Talk:The Parliamentary Review

Circulation Figure
I initially removed the circulation figure of 500,000 in the infobox, as it had no citation. Since then, it has been replaced, with a link to the publishers own website. I do not consider the citation given to be authoritative, for the following reasons:

- This figure is not audited by the industry standard body, which exists purely to audit the circulation of publications in the UK: the ABC: https://www.abc.org.uk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audit_Bureau_of_Circulations_(UK). - The Advertising Standard Authority has the following guidelines for quoting circulation figures here https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/circulation-and-distribution-claims.html "When quoting circulation or distribution figures for publications, marketers should ensure that they hold documentary evidence to prove their stated claims. The ASA normally considers that these figures should be audited by an independent robust and industry recognised auditor, such as the Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC)."

- At times, the publisher's site refers to 500,000 readers, and in other places it claims to post out 500,000 copies. Usually, the readership figure publishers quote is higher than the raw circulation. ( on https://www.theparliamentaryreview.co.uk/faqs we have: "Total readership of The Parliamentary Review has been upward of 500,000 per year, " and a few lines later "The 500,000+ recipients get their copies free of charge." The Advertising Standard Authority says this : "In the past, marketers have included “readership” figures in their ads based on estimations, surveys, an assumption that members would pass on a publication to other people and that those people would then read the publication. This and figures extrapolated from circulation figures are unlikely to be accurate. CAP recommends that readership figures are independently audited in order to avoid misleading consumers" - The figure seems extremely high, given that the Radio Times has a (admittedly monthly) circulation of 580,000, and is sold in every newsagent in Britain. - The Parliamentary Review is not one magazine - there is an 'edition' for over a dozen industries, several with further subdivisions by region. - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should should not publish unproven and potentially incorrect information, even if its pubication is commercially advantageous to the listed organisation.

I am therefore inclined to revert the edit. But I will leave it unchanged for a few days, in case I am wrong, or we wish to refer to a higher authority. Malpensilo (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

suggested additions
This article makes no mention of the fact that this publication solicits contributions through letters from 'the office of the Rt Hon The Lord Pickles' and signed by same, but requests £3,500 per contributor.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mystery-success-of-parliamentary-magazine-run-by-politicians-c82f9x2sl https://schoolsweek.co.uk/heads-question-methods-of-glossy-westminster-mag-that-charges-3500-for-exposure/ https://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2018/02/best-practice-organisations-including-schools-paid-for-inclusion-in-parliamentary-review-says-times-and-mirror https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/order-order-journal-parliamentary-review-11951496 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/parliamentary-review-appoints-david-blunkett-12573021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicleanerthinker (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Notability
Additional evidence:, ,. ~Kvng (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

COI tag
I've added a conflict of interest tag since many edits appear to be aimed at removing or making less prominent properly referenced content that could damage the commercial interests of the publication. Example edits: • Example 1 • Example 2 • Example 3 • Example 4 • Example 5

This would certainly be consistent with one or more editors having conflicts of interest. Before editing this article, editors should read WP:COI and refrain from making edits if they have conflicts of interest.

I have reverted the most egregious of the seemingly COI edits but I expect them to re-appear. I will keep a close eye on this page and encourage other unconflicted editors to do the same. Lincolnite (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)