Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Daily Beast article on Tulsi Gabbard

Is including the following statement in Tulsi Gabbard 2020 presidential campaign#Allegations of Russian support undue weight: "An article in The Daily Beast reported that the campaign had received contributions from individuals allegedly sympathetic to Russia and Vladimir Putin, including Stephen F. Cohen and a former RT employee."

In Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, The Daily Beast is rated as "neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable."

The Daily Beast article, "Tulsi Gabbard’s Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists" identifies four of five of the over 65,000 Gabbard donors as "some of the nation’s leading Russophiles," including the actor Susan Sarandon, who donated $500. Sarandon has also contributed to the presidential campaigns of John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Ralph Nader, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, Tom Harkin and Bernie Sanders and congressional or senate campaigns of Beto O'Rourke, Barbara Boxer, Tammy Duckworth, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Lee, Charlie Rangel, Hillary Clinton and many others.

This article's allegations have not been picked up by mainstream media, although the article has been criticized in other alternative media, such as Rolling Stone[1] and The Intercept.[2]

TFD (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"This article's allegations have not been picked up by mainstream media, although the article" - Really?

• Politico: Gabbard calls unflattering report 'fake news'
• The Hill: Gabbard says claim her campaign is getting boost from Putin apologists is 'fake news'
• CNN: Tulsi Gabbard invokes Trump's 'fake news' rhetoric to push back on report of Russia-linked support
• National Review: Should We Be Worried About Candidates Accepting Donations from ‘Russophiles’? - MrX 🖋 19:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The articles in CNN, the Hill and Politico all report Gabbard's response when asked about the article on a talk show. None of them repeat the information about Cohen or Goofy Grape. And the article in the National Review, which is is better grouped with publications such as Rolling Stone and The intercept, similarly is about the poor quality of journalism in the Daily Beast.

Otherwise, mainstream media, by which I mean the major TV networks, and respected broadsheets, with the exception of CNN, have ignored the story.

If you were to include the story, then you should cover it the way reliable sources do. The Hill article for example, says, "[O]n Sunday [Gabbard] called a Daily report that her campaign is being backed by prominent Russian sympathizers "fake news."" Instead, you write it like tabloid journalism. They'll have a lurid discussion of the latest conspiracy theory and wait to the final paragraph to tell you it's false. For example, they will discuss all the reasons Ted Cruz might have been the Zodiac Killer, before telling readers that the killer was active before Cruz was born.

TFD (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's a valid comparison, since the fact that the contributions occurred is not in dispute. I think where we primarily disagree is how much weight the the original story in The Daily Beast should be given, if at all. I think this material is worth keeping since a half dozen reliable sources took notice, and I would disagree with any attempt to write the material in a way that appears to debunk what the Daily Beast reported. The three main perspective should be represented proportionally: 1. contributions from pro-Russia people occurred; 2. it's a smear; and 3. Gabbard invoked Trump's rejoinder "fake news!". - MrX 🖋 21:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The facts in the National Enquirer Ted Cruz story are not in dispute either. That's how propaganda often works. Use selective facts to reach a false conclusion. It is in dispute however whether these living persons are "Putin apologists," whether their donations are based on Gabbard's Russia policy or whether the amount of money they received are significant. I notice you said there was quid pro quo, which is what is falsely implied in your source. TFD (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, Mr X, I believe that it was the current CCO of the Clinton Foundation -- Craig Minassian -- and the Comedy Central folks who were behind the original popularization of the term "fake news" through the Daily Show. Minassian's company has been the second most highly-paid WMF contractor, just behind the legal firm Jones Day, for a number of years now, including during the 2016 election. In my view, of course, the relative weighting should be:

1) smear campaign

2) see 1.

🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 05:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Gabbard used the term "fake news," CNN anchor Anderson Cooper used the term when questioning a facebook executive.[3] Yesterday, CNN ran a headline, "Finland is winning the war on fake news." It belies their claim that it is Trumpspeak. TFD (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's try to stick to actual sources about the subject. - MrX 🖋 15:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

