Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive 6

Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary.
Editors were discussing whether the apparent endorsement of non-mainstream or fringe scientific theories should be covered at all, and if so, where. In my closure, I will first address the apparent consensus about mentioning such information.

In general, the policy applicable here is MOS:LEAD, which says that the lede should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies, while also roughly reflect[ing the material's] importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Several editors quoted WP:DUE in their reasoning, which says that neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. However, no participant showed that this was relevant here as no sources in the RfC were discussed that dispute the notion that WSJ was involved in promotion of dubious scientific viewpoints, and none are present in the article at the moment of closure.

Generally, the vast majority of !votes split between A and B. Those advocating for removal were basing mostly on two arguments: that the current version is a misreading of Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway, and that other articles about newspapers do not cover controversies in the lede. The first one merits more discussion. As for the second, it is not persuasive and directly contradicts MOS:LEAD in that the editors ask not to summarise well-sourced key points of the article; moreover, those articles aren't even top-tier ones in order to refer to them as examples of how the articles should more or less look like.

Merchants of Doubt is definitely a reliable source, which is indicated by the fact it has 5739 citations as of closure (Google Scholar). Some editors said that this book is dated and therefore not reliable; however, no newer sources were proposed to rebut Oreskes's claims in the book, and in fact, several more newer RSs affirming or repeating the book's conclusions were provided here. The reading of the book revealed that the fringe views were conveyed using a mixture of op-eds, editorials (by the editorial board or by other authors and put on the editorial page) and sometimes articles that got promoted to page 1 of the newspaper. There are also some views that are no longer relevant for the newspaper and are only of historical significance (e.g. acid rain or health impact of tobacco smoke).

Given the summary above, the proposals below, as well as taking into account the 2019 RfC that this discussion sought to modify or overturn,


 * There is consensus that some form of the debated sentence should still be present in the lead, along with expanded coverage in the body.
 * There is consensus, based on the sourcing provided here and present in the article, that the sentence in question remains valid with respect to climate change topics and may thus be mentioned in the lead as currently presented.
 * Rough consensus was reached that the lead should mention the editorial board's historical views on other scientific topics (e.g. acid rain, asbestos etc.) and that they should not be mentioned in the same way as the climate skepticism as these views are no longer held by the board, but there was no discernible consensus about the precise implementation (with the note that this is historical information, condensed under "health and environmental issues" with climate change singled out, or otherwise). At the same time, the sources present here and in the article give evidence of a general pattern of op-eds, which is under control of the editorial board, as well as editorials, that promoted dubious scientific theories. Therefore, the phrase "the editorial board has promoted" is accurate.

Please direct all comments about the closure here. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)}}

How should the below text appear in this article:

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


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

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

Survey

 * Editorial opinions for the New York Times and Washington Post are outlined in Editorial / Opinions section of their article are not contained within the initial summary. This is the standard that the Wikipedia editorial committee is using for the Washington Post and the New York Times. To maintain consistency, shouldn't this be handled exactly the same way for the Wall Street Journal. Stallion55347 (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ^ This is a single-purposed account who made their first edit last month. Their vote should not be counted in this RfC. Furthermore, the editor does not provide a guideline-related rationale for removing the content from the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See also . Kleinpecan (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lots of good feedback on that discussion page. Though none of it addresses the main concern, the Wikipedia editorial committee has provided a clear outline on how a statement like this should be handled. Is there a compelling reason why we should not adhere to it? Stallion55347 (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, could you give a link to the “Wikipedia editorial committee” or the relevant guideline? I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to. — HTGS (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Check out the articles written by “WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors”. They include many helpful tips on updating the Lead Section in articles:
 * How to create and manage a good lead section Key takeaways:
 * There should not be anything in the lead that does not refer to specific content in the article and is not backed up by specific references found in the article.
 * Try to keep the number of references to a minimum, if used at all. Keeping references out of the lead makes it easier to read, and keeps it free of clutter and easier to edit.
 * There should not be any references in the lead which have not first been used in the body
 * Writing better articles Key takeaways:
 * First change the body, then update the lead to summarize the body.
 * This keeps the lead in sync with the body
 * Best way to summarize material usually only become clear after that material has been written in the body
 * It's much harder to justify high-level statements in the lead when you don't share common understanding of the lower-level information that they summarize. Stallion55347 (talk) 01:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * But the line in question is covered in the body…? Perhaps the section needs expansion, but I don’t think that invalidates its being mentioned in the lead. — HTGS (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no reason to have any opinions of the editorial board in the lead, because that is not the case in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today or any other major newspaper for that matter. No reason whatsoever as to why the Wall Street Journal is magically different enough to have any of its editorial opinions in the lead. Bill Williams 04:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A quote from what I posted in a previous RfC sums this whole section up perfectly: "The sources regarding the board's views on climate change are much more recent, and therefore that portion can stay included. On the other hand, the source concerning asbestos and pesticide isn't even referring to the editorial board 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." Bill Williams 05:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you are just repeating the same arguments again and again, I will do the same:
 * Kleinpecan (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? What Newton did is used constantly to this day by engineers across the world? Are you legitimately trying to claim that what the Wall Street Journal said about acid rain and ozone decades ago is still relevant today? How in the world is that comparable to Newtonian physics? What the WSJ editorial board said on these issues is NOT NOTEWORTHY for the lead. It is simply absurd to insult its reliability in the lead by putting decades old claims of its that are cited NO WHERE in the media besides one book and one website a DECADE ago. If you have a single reliable source that still cares at all about this, or ever even did, please provide it, otherwise this is undue. Bill Williams 05:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about? What Newton did is used constantly to this day by engineers across the world? Are you legitimately trying to claim that what the Wall Street Journal said about acid rain and ozone decades ago is still relevant today? How in the world is that comparable to Newtonian physics? What the WSJ editorial board said on these issues is NOT NOTEWORTHY for the lead. It is simply absurd to insult its reliability in the lead by putting decades old claims of its that are cited NO WHERE in the media besides one book and one website a DECADE ago. If you have a single reliable source that still cares at all about this, or ever even did, please provide it, otherwise this is undue. Bill Williams 05:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * —yes, it certainly is notable when a seemingly reputable newspaper persistently publishes misinformation about science for ideological or commercial purposes. (And please, read WP:INDENTMIX.) Kleinpecan (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Provide a single reliable source that backs your claim that it is notable by showing that it is actually publicized and not just stated in a single book and website a decade ago. Otherwise, it is UNDUE and your ORIGINAL RESEARCH does not belong in the article on it supposedly being significant enough for the lead. If it is notable, then prove that other sources report on the WSJ "persistently publishing misinformation." Bill Williams 05:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again: read WP:INDENTMIX. I have no idea what "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" you are talking about—care to point it out? The references showing WSJ's persisent promotion of misinformation are contained in . Kleinpecan (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Give me a single reliable source besides a decade old book and a decade old website that implies at all that this is relevant for the lead, otherwise it is UNDUE in its entirety. You cannot include insulting information to the newspaper in the lead if literally no reliable sources are talking about it. Bill Williams 03:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Literally no reliable sources are talking about it"—there are, in fact, reliable sources talking about it. Sources do not become unreliable merely because they are old. Since you are just repeating the same arguments ad nauseam, I am not going to reply further. (By the way, did you read WP:INDENTMIX? Or do you suffer from a particularly severe WP:IDHT case?) Kleinpecan (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Age actually is a legitimate reason to remove this from the lead. Over time things change and we can adjust weight accordingly.  Springee (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it's not still relevant today. WSJ is 132 years old, and though ozone, acid rain, asbestos and pesticides aren't major issues we hear a lot about today, they certainly were very big topics 40+ years ago. And inclusion reflects the editorial board's longstanding denial of environmental problems that require expensive remediation, which typically means regulation, which they staunchly oppose as a pro-business organization. Anyone who has read their editorial pages for a while knows it's a defining aspect of who they are. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. soibangla (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is completely false, not a single reliable source is reporting on this besides one website and one book a decade ago, therefore it is UNDUE and this supposed controversial opinion by the editorial board does not belong in the lead. Additionally, the editorial board never said anything about asbestos or pesticides in the one website or one book you can find that even mentions this, only a few random opinion editors did, and a few random opinion editors writing a couple articles would mean we need to add numerous things to numerous articles. Bill Williams 04:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not addressing whether the content is adequately sourced. Assuming it is, even with fifty year-old reliable sources, I argue it belongs in the lead. soibangla (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Assuming it is" but it isn't, as I have said repeatedly, unless you can provide more sources than the one decade old book and decade old media matters web article that are NEVER covered in other major reliable sources, meaning it is UNDUE for the lead because no reliable source cares, only you and other Wikipedia editors. If you try to research the supposed WSJ propaganda the most results you will get is just this Wikipedia article, then you might find the other two decade old papers. Bill Williams 04:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can find two sources to make literally any claim you want, but if nobody else is covering that controversial claim, it is not relevant for the lead of an article. Can you provide more than a few sources on this topic? Otherwise it is UNDUE. Bill Williams 04:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I just told you what I am arguing and what I am not. Why continue talking to me about what I just told you I'm not talking about? soibangla (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * a DECADE ago Did you know that encyclopedias contain not what happened yesterday or last week, but all the relevant stuff that happened, even old stuff? Surprising, isn't it? If you don't want to accept that, maybe you should join a newspaper instead of trying to stop Wikipedia editors from building an encyclopedia?
 * BTW, most of Newton's ideas, i.e. his biblical chronology and alchemy, are not used by engineers today. They are still mentioned in the article about him.
 * The WSJ's unreliability in scientific matters is still highly relevant. I suspect that if you succeeded in removing it, the next step would be to introduce denialist propaganda in articles about climate change, ozone hole, and acid rain, sourced to the WSJ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Give me a single reliable source besides the decade old book and website article that implies this is "highly relevant" for the lead. A major American newspaper's supposed controversial publicizations is not relevant for the lead if literally no reliable sources are discussing it. Also, your absolutely nonsensical slippery slope fallacy is the dumbest thing I've heard all day. Nobody has introduced their alleged "denialist propaganda" into any Wikipedia article because an editorial board is not a reliable source to cite in Wikipedia to begin with, so please refrain from making baseless claims. Bill Williams 03:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Did I mention WP:IDHT? I really think you should read WP:IDHT. Also, WP:IDHT and WP:IDHT. Maybe you could also have a look at WP:IDHT. After you have grasped all that, then you should read the reasoning responding to your "decade-old" fluff and ponder on whether it is wise to repeat your already-refuted "decade-old" fluff. And read WP:IDHT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it’s becoming clear that this particular line doesn’t belong in the lead. Here’s another example that makes the case: the New York Times has a whole section covering Controversies on its main page. Plus, there’s a link to a child article that’s dedicated to a couple dozen more. Yet, none of this is covered in its lead because those controversies do not define the NYT. The comments above about Newton are in the article about him but not in the lead, because those comments don't define him. These editorials, while controversial, do not define the entirety of the Wall Street Journal. This line needs to be removed from that position.Stallion55347 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, as to the question of whether or not this line belongs in the article at all? I would suggest that a heavily edited version of it could exist under these circumstances:
 * The quote needs to include more context like the year that the editorials are from. Without that context most readers would assume that these opinions are recent. Using the NYT’s Controversies page as an example, all of them include the year that they happened.
 * Make sure that opinions stated by the board and guest columns are clearly defined as such.
 * Provide more details or context about exactly what was said that was at odds with the scientific consensus vs. just claiming the opinion was. Include expert’s comments or link to other sources confirming this.
 * I would also suggest using more than one source for all this. It's not a good practice to use the same source continuously throughout an article.Stallion55347 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In body, not lead. This has been argued a number of times.  Wikipedia suggests we should look to the outside world to help understand weight of a topic.  For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica makes no mention of this topic what so ever .  It's not as comprehensive an article as ours but the fact that it didn't make it to the body of that one suggests that our editors might be out of touch to put it in the lead. The same is true if we look at Encylopedia.com .  Springee (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources talk about this supposed major controversy besides one book and one website a decade ago, so I agree that it is completely UNDUE for the lead. Almost NO MAJOR NEWSPAPER has anything about its editorial opinions in the lead to begin with, much less controversies. I think is in agreement when I say it belongs in the body and not the lead. Bill Williams 04:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost NO MAJOR NEWSPAPER has anything about its editorial opinions in the lead Are you familiar with recent controversies about the editorial board not factchecking their pages? Are you aware they essentially gave a Bronx cheer to the idea that their stuff needs to be factual? Are you also aware that they stand practically alone among major broadsheet dailies in that regard? Maybe that would explain why other papers don't have anything comparable in their leads, eh? soibangla (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you on whether this information should be included in the article. Just not the lead. Plus, it needs a significant amount of work before it should be added anywhere within this article - see comments above - as the statement is misleading and dated Stallion55347 (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "Almost NO MAJOR NEWSPAPER has anything about its editorial opinions in the lead" because, unlike WSJ, those major newspapers have not repeatedly promoted anti-science nonsense. It is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia when a mainstream, widely-read newspaper follows mainstream, widely-agreed-upon science—this is the natural state of things. Kleinpecan (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you clearly cannot comprehend the basics of Wikipedia policy. If something is not covered by reliable sources enough to make it major for highly viewed article, it does not belong in the lead. You have NOT A SINGLE SOURCE that states the Wall Street Journal "repeatedly promoted anti-science nonsense," because once again if you even read the decade old article or book that are literally the only citations on the matter, no other reliable source repeated those claims, making them completely UNDUE for the lead. Bill Williams 15:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The only thing it suggests is that Wikipedia, Encyclopædia Britannica, and Encyclopedia.com are different encyclopedias (duh), have different rules and guidelines, and are not required to be complete replicas of each other. See also: Wikipedia is not paper. Kleinpecan (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Lets clean it up and put it in the body please Stallion55347 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In the body, not lead per above. Bill Williams 04:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the lead. It's important, and discussed at sufficient length in the body that a summary in the lead would be standard practice. We don't have a standard lead template for all articles on media organizations; instead, we write leads that present the important points of the respective articles in a clear and concise way. The lead for the article about one newspaper or cable network or social-media service can look different than the lead for another, simply because there are different things to say. Ignoring controversies just because they happened a few years ago is recentism, which is bad. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * please provide a single reliable source that says these are "controversies that happened a few years ago." Two sources in this article, media matters and some book, which were written a decade ago and rarely covered anywhere online or in the news besides this Wikipedia article, are not significant enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Should we include every "controversy" that one or two sources mention in the lead of every single news article? The pesticide, asbestos, and second hand smoking are not even referring to the editorial board, but random opinion editors, so it is quite literally false to say that the editorial board promoted them. Please read the only source provided in this article describing them, and I hope you reconsider. Bill Williams 16:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The board decides which columns and op-eds to run, so referencing the board should be understood to mean anything in the last three pages of section A. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I re-evaluated all the pertinent sources the last time this topic came up on this very Talk page. My opinion stated here is already reconsidered. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And I am still asking you to provide a single reliable source that claims these are major controversies of the Wall Street Journal worthy of the lead of this article. Otherwise, one book and one website from a decade ago that were never else repeated in reliable sources is not sufficient for the lead of one of the largest newspapers in the United States's Wikipedia article. Bill Williams 16:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope you understand that your incessant repetition of the same argument to almost every single user in this thread is disruptive. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The statements in Merchants of Doubt were indeed repeated in other reliable sources elsewhere, e.g., . It's an influential book, cited in excess of 5,000 times on Google Scholar, and a few hundred of those results mention the WSJ explicitly too, so there are plenty more possibilities to dig through than I have time for today. As for other discussions in the same vein, a casual news search find the following: . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of these sources can be used for the lead. Forbes contributors are not reliable sources, one of your "sources" was literally just the book I already mentioned, and the de gruyter doesn't even talk about what the actual editorial board has stated, making that source irrelevant as well. The Scientific American article says nothing about the editorial board, only that one random man published one article in an opinion piece, once again a single opinion piece of irrelevant for the lead, which is the same thing for the houston article talking about the same one opinion piece, the new republic article is again not talking about the wall street journal editorial board, but a single man who wrote a single opinion article, and then you cite the guardian twice when again it mentions a different, but still single opinion piece on the issue, and mentions how the Wall Street Journal has published similar opinion pieces in the past. Not one source states anything about the editorial board publishing all the things claimed in the lead of this article, including ozone, acid rain, second hand smoking, asbestos and pesticides, besides climate change specifically, and even that was only mentioning specific opinion articles and not the editorial board "promoting" anything. Please provide actual sources relating to this claim. Bill Williams 17:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The particular Forbes item I provided would be admissible per WP:SPS. I did not suggest Merchants of Doubt itself as a source, but rather commentaries upon it. All of the other sources are indeed relevant to the topic at hand, i.e., the views promoted by the newspaper. If tweaking the phrasing from "the editorial board" to something else would clarify matters, then we can discuss that, but honestly, it sounds like special pleading; somebody has to decide what opinion pieces they will run. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not some minute difference. The Journal promoting these random things is completely different from them publishing opinion articles by people, since this would be like saying that The New York times promotes abolishing or defunding the police just because they have published opinion articles on the matter. Again, the sources are all referring to random different opinion articles, which is not noteworthy for the lead, because opinions of the articles are not the opinions of the company, as stated in literally every newspaper editorial section in existence. Bill Williams 17:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the official position of the corporation is not legally the same as the opinion voiced in any given column. But a documented pattern of what the corporation is willing to associate itself with is itself worthy of comment. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Noteworthy according to whom? Has there been significant coverage on second hand smoking, asbestos, pesticides, ozone, and acid rain pseudoscience by the Wall Street Journal? There is some minimal amount of coverage on the opinion articles on climate change written by WSJ opinion editors, but all those other topics are almost never covered by reliable sources. And again, "a documented pattern of what the corporation is willing to associate itself" is still false unless you have some quote of them saying they agree with the opinion articles. Does the New York Times promote abolishing or defunding the police just because numerous opinion articles of theirs have supported this? Bill Williams 17:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If we had the same kind of documentation that the NYT were giving time and space to people with a particular view (whether that's "defund the police" or "Send in the troops"), then yes, it could in principle become lead-worthy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What "documentation" is there about the WSJ "promoting" these views? Do you have a single source that states this? Again, opinion articles is not equivalent to the Journal promoting anything. You cannot use the word "promote" without a source because that is highly misleading. Bill Williams 18:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How is it misleading to talk about the views that the WSJ puts in front of people's eyeballs? Yes, there's a difference between an op-ed column by a guest contributor and a signed statement by the editorial board, but both count as bringing attention to a viewpoint. Should some of the places where this article says "editorial board" instead say "editorial board and pages"? Possibly. Given the content of the relevant sections in the body, the lead should perhaps say something like, "The opinion and editorial pages are known for...". But that's a comparatively minor detail of phrasing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is completely irrelevant to the board promoting something. Give a single source stating that the board promoted these second hand smoke etc. things. Numerous articles are allowed to be published that literally oppose in opinion. Does the board both oppose and support Donald Trump and Joe Biden because they have published different opinion articles on these issues? Bill Williams 18:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are talking to me about something I was not discussing, in my specific response to 's specific comment. I find your behavior here to be badgering and disruptive, which has also observed. soibangla (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am simply commenting on the facts of the situation. You have repeatedly gone on talk pages to reply "HAHAHA" when you disagree, so please refrain from trying to claim that I am badgering and disruptive when you have been constantly. Bill Williams 18:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You want to discuss only the facts you choose to discuss in a multifaceted topic as you badger others to focus only on what you want to focus on. I have done nothing of the sort comparable. soibangla (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Bill Williams's question is legitimate. If RSs summarizing the WSJ don't emphasize this point then how can we justify that we are giving DUE/UNDUE weight to topics about the WSJ per RSs?  Editors here are deciding this is a critical topic vs the weight of external sources describing the paper.  Springee (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The ideal way to go about it would probably be to write the article body text first, basing it on appropriate RS's, and if that text becomes sufficiently lengthy relative to the rest of the page, it probably deserves a summary in the lead. Of course, actual editing is apt to be much sloppier than that ideal, with changes in one place not always reflected elsewhere, etc. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Nowhere Any newspaper or publication will have questionable editorials throughout its history. The New York Times has infamously covered up the Holocaust at the time, and collaborated to the justification for the invasion of Iraq, or falsely accused someone for the anthrax attacks based on absolutely no evidence . These aren't mentioned in their lede, nor pretty much anything negative is, why should the WSJ article be any different? Loganmac (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Arguments on NYT are pure whataboutism.Cinadon36 18:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not, it's basic style consistency. We can't have totally conflicting style differences for no apparent reason on comparable articles. Loganmac (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason is entirely apparent. Different articles have different contents and thus different introductory sections. And even if the two ought to read the same, perhaps it's the other page that should be brought into alignment with this one, rather than the other way around. It's also a bit misleading to consider only articles about newspapers and not news more generally. The leads of Fox News and MSNBC both include remarks about accusations of political bias, for example. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * B for now. Sometimes Wikipedians fixate on isolated news articles or controversies (WP:RECENTISM), devote undue weight to such incidents in the article, and then use this imbalance to justify inclusion in lead, which risks perpetuating a bias feedback loop in which editors seek to find additional sources to reinforce this aspect without considering the overall prominence. We cannot confuse verifiability of a view or a fact with relevance. First we should critically assess the article to ensure the body has proportionate coverage of major aspects (including controversies) without cherry-picking, white-washing, coat-racking, or dirt-piling, then determine which aspects stand out as lead-worthy. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

