Talk:Newspaper of record

China

I added in a line for China, the People's Daily (人民日报), but it has been deleted. I presume this is because the People's Daily is controlled by the Communist Party and therefore arguably a propaganda instrument as well as a newspaper. (I'm guessing, because the person who deleted it didn't have he courtesy to explain why.) However, it is nevertheless the most widely known and indeed most widely cited of Chinese newspapers and for this reason I suggest that it be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dena.walemy (talk • contribs)

Dena.walemy. Hey there. I was the one who reverted it. Here's the diff. The message I left was Restored revision 1028065109 by Finnusertop (talk): Failed verification. cited source does not call the newspaper a "newspaper of record". Feel free to add it back if you can find a reliable source that calls it a newspaper of record. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added this to the sub-section on "official newspapers of record" (wtih a reference); however, it is clearly not a "newspaper of record by reputation" given the state contorl of the editorial. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed: The Cambodia Daily and The Phnom Penh Post, Cambodia

The Hun Sen administration forced the The Cambodia Daily to close in 2017 and forced The Phnom Penh Post to sell to an ally of Hun Sen (and therefore no longer recognized as a newspaper of record). Have moved them to the "fallen newspapers" section. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Removed: Clarin, Argentina

An editor Profeperfetti keeps adding the Clarin but none of the refs provided name it a Newspaper or Record (and none qualify as a reference per WP:RS). I have looked for refs that might support it as a NoR, but none exist. Just having a large daily circulation does not mean that the paper is a recognized NoR (e.g. The Daily Mail). 78.19.224.254 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is Politika not listed as the NoR of Serbia?

As far as I, as a second-generation member of the Serbian diaspora, am aware, Politika, which is not only the oldest newspaper in circulation in Serbia but in the entire Balkan region (1904), is the newspaper of record of Serbia. In fact, I'm sure I've seen it listed in this article in the past. As for the newspaper that *is* listed as Serbia's NoR, Danas, I've never heard of it, and there's only one source (a Voxeurop article) that says it is Serbia's NoR. In any case, the Wikipedia article Mass media in Serbia lists both Danas *and* Politika as Serbian newspapers of record. Could this be resolved? 109.249.187.45 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Official Newspapers of Record

"Newspapers of Record" are defined as as publicly available newspaper that is authorized by a government to publish public or legal notices. The subsection "official newspapers of record" gives three examples of newspapers that would still fit that definition. It is slightly confusing not listing them in the main list even though they are state controlled. I suggest putting all three in the main list. If it is important to distinguish them from other papers, then add a footnote explaining that all their content is state-controlled. Bacon Man (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The main list is "newspapers of record by reputation" (per section heading), and none of those three papers would be considered as such. 78.19.234.110 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

A newspaper of record is any paper in a community that has a large enough circulation, as determined by the United States Postal Service, to be able to publish legal notices. The local and state governments are required to publish legal notices that give the public access to amounts of money they have spent (warrants), resolutions, ordinances, public hearings and other government business that the public is able to view and ought to be public. When published in the newspaper of record, the document cannot be changed. The date of the publication is also published. Those things cannot be changed. The government has no control of record once it is published. The government does not authorize the newspaper of record, the United States Postal Service does. 70.59.61.69 (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Regional newspapers, USA

Some large-city newspapers have international reputations of quality and relevance. I notice that no newspaper is mentioned from such populous states as Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, Illinois, or North Carolina. Pbrower2a (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The list is of general nationwide NoRs (that are referenced as such). If there were regional papers (that could also be referenced as NoRs, and reputationally, not from government notices which is the earlier section), then we could have a second table for that? Aszx5000 (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Washington Blade

I took this out of the table of general national papers that are NoRs and placed it on its own list as it is different. If there are more subject-specific examples, than we should do as a table. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

We have no reason to qualify the Washington Blade. The wiki article for the Blade mentions it being a "gay newspaper of record," but the citations it uses for that are all dead, bringing that sentence into question. Until it can be proven otherwise, it should not be listed at all on those grounds.

And regardless, we should not list it, and thusly create a separate table until we have more than one subject to discuss. FormalDude's addition, given its timing, seems more about Pride month than anything else. I would be extra cautious about these additions. Brokenwit (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, I don't correspond my edits with commemorative months.

Additionally, none of the four sources used here are dead:

1. https://www.npr.org/2009/11/19/120567784/historic-gay-newspaper-folds
2. https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/news/2019/06/24/after-52-years---the-advocate--remains-paper-of-record-for-lgbtq-community
3. https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2019/from-stonewall-to-the-aids-crisis-to-trans-controversy-the-washington-blade-has-covered-lgtbq-issues-for-50-years/
4. https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/393543/the-final-hours-of-the-washington-blade/

If you have a problem with the wiki article on the Blade, the place to address is Talk:Washington Blade, not here. And there is more than one item in the separate table. Since it's clearly verified, please self-revert your removal. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Brokenwit. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aszx5000: Any thoughts on this? ––FormalDude (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was fine to have a separate section on subject-specific notable national newspapers of record? I found a reference from the Washington Post saying that the Blade is: widely regarded as the national newspaper of record for the gay community, and HuffPost quoting it was dubbed by the New York Times the “newspaper of record for the LGBT community.” That seems worthy of adding (but in a separate table or in a separate list form). I could not find the same standard of references for the Advocate, and I think we should keep the examples listed in this article to the very strongest candidates. Thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This thing, standing out as the sole element within its own category, is WP:UNDUE and US-centric. It should be removed. Normchou ^💬 21:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Examples of fallen newspapers/Selected existing examples

The article organization is awkward; subheadings under "By Reputation" are "Etymology", "Examples of fallen newspapers" and "Selected existing examples". Because of the order and the minimalist assumption of the titling of the subsection "Selected existing examples" it almost conflates to the casual reader as "Selected existing examples" of (the prior topic) "fallen newspapers", if the bulleted list under the "fallen newspapers" were assumed to be no longer in publication. (Changing the subsequent heading to "Selected examples of existing newspapers of record by reputation" would be more precise.) However, it would ultimately be less confusing to move the "Examples of fallen newspapers" to the end of the article, after the tables of "Selected existing examples". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.184.117 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I have re-named the headings and re-ordered the subsections. Hope that looks better now. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)