Talk:The Wall Street Journal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Wall Street Journal article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article The Wall Street Journal has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Take Over

Given that the takeover is being intensely debated, it would be appropriated to add on the section covering that topic that, although Mr. Murdoch states he will not interfere with the newspaper editorial, many organizations and people do not believe this statement. Above all, the quote of that section should be counterbalanced with an opposing view.

155.198.157.118 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Be bold. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 04:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Nbauman (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've trimmed what seemed to be excessive quotation from news stories and editorial. The facts can be covered appropriately without reproducing large chunks of text. --Tony Sidaway 22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You have this credulous quote from L. Gordon Crovitz assuring the world that Murdoch will not "break the trust that exists between the paper and its readers." Against that, you have exhaustive evidence from the WSJ's own news reporters documenting that Murdoch has done exactly that repeatedly in the past. It's important to give that evidence, in as much detail as necessary to give people sufficient evidence for them to make up their own minds. Unfortunately, we can't just link to the original article, because it's behind a subscription wall, so I quoted a bit more than I would have otherwise. There's still a lot of less important stuff in the article to cut. Nbauman (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Balance is amply served by noting the different views that are expressed on the subject of the takeover, and cite them correctly. Extensive quotation from primary sources is not suitable for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 08:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The article as you've edited it has absolutely no supporting evidence for the assertion that Murdoch has made and broken similar promises before. If you've read the WSJ, you know that they always supply evidence like that.
I would point out that today's New York Times has a story about Murdoch's takeover that mentions this very story. [1]
Before you make wholesale deletions, I'd like you to discuss this. Why do you think comments this long are inappropriate? How do you think it should be shortened? Don't you think that an assertion should be supported by evidence?
And I'd like to know what other people think. Let's reach consensus.
BTW, according to the NYT, Crovitz has been fired. So I'm not sure how reliable his assessment is. Nbauman (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm fine with discussing it. I'll make an RFC. --Tony Sidaway 09:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Islamophobia'

An interesting edit and counteredit today, as User:Ali doostzadeh added the page Islamophobia as a "see also" and then quickly removed it him- (her-?) self.

18:05, 8 December 2007 Ali doostzadeh (Talk | contribs) (33,189 bytes) 
(nevermind for now, due to lack of time but somebody see this:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119698509824016464.html?mod=googlenews_wsj]) (undo)

Having been invited in the reversion note to check the citation, I did so, and found it to be a Weekend Journal opinion column about Mitt Romney that I'd read in print not 30 minutes earlier. Ali doostzadeh seems to be asking for "somebody's" opinion, so let's discuss it.

The thesis of the article in question is that Romney won't do well in the Iowa caucus because most GOP voters there don't know Mormons personally, and think of the LDS religion as a weird cult. Ali doostzadeh's charge of islamophobia would seem to stem from this paragraph:

“ A recent Pew poll shows that only 53% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mormons. That's roughly the same percentage who feel that way toward Muslims. By contrast, more than three-quarters of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jews and Catholics. Whatever the validity of such judgments, one has to wonder: Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders? ”

Call me crazy, but I don't see anything islamophobic about this statement. Substitute "Irish Catholic" for "Muslim," and reference IRA attacks rather than 9/11; or substitute "Basque" and reference terror in Spain; or substitute "Orthodox Christian" and reference ethnic cleansing in the Balkans -- and I don't see a strong indictment of the named group as a whole; only an admission that the group is unpopular because of the actions of some of its members.

Islamophobia does exist; and it exists, at least in part, because Christians' and Jews' first impressions of the religion were formed by extremists who claimed to represent Islam. To express surprise that Americans have equally unfavorable reactions to a religion (Mormonism) that has not, in recent memory, been misappropriated by terrorists, and another religion (Islam) that has, does not mean the author is endorsing the view that all Muslims are terrorists, or that Islam is fundamentally violent. Rather, it's an honest recognition that islamophobia exists.

