Talk:The Wall Street Journal

NYT vs WSJ - breaching scientific doctrine

See the [talk page for NYT] which relates to both pages.

You need to discern between "dogma", which is a religious concept, and scientific findings. This is about scientific findings which the WSJ denies for ideological reasons although practically all experts agree on them. Please read WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Following abuse from User:Hob Gadling, have removed breaches of science dogma allegations in lede - this is WP:10YT; and fails to give date/time period; other parts are WP:SOAPBOX, serious issues with due weight; bring to talk page and obtain consensus before re-adding any part of this. --nesher 09:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the form of this "abuse": would you mind pointing it out?

bring to talk page and obtain consensus before re-adding any part of this

Good idea. Oh, wait, it's been done. --Calton | Talk 09:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Censorship, WP:BIAS and User:Calton

This discussion is closed

User:Calton upholds highlighting the WSJ's non-conformism with the scientific dogmas, on the basis of a single book (Oreskes, (2010). User:Calton also censors an addition to that narrative, to quote, "One primary study from an uncertain journal? Really?". 1.Please define the issue with "one primary study". 2.Please define "uncertain journal". 3.Uncertain to you perhaps? WP:BIAS is in clear operation. Is there any oversight to this orgy of censorship on the English Wikipedia? Nesher (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Comments First, this isn't a RfC since it wasn't done in a way that triggers the RfC system. Second, if the claims pass WP:V I would suggest two things. First, more details from this source need to be added to the article body. it's not good to have content like this only in the lead. Second, given the nature of the claims being made about the WSJ and when the events were reported to have happened, it does make sense to include this source and to put the time/scope on the content in the lead. Springee (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Reading through the article it seems like this would actually be a good source to draw on since it uses a methodical way to compare the WSJ to other sources. It did find differences but perhaps not as large as other sources have indicated. It should be included but primarily in the article body. I'm not sure the addition to the lead is the best way to summarize the source. Springee (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Nesher has started two RfCs, both calling into question edits by another directly-named user, which goes against WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The other one was entirely removed by Gamaliel (talk · contribs) - I'm inclined to terminate this RfC but not so drastically. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC) Not really a proper RfC. Summoned by bot. This section starts with criticism of another user, followed by vague implications about orgy levels of malfeasance. This is not an RfC. Further up on this page, there is a question about a proposed edit to the lead section, with two options to vote between. That's an RfC. If you have a specific edit you wish removed or restored, propose it. And outline whether this is a continuation or reset of the A / B discussion above or something else. And assume good faith -- both generally, which is important, and in setting a neutral RfC question, which is required. Chris vLS (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC) I have terminated the RfC (by editing above; don't know if anything more is needed). There is no way an RfC framed as above can be held. Ask questions at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC

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"

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)

• 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)
• 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 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)

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.[36] 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."[37]
• WSJ ed board, 2010: "There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change."[38]

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?[39] soibangla (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Three weeks ago [40] 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)