Talk:East Germany

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".[1] 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. [2] 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? [3] Note the Britannica uses the name "East Germany." Negating your nit. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], 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[9]. 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.[10] 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< or >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)

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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#East Germany. 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."Jürgen Kocka (2010). Civil Society and Dictatorship in Modern German History. UPNE. p. 37. 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)

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 discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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 [11] This is the real existierender Sozialismus I remember from 1969 [12]--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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions: "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)