And if the WSJ merely discusses islamophobia, rather than endorsing it, I don't see the point in listing islamophobia as a 'see also.' One would have to list every other topic the WSJ discusses, and that would make the WSJ 'see also' section a table of contents for all of Wikipedia.

One more thing: I think it's ill-advised to use the 'see also' area to catalogue ideologies expressed in single opinion columns. First off, what do we do if next week a spokesman for CAIR writes a pro-Muslim commentary for the op-ed page? List both "Islamophobia" and "Islamophilia"? And what of the myriad other topics on which WSJ commentators take stands? -- again, we end up with a 'see also' list longer than the article text itself. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 04:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like to use words like "Islamophobic" because it's hard to define and perhaps a neologism. However, the WSJ prints a lot of Op-Ed pieces (and maybe editorials) that reliable sources have called racist attacks on Muslims. If Ali doostzadeh wants to find a reliable source that cites some of those Op-Eds and calls the WSJ racist or Islamophobic, that would be a useful addition to the article, IMO. Nbauman (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for everyone's comment. Professor Juan Cole remarks: "I just wanted literally to puke on my living room carpet when I read this bilge. Islam is not 'the faith professed by 9/11 hijackers.' Islam is the religion of probably 1.3 billion persons, a fifth of humankind, which will probably be a third of humankind by 2050. Islam existed for 1400 years before the 9/11 hijackers, and will exist for a very long time after them. Riley has engaged in the most visceral sort of smear, associating all Muslims with the tiny, extremist al-Qaeda cult. We could play this game with any human group. Some Catholics were responsible for the Inquisition. Shall we blame Catholicism for that, or all Catholics? Of course not. Jewish Zionists expelled hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians from their homes in 1948. Is that Judaism's fault or that of Jews in general? Of course not. She goes on to further stick her foot in her mouth by complaining that she heard conservative Christians call Mormonism 'the fourth Abrahamic religion' (alongside Judaism, Christianity and Islam) and complains that they compared a Muslim belief she considers 'wacky' to Mormon stories. It is all right for her to call folk Islamic motifs wacky, mind you. She's only interested in being fair to Mormons, not to Muslims. Mormons are good people, but some of their forebears were also involved in violence in the 19th century of a sort that other Americans viewed as terrorism." See here [2]. My take on the issue is the same as Prof. Juan Cole's impression. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

alidoostzadeh, can you find an article in the Columbia Journalism Review or someplace that reviews the WSJ editorial page on their treatment of this subject? That would be worth including. Nbauman (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I will spare you a rehash of my thoughts -- read my comment above. The deeper question is this: Is it notable, in an encyclopedia article, to discuss the perceived bias of one columnist in one relatively minor column? I say no. If such bias is systemic to the point where the impression of Islam one would gain from reading WSJ columns is overwhelmingly negative, that's a different story, and deserves such treatment as we can afford it given Nbauman's call for a scholarly citation. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 05:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propose deleting section on "Features"

I propose that we delete the section on "Features". All it does is list the sections of the paper every week -- the kind of thing that you would find in a media kit. Does it really make any difference that the WSJ runs "Section One" every day, and "Personal Journal" Tuesdays through Thursdays?

If somebody were to find a reliable source to describe the sections, such as the A-hed stories, or a commentary pro or con on Mary O'Grady, that would be meaningful, if done right (like the discussion in the "Political issues" section. But I don't see how this catalog of features contributes to our understanding of the paper.

Besides, this article is getting long, and we should cut something. What's more important -- a list of the sections, or a list of the Pulitzer Prize stories?

Opinions, anyone? Arguments in favor? Arguments opposed? Nbauman (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We don't need to cut anything for space reasons -- we could easily break topics out into subpages ("Pulitzer Prize-winning stories by The Wall Street Journal", etc.). ... I'm undecided on section descriptions' usefulness, but I certainly think "A-hed" should stay. I don't see why the current citation (essentially Dow Jones PR) isn't adequate; this is not exactly a contentious issue in need of dispassionate third-party perspective. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 05:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed trimming of quoted text on News Corp. purchase

Currently the section on the News Corporation purchase contains a five-paragraph quotation from a Wall Street Journal story. There is also a following paragraph further summarizing more of the content. The import is that the Wall Street Journal news division has carried stories highly critical of Rupert Murdoch. I propose to trim this drastically.

