This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I deleted the following section based on the lack of citations, and the fact it's written like an interest piece bemoaning the takeover of the WSJ. Henry Sender is just as much a "star reporter" as anyone else there. Also the statement about Murdoch's possession of Dow Jones also "seemed to signal an end to the Journal's vaunted history" has no place in an encyclopedia. I believe even the harshest critics of the takeover would agree that nothing about the quality of the paper, nor its already neo-liberal, socially conservative editorial section, has changed since its acquisition. But I don't write that in the article either because that is just my personal belief. 76.117.247.190 (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Kann-House Era

The decade that followed was perhaps the worst in the paper's history, at least as a business enterprise. Dow Jones was already being pinched financially by a write-off of its failed Telerate electronic news service when it was hit hard by the fall-off in advertising revenue that followed the bursting of the dotcom bubble in 2000. Ad sales fell further during the recession that followed the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The kidnapping and murder of reporter Daniel Pearl in January 2002 seemed to put a fine point on the Journal's declining fortunes.

By 2005, Journal staffers had endured a long period of tragedy and austerity during which many were laid off and most suffered severe benefit cuts, even as management continued receiving bonuses and pay raises. Critics and shareholders noted the disconnect between management's behavior and the corporate-governance values preached by the Journal's editorial page. (The top two officers in Dow Jones, CEO Peter Kann and Journal Publisher Karen House, were a married couple, which many regarded as a violation of the arm's-length relationship that public-company officers should maintain with each other.)

By the time Australian-born media tycoon Rupert Murdoch made an offer for Dow Jones in May 2007, many of the Journal's best reporters and editors had left in disgust. Murdoch's bid -- at $60 a share about 80% higher than the prevailing market price -- struck some as excessive. In fact, said others, Murdoch knew a bargain when he saw one: The Journal's journalistic reputation, as well as that of Barron's and other Dow Jones operations, was as strong as ever. Yet Dow Jones's stock price was actually down in real terms from 20 years earlier and barely up in nominal terms. Had the stock gained a compounded 10% annually since 1985 -- a modest rate of appreciation by historical market standards -- it would have traded at around $160 at the time of Murdoch's bid. Many saw the stock's dismal performance, and the paper's ultimate fate, as a damning verdict on the Kann-House regime, which had reigned for 15 years before being ousted in early 2006 (with a collective $14 million severance package).

Murdoch's acquisition prompted further staff departures, most prominently of star financial reporter Henny Sender, who defected to the Financial Times despite a personal appeal from Murdoch reportedly made via phone from his Mediterranean yacht. Murdoch's formal acquisition of Dow Jones in December 2007 seemed to signal an end to the Journal's vaunted history.

How do I change the reference list? the Pulizer Price links (reference link 5 and 6, probably more out there) aren't available any more. 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)~~ Maplealtar Nov. 19 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplealtar (talk • contribs)

On the intelligence website globalreports.org senior intelligence analyst and editor of that service, Christopher Story, writes:[1]

On or approximately 11th January 2010, Mr A. Clifton Hodges, of Hodges and Associates, Pasadena, California, lawyers for the CMKM/CMKX Plaintiffs in their suit against the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] [Case Number: CV10-00031 JVS (MLGx)] filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, sent copies of the Complaint seeking monetary payment of $3.87 trillion in the biggest financial fraud case in world history, to the following two US newspapers:

• The Wall Street Journal.
• The Washington Post.

My question to other editors of this article is: If this is correct, doesn't this omission by the two major papers constitute a glaring and rather incontrovertible evidence of negligence and breach of professional ethics on the part of the papers, i.e. the editors-in-chief?

Apart from soliciting other WP editors' assessment of the importance of this incident and relevance for inclusion in our article(s) (I'm judisciously cross-posting this on the two newspapers' articles' talk pages), what would be required in terms of WP:V and WP:RS to meet our requirements? __meco (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well a glance at that reference makes me doubtful that it can be considered a reliable source. Basically, if you can find it in another, more respectable, source, sure you can put it in. But the whole website (and this story in particular) seems to have a crazy conspiratorial vibe that makes me think it's just garbage. TastyCakes (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That source is in no way way a reliable source. And I have never seen reporting on this so-called 'trillion dollar lawsuit' anywhere in the mainstream media. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I see it the problem with any attempts to debunk or simply write off Story's reports is that he posts also a lot of documents, court documents for instance, that would be easily exposed as fake if that's what they are, and even though no mainstream media is writing about any of this, there are a lot of alternative media, conspiracy forums and the like, who are picking up on it, and they would expose him (at least some of them surely would) if his presented documents were phony. After all, we're talking about the editor for some 40 years of numerous intelligence publications, not some here-today-gone-tomorrow "whistleblower" which the Internet abounds in. This also makes sense on the sheer scope of the infested matter, both the sum of money mentioned, the alleged fraudsters, and the entire purported "behind the scenes" reality which if allowed to break into the mainstream, would shake the corporate media world to its foundations, even to the point of crumbling, perhaps.

Although I can easily acknowledge skepticism in accepting Story's stories on their shocking face value, in my estimation he nevertheless has presented so much verifiable information that, pending anyone's willingness to call foul, cannot simply be dismissed. __meco (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

this may be sourced in the article potentially. --Leladax (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC

Why is there no section on the paywall that the WSJ erected? Would it be something worth mentioning? 69.165.145.191 (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a controversy regarding the description of German concentration camps as "Polish" by WSJ. These were controlled by Germans on German-occupied territory. This issue has provoked diplomatic intervention and the Polish communities in North America have started a petition against this incorrect content. I suggest that this is covered by the WSJ article.

