Talk:Stasi Records Agency

Reunification vs. Unification vs. Annexation

It really was not a "REunification," rather more a unification or actually an annexation of the GDR by the FRG. It is a heavy ideological slant to imply that some entity--that never existed in the past--was put "back" together. Of course West Germany likes to imply that, giving the process historical legitimacy and a sense of inevitability. Thus has the term "REunification" entered into common parlance. However this was a wholesale takeover, with East German provinces joining West Germany as new West German states (Laender). Nothing "re" about that. Better to use the historically accurate term Annexation--I think wikipedia should use that term as the main article heading for the German Reunification article, which would need a redirect page since so many people and books have been calling it that. More common in critically aware scholarly circles is the term Unification, which has some justification, since the process was governed by a Unification Treaty (Einheitsvertrag)--but already in that use the ideological slant is evident--East Germans had essentially no say in the ultimate terms. The Stasi Archive law (what this article is about) is one of the very few things that was "new" to West Germany, that is, that went beyond mere annexation. Hmarcuse (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Smoke

The files where not only shredded or pulled into peaces by hand. Many where also burned. If they had not burned the papers, the officials in Erfurt I think would have worked much longer alone (alone >> I mean, without the surveillance of an committee of voluntary civilians, called Bürgerkomitee). But the Stasi-buildings of Erfurt were the first occupied, because some civilian women ("Frauen für Veränderung") saw smoke... they saw DARK smoke. But they knew: The Stasi was heated with gas. (Until now, there always was white fume.) Gas is not brown coal... Gas makes WHITE smoke... They combined: Something is wrong: They BURN papers! They burn the proofs of their crimes! They burn OUR files! So women stood up from breakfast-table, and occupied... --Impulsiv. (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC) (PS: And of course - they where right. The Stasi had already managed to burn many papers.)

I've made my changes. But after that, another question about the right term - Stasi or AfNS - rised into my mind. See next headline ("The Stasi's new Name was AfNS") --Impulsiv. (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Stasi's new name was AfNS

During my last changes about the first Occupation of State-Security-Buildings in Erfurt (see above: "Smoke") an other question rised to me: The Stasi (Ministry for State Security, Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, MfS) was renamed on 17.11.89 in AfNS (Office for National Security, Amt für Nationale Sicherheit). The occupation in Erfurt was on 04.12.89. Which term is correct to be used after 18.11.89? I have decided to "Stasi", like it was before. Reason: All citizens of course called the AfNS-renamend-Stasi still "Stasi" after 18.11.89. As far as I know. I have never heard anything different. Function or people also didn't changed after 18.11.89. They kept on acting - this is POV of course ... - morally criminal, even Zersetzung seems to be kept on. Don't know, whether this was right? --Impulsiv. (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

BStU English short name

The official English name of the BStU is "The Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former German Democratic Republic" (as shown on the English version of the logo here.

However, the BStU uses several different (shorter) forms of the name on their website:

• "The Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives" here
• "Stasi Records Agency" AND "Agency of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records (BStU)" here
• "Stasi Records Agency" here (pdf) and here
• "The Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former German Democratic Republic" (omitting "Federal") here

I do like the current name of the article but would be amenable to changing it. I think I will be reaching out to the press contact at the BStU and see if they have a preferred short form. I will update if I hear anything back.

As an aside, I think we could also use the English version of the logo linked above.-Ich (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am pasting my correspondence below. I have removed my name but left in the name of the person I spoke to; Ms. Schwarz's information is publicly available on the BStU's impressum. (I fixed a grammatical error or two I made and didn't catch before sending, but the letter is otherwise unaltered.)

Sehr geehrte Frau Schwarz,

ich schreibe Ihnen als Freiwilliger des Wikipedia-Projekts. Ich suche eine offizielle englische Kurzform des Namens des BStU. Auf der englischen Seite des BStU werden (mindestens) vier verschiedene Kurzformen des Namens verwendet:

• http://www.bstu.bund.de/EN/Agency/_node.html - "Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives"
  
• http://www.bstu.bund.de/EN/Agency/TasksOfBStU/inhalt.html - "Agency of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records"
  
• http://www.bstu.bund.de/EN/AccessToRecords/_node.html - "Stasi Records Agency"
  
• http://www.bstu.bund.de/EN/Service/Imprint/imprint_node.html - "The Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the former German Democratic Republic" (ohne "Federal")
  

Zur Zeit wird der Name "Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives" bei der englischen Wikipedia verwendet; ich bitte um Mitteilung, ob es eine bevorzugte englische Kurzform gäbe. Ich bitte auch um Mitteilung, ob ich Ihre Antwort auf meine Mail auf die Diskussion-Seite kopieren darf, um eine eventuelle Namensänderung zu belegen. Falls Sie für solche Anfragen nicht die richtige Ansprechspartnerin sind, bitte ich Sie einen bessern Kontakt zu nennen oder meine Mail intern weiterzuleiten.

Vielen Dank im Voraus für Ihre Hilfe. Ich verbleibe

mit freundlichen Grüßen

I received this response:

Sehr geehrter Herr …,
 
vielen Dank für Ihre Anfrage und auch den Hinweis, auf den vielfältigen Sprachgebrauch. Anbei nun die deutsche und die englische Gebrauchsweise der verschiedenen Ausdrücke.
 
