Talk:Investor's Business Daily

message: I'm not a fan of the IBD at all, but you simply cannot say that its editorial page "parrots the Republican party's propaganda." That's horrible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.155.45 (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You call "there are editorials that would claim the paper is left wing out there" a fact? It's a fact that the Times did what the article says. It's also a fact that it's not a "tabloid". -- 70.109.45.74 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insane NPOV language 

message: Yes the paper has been criticized for taking a very pro war stance. However, it it is quite true that the editorial section is secondary to the main focus of the paper. The paper has posted editorials stating that its stance is right wing.
That being said, it might be appropriate to include a paragraph stating that its editorial sections lean towards the right and the paper has been criticized for this, especially in regards to its stance on the middle east. It should also state that other than the editorial section, the paper simple reports information on businesses that help the reader invest according to the founders system. I don't think anyone would debate such a paragraph.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zippy1981 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the political bias of the paper 

message: I've just made several changes to the article:
#Removed POV tag — I don't see any reason for it at present.
#Removed stub tag — it's more than a stub now.
#Cited and quoted from IBD's Backgrounder page.
#Reorganized the text to accommodate that quote.
#Requested cite re IBD tying in to William O'Neils book.
#Added a new section on the editorials, columns and cartoons.
#Added an EL to http://www.ibdeditorials.com/.
The new "Editorials" section is fairly rough; please improve it. I simply said the editorial stance is "conservative to libertarian", whereas this older version of the article gave IBD's views on several topics.
Cheers, CWC 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess IBD editorialists read the blogs and vice versa: Instapundit recently linked to an editorial praising Michael Yon. CWC, 09:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2007 

message: I agree that every media outlet screws up sometimes.  In May 2004, The Economist reported that average IQs in states voting for George Bush in 2000 were much lower than those of states voting for Al Gore.  The report was later acknowledged to be untrue. That is a lot more serious, and with a much more prestigious publication; yet the WP article on The Economist does not mention it, nor should it without substantial context and balance.  The Hawking incident is too small in the IBD's long history, and should not have the weight it does in the article.  If the incident is to be mentioned, then there should be much more context to show how (non)representative the incident is.  This is required by WP:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight.
86.158.74.232 (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WP:V and WP:NOR require that this article be based on independent, reliable sources. The press kit from Investor's Business Daily is not an independent source. I see exactly one independent source in the article at present (a piece from The Times), which incidentally focuses on the Dailys role in the Obama health-care debate. It sounds to me like you're proposing we exclude independent, reliable sources entirely from the article (leaving it based on press kits and promotional material directly from the Daily), because the independent coverage of the topic strikes you as negative. One solution might be to find additional independent coverage of the topic which would illustrate the "non-representative" nature of this particular error. MastCell Talk 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not address the points I raised at all.81.152.212.130 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. OK. That's not much to go on, but I'll try again. You're comparing this article to our article on The Economist. That article has a sizable section on "Criticism", so I don't see that it's handled all that differently than this article, which similarly mentions notable, well-sourced criticism of the subject. Again, you are welcome to help find additional third-party, reliable sources on IBD - after all, the article is supposed to be based on such sources, but instead this article is mostly just links to various IBD articles. The more good-quality, independent sources we find, the easier it will be to write a solid, neutral, encyclopedic article. MastCell Talk 17:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think our personal opinions about DDoS'ing Wikileaks, or about "illegals", are germane here. Insofar as independent, reliable sources have discussed the Daily, much of it seems to be in the context of its rather unfortunate editorial claims about "Stephen Hawkins" [sic]. So we reflect that. MastCell Talk 22:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

text: It deserves mention because it was heavily covered by independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is intended to proportionately reflect coverage from such sources. What is the basis for removing it entirely, when it's essentially the only part of this article that's appropriately sourced? MastCell Talk 21:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just googled for "Investor's Business Daily": that got 2,060,000 results.  Then I googled for "Investor's Business Daily" AND "Stephen Hawking": that got 88,500 results.  This seems to support your point. AlfBit (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight to single controversy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Investor's Business Daily. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070615173124/http://www.investors.com:80/presscenter/pc10.asp to http://www.investors.com/presscenter/pc10.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Saw that the publication announced it is transitioning to a weekly circulation, going to update that information on here. I also saw the notability concern but after a long search it looks like they could meet the WP:NME criteria, but thats not evident on here yet as it looks like its currently relying too much on their own site, so Ill try to use what I found to fix the references and content if possible 20:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed to a weekly newspaper

message: The quote as it stands is not quite accurate, and doesn't make sense: "would save the life of this brilliant man ... is essentially worthless."  The word "save" should be "say".  My own (second- or third-hand) source says "say", and at least it makes sense and states what it meant to say.  I personally read the article before the retraction, saw the unambiguous meaning of the quote, but I don't remember the exact quote.  There may be other slight errors.  (Not sure, but I think that NHS in the quote should be square-bracketed.)
Johnm307 (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , good catch. Altamel (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit requested on 26 January 2017