Talk:Newspaper of record/Archive 2

People's Daily

Should China's People's Daily be on this page? --Dpr 06:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not in my opinion. It isn't "of record".Deano 19:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What does that mean, however? It's certainly considered to be "authoritative" in its publication. If it said, as the body states, that the definition and inclusion of "independence" is not agreed upon, then I think it should be listed. --Simfan34 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Idea: Perhaps a table in the section for such "official newspapers" could be created as well? --Simfan34 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Toronto Star

I'm not sure that the Toronto Star falls into the category of a "Newspaper of Record" seeing as how it is a regional paper that is not widely distributed outside of Southern Ontario, and also, in my opinion, it's rather left of centre. I believe that a Newspaper of Record should try to keep their reporting as neutral as possible, and should have more "serious" news articles, although I do find that many of their articles about local stories are quite impressive DavidL 15 October 2005

I agree, and I'll remove it...I'd also reccomend removing more from toher countries...most only have one or two that meet the standard.Habsfannova 07:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Being left-of-centre has nothing to do with being or not being a newspaper of record. All newspapers have a particular editorial bias, even The Guardian and the New York Times. I think the Toronto Star is certainly a newspaper of record, because it's the newspaper that Torontonians are most likely to publish their death notices in, etc. But I also think it's silly to try to list every newspaper of record in the world in this article. 69.159.196.72 (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

2006-04-23 / Removed Toronto Star from list again.

need to remove toronto, montreal and edmonton newspapers from the list for Canada as they are all local ... may want to add the national post if a second cdn paper is desired. tnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.56.86.35 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Toronto Star is no more a regional newspaper than is the New York Times; the Toronto Star has the largest circulation in Canada. And if someone is going to put their 'opinion' that it is left of centre (Well, so is the majority of Canada)... Then in my 'opinion' the National Post is a right-wing bit of trash. But I wouldn't argue that any of those 3 not be included in this entry. 67.55.18.145 (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am simply stunned that the Toronto Star is not on this list. The Toronto Star is Canada's paper of record, and they have Canada's largest circulation. Certainly they're a little left-of-centre, but that's never stopped the New York Times from being considered a paper of record. Whether or not you add the Toronto Star is up to you, but Wikipedia looks dumb for not having the Toronto Star on this list when Canadians know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.199.153 (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe you have missed the point. First, the article contains a list of examples - it is not meant to be comprehensive. Second, the reason the Star is not on the list is due to the fact that no one has come forward with reliable, authoritative sources demonstrating that the Star is a newspaper of record. We require evidence, not assertions that some people "know better". If you look at the list, the entries are all sourced. Rather than calling others dumb, perhaps you could do some research to determine if it merits inclusion, and actually contribute to this encyclopedia in a more substantive way than complaining. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Category: Newspapers

I'm cleaning up the Category: Newspapers, and I think this article shuold not be listed in such category, because it's not a newspaper itself. I would like to know what you think about making that change. thanks, --Cacuija (my talk) 04:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm just doing it, if anyone feels this change is wrong, people contact me. Thanks. --Cacuija (my talk) 04:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

UK newspapers of record

It seems to me that the term "newspaper of record" refers at least as strongly to the reputation as to the content of the paper. In the UK, it was often said that there were 5 national broadsheets: Guardian, Times, Telegraph, FT and Independent. Although some of these are technically no longer broadsheets and the quality has gone down a lot, I think information about them might be relevant to this article. Something like "X was for a long time considered a newspaper of record, but many have suggested that this title no longer applies." 128.178.14.63 11:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the term is closely related to the reputation of the newspaper.Palmiro | Talk 03:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since its purchase by Murdoch, The Times seems to have lost much of its former reguard, and I am not sure if it can still be called the "Newspaper of Record," though certainly, historically it has been. --VonWoland 01:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Arabic newspapers

I've taken the liberty of adding some Arabic newspapers, despite the fascistic yet justified hidden comment. I don't think these are likely to be controversial. Palmiro | Talk 03:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of The Guardian; categorisation of entries

Given that most comments on the talk page supported inclusion of the Guardian, I was a bit surprised to find that it had been dropped since my last visit to this page. I have reinstated it as that is clearly the general opinion and no sources have been provided for the deletion. Until someone is willing to put in the legwork to find a media guide or media studies textbook of some sort to authoritatively resolve the issue, all we can go on is the general consensus of editors here who are acquainted with the UK newspaper market.

As regards categorisation of the entries, I think it may well make sense for English-language readers to list English-language newspapers first. Otherwise, the newspapers which are competing for this status in any given market are generally the ones in the same country: in the case of Lebanon, L'Orient-Le Jour and An-Nahar compete with each other despite being in different languages, and the connections between either of them and other newspapers of the same language in different countries are far less important. Palmiro | Talk 03:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Action on disproportionate number of Australian papers

Australia has a population of 20 million; the United States has a population of 300 million. That's a ratio of 15:1. No offense intended to Australians (some of my best friends are Australian, etc.), but the US exerts a comparative cultural influence vis-a-vis Australia of about that same ratio. And yet there are four Australian papers compared to three American papers. Personally, I think there are too many Australian papers. After all, Canada is half again larger than Australia, and yet it only boasts one paper (the excellent Toronto Globe and Mail). As such, I'm removing The Australian. It is one of three Sydney papers currently listed and it has about half the circulation of The Sydney Morning Herald. It was founded in the late 20th century and also happens to be owned by a certain Rupert Murdoch, who is not well known for putting out unbiased newspapers of record. I'm also very tempted to remove the The Australian Financial Review as it doesn't even have a weekday circulation of 100k (or an impressive Wikipedia entry), but as financial papers fall under somewhat different criteria, I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the Aussie press. StarryEyes 03:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement here...Habsfannova 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd support removing all financial papers... they are financials, not "Newspapers of Record" as such. Deano (Talk) 18:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Wall Street Journal, I know for a fact, covers far more than finance. (I am not as familiar with The Financial Times, but I imagine it's in a similar mo(u)ld.) Many New Yorkers and Americans consider the WSJ the (perceived) center-right counterpart to the (perceived) center-left New York Times: a conservative alternative that doesn't go to New York Post-esque semi-literate tabloid extremes. Many in the business world proudly proclaim it the "only thing they need to read". I'm going to go ahead and take off The Australian Financial Review, but I'll leave the WSJ and the FT. If anyone can show sufficient evidence for its reinstatement, be my guest. StarryEyes 09:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well at most Aussie Land should have two papers, eliminate the australian (possible conservative bias). Look at Canada The National Post isn't even included (although it shouldn't be, Canada like the u.s tends to focus more on regional based papers rather than National papers)

If you're listing prestigious newspapers, you have to include The Australian in the list. It's not as prestigious as The Sydney Morning Herald or the Melbourne Age, but it's the only option for anyone who lives outside of Sydney or Melbourne. (The National Post, however, has the same geographical distribution as the Globe and Mail, so it's redundant.)

