Jump to content

Talk:New York Daily News

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup

[edit]

This article is full of weasel words and needs to have a huge clean up. 05:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.20.73 (talk • contribs)

"The News' headlines and photos have often been considered among the most creative in journalism. Famous headlines from the Daily News include" "If the paper tends to the left, it is certainly closer to the center than its liberal and conservative counterparts in the region[...]" Just those quotes are full of weasel words, so why was the template removed? 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.20.73 (talk • contribs)

Political stance

[edit]

The main text of this article seems to make the claim that the Daily News assumes a liberal-leaning editorial stance, but the info box lists its tendency as "centre-right." I suppose this is probably accurate within European political norms, but wouldn't most Americans disagree? "Centrist" seems too nuanced for what the Daily News traffics in; would "populist" be a better phrase? I don't think so, but it doesn't seem any better than center-right. Anyone else want to weigh in? Tcatts 04:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has come up before (see The New York Times talk page). As far as I can tell, it appears that British and other European newspapers often formally align themselves with a political party, so that data can be considered a "fact" suitable for inclusion in an infobox. However, such a formal alignment is seldom done in the United States, so any entry in the "political allegiance" field would clearly be POV. I'd argue that in the U.S., this infobox field should always be blanked or removed altogether. The article body itself is a more suitable place for NPOV description of politics. Of course, even there such a description should include citations, in order to avoid the inclusion of original research. -Tobogganoggin talk 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I know I am replying to a comment from 12 years ago but I don't know that centrist is the most accurate term for the Daily News' political leaning, centrist implies moderate/moderation and the Daily News certainly lacks moderation in tone. As originally first mentioned above, I actually think "populist" would be a better fit for this paper. They are a bit sensationalist and generally seem to rail against whoever is in power with bombastic headlines. They seem to take stances that the population as a whole is most likely to agree with when an issue is presented in a broad way without nuance (new taxes="UP YOURS! Homes worth less than Mayor's pay more." was a recent one, countless others out there though).
I am going to go ahead and change it to Populist and see what happens, if someone reverts then PLEASE comment here so we can build consensus. Tunafizzle (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since Jim Rich became editor the New York Daily News has moved further and further to the left - it is now absurd to call it "centrist" or even "populist". It is very plainly a far left newspaper (now - not in the past), the article should not pretend that the New York Daily News is not the far left publication that it now is. And it is not "liberal left" it is far left. For example no mainstream liberal would have had the front Blood Libel against Jewish people that the New York Daily News had only yesterday - when it pretended that the Jewish daughter of Donald Trump was "daddy's ghoul" who welcomed the deaths of Muslim civilians. The New York Daily News is not "liberal" left - it is far left.2A02:C7D:B417:4800:115B:B912:C220:EFA1 (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're all entitled to our opinions. However, three cited sources refer to it as populist, so unless you can find reliable-source citations saying otherwise, populist remains.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the Daily News is a 'far-left' publication appears to only be made by 'far-right' critics desperately trying to shuffle their own extreme politics toward the center through some relativistic sleight of hand. Clearly, there's no point in editing the article to correctly identify the News's politics, but the idea that the Daily News leaves no room on its left flank for the open espousal of pure socialism or the end of private property is rather ludicrous, not to mention logically indefensible. 2604:CA00:11B:805C:0:0:60:D5E (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As “Left-wing” was added with no consensus here, I’m going to remove it.Skyraider (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

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)[reply]

Pulitzer Prizes

[edit]

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)[reply]

Okay, there you go.The Invisible Man 04:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

Based on Wikipedia:Use common names, the common name of the publication is "New York Daily News". Even the paper's website calls it that. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 20:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, and that's a very misleading thing to say. The URL is nydailynews.com, but that's a matter of URL-name availability. You can't have dailynews(newyork).com. Scroll down the front page and you'll see columns titled "Daily News Specials" and "Daily News Columnists". The Contact Us page says, "The Daily News is located at...."
Non-New Yorkers who call it the New York Daily News are the same as non-Londoners who call that city's paper The London Times. Is that a basis to title that article "The London Times", or this "New York Daily News"?
People looking up the name of the paper need the accurate name in the title.
As well, we need naming-convention consistency. The disambiguation page Daily News lists
-69.22.254.111 13:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. That dosen't discount common speech though. People call papers names other than what's on the cover. "The Post", "The Times" (yes, we say that too) and so on. Pacific Coast Highway {Trick • or treat!} 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to quote Billy Joel in "New York State of Mind": "The New York Times / the Daily News / Whoaaa-oh-ohhhh...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.254.111 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pink cover

[edit]

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)[reply]

Earlier NY Daily News

[edit]

