Misplaced Pages

Talk:The Wall Street Journal

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Axem Titanium (talk | contribs) at 06:22, 19 June 2019 (→Concern over lead: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:22, 19 June 2019 by Axem Titanium (talk | contribs) (→Concern over lead: re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Wall Street Journal article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Former good articleThe Wall Street Journal was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 13, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 11, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBusiness High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJournalism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconNew York City Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFinance & Investment Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on July 8, 2004, July 8, 2005, July 8, 2006, July 8, 2007, July 8, 2014, and July 8, 2016.

Wall Street Journal hacked

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)

The fringe coverage of science should be in the lede

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[REDACTED] 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)

RfC: WSJ editorial board's promotion of fringe science

There is a clear consensus to keep the bolded text in the lede.

Cunard (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the bolded text be kept in the lede: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The newspaper is notable for its award-winning news coverage, and has won 37 Pulitzer Prizes (as of 2019). The editorial pages of the Journal are typically conservative in their position. The Journal editorial board has promoted fringe 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.

References

  1. "The Wall Street Journal". dowjones.com. Retrieved April 7, 2019.
  2. "The Pulitzer Prizes – What's New". pulitzer.org. Archived from the original on February 24, 2008. Retrieved April 10, 2017. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. Ember, Sydney (March 22, 2017). "Wall Street Journal Editorial Harshly Rebukes Trump" – via NYTimes.com.
  4. Bowden, John (January 11, 2019). "Wall Street Journal editorial: Conservatives 'could live to regret' Trump emergency declaration". TheHill.
  5. "Unpacking WSJ's 'watershed' Trump editorial". Columbia Journalism Review.
  6. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury. 2010. pp. 94, 126, 135, 146, 208–215, 244. ISBN 9781608192939. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

