Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive 5

RfC on Editorial Board Scientific Claims in the Lead
Which of the following options should the lead of the article contain:
 * A (current) The Journal editorial board has promoted views that differ from the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos.
 * B (revised) The Journal editorial board has promoted views that differ from the scientific consensus on climate change.

Bill Williams (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * B (revised) The sources regarding the board's views on climate change are much more recent, and therefore that portion can stay included. On the other hand, the source concerning asbestos and pesticide isn't even referring to the editorial board but instead individual guest columnists, and therefore "the editorial board has promoted" is not at all accurate because it was individual guest columnists and not the editorial board. The opinions regarding acid rain and ozone depletion are based on 31+ year old articles, even though the article states that the board changed its opinion on acid rain 20 years ago, the source regarding second-hand smoke mentions articles from 27+ years ago, that are not even by the editorial board, but editorials written by guest columnists. Simply googling "Wall Street Journal" "editorial board" "asbestos" or "pesticides" doesn't even come up with a single criticism other than the Wikipedia article. How does that warrant its noteworthy inclusion in the lead? Including a criticism of them "promoting" incorrect views on "acid rain" like writing "The New York Post has promoted liberal views" in its lead when it hasn't since 40 years ago. The Washington Examiner's Wikipedia article lead does not mention the newspaper's climate change and its scientific inaccuracies, but it is stated in the body. In fact, neither of these Wikipedia articles, nor the ones for The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, or numerous other newspapers, even mentions their editorial boards in the lead, much less decades old criticisms. Bill Williams (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A (current version). This is content with long-term encyclopedic value. The point of the text is not to highlight where the WSJ stands on issues in 2021 but to highlight a persistent historical pattern of promoting science disinformation and pseudoscience in the editorial pages, usually in service of right-wing causes and corporate interests. The WSJ editorial board 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, not just for its role in pushing disinformation about climate change, but for having used the exact same playbook to push disinformation about acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos over the past decades. Why doesn't the USA Today page say similar things? For the simple reason that the USA Today has not been the focus of academic studies into scientific misinformation, unlike the WSJ. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, climate change denial is well noted, hence I included it in option B, but the board's other scientific denials were decades old and not well noted. A single book written 11 years ago on those other occasional claims made 26+ years ago or 31+ years ago are not noteworthy. Numerous studies have analyzed US News and World Report's accuracy on its college rankings, which it is well known for... Yet that criticism isn't mentioned in the lead, even though it has multiple paragraphs in the body. US News and World Report college rankings are far more well known than the WSJ Editorial articles on acid rain, second hand smoking, etc., so I see no reason why this article should include decades old criticisms that are never noted besides a tiny number of academics. Bill Williams (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither. The prior sentence is enough--the "conservative" label broadly implies that the editorial board has a history of prioritizing business interests over the environment. Any additional characterization risks giving disproportionate attention to what should be considered a separate division of the newspaper. The Wall Street Journal is a newspaper of record which publishes high quality news stories, like the Washington Post and the New York Times are. Sometimes they publish kooky opinion pieces, just like the Washington Post and the New York Times do. I'm reminded of when Jon Stewart chided Tucker Carlson for suggesting Stewart was shirking his journalistic duties by reminding us that the show before his featured puppets making prank phone calls. Wikipedia doesn't need to make it even harder for those poor souls who are at risk of conflating the opinion and reporting divisions of the press enterprise by attempting to characterize an immense amount of deliberately opinionated pieces that span generations of careers as a defining feature of the newspaper. I'm not saying that none of this belongs in the article, but it definitely has no place in the lede. I can't even find coverage of Bret Stephen's recent pro-Ashkenazi racial supremacy masterpiece on Wikipedia's New York Times page, let alone its lede. That the same lede standard isn't being applied to the Wikipedia pages of other newpapers of record is a telling sign that something is fundamentally wrong here. 2600:1012:B04F:711:3971:DA61:CCA5:D5FE (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, the WSJ editorial board is only a fraction of the WSJ, and stuff like Fox News covers false information on climate change far more, yet it is never mentioned in the lead. But for now, at least the completely outdated claims (acid rain, ozone etc.) should be removed, which is what you seem to agree with.Bill Williams (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the "conservative" label broadly implies that the editorial board has a history of prioritizing business interests over the environment But it does not imply that they are willing to distort facts and peddle crazy fantasies about conspiring scientists in order to do that. Well, maybe it does, if you look at what counts as typical conservatism in the US today, but using "conservatism" as a euphemism for science denialism is still just not right. And if there are enough usable sources for Fox denialism, it should be in that article lead too, but this is not the place for discussing that as per WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the whole thing should be moved (I did that and was reverted); I was trying to answer the narrow question posed here about how to treat just that sentence. None of this belongs in the lede. If we're not going to put this in the NYT lede: "The NYT has published opinion pieces from its staff that promote Ashkenazi racial supremacism" then we have no business myopically covering an archaic opinion piece that has somehow been kept alive, fed, and clothed rent-free in some Wikipedia editors' heads for many years...I think that insisting something belongs in the lede (in addition to what practically all agree belongs there) is behavior that is similar to the behavior of conflicted people who only edit one topic...the WSJ is an esoteric institution that has covered business and finance news, and it isn't a scientific journal. That's what the lede should cover. We really should have a law requiring a certain minimum font size for "OPINION" in all periodicals...2600:1012:B024:A059:E877:6589:1657:1422 (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will pretend for the duration of this response that you wrote that on the Talk page to the NYT article, where the NYT article should be discussed. Have they done this Ashkenazi thing for decades and helped an astroturfing campaign mislead a large section of the population? I don't think so, therefore the cases are only marginally similar. And you should really read WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. It will explain to you why your reasoning about NYT is irrelevant. In case you didn't hear it again (you should also read WP:IDHT), I'll repeat it a few times: WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. Say when. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying. While we shouldn't make rules based on what happens elsewhere, we can certainly look elsewhere for guidance. I think we're taking the opinion section far too seriously. Opinions aren't worth much these days. Having an actual newsroom with paid investigatory teams, like the WSJ does, is actually what is notable here. There is a much more succinct way to communicate that the opinion side of this publication is willing to push pseudoscience that could benefit business interests, that doesn't degenerate into an entire paragraph of valuable lede space becoming a vehicle for the manifesto of a few editors upset over pseudoscientific trash published a decade ago. Whoever pushed those opinion pieces has already laughed all the way to the bank and having it there makes it look like Wikipedia is full of bitter agenda-driven editors.2600:1012:B04E:DDB0:91FA:69F:8DA9:C2FF (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A (current version). There are plenty of academic and journalistic sources that refer to this - I'll refer to some soon when I'm less busy Noteduck (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As I stated above, not one online article criticizing the WSJ editorial board on asbestos or pesticides comes up in a google search besides quoting Wikipedia, and the other criticisms are based on 27+ year old or 31+ year old articles, except the criticisms on the editorial board's stance on climate change, which includes recent articles. That is why I kept the climate change part but removed the other parts that are cited only by one source each based on decades old articles and seldom referenced elsewhere, AKA not noteworthy. Bill Williams (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A (current version). See WP:GHITS and WP:RECENT. Not all sources need to be found on the internet. Mentioning only one of the anti-science stances held by the WSJ would be blinkered; it would make it seem as if the WSJ picked some scientific field at random and opposed it. The point to take home is that, if acceptance of a scientific fact by the general populace is bad for moneygrubbers, the WSJ will handle the scientific fact as a dubious proposition. It is a reliable non-source on those things. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the news section of WSJ is considered reliable already, so this absurdly inaccurate decades old criticism of the editorial board is not noteworthy for the lead. "Not all sources need to be found on the internet" well congradulations, literally just one book from a decade ago criticizes their decades old claims on these issues, a book that almost nobody in the United States will ever read compared to this Wikipedia article and the WSJ itself, so how is that one book noteworthy whatsoever? If you wanna be consistent, go add "The New York Post has promoted liberal views" without any context or saying that it changed those views, to its lead because it did 40 years ago. Bill Williams (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please name the Wikipedia rule that says we should not include information from a source because "nobody in the United States will ever read" that source? What has the US got to do with it? Is it because the denial industry's (including the WSJ's) disinformation strategy has been more successful there than in more enlightened countries? From the viewpoint of reliability, the fact that the WSJ has consistently bamboozled its readers about a specific subject is highly relevant, as much as you want to hide the fact. If they wanted to be seen as reliable, I guess they should actually have been reliable, don't you think? Also, where did you get the idea that "Merchants of Doubt" is in any way "inaccurate"? That suggests that your accuracy compass is in serious need of recalibration. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not noteworthy to have criticism for how the EDITORIAL BOARD, which isn't mentioned IN A SINGLE OTHER MAJOR NEWSPAPER'S ARTICLE LEAD, talked about NICHE TOPICS OVER 26 YEARS AGO, because ONE SINGLE BOOK mentioned it. Bill Williams (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are still using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning? Maybe I should suggest again that you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:IDHT. When you are finished reading WP:IDHT, let's continue here. Regarding the 26 years, if I may, let me explain something about encyclopedias, which will probably a surprise to you after I have told you a few times and you actually are aware of it (see WP:IDHT). Encyclopedias are different from daily or weekly papers, insofar as they contain not what happened yesterday or last week, but all the relevant stuff that happened, even old stuff. Since you are such a fan of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just as an example, please note that our article Isaac Newton still contains the sentence Newton's postulate of an invisible force able to act over vast distances led to him being criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science although it is about something Newton wrote 442 years ago. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Does Newton still write his opinions to this day? Did Newton state a change in his opinion? Does his Wikipedia article state his past opinions without stating that he changed them? Because the WSJ editorial board's articles on acid rain etc. were from 31 years ago and they changed their opinion on the matter. "Other stuff exists" policy is so completely irrelevant to what I am saying when literally every other thing is different. I am not pointing to "one other thing" but LITERALLY EVERY OTHER MAJOR NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, not just a couple. Wikipedia has policies and consistencies, for example almost every Amnerican politician's article starts off with "is an American politician, lawyer, activist" etc. so if I were to change the lead to begin with "is 42 years old and born in the state of Florida," that would differ from EVERY SINGLE OTHER ARTICLE and therefore be absurd to ruin the consistency. Bill Williams (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Yes. No.
 * See, the purpose of using examples is to get a point across. The point I was trying to get across was not that Newton's case is exactly like the WSJ case and we should do exactly the same thing here as we did in Newton's case. If it had been, you could have refuted it with your three rhetorical questions. But my point was actually to illustrate my refutation of your "OVER 26 YEARS AGO" argument.
 * Regarding the difference between the WSJ article and other newspaper articles, you seem to be saying that even if the editorial board of an otherwise flawless newspaper routinely spreads anti-science nonsense and therefore needs to be handled with care, that fact cannot be mentioned in the lede for some we-have-always-done-it-like-that reason, if the editorial boards of other newspapers do not have any such remarkable properties and consequently the ledes of the articles about those other newspapers do not mention their editorial boards. I cannot see any reason for such a restriction.
