Jump to content

Talk:The Wall Street Journal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nesher (talk | contribs) at 16:17, 25 August 2021 (→‎RfC on Censorship, WP:BIAS and User:Calton). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good articleThe Wall Street Journal was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 13, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 11, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Removed political stance in opening paragraph, aligned with other "Newspapers of Record".

The New York Times article does not list the paper as leaning conservative or liberal in the opening paragraph, and the general consensus from that page's discussion is that such statements should not be included there. As this page is also indicated and linked as a "Newspaper of Record" for the United States, it should follow the same format to create neutrality. Discussions of editorial bias should be limited to that section. Similarly the references provided regarding the WSJ's editorial stances in the opening paragraph are other newspaper editorials (e.g. from the New York Times) that are implying bias based upon user interpretations of issues involved. The statement on scientific consensus is also a direct repeat of content discussed later on in the article and does not reflect a major description or characteristic of the subject. [1] 108.41.176.126 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC consensus concluded that the WSJ editorial page crackpots' anti-science stances should be covered in the lead. What other pages do is irrelevant per WP:OTHER. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A quote from the WP:OTHER essay that you linked to: "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." Another quote: "These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid."
Personally I think you can make a case for including it in the lead, but it does concern me that criticism is mentioned in this lead, but not in the lead of the NY Times article. It wouldn't be hard to find NY Times editorials that disagree with the consensus of economists, and that's just one example. In sum I think the lead of this article isn't terrible, but raises some valid concerns that shouldn't be rejected out of hand. Proxyma (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is very common that someone writes two sentences and someone else responds to one of them as if the other one did not exist. RFC consensus concluded that the WSJ editorial page crackpots' anti-science stances should be covered in the lead is the answer to These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_New_York_Times

RfC on Editorial Board Scientific Claims in the Lead

Which of the following options should the lead of the article contain:

A (current) The Journal editorial board has promoted views that differ from the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos.
B (revised) The Journal editorial board has promoted views that differ from the scientific consensus on climate change.

Bill Williams (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • B (revised) 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[1][2][3][4][5][6] 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,[7] 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,[8] 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.[9][10] 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. The Washington Examiner's Wikipedia article lead does not mention the newspaper's climate change and its scientific inaccuracies, but it is stated in the body. In fact, neither of these Wikipedia articles, nor the ones for The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, or numerous other newspapers, even mentions their editorial boards in the lead, much less decades old criticisms. Bill Williams (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (current version). This is content with long-term encyclopedic value. The point of the text is not to highlight where the WSJ stands on issues in 2021 but to highlight a persistent historical pattern of promoting science disinformation and pseudoscience in the editorial pages, usually in service of right-wing causes and corporate interests. The WSJ editorial board plays a prominent role in the book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University, and Erik M. Conway, historian of science at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology, not just for its role in pushing disinformation about climate change, but for having used the exact same playbook to push disinformation about acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos over the past decades. Why doesn't the USA Today page say similar things? For the simple reason that the USA Today has not been the focus of academic studies into scientific misinformation, unlike the WSJ. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, climate change denial is well noted, hence I included it in option B, but the board's other scientific denials were decades old and not well noted. A single book written 11 years ago on those other occasional claims made 26+ years ago or 31+ years ago are not noteworthy. Numerous studies have analyzed US News and World Report's accuracy on its college rankings, which it is well known for... Yet that criticism isn't mentioned in the lead, even though it has multiple paragraphs in the body. US News and World Report college rankings are far more well known than the WSJ Editorial articles on acid rain, second hand smoking, etc., so I see no reason why this article should include decades old criticisms that are never noted besides a tiny number of academics. Bill Williams (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither. The prior sentence is enough--the "conservative" label broadly implies that the editorial board has a history of prioritizing business interests over the environment. Any additional characterization risks giving disproportionate attention to what should be considered a separate division of the newspaper. The Wall Street Journal is a newspaper of record which publishes high quality news stories, like the Washington Post and the New York Times are. Sometimes they publish kooky opinion pieces, just like the Washington Post and the New York Times do. I'm reminded of when Jon Stewart chided Tucker Carlson for suggesting Stewart was shirking his journalistic duties by reminding us that the show before his featured puppets making prank phone calls. Wikipedia doesn't need to make it even harder for those poor souls who are at risk of conflating the opinion and reporting divisions of the press enterprise by attempting to characterize an immense amount of deliberately opinionated pieces that span generations of careers as a defining feature of the newspaper. I'm not saying that none of this belongs in the article, but it definitely has no place in the lede. I can't even find coverage of Bret Stephen's recent pro-Ashkenazi racial supremacy masterpiece on Wikipedia's New York Times page, let alone its lede. That the same lede standard isn't being applied to the Wikipedia pages of other newpapers of record is a telling sign that something is fundamentally wrong here. 2600:1012:B04F:711:3971:DA61:CCA5:D5FE (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the WSJ editorial board is only a fraction of the WSJ, and stuff like Fox News covers false information on climate change far more, yet it is never mentioned in the lead. But for now, at least the completely outdated claims (acid rain, ozone etc.) should be removed, which is what