Talk:List of the oldest newspapers

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

By continent, or by century?[edit]

Currently you've sorted the newspapers by continent, or area. I think for an article about dates, it should be done by century. Aiken ♫ 14:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is sorted by a combination of both which, I believe, gives the readers more insight than a strict listing by date. These lists tend to be by their nature very erratic, jumping back and forth between the continents, making the reader soon dizzy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change Holy Roman Empire to Dutch Republic[edit]

I would like to ask you to change the edit I made back for the following reasons: 1) In the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 the territories of the Low Countries were separated from the Holy German Empire (they still fell under the 'protection' of the HRE, but the emperor did not rule the territory anymore). In 1556 the Netherlands fell to Philip II of Spain, and from then on were part of the Spanish Empire, and referred to as “the Spanish Netherlands”. 2) The Dutch Republic declared its independence in 1581, so there is a period between 1581 and 1648 in which the independence was contested by Spain, but it is generally acknowledged that the Dutch Republic was an independent state de facto (just look at history books or articles in Wikipedia).

Thanks, Joost Joost 99 (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it was a de facto independence (although one heavily contested by the Spanish Habsburg), but the article is based on the de jure status according to which the Netherlands were indisputably part of the HREGR until they received international recognition in 1648. I believe the current wording is a good compromise which avoids highlighting one interpretation to the exclusion of the other. Since the case of Switzerland is very similar, but its listing as yet uncontested, I prefer to retain the current version until a consensus to the contrary emerges. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the question here is how to refer to the Netherlands in 1618, and the HREGN is not it by general consensus. I feel you are looking at this from the HRE perspective only. Concerning your say that they were indisputably part of the HRE, ok..., but please put that in perspective by reading Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 and, if you can read German, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundischer_Vertrag. The Burgundy Netherlands were taken from the jurisdiction of the HRE. From then on the Emperor did not rule the territories anymore (see Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor) and the Habsburg Netherlands were, all but, independent from the HRE. The tie you are referring to, is very loose and far inferior to the 'de jure' rule of Philip II of Spain. Furthermore, treating the whole HRE as being a country is incorrect (definitely for the Netherlands in 1618). Finally, if you are looking for consensus, just look at any article in Wikipedia concerning that period, and you will see what the consensus is. Kind regards, Joost 99 (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extra info: from Eighty Years War: The immediate result for the Republic was that it was now also officially recognized by other European states as a sovereign nation. In 1609 France and England received Dutch resident ambassadors, and soon after diplomatic relations were opened with the Republic of Venice, the Sultan of Morocco, and the Ottoman Porte. Diplomatic recognition also enabled the Republic to start building a network of consulates across Europe. But the Republic now also dared be unfriendly in its relations with other European powers, as when it forced James I to back down in a conflict over English unfinished cloth in 1614 with an economic boycot (Israel (1995), pp. 405-406) Joost 99 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Netherlands were part of the HREGR until their independence was internationally recognized in 1648 in the Peace of Westphalia. This is a simple table entry which should just give the reader some orientation. This is not the place here trying to run a lengthy historical argument about to how many degrees exactly the Netherlands could be called independent before. Go to History of the Netherlands for that; here, in a table, we are looking, for obvious reasons of simplicity, for the single most clear criteria and that is international recognition. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody on Wikipedia refers to the Netherlands in the beginning of 17th century as the Dutch Republic, for very simple and clear reasons, as stated above. There is no reason here to deviate from the rest of Wikipedia. Even more, it is impracticable and confusing for readers to lead them to the Holy Roman Empire. The newspaper was printed in Amsterdam, by printers living in the Dutch Republic. This newspaper has everything to do with the Dutch Republic of 1618, so that is logically what it should show and where it should link to. The change makes the information in this article more relevant and lets it correspond with the rest of Wikipedia, which is a very positive edit in my opinion. Articles in Wikipedia are writen for the readers. I hope you can open your eyes to that. Joost 99 (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted according to Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. It stays that way until the community has found a consensus. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have provided a reference that supports that the Dutch Republic declared indepence in 1581 (37 yrs before this newspaper was first printed). If you want to revert, please provide a reliable (mainstream academic) source that clearly and unambiguously states that in 1618 the Netherlands were still considered to be part of the Holy Roman Empire. Arnoutf (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS these recent edits do not fall in the WP:BRD as the original edit by Joost99 on May 2nd was a "bold". And Joost99 indeed discussed. We are now not in the Bold Revert Discuss cycle but in a normal discussed editting. Arnoutf (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is still the same question, and your premature revert leaves some doubt about your impartiality. Certainly, it did nothing to soften my attitude in a question which I originally viewed quite relaxed and with willingness for leeway. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I see your "relaxeness and willingness for leeway". You have not taken any of the relevant comments of Joost99 seriously. I would not classify your action relaxed, or giving leeway.
More to content. Both Joost99 and me state (supported by sources and historical events) that the Holy Roman Empire had ceased to be of any relevance in the Netherlands by the beginning of the 16th century; and that in the 16th century at least two official documents were drawn up distancing the Netherlands from whatever authority the HRE had.
You could even challenge whether the HRE had any meaning left inside Germany, and whether your "country" labels for the German newspapers should be changed. Support from this comes e.g. from this quote from the Holy Roman Empire article on Wikipedia "Although the Holy Roman Empire would nominally exist until 1806, it effectively ceased to mean anything after 1555."
In the face of these facts you will have to provide extremely strong evidence that in 1618 the Netherlands was still considered to be part of the HRE. However, instead of arguments and references (which both Joost99 and me have been giving) you suddenly challenge us as not being impartial. My only response to this can be: Show me the evidence (i.e. sources not your own synthesis of arguments for your point of view; and we can talk. Arnoutf (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here comes the leeway. :-) My proposals are these:

