Talk:Der Stürmer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright?

Two of the images show front pages, but one is marked as {{Magazinecover}} while the other says {{PD}} with the comment "(c) Der Sturmer, 1943. Currently a public domain, copyright no longer valid." If the '43 issue is now in the public domain, shouldn't that go for the '34 issue, too? --Palnatoke 10:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any copyright controversy surrounding these images. If any controversy arises surrounding whether copyrights to images published by a man executed for crimes against humanity are held by the estate of the descendent, defer to the fair use policy cited as basis for reproduction of similar anti-Muslim images in Wikipedia. [1] These images' role in a major war elevates the merits of an assertion that they are fairly used in the context of reporting about historic events of a public nature. Alternately, should controversy arise, it is worth investigating whether these images entered the public domain via their role as evidence at the Nuremberg trials.

In one case, one of three Der Stürmer caricatures I uploaded is not tagged {{PD}} but such reference is included in the upload comments. This is simply a product of my failure to locate the pulldown menu of licensing options on the first upload. The comments also note that the most widely recognized purveyor of these images claims no copyright interest.

As to rearrangement of the images on the page, I included a gallery of caricatures as the second image and moved the page scans down because the Der Stürmer was most infamous for its caricatures, because thumbnailed pages in German language are of marginal informational value to English speaking readers compared to the obvious nature of the caricatures, and because 70 years later caricatures such as these are again the topic of controversy surrounding perceptions of Middle Eastern peoples. PaxTerra 21:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Infertile

Leave the caption and let the readers draw their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.222.242 (talk) 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

translation issues

The translation of (Stürmer) is incorect. Stürmer comes from the Word Sturm what means storm. The attacker would be in German der Angreifer. So it doesn't exist a good translation for this word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.210.104 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

not quite right: "sturm" in the sense of "der Stürmer" translates to 'assault'. 'the attacker' is probably closest to the orgiginal meaning. 84.184.220.145 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pornography?

The lead claims Der Stürmer published pornography, but doesn't expand on this. It seems odd that it would be tolerated in a major Nazi newspaper. What kind of porn are we talking about here?

Peter ^Isotalo 13:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

By today's standards, it wouldn't make the cut as pornographic, perhaps, but it was rather vivid for the time. Streicher was mockingly refered to by Germans during the period as the Reichspornograph, the Reich Pornographer, and the Stürmer did contain a lot of rather graphic sexual content. There were quite a few vivid images. An example is here: [2] Many parents refused to allow it in their homes for just that reason. Bytwerk 14:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Describing pictures of naked women as "pornography" is probably a tad misleading for modern readers. Most people are likely to associate it with pictures that have the sole purpose of arousing sexual lust, and this was clearly not the case. How about "obscenity", "sexually provocative/graphic material" or something like it? Adding a statement that people back in those days called Streicher Reichspornograph would be very informative, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No reason I can see not to make that change. Bytwerk 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Merger with Content of Der Stürmer

I've tagged a new article Content of Der Stürmer to be merged into this article. Most of the new article just repeats what is in the Der Stürmer, but there may be some stuff worth moving over. Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with the subject, so I'm wondering if someone can give me a hand with the merge. The other article's author keeps removing the merge tag, so I wouldn't mind doing it sooner rather than later to avoid having to constantly restore the tag. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Support. I can see no reason for a separate article on the content. --Boson (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree Neither article is long enough to justify the existence of two articles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I did the merger, only 10 months later! Paul B (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)