On the other hand, let's not confuse being a prestigious paper with being a newspaper of record. If I live in Brisbane, the only papers I can get are the Courier Mail or The Australian. And even though The Australian is a more prestigious paper, everyone gets their death notices published in the more popular Courier Mail. That makes the Courier Mail the local newspaper of record. 69.159.196.72 (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The National Post has never really been considered a NoR...I'll read it from time to time, it's a decent paper, if a tad grating, but it hasn't reached near the acceptance of the mainstream as the Globe has. I always remember, every day after an election, it's impossible to get a Globe anywhere here, but you can find a Post, Chronicle-Herald, or Daily News easy enough

And that, to me, is the definition of a NoR: The one paper that, if something big happens, regardless of the paper's ideology, it's used as the source for information. Which makes me ask: Does the Guardian meet that standard, or is it just there for the lists' ideological balance?Habsfannova 19:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

---

"Rupert Murdoch ... is not well known for putting out unbiased newspapers of record." Not entirely true. He owns The Times. Mattley ^(Chattley) 16:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

India

Now, moving to India...should their papers be reduced, or are all concidered "NoR"s?Habsfannova 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The Times of India, The Hindu and The Hindustan Times are all definitely NoRs in my opinion - especially the first two. As for Asian Age and Indian Express, I have never read the former and would be indifferent to the status of the latter. Deano (Talk) 18:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless someone can come up with evidence that both Asian Age and Indian Express are NoR's, we should eliminate at least one. StarryEyes 12:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why ALL Indian newspapers were deleted from the list. I'm assuming a decision was taken that anything for which references couldn't be found would be deleted. The Hindu's own website claims that they're a "newspaper of record" and I have put them back on the list. 67.183.222.220 (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct. As you will see from other discussions on this page, a decision was in fact made to delete all entries that were not sourced. The unsourced entries were contrary to WP:V, and the list had frankly degenerated into an inappropriate exercise in WP:OR. The deletions had nothing to do with Indian newspapers, per se. As for the Hindu, thanks for trying to find a source. Typically, a newspaper calling itself a newspaper of record is a bit self-serving and wouldn't be considered a reliable source. However, the source can suffice for the time bieng while we try to find a better, third-party source. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. When I find some time, I'll try and dig up a third-party source. 67.183.222.220 (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've found a great source calling The Hindu a newspaper of record. None less than the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Amartya Sen and his colleague, Jean Dreze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.206.134.224 (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Washington Post vs. LA Times

Lotsofissues replaced the Washington Post with the Los Angeles Times, arguing (in the edit summary) that ProQuest should decide what is notable. I'm not so sure I'm swayed by that argument. Let's hear some opinions on the matter. Personally, I want to avoid the easy solution: including them both. This sort of list is very conducive to slippery sloping, so let's cap American papers at three, unless someone can come up with good and sufficient reasons to include both.

As a New Yorker and Gray Lady devotee, I'm not particularly familiar with either paper. What I do know is the LA Times and Washington Post are 4th and 5th, respectively, in circulation rankings. ([1]) Obviously, high circulation is not the only criterion for inclusion here, otherwise we'd have to include USA Today (perish the thought!) Generally, I'm more inclined to include the Washington Post, simply because they have more thorough coverage of US politics, for obvious reasons. What does everyone else think? StarryEyes 12:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you. I think the Post is definitely the third paper of record, not the LA Times. --Lukobe 21:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that Washington Post has historically been a much more important paper than the LA Times. Why ProQuest availability should be a determining factor evades me. However according to my research the ProQuest Historical Newspapers Database contains a "fulltext archive of the Atlanta Consitution, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post" 128.59.15.64 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think ProQuest availability should be the deciding factor. --Lukobe 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

On what constitutes a "Newspaper of Record"

I have added a clarification to the first paragraph of the article to point out there are two meanings to the term: (1) a well respected newspaper and (2) a newspaper that has complied with the requirements to be recognized by a government as a newspaper of record (or newspaper of public record, depending on the local requirements and name used). In some places, a paper has to be recognized by a court as such in order to qualify to carry legal advertising (and have it count as being "published in a newspaper of record"). California, for example, is one such place requiring newspapers to be so qualified. If a paper is not recognized as that, then governments won't use it to publish paid ads such as notifications of public issues, and advertisers such as real-estate companies won't publish foreclosure notices, etc. because, again, it's not qualified as published if not in a newspaper of record. Paul Robinson 16:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Opinion -v- News Reporting

Following the discussion, I think there should be some distinction made between unbiased reporting within their news organization -v- the OpEd page.

For example, The Boston Globe and NYT both have what are considered "liberal" or progressive OpEd pages (with the token Columnist balancing the conservative opinion), but their news reporting is generally considered un-biased. Conversely, The Wall Street Journal's OpEd page is considered right of center, but their news reporting is also considered un-biased.

The Washington Post, on the other hand and by way of example, is both biased in their OpEd and reporting. As such, they should not be considered a newspaper of record.