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) new york daily news,it not a new york news paper,they don't even print in new york,they should call it a new jersey news paper . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.113.186.219 (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Historic front pages"

[edit]

Are there any references for this section to call these "Historic"? Because you can't put a [citation needed] 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)[reply]

Criticisms, Misconduct and Misleading Headlines

[edit]

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)[reply]

Sounds like soapboxing. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does seem strange that the New York Post gets a whole list of controversial headlines, etc, but the Daily News gets a free pass. 04:56, 27 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.48 (talk)

"Ford to city: drop dead"

[edit]

That redirects to this article, but there's nothing about it in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 13 February 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move (non-admin closure). © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Daily News (New York) → New York Daily News – Per WP:NCDAB: "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation." I understand that the paper is generally called by locals as the Daily News. However, since disambiguation is needed, a natural title like New York Daily News is preferred over parenthetical disambiguation i.e. (New York). Moreover, the paper is sometimes referred to by the full name New York Daily News (see their own website). The first line in the article could remain with Daily News only being bolded to make clear that is the common name. This is similar to Quarterback sack bolding sack in the article, and not the full article title.—Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC) —Bagumba (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for Comment

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion received a much wider participation than the two RM discussions that preceded it, and did not have such a clear-cut result. Nom Tenebrae characterizes it as a 3-way choice, which would "split the vote" on the current title into separate factions for different ways to italicize it, while others point out that different italicization does not make different titles. On balance, it appears to me that the present title New York Daily News should remain; there is no majority to change it and the argument that it is a made-up proper name is well countered by how the paper uses it in their bylines, independent of how it is italicized. It appears that the half-italicized option is not possible technically (a title is either italic or not), and it didn't have a lot of support anyway, so the only question left is whether to italicize the whole thing. Yes, opinions still differ on whether the whole current title is a correct thing to italicize (I notice some of their own books italicize The New York Daily News in their copyright notices and other places, so still not quite a match), but the proposal to go with parenthetical disambiguation instead is not generally seen as an improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Randy Kryn points out that Template:DISPLAYTITLE does allow for partial italics, so that option can be further discussed if people want to. Dicklyon (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article title be "Daily News (New York)", "New York Daily News " or "New York Daily News "? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Daily News (New York)" or, secondarily, "New York Daily News."
  1. WP:COMMONNAME indicates we choose the more common of two equally accurate, factual names, i.e. "Bill Clinton" rather than "William Jefferson Clinton". Both that guidelines and Wikiepdia in general never indicate we should use inaccurate, non-factual names. There is no periodical called New York Daily News.
  2. The website is nydailynews.com because the Los Angeles Daily News already had dailynews.com — yet we do not call The New York Times "NY Times" to match its website, nytimes.com.
  3. Additionally, it is extremely arguable that "New York Daily News" is the common name; it certainly is not in New York City and environs, where nearly 100% of its circulation is, and careful publications, such as The New York Times, do not call it "New York Daily News".
  4. Finally, "New York Daily News" deviates completely from other newspapers called simply "Daily News" — we do not title it "Thailand Daily News" but rather Daily News (Thailand).

While I would prefer we be strictly accurate, I can see "New York Daily News " as a reasonable compromise. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, this is just about whether "New York" should be italicized or not?... No matter what happens, I feel rather strongly that it should not be moved back to Daily News (New York) for all of the reasons outlined in the previous WP:RM – i.e. that "New York Daily News" is in fact the WP:COMMONNAME. Now, beyond that, in terms of "New York Daily News" vs. "New York Daily News"?... eh. [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't speak for the L.A. or Thailand papers, but I can tell you as a native New Yorker that we all know it as the "New York Daily News". Searching for it on Google provides hits for the "New York Daily News". I support the title staying as it currently is. I don't see why we'd add italics to the title. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entire title can't be italicized, as it is not the paper's name. Daily News can be. Randy Kryn 23:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely a New Yorker. I don't recall anyone who's from here ever calling it the "New York Daily News" in all my years here. For that matter, we call the others "the Post" and "the Times." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, waitasec – up to now from what I've read, New Yorkers just call it the Daily News; however, now you say "as a native New Yorker that we all know it as the ' New York Daily News '"? So which is it? And in any case, we could call anything by a name other than its common and true name, and that still would not make it a fitting title per WP:COMMONNAME. If the paper's dba name is Daily News, then that should be the article title. If the "New York" qualifier is needed, then it should be in parentheses as it was before the RM last year, since putting it before the newspaper's name as a natural dabber would actually require it not to be in italic type, since "New York" is not actually part of the newspaper's name. All "New York Daily News" would do is confuse readers.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 23:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily News (New York). The Daily News has been the name of the newspaper for almost a hundred years, so using it combines brevity and accuracy. The other names will be redirects to the real name, so no reader will be misdirected. It's not The New York Times, which is that paper's real name, but the Daily News (New York). If somehow 'New York' is added as part of its name, then certainly the Daily News should be italicized and New York should not, which further defines the inaccuracy of that title. Randy Kryn 23:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* If I were writing a story here in California about the New York Daily News, I would write:

In New York City today, the Daily News reported that . . .

