Talk:East Germany/Archive 4

Title of this article
The title "East Germany" is ambiguous and not the correct title (see e.g. the German or French Wikipediae). The DDR's title was just that - despite the ironies. So the wiki title should be DDR or its English translation.
 * Aa42john (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion concerning the title was moved to the archive. Let me summarize it, as I remember it. (Don't take this as my agreement to these arguments.) Feel free to look it up:


 * "East Germany" is the commonly used name in the English speaking world, and Wikipedia guidelines prefer these names to official ones.
 * "East Germany" is not so ambiguous in English, as it may be in German or French, because the territories belonging to the German Reich prior to World War 1 / 2 are called Former eastern territories of Germany. Another Term, which is indeed ambiguous, is Eastern Germany.
 * Your argument would consequently result in moving the entries to "Germany" and "Germany" to "Bundesrepublik Deutschland", "Federal Republic of Germany" or "FRG" (merging the two articles). Do you want that? Toscho (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Despite the common use, "East Germany" is slang and not the proper term. The proper term is "German Democratic Republic", this is not ambiguous at all, since it differs from the "Federal Republic of Germany". If you fear, that people won't find the article, then you can let the search term "East Germany" direct to this article. As for the merging argument, are you saying you don't want to remove mistakes from Wikipaedia because it would be too much work? I have a simple solution i already posted on the talk page for "West Germany", call the article "Federal Republic of Germany 1949-1990" and no merger is needed. Although merging those articles would be even better, but since i don't want to do all that work i will not enforce that idea, but i support it. However, it is the sovereign right of a country to name herself, and the official name here is "German Democratic Republic", no matter what other term people use colloquially, this right to choose the own name should be respected even if a country doesn't exist anymore, even more so in a encyclopedia with minimum of an intellectual standard. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * slang? nonsense. "East Germany" is the term most used by scholars, editors and reference books. For example some book titles: East Germany: Continuity and Change (2000; Uprising in East Germany, 1953 (2001); East Germany: transition with unification (2000); Politics and popular opinion in East Germany, 1945-68 (2000); Exit-voice dynamics and the collapse of East Germany (2006); Science fiction literature in East Germany (2006); Behind the Berlin Wall: East Germany and the frontiers of power (2010); Protestants in Communist East Germany (2010) . etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Will you take back your argument, when i present a list where "experts" use the proper name? Or will we now decide the content of other articles by the number of google hits and not by facts? I don't want to sound polemic, but saying it is the correct title because of some book names is not a valid argument. The books are probably named like this because there is limited space on a book title, and the lenght of the title has to be accordingly, and "East Germany" is simply shorter. It is shorter, but still not correct. This is not "nonsense" and i have to ask you to aviod this kind of phrasing, thank you. Again: The name of a country is not up to personal taste. Not to yours, not to mine. It is choosen by the country, and in this case the country has the official name "German Democratic Republic". I know there is a lot to critizise espicially about the 'democratic' part, but there is room in the article for all that. Judging by your name i guess you are German (like me), so i would ask you to take a look at the German article, does it say "Ostdeutschland"? No, because that is not the name of the country. And just because this is an English article, and fewer people will be offended by the wrong title, doesn't make it right. It is okay to use the term "East Germany" for simplicity reasons in everyday language, but not in an encyclopaedia. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * we go with Wiki policy (most common name) and with the RS and experts not with personal opinions of one editor-- and by the way, "the sovereign right of a country to name herself" is pretty far fetched--all the decisions were made in Moscow and so East Germany had no "sovereign" rights versus the USSR. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, probably the government was a USSR puppet, all of that belongs in the article. Still, the official choosen name was GDR, not East Germany, the latter is never used in any official document, GDR is used in all of them. So please don't make it look like this is my single opinion and therefore doesn't count, i don't say your opinion doesn't count, and please refrain from polemic and derogatory phrasing (i am asking you now for the second time), thank you. To your main argument, you say we have to use the most common name. Still, this is "DDR", this is even in every day language more commonly used than Ostdeutschland, an it translates into "German Democratic Republic" or GDR. And i am pretty sure, how people call themselves is more vital than how foreign media does. I don't put derogatory terms used in colloquial language in WP articles about other countries. This is not politically correct and not a neutral tone. However you put it, if you try to invoke WP policy, if you are trying to make it look like you represent all of WP ("we go with") and what i state is just one single person that has no say (which is absurd since this topic is brought up in other acrticles and by other users as well), or if you call my arguments far fetched, it comes down to GDR beeing the correct title, if not in colloquial language, then at least in an encyclopaedia. Finally, please answer my this question: what would be the harm with renaming the title? The search for "East Germany" can still direct to this page, and a look at the first sentence or the map cleares up any possible confusion. This would most likely help improve education about the topic, since it cleares up that "East Germany" is not the official term, and isn't that closer to the purpuse of WP? So why the objection about this? Will anyone be offended by "German Democratic Republic" for some reason? Is there something else wrong with it? This is not a rhetorical question, i seriously see no good reason for your objection, other than to object, and since i don't want to make insinuations i would like to hear from you what your motivation is. Because why do we need to evaluate the pros for a title, when one possible title has no significant contras. And i think it is unlikely, that with the name "German Democrtic Republic" - and the search term "East Germany" directing to this page combined with the clearification offered by the first passage of the article or the map - a topic like 'why is the title not East Germany' will pop up. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Jonathan, and offer up Côte d'Ivoire as evidence - our article is named as the country's official name, even though the article itself concedes that the most used name in English is "Ivory Coast". Jeff Song (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the policy is that the name most frequently used in sources decides. Frankly I don't know what that is, but I suspect it might be the current one. Renaming to "German Democratic Republic" with a redirect from the current name wouldn't be much of a problem, unless others consider it to be much less recognizable than the present name. --Dailycare (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage archive
Archived the talkpage, as much was old and much repetitive (hence archiving some by topic). If anyone thinks something should not have been archived, then if possible please start the topic anew, summarising previous discussion; or if necessary, move the discussion back here. Rd232 talk 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some polish propaganda in the article
There are many propaganda thing in conection with the area of the GDR in the article. Things like: "eastern portion" of "Nazi Germany" ... while the next part say corectly "middle germany" because the eastern parts are ceeded to poland. there is also a much to often useage of "Nazi Germany". The country who was divided in tree parts was Germany. Nazi Germany seems to be used here as positivation of the annexions. Words like: restored, historical polish lands is also a massiv kind of propaganda and aboslutly not neutral. Wikipedia articles have to be neutral in words and view on facts. In that logic you also could say a german annexion of Belgium, Eastern France and Northern Italy would be a restoration of germanys historical boundary... nonsense you see... Please stop PL-propaganda across the english Wikipedia... 141.64.67.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

Persons of note
Is it me or is it time to make the "persons of note" section a separate article? Especially as it's under section Politics and half of them are cultural or sports figures. (Or given proper use of things like Category:East German people, perhaps it doesn't even need a separate article.) Rd232 talk 08:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the following from the list, because they might have been born in GDR, but had the bigger parts or their careers after reunification:
 * Paul Van Dyk, trance music DJ and producer
 * Nina Hagen, punk singer
 * All 6 members of the industrial metal band "Rammstein".
 * Ulrich Mühe, actor (Oscar-winning film "The Lives of Others", 2006)
 * Thomas Kretschmann, actor
 * Henry Hübchen, actor
 * Uli Herzner, Fashion designer, Project Runway contestant


 * Erik Zabel, racing cyclist
 * Michael Ballack, current captain of Germany national football team
 * Jan Ullrich, racing cyclist (Tour de France winner 1997)
 * Jens Voigt, racing cyclist

Worked in Switzerland
 * Benno Besson, dramatist, actor and director, pupil of Bertolt Brecht and one of the most important directors of German language of this time

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nina Hagen left GDR in 1976 92.195.116.76 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Satellite State of the Soviet Union

 * See also talk page archive Nature of the state (to mid-2008)

There are a select few people who keep removing this citing POV. I would like to point out that it most certainly is NOT POV and history regarding the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc "allies" in the Cold War is well documented. People's Republic of Bulgaria, People's Republic of Poland, People's Republic of Hungary and Mongolian People's Republic all have articles here and are listed as Soviet satellite states, so if you do come up with anything valid to prove that East Germany was anything otherwise, at least be consistent and remove those too. Removing it from East Germany but leaving it up in the articles for the aforementioned states makes no sense.

Also, for me there is no discussion in whether or not East Germany was a Soviet satellite. It was created from the Soviet occupied area of Germany during WW2 and aligned its policies with those of Moscow, which had enormous influence over internal affairs and foreign affairs. The COMECON/Warsaw Pact states of Eastern Europe and Mongolian People's Republic were all recognised as sovereign states. However, the degree of autonomy they had was barely more than the individual SSRs of the Soviet Union, such as the Latvian SSR. Actually, the likes of the Tajik SSR may have had more autonomy as Moscow had less economic or geographical interest there. The only exceptions in Eastern Europe were Albania and Romania, both of which broke free from complete Soviet control. Albania stopped participating in COMECON activities in 1961 and became an insular state on its own, and Romania became increasingly nationalistic and neutral to the west under Nicolae Ceauşescu, much to the dismay of the Soviet Union. Those two cannot be considered true satellites of the Soviet Union and shouldn't be labelled as such, but East Germany most certainly was and remained so up until the end.

--Impulsion (talk) 10:07, 11 Novermber 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you are forgetting Yugoslavia. Regarding them as a satellite state is incorrect. And I think that the issue is more with people's understanding of the term "satellite state". Madcynic (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention Yugoslavia because it was a different socialist empire which was never directly under Soviet control. It maintained a "neutral" relationship between east and west and was never a member of COMECON or the Warsaw Pact. So yes, Yugoslavia was in no way, shape or form a satelllite state.

--Impulsion (talk) 11:45, 11 Novermber 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the the "Empire: Soviet Union" thing. So I removed that. Knotsfalcon (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You have "a problem with" it? That doesn't cut it. Please re-read over what I have said, and at least be consistent. Do you also have a problem with that same "thing" on People's Republic of Bulgaria, People's Republic of Poland, People's Republic of Hungary and Mongolian People's Republic?

--Impulsion (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is simply a Cold War POV term. It was used by the West but obviously not by those "satellite states" themselves or by the Soviet Union. And if you think it factually makes sense because those states were in alignment with the Soviet Union and under a certain influence by it, then the same went for other states in relation to the U.S. (West Germany, Cuba before the revolution, most of Central America, etc.) but you don't speak of any U.S. satellites. Finally, don't try to fool people by saying other countries "are listed" as Soviet satellite states when it was you yourself who did so. Margana (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

First, do your research before you make sweeping accusations. The only article I originally added it to was Mongolian People's Republic. I added it back to Poland because somebody else had removed it. The rest were NOT added by me, so don't accuse me trying to "fool people".

Second, there were no true US satellites directly under the same sphere of influence that the Soviet Union had on the Eastern bloc "allies". As I said, they had little more autonomy than the internar SSRs. Their economies were entirely subordinate to the Soviet Union, they had complete control over internal and foreign affairs and the leaders were appointed by the Soviet Union. The housing, infrastructure and social programmes were all appointed by and almost identical to that of the Soviet Union.

--Impulsion (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Soviet Union had "complete control" how could Albania and Romania "break free" as you say above? Sounds like those "satellites" just were in ideological agreement and voluntarily coordinated their policies and economies, with the Soviet Union as the largest country naturally playing some leading role. The term "satellite" is clearly derogatory to suggest that those countries weren't fully independent, which is a legitimate POV but not an objective fact. Also, Honecker clearly did not follow Gorbachev's reforms, so how was East Germany a satellite "up until the end"? And I didn't say you originally added it; I just note that in several cases you were the most recent one to add it, so it's not very convincing if you pretend the matter is settled on the other articles. Margana (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ceauşescu's Romania gradually became more nationalistic and stopped participating in COMECON activities. The Soviet Union only grudgingly accepted his recalcitrance, and there was wide speculation that Romania would be next after the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Speaking of which, the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia go against your belief that it was just a voluntary ideological agreement. Albania I'm not sure of, but it was a small country of little geographical or economical importance so they probably just let it slide.

As for my "the end" statement. Well, Gorbachev's reforms really were "the end" of the cold war and what ultimately let to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

I only re-added the "Satellite state of the Soviet Union" when others removed it, not just because I agree with it but for a matter of consistency. Your comment here implied that I was the only one to ever add it, which is not the case.

I'm not saying that it has to stay like that indefinitely. There should be a mutual statement in the first paragraph of each article which both sides can agree on.

--Impulsion (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that speculation proved to be wrong then. Yes, the Soviets intervened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but that's no different from the U.S. intervening in countries that went out of its orbit. This is not sufficient proof that all of those countries were just taking orders from Moscow out of fear of invasion. And while Gorbachev's reforms may have been the end of the Cold War, they weren't immediately the end of the existence of East Germany, so from that reason alone the satellite designation is wrong.
 * You were arguing that it should be added here because it's on all the other articles, even though it wouldn't be if you hadn't just (re)added it. That was a dishonest argument. You weren't the only one to ever add it, but you were suggesting that we who were removing it here were the only one to remove it, and only on this article, which isn't the case. It has been added and removed on several of those articles.
 * Now, I don't object to any indisputable fact going into the article text, but the satellite designation in the infobox suggests that this was some kind of status of international law, when in fact it was generally recognized as a fully independent country. Margana (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Many people were repeatedly removing it from this page without removing it from the others, and that makes no sense. To remove it from East Germany but leave it on the others is inconsistent and suggests that East Germany had broader autonomy than the rest, which certainly was not the case. Anyway, that's just going to lead to a pointless discussion of semantics. To keep everyone happy, I went ahead and removed the "Satellite state of the Soviet Union" from every article and added a line about it being "widely regarded" as a satellite state. I don't retract anything I previously said, but I figured that's better than an edit war. --Impulsion (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is good because satellite state is a western propaganda term and it is wrong to use it as fact. All of the states had differing levels of communist government. Knotsfalcon (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Look further down to #Sports and someone has inverted the phrase to read "US and many of its satellite states" which is certainly a POV. While I haven't yet joined the removal war, I think that inappropriate statement should be corrected.Trackinfo (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Term
The real term for this society is state capitalism, not socialism, as the means of production was owned by a priviledged bureaucracy in the state apparatus, not by the workers/the populace as a whole through workers councils.

By Th. Allan, February 7th, 2009 GMT+1
 * Look up ownership. The bureaucracy controlled it but didn't own it. They were privileged managers, but not owners. Rd232 talk 17:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * De jure the people was the owner and in theory it could determine and control the bureaucrazy by democratic means. As such the system was not that different from state owned enterprises in capitalist economies. De facto the higher levels of the priviledged bureaucracy e.g. Politbüro were the owners, as they decided what to do, and in fact the people could neither determine nor control them by democratic means. Toscho (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Omg, another person using 'de jure' and 'de facto'. Say it in normal English, and remember this is for a world wide audience, not just more highly educated English speakers who know the meaning of such Latin and Franch phrases. (Considering your 'was' following 'people' should be a 'were' makes it look like your showing off anyway).1812ahill (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia. Simply typing "de jure" or "de facto" into the Search bar immediately to your left will bring you the definition.  People do not have to dumb down their use of widely-used, well-known expressions simply due to the laziness or ignorance of others. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Owners receive residual profits. Rd232 talk 08:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. And what should this look like, concerning the people as an owner? Decreased taxes? Honestly, one cannot formulate the situation in a marxist / socialist / state capitalist by using capitalist terms and their implications. Toscho (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Third World foreign policy of DDR?
The article does not seem to have anything on DDR's foreign policy in the Third World, which is strange given the significance of this issue, espeically as it was vital in getting diplomatic recognition from outside the Soviet bloc in the 60s and 70s. There are quite a number of works in this field, eg The Foreign Policy of the GDR in Africa, Romanian and East German Policies in the Third World, The Soviet Bloc and the Third World: The Political Economy of East-South Relations, FRG and GDR in the third world etc... --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The German version of this article seems to have an extensive section on the subject of foreign relations, including a part on Africa. .--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion in East Germany
The German language Wikipedia has a section and an article on religion in East Germany, Deutsche_Demokratische_Republik Christen und Kirche in der DDR These should be copied to this article and possibly a new article created titled Religion in East Germany --T1980 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the issue really significant enough to warrant a separate article for religion in the DDR? However, if the German article is substantial and well-written, then it would be a good idea to have it translated for use in the English article, too. --Ericdn (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reparation Payments to the USSR
I've grown up in Western Germany, and we've learnt in school that it was agreed upon in the treaties between the allied powers and Germany (before 1949) that the GDR's reparation payments to the USSR would end in 1988. Would the GDR then not have become useless to the USSR after 1988? Was the reunification pre-planned? How much of a political show was the Cold War? 91.49.116.110 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Doping in DDR Sporting teams
Perhaps there should be something on the systematic doping conducted by East Germany's sporting authorities (see DW Article, and also BBC article), and apparently referred to as State Plan 14.25. Wanyonyi (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Doping in East Germany. Rd232 talk 10:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs renovation
As did the DDR in 1989. This is a fascinating topic, and not well treated here. I've added reference-improvement and copy-edit tags at the top. It needs expansion, too: I seem to remember a few years ago that there was more detail on the inner workings of the administration. Some subtopics are poorly dealt with (doping in sport; culture).

The 20th anniversary is coming on 9 November. Tony  (talk)  02:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling code
It seems the +37 is intended to be a link, but the footnote is between the brackets. I've tried to edit it, but it seems the + ... for calling codes is built-in in the Wikipedia coding system. Maybe someone else can do this right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.146 (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2009‎ (UTC)

Name
The article says that east Germany was called the "German Democratic Republic" but I though that West Germany was a democracy and east germany was a dictatorship. I guess I assumed that East germany was the communist one because it is closer to Russia. So was West Germany the Communist one then? 124.184.96.26 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No - Democratic is a misnomer here. West Germany was indeed the Democratic one, and East the communist. A lot of communist countries said they were "democratic" in their names but in reality weren't at all. As they say, Read The Darn Article. :-) 213.106.248.201 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not as clear cut as that. It is still down to interpretation and opinion when talking about the democratic make-up of each state. The main reason the GDR had democratic in its name is because it viewed West Germany (the cold war Federal Republic of Germany) as fascistic country - a stooge of the US and Nato with a government and state still full of Nazi or ex-Nazi employees. West Germany banned membership of the Communist party and 'radicals' from state employment. -- maxrspct  ping me  15:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree to User:max rspct. The GDR wasn't democratic in the sense, that Germany or the USA are today. Yet, in the strict sense of Democracy (including equality and freedom), neither ar Germany nor the USA. Some other examples for countries, including the term "democratic" in their name:


 * Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (that's socialist North Korea)
 * Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire)
 * List of Republics
 * Make yourself an image, how "democratic" these countries are. But please don't call the GDR (or North Korea for example) communist. That's as far away from the truth as democratic. Toscho (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even less, becaue the GDR (or even the Soviet Union) never called themselves communist. On the other hand the GDR was never a Dictatorship. There are more than 2 types of goverment. These black and white viewpoints are a cold war legacy --95.88.250.251 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Geography and Historical context of Eastern lands
I have removed the provocative phrase of the terrorities having historically belonged to Poland, there is very little proof to show that Polish influence was anything but transitory on these lands, and certainly East Prussia had never been Polish. The occupation on the ground since the early middle ages has been predominantly German, Prussian and Teutonic. The reason for the pushing of the borders westwards was to "repay" for the loss of the eastern Polish lands east of the curzon line. The myth of 'regained' terrority was instigated by the soviets to encourage both De-germanisation of the land and settlement of Poles. The Yalta agreement made no reference to a permanent Border but, that the land was to be held under "temporary" Polish administration until a final peace treaty could be agreed by the inheritors of the Reich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.135.164.154 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "thereby restoring historically Polish lands" was apparently added by the new user . You are correct that the Recovered territories claim is a Polish communist propaganda device.--Stor stark7 Speak 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

why isn`t the langauge section coming up on the info box ?
i have been trying for ages, but it doesn`t work !!!, why not ?. 19:45, 6 März 2010 (CET) Craigzomack


 * Because you changed the text on the left side of the = sign, and broke the template - that changes the field name in the template, and causes it not to work. Pleas be careful when making changes to templates until you understand them better. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Map
I had a problem with the map title "Nazi Germany defeated." The map shows Germany in its pre-Nazi, i.e. interwar boundaries (established by the Versailles Treaty), which incluced Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia. A map of "Nazi Germany" would more reasonably show the so-called Greater German Reich of the Nazi period, with its bloated annexations of Polish and Czech (Sudetenland) territories, plus the interwar Free City of Danzig.

At Yalta and Potsdam, it was decided (or agreed to at Stalin's behest) that Poland should annex Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig (now Gdańsk) and southern East Prussia, while northern East Prussia would go to the Soviet Union. These are the areas shown beyond the Soviet occupation zone in Germany, which subsequently became the DDR/GDR.

Accordingly, I have changed the map title to simply say "Germany defeated." Sca (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection Request
Due to multiple IPs constantly re-applying the same pointless and incomplete cut-&-paste to the beginning of the article, I added the page to the protection request list. ☯  Z.S.   ☠   ......(talk) 17:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've added that the same IPs also seem to target a couple of other pages, Stalinism and Erich Mielke. I've not specifically requested protection for these two articles, as they don't seem to be the primary target, however the protecting admin might find the info useful and protect these as well. TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Article name
Why is this East Germany - the official name should be used for the article! Ingolfson (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Read the old discussion at Talk:East Germany/Archive 2. However, that is an archive, so don't edit that page. Just add any comments you want to make here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The old discussion apparently took about two minutes before it veered into implications of "silliness" and "irredentism" and then into off-topic talking of Middle Germany. I am solely asking: "On what other Wikipedia article do we call a country by its nickname, rather than by its official name?" - it's a bit like having the United States article sit under "America". Ingolfson (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are some old discussions dating back to at least 2004. But further down, the issue of the page being at the official name is dealt with, and there was even a move to the official name for some time. Btw, there is West Germany also, so that's one more, sort of anyway! - BilCat (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In that case, I hereby reopen that discussion. It is just weird, and has no technical or practical reason - a future a redirect will move anyone searching for East Germany here anyway! Even on the German Wikipedia, the article is at "Deutsche Demokratische Republik", despite the term "Ostdeutschland" being in very common use in Germany. I think it is inconsistent, wrong (and maybe even disrespectful in the eyes of some people) to exempt the GDR from the same courtesy that applies for all other countries, former or existing. Ingolfson (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that there's recently been a discussion at Talk:United States about this very issue. Per WP:COMMONNAME we don't use the official name ("United States of America"), we use the common name ("United States"). The same applies for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (United Kingdom) and most other countries. A notable exception is Canada, where the official name is also the common name. TFOWR 09:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In German the country was mostly referred to as the "DDR", in English the country was mostly referred to as East Germany. At the same time, "East Germany" was not the country's (official) name.  I realise it's long, but what about "German Democratic Republic (East Germany)" as the title of the article? (perhaps this was already proposed?)--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding of WP:COMMONNAME is that the English common name is preferred. For that reason I'd still prefer "East Germany" to "GDR" (or any variant thereof). TFOWR 10:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

the use "East Germany" was by politikal reasons in the could war, to suggest, that the GDR would had not the Sovereignty. But I think Wikipedia should be neutral and use the right name (GDR).LutzBruno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC).
 * East Germany is the east of Germany, not the GDR. (E-Kartoffel (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC))

I agree with the users above. The proper term should be used and not some slang. See other discussion section about this topic. Jonathan0007 (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * slang? nonsense. "East Germany" is the term most used today by scholars, publishers, editors and major reference books. Variation on DDR/GDR are clearly less common. Proof: some book titles: East Germany: Continuity and Change (2000; Uprising in East Germany, 1953 (2001); East Germany: transition with unification (2000); Politics and popular opinion in East Germany, 1945-68 (2000); Exit-voice dynamics and the collapse of East Germany (2006); Science fiction literature in East Germany (2006); Behind the Berlin Wall: East Germany and the frontiers of power (2010); Protestants in Communist East Germany (2010) . etc etc.-- books.google lists over 16,000 books (since 1990) using "East Germany" compared to 6600 using "German Democratic Republic", a 2:1 ratio Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ritter
One editor has attempted to remove the summary statement of East Germany's history written by Gerhard A. Ritter, suggesting that it was merely one person's opinion. that is not true, and it does not follow from Wikipedia guidelines. In fact, Ritter is one of the most famous and highly regarded historians of modern Germany, with a worldwide reputation as attested by his visiting professorship at leading universities. Ritter is professor emeritus at the University of Munich and has been visiting professor at Washington University, St Louis, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Oxford, and the University of Tel Aviv. A former chairman of the Association of German Historians, he is the author of numerous books on German history. (He is not to be confused with his father the historian Gerhard Ritter who died over 40 years ago.) Rjensen (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning his credentials, I'm questing the placement of his opinion so prominently in the article Gnevin (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * it's not "opinion", it's analysis based on decades of scholarship from a leading RS--one that takes a broad view that suits the needs of the lede. Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Call it opinion or analysis. It shouldn't be in the lead Gnevin (talk)
 * On a topic as broad as this one, no single person's analysis can be significant enough for the lead. Indeed, it'll struggle to be significant enough for inclusion in the article. However, it might be significant for inclusion in a subarticle (though I'm not quite sure where - History of East Germany may still be too broad). Incidentally, the lead does need improving, it doesn't sufficiently reflect the entire article - see WP:LEAD. Rd232 talk 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've created Gerhard A. Ritter and fixed Gerhard Ritter. -- Matthead Discuß   13:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Uwe Raab, reference in sports section - can it point to German version of Wikipedia? Help...
Uwe Raab was a very successful professional road racing cyclist whose career began whilst he was an amateur in the DDR. Another editor did well to include Raab in the list of notable athletes from East Germany (though some other fairly big names weren't). but unfortunately, Raab doesn't have an entry in the English version of Wikipedia. He does, however have one in the German version, here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Raab. Therefore what is the policy or best practice in this situation to proceed with ensuring that Uew Raab has an entry that a reader fluent only in English can understand?Joep01 (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Capital city
Hi, the article now states in the infobox that the capital city of the DDR was Berlin, however this wasn't recognized as a fact by the West. Should we somehow indicate in the infobox that this is the case? For example, by saying "Capital : Berlin (proclaimed)". --Dailycare (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * what the west did or did not recognize is irrelevant to its status as capital. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We report here what sources say, and sources say the status wasn't recognized. Whether that makes it "really" the capital or no isn't relevant. BTW, are you the IP who just made a revert without comment? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked a question, now that you have an answer that you don't like you just ignore it? In addition to the Britannica, here are academic sources that say that Berlin was the capital:


 * http://geography.hunter.cuny.edu/courses/geog334/articles/german_berlin.pdf
 * http://jech.bmj.com/content/54/8/575.full
 * long one...

There are many more. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources, although what's at dispute isn't whether we mention East Berlin or not. What's at dispute is whether we mention the non-recognition, for which there are e.g. these sources 123. Please stop edit-warring the article, as you haven't established consensus to change it the way you're proposing. Instead of "proclaimed", I'd be OK with saying "disputed" or something similar. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox to more accurately reflect what the article says - that the status of East Berlin was disputed by the three "Western Allies" of the Allied Control Council - UK, US, France. I doubt if this is notable enough for the infobox, though. Jeff Song (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This source "State symbols: the quest for legitimacy in the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, 1949-1959" Margarete Myers Feinstein (page 78) says " (...) claims of East Berlin as the capital of the GDR (...), East Berlin was not recognized by the West and most Third World countries". This means that not only the three mentioned countries refused to recognize EB as the capital. --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This source is not used in the article. I don't think the infobox, with its standard format and limited space, is the right place to go into these nuances. There's a section in the article about Partition, and about the GDR identity, which already discusses the lack of recognition by the Western allies, as well as the (lack of) recognition of East Germany, as a separate independent country. We could expand the section to include a more detailed treatment of the capital question, where all viewpoint could be presented. Jeff Song (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem in adding the source to the article. The thing is, it's good to qualify the statement in the infobox, since not everyone agreed that EB was the capital and we have WP:NPOV to consider also. Of course, I agree that a brief mark in the infobox is easily sufficient. --Dailycare (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and and it, then, if you like. But I don't agree that "it's good to qualify the statement in the infobox, since not everyone agreed"- not everyone agrees on many things, but it seems to be the norm that Infoboxes don't have that kind of notation - see for example Republic of China (where China, at least, does not agree that Taipei is the capital), or Western Sahara (Morocco) or Northern Cyprus, where no country except Turkey recognizes Nicosia as the capital. Jeff Song (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I should perhaps have written that since there exists a significant view, it should be represented (the West + third world does amount to a significant view). Per WP:NPOV, we should present views in relation to their prominence. But it's good that we agree, the point you make on Northern Cyprus is valid and I'll look at editing that article, too. --Dailycare (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a look at Northern Cyprus and the first paragraph of the lead explains quite clearly the "self-declared" and non-recognized nature of the whole "country", so I don't know if drawing particular attention to the non-recognition of the capital makes sense since the whole country lacks recognition by anyone except Turkey. --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. And similarly, this article has two sections that discuss partition and GDR Identity, and describe in details both the lack of recognition of East Berlin by the Western Allies, as well as the FRG's lack of recognition of the DDR as an independent country. The article is the place to discuss it - not the Infobox. Jeff Song (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, if you compare the lead of this article to that of Northern Cyprus, you'll see they're rather different. I don't get the notion that East Germany would have been completely unrecognized by the international community from the lead, and in fact that would be erroneous. The capital was unrecognized, not the country. --Dailycare (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) The country itself was unrecognized, by among others, the FRG (2) In the case of North Cyprus, if the country as a whole is unrecognized, it follows that its "capital" is unrecognized. But we do not note EITHER fact in the infobox, only in the article body (3) North Cyprus is not the only example I gave you for infobox treatment - see Republic of China, Western Sahara among several examples. (4) reading over this entire discussion and the article history, I see it is you who has added the infobox material, over the objection of at least two other editors. Please follow WP:BRD and get consensus for your changes, rather than continuing to edit war over this. Jeff Song (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again, if you feel like editing the Taiwan (or any other) article, go ahead. However, what the Taiwan article says isn't relevant to what we write in this one since Wikipedia isn't a source. What Republic of China says turns on what sources say about Taiwan. What East Germany says turns on what sources say about the DDR. What I wrote above about N. Cyprus remains relevant, too. Of course, if there is a significant view that isn't represented in the Taiwan article, it should be added. However, what comes to this article, the mention in the infobox has been there for a time now, so to remove it you need consensus. And frankly, to build a consensus you'd need to have a policy-based reason for the edit, and so far I haven't seen one. You've said that you don't feel that the infobox is the right place to present this information, but that frankly isn't a policy-based reason. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. It is not that I think that the Taiwan article needs work – I think this article needs work, to make it conform to the way other similar articles are normally written here. Of course, each article should say what reliable sources say about its topic – and both the Taiwan article and this article say plenty about the recognition and non recognition of the country and its capital in  the article (this one, mostly due to some recent additions I have made)– but they don’t do this in the infobox. If you want a policy based reason for this, you could read Manual of Style/Infoboxes, which says "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" and "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content".


 * Now, it seems to me that it is you who is edit warring with numerous editors to push your non-consensus, unnecessary content edit into the info box. This article was created way back in 2001 – more than ten years ago, and stated that the Capital was Berlin since early 2002. The info box giving the capital as East Berlin has been in the article, unchanged until your edit, since June 2003. You made your change only recently, in June 2011, and shortly thereafter, in August, there were objections to your edit – first by 87.68.160.34, then by Firkin Flying Fox, then by Alssa1, then by Ruby Tuesday ALMWR, and now me. You revert each one of us, while telling us to "Stop edit-warring" – it would be funny if it was not so disruptive. It would be good if you would stop this, and seek consensus for your desired change. Jeff Song (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the MoS link. Whereas that isn't a policy-based reason, it's a sensible argument. If the idea is to present minimal information in the infobox, I'd propose as an alternative to the current form, that the "Capital" field be left unused. The article body, as you correctly note, explains this issue. The reasons for this proposal are that mentioning only "East Berlin" (or "Berlin") conveys exclusively the DDR's point of view in a contentious issue, and leaves what may be the majority view unrepresented. WP:NPOV says that points-of-view should be presented in rough proportion to their prevalence so "East Berlin" would be wrong from that aspect. However not mentioning the capital in the infobox would elegantly resolve this. Since it's a slightly complicated issue, it can't be accurately conveyed using "minimal information" in an infobox. (for the record, I'm also OK with "de facto Capital" or "Seat of government" in the infobox, that side-step the recognition issues)


 * Concerning the WP:BRD issue, as you correctly note the note in the infobox was serially opposed by several editors, however none of them succeeded, or even seriously attempted, to build consensus to remove it. We're now in the "D" part of BRD. I'm doing you a favour by ignoring your allegation that my behaviour would be disruptive, BTW. However, your continued reverting behaviour may be seen as disruptive. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * that East Berlin was the capital is not the "DDR view". It is fact, just like Taipei is the capital of unrecognized Taiwan, Nicosia the capital of unrecognized Northern Turkey, etc... There were several counties that refused to recognize it as a capital (only 3 by the time the DDR was admitted to the UN), but that's for the article to discuss. I see that back in August, when you had this debate with User Flying Firkin Fox you did not dispute this, after being shown numerous sources that described East Berlin as the capital. You said 'what's at dispute isn't whether we mention East Berlin or not. What's at dispute is whether we mention the non-recognition". So you agreed it's the capital, but wanted to mention non-recognition. I've shown you a policy reason on why that's not appropriate for the infobox. And no, you did not have consensus to change something that was in the article for more than eight years, so don't try to reverse the onus now. (And even if you did, there is now a 5:1 consensus against your change.) Jeff Song (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are not doing me any favor by "ignoring" what I rightly describe as you edit warring against 5 other editors. Since it seems we are unable to agree on this, how do you suggest we resolve this dispute? Jeff Song (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I wrote earlier was what my point has been all along, namely we can mention East Berlin as long as we also mention the other point, or alternatively present the information in another WP:NPOV compliant way. Whether East Berlin "really was the capital" is irrelevant to this discussion. What's relevant is that the DDR considered it so, and others didn't - and that's what the article should convey to comply with WP:NPOV. Taipei and Nicosia are also irrelevant, it's not a strong argument to say that another infobox on another page looks some way and this one ought to, too. This article should be based on sources about the DDR


 * The MoS does say that infoboxes should present a minimal amount of information, but this isn't an argument to not apply WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is one of Wikipedia's core policies and the MoS can't be used to justify deviating from it. From the very top of WP:NPOV: "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.". Obviously the most preferable solution is to find a way to apply both MoS and NPOV.


 * This brings us to the proposals I aired yesterday, all in all there are four ways of covering this each of which I'm OK with: 1) the present wording, 2) no mention of capital in the infobox, 3) "de facto Capital" and 4) "Seat of government". You didn't raise any objections to 2-4 (and only the MoS-based objection to the first one) so it looks like agreement is already here. Or alternatively, do you have policy-based reasons for not agreeing to any of the suggestions? The last one may be a particularly good idea, since the US ("However, this recognition did not extend to recognizing East Berlin as part of the GDR or its capital. The treaties establishing the U.S. Embassy in East Berlin referred only to East Germany's "seat of government" from Embassy of the United States, Berlin) and West Germany (see page 32) used this wording to go around the "capital" problem. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (2) is fine with me. (3) is wrong, or at least ,misleading, since it was also the de jure Capital. What is the difference between "seat of government" and Capital? perhaps that's an option, too. Jeff Song (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (2) is actually not going to work, since it still leaves the Capital section in the template with "Not specified" which is even worse. Please elaborate on (4). Jeff Song (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Seat of government" is where the government is based, that can even be in a foreign country. Since we have sources usingit of East Berlin, it would be an acceptable option to deploy here, IMO. --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, and what then is the "Capital"? Jeff Song (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, as I wrote, I don't think (2) will work, unless someone can fix the template to remove any mention of "Capital" - I don't know how to do this. For the same reason, I don't think your option (4) will work, as it will still leave 'capital' as an "unspecified" entry in the template. Which leaves us where we started. Your arguments regarding the need for NPOV are correct, but NPOV is addressed by describing the viewpoints, in detail, in the article. There is nothing that says that this must also be repeated in the infobox, and indeed I gave a good policy based reason why it should not. Reading through your source (thanks for that new source, BTW) also shows why your proposal (4) is problematic: It does not merely say that the West German embassy in East Berlin referred to it as the "seat of government" rather than the the permanent missions were to be established at the respective "seat of government" of each party. In other words, just as the FRG did not recognize the reality of E. Berlin being the capital, so too did the GDR not recognize Bonn as the "Capital" if West Germany. But if we go to our West Germany article, it states (in the infobox) unequivocally that the Capital is "Bonn". Not "Bonn (proclaimed)" or any other similar disclaimer. Furthermore, on page 42, your source states "when the GDR was established, Berlin was named as its capital city". Earlier, when discussing the reunified Germany, it uses the exact same terminology to refer to Berlin as the capital of Germany: (p. 38) "Berlin was named as the capital city of Germany". So it seems that your source attaches the exact same status to Berlin, the current agreed-upon capital of (the reunited) Germany as it does to its status a the capital of the GDR, when that existed. And again I remind you that you did not dispute the fact that it was the capital in your earlier discussion with Frikicn Fox, you just argued we should mention the issue of non-recognition. This brings us back to where we started - a 5th option you did not allow for: We keep the infobox as it has been for eight years, without any disclaimer, and discuss the recognition of the capital issue, in detail, in the article. Jeff Song (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again, you can't wait months after an edit and then decide to revert to the "long-standing version" and claim this is OK since some edit wasn't made in 2003. That's not how things work. You're here again referring to another infobox on another page as an argument concerning this one, and it isn't any more convincing than it was last time. (BTW, I believe Bonn wasn't declared or proclaimed to be a capital city so the box on West Germany may be wrong). To clarify, I'm OK with either Berlin (proclaimed), Berlin (Seat of Government), Berlin (widely unrecognized) etc. in addition to removing "Capital" or changing it to "Seat of Government". Editing the template seems to be restricted, so I'd suggest we keep the current (proclaimed) text while we work to modify the capital field to optional status. As I wrote earlier, the Manual of Style can't override WP:NPOV (which applies to article bodies, boxes and leads equally) so the MoS will have to accept a few extra words in the box for now. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit was reverted within a few weeks of you making it, by several editors. At least one made their case on this page, in this section. I only found this article this month, but there is clearly no consensus for your change now, nor was there consensus for it back when you made it. NPOV is addressed in the article, so please don't raise that straw man argument again . Bonn was indeed chosen as the capital (see http://www.wir-rheinlaender.lvr.de/engl_version/trizonesia/capitalcitybonn.htm). We are not going to limit ourselves to just the 4 options you favor, which are all variations on the same theme of putting some disclaimer in the infobox, when no-one but yourself has shown any support for such a disclaimer. Rather, We are going back to where this was before your bold, non-consensus chnage, until and unless you can find at least someone other than yourself who thinks it is appropriate. Jeff Song (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I made the edit on June 16, 2011. Since then, there has been no consensus editorial decision to change the wording (i.e. for 4 months), and no "bold" edits of the text overall until August 5, 2011 (i.e. for 7 weeks). Before making the edit in June, I queried on this page whether there was opposition to it: there was none, therefore the edit had consensus already on June 16, 2011. I made an edit request to the template page. (Bonn is off-topic, but see page 42 hereCheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You made the edit after you queried on this page whether there was opposition to it, and there was none, but there was also no support. In fact, there was no response at all, and you assumed, incorrectly, that silence meant consensus. That is not the case. Silence and consensus, which supplements WP:Consensus, says 'You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others. none of this has happened. It further says "dissent might show up later, and it is then no longer appropriate to assume consensus." and "sometimes it is only when your changes are reverted or substantially changed that you learn that you did not, in fact, have full consensus." - this is exactly what happened here. 7 weeks after you made your edit, which no one used or referred to in the interim, your change was reverted, by SEVERAL editors -  showing that you did not, in fact, have consensus when you made it. Silence and consensus also tells us that Silence is the weakest form of consensus, and that "Where a decision is based mostly on silence, it is especially important to remember that consensus can change." - so it is obvious that you did not then, and certainly do not now have consensus for that bold change you made. Accordingly, I am restoring the version that clearly had consensus - having been in the article for 8 years, and used and referred by dozens of editors before your bold change. ::::  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Song (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The essay (n.b. not policy) you cite also says "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so". Anyway, what happened four months ago isn't directly relevant to this discussion and can't be used to justify edit warring today. Happily we already have an agreement on the new text, which we can implement once the template is modified. Until then, the content remains as-is. --Dailycare (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD, which you are relying on, is similarly an essay, and not policy. Enough with the double standards.  What happened 4 moths ago is just as relevant as what happened 7 weeks before that - you made a bold edit  relying on silence, and the first time somebody noticed it, they reverted you. Not just one editor, mind you, but FIVE, the fifth being me, telling you today that you obviously did not have consensus the first time, and certainly do not have it today. Jeff Song (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC).
 * I'm not "relying" just on BRD, also WP:CONSENSUS (which is a policy) says that editing takes place by consensus decision. You have zero evidence for your claim that when someone first say the edit, they reverted it. To the contrary, during the initial seven weeks before the unexplained Israeli IP drive-by revert, this page was loaded approximately 100.000 times. I'd wager many of them say the text I added in the infobox. --Dailycare (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This was summed up nicely by the administrator who closed your edit warring report: "Dailycare's comments about the nature of consensus do not sound like Wikipedia policy". . Jeff Song (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't agree to this in August, and I don't support the current "compromise" - what the West did or did not recognize is irrelevant to Berlin's status as capital. Discuss in the article all you want, but there's no reason to remove facts from the info box. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quelle surprise! --Dailycare (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Communist state"
In the infobox it says "Communist state".

Isn't that misleading as there is no "Communist state"?

There are only Socialist States in what would become Communism.

Communism itself is stateless.

Bolegash (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * not with Stalin--he changed the rules and sent the critics to the Gulag. Rjensen (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union
I added that East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union but this was removed by a user who claimed that this was POV. East Germany has been widely regarded by scholarly sources to be a satellite state of the Soviet Union. The state was created with the endorsement of the Soviet Union and Soviet military forces were based throughout East Germany assisted in maintaining order in the country. East Germany collapsed when the East Germany applied for military assistance from Soviet Union to crush opposition protests to the regime in 1989 but Soviet leader Gorbachev refused to commit Soviet forces to repel the protestors.--R-41 (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed before. Mewulwe (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "satellite" is indeed the term used by the RS and R-41 clearly explains why. Rjensen (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "satellite state" is term used by the RS and East Germany along with the other Warsaw Pact states are widely reocognized by a vast number of scholars as satellite states. Their economies and military forces were tightly connected with the Soviet Union. Almost everywhere in Eastern Europe where the Soviet Union held its military forces during World War II a corresponding Marxist-Leninist state was created with the endorsement and economic and military support of the Soviet Union, later Yugoslavia and Albania abandoned pro-Soviet policies but the rest of the Eastern European Marxist-Leninist states remained satellite states.--R-41 (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ostalgie
The last half of the 'Ostalgie' section seems to be pretty biased toward Western ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.185.67.15 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What changes do you propose? Jeff Song (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what sentences you are referring to, can you be more clear?MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)