Talk:Newspaper of record/Archive 1

Would you really consider The Times to be a newspaper of record these days? It is now a tabloid with an unfair bias to the Labour Party! Perhaps The Guardian should be seen as a possible candidate owing to its switch to Berliner and Simon Jenkins joining it - various commentators agree with this suggestion in the press.

Hence I'd suggest moving The Times to possible and bringing the Guardian in as a possible as well.

Regards, --Mrclarke 14:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal? Really? Is that not notoriously a politically-driven right-wing ultra-liberal newspaper? Granted that decided political views aren;t necessarily a bar to something being considered a newspaper of record, I'm not sure that the WSJ really has this status.

As for the UK, I think the Guardian probably does.Palmiro 11:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The Independent a newspaper of record? Ridiculous! It is a left-wing, bordering on far-left, viewspaper! Will delete if no objections. --Mrclarke 07:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The Independent certainly isn't far-left! I rather doubt that it could be described as left-wing at all. You can't delete it on that basis. Palmiro 18:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you actually consider it a newspaper of record? --Mrclarke 19:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Good question. 'Newspaper of record" seems to be defined here as pretty much the same as what "quality broadsheet" meant while the English ones were all still broadsheets (from the article: it means "a newspaper with high standards of journalism"). In my view, the Independent does fall into that category.

However, my understanding of "newspaper of record" is more something along the lines of "the authoritative newspaper, a newspaper that's widely agreed to be the primary reliable record (or one of a very small number of such) of a country's life and its political life in particular." Not very well-expressed, but perhaps you can see what I'm getting at. And I don't think either the London Independent or the Telegraph would qualify on that basis. But for the moment, that's not the definition that this article's based on. Palmiro 17:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with you there. This page has been expanded by many users, who really seem to have added their personal favourites. Neither The Telegraph or The Independent should qualify. I don't know about other countries, but I think these should be included:

UK - The Times, Financial Times (world), The Guardian

USA - The New York Times, (The Wall Street Journal), The International Herald Tribune (world)

Italy - Correro Della Sella

France - Le Monde

Germany - Die Welt

Australia - (The Australian)

India - Times of India.

This page needs a major overhaul in my view. It currently contains every British 'quality' daily! I think that the old definition said something about the newspaper having to be known across the world. In my opinion, the only British newspapers that meet that requirement are the three I have listed. I've bracketed papers I don't know much about - The WSJ and the Australian, and I hope others can tell me if these should qualify. --Mrclarke 19:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your suggested procedure. The first step is to find a suitable definition to slot in as the first sentence in the article. Then we can carry out a triage on the claimants to newspaper of record status.

The difference between The Times and the Daily Telegraph, or Le Monde and Le Figaro is exactly the sort of thing we need to point up. Palmiro 19:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

How about: 'A newspaper of record is an internationally recognised publication, with high standards of journalism and no political bias in its news coverage.' Most on the list would not meet the internationally recognised section or the political bias section, although they have high standards of journalism. --Mrclarke 06:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree there has to be a clear definitive guideline as to the difference between a "quality" newspaper (like The Telegraph) and a newspaper of record (like The Times). I'd also suggest that The Independent is a newspaper of record, despite its left-leaning status.  It is comparatively "independent", and is not half as left-leaning as The Guardian.  Obviously the Tory-Telegraph is in a league of its own as to bias.  Deano 19:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent are all Newspapers of Record and desvere their status alongside the FT and The Times. The Daily Telegraph has high quality sports and business coverage, The Guardian is internationally aclaimed and The Independent has some of the world's best journalists like Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn.

The Christen Science Monitor should also be on this list because dispite the name the paper is very well regarded and is not a fundamenslist paper.

The Australian Financial Review is the leading business newspaper in Australia show it should be on the list as well.

