Talk:Die Rote Fahne

History of the "Die Rote Fahne"

On the history of the "Die Rote Fahne" (The Red Banner) in german language:
http://RoteFahne.eu/geschichte/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.255.12.238 (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Steins "Die Rote Fahne" Infobox

This infobox is unusable for representing "Die Rote Fahne" for the lemma approaches the original 1918 CPG Die Rote Fahne. Steins' one (the one in the infobox) has been founded in 1992 and is not the only one today to represent the original one's heritage. There are MLPG's Rote Fahne and 1990 founded CPG's Die Rote Fahne. Both either claim to fulfill the original one's heritage. --Partisan1917 21:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Partisan1917 is wrong. Only the Die Rote Fahne ISSN 1862-0450 has the legal title, according to German law.

The other papers with similar titles do not claim the legal title, they only refer to a political tradition. 217.250.207.74 (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

1. The question is not, does or does not the Steins Die Rote Fahne bear the legal title. The lemma approaches the original 1918 Die Rote Fahne, and Steins' one first came in 1992.
2. Apart from this, other groups (including undisclosed ones) started publishing their Rote Fahnes - referring to the 1914 DRF - at least since the late 1960s, many of them stopped publishing later, others survived. As far as I know the only difference is that those papers didn't have the legal succession of the original one, which - for being communist - shouldn't be/have been a criterion to them for reagrding as the legitimate successor of the 1914 paper. Each considered to be the legitimate successor for by self-awareness following an authentic communist political line (acquiring the legal title seems to be nothing but an attempt of substantiating Steins' claim of succession: "Look, even the ruling law acknowledges my claim!"). Beyond that I don't think it's Wikipedia's business to decide which nowadays' Rote Fahne is the legitimate successor of the 1914 one.

Imo it could be useful to add a section about later papers bearing the name Rote Fahne. --Partisan1917 09:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Partisan1917´s politically motivated disinformation does not contribute to the quality of the article. The legal title according to german law is crucial. 93.228.180.53 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Politically motivated is the IP's behaviour. Someone recently tried the same in the German language article and failed with good reason. --Partisan1917 19:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The german article and the discussion were manipulated by paid disinformation. 79.255.57.198 (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Origins of the newspaper?

I'm a little intrigued that it's difficult to find reliable sources that consistently describe how and when the paper was actually founded, and by whom. Various sources give the date of Rosa Luxemburg's release from prison as November 8 or 9, 1918, and saying that she arrived in Berlin on November 9 or 10. That makes the founding date of November 10 a little dubious. Alternatively, it seems possible that the paper was founded by the Spartakusbund around that date and Luxemburg was installed as editor soon afterward, in which case she would not technically have been one of the founders.

The sources I have found are iffy on these details. If someone can find more precise and reliable details on the founding of the newspaper, it looks like a nice little research task -- seems like it will likely require delving into offline sources, possibly in German. —Tim Pierce (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Major expansion

I have greatly expanded the English entry for this newspaper today.

NOTE: I demoted slightly the Inbox references to Stephan Stein's one of two current versions of the newspaper as "the" current version -- and also cited it copiously throughout the expanded article.

Also, please note that I consulted original sources (two current versions and others) rather than use the German entry.

Aboudaqn (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)