 * But I guess I should just stop trying to get points across, as it just makes you misunderstand them, shout and repeat yourself. This is a survey, after all. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "routinely spreads anti-science nonsense " except they don't, because that was 31 years ago and they changed their opinion on the matter, plus once again this is irrelevant to the newspaper, since the editorial board 31 years ago isn't reflecting on the actual newsroom in the present... Also, I am sorry to inform you, but this is Wikipedia and I am typing, I don't think I can shout... I just capitalized to emphasize, since if I bolded it that might have been confusing to see, since people's answers to the RfC are also bolded. Bill Williams (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, the WSJ did not stop spreading anti-science nonsense 31 years ago. As you would know if you had informed yourself. I am sorry you don't get it, and will now really stop leading you by the hand. Try to walk by yourself. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A (current version). It cannot be reasonably disputed that The Wall Street Journal is widely read, cited, and respected. Therefore, the journal's stance, as presented through its editorials as well as the weight it assigns to the various viewpoints, is of paramount informative and encyclopaedic importance. Both the WSJ stance on the issues listed in the current opening section as well as the scientific consensus on them are plentifully verifiable. Hence, the need for the text as it currently stands. -The Gnome (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * but why does not a single other major newspaper, which is "widely read, cited, and respected," mention a single thing about the editorial board's "stance" in the lead? Not WaPo, USA Today, NYT etc. And why do the WSJ editorial board criticisms based on 31 year old articles they wrote have any relevance to "the journal's stance" when they quite literally changed their stance? Bill Williams (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Bill Williams, it's not news (nor worthy of mention in Wikipedia) when a dog bites a man. Do you see in articles about media generally supportive of the prevalent scientific viewpoint any mention of that? Do you see in the lead section of, for example, Nature magazine a note that describes the magazine as trustworthy, etc? No, but you do see in the article about The Daily Mail a note stating that the paper constitutes an "unreliable source." In sum, if The Wall Street Journal, an evidently historical and prestigious paper, supports viewpoints that are marginal and/or controversial, then that is certainly worthy of mention. And it goes without saying if WSJ's controversial stance on some subject was first broached a lot of time ago, e.g. 30 years ago, that stance still needs mention today. This is an encyclopaedia; not a scorecard of current events. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * no, their opinions weren't "first broached a lot of time ago, e.g. 30 years ago," THEY WERE LAST "BROACHED" AT THAT TIME. They literally changed their opinion 20 YEARS AGO, on a topic that they rarely write about today, so explain how it is relevant to bring up criticisms of articles they LAST WROTE 31 YEARS AGO and CHANGED THEIR OPINION ON 20 YEARS AGO. What other major newspaper's Wikipedia article writes a single thing about their editorial board in the lead, much less their standpoint or past standpoints on a single issue? Bill Williams (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Replace the word "first" with "last" if you must and the point remains the same and equally valid: If tomorrow the National Enquirer starts publishing only scientific articles of the highest calibre we would be amiss if we wouldn't note, proninently too, that the Enquirer once supported scientific rubbish. The encyclopaedic nature of Wikipedia demands fullness and honesty, per sources. (This, in some form of disclosure, from a years-long reader to the WSJ.) -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Undue in lead Why was this ever added to the lead? Do other sources describing the WSJ think this is so critical as to make it part of the summary of what the WSJ is?  Also, if this is included why not say why the editorial board has decided to give a voice to these alternative views?  Springee (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Alternative views"? I thought they were called alternative facts now. Well, the actual reason is "if man-made global warming exists, then the energy market needs to be regulated. Therefore man-made global warming does not exist." But I don't think we have sources saying that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my proposal? It keeps the part about climate change, but focuses on the completely absurd claims that the editorial board promotes inaccurate stuff regarding acid rain etc. when that was 31 years ago. Bill Williams (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The same "logic" applies to the other anti-science propaganda. "If acid rain destroys the forests, the automobile industry needs to be regulated. Therefore acid rain does not destroy the forests." And we probably do not have any sources for that either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hob Gadling, yes, alternative views. You act as if the editorial page is just finding crackpots yet you present no evidence. Consider how Britannica describes the editorial pages [], Although perceived as favouring the interests of businesses, the Journal’s opinion and editorial pages reflect a wide range of highly informed business, political, and economic opinions; readers’ letters; and reviews of and comments on the arts..  They don't say anything about misinformation, instead they say the editorial board tries to cover a wide range of opinions.  Presumably some will end up being wrong in the board wants to present a wide range of views.  That would be a far more neutral way to describe the board vs what we have now.  Encyclopedia.com, who's whole article is rather short, hardly mentions the editorial board at all [].  So again I raise my question, why is this in the lead at all?  Which encylopedia(s) are offering an impartial POV?  Maybe a compromise would be to make the intent of the board clear, similar to what Brittanica is doing, but then also note this has resulted in specific editorials which have run counter to consensus on etc.  Springee (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "finding crackpots" is supposed to mean (maybe "finding them and letting them write articles"?), so I will ignore that part and comment on the Britannica part. Wikipedia and Britannica are different, and there is no point in saying an article in one should be exactly like the corresponding article in the other. I am sure Britannica has rules too, and I am sure they are different from ours. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I implore everyone who wants to keep criticisms of the editorial board from its articles 31 years ago to add "The New York Post has promoted liberal views" to the lead of its article without any context or saying that it changed those views, just because it had those views 40 years ago. And while you're add it, mention how the New York Times editorial board is liberal in its article lead, because that is mentioned in the body, add to the Washington Examiner article lead about how their editorial board has disputed climate change, add to the USA Today article how their editorial board didn't endorse any presidents until Biden, and so on, because why the heck is this WSJ article the only one that A. even mentions the views of the editorial board B. brings up how they wrote about things 31 years ago that they changed their views on. This isn't just "other things exist," this is based on literally every other major newspaper article not having it, hence there must be special for this article to have it, but there isn't... Bill Williams (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comment Is it climate denialism to oppose binding international carbon reduction agreements that go easy on "developing" huge emitters like China? To advocate for local fossil fuels (fracking vs. opec)? To say that yes, eventually we need to switch to different energy sources, but for now, it is worth it to continue to use American petroleum? That is what I understood the latest WSJ stance to be. Unless the WSJ's editorial board has an official position that the double bonds in carbon dioxide don't absorb electromagnetic energy in the infrared region of the spectrum or that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere won't ever impact climate, then I don't even think it can be considered pseudoscientific. The O.G. WSJ climate pseudoscience articles ended a long time ago, if my memory serves me correctly (please tell me if I am wrong). Their stance is just an opinion, that the effects are overblown and climate change causes less harm than depriving people of energy. If it's a fringe/pseudoscientific opinion, then obviously we can expect that almost no editors here who have commented use fossil fuels in their daily lives (Teslas don't always count, if the electricity source isn't clean), right? Fossil fuel consumption is a fringe socially deviant activity and the Journal's position, that climate change is an overblown situation, isn't an opinion, it's pseudoscience, because fossil fuels have no rational role to play for society. Right? See here for a recent position of the editorial board: https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/saying-no-to-climate-taxes-11623798039 There is no pseudoscience there in my opinion, just disagreement over policy. Now, I think what is in the lede has no place in the article as it's written at all. It's a gross mischaracterizarion of the editorial board's stance. That book is a very poor source as it is being used and as a result, this is a very poor article. 2600:1012:B05D:174D:D5FA:9E36:F383:9F90 (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * B I do think the WSJ editorial board's current opinions on any topic are worthy of note. But, the opinions about acid rain, ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos appear to be decades old and no longer relevant. If someone can produce current editorial board opinion articles disputing the damage and toxicity of any of the other issues then we can add that to this article. Also, the single book cited above is not sufficient evidence for bringing this narrative into this article. The book apparently covers topics that are stale. Also, I'm sure public opinion strongly supports the conclusion(s) that science has long ago revealed the danger of those environmental and health hazards. And, I doubt very much the editorial board would tout such views these days. That the board chooses to go against consensus on climate change these days means that is a current and ongoing discussion by people, policy makers, politicians, and the media. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I notice that you correctly did not add scientists to the list of people having a "current and ongoing discussion" about it, because they have decisively answered the question long ago. This is about the WSJ actively opposing accepted scientific facts as long as they see a chance of successfully hornswoggling the public about it. Back then, they saw a chance for that regarding acid rain and so on, and now they do not see that chance anymore for those subjects, but the strategy has not changed since then, as evidenced by their stance on climate change. An encyclopedia is not just concerned with the last few years - the WSJ was founded in 1889, after all. And there is not just one source for those subjects, as you would have noticed had you read beyond the lede. Media Matters for America and the American Journal of Public Health have had their say too. Actually, I thought the lede did not need sources at all since they are given further down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So what if I didn't mention the scientists. Big deal. I also haven't specifically read the WSJ board's opinions on climate change yet. However, they must somehow counter current scientific consensus based on some claimed authority. And, I see you have attributed motives to their opinions based on anti-regulation sentiments. But if you don't have sources that say they have ulterior motives then that is not relevant either. Wikipedia does not exist to throw shade on subjects covered. So, adding that the board formerly supported views on certain issues that are not longer relevant is UNDUE.
 * Even in your own summation above, you seem to say the reason for listing former (and stale) anti-consensus stances is to show the board's strategy on hornswoggling the public. So, you have just shown you have an agenda and an ax to grind. Agenda's have no place in writing Wikipedia articles. That is in contradiction to NPOV. Also, it would be best to cite sources saying they are hornswoggling the public. We can only write what the sources say. If there are no sources, then that sentiment is of no use. As I said, if it can be shown the board still supports anti-consensus views on those other hazards decades later, then that is worth adding to the article. And it would not be UNDUE.
