Talk:Ritz Newspaper

Article (and periodical) name

I wonder if this article is perpetuating a slight misnomer. If you Google images of "Ritz Newspaper", you find the cover typography is "RITZ" in huge letters with a tiny vestigial "newspaper". The majority of reliable sources I can find just call it Ritz (e.g. those refs already cited in the article; Britannica; and most of the UK NewsBank newspaper archive references to it). Would Ritz (magazine) be more appropriate, with Ritz Newspaper mentioned as the formal name only within the article? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well worth digging some more. I also googled it. I know that "Ritz Magazine" is a definite misnomer (I know you are not suggesting that). The cover is probably the only oracle we have, apart from Franceslynn who worked on it and is accessible to us. I think we can safely leave it for the moment pending investigation because moving and re-moving and unmoving gets really tiresome. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing I think we have to consider, apart from the fact that the current title may indeed be imperfect, is that we could be correct, and Newsbank might be using vernacular nomenclature. The challenge is finding out. David Bailey would be authoritative, and I imagine Nicky Haslam would, too. I do think we should leave it as an open issue until we get full chapter and verse on it. I'm going to ask Frances to see if she can get definitive and citable information, and I think we should await it prior to any alteration of article title. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Officially, it is Ritz Newspaper - but during the early issues, it was described as Ritz magazine Frances Lynn,author 22:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just looked at the early issues of Ritz - definitely called Ritz Newspaper - but like I said it was commonly described as a magazine. It was broadsheet size (but came out monthly). Also on the front page - it goes Bailey and Litchfield's (price 40p) - Underneath their names - it is RITZ is bold (slightly italic) - underneath newspaper! Frances Lynn,author 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Click on this link to see what the cover of RN looks like http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?LinkID=mp09381&role=art&rNo=26 Frances Lynn,author 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to get a magnifying glass to see it does say "Newspaper" under the Ritz logo! Frances Lynn,author 22:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Also - when Ritz was in existence, a lot of print journalism/articles would describe it as "Ritz" or "Ritz magazine" - hence the confusion. Frances Lynn,author 22:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: although the correct title is "Ritz Newspaper" - I 'suppose' it could also be described as Ritz (magazine) because it used to be described as that in the press. Frances Lynn,author 22:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

For me that says that the Wikipedia article is correct,pedantically. The question we should now address is whether we should catalogue it as RN or R (m). I am in favour currently of the (pedantic) status quo, but could be persuaded otherwise if necessary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is that there was some chronological evolution (in the way that New Scientist was originally new SCIENTIST and "new" gradually became promoted). But as to "Newsbank might be using vernacular nomenclature" - we can't ignore reliable sources. Willing's Press Guide 1982 just calls it Ritz; Debrett's Handbook for 1981 says of Bailey "co-editor Ritz newspaper" (not Ritz Newspaper). Go figure. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And I must confess, people (me included) generally used to refer to the rag as "Ritz magazine'! Frances Lynn,author 22:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

And Ritz Newspaper was commonly referred to as "Ritz" (in the press too) Frances Lynn,author 22:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)We cannot ignore reliable sources. But we do have access (I imagijne) to copies of covers, which, presumably, have to be more reliable that items documenting the name?

In due course we will need to reach a consensus view. In the meantime let's delay until we have checked all avenues (which is really down to Frances, since she has, presumably, some contacts, and might be able to ask David Bailey for a definitive written statement (which would, presumably) be the most reliable source? I don't actually care what we call it as long as we get it right. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Where can a 'written statement' be sent? Frances Lynn,author 23:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure! G of C? Any thoughts? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get all post-modern], but there are a number of problems with this. Wikipedia's WP:V generally expects information to be sourced from reliable third-party published sources, so what they say is at least as important as what David Bailey might say. He might misremember the history of the title; he might want it remembered in a particular way. Besides, if it hasn't been published, whatever the authority, it's original research. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then any such statement would be interesting, and, if released into the public domain and scanned, a useful part of the article, but not a useful proof. Were there formal companies house records, or an AGM minute or something like that, what status do you feel they would have? This is a road I have not walked before. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just spoken to Bailey. He said it was called "Ritz Newspaper". He is not going to put that in writing. So, I suggest - in the article - I could put something like "Ritz Newspaper (also known as Ritz (magazine) or Ritz". And as you can see from the Ritz cover (with David Litchfield) I sent you - it does say Ritz Newspaper. Frances Lynn,author 09:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then what we need to do is to take some time to allow a consensus to form, or we do if there is a genuine wish to change the article name from Ritz Newspaper to Ritz (magazine). Note that the article name is the way this is filed on Wikipedia, and the correct name of the periodical is left inside the article as Ritz Newspaper. This discussion page forms an ancillary part of the article for the interest of visitors, but is not a formal part of the article itself.