Thoughts? Frank 13:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Korean Newspaper

Deleted "JoongAng Daily" since 'Ilbo' and 'Daily' mean roughly the same thing and refer to the same newspaper.

classification

This classification of newspapers is inherently biased. Who is to decide what high standards of journalism are? Wikipedia editors? The second definition put forth is more concise and actually partitions the world of newspapers, but I doubt many of the mentioned newspapers fall into this category. Intangible 17:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

USA Today

Why isn't USA Today included on the list. It is a very important newspaper because it has the widest circulation. Facto 07:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"In its more common meaning, a newspaper of record is generally any public newspaper that has a large circulation and whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered professional and typically unbiased". I think this is why, but I could be wrong. --LucVerhelst 09:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

USA Today is not considered professional? typically unbiased? Well, how come there are so many newspapers of record under United States now. It's tripled since answers.com mirrored the page. Before we only had The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. http://www.answers.com/topic/newspaper-of-record Now there are nine listed. Can we add more? Facto 10:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor

How in the world is The Christian Science Monitor included in this list (US newspapers). if no one opposes, i'll delete this listing in 3 days. --Abid Ahmed 18:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you read the newspaper ? I don't realy know it, but if you read the Wikipedia article on it (Christian Science Monitor) you'd say it belongs on this list :

- "the paper has won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism seven times. It is particularly well known for its in-depth coverage of the Middle East, publishing material from veteran Middle East specialists like John K. Cooley."

- Project Censored noted that the Monitor often publishes factual articles discussing topics under-represented or absent from the mainstream mass media. In comparison to other major newspapers and journalistic magazines, the Monitor tends to take a steady and slightly upbeat approach to national and world news."

On the other hand : "the paper's staff does operate under the close eye of the church's five-member board of directors, and has sometimes been seen as avoiding issues that involve the church in controversial and unfavorable ways." But then again, nobody and no newspaper, not even the ones on this list, is perfect.

--LucVerhelst 19:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

CSM uses often local reporters instead of wire reports. Together with the Financial Times, it is one of the better sources to get to know what goes around in the world, IMO. That of course does not mean that it should be included as "newspaper of record." Intangible 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Khaleej Times Inclusion (UAE)

Khaleej Times is notoriously known for its horrid English and absurd stories. It makes for an amusing read, but it certainly does not fall under 'newspaper of record' by a thousand miles. It certainly appears to have been added by one of KT's staff. The blogging community in the UAE makes note of the horrible and embarassing state of Khaleej Times on numerous occasions (a good starting point would be http://uaecommunity.blogspot.com/). In fact, KT is a daily subject of ridicule within the UAE.

Please remove it from the list.

Mr/Ms Anonymous, does the Khaleej Times publish public or legal notices? If so, it belongs here, no matter how silly the news and editorial content may be. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Weasel added

Looking over the countries with which I am familar (UK, Aus, HK) - I can see that the list is fair. However, I did just slap on a 'weasel' for the list section. as soon as you see 'generally considered' it looks like a weasel word straight away... and there seems to be no set inclusion criteria (other than some nods on this talk page). Some more concrete stuff would be nice. novacatz 09:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Tried to deal with this in latest edit. Please review my work. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why so slim on US Newspapers?

There seems to be a lengthy diatribe on 1st amendmant stuff at the beginning of the US section, and then the list of 4 papers of record.

I wouldn't argue against the inclusion of those papers, but e.g. the WP always claims to be a LOCAL paper, so why not include the SF Chronicle or the Boston Herald or...

And why not include the CSM? It definetely meets the objective of journalistic integrity.

And as far as the USA Today, if the goalpost is set as low as the Singapore Straits Times then I think USA Today should be included as well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.128.81.201 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Why is the Boston Evening Transcript on there, when it hasn't been published in over 60 years, and it is unlikely that it is a relevant or informative example of a newspaper of record for the United States. Having never heard of it, I can find no support for it being a newspaper of record in its own entry... It's included over the LA Times or USA Today? 67.55.18.145 (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Plus there should probably be links to a section for local newspapers of record in each state or region. Including only national newspapers implies that there is no newspaper of record for local news in American cities and states. 24.215.174.11 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Prodding

I suggest prodding the arbitrary list of "newspapers of record". There are no objective criterions to assess the long-term influence of a newspaper. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There is more than one definition for a "newspaper of record," as the opening ¶¶s now try to explain. The second definition is subjective and open to debate in each specific case. Do we need to make a distinction between the types in the list that follows? Or confine it to the first type, the formal "legal organ"? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Norwegian papers of record

I've added Dagsavisen, Le Monde diplomatique and Morgenbladet to the list of Norwegian papers. Problem with this is that though they're all respected for the quality of their journalism, they're also clearly biased. However, _not_ including them could give rise to the notion that Aftenposten is not biased, which it is. Whilst the bias of former three is clearly left-wing, the bias of Aftenposten is discussed, and different circles will define its bias highly differently. Given this problem, I've looked at the list at large, and came to the conclusion that since both Washington Post and Le Monde diplomatique are part of the list, it would be better to include these three Norwegian papers than to leave them out. The realization that Norway is without a clearly right-wing newspaper of record may be a problem for Norwegian society, but it is not a problem for Wikipedia, so I did not attempt to "balance out" the list by adding right-wing papers that are not generally considered to be "of record" as in "of high quality". Opinions? Wurdnurd (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with article

The list of papers of record is very problematic. Beyond it being almost completely unsourced, the vast majority of the list appears to be an inappropriate exercise in WP:OR -- the history seems to show that editors routinely add and remove papers on the list, based on their personal and subjective perceptions of what constitutes a newspaper of record. This is a real problem, and it has been identified for a lengthy amount of time, both through tags and comments on this talk page. This is no longer an issue that we can ignore. The only solution that I can see would be to delete the list in its entirety, except for those papers for which we can find reliable third-party sources identifying them as papers of record. Another potential consideration is to eliminate a list altogether, given the problems it has caused. Any comments? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No comments thus far. I'm leaving this wee note, mostly just so that the article pops up for those who have it watchlisted, possibly drawing some attention to this discussion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've posed the question above of whether we should confine the list to newspapers of public record, or legal organs as they are sometimes called (in the U.S. at least). Trouble is, every municipality has one, so the list would be very long (in the 100s of 1000s) and subject to change. And defining major "newspapers of record" is subjective. So I may be talking myself into advocating deletion of the list. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head. In Canada, at least, all 3 levels of government typically rotate the newspapers in which they publish notices - thus we'd be listing almost every newspaper just for that one country. As for the other definition, I'm not sure what to do. Delete everything that is not properly sourced? Or just delete the list, on the basis that it is unmanageable? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A few more notes about the list: A quick run-through finds that only three papers (outside the rather argumentative U.S. section) assert that they are newspapers of record in the first, formal sense (the Gazettes of London, Belfast, and Edinburgh); and only one (the Irish Times) is described in its lead paragraph as a national newspaper of record. The Daily Graphic of Accra, Ghana, had an invalid wlink to a defunct American paper. So I'm leaning toward deleting the entire list and seeing who misses it, if anyone. Want to be bold and do the honors? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention ("for the record") that Dawn (newspaper) asserts that its subject is a national institution and "newspaper of record." — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to delete the list entirely. However, people love their lists, and I would expect that editors would start reinserting examples at some point in the not too distant future. I'm thinking a short list of sourced examples might be helpful, because I find sometimes that the presence of a well-sourced list better avoids WP:OR additions than the absence of a list altogether. There will be issues down the road, over what constitutes a reliable source, because some people will be using whatever google search result they find that contain the name of the newspaper and the term "newspaper of record". But we can cross the bridge when we come to it. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I just don't have the strength to source a short/meaningful list. I started, but it just turned into too large a task, even for a short list -- the reliability of a lot of the available online "sources" is debatable. Therefore, I am going to delete the entire list, as per WP:V and WP:OR. I first posted this issue here on the talk page six weeks ago, and there has been absolutely no feedback to the contrary. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian newspapers of record