 * I agree the board's anti-consensus views could be based on undermining regulation. It could also be based on undermining other things. But if I don't have sources that say that then I can't use that as a justification for anything. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You sound as if I blamed you for not mentioning the scientists, but as I said above, it was completely correct of you not to. It is a manufactured controversy, one that pretends that climate change is still an open question when it is not, since scientists are long finished discussing it. The WSJ is part of the denial machine that keeps that fake controversy alive, and back then it was part of the denial machine that kept other fake controversies alive. That is the whole point of the text we are discussing here, and it is uncontroversial within science and well-sourced. It has nothing to do with any hypothetical axes of mine: any claims that climate change is still controversial or that the WSJ stance is in any way scientifically justified are WP:FRINGE positions closely associated with free-market fundamentalism - all the fake denialist reasoning and all the denialist campaigns were traced back to a few individuals working for several free-market think tanks at once. Also well-sourced, see climate change denial. So, it is pretty obvious why the WSJ is doing it. But I never suggested that we write anything about the WSJ's real reasons (as opposed to their fake denialist reasoning) because I am not aware of any sources for that. Springee wanted to know the reason, so I told him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A (current version). The gulf between the rigor of the news pages and dogma of the editorial pages is widely known and widely cited, and has been for decades. Some of the arguments against are approaching silly, such as saying that Wikipedia should ape one other specific encyclopedia's wording -- For Reasons, apparently -- or claiming that anyone supporting Option A has some sort of axe to grind and shouldn't count -- again, For Reasons, apparently. --Calton &#124; Talk 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you think that the idea that we should follow the lead of other high level sources in deciding what is DUE for our lead would be "silly". So how do we decide, what of the very large number of things written about the WSJ should be in the lead?  Well a good way to judge is see what other sources have deemed to be significant or not significant enough to mention in their articles on the subject.  If Wikipedia emphasizes a particular aspect while no other source producing a similar summary article does the same then it's a sign that our editors are not aligned with external sources regarding relative weight.  Wikipedia is meant to follow sources not just in terms of facts but also relative emphasis.  We are not supposed to decide what information needs emphasis based on our own preferences/biases/etc.  I provided the two digital encyclopedias as examples.  Do you have any sources that summarize what the WSJ is and emphasize the material in question?  Springee (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A (current version) Shortening seems to run afoul of WP:RECENTISM, and entirely omitting the older topics when the article text itself binds them with the newer one to create a fuller picture goes against MOS:LEDE. Doubtless there's an even better sentence to be written (there almost always is), but in a contest between A and B, I've got to go with A. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a better sentence might be something that starts with the editorial board's stated objective followed by the result. So something like, "The editorial board states their objective is X.  WSJ editorials have (largely current sentence)".  This at least shows a motive and result rather than just a result.  Of course the objective part needs to be in the body as well.  Springee (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A. The B version is recentism combined with whitewashing.  It's not our job to try to hide the fact that a major US newspaper has a long history of science-denialism problems.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A (current) Comment: The RFC starter didn't provide enough rationale why the current version needs to be revised. The information in A seems noteworthy enough for the lead. What do the sources say? Is it UNDUE? Just because they changed their opinion does not mean WSJ's long term pattern should be taken off the lead. There seems to be enough sources why this is noteworthy (eg: per ). Bogazicili (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC) I'd prefer A (current) but with "editorial board" dropped, but with also more sources maybe.Bogazicili (talk) 10:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * there is one source from a decade ago criticizing what the WSJ said multiple decades ago on pesticides and asbestos, and you cannot find a single other source other than that in a google search, so it is completely "UNDUE." For acid rain and ozone, there is again one single source, which was again written a decade ago based on WSJ editorial board article from 31 years ago. It is has not been cited elsewhere in years, once again making it irrelevant to the lead of an article that is still currently read by people. Not one other major newspaper's article mentions the editorial board positions in the lead. Check NYT, WaPo, USA Today etc. The NYT article even says "the editorial board is considered liberal" or something in the body, but not in the lead, while this articles' lead says "the editorial board is considered conservative" or something similar. Why should this article include decades old criticisms of the editorial board when not one other article of a major newspaper even mentions their editorial board in the lead? Bill Williams (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * there is again one single source As I said above (And there is not just one source for those subjects, as you would have noticed had you read beyond the lede), people should really learn to read beyond the lede. Further down, there is another source for acid rain and ozone: --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You just linked the one source that I myself put there... The book is the one source for asbestos and pesticides, which come up no where else and are therefore completely undue, while the media matters source, that I myself linked, is the only source for acid rain or ozone. Once again, the editorial board changed its views on acid rain, the media matters article is rarely cited elsewhere in over a decade, and it is criticizing articles the editorial board wrote decades ago. BUT IT ISNT EVEN CRITICIZING THE EDITORIAL BOARD AS THIS ARTICLE LEAD SUGGESTS and only mentions GUEST COLUMNISTS FROM DECADES AGO, so the lead is absurdly undue. The ozone and climate change parts can stay, but they changed their opinion on acid rain 20+ years ago and the editorial board didn't even make the unscientific statements on the other stuff, GUEST EDITORS did. Bill Williams (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , they seem currently anti-science when it comes to climate change as you note. In that context, I think their history of anti-science is notable. For that we can find journal articles, books etc. When you do a google search, most top hits are from WSJ itself anyway. I'd like to see more sources on the lead for this though. Bogazicili (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * yeah I agree they have anti-science stances on climate change. But only one source comes up concerning the WSJ and asbestos and pesticides, and it isn't even referring to the editorial board, only to guest columnists who wrote articles or letters, and therefore the lead is extremely misleading. Bill Williams (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Merchants" is also a source for ozone: Now chief scientist for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Singer first protested what he called the “ozone scare” in an article that the Wall Street Journal ran on page one.62 In this article, Singer admitted that ozone depletions had been observed, but he dismissed them as “localized and temporary” and insisted there was no proof that CFCs were responsible. and It’s not surprising that the Marshall Institute took up Singer ’s ozone claims, because they shared his passionate anti-Communism. Nor is it surprising that he found willing publication venues. The Washington Times and National Review were stridently anti-Communist in their editorial views; the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and Fortune were obviously probusiness and market oriented. 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.”
 * I think demanding more than one source per word is ridiculous. Oreskes is a good source, and it has not become bad by having been around for a while. Books are not strawberries. Also, if I invite people to spout nonsense for me, that is just as bad as spouting it myself. I would have no problem with removing the words "editorial board of". The essential point is that the WSJ spreads disinformation on science and you cannot trust it. Who exactly is doing the disinforming is secondary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, only two sources on the entire internet regarding the acid rain and ozone criticisms, that book and the media matters article, rarely come up cited elsewhere (UNDUE) and both are concerning what they wrote about over a period of 10 years decades ago, out of the WSJ's 130 year old existence, that they changed their opinion on. And again, editorials not the editorial board, just because the editorial board allowed those articles to be published decades ago, doesn't mean they still have any relevance today to the editorial board or WSJ's opinions. They also published opposing opinions so saying they promoted one view when they just published opposing articles on it is absurd. The NYT editorial board allowed editorials supporting abolishing the police because it was a trendy topic months ago, but the editorial board never believed that themselves, and has since endorsed moderate candidates in the NYC mayoral election. And also, put "the new york post has promoted liberal views" in its article lead without any further context, because they did for a period of time decades ago. Bill Williams (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you keep pinging me when you are just repeating stuff you have repeated several times before without convincing anyone, even starting with the word "Again" and repeating the word later. And then you drag in a bit of whataboutism, talking about other things in the WSJ. I feel like a cat owner who hears a meow again and again and is proudly shown the same dead bird every time. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah we can be done squabbling. Whataboutism is where you compare one individual irrelevant thing to another. My point is that literally every other article does not mention editorial boards' opinions in the lead. And every single part of the internet does not mention the single book or media matters article besides this wikipedia article and one ecowatch article, making it completely undue. But it's fine. I get that you disagree. Bill Williams (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you keep pinging me when you are just repeating stuff you have repeated several times before without convincing anyone, even starting with the word "Again" and repeating the word later. And then you drag in a bit of whataboutism, talking about other things in the WSJ. I feel like a cat owner who hears a meow again and again and is proudly shown the same dead bird every time. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah we can be done squabbling. Whataboutism is where you compare one individual irrelevant thing to another. My point is that literally every other article does not mention editorial boards' opinions in the lead. And every single part of the internet does not mention the single book or media matters article besides this wikipedia article and one ecowatch article, making it completely undue. But it's fine. I get that you disagree. Bill Williams (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * A. To maintain a neutral point-of-view in the lede we should leave the current version. It explains how the Journal's opinions on climate change align with scientific consensus. That is not at all WP:UNDUE, it's providing the reader with context for the Journal's opinions on climate change. And some of the sources being old doesn't make the opinions any less noteworthy either, it's not like the Journal changed or redacted those opinions. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 04:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * as I stated above, the editorial board quite literally changed its opinion according to the source in the Wikipedia article, so "it's not like the Journal changed or redacted those opinions" is incorrect. Additionally, I literally kept the part about climate change in my proposal, so that is irrelevant. But my proposal removes the acid rain part, which they changed their opinion on decades ago, and the asbestos, pesticides, and second hand smoking part, WHICH WERE BY GUEST COLUMNISTS DECADES AGO AND NOT EVEN THE EDITORIAL BOARD ACCORDING TO THE SINGLE SOURCE IN THIS ARTICLE those criticisms do not come up anywhere else online, AKA nobody else cares and it is completely UNDUE. Bill Williams (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right. Redacting my comment and supporting B (revised). –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 06:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading my response. I hadn't read the actual book until I responded to you, during which I realized the book didn't actually refer to the editorial board, making the lead of the Wikipedia article really inaccurate by using decades old guest columnists to say "the editorial board has promoted..." And sorry for being rude in my response, I was annoyed by the fact that many people didn't read my sources or reasoning, and not a single person changed their vote before you did. Bill Williams (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, I would have been annoyed as well. I appreciate you taking the time to explain. And good idea to ping, I would be surprised if others do not change their conclusions as well. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 07:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FormalDude, I'm just curious. You wrote: "how the Journal's opinions on climate change align with scientific consensus." Was that a typo? They are actually at odds with the scientific consensus. -- Valjean (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a typo, just bad wording. In saying how they align, I just meant the manner that they align: in this case, not at all. My bad for the confusion. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 14:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Important Comment Sorry for the pings, but I thought you should know that the decade old book that is the one source in the lead concerning asbestos, pesticides, and second hand smoking, isn't even referring to the editorial board but instead to guest columnists, so the lead is extremely misleading for saying "the editorial board has promoted..." when it was actually guest columnists writing articles or letters. The opinions of individual guest columnists 30 years ago does not reflect on the editorial board, nor the WSJ itself, especially not decades later, and should not be presented as such in this Wikipedia article. Bill Williams (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The editorial board decides who gets to write columns in the editorial pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that doesn't really let the editorial board off the hook. And complaints about a book being a "decade old" miss the point that this article is supposed to cover the entire history of the newspaper. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the editorial board also allowed for opposing editorials on the topics, so it's completely false to say that it "promoted" one view. Additionally, "this article is supposed to cover the entire history" yet it is emphasizing one decade, 1980-1990, when the WSJ editorial board allowed some articles on acid rain, even though it changed its opinion over 20 years ago, so a single decade out of its 130 year old existence should not be emphasized in the lead. Does the New York Times article lead begin with "the editorial board has promoted abolishing the police" because it allowed multiple editorials over on the matter? No, that would be absurd, because the editorial board itself never promoted that. Bill Williams (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The "single decade" appears to be the most thoroughly documented in this respect, leading to the text of the article focusing upon it, and a fair summary of that main text in the lede gives us the current sentence (up to debatable phrasing issues, such as are always present). If the editorials over at the NYT had been covered in the same way, then we'd write about them in the same way. (People have definitely criticized the NYT for the opinion pieces it's seen fit to print, so that's not completely implausible, but the question of what goes in the lede of that article is a matter for its Talk page, not this one.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For the sake of argument assume that 100% of this was from decades ago. Say the newest example was from the 90s and since them all editorials were in line with consensus.  Would we include this in the body?  I think we all agree yes.  Would that be in the lead?  I'm not so sure.  It would have to depend on how much historical detail would be in the lead.  Also, if the WSJ renounced something, say their position on acid rain then we shouldn't have the lead say, "they disagreed with scientists on acid rain" without also stating "they have since reversed this view".  That would apply to the body and lead.  It's especially important in the lead since failing to add that follow on statement would imply they still hold this view.  I mean if a 150 year old magazine wrote an article supporting segregation in 1890 would we assume they still have that position in 2021?  I also think we need to make it clear if this is the editorial board supports these views or simply wants to run a range of ideas even if the members don't personally agree with the views. Springee (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely what I am stating. It is far too complicated to explain all this in the lead, hence it should be left in the body. To give proper context, the lead would have to say the editorial board changed its views on acid rain 20 years ago and only published inaccurate things for at most 20 years out of its 130 year history, last published inaccurate info on ozone science 31 years ago after at most being incorrect for 20 years out of its 130 year existence, and then for asbestos, second hand smoking, and pesticides, who the heck cares, nobody besides Wikipedia even talks about this one book. This is so insane, one book that is not even talking about the editorial board, at least you'd need to say "guest editors and columnists published letters and opinion articles over 30 years ago on second hand smoking..." or else it is completely misleading. Bill Williams (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah but given their current anti-science stance with respect to climate change, their similar past behaviour on other topics is important enough for the lead I think. You'd be right if they didn't have a current anti-science stance. I'd just prefer another source which talks about WSJ's anti-science background overall, but I didn't have the time to look for it. Bogazicili (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Their current stance is not "anti-science". They just don't care about the environmental effects or "justice/equity" as much as some do. What if I agree with them? My personal opinion is that China, by far the largest emitter, is coddled in GHG agreements and that the melting of Greenland's ice cap is a net good thing. I believe that carbon dioxide and methane caused by fossil fuel release and combustion heat up the earth. I think "green" energy policies are examples of sanctimonious crony capitalism by politicians and their funders (who ironically often claim to stand against crony capitalism) because they almost never involve basic research but rather fund tautological market experiments to "demonstrate" commercial viability, which could be done with a calculator instead. Does that make me anti-science? No, it makes me someone who disagrees with people whom I consider dogmatists. I don't disagree that the WSJ has published psedusocience in the past, but the casual labeling here makes me genuinely concerned about objectivity amongst what has been said here. The temporal issues with the source are well-founded in my opinion and I really hope this can be seen as reason for some change in the article. 2600:1012:B065:7616:7998:EE1B:CEE4:7F40 (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Option B. I was on the fence, but Snooganssnoogans seems to have conceded that Option A is conflating op-ed guest contributors with the Journal's editorial board, explaining that there is no need to distinguish between the two because "The editorial board decides who gets to write columns in the editorial pages." If that is really the extent of Snooganssnoogans's argument, then Option A is dangerously frivolous and profoundly misleading. Why? Consider The New York Times. In an effort to stir a broad-based discussion about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Times published all sorts of op-eds calling into question not only the Bush administration's rationale for war but also the mainstream historiography and conventional wisdom regarding many well-established historical events leading to tensions between the U.S. and Iraq. Most infamously, the Times published an op-ed by Stephen C. Pelletiere denying that Iraq gassed the Kurds at Halabja in March 1988 and promoting the debunked disinformation that any Kurdish victims were actually gassed by Iran. That is just one example, but consider the implications if we simply dredged up any old op-eds from the NYT archives that might be embarrassing today and threw them into the lede of that newspaper's Wikipedia article. In 1978, the Times published an op-ed by Daniel Burstein, who was affiliated with a Marxist-Leninist political party, disputing reports of the ongoing Cambodian genocide: "The most slanderous of all charges leveled against Kampuchea is that of 'mass genocide,' with figures often cited running into the millions of people. I believe this is a lie, which certain opinion‐makers in this country believe can be turned into a 'fact' by repeating it often enough. In an interview with Deputy Premier Ieng Sary, I asked point‐blank if there had been any such 'mass genocide' in Kampuchea. He said absolutely not, that such stories were ludicrous." Sincere question, folks: Am I missing something here? Is Snooganssnoogans saying that I could go over to The New York Times right now and add text directly to the lede stating that "its editorial board has promoted denial of the Cambodian genocide and misinformation regarding the Halabja chemical attack," even though such sentiments were explicitly attributed to individual guest writers and not to the editorial board?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If academic RS that specialize in genocide denial and misinformation characterized the NY Times as a key promoter of genocide denial, then yes, it would be reasonable to add language along those lines to the NY Times page. I am however unaware of RS that do so. Your comment misleadingly suggests that the WSJ published one or two op-eds that promoted pseudoscience when that's not at all the case. Newspapers publish all kinds of dishonorable content (including op-eds from dictators) for various reasons. What the WSJ editorial board did was to persistently and prominently push pseudoscience and misinformation about established science across numerous fields and issues across decades, which is why the WSJ has been characterized as a key proponent of science misinformation by historians of science. Also, aren't you topic-banned from American Politics or voluntarily avoiding post-1932 American Politics? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Your comment misleadingly suggests that the WSJ published one or two op-eds that promoted pseudoscience when that's not at all the case" yes it is for asbestos, pesticides, and second hand smoking, the "rELiAbLe sOuRcE" is a single source specifying only a few articles on those three topics, so it is insane to claim that the editorial board promoted pseudoscience on those three topics when it was just a couple occasional articles. The climate change, acid rain, and ozone is well documented, but the asbestos, pesticides, and second hand smoking was rarely brought up. Bill Williams (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Several occasions add up to a pattern. Reliable sources noticed that pattern. The pattern, with examples, is relevant enough for the lede, not the single occasions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not since April of last year (and the AP2 area is now "post-1992 politics of the United States," as you're probably aware). I don't recall any similar concerns on your part when we were in agreement on other articles in the not-so-distant past. Regardless, thank you for the reminder regarding Putin's 2013 New York Times op-ed on Syria. I wholeheartedly concur that "Newspapers publish all kinds of dishonorable content"!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But seriously Snooganssnoogans: Is there any way, in the interest of compromise, that you could at least revise the existing Option A to allow for the distinction between individual columnists and the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No one has established that the editorial board only publishes columns by individual columnists that promote pseudoscience. Adding text along those lines is original research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with this: If academic RS that specialize in genocide denial and misinformation characterized the NY Times as a key promoter of genocide denial, then yes, it would be reasonable to add language along those lines to the NY Times page. I am however unaware of RS that do so. First, we summarize what reliable sources have to say, and then we summarize the article we construct thereby to create an introduction. Of the two options presented, A does a better job of that than B, though as I said I'm open to the possibility of an as-yet-unwritten C that might be better than both. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We do that in the body. Why is this DUE in the lead?  Also, if we are going to put it in the lead why shouldn't we try to offer a more impartial view?  Springee (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The question above presumes that climate change is DUE in the intro, and the main text treats climate change as inseparable from certain other topics, so I find it hard to see how a judicious summary of the main text can include one but not the others. (Of course, that may be a matter of taste on my part; this wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed about how best to write an introduction.) It seems to me that questions about impartiality ought to be addressed by writing and proposing an option C whose particulars can be discussed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm getting pretty bored of commenting here, because the arguments for Option A can never actually debunk what I am saying. According to their logic, the NYT article intro must say "The New York Times editorial board has promoted abolishing the police" because they allowed opinion articles on the matter, the New York Post article intro must say "The New York Post has promoted liberal views," without saying that it was 40 years ago, because according to my opponents, context and how long ago something was don't even matter. And it's hilarious how they can never answer my most obvious question, how the heck is any of this NOTEWORTHY? This Wikipedia article is the only real source that cites the decade old book that is talking about opinion articles, not even the editorial board, so how is that NOTEWORTHY in the lead? No other source is cited anywhere saying that the editorial board promotes false info on asbestos or pesticides, so it is the most absurd thing I've ever heard to act like this single source, not even criticizing the editorial board but GUEST COLUMNISTS 30 years ago for a period of at most 20 years out of the WSJ's 130 year existence, is somehow noteworthy for the lead. Bill Williams (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You could literally just say something accurate like "The editorial board has published pseudoscientific opinion articles by guest editors regarding climate change" and that would actually be noteworthy and accurate, but nah, you demand that they are wrong about asbestos, something I've literally never read an opinion article on in my entire life, and that they haven't published any pseudoscientific opinion articles on in decades. The Wikipedia article on editorials states "An editorial (US), leading article or leader (UK) is an article written by the senior editorial people or publisher of a newspaper, magazine, or any other written document, often unsigned," except the pseudoscience was written by guest editors, so it quite factually wasn't an editorial. Bill Williams (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not restricted to things you have read about in your life. Giving guest columnists who are known for their anti-science stance an opportunity to spread their anti-science propaganda is itself an anti-science stance. This is not about conservative or liberal "views". It is about actual disinformation. Distortion of the facts. Selling outsider ideas as science. Something a serious medium should not do.
 * If you have enough reliable sources accusing those other papers of regularly spreading dishonest propaganda lies, of course it belongs in the ledes of those other articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The hyperbolic nature of your claims aside, you have only made an argument fur weight in the article, not in the lead. Springee (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Snooganssnoogans refuses to allow any controversial things the NYT has published go in the lead of that article, but demands that what guest editors controversially said a few times goes in the lead of this article, which I find ironic. To quote Snooganssnoogans, "It's a violation of NPOV (WP:UNDUE) to give readers the impression that the newspaper of record is embroiled in controversies, as if it were Breitbart News. Every newspaper, every institution, every prominent figure "has controversies". By placing it in the lead, the article simultaneously communicates nothing substantive (all institutions have controversies) and misleads readers into thinking the NY Times is a newspaper of dubious and contested reliability" which perfectly applies to the WSJ in the case of things that guest editors published decades ago (asbestos, pesticides, second hand smoke) being put in the lead as if the newspaper regularly publishes about them. Bill Williams (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