That WSJ has carried such stories can be amply conveyed, in my opinion, by a brief quote and summary of roughly the following form:

However, a June 5 Journal news story had quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past.[1] James Ottoway Jr. said Murdoch has long "expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations."

User:Nbauman has objected[3] that trimming has the following disadvantages:

  • It's important to give that evidence, in as much detail as necessary to give people sufficient evidence for them to make up their own minds.
  • we can't just link to the original article, because it's behind a subscription wall.

My response to this is that devoting five paragraphs to a verbatim quotation of a single news story doesn't necessarily give such evidence as is due. What it does, really, is tell us, word for word, what WSJ's news reporters have said. Moreover by focussing on it, it seems to turn the section into an opinion piece on Mr Murdoch rather than a discussion of the takeover. By quoting so extensively from a critical story, we give the appearance of giving the story especial credence, and thus taking a stance on Mr Murdoch's trustworthiness. If we're truly interested in letting the reader make up his own mind, I believe, citing the news story with a brief quote as above is adequate. The reader who wants to know more can easily obtain the relevant story from a public library, so the subscription barrier (even if we considered ourselves to be in the business of publishing news stories) is not an issue. --Tony Sidaway 10:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, Tony Sidaway, thanks for following Wikipedia procedures rather than getting into an edit war.
I don't object to trimming it -- I only object to the near-complete deletion that you've done. Any summary should keep the essential facts.
I don't know if you read the WSJ regularly, but I've been reading it for 30 years. I do give their news stories especial credence, and most journalists and others who follow the news also do. That includes Murdoch himself -- he said that the reason he wanted to take over the WSJ is because of its credibility.
Before I posted that, I tried to cut it down as much as I could -- but as is often the case with the tightly-edited WSJ, there wasn't much to cut. It was all important.
Here's an example. Consider the following passage:
Fred Emery, a former Times assistant editor, says Mr. Murdoch called him into his office in March 1982 and said he was considering firing Times editor Harold Evans. Mr. Emery says he reminded Mr. Murdoch of his promise that editors couldn't be fired without the independent directors' approval. "God, you don't take all that seriously, do you?" Mr. Murdoch answered, according to Mr. Emery.
Do you believe that, since Murdoch had promised to preserve the WSJ's independence, it's important that he made similar promises to London Times before he took it over, and broke those promises? Do you agree that we should keep it in?
Do you think we should condense that paragraph? If so, how would you condense it while still keeping in the essential facts?
I would try cutting it down myself (which isn't easy), but I'm busy with work -- ironically, I'm in the middle of summarizing a 30,000-word transcript down to 2,000 words. Nbauman (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

However, a June 5 Journal news story had quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past.[2] James Ottoway Jr. said Murdoch has long "expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations." Former Times journalist Fred Emery, was quoted describing conflicts with Sunday Times editor Harold Evans, during which, Emery said, Mr Murdoch considered sacking Mr Evans and expressed contempt for his own earlier promises.