:It is, indubitably, the Daily News. If you go to http://www.nydailynews.com/services/terms-services and read through the small type, you will see that the newspaper organization is "Daily News," the word the being simply an adjective and not part of the name. Therefore, the Wikipedia article should be titled Daily News (New York). BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

  • New York Daily News (all italics) per the reasons outlined in the RM. Lizard (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily News (New York): It should be at "Daily News (New York)" even though it irritates me. I am sure this issue has been discussed before in the past 16 years, but look at Times-News -- it is about half and half Times-News (city) vs. CITY Times-News - but the title use is based on what the paper calls itself. See also The Times (disambiguation) which seems to follow the same rule. The Times (Shreveport) is not "The Shreveport Times". When I created New York Daily News (19th century) I used that name because that is the name they used -- unlike this paper, whose official name is the "Daily News". Chronicling America also catalogs papers that way, see, e.g., [1] and [2]. This is also how Sunday Mercury (New York) was treated when I created it, using a redirect for "New York Sunday Mercury".--Milowent • hasspoken 23:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily News (New York). (Please see also my above response to Muboshgu) – This article should be titled by the subject newspaper's common name, Daily News, followed by "New York" in parentheses. Even the proposer of last year's RM acknowledged that Daily News is the common name: The first line in the article could remain with Daily News only being bolded to make clear that is the common name. Never should have been moved away from the common name.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 23:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Daily News (italics) per the reasons described in the RM above. The only reason you would say "Daily News" is if "New York" is spoken in the vicinity of that phrase. (Native New Yorker here as well: my neighborhood calls it the "New York Daily News" ... sometimes... though they can also say "Daily News" too. They prefer the Post though.) epicgenius (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current title. First off, I'm not sure why this is being handled as an RFC rather than a requested moved, because this is one (and I wonder if this was done so RM regulars, those familiar with our naming conventions, wouldn't comment here). More importantly, no evidence has been presented to show the current name is not the WP:COMMONNAME. See how other news sources refer to it, such as Forbes Washington Times Real Clear Politics Salon Newsweek Washington Post and US News and World Report, which is the NYDN's sister paper. Also using the current title is the Poynter Institute [3] and Harvard's Nieman Foundation for Journalism [4]. And while the paper may be the Daily News, it does use the current title on its own website [5] as well as its Instagram [6] Twitter [7] and Facebook [8] accounts. It's also important to note that on Wikipedia natural disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical disambiguation. These are the same arguments raised in the above RM, and they have yet to be refuted. Calidum 00:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't think it's fair or appropriate to say the arguments haven't been refuted. I believe they've been refuted in the four points I made. Ultimately, an encyclopedia, no matter the arguments over what is proper Wikipedia style, should not propagate false information. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This time we do agree, Tenebrae. The present title misleads readers to think that the name of the subject is New York Daily News, and that's not our style!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 01:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you have actually refuted anything: You've disagreed with those points without backing up your arguments. The repeated claim that the current title is "inaccurate" is inaccurate because the paper itself uses the name on its own website and social media sites. I'm not going to have a back and forth here with you because you refuse to acknowledge that key fact. Calidum 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some I-don't-hear-you going on. The name of the website was chosen because dailynews.com already was taken. The name of the website is not the name of the newspaper. We don't have an article titled NY Times simply because the website is nytimes.com. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to believe you're dumb enough to not realize no one is talking about the URL. I'm talking about the byline for the article, which clearly gives the authors' names followed by (drumroll please) "New York Daily News." This is true for both the desktop (linked above) and mobile versions [9]. You have also not addressed the fact that the newspaper's various social media accounts all use the name "New York Daily News." So, tell me again, how is this name inaccurate or not preferable per WP:NATURALDIS? Calidum 19:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it distressing you're resorting to insults. I'm not calling you a liar because you want to use a false name, so I'd prefer you not call me stupid.
While http://www.nydailynews.com/services/mobile says "Search NY DAILY NEWS in the App Store or in Google Play" (since DAILY NEWS already was taken by the L.A. paper), the video showing the app itself is called simply "Daily News App." Interestingly, you did mention that. On this page also, I see the Daily News logo at top left, and I see this headline and subhead: "Here's Another Way To Receive Your Daily News!" "DAILY NEWS DIGITAL EDITION". --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was accusing you of obfuscation and not being dumb. And again, you are completely missing the point of my argument that the current title is both the common name and a perfectly valid one to use given the paper itself uses it. I don't know why you can't acknowledge that fact. Calidum 20:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, the actual word you used was "dumb," which means either "stupid" or "mute." And I don't know why you can't acknowledge that the logo and trademark of the newspaper is Daily News, and that while you might want to call it "New York Daily News", there is factually no newspaper with the proper-noun, italicized name New York Daily News. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Calidum, isn't there a key fact that neither you nor anyone else has refuted? I looked at the link you gave above to their website, and what I see is Daily News | New York. What is it that you see? So they disambiguate their name with a pipe symbol. By your logic, if The Huffington Post were to decide to call themselves The Huffington Post | Global on their website, then we should rename that article to The Global Huffington Post ? No, its name is The Huffington Post, and the name of this newspaper is the Daily News and has been so for a long, long time. And nobody has yet to refute that key fact.