  • "Switzerland (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation)"
  • "Dutch Republic (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation)"

That way we stress the factual independence of these states, while not entirely disregarding the fact that they were not internationally recognized as such before 1648. We'll keep your references stating the first, and I'll add two to the later effect. I believe it's a fair compromise which both would save us a lot of time. Thanks for expanding the list btw. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your leeway, thank you very much for that. I am not an expert, but I do feel you are still misunderstanding European History for that period. I have updated Wikipedia's intro to the Peace of Westphalia which might help. As it stands:
  1. Objectively, the Spanish 'de jure' as well as 'de facto' rule of the Netherlands during that period was by far the superior to that of the Holy Roman Empire, which was effectively nil; see Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 or any history book. The primary 'independence' issue was, without any argument, with Spain.
  2. The Holy Roman Empire was not a country or state, but it was a realm (2nd meaning in article), and depending on time and place, a weak one, according to the article itself.
Purely personal I do not see a need for an ambiguous solution, as it is done nowhere else (but I am interested in your references). However, not being neutral within this discussion anymore, I will no longer participate. Everything has been said. Maybe a forth party knowledgeable on European History, can help on explaining this. Thanks for your input. Joost 99 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also not convinced, I even suspect that inhabitants of Germany would identify at that time themselves as e.g. Bavarians before Holy Roman Empirerers (or whatever its citizens should be called). Arnoutf (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay-sus Christ. And the page is supposed to be about the world's first newspapers. Morons. 203.82.87.81 (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which country?[edit]

  • GPM: "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (The Netherlands)"
  • Jost: "Dutch Republic (The Netherlands)"

There is a – sock counting – debate started by Joost 99 on whether the Courante uyt Italien, Duytslandt, &c. was published in the Holy Roman Empire or the Dutch Republic. I prefer the stress on the HREGN for two simple reasons:

  • One is historical context: First, the spread of the newspaper as such was very much a development which began in the HRE. Thus, the establishment of the Courante in Amsterdam should not be viewed as a foreign import from disconnected lands far away, but rather as a natural adoption of an idea which had propped up the years before in many cities of the HRE which had close economic and other ties with Amsterdam. To subsume the Courante under Dutch Republic would mean that the idea had somehow spread across borders and become really internaational. This, however, was in reality only the case when newspapers also began to be published up in other Western European countries such as Italy, France and England, which constituted a real abroad at the time.
  • The other is pragmatism: Peace of Westphalia says that "The independence of the Netherlands...was formally recognized". That's for me the defining criteria, the formal independence, because it is the only clear date. And for a list, with its necessity for brevity, I prefer out of pragmatism a clear date as defining criteria. To give room for the special status of the Dutch Republic as semi-independent entity I went with "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (The Netherlands)", which, I believe, is a good compromise. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undisputed fact: The newspaper was published from 1618 in Amsterdam
To assign that to the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation is problematic for several reasons:
  • The Holy Roman Empire had (de facto) ceased to be a (centralised) state from the Death of Frederick in 1250.
  • The Netherlands had been under the control of the Duke of Burgundy from 1384 removing it from whatever claim the HRE may have had over the lands (note that the HRE at that time was not much more than a collection of semi-independent fiefdoms)
  • The Seventeen Provinces became a semi independent entity in the Burgundian/Habsburg empire in 1482. Removing it even more from any German control; which was formalised in the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 removing it de jure from any control or authority from the Empire.
  • By the time the original HRE empire was renamed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation in 1512 there HRE had de facto no control whatsoever over the Netherlands
  • The Dutch revolt started in 1567 and led to the establishment of the Republic of the Netherlands in 1581 (by which time Amsterdam was part of this). The Netherlands officially abolished the claims of the Habsbrugs to their rule in the Act of Abjuration. The Netherlands had become de facto independent.
  • The 17th century saw efforts to reestablish a Germany focussed Holy Roman Empire, but no claims were ever made to include the Netherlands
  • In 1648 the "official" recognition of the Dutch republic was fact; but before that there was a long period in which the HRE had no influence over the Netherlands.
Coming back to your comments:
As to your 2 claims:
"It shows that the HRE invented newspapers." This seems an argument made to support the conclusion you want to reach. It is not strange that a neighbour is first to adopt an idea. Besides that, to make the HRE claim, Italy (in name also part of the HRE) should not be counted as "abroad". Additionally, the first English newspaper was established in 1620 only 2 yrs later. They probably took the idea from the Dutch, not the Germans.
"pragmatism" Well yes, that sounds nice but that just denies historical reality. The Netherlands had been outside the central dealings of the HRE from about 1300; and the Republic had been de facto and de jure (local law) independent from 1581. The Netherlands have never ever been part of any "German nation" (as the Dutch nation preceded any form of German nation, which arguably only emerged in the 19th century.) Any claim suggesting the Netherlands being German will require incredibly strong mainstream references.Arnoutf (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the application of the term "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" suggests in any way to the reader who is familiar with the multi-ethnic character of the HREGN, to use anachronistically a modern term, the Dutch Republic was German or "under German control". One can easily see that your lengthy discussion trying to disprove any connection between the German Oberlande (upper lands) and the Dutch (=Deutsch) Niederlande (= Netherlands = lower lands) above stems from your subjective sentiments which become apparent in the last two sentences - same with Joost. Therefore, I would like to hear opinions of other editors who come with less national baggage from school.
It is clear that as long as the Dutch war of independence was fought with Habsburg Spain which enjoyed repeated successes on the battle field and occupied a large chunk of the later Netherlands outside of the core province of Holland (not to mention the whole of what became later Belgium), there was no international recognition of the sovereignty of the Netherlands. That's what counts most in my list, as I see it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Habsbrug Spain was not part of HRE, so the war of succession the Dutch fought had nothing to do with the HRE.
There are 3 official documents. 1) The pragmatic sanction of 1547 2) The Act of Abjuration of 1581 3) The treaty of Munster of 1648. Taking the last is rather arbitrary and subjective as shown by your use of the phrase "in my list" (i.e. not something like "according to most historians) and sounds like original research; you will have to provide sources that list the Netherlands under the HRE after 1547. Arnoutf (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting Amsterdam in 1618 under the HRE sounds really weird to me as a German. Hans Adler 20:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not again[edit]

This edit has been undone. Please stop adding incorrect info. See: this book or this University of Amsterdam Essay which states: "Van het Verdrag van Augsburg wordt over het algemeen gezegd dat het de definitieve losmaking van de Nederlanden uit het Rijk betekende" (Translation: Of the treaty (of Augsburg of 26 June 1548) it is generally said it meant the definitive separation of the Netherlands from the Holy Roman Empire). Joost 99 (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition[edit]

The factual independence of Switzerland and the self-declared independence of the Dutch Republic was not internationally recognized before the Westphalian treaty in 1648. Therefore, these two states still belonged formally to the HREGN. In the case of the Netherlands, moreover, the declaration was heavily militarily contested: large chunks of its area were occupied by Spanish troops and effective control of the Dutch rebels over their territory changed with the fortunes of war.

