Talk:Politiken

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Denmark Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

independent mouthpiece

That phrase sound strange to me.--Per Abrahamsen 15:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets examine how Churchill could be more dangerous towards Denmark in April or May of 1940. And maybe Politiken wanted the Danes to love the German occupation force. Here is more: the most senior businessman within Denmarks defence industries thought he would contact a journalist of Politiken. That journalist was requested(....demanded....ordered...so on) to tell London that he was fed up with sabotage actions. Again the Politiken was seen as a mouthpiece of the Germans. I do not see how this sentence can exist on this page. --82.134.28.194 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add a link to Jyllandsposten

You should add a link to the webpage of Jyllandsposten http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten

Eh, why?--Per Abrahamsen 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Differing information found online

"Politiken, with a circulation of 190,000, is published by Det Faelles Udgiver Selskab A/S, the newly formed media group created by the merger of Denmark's two leading publishing houses, Politiken and Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten."

The information in the Wikipedia entry about the name of the publisher is from the official home page of the paper.--Per Abrahamsen 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted

I deleted this addition "The 28. of april 1940 there was an editorial in Politiken , where Winston Churchill was called »A dangerous man«. This was a couple of weeks after the nazistic occupation of Denmark. The editorial was written after a conversation in the editor in chiefs office with chairman of the board Erik Scavenius, foreignaffairs editor Einard Schou wrote the editorial.".

It needs some context, otherwise it just leaves the reader guessing. There have been editorials every day, why quote from this one? Presumably to demonstrate some point. Lets be explicit about what the point is. --Per Abrahamsen 13:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is as important as it is to write about Jyllands-Postens history in the thirties

The JP article provides context, which is what is missing with your quote. The quote might fit well in to a more elaborate history section, but it doesn't work in isolation. --Per Abrahamsen 17:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does work in isolation, it shows that Politiken wasnt in favor of one the 20. centurys most important political leaders, at a most crucial time of european history. Besides that it shows that freedom of the press wasnt taken seriously at Politiken since Erik Scavenius was allowed to coedit the paper during the war.

Then add a section saying that, instead of letting the reader guess.--Per Abrahamsen 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Per Abrahamsen

I have now added that Erik Scavenius was danish foreign minister. I will sugest that instead of deleting unpleasent historical facts, you might write in the article why you feel these facts are irrelevant.

yours sincerely

F. R.

Dear Fire

Could you please tell me why the historical facts that i have contributed with are irrelevant.

Thank you very much

F. R.

That's not how it works. You should demonstrate, in the article, the relevance. Otherwise, there are 10000's of other editorials that could be included. Without context, the "fact" is meaningless. From what you have said here, it seems like the only relevance is some kind of petty revenge for the mentioning of the pro-fascist attitude of Jyllands-Posten before the war. Your two other statements are in conflict, if Politiken really ment what they said, it does not demonstrate lack of respect for freedom of press. If they did not ment it, it demostrates that there wasn't freedom-of-press during the German occupation. The first would probably be a surpise, given the "cultural radicals" (usually associcated with Politiken) was the most open-mouthed critics of Nazi-Germany before the war. The second will hardly be surprising to anyone. Most people will probably guess the second, but as long as it is a guess on the part of the reader, it is bit really contributing anything but confusion. --Per Abrahamsen 09:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political allegiance

I disagree strongly with the change from Social liberal to Independent, Originally Social liberal in the Political allegiance field on the right. While it is true that the newspaper does not receive money from the social liberal party, I do not think any readers of the (awful) newspaper has any doubts whatsoever that it is still very much social liberal (if not to say very red). --Law Lord (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"making this a rare case of a newspaper starting a party rather than a party starting a newspaper." It's clear why there is a citation needed. The newspaper didn't start the party, but supported a wing of the Venstre Reform Party that later split from Venstre Reform Party and created the Social Liberal Party. During the 19th hundred there where many parties representing Farmers/Liberals it was first with at the Odense meeting that the line between the two old Liberal parties of Denmark was drawn.94.145.236.194 (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]