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The deception here is that, while reliable sources often seem to use a "New York" disambiguator or qualifier when they refer to the Daily News, that is the only reason they use it, i.e., to differentiate it from other news sources that are also named the Daily News. It is a giant leap from there to arbitrarily deciding that the Wikipedia title of this article should be New York Daily News – a giant leap because the name of this news source is just the Daily News, not the New York Daily News. Wikipedia does not rename newspapers, nor should editors let themselves be deceived by sources that also do not rename newspapers, but simply differentiate and disambiguate. The title of this article cannot possibly be the COMMONNAME simply because it is not any kind of name of this newspaper, which is and has long been named only the Daily News. Again, facts that no one can dispute nor refute.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 23:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, we are not renaming the newspaper by using a name the newspaper frequently uses. Calidum 00:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And The New York Times' calls itself "The Paper of Record". Periodicals call themselves all sorts of things, but that's not their name. Latching onto the fact that the Daily News has to disambiguate itself with the name of its website and claiming that that is the actual name of the paper seems senseless to me. It's not called that, and why anyone would insist on using the formal-title italics of New York Daily News rather than New York Daily News when there is factually no such newspaper as the New York Daily News ... I just don't understand the insistence on a false name. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it some more, I can live with "New York Daily News", since the "New York" does not appear in the paper's masthead (although I would like to look at the colophon to be sure). I'm still extremely stonrgly opposed to "Daily News (New York)" per WP:NCDAB. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I would say I'm pretty "adamantly opposed" to "Daily News (New York)" too. Also, as per Bagumba below. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I would say I'm "adamantly opposed to the factually false name New York Daily News. Hey! Does saying "adamantly" mean our opinions count for more? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am likewise adamantly opposed to misleading our readers. In my humble opinion, both New York Daily News and New York Daily News would be misleading to our readers. Natural disambiguation is usually preferred to parenthetical; however, in the case of italic titles, I've never seen natural disambiguation used in any other article title on Wikipedia. I've always seen Page title (qualifier), but never Qualifier Page title. Can anyone point me to another article that is in italics with a non-italic natural disambiguator in front of the page title?  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 00:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Daily News Per previous RM, namely WP:NCDAB: "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation."—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've placed neutral pointers to this discussion on the talk pages of the Journalism and New York City WikiProjects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and make a new RM. It's been almost a year, so a new one is not too soon. I don't see any reason to reject the usual venue for this. It's like creating an RfC, "Should this article be deleted?" --BDD (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the reasons I give below, which includes the technical reason that the move template only allows for a choice of two titles, not three.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close I agree with this. This should be taken up at a move request discussion. Also, based on the links provided by User:Calidum and contrary to his or her conclusion, these plainly show the correct title should be "Daily News (New York)". I wouldn't have a problem with italicizing "Daily News" in this title. Also, here are two screen shots of the actual newspaper [10], [11]. These screenshots clearly show the appropriate title for this article is "Daily News (New York)". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that closing this and making it a Request to Move is the right step- hopefully that will draw more editors that actually know how we name newspapers. Calling this "New York Daily News" would contradict the way we apparently have named ALL our newspaper articles. Many people call The Times the The London Times, that's doesn't change its title.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, should have been an RM. When an RM is used all of the participants of this discussion should be pinged (as some may have thought they were commenting on an RM equivalency) as well as links in the RM to this discussion. Thanks to the nominator for keeping attention on this. Randy Kryn 16:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in WP:RfC forbids us from requesting comment on renaming an article, and I chose an RfC for two reasons, the first of them technical: 1) There are three names to choose from, and the move template is only designed for two names; and 2) the RfC template, unlike the move template, automatically places the discussion at various projects, such as "media". This helps ensure much wider dissemination and solicits a wider selection of editors than otherwise. Unless there's some objection to a wider discussion.... --Tenebrae (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, no objection. Randy Kryn 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, this could have been done either way, in my humble opinion, and I can see the logic in Tenebrae's reasoning. Page moves seem to have a higher rate of success when there is less cloudiness for editors by choosing one, single possible name change. So this RfC will hopefully resolve which is the highest and best page name for this article.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 18:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is bullet-commenting twice. That's inappropriate. I could bullet-comment twice and say "Daily News" twice, but that would not be proper. I've stated that among other reasons, there is no option with Move for three possible titles. Additionally, this attempt to end a lively and ongoing discussion is hardly fair to editors who have taken the time to comment. Moreover, this editor is against any move, so his desire to close this seems biased. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This editor seems to be mistaken about my intentions. The above is merely an observation. Also, "New York Daily News" (only last two words italicized) and "New York Daily News" (all italicized) are the same title. epicgenius (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, good point but it won't affect it, as 'New York Daily News' will still redirect here as the primary. I don't think any of us are saying that the 'New York Daily News' isn't an alternate name, just that it shouldn't be the page name. The 19th century paper is and will be in the hatnote. Randy Kryn 21:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually not possible with the Move template when the choice is between three names not two. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's two names. One with italics, one not. epicgenius (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect, it's three. The format an RM would generate would be either:
  • New York Daily News > Daily News (New York), or
