Talk:Newsday

Wrong page
I came to this via a link for what I thought was the BBC programme Newsday on the page Sharanjit Leyl.Do all the presenters of the BBC programme have the wrong links? 86.173.98.24 (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Rampant, disallowed WP:POV and WP:OR
The Newsday article was filled with opinion and original analysis, both of which is severaly disallowed under Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Here is some of what I've excised, with annotations.

(William J. Casey was Newsday's first choice to serve as leader of the "Crossroads" organization, but he chose to take over the CIA instead.) In a new introduction to a 1991 edition of a book detailing the Arizona Project, it was asserted that Newsday's Bob Greene had attempted to appoint a elite clique to manage the state, and that they differed from the crooks and killers who had ignited the scandals mainly in being "higher up on the food chain".

The preceding is all uncited. What book detailing the Arizona Project? Who wrote and published it? Wikipedia requires full, verifiable, confirmable citations, and neutral, non-POV text. We can't just say "it was asserted" -- WHO asserted what? -- and can't use inexact, unencyclopedic terms like "crooks and killers":

For a few years starting in 1988, under then-publisher Robert M. Johnson, Newsday embarked on a series of aggressive campaigns, to purge "maverick" environmentalists from the "rambunctious" Suffolk Legislature,, to promote the construction of "WillyWorld" in Yaphank, to build a "Business-Labor Coalition" (whose main players were the kind of characters Newsday had won its Pultitzers for investigating, and whose remarks about civic associations and environmental groups usually had an ominous tone),,, to build a major jetport at Calverton, to give the development lobby control of underground water supplies, and, above all, to create an Urban Development Corporation subsidiary that critics claimed amounted to a virual coup d'etat - permanently transferring important powers from elected governments to a self-selected clique of developers and their allies. None of the four cited news articles here say anything about the first sentence's claim, except for the existence of a "business-labor coaliton" (lowercase) in the fourth citation. NONE use the words "maverick" or "rambuctious". None of this is neutral &mdash; it clearly reads as if written by someone with an ax to grind.

There's much more, all similar to these examples of loaded words, use of the inexact and vague passive voice, citations with no connection to claims, and loads of opinion and original analysis. -- 69.22.254.111 17:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above
The term "rambunctious" was a quote from a Newsday piece (I think an editorial), which I thought was included in one of the citations. I'll check when I get a chance. The references to Bill Moyers and Bill Casey are factual. The 1991 edition of the "Arizona Project" - I have a copy of it, somewhere, but not handy - does exist (although it doesn't seem to be showing up on Amazon or other internet sources at present), with a new introduction that said what I said it said. The combination of that AND the contemporaneous (circa 1978-80) "Long Island at the Crossroads" campaign make an important point about Newsday's modus operandi - specifically, the selection of a clique of "leading citizens" set up to put in their own policies, reducing elected officials to a rubber stamp. This recurred with Robert M. Johnson's "Partnership" (UDC) scheme in 1991, which differed only in that would have eliminated even the rubber stamp role for elected officials (allowing a clique of real estate developers to create for-profit megaprojects at public expense).

At the same time, Newsday has editorially disparaged all grassroots democracy, usually with the label "NIMBY". The recurring pattern is that citizens and elected officials are mocked and belittled, while real estate developers and other important business interests are built up as virtually infallible elders who alone are qualified to set the direction for Long Island (or Arizona).

This extremely controversial aspect of Newsday's history (and I could cite many other examples) is an integral and major part of what Newsday is all about. A 700-page history of the newspaper, "The Respectable Tabloid" written by a Newsday senior reporter named Keeler, says as much.

The footnotes perhaps could be slightly more scrupulous. The language could perhaps be more neutered in tone. (But compared to Wikipedia's current article on George W. Bush, for example, this one was a model of well-referenced objectivity!) To trash the whole section is simply to eliminate a major part of what Newsday has been, and what Newsday has meant to the region it serves, and in fact this is not even controversial - it's common knowledge among Long Islanders and certainly among Newsday's own staff members.

--Chelydra 23:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your honest and well-reasoned response. I haven't been to the George W. Bush article or that of any other politician, giving the awful divisions in the nation, though obviously I believe it, too, should be neutral and scrupulously factual. I read the citations, and I could not find the statements or the interpretations there that were suggested in the piece. This is where using actual quotes from the source seems necessary.


