Talk:East Germany/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Prior discussion - RfC and clear consensus.

[1] Roughly 18 to 6 in favour of "satellite" Consensus was clear. Collect (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

An RfC which was never formally closed. Anyway, voting to state subjective opinion as fact is hardly compatible with Wikipedia policy. But like I said earlier, removing this relic of cold-war rhetoric from the infobox is probably a waste of time, regardless of policy. There are far too many contributors more concerned with imposing their own subjective POV for it to stay out for long, and accordingly this article is going to remain the unencyclopaedic opinion piece it clearly is. Hopefully at least some readers will recognise it for what it is, and look elsewhere for material on the subject that doesn't tell them exactly what they have to think, and let them think for themselves. From what Google translate makes of it, the German-language Wikipedia article [2] on the subject appears to at least attempt impartiality, if only by indicating that there is a diversity of views on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are not required to be "formally closed" and a 2 to 1 consensus is pretty clear. Might you provide any RS source averring that the DDR was actually fully autonomous? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I am under no obligation whatsoever to provide sources for statements I have never made, and to which I do not subscribe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether consensus believed that or not. The real issue is the infobox. Is the infobox's "status box" to be used as a rubber stamp to say "this is exactly what this country was, with no alternative thoughts on the matter"? The use of the status box to make some firm declaration describing non-legal subjective interpretations of subordination of one country to another, is in my view a fatally flawed usage of it for the reason I described above. It is incredibly naive to assume that there is no debate on matters such as this. I believe the intro - not the infobox - should briefly display such claims of it being a satellite state and refutations of that, and the rest of the article should address those claims in detail.--184.145.64.67 (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No "refutations" have been provided, and as AtG states, he is under no obligation to show that any refutations exist. The problem is that the reliable sources are in concord on it having been a "satellite state". Do you have reliable academic sources stating that it was autonomous of the USSR? Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, your facile straw man arguments are getting more pathetic by the minute. Nobody is claiming that the DDR was 'autonomous'. The issue is whether Wikipedia should be using a simplistic cold-war characterisation in the infobox. And cut out the crap about 'reliable sources' being 'in concord' over this statement - you know full well that the use of such terminology has been disputed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Um -- do you think your ad homs affect your singular lack of giving any RS sources backing your position? C'mon -- give us some sources. Collect (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is you that is arguing for content - it is you that needs to provide a source which states that there is 'concord' over the DDR being a 'satellite state'. Where is this source? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

With over a hundred reliable sources -- including slews from behind the old Iron Curtain, one would think that the lack of dissent from that term would provide a clue. And I suggest that the only sane way to dispute the overwhelming usage would be for you to actually come up with a dissenting view, rather than cite your own knowledge that such dissenting views are common now. Right now the "vote" in reliable sources is on the order of a hundred to nil. Which I count as "concord" though apparently your mileage varies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, where have you cited 100 sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I said there are over a hundred sources -- not that I personally cited that many. More than 20 have been cited in the discussions on this talk page alone, and the only sources I found which said "not satellite" said "occupied" - none said the DDR was actually independent of the USSR at all. Nor do current German sources make such a claim. Questia raw result for "East Germany" + "satellite" gets 990 books, 23 academic journals, 107 magazine articles and 436 newspaper articles. "GDR" + "satellite" gets 144 books. Almost every one of which refers to GDR as a satellite. Well over a hundred. And so far the "dissents" O found call it "occupied" by the Soviets. I think there is a pattern here. Collect (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, so your assertion is based on the fact that if you do a search for "East Germany" and "satellite", the results you get consists of texts which contain "East Germany" and "satellite"? And very few contain the ungrammatical "not satellite"? Well whoop-do-do, isn't that astonishing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

OK -- The first hundred sources I examined looking for "East Germany" and "government" appear to all refer to East Germany as a "satellite and from that I extrapolated that the vast majority of sources refer to East Germany as a "satellite"

1. [3] DISSOLUTION THE CRISIS OF COMMUNISM AND THE END OF EAST GERMANY Charles S. Maier; PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS; PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY page 13 Even from more compact quarters at the beginning of its long domination, the ZK supervised the transition to a satellite. page 53 It is safe to say that without the potential for Soviet intervention, none of the satellite regimes would have endured.
2. [4] Germany's Cold War: The Global Campaign to Isolate East Germany, 1949-1969; By William Glenn Gray; UNC; Many mentions for satellite ...