you seem to agree with.Bill Williams (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    the "conservative" label broadly implies that the editorial board has a history of prioritizing business interests over the environment But it does not imply that they are willing to distort facts and peddle crazy fantasies about conspiring scientists in order to do that. Well, maybe it does, if you look at what counts as typical conservatism in the US today, but using "conservatism" as a euphemism for science denialism is still just not right. And if there are enough usable sources for Fox denialism, it should be in that article lead too, but this is not the place for discussing that as per WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the whole thing should be moved (I did that and was reverted); I was trying to answer the narrow question posed here about how to treat just that sentence. None of this belongs in the lede. If we're not going to put this in the NYT lede: "The NYT has published opinion pieces from its staff that promote Ashkenazi racial supremacism" then we have no business myopically covering an archaic opinion piece that has somehow been kept alive, fed, and clothed rent-free in some Wikipedia editors' heads for many years...I think that insisting something belongs in the lede (in addition to what practically all agree belongs there) is behavior that is similar to the behavior of conflicted people who only edit one topic...the WSJ is an esoteric institution that has covered business and finance news, and it isn't a scientific journal. That's what the lede should cover. We really should have a law requiring a certain minimum font size for "OPINION" in all periodicals...2600:1012:B024:A059:E877:6589:1657:1422 (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will pretend for the duration of this response that you wrote that on the Talk page to the NYT article, where the NYT article should be discussed. Have they done this Ashkenazi thing for decades and helped an astroturfing campaign mislead a large section of the population? I don't think so, therefore the cases are only marginally similar. And you should really read WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. It will explain to you why your reasoning about NYT is irrelevant. In case you didn't hear it again (you should also read WP:IDHT), I'll repeat it a few times: WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Say when. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying. While we shouldn't make rules based on what happens elsewhere, we can certainly look elsewhere for guidance. I think we're taking the opinion section far too seriously. Opinions aren't worth much these days. Having an actual newsroom with paid investigatory teams, like the WSJ does, is actually what is notable here. There is a much more succinct way to communicate that the opinion side of this publication is willing to push pseudoscience that could benefit business interests, that doesn't degenerate into an entire paragraph of valuable lede space becoming a vehicle for the manifesto of a few editors upset over pseudoscientific trash published a decade ago. Whoever pushed those opinion pieces has already laughed all the way to the bank and having it there makes it look like Wikipedia is full of bitter agenda-driven editors.2600:1012:B04E:DDB0:91FA:69F:8DA9:C2FF (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Noteduck: As I stated above, not one online article criticizing the WSJ editorial board on asbestos or pesticides comes up in a google search besides quoting Wikipedia,[11][12] and the other criticisms are based on 27+ year old or 31+ year old articles,[13][14] except the criticisms on the editorial board's stance on climate change, which includes recent articles. That is why I kept the climate change part but removed the other parts that are cited only by one source each based on decades old articles and seldom referenced elsewhere, AKA not noteworthy. Bill Williams (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (current version). See WP:GHITS and WP:RECENT. Not all sources need to be found on the internet. Mentioning only one of the anti-science stances held by the WSJ would be blinkered; it would make it seem as if the WSJ picked some scientific field at random and opposed it. The point to take home is that, if acceptance of a scientific fact by the general populace is bad for moneygrubbers, the WSJ will handle the scientific fact as a dubious proposition. It is a reliable non-source on those things. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hob Gadling: the news section of WSJ is considered reliable already, so this absurdly inaccurate decades old criticism of the editorial board is not noteworthy for the lead. "Not all sources need to be found on the internet" well congradulations, literally just one book from a decade ago criticizes their decades old claims on these issues, a book that almost nobody in the United States will ever read compared to this Wikipedia article and the WSJ itself, so how is that one book noteworthy whatsoever? If you wanna be consistent, go add "The New York Post has promoted liberal views" without any context or saying that it changed those views, to its lead because it did 40 years ago. Bill Williams (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please name the Wikipedia rule that says we should not include information from a source because "nobody in the United States will ever read" that source? What has the US got to do with it? Is it because the denial industry's (including the WSJ's) disinformation strategy has been more successful there than in more enlightened countries? From the viewpoint of reliability, the fact that the WSJ has consistently bamboozled its readers about a specific subject is highly relevant, as much as you want to hide the fact. If they wanted to be seen as reliable, I guess they should actually have been reliable, don't you think? Also, where did you get the idea that "Merchants of Doubt" is in any way "inaccurate"? That suggests that your accuracy compass is in serious need of recalibration. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not noteworthy to have criticism for how the EDITORIAL BOARD, which isn't mentioned IN A SINGLE OTHER MAJOR NEWSPAPER'S ARTICLE LEAD, talked about NICHE TOPICS OVER 26 YEARS AGO, because ONE SINGLE BOOK mentioned it. Bill Williams (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    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. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hob Gadling: Does Newton still write his opinions to this day? Did Newton state a change in his opinion? Does his Wikipedia article state his past opinions without stating that he changed them? Because the WSJ editorial board's articles on acid rain etc. were from 31 years ago and they changed their opinion on the matter. "Other stuff exists" policy is so completely irrelevant to what I am saying when literally every other thing is different. I am not pointing to "one other thing" but LITERALLY EVERY OTHER MAJOR NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, not just a couple. Wikipedia has policies and consistencies, for example almost every Amnerican politician's article starts off with "is an American politician, lawyer, activist" etc. so if I were to change the lead to begin with "is 42 years old and born in the state of Florida," that would differ from EVERY SINGLE OTHER ARTICLE and therefore be absurd to ruin the consistency. Bill Williams (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Yes. No.
