Talk:Investor's Business Daily

Removal of political spectrum description
Previous edit by user 2602:306:bc74:6240:1124:91fc:a8fd:cade added the descriptor "far right" in the introductory sentence of the article. They cited "rational wiki," an often satirical website that describes IBD in very biased, nonobjective terms that are often intended to be humorous. Needless to say, that citation is not a valid source.

Insane NPOV language
I'm not a fan of the IBD at all, but you simply cannot say that its editorial page "parrots the Republican party's propaganda." That's horrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.155.45 (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Previous edits were heavily opinionated, focused excessively on the political aspect of the newspaper, and failed to discuss the main purpose of the newspaper: providing investors with info on stocks.

I tried to explain the purpose of the newspaper and what is included within the newspaper's sections. I hope my edits are an improvement and that others can expand on them.

I also don't know how to put in the references (from the William O'neil section), can someone help out with those? Whatthree16 01:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we really want to go with "The Times characterized IBD as a "right-wing newspaper"?  First, it seems odd to use a British tablod for an editorial about and American business newspaper.   Second, I am sure there are editorials that would claim the paper is left wing out there.   Maybe just the facts here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.127.253.12 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You call "there are editorials that would claim the paper is left wing out there" a fact? It's a fact that the Times did what the article says. It's also a fact that it's not a "tabloid". -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the political bias of the paper
Yes the paper has been criticized for taking a very pro war stance. However, it it is quite true that the editorial section is secondary to the main focus of the paper. The paper has posted editorials stating that its stance is right wing.

That being said, it might be appropriate to include a paragraph stating that its editorial sections lean towards the right and the paper has been criticized for this, especially in regards to its stance on the middle east. It should also state that other than the editorial section, the paper simple reports information on businesses that help the reader invest according to the founders system. I don't think anyone would debate such a paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippy1981 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be curious, Zippy, if you are as full of fire regarding the Open Society Institute's lean towards the left and what the IBD itself calls The Soros Threat To Democracy. Asteriks 13:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

June 2007
I've just made several changes to the article: The new "Editorials" section is fairly rough; please improve it. I simply said the editorial stance is "conservative to libertarian", whereas this older version of the article gave IBD's views on several topics.
 * 1) Removed POV tag — I don't see any reason for it at present.
 * 2) Removed stub tag — it's more than a stub now.
 * 3) Cited and quoted from IBD's Backgrounder page.
 * 4) Reorganized the text to accommodate that quote.
 * 5) Requested cite re IBD tying in to William O'Neils book.
 * 6) Added a new section on the editorials, columns and cartoons.
 * 7) Added an EL to http://www.ibdeditorials.com/.

Cheers, CWC 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess IBD editorialists read the blogs and vice versa: Instapundit recently linked to an editorial praising Michael Yon. CWC, 09:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
The whole "bias" section is clearly from someone who is against this publication, and has a partisan viewpoint. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean the old comments above? The article itself has been rendered much less POV, including by myself, since then. Please state specific problems or the tag does not belong. Carol Moore 13:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * If you (Erroneuz1 and 'unsigned') don't like what I wrote, then read several recent IBD issues, make up your own mind, and rewrite it yourself. Don't just delete the bias section because you don't want people to read the Wikipedia article and learn of the paper's extreme bias.


 * No, I am not partisan. And yes, it does parrot the Republican party line.  There's nothing wrong with biased newspapers, and nothing wrong with biased editorials.  However, when some front-page articles change from factual economic news to political arguments similar to those on the editorial page (as the IBD has done recently), it is inadequate to have a wiki page that does not mention bias.  Whether or not a person 'is against X', factual descriptions are factual descriptions, and what I wrote was not invented slander, but the summary of my observations.