OK -- how many more do you need? I can go though the main thousand Questia sources if you like -- and not a single one of them asserts that East Germany was independent of the Soviet Union in any degree at all. Cheers -- but sometimes I think there is a "brick wall" here. Collect (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I already addressed the fundamental issue I have here, why is the infobox's "status" section being used for non-legal associations? For me the issue is not whether it was or was not subordinate to the Soviet Union. It is in fact a more complicated topic - international relations involving economic power, political relations of multiple countries, disputes of personalities in governments of one country to another, changing circumstances of relations over the years, is not something that can easily be resolved by stamping a verdict that a country was an extended arm of another country in a matter of using six words. So my question is how is the infobox status box supposed to address the complexity of the issues at hand in a few short words?--184.145.64.67 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The concept of "satellite nation" goes back well before the Cold war, and is particularly applicable, according to reliable sources, to East Germany. But it is not our opinions which count, it is what the reliable sources clearly state that we use, even if it not the "truth". [5] White's Political Dictionary, 1947: A small state that is more or less dependent upon, and which ties its policies to those of, a larger power. Thus Cuba, pre-1960, was a "US satellite" etc. Canada was a "British satellite" for many years. If the autonomy is dubious, then "satellite" is reasonable. And the former rulers of the DDR did, in court, swear that they were not autonomous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Elementary failure of logic there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The infobox, people! Why are we putting such claims of non-legal status in the infobox.--184.145.64.67 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Because the cold war isn't over for some people. Next question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My next question is to that answer: What sort of answer is that supposed to be? - Rhetorical sidetracking, perhaps? Why should the infobox be used to describe any non-legal status of international relations of one country to another? I described in detail the issues of why it is not valid to summarize it all down to several words in an infobox, but no one paid any attention.--184.145.64.67 (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to sidetrack anything. I have already argued exactly the same thing. Sadly though, on this subject the cold-war mentality insists that our readers are too stupid to make their own minds up, and they have to be spoon-fed dogmatic trivialisations. This contempt for our readers is one of the reasons I am rapidly moving towards the position that Wikipedia is a net negative to the advancement of human knowledge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This place is a user-created place, since it is dominated by English-speaking people everyone should expect for the NATO-side of the story to be deep in the minds of people whose news and education say that "our" "good" side won. That is not surprising. What is surprising is that no reasoning has been given for why this is put in the infobox. All I want to see is some reasoning why the infobox is the right place to put this stuff about a non-legal subordination of one country to another. Several words in a box to describe a non-legal association involving complex international relations is not satisfactory to me.--184.145.64.67 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I am intrigued by the claim that the former East German leaders were NATO members, of course. Collect (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed that, you are not competent to have a conversation here if you put words in other people's mouths. I won't bother having a conversation with a person who is manipulative enough to put words in other people's mouths, that's rhetorical games. Now if you want to have a real dignified conversation, and not some Fox News style shouting match - which I will not partake in, I suggest you show me some respect and look at what I actually have written - which I am TIRED of having to repeat - and not make up false claims about what you think I am saying, especially the "I am intrigued by the claim..." - cut out the snotty passive aggressive bullshit, and talk straight and level with people people. If you are unwilling to do that, then I will leave the Fox News "put words in your mouth" shout-match and will sincerely suggest that you should go fuck off.--184.145.64.67 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

As you have not furnished any reliable sources contrary to the overwhelming majority od reliable sources, I fear it is not likely that you will be convinced why WP:CONSENSUS is policy. everyone should expect for the NATO-side of the story seems to me to say that you assert all the sources including the former East German leaders give the NATO side of the story which I find quite an interesting position to assert as the WP:TRUTH. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I find your implication that a former leader of the DDR would be incapable of stating anything but the complete and unvarnished truth while a defendant in a criminal trial quite surprising. For future reference, is this something you believe to be true of politicians in general, or only of members of the SED? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The "implication" was that the former leaders of the DDR were not NATO adherents. So far, no sources contrary to the overwhelming consensus in academic books and journals about the use of "satellite" have been furnished here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

...And no source for it being an 'overwhelming consensus' either - just your vague and confusing assertions regarding a search you did on Questia. Which is WP:OR. And irrelevant to the point that - as you have just made clear in an edit summary [6] - this consensus (if that is what it is) is 'opinion', not fact. Since when does Wikipedia assert opinion as fact? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, you seem to have forgotten that you yourself provided a source suggesting that the term 'satellite state' was merely metaphorical. [7] I'm not sure Wikipedia policy on sourcing extends to permitting metaphors in infoboxes. If it does, it opens up some interesting possibilities... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