During the 1920s, 1930s and early 1940s the NYTs provided cover for Adolf Hilter and the Nazis party. Their very first article on Hitler was written in 1922 and even then they dramatically downplayed his anti-Semitism. While they did cover some of the negative aspects of what was happening in Germany during that time, they deliberately buried those articles in their newspaper. They admitted they engage in a coordinated anti-Semitic effort for over 2 decades and deliberately mislead the American public that entire time. The 2005 book "Buried by the Times" by Laurel Leff covers it all. It’s one of the most morally objectionable things any media organization could ever do. Yet, this is not in the Lead. The stuff we’re discussing, questionable opinions made by mostly guest op eds, doesn’t even remotely compare to this. In the body, not lead. I'm honestly shocked that were still discussing this. Stallion55347 (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * they engage in a coordinated anti-Semitic effort Says here the book found the actual reason is that Jewish publisher Arthur Sulzberger did not want the paper to appear to be championing a Jewish cause. So there's that. soibangla (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the publisher did not want to appear to be championing a Jewish cause. I’m not sure what your point is here? Are you actually stating that everything the Times did was “Ok” because they had a Jewish publisher? Stallion55347 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that they engage in a coordinated anti-Semitic effort and were thus on Hitler's side is highly dubious. soibangla (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I never said they were on Hitler's side. That's a straw-man argument and completely missing my point. Do you believe what the NYT did was bad or not? If you do, should it be mentioned in the lead? Stallion55347 (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You could say the editorial board allowed for opinion articles on climate change to be published to appear neutral to readers, considering it has also published opinion articles that state climate change is a threat. Numerous other "controversies" like the NYT one mentioned by Stallion would have to be added to various leads of articles according to the reason they are in this article. This is not a whataboutism comparing WSJ to NYT specifically, but to every single newspaper article on Wikipedia, none of them mention editorial controversies in the lead. Bill Williams 23:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And yet again, nothing you just said has any bearing whatsoever on what you responded to. You continue to badger and bludgeon. soibangla (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You mentioned something about the NYT, and I stated how that is comparable to the WSJ. Do you disagree that the NYT mentions nothing about its editorial board or other controversies in the lead, same with every other major newspaper article besides the WSJ? Bill Williams 23:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mentioned a specific clarification about the conclusion Stallion55347 asserted about the book and you responded with a total non sequitur to bludgeon the same argument you've made ad nauseam. soibangla (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla and Kleinpecan, I get that you both have a lot of passion for this topic. But I still don't understand your logic around putting a statement in the lead with 6 separate accusations (are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, ozone depletion, health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos) all from a single source that’s referencing information that in many cases is over 20 years old. These are not all opinions of the Journal's editorial board as some are from guest op eds. A few of these topics aren't even covered in the body of this article or are just using the same single source used here.