Why are the two sources for the 2007 Pulitzer Prize awards to the WSJ marked as "not specific enough to verify" in the introductory section? They're both from the Pulitzer Prize site itself and give the same reasoning for the awards that is listed on the Wikipedia entry. Agharo (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a citation-needed tag next to this sentence: "The Journal's views can be compared with those of the British magazine The Economist with its emphasis on free markets"

Does the WSJ favour drug legalisation? The Economist is known as a long-term supporter of legalising all drugs. If the WSJ disagrees, I think that the sentence should be removed. Favouring free markets is a feature of a lot of British newspapers - not just The Economist. Epa101 (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

On July 16, 2011, at 18:36, I added a note at the end of the opening paragraph, stating that the paper has changed dramatically since R. Murdoch's News Corp. acquisition. The changes in the paper are dramatic and undeniable and self evident to anyone who reads the paper. They're part of an openly acknowledged change in editorial diretion. So I think my point is a totally noncontroversial assertion that the new ownership changed the direction of the paper. I provided a link to one source, an opinion piece by J. Nocera, a writer for the NY Times. Admittedly, one source is inadequate for an assertion of a general state of affairs. I could add more sources. However, 20 minutes after I made the change, a user called drrll reverted the change, saying one source was not enough. Drrll's user info says merely, "Rasmussen Reports." So I googled Rasmussen Reports, and here's what I found:

"Scott W. Rasmussen is founder and President of Rasmussen Reports, a independent media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion polling information. His company provides in-depth data, news coverage and commentary on political, business, economic and lifestyle topics at RasmussenReports.com, America's most trafficked public opinion polling site. His expertise in public opinion is cited by every major media outlet across the country and in demand on the speaker circuit."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be a case of a public relations professional watching the site and spinning it to de-emphasize material that could be perceived as negative. -- Chasethesky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasethesky (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I have nothing to do with Rasmussen Reports. "Rasmussen Reports" is listed on my user page as an outdated reminder to work on the article. The accusation of a drop in quality of the paper may be appropriate to add to the article and maybe even the lead, if it is sourced better. One opinion piece, especially by a relatively unknown person, is not sufficient to make such sweeping assertions, especially in the lead. Try finding some straight news stories that make such assertions and try to make the writing style more neutral. Drrll (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody--perhaps the anonymous commenter directly below?--removed my discussion from earlier this week about how my links to articles about changes in the journal were edited out 20 minutes later. OK, I can understand editing the article itself, but then deleting my comments from discussion--while simultaneously responding to same comments? If you don't like my sources in the discussion, then just state here why you don't like them. Don't delete them! Discussion should be a place to respectfully discuss views--in this case, the well documented changes in editorial policy of the Journal, after News Corp took over: shorter articles, more narrowly partisan politics, less sophisticated coverage of business. I won't delete your comments in this discussion, OK?Chasethesky (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that it appeared I deleted your comments--I actually moved them to the end of this page here. Adding a new section to the end is the normal way discussions are handled on Wikipedia. Drrll (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to use this junk but this is a stunningly biased article. You document the "decline" and "bias" of the WSJ after its takeover by News Corp but fail to point out the bias and decline in quality of the New York Times in its article, after it was taken over by Pinch. Ironically enough, you cite 2 sources for the "decline" of WSJ, the New York Times and The Guardian, who also happen to be News Corp's prime business competitors. Stay classy, wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.33.192 (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Editor Les Hinton resigns from Wall Street Journal 15 July 2011 as as he was responsible during the period of the News International phone hacking scandal - should be mentioned somewhere I'd have thought EdwardLane (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's there under News Corp.. Span (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia articles refer to the WSJ bestseller list, which suggests that it may be notable in itself. The New York Times Best Seller list seems to have primary notability; this currently has not only an article but also a whole group of categories. Is there scope for an article on the WSJ bestseller list too? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph makes an apparent reference to the recent public backlash regarding the News International phone hacking scandal in Great Britain by referring to the parent of the parent of WSJ as "embattled:"

"It is published in New York City by Dow Jones & Company, a division of the embattled News Corporation, along with the Asian and European editions of the Journal."

Is the term "embattled" entirely necessary?

Pto07 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I'll take it out.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the quote below from the article because the research paper cites editorials for these comments. Are there any reliable sources for these facts? -Temporal User (Talk) 12:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Groseclose, Tim, and Jeff Milyo. "A Measure of Media Bias". December 2004. Retrieved August 19, 2006.

One surprise is Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that "The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages." Paul Sperry, in an article titled the "Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal", notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division "Nazis." "Fact is", Sperry writes, "the Journal's news and editorial departments are as politically polarized."

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 [2], for example. MastCell ^Talk 19:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Op-ed

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)

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)

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 24.59.15.74 (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. 74.93.196.58 (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 208.66.215.61 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6FBtAYyh5 to http://abcas3.accessabc.com/ecirc/newstitlesearchus.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

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

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

The only evidence we have for the fairness of allsides.com's methodology - or, indeed, for the methodology itself - are claims made at the allsides.com 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, "Forbes.com has interesting things to say about [allsides.com]". 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 allsides.com 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 allsides.com 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.166.200.185 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 April 2017 (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)

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 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. 130.132.173.202 (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)

WSJ has written many controversial statements and has caused a lot of controversy.^[1][2] I feel like the article portrays WSJ as an amazing news source where they do all good. Can we please create a section to include controversies as well? Look at all the articles about media outlets. Most of them have a controversy section.