 * I'll repeat it here, and welcome you to examine a few IBD issues to see if you disagree. In my opinion, deleting the entire 'bias' section rather than editing it smacks of censorship, and was probably done by an IBD employee.  Of course, my language could be changed, but that can be said of anything - and the fact that it could be changed does not make a changed version somehow more factual.
 * {Bias


 * The aforementioned "Left and Right" comprise only two editorials out of a typical 6 on the 2-page editorial spread. The remainder universally and unambiguously parrot Republican Party (rather than generically conservative) propaganda. These editorials are often far more radical than the official Republican party line, and range from undying support of anything that Bush or Republicans happens to say - including statements that directly contradict a previous IBD stance - to condemnation of and slurs against Democrats (particularly in election years), generally ripped from political ads or speeches. Other targets of opportunity include environmentalists, most other news media, and particularly anyone who speaks in a manner unsupportive of free trade or promotes any sort of corporate regulation. It is especially condemning of anyone who mentions negative consequences from corporate tax havens, foreign outsourcing, hiring illegal workers, and H1-B visa abuse. In recent weeks, the IBD editorial page has been evenly split between - and on most days mentions nothing other than - the evils of Barack Obama, the positive qualities of John McCain, and the qualifications of Sarah Palin as an excellent potential President.


 * Unlike most major non-Murdoch newspapers that are either subtle or restrict their owner bias to the editorial page, the IBD has allowed their editorials to spill over noticeably into purported news articles. A particularly glaring example is evidenced by recent issues: As the 2008 presidential election has become increasingly desperate for McCain, the IBD has increasingly published front-page news articles of questionable value in terms of economic news, but of high value in content strongly critical of Barak Obama and his views on some chosen subject. The paper tends to be far more readable and informative in non-election or poorly-contested years, but retains the taint of bias in all articles - including the token "On the Left", which often contains an editorial of sufficient anti-Republic rhetoric or ridiculousness to be discounted by reasonable people, and to scare some poorly-informed conservatives into making the staff editorials seem marginally more reasonable in comparison.}


 * If nobody posts a new bias section within a day, I'll re-add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.174.135 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither one of us deleted it, so quit the false accusations and check the history log. Regardless, the section can hardly be described as neutral. --Erroneuz1 (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It would help if people would post DIFFS (ie links to edit pages showing differences) so other editors would know what you are debating! Thanks. Carol Moore 14:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * --Erroneuz1 (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "bias" section was properly deleted being merely someone's WP:original research personal opinion which is against wikipedia policy. If you can find some WP:Reliable sourced that opines about its biases, fine. If this is the basis for the neutrality tag, the tag should be removed immediately. Carol Moore 15:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc


 * the summary of my observations -- That's not how Wikipedia works. Asking editors to read issues is not how Wikipedia works. -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is seriously incomplete without some reference to the bias of this paper. I saw research cited to this paper saying the US is not even in the top 10 for gun violence, and Wikipedia is one place I usually think I can go to get balanced info about the bias of other sources. All media outlets should have a discussion on their bias, and this one is so far to the right it is a shame that Wikipedia has no mention of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.141.172 (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight to single controversy
I agree that every media outlet screws up sometimes. In May 2004, The Economist reported that average IQs in states voting for George Bush in 2000 were much lower than those of states voting for Al Gore. The report was later acknowledged to be untrue. That is a lot more serious, and with a much more prestigious publication; yet the WP article on The Economist does not mention it, nor should it without substantial context and balance. The Hawking incident is too small in the IBD's long history, and should not have the weight it does in the article. If the incident is to be mentioned, then there should be much more context to show how (non)representative the incident is. This is required by WP:NPOV. 86.158.74.232 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:V and WP:NOR require that this article be based on independent, reliable sources. The press kit from Investor's Business Daily is not an independent source. I see exactly one independent source in the article at present (a piece from The Times), which incidentally focuses on the Dailys role in the Obama health-care debate. It sounds to me like you're proposing we exclude independent, reliable sources entirely from the article (leaving it based on press kits and promotional material directly from the Daily), because the independent coverage of the topic strikes you as negative. One solution might be to find additional independent coverage of the topic which would illustrate the "non-representative" nature of this particular error. MastCell''' Talk 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This does not address the points I raised at all.81.152.212.130 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. OK. That's not much to go on, but I'll try again. You're comparing this article to our article on The Economist. That article has a sizable section on "Criticism", so I don't see that it's handled all that differently than this article, which similarly mentions notable, well-sourced criticism of the subject. Again, you are welcome to help find additional third-party, reliable sources on IBD - after all, the article is supposed to be based on such sources, but instead this article is mostly just links to various IBD articles. The more good-quality, independent sources we find, the easier it will be to write a solid, neutral, encyclopedic article. MastCell Talk 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to show more context you can go right ahead. But we're not going to remove this incident from the article. II  | (t - c) 05:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to look at some additional controversies, the IBD has a current editorial calling for denial of service attacks to be launched by the U.S. military cyber command against Wikileaks: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=542224 And another one claiming that the State of Arizona has a case against the federal government for billions of dollars based on alleged damages from illegal immigration (which don't count the corresponding benefits): http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=542468