In this case the subject is who uses the term "fake news." As it turns out, the claim you want to add that the term is used exclusively by Trumpists is false. Why would you want to put information into articles that you know is false? TFD (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my reply was intended for SashiRolls. I should have outdented (as I have now done). We certainly don't need to say that Gabbard invoked a Trump trope. I think it's sufficient to say that she referred to it as "fake news".- MrX 🖋 14:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I would also like comment on whether or not people think this should be included on her BLP as Snoogans & MrX have been insisting. I don't really have that big a problem adding a paragraph to the entry about the campaign as it is encyclopedic to show the tactics being used to discredit the campaign. The tradition of the Daily Beast accepting low-quality hit pieces is established (another example was the Yashar Ali article on Jill Stein in 2016). That is just the track record of the Daily Beast. But, this is pretty clearly not one of the most salient points about the biography of Tulsi Gabbard and is unlikely to interest readers of her biography in 2 years time, much less in 10.🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 20:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source that mostly relies on secondary sources, it is preferable to use secondary sources that discuss the politically based attacks rather than using the original attacks. When writing about hate literature for example, we would generally rely on the SPLC, news media and peer-reviewed sources for what they said, rather than the websites and publications themselves. Also, we probably would not report the information in articles about the groups they described, but put it into articles about the hate groups. TFD (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we should prefer secondary sources, but referring to the Daily Beast article as a politically based attack does not seem so reasonable. Comparing it to hate literature is just naked rhetoric.- MrX 🖋 15:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• There are two questions here. (1) Was it well sourced? Yes, it was because this is not only Daily Beast, but several other sources noted above. (2) Is it "due"/significant? Yes, it certainly is. This is the beginning of Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, see here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • So you view is that sourcing to a publication for which there is no consensus per "Perennial Sources" for reliability is well-sourced and a story ignored by the overwhelming majority of broadcast, print and web media in significant. MrX, why would I think that a highly partisan organ would publish an unfair article about someone whose politics they disagreeed with? Because that's the reason they were set up. Their philosophy is "We really like the gonzo. We really like the weird. We really like the fun and we don’t give that many fucks.”[4] TFD (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with TFD: As currently worded, with its own section header to boot, this report has been given undue weight in the article. Leaving aside that the Daily Beast is known for publishing hit pieces, the supposed connections it "reveals" between Gabbard and Russia are scant at best. Cohen has donated to a number of candidates, including Elizabeth Warren. There is no evidence that Gabbard solicited his support, and certainly no evidence of any collusion between her campaign and Russia. Perhaps a one sentence mention of actual Russian propaganda efforts to give her a boost is warranted, but as it stands now, the subject has been given far too much weight. HappyWanderer15 (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I am only saying two things: (a) the title of this thread by TFD is misleading (it was not sourced only to Daily Beast), and (b) yes, this is something really important for inclusion. How exactly this should be included (may be not as a separate section, or to another page) is debatable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter if The Daily Beast is a reliable source. Reliable sources have reported on the controversy surrounding the story. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The question is not whether any reliable sources have mentioned the story, but whether they have sufficient weight for inclusion, when the story has been ignored by all major U.S. news networks and broadsheets with possibly one exception. TFD (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, sufficient weight in relation to the rest of the coverage she has received. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree with the addition of this. The main source here is The Daily Beast and the other sources are merely voicing Gabbard's response. For example, Venezuela's CITGO donated $500,000 towards Trump's inauguration in 2017, plus additional lobbying, and The Daily Beast insinuates that Trump avoided sanctioning the company because of this. While the reason for the donations is unknown, it is widely recognized by more reliable sources that the Trump administration did not sanction CITGO and Venezuelan oil destined for the United States because it would exasperate the crisis in Venezuela. More stringent oil sanctions were later applied when the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis began and the United States began to hand over CITGO to Juan Guaidó. The appearance of these Daily Beast "donation" articles is that they are very superficial reports and that they make broad assumptions. Feeling comfortable with aligning Gabbard with "Putin Apologists" on her article is the equivalent of being comfortable with describing Trump as an alleged lackey to the Venezuelan government on his article...----ZiaLater (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaidó

Per the usual with Venezuelan-related articles, there have been some NPOV concerns among users. We are looking for some uninvovled users to evaluate and improve the Juan Guaidó article if there are any NPOV issues existing. I attempted to make a list to target specific NPOV concerns, but the responses have been vague and not as detailed as I had hoped, spiraling into arguments once more. There has been no consensus on the article's talk page as to what needs to be improved; the talk page is quite unorganized. While there has been some discussions about the lede not being NPOV, others state that the whole article appears to be a puff piece. Any help is appreciated!----ZiaLater (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: the article lead reads like an advertisement or media brief for a future Guaidó presidency. The lead begins by mentioning how many countries have recognized him as acting president of Venezuela (54), when it could just as easily mention how many have not recognized him (140). The lead continues with a moralistic origin story: "After living through the Vargas tragedy as an adolescent, Guaidó determined that public office was the route to take in order to improve Venezuela." I think the lead can be improved concretely by removing some of this WP:PUFFERY, and noting his collaboration with US officials. -Darouet (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Darouet: Thank you for your observations (which I agree with) and these improvements. Please take a look at the infobox that declares he is the "acting president". --David Tornheim (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