Well, I'm going to add it. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The controversy section is highly unneutral and not notable in context with the Wall Street Journal. Also it is quite obvious that the tabloid "The Sun", the blog "Tubefilter" and former Gawker subsidary Gizmodo are not reliable sources. On the other hand sources such as the New York Times, Huffington Post, The Guardian and Busniess Insider (rather reliable sources) have criticized the controversy in favour of the WSJ.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

I reverted the edit made by Apoorv Chauhan and hope it stays that way. Optionally this case can be included on the "2015-present" section (but someone should maybe rewrite the section to make it more neutral).

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

So rather than removing the controversy section entirely, add what you said about media outlets defending WSJ to the section. Removing it entirely is just plain stupid. There are multiple people who support the creation of the controversy section here, so why remove it just because you don't like it? In regards to adding it to the 2015-present section, it doesn't belong there because that section doesn't list any controversies that the WSJ has created. It would be more appropriate to create a new section focusing on controversies only. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant content should be removed from articles. Also the sources given in the section are unreliable, which makes the content somewhat unverifiable. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The PewDiePie section has no enduring notability. See WP:NOTNEWS. I am strongly in favor of removing it immediately. The lack of significant critiques should not be a justification for adding insignificant ones. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@WikiEditCrunch: Please discuss here and not on my talkpage. Which sources exactly do you think are not reliable? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the source by Foward it says "Was Ben Fritz, one of the authors of the Journal article, normalizing Nazism when he joked on Twitter about watching the alternative history series “The Man In The High Castle” because of a “hard-on” for Nazis?" and links to this. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Most of the sections sources, but especially the three from the last sentence (those three are blogs and not reliable.)Also the link on "The Forward" article you mentioned links to a blog.Not reliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditCrunch (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the section is very unneutral and in general not notabile in context to WSJ (what im saying is it should be considered to be removed)Unless reliable sources can be added I will most likely remove the section when I get the time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiEditCrunch (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: So tell me, what do you exactly consider notable? Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Apoorv Chauhan: I would consider notable, and gladly welcome in this article:

1. How WSJ has been evaluated in studies of media bias
2. Discussion of management influences, editorial control, or censorship.
3. Any controversy where the newspaper as whole or its editorial policies (not particular writers) was condemned by a major organization.

Critiques of a particular article by a particular writer by individual people fails notability in my eyes by a longshot given the number of articles the WSJ has published in its history. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Apoorv Chauhan: To sum this all up:

The section is not notable enough.Its sources are unreliable and unneutral/biased. Either the section will be moved or removed from the article.

Cheers mate! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Where will it be moved to? How are the sources not reliable? The fact that a source is WP:BIASED/unneutral is not a problem as long as the information is presented neutrally. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The section could optimatlly be moved to the "2015-present" section.I have explained already that the section is based on blogs which are not reliable sources.Also the information is presented unneutrally.

Again the only two reasonable options are move it or remove it.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Moving it to that section sounds reasonable to me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If it should be moved then the section should definitely be rewritten.Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: The thing is that the article has now created a large amount of controversy. Sure, just writing about a particular article isn't encyclopedia-worthy. But I believe it would be justified when other news articles report on it, when the particular individual is quite notable himself, especially on YouTube, and the fact that so many people have reacted and responded to this one article. You stated that if the WSJ, as a whole, was condemned, then it is notable. That is precisely what is happening due to this article. That's why I believe this section is justified. I can see that the last sentence in that section in particular has received some controversy, and maybe isn't a "big deal." This in terms of writing about a particular writer. However, that is only one sentence in a much larger section. And seeing how he works for the WSJ, if his actions are creating controversy, shouldn't that be a part of the article? But if you really believe it is unneutral and unjustified after giving me a valid reason, I would be down to remove JUST THAT SENTENCE ONLY if it makes you happy. Per wikipedia's policy, if someone believes a section to be unneutral, they should rewrite it to make it neutral. The issue I have with moving the section is that it would be rewritten in favor of the WSJ, which would defeat the entire purpose of the section. I will continue to fight to keep it an independent section, but I would definitely have it moved rather than removed. Don't take this as me supporting you moving the section, and I would greatly appreciate if no action be taken upon the section (except maybe adding a template) until we can reach a consensus. Thank you. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Apoorv Chauhan:

Regarding my edit: I reviewed the sources. I found no evidence that anyone besides PewDiePie offered a critique of the WSJ as a whole. Based on this accusation by a single person, I wrote the first sentence of the newly renamed Treatment of internet personalities section. I kept the remainder of the section merely to provide context for that one claim. If this section is to persist, one of us might consider searching for other allegations of WSJ undermining internet celebrities.

On notability issues: I still would not object to removing the entire section on the grounds of notability, although after my last edit, I find it acceptable.