What I will do now myself is nothing at all, since I favour the status quo. If someone wishes to make the proposal, which probably ought to be a formal "requested move", then I'll express an opinion in the request process. So we will either reach consensus by default (status quo) or by active consensus (requested move). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to change anything at the moment then. Frances Lynn,author 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just looked at the RN page - looks correct. Frances Lynn,author 11:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a road I have not walked before

It's a difficult one. Situations do crop up here where there'a discrepancy between what an insider says and what other reliable sources say. A high-profile one was a dispute a while back over whether to describe Jimbo Wales as sole founder of Wikipedia - see Jimbo Wales#Roles of creators. Another one is whether John McHale coined the term "pop art" (his son says he did; a number of Oxford encyclopedia sources credit Lawrence Alloway). These different sources need collating, and the insider view doesn't automatically carry more weight.

However, the situation re I have just spoken to Bailey. He said it was called "Ritz Newspaper". He is not going to put that in writing is clear-cut; it can be unequivocally ignored as original research. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just discovered that Bailey and Litchfield named it "Ritz Newspaper" to avoid confusion with the Ritz hotel's in-house Ritz magazine. (L told me) Frances Lynn,author 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Logical. It avoids accusations of passing off. The problem is that, as G of C has said above, unless we can cite a public domain source, that is original research. That it is true is certain, that is is logical is certain, but it has to be citable. I think the furthest one can go is "The periodical was named Ritz Newspaper to avoid confusion with the Ritz hotel's in house magazine, and to avoid being accused of passing off." However I would value another editor or two's opinions prior to including that in the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already put the above info ("Ritz Newspaper" to avoid confusion with the Ritz hotel's in-house Ritz magazine.) in the article ... so shall now await the the outcome of this latest development in the debate! Frances Lynn,author 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source for name

• Catalogues of major libraries are presumably one reputable third-party source. Just in case it helps, this is to let you know that the Bodleian Library and the National Library of Scotland catalogue the publication with ISSN 0144-7416 as Ritz Newspaper. The British Library, however, catalogues it as Bailey and Litchfield's Ritz Newspaper. Just to add to the fun and confusion, Cambridge University Library and the library of the Victoria & Albert Museum catalogue it as "Ritz Newspaper [Bailey and Litchfield's Ritz Newspaper]". I'd guess that means "Ritz Newspaper" as main article title, "Bailey and Litchfield's Ritz Newspaper" and "Ritz (magazine)" as potential redirects?

Further bibliographical details from the British Library catalogue:

Frequency: Monthly

Published: London (17 Maiden Lane WC2) : Bailey Litchfield Productions, 1976-

Physical desc.: v. : ill. ; 42cm.

Identifier: ISSN: 0144-7416

--Paularblaster (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation

Could we slow down a bit and start focusing on sourcing? This article is riddled with unsourced statements, including whole sections.

This includes not merely specific facts regarding persons, but also general material that may not be universally known or obvious, such as "During the late Seventies and early Eighties, show business journalism wasn't controlled by public relations. The celebrities' publicists rarely sat in on interviews, so the Ritz journalists weren't restrained from asking their interviewees anything they wanted". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right. Some of the citations can obviously be citations to the issue in which a piece appeared, such as showing that Sammy Davis Jr was interviewed by quoting the appearance of the interview, in that such a reference refers to published material. Other items, like Patrick Lichfield's artistic freedom may be uncitable and may need to be removed as anecdotal. I think they could, with benefit, be "parked" on the talk page once shown to be uncitable in case a citation that passes muster is found in the future and they may be reinstated.