    See, the purpose of using examples is to get a point across. The point I was trying to get across was not that Newton's case is exactly like the WSJ case and we should do exactly the same thing here as we did in Newton's case. If it had been, you could have refuted it with your three rhetorical questions. But my point was actually to illustrate my refutation of your "OVER 26 YEARS AGO" argument.
    Regarding the difference between the WSJ article and other newspaper articles, you seem to be saying that even if the editorial board of an otherwise flawless newspaper routinely spreads anti-science nonsense and therefore needs to be handled with care, that fact cannot be mentioned in the lede for some we-have-always-done-it-like-that reason, if the editorial boards of other newspapers do not have any such remarkable properties and consequently the ledes of the articles about those other newspapers do not mention their editorial boards. I cannot see any reason for such a restriction.
    But I guess I should just stop trying to get points across, as it just makes you misunderstand them, shout and repeat yourself. This is a survey, after all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hob Gadling: "routinely spreads anti-science nonsense " except they don't, because that was 31 years ago and they changed their opinion on the matter, plus once again this is irrelevant to the newspaper, since the editorial board 31 years ago isn't reflecting on the actual newsroom in the present... Also, I am sorry to inform you, but this is Wikipedia and I am typing, I don't think I can shout... I just capitalized to emphasize, since if I bolded it that might have been confusing to see, since people's answers to the RfC are also bolded. Bill Williams (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong, the WSJ did not stop spreading anti-science nonsense 31 years ago. As you would know if you had informed yourself. I am sorry you don't get it, and will now really stop leading you by the hand. Try to walk by yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (current version). It cannot be reasonably disputed that The Wall Street Journal is widely read, cited, and respected. Therefore, the journal's stance, as presented through its editorials as well as the weight it assigns to the various viewpoints, is of paramount informative and encyclopaedic importance. Both the WSJ stance on the issues listed in the current opening section as well as the scientific consensus on them are plentifully verifiable. Hence, the need for the text as it currently stands. -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Gnome: but why does not a single other major newspaper, which is "widely read, cited, and respected," mention a single thing about the editorial board's "stance" in the lead? Not WaPo, USA Today, NYT etc. And why do the WSJ editorial board criticisms based on 31 year old articles they wrote have any relevance to "the journal's stance" when they quite literally changed their stance? Bill Williams (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bill Williams, it's not news (nor worthy of mention in Wikipedia) when a dog bites a man. Do you see in articles about media generally supportive of the prevalent scientific viewpoint any mention of that? Do you see in the lead section of, for example, Nature magazine a note that describes the magazine as trustworthy, etc? No, but you do see in the article about The Daily Mail a note stating that the paper constitutes an "unreliable source." In sum, if The Wall Street Journal, an evidently historical and prestigious paper, supports viewpoints that are marginal and/or controversial, then that is certainly worthy of mention. And it goes without saying if WSJ's controversial stance on some subject was first broached a lot of time ago, e.g. 30 years ago, that stance still needs mention today. This is an encyclopaedia; not a scorecard of current events. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Gnome: no, their opinions weren't "first broached a lot of time ago, e.g. 30 years ago," THEY WERE LAST "BROACHED" AT THAT TIME. They literally changed their opinion 20 YEARS AGO, on a topic that they rarely write about today, so explain how it is relevant to bring up criticisms of articles they LAST WROTE 31 YEARS AGO and CHANGED THEIR OPINION ON 20 YEARS AGO. What other major newspaper's Wikipedia article writes a single thing about their editorial board in the lead, much less their standpoint or past standpoints on a single issue? Bill Williams (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replace the word "first" with "last" if you must and the point remains the same and equally valid: If tomorrow the National Enquirer starts publishing only scientific articles of the highest calibre we would be amiss if we wouldn't note, proninently too, that the Enquirer once supported scientific rubbish. The encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia demands fullness and honesty, per sources. (This, in some form of disclosure, from a years-long reader to the WSJ.) -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undue in lead Why was this ever added to the lead? Do other sources describing the WSJ think this is so critical as to make it part of the summary of what the WSJ is? Also, if this is included why not say why the editorial board has decided to give a voice to these alternative views? Springee (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Alternative views"? I thought they were called alternative facts now. Well, the actual reason is "if man-made global warming exists, then the energy market needs to be regulated. Therefore man-made global warming does not exist." But I don't think we have sources saying that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read my proposal? It keeps the part about climate change, but focuses on the completely absurd claims that the editorial board promotes inaccurate stuff regarding acid rain etc. when that was 31 years ago. Bill Williams (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The same "logic" applies to the other anti-science propaganda. "If acid rain destroys the forests, the automobile industry needs to be regulated. Therefore acid rain does not destroy the forests." And we probably do not have any sources for that either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hob Gadling, yes, alternative views. You act as if the editorial page is just finding crackpots yet you present no evidence. Consider how Britannica describes the editorial pages [[15]], Although perceived as favouring the interests of businesses, the Journal’s opinion and editorial pages reflect a wide range of highly informed business, political, and economic opinions; readers’ letters; and reviews of and comments on the arts.. They don't say anything about misinformation, instead they