Considerung the complex political, military and legal situation this version of mine is actually a good compromise. Therefore, I am not sure why you consistently want to interpret history only from the narrow standpoint of the Dutch Protestant rebels. Instead of reinterpreting the Dutch struggle of independence with the benefit of hindsight and from the perspective of the ultimate victors, we are obliged here to give an objective account of history how it evolved and that means that in 1618 the Dutch Republic wasn't still no more than a semi-independent state. International recognition by the bulk of European nations only came in 1648 and after another lengthy round of Spanish-Dutch hostilities. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, and I have pointed this out multiple times, you talk of occupation by Spanish troops and Spanish-Dutch hostilities, and then place the Republic under the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation! The link you give mentions independence was accepted by Spain in 1648, but says nothing concering the Holy Roman Empire... How can I take that seriously?
  • Secondly, multiple sources have been given that show the tie with the Holy Roman Empire was of no importance after 1549, a fact published in reliable books, articles etc. You have given no source proving the opposite. You call me narrow minded, but you ignore the sources.
  • Third: the criteria for the naming or placing of a country within Wikipedia is not yours to decide, as User:Arnoutf stated, that is original research without any backing.
  • Finally, three users have said the Dutch Republic should not be put under the HRE in 1618. You call for consensus, and when consensus doesn't go your way, you ignore it.
The Swiss Republic is a separate issue, although it wouldn't surprise me if only the de facto state is the preferred use for that period.
Joost 99 (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You miss central facts vital for understanding the political situation. The Habsburgs were both kings of Spain and emperors of the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. Therefore, the Spanish-Dutch conflict was just as much about the Netherlands remaining under Spanish rule as remaining in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. These two political aspects are inseparably interwoven, the Spanish were the imperial troops then and for most of the conflict they held sizable parts of the Netherlands, so even the effective reign of the Dutch Protestant rebels was limited, not to mentioned that they weren't legally recognized as state by the European diplomatic theatre for the duration of their war with Habsburg. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Dutch Republic vs. Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation[edit]

