Talk:Zersetzung/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Operative Vorgänge"

De728631 corrected my translation of this term to "operative acts" since it had nothing to do with surgery. I guess I'm a little confused. I was actually translating from the French article where it had been translated "procédures chirurgicales", which is definitely something like "surgical procedures". Certainly it has nothing to do with actually cutting into someone's body, although I do believe that in English sometimes an intelligence operation which is precise and targeted is sometimes called "surgical". But this does not seem to be the meaning of the word in this case. Doing a little more research I'm getting the feeling that the term means nothing more than operational procedures such as would be described in a manual, in this case the Richtlinie Nr. 1/76 zur Entwicklung und Bearbeitung Operativer Vorgänge (OV). If there is no objection, I would prefer "operational procedures" as a translation for this term. CibléEnAmérique (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per consensus. —innotata 15:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

Zersetzung → Zersetzung (Stasi) – Possible disambiguation, since the German word has other meanings. CibléEnAmérique (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment looking at "Zersetzung" in English books it does seem that the East German usage is most common de:Zersetzung (Ministerium für Staatssicherheit). However exceptions are (1) Lora Wildenthal The Language of Human Rights in West Germany 2012 Page 84 "... He was particularly alert to commonly used phrases that mobilized prejudices through vague accusation, such as Zersetzung." (2) Horst Von Maltitz The evolution of Hitler's Germany 1973 - Page 140 "We now come to a causative factor of anti-Semitism which loomed large in the German mind. This was called Zersetzung in German. " Question: User:CibléEnAmérique, where would that West German/1930s "Zersetzung" concept redirect or hatnote to on en.wp? In ictu oculi

Response to In ictu oculi: I noticed that in Hitler and the Holocaust by Robert S. Wistrich, as well. That's a very generic use of the word. Basically the Jews were accused of Zersetzung in the sense of being agents of the general dissolution of society. CibléEnAmérique (talk) 07:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

To add to my response, I'd say that in that usage Zersetzung meant (or was meant to evoke) a concept on the order of "moral dissolution" except it wasn't really a dissolution of moral ideals the Nazis were talking about — it was a Zersetzung (dissolution, or undermining, or corrosion, or decomposition, etc.) of the ideals of Aryan purity. CibléEnAmérique (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:TITLE. In English, this is the primary encyclopedic meaning of Zersetzung. As there is no other article of this title, there is no need for a parenthetical which should only serve to disambiguate the title from other like-titled entries at Wikipedia. — AjaxSmack 04:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment can you create a disambiguation page Zersetzung (disambiguation) to show what other topics that appear in articles on English Wikipedia currently exist? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Response: Not sure we have any other articles currently relating to Zersetzung, although it looks like we have a suggestion above. CibléEnAmérique (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A disambiguation page should not be created based on the examples above. Those are definitions that belong at Wiktionary, not at Wikipedia, per WP:NOTDICT. — AjaxSmack 18:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your position sounds reasonable to me, AjaxSmack. The article already lists (in parentheses) some of the various meanings of the word Zersetzung. If there is no risk of confusion, we can just leave the name of the article as is, and we probably don't even need a disambiguation page. It is a very specific use of a word with broad and general meanings in German, but again, that is probably already clear in the article, and at present I could go along with you that there is no other encyclopedic use of the word that we really need to disambiguate from in English. CibléEnAmérique (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I just found a new use of the word: we should disambiguate from Wehrkraftzersetzung. CibléEnAmérique (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Zersetzung-Proof People

Were any of the people subjected to this impervious to it? Did anyone manage to overcome the program of intimidation without any harm coming to themselves ? Alternatively, was this program 100% effective ? 86.143.210.230 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zersetzung. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

'Alo

Couldn't resist weighing my two cents:[[1]] The page "Joint Threat Intelligence Research Group" does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. This sort of thing undoubtedly has me seeing red as well, but perhaps this was what you were looking for?

     Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group
     The Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) is a unit of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British intelligence agency.
     6 KB (687 words) - 11:51, 9 December 2016

Also, how would other editors feel about adding (under the same see also section) Force protection or would that be unacceptedly pushing it. Also Gay bomb and Chemical castration (due to the part about sending the wife a vibrator[[2]] - "Other practices included property damage, sabotage of cars, purposely incorrect medical treatment, smear campaigns including sending falsified compromising photos or documents to the victim's family, denunciation, provocation, psychological warfare, psychological subversion, wiretapping, bugging, mysterious phone calls or unnecessary deliveries, even including sending a vibrator to a target's wife.")

Further in this vein, Mark I NAAK, Batroxobin (due to the 'short-term memory loss'), also it's progenitor Pichia pastoris due to its efficacy in beer sabotage and proliferation on the internet as a 'medical' snake oil and less obviously Boomslang or dangerously Amanita ocreata (due to the deterioration thanks to the relentlessly persistent denial of health care - or perhaps more appropriately, Denial of health care?). Lytico-Bodig would fit in this case, as would Osteolathyrism and another that has just eluded me - it wasn't cycad?

Also what about Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present), especially with our dear esteemed Marty allegedly out of the picture for a moment. You know what they say about cats and mice away, always the playing. - 55378008a (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The accusation vs. the methods of Zersetzung

"the East German secret police used the accusation Zersetzung to silence political opponents by repression"

I do not have any doubt this is true, and I wish there were a better or more explicit way to express this in the article.

The accusation of Zersetzung itself: the accused is somehow "undermining" our repressive political or military efforts.
The methods (Operative Vorgänge) of Zersetzung applied against the accused: all the family, friendship, professional, and supportive relationships of the accused are "disintegrated" in retaliation.

These are two separate concepts that need to be compared and contrasted in the article.

I have experienced this in the United States. I found myself in a certain political/religious milieu of persons whose fundamental tenets and covert activities I did not agree with. Those individuals who were most polite and friendly to me in the open were covertly undermining the relationships in my life that really mattered, and as a consequence those whose beliefs would have been more in line with mine did not trust me because of my association with those who falsely pretended to be my friends.

We will see more of this as time goes on, not only because of the lack of security of our personal and private information on the internet, but because of its free availability to all who profess some kind of business or government authority. --204.96.25.223 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC) El Paso, Texas

Mix-up with the Nazi accusation

"Zersetzung is a psychological warfare technique that was first used by Nazi Germany as part of the accusation Wehrkraftzersetzung against political opponents (which typically resulted in death penalties)."

The Nazi accusation and the GDR practice seem to have nothing in common besides the word "Zersetzung". One was a term applied by the Nazi regime to alleged actions of its citizens against it, the other is a term apparently applied in internal documents by the GDR regime itself to its own actions against its citizens. The mention of the Nazis' "Wehrkraftzersetzung" doesn't seem to belong here at all.

Also, there is something wrong in the bibliography, as there are numerous abbreviated references to "Pingel-Schliemann" and the bibliographic data about the work being cited aren't found in expanded form anywhere in the article, making the citations unverifiable. --94.155.68.202 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Similar techniques elsewhere deletions

The "Use of similar techniques in other countries" seems to contain instances of original research, in that it imputes Zersetzung tactics upon other intelligence operations where the sources cited do not mention Zersetzung, the Stasi, etc. For this reason I removed the initial paragraph about the FBI and Dr. Martin Luther King. Moreover, the FBI's harassment of him started in the 1960s, whereas the lead section of this article notes Zersetzung was operationally formalized in 1971, so without another reference explicitly making the connection, it seems inappropriate to maintain in the article. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Page move to Zersetzung (decomposition)

Hi, I propose moving the page to 'Zersetzung (decomposition)' because I think that, in general, where there is a foreign language title which is widely unknown providing the English translation is informative and helpful. I see no reason why that is not the case here. There has been some debate as to the most accurate translation of Zersetzung. Decomposition is overwhelmingly the single most used translation in English language sources. RickyBennison (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved, per consensus. (non-admin closure) _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 06:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Zersetzung → Zersetzung (Decomposition) – I propose moving the page to 'Zersetzung (Decomposition)' because Zersetzung is a foreign language word which is widely unknown in English. Providing the overwhelmingly most used translation, decomposition, is informative and helpful. Decomposition is often used in academic English language sources instead of Zersetzung. Sources include Andreas Glaesar, 'Political Epistemics: The Secret Police, the Opposition, and the End of East German Socialism' ('The second form of closure envisioned by the Stasi was called 'decomposition' '). Mike Dennis & Norman Laporte, 'The Stasi: Myth and Reality' ('the Stasi's main method of combating subversive activity was 'operational decomposition' (operative Zersetzung)'). Seth Howes, 'Moving Images on the Margins: Experimental Film in Late Socialist East Germany' ('the Clara Mosch gallery fell victim in 1982 to a two-pronged approach comprising Stasi decomposition tactics and the institutional capture of the producer's gallery from above.'). Gary Bruce, 'The Firm: The Inside Story of the Stasi', ('The work style of the Stasi, which tended toward slow, plodding decomposition of enemies').

A google search of 'Stasi decomposition' shows the translation frequently used. Sometimes singularly, sometimes with Zersetzung. There is no shortage of English language sources which do use it. A search of 'Stasi zersetzung' gives primarily German language sources with a scattering of English language sources. The common usage of 'decomposition' in both academic and more mainstream sources justifies it being part of the article title. RickyBennison (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. We use the parenthetical to disambiguate, not to add a translation or further explanation to the title. "Zersetzung" is unambiguous, and therefore the current title works. However, OP's argument seems to assert that "decompostion" is a more common name, in which case Decomposition (Stasi) would be a better title, with Zersetzung acting as a primary redirect. 162 etc. (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. Parenthetical disambiguation is for distinguishing between separate topics sharing the same name, not for explaining what a name means. The meaning of the word "Zersetzung" can be explained in the article text. JIP | Talk 01:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. This just isn't how we construct article titles on Wikipedia. No disambiguation necessary so nothing needs to be in parentheses. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I concur with my esteemed colleagues above. Lectonar (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Oppose that's not how we use parentheticals and it's the main meaning of the term in English—blindlynx (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.