say the editorial board tries to cover a wide range of opinions. Presumably some will end up being wrong in the board wants to present a wide range of views. That would be a far more neutral way to describe the board vs what we have now. Encyclopedia.com, who's whole article is rather short, hardly mentions the editorial board at all [[16]]. So again I raise my question, why is this in the lead at all? Which encylopedia(s) are offering an impartial POV? Maybe a compromise would be to make the intent of the board clear, similar to what Brittanica is doing, but then also note this has resulted in specific editorials which have run counter to consensus on etc. Springee (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what "finding crackpots" is supposed to mean (maybe "finding them and letting them write articles"?), so I will ignore that part and comment on the Britannica part. Wikipedia and Britannica are different, and there is no point in saying an article in one should be exactly like the corresponding article in the other. I am sure Britannica has rules too, and I am sure they are different from ours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I implore everyone who wants to keep criticisms of the editorial board from its articles 31 years ago to add "The New York Post has promoted liberal views" to the lead of its article without any context or saying that it changed those views, just because it had those views 40 years ago. And while you're add it, mention how the New York Times editorial board is liberal in its article lead, because that is mentioned in the body, add to the Washington Examiner article lead about how their editorial board has disputed climate change, add to the USA Today article how their editorial board didn't endorse any presidents until Biden, and so on, because why the heck is this WSJ article the only one that A. even mentions the views of the editorial board B. brings up how they wrote about things 31 years ago that they changed their views on. This isn't just "other things exist," this is based on literally every other major newspaper article not having it, hence there must be special for this article to have it, but there isn't... Bill Williams (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment Is it climate denialism to oppose binding international carbon reduction agreements that go easy on "developing" huge emitters like China? To advocate for local fossil fuels (fracking vs. opec)? To say that yes, eventually we need to switch to different energy sources, but for now, it is worth it to continue to use American petroleum? That is what I understood the latest WSJ stance to be. Unless the WSJ's editorial board has an official position that the double bonds in carbon dioxide don't absorb electromagnetic energy in the infrared region of the spectrum or that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere won't ever impact climate, then I don't even think it can be considered pseudoscientific. The O.G. WSJ climate pseudoscience articles ended a long time ago, if my memory serves me correctly (please tell me if I am wrong). Their stance is just an opinion, that the effects are overblown and climate change causes less harm than depriving people of energy. If it's a fringe/pseudoscientific opinion, then obviously we can expect that almost no editors here who have commented use fossil fuels in their daily lives (Teslas don't always count, if the electricity source isn't clean), right? Fossil fuel consumption is a fringe socially deviant activity and the Journal's position, that climate change is an overblown situation, isn't an opinion, it's pseudoscience, because fossil fuels have no rational role to play for society. Right? See here for a recent position of the editorial board: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/saying-no-to-climate-taxes-11623798039 There is no pseudoscience there in my opinion, just disagreement over policy. Now, I think what is in the lede has no place in the article as it's written at all. It's a gross mischaracterizarion of the editorial board's stance. That book is a very poor source as it is being used and as a result, this is a very poor article. 2600:1012:B05D:174D:D5FA:9E36:F383:9F90 (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • B I do think the WSJ editorial board's current opinions on any topic are worthy of note. But, the opinions about acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos appear to be decades old and no longer relevant. If someone can produce current editorial board opinion articles disputing the damage and toxicity of any of the other issues then we can add that to this article. Also, the single book cited above is not sufficient evidence for bringing this narrative into this article. The book apparently covers topics that are stale. Also, I'm sure public opinion strongly supports the conclusion(s) that science has long ago revealed the danger of those environmental and health hazards. And, I doubt very much the editorial board would tout such views these days. That the board chooses to go against consensus on climate change these days means that is a current and ongoing discussion by people, policy makers, politicians, and the media. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice that you correctly did not add scientists to the list of people having a "current and ongoing discussion" about it, because they have decisively answered the question long ago. This is about the WSJ actively opposing accepted scientific facts as long as they see a chance of successfully hornswoggling the public about it. Back then, they saw a chance for that regarding acid rain and so on, and now they do not see that chance anymore for those subjects, but the strategy has not changed since then, as evidenced by their stance on climate change. An encyclopedia is not just concerned with the last few years - the WSJ was founded in 1889, after all. And there is not just one source for those subjects, as you would have noticed had you read beyond the lede. Media Matters for America and the American Journal of Public Health have had their say too. Actually, I thought the lede did not need sources at all since they are given further down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So what if I didn't mention the scientists. Big deal. I also haven't specifically read the WSJ board's opinions on climate change yet. However, they must somehow counter current scientific consensus based on some claimed authority. And, I see you have attributed motives to their opinions based on anti-regulation sentiments. But if you don't have sources that say they have ulterior motives then that is not relevant either. Wikipedia does not exist to throw shade on subjects covered. So, adding that the board formerly supported views on certain issues that are not longer relevant is UNDUE.