Two Hungarian papers were recently added to the article, in precisely the right manner (i.e. sourced). However, the source does not identify Magyar Nemzet as a paper of record - it merely calls it a "major broadsheet". A broadsheet is not necessarily a paper of record, and often is not. Could we find another source for Magyar Nemzet, otherwise it should be removed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It refers to Magyar Nemzet as "the other major broadsheet" right after mentioning Népszabadság as "the market-leading paper of record". To me this seems like the author — who seems to work for the Financial Times too — simply tried to avoid word repetition.

Népszabadság is a left-leaning paper, while Magyar Nemzet is a conservative one, both are respected news sources in Hungary. Squash Racket (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. But we need reliable sources to support that statement, not conjecture about the cited author's meaning. Tennis expert (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If he says the "marketleading paper of record", then when he says "the other major broadsheet" he probably means the non-marketleading paper of record.
BTW the article says: The second type of "newspaper of record" is not defined by any formal criteria.
We have several sources questioning the "newspaper of record" status of The New York Times including themselves. So should it be removed?
I think it's OK to remove a completely unreferenced list, but if we go by very strict criteria, so far only two British and a Hungarian paper make it on the list. Squash Racket (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything that's not reliably sourced should be removed, including the New York Times or any other newspaper. We don't have a quota for the number of newspapers to be listed in this article. By the way, you're use of "probably means" is exactly what I'm talking about above: conjecture. Tennis expert (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the second definition "newspaper of record" means a quality daily. I repeat:The second type of "newspaper of record" is not defined by any formal criteria.

The left- and the right-leaning quality papers of Hungary are always mentioned together, so to me that's awkward, but if you interpret the reference differently, remove Magyar Nemzet.

We'll see in the long term how strictly the article's new entries will be referenced. Squash Racket (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about except that you are trying to base your edits on personal experiences or beliefs, which is unencyclopedic. Aside from that, the major problem with this article is the unreferenced definitions of "newspaper of record". Those definitions appear to be made up by the persons contributing to the article and not based on published criteria. That should not be happening. If this cannot be fixed, then the article should be deleted. Tennis expert (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The term exists and is used and referred to as the references prove it, so I think the article won't be deleted.

I based my edits on references as you very well know, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Our interpretations of one of the sources differ, that's all.

Yes, the best would be to find a well-referenced definition of the term. It was not me who added this part though. Squash Racket (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether the term exists in the real world is not the issue. Rather, the issue is the meaning of that term. This article sets forth a definition without referencing it. This is unencyclopedic and original research, and no article should exist in Wikipedia whose foundation is unsourced. Because you claim to base your edits on references, then you should easily be able to reference the statement you made about left-and right-leaning quality newspapers in Hungary always being mentioned together. Your personal observation is not a reliable source. Tennis expert (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think so, then you should nominate the article for deletion.
For example the reference I added mentions the papers together. Népszabadság, the market-leading paper of record and Magyar Nemzet, the other major broadsheet. I thought that kind of rang the bell. Squash Racket (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, the source provided does not identify Magyar Nemzet as a paper of record. Suggestions that the use of the words "the other major broadsheet" implies that it is a paper of record, or that the two papers of record are usually mentioned together in this particular context, are speculative and subjective. Such comments may be entirely correct, but we can't rely on implications or personal knowledge. We only rely on what the source says on its face, and this source quite clearly only identifies Népszabadság as a paper of record. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The first definition

any publicly available newspaper that has been authorized by a government to publish public or legal notices.
In Hungary there is an official paper called "Magyar Közlöny" for this purpose, but I don't know whether it's mentioned as a "paper of record" anywhere or not. I'd appreciate some feedback. Squash Racket (talk) 10:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Guardian?

The Guardian is the most respected UK paper internationally and scores highest in the english speaking world for impartiality based on a study from the University of Maryland (see guardian article). Also listed here: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-newspaper-of-record.htm http://www.adam-matthew-publications.co.uk/digital_guides/guardian_index_1842-1985/Publishers-Note.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.241.41 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC) I agree although personally I think the london gazette is an example of a true newspaper of redord —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.96 (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia...the world's "newspaper" of record

I find it very interesting that Wikipedia has become the world's "newspaper of record" without even having to list itself. What is a newspaper anymore these days? Does it have to be printed? Has not the level of participation, interest and speed of publication caused it to be placed in the list. Something to consider. The "Five facts about Wikipedia" got me to thinking about this. I guess Twitter would be the oped of that publication. Mac Riada (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian

The reference currently supporting the inclusion of the Guardian is an advert for the newspaper. Or, rather, an advert for access to the newspaper's back collection. It uses trumped-up language such as 'unlock the riches'. As such, it is not a reliable source.

It is unlikely that one would find too many references to the Guardian as a newspaper of record from a reliable source. Certainly, one will never find such a reference in an overview of what qualifies as a newspaper of record. In such an article, only the Times, Telegraph, and (potentially) Financial Times are likely to be mentioned at all.