On neutrality issues: My edit made this section even less neutral than before. I removed a description of the video which prompted the article, which seems to support the WSJ, because given the new focus of the section it became WP:COATRACK. More significantly, the section could be read as implying that PewDiePie's supporters support his claim of mainstream media attacking the influence of internet celebrities. While these supporters agree that WSJ's treatment of PewDiePie is unfair, it is not apparent to me that they support his allegation. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sondra.kinsey: Thanks for making the section more neutral.I also would not disagree with removing the section due to it not being notable.

Cheers. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@WikiEditCrunch: Is this issue resolved now? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia:Not exactly.I would still consider deleting the section as it does not fit notability guidelines, but a third party should probably comment on that.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you considered getting a WP:THIRDOPINION? -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Ill try to do that when I get the time. Cheers!WikiEditCrunch (talk) 23:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I am moving the content here until there is consensus to include this:

Treatment of internet personalities

Popular YouTuber Felix Kjellberg, better known by his pseudonym PewDiePie, has alleged that the Wall Street Journal has sought to discredit him and diminish his influence because mainstream media feels threatened by the influence of internet celebrities.^[1] This was in response to an article in the journal claiming that PewDiePie was anti-Semitic. The article received heavy criticism from PewDiePie and his fans, who state that the "evidence" used against him was taken out of context.^[1][2] It was also criticized by many popular figures in the YouTube community, including Philip DeFranco, Markiplier, Jacksepticeye and Ethan Klein from h3h3Productions, who is Jewish himself. They defended PewDiePie and criticized the way media outlets reported on the issue.^[3][4][5]

However, news publications also defended the Journal's actions as well, stating that the Youtuber's jokes had gone too far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorv Chauhan (talk • contribs)

In my view the content fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. It is also written entirely from the perspective of "Pewdiepie" and fails NPOV by miles and miles. The sources other than the guardian are also poor; we don't need press releases for this, if we are going to discuss this at all.

Fwiw I suggest that people who want this content first work to strengthen the sourcing, and then post an RfC here to get consensus to include this. Jytdog (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Emir of Wikipedia and User:Sro23 please see above. There is no consensus to include this. In my view folks who want it should strengthen the sourcing and post an RfC. If the RfC were posted as it is now it would go down in flames. Business Insider and RT? The fake generalized header when this all about one celebrity? No. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

wow, we're really bringing this issue back. In terms of NPOV, how? First of all, the section itself is called a controversy section for a reason. It's not gonna be the journal's bitch, saying all nice things about it and defending its actions. If you still believe that it fails NPOV, then point out specific examples, because in my eyes, I have just stated facts, and nothing necessarily biased. If you are talking about including material that states how publications defended the Journal as well, then sure, I can live with that. But that should be an add-on, and the section shouldn't be rewritten from the prospective of the Journal. Besides, if you read the entire article, it makes the Journal appear as a godly amazing unbiased perfect source of news, when it has been proven to not be. So yeah, honestly I could argue that the entire article fails NPOV and the section is an attempt to balance the article out (which is what I was arguing before). But if you agree with adding on facts of how WSJ was defended by publications, I'd be fine with that. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Quick Update: I (kinda) added how news publications defended the WSJ as well. I'm aware it's incomplete, but I hope it's a starting point for improving this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoorv Chauhan (talk • contribs) 05:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

To reflect your langauge back to you, Wikipedia is not the bitch of celebrity fans. You are going to need to do an RfC to get this content in the article and I am pretty confident this will be rejected. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog As I said before, I believe that the article as a whole kind of fails NPOV if the controversy section is removed. If you look at Wikipedia's article for the New York Times, for example, notice how it includes a controversy section. And what do you know, it was nominated for a good article. Now I'm not saying that the controversy section makes this article a "good article." But the article doesn't seem balanced without the section. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

In general it is poor form to include a separate "controversies" section. if you read the long section about what has happened with them under Murdoch's ownership you will see lots of negative things there. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Apoorv Chauhan: please read WP:CSECTION. It's best to avoid "controversy" sections whenever possible. Sro23 (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• User:BappleBusiness see the discussion in this section. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Now that I am unblocked, hopefully I can actually talk to you about the article's content. I am unsure why you removed my section about the controversy with PewDiePie, as it is a valuable piece of information. Just so you know, removing it looks like censorship. I tried to be as unbiased as possible while writing, including many sources back to the Wall Street Journal themselves. Maybe we can put my paragraph in Bias in news pages, that might be a better fit. BappleBusiness (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please actually read the long section above. Please also read WP:ONEWAY and WP:UNDUE. Let me know your thoughts when you are done. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I read everything User:Jytdog, and I still don't see a problem. To be clear, my paragraph wasn't endorsing a "fringe theory", it was just describing the reaction to a particular article this news organization made. Personally, I enjoy reading the Wall Street Journal. If you could point out specific things in my paragraph that seem biased, I wouldn't mind changing them. Like User:Apoorv Chauhan said, this article doesn't seem balanced without something at least mentioning the controversy. BappleBusiness (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It is UNDUE. If you have read above, you will see that I suggested running an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Finally, someone who agrees with my stance on this issue. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no comparable section on any other major news organization's wikipedia that describes their political alignment (see: NYT, WaPo, etc). This should be removed. Moreover WSJ news is rated centrist by AllSides and most other news ranking systems. (The opinion section is what is generally considered conservative) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.130.22 (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists or doesn't exist is not a valid argument unless made by consensus, if there is a problem wrong with other article fix them instead of ruining this one. Thanks for raising the point about AllSides. Perhaps we could specify it is for opinions? This might not be appropriate for the infobox and might be better in prose. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists mentions "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. " For the sake of consistency of content I would agree that to the extent the WSJ is notable for its editorial opinion it should probably exist in prose rather than the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.203.130.22 (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Where would propose this go? In the existing "Political stance" section perhaps? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I just heard the news of this journal web getting hacked. It's posted in latest turmoil of PewDiePie vs. T-series case. Would be notable if some one added it, very very notable and/or noteworthy

oh and these sources: first one, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and i can go on and on and on till infinity.