Please indicate whether you support or oppose something similar to the above text, along with your reasoning. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support. The body of the article goes into great detail on WSJ ed board's role in pushing climate change disinformation. The WSJ editorial pages and climate change disinformation is a subject that has been covered not only by RS news outlets, but in academic outlets and by scientists. The WSJ ed board doesn't just push climate change disinformation, but is prominent for doing so. The WSJ plays a prominent role in the book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science at Harvard University, and Erik M. Conway, historian of science at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology, for its role in propagating falsehoods and fringe viewpoints on climate change. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - although I would shorten it to "fringe views on the science of climate change and various other scientific topics" or something like that. The WSJ makes a big deal out of it, so it should be included in the introduction. Didn't we have that (or something very similar) recently? --mfb (talk) 07:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The term "fringe views" is a bit of a Wikipedianism (e.g., WP:FRINGE). I think there may be other ways to put this that are more accurate. "Incorrect", "anti-consensus", "astroturf", "intentionally misleading", etc. jps (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Merchants of Doubt is a reliable source and widely accepted by the scientific community. The use of the word "fringe" is perhaps not the best choice, as noted above. I'm ok with using it but might prefer a different description. Perhaps "climage change denialism and misrepresenting other science" as that reflects the sections of the article. --mikeu 13:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support including text along the lines of the bolded text – like jps, I'm unsure that "fringe" is the appropriate word to use, but the sentiment of the bolded text is accurate, important, and appropriate for the lede. On the question of whether the book is an RS, surely this can be avoided by adding further sources that have expressed similar views? A quick Google search finds this and this and this and this and this and this and this. There are plenty of sources available pointing to bias and misrepresentation of science on the editorial pages of the WSJ. Such text belongs in the lede and should be restored ASAP as a service to our readers. EdChem (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, since that aspect severely affects the WSJ's credibility. Regarding the wording: I do not have the book at hand at the moment, but we should use the wording used there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - as for fringe, I think perhaps it is used more widely than suggested above, searching on "fringe science" I find this GNews search, this GBooks search, and this GScholar search. I'm not convinced use of the word is a problem. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I don't think "fringe" is so wholly a Wikipedianism that it is out of place here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Putting this is the lead is a WP:UNDUE issue. The New York Times also has editorials by "climate deniers" Are we going to include as similar sentence in the New York Times' lead.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    One topic versus six here. Six is much more likely to be a pattern. If you have six of these scientific topics by the NYT and they were covered by something akin to Merchants of Doubt, then bring it to the NYT talk page. starship.paint ~ KO 12:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - it's important (because they're talking nonsense and lies) to document this, and it's covered in the body. starship.paint ~ KO 12:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Request – The bold sentence suggested for addition is cited to various pages from the book Merchants of Doubt. Could an editor with access to said book kindly quote the relevant excerpts with a few lines of context, in order to help with attribution and verifiability? — JFG 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment + question – Our article about Merchants of Doubt does not mention the Wall Street Journal. Is the characterization of the WSJ indeed a major theme in their book, that would deserve singling out this particular newspaper in the disinformation campaign wielded by lobbyists? — JFG 17:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I count at least 24 instances where the WSJ is mentioned by its full name in the body of the book in the context of promoting disinformation about various science issues. The book mentions four prominent "merchants of doubt" and lists the WSJ as the first outlet in a list of outlets that three of them published in and the WSJ as the second in a list of outlets that one of them published in (a British merchant of doubt who published primarily in the Daily Telegraph, a British outlet). Here are various mentions of the WSJ:
  • Various: “Frontline Perpetuates Pesticide Myth,” “Earth Summit Will Shackle the Planet, Not Save It,” and other articles from the Wall Street Journal variously attacked efforts to control pesticides, stop global warming, and limit the risks of asbestos.” + “It’s not surprising, then, that Russell Seitz’s broadsides against science were promoted in business-oriented journals, or that Jastrow’s early defense of SDI was published in Commentary (a principal voice of neoconservatism) and in the Wall Street Journal. Indeed, in 1986, the Wall Street Journal published a twenty-four-hundred-word version of Seitz’s attack on science—on page 1.”
  • Climate change: “it was the Wall Street Journal spreading the attack on Santer and the IPCC” + “the Marshall Institute claims were taken seriously in the Bush White House and published in the Wall Street Journal, where they would have been read by millions of educated people.” + “Most public—and most publicized—was an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal, accusing Santer of making the alleged changes to “deceive policy makers and the public.”3 Santer had made changes to the report, but not to deceive anyone. The changes were made in response to review comments from fellow scientists.”
  • Ozone disinformation: "The Wall Street Journal kept up the drumbeat for several years with articles and editorials having titles such as “Bad Climate in Ozone Debate,” and “Ozone, CFCs, and Science Fiction,” “The Dreaded Ozone Hole,” and, after the Nobel award to Rowland and his colleagues, “Nobel Politicized Award in Chemistry." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support text proposed by Snooganssnoogans. I'll be honest, I don't like the way that the term "Fringe" is overused by[REDACTED] editors to describe what are really minority positions common, though not dominant, all around the world. That caveat being recognized, the positions Snoogans identifies in the proposed text truly are "fringe" from a scientific perspective. If there were alternative wording that were somewhat softer I might support that instead, but for now I think this text deserves inclusion. -Darouet (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed language isn't sufficiently supported by secondary sources for a flat statement in the lede paragraph to be made about "fringe science" in the WSJ editorial page. It's a clear case of WP:UNDUE. loupgarous (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"perceivably superior economic policies" vs. "purportedly superior economic policies"

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

I want to make Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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.

RfC: The first paragraph under "Economic views" does not summarize the paper's views

The consensus is against changing "purportedly superior economic policies" to "perceivably superior economic policies".

Cunard (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should "purportedly superior economic policies" be changed to "perceivably superior economic policies". Gamingforfun 00:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The economic performance thus far under Trump is not perceivably superior to that of his predecessor, in terms of The Big Four: real GDP growth, private sector job creation, real wage growth and the stock market. It is demonstrably inferior, in fact. Proof upon request. Here's a start. soibangla (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I am getting some rationality back here, but here is one question I would like to ask: where did the chart come from? Gamingforfun 00:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I made it, so it's "inadmissible" (albeit correct) soibangla (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
So it is correct. Great, congratulations! To be extra certain, I would like a source like the Bureau of Labor Statistics that matches your graph. (Don't be afraid to tell. I am not going to this, this, or even either of these articles to edit them and say that the subjects are bad simply because I don't like them, although I do not. Gamingforfun 01:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Well yeah, I can certainly understand where you're comin' from. Say, can I interest you in the Google spreadsheet into which I downloaded BEA data and did the calculations that everyone can see? No cost or obligation! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gUVKh9XV80WqhaEsXrJI1v27Z4DfO5mJt6TylBB_lZE/edit#gid=1218782644 soibangla (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will take a look at this graph. I will also take official figures from the BLS and compare them.

