Talk:Neues Deutschland

Why does the title of the newspaper change in this article?
The title of the paper is Neues Deutschland and should remain so throughout the article. In an English language piece German grammar rules simply do not apply, hence references to "the Neue Deutschland" are simply wrong and not in line with accepted usage in English language publications. Vauxhall1964 (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustration
There have been repeated attempts to remove an illustration from this article. The front page on Stalin's death is perhaps the most historically significant and well-known front page the paper ever printed, and suitably illustrates the newspaper's history.

This newspaper derives almost all its historical significance from its history as the official newspaper of the communist regime in East Germany with a circulation of a million. The insignificant paper of the far-left fringe that calls itself Neues Deutschland today, with a steadily declining circulation of just above 2% of the historical paper (mostly East German former communist functionaries, now retirees in their 70s/80s, who were fired from their jobs at Stasi etc. in 1990) is of far less historical importance, and hence importance to this article, than the former. I would say this article ought to be 98% about the East German official newspaper. If the current small newspaper doesn't want to be associated with that newspaper, they could stop claiming its identity/name/history. If some neo-Nazis started publishing Der Stürmer today, we wouldn't rewrite our article on Der Stürmer to primarily focus on an insignificant modern newspaper instead of the historically significant paper. --Tataral (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The illustration is now present and in the correct location. It was removed due to misrepresenting the newspapers current political outlook. Images should be as up to date and representative of current outlook as much as possible. However it is now in a relevant section. Your choice of wording ("insignificant paper of the far-left fringe") appears to show a political bias, articles should be as neutral and to the point as possible. How significant or how large/small a paper is, is a subjective matter and these phrases should largely be avoided. I could understand your perspective more if the paper had only changed from its pro-Stalinist outlook in the last few years, but this is not the case. It hasn't espoused this outlook for over 25 years now. I don't believe this is any grounds for removal of content regarding the newspapers modern outlook. If you believe there is more to say on the papers history then providing it comes from reliable sources I see no reason why it shouldn't be expanded but this in no means to remove content regarding its modern history. Helper201 (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The unhelpful editor Helper201 presents a bizarre argument for omitting Stalinism as a former ideological position, claiming "While they may heavily overlap, Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism are not the same. Generally East Germany was regarded as its own country, not part of the USSR"


 * Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism not being the same is precisely the point. Stalinism is a specific branch of communism (as an ideology and movement). This newspaper was founded as a specifically Stalinist newspaper that hero worshipped Stalin and every Stalinist policy in East Germany and the Soviet Union. Marxism-Leninism is such a broad, vague term that it is utterly meaningless, especially when discussing this paper in the 1940s and 1950s. It's both misleading and unfair to highlight Marx (who died in the 19th century) and Lenin (who died decades earlier) when discussing what Stalin was doing in the 1940s and 1950s. The idea that people outside the Soviet Union can't be Stalinists is bizarre and has no basis in fact. Stalinists have been found all over the world. East Germany's regime was officially Stalinist at least until the Soviet Union's own De-Stalinization. The German Communist Party (the party that became the East German Communist Party in East Germany and that was banned in West Germany) had been Stalinist since the 1920s, well before the country was occupied by the Soviet Union. --Tataral (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * My point was that it should have either ML or Stalinism as its ideology, not both, that was all. ML is by no means meaningless. When a political figure died has no bearings on whether someone can follow their ideologies or not, there are plenty of Marxists, Leninist's, Marxist-Leninist's, Stalinist's etc in both the 20th and 21st century, at the time of them being alive and decades after they died. I never said that someone outside the USSR couldn't be Stalinist, it was just my view that that ML is a more accurate description of the East German government than Stalinism. Helper201 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As seen on the page East Germany it clearly staes in the info box on the right side of the page - 'Federal Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic (1949-1952), Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist republic (1952-Nov. 1989)'. Helper201 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem of including both. The newspaper was founded as an explicitly Stalinist newspaper. In later years it abandoned its Stalinist position, becoming "merely" Marxist-Leninist. If we use Marxist-Leninist to cover its entire history we imply that there is no difference between Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism. --Tataral (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)