Hi, I was looking for some help concerning a rekindled dispute on List of newspapers by establishment date. A discussion about how to refer to the Dutch Republic in 1618 started in May 2010. My view was and is simply Dutch Republic, User:Gun Powder Ma's view was Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. This was resolved in July 2010 when a third party came and supported my arguments. Later a forth (non-dutch) user left a notice supporting my view. Now 6 months later (s)he put in a (ealier rejected) compromise (although I acknowledge a compromise, the user is mixing up rulers, ignoring important facts and drawing own conclusions that go against academic publications, books and use in Wikipedia). The talk starts here, the rekindeld here. Any help welcome, Thanks, Joost 99 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are unfamiliar with the dispute, my edit disputed by Joost 99 is this. The question is to what extent the Netherlands in 1618 should be regarded an an independent political unity. Logically, there are exactly four options to choose from for "Country/region":
  1. Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation
  2. Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Dutch Republic)
  3. Dutch Republic (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation)
  4. Dutch Republic
I am favoring, if only for the sake of peace and harmony, the compromise no. 3 which, as you can see, even tilts towards the standpoint of the Dutch Protestant rebels, but Joost 99 does not accept anything less than the extreme position no. 4. This, however, is untenable for reasons I gave here.
Below a few maps which show that the Netherlands were generally recognized as part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation until their independence in 1648. I could add more and, particularly, I could add many more references stating that the state of the Dutch rebels was not internationally recognized before the Eighty Years' War was settled in 1648:
Maps
In sum, it is clear that this is easily enough material to warrant at least an inclusion of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation in brackets, if the historical situation in the 1st half of the 17th century is to be portrayed accurately. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep proving something that isn't being challenged!! I have never denied, and nobody has, the "formal" inclusion in the Empire.
I (and Arnoutf) have challenged, with numerous sources (here is another one), the importance and have proved numerous times the fact it officially had no jurisdiction what so ever after 1548. You have yet to give one source claiming the importance of the Holy Roman Empire in 1618 for the Dutch Republic. Not one source. I am only so stuborn because including the HRE is giving readers a wrong impression of the "de jure" (Spanish Empire rule) situation in 1618.
Joost 99 (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: I brought in a new compromise which shows the official status of the parties involved. Please do not change this order unless you have sources claiming otherwise and that overthrow the multiple academis sources given supporting this view. Joost 99 (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record this is:
1. Dutch Republic (Spanish Empire) with a footnote to the Holy Roman Emprie.
Your above wording: "Logically there are excactly 4 options" with only the Republic and the Holy Roman Empire shows you still do not understand the subject matter. You keep ignoring the "de jure" Spanish rule of the Netherlands. Joost 99 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Let's take a look at your argument. You concede the point that the Netherlands were still formally included in the empire. And you place great emphasis on the Spanish Habsburg having de jure control over the Netherlands (although in fact, they were much more than just legal rulers, controlling effectively large stretches of the country by their Army of Flanders). Now, given that the Spanish Habsburg never challenged the authority of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (whose emperor was a Habsburg, too), but rather to the contrary acted within its interests and jurisdiction, the Spanish perspective you call upon, also calls for an inclusion of the HREGN. In other words: the Netherlands were part of the HREGN for the HREGN and they were part of the HREGN for the Spanish. Only the Dutch Protestant rebels thought of themselves independent. As for direct evidence, I have linked above enough maps showing that the Netherlands were still regarded as part of the HREGN, why do you ignore that? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Powder Ma - Please do not consider the 17 century situation as that of nation states. Nation states, with all the jure rules as we know it is an invention of the 19th century. Reinterpreting 17th century situations as such makes no sense. But if you would like to do so; than we can go way way way back to the (original) Roman Empire. As far as I know there has never ever been an official de jure disbanding of this empire (show me the original sources if you disagree) and following that argument most of Europe is still part of that state. Arnoutf (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is thus: how do historians and Wikipedia itself refer to Amsterdam in 1618? Answer: as the Dutch Republic, dispite all it's shortcomings. They do not name a country a certain way just because it is “on a Map” or “in a Realm”, so stop proving the obvious. Joost 99 (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFC Comment: I'd see this as a question of finding out, what term most reliable sources use now, when referring to the entity? If it's now predominantly called by historians the Dutch Republic, then IMO that's the choice. If it's in dispute which term is used predominantly in sources, then the matter can be settled by counting them. In any case, a wikilink to the "republic" or "empire" (whichever it is) would be excellent! --Dailycare (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. As historians treat it as the Dutch Republic (or Holland, but at least as a separate entity), I will change it to that. For a non European view you could dive into the history of the Pilgrim Fathers or New York City and you will find enough references to the Dutch, but no mention of the Holy Roman Empire. Joost 99 (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFC Comment The full form "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" is almost never used in history books printed in English. In addition, at the date under question most people consider the HRE to be an almost empty title and HRE to be a loose grouping of independent states. Using HRE in this form would be similar to referring to current events in Zimbabwe as happening in the British Commonwealth of Nations. It's true in some form but obscuring reality. We should use Dutch Republic or something similar. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope that will finally settle this matter. Joost 99 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers to be added to the lists[edit]

"Merkuriusz Polski" also should be in the table of Europe's oldest newspapers.[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkuriusz_Polski_Ordynaryjny — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.202.52 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Newspapers[edit]

Two Scottish newspapers, the Press and Journal (1747) and the Herald (1783) are missing from the list. Both are still published daily. Wmck (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Inquirer[edit]

According to Philadelphia Inquirer, the newspaper was founded in 1829, which is within the time range of the table for the Americas. DWorley (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Benjamin Franklin lists several Philadelphia newspapers which he was involved with; none are included here. Miros1 (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Unterrified Democrat[edit]

Unterrified Democrat in Linn, MO has been serving Osage County since 1866. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SansMoins (talk • contribs) 17:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Advertiser[edit]

What about the Morning Advertiser? It claims, on its Wiki page, to have first been published in 1794 making it the "UK's oldest continuously produced paper" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Advertiser#cite_note-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.140.197 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.rjionline.org/stories/fearless-focus-on-local-news-is-unterrified-democrats-defense-against-futur

n.s.?[edit]

