Talk:The Wall Street Journal

NYT vs WSJ - breaching scientific doctrine

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on Censorship, WP:BIAS and User:Calton

This discussion is closed

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

RfC

Should the caveated highlighted text appear:

A) In the lede.

B) In the body.

C) Nowhere in the article.

The Journal's editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos, although its conservative-sceptical framings on climate change have declined since the 2000s. Nesher (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References

• Let's slow down. Just running another RfC isn't going to fix things. Let's have the discussion first. A number of editors have objected to the way the lead handles this information (@Loksmythe, LilBillWilliams, and Clayjamieson:). Calton you are correct to say this edit[1] has been challenged and thus revert per NOCON. Can you explain your WP:PRIMARY concern? Would that same concern apply to Naomi's book cited in the lead? Anyway, rather than just run another RfC with no discussion I would suggest we actually talk about the topic, see if we can't come up with a consensus solution that we can all live with vs trying to do all in/out RfC solution. Springee (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Seems reliable sources into the 2000s still do say that the WSJ tends to take a climate-denying (or downplaying) stance on things,[2][3][4][5][6][7] so regardless of whatever is decided about the reliability of that paper I don't think it's perspective should be afforded that much weight if it tends to disagree with reliable sources. Skimming over it though, it seems to essentially be saying that the WSJ's conservative framing (scare quotes intentional) of climate change is on the downturn, not that it doesn't exist.

More to the point about the lead, I really do not understand why a few pages in a ~300 page book discussing some editorials published in the WSJ (among many other publications) deserves to have a whole lengthy sentence dedicated to it in the lead. How on earth is that in WP:PROPORTION to the coverage of the WSJ in reliable sources? I can find a lot in reliable sources discussing the WSJ and climate change denial (see above), but almost nothing on asbestos or second-hand smoke or the like. For instance, there is another journal article in the body of the text[8] about second-hand smoke, with a single paragraph in a long paper about the media and medical institutions generally, discussing one editorial published in the WSJ in 1994 (as a comparison, it spends about three times as long talking about three different editorials published in the NYT). It makes absolutely no sense to me why all that other obscure stuff is there in the lead with climate change, which reliable sources do actually tend to mention. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Here's a consensus solution: completely eliminate any mention of the WSJ editorial board from the lead. I think a pretty clear and compelling case has been made by multiple editors on why this sentence is problematic and biased ANYWHERE in the article, but if we really have no choice but to keep it, then I think a fair solution is to simply take it out of the lead and move it to the (bizarrely long and detailed) section on the WSJ's editorial pages. The Wikipedia pages for fellow newspapers of record the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today do not provide any information at all about the papers' respective editorial pages in their leads. And rightly so- as has already been discussed in this talk page, an encyclopedic entry on a newspaper should accurately reflect the strict division maintained between the news desk and the editorial board. And a note about the use of the phrase "editorial board:" this article is now being held hostage by people actively trying to maintain a false statement on Wikipedia. Not good. As has already been pointed out, some of the articles on scientific issues cited as "being promoted by the editorial board" were not even written by the editorial board. Somebody falsely claimed that the publication of an article on editorial pages constitutes approval or promotion by the editorial board-- this person does not understand how newspaper editorials work. Only articles written by "The Editorial Board" reflect the institution's opinion. This is a falsehood right in the lead of a frequently read Wikipedia article. Another note: Hob Gadling repeatedly cited the OTHERTHINGSEXIST guidance on why we shouldn't look at other Wikipedia pages for consistency and neutrality in tone-- well, this guidance only covers the question of the existence of a page. For all his repetition, this editor fails to even understand the guidance he is peddling. And a final note: seeing this specific paragraph in this specific article was one of the things that caused me to set up an editor account with Wikipedia-- I love Wikipedia, and while reading through different articles on American news sources, I was shocked that something so weirdly warped and apparently maliciously-placed would be situated in such a prominent position in an article on a newspaper of record, so I figured I should fix it and help maintain Wikipedia as a neutral and credible source. See Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on the Wall Street Journal (itself longer than this Wikipedia lead) for an example of a highly-edited, highly neutral overview of this news source. The ability of a couple impassioned editors to sabotage an article and refuse to budge despite many others' clear arguments has really made me lose faith in the Wikipedia editorial process (and, more generally, in the neutrality and reliability of this website). To those who are still insisting on keeping this in the lead: something is very, very, very wrong if your editing was so poor that it inspired somebody to enter the mess that is Wikipedia editing just to fix your work. Clayjamieson (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Clayjamieson
• I certainly think the editorial board should have no mention in the lead (no other major newspaper's lead mentions their editorials), but there is already an RfC on removing some specific stuff, and until that is removed, another frivolous RfC with an addition that nobody besides you wants, is completely pointless and should be closed. Bill Williams (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I started another Talk Section below to cover this topic: "Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary". Please comment if you would like to contribute to the conversation. Stallion55347 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"a litany of falsehoods"