IOW the fact that the planets are not involved is what you are hanging your hat upon? Really? The political science dictionaries, references and journals clearly define this use of "satellite." Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with AndyTheGrump insofar as charged terms like "satellite state" are inappropriate for Wikipedia. I disagree with him on the point that we should not continue to work to remove this extremely non-academic terminology; I hope the community can continue to work together to purge this term as often as it reappears. BlueSalix (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, stop changing the subject of what I brought up by bringing up an offhand remark I made - that's a rhetorical game - it is THE INFOBOX that is the issue I have raised. I repeat THE INFOBOX. I repeat again THE INFOBOX. Why should this material on non-legal subordination be in the infobox? The intro can address the same content in more than several words. As for what I said about NATO, do you really expect that no one is going to challenge a prominent cultural narrative in books published in the US - the capital of NATO? It doesn't matter to me whether or not it was a satellite state, putting it in the inofbox as some stamped sure thing will open up the Warsaw Pact-side's assertion from the Cold War that West Germany and Israel were American satellite states, and I do know that those claims will never last long if put on those pages' infoboxes.--184.145.64.67 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I'll just remind participants here that this article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions per Arbcom here. I suggest they read those pages carefully and understand the implications.

'Satellite' or not has been the subject of heated, perennial discussion for a very long time. Many discussions (see this talk page and its archives) have been impeded by comments that are not within the spirit of friendly collaboration towards arriving at a solution for such disputed content. Due to the historical imortance of this article and related ones that are affected by it, the only real solution would be to launch a major, cerntral RfC with broad participation from the entire Wikipedia community. Other solutions include possible full protection of this article until such issues have been resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I propose that a discussion be made on whether or not claims of non-legal subordination of one country to another (i.e. satellite state, proxy state, client state, puppet state) should be put in the status section of the infobox. I believe that only legal subordinations such as a colony, etc. should be put in the status box. Non-legal subordinations should be addressed in the introduction and the article.--184.145.64.67 (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We should avoid information in the info-box that is controversial and when it could be contested, and we should use neutral language. We do not for example call Bermuda a "satellite state", we do not even call it a "non-self governing territory", even though the UK added it to the list, or even colony which was what the British called it until 1982, we call it a "British Overseas Territory", which is what it is called in UK law. Similarly, Puerto Rico is referred to as a "Commonwealth / Organized Unincorporated Territory", not a satellite state. Both states are de jure dependencies, and we do not say anything in infoboxes for countries that are mere de facto satellites. American clients states for example are not called "satellite states" in their infoboxes.

Terms in infoboxes should also be clear. Historically a satellite state was a dependency that continued to be governed by local elites and no attempt was made to change internal customs and administration. Hence Finalnd would be a better fit for a satellite state because, unlike Warsaw Pact countries.

TFD (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please keep your comments in appropriate threads. Due to the number of affected articles, this issue is unlikely to be resolved by the participants/editors of East Germany alone. Please understand the implications of the administrative comment above and rather than continuing to argue among yourselves ad infinitum, please consider a major, central RfC to solicit response from the broader Wikipedfia community. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I question whether East Germany is included. AFAIK ARBCOM has never said that it is included and it was not one of the disputes involved in the EEML arbitration case that led to the discretionary sanctions. While I was not involved in that case, it appears to be about ethnic conflict between the Russians and former Soviet states and allies, particularly Poland, the Baltic States and the Ukraine. The influence of the Soviet Union of course extended beyond Europe to China, Indochina, Cuba and other third world countries, but they appear not to be included in the sanctions. How far does it extend? Would the current controversy about the American basketball player Dennis Rodman visiting North Korea be included, since that country's founder was supported by the Soviet Union? TFD (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Passed 14 to 0 by motion, 9:32 pm, 27 October 2011, Thursday (2 years, 3 months, 3 days ago) (UTC+7)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Does 'broadly interpreted' mean that 'Eastern Europe' includes a country which was almost entirely located to the west of any of the contested geographic midpoints of the continent? Or is that a minor quibble of no relevance to ArbCom, who are apparently unconstrained by the inconveniences of mere geography? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It says on the top of this talk page: 'This article and its editors are subject to discretionary sanctions.' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It does - but as this archived thread indicates [8], there seems to have been no actual evidence offered that it is merited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Keri added a sanctions template 2 December 2012[9] and Bbb23 changed it to discretionary sanctions the following day.[10] The same day Kudpung told us that discretionary sanctions applied. But placing a sanctions warning does not bring the article under sanctions. Incidentally a current SPI may make this discussion moot. TFD (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