Is the Irish Independent a Newspaper of Record I would like to know. The Champ


 * The Daily Telegraph and the Guardian are definitely not newspapers of record, despite the fact they are broadsheets. The fact that the Torygraph has high quality sports and business is irrelevant - it's the main section that matters, and in that it is not even close to being neutral.  The same (but opposite) can be said the the Guardian, despite the international recognition of Guardian Online.  The Indy is interesting, because common belief is that it is left-leaning, but I reckon it could qualify.  However, the other two definitely don't.  I have no idea about the international ones you mention though.  Deano 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not mean the UK Independent but the Irish Independent and I would also like to know if the National Post from Canada and The Washington Times are Newspapers of Record.

The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph are both world-class newspapers you should really read them. The Champ


 * I am not arguing that the Daily Torygraph and the Guardian are not quality papers - they are. But they are not "Newspapers of Record" because they are undisputably biased.  That is all there is to it.


 * I have no idea about the other newspapers you mentioned though... Deano 17:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The Washington Times is owened by The Moonies Church, National Post was founded by Conrad Black and Irish Independent is from the Republic of Ireland and is different to the UK Independent. The Champ.

Why on earth is The Washington Times and USA Today doing on this list? Surley The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph should be on the list instead. The Champ


 * Firstly - The Champ. Just put four "~" at the end of your comment in order to produce your proper wikipedia name.  It isn't hard!  As for Washington Times and USA Today, I am a passionate advocate of boycotting all American media, so I have no idea about any of them.  The downside of this life philosophy is that I consider them all equally crap, but cannot delete any in particular... so I leave it to other people.  I concentrate on the UK.  Because that I know.  Deano 15:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The New York Times have chosen The Daily Telegraph as their choice for their international weekly edition and The Guardian is well respected around the world, in fact when I was in France I saw it more often than The Times. So surley they most be included. The Champ


 * Once again, do not anonymously contribute. It REALLY isn't that hard to put four tildes at the end of your paragraph (i.e. ~ ~ ~ ~ without the spaces).  It is especially annoying when someone else has to go back and sign off paragraphs for you!
 * In France, the British newspaper you are most likely to see is The Daily Mail, which we all agree is not even close to a NoR. Newspapers sold abroad are entirely dependent on who owns various newspapers and the deals ownership consortiums make with each other.  They have no basis on the relative quality of the newspaper.
 * Both the Telegraph and the Guardian are quality newspapers, but neither are neutral, and therefore neither are "of record". Unless the Guardian swings rights and the Torygraph swings left, that is never going to change.  And unless the paper is neutral, it cannot be "of record".  Nothing else matters.  Deano 12:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

US newspapers of record: WP:DUE
It doesn't look like there's been any recent discussion here about papers to include, so I'll start one now. I'm not convinced the US has four papers that are widely recognized as newspapers of record. The only one on the list that's consistently considered such is the NY Times. A google search for "US newspaper of record" confirms this. Currently there's a hidden note in the article that reads "As per the discussions on the talk page, do *not* add examples of newspapers of record to this article unless the example is properly sourced in accordance with WP:V and WP:RS." We also should take WP:DUE into account. Are any of the other 3 papers equally qualified to be considered the US's newspaper of record? We're sourcing the LA Times and Washington Post to a French publication. What is this publication? Is it actually making those claims? If it is, what makes it such an authoritative source? Lizard (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The author, John C. Merrill, is among the foremost journalism professors in the world. The article is in French, not my best language, but it's short and the vocabulary seems be pretty basic.
 * In 1968, Merrill published The Elite Press: Great Newspapers of the World, which ranked the world's top 40 quotidiens de référence ("reference dailies", probably equivalent to "newspapers of record") according to various criteria. In 1999, he undertook a similar study on a more modest scale. Many titles around the world that made the list in 1968 have fallen off the 1999 list for various reasons. His 1999 list does not include a reference daily from Asia, the Middle East (except Egypt), Greece, or the Balkans. In general, Latin American papers were worse in 1999 than they were in 1968. The same two newspapers, The New York Times and Der Neue Zürcher Zeitung, topped the lists in 1968 and 1999. Other U.S. papers did well 30 years later: The Los Angeles Times (8), The Miami Herald, The Christian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post (3). The 1968 and 1999 lists are on page 12 (the third page). The rest of the article is his 1999 methodology and his conclusions.
 * I find it odd that Merrill wrote that no Asian newspapers were on his 1999 list, which includes Japan's Asahi Shimbun (7). Perhaps I misunderstand what he wrote, or maybe he and his editors were careless.
 * To the extent that a very prominent professor at a journalism school is a reliable source, and I think he is, his article appears to be a reliable source for including The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times as newspapers of record. Merrill ranks The Washington Post third and the Los Angeles Times eighth in the world. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems to me then it's definitely a reliable source. Still, I'd feel more comfortable if we could provide additional references to supplement Merrill's view on the LA Times and Washington Post. I'm interpreting the list on our article to be a list of papers considered the newspaper of record for their corresponding countries, not just a 2nd or 3rd place contender. If that's the case it's hard to argue against the NYT. Lizard  (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I really don't think that's the case. A newspaper of record is simply a newspaper that has an excellent reputation due to its perceived professionalism and trustworthiness. There is no upper limit on the number of newspapers of record that can exist in a country. --William Case Morris (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorting of examples
The "Examples" section of the article contains a large table. If one sorts the second column, "Newspaper", the newspapers sort by title—after a style. De Standaard ("The Standard") appears before Die Presse ("The Press") because "de" sorts before "die". But both "de" and "die" are articles, which shouldn't be part of the sort key. The list also sorts The Age below Süddeutsche Zeitung because S comes before T, but The Age should be sorted under "Age", not "The".