NYT vs WSJ - breaching scientific doctrine
See the [|... talk page for NYT] which relates to both pages.
 * You need to discern between "dogma", which is a religious concept, and scientific findings. This is about scientific findings which the WSJ denies for ideological reasons although practically all experts agree on them. Please read WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Following abuse from User:Hob Gadling, have removed breaches of science dogma allegations in lede - this is WP:10YT; and fails to give date/time period; other parts are WP:SOAPBOX, serious issues with due weight; bring to talk page and obtain consensus before re-adding any part of this. --nesher 09:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to the form of this "abuse": would you mind pointing it out?


 * bring to talk page and obtain consensus before re-adding any part of this
 * Good idea. Oh, wait, it's been done. --Calton &#124; Talk 09:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Censorship, WP:BIAS and User:Calton
User:Calton upholds highlighting the WSJ's non-conformism with the scientific dogmas, on the basis of a single book (Oreskes, (2010).

User:Calton also censors an addition to that narrative, to quote, "One primary study from an uncertain journal? Really?".


 * 1.Please define the issue with "one primary study".
 * 2.Please define "uncertain journal".
 * 3.Uncertain to you perhaps?

WP:BIAS is in clear operation. Is there any oversight to this orgy of censorship on the English Wikipedia?
 * Nesher (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments First, this isn't a RfC since it wasn't done in a way that triggers the RfC system. Second, if the claims pass WP:V I would suggest two things.  First, more details from this source need to be added to the article body.  it's not good to have content like this only in the lead.  Second, given the nature of the claims being made about the WSJ and when the events were reported to have happened, it does make sense to include this source and to put the time/scope on the content in the lead.  Springee (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading through the article it seems like this would actually be a good source to draw on since it uses a methodical way to compare the WSJ to other sources. It did find differences but perhaps not as large as other sources have indicated.  It should be included but primarily in the article body.  I'm not sure the addition to the lead is the best way to summarize the source.  Springee (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Nesher has started two RfCs, both calling into question edits by another directly-named user, which goes against WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The other one was by  - I'm inclined to terminate this RfC but not so drastically. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really a proper RfC. Summoned by bot. This section starts with criticism of another user, followed by vague implications about orgy levels of malfeasance. This is not an RfC. Further up on this page, there is a question about a proposed edit to the lead section, with two options to vote between. That's an RfC. If you have a specific edit you wish removed or restored, propose it. And outline whether this is a continuation or reset of the A / B discussion above or something else. And assume good faith -- both generally, which is important, and in setting a neutral RfC question, which is required. Chris vLS (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have terminated the RfC (by editing above; don't know if anything more is needed). There is no way an RfC framed as above can be held. Ask questions at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"a litany of falsehoods"
is exactly WTF they are.

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

HAHAHA!

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

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


 * We don't use hyperbolic language. It violates IMPARTIAL.  23:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC
Should the caveated highlighted text appear:

A) In the lede.

B) In the body.

C) Nowhere in the article.