For anybody wanting to join the discussion please read Talk:Juan_Guaidó#NPOV_noticeboard_-_POV_check, @Darouet: you have brought more issues to the discussion with your modifications.--MaoGo (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The conversation is threading again. The usual users (including me) are still the only ones involved. --MaoGo (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater and David Tornheim: after this publication, the talk seems convoluted and has added just one more user to the mix, it is there another noticeboard or a higher authority we can appeal to in order to get a better review on the matter?.--MaoGo (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Advice needed re National_Disability_Insurance_Scheme

I think that most sections of this article are very POV. I’ve started a discussion here about how it might be fixed, but there is no one over there to discuss with. I don’t want to start hacking into it without some outside advice first (in particular because I have a minor conflict of interest). Markbrown00 (talk) 08:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim

I have added a section on the page "Muhammad bin Qasim", about his role in the army before he invaded Sind. This section is now a subsection of "Early Life" under the title "Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim". This section was objected upon by Kautilya3. I have improved the section painstakingly, by adding many modern scholarly sources and editing text and title more carefully. The dispute has reached a deadlock after they started questioning the neutrality of the section although it represents all aspects. They are interpreting the label in a way to undermine the credibility of the material. I think it is a case of WP:WIKILAWYER.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sabine Weyand

Request also filed at WP:3O, but may require more experienced and directly policy-based input:

Does WP:INDY require that a subject's publicly stated and reported views should only be given if there is context and commentary and analysis from third-party sources? If the views have been considered significant enough to report, but have not attracted commentary or analysis, should they be suppressed? Otherwise is there a danger that WP appears to be giving a non-neutral endorsement of these views in a biased way?

At issue is the degree to which it is appropriate to cover the publicly given on-the-record stated views of Sabine Weyand on the Brexit process, in the absence of wider commentary, contextualisation, or discussion of those views. (She was the chief-of-staff and deputy lead negotiator in the EU Brexit negotiation team).

Discussion at Talk:Sabine Weyand#Issues with Brexit section which is not about the subject of the article but a collection of her quotes on Brexit. Jheald (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Maintaining NPOV on List of most visited museums

There is a robust discussion happening about how to best define inclusion criteria that supports a neutral point of view on the List of most visited museums article. Your perspective on these matters and others listed in this RfC are welcome. Qono (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Murder of Hae Min Lee

In the name of not airing disputed assertions, Adoring nanny is not allowing significant portions of the police and prosecution story of the homicide investigation into the Murder of Hae Min Lee article.

Someone who has no knowledge of this case will be unable to explain how the police found Jay Wilds, their "key witness". An encyclopedia article about a murder should explain the police investigation in some detail. If there are doubts about the police and State's assertions as to the investigation, they can be raised in the article, however the current state of the article has an overly weighted viewpoint.

Cynistrategus (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Explain the police investigation in some detail." The police investigation according to whom? The vast majority of what the police say happened is disputed. That's the central problem. I am not and have never been opposed to adding information about the police investigation. But it has to conform to Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:WIKIVOICE. This user, who appears to have a past or present relationship with the office of the Maryland State's Attorney, has been pushing versions that take what the police say happened at treat it as fact. That's not consistent with WP:WIKIVOICE.Adoring nanny (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the statement properly verified by the source?

Is this statement verified by the supporting source?:

"According to European Intelligence and Security services, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence networks attempt to entice former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots,

Source:

"To enhance these capabilities, during the 1980s, Iranian MOIS operatives were trained in psychological warfare and disinformation techniques by instructors from Eastern Bloc countries using methods developed by the Soviet KGB. In Europe, the organization established intelligence networks targeting Iranian refugees, political exiles, and others affiliated with regime opposition groups. According to European intelligence and security services, current and former MEK members, and other dissidents, these intelligence networks shadow, harass, threaten, and ultimately, attempt to lure opposition figures and their families back to Iran for prosecution.