Harold Evans, in fact, was never an editor of The Times, but of its sister paper, The Sunday Times. He resigned about a year after the Murdoch takeover, citing policy differences over editorial independence. --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that
Emery said, Mr Murdoch considered sacking Mr Evans and expressed contempt for his own earlier promises.
conveys Murdoch's attitude as well as
"God, you don't take all that seriously, do you?" Mr. Murdoch answered, according to Mr. Emery.
Nbauman (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Firstly my apologies: I said Evans was never editor of The Times. Actually in 1981 Evans moved to edit The Times, from its sister paper The Sunday Times. In 1982 he resigned from The Times.
Secondly if we report those words, what we're doing is saying "The WSJ said that Emery said that Murdoch said these words (twenty-five years ago)." There is a problem with that. It's better to say the former because it adequately conveys the distance between speech and reporting. --Tony Sidaway 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If we report it your way, we're saying, "The WSJ said that Emery said that Murdoch said something (twenty-five years ago), and it expressed contempt for his earlier promises, but we're not telling you what that something is; you'll just have to trust us that it expressed contempt."
Every editor, writing teacher, and writing book (including the WSJ's own style book) says that you should do just the opposite.
When you say, "it adequately conveys the distance between speech and reporting," I don't understand what that means at all. Nbauman (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
My two cents before I go on vacation (so this is the WP equivalent of hit-and-run): First, to echo comments above, I appreciate that both of you are discussing this here rather than edit-warring. My background is as a daily WSJ reader and as a professional journalist (editor). My thoughts: Nbauman is right about preserving exact quotes and detailed facts -- if we are writing a front-page news story focused narrowly on Murdoch's relationship with the WSJ. We're not. This is a general-interest encyclopedia, not a primary source.
Imagine if every major turning point in the WSJ's storied history (or The New York Times', or the The Times', etc.) were treated in level of depth that Nbauman has -- in good faith, I believe -- provided for the Murdoch takeover. We would have a 300-page history of the WSJ on our hands. Now, I wouldn't mind reading it, but most folks would, and it isn't what Wikipedia is. Look at other sections of the article. Are there extensive quotes from the WSJ's prizewinning stories? Extensive quotes from Barron's writing about his original intentions for the WSJ? No. Both of those sections makes liberal use of paraphrase and condensation of events that could, easily, fill a 3,000-word feature story -- or two or three chapters of a hardcover book. The only extensive quotes in the story are two about the blockquoted explanations of the editorial page and one about the supposed political bias. And these three blockquotes together take up less space than the long quote from the Murdoch story.
One more thing. Such extensive quoting from a copyrighted published source isn't good secondary-source writing, in my opinion. Whether or not it raises questions of copyvio, bear in mind that we are writing an original encyclopedia story -- we are not simply aggregating all relevant primary sources. I was always taught in college to use quotes, but sparingly. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 05:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved RfC comment: I agree with Tony Sidaway and Wiki Wistah above. This is much too long a quote. There are relevant details, but as a tertiary source we should summarize as much as possible into prose while citing other sources if possible. I also agree that there may be undue weight (or at least disproportionate detail) on this event given the size, influence, and history of this newspaper. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of providing what might be described as a "fresh" opinion from someone unfamiliar with the publication and its history (unfamiliar here meaning: not a regular reader), it seems to me maximum utility to wikipedia would be a higher-level overview with a link to the talk page. I'd echo the sentiments above that overly detailed reproductions of source materials don't provide encyclopedic overviews. I disagree with Nbauman: I think the above proposed summary of the content adequately captures and summarizes the jist of the piece. Again, I'm offering this feedback from the perspective of what I think is a pretty typical example of a person unfamiliar with this topic seeking high-level information about the history of the WSJ.(TomDemers (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC))