  • New York Daily News > New York Daily News
There's no provision using the RM template for all three choices--Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point you're trying to make, but you can't move New York Daily News to New York Daily News because technical restrictions prevent that (you can't move a page to a title with the italic formatting in the title itself, you need to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}). I think there should be an RM first, and if the current name was kept, to change what the DISPLAYTITLE is. epicgenius (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm confused, since we have entries with titles like La La Land (film) and Daily News (Thailand) mixing straight text and italics. So "New York Daily News " seems doable.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Tenebrae: Actually, Epicgenius is correct – both of your examples could be accomplished by use of {{DISPLAYTITLE:''La La Land'' (film)}} and {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Daily News'' (Thailand)}} or more easily by use of the {{Italic title}} template. So to "rename" New York Daily News to New York Daily News is just a matter of title formatting, not page moving.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 02:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It could be done by placing the following in the article: {{DISPLAYTITLE:New York ''Daily News''}}, and that can be tested in Show preview without actually saving the page.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 02:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Paine Ellsworth: What would the formatting be to include all three possibilities? Daily News (New York), New York Daily News and the compromise New York Daily News? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For an RM, the only necessary consideration would be:
New York Daily News → Daily News (New York)
...or back to the previous title. That is why I consider this RfC so important – if editors decide that "Daily News (New York)", the formatting of which the {{Italic title}} would be able to handle, is the highest and best title (as I hope), then an RM might not even be necessary – just move the page. On the other hand, if editors decide that the rather confusing title "New York Daily News" is the best way to go, then a page move would not be necessary, just format the page title with {{DISPLAYTITLE}} as I have shown above.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your preference, obviously. Yet since the current title is New York Daily News, I'm not sure how the above communicates that there are two other choices — "Daily News (New York)" and "New York Daily News ", the latter of which I don't like, but as a compromise it's better than the nonexistent New York Daily News. I'm concerned that those who don't like "Daily News (New York)" won't realize that it's not an either-or choice ... that a compromise choice that at least isn't factually incorrect is available. I'm not sure how much later I'll be up tonight, but if you're willing to offer your thoughts, I'm grateful to hear them.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Tenebrae, I just reread your RfC proposal, and I don't think there is any confusion as to the choices. Rest easy, because you've made it amply clear that your primary choice is Daily News (New York) and your secondary compromise choice is New York Daily News. It's all good. Now it's just a matter of reaching consensus.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 08:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's heart-warming that you and Tenebrae have reached an agreement, but your probnlem is that there is, jn fact, no consensus in this RfC for "Daily News (New York)". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that does address my point that we need two alternatives to the nonexistent New York Daily News— Daily News (New York), using the actual name, or New York Daily News, which includes the actual name and doesn't insert a made-up one. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BMK! and that's precisely what I meant when I said, "Now it's just a matter of reaching consensus." It's astounding to me that some editors are so adamant about renaming this newspaper rather than restoring its actual name: Daily News (New York)!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 04:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Tenebrae: I was just reminded of two things... Template {{Infobox newspaper}} automatically italicizes the page title, so if an external template or magic word is used, then it's best to add |italic title=no to the infobox code to eliminate the error received in "Show preview". Also, a better way to italicize just part of a non-parenthetical title may be to use the |string= parameter in the {{Italic title}} template, in this case, {{Italic title|string=Daily News}} rather than the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} magic word. Just thought I'd pass those on. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 09:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know how we can say it's OK for Wikipedia to knowingly, consciously use a nonexistent name that contradicts the actual name as properly given in the longstanding, highly respected, Yale University Press encyclopedia The Encyclopedia of New York City. What kind of encyclopedia are we if we use a false name?
And incidentally, WP:COMMONNAME does not say to use false names. It says to use the common choice between two actual, existing names. Please go read the examples there.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG really? OK. I will take this seriously. FWIW. I personally call it the New York Daily News. I am not in New York and claim no special knowledge of what this newspaper is called there. I don't care what the article title is as long as there is a redirect for the more frequent variations. I suppose if the masthead says "Daily News" then that is its name, but the New York is still needed for clarity as there are probably many newspapers that share the name with it. I strongly dislike parentheses in article titles, simply because I am lazy and don't like to use my SHIFT key. I suppose New York [[Daily News]] would work as fluently as New York Daily News in text but if length is an issue there is always piping. I prefer to italicize publication names for reasons as good as my parenthesis preference -- it simply looks right to me and seems more readable. I am going away now. I hope that helps. I plan to unsubscribe to whatever category brought me this question ;) Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't think comments like "'OMG really?" are helpful. When Yale University Press' The Encyclopedia of New York City has the actual name of the newspaper, Daily News, it seems remarkable that Wikipedia wants to use a false name (the fully italicized proper noun New York Daily News) that factually does not exist. Also, I think we can all agree that "I strongly dislike parentheses in article titles" is an invalid I-don't-like-it argument. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the list above on this page, a 2007 discussion, showing Wikipedia's use of real names in the realm of journalism:
Daily News (Harare)
Daily News (Ireland)
Daily News (London)
Daily News (Sri Lanka)
Daily News (Tanzania)
The Daily News (Halifax)
The Daily News (Longview)
The Daily News (McKeesport)
The Daily News (Memphis)
The Daily News (Natal)