At this point it's up to you to prove to everyone taking part in this discussion that this statement, as it’s constructed today, deserves placement in the lead of a highly reputable publication with over 132 years of history. I’m looking forward to your thoughts. Stallion55347 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * B Body only. The same principles which govern content also apply to the lead, and doubly so, since that is the first, and often only, content read by our readers. The mainstream view should get the most weight, so the due weight of the article should read in favor of the mainstream view. This singular dated opinion is not a mainstream view notable enough for inclusion in the lead. –– FormalDude  Emojione 1F427.svg talk 05:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 14:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 14:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A In the lede. It gets significant coverage in the main body, hence it warrants inclusion in the lede. Cinadon36 07:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because one part of the article gives WP:UNDUE weight to something doesn't mean the rest of the article should. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK
 * In the lede - the notion that other newspapers do not have such content is fallacious in the sense that it assumes that all newspapers have at least an equal amount of controversial editorial content. A colorful history of going against scientific consensus is certainly noteworthy. If other newspapers have done this, we should be looking at them also.  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * B In the body, per, and the body should clarify which columns were written by the editorial board and which were op-eds. I hate Rupert Murdoch as much as the next guy, but I don't think that there is enough coverage of this in reliable sources to justify it being in the lede. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|TALK

*Support a shorter statement in lead, such as "The Journal's editorial board has promoted fringe views on scientific matters, including views in contradiction to the scientific consensus on climate change". Sourcing and content definitely justify the inclusion of something in the lead. Saying that the Board has BS scientific views is warranted. As for the specific topics climate change seems like the only issue for which a mention in the lead is warranted in light of the body's content and sourcing. Oppose IP's compromise: the topic warrants a standalone sentence in the lead and not just an en passant mention. It's especially contestable to link it in this way to American conservativism; as if—in my reading, at least—it would be "normal" or "expected" for a conservative publication to promote these views (which is not an argument that's stated in the body). JBchrch  talk  04:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A. In the lead. For reasons explained in multiple other RfCs on this exact topic. That the editorial pages of the WSJ are a prominent disseminator of science misinformation has been noted by countless reliable sources (in particular, academic publications on climate change and science misinformation) and is a key aspect of this organization. What makes it even more notable than the disinformation published by outlets like the Daily Mail and Breitbart is that the actual news reporting in the WSJ is of the highest journalistic standards – which makes the insanity of the WSJ editorial pages all the more noteworthy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A in the lead, per my previous comments here. soibangla (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's great information. Thank you for adding it to the discussion. Though you are actually only proving my point that the information in the original statement we are discussing is way too specific for the lead section, and if we agree to keep it, the statement should be modified to provide a wider view.Stallion55347 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * B In the body
 * There is already a statement in the lead that summarizes the viewpoints of the WSJ editorial pages: "The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position." Anything beyond that is an unnecessary elaboration in a lead section.
 * Other than the topic of "Climate Change Denial", all remaining subjects listed have little to no additional content in the body which means they should in no way be covered in a lead statement.
 * Editorial pages in newspapers are supposed to provide viewpoints outside the mainstream, especially from guest writers. Even if you disagree with them, they are put there intentionally to drive conversation and discussion. Criticizing them for statements made over 20 years ago seems undue. Stallion55347 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A In the lead, but summarized a bit more as: The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on a number of health and environmental issues. I think it's too much of a restatement of what is in the body, which basically contains the same list (maybe it uses slightly longer descriptions, but it's not like every issue is individually expanded upon). I also think the consensus at the present invokes the supremely Boomer issues of acid rain, asbestos, and secondhand smoke, as if they are the same threat that they used to be. I do think my proposed replacement has slightly loaded language: "environmental" has undertones of politically-motivated science from the left, while "health" in my opinion is more of a bipartisan term. I don't think this is all that big of an issue. I think those for and against the consensus on the lead would have reason to approve of my change. Per WP:LEAD, it must summarize the article. I don't think the deletionists/those advocating for a move to the body have much of a case here, and though all editors here I presume are motivated to reach consensus properly per WP:AGF, I'd be surprised if anyone isn't also motivated to participate due to some degree of personal belief. The WSJ is pro-business and regulation more often than not is in opposition to the idealized humming of industry. I think it's fine to own that, and this lead sentence shouldn't irk anyone of the pro-business faith. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, also has an obligation to place generalizable knowledge about science above political commentary on it, and decades of snubbing science by a newspaper's opinion wing is not undue in the article nor the lead in this case. There are kooky opinion pieces in all newspapers, and if it reaches a fever pitch in the nyt/wapo/lat and deserves coverage on another article, go through the proper process to add it. This is by no means a middle ground; I actually think those in favor of the consensus have a strong case. Nobody should ever take opinion pieces from any paper too seriously, including the editors here. I think we're missing the forest for the trees here, being so caught up in this that we're forgetting how tacky it is to have this list redundantly in both the lead and the body. I think we should summarize it because that's what leads are for. 174.193.195.141 (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC) and due to dynamic IP, I am also 2600:1012:B068:D777:3172:6FCB:3354:9A46 (talk)
 * I still think the current version is better because it is more specific and precise, even though it introduces a bit of redundancy to the article, but I'm fine with your proposal too. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can live with that, though "a number" should be changed to "several." I hate "a number," which could mean 3, or 17, or 5,371. soibangla (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OP here, per these suggestions and others, we can consider: "The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on several health and environmental issues, including anthropogenic climate change." 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A, according to 2600:1012's suggestion above. I think the issue merits inclusion in the lead but more than a simple, straightforward sentence like this is probably too much. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  12:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And of course, climate change is the only issue that is expanded upon in the body! Someone suggested that on the noticeboard post, see my reply using this IP. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That phrasing isn't bad, IMO. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I support the status quo consensus version of the lead over compromise proposal. There is neither a consensus to remove the content from the lead nor change the language of the content. The status quo proposal is specific, provides historical context and clarifies to readers what kinds of issues that the WSJ editorial board has misled readers on. The compromise version makes it unclear what kinds of issues that the WSJ editorial has misled its readers on. It is more informative to readers to learn that the WSJ editorial board ran propaganda for tobacco companies and campaigned against efforts to mitigate ozone depletion than to force readers to imagine what kinds of issues that the WSJ editorial board was at odds with. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OP here, leads aren't supposed to be the whole article, so if the reader has to go past the lead to learn more, it's totally fine, and I disagree with the idea that the proposal leaves readers hanging. The proposal is a quite intelligible summary of what is contained in the article. The status quo is mostly a restatement, and parsimonious editors/deletionists would say it's redundant, and that one of the lists has to go. This article presents the same list of things twice! That is bad form for an encyclopedia. I don't quite understand why you'd try to delegitimize this discussion by saying there is a lack of consensus to change it or that this isn't an RfC, if so, why are you commenting here? There's always room for improvement, but beyond your procedural argument is an argument that the reader is being deprived of information, which I disagree with. I think the status quo is needlessly detailed and invokes a litany of archaic issues readers may not care about. You may very well be right that your preferred sentence is the best one, but excessive deference to your logic in all situations would make this encyclopedia quite stagnant, in a bad way. Here's another, more informative proposal (yes, causation has been established for almost every one of those issues):"The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has historically promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on several health and environmental issues, including anthropogenic climate change, and in alignment with the interests of the industries causing them." Let's try and improve this, comeon...I firmly believe people won't keep bringing this up if the sentence was improved...encyclopedic aesthetics are a universal value. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And another: "The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has historically promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on a variety of health and environmental issues, while in alignment with the interests of the industries causing them."
 * I guess you can sprinkle in the list of issues into this sentence, but this is far more informative if we're trying to say the WSJ editorial board is a mouthpiece for industry. The status quo doesn't even explain why they took these unorthodox stances. Some readers might think they're actually crazy, like a white shoe version of Alex Jones, and not just extremely sane and slightly evil. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This "compromise" proposal both increases the length of the lead (from 36 words to 50 words) while communicating less information to readers and adding original research speculation about the true intent of the WSJ editorial board. The status quo version, on the other hand, is both brief and packed with concrete information. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My proposal isn't a compromise one, to be clear. I was told to comment here after trying to chance the sentence, but my change has nothing to do with the original intent of the RfC. Yes, fewer words is one way to measure succinctness, but even a compact list can be densely packed with info and as hard to process as a lengthy but well-written sentence. There's a funny video online of a (very healthy looking), likely schizophrenic guy on the street, who goes into a rant after someone asks him "what is your name"; I tried to do an impression of him once, and could not even remember it well enough to say a single phrase, it was so jumbled. It is far easier, on the other hand, to remember and recite poetry. Phrasing that flows naturally is easy to remember, and lists don't necessarily flow, is my point, so just because it's shorter, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a better summary. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not in the lead. The content would give undue weight to certain viewpoints, and seems to be based on original research (likely misrepresentation of sources).Page 94 of the Merchants says that WSJ "ran a piece [about acid rain] on its editorial page by a consultant". So, it's a semi-random person writing an opinion, not the editorial board. And the story continues: WSJ published debunking to the piece, a letter to the editor by a forest ecologist. So WSJ was in fact promoting science!Page 126 and 135 (about ozone) refers to Fred Singer and "a man named Kent Jeffreys", also not members of the editorial board.Page 146 refers to Singer and other columnists, but it's kind of hard to precisely decipher the context WSJ (and Investor's Business Daily, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The New Republic, The New York Times, and Time) is mentioned. I mean, it's unlikely and not obvious that the page refers the editorial board of WSJ (or NYT etc.).Page 244 refers to Arthur and Zachary Robinson. They are chemists.I couldn't go on, because it became clear I don't buy the argument some Wikipedia merchants are selling. Politrukki (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's more in Merchants of Doubt than that, for example, publishing an op-ed accusing a scientist of misconduct and then only printing a portion of the scientist's defense while giving another round to his accusers (pp. 3–4, 208–211). The bit on p. 94 about the "consultant" writing an editorial on acid rain indicates that the consultant had no scientific background and previously worked for the tobacco industry; printing a letter from an actual ecologist doesn't change who they gave space to first. P. 126 notes that Singer's dismissal of the "ozone scare" ran on page 1, a deliberate editorial choice. P. 135 describes an ongoing pattern: 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." If anything, the current text of the article downplays the criticisms that the source has of the WSJ. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Now you are backtracking; you have already conceded that "there's a difference between an op-ed column by a guest contributor and a signed statement by the editorial board", but your suggestion of using "are known for" would unduly emphasise something – publishing dumb opinion pieces – that has happened relatively rarely over the years. Politrukki (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not backtracking at all. It doesn't matter how "relatively rarely" they published "dumb opinion pieces"; it matters how those pieces were covered, and how the people who analyzed them found a pattern to them. The emphasis would be entirely due. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a deceptively misleading recounting of how Merchants of Doubt portrays the WSJ. I count at least 24 instances where the WSJ is mentioned by its full name in the body of the book in the context of promoting disinformation about various science issues (this is not counting footnotes and endnotes that point to WSJ op-eds). The book mentions four prominent "merchants of doubt" and lists the WSJ as the first outlet in a list of outlets that three of them published in and the WSJ as the second in a list of outlets that one of them published in (a British merchant of doubt who published primarily in the Daily Telegraph, a British outlet). Here are various mentions of the WSJ:
 * Various: “Frontline Perpetuates Pesticide Myth,” “Earth Summit Will Shackle the Planet, Not Save It,” and other articles from the Wall Street Journal variously attacked efforts to control pesticides, stop global warming, and limit the risks of asbestos.” + “It’s not surprising, then, that Russell Seitz’s broadsides against science were promoted in business-oriented journals, or that Jastrow’s early defense of SDI was published in Commentary (a principal voice of neoconservatism) and in the Wall Street Journal. Indeed, in 1986, the Wall Street Journal published a twenty-four-hundred-word version of Seitz’s attack on science—on page 1.”
 * Climate change: “it was the Wall Street Journal spreading the attack on Santer and the IPCC” + “the Marshall Institute claims were taken seriously in the Bush White House and published in the Wall Street Journal, where they would have been read by millions of educated people.” + “Most public—and most publicized—was an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal, accusing Santer of making the alleged changes to “deceive policy makers and the public.”3 Santer had made changes to the report, but not to deceive anyone. The changes were made in response to review comments from fellow scientists.”
 * Ozone disinformation: "The Wall Street Journal kept up the drumbeat for several years with articles and editorials having titles such as “Bad Climate in Ozone Debate,” and “Ozone, CFCs, and Science Fiction,” “The Dreaded Ozone Hole,” and, after the Nobel award to Rowland and his colleagues, “Nobel Politicized Award in Chemistry."