    Even in your own summation above, you seem to say the reason for listing former (and stale) anti-consensus stances is to show the board's strategy on hornswoggling the public. So, you have just shown you have an agenda and an ax to grind. Agenda's have no place in writing Wikipedia articles. That is in contradiction to NPOV. Also, it would be best to cite sources saying they are hornswoggling the public. We can only write what the sources say. If there are no sources, then that sentiment is of no use. As I said, if it can be shown the board still supports anti-consensus views on those other hazards decades later, then that is worth adding to the article. And it would not be UNDUE.
    I agree the board's anti-consensus views could be based on undermining regulation. It could also be based on undermining other things. But if I don't have sources that say that then I can't use that as a justification for anything. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You sound as if I blamed you for not mentioning the scientists, but as I said above, it was completely correct of you not to. It is a manufactured controversy, one that pretends that climate change is still an open question when it is not, since scientists are long finished discussing it. The WSJ is part of the denial machine that keeps that fake controversy alive, and back then it was part of the denial machine that kept other fake controversies alive. That is the whole point of the text we are discussing here, and it is uncontroversial within science and well-sourced. It has nothing to do with any hypothetical axes of mine: any claims that climate change is still controversial or that the WSJ stance is in any way scientifically justified are WP:FRINGE positions closely associated with free-market fundamentalism - all the fake denialist reasoning and all the denialist campaigns were traced back to a few individuals working for several free-market think tanks at once. Also well-sourced, see climate change denial. So, it is pretty obvious why the WSJ is doing it. But I never suggested that we write anything about the WSJ's real reasons (as opposed to their fake denialist reasoning) because I am not aware of any sources for that. Springee wanted to know the reason, so I told him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (current version). The gulf between the rigor of the news pages and dogma of the editorial pages is widely known and widely cited, and has been for decades. Some of the arguments against are approaching silly, such as saying that Wikipedia should ape one other specific encyclopedia's wording -- For Reasons, apparently -- or claiming that anyone supporting Option A has some sort of axe to grind and shouldn't count -- again, For Reasons, apparently. --Calton | Talk 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you think that the idea that we should follow the lead of other high level sources in deciding what is DUE for our lead would be "silly". So how do we decide, what of the very large number of things written about the WSJ should be in the lead? Well a good way to judge is see what other sources have deemed to be significant or not significant enough to mention in their articles on the subject. If Wikipedia emphasizes a particular aspect while no other source producing a similar summary article does the same then it's a sign that our editors are not aligned with external sources regarding relative weight. Wikipedia is meant to follow sources not just in terms of facts but also relative emphasis. We are not supposed to decide what information needs emphasis based on our own preferences/biases/etc. I provided the two digital encyclopedias as examples. Do you have any sources that summarize what the WSJ is and emphasize the material in question? Springee (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (current version) Shortening seems to run afoul of WP:RECENTISM, and entirely omitting the older topics when the article text itself binds them with the newer one to create a fuller picture goes against MOS:LEDE. Doubtless there's an even better sentence to be written (there almost always is), but in a contest between A and B, I've got to go with A. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a better sentence might be something that starts with the editorial board's stated objective followed by the result. So something like, "The editorial board states their objective is X. WSJ editorials have (largely current sentence)". This at least shows a motive and result rather than just a result. Of course the objective part needs to be in the body as well. Springee (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. The B version is recentism combined with whitewashing. It's not our job to try to hide the fact that a major US newspaper has a long history of science-denialism problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A (current) Comment: The RFC starter didn't provide enough rationale why the current version needs to be revised. The information in A seems noteworthy enough for the lead. What do the sources say? Is it UNDUE? Just because they changed their opinion does not mean WSJ's long term pattern should be taken off the lead. There seems to be enough sources why this is noteworthy (eg: per Snooganssnoogans). Bogazicili (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC) I'd prefer A (current) but with "editorial board" dropped, but with also more sources maybe.Bogazicili (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bogazicili: there is one source from a decade ago criticizing what the WSJ said multiple decades ago on pesticides and asbestos, and you cannot find a single other source other than that in a google search, so it is completely "UNDUE." For acid rain and ozone, there is again one single source, which was again written a decade ago based on WSJ editorial board article from 31 years ago. It is has not been cited elsewhere in years, once again making it irrelevant to the lead of an article that is still currently read by people. Not one other major newspaper's article mentions the editorial board positions in the lead. Check NYT, WaPo, USA Today etc. The NYT article even says "the editorial board is considered liberal" or something in the body, but not in the lead, while this articles' lead says "the editorial board is considered conservative" or something similar. Why should this article include decades old criticisms of the editorial board when not one other article of a major newspaper even mentions their editorial board in the lead? Bill Williams (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    there is again one single source As I said above (And there is not just one source for those subjects, as you would have noticed had you read beyond the lede), people should really learn to read beyond the lede. Further down, there is another source for acid rain and ozone: [17] --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hob Gadling: You just linked the one source that I myself put there... The book is the one source for asbestos and pesticides, which come up no where else[18][19] and are therefore completely undue, while the media matters source, that I myself linked, is the only source for acid rain or ozone. Once again, the editorial board changed its views on acid rain, the media matters article is rarely cited elsewhere in over a decade, and it is criticizing articles the editorial board wrote decades ago. BUT IT ISNT EVEN CRITICIZING THE EDITORIAL BOARD AS THIS ARTICLE LEAD SUGGESTS[20][21][22][23][24][25][26] and only mentions GUEST COLUMNISTS FROM DECADES AGO, so the lead is absurdly undue. The ozone and climate change parts can stay, but they changed their opinion on acid rain 20+ years ago and the editorial board didn't even make the unscientific statements on the other stuff, GUEST EDITORS did. Bill Williams (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LilBillWilliams, they seem currently anti-science when it comes to climate change as you note. In that context, I think their history of anti-science is notable. For that we can find journal articles, books etc. When you do a google search, most top hits are from WSJ itself anyway. I'd like to see more sources on the lead for this though. Bogazicili (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bogazicili: yeah I agree they have anti-science stances on climate change. But only one source comes up concerning the WSJ and asbestos and pesticides, and it isn't even referring to the editorial board, only to guest columnists who wrote articles or letters, and therefore the lead is extremely misleading. Bill Williams (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Merchants" is also a source for ozone: Now chief scientist for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Singer first protested what he called the “ozone scare” in an article that the Wall Street Journal ran on page one.62 In this article, Singer admitted that ozone depletions had been observed, but he dismissed them as “localized and temporary” and insisted there was no proof that CFCs were responsible. and It’s not surprising that the Marshall Institute took up Singer ’s ozone claims, because they shared his passionate anti-Communism. Nor is it surprising that he found willing publication venues. The Washington Times and National Review were stridently anti-Communist in their editorial views; the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Fortune were obviously probusiness and market oriented. 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.”