add something regards the hack ---- 182.58.206.149 (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello any editors seeing this add something regards .... nvm so many days have passed and no one commented ... as your wish 182.58.245.48 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The Journal wasn't hacked. An affiliated page was. | MK17b | (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

This should not be a discussion, nor should this even be an RfC, yet here I am.

I want to make Wikipedia as "We give the facts, you make the decisions," not the other way around. That said, I have only one problem with the line "purportedly superior economic policies". The line is appropriate in this context, but if there is one thing about it I find repulsive, it is the use of purportedly. To differentiate the two words, according to Oxford English Dictionary, perceive means "interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as," and purportedly means "as appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so; allegedly." The first works well because it simply states WSJ's claim that Trump's economic policies are better than Obama's, without saying much else. The second could theoretically also work well, but I am worried that some readers may interpret that as meaning, "Oh, WSJ claims Trump's economic policies trump Obama's, but that clearly ain't so," (without the "necessarily"), as opposed to, "Oh, WSJ simply thinks Trump's economic policies are better than Obama's." To revert that to the previous state without citing any of Wikipedia's policies or at least explaining why implies that my suggestion is clearly wrong, almost as if it were vandalism, when in fact it was done in good faith to remove any possible form of POV, since Wikipedia is not here to decide for us.

As a classical liberal and libertarian with a lowercase "l" who is independent and unashamedly unaffiliated with any major political party, I want to see this end well and not get ugly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamingforfun365 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

An IP number keeps edit-warring out content on the WSJ editorial pages' fringe coverage of science. This should be in the lede, as it's highly descriptive of the kind of content that is found in this paper (the lede already notes that the news sections are highly respectable and that the editorial pages are conservative). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

As long as the only citation supporting the claim that the WSJ's editorial page indulges in fringe coverage of science is a single book, making that claim in the article's lede is WP:UNDUE. The standard for proof of extraordinary claims in wikipedia articles is citiations of multiple trustworthy secondary sources. The claim as currently supported belongs in Editorial page and Political Stance, not in the article lede, which gives it undue weight for a claim made in a single book. loupgarous (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE indeed as per loupgarous. This is silly, I just deleted it. --tickle me 09:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with loupgarous and Tickle me about WP:UNDUE. A single book cannot be used to define the entire editorial page's attitude towards these issues in the lede. Moreover, one of the authors of the book cited has been challenged in the New Yorker for over-applying words like "denialism" to respectable scientists.^[1] Eltxupinazo (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree as well. This should be removed from the ledge and moved to the Editorial page and Political Stance. Cichliditis (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

It's clear this claim has been controversial since originally added. It's UNDUE for the lead at the very least. Springee (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