I need to warn, however, that it is difficult to demonstrate the cause and effect of economic statistics. Maybe Trump's economic policies really are inferior to Obama's (surprising for a businessman), maybe Trump's policies are indeed helping and it is not taking much effect, maybe GWB's and Obama's policies contributed one way or the other to the 2008 recession, maybe they did not and the economy was running its natural lifecycle, or maybe neither's policy had any effect at all. I can come up with explanation after explanation after explanation, all equally plausible irrespective of one's political philosophy.

Anyway, the point is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine what is contributing to rises and declines of the economy. I would not rely on statistics alone and then conclude, "The President did it," since they tend to only give us information on changes in the evolving economy. They normally do not illustrate the extent of the effect of the economic policies of the President, which as with anything else abstract is pretty difficult to measure. Additionally, with nearly 2.5 years of Trumponomics, it is kind of too early to state that Trump's economy is comparatively lackluster. Maybe it really does stink (if not more so), maybe it has yet to take a noticeable effect, or maybe it will turn out to be much better than initially thought in Trump's later presidential years. Only time will tell with regards to statistics.

I don't expect to ever change anyone's mind with any of that rationale. I absolutely recognize the temptation that plagues everyone (me included) and drives us all to add a subtle form of our synthesis. Don't be surprised if I come up with the same conclusion after reading the charts, as there is more than a 90% chance of it happening. I should have let this all go and not worry over something insignificant, and I will argue no further, but I will praise Soibangla for their civility and being quick to listen and slow to speak. I will move on and concentrate on more important things I do have to worry about. Gamingforfun 04:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Wait, I thought this RfC was about the use of two similar but distinct words, how did it get so fast to spreadsheets of GDP growth and the ways of measuring the efficacy of economic policies? PraiseVivec (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Trump has asserted 134 times that this is the best economy in American history. There are many who take as a matter of faith that policies of cutting taxes and regulations work magic, when there is a significant body of empirical evidence that they do not deliver on their promises. See: this and this, the latter showing that overall regulations actually add to the economy. soibangla (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
A bit of OR there, Soibangla? Not our job - we write what we can cite to RS and the WSJ with its 37 Pulitzers is clearly one of them. I somehow doubt they're going to look to WP for accuracy or advice. The problem I'm seeing right now is a malformed RfC. Whoever started it, please present it properly or hat this discussion. Talk 📧 22:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This information is for discussion here, I do not suggest using it as an article source. soibangla (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree. It is not a violation of OR to bring up OR in a discussion, as long as it is not used in an article. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Neither, as far as I can see, the disputed text is "On September 12, 2018, the Census Bureau released data showing improvement in household income and the poverty rate during 2017, Trump's first year in office.. The Journal published an editorial that day attributing the improvement to Trump's purportedly superior economic policies, compared to Obama's." Now I can't access the WSJ source (£££), but I presume the second sentence is an accurate paraphrase of what WSJ wrote, if not it needs to be - in which case it matters not one hoot whether the improvement was real/illusory/whatever or the economic policies better or worse. WSJ is entitled to think that the higher census data was caused by the man in the moon if it so wishes! The improved data figures, appear to be facts, whether those higher numbers, reflect anything real in the world outside, is not the subject of this article - WSJ is. A more important question (which I won't attempt to answer), is whether WSJ's response to a single set of figures is actually significant, given that this is a (fiscally) conservative publication with a long history. If WSJ has established a pattern of supporting the present US administration's economic policies, then that might be more substantial (though better sources would be needed). This article isn't about D Trump, nor about the reliability of economic data. There is an obligation to accurately record what WSJ thinks, but not to argue whether WSJ's opinion is correct/complete (which, as another editor said is WP:OR).Pincrete (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Here's what the WSJ editorial says: "Yet the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual report on U.S. income released Wednesday underscores how the Obama policies of redistribution retarded growth for so many years...Real median household incomes ticked up 1.8% to $61,372 between 2016 and 2017..." and proceeds to say the poverty rate also declined. Now, here's the second sentence from our article: However, The Journal's news division reported that both figures also showed improvement in 2015 and 2016, and they improved to a greater degree in both those years than they did in 2017. So as they routinely do, the WSJ editorial board ignores historical context to suggest that these figures under Trump are "news" and constitute proof that his policies are superior, when in fact the figures were superior for two years before he took office. Purportedly is the correct term to use here. Using neither would read ...editorial that day attributing the improvement to Trump's superior economic policies which might suggest that the policies have actually been shown to be superior. soibangla (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Pincrete that "This article isn't about D Trump, nor about the reliability of economic data". I do not think this is a case of arguing about the correctness of WSJ; the sentence in question highlights a disagreement between editorial and news divisions about the data they both have access to. To that end, it is beneficial to the reader to note that editorial "purportedly" says something about another thing. Though we may disagree about the merits of removing the adjective entirely (I agree with soibangla on this point), it is perceivably obvious that "perceivably" is entirely the wrong term to use here. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - the source is behind a paywall - how can we unsubscribed mortals judge it? starship.paint (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  • No. "Perceivably" means "everybody can see it is so". "Purportedly" means "the WSJ says it is so". Only the second one is WP:NPOV. Some people may read "purportedly" as "the WSJ says it is so, but it isn't", but those people either don't know what the word means, or they are unable to cope with uncertainty or different views. We cannot pander to that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No. "perceivably" is a weasel-word and is not really even a word as far as I can. I would certainly not use it. Hob Gadling is also correct. I also am not able to get past the WSJ pay-wall. If someone wants to quote from the portion of the article, that might help. I'm confused about what the rest of the discussion is about. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Whichever word is the least NPOV and has the least of implications, I will go with. I just do not want anyone to be misled, nor do I want to be in an argument, political or otherwise. Gamingforfun 22:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
The rest of the discussion was just to get this discussion off-topic. Anyway, could we condense it to something like this:

The Journal published an editorial that day attributing the improvement to Trump's "superior" economic policies, compared Obama's, though its news division reported that both figures also improved in 2015 and 2016, and to a greater degree in both those years than they did in 2017.

To be fair, it is under "Economic views", so we should not remove anything. We could instead quote WSJ on how they described Trump's policies, but at least the information (as demonstrated above) could be condensed. I regret starting this pitiful RfC over something so petty. Gamingforfun 22:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
And maybe the use of "perceivably" was awkward and "purportedly" just had a connotation that when interpreted literally did not mean so. However, as Pincrete said, the entire paragraph needs to be edited. It gives only one example out of millions, and it does not summarize the paper's views. Gamingforfun 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I think putting "superior" in quotes is the best alternative since the use of the term is subjective and dubious (e.g. Are Trump's policies more efficient, or do they "just work better"?). What do you think? Gamingforfun 23:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. There is no benefit to hide information behind ambiguous innuendo scare quotes when you can just say it. It seems there's no consensus to change the adjective from its current state. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Very well. I guess I learned that there are indeed "good politics" and "bad politics" (still not convinced, though), when to me all that mattered is if the policies take effect. Since I will not discuss any further, I will let this go, but here is what I am certainly not wrong about: the subsection could be rewritten to detail the paper's economic philosophy, and as suggested earlier, the paragraph could be condensed. I am all in for facts and complete stories, but I am also all in against spin of any kind, since "Facts don't care about your feelings." Gamingforfun 02:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
The central point of the paragraph is to illustrate that the WSJ editorial board has economic views that are refuted by economic facts reported by their own news division. I've read the WSJ for decades and I can assure you this is not an isolated incident. soibangla (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Gamingforfun, you can drop the persecuted truth-teller schtick. It may work for Ben Shapiro on 19 year old English majors but this is Misplaced Pages and we value verifiability and NPOV here. Facts don't care about your feelings and the facts, as reported by the WSJ no less, are not on your side. This isn't spin, or bias, or whatever other buzzword your pal Shappy said would "destroy" your opponents if you used them in your argument. WSJ Editorial said X, WSJ News said Y, nothing more, nothing less. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I was making a point where all I care about is the facts only. The quotation was to make a point, not to demonstrate my political ideology (which by the way I do not have, and I hate partisan politics). It is possible that I overlooked the problem such that I thought the wording looked weird, but then again, I personally reject all of the media as being continuous nonsense. I am all about verification and not at all for the "truth", and as long as we do not come with our own conclusions based on the passage, we are in the clear. Gamingforfun 01:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Besides, I should remember that it is their newspaper, and they are entitled to holding any opinion they wish. No one is (or is supposed to be) right or wrong in their opinions, even when facts do seem to explicitly go against their favor. It is more important to not state opinion as fact and vice versa. I do not object to the idea that I overlooked the situation, but I have no opinion on that, and frankly, I have zero opinion on Misplaced Pages. Gamingforfun 02:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Then there is nothing more to discuss. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concern over lead