    I think demanding more than one source per word is ridiculous. Oreskes is a good source, and it has not become bad by having been around for a while. Books are not strawberries. Also, if I invite people to spout nonsense for me, that is just as bad as spouting it myself. I would have no problem with removing the words "editorial board of". The essential point is that the WSJ spreads disinformation on science and you cannot trust it. Who exactly is doing the disinforming is secondary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hob Gadling: Again, only two sources on the entire internet regarding the acid rain and ozone criticisms, that book and the media matters article, rarely come up cited elsewhere (UNDUE) and both are concerning what they wrote about over a period of 10 years decades ago, out of the WSJ's 130 year old existence, that they changed their opinion on. And again, editorials not the editorial board, just because the editorial board allowed those articles to be published decades ago, doesn't mean they still have any relevance today to the editorial board or WSJ's opinions. They also published opposing opinions[27] so saying they promoted one view when they just published opposing articles on it is absurd. The NYT editorial board allowed editorials supporting abolishing the police[28][29] because it was a trendy topic months ago, but the editorial board never believed that themselves, and has since endorsed moderate candidates in the NYC mayoral election. And also, put "the new york post has promoted liberal views" in its article lead without any further context, because they did for a period of time decades ago. Bill Williams (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why you keep pinging me when you are just repeating stuff you have repeated several times before without convincing anyone, even starting with the word "Again" and repeating the word later. And then you drag in a bit of whataboutism, talking about other things in the WSJ. I feel like a cat owner who hears a meow again and again and is proudly shown the same dead bird every time. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we can be done squabbling. Whataboutism is where you compare one individual irrelevant thing to another. My point is that literally every other article does not mention editorial boards' opinions in the lead. And every single part of the internet does not mention the single book or media matters article besides this wikipedia article and one ecowatch article, making it completely undue. But it's fine. I get that you disagree. Bill Williams (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. To maintain a neutral point-of-view in the lede we should leave the current version. It explains how the Journal's opinions on climate change align with scientific consensus. That is not at all WP:UNDUE, it's providing the reader with context for the Journal's opinions on climate change. And some of the sources being old doesn't make the opinions any less noteworthy either, it's not like the Journal changed or redacted those opinions. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 04:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]
@FormalDude: as I stated above, the editorial board quite literally changed its opinion according to the source in the Wikipedia article[30], so "it's not like the Journal changed or redacted those opinions" is incorrect. Additionally, I literally kept the part about climate change in my proposal, so that is irrelevant. But my proposal removes the acid rain part, which they changed their opinion on decades ago, and the asbestos, pesticides, and second hand smoking part, WHICH WERE BY GUEST COLUMNISTS DECADES AGO AND NOT EVEN THE EDITORIAL BOARD ACCORDING TO THE SINGLE SOURCE IN THIS ARTICLE [31][32][33][34][35][36][37] those criticisms do not come up anywhere else online,[38][39] AKA nobody else cares and it is completely UNDUE. Bill Williams (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Redacting my comment and supporting B (revised). ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 06:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading my response. I hadn't read the actual book until I responded to you, during which I realized the book didn't actually refer to the editorial board, making the lead of the Wikipedia article really inaccurate by using decades old guest columnists to say "the editorial board has promoted..." And sorry for being rude in my response, I was annoyed by the fact that many people didn't read my sources or reasoning, and not a single person changed their vote before you did. Bill Williams (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all, I would have been annoyed as well. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. And good idea to ping, I would be surprised if others do not change their conclusions as well. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 07:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FormalDude, I'm just curious. You wrote: "how the Journal's opinions on climate change align with scientific consensus." Was that a typo? They are actually at odds with the scientific consensus. -- Valjean (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean: Not a typo, just bad wording. In saying how they align, I just meant the manner that they align: in this case, not at all. My bad for the confusion. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 14:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Comment @XOR'easter:@Calton:@The Gnome:@Snooganssnoogans:@Bogazicili:@SMcCandlish: Sorry for the pings, but I thought you should know that the decade old book that is the one source in the lead concerning asbestos, pesticides, and second hand smoking, isn't even referring to the editorial board[40][41][42][43][44][45][46] but instead to guest columnists, so the lead is extremely misleading for saying "the editorial board has promoted..." when it was actually guest columnists writing articles or letters. The opinions of individual guest columnists 30 years ago does not reflect on the editorial board, nor the WSJ itself, especially not decades later, and should not be presented as such in this Wikipedia article. Bill Williams (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that doesn't really let the editorial board off the hook. And complaints about a book being a "decade old" miss the point that this article is supposed to cover the entire history of the newspaper. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Snooganssnoogans:@XOR'easter: the editorial board also allowed for opposing editorials on the topics,[47] so it's completely false to say that it "promoted" one view. Additionally, "this article is supposed to cover the entire history" yet it is emphasizing one decade, 1980-1990, when the WSJ editorial board allowed some articles on acid rain, even though it changed its opinion over 20 years ago, so a single decade out of its 130 year old existence should not be emphasized in the lead. Does the New York Times article lead begin with "the editorial board has promoted abolishing the police" because it allowed multiple editorials over on the matter?[48][49] No, that would be absurd, because the editorial board itself never promoted that. Bill Williams (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "single decade" appears to be the most thoroughly documented in this respect, leading to the text of the article focusing upon it, and a fair summary of that main text in the lede gives us the current sentence (up to debatable phrasing issues, such as are always present). If the editorials over at the NYT had been covered in the same way, then we'd write about them in the same way. (People have definitely criticized the NYT for the opinion pieces it's seen fit to print, so that's not completely implausible, but the question of what goes in the lede of that article is a matter for its Talk page, not this one.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of argument assume that 100% of this was from decades ago. Say the newest example was from the 90s and since them all editorials were in line with consensus. Would we include this in the body? I think we all agree yes. Would that be in the lead? I'm not so sure. It would have to depend on how much historical detail would be in the lead. Also, if the WSJ renounced something, say their position on acid rain then we shouldn't have the lead say, "they disagreed with scientists on acid rain" without also stating "they have since reversed this view". That would apply to the body and lead. It's especially important in the lead since failing to add that follow on statement would imply they still hold this view. I mean if a 150 year old magazine wrote an article supporting segregation in 1890 would we assume they still have that position in 2021? I also think we need to make it clear if this is the editorial board supports these views or simply wants to run a range of ideas even if the members don't personally agree with the views. Springee (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely what I am stating. It is far too complicated to explain all this in the lead, hence it should be left in the body. To give proper context, the lead would have to say the editorial board changed its views on acid rain 20 years ago and only published inaccurate things for at most 20 years out of its 130 year history, last published inaccurate info on ozone science 31 years ago after at most being incorrect for 20 years out of its 130 year existence, and then for asbestos, second hand smoking, and pesticides, who the heck cares, nobody besides Wikipedia even talks about this one book. This is so insane, one book that is not even talking about the editorial board, at least you'd need to say "guest editors and columnists published letters and opinion articles over 30 years ago on second hand smoking..." or else it is completely misleading. Bill Williams (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but given their current anti-science stance with respect to climate change, their similar past behaviour on other topics is important enough for the lead I think. You'd be right if they didn't have a current anti-science stance. I'd just prefer another source which talks about WSJ's anti-science background overall, but I didn't have the time to look for it. Bogazicili (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Their current stance is not "anti-science". They just don't care about the environmental effects or "justice/equity" as much as some do. What if I agree with them? My personal opinion is that China, by far the largest emitter, is coddled in GHG agreements and that the melting of Greenland's ice cap is a net good thing. I believe that carbon dioxide and methane caused by fossil fuel release and combustion heat up the earth. I think "green" energy policies are examples of sanctimonious crony capitalism by politicians and their funders (who ironically often claim to stand against crony capitalism) because they almost never involve basic research but rather fund tautological market experiments to "demonstrate" commercial viability, which could be done with a calculator instead. Does that make me anti-science? No, it makes me someone who disagrees with people whom I consider dogmatists. I don't disagree that the WSJ has published psedusocience in the past, but the casual labeling here makes me genuinely concerned about objectivity amongst what has been said here. The temporal issues with the source are well-founded in my opinion and I really hope this can be seen as reason for some change in the article. 2600:1012:B065:7616:7998:EE1B:CEE4:7F40 (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If academic RS that specialize in genocide denial and misinformation characterized the NY Times as a key promoter of genocide denial, then yes, it would be reasonable to add language along those lines to the NY Times page. I am however unaware of RS that do so. Your comment misleadingly suggests that the WSJ published one or two op-eds that promoted pseudoscience when that's not at all the case. Newspapers publish all kinds of dishonorable content (including op-eds from dictators)[50][51] for various reasons. What the WSJ editorial board did was to persistently and prominently push pseudoscience and misinformation about established science across numerous fields and issues across decades, which is why the WSJ has been characterized as a key proponent of science misinformation by historians of science. Also, aren't you topic-banned from American Politics or voluntarily avoiding post-1932 American Politics? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Your comment misleadingly suggests that the WSJ published one or two op-eds that promoted pseudoscience when that's not at all the case" yes it is for asbestos, pesticides, and second hand smoking, the "rELiAbLe sOuRcE" is a single source specifying only a few articles on those three topics, so it is insane to claim that the editorial board promoted pseudoscience on those three topics when it was just a couple occasional articles. The climate change, acid rain, and ozone is well documented, but the asbestos, pesticides, and second hand smoking was rarely brought up. Bill Williams (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Several occasions add up to a pattern. Reliable sources noticed that pattern. The pattern, with examples, is relevant enough for the lede, not the single occasions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not since April of last year (and the AP2 area is now "post-1992 politics of the United States," as you're probably aware). I don't recall any similar concerns on your part when we were in agreement on other articles in the not-so-distant past. Regardless, thank you for the reminder regarding Putin's 2013 New York Times op-ed on Syria. I wholeheartedly concur that "Newspapers publish all kinds of dishonorable content"!