I agree about the original title. I disagree that your replacement title is an accurate representation of the article. The article does cover the inaccuracy o

I agree about the original title. I disagree that your replacement title is an accurate representation of the article. The article does cover the inaccuracy of the original Wall Street journal, but that didn't seem to be the main thrust of the article. The article is more about what Amy Chua's book is really about, rather than being about how the WSJ wrote a misleading article about it. I think a better title would have reflected that. That said, I think even a title like, say, "Wall Street Journal article about Amy Chua's book was misleading" (basically "lied" ==> "misleading") would be better. Saying they "lied" is a much stronger statement than saying they "mislead", and the former seems to imply something more extreme, like that they were pushing an agenda. If the article had addressed the WSJ's motives and asserted that they were, in fact, pushing an agenda, the stronger title would have been justified, but, again, the article wasn't really about that. All that said, I think it was a good article and I upvoted it. I also think it would be interesting to hear some thinking about why the WSJ spun the article in the direction they did and as hard as they did. It seems like the WSJ is unlikely to have a specific agenda relating to the parenting styles of Chinese immigrants, but what do I know.