 * Furthermore, the RfC text does not say that the editorial board wrote all the pseudoscientific editorials, but rather that it promoted pseudoscientific views, so the rationale in your vote is bizarre. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You just easily explained why your views are completely false on the matter. You found three op-ed articles published in the WSJ that only one decade old book talked about, and used that to imply it is due weight to put this in the lead. You can find one or two sources describing a controversial op-ed in any newspaper. Since the New York Times once published an op-ed by Tom Cotton that was considered controversial, it later apologized for doing so. Does this mean it belongs in the lead with some sentence like "The New York Times has promoted right-wing views"? No, because the op-ed being published does not mean the editorial board agreed, unless you can provide a source stating so. Again, the New York Times has published multiple op-eds on how the police should be abolished or defunded, yet not a single reliable source says that they "promoted" these views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Williams (talk • contribs) 00:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "You found three op-ed articles" – Please stop bludgeoning this RfC with straight-up lies. Your behavior is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you wish to comment on the editor please do it off the article talk page. Accusing editors of lying is not appropriate.  Springee (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You just described your own editing in the lead of that article you linked, "partisan, biased, or skewed" considering again, you did original research to use a book that almost no other reliable source cites and claim it was due for the lead. I miscounted what you said, but accusing me of lying is a personal attack, when all I did was make a mistake. Either way, your point is absurd considering even a dozen op-eds has no relevance to the lead when the WSJ published thousands of op-eds and you found a couple you didn't like. Bill Williams 14:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "use a book that almost no other reliable source cites" – Please stop lying. Merchants of Doubt has more than 5,000 academic citations in the span of 10 years. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember when Hob Gadling also made a mistake and you then claimed that he did not know how to read. Talk about hypocrisy. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * With regards to The New York Times, exactly. Similarly, the its editorial board promoted debunked theories about Sarah Palin – theories that even the newsroom had debunked, if I recall correctly – and the canard has been widely covered. I still don't think that should be covered in the lead of The New York Times. Politrukki (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * TLDR. It's not my fault that some Wikipedia editors have written deceptive summaries by referring to the "editorial board". I analysed some of the pages that are currently cited from the book. They don't seem to support the claim. It's also not my fault if you further support deceptive summaries by support "status quo consensus version of the lead", and are not open to improving the body. Politrukki (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead. It is very important when a major paper, confronted with the choice between truth and propaganda, chooses propaganda often enough to deserve several mentions in a highly influential book on disinformation. The untrustworthiness of a medium in scientific questions, especially when its misleading reporting has had an influence on governments, is notable for the lead, obviously. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Provide a single reliable source claiming the WSJ "chooses propaganda over truth" or else that is a completely false claim. A few op-eds that had pseudoscience is irrelevant for the lead when they publish thousands of op-eds, and like every other newspaper, a number are controversial. Bill Williams 14:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will not feed you anymore. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A, in the lead, using the longstanding wording; and reject the "compromise" rewrite above, which makes the lead less clear to no benefit (the current version is a single sentence whose size is not significantly reduced in proposed the rewrite.) Coverage in the body is extensive and from extremely high-quality sources that treat this as a major aspect of the Wall Street Journal's reputation - its climate change denial in particular has extensive academic sourcing, though there's a lot on the other ways it has rejected clear scientific consensuses, too. The sources also cover a fairly lengthy time period (meaning it is clearly not recentism.) Most of the arguments against inclusion seem to miss how extensive the sourcing in the body is, focusing solely on Merchants of Doubt (which is a valuable source in terms of giving a broad summary, but the lead summarizes a body that covers many other sources as well), or argue that the body should be changed, which I think is unlikely given the strength of the sourcing but, in that case, start there.   --Aquillion (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing my !vote. Apparently, the sourcing may not be as clear-cut as I thought. I don't have the time to look at it in detail so I prefer to withdraw my !vote and let the people taking a closer and more careful look weigh in. JBchrch   talk  15:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * C - Editorial opinions from media, are questionable & unreliable. GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * B per Animalparty! Thriley (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * C) Nowhere in the article. I looked at Merchants of Doubt. I have the 2011 paperback edition so my page numbers differ but I can confirm what Politrukki said and can go further by looking at every mention of the paper in the index. Page 3 is about an op-ed "accusing Santer of making the alleged changes". Page 65 is about "in 1968, the Wall Street Journal published a twenty-four-hundred-word version of Seitz's attack on science -- on page 1" (it was actually an attack on the nuclear winter theory). Page 78 is about "the Wall Street Journal reported on the EPA study under the headline ACID RAIN IS CAUSED MOSTLY BY POLLUTION AT COAL_FIRED MIDWEST PLANTS STUDY SAYS, and quoted an EPA spokesman using the words scientifically unimpeachable assessment. Page 85 is about an article by Singer in 1981. Page 87 is about a 1983 headline REAGAN-APPOINTED PANEL URGES BIG CUT IN SULFUR EMISSIONS. Page 126 is about a Singer article in 1987 about "ozone scare". Page 146 is about "articles, often taken from The Wall Street Journal and Investor's Business Daily". Pages 208-10 is about a letter to the editor by Seitz in 1996, Santer's edited reply, and more letters. Page 213 is about "the Marshall Institute claims" which caused a Rohrbacher comment in 1995, Page 223 is about DDT and Rachel Carson in 2007. Page 224-225 is about a summary of a report by Seitz in 1997. Page 252-253 is about Singer saying in 1992 the Earth Summit in Rio would "shackle the planet". Thus all but one of the statements about Wall Street Journal and climate are about items between 25 and 54 years old, none are clearly described as about the editorial board, some are about environmental concern and do not dismiss it. Use of this cite is poor sourcing. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a serious problem if the cited source doesn't actually support the sentence in the lead. That means it fails WP:V and should be removed.  At minimum the editor who wrote it needs to explain why they feel it's supported (with quotes to support their claims).  Springee (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Minor correction re what I said about page 213: Oreskes and Conway didn't provide a cite saying where the Marshall Institute contribution was, and Rohrabacher (whose name I spelled wrong) could have been reacting to something else. Also, where I wrote "224-225" I should have written "244-245". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * B. Note that I came here after I saw this thread at AN. This is lead content based almost entirely on brief, scattered mentions of specific op-eds in a very long book, per Politrukki. This is not primarily what the WSJ is known for, as evidenced by it not being material that has made it into other tertiary sources (e.g. Britannica, etc.), per Springee. Excluding it from the lead seems a straightforward and necessary application of WP:DUE. Endwise (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In body only, not in lede. For this to be in the lede, it would need to be a distinctive aspect of the WSJ and thus something that would be verified by multiple high-quality sources (e.g. big claims need big sources).  As it is, it is one source and of okay quality.  As a financial journal (and one of the best newspaper of record), the purpose of the WSJ is always to present both sides of the argument, no matter how unpleasant it may seem.  When people are discussing money, they want to hear such things. Many of the opinion articles printed by the WSJ are designed to function in such a manner. As Bob Farrell (one of the most famous and revered Wall Street analysts) rule #9 states When all the experts and forecasts agree – something else is going to happen. This is the world the WSJ lives in, and they understand the dangers of unchallenged views in either direction. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have subscribed to the WSJ for decades. Their news reporting is excellent, it's what makes it a newspaper of record. I read their opinion pages for a good laugh. I don't object to their conservative POV. I object to the fact they lie a lot. soibangla (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For years the WSJ ran opinion (and staff) articles on the end of oil and the implication of Tesla, but many investors laughed at it, and Tesla (I won't paste in the articles, there are many). When oil collapsed in 2020 (and Tesla's stock - and car - went to the moon), the WSJ ran opinion (and staff) articles about how investors were assuming an overly rapid decline in oil, and that a decade of under-investment in oil meant that oil could hit $200 a barell, which many investors also laughed at.  They are not laughing now.  The WSJ (and the FT) are two of the few papers that I still read because it is dry, unemotional, and you will always get both views. The proposed sentence is from a perspective that any contra-opinion is considered dangerous/devious.  However, anybody who has worked in investments where their "view" is tested by their P&L, knows that Bod Farell's rule #9 holds true (a lot). 78.18.251.161 (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it's impossible to discuss/verify the episode you describe without citations, but let's not go that way, anyway. The opinion pages routinely contain risible lies and they're the only major broadsheet that knows it and doesn't give a damn because, you know, free speech and all. That's all I got here. soibangla (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * something that would be verified by multiple high-quality sources We do have those. See The Wall Street Journal. It is an uncontroversial fact that the WSJ is part of the denial industry, and calling that a "claim" is risible.
 * Of course, those whose intellectual horizon only encompasses things like markets and money will be unable to judge the science and will not recognize that what the WSJ says about climate is bullshit. But, well, WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do understand the science of it - thoroughly. Which is a pre-requisite for investing in the sector.  There is more accurate science re climate change in the WSJ and FT than in many other non-financial papers who would rank prominently on WP:RS/P.  When people have to put money down on an idea, they have to right and clear on all sides of the risks on it.  There is a lot of naivety (and/or bias) in this RfC about what the WSJ is trying to achieve. An it is one of the highest quality newspapers out there. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What "accurate science" would that be? Embracing the fake global warming pause? Believing the fake Climategate? Inventing a Climategate 2.0? Claiming that climate change is caused by the sun? The red herring of global cooling which was never a thing except in a few headlines in the 70s? If you get your "understanding of the science" from sources such as the WSJ, you greatly overestimate it. And some people blow their money on horses. Wall Street is not that much different. Right and clear does not enter into it.
 * My essential point was: We have those sources. That is still true. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You have little understanding of the WSJ, and I don't think you are able to write or discuss objectively (at least in this topic area). 78.18.251.161 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That "No, you!" tactic is used by toddlers when they do not have a good response. Cute! Now I want to ruffle your hair. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * wp:FOC Springee (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The people who want to include accusations against the WSJ in the lead either use their original research, which is irrelevant, or claim that anti-science publication in the WSJ is well sourced. In reality, the Merchants of Doubt does not even accuse the WSJ of what the so called citation claims (if you check the pages cited), and the other sources are few in number and decades old, referring to things that are irrelevant or outdated. And the claim that the editorial board promoted anything by allowing editorials to be published is unproven and false, NYT editorial board does not support abolishing or defunding the police just because it has allowed plenty of editorials to be published on the subject. Find some actual recent and relevant sources or these claims belong no where in the lead. The part about asbestos, pesticides, and second hand smoking is completely unproven and not cited, while the acid rain and ozone stances changed years ago, and their climate change stance has not been covered in a decade and isn't notable. Bill Williams 13:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Remove the sentence. Per WP:BALASP (a part of WP:DUE), An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. That the WSJ Editorial board has been criticized for its coverage of these things is verifiable, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Those who are arguing for the prominent inclusion of this material in the lead generally have argued that MOS:LEAD commands them to, but WP:NPOV notes that our Neutral Point-of-View policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus (emphasis mine). As such, the policy-based arguments that NPOV is not being adhered to cannot actually be refuted by pointing to something in the manual of style, since NPOV supercedes all other policies and guidelines. There is simply no evidence that those arguing in favor of keeping the mention in the lead that the criticism of the editorial board of the WSJ for having The Journal's editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos included in the lead. Especially in light of the fact that the cited source doesn't actually support the plain meaning of that statement (as notes above), this sentence is wildly inappropriate in the article, and even moreso in the lead. The use of "promoted views" also is really weasely; it comes off as to mean that the board has published editorials in support of those various topics, while some in this discussion who support keeping the sentence argue that merely publishing op-eds constitutes the promotion of views. At its core, we should be absolutely clear with respect to what the WSJ editorial board actually holds and has held. Rather than relying on a dubious interpretation of a source and including a sentence that fails multiple core policies miserably, it is a better alternative to simply remove it altogether. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think the disputed information could appear in the body text, Mhawk10?—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the sentence contains the phrase has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos, no. The language itself is unclear, encourages people to think that the editorial board has endorsed a whole host of views that it doesn't, and doesn't actually seem to follow closely from the source. Something can definitely be said about its editorials that are skeptical of the existence (though later only extent) of climate change, and that might be worth including in a sentence or two. But the whole stuff about the editorial board promoting acid rain, ozone, smoking, pesticides, and asbestos is pure spin. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thoughts: It will definitely help the eventual closer if the community could evaluate how much weight it gives to Merchants of Doubt. There have been several RfCs on this matter in the past and those RfCs, Wikipedians gave considerably greater weight to Merchants of Doubt than this discussion does.  The closer will rightly wonder what's changed.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What has changed is dilution of facts. Editors who want to play down the unreliability of the WSJ regarding science matters have become louder without their reasoning becoming better. The WSJ has been preaching bullshit about climate change, crazy conspiracy theories and hate against climatologists for decades. To people who don't know better because they are immersed in the denialist echo chamber and know nothing else, it may be just normal media content, but for scientists, the single most important thing about a denialist outlet such as the WSJ is that one should not believe what they say. "Merchants" is not the only source we use in the article; I don't think we have any scientific sources defending the WSJ, they all say the same thing as "Merchants". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think what has happened is two fold. First, I think this is the first time an editor critically reviewed the claims in the book and asked if they really support the claim we are making (both in fact and in magnitude).  I think this is often a problem with off line sources.  It's simply harder for other editors to verify that specific claims are supported we can't readily review the source.  This is not saying we shouldn't use such sources only that WP:V is harder in such cases.  It's one thing to cite a book for a specific fact, it's harder to decide a summary of magnitude or scope is correct.  Second, and perhaps a lesser one, I think the recent AN discussion has helped bring a wider range of eyes to this topic.  The recent discussion was advertised at FTN  but I suspect most editors who watch that page are, understandably, more likely to place more emphasis on any criticism of orthidox views on science to be of critical importance to an overal topic.  I've always found this 1963 article related to audio system reviews to be illustrative of this issue .  If we look at the original RfC the consensus was clearly in favor of inclusion.  However, only shortly after the original discussion closed it's clear that, as other editors was this, they didin't agree with the weight it was given in the lead.  Also, I think there have only been 3 RfCs related to this topic.  The 2019 one closed with inclusion.  The one here  assumed inclusion and asked how it should be included.  Finally we have this one.  Springee (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In body, not lead. This is pretty obviously a violation WP:DUE. The WSJ is a huge newspaper with a long history, to say that this one aspect of it deserves a special mention in the lede would require that most sources describe it as such.  They dont. There is, however, a whole industry of reporting on the lies of various culture warriors perceived enemies in the press. The NYT, the WSJ, the WP, CNN, Fox, they all have them.  There is a place for this material in Wikipedia, but not in the lede.  Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A Sourcing seems fine and it's a well-known characteristic of the editorial board. Certainly would fit in a 1 paragraph summary of the WSJ if I were asked to write about it. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One problem with that argument, even if you accept that it is "well known" (which it is not, since only one source is even given for this argument), editorial opinions of other newspapers are never mentioned in other articles, much less anything about their editorial boards at all. Not a single other editorial board's views are mentioned in their newspaper article lead, not that they are liberal, conservative, anti-police or whatever, and the WSJ editorial board is not somehow more well known than every other editorial board combined. It is UNDUE to cover it on this article when the topic is rarely covered on the entirety of the internet (the Merchants of Doubt is the only source used for this claim). Bill Williams 18:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to lay off the bludgeoning. -- Vaulter  19:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be better to post such comments to the editor's talk page rather than here. Springee (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Per MOS:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (emphasis mine). From my parsing of the discussion above, there doesn't seem to be much doubt that the WSJ's editorial board has in fact expressed anti-science views related to climate change and other issues. The claims against it are mostly "well newspaper x has a different lead" which is an invalid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF and the incorrect premise that WP:DUE requires a false balance. -- Vaulter  18:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * After some research: A. I agree with this analysis by the Climate Nexus.  The Wall Street Journal falsifies the reality by presenting climate science as a matter of opinion rather than fact, denies the threat by calling it "hype" and "hysteria", and only inconsistently discloses its op-ed writers' links to the oil industry.  The article contains seven (7) reliable sources that verify this, and in my judgment this is problematic enough, and widely-noted enough, to justify a mention in the lead.  We should update WP:RSP to say this.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 17:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What change is needed? OpEd content is already treated differently than normal reporting and is generally treated as notable/reliable based on the author rather than the publication.  How is this different than OpEds in any other otherwise RS?  Also, Climate Nexus is a advocacy/RP/spin organization, not a nuetral group.  Springee (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Newspapers of record don't usually attract international attention for falsifying the science in their opinion pieces. It's remarkable enough that we need to tell editors about it --- particularly non-American editors like me, who tend to presume that newspapers of record take reasonable care to tell the truth about most things.  I agree that Climate Nexus is a pressure group, and I don't think we should cite them in the article.  On the talk page it's reasonable for me to say I agree with their analysis of this particular facet of the Wall Street Journal.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 19:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No one is accusing the WSJ of falsify anything. They have accused the op-ed authors but not the paper.  