That is the case in the BBC article that currently supports the inclusion of the Times and Telegraph. The article touts itself as being complete; "The UK's 'other paper of record'" states quite clearly that the Telegraph is a new arrival to challenge the Times as one of two newspapers of record in the UK. Since the article is exhaustive, and since the article is from a reliable source, it precludes the Guardian being a newspaper of record.

If anyone can find a reference to the Guardian as a newspaper of record from a reliable source that rivals the BBC, it can stay. Otherwise, it must be deleted. Bastin 21:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. While I'm not sure that I feel as strongly as Bastin as to the lack of reliability of the current source for the Guardian or that the BBC article "precludes" the Guardian as a newspaper of record, both his points are well taken. I do think that there are grounds upon which one could question the reliability of the existing source (even if I don't reject it entirely, as does Bastin) - that, in addition to the BBC article which appears to contemplate only two newspapers of record in the U.K., is enough for me to suggest that the Guardian entry needs to be further sourced for it to remain in the chart. So, I support the deletion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No objections, so I removed the entry. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

India (2)

"The Hindu" has been removed (in fact, an anon already removed it) - as per the discussion above ("India"), we need a reliable third party source. "Time of India" has also been removed - the source did not identify it as a newspaper of record, and overall sales is not an indicia of a newspaper of record (otherwise the National Enquirer and USA Today would be on the list). I have no doubt that either of these papers could be newspapers of record, and could be added to the list, but WP:V and [{WP:OR]] require that we have a reliable source. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I just restored Times of India because I found a reliable source. Still looking for the Hindu. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources are absolutely required

This article was an aboslute mess, with people constantly adding and deleting newspapers from the list on their own subjective opinions as to what constitutes a newspaper of record. There is a reason why WP:OR and WP:V are being enforced -- because comments like "Anyone with even basic interest in or knowledge of international newspapers would recognize Le Soir, Dagens Nyheter, Aftenposten and El País as such" are insufficient. WP:V is crystal clear - we need reliable sources, not opinions as to what people with a basic interest may or may not believe. In the past, people would add newspapers to the list on that basis, and others would come along using similar logic to delete them. At the end of the day, the article was unreliable and full of unsourced personal opinions. Please find reliable sources that actually identify the papers in question as being newspapers of record. Moreover, it is questionable whether a reference on the BBC site to De Standaard being "viewed by many as the most authoritative daily available to the Flemish population" is a sufficient source -- personally, I can't make up my mind, and hopefully we'll get some input on the talk page. While being among the most authoritative is one criterion of a NOR, we are veering into WP:OR territory when we implying information from sources that don't actually say something on their face. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also such a thing as WP:AGF. I admit I should have taken more trouble to find sources for the 5 newspapers I added, but since the many newspapers I read, tend to quote those 5, amongst others, proverbially all the time or at least very frequently, which is one of the cited criteria for a NOR, I don't see what's wrong with a little citation needed tag, since I can't help but feeling that they should be fairly easy to find. For that matter, the article on El País itself has a similar claim and tag: "El País is often referred to as a newspaper of record from Spain, along with its fellow Madrid morning dailies El Mundo and ABC. ." -- Polar Mercury (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that those five newspapers are NORs, and would be delighted to see sourced entries for them. But if you look at the history of this article (if you haven't already), you see the problems that arise when people add or delete entries based on their own assessments (no matter how well informed those assessments are).

The "citation needed" tag is useful when one comes across something in an article that should be sourced, but isn't, and the claim is important enough to the article that the editors who work on that article should be given a chance to find a source. Even then, it is supposed to be a temporary measure. The tag should not be used as a tool to insert unsourced information into articles. Especially here where there is no real compelling need - the list is simply a series of examples, it doesn't purport to be comprehensive, and while the entries in question (if sourced) would improve the list, none of them are essential.

I would also point out my personal philosphy -- "lists attract crap". Because of the nature of lists, they tend to attract more unsourced information, often of a dubious or debatable nature. So they do tend to need to be policed a little more vigilently. Even where the unsourced entries appear to be completely valid, unsourced list items attract more unsourced list items, and the latter are rarely as valid as the former.

I suspect that you are correct when you say that sources should be fairly easy to find for these items. If that is the case, there is no need to rush them onto the list without sources.

And, as a final note, of sourse WP:AGF applies, and no one has suggested that there are any malevolent motivations here. But WP:AGF doesn't trump WP:V - in assuming good faith, we don't ignore the need for claims to be sourced. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Just found a source for El País and added it to the list. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese?

I'm not an expert on journalism but... Would the Asahi Shinbun qualify as a Newspaper of record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.172.33.199 (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't up to us to decide. The question is whether you can find reliable sources that say that it is. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

New York Times

User:Corbridge is insisting on deleting the New York Times from the list of examples of newspapers of record (the entry is sourced with the Encyclopedia Britannica article on the NYT), on the basis that "It is an opinion supported by an unreliable source. Please provide a reliable source. Another Encylop EB is not a RS". Any thoughts? It's news to me that Encyclopedia Britannica is not a reliable source, but I don't want to edit war with this user. I've asked for input at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What a bizarre assertion. EB is an ideal source. I like to hear the editor's rationale for disqualifying what's been a highly regarded reference work for almost 250 years. Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is all wrong....

Sorry but this article is a joke, you cannot add newspapers without references because that is is er, original research. So what you can do is add the opinions of others, and hey presto! That's not opinion or original research because someone else said it. The article is incomplete and ridiculous. I mean take the Telegraph reference, claiming it is a newspaper of record, it's 7 years out of date. And before the paper's acquisition by the Barclays brothers. How can that make it remotely valid????