We have a very new editor who has created much of the article. Wisely, she has sought adoption under the adoption programme and been adopted, but extra guidance is always helpful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't doubt the broad truth of any of the material. But I think it needs stressing that WP:V is a core value of Wikipedia, and someone a bit more hawkish would be well within policy to remove anything unsourced. For example, just about every sentence in the first para needs citation:

Ritz Newspaper, colloquially Ritz Magazine, sometimes simply Ritz, was the first British magazine in the United Kingdom to celebrate the cult of Gossip, Celebrity and Fashion. It was published in 1976 by David Bailey and David Litchfield,[1], who acted as co-editors. Litchfield was also the designer and art director. Bailey and Litchfield, who named it Ritz Newspaper in order to avoid confusion with the Ritz hotels' in-house Ritz magazine, modeled Ritz on Andy Warhol's Interview magazine. Bailey co-edited Ritz for the first eight years. The magazine ran for fifteen years and closed in the early Nineties, however it featured in the BBC panel game Have I Got News for You as their "Guest Publication" in 1997.

Was it the first? Fashion, gossip and celebrity magazines predated Ritz - Tatler, for instance, "filled with news and pictures of high society balls, charity events, race meetings, shooting parties, fashion and gossip". And so on. OK, opinion's divided as to whether it's OK to add unsourced stuff and wait for others to help source it, or whether adding unsourced stuff should be discouraged in the first place. I've access to NewsBank, which has a few articles mentioning the origins of Ritz. I'll see what I can find, but the portal's a bit shaky this evening. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good newsbank citations would be excellent. I'm doing my best to guide our new editor, who is responding well. A background in journalism is quite difficult to migrate from into editing an encyclopaedia. We have a great start at an article here. The aim is to remove the words "start at an" :)

WRT write first or cite first, I subscribe to neither view entirely. I favour a good stub article with as many citations as possible, and thus encouraging other editors to join in. I do not disagree with removal of unsourced material that has remained unsourced for a (to be determined) period,though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No luck with NewsBank from here yet. One other thing: I'm not keen on that verbose reference section. You don't see that format in many articles here, and Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources specifically advises against overdoing direct quotation. It's enough to point to the citation; or at most to summarise and/or quote tersely within the article body.

Also, a number of non-references that don't actually confirm the specific statement need watching out for. For example, "Catherine, now Cat Villiers, was the magazine's production secretary and in later issues became a contributing editor." is not accurately confirmed by this reference that says she "began her career in magazine journalism, serving as assistant editor at Ritz Newspaper". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As a generalisation the laws of copyright allow the quotation of broadly a single paragraph from a properly attributed source. It is viewed as a snippet that encourages the reader to visit the source, and thus to the benefit of the copyright holder. The fact that one does not see many articles thus endowed, however, might be attributed to insufficient editors deploying the various cite templates correctly - they are awkward to use if one is in a hurry. I accept the point about the citation needing to confirm the exact point in the article. "We" do need to improve the article continuously, and that one is an obvious target. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one does not see many articles thus endowed, however, might be attributed to insufficient editors deploying the various cite templates correctly - they are awkward to use if one is in a hurry.