perceptions of the USA

Schnoor (a professor in Potsdam) is a leading specialist and this summary in English in a standard source cites at least 20 other scholars in German publications. That is he has summarized the literature and it makes an ideal source. Andy should know the rules--if he has some alternative reliable sources now is the time to cite them so we can see what he is basing his opinions on. Rjensen (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of 'the rules'. As for 'my opinion', I could start by citing what Schnoor himself writes - see here: [11] This seems to be the same book, but is clearly a different edition, with a differently-titled chapter by Schnoor. It is a heck of a lot more nuanced than the over-simplistic rhetoric of your section. For example, Schnoor writes (p. 521) regarding youth policy that there was "a shift from the intense opposition of the 1950s and 1960s to Western, above all American, influence to an effort at partial appropriation and domestication of that influence. Although rock and beat music had previously been denounced as the Trojan horse of the class enemy, a sometimes incompetent bureaucracy responsible for cultural and entertainment policy now had to devote itself to taming and even promoting it." This seems incompatible with your assertion that "[t]he official Communist media ridiculed the modernism and cosmopolitanism of American culture, and denigrated the features of the American way of life, especially jazz music and rock 'n roll". Since I don't have access to the material you cite, and Google doesn't provide the complete chapter online, I can't compare the two, but it seems odd that Schnoor should be contradicting himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Communist state"

Communist states don't exist, because communism is by definition stateless, just as Wikipedia's article on the subject says. The preferred style, according to other articles like Soviet Union, is Marxist-Leninist single-party state, with no mentions of communist. Although East Germany can be said to have had several parties, it was all totally dominated by the SED and thus qualifies at a single-party state. Even if it is accepted as having multiple parties, the term communist should still not be used. Additionally, socialist state or socialist republic should also not be used, because of the thesis of state capitalism which argues that states such as East Germany never truly established socialism. Even though such labels can be talked about in the article, they should not be used as a "the true and only" definition in the infobox because it is controversial. I see no reason to controversially use the term communist state when the more accurate term Marxist-Leninist state can be used in an unbiased manner. Zozs (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs: While its correct that we shouldn't call the DDR a communist state, it was a socialist state (it was described as such by themselves, and by First World commentators, governments etc.) --TIAYN (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Why? For example, should China be called socialist, merely because the official government ideology is such, even though nearly all reliable third-party sources have referred to it as a capitalist economy, or using a form of state capitalism? Zozs (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs: China is socialist, since, as they say themselves, its socialist as long as the state dominates the economy (and the states currently hires one-third of Chinese and owns an estimated 50% of the economy)... This system, observers call capitalist, and Chinese calls it a system which is very similar to capitalism, the basic difference being the ownership share of the state. Similarly, you call the Soviet Union under the New Economic Policy a socialist state, not a state capitalist state.... To the point, the DDR was a socialist state. --TIAYN (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I prefer big "C" "Communist" because they were governed by constitutions and economic principles determined by Communists. TIAYN, socialism does not mean that the state dominates the economy. TFD (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: But socialism means that the state controls the entire economy? So ownership only counts if the state owns everything? Seems like you're cherry-picking. In addition, there are other variables as well; China is in the primary stage of socialism (they would have liked to term it "from transition to capitalism to socialism", but since Mao said China was a socialist state they can't criticize him a 100percent, so China is in the "primary stage of socialism" ... Anyhow, to the point, the CP of China's point is this; its on the transition from socialism to communism, and because they are in the early stage, capitalist elements have to exist alongside "socialist elements", and the socialist elements are represented by the state (just as they were under state socialism)... The Chinese, as the Soviets did, have turned Marxism into a developmentalist ideology (by following an extreme of the theory of productive forces), however, its strange that China should be singled out when the Soviets did exactly the same thing (Stalin claiming that the main goal of socialism when he took over was to catch-up to the West, and crush the West - The Chinese still profess the same, read Yellow Paper of Chinese Socialism, a Chinese communist document....) .. This debate shouldn't be here, I'm just telling you this, that Marxism was turned into a developmentalist ideology under Lenin, and continued under Stalin, and was taken to the extreme by Deng (Deng's only education in Marxism was on materialism and the role of productive forces in developing society, so its not surprising either) ... At last, Deng reiterated Marx position that all classes would be abolished by complete state ownership of the production, and he believed that the current set-up in which the government "dominated and guided" the private sector would not lead to the rebirth of a bourgeoise class in China, however, this point is still much discussed within the CP of China itself (I read somewhere, in The New York Times I think, that Xi Jinping was stating that the Party needed to safeguard itself from capitalist and bourgeoise elements that existed within the country to safeguard socialism, hardly what a capitalist would say.....) ..