Let me clarify my position. I don't oppose shortening the quoted secton; the issue is what the section must say to properly inform the reader.
I don't think the proposed summary accurately captures and summarizes the piece.
TomDemers, let me ask you the question I've been asking everybody else. Do you think that
Emery said, Mr Murdoch considered sacking Mr Evans and expressed contempt for his own earlier promises.
conveys Murdoch's attitude as well as
"God, you don't take all that seriously, do you?" Mr. Murdoch answered, according to Mr. Emery.
Nbauman (talk) 05:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
After over three weeks of this RFC, it does look to me as if there's general consensus that the existing section should be trimmed and replaced by something close to my suggestion. I don't want to jump the gun, but as the only objector would you mind if I performed the replacement so that we can then concentrate on what needs to be added? --Tony Sidaway 11:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would like an answer to my question first:
Do you think that
Emery said, Mr Murdoch considered sacking Mr Evans and expressed contempt for his own earlier promises.
conveys Murdoch's attitude as accurately as
"God, you don't take all that seriously, do you?" Mr. Murdoch answered, according to Mr. Emery.
Nbauman (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi folks. Perhaps Tony Sidaway's proposed wording can be extended slightly to capture the idea and force of the original piece?
However, a June 5 Journal news story had quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past.[3] James Ottoway Jr. said Murdoch has long "expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations." Former Times journalist Fred Emery, was quoted describing conflicts with Sunday Times editor Harold Evans. According to Emery, Murdoch considered sacking Evans; when reminded of his own earlier promises not to fire editors without the independent directors' approval, Murdoch responded: "God, you don't take all that seriously, do you?"'
Also, while getting the summary right is clearly important, it might make sense to reevaluate consensus on this issue, as the original WSJ article is now accessible without registration/subscription. Rl03 (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tom Sidaway that there is a general consensus emerging towards trimming. As for Nbauman's objections they seem less forceful now given that the article is available to all and Rl03's suggestion sufficiently conveys Murdoch's callous attitude. In the interest of full disclosure I'm part of a group of students working on a CyberLaw Wikipedia Dispute Resolution project at Harvard Law School. You might see a few more of us weigh in on this. --Jumpingdeeps (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind you, the WP consensus process is not a matter of taking a vote; it's a process of weighing ideas and resolving debates.

I have raised a question several times, above. I would like to know Tony Sidaway's answer. Should we include the quote? If you want to delete it and paraphrase it, you should be able to give a reason for doing so.

And I repeat: I did not object to trimming it. The question is, how much? And what should it say? Nbauman (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nbauman that we need to look at all of our ideas and come to an agreement together on this. Hopefully, Tony Sidaway will contribute his response soon, but I also think we should cut down the quote in light of the fact that the entire WSJ article is freely accessible on the WSJ website. (See here). Regarding how much we should trim the quote and what it should say, I think Rl03's formulation is sufficient, although it may be better to replace "sacking" with "firing" to conform with the actual quote. Lumbu (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Following the above suggestions, what do you think about this replacement quote:

However, a June 5 Journal news story quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past. One large shareholder commented that Murdoch has long "expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations." Former Times journalist Fred Emery also described Murdoch's allegedly dismissive view of editorial independence. Claimed Emery, when Murdoch was reminded of his own earlier promises not to fire Sunday Times editors without independent directors' approval, Murdoch responded: "God, you don't take all that seriously, do you?"

sæ (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with above comments that the quote should be much shorter. From the perspective of someone wanting an overview of the Journal, it's really a bit too much information on something that is essentially speculative, not factual in nature (ie Will Murdoch's purchase lead to bias?). I do see Nbauman's point that Rupert Murdoch's quote is so egregious that it should be directly quoted and not paraphrased lightly. Sae's proposed quote above looks just about right. Nevinkamath (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I also think that the section should be trimmed if not deleted altogether. There is a stock conspiracy theory that newspaper proprietors are out to suppress freedom of expression on commercial grounds, particularly if the proprietor is a strong minded character. My view is that news paper proprietors are much duller breed, and that editorial decisions have more to do with a mix of commercial considerations, availability of interesting news stories and shifting interest by newpspaper's readership than the opinions of their proprietors. I think this section should be dropped, as it is a red herring. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm coming from the RFC. Trimming this is definitely necessary-- this article is meant to be an overview of the paper's entire history and seeing as this is just speculation at this point it's really not that significant. I think that Sae's summary looks pretty good, but i might slightly revise it as follows:

However, a June 5 Journal news story quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past. One large shareholder commented that Murdoch has long "expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations." Former Times journalist Fred Emery recounted an incident when Murdoch was reminded of his own earlier promises not to fire Sunday Times editors without independent directors' approval and allegedly responded, "God, you don't take all that seriously, do you?"

Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the solution proposed by Tony Sidaway and modified by RIO3 makes sense for the following reasons:

  • (1) As a tertiary source, part of Wikipedia's strength is in aggregating information; quoting one source at lengths does not add to this, but distilling the source and providing a link to it does.
  • (2) The short paragraph proposed seems more in keeping with this encyclopedia's general style and just seems better from an aesthetic perspective.
  • (3) Giving such a long quote from the Journal verbatim seems potentially problematic here, since the Journal is an interested party in this transaction.

I propose the following slight modifications to the paragraph suggested above:

However, a June 5 Journal news story had quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past.[4] One large shareholder, James Ottoway, Jr., was quoted as saying Murdoch has long "expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations." Fred Emery, a former assistant editor with Times of London, was quoted describing conflicts with Sunday Times editor Harold Evans. According to Emery, Murdoch considered sacking Evans; when reminded of his own earlier promises not to fire editors without the independent directors' approval, which he made when purchased the newspaper in 1981, Murdoch responded: "God, you don't take all that seriously, do you?"

This change corrects Emery's title and adds a bit of background about Murdoch's purchase of the Sunday Times, which seems relevant to the point raised. It also clarifies who James Ottoway, Jr. is. Martikurtz (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As a former journalist (and member of the aforementioned Harvard group), I agree with Rl03's suggested revisions as modified by Calliopejen1. Calliopejen1's version is the most clear and concise without sacrificing accuracy or the force of Murdoch's quote. The most recent proposal is admirable for its specificity, but has far more detail than necessary to illustrate the larger point that Murdoch's record puts in question the future of the WSJ under his control. The information about Ottaway and Evans adds nothing of substance to the anecdote and gives the article an insider feel that is not appropriate for a brief, general interest piece. Calliopejen1's version is more in the spirit of the comments of Tom Sidaway, WikiWistah, Tom Demers and Cool Hand Luke regarding journalistic best practices and the appropriate weight of Murdoch's purchase in WSJ history. I agree nonetheless that Emery should be described as a former assistant editor.Jahlers (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with including the Emery quote in the forms suggested by User:Calliopejen1 and User:Martikurtz. On a point of fact, the correct name for the Times is The Times, not "The Times of London", and during the Murdoch era Harold Evans had moved from his longstanding role as editor of the Sunday Times (1967-1981) to editor of The Times (1981-1982). --Tony Sidaway 10:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I'm disappointed with this RfC process. While I agreed that it should be shortened -- I posted a long quote with the intention of having myself or somebody else shorten it -- the question was what should remain, what should be taken out, and why. Nobody answered the why. It's not a consensus at all, most of it is just people weighing in with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Some editors seem to feel that the issue was their opinion about whether they favored Rupert Murdoch or not. I raised specific questions, and nobody answered them. Nbauman (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I am also a member of the Harvard group. If there is a difference between "a former assistant editor" and "a former journalist" (I know little about the industry), then there is currently a minor flaw in this article, as noted by Martikurtz and Jahlers. It seems as though Emery's and Evans' titles got confused at some point in this RFC process. Ccj1981 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The passage as used in the article includes many changes that make the text less precise than the original WSJ article. For example, it's wrong to simply refer to the Times of London as "The Times". There are probably hundreds of newspapers in the English-speaking world called "The Times", and you have to let the reader know which one you're referring to. Nbauman (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RfC. I agree that trimming this to one patagraph would be sufficient. The second paragraph can be included in a separate article on the News Corp. deal, assuming there is such an article.--Longcantata (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct name for The Times is The Times. The other newspapers apparently "borrowed" the name. It's not a London newspaper, it's a national newspaper that happens to be published in London. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What is your authority for that? Nbauman (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
My authority would probably be a masthead of The Times from the eighteenth century. But I don't consider this a particularly important matter. I hope my suggestion of "British newspaper, The Times" is satisfactory. Referring to The Times as The London Times sounds false and unfamiliar to British ears. Local newspapers do exist in Britain, but The Times is not one of them. --Tony Sidaway 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The convention among British science magazines is to refer to themselves as, e.g., "the London-based international science magazine, Nature," or just, "the London-based Nature." Newspapers themselves refer to other newspapers by title and city, for example, "The Day, New London, CT," or "the New London Day," even though the name of the newspaper is "The Day". I don't say we should call it The London Times, but we should call it The Times of London, or something that identifies it as being headquartered in London. You can't just call it "The Times", because that could refer to any of several newspapers. I'll have to see what the style books say about it. Nbauman (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I just read an article in the 12 January New Scientist, which says, "as early as 1923 The Times in London noted that radio broadcasting 'seems likely to seriously invade the province of the Electrophone.'" They also refer to "London's Daily News." So if your standard is what sounds false and unfamiliar to British ears, that's the way to do it.
The British wouldn't refer to The Times as a "British newspaper," they would refer to it as a "London-based newspaper." Britain is a big place. An editor in London once made a distinction to me between Britain, Great Britain, England, and the U.K., each of which he defined differently. They are not interchangeable.
The New Scientist, BTW, usually refers to itself as a "London-based international science magazine."
So that's the correct British style according to a reliable source. Unless you have a reliable source for a different usage, I'm going to change it to conform to British usage (which is the same as American usage). Nbauman (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"London Times" isn't British usage, I assure you. As it's a relatively minoer matter I'll leave it there. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I never said it was. I said "The Times in London" is British usage, and I gave you an example. It's like The New York Times or The Washington Post which are identified by their location even though they're national newspapers. Nbauman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That analogy is weak, since both The New York Times and The Washington Post (as well as The Times of India and The Irish Times) list their complete names - including the city - in their masthead, while The Times does not. I think we should keep The Times as such and perhaps include a link to its Wikipedia page in case there is need to clarify (as is sometimes done where "Indian" refers to Native Americans, not India). sæ (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing by analogy. I gave that example only for explanation.
My point was that the British publications, such as the New Scientist, refer to The Times [italicized] of London [not italicized], because that's the standard style and custom. The style comes from style books, such as the University of Chicago Style Sheet, and they are authoritative. Nbauman (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archived talk