Springee (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to lay off the bludgeoning. -- Vaulter  19:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Telling two different editors to stop bludgeoning because you disagree with them, even though numerous others are repeating the same things as well, shows your absurd bias against the WSJ. Bill Williams 22:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Springee, I have to contradict you there because yes, they have. The Guardian published a piece called The Wall Street Journal Keeps Peddling Big Oil Propaganda, which is best read in full but contains the phrases Over the past several weeks, the WSJ’s attacks on climate science have gone into overdrive and The WSJ is of course far from the only media outlet guilty of peddling fossil fuel industry propaganda.  The thesis of that piece is that the WSJ is passing off misinformation as "opinion", and by obfsucating its opinion column writers' links to the fossil fuel industry, the WSJ has lied by omission.  And that's not the only credible source, although it's likely the clearest for this particular point.To put it more simply: the WSJ is paltering.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 11:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The thesis of that piece is that the WSJ is passing off misinformation as "opinion", and by obfsucating its opinion column writers' links to the fossil fuel industry, the WSJ has lied by omission. I dont see where the bolded part appears at all in the article you linked. They even describe the opinion column writers as "Stephen F. Hayward, who describes himself as having “spent most of my adult life in conservative think tanks in Washington, D.C.,”" They do not say that the WSJ is trying to hide that. Additionally, the author describes the other offending editorialist as " lifelong contrarian and fossil fuel-funded Fred Singer", again, your article you sited does not say that the WSJ is trying to hide that persons history. Moreover, the article even mentions that The WSJ did publish a letter to the editor (LTE) from real climate scientists Andrea Dutton and Michael Mann rebutting Singer’s editorial., hardly lying by omission. This is an editorial about another outlet's editorials. Bonewah (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect I might have less time to spend on this debate than you and those who agree with you, so I'll just ask the closer to note that while is is an editorial about another outlet's editorials, not all editorials are equal. My decision not to reply again here is not agreement to the other points raised. I'm not persuaded, just exhausted.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 13:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd ask the closer to note that the editorial, no matter how equal or unequal, does not say what User:S Marshall claims it does. Bonewah (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * B - or not at all if the sources do not support it as claimed. Strong, subjective POV material doesn't belong in the lead, especially criticism taken out of context or exaggerated by WSJ's journalistic competitors; i.e. biased sources are not considered RS in this context and must include in-text attribution. The following is more inline with what WSJ publishes: this article in WSJ (my bold underline): In the real climate debate, no one denies the relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and a warming climate.  Instead, the disagreement comes down to  different views of climate risk in the face of multiple, cascading uncertainties.  In context, that doesn't come across to me as "denial" but rather it comes across as questioning cascading uncertainties. Also keep in mind WP:CRYSTALBALL, science or not. As editors, we should not be locked-in to only the prevailing POV as long as there are other scientific views circulating. One must also consider the history of scientific predictions, such as the global cooling debates of the 1940s–1970s. It's interesting how we handled articles like Global Cooling back in 2007 vs the way the article changed over time, which explains the need for RECENTISM. There is one thing we know for certain about the future: anything can happen, “Scientific results are always provisional, susceptible to being overturned by some future experiment or observation. Scientists rarely proclaim an absolute truth or absolute certainty. Uncertainty is inevitable at the frontiers of knowledge.” <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 15:20, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * that doesn't come across to me as "denial" It does not matter how it comes across to you, only how it comes across to reliable sources, to people who actually understand climate science. (I have to tell that to IPs all the time, and to new users, and only very occasionally to experienced users.) Reliable sources say the WSJ peddles denial. It does not matter that you found a sentence in the WSJ which does not do it, it matters that RS found sentences where it does. Trying to play down what the RS say by pigeonholing them as "competitors" is just Wikilawyering, as they just compare what the WSJ says with what scientists say and see that there is a discrepancy. That discrepancy is obvious to everybody who looks at it. The WSJ even lets anti-science hate preacher James Delingpole write about climate science, a subject he know less than nothing about!
 * And of course, we do not have access to the future; we can only use the sources we have now. The "Scientific results are [..] susceptible to being overturned" canard is used every time a proponent of a pseudoscience (like climate change denial) is cornered and has no evidence for their position. Using that escape-to-the-future-where-I-have-won cop-out as a pretend reason for a position is tantamount to saying that that position is untenable, tantamount to saying, "I have lost this discussion." --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does matter how it comes across to WP editors - we make decisions relative to what should or should not be included based on our editorial judgement relative to material published in RS. Nowhere does it say that we must include material simply because it was published by numerous RS. It's why we have RfCs to reach consensus. No one can absolutely positively confirm that a prediction will come true that far in the future, and to argue that it will definitely happen becomes a WP:CIR issue in my view that not only defies science, it denies that possibilities exist. See WP:ONUS which is one of our core content policies. I do hope that you have not been discouraging IPs, or new and experienced editors based on what you relayed to me above. When media bias plays into the equation, we use editorial judgement to gain consensus and should never blindly accept what any online source publishes about other online sources - we check it out. If you want to include material that you cite to multiple academic and/or scientific sources, research papers or reviews that have made such claims about WSJ, I may very well modify my position, or maybe I won't, depending on CONTEXT. Accusing others of Wikilawyering is not helpful, and neither is bludgeoning every editor who disagrees with a particular POV. If other scientists disagree or maintain a different position about a prediction relative to climate change that far into the future, then our obligation is to provide those views for our readers – let them make their own determinations – we should not be doing that for them, much less contradicting scientists that have different predictions – so yes, CRYSTALBALL is extremely important. As a retired journalist/editor/publisher, it is very clear to me that the WSJ did not deny climate change in the example I provided – CONTEXTMATTERS. They are doing what every responsible journalist and RS should be doing; i.e., presenting all substantial views from a NPOV as we should be doing. Possibilities do exist. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 15:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does matter how it comes across to WP editors Not that part. Yes, we decide what is included. But you do not get to second-guess reliable sources by denying that something is denial when RS call it that.
 * Repeating the bad reasoning denialists use, such the following two lines, will not help your case.
 * other scientists disagree You are cherry-picking a tiny handful of experts out of many thousands because only that handful agrees with the WSJ's far-out position about climate change which is motivated by market fundamentalism.
 * No one can absolutely positively confirm that a prediction will come true that far in the future The judgment of how reliable a prediction is must be left to the scientists who make the prediction because they have very reliable methods to judge that reliability. Nobody says, "it will definitely happen", but scientists are pretty sure it will, and they have the data to back it up. WP:CIR is indeed relevant here, but not the way you are using it. Amateurish reasoning along the lines of "I know that I don't know anything, therefore scientists don't know anything either" does not cut it. Climatologists understand climatology better than WSJ editors and better than Wikipedia editors, and you will not win that one.
 * the WSJ did not deny climate change in the example I provided This is silly. For every outlet accused of propagating a certain position, is extremely easy to find text by that outlet where that position is not propagated. Reliability is not defined as getting it right sometimes. You cannot undo the instances where secondary sources found WSJ got it wrong by finding a primary source where they did not. Why do I have to explain this rookie mistake?
 * neither is bludgeoning every editor who disagrees with a particular POV I am refuting the specific bad reasoning you used. That is not "bludgeoning", it is "not letting pseudoscience defenders getting away with egregious bullshit". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither I nor the WSJ is denying the scientific consensus of anthropogenic climate change in the example I provided, so you're getting off-topic and moving the goal post. The overall problem appears to be an attempt to boldly state that a single percentage of scientists in the majority actually represents the many nuances in a range of opinions that scientists have expressed in their research and predictions about anthropogenic climate change over time. Journalism, environmental concerns, the natural balance in aquatic ecosystems, conservation, endangered species and public dissemination have been a big part of my 40+ year career, and while I'm enjoying retirement, it behooves me to think science predictions and good journalism are being misrepresented, inadvertently or otherwise. A minority view does not automatically make it pseudoscience – possibilities exist – there are many nuances in the opinions of scientists, and we're talking about nuanced opinions on a very large scale. If you've read every single research paper that's been published on the topic, you will see that what the WSJ published is supported by that nuanced research. I'm not changing my position, and I doubt you'll be changing yours so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm only one iVote, and I am concerned about what Peter Gulutzan stated above in his iVote, 22 April 2022. That's where our focus would be better served because if the claims are not supported by the cited source, the material should not be included. Over the years I've seen quite a few sentence comprehension issues and Use–mention distinction issues, which may or may not be the case here, be that as it may. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 14:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Here's the compromise I'm proposing: *The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has published views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on several health and environmental issues.
 * We've been discussing this for a week now. The voting now closed. The totals are as A) 6, B) 6, C) 1. Given the totals, and the single vote to remove it completely, it would be fair to state that it should be removed from the lead. Stallion55347 (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Appears to me the matter is still in active discussion with a compromise proposal on the table. soibangla (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. We operate by consensus, not numerical votes, and the compromise is sensible enough that it deserves hearing. A lack of consensus is exactly the wrong situation in which to stop discussing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to the above: you are involved, so you should not close this RfC. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid RfC. Editors can't be expected to participate on the same issue over and over again. There was an RfC on this exact issue very recently and there was not a consensus to remove the content from the lead. This is long-standing content which was added to the lead after a consensus supported its inclusion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the recent RfC? I see one from 2019 and it seems this content has been in dispute ever since. Additionally a no consensus on removing the content from the lead doesn't preclude changing the specific text in the lead. Springee (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an anonymous collective of volunteers; nobody is forcing or expecting anyone to participate, and nobody is forcing or expecting anyone to not. I'm by no means suggesting that you leave at all, of course, but I fail to see the harm with periodic RfCs; the world does change and the sanctity of "long-standing content" seems overrated...2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest adding this to the references: Stallion55347 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Environmental issues should not even belong in the lead when it is rarely an issue brought up by reliable sources. But if people will nonsensically demand it goes there, in completely undue manner, then at least remove "health issues" because not a single source describes the editorial board as regularly promoting pseudoscience on health issues. The one source, which apparently editors now think is enough to put in the lead of one of the largest newspapers in the U.S. and insult it, only describes a couple opinion articles, and it is completely false to say the editorial board promoted these views on health issues when the source does not describe it that way. On the other hand, even though it is a decade old and rarely mentioned anywhere in reliable sources, the media matters article does specify that the editorial board promoted pseudoscience on environmental issues. Bill Williams 01:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the link you provided states nothing about the issue at hand, and makes no mention of the editorial board at all. Bill Williams 01:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Secondhand smoke is a health issue. Ozone depletion is too; UV rays cause cancer, and ozone dissipates it, crucially. Asbestos is a health issue, that's what all those mesothelioma commercials are for. Pesticides are a health issue...paraquat causes Parkinson's, and Roundup causes cancer. I don't think global warming is directly a health risk, and wince every time someone tries to claim it is one, but the other stuff absolutely is. I haven't looked through every souece for the phrase "health issue", but common sense is not original research, and I would think this falls under that umbrella. 2600:1012:B00C:9E5:AD1D:1583:6A7B:9BB7 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ozone depletion is far more accurately described as an environmental issue than a health one, and asbestos and pesticides are mention in one single source on the entire internet that is actually cited anywhere (this article being the one place), which is completely undue for the lead, not to mention it says absolutely nothing about the editorial board so that would be a complete falsehood to say the editorial board promoted anything relating to that unless you can find a source stating that it did, because that book is referring to one or two opinion editors on asbestos and pesticides, and one or two articles is completely absurd to shove in the lead of a newspaper that has published tens of thousands. Bill Williams 04:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Dismissing concerns with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is nonsense. The essay is not justification for editors to present comparable topics in a prejudicial manner. Given the contentious nature of Mass Media in the modern era, uniformity and consistency should absolutely be the goal in presenting information to readers. Slywriter (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not qualify as reasoning, not even as bad reasoning. You just claim something is nonsense without giving a reason, then you claim that something is not justified without giving a reason, then you wave your hands about contentiousness, and then you claim that different articles need to be the same in some vague way.
 * No, articles about different subjects will not say the same things about those different subjects when reliable sources say different things about those different subjects. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am making a simple claim, editors need to stop using OtherStuffExists as a rationale for ignoring  inconsistent presentation of similar topics.  We are editors, not propaganda artists.  Editors SHOULD strive to present material in a similar manner so readers can compare apples to apples.  That's what EDITORS do.  So stop saying it an empty claim that WSJ, FoxNews and OAN(though most deserved) are treated differently than CNN,NBC, etc. Editorial discretion in presenting the lede is not the same as following reliable sources especially when editors consistently seek to misuse the lede of one set of media articles to overemphasize controversy while minimizing those controversies in other similar articles. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You are calling it inconsistent presentation of similar topics, I call it different content based of different facts gathered from different descriptions in reliable sources. By your reasoning, we would not be allowed to write that Andrew Wakefield is a fraud in the lede because articles about other doctors (yes, I know, he is not a doctor anymore) do not say that about them.
 * As far as I know, there is no rule that says articles have to be "consistent" in the way you define it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it was mentioned as a justification to be inconsistent, OTHER STUFF EXISTS is an essay on article deletion. I don't think it addresses consistency of presentation across similar articles.  I may be mistaken but I think there is an essay that argues articles about similar subjects don't have to be the same as well as another essay which argues we should try to be similar.  I think we all would agree the ideal is likely in the middle, a general consistent presentation with deviations on a case by case basis.  In this case I would suggest we look to outside sources that are about the WSJ as a whole and see how much weight they apply to various aspects.  Springee (talk) 23:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah. This reasoning is much better than Slywriter's. You are right, it was the wrong link, and it should have been WP:OTHERCONTENT. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "While these comparisons [to other articles] are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this" it literally states right in what you continue to claim destroys my entire argument that comparisons can form part of a cogent argument. My argument is not solely a comparison but also based on the fact that reliable sources almost never comment on this issue, meaning it does not belong in the lead. Instead of repeatedly accusing me of disruptive editing for commenting in an RfC, you should actually read the policies you attempt to cite against me. Bill Williams 15:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You do not need to ping me, I have a watchlist.
 * may form part of a cogent argument is not the same as "automatically are part of a cogent argument". That reliable sources almost never comment on this issue shows that when they do, as in this case, it is important. The WSJ is an important cog in the denial machine that has prevented action on the climate problem, and Oreskes pointed that out in her important book. This misinformation by the WSJ is not just some typo that was corrected in the next issue. The paper has consistently misled its readers about scientific consensus, pretending that the handful of denialist tinfoil hatters who supplied them with misleading articles are a serious part of the scientific community, a behavior that is at odds with its status as a mainstream paper. This is a very noteworthy thing. Comparisons with other media are worthless if you cannot show that those other media have also consistently misled the public in a similarly egregious way as noted by reliable sources. That last sentence is something I have repeated, in other words, and you have ignored. Instead you deflect attention from the issue by guideline exegesis. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

