Talk:Inner German border

message: If contributors have any photos of the inner German border (either before or after 1989), please contribute them! (But note that they must be your own photos - please don't copy images you find elsewhere on the Internet.) -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: checked and fixed.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay!  I greatly like the idea of the best of our articles trying to meet access requirements! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the effort, but I'm afraid I had to take it out - the image is in the wrong section (the poles weren't installed until the 1960s) and its subject is already shown in the article... -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia needs your photos!

message: Please add below any comments about the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. The Isetta wasn't used at Marienborn; it's only on display there. Sorry about the confusion. I've amended the article accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It was built along the entire border, and was upgraded in successive waves of design and construction work over its entire lifetime. Tony (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It was established in 1945, hence that start date. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence "It was formally established on 1 July 1945 as the boundary between the Western and Soviet occupation zones of Germany" is misleading and should be rewritten. There was no "Western" occupation zone in 1945; there was simply defeated and occupied Germany, divided into British, American, and Soviet zones (the French zone was created later). The wartime Allies (including the Soviets) were still cooperating. The first formal steps toward the West vs. East partition happened in 1947 as relations between the Soviets and the other Allies deteriorated. See Bizone. Justinbb (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Not really. It was actually called the inner German border in German (innerdeutsche Grenze). The name you suggest would be ambiguous; it was not Germany's border with other countries but the border between the two parts of Germany, hence the "inner German" bit - as opposed to the external (i.e. international) border. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Cool. Ah well, the day is done, the vandals didn't manage to ruin the article ... and I bet you got millions of page hits. :) --JN466 00:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, 143,200, to be more exact. --JN466 01:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lots of hits.  A nice job, Chris, JN, Fifelfoo and everyone else.  The tweakers continue to try to hit it though. A short while ago, someone reverted an addition (unsourced) about German citizenship.  Ah well.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inner German border on the Main Page

message: the article claims: "..during the 28 years of operation of the Marienborn complex, no successful escapes were recorded.[103].." yet a little later is a photo of an escape in a "bubble car" from Marienborn Feroshki (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. The Isetta wasn't used at Marienborn; it's only on display there. Sorry about the confusion. I've amended the article accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Escapes from marienborn ?

message: was the entire border system built in just 1945? That is hard to believe...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.86.104.7 (talk) 07:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was built along the entire border, and was upgraded in successive waves of design and construction work over its entire lifetime. Tony (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It was established in 1945, hence that start date. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence "It was formally established on 1 July 1945 as the boundary between the Western and Soviet occupation zones of Germany" is misleading and should be rewritten. There was no "Western" occupation zone in 1945; there was simply defeated and occupied Germany, divided into British, American, and Soviet zones (the French zone was created later). The wartime Allies (including the Soviets) were still cooperating. The first formal steps toward the West vs. East partition happened in 1947 as relations between the Soviets and the other Allies deteriorated. See Bizone. Justinbb (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: dates of construction

message: It strike me that a more appropriate name for this article might be Cold War German border. Just a thought. Politis (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. It was actually called the inner German border in German (innerdeutsche Grenze). The name you suggest would be ambiguous; it was not Germany's border with other countries but the border between the two parts of Germany, hence the "inner German" bit - as opposed to the external (i.e. international) border. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cold War border

message: This is a nice little tribute from Andrew Sullivan, who evidently liked the pics I sent him: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/more-views-from-germany.html - it's always good to get a link to Wikipedia as well! -- ChrisO (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Ah well, the day is done, the vandals didn't manage to ruin the article ... and I bet you got millions of page hits. :) --JN466 00:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, 143,200, to be more exact. --JN466 01:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lots of hits.  A nice job, Chris, JN, Fifelfoo and everyone else.  The tweakers continue to try to hit it though. A short while ago, someone reverted an addition (unsourced) about German citizenship.  Ah well.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Andrew Sullivan

message: to ChrisO and everyone else who's contributed to this page. I don't read every TFA, but I did read this entire article, and learned a lot of things. It's a good read, and so relevant to todays date. Well done, and thanks. Matthewedwards :  Chat   22:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: +1.  I've been on Wikipedia for almost ten years, and this is quite possible the single best article I've stumbled into yet! Jpatokal (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: Surely someone should mention this cycle trail as being an intrinsic part of the division today?
I actually cycled part of it... maybe I'll get the chance to write something on it sometime...79.148.110.52 (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Curtain Trail 

message: Surely someone should mention this cycle trail as being an intrinsic part of the division today?
I actually cycled part of it... maybe I'll get the chance to write something on it sometime...Maxjjazz (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron Curtain Trail 