The name Daily News has a long journalistic history, and the newspaper in New York has been so-named for close to a hundred years. Randy Kryn 11:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It astounds me that some editors are so adamant about changing the name of this newspaper, since it's real name coincides with the others in your post: Daily News (New York)  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 04:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll show news articles later. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may add more above before striking this comment out. George Ho (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More added. George Ho (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more. Hopefully, these are enough for now. George Ho (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear, obviously. George, I am not talking about off-Wikipedia. Your preference as stated is:
Keep current title - No evidence that natural disambiguation is not a good way for most readers.
That means to me that you think that the "New York" natural disambiguator is okay. Since "New York" is not part of the subject's name, that would mean that you would prefer the title New York Daily News. That was what I was talking about. Did I not understand your preference? All I asked for were examples of articles on Wikipedia that were italicized subjects that had non-italicized natural disambiguators. I'm just looking for precedent within Wikipedia. I don't remember ever seeing an article titled that way.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 04:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hours ago, I realized that "New York Daily News" is a proposed option. Actually, I thought there wasn't a need to mention that option... until now. But I'll say anyway. I prefer "New York Daily News". I don't know any precedent using it "Work Italic Title". Regardless, using "New York (de-italicized) Daily News" looks awkward at best. Also, "New York" is also part of work title; de-italicizing it would mean it's not part of a work title, unofficial it might be. The sources I mentioned treat "New York" as such. George Ho (talk) 04:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 04:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we understand each other. However, your statement:
"New York" is also part of work title; de-italicizing it would mean it's not part of a work title, unofficial it might be.
To focus on your final four words, "unofficial it might be", firstly there is no "might" about it. For a very long time, the name of this newspaper has been Daily News, and that is so far an undisputed, unopposed and unrefuted key fact. Secondly, I know of no article on Wikipedia that uses natural disambiguation in such a way as to make it appear that the natural disambiguator is actually a part of the subject's name, as it does presently with this article. That is confusing for readers who know the paper as the Daily News, and it fails the principle of least astonishment (WP:ASTONISH). As seen above in the post by Randy Kryn, the preferred method of disambiguation of this type of article title on Wikipedia is parenthetical, so as not to make readers scratch their heads in confusion.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 05:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...Let's not revert back to official title yet. I'm sure most readers can refer it as "New York Daily News", even when New Yorkers call it "Daily News". By the way, there is Los Angeles Daily News. It is called Daily News. The one auctioned on eBay has the "Daily News" logo referring to LA Daily News. I'll find other Daily News logos. --George Ho (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the logo reads Los Angeles Daily News as seen here. The New York Daily News does not have New York as part of its italicized, proper-noun title. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Palo Alto Daily News using "The Daily News" logo ([15]). Daily News (Red Bluff). ...I notice that recently LA Daily News uses full name. --George Ho (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if I'm hearing you correctly, you are completely for misleading our readers with this false title? To me it's akin to titling the article New York Penguin (Daily News). Wikipedia does not rename newspapers nor is it Wikipedia's purpose to mislead and confuse its readers.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 15:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Whenever any sources use "New York Daily News", the "New York" text is just a qualifier, a disambiguator, which is not a part of tha actual name of the newspaper, "Daily News". PS left by  Paine Ellsworth  u/c
