Talk:The Wall Street Journal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
November 11, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

they're horrible[edit]

maybe add in something about them slandering pewdiepie and accusing him of being a fascist in an attempt to stay relevant in spite of their dying medium. but then not biased. hahaha.

Circulation "scam"[edit]

Any sense in revising the circulation figures, or perhaps at least noting the recent revelation that they were apparently artificially inflated? It appears that, in Europe at least, the Journal was purchasing large volumes of its own paper to inflate its circulation figures. There's more, along the lines of trading favorable news coverage for help in bolstering circulation figures, but I'm not sure how much of that is recentism. See [1], for example. MastCell Talk 19:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Political Alignment[edit]

This article says right in the sidebar that the political alignment is conservative. It pretty likely is, but it's not officially that way (only the editorials officially endorse conservatives), and other highly-conservative news sources (such as Fox News) do not say it in the sidebar either. Instead of putting it there as a fact, the article should say that it is more of an allegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDerpMeister (talkcontribs) 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

As a Conservative, I consider it a compliment to say the Wall Street Journal is more conservative than most. We do not note that The New York Times is very biased to Obama/Democrat/Liberals, do we? It is not necessary to note. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


My following contribution was deleted on Oct 3 on the ground that it's POV with the explanation that it's "no secret" that the editorial page "favors conservative Republicans."

1. If it is a fact that the editorial page favors conservative republicans, then this should be documented, as my contribution does. The WSJ's conservative tilt is a long-running theme/controversy on this page and my contribution helps to document this.
2. Perhaps more important, my contribution documents major examples of a lack of professionalism (the lack of disclosure), and this is not just a rightward bias of the paper.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The WSJ has failed to disclose that many of its op-ed writers attacking President Obama in the lead up to the 2012 presidential elections have been advisors to Republican presidential nominee [Mitt Romney]].[1] [2] Journalists have called this failure an "inexcusable" and "shameless" lapse in journalistic standards and veteran journalists from a host of major national publications have criticized it.[3]
this is just election year pov. people who are ignorant that Karl Rove is a Republican should read Wikipedia before they get too excited. I am amazed that NYCJosh is ignorant of this fact. Rjensen (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
RJensen, I am amazed that people fail to read the contribution before commenting. It's not just Karl Rove is a Republican, but that he is an advisor to the GOP pres. candidate. That's noteworthy.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


  1. ^ Media Matters, 27 Sept. 2012, "Editorial Page Editors: WSJ Lack Of Romney Advisers Disclosure 'Inexcusable' And 'Shameless,'"
  2. ^ The Nation, 30 Sept. 2012, Wall Street Journal' and Fox News Don't Disclose Romney Advisers,"
  3. ^ Media Matters, 27 Sept. 2012, "Editorial Page Editors: WSJ Lack Of Romney Advisers Disclosure 'Inexcusable' And 'Shameless,'"

Pulitzer Prize winners at the Wall Street Journal[edit]

I entered a Google-search, to find any Pulitzer Prize winners at the Wall Street Journal and find: 2013 Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal. So I will be reverting a recent deletion edit to the category section. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Reads like an advert[edit]

Perhaps the most notable thing about the Wall Street Journal is the long history of dishonesty in its op-eds -- misquoting people, misquoting studies, and generally fabricating data. This dates back to the late 1970s. It's been documented by CJR, FAIR, and many other journalism watchdog organizations.

There seems to be no mention of this. This article really reads like an advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


There is a unsourced claim that WSJ has a conservative alignment. This is a very big claim, and needs a reliable source. I am removing it until then. (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


"It has been printed continuously since its inception on July 8, 1889, by Charles Dow, Edward Jones, and Charles Bergstresser."

This is a clumsy statement but I'm not entirely sure how to reword it since I don't know details about WSJ's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Political alignment[edit]

Right now "Progressivism" is listed under political alignment, with no citation or any other mention of it in the article. I'm removing it unless anyone can provide a source. --Surachit (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Wall Street Journal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

On using as a source for "political alignment"[edit]

I have issues with the use of as a source for any other source's "political alignment".

The only evidence we have for the fairness of's methodology - or, indeed, for the methodology itself - are claims made at the site.

Furthermore they do seem to depend heavily on their surveys of their readers. The participants in those surveys are self-selected and thus these results are easily subject to both inherent bias. (They will likely never see visitors who simply never want to look at "the other side", for example.) Self-selected surveys on the internet are also notoriously subject to gaming.

A recent editor here said, in an edit comment, " has interesting things to say about []". However that article is merely a description of the site, mostly direct quotes from the site's founder! There is no independent verification or analysis of their methodology.

WP:NPOV requires

representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

But it has yet to be established that is a reliable source.

I will continue these objections until we see some independent verification and analysis of allsides' methods.

IF they are so established, then we can certainly report on what says, as long as we make clear that we're noting their evaluation, as their evaluation.

We absolutely must not, in Wikipedia's voice, echo any site's opinions as if they were established fact. Jeh (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


With events like PewDiePie getting cut from his network and advertisers pulling their ads from the platform, would it be fair to mention the notability of the newspaper's coverage of YouTube and its contribution to these events? Jd02022092 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

youtube controversies[edit]

with major companies pulling out from advertising on youtube, it would be fair to at least mention it within this page.Azariq MT (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

question use of word "dying" in first sentence[edit]

question use of judgmental adjective in initial description

opening sentence now reads: The Wall Street Journal is an American business-focused, English-language dying company based in New York City. should read The Wall Street Journal is an American business-focused, English-language company based in New York City. (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Fixed The vandalism you refer to has already been corrected. General Ization Talk 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)