It begs the questions about the other sources too or do other countries only have "one" newspaper of record? In my opinion this article is not worth the bytes it takes up on the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.207.216 (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The great thing about Wikipedia is that if you feel something is out of date, and that you have a more recent reliable source, you can update the article. It's a lot more useful, effective and productive than leaving anonymous notes whining about the waste of bytes (which, ironically, is itself wasted bytes). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you read the source for The Telegraph, you see that the name of the title is taken as a quote from... ...the political editor of The Telegraph. I'm not sure it should definitely be read as the BBC stating that 'The Daily Telegraph is also a paper of record'; it may just be a rhetorical flair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.41.198 (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The quote you are thinking of is from a BBC analyst, not any of the quotes by the Telegraph's political editor, and in any event the BBC article itself makes extremely clear that the subject is a newspaper of record (notably: "From lowly beginnings almost 150 years ago, the Daily Telegraph has risen to rival The Times as the newspaper of record in Britain" - I'm not sure how much clearer the article can be). If one can find a reliale source(s) showing that the Telegraph is no longer generally considered a newspaper of record, I am sure that everyone who works on this article would be all ears. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Countries not included

I know this is a work in progress but my purpose is to highlight the important countries not included so that editors can focus on finding suitable candidates. This is by all means an incomplete list of the missing but is an attempt to point out the most important countries not yet included. I used the top 30 countries as listed on the list of countries by GDP (nominal) as an arbitrary starting point.

02 China
03 Japan
07 Brazil
11 Russia
13 Australia
14 Mexico
15 Korea, South
17 Turkey
18 Indonesia
19 Switzerland
20 Poland
22 Sweden
23 Saudia Arabia
24 Taiwan
25 Norway
26 Iran
27 Austria
29 South Africa
30 Thailand

I think a more complete version of this list would be an important research resource for editors looking for more diversity of world opinion when looking for acceptable and reliable sources to cite in articles. Veriss (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

02 China: The People's Daily
03 Japan: Yomiuri Shimbun (appears to have the largest circulation and a relationship with the Wall Street Journal but I don't know if it is considered to be a paper of record for Japan)
11 Russia: Rossiyskaya Gazeta (appears to be by law the official newspaper of record in Russia)
13 Australia: The Australian

This is becoming very complicated trying to sort out the official mouthpieces from the recognized authoritative independent media, especially in the countries with complex media situations (such as China and Russia), and has sadly fallen into the "I'm not equipped to do this mission on my own category". I know I will take some hits on my attempts to pluck but this is what I came up with after a few hours of research. It was only a few, and these few may not even be acceptable, but my intent was not to fill in all the blanks but to motivate others to. It won't be easy, but please post your nominations here for discussion. Everyone participating, please be considerate and respectful. Veriss (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is quite clear that the chart is a list of examples - therefore, it isn't intended to be comprehensive. That doesn't mean that other newspapers can't be added (they absolutely should), but it does mean that the list isn't incomplete as it is. It isn't an issue of a country's GDP (irrelevant), but whether we can find reliable sources stating that a newspaper is a newspaper of record. If it is a newspaper of record, then it should be included regardless of a country's GDP, importance, etc. But it's a great idea of yours to initiate discussion of new entries.

As for official mouthpieces, I am not sure how they can be newspapers of record of the second type. They aren't independent, which runs contrary to high standards of journalism. It may be that they are a variation of newspapers of record of the first type - they do more than just publish official notices, etc., and are authoritative in the sense that their content reflects the current thinking of the government/regime. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Official vs: Private

The article attempts to address both forms of "newspaper of record", both the papers that are official/semi-official organs of the government and private enterprises that have earned a popular defacto title of "newspaper of record" due to exceptional journalistic and editorial control.

I suggest that the current chart include a mark that the paper is an official or semi-official organ of the government or a private, independent entity.

This will help editors to discriminate between official news organs and independent media, especially in countries with complex media situations. It will also allow both types of media to be added to the chart. Veriss (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

See comment above. Official news organs ≠ newspapers of record of the second type. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Two months later and no response, so I have removed the proposed column in the chart as I find it hard to believe that a party-organ or similar paper would seriously be considered a NOR. I have added a source referencing independence as a criterion of NORs, and will hopefully add more. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This article should really be separated into two: official papers and current or historically accepted papers of record by reputation, with appropriate citation. Are there any objections for doing so? Mhbeals (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Need? Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The terminology is misleading. Official Papers of public record are not 'journals of record' in the reputational sense. Since Official paper means the first section and Newspaper of record the second, why not separate and remove redirect? Mhbeals (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How is it misleading? The lead paragraph seems very clear and distinguishes between the two. Yes, the concepts are different, although historically they had some similarities and they are both variations of the same thing (a newspaper). I am not sure creating a stub for one (I don't see much fertile ground for expanding a separate article on papers of public record) helps the reader - in fact, I think quite the opposite. I think the reader trying to find out what constitutes a "newspaper of record" is better served by one article that covers both concepts (rather than having to jump among articles), and an article that helpfully distinguishes between the two concepts. Both concepts are sufficiently related that they are reasonably covered in one article, and in its current state I believe that it clears up confusion (rather than creates it). It would be different is we were expanding both sections of the article, such that split made sense from a length perspective, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

I think as Wikipedians (myself included), we are far too quick to split and organize articles without having sufficient regard for realistic article expansion potential and ease of use for the reader. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Although I can easily appreciate your point regarding needless division (and a sea of short stubs) I think in this case a division is necessary. Your point that they are 'variations of the same thing' suggests that I am distinguishing between red and green grapes rather than grapes and kumquats; yes they are both small fruit but they are very different in purpose and appearance. I would reference your own point above, that a state organ (state-run media) is not the same as an official paper. The difference is just as clear here. Despite confusion among those new to the terms, there really is a very clear differentiation between an official newspaper and a paper of record. The only time they really were the same was very early on, that is, when there was only one regularly issued newspaper in a community. No one actively looking for an 'official paper' would mean the The [London] Times or New York Times, nor anyone meaning 'journal of record' the London Gazette. When someone who doesn't know the terms finds them together (even if they are given separate definitions as they are here) they can be misled into thinking the term can refer to either, which is simply not the case in journalism / history of journalism. Thus, we are doing them a disservice by causing unnecessary mis-communication between specialists and newcomers. In terms of expansion, official papers are much more clearly defined that 'papers' of record, as they require some sort of statute or licence to function. It would be a service to the community, I think, to have a conflated listing of these newspapers (historical and contemporary), with information on their dates of official recognition (which do come and go). Having two lists in one article (one of which is seemingly contentious or at least fluid) would only lead to confusion. In a separate entry, this list alongside some historical context as to the appearance and longevity of these periodicals would be a solid piece. A rough example of my proposal can be seen at User:Mhbeals/official_newspaper. Mhbeals (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not implement your proposed change when there is obviously no consensus for it yet. I didn't respond right away, because frankly you were just repeating yourself and there was little point in me doing the same. Moreover, I still didn't agree your suggestion, and I was waiting to see if anyone else weighed in. First, calling newspapers that run official notices "official newspapers" is terribly misleading and incorrect, depending on the jurisdiction. And a chart that lumps in Izvestia and the Canada Gazette (two subjects that have absolutely nothing in common) is far more confusing and misleading to the reader that what you are worried about here. Second, as I said above, I think your worries of this article being misleading are overblown, and splitting actually does more of a disservice to the reader. Finally, I think a list of newspapers that publish official notices is completely impractical - in my province of Ontario alone, it would include just about every daily and weekly newspaper. By creating a list, you are just inviting the creation of an overblown, overlengthy general list of newspapers with very little practical value.

