Talk:The Western Journal

POV
Tagged because article needs a more objective perspective on topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Intercept article by Lee Fang was used to source the amount of traffic to the site, but even the title referred to its dependence on "fake news," as its attraction. There is no justification for having reverted the edit that expanded to include that core facet of the website and the Intercept story. Please read the source to confirm, if necessary. Activist (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reworded this sentence, because the way that it was written suggested that the WSJ, CBS News and NPR were the ones being described as fake news. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

New Name
It appears that Western Journalism has rebranded itself as The Western Journal. I don't have enough time or the interest to do so, but someone might want to note this in the article and perhaps move the page (with a redirect from the current name). Thanks in advance to whoever does this to make WP better. (You're a better person than I am...) --JohnPomeranz (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Patrick Brown, I'm from Liftable Media (CEO). We did indeed rebrand Western Journalism as The Western Journal as of Nov. 1, 2017. This is our press release: https://liftablemedia.com/2017/11/02/western-journalism-re-brands-western-journal/. I don't want to make any edits myself, but would appreciate if someone made the edits to correct/update this information. We moved the domain from https://www.westernjournalism.com to https://www.westernjournal.com as part of this rebrand.

--Patrickgbrown1 (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, for future reference please see WP:COI. And welcome! – Lionel(talk) 09:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your restraint in not editing the page yourself, Patrick. Thanks for making the necessary fixes, Lionel.  JohnPomeranz (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

History Section NPOV
The final three paragraphs (at the time of this post) of the “History” section may have a liberal (or anti-conservative) bias. To the average reader they may read as unapologetically critical. Facts and claims are supported by sources legitimate to WP, but their potentially cherry-picked invocations are neither (1) corroborated or given another angle by any sources from further right—the purported domain of the topic—nor (2) balanced by any different facts that may shed more favorable light on the subject than what's given. Together, these omissions may suggest a substandard level of both fairness and balance. JDBravo (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a generic complaint. The section reads fine to me, and it relies on fairly decent sources. If you have a concern, please propose some revised language with sources. Neutralitytalk 16:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)