'''Thank you to everyone who has participated in this discussion. It has been informative and very extensive. Unfortunately, we have not made nearly enough progress to build a consensus and finalize a decision. At some point the investment in time and energy becomes prohibitive. The last thing we want is for this conversation to become unproductive, combative, or spalling to the point of spinning out of control.

'''Next steps: if we can't come to a reasonable consensus by EOD Tuesday, I'm going to move this issue to an outside impartial resource for dispute resolution. Hopefully this is unnecessary, and we make significant progress over the next few days. Until that time, thanks again.''' Stallion55347 (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What "outside impartial resource" is there? Too many people have been involved for it to fit at DRN (and moving it over there might be considered forum-shopping). It's a content dispute, not a conduct one, so WP:ANI is not suitable. Notices have already been posted on the appropriate noticeboards (WP:FTN and WP:NPOVN). The Talk page attached to an article is the appropriate place to discuss an issue specific to that article, and the thread was opened 10 days ago, which is only a third of the time that many RfC's typically run. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Let the record show that I have previously reverted removals of the lead content even though the content looked silly to me: I did solely based on the 2019 RFC. If there is a clear consensus against removing the content, I will restore the text, even if it goes against my arguments in this RFC. If someone takes an issue with that, they are cordially invited to my user talk page. Politrukki (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I've started an ANI thread on Bill Williams' bludgeoning in this RfC: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

'''I'm going to move this issue to an outside resource for dispute resolution. We have a passionate group with strong opinions so I’m optimistic that outside assistance will help move this along. Since it would be difficult for everyone to contribute, I am asking for volunteers to represent both opinions. 2-3 people on each side would be great. If you are interested in contributing, please comment below and I'll include you in the discussion. Individuals who wish to participate should do so in good faith, be open minded to the process, and willing to advocate for the decision, even if they don't wholeheartedly agree with it. The goal would be to submit the dispute resolution request over the weekend. ''' Stallion55347 (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So, which "outside resource" did you pick? XOR'easter asked you before. Your reluctance to answer, your wording "a passionate group with strong opinions", and your request that people buy a pig in a poke and volunteer for a potential kangaroo court makes me suspect that your "outside resource" is either a free-market think tank, a gaggle of Republican politicians, or the editorial board of the WSJ.
 * And you overemphasize the importance of your contributions. Maybe you have misunderstood the "bold" part of WP:BOLD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm looking to use the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. WP:DRN Thanks for asking as I should have clarifed. Though your post defintely made me chuckle. Stallion55347 (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your suggested procedure is not how WP:DRN works. The instructions there say, We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. We're in the middle of an RfC; ergo, no DRN. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , I don't think DRN would be productive at this time. We have an open RfC which is generally considered the correct way to handle this sort of content dispute.  The only other thing we should do is tone thing down.  I don't think any editors have crossed a bright line of uncivil behavior but I think there is a clear level of hostility and repetition in may of the comments. Neither are helpful. If there are other noticeboards/projects that should be notified that is an option (please review WP:CANVAS if you choose to do so).  If no other editors weigh, and absent a 3rd party closure of the RfC, I would consider this a no-consensus result thus the content (in some agreed form) stays in the lead per NOCON.  Springee (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

My observation is that, after 17 days of exhaustive and intense debate, no consensus has been reached on this RfC, the discussion has reached a stalemate, and I recommend it be closed with the existing longstanding content remaining unchanged. soibangla (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Half of the editors want no mention of this in the lead, meaning the "longstanding content" should not be left unchanged. The RfC at least necessitates better wording, such as:
 * "The Journal has published opinion articles that are at odds with the scientific consensus on multiple health and environmental issues."
 * The various individual issues, e.g. asbestos, are currently stated as if they were written about or as controversial as the ones on climate change for example, which is not true, and the acid rain position was later reverted, differentiating it from the others, and mentioning the editorial board when many of the articles in question were just random opinion editors and not related to the board, since many editorial boards allow op-eds that directly conflict (e.g. defunding the police or funding them more), means that mentioning the editorial board would also be inaccurate, so this should be an improvement. Bill Williams 23:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This wording loses the information that the fringe-pushing is consistent. They do not just, as other papers will, sometimes have a random article supporting astrology and sometimes one supporting some quackery or other because somebody managed to squeeze their hobbyhorse into the current issue (maybe when the fact checker was on vacation), which is the primary meaning of this wording and which would be pretty ho-hum. That sentence is something that could really be in every lede to an article about a newspaper.
 * No, they always "err" on the side that is good for short-term industry profits (by short term, I mean, it is profitable until the shit hits the fan, and then the costs, although they would far outweigh those profits, are covered by everybody, so, net gain! Ka-ching!). You know, "Wall Street". This is not incidental, not random, and that is the reason it has been noticed by reliable sources.
 * It is not acceptable to water down their special status to something which would also fit any other newspaper. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is not watering down, but instead the reality of the situation. Not a single reliable source states that the editorial board "promoted" views on anything but environmental topics, since all of the other ones were covered by random opinion editors, and even editorials are still simply opinion articles. Every single newspaper publishes random opinion articles from different sides that conflict with their own view, so unless you have a single reliable sources stating that the editorial board agreed with second hand smoking, pesticides, asbestos, etc. topics that section has nothing to do with the board. Bill Williams 14:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Soibangla, RfCs typically go for 30 days. There is no hurry here and no reason to close this one early.  Springee (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

'''Based on feedback from numerous users, lets continue the discussion we’ve been having. We will leave this RfC up for a couple more weeks and see where it takes us.'''

This RfC has attracted a considerable number of posts and opinions and is now almost 10,000 words long. To help everyone quickly get up to speed with the most relevant points discussed, I consolidated as many of the talking points as I could to provide a quick recap showing major arguments supporting both sides along with points supporting a revised statement. As much as I tried to include all relevant arguments, I’m sure there are points I did not adequately convey, I apologize for that in advance.

Given that, feel free to revise this summary below for anything I missed. Just keep in mind, it’s a summary.

RfC Summary (12/5/2021):
Put the statement In the body:
 * WP:UNDUE for the lede.
 * There should be consistency of lede styles between major Newspapers (New York Times, *Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, USA Today), there is no mention of their editorial boards
 * Editors need to stop using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale for ignoring inconsistent presentation of similar topics. We are editors, not propaganda artists. Editors SHOULD strive to present material in a similar manner so readers can compare apples to apples.
 * Editorial pages in newspapers are designed specifically to provide viewpoints outside the mainstream, especially from guest writers. Even if you disagree with them, they are put there intentionally to drive conversation and discussion.
 * 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 accurate
 * How does information from 30 years ago warrant inclusion in the lead?
 * Acid rain and ozone depletion are based on 31+ year old articles
 * Second-hand smoke is from articles from 27+ years ago
 * There is already a statement in the lead that summarizes the viewpoints of the WSJ editorial pages: "The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position." Anything beyond that is an unnecessary elaboration in a lead section.
 * Wikipedia suggests trying to keep the number of references to a minimum, if used at all. Keeping references out of the lead makes it easier to read and keeps it free of clutter and easier to edit.
 * Just because information is listed in the Body of an article, does not make it lede worthy
 * Wikipedia suggests we should look to the outside world to help understand weight of a topic. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica makes no mention of this topic whatsoever. It's not as comprehensive an article as ours but the fact that it didn't make it to the body of that one suggests that our editors might be out of touch to put it in the lead. The same is true if we look at Encylopedia.com
 * Outside of climate change, the information contained in the article does not warrant being in the lead.

Keep the statement In the Lede:
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS / WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a reason in itself to remove information form Wikipedia or the lede.
 * Different articles have different contents and thus different introductory sections.
 * Just because something is “old” does not mean it’s not relevant
 * Ignoring controversies just because they may have happened a few years ago is Recentism
 * In July 2020, more than 280 WSJ journalists and Dow Jones staff members wrote a letter to new publisher Almar Latour to criticize the opinion pages' "lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence", adding that "opinion articles often make assertions that are contradicted by WSJ reporting."
 * The reason other MAJOR NEWSPAPERS does not having similar statement in the lede is because they, unlike WSJ, have not repeatedly promoted anti-science nonsense.
 * There is no rule that says articles have to be "consistent"
 * The current version is specific and clarifies to readers what kinds of issues that the WSJ editorial board has misled readers on. The compromise version makes it unclear what kinds of issues that the WSJ editorial has misled its readers on.
 * There is considerable content from many sources not listed in the WSJ article that paint a clear picture and ongoing pattern of anti-science positions. If anything, the current text of the article downplays criticisms of the WSJ.

