Contents

Talk:Op-ed

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Journalism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Expansion request[edit]

• Op-Ed very poor. - I have done some work, but it is still poor. Needs more work by a journalist who knows about this sort of thing. David Thrale

Gave it a good stab, I think it looks better. Radagast 04:42, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

There's still a lot to cover on this subject, though it may be hidden in related articles (which would need to be identified and linked to). The history of, influence of, and controversies surrounding op-ed pages, for starters. -- Beland 07:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it make sense to merge this with editorial? Both articles are small, and they are very similar. MrC 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Op-ed, from opinion editorial [...] so named because they generally go on the page opposite the editorial page." Er, isn't that why the Opposite Editorial is called Op/Ed? I'm 75% sure the very definition is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.145.225 (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Op-ed means Opposite Editorial, not opinion editorial. 98.196.92.186 (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between the Editorial Page and the Op-Ed page other than them being on oposite pages from each other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.236.121 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The editorial page contains editorials and the Op-Ed page contains opinion columns and possibly cartoons. Editorials are (usually short) opinion pieces written by the editorial board of the paper. They reflect the stance of the paper and do not have bylines. For instance, when the New York Times endorsed Kerry for president, they did so through an editorial. The Op-Ed page has essays written by people like William Safire or George Will. The opinions expressed on those pages reflect those of the individual authors, not the paper. I don't know if there is a standard location for letters to the editor, but on my city's paper, they are placed on the editorial page. This Wikipedia article is weak, in my opinion, because it confuses the matter by implying that editorials are a type of Op-Ed. That is wrong, as far as I know. Maybe I should look into it more. Deadcorpse 20:51, 2 March 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3 is useless, because you need a login for access. Non-accessible links are against the wikipedia-rules (and pointless anyway!), please replace with another one! --93.133.210.74 (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Books are fair game for references, as are other citations to non-digital sources. You don't have to be able to access it for it to be a useful reference. -65.30.183.17 (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had always been under the impression that op/ed stood for opinion/editorial. I am happy to be shown the error of my ways with a reliable source, but otherwise I think this article needs to say the origins of the term are not established.

The op/ed pages can refer to the two pages which often encompass letters, the leading article or editorial, and opinion pieces.

I will make this change if no-one replies to this within a couple of weeks.

Nomenklatura44 (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the origins of the op-ed pages in the US, but does not give any citations or etymology of the word itself. Tourdeforceofnature (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A simple etymology check in Merriam-Webster (where people take etymology seriously) confirms that Op-ed is indeed short for "Opposite editorial." [1]. Please don't make this entry inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.191.145.197 (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, happy to be proved wrong if a good citation could be shown. Checking in the OED (where they take etymology probably even more seriously than Merriam-Webster) they have a citation from 1931. I have removed the dispute tag.

Op-Ed

Chiefly N. Amer. A. n. The page of a newspaper facing the editorial page, typically devoted to personal comment and feature articles.

op- (in OPPOSITE adj.) + ed- (in EDITORIAL n.).

1926 N.Y. World Mag. May 5 1/1 ‘Opposite editorial’ page in The World has become one of the great book markets in the city. 1931 J. W. BARRETT World, Flesh, & Messrs. Pulitzer iv. 82 Swope developed..the idea of a distinctive ‘opposite editorial page’ consisting of two ‘columnists’, one book reviewer and the daily output of the dramatic critic. We called this the ‘op-ed’ for short.

03:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenklatura44 (talk • contribs)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines an op-ed as "an essay in a newspaper or magazine that gives the opinion of the writer and that is written by someone who is not employed by the newspaper or magazine." Senator2029 “Talk” 12:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Part of text removed from the main page by User_talk:Dia^. See here. Text reedited in a more general way to avoid Recentism and/or NPOV.

Because the readers of the media cannot be expected to know about the connections between op-eds editors and the industries or lobby groups sometimes funding some of them, the absence of clear declaration of conflict of interest in op-eds is increasingly recognized as a concern in American journalism.

Disclosing financial conflicts of interest that their op-ed contributors could have may help main media outlets to clarify the situation and to redefine journalism standards.^[1]

Dia^, What do you think now? Even inspired by the actuality, I think that the concern remains in a general way. The readers have to look critically to the information and they have the right to know from where it comes. Regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Shinkolobwe, now it's definitely much better but I've still some reserves. Are in US the ties between newspapers and companies/politicians/interest groups always disclosed? IMHO if that is the case than that should be in the article (something along the lines of "since in US so&so...op-ends are the only part of the press that escape the regulation" - I leave the wording at you, mine is just an example), when not than a simple sentence informing that some people are campaigning to disclose at least the ties in the op-ends should suffice. But still from the citation given, it seems that the issue is especially against that single person. What do you think? --Dia^ (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Dia^, thank you for your reaction. I have to confess that I am not a specialist of the regulations dealing with the US press, just an observer from the far Europe. This conflict of interest problem in the American press was brought to my attention with the specific case to which the reference is pointing out. In Europe, we are much less acquainted with thinktanks and lobbying groups than in the US. If possible, I will try to find a more general reference to give the framework of the problem, not focusing on a case in particular. I think also that part of the concern dealt probably also with the editorial line of The New York Times. Regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have found something better with two references from the Guardian and another web site:
"A concern about how to clearly disclose the ties in the op-ends arises because the readers of the media cannot be expected to know all about the possible connections between op-eds editors and interest groups funding some of them. In a letter to The New York Times, the lack of a clear declaration of conflict of interest in op-eds was criticized by a group of US journalists campaigning for more 'op-ed transparency'."^[2][3]
Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wapool (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rosamaury, Snailery.

On18 October 2020 the words or as a backronym the "opinions and editorials page were added by Arlo Barnes. The edit summary didn't mention a source and the sources that I have looked at -- Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Britannica -- don't say it. Has anybody ever heard of this backronym explanation, and if so what is the source? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a source at the time, but since I failed to include it in a <ref> I've lost track of what it was. Safest would be to revert until such time as one is found. [edit: done] Arlo James Barnes 17:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]