Additionally, these networks attempt to entice or coerce former opposition group members into denouncing and vilifying their former compatriots"

[5]

Thank you for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I glanced over the talk page. It's difficult to follow for editors who are not already involved. Maybe your best approach would be to ask for mediation. TFD (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

BitChute

I believe the BitChute article does not present a balanced view in the current form as of Old revision of BitChute. I believe it may not need much adjustment, but it needs some. There is a discussion at Talk:BitChute#Article neutrality but I may have sanity limits on how much disruption it may cause to my real life. A POV template has been repeatedly removed. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Carahunge

Could anyone look at this person's actions [6] please. He is POV-pushing and repeatedly removes sources that support another point of view. I suggested him to reword the text as a consensus but he prefers to delete it all. Shows a very aggressive behaviour to a new user [7]! Isabekian (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not the way I read it what happened, see my comment below. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This board is not for addressing the behavior of another user, that might be WP:AN/I but beware of the WP:BOOMERANG that will almost surely hit you. Can you be more specific about what you think the article should say and why, and why the other editor is mistaken? —DIYeditor (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: There is a parallel thread at WP:FTN already. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There are two main POV-s among the specialists: 1) Carahunge could have astro-nomical significance, 2) Carahunge was just a necropolis. We should represent who supports the first POV correctly. The text I suggest to add:

Different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs, E. Parsamian) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) support the view that Caragunge was an important archaeoastronomical site. Two others, I. Simonia and B. Jijelava write that "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance". Isabekian (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As this is a fringe archaeology dispute I posted to FTN (before this thread was started)what I told this editor (I think the edit above is their 26th) Note this is also about their edit at Paris Herouni]:

"Your text was:

"Subsequently, different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs, Irakli Simonia and Badri Jijelava) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) confirmed the astronomical significance of the Carahunge mega-lithic complex."

"That's a misrepresentation of the source. The source has two relevant sentences: "The expedition supported the idea that Carahunge had an astronomical significance, concluding that the monument is aligned to rising points of the sun, moon, and several bright stars." It also says "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance" - so, "probably" and "supports" - neither word is anything close to confirmed. That's the misrepresentation.

"Then there's our Neutral point of view policy linked in the section heading. The next part of the second sentence is "(but see also ▶Chap. 127, “Carahunge - A Critical Assessment” for a different view)." Your edit doesn't suggest that is in the source at all. To follow our policy you must include relevant information from chapter 127. I've reverted one edit entirely and am about to revert the other - please rewrite them complying with our guidelines.

"I realise that you are new, but I would think that without even reading our policy an editor should understand that they shouldn't use words not backed in the source and should not cherry pick just one point of view from a source. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"::Hi. I'm trying to assume good faith, but till now your actions are just agressive. If you believe a word I used is not fine, you could: 1) discuss it at talk at first, to not start an WP:WAR, 2) to change that word, but not delete the whole text. Your actions are against WP:NPOV. Isabekian (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought what I wrote was reasonable and gave the edito enough information to rewrite their text, learning in the process. I am not sure that discussing it at "talk" would help as I tried to do just that on their talk page rather than on two article talk pages. Anw now we have 2 boards involved. I did ping them in my FTN post. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I suggest to add the position of serious specialists - Bochkarev, Parsamian, Simonia (all are professors) ect. It is not a fringe archaeology dispute, the articles were published in academic journals, and the dispute is rather over astrophysics than archeology. Isabekian (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I missed his first claim "He is POV-pushing and repeatedly removes sources that support another point of view. I suggested him to reword the text as a consensus" - my view is that I removed NPOV text and suggested ways in which he could rewrite it and learn our policies in the process. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that. Update for other readers: the content discussion itself is now at Talk:Carahunge. —PaleoNeonate – 18:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Exceptional claim about the WSJ

I'll begin by saying an RfC was opened May 21st and closed June 1st asking if the following text should be kept in the lede:

The Journal editorial board has promoted pseudoscientific views on the science of climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos.

The RfC was closed as keep. My concern is that it is noncompliant with NPOV for the following reasons:

1. Exceptional claims require multiple high quality sources, but only one source was cited.
2. None of the pages listed in the citation substantiate the claim that the WSJ editorial board promoted pseudoscientific views about any of the issues mentioned.
3. Opinions should not be stated as fact in WikiVoice.
4. The editorial board mentioned in the lede claim has undergone changes between the time said opinion essays were first published (from 1988–2002) through today.
5. NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

The statement is sourced to Merchants of Doubt which is not specifically about the WSJ, although it is mentioned occasionally in the 270+ pages along with other MSM publications. The book actually criticizes 53% of MSM for downplaying the science (pg 215), but the fact that their criticism is retrospectively based opinion doesn't appear to have been taken into consideration. To what editorial board is the claim referring? The published opinion essays/letters to the editor that were actually published in the WSJ were authored by highly respected scientists and experts in their field at the time, not all are still alive today, and the science back then was not as advanced as it is today. WSJ, like so many other publications, published different views, including opinion essays by highly qualified scientists and other experts in their field, not all of whom agreed with each other. They also published letters to the editor, some of which included rebuttals from other scientists and experts. That's what news publications do, and I do not consider routine publishing of controversial topics authored by reputable scientists in leadership positions to be confirmation that the WSJ promotes pseudoscientific views. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 05:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