is exactly WTF they are.

"The news sources described the contents..."?

HAHAHA!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wall_Street_Journal&diff=1052392942&oldid=1052389115

soibangla (talk) 23:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't use hyperbolic language. It violates IMPARTIAL. 23:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary.

How should the below text appear in this article:

"The Journal's editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos.[13]"

• A) In the lede.
• B) In the body.
• C) Nowhere in the article.

Stallion55347 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Editorial opinions for the New York Times and Washington Post are outlined in Editorial / Opinions section of their article are not contained within the initial summary. This is the standard that the Wikipedia editorial committee is using for the Washington Post and the New York Times. To maintain consistency, shouldn't this be handled exactly the same way for the Wall Street Journal. Stallion55347 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• See also Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive 4 § RfC: WSJ editorial board's promotion of fringe science. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Lots of good feedback on that discussion page. Though none of it addresses the main concern, the Wikipedia editorial committee has provided a clear outline on how a statement like this should be handled. Is there a compelling reason why we should not adhere to it? Stallion55347 (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, could you give a link to the “Wikipedia editorial committee” or the relevant guideline? I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to. — HTGS (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Check out the articles written by “WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors”. They include many helpful tips on updating the Lead Section in articles:

  Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section Key takeaways:

  • There should not be anything in the lead that does not refer to specific content in the article and is not backed up by specific references found in the article.
  • Try to keep the number of references to a minimum, if used at all. Keeping references out of the lead makes it easier to read, and keeps it free of clutter and easier to edit.
  • There should not be any references in the lead which have not first been used in the body

  Wikipedia:Writing better articles Key takeaways:

  • First change the body, then update the lead to summarize the body.
  • This keeps the lead in sync with the body
  • Best way to summarize material usually only become clear after that material has been written in the body
  • It's much harder to justify high-level statements in the lead when you don't share common understanding of the lower-level information that they summarize. Stallion55347 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  But the line in question is covered in the body…? Perhaps the section needs expansion, but I don’t think that invalidates its being mentioned in the lead. — HTGS (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely no reason to have any opinions of the editorial board in the lead, because that is not the case in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today or any other major newspaper for that matter. No reason whatsoever as to why the Wall Street Journal is magically different enough to have any of its editorial opinions in the lead. Bill Williams 04:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• A quote from what I posted in a previous RfC sums this whole section up perfectly: "The sources regarding the board's views on climate change are much more recent, and therefore that portion can stay included. On the other hand, the source concerning asbestos and pesticide isn't even referring to the editorial board[9][10][11][12][13][14] but instead individual guest columnists, and therefore "the editorial board has promoted" is not at all accurate because it was individual guest columnists and not the editorial board. The opinions regarding acid rain and ozone depletion are based on 31+ year old articles,[15] even though the article states that the board changed its opinion on acid rain 20 years ago, the source regarding second-hand smoke mentions articles from 27+ years ago,[16] that are not even by the editorial board, but editorials written by guest columnists. Simply googling "Wall Street Journal" "editorial board" "asbestos" or "pesticides" doesn't even come up with a single criticism other than the Wikipedia article.[17][18] How does that warrant its noteworthy inclusion in the lead? Including a criticism of them "promoting" incorrect views on "acid rain" like writing "The New York Post has promoted liberal views" in its lead when it hasn't since 40 years ago." Bill Williams 05:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Since you are just repeating the same arguments again and again, I will do the same:

  • So you are still using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning? Maybe I should suggest again that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:IDHT. When you are finished reading WP:IDHT, let's continue here. Regarding the 26 years, if I may, let me explain something about encyclopedias, which will probably a surprise to you after I have told you a few times and you actually are aware of it (see WP:IDHT). Encyclopedias are different from daily or weekly papers, insofar as they contain not what happened yesterday or last week, but all the relevant stuff that happened, even old stuff. Since you are such a fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just as an example, please note that our article Isaac Newton still contains the sentence Newton's postulate of an invisible force able to act over vast distances led to him being criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science although it is about something Newton wrote 442 years ago.
    — User:Hob Gadling 06:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Kleinpecan (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • What are you even talking about? What Newton did is used constantly to this day by engineers across the world? Are you legitimately trying to claim that what the Wall Street Journal said about acid rain and ozone decades ago is still relevant today? How in the world is that comparable to Newtonian physics? What the WSJ editorial board said on these issues is NOT NOTEWORTHY for the lead. It is simply absurd to insult its reliability in the lead by putting decades old claims of its that are cited NO WHERE in the media besides one book and one website a DECADE ago. If you have a single reliable source that still cares at all about this, or ever even did, please provide it, otherwise this is undue. Bill Williams 05:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Are you legitimately trying to claim that what the Wall Street Journal said about acid rain and ozone decades ago is still relevant today?—yes, it certainly is notable when a seemingly reputable newspaper persistently publishes misinformation about science for ideological or commercial purposes. (And please, read WP:INDENTMIX.) Kleinpecan (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Provide a single reliable source that backs your claim that it is notable by showing that it is actually publicized and not just stated in a single book and website a decade ago. Otherwise, it is UNDUE and your ORIGINAL RESEARCH does not belong in the article on it supposedly being significant enough for the lead. If it is notable, then prove that other sources report on the WSJ "persistently publishing misinformation." Bill Williams 05:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Once again: read WP:INDENTMIX. I have no idea what "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" you are talking about—care to point it out? The references showing WSJ's persisent promotion of misinformation are contained in § Science. Kleinpecan (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
            • Give me a single reliable source besides a decade old book and a decade old website that implies at all that this is relevant for the lead, otherwise it is UNDUE in its entirety. You cannot include insulting information to the newspaper in the lead if literally no reliable sources are talking about it. Bill Williams 03:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
              • "Literally no reliable sources are talking about it"—there are, in fact, reliable sources talking about it. Sources do not become unreliable merely because they are old. Since you are just repeating the same arguments ad nauseam, I am not going to reply further. (By the way, did you read WP:INDENTMIX? Or do you suffer from a particularly severe WP:IDHT case?) Kleinpecan (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
                • Age actually is a legitimate reason to remove this from the lead. Over time things change and we can adjust weight accordingly. Springee (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
          • It doesn't matter if it's not still relevant today. WSJ is 132 years old, and though ozone, acid rain, asbestos and pesticides aren't major issues we hear a lot about today, they certainly were very big topics 40+ years ago. And inclusion reflects the editorial board's longstanding denial of environmental problems that require expensive remediation, which typically means regulation, which they staunchly oppose as a pro-business organization. Anyone who has read their editorial pages for a while knows it's a defining aspect of who they are. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. soibangla (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