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


 * Let's slow down. Just running another RfC isn't going to fix things.  Let's have the discussion first.  A number of editors have objected to the way the lead handles this information .   you are correct to say this edit has been challenged and thus revert per NOCON.  Can you explain your WP:PRIMARY concern?  Would that same concern apply to Naomi's book cited in the lead?  Anyway, rather than just run another RfC with no discussion I would suggest we actually talk about the topic, see if we can't come up with a consensus solution that we can all live with vs trying to do all in/out RfC solution.    Springee (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems reliable sources into the 2000s still do say that the WSJ tends to take a climate-denying (or downplaying) stance on things, so regardless of whatever is decided about the reliability of that paper I don't think it's perspective should be afforded that much weight if it tends to disagree with reliable sources. Skimming over it though, it seems to essentially be saying that the WSJ's conservative framing (scare quotes intentional) of climate change is on the downturn, not that it doesn't exist.
 * More to the point about the lead, I really do not understand why a few pages in a ~300 page book discussing some editorials published in the WSJ (among many other publications) deserves to have a whole lengthy sentence dedicated to it in the lead. How on earth is that in WP:PROPORTION to the coverage of the WSJ in reliable sources? I can find a lot in reliable sources discussing the WSJ and climate change denial (see above), but almost nothing on asbestos or second-hand smoke or the like. For instance, there is another journal article in the body of the text about second-hand smoke, with a single paragraph in a long paper about the media and medical institutions generally, discussing one editorial published in the WSJ in 1994 (as a comparison, it spends about three times as long talking about three different editorials published in the NYT). It makes absolutely no sense to me why all that other obscure stuff is there in the lead with climate change, which reliable sources do actually tend to mention. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I started another Talk Section below to cover this topic: "Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary". Please comment if you would like to contribute to the conversation. Stallion55347 (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a consensus solution: completely eliminate any mention of the WSJ editorial board from the lead. I think a pretty clear and compelling case has been made by multiple editors on why this sentence is problematic and biased ANYWHERE in the article, but if we really have no choice but to keep it, then I think a fair solution is to simply take it out of the lead and move it to the (bizarrely long and detailed) section on the WSJ's editorial pages. The Wikipedia pages for fellow newspapers of record the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today do not provide any information at all about the papers' respective editorial pages in their leads. And rightly so- as has already been discussed in this talk page, an encyclopedic entry on a newspaper should accurately reflect the strict division maintained between the news desk and the editorial board. And a note about the use of the phrase "editorial board:" this article is now being held hostage by people actively trying to maintain a false statement on Wikipedia. Not good. As has already been pointed out, some of the articles on scientific issues cited as "being promoted by the editorial board" were not even written by the editorial board. Somebody falsely claimed that the publication of an article on editorial pages constitutes approval or promotion by the editorial board-- this person does not understand how newspaper editorials work. Only articles written by "The Editorial Board" reflect the institution's opinion. This is a falsehood right in the lead of a frequently read Wikipedia article. Another note: Hob Gadling repeatedly cited the OTHERTHINGSEXIST guidance on why we shouldn't look at other Wikipedia pages for consistency and neutrality in tone-- well, this guidance only covers the question of the existence of a page. For all his repetition, this editor fails to even understand the guidance he is peddling. And a final note: seeing this specific paragraph in this specific article was one of the things that caused me to set up an editor account with Wikipedia-- I love Wikipedia, and while reading through different articles on American news sources, I was shocked that something so weirdly warped and apparently maliciously-placed would be situated in such a prominent position in an article on a newspaper of record, so I figured I should fix it and help maintain Wikipedia as a neutral and credible source. See Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on the Wall Street Journal (itself longer than this Wikipedia lead) for an example of a highly-edited, highly neutral overview of this news source. The ability of a couple impassioned editors to sabotage an article and refuse to budge despite many others' clear arguments has really made me lose faith in the Wikipedia editorial process (and, more generally, in the neutrality and reliability of this website). To those who are still insisting on keeping this in the lead: something is very, very, very wrong if your editing was so poor that it inspired somebody to enter the mess that is Wikipedia editing just to fix your work. Clayjamieson (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Clayjamieson
 * I certainly think the editorial board should have no mention in the lead (no other major newspaper's lead mentions their editorials), but there is already an RfC on removing some specific stuff, and until that is removed, another frivolous RfC with an addition that nobody besides you wants, is completely pointless and should be closed. Bill Williams (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

WSJ's Reputation
A new section was added commenting on the widely reguarded reputation of the Wall Street Journal as being one of the most respected and least biased new sources available. Kleinpecan has concerns about sourcing. Does anyone have suggestions one how this section can be improved? Does it need to be improved?

As a newspaper of record, The Wall Street Journal is regarded as one of the top newspapers in the world.
 * =Reputation==
 * https://www.zestvine.com/top-newspapers-in-the-world/
 * https://blog.bizvibe.com/blog/top-newspapers-world
 * https://www.innfinity.in/limitless/top-10-newspapers-in-the-world/

It has a world-wide reputation for being unbiased source of news and for reporting the news “as it is."
 * https://towardsdatascience.com/how-statistically-biased-is-our-news-
 * https://www.makeuseof.com/top-unbiased-news-sources/
 * https://techboomers.com/learn/news-sites-with-unbiased-stories
 * https://clickitornot.com/most-unbiased-news-sources/

In a ranking of over 800 news sources, both All Sides Media and The Media Bias Chart rate the Wall Street Journal as ones of the least biased newspapers in the US.
 * https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_StaticMBC_Button&utm_medium=OnWebSite_
 * https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

This is a critical advantage during a time when many other U.S. media sources have suffered because of a decline in public perceptions of credibility in the U.S. For example, Democrats say they believe that just 44% of news on TV, in newspapers, and on the radio is biased, while Republicans say they believe 77% of it is biased.
 * https://knightfoundation.org/reports/perceived-accuracy-and-bias-in-the-news-media/

Forbes has noted that since 2016, the percentage of Republicans who say they have at least “some” trust in national news organizations has plummeted from 70% that year to just 35% in 2021. Democrats trust has moved from 83% to 78% during the same period.
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/andymeek/2021/09/06/republicans-are-abandoning-the-national-mainstream-media-in-droves-because-they-dont-trust-it/?sh=4d410bf25889