These look like editorials I'd expect to see in the WorldNetDaily. Lippard (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In the first place, a denial of service attack on Wikileaks is not an unreasonable approach to the problem of illegal release of classified information. In the second place, Arizona does have a case against the federal government, since the feds have refused to enforce immigration laws and the result has been a disaster for Arizona. No, there are no "corresponding benefits" to illegal immigration. The only advantage to SOME Arizonians is that they can UNETHICALLY exploit a wretched illegal who comes from such a miserable place that he thinks $1.00/hr is terrific for back-breaking work. That is exploitative of the illegal and morally degrading to the employer. And no, it doesn't help the illegal's home country either. As long as those people can come up here from some blighted area in their country and send a few bucks back to keep their families from starving their home governments have NO INCENTIVE to fix their dysfunctional economies. Illegals need to stay home and work on fixing their own countries.

None of the above even remotely compares with the spiteful inclusion in this article of an admittedly ridiculous claim about Stephen Hawkins made by one writer who did poor research.98.170.201.140 (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think our personal opinions about DDoS'ing Wikileaks, or about "illegals", are germane here. Insofar as independent, reliable sources have discussed the Daily, much of it seems to be in the context of its rather unfortunate editorial claims about "Stephen Hawkins" [sic]. So we reflect that. MastCell Talk 22:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have trimmed it for now. Why does this issue deserve any mention? I agree with the criticisms above. AlfBit (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It deserves mention because it was heavily covered by independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is intended to proportionately reflect coverage from such sources. What is the basis for removing it entirely, when it's essentially the only part of this article that's appropriately sourced? MastCell Talk 21:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just googled for "Investor's Business Daily": that got 2,060,000 results. Then I googled for "Investor's Business Daily" AND "Stephen Hawking": that got 88,500 results.  This seems to support your point. AlfBit (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Investor's Business Daily. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070615173124/http://www.investors.com:80/presscenter/pc10.asp to http://www.investors.com/presscenter/pc10.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Changed to a weekly newspaper
Saw that the publication announced it is transitioning to a weekly circulation, going to update that information on here. I also saw the notability concern but after a long search it looks like they could meet the WP:NME criteria, but thats not evident on here yet as it looks like its currently relying too much on their own site, so Ill try to use what I found to fix the references and content if possible 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willie d troudour (talk • contribs)

Edit requested on 26 January 2017
The quote as it stands is not quite accurate, and doesn't make sense: "would save the life of this brilliant man ... is essentially worthless." The word "save" should be "say". My own (second- or third-hand) source says "say", and at least it makes sense and states what it meant to say. I personally read the article before the retraction, saw the unambiguous meaning of the quote, but I don't remember the exact quote. There may be other slight errors. (Not sure, but I think that NHS in the quote should be square-bracketed.) Johnm307 (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Replace "save" with "say" in the Stephen Hawking quote. ("Save" doesn't make sense.) Also make sure that the quote is exact. A source is http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/how-to-not-prove-a-point/ -- better, more reliable than my earlier (unstated) source. Also, the Internet Archive's copy from before the retraction: http://web.archive.org/web/20090802103330/http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877 Johnm307 (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, good catch. Altamel (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)