As well as the RFC linked to above, it’s probably also worth having a look at this more recent thread on the same topic. Brunton (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

(1) This was settled in a RFC. (2) There is not just one source for this content. This is the relevant section of the body[8] where there are by my count at least 9 sources cited. (3) The editor has not pointed out how Merchants of Doubt, which is authored by historians of science Naomi Oreskes (of Harvard University) and Erik Conway (of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology) and is considered a credible authoritative source, has been misused or alternatively, how the contents of the book are false. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is not appropriate for the lead. Yes, the claim is reliably sourced, and I think it should be discussed in the article... however, highlighting it in the lead gives the claim UNDUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

There's troubling issues in that RFC and the article. Yes, there are clear sources that WSJ's oped page editors will likely give more space to climate deniers and the like to other viewpoints, if any at all. That's a compliant that can be made. But the article does not have the sourcing appropriate to say what that is going into the lede, nor for this supposed section in the body The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Journal disputes that it poses a major threat to human existence and can be prevented through public policy. The Journal has published articles disputing that global warming is occurring at all. The Journal is regarded as a forum for climate change skeptics,[71][72] publishing articles by individuals skeptical of the consensus position on climate change in its op-ed section.[73][74][75] The fact that they feature op-eds (supported by the given sources) is not the the same as a direct statement from the editorial board rejecting climate change. Both the statement in the lede needs to be removed (undue weight) and the section on climate change stance reworded to better reflected the more limited facet (that the WSJ will favor op-eds from climate change deniers) --Masem (t) 14:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Masem I've made a post at the talk page in question, feel free to comment there too. Perhaps it might make sense to modify the wording slightly, though I can't actually read all the pages being referenced from Orestes and Conway. -Darouet (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

No, it's the editorial board itself (in its own columns) that rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. Here[9] they refer to the "settled science" of climate change in scare quotes, describe the science as "still disputable" and that 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". Here[10] they say, "There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change". Here[11] they question both that the Earth has been warming, as well as that CO2 contributes to warming: "If emitting CO2 into the atmosphere causes global warming, why hasn't the globe been warming?". They[12] refer to the IPCC saying the Earth has been warming as a "bold-face conclusion". They[13] characterize climate science and the IPCC as follows: "Temperatures have been flat for 15 years, nobody can properly explain it (though there are some theories), and the IPCC doesn't want to spend much time doing so because it is politically inconvenient and shows that the computer models on which all climate-change predictions depend remain unreliable." The editorial board has not published a single editorial[14] under its own name that recognizes the scientific consensus that human activity is a primary contributor to climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what news sources do - they publish various opinions that were presented in arguments. One of the reasons WSJ received 37 Pulitzers is because of their in-depth coverage and research into topics. This isn't the first time WSJ was the opposing side of a particular topic but this is the kind of information readers expect and want to know about. Are you wanting the public at large to simply accept whatever science is most promoted without any opposing views? That would be more like State-run public dissemination - keep the public compliant and unaware. I disagree.

Masem, I was initially focused on the lead and had not paid much attention to the Science section until you mentioned it. The lead paragraph in the section mirrors what's in the lead, and I've already pointed out those issues, so if we get the lead issue resolved, we do need to correct the Science section. I agree with you in that there are troubling issues, and will add that there are exceptional claims in that paragraph that are either not cited at all or do not use in-text attribution. They are not cited to multiple high quality sources as required by NPOV. Worse yet, they are contentious statements (attacks, actually) that have been editorialized rather than summarized. Fact: In the past, the WSJ has published op-eds from climate change deniers and have also published the resulting rebuttals in "Letters to the editor". Other problems include dated material and an obvious political bent of the criticisms that has been published in RS sources, some of which have a COI as competitors of the WSJ. The entire secton should simply provide encyclopedic information in a dispassionate tone with strict adherence to DUE and NPOV. I had not realized how much of a role politics plays in this particular topic. It wasn't that way when I was producing environmental/conservation programming for PBS broadcast. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• It could be better worded "The editorial section of the WsJ is known for frequently publishing editorials and opinion promoting ...." . Strictly speaking, we never know anyone's opinion, we only know what they say. DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)