I propose removing all articles ("the", "la", "el", "die", etc.) from the sort key. What do other editors think? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Having heard no objections in six weeks, I went ahead and made the change. There were several changes involved:


 * 1) If a title was preceded by an article, I moved it to the end (e.g., the sort-key for "The New York Times" is "New York Times, The").
 * 2) If the article was part of the first word, such that separating it would be awkward for English-speakers, I made no change (e.g., the sort-key for "Haaretz" ("The Land") is "Haaretz", but the sort-key for "Al-Ahram" ("The Pyramids") is "Ahram, Al").
 * 3) If a title had foreign characters, such as accents, I replaced them with standard English letters (e.g., the sort-key for "Diário de Notícias" is "Diario de Noticias"). This is necessary because computers sometimes distinguish between i, ì, and í in a way that most humans don't, and it can result in unexpected sort results.
 * Together with these changes, I moved a few titles in the table that were out of sort. For example, Le Figaro (which starts with an F) comes before Libération, which comes before Le Monde (which starts with an M). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Logo: "Please do not insert a fair use image"
In the Examples table, many entries have &mdash; instead of a logo with the comment

I've never seen this comment anywhere else, nor an authorative source or explanation. Can someone please provide one or lift the restriction? Motherofinvention (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Use of a non-free image in such a context wouldn't be fair use. That's explained in WP:NFTABLE (see also WP:GALLERY). We cannot lift that restriction since adding non-free images to such a list as this one would violate copyright. Huon (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

UK references
In reference 98 ("Yet another end of an era"), the Independent calls the London Gazette "most venerable newspaper". This can hardly be read as an endorsement as "newspaper of record", it's more of a salute to an old lady.

Reference 96 ("The Daily Telegraph") lists the telegraph among the "big three quality newspapers" (by itself not an endorsement, or the Guardian would have to be included too), also "combined a high standard of reporting with [...]" does not meet the bar.

So from references alone, it seems clear that
 * the London Gazette should be removed (or supported by another reference).
 * reference 96 should be deleted. (The Daily Telegraph itself seems to be sufficiently supported by reference 97, "The UK's 'other paper of record'")

However, I'll leave the actual edit to someone more familar with the UK newspaper landscape.