I'm off topic, to the point, socialist state is most neutral of the two, and if we clearly want to state its communist elements, why not write "Marxist-Leninst socialist state" or "socialist state based on Marxism-Leninism" etc... --TIAYN (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Um ... China is not really much of a socialist state any more - in some respects it is one of the most capitalist ones <g>. But East Germany is generally described in scholarly journals as "Communist" and thus that is what we should use rather than debating definitions what the scholars say. Questia finds for usage of "East Germany" + "socialist" but not +"communist" to yield about 600 results for books and about 44 for journals. The opposite search (that is, excluding "socialist" entirely) finds over 1500 books, and about 100 journals, or more than double the other usage. The overlap is under 800 books and eighty journals. Google books finds over 500 books with "East Germany" and "Communist government" and 300 for "Socialist government". The scholars seem to have a reasonably broad consensus on the term to use. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

While the state may control the economy in some versions of socialism, it only counts as socialism if the working class control the state. Since it is a matter of dispute whether these states were the workers' democracies they claimed to be, it is contentious to call them socialist. I do not see the relevance of China. TFD (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The China reference was in regard to the prior post (The Chinese, as the Soviets did, have turned Marxism into a developmentalist ideology) (unsigned?) which specified China as a socialist nation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct. It is only socialism if the workers or the people control the means of production. This can be done by the state in proxy - but only if the state is controlled by the people and not by an elite. Many reliable sources have questioned the nature of the Soviet Union and countries using nearly the same system (e.g. East Germany) as socialist, often accusing them of some form of state capitalism, and not having truly established socialism. This is why it is controversial and contentious to call these states "socialist". Zozs (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs: On the same basis it would be impossible to call countries democracies since not everyone agrees what democracy. --TIAYN (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct. That is why in the article for the United States of America it says in the government style: "Federal presidential constitutional republic" which is an unquestionable objective fact and no mention of "democratic". Information about how the elections system work can be found inline in the article. Zozs (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs: The same article describes it as a representative democracy, a Marxist would argue that its not representative since all of them are capitalist bourgeoisie... Everything is disputable, and nothing is black-and-white. --TIAYN (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Before an edit war starts

The following discussion 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.