Bundesbeauftragter für die Unterlagen des Staatssicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen Deutschen Demokratischen Republik
Federal Commissioner for the Records of the State Security Service of the Former German Democratic Republic
(dies ist der offizielle Titel und auch die Übersetzung beim AA, immer mit "Federal")
 
Kurzform des offiziellen Behördentitels:
Der Bundesbeauftragte für die Stasi-Unterlagen (BStU)
Federal Commissioner for the Stasi-Records (FCStR?? - das macht keinen Sinn und verwenden wir nicht)
 
oder auch
 
Stasi-Unterlagen-Behörde
Stasi Records Agency
 
Wenn man die Kurzform der eigentlichen Behördenbezeichnung nutzt und aber nicht die Person des Beauftragten sondern die Behörde als Institution spezifisch benennen will, heißt es auch schon mal:

Behörde des BStU / Bundesbeauftragten für die Stasi-Unterlagen
agency of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records
 
Wir werden in dem Sinne die Fehler auf der englischen Seite korrigieren. Das ist uns leider nicht aufgefallen.
- Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Archives ist falsch
- Commissioner for the Records of... ist falsch, muss heißen Federal Commissioner

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Nina Schwarz
Sachgebietsleitung Internet
___________________________
Stabsstelle Kommunikation
 
Der Bundesbeauftragte für die Unterlagen des
Staatsicherheitsdienstes der ehemaligen DDR

The BStU's website has already been updated in several places to use more consistent terminology. The salient points of the response are:

• The short title of the commissioner is Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records
• The agency he heads is the agency of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records or the Stasi Records Agency
• They do not use any acronyms based on the English translation.

Based on this, I will be changing the article title to "Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records".

Please let me know if I should do something else with this email, like upload it to OTRS. I haven't used OTRS before, so I would appreciate a link to a good resource.-Ich (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Constitutionally questionable situation'

What is a "It also reported there was a constitutionally questionable situation"?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand the name of this wiki-entry

You can have a Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records. As far as I can make out that's the title of the head honcho at this agency. That's a person. But surely the institution should be called, in English, "Federal Commission for the Stasi Records". That's an agency.

I think the translation of the title used at the moment (October 2014) may be, in its way, one notch tooooo direct. But maybe I'm missing something blindingly obvious to everyone else. Wouldn't be the first time.

I have read the letter from Nina Schwarz (above), but I think it unlikely she is a mother tongue english speaker, and I suspect that if you asked her to stop and think a little longer she, too, might thing "Commission" works better than "Commissioner" in the Anglophone translation of the agency's title. The commission is headed up by a commissioner. But if I read the entry we seem to be discussing the institution. Not the person who heads it up.

Any thoughts from Ich or anyone else? And please.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Charles, Yes. People may refer to the agency metonymically by referring to the title of the person who heads it, but I agree current use on the page is confusing. Your suggestion makes more sense: The "Federal Commissioner […]" is the head of the "Stasi Records Agency". For instance: http://www.bstu.bund.de/EN/Agency/TasksOfBStU/inhalt.html says "The Agency of the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records (BStU)". Given that they specifically liked the name "Stasi Records Agency" (as per the email), I would support moving the article to "Stasi Records Agency". It's more succinct and better, because the article is about the agency and not just the commissioner.-Ich (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Stasi Records Agency" would work for me. It's not a million miles from what the French version already does. "Archives de la Stasi" ... logiquement ... n'est pas? (Those of the others that I can follow simply attempt a translation of the German language title - though the Swedes just use the initials.)

I don't think there are many people "tracking" this talk page (I think it says 22 people at least opened it in the last 30 days) but I guess it would be polite to wait a few days and see if anyone else wishes to enter an opinion.

Now I need to see if my dictionary is large enough to include "metonymically". Langenscheidt takes me from English to German, but stops short of including it in German to English. Still, my (inherited) Websters is thicker. Two volumes. Maybe Google will be quicker ... or my Mother in law who did Greek at school. Back then they did.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Stasi Records Archive"

Now that the agency has been folded into the German Federal Archives (Bundesarchiv), I think it makes the most sense to re-write the lead focusing on the entity as it now exists (part of the German Federal Archives) and explaining its history as BStU, rather than focusing on the BStU in past tense. This would also involve a rename to "Stasi Records Archive", in line with their English page. Something like:

• 1st paragraph: "The Stasi Records Archive is a component of the German Federal Archives tasked with the safekeeping and of the records of the former East German Stasi." followed by a short explanation about the Stasi and what it did.
• 2nd paragraph: Explain the history of the Stasi's establishment and dissolution, and how the BStU was created to manage the archives and allow people to view their files.
• 3rd paragraph: One or two setences explaining the transition from standalone agency into the Bundesarchiv.

Another option is to create a separate, stand-alone page titled "Stasi Records Archive" that discusses the former BStU's current life and mission, but that would necessarily be a stub that overlaps greatly with the content of this article.-Ich (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)