Motherofinvention (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The Times seems to have declined under Murdoch. So, is it still a NoR? Personally, I now trust The Guardian over The Times, but I'm in the US, so I'm not knowledgable enough to make the call. Acwilson9 (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It still remains the NoR of the UK. It leans right (though, over the past thirty years its been right, then left, and then right again), but it remains the most respected newspaper in the country. The Guardian is (and has been) extremely left-leaning for its entire history which, amongst other things, disqualifies it. csussman (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:280:8106:2AB0:4159:C104:F4DA:3FC5 (talk)

Content dispute re: Portugal
has changed the entries for the newspapers of record for Portugal from Diario de Noticias and Público to Jornal de Notícias and Expresso. I have argued that the prior publications have been documented in reliable sources as "newspapers of record" for Portugal (see the citations provided), while the new publications are poorly cited. (JN cites a Reuters poll that indicates that JN has high reader confidence, which is not the same thing as being considered the "paper of record", and Expresso is uncited.) Editorptg has not engaged in any attempts to discuss this matter on his own talk page, so I am bringing the matter here for a public discussion. I believe these edits should not be allowed to stand, as there does not appear to be any reliable source to support them. I ask and any other interested parties to discuss the matter here. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's go with your version, shall we. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to, but every time I try, reverts to his version. I'm seeking consensus here rather than engaging in an edit war.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:19, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I haven't responded earlier but i didn't understand how. I reuploaded the edit since, according to the article itself, a newspaper of record is one "with large circulation whose editorial and news-gathering functions are considered authoritative." JN is the daily with the most prints and the most confidence in the general public while Expresso is the newspaper with the most confidence overall, while also being one of the most sought after nation wide. This to me seems to be enough to consider them both as such, unlike 2 less rated and less available newspapers, whose sources are almost a decade old, while mine are Reuters' reports from last year. You will also find that I improved my edit, after seeing that weeklies were up for consideration, and improved the sources as well. Please take this into consideration, as grounds for editing the article.
 * I'm not sure that public confidence is necessarily the measure that matters here. It seems to me that the designation "newspaper of record" is somewhat vague, but depends more on a newspaper's reputation among other journalists, and its reputation internationally, rather than its popularity or trust level among its own readership. As an example (and I'm not saying this is the case in Portugal, whose culture and politics I am unfamiliar with), a newspaper may become wildly popular domestically specifically for adhering to a particular fringe viewpoint that is currently popular in the country, but be seen as wildly unreliable among the rest of the world community. Therefore, I think external references, rather than internal polls of reader confidence, make a better ruler for which newspapers are "of record". WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, but this isn't some local poll, it's a Reuters Institute survey, and it is much more recent than the sources for the other 2. Also, neither follow fringe and popular viewpoints, media is Portugal is rather unpolitical, and neither of these are sensationalist tabloids (in fact, both DN and Público are in tabloid form, unlike the other 2). Also, you'll see that the top selling newspaper is also the most untrustworthy (Correio da Manhã), meaning the surveyed know the difference between what is popular and what is factual. For these reasons I believe it would be more accurate to update the entries, even if it is hard to find foreign articles praising then, which, given the low attention that Portugal gets, is unsurprising, but even that could be a biased review of them, as you seemed to imply in you previous response. Both are widely popular and are authoritative, since they inspire trust what they publish, and those are the main criteria. Please review your decision based on this information, I believe it to be for the best.
 * You make some cogent points. I'd like to see some other viewpoints in this discussion, but if we don't get any input from others in the next 3 days, I won't argue further against your changes. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 4 days have passed, I reuploaded my edit, thanks for understanding my motives.