---

This is call for third opinions concerning the name of the article on East Germany same has to be said about the article on West Germany. In the latter even the infobox shows flaws. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Extensive previous discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME, 'nuff said. (Well, maybe WP:PERRENIAL...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• East Germany should not be used as it is derogatory/colloquial/ambiguous. Common name says we should usually avoid those types of names. The other guide we should follow is what mainstream encyclopedias and political dictionaries do. From my reading, these sources will name articles "German Democratic Republic", and use that name in the first sentence, even if they call it East Germany or the GDR throughout the article. Similarly an article about John Smith will be called "John Smith", refer to him as "John Smith" in the first sentence, then refer to him as Smith throughout. TFD (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no indication that "East Germany" is derogatory. Virtually every source that repeatedly mentions the country uses that name throughout (even the few that first use the full formal name at first quickly switch to this supposedly "derogatory" name for subsequent mentions). Your theory would require a switch to a "derogatory" name later: first use, "John Smith"; subsequent use, "asshole". Various Google searches show a strong preference for this name across all types of searches (web, scholar and news). Results do not show any ambiguity. This "colloquial" name is the common name used by the CIA, Time, CBS, Reuters, New York Times and various other prominent English sources as outlined (repeatedly) above. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep at East Germany. It's the common name of the country and using it is no different than having an article titled "South Korea." Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The key difference is that both Korean governments claim jurisdiction over the entire country but each has 'control over only half. The same situation existed in Vietnam. The Bonn government claimed jurisdiction over all of Germany and called the part they did not control "East Germany" because they refused to recognize it. The GDR however never claimed jurisdiction over West Germany and did not even call itself Germany, while both Korean states call themselves Korean. And the FRG renounced its claim over the GDR, although it was eventually incorporated into the FRG. TFD (talk) 07:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I do not care how the CIA, Times etc refer to the GDR. A mistake often enough repeated does not make it correct. The use within the Encyclopedia Britannica is to me much more correct as it refers to a state that no longer exists. The term east Germany refers in the year 2014 to the eastern States (Länder) within the FRG. --Catflap08 (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That you "do not care" about the name most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) does not change our policy. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As stated earlier there is also a policy on preciseness 25 years after the German unification the term east Germany has changed its meaning. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You've cited WP:CRITERIA and WP:PRECISION, seemingly focused on the possibility that there is a common use of "east Germany" swamping the demonstrably widespread use of "East Germany". You have not demonstrated this to be the case and I have been unable to find any indication of it. You are also ignoring the other four criteria under WP:CRITERIA and, of course, WP:COMMONNAME. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hoping for further input, I am posting a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany/Conventions. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD, can you provide an example of an encyclopedia or political dictionary, published in the last forty years, that calls its article about the GDR "East Germany?" I realize that there may be examples before the GDR was recognized. TFD (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have provided evidence that it is the name used by the overwhelming majority of reliable English-language sources. (Though it is a moot point, the CIA World Fact Book comes to mind). - SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Why should one look up a wrong usage? Most dictionaries and literature on politics and history used the term GDR, but one of course can continue on a lower level. Lord and behold that Wikipedia could have an educational purpose as nobody disputes the term “East Germany” as a disambiguation. In the end consensus will decide the issue in the long run. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep at East Germany as this is the WP:COMMONNAME. Both names are used in English, but East Germany appears to be about twice as common in book sources. Other comments:

• Encyclopedias are considered tertiary sources.
• It doesn't appear to be ambiguous. The book sources I have checked all use "East Germany" to refer to the GDR.
• For interest: the Germany Wiki article, Ostdeutschland makes it clear that it refers to the GDR before 1990 and the ex-GDR states after 1990.

--Bermicourt (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well within the U.N. and any sportive events the name was GDR. Library of Congress, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Wikisource, The year 1989, History Today, Oxford Dictionaries, Encyclopedia Britannica.

"Within the U.N. and any sportive events" is not the majority of "reliable English-language sources". - SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When I look at the article's counterpart West Germany things get even worse as is sates that it seized to exist which is utter nonsense, as only what was colloquially referred to as West Germany seized to exist but not so the Federal Republic of Germany. International law is still based on facts and not common usages. What once was the German Democratic Republic joined the Federal Republic of Germany. @ Bermicourt ... for your interest the German article on “Ostdeutschland” is not identical to the article on “Deutsche Demokratische Republik“ as in German the term may also refer to territories that now are part of Poland and Russia. The article also points out that the usage of the term has shifted to describe what are now the new states of the FRG hence former GDR.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"International law" is a moot point. Our policy is law here. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep - If you asked me, now or 25 years ago, what part of Germany the "German Democratic Republic" and the "Federal Republic of Germany" were, I would have had no idea. On the other hand, "East Germany" and "West Germany" were and are clear. Neither matters now, of course. It's of historic interest only. When I started reading this discussion, I was of the opposite position, but I've been convinced to this one. - Denimadept (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nobody challenges to use the current name in the disambiguation section but it is simply wrong also by international law. I would not object the articles name if even the English usage would be non-controversial, but the ongoing debate simply shows that it is NOT. In todays Germany it refers to the eastern parts of Germany (FRG) in a historic context it may even refer to territories which are no longer German. Having said that, the reader should be directed to entries to what the term may refer to --- it simply does not solely refer to what once was the GDR. Arguing with common use would be applicable where it describes the same issue, i.e. just a different name, in this case this is simply not true though. The English redirect to the disambiguation shows me even the German article that covers all interpretations. Disambiguation --Catflap08 (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no law against the title "East Germany" and Wikipedia is not a legal encyclopedia. Secondly, by far the most common usage of "East Germany" is the former GDR and its associated geographical region. In fact, I don't know of any other common meaning of the term. If you really want to push through a name change you will probably have to conduct some objective research on a lot of sources and demonstrate convincingly that they generally use "GDR" more than "East Germany". My quick research suggests otherwise. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD, your comments about the CIA World Factbook are false. The Factbook has articles about existing countries. However it was published while the GDR was still in existence. Here is a link to the 1982 World Factbook, as it was then called. In the table of contents on p. iv you will see that the two countries are listed as "GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC" and "GERMANY, FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF". The same page refers to the two Koreas as "KOREA, NORTH" and "KOREA, SOUTH". It does not use the terms "East Germany" or "West Germany" in the articles. It does however refer to the capital of the GDR as "East Berlin" and notes that it was not officially recognized by the U.S. The fact remains that you have not provided any encyclopedias or political dictionaries that call their article about the GDR "East Germany." TFD (talk) 03:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME is "East Germany". Encyclopedias and political dictionaries are your standard. Our policy calls for "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". That name is "East Germany". (From the current CIA World Fact Book: "West Germany and East Germany unified on 3 October 1990". Someone should tell the CIA and Britannica that "East Germany" is "derogatory". Time, Reuters, The New York Times, etc. also should get copies.)