What does the "n.s." stand for which is listed in place of the titles of the 3 German newspapers listed as the third to fifth oldest in Europe? --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Originally the article had question marks for each of those papers ("?"). Then someone replaced the questions marks with "Unnamed paper", and then without providing an explanation for what it meant, another editor changed that to "n.s.". I looked at the original source ([1]), and it turns out that the source doesn't say that the papers had no name. Instead, it just doesn't give the names, and makes no claim as to whether or not the paper have names, so "Unnamed paper" is not appropriate. However, something like "Unknown name" in my opinion would also be inappropriate because it implies that no one today knows the names of the papers. It's just that they are not given in that source, so I think that unfortunately the best way to deal with this is to write "Name not given in source" in the name area. Trinitresque (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Times Herald[edit]

The Times Herald published in Norristown, Pennsylvania USA was founded in 1799. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.59.254 (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for this information? If so, you can add it to the list. Trinitresque (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2015[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: not moved. Number 57 16:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of the oldest newspapers → Lists of early newspapers by region – or simply Lists of early newspapers The current title is grammatically incomplete and can be considered to ask "... the oldest newspapers of what? Also as per WP:precise - this is not an article about the survival of ageing paper but about the history of publication. The second sentence describes the earliest newspaper. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) GregKaye 13:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

added "of" to each title. GregKaye 16:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only as there is a list for each region. GregKaye 16:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Powder Ma That is very true. Would you consider either of the titles List of oldest newspapers or List of the oldest newspapers in the world as per examples here. GregKaye 09:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what is the purpose of this list? It's not a list of the oldest papers (or early papers), since it contains many much much newer papers that shouldn't appear on such a list due to the separation of multiple centuries in between. It isn't a list of oldest by region, since several locations include multiple entries for that location, when there should be only one if it is to list the oldest for a region. There certainly should be lists for: list of earliest newspapers for a list of the world's earliest papers regardless of region (such as the 100 earliest known), a list of oldest newspapers still in operation (for say a 100 oldest still publishing), a list of earliest newspapers by region listing only one paper per location (such as a city). -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2015 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of the oldest newspapers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of the oldest newspapers. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of the oldest newspapers. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of the oldest newspapers[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of the oldest newspapers's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Naqvi2007":

  • From Udant Martand: Hena Naqvi (2007). Journalism And Mass Communication. Upkar Prakashan. pp. 42–. ISBN 978-81-7482-108-9.
  • From The Mail (newspaper): Hena Naqvi (1 January 2007). Journalism and Mass Communication. Upkar Prakashan. pp. 58–. ISBN 978-81-7482-108-9. Retrieved 27 June 2016.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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) 02:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest newspaper in the Americas.[edit]

The picture shows the New England Courant and labels it as the oldest. The table shows The Boston News-letter as older. Only one of these can be true. Either the picture caption is wrong or the Boston News-letter doesn't belong on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Hate Banner adds (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Daily Newspaper[edit]

Einkommende Zeitungen(1650) and Daily Courant(1702) are both listed as the world's oldest daily newspaper.

Suggested edit: Daily Courant - world's oldest daily English language daily newspaper, or just remove the claim for it being the oldest. 80.65.246.253 (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest daily newspaper[edit]

I've just seen a recent Korean claim, with early reports dating to around 2017, that this newspaper Mingan jobo is the earliest known daily newspaper. It was printed with Korean movable type.

Articles in English: [2][3] [4]

Articles in Korean: [5] [6] [7]

We now have a confirmed copy of the paper from 1577, but the earliest attestation to it is in Korean royal records that mentions a copy from March 14, 1508. However, in 1515 the King said that the newspaper had existed "since ancient times", so it could be even older. It was presumably meant for the literati who were interested in court politics, as that's what it discussed. It also contained stuff about the weather, etc.

I may make an article about it later, but let me know if this is likely to ruffle any feathers. toobigtokale (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a claim for the moment. Unless we get some significant coverage on the matter we shouldn't take part on this. An article on the paper would be most welcome though. Bedivere (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the English sources, this Korean newspaper (or rather: government bulletin) seems to be similar to the Chinese Kaiyuan Za Bao from the 8th century (at least its content). Government bulletins are not newspapers, however, as e.g., stated in Peking Gazette. As Bedivere said, unless we get some significant and credible coverage (like from the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers), we shouldn't be rewriting the history books. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok makes sense. I'll get around to creating an article about it. toobigtokale (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_the_oldest_newspapers&oldid=1208457763"