message: The sections "Origins" and "Views on the border" need some work. The current version describes the situation during the 1970s and 80s, somewhat crudely but for the most part correct. What it fails to describe is that particularly East Germany's view (West Germany's to a lesser degree) changed over time.
From section "Origins":
West Germany regarded German citizenship and rights as applying equally to East and West German citizens. An East German who escaped or was released to the West was automatically granted West German rights, including residence and the right to work;
True, but between 1949 and 1967 East Germany did exactly the same reciprocally. Only in 1967 was a separate East German citizenship established - which West Germany did not recognize -, and only from then on did East Germany regard West Germany as a foreign country, and from then on only the situation was as described in the article. I cannot source these fact properly, but it shouldn't be difficult for anyone willing to invest the time.
West German laws were deemed to be applicable in the East.
Not really. While the West German government never viewed East Germany as a foreign country, viewed its regime as illegitimate and was striving for reunification, it did not claim to have the right to legislate over East Germany. I suggest to remove that sentence, as it probably cannot be credibly sourced.
Section "Views of the border":
The GDR saw it as the international frontier of a sovereign state
True only after 1967/70ish. Until then, East Germany viewed West Germany as part of the German nation and was striving for reunification with it, of course under communist rule.
However, West German propaganda leaflets referred to the border as merely "the demarcation line of the Soviet occupation zone", and emphasised the cruelty and injustice of the division of Germany.
Before roughly 1970, East Germany described the division of Germany equally as cruel and injust, except they blamed Western aggression for it.
Again, it'll probably take some time to find reliable English speaking sourced for my claims, but I suggest to whoever is willing to do the work to find them and change the article accordingly. Sorry I currently don't have the time to do that work, otherwhise I would. Anorak2 (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views of the border & citizenship revisited 

message: Very good article. It covers some of the most important issues, while not drowning in details. The links give the details for the interested student/reader. From a quick glance, I also think it overall presents the information without choosing side in this otherwise heavily political subject. Very good. Except for one important issue. 
The article has almost no information about the context that sustained the border! It describes why it was constructed at the end of the Second World War, but not why it persisted for so long and why its was thought important to keep it for so long. The context of Cold War Europe should be included somehow, otherwise the border just comes out as an anachronistic curiosity of the past. The context of espionage, the threat of nuclear war, the large numbers of conventional soldiers stationed on both sides of the border should be touched. At least some "see also" links would be appropriate. 
RhinoMind (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The context of the border 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Inner German border. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723233439/http://www.ostseegrenzturm.net/derturm.htm to http://www.ostseegrenzturm.net/derturm.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Say what the picture "Halt! Heir Grenze" means in a caption. Jidanni (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halt! Heir Grenze 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Inner German border. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723235022/http://www.ostseegrenzturm.net/geschichte.htm to http://www.ostseegrenzturm.net/geschichte.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091027065914/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/features/article_1508087.php/Leaving-East-Germany-as-easy-as-Alpha-Bravo-Charlie-Feature to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/features/article_1508087.php/Leaving-East-Germany-as-easy-as-Alpha-Bravo-Charlie-Feature
*Added  tag to http://www.mdr.de/thueringen-journal/6700324.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719073512/http://www.progress-film.de/de/filmarchiv/film.php?id=1936 to http://www.progress-film.de/de/filmarchiv/film.php?id=1936
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230180455/http://ostseegrenzturm.net/com/index.htm to http://www.ostseegrenzturm.net/com/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230180459/http://ostseegrenzturm.net/index.htm to http://www.ostseegrenzturm.net/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204120102/http://www.grenzbilder.de/projekte/grenze/damals_heute/index.php to http://www.grenzbilder.de/projekte/grenze/damals_heute/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100814203532/http://www.europeangreenbelt.org/ to http://europeangreenbelt.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Consecutive blank lines are a no-no:
===Having said that===
... while cleaning == up   == ==  this == ==shit== Some of us routinely ensure there's a blank linecompletely invisible to the reader and therefore irrelevant to MOSimmediately above and below each one, and that there's a blank line, visible to the reader but barely noticeable, above the very first word of every plain paragraph (never mind whatever's above that). This et al is why.
If there's a policy or guideline indicating those lines should be removed, or consensus that we should stop, please share. 2601:840:8402:34A0:8592:25EF:7C99:3402 (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  You're welcome 

message: ... while cleaning == up   == ==  this == ==shit== Some of us routinely ensure there's a blank linecompletely invisible to the reader and therefore irrelevant to MOSimmediately above and below each one, and that there's a blank line, visible to the reader but barely noticeable, above the very first word of every plain paragraph (never mind whatever's above that). This et al is why.
If there's a policy or guideline indicating those lines should be removed, or consensus that we should stop, please share. 2601:840:8402:34A0:8592:25EF:7C99:3402 (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Having said that

message: The article has multiple deficiencies vis-a-vis the FA criteria:
*Some unsourced content
*Heavy reliance on cold war era sources (all published in the Western bloc of course) causes potential for bias and/or errors, and not all these sources could be considered high-quality 
*German language scholarly sources (many of them post-1990) are neglected in favor of popular/news English language sources that are more dated
*Lack of coverage of economic and linguistic effects
(t · c) buidhe 06:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement/rewrite or FAR needed