Work on a revised statement: Stallion55347 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources regarding the board's views on climate change are much more recent, and therefore that portion can stay included.
 * Perhaps the section needs updating but that doesn’t invalidate it being mentioned in the lead.
 * What’s in the lead is almost an exact restatement of what’s in the body.
 * The ideal way to go about it would probably be to write the article body text first, basing it on appropriate RS's, and if that text becomes sufficiently lengthy relative to the rest of the page, it probably deserves a summary in the lead.
 * A In the lead but summarized a bit more as: “The editorial pages of The Journal are typically American conservative in their position, and the editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on a number of health and environmental issues.”
 * Great job on the summary, and I agree that we should work on a revised statement, which I believe could be:
 * "The Journal has published opinion articles that are at odds with the scientific consensus on multiple health and environmental issues."" I think the sentence should stay separate from the one on the editorial board, since many of the opinion articles in question were not written by the board itself. Bill Williams 01:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've collapsed this discussion per WP:NOSUMMARIES. It misleads participants into thinking the RfCs is closed and makes the whole section absolutely unreadable. JBchrch   talk  04:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal editorial board, reliable? Not convinced. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing this disaster area of a discussion, three thoughts occur. The first is that, if I came across it without having been involved, I'd consider it a failed process from which no trustworthy result could be extracted (fruit from a poisoned tree). The second is that having a footnote attached to the sentence in the lede may be a distraction. The mention in the lede isn't based on that citation alone; it's based on multiple paragraphs of the body which are cited to multiple sources including that book. Indeed, this is a pretty good example of how citations in a lede aren't necessarily a good thing. The third thought is that the lede is rather short for the article's length, and if the disputed line seems like it emphasizes part of the main text too much at the expense of other sections, the better solution would be to expand the lede with summaries of those other sections. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In body, not lead. This is pretty obviously a violation WP:DUE. The WSJ is a huge newspaper with a long history, to say that this one aspect of it deserves a special mention in the lede would require that most sources describe it as such.  They dont. There is, however, a whole industry of reporting on the lies of various culture warriors perceived enemies in the press. The NYT, the WSJ, the WP, CNN, Fox, they all have them.  There is a place for this material in Wikipedia, but not in the lede.  Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to place this in the survey section above, ? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible canvassing
Just as a note of possible canvassing, Stallion55347 has been sending talk page notifications to (overwhelmingly, though with one exception) people who previously removed the disputed text from the article directing them to this RFC. It seems like jarringly obvious canvassing to me, so if any of the canvassed individuals contribute to the RFC, be certain to tag them with Canvassed. --Aquillion (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Notifying previous editors who have argued for the removal of this content is appropriate so long as editor's who have previously argued for inclusion are also notified. I would suggest pinging previously involved editors to avoid the issue of improper canvasing.
 * I have notified the project s associated with this article that this is an active RfC. Example of the notification is here .  Springee (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC) corrected, this should be plural Springee (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've observed that, in addition to the Newspapers WikiProject, WP:WikiProject Conservatism was similarly notified: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I perceive some potentially problematic activities regarding this discussion. soibangla (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Such as? Springee (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the "s". I notified all projects (other than project NYC(?)) listed above. All received the same notification and were notified at the same time. . Springee (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I stated on Stallion's talk page:
 * "I checked the entire edit history of the article's talk page, and only Noteduck and Sro23 actually edited it, with Noteduck voting against Stallion's stated position and Sro23 commenting on something unrelated. I did not search through the article itself's history, but if these individuals edited the sentence in question, I think Stallion was just notifying the concerned users to participate in the RfC. It seems like criticizing his notifications is selection bias, since anyone who would wish to keep that information in the article would never edit the sentence, only people who wish to remove it, meaning those are the only people he would notify." Bill Williams 06:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true. Multiple editors have restored the disputed text to the article and Stallion55347 did not contact them. I stand by what I said; this was clear-cut inappropriate canvassing. If anything, your observation that most of these people have never edited the text is even more damning - it is absolutely not standard practice to go over an article's history and contact people who have previously edited the text. To do so one-sidedly is obviously canvassing. --Aquillion (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

, I think your closing is problematic in light of 's review of what Merchants of Doubt actually says. It does appear that the weight given to that source is UNDUE given the actual claims being made by the source. Additionally, by weight of numbers I do not see a consensus for content in the lead. At best this should be a no-consensus and probably a remove from lead based on possibly failing wp:V (I think that last one should have more discussion before concluding it's a WP:V problem). Springee (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored my comment. While I appreciate Szmenderowiecki's comment to address concerns on their talk page, my comment shouldn't have been removed without comment.  That said, please direct further comments to Szmenderowiecki's talk page discussion here  Springee (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Has a source survey been done here to actually measure DUE-ness? That is, while there may be sources that do call out WSJ's misinformation, are these a significant proportion of all sources that are discussing the qualities of the WSJ? (Consider that proportion for Fox News, which would be rather high). If this is a distant minority fraction, it definitely doesn't belong in the lede, while if it is a claim made by a fair proportion of RSes, then inclusion in lede seems appropriate. (By a source survey, I am talking looking at 100 to 200 some RSes to review their stance on the WSJ, and to make sure context is appropriate.) --M asem  (t) 18:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Masem is asking the really relevant question. A source like the WSJ has been discussed by many, many sources in many contexts.  That we can do a keyword search and find sources, sources that may have their own biases, critical of the paper in relation to one topic should generally mean the content should be in the body.  However, it's not clear that even those sources would say this is content that is needed to offer a complete, high level summary of the WSJ.  I'm not sure how many sources actually do offer such a summary.  I offered Britannica as one of the few sources I could find that does offer such a summary of the total topic.  Are there other sources that might summarize a topic?  Springee (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that competitors dissing one of their largest competitors brings a reliable POV, much less a neutral one. It's like Wendy's vs Burger King vs McDonald's, all the while customers scratch their heads asking "Where's the beef?" <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 19:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Furthering the point about what other summary sources say, here are a few other sources that are trying to summarize the WSJ rather than focus on any specific topic. The New World Encyclopedia entry is similar to Britannica with no mention of climate change .  The blog at Historic News Papers does mention the editorial climate change topic in the body but not in the intro .  Investopedia offers a bit of a history/summary of the WSJ with no mention of climate change .  Several sources offered some level of summary while discussing the paper's 125 anniversary.  Nieman Lab makes no mention.  A retrospective article in the Atlantic also makes no mention .  Finally a NYT article from last year mentions climate change only in context of something some people at the paper feel should get more emphasis to reach more readers .  Wikipedia seems to be the only source deciding this is lead worthy content. Springee (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

More canvassing
Since I don't see it explicitly mentioned anywhere, and since there are other allegations of canvassing, an editor canvassed users to this discussion through campaigning (see WP:INAPPNOTE) here. Had they posted an appropriate notification to FTN, this wouldn't be so bad, because this was mitigated by notifying NPOVN (and later others), but the canvassing also included violent threats – delivering "milkshakes" – against editors who didn't support including the proposed text in the lead. Politrukki (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "The canvassing also included violent threats ..."—even if you treat those two offhand sentences as genuine "violent threats" (which would require an asininely hyperliteral reading of them), it's quite obvious from the context that those "threats" were directed at a single user rather than "against [all] editors who didn't support including the proposed text in the lead". I suggest you strike this ridiculous aspersion. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting what happened in several ways:
 * by confounding the original posting (which you call "canvassing") with the reaction to subsequent provocation,
 * by interpreting an obvious metaphor as literal, and
 * by substituting an explicit refusal to react to the provocation by "milkshaking", by its very opposite, a "threat" of doing so.
 * Also, the RFC is closed, and this page is for improving the article. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The original post to FTN was a violation of APNOTE because it wasn't neutral in who it notified. Notification of various noticeboards in general is acceptable notification but should be done in a neutral fashion.  The later posting to the same noticeboard violated APNOTE by both being selective/not neutral and the text was not neutral.  The metaphor was obviously not meant to be taken literally regardless of questionable civility.  The original selective notification was addressed to some degree by notifying other appropriate noticeboards/project pages.  The latter, non-neutral notice was not but by that time I think the non-consensus was clear so it would be hard to claim it swayed the outcome. Springee (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

"The fox Street Journal" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The fox Street Journal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanksgiving editorials
Is it worth mentioning the Thanksgiving editorials? The only secondary-source coverage of them seems to be your typical churn about culture-war manufactroversies in garbage publications of various hyper-partisan alignments. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's short and it's not a controversial claim. I don't see an issue with keeping it in.  I did a quick search and found Fox's coverage of the topic and a petition to stop it. Springee (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Editorial Board in Body
"The Journal 's editorial board has promoted fringe views on scientific matters, including climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health harms of second-hand smoke, pesticides and asbestos. Scholars have drawn similarities between the Journal 's fringe coverage of climate change and how it used to reject the settled science on acid rain and ozone depletion"

This sentence is false, the sources do not refer to the editorial board "promoting" these things, it is not "the Journal" but rather random opinion editors who the newspaper literally says hold their own opinions and not that of the newspaper.

"The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Journal disputes that it poses a major threat to human existence and can be prevented through public policy and has published articles disputing that global warming is occurring at all."

