| Revision as of 15:43, 5 November 2019 editThenightaway (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users52,047 edits →The fringe coverage of science should be in the lede← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:53, 5 July 2024 edit undoJohnuniq (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators86,680 editsm Reverted edit by 49.237.203.208 (talk) to last version by WhisperToMeTag: Rollback |
| (706 intermediate revisions by 97 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
| ⚫ |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| ⚫ |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
| ⚫ |
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
| ⚫ |
|counter = 4 |
|
| ⚫ |
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
| ⚫ |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| ⚫ |
|algo = old(90d) |
|
| ⚫ |
|archive = Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|action1=GAN |
| Line 21: |
Line 12: |
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|
|otd1date=2004-07-08|otd1oldid=4760254 |
|
|
|otd2date=2005-07-08|otd2oldid=18376583 |
|
|
|otd3date=2006-07-08|otd3oldid=57650732 |
|
|
|otd4date=2007-07-08|otd4oldid=143254016 |
|
|
|otd5date=2014-07-08|otd5oldid=616035780 |
|
|
|otd6date=2016-07-08|otd6oldid=728728255 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=B}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Wall Street Journal|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business & Economics|class=B|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Finance|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Newspapers|class=|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Newspapers|importance=High}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|OpinionJournal.com|9 April 2020}} |
|
|
{{merged-from|The Wall Street Journal editorial board|25 January 2020}} |
|
⚫ |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
⚫ |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
⚫ |
|maxarchivesize = 200K |
|
⚫ |
|counter = 6 |
|
⚫ |
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
⚫ |
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
⚫ |
|algo = old(180d) |
|
⚫ |
|archive = Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-07-08|oldid1=4760254|date2=2005-07-08|oldid2=18376583|date3=2006-07-08|oldid3=57650732|date4=2007-07-08|oldid4=143254016|date5=2014-07-08|oldid5=616035780|date6=2016-07-08|oldid6=728728255}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== The fringe coverage of science should be in the lede == |
|
|
|
|
|
An IP number keeps edit-warring out content on the WSJ editorial pages' fringe coverage of science. This should be in the lede, as it's highly descriptive of the kind of content that is found in this paper (the lede already notes that the news sections are highly respectable and that the editorial pages are conservative). ] (]) 15:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:As long as the only citation supporting the claim that the WSJ's editorial page indulges in fringe coverage of science is a single book, making that claim in the article's lede is ]. The standard for proof of extraordinary claims in wikipedia articles is citiations of multiple trustworthy secondary sources. The claim as currently supported belongs in ], not in the article lede, which gives it undue weight for a claim made in a single book. ] (]) 23:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::WP:UNDUE indeed as per loupgarous. This is silly, I just deleted it. --] ] 09:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Agreed with loupgarous and Tickle me about ]. A single book cannot be used to define the entire editorial page's attitude towards these issues in the lede. Moreover, one of the authors of the book cited has been challenged in the New Yorker for over-applying words like "denialism" to respectable scientists.<ref>https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-not-to-debate-nuclear-energy-and-climate-change</ref> ] (]) 07:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I agree as well. This should be removed from the ledge and moved to the ]. ] (]) 04:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's clear this claim has been controversial since originally added. It's UNDUE for the lead at the very least. ] (]) 15:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::And it's clear that asking over and over again and ignoring ] isn't going to get you far. --] | ] 02:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Keep it in the lede: Remember ]? I know, it was SO long ago, back in (checks notes) April. --] | ] 02:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Calton}}, funny you mention that RfC... no, I don't recall it because I didn't participate in it. There is no reason to bite or double post. Looking at the talk page this discussion was both the most recent discussion as well as one that dates back to around the time the material was added to the lead. So to someone who wasn't involved it's perfectly reasonable to assume this was something that was added with limited discussion. Please don't be so quick to assume everyone is aware of edit histories that are in the archives, especially when contemporary discussions are not archived. Also, please keep CIVIL in mind and assume good faith rather than implying editors are willfully ignoring archived RfCs. ] (]) 03:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Snooganssnoogans}}, you have a bit of a catch 22. If you keep the citation in the lead then you are giving UNDUE weight to a single source and it is reasonable to remove the sentence from the lead. If you instead keep it as a summary then per CITELEAD we don't need to keep the citation in the lead. ] (]) 13:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
{{ping|Snooganssnoogans}}, please don't edit war. Please follow MOS:CITELEAD. By citing only the single entry you are giving the single source UNDUE weight. As a single critical source it would be undue for the lead. Remember that the lead summarizes the body. Also, the actions of random sock editors isn't justification for ignoring MOS. ] (]) 13:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Snooganssnoogans}}, you are at 3RR, please take your concerns to the talk page here rather than edit war. The RfC did not conclude that this citation must be included. You ''should'' know better. ] (]) 14:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Just how brazen and shameless can you be? First you remove text agreed-upon in a RfC, feigning ignorance of the RfC. Then you repeatedly remove the citation for the RfC text, which was also part of the RfC, citing some BS about how we are giving undue weight to one source and bizarrely claiming that you're following MOS:CITELEAD, which is NOT AT ALL the case. So you have now within the span of two days on five occasions edit-warred content agreed-upon in a RfC. It's perfectly fine to cite a source for material that will inevitably get removed again and again by bad editors (you yourself removed the text for Christ's sake)... MOS:CITELEAD literally explains why it's wise to keep citations in the lede for contested text. ] (]) 14:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::You bad faith accusations are problematic. Why would I have known about the RfC? Was I involved? Was it on the talk page? Why did you refuse to discuss the issue here vs engage in an edit war? The problem is you are giving undue weight to a single source by citing it alone in the lead. Additionally, unless that single source supports all the claims in the sentence it fails WP:V. ] (]) 14:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::: It's a book by recognized experts, and yes, it does support all the claims. It's perfectly fine as a source in the lede. It's mind-boggling that you're applying ] to a "citation" in the lede... given that the body supports the text with multiple sources (showing that it's absolutely NOT under any conceivable interpretation a minority view afforded disproportionate focus) AND given that this was agreed-upon in a RfC. The goal seems to be to create (i) doubts in readers' minds as to the accuracy of the text in the lede by stripping away the most authoritative academic source on the climate change denial movement from the lede and (ii) encourage the IP editors to continue edit-warring this out because it's "unsourced". ] (]) 14:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Given the wide range of claims being supported I think you need to back that with page numbers from the book. I agree the book is reliable and noted in the press. However, it is still only one source being used to support material in the lead of a very old and very prominent paper. The RfC didn't agree that the exact text was to be included and if you notice the text we currently have is not the text from the RfC. Your concern about IP editors is not justification to ignore WP:V which is policy. I will add that accusing me of "encouraging the IP editors" to do anything is a WP:CIVIL problem on your part. ] (]) 15:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: I'm not going to regurgitate the debates from the RfC for you just because you dislike that the lede highlights the WSJ editorial board's promotion of fringe science. If you want to overturn the RfC, start a new one. ] (]) 15:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: So you are saying you can't support your claim. If you can't support it, why did you add it? ] (]) 15:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: I literally posted quotes from the book in the RfC. Try again. ] (]) 15:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: Where? Did you include page numbers so others can verify your claims? Did the book actually say "fringe"? Did you check with other sources to see if the book over sold their case? I'm going to get a copy of the book to verify claims and statements made. Please provide page numbers so we can verify what you are claiming. Please remember WP:CIVIL applies to talk pages. ] (]) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Perfect example of why debating this with you is utterly pointless. First you ignore the RfC, claiming ignorance to remove RfC consensus text. Then you remove a citation to the most authoritative book on the climate change denial movement, absurdly claiming it's UNDUE to cite a book, leaving a contested claim in the lede unsupported. Then you falsely claim the book does not support its claims, without ever having bothered to read the book. Then you ask for verification that the book makes the claims, and it's provided to you. Now we're on to the next ten pointless hurdles that you have erected, and then we'll get to the next ten. I'd rather devote my time to something that's actually constructive. ] (]) 15:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Calton}}, restoring the citation means it fails WP:V because that single book doesn't support all claims made in the sentence. It also restores the UNDUE weight issue. ] (]) 14:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Which of those claims does the book not support? ] (]) 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== 2023 Pulitzer Prize == |
|
== "perceivably superior economic policies" vs. "purportedly superior economic policies" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Wall Street Journal won another Pulitzer prize in 2023 for its reporting on the stock trading of various federal officials. See https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year. The intro section already mentions this fact, but the Pulitzer prize section has not been updated to include it. Should we go ahead and update it? ] (]) 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
This should not be a discussion, nor should this even be an RfC, yet here I am. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== First sentence == |
|
I want to make Misplaced Pages as "We give the facts, you make the decisions," not the other way around. That said, I have only one problem with the line "purportedly superior economic policies". The line is appropriate in this context, but if there is one thing about it I find repulsive, it is the use of ''purportedly''. To differentiate the two words, according to Oxford English Dictionary, ''perceive'' means "interpret or look on (someone or something) in a particular way; regard as," and ''purportedly'' means "as appears or is stated to be true, though not necessarily so; allegedly." The first works well because it simply states WSJ's claim that Trump's economic policies are better than Obama's, without saying much else. The second could theoretically also work well, but I am worried that some readers may interpret that as meaning, "Oh, WSJ claims Trump's economic policies trump Obama's, but that clearly ain't so," (without the "necessarily"), as opposed to, "Oh, WSJ simply thinks Trump's economic policies are better than Obama's." To revert that to the previous state without citing any of Misplaced Pages's policies or at least explaining why implies that my suggestion is clearly wrong, almost as if it were vandalism, when in fact it was done in good faith to remove any ''possible'' form of POV, since Misplaced Pages is not here to decide for us. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the manner in which WSJ is described as both "American" and "international" in the first sentence is highly confusing, and should be adjusted. ] (]) 21:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
As a classical liberal and libertarian with a lowercase "l" who is independent and unashamedly unaffiliated with any major political party, I want to see this end well and not get ugly. |
|
The Wall Street Journal won another Pulitzer prize in 2023 for its reporting on the stock trading of various federal officials. See https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year. The intro section already mentions this fact, but the Pulitzer prize section has not been updated to include it. Should we go ahead and update it? SCOTUS Operandi (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I think the manner in which WSJ is described as both "American" and "international" in the first sentence is highly confusing, and should be adjusted. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