And it's clear that asking over and over again and ignoring the existing consensus isn't going to get you far. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep it in the lede: Remember this RFC? I know, it was SO long ago, back in (checks notes) April. --Calton | Talk 02:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Calton:, funny you mention that RfC... no, I don't recall it because I didn't participate in it. There is no reason to bite or double post. Looking at the talk page this discussion was both the most recent discussion as well as one that dates back to around the time the material was added to the lead. So to someone who wasn't involved it's perfectly reasonable to assume this was something that was added with limited discussion. Please don't be so quick to assume everyone is aware of edit histories that are in the archives, especially when contemporary discussions are not archived. Also, please keep CIVIL in mind and assume good faith rather than implying editors are willfully ignoring archived RfCs. Springee (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:, you have a bit of a catch 22. If you keep the citation in the lead then you are giving UNDUE weight to a single source and it is reasonable to remove the sentence from the lead. If you instead keep it as a summary then per CITELEAD we don't need to keep the citation in the lead. Springee (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC) @Snooganssnoogans:, please don't edit war. Please follow MOS:CITELEAD. By citing only the single entry you are giving the single source UNDUE weight. As a single critical source it would be undue for the lead. Remember that the lead summarizes the body. Also, the actions of random sock editors isn't justification for ignoring MOS. Springee (talk) 13:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:, you are at 3RR, please take your concerns to the talk page here rather than edit war. The RfC did not conclude that this citation must be included. You should know better. Springee (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Just how brazen and shameless can you be? First you remove text agreed-upon in a RfC, feigning ignorance of the RfC. Then you repeatedly remove the citation for the RfC text, which was also part of the RfC, citing some BS about how we are giving undue weight to one source and bizarrely claiming that you're following MOS:CITELEAD, which is NOT AT ALL the case. So you have now within the span of two days on five occasions edit-warred content agreed-upon in a RfC. It's perfectly fine to cite a source for material that will inevitably get removed again and again by bad editors (you yourself removed the text for Christ's sake)... MOS:CITELEAD literally explains why it's wise to keep citations in the lede for contested text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You bad faith accusations are problematic. Why would I have known about the RfC? Was I involved? Was it on the talk page? Why did you refuse to discuss the issue here vs engage in an edit war? The problem is you are giving undue weight to a single source by citing it alone in the lead. Additionally, unless that single source supports all the claims in the sentence it fails WP:V. Springee (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a book by recognized experts, and yes, it does support all the claims. It's perfectly fine as a source in the lede. It's mind-boggling that you're applying WP:UNDUE to a "citation" in the lede... given that the body supports the text with multiple sources (showing that it's absolutely NOT under any conceivable interpretation a minority view afforded disproportionate focus) AND given that this was agreed-upon in a RfC. The goal seems to be to create (i) doubts in readers' minds as to the accuracy of the text in the lede by stripping away the most authoritative academic source on the climate change denial movement from the lede and (ii) encourage the IP editors to continue edit-warring this out because it's "unsourced". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Given the wide range of claims being supported I think you need to back that with page numbers from the book. I agree the book is reliable and noted in the press. However, it is still only one source being used to support material in the lead of a very old and very prominent paper. The RfC didn't agree that the exact text was to be included and if you notice the text we currently have is not the text from the RfC. Your concern about IP editors is not justification to ignore WP:V which is policy. I will add that accusing me of "encouraging the IP editors" to do anything is a WP:CIVIL problem on your part. Springee (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to regurgitate the debates from the RfC for you just because you dislike that the lede highlights the WSJ editorial board's promotion of fringe science. If you want to overturn the RfC, start a new one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying you can't support your claim. If you can't support it, why did you add it? Springee (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I literally posted quotes from the book in the RfC. Try again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Where? Did you include page numbers so others can verify your claims? Did the book actually say "fringe"? Did you check with other sources to see if the book over sold their case? I'm going to get a copy of the book to verify claims and statements made. Please provide page numbers so we can verify what you are claiming. Please remember WP:CIVIL applies to talk pages. Springee (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Perfect example of why debating this with you is utterly pointless. First you ignore the RfC, claiming ignorance to remove RfC consensus text. Then you remove a citation to the most authoritative book on the climate change denial movement, absurdly claiming it's UNDUE to cite a book, leaving a contested claim in the lede unsupported. Then you falsely claim the book does not support its claims, without ever having bothered to read the book. Then you ask for verification that the book makes the claims, and it's provided to you. Now we're on to the next ten pointless hurdles that you have erected, and then we'll get to the next ten. I'd rather devote my time to something that's actually constructive. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are you making bad faith claims? Where was the RfC mentioned in this discussion prior to my edit? Hint, it wasn't. This discussion spans from before the RfC to after it and makes no mention of it. It's one of two discussions on the talk page. Why wasn't the RfC mentioned any of the time after it closed? Sorry, you are failing to follow WP:CIVIL by casting aspersions. I removed the citation with good reason. As a SINGLE source it's UNDUE for the lead and doesn't SUMMARIZE the body of the article. If the sentence is meant to be a SUMMARY then it shouldn't cite only one source. If it's meant to be the sole source of the claim then it's UNDUE for the lead. You should know this. You should also know that citing items in the lead isn't a requirement. You have provided NOTHING in terms of verification of the claims you say are in the book. Let me repeat that, NOTHING. I just reread the text above this comment. Yes, nothing. Now, can we please restart this conversation and assume some civility? Springee (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Calton:, restoring the citation means it fails WP:V because that single book doesn't support all claims made in the sentence. It also restores the UNDUE weight issue. Springee (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Which of those claims does the book not support? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Springee, et al., I stumbled on this while investigating something else. I see that the RfC shows a clear consensus that the material should be in the Lead, but I can also see that it has been a topic of contention since then, and how it could be seen as UNDUE emphasis. Might I suggest that a viable path forward might be to try to find a compromise? Something that trims down the amount of detail/weight but that preserves meaning? Looking at the disputed content, you might consider merging the sentence with the previous one and summarizing a bit...something along the lines of, "The editorial pages of the Journal are typically conservative in their position,[refs] and have at times published unscientific op-eds on topics like climate change, second-hand smoke, and risky industrial products.[refs]" (Just an idea...not sure if it's technically accurate per the sources.) ~Awilley (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley:, to be clear and since Snoog has made a number of false claims against me here is how I see it. First, I was not aware of the RfC when making this edit [[13]]. Looking at the article edit history it wasn't clear there was a RfC and the talk page as of 3 Nov [[14]] had a discussion about the subject with Snoog supporting and 4 editors opposing but no mention of the RfC. I don't think the RfC was a very good one and looking at Snoog's edit history it appears they didn't promote the RfC. Still, by numbers it was a consensus for including something. I think a new RfC should be considered but that's for another day. So about the removal of the single citation from the lead. Snoog is incorrectly claiming getting rid of that one citation is proof I'm ignoring the RfC. No, the RfC didn't say the citation must be included. Why remove it? First, the lead is meant to be a summary of the body. In this case we have more than one source that talks about the editorial board so why should the lead identify just one. Per LEADCITE we don't need any and as currently written it would appear that this is the only source to support the claims. If it were the only source then it would be UNDUE. If, as is the actual case, there are several sources then why single out one? Snoog's argument for keeping the single citation in the lead is the false view that it will stop IP editors from removing the material. It probably is worth reviewing the material in the body to make sure we are fairly presenting this and to make sure the relatively short lead doesn't put undue weight into this aspect of the paper's long and respected history. But that would be an extended discussion. I will close by saying Snoog should have come to the talk page immediately rather than after reverting 3 times (and all the times prior to my edits). A civil discussion would have gone a long way to addressing this issue. Springee (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not the behavior of other editors. Please try to keep the discussion here focused on content, not grievances about Snoogans. ~Awilley (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley:, understood (see some of my FOC requests above). In this case I felt it was important to make it clear that I see my concerns as compatible with the RfC outcome (which I would have opposed had I been involved at the time). I do think a better lead sentence is in order but I want to spend a bit of time looking at the sources and the material in the body first. It also may be worth having a RfC that pings a few project pages. The RfC was a somewhat weak consensus and the arguments were also not very strong. I think we need to see how the same issue was handled in other sources. it also might be worth seeing if other sources see this as some sort of deliberate misinformation effort or rather the honest disagreement based on what was known at the time of the articles. Also, I would want to know if the articles were directly attacking the science or if the issue was the balance between the economic costs vs what was being advocated. As an economics paper I could easily see an editor protesting at the cost of some asbestos related law that might have only marginal benefit but real cost for a subset of companies etc. To use a parallel example, look at the Ford Pinto case. Ford was excoriated for "not adding low cost safety features because they just cared about saving money." However, when one actually looks at what was known by those involved at the time it wasn't so clear cut there was a problem nor was it clear that if Ford were to add 2-3% more to the cost of the car that these fuel tank fire systems were actually the best use of those safety dollars. The Pinto case is a classic example why it's sometimes problematic to cite the opposition's versions of events as the difiniative case. [rant] Far too often Wiki articles get what are effectively "sound bites" saying someone supported X (or even worse, supported X "which will result in [glass is half empty version of the story]). So often these are gray issues but we quote either the white or black side and fail to try to offer the readers the middle ground. [/rant] Springee (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the statement that ads appeared on the front page for the first time in 2006. This is an incorrect statement that is unsupported in the cited press release. Left- and right-column ads are clearly visible in the first issue illustration in this article. This style of paid announcements was quite common for many broadsheet front pages, and continued well into the 20th century. It would be useful to better identify the overall evolutionary timeline for the WSJ, including the addition of photographs in news material, which happened sometime in the 1990s, I think. jxm (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, I reverted your change to the lead even though I agree with it and made a similar change a few months back. There was a RfC regarding the question. Since the RfC closed about a year back a number of editors have been concerned with this line. Perhaps a new RfC could improve things. I personally think this is UNDUE but the process says it stays until a new consensus is established. Springee (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I wasn't aware. A new RfC might be a good idea. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 17:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I got accused of ignoring the previous RfC when I restored another editor's removal of the same. At the time the talk page did have a discussion on the topic dating from before the RfC and no mention of the actual RfC. Easy to miss that it was previously discussed. That said, if you look at the archive you will see at least one admin agrees that their is probably room to improve this sentence. This text has been controversial enough that I suspect a better phrasing could be included. I for one would rather it say the board has been accused of rather than making it as a statement of fact. Far too much opinion and gray gets passed off as black and white fact to have that in the lead. That said, it often only takes a few like minded editors to ensure a new consensus can't be formed. It's not a battle I want to initiate. Springee (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Noting for the record that the section in the lead currently reads:

• "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."

Personally, this appears appropriate enough. The only question I have is on the exact use of the term "psuedoscience". However, that's broadly the appropriate label for such attempts to spread uncertainty about settled science, with reliable sources wording things precisely that way.

There's a possible alternate wording with:

• "The Journal editorial board has made arguments against the scientific consensus in multiple areas such as global climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides, and asbestos, such columns drawing criticism from scientists."

I'm not going to say that this is better, though. Just a proposal. I'm fine with the article as it stands. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

My preferred wording was always "fringe views" rather than "pseudoscientic views", but pseudoscientific is clearly better than "arguments against the scientific consensus". I also dislike the notion that scientists criticize the dangerous quackery in the WSJ editorial section, as if it were an on-going active debate. Wikipedia shouldn't mince words – it should just describe the WSJ editorial section's science columns as the dangerous fringe quackery that it is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the notion that using terms such as "arguments", "criticism", and "debate" can be seen as being too diplomatic and mincing words. It's common when seeing articles discussing people who think bonkers ideas to use those such terms. The famous debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham and the arguments made in which Nye criticized Ham's nonsense gets labeled exactly as that not just by Wikipedia but multiple reliable sources: a "debate" consisting of "arguments" in which the winning side offers devastating "criticism".

To be really blunt about it, see the classic "Argument clinic" sketch by the Monty Python troupe. Something can be without substance and still be a "debate" with "arguments". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to state that the board "has been accused of..." I think it's problematic to state, in wiki voice, that the board has done a thing without strong, and direct supporting evidence. Given the how much politics is involved with such topics I think we shouldn't just assume a particular source is correct. In reviewing the RfC discussion what we have are largely sources on one side of political debates saying the editorial board did bad but we are really short on solid examples. Anyway, if this were a BLP I think "accused" would be the obvious solution. It seems like a better plan here. Consider that the RfC had about 12 !votes. It was a clear consensus but since then a number of editors have made it clear they think this shouldn't be in the lead. Had their voices been known at the time I don't think this would likely have been a no-consensus. I think changing to "accused" would address concerns and hopefully allow the lead to be stable. Springee (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines pseudoscience as "statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method." This sets a very high bar for calling something pseudoscientific. A pseudoscientific claim would have to ignore the scientific method and not engage in the process of observation, skepticism, and formulating hypotheses. Astrology and acupuncture are examples of pseudoscience (and can be found on the Wikipedia article "List of topics characterized as pseudoscience"); a scientific claim that contradicts the general scientific consensus on that topic is not. The correct description of the claim the source makes is that the Journal's editorial board has made claims that differ from the scientific consensuses on these topics. This is a slight variation of CoffeeWithMarkets' suggestion above. As the source cited for this section of the article (I'm referring to the book "Merchants of Doubt") states itself, the claims that ran in the Wall Street Journal were written by prominent scientists and used evidence, observation, scientific criticism, and hypotheses. The source's argument is not that these editorials were pseudoscientific; it is that they are small, weak 'blips' of evidence and nitpicky criticisms compared to the large body of scientific evidence and the scientific consensus on topics like acid rain, climate change, etc. Not only is the use of the word "pseudoscientific/pseudoscience" in this article's lead highly controversial among the editor community (look at the edit history), it runs counter to Wikipedia's own definition of pseudoscience. A better choice is something along the lines of "against/different from/counter to the scientific consensus." Clayjamieson (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a significant improvement over the previous text in the lead. Springee (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree - I made a similar revision back in June and would like to see a more neutral summary of WSJ's admittedly misguided climate skepticism. Eltxupinazo (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

In the climate change denial subtopic [[15]] the opening sentence states in wiki voice that, "The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change." The supporting sources are behind a paywall so I can't verify their supporting claims. My concern is two fold. First, do we have a statement from the WSJ editorial board saying they as a board reject the climate change consensus? If not then we need to attribute the statement to the actual source. Second, does the board actually reject climate change or do they run editorials that reject climate change. Even if the members of the board actually support the consensus they might choose to run articles that directly or indirectly oppose climate change consensus because they feel the range of opinions is important. Either way, absent a statement from the board I don't think we should say "the board rejects". Instead we should say, "[expert] has characterized the actions of the board as rejecting climate change (or similar)". I would make these edits but I don't have access to the supporting sources so I don't want to mischaracterize what the sources actually say. Springee (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

From the WSJ ed board:

• WSJ ed board, 2010: "We think the science is still disputable... [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."[16]
• WSJ ed board, 2010: "There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change."[17]

The scientific consensus is that human activity is a primary driver of climate change. There is no serious dispute among scientists about that and there wasn't one in 2010. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Snoog, is that still the current stance of the board? Based on your citations it should be stated that "as of 2010..." and include these citations. BTW, the second quote does not support the "opposition to scientific consensus" statement. Lots of devils in the details in that statement that are getting glossed over with how the article presents things. There is a big gap between "human activities have no impact on global warming" and "we know that a reduction in methane will result in improved health of this particular eco-system or spending $X on wind farms will reduce global temperatures by X* C. It would probably be best to specifically quote these articles in the paragraph so the details of the Journal's stance (as of a decade back) is not lost. We need to remember that our purpose isn't to convince people to hate the WJS, rather to accurately convey information about the WSJ. Springee (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

A newspaper should not assume a position in these topics. We have grown so accustomed to newspapers engaging more in advocacies than in 'naked' reporting that we do not even see it as wrong any more. We want facts and figures, not pre-chewed opinions by editors and journalists who are not experts in the subject matter. The selection of facts and figures can create a bend, and election recommendations are not democratic.

When NGOs are quoted it should always mention their funders. NGOs are hobby organisations of those who can afford such a hobby and they reflect these persons' agenda. I wonder if recent financial losses of NewsCorp will have an effect on the WSJ and which one. Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:A070:7F00:D853:ADDC:FB4B:FB9B (talk) 01:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

There's an IP editor who is edit-warring a random op-ed from 2014 into the article to argue against reliably sourced text. The IP account's edit should be reverted ASAP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not wish to edit war. My justification is that the article is not listed by The Wall Street Journal as an op-ed and thus is a reflection of the paper's official response to common criticisms leveled at it. If a third opinion agrees that it is an op-ed and should be reverted then I will accept that. (IP Editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.226.121 (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

What in the op-ed makes you think it's the official response of the WSJ? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all, the article is not labeled "opinion" as are the op-eds on the site. Furthermore, Slate responded to this article with their own non-op-ed stating: "Steve Koonin is the answer to a troublesome question facing the Journal’s opinion page editors"^[1]. This implies that this article was specifically written to not be an op-ed. Even this Slate article agrees with the assessment stating: "Science is never settled, but it can be settled enough."

Response to third opinion request:

Prior to seeing the request for 3O I have previously neither edited this article nor engaged with the editors involved. In my opinion this article cannot be described as an editorial so should not be used as a source for the official view of the publication. Springnuts (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The section on "Features and operations" includes a lot of the basic information on the WSJ, but it is buried deep in the article, after I stopped reading. I started this commment by writing that it wasn't there. It is there, but it should be further up, and given a more transparent section title, such as "What is in the WSJ," so that Wiki readers like myself can find it. What is in the WSJ (and what is not) is a much more basic question than "recent design changes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.80.180.80 (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

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. ^[2] 108.41.176.126 (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)