One exception to this trend is the Wall Street Journal, who was the only media organization that both Democrats and Republicans rated favorably in a study that was done on media bias in 2018. The Wall Street Journal received favorable scores in both accuracy and for being unbiased.
 * https://knightfoundation.org/reports/perceived-accuracy-and-bias-in-the-news-media/Stallion55347 (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WSJ is an excellent news source, I routinely cite it. The editorial pages? Not so much. Two different worlds, an even more stark contrast than between Fox News daytime and primetime. I support a paragraph that would contrast the reputations of both its news and editorial divisions, as I occasionally see editors cite a dubious WSJ op-ed/editorial while insisting it's one of the best papers in the world. But except for Gallup/Knight, all the above sources are very weak. soibangla (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If the WSJ is an excellent news source, then we do not need these insulting claims in the lead, because once again, not a single major news article on Wikipedia, e.g. New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, says a single thing about what the editorial board has published in the lead, because every single editorial board clearly states "these are the opinions of the editorial writers and not the newspaper." Unless you can cite reliable sources such as the ones I just hyperlinked claiming that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is somehow NOTEWORTHY for being pseudoscientific on asbestos, pesticides, second-hand smoking, acid rain, or ozone depletion, then it is completely UNDUE for the lead and only belongs in the body, because nobody else is reporting on it outside of Wikipedia, and you are not a reliable source with your own original research that you use to claim this is noteworthy. Bill Williams 15:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart are red-listed at WP:RSP; to put it bluntly, their word is good for nothing. The "perceived accuracy and bias" results from the Knight Foundation survey are interesting and worth including in the article, but they don't override documented cases of actual bias. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Scrubbing peer-reviewed studies from body
The editor 'Bill Williams' has upped their tendentious editing from repeatedly pushing to alter the lead of the article to now edit-warring to scrub content sourced to peer-reviewed studies from the body of the article and rewording content so that the article no longer says that the WSJ editorial board rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. This is a violation of WP:FRINGE by obfuscating about what the WSJ editorial board is doing. The editor is also scrubbing content sourced to peer-reviewed publications that characterize the WSJ editorial pages as a forum for climate change denial. 'Bill Williams' claims that this "is not at all what most reliable sources claim" – this is a falsehood. A multitude of reliable sources characterize the WSJ editorial board in this way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely false characterization of my edit. I removed "is regarded as a forum for climate change deniers" because reliable sources do not "regard it" this way, and putting that in Wikipedia's voice is completely NPOV. Also, I reverted you once, which does not qualify as "edit warring." Bill Williams 23:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society literally describes the editorial pages of the WSJ as "a regular forum for climate change denial" (p. 152). The many other peer-reviewed publications in the article characterizes the WSJ in a similar way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "describes the editorial pages of the WSJ" is not what was in the article. The article stated "" The Journal is regarded as," not the editorial pages specifically. Additionally, you can state "Oxford has stated that the Wall Street Journal editorial pages are" but saying "is regarded as" without saying from whom implies that it is in Wikipedia's voice because numerous reliable sources use that term, which is false. Bill Williams 00:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I kept "The Journal has published articles by individuals that reject the scientific consensus on climate change in its op-ed section" because that is a fact... Bill Williams 23:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless the source is biased for some reason, we can state its conclusion without in-text attribution, generally speaking. Stating an Oxford Handbook claim in wiki-voice is not too much of a stretch, honestly. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The source does not even state what he claims. It states, on page 126 of the PDF document of the book, under the section "2.5 Conservative Media," "Wall Street Journal (whose editorial pages have become a regular forum for climate change denial." That is not at all equivalent to "The Journal is regarded as a forum for climate change denial" if only its editorial pages specifically are. Additionally, this book is from 2012, so unless you can provide other sources calling it a "forum," then this decade old source is by itself not noteworthy enough to say "is regarded as" in Wikipedia's voice. Bill Williams 00:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Bill Williams 00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So, insert "the editorial pages" and say "in 2012", or change an "is" to a "has been". What's the problem? Removing the source entirely amounts to scrubbing history, or at best, indulging in recentism. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, I will add that back. Bill Williams 00:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added the sentence "The Journal editorial pages were described as a "forum for climate change denial" in an Oxford book published in 2011." with the proper hyperlink for Oxford University Press and the citation for the book. Bill Williams 00:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The WSJ editorial board rejects the scientific consensus in its own columns. It doesn't just publish columns by individuals who reject the scientific consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide a source that states that it currently believes climate change does not exist or is not caused by humans, as opposed to past editorials published on its pages. Bill Williams 00:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From the WSJ ed board itself:
 * 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."
 * WSJ ed board, 2010: "There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change."
 * 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) 00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That was one decade ago. Please provide sources stating that it "disputes the scientific consensus" to this day in 2021, which is 11 years later, considering the editorial board still publishes articles multiple times per week and may have changed its opinion as far as your original research can show. Bill Williams 00:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you the arbiter of what current means? soibangla (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Three weeks ago they stated "global warming does pose problems" and "we can mitigate much of the danger threatened by climate change," meaning they do recognize that climate change exists, which makes your claim false. What is true, and what I left in the article, is that they dispute that climate change is an existential threat to humanity. Your article refers to one opinion editor and not the editorial board. Bill Williams 00:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Except you asked Please provide a source that states that it currently believes climate change does not exist or is not caused by humans. Did the board agree it's caused by humans, or simply that "global warming does pose problems," which isn't the same thing? They deny climate change from the business regulation perspective, it's the anthropogenic issue that's important to them. soibangla (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your article refers to one opinion editor and not the editorial board. That's not how it works, they don't all sit around a conference table and write together every day. One board member writes a piece and it gets Gigot's approval and it runs. soibangla (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The board does not "promote" things just because they are published in the OP-ED section. Do they both support and oppose Donald Trump because they have had conflicting editorials on the matter? And again, please provide a source stating that they currently believe that climate change is not cauesd by humans, otherwise the article cannot say that they currently do. Bill Williams 00:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The lead has never said currently promotes, it has always said has promoted, and this is not a newspaper, it's an encyclopedia that must address at least the post-war period of a 132 year-old paper. Were not here to tell readers only what the WSJ has said in the past week. soibangla (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree, the lead says "has promoted," but this section of the talk page was not discussing that. It was discussing the part of the body that stated "The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change" which means currently, and the claim that it currently does is without any sources, so I removed that. Bill Williams 01:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be original research to quote mine from some of their recent articles to locate sentences that appear to display a new editorial policy. What is needed are reliable sources that note this so that WP could add updates.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 17:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Climate change deniers frequently use mealy-mouthed rhetoric like "global warming does pose problems" while failing to acknowledge the scientific consensus that human activity is the primary contributor to climate change. That entire editorial is about downplaying actions to reduce climate change while focusing on protecting against the harms that climate change causes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, that is purely original research of your opinion on the matter based on speculation of "climate change deniers" in general. Please provide a source that proves that the WSJ editorial board currently denies that humans cause climate change, otherwise you cannot said that it "denies" in present tense. Bill Williams 01:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And here it is yet again: WP:IDHT CURRENTLY DOESN'T MATTER! hear it now? soibangla (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, I removed "promotes," which is present tense, meaning that it claimed the WSJ currently denies that climate change exists or is caused by humans... Also, if "currently doesn't matter," should we put sentences in the lead about what the WSJ did 100 years ago that were controversial? If how current something is absolutely "doesn't matter," then the second-hand smoking denial would be considered true by some sources 50 years ago. Therefore, why is what the WSJ promoted decades ago relevant? Bill Williams 01:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And round and round and round we go. Non sequiturs. IDHT. Ad nauseam. Please read this very carefully, as I already explained it yesterday:
 * soibangla (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And once again, every single major newspaper has its own editorial interests. Why does not a single other major newspaper have its editorial opinions in the lead of their Wikipedia article? I want to know why the WSJ is so unique that the few sentences in the body of this article on climate change need to be repeated in the lead when almost nothing else in the body of this article is repeated in the lead. Is climate change denial a more significant feature of the WSJ than any of its economic stances? A basic view of its editorial pages shows that economics is written about far more than climate change, so why is that not in the lead? I have repeatedly asked this basic question, which you have repeatedly ignored, so please tell me how that is "disruptive editing." Moral of the story is that editorial opinions do not belong in the lead of any Wikipedia article on a major newspaper. Bill Williams 02:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No no no. I have repeatedly asked this basic question, which you have repeatedly ignored is just plain false, and this is because of your WP:IDHT. It's not just climate change, it's a whole range of environmental issues, which I just explained to you and implored you to read, but within 6 minutes you had already composed and published your reply, which clearly shows IDHT yet again, as has been pointed out to you, and there's every reason to believe you won't hear this either, and we'll just go round and round and round forever. soibangla (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you say "it's just plain false" that you ignored my question, yet you then continued on to not answer my basic question... Again, what differentiates the WSJ from every other major newspaper that necessitates its editorial opinions are in the lead? All you did was describe what the editorial board believes, which again is irrelevant for the lead unless it is extremely noteworthy in reliable sources, which seldom cover the WSJ editorial opinions on climate change. In fact, some sources discuss the WSJ editorial board business opinions far more, yet that is not in the lead and does not belong there either.Bill Williams 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please keep things civil. If you think this has become circular just stop replying. Springee (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I answered all your questions in that green box, as I and others had explained from numerous angles in numerous other edits over the past day or two. Over and over again. I'm done here. soibangla (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Why does not a single other major newspaper have its editorial opinions in the lead of their Wikipedia article? Because there is no other major newspaper whose editorial opinions collide with reality regularly enough that landmark publications such as Merchants of Doubt notice it and draw attention to it. If you find another book as important and as respectable as "Merchants of Doubt" remarking on consistent publication of untruths by another major newspaper, by all means add it to the lede of the article to that newspaper.
 * The fact that you recently tried to insert a hurrah section lauding the alleged excellence of WSJ (with highly dubious sources) while at the same time obstinately trying obstinately try to keep the pointer to its unreliability in questions of environmental science (with an excellent scientific source) out of the lede, repeating long refuted arguments again and again and persistently not listening to those refutations in spite of having been shown to WP:IDHT by several users, as well as removing well-sourced criticism from the body, suggests that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to turn this into a PR article for the WSJ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