 * There's a larger issue, though, and I have no doubt, judging from the articulate intelligence of your posting above, that you'll understand my, and in fact Wikipedia's, position: "Common knowledge" or "what everybody knows" isn't confirmable, verifiable information that an encyclopedia can use. And aside from the lack of confirmability or verifiablity, different people have different takes on what's "common knowledge".


 * This is why I've made the reversion. To say a paper or magazine "is known as liberal" without giving a reputable citation &mdash; it really goes against the rules of Wikipedia at WP:CITE and elsewhere. -- 69.22.254.111 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comics
Do we really need a list of comic strips in the paper? Jonathan D. Parshall 03:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cowardly AOL anonymous IPs
A weasely "contributor" hiding behind the flurry of AOL-related IPs keeps anonymously adding the same uncited personal opinion about this newspaper's supposed unprofessional bias, saying over and over, "Well, it's well known." No. Per Wikipedia policies and guidelines, editors cannot just say some purpoted fact is "well known." Editors must provide a verifiable, confirmable citation from an authoritative, unbiased source. This continued insertion of a cliched truism, with no citation, is simply personal opinion. This is disallowed per WP:POV.

You know what's funny? He knows he's being craven since he keeps going in under different IPs &mdash; refusing to provide a single account that can take responsibility for any edits. That alone screams volumes about his complete lack of integrity.

Among his masks are User talk:205.188.117.5 (the initial edit), User talk:64.12.116.66 (more than once), and User talk:152.163.100.66, at least &mdash; all of which have been blocked at various points for vandalism. Anyone unwilling to stand up and take responsibility for his edits doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You fucking coward.

Provide citations for your statement. Continued insertion of it without citation constitutes vandalism. --69.22.254.111 18:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The cowardly, craven, anonymous-IP troll has now made his uncited WP:POV edits via the vandal-prone 152.163.100.66. You can't just say something is "well known" -- you have to provide a VERIFIABLE, CONFIRMABLE citation from an authoritative, unbiased source.
 * Vandalism happens sooooo often with the AOL anon IPs, all over Wikipedia, that I wonder if there should not be a movement to prevent AOL IPs from editing?--69.22.254.111 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newsdayfront.jpg
Image:Newsdayfront.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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 fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Location
Offices were first in Hempstead, are now in Melville. Anywhere else? What year did they move?--JimWae (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Editorial bias
There have been complaints against Newsday by the president of the Catholic League, and this might possibly be noted in an eventual article section on bias and criticism ADM (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Catholic League complains about everybody. --TS 19:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 00:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Newsday → Newsday (U.S. newspaper) – Current title should be of the disambiguation page. There are also Newsday (TV series) and Newsday (radio series). As for the Zimbabwean newspaper, why not the alternative title Newsday (Zimbabwean newspaper)? (For a separate discussion, see Talk:NewsDay.) George Ho (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * NewsDay → NewsDay (Zimbabwean newspaper)
 * Oppose All signs point to a primary topic here. The current primary topic has vastly more page views, and thousands of more incoming links. Even on a google search at google.co.uk the current primary topic comes up with 5 of the top 10 results (and is unsurprisingly the entire first page of google.com results). The New York Newspaper also completely dominates google book results.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Page views and incoming links show this is the primary topic per the above. -- Calidum  16:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since the hatnote did not include all possible other targets, I just created Newsday (disambiguation).--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For an update, Zimbabwean topic is out of discussion because it is completely ignored here. I will do a separate discussion soon. --Gh87 in the public computer (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, essentially agree with, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Circulation
As I am sure many people are aware, circulation figures for almost all print media have fallen significantly in the last few years, as a consequence of the move to online content. This article however seems not to reflect this, instead prominently referring to data for 2014. To my mind, this is liable to be misleading, and needs correction. While I'm not sure this is necessarily the best source for such data, I note that the UK Press Gazette states that Newsday average weekday circulation declined by 37% between Q3 2016 and Q1 2020  If the Q1 2020 figure given (123,905) is directly comparable with that stated for 2014 in the article lede (437,000), the decline is even more obvious.

Is there a recognised source generally used by Wikipedia for press circulations? If so, this article should certainly be using it. With more recent data, reflecting the trend. 109.158.187.204 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)