Talk:East Germany/Archive 6

i suggest the whole "Satellite state" dispute should be discussed in ONE talkpage
*the whole "Satellite state" dispute (all eastern block countries) should in my opinion be discussed in ONE talkpage as spreading it everywhere creates chaos and confusion Heonsi (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note Heonsi has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Chaosname . --TFD (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC) (UTC)


 * Article talk pages are used to discuss the relevant article. We cannot decide here what goes in other articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is always possible to  create  an article sub talk page for a specific discussion or as a workshop  area. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That isn't what Heonsi is suggesting, as I understand it. Instead he/she seems to be suggesting that we discuss all 'satellite state' articles for the whole of eastern Europe on one page. I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in principle, but I'd think that it would be improper to make decisions regarding the other articles here. As it is, there is an RfC going on regarding at least one other article, and we certainly can't ignore that, and try to decide the matter here instead. Perhaps Heonsi could clarify exactly what is being proposed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be helpful to provide a link to any other pages where a similar dsicussion might  be taking  place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I really like the idea Heonsi is proposing. All eastern block countries who were satellite states of the Soviet Union should be discussed on one talk page to resolve the matter. Maybe we can set up links or something like that and have it all take place on one page.  Caden  cool  14:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC at Talk:Communist_Romania. The other articles affected (as far as I'm aware) are People's Republic of Hungary, People's Republic of Bulgaria, Mongolian People's Republic and Republic of Poland - all of which recently had the term 'satellite state' added to the infobox by R-41 (without any talk page discussion whatsoever, and usually based on the same crappy source (Rao, B. V. (2006), History of Modern Europe Ad 1789-2002: A.D. 1789-2002) - which seems to use the phrase in passing. In any case, R-41 seems already to have conceded my point that 'satellite state' is subjective, and doesn't belong in the infobox . It should also be noted that the template documentation doesn't propose the term 'satellite state' as an option of the field anyway. See Template:Infobox_Former_Country, and note the field description: "Status describes the relationship between the political entity and other entities, whether colonies to an empire, the (colonial) empire itself, countries with special status by the League of Nations or the UN, etc" - clearly describing a legal relationship, which 'satellite state' isn't. If we are to discuss the issue anywhere, the template talk page would be the logical place - though I'd suggest that it would take a very strong argument to convince people that we should be adding subjective terms to infoboxes, given that Manual of Style/Infoboxes states that fields should "summarize key facts". If someone wishes to propose that we ignore this, I'd suggest it would require a revision to the MoS - something that I suspect would be vigorously opposed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(Note: User:Heonsi has now been blocked for edit-warring, vandalism and sock-puppetry) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually they were the sock of a banned user. As such any you may remove this entire thread if desired, and revert any edits they may have made here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that others have responded, it should probably be kept open, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh, so Mewulwe and the banned user Heonsi have been edit warring on the other Eastern Bloc state articles, rather than discussing their dispute in the talk page. By the way when I added the material on satellite state on the other Eastern Bloc articles, I had no idea that controversy would erupt, few editors were editing those articles - but now a hellstorm is starting because of this article's debate. And Mewulwe and Heonsi were engaging in the same kind of edit warring that Kudpung stopped here by placing a block on all editing. Let's bring up the issue of whether there should even be that controversial "status text" box in the former country infobox - to me that little box is so small and useless as there is no way to explain in detail there why a state is a certain status that I believe it's such a pain in the back that it should be removed from that infobox entirely, let such a statement be in the intro of the article that can have additional explanation. I'm going to bring up the issue of removing the status text section on the template talk page.--R-41 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, Andy, you claim that you support a statement in the article that includes scholarly sources stating that East Germany is widely recognized as being a satellite state of the Soviet Union, but that you oppose it being in the infobox. I believe I am now seeing eye-to-eye with you on that, but you claim that the "opposed" universally support this proposal. You might want to realize that Mewulwe at least appears to explicitly deny that East Germany was a satellite state and rejects the very term satellite state for any Eastern Bloc state that has been considered as such. I am concerned of further edit warring even if we do remove that useless tiny status text section from the former country infobox, because Mewulwe will still reject that there should be any mention that East Germany is widely recognized as being a satellite state of the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't support a claim that the DDR was 'widely recognized' as a satellite state - because it is subjective - you cannot 'recognize' an opinion as anything other than opinion. I support a claim that it was 'widely described' as a satellite state, and if anyone wishes to argue that the article shouldn't say this, I will oppose them. For what it's worth, I don't think the term 'satellite state' is particularly useful in the context of the DDR-USSR relationship (or any of the related ones - the AfD discussion on Talk:Communist Romania raises some interesting issues for that particular instance), because it oversimplifies a complex situation, and because the phrase has Cold War connotations that an encyclopaedia should best avoid - that however is my opinion, and I've already given policy-based arguments as to why we should avoid inserting our own opinions into articles. What is more important is to describe the relationship (or rather, to report how it has been described) in sufficient detail as to avoid the need for simplistic characterisations. We should present the arguments, and let readers decide for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, it is "subjective" to you and only you.  Caden  cool  22:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And your evidence that the term 'satellite state' is an objective factual description of the relationship between the DDR and the USSR can be found where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The relationship between East Germany and the USSR meets the OED definition of a satellite state. The citations there show that the meaning of the phrase has been stable for well over a century. There are numerous references here that the description has been used many times both in German and English. Claiming that East Germany was not a satellite state would be a fringe belief, and a peculiar one at that. I still support the use of "satellite state" within the article. It does not need to be watered down as an opinion. I still oppose the use in the infobox for the same reasons given by R-41. We should not reduce complicated and changing relationships to a word or two. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."  TFD (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD, could you clarify? I'm not even sure whether you intended that as a reply to what I wrote. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a source that explains what a satellite state is and another source that describes the relationship between the GDR and the USSR, which you conclude meets the criteria. That is synthesis and you need a source that makes this conclusion.  TFD (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41 has provided many references which state that the GDR was a satellite of the USSR. It doesn't seem like synthesis to conclude from these that the GDR was indeed a satellite state. My reference to the OED was simply intended as confirmation that this phrasing is neither unclear nor propagandistic. I really don't think there is any synthesis involved. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not the business of Wikipedia, to answer the question, whether the GDR was a Satellite state or not. Full Stop.
 * The obsession with this question is pre-encyclopedic: a pattern of theory-finding in itself. Further pre-encyclopedic strategies in the discussion above: to vote or crusade for one of the definitions; to imply or find or impose a theory, why one of the definitions must dominate the article.
 * Encyclopedically appropriate: The article to the lemma can describe, how East Germany/ the GDR was described in different sources, in different times, in different ideologies, in influential scientific works and discourses on all sides of the fence.
 * Drop the appropriate sentences in the body of the article. After the material has developed, the keywords go to the intro in ultrashort. Keep them off the infobox, if you want to be universally encyclopedic. That's all. --fluss (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that view can be taken to extremes. Should we state "some people have described the sky as blue" or should we say "the sky is blue"? The former phrasing is often pushed by people with the fringe view that the sky is green. The current argument may be viewed as a discussion on whether this is such an extreme case. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Blueness' can be determined objectively (it is a function of the frequencies of visible light). 'Satellite stateness' cannot be - it is a subjective description, and no matter how widely this description is seen as valid, it is still subjective: it has no legal, diplomatic or other formal definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a good line of argument, Andy. There's no scientific test which will tell us whether humans will label an object as "blue". All we have for any term, (unless we do mathematics) are dictionary definitions. Try "water has been described as being wet" versus "water is wet". We have to go with the dictionary definition and acknowledge that human language doesn't have the precision of predicate calculus. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, Dingo1729, since absolute truth is unknowable, we are free to put in any rubbish we want. TFD (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are not free to put in any rubbish you want. And I would appreciate if you would stop doing so. Dingo1729 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when have 'dictionary definitions' been objective? Actually, we know for a fact they aren't, in regard to a definition of the term 'satellite state' - we have already seen contradictory definitions cited on this talk page. Is it "a country under the domination or influence of another", which would seem to include almost any country other than a superpower, or is it a country that is " dependent on or controlled" by another, as the OED seems to suggest? And how do you determine where 'influence' ends, and 'control' begins? Dictionaries don't define words and phrases, they describe how they are used... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We do not in fact consult with dictionaries and make our own calls, that is synthesis. TFD (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, Dingo1729 writes that "R-41 has provided many references which state that the GDR was a satellite of the USSR". R-41 has now accepted that this is an over-simplistic characterisation of a complex issue, and as such shouldn't be stated as fact in the infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This discussion seems to have diverted into a rather sterile cul-de-sac. If you check, you will see that from my very first post to this page I have supported removing the "satellite" statement from the infobox. So we are in agreement on that, yes? However, I am happy with the current wording "East Germany was one of the satellite states of the Soviet Union." in the lede. On the other hand you wish to change this to "East Germany has been described as one of the satellite states of the Soviet Union." or something like that. Is that a correct summary of our (rather minor) disagreement? I'm asking because I'm getting rather lost in the undergrowth about synthesis and absolute truth and definitions of dictionary definitions. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This 'rather minor disagreement' is all we were ever debating, as far as I'm aware. Nobody has suggested that we can't say that the DDR was frequently described as a satellite state - it was, and we have plenty of sources to that effect. It would seem entirely remiss not to say this in the article, though it should only go into the lede if we are going to discuss the issue in more detail later in the article - see Manual of Style/Lead section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your reference to the infobox confused me, when that issue had already been settled. Should we make an edit request for that or wait until the article is unprotected? Dingo1729 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The RfC on the infobox question is still open - though, as I've noted above, the whole issue has got hopelessly confused regarding what the RfC was actually supposed to be about. As for making an edit request regarding adding material to the article body, I think we'd best try to come to a consensus regarding what we want added first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In reply to my remark above Dingo asked: Should we state "some people have described the sky as blue" or should we say "the sky is blue"? Please excuse, I am not a native speaker, my logic is not calculating for extreme uses, it is just meant for illustrating Wikipedia rules of thumb: Writing in Wikipedia that „Lenin described imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism” is encyclopedic, whereas stating in an article in Wikipedia that „Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism” is theory-finding. My 2pence, I won't stir up further miles of discussion here.--fluss (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Trial to express it better --fluss (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I duck and run away … IMHO the infobox is for precise facts like: Member of the Warsaw Pact; form of government people's republic; and so on. The same for other comparable states. Information without bias, to let the lemma be sorted by the reader. The different flavours of the term Satellite state, regarding the GDR are „encyclopedically thrilling” and therefore in the body of the article should be explicitly mentioned. Whereas the basics of the term are cleared by reference to the existing lemma Satellite state.--fluss (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Misallocation of editors' time
I'm pleased to see that so many editors know of the existence of this article. But what a pity more of us aren't engaging in the task of improving it rather than arguing about satellite status, above. The article has improved since I last saw it, but there's quite a way to go (referencing, to start with). The WP.de article is food for thought. Tony  (talk)  13:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes - agree - so many kilobytes wasted on something that is not going to change in the teaching in universities, high schools or genuine academic historical writings. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how much time is spent arguing that terms which are well understood and widely used in scholarship are imprecise, evolving, or—the best—words strung together to form a "label" with only "opinion" as to what it means. And anything descriptive applied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War is Cold War propaganda, any continued use of such descriptive terms is a Cold War hangover, etc., etc., etc. While it's a pity, it's also quite enlightening the extent to which editors will go to denounce reputable, appropriately descriptive, accounts of history. And I won't even get started on the penchant for precision absent of information, as in "History of X (years)", can't say what those years really were, might offend some dead despotic power, besides, we all "know" what "those years" "mean." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To-do list
Dear colleagues, I wonder whether we might construct a list of important approaches for improving this article over the next few months. May I suggest the following, to start with?
 * Full copy-edit (I will do this if no one else volunteers)
 * Ref audit for completeness and reliability.
 * Image audit (I can look at the placement and sizing of images, I guess)
 * Compare with WP.de article (and indeed the other major articles on this topic in other language-WPs)

Your thoughts? Please add to the list above if you wish. Tony  (talk)  12:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"illegal migration"?
Says it all. I would suggest that particular phrase fails the RS test, not to mention the simpler laughometer . The people leaving the DDR were not Canada geese - they were leaving presumably for important reasons. "Illegal migration" is entirely too absurd a term for what occurred, and what the former leaders of the DDR stated in courts. Collect (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it doesn't 'say it all', if you are referring to your recent stepping into an edit-war: You also changed "government_type = Marxist–Leninist single-party socialist state" to "government_type = Totalitarian Dictatorship, Communist single-party state", and the remaining edits were an ungrammatical mess. Can I suggest that if you want to discuss the use of a particular phrase, you do it in a way that doesn't involve unsourced changes to other parts of the article, and general disruption? AS for the phrase "illegal migration", as far as I'm aware that was verifiably true: the DDR had laws against its own citizens migrating elsewhere. I think that you and I will both agree that such laws were objectionable, but that is no reason to deny that they existed. Maybe we need to look at the phrasing of the article, but your actions were hardly helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we should use neutral non-judgmental language. Readers are intelligent enough to form their own conclusions and more likely to do so if we do not tell them what to think.  TFD (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that readers can be trusted to form their own conclusions? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually I reverted an entirely POV edit which happened to include the change from "communist" to "Marxist Lenist." The other parts about which I specifically refer include the iterated reference to "illegal migration" and "illegal emigration." Which are what this section was about. And laws contrary to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights tend by many people to be viewed themselves as "illegal." When we use Wikipedia's voice to lend an air of legality to the shooting of a nation's citizens about which its own former leaders asserted the illegality of we are deliberately misleading our readers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, you restored an entirely POV edit - Prior to your input, the contentious text had been repeatedly inserted (first by an IP, and then by User:A.kirkwood.spence - though I have no reason to think that the two were different people) and reverted (by me and by User:Jim1138). It is rarely wise to step into the middle of an edit war, and carry on the edit warring on behalf of the offending party, particularly without checking to see what it is you are changing.


 * Regarding the contentious phrases regarding 'illegal migration', I don't give a rats arse about what you think concerning the relevance of what some Stalinist gangster said in court to this matter, or about your interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding the free movement of citizens (If there is a state on Earth that doesn't in practice reserve the right to prevent its citizens leaving as required under its own laws, I'd be most surprised. And come to that, most tend to reserve the right to refuse to let citizens of other countries in). The fact of the matter is that at the time, according to DDR law, the migration was illegal. I agree that the article could have been phrased better, but your intervention was unhelpful. As it stands, our article now seems to suggest that the DDR had no laws against people 'moving' to the West, but was arbitrarily shooting them anyway. Quite why you think this ridiculous bit of historical revisionism can be justified as an attempt to avoid "deliberately misleading our readers" is beyond me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually most of the 3.5 million who left the DDR did so quite legally - is there a reason you wish to denounce the "Stalinist gangsters" who said the DDR laws were illegal, but accept the "legality" of the laws enforced by those exact same "Stalinist gangsters" as you colourfully describe them?  By the way, I find no evidence that Canada, the US, Mexico, etc. make emigration illegal.   I fear your own knowledge is a problem here.  I tried to use as neutral language as possible, and would suggest that it be accepted.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a 2010 UN list of violations of human rights violations by the the United States in its domestic prison system alone. (It does not include violations in Guantanamo Bay or the recent policy of the murder of suspected terrorists.)  The U.S. has also refused permission for its citizens to leave, notably Paul Robeson.  You appear to be singling out specific countries and are not applying a consistent standard.  TFD (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What a splendid display of conflation! BTW, Paul Robeson did, indeed, travel - including to the USSR (where he effusively praised Stalin) until his passport was confiscated in 1950 but this was not a blanket "closing of the US borders to emigration" by a long shot. I doubt that the 3.5 million were :singled out" for sure -- so this exampple you present is not at all comparable.   In 1956, after he was permitted to travel, his most noteworthy position was to praise the Soviet quelling of the Hungarian Revolution.  Name any free nation which issued a "shoot-to-kill" order at its borders.  Please. Collect (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for an article about the DDR, not a meeting of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. I suggest we stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk)


 * Collect, I'm not interested in your revisionist waffle. The fact of the matter is that under the laws of the DDR, the migration was illegal. We should tell our readers this. I'm sure they are quite capable of forming their own opinions on the morality of such laws - but it isn't for Wikipedia to decide whether the DDR's laws were actually 'illegal'. That is not only WP:OR, it is POV-pushing of the worst kind, and totally contrary to all principles of Wikipedia. If you wish to rewrite history, go somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for calling a neutral position
 * Revisionist waffle
 * It makes your own position sufficiently clear! Collect (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in your opinion of what constitutes 'neutrality'. We are supposed to be providing our readers with properly-sourced information, not our own conclusions regarding the implications of international law. Can you please explain why you don't think we should do this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

...there was no radical break with the Nazi regime????
The final words of this article are an astonishing assertion. What do they actually mean? Are they implying that certain social and institutional continuities can be observed between the Third Reich and the DDR? If so, fine, but it's not clear what's meant. Surely the political state of the GDR was as radical a break from the Nazi regime as can be imagined?


 * For a start, regardless of Feiwel Kupferberg's opinion on the matter, the last paragraph is an outright copyright violation - it contains a unattributed copy-and-paste material from H-Net Reviews in the Humanities and Social Sciences - I have deleted it accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * the paragraph has been rewritten and there no longer is a close paraphrase and the text meets all of wiki's rules. [For example the Granville review "may be freely redistributed, reused and built upon by anyone, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA)."; "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used"; "putting an attribution in a footnote at the end of the sentences or paragraph is sufficient"] The sentence in dispute is "This attitude, Kupferberg argues, allowed middle classes that had supported Hitler to retain powerful roles in East Germany and there was no radical break with the Nazi regime." (the cite is to p 166),. The solution is to rephrase: "this attitude, Kupferberg argues, allowed middle classes that had supported Hitler to retain powerful roles in East Germany."  The plan was to narrowly frame the issue in terms of the roles of a specified group, but if some people misread it then dropping "and there was no radical break with the Nazi regime" solves the problem, so I made the change. This meets the criterion above: "Are they implying that certain social and institutional continuities can be observed between the Third Reich and the DDR? If so, fine, yes that is the intended statement.Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - I was typing the section below while Rjensen made this comment, and wish to make it clear that I do not consider the paragraph as appropriate, for the reasons I have stated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ostalgie and Kupferberg
I have deleted a paragraph in the Ostalgie section on Kupferberg's views, for several reasons: firstly, it seems not to be about 'ostalgie' as such, but instead about Kupferberg's analysis of the different historical interpretations of the past in the populations of East and West Germany. Secondly, it is citing a review by Johanna Granville rather unnecessarily (and paraphrasing the review rather too closely, in my opinion, even after the original unattributed copy-and-paste was corrected), rather than discussing Kupferberg's own views. And finally, a statement that "This attitude, Kupferberg argues, allowed middle classes that had supported Hitler to retain powerful roles in East Germany and there was no radical break with the Nazi regime" seems to be cited, from what I can figure out (I don't have access to the entire book, and Google books won't display some of the sections cited) to two different sections, and may be synthesis: the note in the references citing p. 166 for "no radical break" certainly doesn't seem to support what is written - instead, it seems to be suggesting that traits of a "militaristic, nationalistic and authoritarian Xenophobic tradition which Hitler did not invent but had simpoly carried to its extreme..." had carried on in the East whereas they had largely died out in the west - it says nothing whatsoever about the middle classes "retaining roles". The whole thing looks to be something of a coatrack - an attempt to associate the DDR with the Nazis, based on poor sourcing and synthesis. The article deserves better than this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article deserves coverage of major scholarly interpretations as discussed by leading scholars. The main problem is whether the statement about the continuities between the two regimes are explicit in Kupferberg's book. AndyTheGrump says that he does not have access to the pages that were cited (I cited them when I borrowed the book by interlibrary loan, and he should validate or reject them AFTER he reads the book, not before. Theauthor says: "This study has made me aware of the strong thread of continuity in German history. Whether one likes it or not. national traditions do not disappear easily." (Kupferberg p 196). For Kupferberg these are central themes of Ostalgie. Rjensen (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Judging by the quote from p 166 I give above, Kupferberg seems to see this "strong thread of continuity in German history" as pre-dating the Nazis: is it right then to cite him for an explicit continuity with the Nazi regime? But yes, you are right, I don't have access to the book. Perhaps it would be best to wait for input from others - ideally, someone who does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * yes I agree that Kupferberg sees strong continuity-- including the pre 1933 era as well.  he definitely does not say this middle class first emerged in the 1930s -- it has a very long history.  He says it retained a major role after 1945 in GDR. Rjensen (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A positive review from someone in the Hoover Institution praising a book from Transaction Publishers. My understanding of WP:WEIGHT is that this type of source should be excluded unless it enters mainstream academic discourse.  The claim that "middle classes that had supported Hitler... retain[ed] powerful roles in East Germany and there was no radical break with the Nazi regime [unlike in the FRG]" seems contentious and if we are to include it we need to establish the degree of its acceptance.  But the type of source used draws little or no comment from mainstream historians.  TFD (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Eastern Germany incorporated into Poland and the USSR?
Is it worth mentioning the areas of Eastern Germany that were incorporated into Poland and the Soviet Union as part of the history section? A couple of sentences along the lines of "In ____ the German territories of East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, ... were incorporated into Poland and Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad) was incorporated into the Soviet Union." If the expelled Germans from those territories settled primarily in East or West Germany, that also might be worth a mention. My knowledge of the events are somewhat vague and my knowledge of the reliable sources on the topic virtually non-existent at present.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * AFAIK most of the expelled Germans settled in West Germany, so the territories are not directly relevant to this article's topic. Still, I wouldn't mind mentioning them here as background info. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Communist dictatorship
The RS call it a Communist dictatorship. 1) " In communist East Germany, dictators Walter Ulbricht (in power between 1960 and 1971) and his successor Erich Honecker (in power between 1971 and 1989) were so intent on controlling their citizens that one in ten of the...." ; 2) book title: State and Minorities in Communist East Germany (2011) by Mike Dennis, Norman LaPorte; 3) "examines professional autonomy under dictatorship and the place of technology in Communist ideology." and book title Red Prometheus: Engineering and Dictatorship in East Germany by Dolores L. Augustine - 2007; (4) title = Dictatorship and Demand: The Politics of Consumerism in East Germany by Mark Landsman - 2005. etc etc Rjensen (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The first book seems to be written by an author with no particular academic qualifications, who generally writes for children and young adults. As for the other books, you haven't cited page numbers. I've no doubt that some authors have described East Germany as a 'dictatorship' but it isn't a universal opinion by any means - and on that basis, we cannot state it as fact, in Wikipedia's voice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd also recommend looking through the archives - there have been extensive discussions regarding how East Germany has been described by different historians, and it has been made abundantly clear that we need to avoid giving undue weight to particular characterisations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy has not provided a single RS that supports his POV denial of dictatorship & Communism-- he instead relies on Wikipedia comments which are not valid sources. The titles of the books listed above have the key words. Try also 5) "Under the Communist dictatorship in post-1945 East Germany" page 131 by Helmut K. Anheier, Wolfgang Seibel - 2001; (6) "In the end, the GDR remained a communist dictatorship" Encyclopedia of the Cold War (2008) - Page 357; (7) " the system of Communist rule that the Soviets had maintained in Eastern Europe for more than forty ... East Germany." Parker, Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition in the West,  (2000)  p 211; (8) title = Lansing, From Nazism to Communism: German schoolteachers (2010); (9) " in 1989 overthrew the communist dictatorship in East Germany" Krugman, Essentials of Economics (2010) p 345; (10) " a new communist dictatorship, the German Democratic Republic (GDR)" Fulbrook, Dissonant Lives (2011) Page 4. etc etc.  We are required to use the RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 September 2012


 * I think we should only present a description as factual when there is an academic consensus for it, per neutrality, otherwise we are taking sides in a debate. Andy, could you present any of the sources used in the previous discussion? TFD (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * yes and here's the evidence their is an academic consensus: "Conceptualizing the GDR as a dictatorship has become widely accepted, while the meaning of the concept dictatorship varies. Massive evidence has been collected that proves the repressive, undemocratic, illiberal, nonpluralistic character of the GDR regime and its ruling party." I looked at the archives by the way and two or three editors objected but not one cited a RS for the POV viewpoint. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A statement in a single source to the effect that something has been 'widely accepted' is less than compelling evidence that it has in fact been, and in any case, since the author states that "the meaning of the concept dictatorship varies" it is hardly grounds for an emphatic label - and the source doesn't describe the DDR as a 'communist dictatorship' anyway - instead the term 'dictatorial state socialism' is used (p. 39). I suspect that relatively few academics will describe the DDR state as 'communist', as opposed to 'socialist', for reasons which should be clear to anyone with a little background knowledge - do I really have to explain this to you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that the Socialist Unity Party (Germany) and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union viewed East Germany as democratic.... --TIAYN (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy still has no RS--he should start reading a bit--then maybe he will be able to cite a single source that supports his personal opinions. A recent statement by a leading German scholar (Kocka) that XYZ is "widely accepted" based on "massive evidence" meets the Wikipedia criteria. The favorite term used in East Berlin & Moscow in those days was "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- so they did not see "dictatorship" as an evil term. Rjensen (talk) 04:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean dictatorship, it means the monoplisation of power by the proletariat... Its no difference from the dictatorship of capitalist in capitalist societies.. The USSR called itself the largest democracy in the world, why do you think they did that???  --TIAYN (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Evidently Rjensen is more concerned with getting the word 'dictatorship' into the article than with actually describing the DDR. And what 'personal opinion' am I trying to impose anyway? I doubt that Rjensen even has a clue regarding my opinions on the subject, beyond the fact that I think our readers should be presented with evidence, and allowed to from their own opinions, rather than having tired old cold-war rhetoric thrust upon them. Frankly, I think we'd be better off dumping large sections of this article as propagandising, and basing it instead on the excellent article on the DDR from our German colleagues. They seem to be capable of making clear that there were (and are) differing viewpoints about the nature of the state - but then again, presumably they are writing at least in part for people who were there, and will recognise propaganda regardless where it comes from... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump has not cited his sources; he has never added any cite from anyone to this article. That suggests his ideas are 100% POV. Rjensen (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(out) Juergen Kocka writes in "The GDR A Special Kind of Modern Dictatorship" about the difficulties in categorizing the GDR, particularly what kind of dictatorship it was. He also says that "Few challenge today the nature of the GDR as a dictatorship". (p. 19) In an article written for the WSJ and republished here (p. 4) Sidney Goldberg complains that Webster's and some other reference books refer to right-wing dictators as dictators, but never to left-wing dictators. Webster's btw defines a dictator as "a person granted absolute emergency power". That is my understanding of the term in its strictest sense, although it is often used more widely. In the GDR the SED leader did not necessarily have absolute power because arguably it was shared with other party leaders. And certainly it was not emergency power. If one wants a term from antiquity to describe Communist rule, tyranny would probably be more suitable. I think that calling the GDR a "dictatorship" detracts from the neutrality of the article, and would leave the impression with some readers that the article was written from an anti-GDR bias. I would ask also how the article is improved by saying that the GDR was a communist dictatorship, rather than saying that few question it was a dictatorship, although there is a question of what kind. BTW Rjensen is quite correct in asking for sources and we should avoid questioning editors' motives. TFD (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * exactly what kind of dictatorship it was is an interesting question--was it one-man rule or Politburo rule. There is exactly the same debate about Hitler (historians say many key decisions were made by others) and Stalin (historians say no key decisions were made by others). China was one-man under Mao and group since then. This article does not take a position on the one man/politburo debate. All of the sources cited, such as the book titles, were written long after the end of the cold war and are not parties to that debate.  "anti-GDR bias" is not a Wikiepdia criteria.  the criteria is representing all major scholarly viewpoints. The "bias" wikipedia worries about is bias by editors who suppress an important viewpoint in RS. That has not happened. Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither the Zentralkomitee (ZK) der SED, nor it's General Secretaries (e.g. Walter Ulbricht, Erich Honecker) had absolute power. In fact, both Ulbricht and Honecker were dismissed of their position as General Secretary by new alliences in the Politbüro. In the GDR we were taught to see the GDR as dictatorship of the proletariat, but in reality the GDR was ruled by the SED-party (and not the proletariat), and inside the SED partly by the Politbüro, partly by the Zentralkommitee and partly by the Bezirksvorsitzenden der SED (the party-leaders in the regions). So it's a question of definition of the term dictatorship: the SED itself said it was a dictatorship (of the proletariat). But is a state (almost completly) ruled or dominated by one single party (the SED) a dictatorship? More common for that is the term communist state, although never a so-called communist state called itsself communist and they were far away of the goal of a classless society: the dictatorship of the proletariat means that there are other classes to be ruled.
 * Other thing was the Soviet Union at Stalin's time: he had truly absolute power in his party and the state.--Enst38 (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * yes that's a good point and I hope it gets into the article some day. The term "dictatorship" does not require a single all-powerful man like Stalin. It means a small group makes all the decisions with no appeals and no rule of law; for example telling the Stasi who to arrest in the middle of the night. What makes GDR more complicated is the role of the USSR. By 1989 the whole system collapsed in the face of massive popular unrest that Gorbachev refused to suppress with the large Soviet army stationed in GDR. Rjensen (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a propaganda sheet
Recent edits by IPs have seriously distorted the neutrality of this article, and in some cases have involved adding factually-incorrect material. The infobox, which previously read "government Marxist–Leninist socialist state" now reads "government "Communist state Totalitarian dictatorship", and and highly-questionable edits to the lede and body of the article have likewise added confusing and just plain misleading material. It needs to be established that it is not Wikipedia's purpose to tell readers how to think, and nor is it Wikipedia's job to attach POV-laden labels to articles. Phrases like 'Totalitarian dictatorship' are clearly opinion, rather than the sort of undisputed uncontroversial fact that infoboxes are intended for, and likewise adding contradictory (and unsourced) waffle about 'militarily-enforced rule' and 'puppet states' is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy. Our readers are intelligent enough to make their own minds up about the nature of the DDR, without having cold-war propaganda terms spoon-fed to them, and articles are supposed to be based on reliable sources (of which there is no lack whatsoever for this subject), rather than the opinions of IPs who would rather edit-war than discuss material, and seem to be under the impression that they have a licence to spin the article their way just because they are unidentifiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As the IPs have refused to discuss the matter on this talk page, I have requested semi-protection. Because the three IPs seem to be one editor, I've opened a sock puppetry case, which should lead to a few brief blocks (for the 3RR violation) and help with the similar problem starting at Stasi. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Page protection
This is an article that I have had on  my watchlist  for years because of my  close relations with  pre-Wende Germany. I never edit it because I  prefer to  stay  neutral and perhaps intervene to  keep  the editors on  a moderate track. It never works, and now that  the page has been protected yet again, if the issues continue when the current  protection  expires, I  will full  protect  it  indefinitely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

LET'S CALL THIS ARTICLE > GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC <
I think it's insulting to East Germans to put the term "East Germany" on one level with "German Democratic Republic". Besides being historically wrong in so many ways, it's just creating an image that shouldn't be created by an encyclopedia. So please, let's change the title of this article. Thank you. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. It makes sense to me to call the country by the name by which it was recognized.  TFD (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:COMMONNAME. This has been discussed here quite a bit going back several years as well. --John (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Checking current usage - the longer title is rarely used. The simple "East Germany" is still in common usage - including in English language newspapers. Auf Deutsch? Also true. Searching for "DDR" one must exclude the "DDR Corporation" making "DDR" a tad more common than the full name, and still in news, books and general searches still far less common tham "East Germany" or "OstDeutschland." As a result - the longer name fails to be "common" by Wikipedia standards by a mile. As for "official name" Venezuela was "The United States of Venezuela" and is now "The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela", the UK is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", uzw. Collect (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Common names" says we should consider various factors, including "neutrality" and "Other encyclopedias". Notice that Encyclopedia Britannica uses the term "German Democratic Republic".  I note that the term "East Germany" is also applied to the pre-GDR Soviet Zone and the region of contemporary Germany that used to be the GDR.  Collect, notice that we do not call the UK "England", even though that may be the most common name (e.g., "Queen of England").  TFD (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Try again - The UN uses "United Kingdom" as the nameplate for the UK, It uses "Venezuela" for the "Bolivarian Republic".  The NYT routinely uses "East Germany" to this day.   about 32,000 times.   "German Democratic Republic" is used  under 2,000 times.  QE II is actually "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and is not just "Queen of England" making that claim quite absurd.  Nor do I think anyone would call the UK "England" who has any knowledge of the existence of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland at all.  Straw man debating does not work here, TFD.   Now you seem to assert that Wikipedia should only use titles which the Encyclopedia Britannica used to use?     Note the Britannica uses the name "East Germany."  Negating your nit. , , , , , etc.  in a large number of articles.  Cheers - but next time find an actual argument for this. Collect (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)  BTW, note that the Bundesrepublik Deutschland is in the article West Germany meaning this discussion is all theater of the absurd here. Collect (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collect and the others that "East Germany" is the best term and the one most often used by the RS. It has the advantage of being much easier to understand (since it specifies location) than old terms that have not been in official use for 20+ years and are not familiar to users under age 35. Rjensen (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "East Germany" is NOT congruent to the GDR. Neither historically nor was it geographically. In contemporary times, "Ostdeutschland" isn't used in the same way as "DDR", at best as "ehemalige DDR" (former GDR). It's just insulting to East Germans and not appropriate for encyclopedic standards. See Encyclopedia Britannica that uses the term German Democratic Republic. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * this is the English Wikipedia and "East Germany" is the term preferred by scholars, historians, editors, journals, reviewers and publishers in the English speaking world. Recent books: Protestants in Communist East Germany (2010); Collapse of a Closed Society: The End of East Germany (2010); East Germany and the Escape (2011); Why Revolt? A Comparative Analysis of Poland and East Germany in 1989 (2011); State and Minorities in Communist East Germany (2011); Treaties of East Germany,  (2011); "Orchestrating Identity: Concerts for the Masses and the Shaping of East German Society' in German History Sept 2012; "Glad to be Gay Behind the Wall: Gay and Lesbian Activism in 1970s East Germany" in History Workshop Journal (Oct 2012) etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In the first example, while "Communist East Germany" is used in the title, it is referred to as the GDR throughout the book. I suppose the adjective "Communist" was necessary to distinguish it from East Germany today, although that seems an even more unusual name.  In the German Wikipedia, there are separate articles for  East Germany and the former GDR.  Since reunification, the area that was formerly the GDR is a subject of study.  TFD (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TFD gives an example where the author seems to prefer GDR but actually used "East Germany" when it came time to title his book. The issue here is the title of the article, and the example suggests that even people who usually prefer GDR should choose "East Germany" for a title. Rjensen (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME pertains to the English language usage, what goes on in German wikipedia is irrelevant. Country articles rarely have their formal name as title, for example The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is commonly known as United Kingdom and the article is titled accordingly. --Nug (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ^Sorry, but that argument ain't valid. East Germany refers to a CURRENT labelling of a region, just like you'd use >East France< as a regional label. Thus, East Germany as used for GDR is NOT a correct label, since this article is about the former GDR. I could be fine with >East Germany< redirecting to an article called >GDR German Democratic Republic<, with the article explaining the differences in the beginning. Or a disambiguation page for East Germany referring to a page explaining the region and another one directing to the GDR article. The current condition is UNACCEPTABLE to East Germans and HIGHLY insulting. Cordial thanks for your attention. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but you are not completely right. In English usage, "East Germany" usually refers to the former state (GDR), while the region (the eastern part of Germany) is usually referred to as "Eastern Germany". Therefore, Eastern Germany does not redirect here, but to New states of Germany. --RJFF (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, but that's still a colloquial term. And people will keep confusing 'East Germany' and 'Eastern Germany' for something it isn't anymore. And the times of officially declaring it via Wiki should be coming to an end. Proper dictionaries (reference 1, reference 2) will tell you that 'East Germany' mainly refers to the geogr. region, not the former state. While of course it can be a synonym for the GDR, it should be made clear it isn't necessarily the same (disambiguation or redirect).
 * If you say 'Korea' you don't necessarily refer to something political or the DPRK, but to the peninsula. So the Wiki article of course leads you to the geographical article. It's not a far-fetched comparison, since 'Kora' is often used as a synonym for either one of the states. If it's news about some badass maniacs toying with nukes, 'Korea' refers to NoKo, while the fun stuff usually refers to SoKo.
 * Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * colloquial? not true (no dictionary says that). Wiki's job is to go with the RS -- the scholars, writers, editors, publishers and reviewers, who all prefer East Germany in titles of books and scholarly articles. Rjensen (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We won't agree here. I'll propose a proper solution soon. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Some interesting choice of words...
I.e.,, "The SED set a primary goal of ridding the GDR of all traces of the fascist regime, by ensuring democratic elections and the protection of individual liberties in the building up socialism."

While technically correct (it's what they professed in public), the reality was far removed. This wording seems a little too ambiguous to leave as is. Any suggestions? Monolith2 (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

East Germany is a geographic term. The former socialists state's name was the German Democratic Republic (DDR - Deutsche Demokratische Republic). The GDR was a dictatorship: torture & inhumane and degrading treatment were systematically used by the security forces, including the Stasi secret police, against suspected opponents of the regime. People were imprisoned for such reasons as trying to leave the country, or telling political jokes. Stasi perfected their methods and Stasi experts therefore e.g. helped to set up Idi Amin's secret police. It's disregarding towards the many victims of the Stasi, those who were persecuted and prosecuted, tortured and killed, not to name it as one.

According to, Simon Wiesenthal of Vienna, Austria, who has been hunting Nazi criminals for half a century: "The Stasi was much, much worse than the Gestapo, if you consider only the oppression of its own people. The Gestapo had 40,000 officials watching a country of 80 million, while the Stasi employed 102,000 to control only 17 million." One might add that the Nazi terror lasted only twelve years, whereas the Stasi had four decades in which to perfect its machinery of oppression, espionage, and international terrorism and subversion. http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/koehler-stasi.html

Please respect the Stasi victim's dignity and change this article accordingly. Amnesty International has published broadly on this issue, too. Thank you very much.

More information: http://www.stiftung-hsh.de/ http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/koehler-stasi.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/352461.stm Harding, Luke (2011). Mafia State. London: Guardian Books. pp. 282-8. ISBN (HB) 978-0852-65247-3. a b c d THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE-GATHERING OF THE MfS’ HAUPTVERWALTUNG AUFKLÄRUNG. Jérôme Mellon. 16 October 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalifornianHummingbird (talk • contribs) 20:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a precautionary reminder
of the warning right at the top of this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please link the notice to a specific ruling. TFD (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ..there isn't one, apparently... If 'discretionary sanctions' apply to this article, there seems to be nothing obvoious in the discussions concerning the sanctions that say so, as far as I can see. Of course, some contributors see the word 'East' in the article, observe it relates to Europe, and conclude that it must apply - I look forward to their comments regarding East Anglia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite clearly there is: WP:ARBEURO. The template links to Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions which helpfully lists the topic areas (including Eastern Europe) affected by the sanctions. The key phrase is "broadly construed." As sanctions have even been applied under ARBEURO to editors on London Victory Celebrations of 1946, a defence of ignorance for contentious editing at East Germany would seem to be shallow at best. Keri (talk) 08:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not offering any defence, ignorant or otherwise - I'm asking for evidence that the sanctions are intended to apply here - and the discussion regarding the '46 victory celebrations seems largely to revolve around questions regarding Poland. If you can cite anything from the discussions that directly relates to the applicability of the relevant sanctions to East Germany, please do so. The presence or otherwise of sanctions regarding this article shouldn't matter that much one way or another - but unverified claims that they apply here, or anywhere else, might be seen as 'instruction creep' of the worst kind. Verify them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe: "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions." If you disagree or have doubts that East Germany and the politics of the GDR do not fall within a broad interpretation of Eastern Europe, request clarification. Keri (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * To make it clearer, I've replaced the sanctions template previously at the very top with two templates (at the bottom), one of which notes discretionary sanctions and the other of which links to the ArbCom decision. At this point, short of a directive from ArbCom or a consensus declared by an admin after discussion to the contrary, the article will be subject to sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the onus is on you to explain why this article should be included. Germany is not in Eastern Europe and the Eastern European disputes have not entered into this article.  The London Victory Celebrations for example was included because the article was essentially about the UK's decision to invite Poland's Communist government but not the Polish government in exile.  That just shows that virtually any article can become a coatrack for Eastern European ethnic disputes.  TFD (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Single party in info box
Ok I reverted to "stable" version which I am sure is the wrong on. Don't know nor do I care about this article. Time for long time editors to STOP edit warring and find consensus here. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)ps, I work on see also sections, and this one is beyond ridiculous, I might trim it later but don't want to now during dispute. --Malerooster (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Um, given that the last edit inserting 'Marxist–Leninist single-party state' into the infobox was done by a contributor who made it entirely clear that he/she knew that this is factually incorrect in formal terms, I've raised this at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It is one thing to engage in a content dispute, or even edit-war over it, but intentionally inserting false statements into articles is another matter entirely. The article makes clear the complexities of DDR political organisation, and at no point does it assert that it was a one-party state, for the obvious reason that it wasn't - regardless of where real political power lay. Though where exactly, and with whom, it actually lay is of course open to debate. And infoboxes are for uncontroversial facts, not debatable opinions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Would the other editor(or anybody else) like to comment? --Malerooster (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Info-boxes are for non-controversial clear concise information. Since the GDR had five political parties it is confusing to say that it was a single party state.  Note that two of these parties merged with the Christian Democratic CDU while two merged with the liberal FDP after re-unification, and not with the Communist successor party.
 * Another problem is that in the final election fair competition was allowed between parties and the winning Christian Democrats could hardly be seen as Marxist-Leninist.
 * TFD (talk)
 * Fair enough as well. --Malerooster (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Article 1 of the East German constitution reads ""Sie ist die politische Organisation der Werktätigen in Stadt und Land unter der Führung der Arbeiterklasse und ihrer marxistisch-leninistischen Partei".. The SED was given the rights to rule East Germany indefinitely.... This is not what I mean, this is what they said. --TIAYN (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * TIAYN, I am not understanding your arguement here, my German also sucks except for ien beer bitter. Since you wanted to have single party in the info box, can you provide a reliable source? The constitution would be a primary source and not usable it seems. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * TIAYN's post means that the leading role of the SED (communist party) was determined in the constitution. But this does not mean that it was the single party. Other parties existed. Therefore the formulation "single-party state" is inexact and misleading. I think that the fact that the Marxist-Leninist party was dominant and there was no actual political competition is already well conveyed by the formulation "Marxist–Leninist socialist state". --RJFF (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is also worth pointing out that the 1968 constitution had some fairly fundamental differences with the earlier 1949 one - and our article covers the entire period 1949–1990. Basing assertions concerning the entire period on the 1968 constitution, as TIAYN appears to be doing, is even less tenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The constitution is a reliable documents when it comes to who is governing the god darn country!! Secondly, a one-party system is a system when one-party is legally given the power to rule without challenge or interference... The Socialist Unity Party was given the right to rule the country exclusively by law - the other parties were never giving the right to compete for power.. Thirdly, these parties were not political parties in either the Marxist-Leninist sense of the word, or in the Western liberal democratic sense of the word.. These parties supported communist rule until the very end of East Germany's existence.... No on disputes that North Korea, China or Cuba are one-party states, why should they treat East Germany different?? --TIAYN (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The ordinary meaning of "one party" is that there is only one party, not five. And normally we would not use primary sources because we need to understand how they are interpreted.  Here is a link to the English version of the 1968 constitution.  I would not use it to explain how the GDR was governed.  TFD (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should we treat North Korea, China or Cuba differently from the DDR? Because none of them are the DDR, obviously... I fail to see how the 1969 constitution could be any sort of definitive source for an article covering a period starting from 1949 anyway. If TIAYN's original research is all that is on offer here, I think we can consider the discussion closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the term "socialist state" biased? I think it is, it is used by Marxist-Leninists to describe their states as well as capitalist opponents of socialism who negatively refer to Marxism-Leninism and say "this is what a socialist state is", but not all socialists accept that those Marxist-Leninist states were genuinely socialist. Why not say "Marxist-Leninist state" and avoid that problem?--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that we'd be better off without such glib characterisations in infoboxes anyway - they tell the reader little, even if they can be reliably sourced. Each state is unique, and should be described in the relevant article, rather than just lumped together into some category or other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's just drop the whole thing in the name of peace, love, and understanding. That infobox is too long already by a factor of 2 (phone code?!?!? REALLY?!?!?) so instead of bashing back and forth trying to piss each other off, why don't you long-time editors on this page see if you can figure out how to chop that thing down to size. OF COURSE, East Germany was, essentially, a one-party state in which the SED had primacy. Whether this was formally true in constitutional terms is irrelevant. But everyone knows this and the multiple links splitting hairs in the description of that state in the infobox aren't the least bit helpful to anyone. People need to stop taking themselves so seriously here. And while you're at it, how about getting rid of the low-value sidebar templates that clog up the layout??? Carrite (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Two points. (1) It definitely must be described as a "single-party state". Single party states may have officially approved minor parties, with limited participation in elections. (2) I think it should be described as a "communist state", rather than "socialist" or "Marxist-Leninist" state per majority of sources. How it was called in the constitution of now defunct state is not really an an argument; the modern-day sources are.My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you expecting us to take as read your entirely unsourced assertion that the majority of recent sources have described the DDR as a 'communist state'? I've seen no evidence to this effect whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We should only make statements of fact when there is consensus in sources, per WP:NPOV/neutrality. The GDR was not communist because it had a government.  There is no consensus either that it was socialist, since there is disagreement over whether the people actually controlled government and the economy or whether they were controlled by party elites.  TFD (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Communism" can refer to the earlhy Christian Era practice of holding all their possessions in common, or it can refer to control by the SED, commonly called the Communist Party. Historians of the East Germany are clear that it means the latter.  What views are widely accepted by the  reliable sources? According to German historian Jürgen Kocka (2010): "Conceptualizing the GDR as a dictatorship has become widely accepted, while the meaning of the concept dictatorship varies. Massive evidence has been collected that proves the repressive, undemocratic, illiberal, nonpluralistic character of the GDR regime and its ruling party."  So there is not a single RS that claims "the people actually controlled government and the economy"  The Party leadership said that THEY represented the true will of "the people" and the Stasi took care of any who disagreed. Rjensen (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So now you are suggesting that because a historian says that "Conceptualizing the GDR as a dictatorship has become widely accepted, while the meaning of the concept dictatorship varies", we can accept your OR/synthesis that this means we should put 'communist something-or-other' in the infobox? I think I detect a failure of logic here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * it's not MY synthesis -- it's what Kocka says is the consensus of scholars. We don'r have RS since 1991 that disagree. he Wiki rule is that we emphasize the majority viewpoint and include minority views--if any--in proportion to their representation among the experts. Is there any RS that claims "the people actually controlled government and the economy"-- I rather  doubt it but will be glad to look at the sources AndyTheGrump is using. what are they? Rjensen (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If what Kocka says is correct, we can cite him in the article for "Conceptualizing the GDR as a dictatorship has become widely accepted, while the meaning of the concept dictatorship varies". We aren't proposing to put "the people actually controlled government and the economy" in the infobox, or the article (or at least, I've not seen any such proposal). So what are you proposing should go into the infobox, and what source are you citing for it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that Rjensen correctly points out the difference between the actual meaning of Communism and the term's usage as a synonym for "Eastern bloc states' system." Skäpperöd (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone just calm down and think for a moment. Who is going to disagree with my proposal of simply calling it a "Marxist-Leninist state"? That is what it was designed as, Marxist-Leninists would not disagree with it, and Marxism-Leninism is the precise variant of communism that it promoted. It was not a coincidence that the state utilized Marxist-Leninist ideology and symbolism because a Marxist-Leninist party happened to govern it, it was designed as a Marxist-Leninist state as per the constitution that TIAYN showed here, and as such I think it is relevant to describe it as a "Marxist-Leninist state" in the infobox.--R-41 (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not about "Marxist-Leninist" aka "Communist state" aka Real socialism state, but about single party state, which is something different. Of course all "Marxist-Leninist" states were single party states... My very best wishes (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We could call it "a single party state with five parties". TFD (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * or maybe just use mathematics: 1 + 4 = 1... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @TFD. Yes, you are absolutely right. I agree. @Andy. The single-party state, by definition, is not a state with only one political party, but a state where predominant role of one political party is officially defined in the state constitution (as in Soviet Union). A limited participation of a few other parties which are officially "allied" with the Leading Communist Party can be allowed. Let me ask you this question: Did you guys studied history of Communist party at University? I unfortunately did.My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the division among editors here seems to have its roots in different opinions whether or not the term "single party state" also includes states led autocratically by a single party, but has this dominant party surrounded by a few "teacher's pets" with a clearly defined submissive minority status. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, as far as I'm concerned, the real issue is whether we should be sticking glib catchphrases into infoboxes at all: as I've already pointed out, there is no requirement whatsoever to say anything in the infobox. - but if there are different (sourced) opinions on the issue, we can't use the infobox anyway, as they are intended for uncontroversial assertions of fact, rather than for whichever opinion we happen to agree on. And has it never occurred to you that an article which describes the DDR as a 'single party state' in one place, but describes five parties which (nominally at least) made up the ruling alliance in another might strike our readers as rather odd? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the article described the other parties as part of a "ruling alliance," that would be a flaw in need for fixing, since these other parties were on the receiving end of the politbüro's orders and not part of the decision making process. But I was not able to find such a statement. As to your point about saying nothing in the infobox, I don't think that such an infobox would be stable, as shown by the recent edit history... Or did you mean having no infobox at all? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the past history of this article to suggest that any value for this field in the infobox would be stable - and there is nothing to prevent us adding a hidden comment to the effect that the field is not to be used, with a link to this discussion. As to whether we need an infobox at all, I'm not a great fan of them, but that is another debate, and best not discussed here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Instead link article Real socialism in scare quotes
The system's self-description was real existierender Sozialismus - an euphemism meaning a de-facto single-party, Moscow-submissive, Marxism/Communism-propagandizising, planned-economy state, which is was the GDR was. If in the infobox we put this term or the English equivalent real socialism in scare quotes to indicate the euphemism, and explain the term in more detail in the article along the lines of eg Hey (2010:31), that would be the appropriate catchphrase to sum up the system's nature. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And why exactly should an encyclopaedia start feeding its readers catchphrases in scare quotes? There is no requirement whatsoever for the infobox to include any euphemism, catchphrase, soundbite or other one-word 'summary' that tells the reader nothing of any substance - and the term 'real socialism' tells them nothing at all, given that its intended meaning changed over time, and with context, from the Brezhnev era self-description of the state to the tongue-in-cheek-irony of its later popular usage. Incidentally, a link to our 'real socialism' article would do little but confuse the issue more, not least because I'm fairly sure that the term is more often translated as 'actually existing socialism', and the article is an inconsistent and questionably-sourced stub. I think we should all try to bear in mind that the object of an encyclopaedia is to inform its readers, not to satisfy the ideological needs of its contributors - neither soundbites nor slogans contain much in the way of information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I must agree with Skapperod and some others. Now, speaking about sources, I am looking in the book by Richard Pipes. Communism: A History (2001), page 108 (simply because I have this book on my bookshelf), and it describes GDR and several similar countries as: (a) "one-party", (b) Soviet "satellite" states, and (c) "communist" states. Why this is important to show in the infobox? Because "one-party" communist state is the defining characteristics of political system. This is like indicating for a protein that it is an enzyme. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying to imagine what the other books on your shelf are. TFD (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Richard Pipes? ROFL... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This little book is simply an introductory 101 course. I quoted it to show that "single-party state" is a matter of common knowledge. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Pipes writes from a neoconservative viewpoint and his views on Communism are highly controversial. TFD (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Time for a reality check

The GDR was known for its Orwellian use of the German language – here is a good example-DDR Sprache - Sachsen Dialekt

This is the real existierender Sozialismus I remember from 1969 --Woogie10w (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. This is a discussion regarding the content (if any) of the article infobox - unless you have something specific to say regarding this, your comments are off-topic. This is not a forum for general comentary on the DDR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I something specific to say regarding this article and this discussion, and that is we need to avoid inserting DDR propaganda into the text, the euphemism real existierender Sozialismus is just plain DDR doubletalk that has no place here. Imagine the outrage if American editors characterized segregation as "separate but equal". The You Tube clips drive home the point that the term real existierender Sozialismus is Orwellian language that does not belong on Wikipedia. This is not general commentary on the DDR, it addresses the points raised in the discussion. BTW back in 1969, the term Socialism was used to characterize Sweden and the UK, the DDR I visited was Communist--Woogie10w (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Opinion poll: What should the infobox state as "government"?
Since the discussion has now been going on for some time, and to prevent it from starving of tl;dr, I propose to have a straw poll (including some further, more organized discussion) about actual proposals of what to put in the infobox under "government." This section should start with Right now, the infobox says, under "government": Alternative proposals (may be combined): Skäpperöd (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * collecting proposed entries, and then proceed to
 * determine consensus for any of the proposals.
 * Marxist–Leninist socialist state.
 * dictatorship of SED cadre
 * "real socialism"
 * de facto single party state led by SED cadre


 * This attempt to determine 'the truth' by 'opinion poll' is entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy. Infobox fields are solely intended for uncontroversial facts - and if there are no uncontroversial facts, they shouldn't be used, and we can't decide to ignore policy, even if we wanted to. By policy, the only legitimate entry in this infobox field is either nothing at all, or something which all except fringe commentary will agree on. Since the latter seems not to exist, the only option is the former. We should put nothing in the box, but instead do what Wikipedia is intended to - convey to our readers in the body of the article how the DDR was perceived in differing sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The other former east bloc Warsaw Pact states are not described as Socialist on English Wikipedia. We could be consistent here and use the term Marxist–Leninist- Republic/single-party state for the DDR. If we useSocialist editors would then have go to the other east bloc countries and change the government descriptions to Real socialism or Socialist in order to maintain internal consistancy. (Since there were nominal coalition parties in the DDR,it technically was not a single-party state.)

People's Republic of Poland Marxist–Leninist Republic Communist Romania Marxist–Leninist single-party state People's Republic of Hungary -Marxist–Leninist single-party state People's Republic of Bulgaria Marxist–Leninist single-party state Czechoslovak Socialist Republic  Single-party Marxist-Leninist federal republic

Skäpperöd is right to suggest a poll, in any case I believe the other East Bloc articles will support the description Marxist–Leninist single-party state if and when this issue becomes a Wikipedia notice board dispute.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What other articles do is irrelevant. If there is no clear concise neutral term then the field should be left blank.  TFD (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What other articles do on Wikipedia is relevant indeed, if this issue becomes a Wikipedia notice board dispute I am sure that point will become part of the discussion. --Woogie10w (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ! People calm down. For infoboxes on Marxist-Leninist states, just state what they obviously were, a "Marxist-Leninist state", place other items of forms of government such as "republic", "union" (in the case of the USSR), or "federal republic" (in the cases of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia) above or below it, and the situation is resolved. Who cares whether it was literally a single-party-state or not, regardless if there were a few token parties with no ability to exercise power, every serious historian knows who had the levers of power in the country anyway, and that can be described in the main body of the article. But it was clearly in practice a Marxist-Leninist state.--R-41 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a dispute over what "Marxist-Leninist" means. Think Right Opposition, deformed workers state, soviet social imperialism.  TFD (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense talk. The country was officially guided by Marxist-Leninist principles in its constitution that TIAYN stated. If you want to debate Marxist-Leninist theory, go to the Marxism-Leninism article. Enough relativist nonsense. The country was officially committed to Marxism-Leninism, hence a "Marxist-Leninist state", the end.--R-41 (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to use self-description, the obvious term would be "democratic republic". TFD (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Right Opposition, deformed workers state, soviet social imperialism- Do you intend to insert these terms in the lead?--Woogie10w (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, TFD doesn't want anything in the infobox section on government. Unfortunately TFD regularly succumbs to relativism when people disagree on things. The country was officially a Marxist-Leninist state and a republic, that's it, I advise anyone who disagrees to read history and learn about it.--R-41 (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Deformed workers state and soviet social imperialism were terms developed by Trotskyists and Maoists to describe what they saw as deviation from Marxism-Leninism.  The Right Opposition also claimed to be the heirs to M-L, and claimed that Stalin had betrayed it.  The point is that whether or not the GDR was M-L is a matter of opinion.  R-41, not everything in social sciences is black and white and our role is to report what sources say rather than come down on one side or the other.  TFD (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are putting words in my mouth, I did not say that everything is black and white. I said that I believe that you are resorting to relativism. Relativism taken to an extreme ends up in an extreme postmodernist Derrida-like conclusion that everything is subjective, that every defined thing is a social construction based on perceptions that may or may not be held by all people, and that may or may not exist, a self-defeating conclusion if anyone attempts to make an argument with that. With that kind of relativism, it would probably be impossible to define what a bird is. How do we identify the "Communist" i.e. Marxist-Leninist countries in history? We identify them as such because they were formally committed to Marxism-Leninism, that is how mainstream books identify them and that is why we are talking about this right now.--R-41 (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So you think that social sciences have the same sharp definitions found in biology, that there is some Platonic form for every ideological category. TFD (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it is a question of how anal are people willing to get to describe a government that did have an ideological basis. Richard Nixon would not count as a great example for a leader of a liberal democracy in the United States, but the institutions were primarily liberal democratic. It is not a matter of sharpness at all, it is a matter of very general generic ideological associations.--R-41 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Reparations
Somewhere it should be mentioned that the German Democratic Republic paid reparations to the Soviet Union for war damage. And the last prisoners of war who were working in Siberia returned in 1955. So the notion that only West Germany shouldered the responsibility for the war damage alone is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.8 (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Shameful bias
The entire opening should be restructured so that the majority of the content isn't an attempted slander against the GDR. Wikipedia is about presenting information, not telling people how to think, which is exactly the intention when you put content saying "[Subject] has been described as 'x', 'y', and 'z'," in a brazenly clear attempt to paint an attitude towards the subject. This page is an absolute shame to Wikipedia. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What is "shameful" about the intro? You talk about presenting information but avoiding "shameful bias". So should we exclude the "shamefully biased" information that millions of East Germans fled East Germany to West Germany? Sorry if offends the politically correct Socialist Unity Party of Germany-approved perspective of what East Germany was, but the mass migrations from East Germany to West Germany is a fact. The problem of mass migration was so much of a known fact in East Germany that the Berlin Wall was built to prevent people from crossing from East to West Berlin. And yes reliable sources may not be convenient for political correctness, that is why ideas like Creationism will never be taken as a serious alternative explanation to reliable scientific evidence, for instance. Wikipedia is about reliably sourced evidence, the intro is overall well-sourced and includes material by German historians.--R-41 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A few sentences on detailed statements on negative domestic perspectives can be removed, but beyond that, the intro is well-sourced. I am very concerned that a major problem that is arising is political correctness regarding the legacy of East Germany, of being so-called "fair" about what facts are "acceptable" to include and especially on what unfavourable facts are "unacceptable" to include and thus should be ignored.--R-41 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead is supposed to summarize the article, yet fails even to mention the economy Most of the lead should be in the body.  TFD (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The system in the east was despised by most Germans that lived there, in the first free election of Marz 1990 the Communists got 16.4% of the vote De:Volkskammerwahl 1990 --Woogie10w (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That is at a particular time though at the very end of the state, when the state practically admitted that it was previously unviable by opening up to new parties to contest in elections. Today with the rise of Die Linke in the East, the attitude to the DDR legacy seems divided. However the country had severe problems at a much earlier time when the state was relatively new, when it faced mass migration from East Germany to West Germany in those early years, and the need for the creation of the Berlin Wall to stop the migration. When people are illegally migrating out of a country in large numbers - regardless of whether the country is Marxist-Leninist like East Germany, or capitalist like Mexico - there is bound to be something that is deeply dissatisfying such people.--R-41 (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you wrote and the need for the creation of the Berlin Wall to stop the migration Say, Do want to include that in the article?--Woogie10w (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please look at what I said, I am not endorsing what they did, I am describing what they did. It was East Germany that did indeed "need" to prevent further migration in order to prevent serious depopulation that would cause both economic problems and other problems that it could not afford if it expected to survive as a state. The Berlin Wall was constructed to prevent people from leaving East Berlin to West Berlin, that is well known.--R-41 (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This entire thread proves my point. You are more concerned about slandering the GDR because it's a popular opinion in contemporary society rather than providing information about the GDR so that readers can form their own opinions. It's a completely false and slanderous statement that the majority of GDR citizens despised the GDR. There are some Americans who hate certain politicians and aspects of the US system, but they do not despise the US itself. There is absolutely no historical context behind the Berlin Wall provided in the intro, nor is there any historical context behind the founding of the GDR itself. Absolutely no mention of Germany's history of the socialist/communist/anti-fascist movement, of Ernst Thalmann, nor any mention of the entire generation of Germans who were taught in school that Russians and all Slavs were genetically inferior and should be treated like animals, hence a level of contempt towards the Red Army from such persons, and I could go on. The entire opening is a joke, and you're also a joke if you want to pretend that it isn't brazenly obvious that it is an attempt to white-wash history to conform to your own opinions. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And from your infobox and your behaviour, you are a pro-Warsaw Pact Marxist-Leninist, and you have specific interests in what you believe is defending your ideology's achievements here. Your goal here is to present the politically correct Socialist Unity Party of Germany-approved history of events. The status of the Warsaw Pact's submission to the Soviet Union was so miserable, that Non-Aligned Marxist-Leninist governments in Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Socialist Republic of Albania, and others arose. What does the Marxist-Leninist anti-fascist movement have to do with anything? The Marxist-Leninist forces responsible for the crushing of Nazi Germany, was the Soviet Red Army. It is no surprise that the DDR was founded along the precise boundaries of the Soviet occupation zone. And no people in the West do not deny our side's imperialism, people know that the United States had client states in the Cold War - like South Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem, Chile under Pinochet, the Philippines, Cuba under Battista, amongst others amongst a brutal legacy of American imperialism in Latin America and Asia. And I have attempted several times to have Cuba under Battista and South Vietnam under Ngo Dinh Diem as US client states, but the politically correct capitalists come around and say "oh no, they weren't client states". So you, as a Marxist-Leninist, are offended that this article states that East Germany was established with the aid of the Soviet Union during Stalin's leadership, that offends your pro-Warsaw Pact Marxist-Leninist political correctness, WP:IDON'TLIKEIT doesn't matter.--R-41 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not a platform for R-41 to demonstrate his lack of knowledge concerning what Marxism-Leninism was/is. If you think that all Marxist-Leninist's agree with each other over anything (including the DDR, and whether it was Marxist-Leninist), I suspect you've only ever met one at most.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I do know that there are different factions of Marxism-Leninism. And you have shot a snotty patronizing remark about me being ignorant to make you feel like a tough guy, but it only makes you come across like a jerk grasping for attention.--R-41 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is biased R-41... Why? Because the majority of the lead is about defection and wall-building... The GDR did other things too.. Should I write a lead in the United States article which focuses on McCarthy's oppression of left-wing movements??? It should be mentioned, yes, but the fact of it is this; this is not a lead which works as an introduction to the GDR as a whole, this is a lead which focuses on the bad things, and only the bad things.. A paragraph should be written on East Germany having the most advanced and efficient economy in the Eastern Bloc... Secondly, while 2.7 east germans left, you seem to have forgotten about those who stayed. Thirdly, the GDR is represented as nothing more than a Soviet/Russian satellite, it was more than that; and as time grew, it became one of the most independent republics within the Eastern Bloc.... This is biased, not because you're wrong, but how these facts are represented.... I'm planning a rewrite on this lead, its, shamefully bad (and no, I'm not a Marxist-Leninists because I oppose your view)....--TIAYN (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you are a Marxist-Leninist, I said that Michaelwuzthere is, because his userboxes say so themselves. And I say that because I am not too surprised at a pro-Warsaw Pact Marxist-Leninist getting upset about the intro mentioning what the purpose of the Berlin Wall was for - to prevent further migrations out of East Germany. And no, I'm not saying that Marxism-Leninism is "pure evil" but it sure got a bad reputation from Stalin's role in it, Khrushchev's Soviet Union attempted to restore an idealist de-Stalinized Marxism-Leninism and open up press freedom, but he got booted out of office; Tito's Yugoslavia established a very idealistic Marxism-Leninism that attempted to create a decentralized workers-run socialism under its auspices and Tito was genuinely admired by Yugoslavs. If people want to add material on the economy during its good period, fine. But the Berlin Wall and its reasons for existing is important to mention.--R-41 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As for your note of including critical material in the intro of the United States article. Actually, I would think it would be good if the intro on the United States article accounted for the major genocidal policies of Andrew Jackson towards Native Americans, me and my ex-partner and now friend who is Native American, would certainly like to see the US own up to Jackson's genocide and ethnic cleansing. I don't like political correctness of any sort. I could give it a try of mentioning Jackson's genocidal policies on the United States intro if you wish?--R-41 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wandering off topic. Michaelwuzthere's statement, while not written in a neutral manner, has some validity.  The lead should cover more than the Berlin Wall.  BTW Albania broke with the Soviet Union because the Soviet Union denounced Stalin, not because the Soviet Union was "miserable".  TFD (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Albania went to Maoism and China for its reasons of needing some kind of support. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary all tried to get out of the Warsaw Pact at various times. The tone set by the poster was poisonous to discussion to begin with, you could either nod yes, or shake no - shake no and I expected the user would start up a rant about lies by the West, so I got ahead of the game by expecting it and spelling out what I expected from the user. I am not comfortable with some East versus West dispute over history, without a full examination of what is and is not relevent for the intro by a request for comment of the Wikipedia Community. I think that this article has been too much trouble already, the Wikipedia Community needs to resolve what to do with it. I am personally too tired of even trying to edit this article, I have not regularly edited here, but its always edit war after edit war.--R-41 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:AGF. As for edit-wars, what exactly were you expecting to happen with this edit - you'd already been heavily involved in the previous discussions over the 'puppet state' issue, and you made no attempt to discuss your proposed edit. Were you really expecting the change to be accepted without comment? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This coming from you Andy, who has numerous explosions of temper and repeated ANI reports for your incivility, I can't take you seriously anymore because you are so prone to temper tantrums on a regular basis that I can quote you as saying "I lost my temper again", so you being snotty and calling me ignorant is nothing to to me, I'm just tired of you refusing to control your temper.--R-41 (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So were you expecting your edit to go without comment? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yawn, I'm bored of this Andy, and am not looking forward to you losing your temper over it. The single-party-state note has been accepted for some time, because the material on its article said that a single-party state could be defined as one where only one party is designed to be capable of legally holding power, while other minor parties exist at the behest of the ruling party. Up to 1990, this was the case in East Germany. If people reject that definition then fine, it can be removed.--R-41 (talk) 02:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're trying to cite a Wikipedia article as a reliable source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, do you want to slug me in the face with a bat or what. If you went to East Germany in the 70s and came out seriously thinking that a genuine multiparty system of autonomous parties existed under the SED's rule because of a few figurehead parties, people would think you were crazy. The SED was the only party that was allowed to rule up to 1990, that's common knowledge these days. This is getting extremely boring and going nowhere.--R-41 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You can explain all that in the article. But infoboxes are no places for ambiguous information. Also, could you please stop your personal attacks, personal anecdotes and long lectures on your personal views. TFD (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole section has been a waste of time to begin with by talking about "shame" with the article and Wikipedia. I suggest that you TFD, who does not have a partisan bone to pick with this article, should open up a new section with a rational summary of what is wrong with the intro.--R-41 (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (Yes, I know this is off-topic, but R-41 seems to have some strange ideas about my politics) Regarding your comment above, funnily enough, I actually went to the DDR (very briefly) in 1980 - I took a train from the Bundesrepublik to Berlin, and spent an afternoon looking around the Eastern Sector. My attitude at the time was that I'd have liked to plant a stepladder up against the wall (from the Western side, not safe from the east, obviously, on account of the landmines) and piss on it, in full view of the border guards. My opinion of the wall, and of the border guards, hasn't really changed since. I'm no supporter of the DDRs experiment in alleged 'Marxism-Leninism', 'socialism in one country' or whatever they liked to label it, in any shape nor form - but neither am I willing to cooperate with your attempt to portray the place as Satan's lair, based on your McCarthy-era black-and-white analysis, not least because it denies the very humanity of DDR citizens, reduced to nothing but passive victims. They deserve better - but as long as 'contributors' insist on using the article as an ideological battleground, and filling it with glib propaganda-phrases, they aren't going to get it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a McCarthyist, I am a socialist and would be the first target of McCarthyism. I ALREADY TOLD YOU, that I don't view it as black-and-white. I did not say that the DDR was "Satan's lair" - you are putting words in my mouth. I sure know that the legacy of US President Andrew Jackson towards aboriginals was far worse than the Berlin Wall, I've tried several times using very reliable sources that state that he committed ethnic cleansing and genocide on the Cherokee, but it is always removed out of political correctness, on his article ethnic cleansing keeps getting retitled to a term less associated with genocide - "forced relocation". It's political correctness of any sort that is the problem I have here. In fact, I have even gone to the very non-McCarthyist and very culturally taboo effort for a Westerner, of removing clearly negative POV from the Stalinism article - I removed unsourced material that was clearly negative POV, and put in more material on his economic policies of rapid industrialization and of his period of pragmatic cooperation with US private enterprises like Ford to assist in industrializing the Soviet Union, so am I a no longer a McCarthyist but a Stalinist now?--R-41 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to know what Marxist-Leninist state I consider to have been clearly beneficial to its people and the world, it is the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, it attempted to give workers genuine control of the means of production, and it prevented murderous nationalist groups from inciting violence which they did immediately after Yugoslavia fell apart. You have been behaving like a total snob to me, which you don't even deny. I did not say that you are a Marxist-Leninist, the poster is because his userboxes said so. You don't know who I am, and judging by your accusation of me being a McCarthyist, you have no idea who I am. I do know that you are repeatedly prone to explosions of temper and regular incivility, that results in you being sent to the ANI over and over again.--R-41 (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You shittin' me, R-41. Tito was a bloodthirsty communist dictator who joined Stalin in killing billions. BTW, Yugoslavia never tried to leave the Warsaw Pact because it was never in it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Blofeldpleasance67.jpg Me, R-41, evil McCarthyist-Stalinist!
 * LOL, first someone calls me a McCarthyist for challenging political correct Marxist-Leninist POV on East Germany, and then next someone is saying I am a mass murdering Stalinist, I can't believe it! P.S. Zloyvolsheb, Stalin did not kill "billions" of people - there were no "billions" to kill in the USSR, nor did Tito kill "billions", nor did Tito and Stalin combined kill "billions", Tito turned against Stalin and the SFRY was largely accepted by the West. Stalin did kill millions in violent purges and various authorized murders, Tito did not kill millions, he killed in the multiple thousands, he was no saint, no more than US President Richard Nixon was for killing hundreds of thousands of people in the carpet bombing of Cambodia that killed soldier and civilian alike. Tito didn't drop atomic bombs on civilians like Harry Truman did on two cities, that caused mass destruction and a painful death from radiation poisoning for many that did survive of their skin peeling off their bodies amongst other radiation-caused ailments, and cancer and severe deformities for others. So Truman was far more of a "bloodthirsty mass murderer" than Tito was. So how about people who disagree with me for various reasons, mix things up and call me a McCarthyist-Stalinist - that I "HATE" socialism and want to persecute socialists, oh but love bloodthirsty Stalinist mass murder! Ooh, then I'm so evil that I'm just like Blofeld from 007 with a Persian cat on my lap wanting to blow up the world.--R-41 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The communist leaders most beneficial to the people are of course Kaysone Phomvihane, Deng Xiaoping (and yes, Chinese leaders are communists, that is, pragmatic communists), Mikhail Gorbachev, Nguyen Van Linh, Do Muoi and Jiang Zemin.... But back to the point, would any of you bother to fix or improve the lead??? Anyone? --TIAYN (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)