If you get consensus for a split, then move forward. I defer to consensus. Until then, I don't the split is helpful, and I have significant problems with what you have proposed as an article for "official" newspapers. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually have no problem with splitting off an article on state and party organs like Izvestia, People's Daily and the like, the inclusion of which here was always a bit awkward and was really done simply to accommodate the work Veriss1 had done. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

While I still respectfully disagree with your assessment, I will leave the issue to consensus (please do weigh in). In the meantime, I have added some citations to legal and historical texts to clarify the usage of the terms more clearly, and reorganized the sections to put the more common usage first. I have included a citation to justify such an assertion. --Mhbeals (talk) 16:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Having examined the Public journal entry, which I did not know existed, as I have never heard it used to refer to the London or Commonwealth Gazettes before, I suggest the page Official newspaper redirect there instead of here. The relevant information for that sub-category should then be removed from this page and put there as the term official newspaper is the official term for newspapers that print legal notices, rather than the term newspaper of record. See for example http://law.onecle.com/texas/local-government/52.004.00.html, http://www.cityofmccleary.com/index.asp?SEC=%7B821D9B2C-D6B1-4D12-AB18-1A88DE86A30D%7D&Type=B_LIST and http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/S-22/.Mhbeals (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the redirect, and perhaps the material here about government publications should be shifted there, with one sentence here simply referring back to that article. what do you think? As for "official", you have references that they call it that in Texas and one municipality (the Canadian statute simply refers to the government publication, which was not my concern). I don't mind saying that such private newspapers are also referred to as official newspapers, but absent some source (which perhaps exists) saying that's how they are generally referred to, it seems odd to change the heading. Anyway, that's my two cents. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds ideal. As my original thoughts were simply that the government run papers ouhght to have their own page, and under the term official newspaper, I am quite happy to have that material be moved. Any suggestions or thoughts on where mention of the notices in private papers should go? Here or there? --Mhbeals (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Russian Rossiyskaya Gazeta

Skeezix1000, tell me what exactly makes clear that Rossiyskaya Gazeta isn't a newspaper of record of this type? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samoahbay (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's owned by the government and publishes official decrees. That's not a "newspaper of record (by reputation)", but rather a "newspaper of public record". If you disagree, that's fine, but you need reliable, third party sources that show that the newspaper is editorially independent and renown internationally for its journalism so as to fall within the first category. The sources you have provided are insufficient, as the first was simply a link to the Rossiyskaya Gazeta website, and the second made no mention of any of the qualities of a newspaper of record applying to the Rossiyskaya Gazeta.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

La Presse?

La Press is listed with the Globe and Mail as one of Canada's "newspapers of record". To my knowledge La Presse is more of a regional Quebec based french-language newspaper, with only limited reach and/or influence outside of Quebec? Perhaps it is a provincial "newspaper of record" but it seems misleading for it to be on the list. Wikispeaks (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I can buy a copy of La Presse at the newsstand next to my office building in Toronto. I also see its columnists and stories referred to in the English-language media for insight into what is happening in Quebec. Having said all that, personal opinions and anecdotal stories (like the ones I just gave you) are not relevant for our purposes. The article has reliable sources referring to La Presse as a newspaper of record. If you have reliable sources saying the opposite, I would be interested in seeing those. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Frankly neither of the sources listed make a specific claim to "La Presse" being a national paper of records. The closest one could find are these two passages, one from each article: "Quebec's esteemed newspaper of record La Presse" and "Quebec’s newspaper of record.", which both clearly state it is Quebec's paper of record not a national one. As well it is hard to find sources detailing what something isn't. Unless we can indeed find sources backing up the articles claim that La Press is a national paper of record, I believe it should be removed from the article. Wikispeaks (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

So? What part of the article does that offend? It doesn't refer to national anywhere. In any event, there are other entries on the list that pertain to linguistic communities within countries. I am really at a loss understanding what the problem is here. Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

My point from the beginning is what exactly makes La Press anymore a "newspaper of record" than the Toronto Star per se which had apparently been stricken from the article due to it being a "regional newspaper", despite its circulation numbers. The sources attached to La Presse's inclusion in the article make it abundantly clear that it is precisely a regional or Quebec influencing newspaper. If that is the criteria there is no reason other provincial based newspapers could not be included as well? and pray tell where exactly are these other entries pertaining to linguistic communities withing countries you claim exist? Wikispeaks (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

First, Toronto Star was not "stricken" from the list for being a regional paper. If you can find reliable sources identifying it as a newspaper of record, by all means add it to the list. Second, you still seem to be creating your own criteria for inclusion here - most of the newspapers on this list are mainly influential in the language communities and or regions they serve. Most newspapers actually serve an urban area - La Presse is recognized by external media as a newspaper of record for the linguistic community/region it serves. As for your final question - do you actually need to ask that question? Are the entries for Belgian and Swiss newspapers not obvious? Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Latecomer to this discussion, but I just wanted to note that if I search for Toronto Star newspaper of record on Google, I find a lot of blogs which identify it as such — but the only reliable source I can find which links the two phrases together into the concept of "the Toronto Star is a newspaper of record", rather than simply containing the two phrases independently of each other, merely calls it Toronto's newspaper of record and stops short of granting it any wider status than that. I'll grant that it looms large enough on the Canadian media landscape that some people may indeed perceive it that way, but what we're after here is verifiability in reliable sources, not subjective reports of personal opinion. And "newspaper of record" is a very different concept than "volume of circulation" — a small-circulation paper can have a greater "newspaper of record" image than a higher-circulation competitor for various reasons (e.g. even though it always had the much higher circulation, La Presse was well behind Le Devoir in newspaper-of-record status until it stopped relying on wire service coverage of national and international affairs, and instead started devoting more resources to creating its own original reporting), so circulation figures don't prove anything in and of themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Notes on publication