By "a hurrah section lauding the alleged excellence of WSJ", I assume you mean Special:Diff/1056719837? It was added to the article by, not Bill Williams. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Striking. This weakens my fact base a bit... --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Huh. The strike thing does not work anymore. Anyway, please ignore the "recently tried to insert a hurrah section lauding the alleged excellence of WSJ (with highly dubious sources) while at the same time" bit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just too stupid to use the strike code. Springee gave me a tip. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe learn how to read as well next time instead of personally insulting me with accusations of "you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to turn this into a PR article for the WSJ" when I never even wrote this section to begin with. Bill Williams 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That was just one of the items. You will probably ignore my answer to your question Why does not a single other major newspaper have its editorial opinions in the lead of their Wikipedia article?. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw your answer, it was just completely false original research so I did not realize I had to formulate a response to it. " Because there is no other major newspaper whose editorial opinions collide with reality regularly enough that landmark publications such as Merchants of Doubt" prove this with a single reliable source that states the WSJ editorial board does this more than any other editorial board, otherwise that is completely false original research. Additionally, The Merchants of Doubt does not mention a single thing about their editorial opinions if you cared to read a single page of the book. It simply mentions a few opinion editors, and numerous newspapers have been criticized for which opinion editors they allowed to publish things. When New York Times allowed Republican senators to promote their right wing views, they were criticized, but does that magically mean the NYT supports Republicans? Bill Williams 17:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That response is so confused. Your comparison of this article with other articles is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and completely irrelevant. I was just trying ot illustrate the fact that every article is based on its own sources and not on other Wikipedia articles. We have a reliable source, a landmark publication saying a specific thing about the WSJ, and that is why the article about the WSJ should contain that thing. We do not have such a reliable source saying any similar things about other articles about newspapers, so those articles should not contain no such similar things. Why is that simple logic so difficult for you to comprehend? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As a source linked above points out, and has been argued elsewhere , "accepting" global warming by endorsing Bjørn Lomborg is just moving on to a new kind of denial. (It puts one in the company of the Daily Mail, which is not such illustrious company to keep.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this is relevant to the topic but if I'm not mistaken the consensus on climate change relates to the causes, not the best strategies for dealing with it. We have to be accurate when saying something denies or is against climate change if their actual POV is the impacts are better than the proposed solutions.  Yes, a denier and a "roll with the changes" person may advocate the same thing but that doesn't mean they do it for the same reasons.  We should not confuse the two nor write articles that would cause readers to be confused about the position of the article's subject.  Springee (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not just about causes versus coping strategies, but also the severity of the problem. Lomborg, in his columns for the WSJ, misrepresents the science in order to downplay the severity. And the editorial statement from three weeks ago posted as evidence that the editorial board "accepts" global warming cites Lomborg as the authority for their position. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The entirety of your original research is irrelevant unless you have reliable sources stating that the WSJ editorial board continues to deny the scientific consensus on climate change. No such source exists, because the few articles on the topic only refer to random opinion editors who the editorial board disagrees with, or editorial board articles written a decade ago, which cannot be used to claim that the board currently denies climate change. Bill Williams 19:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Media Matters source does mention that climate change denial is still a problem (minimization of cause, promotion of scientific uncertainty, etc). Important policies include WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV: we cannot present all sources as equal or as only opinions.  As XOR'easter said above, there are situations where WP:ATTRIBUTE is unnecessary and even misleading.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * the vast majority of what the MediaMatters source discusses is from multiple decades ago, only a few of what it mentions is from a single decade ago, and it has nothing past a single decade ago because that is when it was written. My point still stands that you cannot claim the WSJ editorial board denies the scientific consensus on climate change currently when the last analysis of it was a decade ago. Bill Williams 20:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We just use the last information we have about it. Since we have no sources that say that they changed their position, we have to assume that their anti-science stance is still the same. Why shouldn't it? They are against regulation of markets, and since the fact of human-induced climate change implies that the energy market needs to be regulated, Of course they have to continue denying that fact to prevent that regulation. (Unless they suddenly became honest, of course. No evidence for that.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we find something they published a century ago and say they continue to promote it? That is completely absurd, if reliable sources no longer babble about this like editors do on this talk page, then it does not belong in the article as if they continue to believe it. The burden of proof rests on you to prove that they supposedly still promote this. Bill Williams 17:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Find that century-old thing, then we can discuss it. At the moment, we are discussing this thing: ten years ago, a source said something about the dishonesty of the WSJ's last three decades, and you are claiming that it somehow does not apply anymore; that the WSJ has recently changed a denialist strategy it had used for thirty years, admitting only those facts they have absolutely no chance of credibly denying. There is no reason why we should assume that. If you have sources it did, then, yes, maybe we should use past tense. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lomborg isn't a random opinion editor with whom the editorial board disagrees; he's the man whose opinions the editorial board endorsed on November 1, 2021. It wouldn't be OR to say so, or to summarize the responses to Lomborg's opinion columns. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is original research because you are the one connecting the dots between Lomborg and the editorial board, not a single reliable source. Just because they quoted him in a single article does not mean they endorse all of his views, and please provide a reliable source stating that he disputes the existence of climate change. Bill Williams 01:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the one who claims that there was a radical change in the WSJ's stance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Juxtaposition is not synthesis. I have no interest in drawing a conclusion about why the WSJ takes the editorial positions that it does. I'm not the one connecting the dots between Lomborg and the editorial board; they did that themselves. I provided sources about Lomborg above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Did a single source state that this is at all notable? No, so you are the one who connected the dots yourself and determined it was notable for the lead. Bill Williams 00:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now you are inventing new rules. If Wikipedia only contained things that have explicitly been called "notable" by sources, it would be far, far smaller. Most leads would be empty too. Of course it is editors who have to decide that kind of thing!
 * This specific thread is about whether to use past tense or present tense for the WSJ's anti-science-when-free-market-fundamentalists-do-not-like-the-results stance. It is established by reliable sources that they had it ten years ago, there is no evidence that they stopped having it, and there is evidence that they still have it. We cannot just put things in the past tense because it is theoretically possible that it is not true anymore. Otherwise we would have to put all biographies in the past tense because it is theoretically possible that the subject has died in the last few minutes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The argument for using past tense, if accepted and generalized, would lead to writing the whole WP in past tense. Cinadon36 08:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I slightly reworded the section and clarified information on the sources but removed two sentences, which were what one random washington post and forbes writer mentioned about the WSJ, since that is not nearly as significant as what actual published research stated and is undue in comparison. Bill Williams 02:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you need to slow down given how manifestly controversial these changes are. I particularly object to removing The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change as the initial sentence of that section; it is not duplication (since the sentence is a basic summary of the sources and the rest of the section, while the rest of the section goes into detail on the more specific ways in which they advance that position), but even if the section were reworded to reduce duplication, obviously that core summary would have to remain. Removing the main point because the same language is used in a supporting point further down the paragraph is obviously backwards. Nor am I really seeing a consensus above for the other removals - the sources, which are generally of quite high quality, seem to straightforwardly support the fact that they have published articles disputing that global warming is occurring at all and are regarded as a forum for climate change deniers.  The latter is strong language, but it is appropriate to use strong language when many high-quality sources do so; and the former seems incontrovertibly supported by the sources - the argument that they might not do so now is speculative at best without secondary sources backing it up and in any case doesn't contradict the text. --Aquillion (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we have a source that says the board rejects the consensus on climate change and if so what specifically they reject. We should not conflate Wikipedia's definition of the consensus with any statement by the board. If we are going to say they reject the consensus that needs to be a statement from the board itself, not an assessment from others.  This is especially true since the objective of the board may be to provide alternative views vs simply reject.   Springee (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot count the times when some user demanded that we should use the fringe source itself instead of reliable secondary sources. I will not link the guideline which says we should not do that because I think you can find it yourself if you try.
 * Climate change denial is by its very nature malleable. At any given moment, deniers will deny whatever they think they can get away with at the time. Anything the WSJ say at one moment will be determined by a temporary context and not be representative of their general stance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I concur Cinadon36 07:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * HG, your reply misses the point. Based on the comments of others we can say the actions of the board reject or the board has consistently run articles that reject. However, we violate OR if we say "the board rejects" without a statement from the board saying as much.  It is the difference between describing their actions via what they publish and their thoughts which would require a statement or meeting minutes etc. Springee (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources say they reject it, then we write they reject it. Why would they get a special exemption? Other profringe loons do not get that special treatment either. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a crusade or an attempt to follow IMPARTIAL? We need to be accurate.  Stating the board has rejected clearly implies there is a statement from the board.  If we have that then we should cite it.  If we just have 3rd party sources saying this then we need to be factually correct and say their actions or something similar.  The Wiki article in clear language says, "The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change."  This claim doesn't have a direct citation, only a mass citation two sentences later which presumably supports all three sentences..  I don't have access to all the sources (at least one is 404'ed) but let's look at what several say.  The Guardian  absolutely supports the view that the board is publishing bad info on climate change and has for a while.  The Elsasser paper and Vardy paper both speak to what has been published (ie the actions), they don't say the editorial board rejects.  The same is true of Supran's open letter in ERL. I wasn't able to check all of the cited sources.  All support the claim that the WSJ's commentary pages consistently publish bad climate change material.  None support the statement that "the board has rejected".  Wikipedia should always be cautious/conservative when making claims about others pick the most defensible claims, not claims that we "know to be true because"...   Springee (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it does not apply that Stating the board has rejected clearly implies there is a statement from the board. Stating that "the board believes P" (P is whatever opinion) means that there is consensus among RS that board believes P. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 12:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem it's a very obvious plane language reading of the sentence. Even then none of the sources I was able to review actually support that specific summary.  Snoogan (below) does provide two statements which we should cite instead along with the dates.  Springee (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WSJ ed board, 2009: "There is still serious scientific debate about the causes, effects and possible solutions for climate change." WSJ ed board, 2010: "We think the science is still disputable... This raises 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." 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 2009 or 2010. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good, that is what we should cite. Something like, "In 2010 the WSJ said, X.  In 2019 the WSJ said Y."  Those sources (and sources that cite those statements) are the only sources that would support a claim that the board has rejected consensus.  The current block of sources only support the claim that the board ran editorials that rejected or conflicted with.  Springee (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If we say "said Y", we have to add that this is contrary to the science. Do you really want "In 2010 the WSJ said, X, which contradicts the scientific consensus. In 2019 the WSJ said Y, which contradicts the scientific consensus"? It is much easier to summarize this as rejecting the consensus in 2009, 2010, and so on. Or at least "denying the existence of a consensus in 2009 and 2010". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How about something more direct, "In statements in 2009 and 2010 the editorial board said, [quoted statemen]". That would be followed by our current block of sources saying something to the effect of, media and academic sources cited examples of WSJ commentary spreading misinformation, [etc].  It no longer uses the current sources to claim something they don't state.  It also correctly cites the editorial board for the things they state.  (Per ABOUTSELF this would also be appropriate).  Springee (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not a repsonse to the question why the WSJ should get special treatment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Since when has avoiding SYNTH or avoiding failed WP:V been "special treatment"? Springee (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rhetorical question leading to a tangent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The verb "to reject" does not even say anything about internal mental states. When I say, "I will not eat this soup", I am rejecting the soup. Could be that in reality, I love the soup, but for whatever reason I am pretending that I do not. But still, I am rejecting it. Maybe the WSJ secretly agrees with the consensus but rejects it for financial reasons, but it still rejects it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we need to distinguish between 3rd parties commenting on the contents of the editorials and the views of the editorial board. Since this is a controversial claim about the board we need to be accurate about what is actually the view of the board vs what is a claim attributed to 3rd parties.  Your analogy would be better if you said, "I will not eat this meal." and a 3rd party said, "HG rejected the soup (part of the meal).  Your rejection of the meal as a whole doesn't mean you have an issue with the soup specifically. Springee (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We cannot know "the view of the board". We can only talk about what they say and do. And that, as everything else on Wikipedia (no special treatment), should be sourced not to primary profringe sources but to reliable secondary... oh fuck it, why do I have to explain the basic rules to somebody who should know them anyway, again? This is a waste of time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the RS in cited say "the board rejects". Why is it ok to fail WP:V? The only source that actually has said the view of the board is the board itself.  Others are talking about what the commentators said.  You know accuracy and all.  But you are saying we can forgo that because they are pro-fringe and all.  I'm sure that's policy somewhere.  Springee (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)