My attention was drawn to certain material that was subject of a recent RfC. The material was recently reverted and added back. I did not participate in the subject RfC, but it seemed rather odd that The WSJ, a Pulitzer winning publication, would do something as irresponsible as what is represented in the lead, so I did more research. Following is a chronological overview:

  1. Statement in the lead: The Journal editorial board has promoted fringe 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. It is cited to a single book Merchants of Doubt which cites the 1996 WSJ opinion piece.
  2. Actual cited article published in the WSJ, June 12, 1996, an opinion essay by Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute, A Major Deception On Global Warming
  3. WSJ later published the rebuttal letter by Benjamin D. Santer which he submitted in response to the Seitz opinion. (Also see a 2nd corrobating version of the letter with mark-ups showing WSJ copy editing.)
  4. Open letter from American Meteorological Society and the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research to Ben Santer regarding the opinion piece in WSJ and media in general. Example excerpt: “This example illustrates why essays based upon opinion and other communications in the media or other forms of popular public debate are inappropriate mechanisms for legitimate scientific debate.”
  • My concern is that the statement in the lead is neither supported by the cited source nor the actions of The WSJ. They simply published an opinion provided by Seitz, a highly credible author, and then followed-up by publishing the rebuttal by the highly credible B.D. Santer. Can someone please provide a valid explanation for keeping the challenged material in the lead? Talk 📧 13:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The citation does not refer to a single op-ed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree, the lead summarizes extensive citations in the Science section. Indeed, leads are not required to have citations at all (they are assumed to be cited to the body text with the actual citation) and any that appear are merely a courtesy to readers to aid navigation. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
No, that isn't how it works. When material in the lead is challenged because it is not supported by a RS, especially when it involves a single incident such as this one wherein WSJ published that one opinion essay, and all the other RS point back to that one source, then the material needs to be removed from the lead, and included somewhere else in the body of the article as a controversial opinion. Talk 📧 17:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
"There is a clear consensus to keep the bolded text in the lede. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)" One editor lodging a specious challenge does not a controversial opinion make. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Consensus can change, especially if/when there has been a miscommunication or possible misrepresentation of what actually happened. The claim being made is that The Journal editorial board has promoted fringe 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. That is a pretty hefty claim for a top notch, multiple Pulitzer recipient. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and I'm asking for the citation that supports this claim. I much prefer to settle it here rather than at RSN or NPOVN. The cited source points to an opinion essay by a scientist and I'm not seeing where the WSJ has promoted fringe views on the science of climate change. Talk 📧 03:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Within two weeks of an RFC result you don't like? Anyway, as Snoogans said, the statement is not sourced to any single op-ed; it is sourced to multiple pages in the RS book Merchants of Doubt. Unless you have something more to share, I will assume good faith that the book does indeed attribute fringe views to WSJ on "climate change, acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos", and not merely a single op-ed on climate change by Seitz as you assert. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, the wording is properly sourced and was the subject of a very recent RfC, where it was backed by a clear consensus. You can question the outcome of the RfC, of course, but please back off on the bludgeoning and lecturing. It's disruptive to immediately start re-litigating the very clear results of an RfC that just closed, and to refuse to listen to the responses you're getting. Make your case, listen to other people, and consider what they have to say. MastCell  18:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
MastCell - WP:V and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies here - we are talking core content policies - Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Misplaced Pages as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. The RfC was closed by a non-admin and if they cannot provide in-text as our policies dictate, then I will challenge the close. It is not my intention to belabor this point here any longer since they do not want to provide page numbers and follow policy. Talk 📧 18:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
If there is a serious question as to whether content complies with WP:V, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, or any other applicable policy, then the appropriate means to address those questions is an RfC. A number of editors have thoughtfully considered the content in question and concluded that it complies with site policy; their conclusions are summarized in the above RfC. You personally disagree with the conclusion of a properly conducted RfC. That is your prerogative, but you refuse to consider the possibility that your interpretation of policy might be wrong, and theirs right—a mindset which factored into your previous topic ban, and which you pledged to adjust as a condition of that ban being lifted. The other editors have followed site policy and conducted a proper RfC. If you choose to challenge it, you need to be respectful of site policy and of their good-faith efforts, rather than simply dismissing their consensus as ignorant. MastCell  18:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Your aspersions have been noted. Talk 📧 18:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The citation says the page numbers right there: Oreskes, Naomi; Conway, Erik M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury. pp. 94, 126, 135, 146, 208–215, 244. ISBN 9781608192939. You're welcome to verify it yourself, but the citation meets all the criteria of in-text attribution, verifiable and appropriately cited. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Atsme, you claimed that other editors were refusing to provide page numbers. As Axem points out, the page numbers were right there in the citation all along, which implies that you hadn't even read the material which you were challenging. Asking you to edit with more care and diligence is not an aspersion. (On the other hand, accusing other editors of refusing to supply page numbers, without actually lookng to see if they'd provided page numbers, sort of is an aspersion). MastCell  19:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
MastCell, stop the intimidation tactics and focus on content. Your surprise appearances are beginning to feel like harassment. I asked for the page #s that support the claim - not the page #s that were cited because none of them support the claim. I read each cited page again, and then read them one more time to make sure I wasn't missing something. The following material should be removed from the lead: 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. See my list of justifications for removal:
  1. A contentious claim or opinion stated as fact in WikiVoice is noncompliant with NPOV, WP:WIKIVOICE, it is one of our core content policies. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
  2. It is an exceptional claim cited to a single source which is also noncompliant with policy WP:EXCEPTIONAL;
  3. The claim/opinion is not presented with in-text attribution per policy;
  4. I have not seen anything in the book (much less in the cited pages) that supports stating factually that the "editorial board has promoted pseudoscientific views on the science";
  5. Some of the WSJ material that was cited by the authors in their criticism of MSM (they actually criticized 53% of MSM for downplaying the science per pg 215) were opinion pieces by authors who were considered reputable scientists at the time of publication (ranging from 1988—2002) and also included letters to the editor, and rebuttals. I can only imagine what the criticism of today's MSM and scientific theories are going to look like 10 to 20 years from now as written by scientists, academics and historians. But then, we are to assume that science is always right, and that it is never politicized.
  6. The dates involved in the cited articles in that book are very old. It is outdated information, and should not be used except from a historic perspective.
We're talking over 20 years ago - it does not belong in the lede as if it is current information. They're were opinion pieces, letters to the editor and rebuttals in letters to the editor by reputable scientists. One author, S. Fred Singer was the chief scientist for the Dept of Transportation at the time; Frederick Seitz, now dead, was the 17th president of the US National Academy of Sciences. I don't care about the global warming debate - I'm just pointing out the dates of the material cited in that book, and how new the science was at the time. Considering 53% of MSM were also being criticized in that book, why was WSJ singled out for this article, especially based on old science and beliefs at that time? I have provided ample justification for removal of that material from the lede in WikiVoice despite consensus because I believe the material was misrepresented in the RfC, and the closer was not an admin who had the correct information. If we can't fix it locally, I will challenge the close and take it to NPOVN where it can be settled by uninvolved editors. Talk 📧 22:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
The question was settled by uninvolved editors, in an RfC that closed literally 1 day ago. Because you don't like the RfC consensus, you are hoping to throw it out and bring the question to a different group of uninvolved editors to get your desired result. Pointing out that behavior as disruptive, and asking for it to stop, is not "harassment" nor "intimidation". MastCell  00:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Wrong - it was closed June 1st. Get your facts straight. You have been harassing me based on misinformation, and this is not looking good for you, MastCell. I'm now thinking that an iBan may be in order based on your history of hounding, intimidating and harassing me for no other reason than me doing my job to correct policy violations in articles. Talk 📧 00:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what your history with each other is, but I predict a boomerang in your future if you keep this up. Claiming the shield of upholding policy only works if that's what you're actually doing. As I've said before, I could duplicate citations 71-81 from the article at the end of that sentence in the lead but I doubt it would be more useful to readers than a single citation to the Entire Book written on the subject. Leads are summaries of the article that follows. There is clear consensus, just two weeks old, to include the sentence in question. It's a contentious line, clearly, so a citation is recommended, which is provided by a well-respected book on the topic. Citation 77 ("The Wall Street Journal articles analyzed") is also a good choice to provide additional support to the lead, but it's far from required since all the citations are in the relevant section already. Or are you challenging the validity of all of those other citations too? What's it gonna be? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Discuss content, not editors. I have presented my argument and cited the applicable policies. Talk 📧 20:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
So you didn't hear all the things I just said about content, hmmm? Where did I discuss editors at all, other than advice to warn you away from admin action? Seems like we're done here. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:The Wall Street Journal Add topic