Talk:The Wall Street Journal: Difference between revisions
Kleinpecan (talk | contribs) m →Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary.: Indentation |
|||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
*::* Best way to summarize material usually only become clear after that material has been written in 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. [[User:Stallion55347|Stallion55347]] ([[User talk:Stallion55347|talk]]) 01:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC) |
*::* 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. [[User:Stallion55347|Stallion55347]] ([[User talk:Stallion55347|talk]]) 01:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC) |
||
*:::But the line in question [[The Wall Street Journal#Science|''is'' covered in the body]]…? Perhaps the section needs expansion, but I don’t think that invalidates its being mentioned in the lead. <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— <span style="border-radius:0.25em;padding:1px 4px 0;background:#faeded">[[User:HTGS|HTGS]]</span> ([[User talk:HTGS|talk]])</span> 04:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:41, 22 November 2021
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Wall Street Journal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on July 8, 2004, July 8, 2005, July 8, 2006, July 8, 2007, July 8, 2014, and July 8, 2016. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the OpinionJournal.com page were merged into The Wall Street Journal on 9 April 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
The contents of the The Wall Street Journal editorial board page were merged into The Wall Street Journal on 25 January 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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?
- 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)
- 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?".
WP:BIAS is in clear operation. Is there any oversight to this orgy of censorship on the English Wikipedia?
|
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,[1] although its conservative-sceptical framings on climate change have declined since the 2000s.[2] Nesher (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
handful
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ A. Stecula, Dominik; Merkley, Eric (2019). "Framing Climate Change: Economics, Ideology, and Uncertainty in American News Media Content From 1988 to 2014". Frontiers in Communication. 4: 6. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2019.00006.
- 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/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)
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)
- 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)
- Delisted good articles
- Selected anniversaries (July 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2014)
- Selected anniversaries (July 2016)
- B-Class WikiProject Business articles
- High-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Mid-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class New York City articles
- Mid-importance New York City articles
- WikiProject New York City articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Mid-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class Finance & Investment articles
- Mid-importance Finance & Investment articles
- WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
- B-Class Newspapers articles
- High-importance Newspapers articles
- Wikipedia requests for comment