Talk:Der Morgen

message: "In February, 1990 Der Morgen became the first GDR newspaper which covered the Stalinist crimes in Germany." This passage needs some clarification. Is it just a repeat of the previous passage, and should be reworded, or is there some more specific info needed? --Soman 11:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zur Wendezeit 1989 war sie die erste Tageszeitung der DDR, die sich offiziell vom Führungsanspruch der SED lossagte und auch Beiträge und Leserbriefe zuließ, die sich kritisch mit dem bestehenden System in der DDR befassten. Im Februar 1990 beschäftigte sie sich als erstes DDR-Blatt mit den stalinistischen Verbrechen in Deutschland. Just translated from German.--Constanz - Talk 12:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It' only general notification, but indeed -- there were plenty of crimes to talk about. There had been no public discussion before that.--Constanz - Talk 15:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It was indeed in general -- just like it is correct to say that discussion on Stalinist crimes in Estonia was initated in 1988 in this and that newspaper (i can't rememeber the name). Are you disputing the presence of Stalinist crimes in whole or these crimes in East Germany?--Constanz - Talk 08:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm objecting the very term 'Stalinist crimes'. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has to remain NPOV. It has to be accessible for people who hold diametrically different political views. 'Crime' cannot be NPOV in anything other than a strict legal sense, and then only according to one or more specific legal systems. --Soman 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That communist and Stalinist crimes existed, is MAJORITY POV, and denying it is marginal POV, thus directly opposite to WP:NPOV. I could very well use even more general term 'communist crimes' in the article, but Stalinist seems to be more precise here: it's confined to 1940s and 50s. (For some specific crimes they might have revealed, see Georg Dertinger and read Zeit article . Your POV probably confirms he was an agent of damned imperialism!)--Constanz - Talk 07:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gradually, this is improving. My issue was essentially how the February 1990 issue differentiated itself from an earlier passage: "During the Wende, it was the first newspaper in the GDR to renounce the dominance of the SED and to tolerate contributions and letters by the readers, which treated critically the GDR system of the time." My question is was it at February 1990 that Der Morgen first criticized SED rule or was there something specific in that issue that needs to be mentioned in the article. --Soman 14:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An answer to your question: SED rule had already fell in Nov/Dec 1989, so Febr 1991 can only be beginning of historical review regarding past Stalinist crimes. I think some critical notes were already published from spring 1989 on, and in November, Manfred Gerlach was the first top (pro-Communist) politician to criticise Honecker's regime (his article was published in Der Morgen).--Constanz - Talk 13:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Its says Feb 1990 in the text you've copy-pasted. In short, the burden lies on you as an editor in this case. What was so significant with the Feb 1990 issue, that is has to be mentioned in the article text? Which are the 'Stalinist crimes'? I'm not saying that everything in the GDR was rosy and perfect, but a general term as 'Stalinist crimes' invites the possiblity of different interpretations. Are we talking about documentation on concrete events? I think you might be aware that the political set-up as such in the GDR (one-party state, etc.) would be considered as a 'stalinist crime' in itself by many readers. --Soman 10:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There was really plenty to talk about for Der Morgen, even the LDPD itself had suffered from some crimes, which can be regarded as Stalinist: .--Constanz - Talk 14:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled