Talk:Stasi

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stasi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

Stasi was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 8, 2012.

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Espionage Low‑importance

	Stasi is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mass surveillance Low‑importance

	Stasi is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Enforcement Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Germany: GDR High‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	East Germany portal This article is supported by the GDR task force (assessed as High-importance).

On 2008-11-15, Stasi was linked from Slashdot.org, a high-traffic website. (Traffic)

All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Ministry for State Security (German Democratic Republic)

Is there a reason why "Stasi" is preferable to the official name of the organization for the GDR? No other MSS page uses a colloquial name, to my knowledge. I understand that English Wikipedia tends to be very inconsistent with organization names (using translations, transliterations, acronyms, nicknames, etc.), but this seems odd, given the uniformity of the other pages. Even if people are more likely to search for "Stasi", such terms can simply be redirects. Many other pages on Wikipedia redirect from common names for the topic. KnowledgeableHrvatica (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to this an excerpt from wikipedia:article titles:

"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include ... colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious"

The fact that a discussion is warranted regarding this name is possibly evident of some amount of non-neutrality. Additionally, this alternative title improves the precision (not to be mistaken with the Spanish name or other German police organizations) and is consistent with other secret service organizations which are also named "Ministry of/for State Security". KnowledgeableHrvatica (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nobody else either seems to follow this page or has anything to add, I will go ahead and move the page. KnowledgeableHrvatica (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what isn't neutral about "Stasi". It is an acronym after all. One that is more commonly used, too. Different example: Gestapo. Jay D. Easy (t) 15:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea is that "Stasi" is not neutral not because of the name itself, but because other nations with departments named "Ministry of State Security" or similar don't use an abbreviated form of the name. So the neutrality issue is between article titles, rather than inherent to this one. Personally, I don't think that's a very strong claim. I prefer it at "Stasi" myself. -- asilvering (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I did not notice this request in time. I would have suggested another name: ”Ministry for State Security (East Germany)”. Not even the page about the GDR itself is called ”German Democratic Republic”. Kindest regards. /EriFr (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a majority in favour of Stasi.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using John Koehler as a source

I'm seeing Koehler as a source for much of this article. May I point out that he was a Reagan appointee and US Information Agency official [1]. Academics have critiqued his work saying "surrounds his narrative with the frequently inaccurate generalizations and cliches of the cold war" [2], and "riddled with errors of historical detail, based on sources which cannot be independently checked, and spiced with spurious quotations and quasi-novelistic insights into long distant occasions with no surviving reliable witnesses" [3].

As an aside, I'll just mention the Nazi Youth thing, which is weird but forgivable [4].Stix1776 (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not weird as he grew up in Nazi Germany.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acceptable to add a section on torture and killings by the Stasi?

The Stasi was a murderous organization, killing thousands and systematically spreading terror throughout the population of East Germany.

I notice that there is no section explaining the atrocities committed by the Stasi, for which there is extensive documentation.

Any objections to adding such a section? Toddglewis (talk) 14:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9665947/Stasis-despicable-torture.html Toddglewis (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally very agree to this, we only need someone with neutrality, knowledge and good sources.

It is weird how many leftist idolize East Germany as a 'successful socialist state' despite they are no different from the whole Eastern Bloc. Any atrocities should be listed, even in the article you can see civilians at the time call it "Nazi-like". NightJasian (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]