That is completely false, not a single reliable source is reporting on this besides one website and one book a decade ago, therefore it is UNDUE and this supposed controversial opinion by the editorial board does not belong in the lead. Additionally, the editorial board never said anything about asbestos or pesticides in the one website or one book you can find that even mentions this, only a few random opinion editors did, and a few random opinion editors writing a couple articles would mean we need to add numerous things to numerous articles. Bill Williams 04:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not addressing whether the content is adequately sourced. Assuming it is, even with fifty year-old reliable sources, I argue it belongs in the lead. soibangla (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

"Assuming it is" but it isn't, as I have said repeatedly, unless you can provide more sources than the one decade old book and decade old media matters web article that are NEVER covered in other major reliable sources, meaning it is UNDUE for the lead because no reliable source cares, only you and other Wikipedia editors. If you try to research the supposed WSJ propaganda the most results you will get is just this Wikipedia article, then you might find the other two decade old papers. Bill Williams 04:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• • • • a DECADE ago Did you know that encyclopedias contain not what happened yesterday or last week, but all the relevant stuff that happened, even old stuff? Surprising, isn't it? If you don't want to accept that, maybe you should join a newspaper instead of trying to stop Wikipedia editors from building an encyclopedia?
      • BTW, most of Newton's ideas, i.e. his biblical chronology and alchemy, are not used by engineers today. They are still mentioned in the article about him.
      • The WSJ's unreliability in scientific matters is still highly relevant. I suspect that if you succeeded in removing it, the next step would be to introduce denialist propaganda in articles about climate change, ozone hole, and acid rain, sourced to the WSJ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Give me a single reliable source besides the decade old book and website article that implies this is "highly relevant" for the lead. A major American newspaper's supposed controversial publicizations is not relevant for the lead if literally no reliable sources are discussing it. Also, your absolutely nonsensical slippery slope fallacy is the dumbest thing I've heard all day. Nobody has introduced their alleged "denialist propaganda" into any Wikipedia article because an editorial board is not a reliable source to cite in Wikipedia to begin with, so please refrain from making baseless claims. Bill Williams 03:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think it’s becoming clear that this particular line doesn’t belong in the lead. Here’s another example that makes the case: the New York Times has a whole section covering Controversies on its main page. Plus, there’s a link to a child article that’s dedicated to a couple dozen more. Yet, none of this is covered in its lead because those controversies do not define the NYT. The comments above about Newton are in the article about him but not in the lead, because those comments don't define him. These editorials, while controversial, do not define the entirety of the Wall Street Journal. This line needs to be removed from that position.Stallion55347 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Now, as to the question of whether or not this line belongs in the article at all? I would suggest that a heavily edited version of it could exist under these circumstances:
  • The quote needs to include more context like the year that the editorials are from. Without that context most readers would assume that these opinions are recent. Using the NYT’s Controversies page as an example, all of them include the year that they happened.
  • Make sure that opinions stated by the board and guest columns are clearly defined as such.
  • Provide more details or context about exactly what was said that was at odds with the scientific consensus vs. just claiming the opinion was. Include expert’s comments or link to other sources confirming this.
  • I would also suggest using more than one source for all this. It's not a good practice to use the same source continuously throughout an article.Stallion55347 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• In body, not lead. This has been argued a number of times. Wikipedia suggests we should look to the outside world to help understand weight of a topic. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica makes no mention of this topic what so ever [19]. It's not as comprehensive an article as ours but the fact that it didn't make it to the body of that one suggests that our editors might be out of touch to put it in the lead. The same is true if we look at Encylopedia.com [20]. Springee (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No reliable sources talk about this supposed major controversy besides one book and one website a decade ago, so I agree that it is completely UNDUE for the lead. Almost NO MAJOR NEWSPAPER has anything about its editorial opinions in the lead to begin with, much less controversies. I think Stallion55347 is in agreement when I say it belongs in the body and not the lead. Bill Williams 04:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• In the body, not lead per above. Bill Williams 04:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)