highly dubious sources) while at the same time obstinately trying obstinately try to keep the pointer to its unreliability in questions of environmental science (with an excellent scientific source) out of the lede, repeating long refuted arguments again and again and persistently not listening to those refutations in spite of having been shown to WP:IDHT by several users, as well as removing well-sourced criticism from the body, suggests that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to turn this into a PR article for the WSJ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

By "a hurrah section lauding the alleged excellence of WSJ", I assume you mean Special:Diff/1056719837? It was added to the article by Stallion55347 (talk · contribs), not Bill Williams. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Whoops. Striking. This weakens my fact base a bit... --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Huh. The strike thing does not work anymore. Anyway, please ignore the "recently tried to insert a hurrah section lauding the alleged excellence of WSJ (with highly dubious sources) while at the same time" bit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I was just too stupid to use the strike code. Springee gave me a tip. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe learn how to read as well next time instead of personally insulting me with accusations of "you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to turn this into a PR article for the WSJ" when I never even wrote this section to begin with. Bill Williams 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That was just one of the items. You will probably ignore my answer to your question Why does not a single other major newspaper have its editorial opinions in the lead of their Wikipedia article?. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I saw your answer, it was just completely false original research so I did not realize I had to formulate a response to it. " Because there is no other major newspaper whose editorial opinions collide with reality regularly enough that landmark publications such as Merchants of Doubt" prove this with a single reliable source that states the WSJ editorial board does this more than any other editorial board, otherwise that is completely false original research. Additionally, The Merchants of Doubt does not mention a single thing about their editorial opinions if you cared to read a single page of the book. It simply mentions a few opinion editors, and numerous newspapers have been criticized for which opinion editors they allowed to publish things. When New York Times allowed Republican senators to promote their right wing views, they were criticized, but does that magically mean the NYT supports Republicans? Bill Williams 17:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That response is so confused. Your comparison of this article with other articles is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and completely irrelevant. I was just trying ot illustrate the fact that every article is based on its own sources and not on other Wikipedia articles. We have a reliable source, a landmark publication saying a specific thing about the WSJ, and that is why the article about the WSJ should contain that thing. We do not have such a reliable source saying any similar things about other articles about newspapers, so those articles should not contain no such similar things. Why is that simple logic so difficult for you to comprehend? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As a source linked above points out [44], and has been argued elsewhere [45][46], "accepting" global warming by endorsing Bjørn Lomborg is just moving on to a new kind of denial. (It puts one in the company of the Daily Mail [47], which is not such illustrious company to keep.) XOR'easter (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is relevant to the topic but if I'm not mistaken the consensus on climate change relates to the causes, not the best strategies for dealing with it. We have to be accurate when saying something denies or is against climate change if their actual POV is the impacts are better than the proposed solutions. Yes, a denier and a "roll with the changes" person may advocate the same thing but that doesn't mean they do it for the same reasons. We should not confuse the two nor write articles that would cause readers to be confused about the position of the article's subject. Springee (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not just about causes versus coping strategies, but also the severity of the problem. Lomborg, in his columns for the WSJ, misrepresents the science in order to downplay the severity. And the editorial statement from three weeks ago posted as evidence that the editorial board "accepts" global warming cites Lomborg as the authority for their position. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The entirety of your original research is irrelevant unless you have reliable sources stating that the WSJ editorial board continues to deny the scientific consensus on climate change. No such source exists, because the few articles on the topic only refer to random opinion editors who the editorial board disagrees with, or editorial board articles written a decade ago, which cannot be used to claim that the board currently denies climate change. Bill Williams 19:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Media Matters source does mention that climate change denial is still a problem (minimization of cause, promotion of scientific uncertainty, etc). Important policies include WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV: we cannot present all sources as equal or as only opinions. As XOR'easter said above, there are situations where WP:ATTRIBUTE is unnecessary and even misleading. —PaleoNeonate – 20:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate the vast majority of what the MediaMatters source discusses is from multiple decades ago, only a few of what it mentions is from a single decade ago, and it has nothing past a single decade ago because that is when it was written. My point still stands that you cannot claim the WSJ editorial board denies the scientific consensus on climate change currently when the last analysis of it was a decade ago. Bill Williams 20:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

We just use the last information we have about it. Since we have no sources that say that they changed their position, we have to assume that their anti-science stance is still the same. Why shouldn't it? They are against regulation of markets, and since the fact of human-induced climate change implies that the energy market needs to be regulated, Of course they have to continue denying that fact to prevent that regulation. (Unless they suddenly became honest, of course. No evidence for that.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we find something they published a century ago and say they continue to promote it? That is completely absurd, if reliable sources no longer babble about this like editors do on this talk page, then it does not belong in the article as if they continue to believe it. The burden of proof rests on you to prove that they supposedly still promote this. Bill Williams 17:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. Find that century-old thing, then we can discuss it. At the moment, we are discussing this thing: ten years ago, a source said something about the dishonesty of the WSJ's last three decades, and you are claiming that it somehow does not apply anymore; that the WSJ has recently changed a denialist strategy it had used for thirty years, admitting only those facts they have absolutely no chance of credibly denying. There is no reason why we should assume that. If you have sources it did, then, yes, maybe we should use past tense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Lomborg isn't a random opinion editor with whom the editorial board disagrees; he's the man whose opinions the editorial board endorsed on November 1, 2021. It wouldn't be OR to say so, or to summarize the responses to Lomborg's opinion columns. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It is original research because you are the one connecting the dots between Lomborg and the editorial board, not a single reliable source. Just because they quoted him in a single article does not mean they endorse all of his views, and please provide a reliable source stating that he disputes the existence of climate change. Bill Williams 01:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You are the one who claims that there was a radical change in the WSJ's stance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Juxtaposition is not synthesis. I have no interest in drawing a conclusion about why the WSJ takes the editorial positions that it does. I'm not the one connecting the dots between Lomborg and the editorial board; they did that themselves. I provided sources about Lomborg above. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Did a single source state that this is at all notable? No, so you are the one who connected the dots yourself and determined it was notable for the lead. Bill Williams 00:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Now you are inventing new rules. If Wikipedia only contained things that have explicitly been called "notable" by sources, it would be far, far smaller. Most leads would be empty too. Of course it is editors who have to decide that kind of thing!

This specific thread is about whether to use past tense or present tense for the WSJ's anti-science-when-free-market-fundamentalists-do-not-like-the-results stance. It is established by reliable sources that they had it ten years ago, there is no evidence that they stopped having it, and there is evidence that they still have it. We cannot just put things in the past tense because it is theoretically possible that it is not true anymore. Otherwise we would have to put all biographies in the past tense because it is theoretically possible that the subject has died in the last few minutes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Hob Gadling:. The argument for using past tense, if accepted and generalized, would lead to writing the whole WP in past tense. Cinadon36 08:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)