To prove your point, I tried finding sources saying "New York Daily News" is wrong. I used "incorrect name", "inaccurate name", "wrong name"... I didn't find one source saying that "New York Daily News" is incorrect. That reminds me... Look at previous talks about the name spelling of Friends character Rachel Green(e) at Talk:Rachel Green. --George Ho (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that a real encyclopedia, Yale University Press' The Encyclopedia of New York City, properly uses Daily News says quite bluntly that other, made-up names are incorrect, inaccurate and wrong. --19:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Umm... would that interpretation, i.e. implication, be original research (though not applicable to talk pages)? The source doesn't mention explicitly that the "New York Daily News" is wrong. Also, the book uses "Daily Mirror", which meant New York Daily Mirror. Care to propose changing that title? --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the banner on the newspaper in the infobox says simply New York Mirror, perhaps so. But that's a discussion for another time. (And it may well have been called simply Daily Mirror at one point — that needs to be researched.) --Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you need to find sources that say this title is wrong? The name of the newspaper is Daily News – anything else is incorrect. Neither reliable sources nor Wikipedia are in the habit of changing the names of newspapers.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 08:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Paine Ellsworth — I've never heard of a reference book listing "The New York Times .. but don't say The New York City Times since that's wrong!" --Tenebrae (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just the social media handles, though, it's also the SM titles. In the case of Twitter, the newspaper can choose any name it wants as its page title, even if it duplicates another account (this is separate from the handle, @NYDailyNews). It's chosen "New York Daily News" [16]. The same is true of Facebook [17]. While it's obviously been forced to accept the handle NYDailyNews, it's chosen "New York Daily News" as its page title even though it could have duplicated "Daily News" (in the same way there can be two John Smith's on Facebook). "New York Daily News" is how the newspaper has chosen to brand itself on social media. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To editor DarjeelingTea: Since the longtime name, and only name, of this paper is Daily News, the only reason we see "New York Daily News" in any source outside Wikipedia is because the sources must separate the NYDN from other cities' (and countries – see partial list above) papers called Daily News. The sources use "New York" as a disambiguator only. Neither sources nor Wikipedia are in the habit of renaming newspapers!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is legally incorporated under the name "New York Daily News" [18] [19] and it repeatedly refers to itself as the "New York Daily News" on social media (and in titles, not handles, where it doesn't need to disambiguate). While it uses a logo / masthead that includes the phrase "Daily News" (sans "New York"), many companies using branding treatments that omit parts of their official names and a logo doesn't change an organization's actual name. Finally, RS such as the New York Times [20] and Newsweek [21] refer to it as "New York Daily News" and not "Daily News". In the absence of RS that proves the newspaper's name is "Daily News" I think we need to go by how the newspaper refers to itself in legal filings and publication, and how RS refer to it - not how we remember referring to it when growing up. But it is definitely a conundrum, I agree. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the corporation is not the name of the newspaper — The New York Times is published by a corporation called The New York Times Company ... but "The New York Times Company" is not the name of the newspaper.
And we've already gone over the fact that social media mentions are not the name of the newspaper. The New York Times is not the nytimes.
Under your logic, The Times should have a Wikipedia article titled The Times of London since that's how it's often referred to, even by such reliable sources as National Public Radio, which italicizes it in "Donald Trump's interview with The Times of London" here. There are 400,000 Google hits for The Times of London. Should we change its Wikipedia article's title? Of course not ... because the name of this famous paper is The Times. Just as the name of the New York Daily News is simply, factually and truthfully the Daily News. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptive title