I'm wondering what purpose this column is intended to serve. It seems like it consists of random facts unrelated to each paper's status as a newspaper of record, facts which are beyond the scope of this chart (and intended for the actual individaul articles). But maybe I have missed something, or there are plans for the column which are not apparent. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The section is important as it establishes that some papers have a longer (or shorter) history than their immediate dates of founding would suggest. For example, it might seem puzzling that NRC Handelsblad, a paper "founded" in 1970, has managed to establish itself as the paper of record in a country with a long, long history of print publication. By pointing out that it was formed in the merger of two papers dating back to the early 19th century, it would make more sense, and I think therefore such a section is needed to avoid cluttering up the "founded" section. Since the section is there, it would also be worthwhile to make similar notes on other papers. --Simfan34 (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. Your example using NRC Handelsblad makes sense. I would widen the founded section, though, because create a vague "notes on publication" column would invite others to add all sorts of unnecessary facts to the chart, which would be different from the relevant information you have in mind. I'm not worried about your content in this chart, but rather future problems. What do you think?Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, I agree. I'm having difficulty visualising this, however, would it be something along the lines of :

Country	Logo	Newspaper	City of publication	Founded	Language	Source(s)
Germany		Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung	Frankfurt	1949 Successor to the Frankfurter Zeitung (founded 1856), banned in 1943 by the Nazis.	German
South Korea		Chosun Ilbo	Seoul	1920 Suspended between 1940 and 1945 by the Japanese imperial authorities.	Korean
Netherlands		NRC Handelsblad	Rotterdam	1970 Merger of Algemeen Handelsblad (founded 1828) and Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant (founded 1844).	Dutch

I don't know. I was worried it would make the table too long, but I like the way it looks actually. --Simfan34 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks great. I am very happy with those additions. The alternative is a separate column, but perhaps differently placed and named than the previous "notes on publication" one. I leave it to your good judgment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail

Why does the The Globe and Mail need so many references? Even on its page it only has four.--Simfan34 (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I mean, why do you belive so many sources are needed to establish the fact that it is considered the paper of record in Canada, compared to the other papers? But my primary concern is to how it needless widens that one column

The notes section is necessary, I feel is necessary to establish that some papers have a longer history of publication than would otherwise be suggested, that would contribute to their status as "papers of record" in a society. And indeed, unfree nations can have "newspapers of record", that if we consider it to be defined as " considered professional and typically authoritative. It may also be used to refer to a publicly available newspaper that has been authorized or maintained by a government to publish public or legal notices," I don't think you can dispute that Remnin Ribao is considered to be "authoritative.

And please, stop reverting the edits. It's a clear violation of [[WP:PARTIALRV]], particularly when you say "if you want to maintain some of these edits, I have no objection, but I am not myself going to wade through and do it myself"... the burden is clearly on you to do so. --Simfan34 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been reverting your reversions, not any substantive edits, so I don't see how they're comparable. But I don't have any desire to start an edit war. All I am saying is that I do not see why so many references are needed to establish this paper's status when one or two are sufficient for all others. --Simfan34 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not cut and paste my comments, moving them from one page to another. I have very little interest in engaging in a debate with you over accusations. I am happy, however, happy to discuss with you, and find consensus, on your substantive points. I will respond to your substantive point momentarily. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that... I was following what you said about having such debate here. I too want a substantive debate. I just think seven sources is clearly an instance of overcitation, where the policy clearly reads that "but more than three [citations] should be avoided as clutter". --Simfan34 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry too. Your additions are well-sourced and well-thought out additions, so I am sorry that we got off on the wrong foot on this one issue (so many people add unsourced nonsense to this chart, so it is so nice when someone like you adds sourced material!). I'm having problems getting to this issue this afternoon, but let me look at overcitation and I will respond as soon as I can. I am sure that we will work something out. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware of overcitation. My concern is that in the recent past editors took issue with the inclusion of this and other newspapers in the chart, and since many of the sources are passing references, I tend to see them working together. Let me work through them and I will figure out which ones we can cull, and then I will get your input. Regards. (We still need to discuss the People's Daily). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, that makes sense- best to find 1-2 strong references and use those. I've taken the liberty of making the agreed upon edits- I've left out People's Daily for now and left all the sources for the Globe and Mail. Hope that's not a problem. --Simfan34 (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. I will cull the Globe sources. In the meantime, I've switched the two sections of the article, since the examples chart pertains only to "Newspapers of record (by reputation)", not "Newspapers of public record" (the latter being pointless/impossible to list in a chart). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at this, and I am uncertain as to what to do. The problem is this: most of the sources cited for this chart (not just the Globe and Mail) are passing references. By that, I mean that they are references in reliable sources, but the sources are not examinations of the paper's status as a newspaper of record. Instead, many of the sources deal with other subjects entirely, and simply refer in passing to the newspaper as being a newspaper of record (or some similar description) with very little discussion or support of that fact. In other words, the references, while I believe sufficient for their purpose, are not all particularly strong or authoritative individually. While I would never insist that better references be found (or support anyone who took such a position), I do appreciate that such passing references are open to some criticism. Therefore, I have always believed that multiple references cumulatively prove the point better than one reference (or even two). Because the Globe entry was challenged, it is the only one I have taken that approach on (so far).

I don't think the Globe references give rise to the concerns outlined at the overcitation essay. If anything, I think the other papers should be better referenced to the extent anyone has time and inclination. If necessary, we could delete the rabble reference, being the least authoritative, but I question what benefit we would be achieving (the benefits outlined at the overcitation essay are far less relevant here where we have a separate column in a chart). If we need to, rather than deleting relevant sources, I'd prefer taking the approach outlined at WP:Citemerge for all of the newspapers in this chart, which would also enable us to beef up the references for other papers. Thoughts? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Newspaper of record. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917025344/http://www.nationaudio.com:80/kenyapolitics/info/nationmedia.html to http://www.nationaudio.com/kenyapolitics/info/nationmedia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)