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But seriously Snooganssnoogans: Is there any way, in the interest of compromise, that you could at least revise the existing Option A to allow for the distinction between individual columnists and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one has established that the editorial board only publishes columns by individual columnists that promote pseudoscience. Adding text along those lines is original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this: If academic RS that specialize in genocide denial and misinformation characterized the NY Times as a key promoter of genocide denial, then yes, it would be reasonable to add language along those lines to the NY Times page. I am however unaware of RS that do so. First, we summarize what reliable sources have to say, and then we summarize the article we construct thereby to create an introduction. Of the two options presented, A does a better job of that than B, though as I said I'm open to the possibility of an as-yet-unwritten C that might be better than both. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do that in the body. Why is this DUE in the lead? Also, if we are going to put it in the lead why shouldn't we try to offer a more impartial view? Springee (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question above presumes that climate change is DUE in the intro, and the main text treats climate change as inseparable from certain other topics, so I find it hard to see how a judicious summary of the main text can include one but not the others. (Of course, that may be a matter of taste on my part; this wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed about how best to write an introduction.) It seems to me that questions about impartiality ought to be addressed by writing and proposing an option C whose particulars can be discussed. XOR'easter (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting pretty bored of commenting here, because the arguments for Option A can never actually debunk what I am saying. According to their logic, the NYT article intro must say "The New York Times editorial board has promoted abolishing the police" because they allowed opinion articles on the matter, the New York Post article intro must say "The New York Post has promoted liberal views," without saying that it was 40 years ago, because according to my opponents, context and how long ago something was don't even matter. And it's hilarious how they can never answer my most obvious question, how the heck is any of this NOTEWORTHY? This Wikipedia article is the only real source that cites the decade old book that is talking about opinion articles, not even the editorial board, so how is that NOTEWORTHY in the lead? No other source is cited anywhere saying that the editorial board promotes false info on asbestos or pesticides, so it is the most absurd thing I've ever heard to act like this single source, not even criticizing the editorial board but GUEST COLUMNISTS 30 years ago for a period of at most 20 years out of the WSJ's 130 year existence, is somehow noteworthy for the lead. Bill Williams (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could literally just say something accurate like "The editorial board has published pseudoscientific opinion articles by guest editors regarding climate change" and that would actually be noteworthy and accurate, but nah, you demand that they are wrong about asbestos, something I've literally never read an opinion article on in my entire life, and that they haven't published any pseudoscientific opinion articles on in decades. The Wikipedia article on editorials states "An editorial (US), leading article or leader (UK) is an article written by the senior editorial people or publisher of a newspaper, magazine, or any other written document, often unsigned," except the pseudoscience was written by guest editors, so it quite factually wasn't an editorial. Bill Williams (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not restricted to things you have read about in your life. Giving guest columnists who are known for their anti-science stance an opportunity to spread their anti-science propaganda is itself an anti-science stance. This is not about conservative or liberal "views". It is about actual disinformation. Distortion of the facts. Selling outsider ideas as science. Something a serious medium should not do.
If you have enough reliable sources accusing those other papers of regularly spreading dishonest propaganda lies, of course it belongs in the ledes of those other articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hyperbolic nature of your claims aside, you have only made an argument fur weight in the article, not in the lead. Springee (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Snooganssnoogans refuses to allow any controversial things the NYT has published go in the lead of that article, but demands that what guest editors controversially said a few times goes in the lead of this article, which I find ironic. To quote Snooganssnoogans, "It's a violation of NPOV (WP:UNDUE) to give readers the impression that the newspaper of record is embroiled in controversies, as if it were Breitbart News. Every newspaper, every institution, every prominent figure "has controversies". By placing it in the lead, the article simultaneously communicates nothing substantive (all institutions have controversies) and misleads readers into thinking the NY Times is a newspaper of dubious and contested reliability" which perfectly applies to the WSJ in the case of things that guest editors published decades ago (asbestos, pesticides, second hand smoke) being put in the lead as if the newspaper regularly publishes about them. Bill Williams (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RfC on Censorship, WP:BIAS and User:Calton

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?".

Please define the issue with "one primary study". Please define "uncertain journal". 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal&oldid=1040614396"