Talk:Politics of East Germany

Motion to retain disputed content

I move that the disputed content is either kept, or rewritten. This is because it frankly provides an invaluable insight into the political system of the GDR, which has not been provided until now, and which many readers could find insightful and useful. (RM21 04:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Content copied from webpage

The content under State apparatus has been copied directly from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+gx0098) Perhaps it should be removed? -- BarroColorado 20:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think deleting the entire article content as you proposed, is somewhat excessive. Why not just delete the disputed content only?? But the disputed content does provide insight to the article. Why not determine the status of the content?? Is it PD?? If not, can it be reproduced with permission?? If that can't be done, can't it be rewritten appropriately?? All of which are better than just deleting the article wholesale (RM21 04:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

I have now placed the offending content on a separate page Talk:Politics of East Germany/Temp, so that can be examined in isolation from the main article (the rest of which predates the recent edit). (RM21 04:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

• I have now found this information from the Library of COngress's website:

• • How can I obtain copyright permission to reproduce or use portions of the text or graphics from the Country Studies?

• • With the exception of some photographs, which are clearly marked in the photograph's caption, text and graphics contained in the online Country Studies are not copyrighted. They are considered to be in the public domain and thus available for free and unrestricted use. As a courtesy, however, we ask that appropriate credit be given to the series. If you or your publisher require specific written permission for the record, queries should be directed via e-mail to frds@loc.gov."

So I'm not sure whether there's any need for the content to remain disputed, really. Besides, it's standard Wikipedia practice to cite sources. (RM21 05:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 02:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)