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

WP:RS/P
Are all of these NoR's listed in WP:RS/P, and if not, would it be worth running the RFCs to confirm them? Britishfinance (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that North Korean newspaper would make a very good reliable source. lol – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't recommend starting RfCs for the sole purpose of generating entries for newspapers of record in WP:RSP, since there will likely be complaints from noticeboard participants. The news organizations guideline automatically considers newspapers of record generally reliable, unless there is evidence to the contrary. (For Rodong Sinmun, low press freedom in the newspaper's location is evidence to the contrary, as is the newspaper's ownership by a political party.) —  Newslinger  talk   09:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I find WP:RS/P extremely helpful in addressing poor/unsound sourcing. It is helpful when a new editor can browse it and see the contrasts, and that the community has put a lot of time and effort into it.  A lot of RfCs on individual NoRs would not be helpful, but, why don't we run a batch of the 10 strongest candidates, under the guise of "we are pretty sure these are fully reliable but think it would be a good exercise to formally log them on the WP:RS/P list"?  Or, to invert the proposal, we could run an RfC that NoRs are automatically on the WP:RS/P list, load them up, and then we might have some interesting - but helpful RfCs - on whether some NoRs are really NoRs?  Britishfinance (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The new page patrol source guide (WP:NPPSG) might be a helpful resource for editors who are looking for a more comprehensive sourcing almanac that is not tied to the reliable sources noticeboard. As for the perennial sources list, the may be of interest to you. We could create a new subsection for newspapers of record, and depending on the length, we may be able to list newspapers of record that have had at least one discussion (no RfC needed) on the noticeboard. —  Newslinger   talk   12:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea . Hadn't seen the new page patrol source guide which looks excellent.  I think the more we can bring these various lists into alignment, even getting to a single database of reliable/unreliable sources, the better.  What you suggest would definitely help that. thanks for your consideration. Britishfinance (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , judging from the page history, I think User:Rosguill keeps the WP:NPPSG updated based on discussions on WP:RSN. But his criteria isn't as strict as RSN, so we are able to get more sources on the NPPSG page, which is great.
 * I am thinking of making a user script that highlights sources based on what is listed at NPPSG, and maybe some other places (these newspapers of record, WP:CRAPWATCH journals, etc.). We already have a script that puts icons by some sources (User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen.js), but I am thinking of forking it, having it highlight instead of place an icon, and use NPPSG and other lists so that it includes as many evaluated sources as possible. – Novem Linguae (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of my updates have been based on keeping an eye on RSN's archives, although IIRC there are a few entries that are based on source discussions elsewhere. signed,Rosguill talk 01:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an incredible job you have done . Great that it is integrated with WP:RS/P etc. Britishfinance (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great idea . A green sign for NPPSG and a red for unreliable/CRAPWATCH etc.  Would further help in the integration of the good and bad sources lists on Wikipedia (which NPPSG is already doing). Britishfinance (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * have you seen the User:Headbomb/unreliable script, which highlights several categories of unreliable sources? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't. I'll take a look. Thanks for pointing it out. – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't. I'll take a look. Thanks for pointing it out. – Novem Linguae (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Guardian as a newspaper of record
A month or so after I had added it, 'The Guardian' was removed from the list by an I.P. since "both sources were not fit for purpose." Both of the sources were already in the article before my edits and are still on the page, since they are the sources for the entry for 'The Times of India'. How are sources fit to designate the ToI a newspaper of record not fit for calling The Guardian the same thing?

Need a better explanation than "Both sources were not fit for purpose." 136.185.88.207 (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, The Guardian now has proper sourcing as a verifiable NoR. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Global south
There is a paucity of attention to certain populous nations in the south. Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa are missing.Dogru144 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added the NoR for Colombia (which is verified by the Financial Times and others). However, it is harder to find NoRs for these areas as the issue of Government control and interference is a question mark - see my comments on Zimbabwe below which now has really no NoR. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also managed to add the Mail & Guardian from South Africa that was verifiable sources to it being an NoR. 78.18.251.161 (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources/Perennial sources
Used the Reliable sources/Perennial sources page to find to more eligible entries – Mail & Guardian (South Africa) and Gazeta Wyborcza (Poland); and refs support it.

Any "green-listed" WP:RS/P entry is now on this list (with a verifiable ref calling it a newspaper of record). There are two yellow-list ("no consensus") WP:RS/P entries Straits Times and Times of India but which have the refs to support them as newspapers of record, and are kept. Anything else that was not green on WP:RS/P AND had no real ref is gone from this list. I still think there are a few entries on this list that do not appear at all in WP:RS/P (of any color) and that are not really proper newspapers of record, so is worth still trawling through.

Conversely, there are quite a few solid NoRs on this list that should be on WP:RS/P? 78.18.251.161 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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