[edit]
  • 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)[reply]
Neither for nor against, but in my opinion that's no different than a parenthetical. Lizard (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

It's getting close the end of an RfC's thirty days. I would only ask that whatever the closing admin decides among the three choices that he or she consider that an encyclopedia should not use a made-up proper-noun italicized term that does not exist in real life. There are ways to disambiguate that don't involve falsehoods. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official name?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"Controversies" section deleted

[edit]

Regarding to this edit - diff per WP:NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Since we should strive for a NPOV article I think inclusion of "Controversies" section is warranted.

See Fox News, Al Jazeera, Fox News controversies, Al Jazeera controversies and criticism, New York Post or The New York Times articles. -- Tobby72 (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Breitbart News#Notable stories, The Daily Beast#Controversies, or MSNBC controversies. --Tobby72 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed a POV section titled "Notable stories." Determining what is and isn't "notable" is POV, and no one editor without discussion can cherry-picked two stories out of thousands and thousands.
I would also say that that the long-extant "Noteworthy headlines" section is similarly POV, with no definition of or criteria for "noteworthy", but since that section has been here and there may have been past consensus discussion on what is included, I can't summarily remove it. I urge other editors to weigh in on both sections. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, we have a blatant double standard here — diff, diff, diff.
Iraq War was one of the most important events of the early 21st century. -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If policy isn't being followed elsewhere, fix the other article. We don't use policy vios at one article to justify policy vios at another.
No one's arguing the Iraq War wasn't important. We're saying that no one editor can make POV decisions as to what are the most noteworthy stories in the history of the Daily News. I'm not sure why this newspaper's coverage of the Iraq War is any more noteworthy than any other newspaper's. Certainly, a reasonable argument could be made that its coverage of the Son of Sam murders or Gerald Ford's decision not to bail out New York and other such local stories are more notable than a war covered by every other paper. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And incidentally, you didn't even cherry-pick two news stories but rather two op-ed pieces. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

Seems to me the infobox image needs to be something more current rather than something politically biased and inflammatory. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. And we should avoid WP:Edit wars over any given image and decide on the Talk page which to use. Anyway, I would prefer another image from a more distant past, but a historical one.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This image is 3 years old at this point. It does not represent the long time history of the paper and is needlessly inflammatory. I agree that an older, historic image is more appropriate.Fly056 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most front page images are randomly selected by a single editor, and they usually stay in place for ages. The IP who removed this one gave reasons that aren't supported by policy. No guidelines suggest that images ever get too old. And if they did, there'd be no way for any one front page to "represent the history" of a newspaper – whatever that means. And as for "inflammatory": The Daily News has made its name from a punchy, pugnacious style, and this image is not a misleading representation of it. Essentially, this picture was taken down because someone doesn't like its headline. Wikiproject:Journalism needs to establish some guidelines regarding front page images, and hopefully this will kickstart the creation of some. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about this one:
This one is REALLY historic: BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think front page images are a waste of space and distracting to readers. A paper's masthead is all we need, not this decorative fair-use junk. (With exception for the lovely free calendar, of course!) SteveStrummer (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could be right, but I don't think any decision could be rendered here. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for what image to use, what about the one farther down on the page? It is dated February 5, 1921. That one doesn't need a rationale because of its age. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. Fly056 (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am not sure that this specific cover is needed, but once a cover is in an article, it should be replaced by another cover instead of simply deleting it. I think based on the number of IP editors removing the file without edit summaries or given policy-based arguments that a formal and hopefully final discussion should be started at WP:FFD. As such, I am adding it back into the article so that it is not deleted for being an orphaned file. Aspects (talk) 05:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would WP:FFD be more appropriate? There is not a question here of copyright or other ability to use the current image. Fly056 (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since this continues to be a simmering issue, I have a proposal for a new infobox image. How about we use the famous "Ford to City: Drop Dead" front page? It's historic, and it conveys the punchy style of the News. It's even mentioned in the text. Howbowdit? SteveStrummer (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's old enough that it shouldn't be too controversial like the current image. It would be reasonable enough to use to me. I don't disagree with your above comment about possibly going without an image, though. Is it really necessary at all? Fly056 (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Ford to City" is a good choice. Be WP:Bold and do it! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a famous headline. I'm OK with it. And in that vein, we should consider the New York Post's most famous headline: "Headless Body in Topless Bar".--Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have ability to upload files myself, so one of you guys would need to be able to do that.Fly056 (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Populist or Tabloid?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Who says we can't have both? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

An additional thought. political alignment is meant to describe the political leanings of the newspaper. Example from the Template:Infobox newspaper is centre right. Perhaps the correct lable would be left wing populist? Work permit (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I've added Center-left citing a source, while leaving populist. I question whether the sources used to justify populist are wp:rs, since they only mention it in passing. I've left it in anyway. Others can feel free to remove it. Work permit (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Ford to City.PNG

[edit]

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)[reply]

Why 'fringe'?

[edit]

Hi. Can the relevant editor explain this change, which I've reverted? Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BeenAroundAWhile, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_Daily_News&oldid=1194775512"