Talk:New York Daily News

message: This article is full of weasel words and needs to have a huge clean up. 05:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: It should be mentioned somewhere about the huge strike the killed the circulation. At one time the Daily News had over 2 million daily circulation and was the largest newspaper by far in America till the strike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.142.126.94  (talk • contribs) 07:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: BEFORE ANYONE ADDS that the paper has received 10 Pulitzers, CITE YOUR SOURCES.  Otherwise, the piece goes.
24.188.136.219 19:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, there you go.The Invisible Man 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pulitzer Prizes

message: Some mention should be made of the pink cover editions used to sport. I can't find any online mention, but they certainly made the newspaper quite eyecatching. I'm not certain when they started but I recall them stopping in the 1970's or 80's. Saxophobia (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink cover 

message: There was a New York Daily News founded in 1855 by Gideon J. Tucker, any info on that? Kraxler (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Earlier ''NY Daily News''

message: Are there any references for this section to call these "Historic"? Because you can't put a  in a section title (and I don't mean technically, it's just ugly), but there needs to be one there. --141.155.7.217 (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Historic front pages" 

message: The Daily News is widely known for its Yellow Journalism. Someone should make a "criticisms and controversies" section for this article, addressing their history of misconduct and embellished headlines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manbatcow (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like soapboxing. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms, Misconduct and Misleading Headlines 

message: That redirects to this article, but there's nothing about it in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ford to city: drop dead"

message: *Comment.  For those who, for whatever reason, find the very common method on Wikipedia, parenthetical disambiguation, to be undesirable, at least in this case, there may be another alternative.  I once again glanced at the article titles policy and read:
::4. Descriptive title: where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles.
:In this case some find "Daily News (New York)" unacceptable, and some find this article's present title, "New York Daily News" unacceptable.  So a descriptive title might be an acceptable choice.  I would suggest a title like Daily News of New York as one possibility.  Thoughts?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 05:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither for nor against, but in my opinion that's no different than a parenthetical. Lizard (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be the parentheses that some people find undesirable, and descriptive titles don't have 'em.  Not a big diff to be sure, but just enough of a diff to make the titles more acceptable to some.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 15:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  Umm... no. Substituting "of" for natural or parenthetical disambiguation is not what most common typists have in mind. --George Ho (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we also need to point out that, just as the examples in WP:COMMONNAME indicate two versions of accurate proper-noun names, natural disambiguation doesn't suggest to me that we use made-up names. While I think "New York Daily News" is neither common nor natural, it's at least not a deliberate falsehood, like New York Daily News. I'm just not sure how any of us can justify using a false, made-up name as an encyclopedia title when "New York Daily News" at least is accurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Descriptive title

message: Part of the basis for some of the positions in the RFC above is the presumption that "Daily News" is the official name; someone added that as official name to the article, someone else called for a citation, someone removed that saying it's right there in print, etc.  But does the logo really establish the official name?  Why do their copyright notices show "The New York Daily News"?  What do their trademarks show?  From the latest I can find, a filing on the trademark "NOBODY KNOWS IT NOBODY SHOWS IT NOBODY TELLS IT LIKE THE DAILY NEWS", it appears that the trademark owner/registrant is NEW YORK NEWS, INC. DBA THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS CORPORATION NEW YORK 220 EAST 42ND STREET NEW YORK NEW YORK 10017, and that their disclaimer says NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "DAILY NEWS" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.  I realize that dba THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS and disclaiming exclusive use of DAILY NEWS doesn't prove anything about what the "official" name of the paper is, but it should make one question it.  I believe this deserves more looking into if we're going to assert an official name in the article; the alternative would be to say something like "widely known as". Dicklyon (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But "widely known as" then becomes the inaccuracy, implying that it's a nickname. The masthead of the paper, shown in images on the page ranging over nearly 100 years, seems to have always been Daily News. That implies official name, although, as you point out, it may not be accurate as to the company which owns the newspaper. But the article is about the newspaper, not the company. This seems one of those pages which has two widely-held distinct opposing points of view, but the "newspaper" description of the page, opposed to "not corporation", seems to create a good reason for calling it the 'official' name. All semantics though. I like how Wikipedia tries to get to the most accurate descriptors, one of the many arguments and stats against the widely-held meme that English Wikipedia pages can't be trusted and are full of mistakes. That one is going to hold up until Wikipedia as a whole (or maybe Wikimedia?) wins the Nobel Peace Prize (which I figure is, at most, ten years off, and very possibly much sooner). P.S. The upper-left corner box in the 1921 image is ironic-to-hilarious given the recent meme-labeled 'fake news' tug-of-war. P.S.S. Oh, and on rechecking that image the owner is listed as "News Syndicate Co. Inc.", which implies that even the early name of the corporation reflects the name Daily News. Randy Kryn 18:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Dicklyon: The corporate name is not, of course, the paper's name. The New York Times is not The New York Times Company. What's official is the trademarked masthead logo — and it would strain credulity to believe the typographical treatment of those common words is not trademarked. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not able to find a registered trademark for just "Daily News".  I agree it's a trademark, but not their's exclusively, it appears, so not "registered".  Whether or not it's the official name of the paper remains unclear to me.  The "alt" tag on the logo says New York Daily News. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. Regardless of whether any given Wikipedia editor can find a trademark, an area in which even law firms have their own specialists, the masthead unquestionably reads Daily News. Clearly, with essentially any example of a newspaper or a magazine, the masthead is how it is known. An alt tag added by an IT person really isn't significant. In fact, the alt tag reads "Breaking News, World News, US and Local News - NY Daily News", so I would hope you're not arguing that the paper's name is NY Daily News. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm staying neutral on this question, just pointing out that the masthead/logo is not the only source of information, and does not seem definitive as to what the "official" name is. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Acknowledged. I'm glad we're both civil editors who can agree to disagree and still stay on good terms. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the paper appears to be Daily News, and not "New York Daily News". What is your view on that, Tenebrae? Nightscream (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Official name?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New York Daily News. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221073331/http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-11-17/entertainment/30037344_1_printing-plant-full-color-paper to http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-11-17/entertainment/30037344_1_printing-plant-full-color-paper
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: There have been several edits back and forth on whether the papers political alignment is Tabloid journalism or populist.  Given the references, I feel it is populist but we should discuss.  In the mean time, I've added a comment to discuss before an editor changes it.   Work permit (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says we can't have both? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "tabloid journalism" a Political alignment?  Tabloid characteristics such as sensational crime stories, gossip columns, junk food news, and astrology don't strike me as a political alignment.  Work permit (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

text: Does a source say left wing populist? If it does not specify left wing, then we must leave that out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources would generally call it center left, see for example https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-daily-news/.  Perhaps drop populist in favor of center-left?  Or perhaps use center left, populist with references to both terms? Work permit (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's published in tabloid (newspaper format), but that doesn't make it a tabloid. We should stick to what the literature on the topic states and with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Populist or Tabloid? 

message: :File:Ford to City.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
-- Marchjuly (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for File:Ford to City.PNG

message: Hi. Can the relevant editor explain this change, which I've reverted? Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Are you familiar with Velikovsky? Any source that's about Velikoskianism is WP:UNDUE in any article not about Velikovskianism. It's about as fringe as you can get. Guy (help!) 09:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not familiar with this term, and I still don't see why WP:Fringe was attached to the previous edit. Are you saying this book is not a Reliable source? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, since we already have two other sources for the NYDN being a "populist" newspaper, we don't need the third reference, so I don't mind it being deleted. I was just curious as to the reasoning behind it. Good luck to all! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 'fringe'?