This page was getting long -- 56kb -- so I split off two archive pages. See the box above. ``` W i k i W i s t a h ``` 22:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Must discuss the reputation for inaccuracy.

I added some notable material and much-needed balance to the section on the editorial page, which consisted mostly of self-congratulatory stuff about what it said in the 1940s and 1950s and editorials it reruns on Thanksgiving.

One of *the* main issues with the Wall Street Journal editorial page is that it has developed a reputation for inaccuracy and dishonesty, in the way in which otherwise-similar right-wing editorial departments (Economist, Times of London, NY Post, National Review, Time, etc.) have *not*. The FAIR and CJR summaries are strong statements from reputable organizations which spend most of their time doing fact-checking, which criticize newspapers of all persuasions (CJR in particular is known for having relatively little bias), but which usually discuss isolated incidents; the pattern developed by the Journal in the 1990s was essentially unique for a publication of this circulation.

There are dozens, probably hundreds, of other examples of debunking of inaccuracies on the Journal Editorial page, but I picked two of the more reliable sources, with the least reputation for bias, and picked index coverage over individual-incident coverage. A more recent comprehensive overview is at http://mediamatters.org/columns/200705220003, but, although MediaMatters has developed a strong reputation for accuracy, it is a more partisan source, so I left it out.

I've added the references before, but they were deleted by unknown persons without comment on the talk page. It should *not* be deleted, because this is a *notable and important characteristic* related to the WSJ editorial page, without which the page is also rather one-sided. If the wording or references can be improved, great; I am only doing this in my spare 15 minutes. 69.202.74.184 (talk) 03:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)