Talk:Newspaper of record

(Older topics found at Talk:Newspaper of record/Archive)

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)

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)

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)

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. ^{[citation needed]}." -- 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)