This is also false and unsourced unless someone can supply proof that the Journal currently believes this, as it has no source at the moment in this article. Bill Williams 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general concern (see my RfC responses above) but the recent RfC closed with no consensus so I'm not sure removal without more input is compatible with Wiki process. I do support the removal as I think it's UNDUE for the lead.  Springee (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I do understand that, but it's not just that there was no consensus for it in the lead, it is extremely bare in the body, with only a few sentences about one minor aspect of the WSJ's history. I have thoroughly debunked the idea that the WSJ editorial board promoted anything the body claims it promoted, as it was independent opinion editors which the WSJ clearly states hold their own opinions, and also there is no source to claim the WSJ disputes science regarding climate change or its effects. Bill Williams 01:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We have been through this. Your logic still does not hold water. An editorial board can easily promote anti-science bullshit just by giving space to people known for promoting anti-science bullshit instead of real experts known for explaining the consensus. We have a whole bunch of sources, and they are given in the article. If they do not say exactly the same thing as our article does, that can be remedied by amending the text, but not by deleting it.
 * The WSJ is known as part of the denial machine, and you will not succeed in purging the fact from the article. If they don't like the consequences of what they did, they should not have done it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * HG, no reason for that sort of hostile tone. It doesn't make the logic of your claims any better.  "The WSJ is known as part of the denial machine, and you will not succeed in purging the fact from the article".  The first is an opinion and not universally shared.  The second part is not for you to decide.  The last RfC on the subject resulted in a nocon result for this content in the lead.  That was sufficient to keep it in as it was existing content but hardly something that ensures continued inclusion. Springee (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You say it is "known for" these things, that is irrelevant, give me some actual sources to prove this. "We have a whole bunch of sources, and they are given in the article" no they are not, no source states the editorial board disputes the scientific consensus of climate change or its effects, and not a single source states that the editorial board promoted any false information. That is your original research, which cannot be in this article, claiming the editorial board conspires with opinion editors, which is complete nonsense. The opinion editors are stated to hold their own opinions that are irrelevant to the newspaper. I think when the NYT published Hitler's editorial they did not agree with his views, but maybe you think we should call them far-right in their lead, or far-left for the numerous editorials supporting abolishing and defunding the police. Bill Williams 15:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * the editorial board conspires with opinion editors, which is complete nonsense This is bullshit. No one said that. If I am the WSJ EB, I can simply invite David Icke to write an editorial about how the Queen of England is a reptilian; I don't have to "conspire" with him to do that. But if I invite him to write for me, it means that I believe his ideas have enough merit to justify that. Since the WSJ editorial board decided to give deniers megaphones again and again, it is pretty clear that they think climate change denial is a good thing.
 * says it how it is. If you get your opinion about climatology from WSJ, you will be misled into believing in bad science, false rumors, lies, and propaganda. It is a highly untrustworthy source on that subject. says the same. The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change is an obvious conclusion from that, but of course you can wikilawyer it away.
 * Is it your goal to remove the fact of WSJ's extreme scientific unreliability from the article, or is it just the wording you reject? Since you use strawmen like the one above, I guess it is the former. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Bill removed the content from the lead and only changed a sentence in the body. They did not remove all the content so it's probably not reasonable to imply that is their intent.  It is perfectly reasonable to ask if this is content that is DUE for the lead.  You clearly think it is but that may be because that has been your Wiki editing area of interest rather than because RSs in general focus that much attention on this aspect of the WSJ.  We shouldn't conflate how much emphasis we give to various aspects of a topic with removing content from a topic.  Springee (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "No consensus" sounds like an argument for the status quo, i.e., keeping the text in the lede on procedural grounds. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it is only a minor section in the body out of the entire article, and much of that section is not backed by sources. Bill Williams 20:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Verifying these claims will not be easy. There are at least 4 exceptional claims in the first 2 sentences of the climate change section, sourced to one ref which is a bullet point of half a dozen sources. This is a style of citation I see cropping up more lately, and I'm not a fan. As far as sticking to sources, using several instances of wSJ publishing deniers' opinions to state what the board believes or promotes is synth. If there's a source that makes these kinds of claims about the board directly, pull those sources out front. Otherwise the best place to turn might be Shaun W. Elsasser with "conservative newspapers such as the WSJ ... provide powerful provide powerful fora for the promotion of climate change denial". Sennalen (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * the fact is that the claim in the body is false, the WSJ editorial board does not dispute the scientific consensus of climate change or its impacts, and there are no sources to claim that it does. At the minimum this sentence must be removed as it has no sources. As for the sentence stating the "editorial board has promoted fringe views" this is also completely unsourced, it has published opposing columns on different issues and never "promoted" any one viewpoint that they advertised, unless someone can provide a source specifically stating the WSJ editorial board promoted something. Bill Williams 05:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the two specific sentences that had no sources, if someone wants to add them back, please provide a source. I also removed the mention of "pesticides and asbestos" as the source says absolutely nothing about the "WSJ editorial board" and pesticides or asbestos. Bill Williams 06:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Page 146 of Oreskes specifically refers to content in the Wall Street Journal about both pesticides and asbestos: "Frontline Perpetuates Pesticide Myth", "Earth Summit Will Shackle the Planet, Not Save It" and other articles from the Wall Street Journal variously attacked efforts to control pesticides, stop global warming, and limit the risks of asbestos. There is absolutely no confusion in the text between pieces published in the WSJ and in other venues mentioned in that passage (the Investor's Business Daily and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch). The former was published in the WSJ on 1 April 1993, page A14; the latter in the WSJ on 19 February 1992, page A14. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That works for us. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Content in a summary paragraph needs tio be supported by content in the body. Currently the pesticide/asbestos claim is not.  Additionally, if this it's the only reference to pesticides or asbestos is that controversy DUE?  In the case off global warming we have multiple sources to add weight.  Do we have that for these other claims?  Springee (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe we have enough to justify a mention, though not much more than that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If we grant that this content is DUE is should be part of the sub-topic body, not a summary. Something like, "according to X the journals did Y" as a supporting claim.  It's not a summary claim the way "journal's editors thumbed their noses at climate change science" would be.  Springee (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Asbestos and pesticides are not due whatsoever for this article, "articles from the Wall Street Journal" has zero to do with the editorial board, those were random opinion articles that are irrelevant and mentioned by a single book that you found online. Do you seriously think one article that mentions in one sentence that a few WSJ articles were about pesticides and asbestos makes it relevant for this article? Bill Williams 01:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Journal disputes that it poses a major threat to human existence and can be prevented through public policy and has published articles disputing that global warming is occurring at all" this sentence has no source, it should be removed unless one is provided. It's completely absurd to insult the editorial board in the body with zero evidence when I have removed it and it has been added back with still zero evidence. Bill Williams 01:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources support the statements about climate change, as well as pesticides and asbestos. Opinion pieces aren't "random" if they're taken note of. Moreover, the sources (e.g., Physics Today) make clear that climate-change denial is not just a theme of opinion columns that the Journal has been willing to host, but one that the editorial board itself is willing to indulge. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * you keep saying "multiple sources" but can you please quote a single source that states the editorial board has said anything pseudoscientific about pesticides or asbestos? I know articles have mentioned what it said about climate change, but you cannot provide a single source that claims the editorial board "rejects the scientific consensus" and it is absolutely absurd to have that in the article with zero sources. Bill Williams 03:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It can be slightly reworded so it is sourced: "The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal has repeatedly given space to guest authors known for rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change." --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the current sentence is better in terms of IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 11:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But the sources do not mention the position of the editorial board, only of the guest authors. The board could theoretically have given space to those anti-science positions out of a misguided false balance. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Which would be quite unusual, since they have been willing to recycle denialist talking points themselves . XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The Journal disputes that it poses a major threat to human existence and can be prevented through public policy..." Can someone please find a single source that says this? The statement is not linked to a source, the only source that is given is referring to a separate part of the second sentence about a specific article that was published. Not a single source says "the Journal" or "the editorial board" believes any such thing. It should not be in the article without an actual source. Bill Williams 04:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Standalone page for editorial board
Congratulations, its a baby! Please join me in welcoming Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal to the family. Why this was not done a long time ago I don't know, the journal and its Editorial Board have entirely different identities and thats been true my whole life. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why does this article need a sub-article? I didn't see anyone calling for that.  What does this fix?  Springee (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The correct response is "Awww its so cute! Thank you!" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * :D Good natured humor aside, I don't see that the original article is large enough to justify a split.  Springee (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources are clear in separating out the WSJ from the WSJ editorial board, the way we had the article written beforehand we intermingled the positions of the WSJ and the positions of the editorial board in a way that none of the sources did. As for what this fixes I'd note that the vast majority of conflict on this talk page has been about the editorial board not about the main part of the paper. There are perennial due weight concerns that this article overemphasizes the shall we say idiosyncratic opinions of the editorial board at the expense of the news side which is what most of the extant coverage is about albeit not the most popular or controversial coverage, this satisfies those concerns while ensuring that we also cover the controversies etc around the editorial board. The editorial board clears GNG many times over, I'd feel a new article was approriate even if we were closer to 15k than 115k. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * But the primary concern has been weight in the lead. Unless you are suggesting removing the material in the lead this doesn't really address anything and could lead to a POVFork. I think it would be best to get more eyes on this.
 * I'm not actually seeing a primary concern in the archives. There was never a valid argument made for not featuring that material in the lead. This is getting eyes on this, this sort of notice is not required. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The last RfC closed with no consensus regarding the material in the lead. I don't like it but I will respect that consensus.  I think splitting this into a separate article was BOLD but probably should have been done after some discussion.  I think it should be merged but I'm willing to see what others say as well.  Springee (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you care to share some reasoning as to why you think it should be merged? Do you not feel that WP:RS separate the two in their coverage? Also note that we can easily make a 60k page for the editorial board. There are a lot of things that should be expanded per WP:DUEWEIGHT but are currently just a single sentence and a series of references, that expansion can't take place here because this page is too large. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is enough content here to really justify a split. That strikes me as the only reason you would split what is otherwise an obvious single topic apart.  Again, I think it was BOLD but more eyes are needed.  Springee (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I do no think that reliable sources separate the two. They may sometimes contrast the editorial pages with the news pages, but they discuss them as two aspects of the same thing. I don't see a motivation for a split, either by sourcing or (currently) on size. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No other major newspaper editorial board has a page on Wikipedia, the WSJ editorial board is not somehow more notable than every other one. The article is just a copy of sections from this one and does not provide any benefit to readers. Bill Williams 03:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: For posterity, The Wall Street Journal editorial board was previously a stub article, that was merged back after brief discussion. In my view, "The Wall Street Journal editorial board" is a much more natural and grammatically sound title than "Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal". If a separate article is kept, there may need to be some page moves and edit history merges. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just FYI "Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal" is how the WSJ chooses to render it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Conservative Bias
I have (twice now) removed the claim that the journal's editorial pages have a conservative bias. I realize that this is fairly obviously true and few (including the publishers themselves) would dispute it, but it is nonetheless opinion and needs to be sourced as such. I'll look for reputable sources that seek to quantify media bias, so we can cite that. Simply citing other news sources that refer to the paper as "conservative" is not correct, as individual news sources are not in and of themselves reliable sources for the relative bias of other news sources. Wclark (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * This seems a good starting point: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias Wclark (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's another that lists various additional sources to look into: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444
 * About the WSJ opinion pages in particular, it states:
 * The Wall Street Journal news content has a bias rating of "Center" according to AllSides (although the WSJ Opinion section is rated as "Lean Right" - the news and opinion content are rated separately). The Pew Research Center found that the Wall Street Journal is read by people of all political leanings and is the only news source that is more trusted than distrusted by people all across the political spectrum. There is, however, some debate but it has been accused of being biased to both the left and the right. Wclark (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "as individual news sources are not in and of themselves reliable sources for the relative bias of other news sources." where can I find that in policy and guideline? That seems to be the opposite of the consensus we've cultivated over the years. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note that the removed text do not claim a conservative bias it claims they take conservative positions (which is objective fact, not an opinion), it does not include the word "bias" at all. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the word "bias" it is about the fact that "conservative" is an opinion. Also, stop repeatedly reverting changes that are not vandalism.  This is easily addressed by coming up with better sources for this claim, and citing them properly.  I have suggested some above. Wclark (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How is conservative in this context an opinion? Unless it falls under BLP text generally remains on the page while its under discussion, it doesn't get removed unless the discussion closes with a consensus to remove it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also sir, you say that "This has nothing to do with the word bias" but you named this section "Conservative Bias" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the discussion is about claims of conservative bias. It's not about the word bias.  I'm simply using the word in its descriptive/neutral sense.  The WSJ opinion pages do (imho) show a conservative bias, just as (say) Mother Jones shows a liberal bias.  I don't mean "bias" in the sense of it being a slur, as some people use it.  All news sources are biased in some way or another, that's just how the world works. Wclark (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We're talking about taking conservative positions, not having a conservative bias. Completely different things. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's another: https://library.uco.edu/misinformation/mediabias Wclark (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a source that argues that media bias charts are themselves hopelessly biased... although I don't think that's really a major issue in this case so long as we simply report that (in this case) the WSJ opinion pages are "considered" conservative by such-and-such sources. https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/ Wclark (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't accept either of the leading media bias charts as sources, was one being used on the page? If the sources are reliable and nobody says otherwise why would we attribute a fact like that? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One should be used on this page. That's a more reliable source on media bias than the collection of other random news sources currently cited.  CNN is considered relatively centrist by most standards, but I'm sure I'd have no problem finding any number of news articles from other sources that refer to it as a left-leaning publication.  Just as we can't cite (say) Fox News as a reliable source for the claim that CNN has a liberal bias, we can't cite other news sources to support the claim that the WSJ opinion pages tend to promote conservative positions, either.  At least in this particular case, I don't think the claim is particularly controversial -- I'm actually trying to find some WSJ source where they acknowledge their conservative slant on their opinion pages, since I don't think even they'd deny it. Wclark (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't cite Fox News as a reliable source for the claim that CNN has a liberal bias because there is a consensus that Fox News can't be used for politics. Other sources would be ok (for example the WSJ). See Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Also note that we're talking about bias again even though "This has nothing to do with the word bias" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * News sources are not a reliable source for asserting the political views of any other news publications, other than themselves. Period.  A reliable source for such a claim would be some institution that actual studies media bias, such as the Pew Foundation or AllSides or any of the other sources I have started researching above.  All that's needed here is to find an appropriate citation.  I do not disagree with the claim that the WSJ opinion pages typically promote conservative opinions.  I am simply calling for better citations for that claim.  As best I can tell, AllSides seems to be the most reputable so far, and it does back up the claim in the article.  I'd suggest we just amend the claim to say something like "The editorial pages of the Journal are generally considered to be conservative in their positions" or "The editorial pages of the Journal have been found to be conservative in their positions" with the AllSides survey cited. Wclark (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "News sources are not a reliable source for asserting the political views of any other news publications, other than themselves. Period." you've already said that and I've asked you to show me where in policy or guideline it says that because its the opposite of what we appear to do. You have not shown anything. Also note that you removed the Columbia Journalism Review which is not a news publication. We can't use the allsides survey, there is no consensus that its reliable... Check the perennial sources page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia: Reliable Sources states:
 * When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces.
 * The claim that the WSJ opinion pages are "conservative" in their views is a matter of opinion. It's a commonly held opinion (and I don't disagree with it) but it's an opinion nonetheless.  We can't cite random news sources that merely refer to the WSJ as "conservative" as if this were a matter of fact.  We can refer to actual polls/studies on media bias that show that a significant majority of the population views the WSJ opinion pages as conservative.
 * This is similar to somebody trying to use People Magazine to back up the claim that "Harrison Ford is the sexiest man alive" as a statement of fact, versus simply stating that "People Magazine named Harrison Ford the sexiest man alive." Wclark (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats exactly what we're doing, we're saying they take conservative positions (an objective fact) not that they are conservative (a more opinion based claim). Again this isn't about bias, its about editorial positioning. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a position is "conservative" is not an objective fact. Ask people from different ends of the political spectrum and you will get different opinions on the same position.  Most Europeans would consider (say) CNN to be "conservative" while most US Republicans would likely call it "liberal" instead.
 * What is an objective fact -- and one I believe we can find suitable reliable sources for -- is that a majority of Americans consider the WSJ opinion pages to take/promote conservative positions. Wclark (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you denying the validity of the academic field of political science? Within a given context positions can in fact be objectively conservative, you will notice that the text you removed links not to Conservatism but to Conservatism in the United States Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * AllSides and Ad Fontes Media are both reliable sources of their own published opinions which is all that would be cited, here. As the discussions (linked from the Perennial Sources page) do point out, it's fine to cite them for those purposes.  That's the whole point here -- "conservative" is a matter of opinion, and so all we can cite are the sources that hold that opinion.  The article on Media bias in the United States lists other such sources, some deemed to have various biases of their own, but that's probably fine.  At least for this particular article, I don't think there's any serious dispute over the "conservative" label, even from other allegedly conservative sources.  We an probably find a suitable conservative media bias site and it would still list the WSJ opinion pages as having a conservative slant, and that would work as well.
 * However, reading over some of the linked discussions it seems as though this issue of citing bias has come up on multiple articles, and there's no clear consensus on whether it's even allowed. I personally find the information useful (I often look up news sources on Wikipedia to find out what kind of bias they're perceived to have) and would like to keep it.  I'll look a bit more to see if there's a more general, overarching discussion of this somewhere.. Wclark (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats not how WP:SELFSOURCE works, particularly "2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)