Talk:Newspaper of record/Archive 1

message: Is anyone able to find an RS for The Los Angeles Times please? I was always under the impression that the LA Times was the newspaper of record for the West coast... Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Los Angeles Times 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: In the Examples table, many entries have — instead of a logo with the comment 
I've never seen this comment anywhere else, nor an authorative source or explanation. Can someone please provide one or lift the restriction? Motherofinvention (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of a non-free image in such a context wouldn't be fair use. That's explained in WP:NFTABLE (see also WP:GALLERY). We cannot lift that restriction since adding non-free images to such a list as this one would violate copyright. Huon (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo: "Please do not insert a fair use image" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In reference 98 ("Yet another end of an era"), the Independent calls the London Gazette "most venerable newspaper". This can hardly be read as an endorsement as "newspaper of record", it's more of a salute to an old lady.
Reference 96 ("The Daily Telegraph") lists the telegraph among the "big three quality newspapers" (by itself not an endorsement, or the Guardian would have to be included too), also "combined a high standard of reporting with [...]" does not meet the bar.
So from references alone, it seems clear that 
* the London Gazette should be removed (or supported by another reference). 
* reference 96 should be deleted. (The Daily Telegraph itself seems to be sufficiently supported by reference 97, "The UK's 'other paper of record'")
However, I'll leave the actual edit to someone more familar with the UK newspaper landscape.
Motherofinvention (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Times seems to have declined under Murdoch.  So, is it still a NoR? Personally, I now trust The Guardian over The Times, but I'm in the US, so I'm not knowledgable enough to make the call. Acwilson9 (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It still remains the NoR of the UK. It leans right (though, over the past thirty years its been right, then left, and then right again), but it remains the most respected newspaper in the country. The Guardian is (and has been) extremely left-leaning for its entire history which, amongst other things, disqualifies it.  csussman (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK references 

message: Is there any objection to adding the paper(s) of record for Belgium: ie, De Standaard/De Morgen (Dutch) and Le Soir (French)? The country is  significant enough to feature alongside others in Europe and the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foosland (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed them some time ago: the references given for them were fake (i.e., they didn't mention "of record" in any guise or form). According to the definitions given in the Wikipedia article only Belgisch Staatsblad/Moniteur belge can be called "of record" in Belgium. But, if you have references to reliable sources actually supporting the contention that others can be called "of record": please proceed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgium 

message: Would it be useful to create a Category:Newspaper of record, and/or even a NavBox for NoRs? Britishfinance (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. Every row in this article's "Newspapers of record" table is sourced, so hopefully the list is pretty accurate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see my newly created Category of NoRs has been nominated for deletion, discussion here. Britishfinance (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category / NavBox for NoRs 

message: I think the definition fails to take into account a significant meaning of 'newspaper of record', namely a publisher that prints documents of public importance (usually government documents) in their entirety, even if they are hundreds of pages in book form and require long, special sections devoted to them. The New York Times has regularly published treaties, text of armistices, and results of important governmental commissions in full, making it a matter of public record for their readers and others. Mathglot (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition omission 

message: I removed both of these entries are their refs make no mention of them being "newspapers of record", and I think that after the demise of The Herald (Zimbabwe), there sadly is no newspaper of record in Zimbabwe. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed: ''[[The Financial Gazette]]'' and ''[[Zimbabwe Independent]]'', Zimbabwe

message: A month or so after I had added it, 'The Guardian' was removed from the list by an I.P. since "both sources were not fit for purpose." Both of the sources were already in the article before my edits and are still on the page, since they are the sources for the entry for 'The Times of India'. How are sources fit to designate the ToI a newspaper of record not fit for calling The Guardian the same thing?
Need a better explanation than "Both sources were not fit for purpose." 136.185.88.207 (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , The Guardian now has proper sourcing as a verifiable NoR. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Guardian as a newspaper of record 

message: The inclusion of the Volkskrant in this list was based on an unreliable source. I suspect that there are additional newspapers in this list that are not widely considered newspapers of records. gidonb (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.  Volkskrant is not a widely accepted newspaper in the Netherlands. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed [[de Volkskrant]], Netherlands 

message: Also removed these two entries as their refs are junk, 1 2, and there is no wider mention of them being "newspapers of record"; improved the refs for Philippine Daily Inquirer which is (or at least was once) considered an NoR. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed: ''[[Manila Bulletin]]'' and ''[[The Philippine Star]]'', Philippines

message: There is a paucity of attention to certain populous nations in the south. Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa are missing.Dogru144 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the NoR for Colombia (which is verified by the Financial Times and others).  However, it is harder to find NoRs for these areas as the issue of Government control and interference is a question mark - see my comments on Zimbabwe below which now has really no NoR. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Also managed to add the Mail & Guardian from South Africa that was verifiable sources to it being an NoR. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Global south

message: Used the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources page to find to more eligible entries – Mail & Guardian (South Africa) and Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland); and refs support it.  
Any "green-listed" WP:RS/P entry is now on this list (with a verifiable ref calling it a newspaper of record).  There are two yellow-list ("no consensus") WP:RS/P entries Straits Times and Times of India but which have the refs to support them as newspapers of record, and are kept.  Anything else that was not green on WP:RS/P AND had no real ref is gone from this list.  I still think there are a few entries on this list that do not appear at all in WP:RS/P (of any color) and that are not really proper newspapers of record, so is worth still trawling through. 
Conversely, there are quite a few solid NoRs on this list that should be on WP:RS/P? 78.18.251.161 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]] 

message: References were junk and could not find quality RS to support Hürriyet as NoR.  In contrast, there are several who support Cumhuriyet as an NoR. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: ''[[Hürriyet]]'', Turkey

message: Can find no quality reference to these being "newspapers of record" and the existing ref makes no reference (it is just a list of top-selling newspapers).  Replaced with Diário de Notícias, for which there are quite a few refs that it is a "newspaper of record" (although it seems in decline), and Publico for which there are also a reasonable number of quality refs saying that it also is a "newspaper of record". 78.18.251.161 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: ''[[Expresso (newspaper)|Expresso]]'' and ''[[Jornal de Notícias]]'', Portugal