If things aren't generally done, I usually take that pragmatically as meaning it's not a good way to do it. To be honest, I think it looks messy and, more important, complicates editing by users unfamiliar with the format. You go to edit some simple sentence, and find paragraphs of material that doesn't appear in the visible article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is an argument for improvement of the citation mechanism rather than an argument for not creating a full citation, really. Messy in the edit window is not the same as messy in the article. There are many things in life that are not generally done until they are Bungee Jumping is one such thing I do not choose to bungee, but I do not advise folks to do more than check the rope and knots. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just added uncited text to the Advertising section, but intend to citate the section ..... Frances Lynn,author 11:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Add it when you have the citation. There's more than enough uncited material to deal with already. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb at this stage of the development of the article, I agree with you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Understood. To date, I have ('only') four citations to do. Frances Lynn,author 12:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that the citations must actually support the statement made in the article, not merely back it up in some tangential way. For example, "His wife, Marie Helvin,[3] ... modelled" requires that citation [3] specifically confirm that she modelled, not (as is currently the case) just that she was his wife, however true and logical the connection may be. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I placed that citation, and I placed it because I had not known she was his wife. The location is well prior to "modelled" and thus cites the fact of Helvin's espousal. But your general point is well made. I am just nitpicking this specific. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material from intro

Litchfield was also the designer and art director. Bailey and Litchfield, who named it Ritz Newspaper in order to avoid confusion with the Ritz hotels' in-house Ritz magazine, modeled Ritz on Andy Warhol's Interview magazine. It featured in the BBC panel game Have I Got News for You as their "Guest Publication" in 1997.

I've also toned down the journalese: "one of the first British magazines in the United Kingdom to celebrate the cult of Gossip, Celebrity and Fashion". It's not encyclopedic tone, and even if this citation says it's the first, that doesn't match other sources. Tatler was covering gossip, celebrity and fashion in the 1930s. Was it "celebrating the cult"? I don't know. But if it just boils down to Ritz Newspaper being the first to cover to cover gossip, celebrity and fashion in the particular style that Ritz Newspaper did it, that's what needs to be explained in more routine terms. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to remove the HIGNFY link as well? Itis documented on that page (or was when I looked last), or do you feel it needs a more substantial ref that a wikilink?

It appears, though I agree that it needs to be documented, that this may have been the first paper to major on the "cult of celebrity" rather than the (presumably) previous periodiocals that majored on "upper class gossip". What seems to be meant is that Tatler covered a broader church than RN, which specialised.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

First part, yes. It isn't in the HIGNFY article, and a check of here (first link - I can't link direct as it's blacklisted) against this article (reliable) shows it was Ritz Magazine, the Ritz Hotel house magazine.

Second part: unless we're talking about Dionysus, "celebrate the cult of" seems too me metaphorical a description of its style and market. It was still a magazine about celebrities for readers outside that set, even if the focus of celebrity had shifted from the upper classes to a London arts/pop/fashion/media set. I think it'd be better to find a source that explicitly explains what that set was, as well as its semi-underground flavour. The Puttin' on the Ritz piece calls it a "classless mix of Warhol-style celebrity 'raps' and hip West London media gossip". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't cite all this: Fleet Street used to copy Ritz regarding style ..... under Tina Brown's editorship, Tatler was transformed/its appeal was broadened and the magazine also copied ideas from Ritz ... Frances Lynn,author 22:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, Thames made a documentary called "Ritz Take Six". It's in Thames TV Archives. All the columnists were in it. Frances Lynn,author 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Frances Lynn,author 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Format of references

The phrase "Retrieved [date]" is strictly for online publications that can change. Paper publications, being fixed in time, require only the date of publication - not the date they were read for the purpose of citation.

And would anybody know why the issn has been removed? It's as much a part of the standard bibliographical referencing for serials as the isbn is for books ... --Paularblaster (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! It was me .....and I didn't save the issn coding. I thought an inexperienced editor had made a mistake. It was me. I do have a lot to learn. Apologies for this. Frances Lynn,author 13:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, don't worry. The issn is still on this page, above (and somewhere in the article history as well). I just thought I might have made a mistake, so I double-checked and that is the issn in the British Library catalogue, so then I didn't know what to think ... It doesn't bring up anything on worldcat, though, so perhaps a direct link to the BL is needed? --Paularblaster (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

0144-7416 is definitely valid; the BL link is [1]. Is there any way to override the autolink in the infobox to use this instead of Worldcat? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean that the issn should be reinstated? Frances Lynn,author 20:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)