No one has yet disputed that the WP:COMMONNAME is "East Germany". Instead, we hear about supposed international law. Contrary to our policy, we're told not to bother with the extensive list of reliable English-language sources. With no supporting evidence (and contrary to evidence provided), we are told that the name widely used for decades is somehow (?) derogatory and will surely confuse people. We have clearly established that our policy calls for the common name. We have clearly established that that name is "East Germany". It is now clear that the counter arguments are based on personal feelings that are not relevant here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Surely the most common name used by encyclopedias and political dictionaries for naming articles about the subject is what guides us. America is most commonly referred to as the "U.S." and its capital as "D.C.", but the articles about them are named "United States" and "District of Columbia." Articles about the former U.S. president normally refer to him as Clinton throughout, after first identifying him as Bill Clinton, but the article about him is not called Clinton. And do not say there is a disambiguation problem, because his would be the main article. TFD (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not favour encyclopedias and political dictionaries over other reliable sources. I think you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that US and DC are more common in the sources than their Wiki titles - both versions are common and, don't forget, WP:COMMONNAME is not the only criterion for choosing titles. Where there are options, other factors come into play: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. DC fails (outside the US) on recognizability - the rest of the world is more likely to think it means "direct current"; "Clinton" also fails on that count because there are dozens of Clintons; it also fails on consistency because, apart from stage names and nobility, we tend to use first name/second name for people. It's all here at WP:AT. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well in my books you are pushing the common name issue quite a bit here. First I cite sources which are rather official or highly reliable on the matter and who speak of GDR, then you cite the German article on “Ostdeutschland” and I cite what the article is really about and then its back to square one and a supposed common name. --Catflap08 (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC) In some ways I find this discussion quite ironic as it was conservative Nationalists who refused to use the term GDR during the Cold War most. The fact that the discussion comes up again and again shows that the issues is not as clear as some would like to see it. An article in my books however should be as exact as possible most of all the title should be distinct, as English is a lingua franca this is even more important.– and in history there was just one GDR … and it seems even the CIA acknowledged that. In this case I would support the idea brought up by another user and rename the article on the United Staates of America as “America” - hey common use for everyone. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is clear; there is disagreement over the article title. The solution is also clear: we need to apply Wikipedia's guidelines and reach a consensus if it is to be changed. The problem is that authors have varying levels of understanding of the guidelines in the first place and some use eisegesis to read their own interpretation into them. This is not uncommon and I have been just as frustrated in the past by other editors failing to accept my "logic". However, the bottom line is that where there is a lack of consensus nothing changes, so we probably ought to can this debate and spend our time more profitably by developing articles. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep. As a Dutchman who has lived in Sachsen for several years, I can say that:

* It is not derogatory when referring to the situation before 1989. most people I have met are quite proud of what the DDR was (it had its benefits and disadvantages) and see nothing wrong with "East Germany" describing the DDR. They are proud to call themselves "ossies". It is only offensive when referring to "East Germany" in the present tense, because there is no such thing as East Germany anymore: it is one Germany since 1989, even though it is not always felt that way.

* It is colloquial language, both in German and Dutch. Speaking about the "DDR" is less practical and a bit too overly politically correct.

* It is not ambiguous. People know very well what is meant with East Germany. If you want to be politically correct about it and speak of the area that used to be the DDR, one can speak of "the east(ern part) of Germany". --Eddyspeeder (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not the faintest clue where in Saxony you lived. I on my part still live in Germany and even though the German usage of the term is secondary to the article people do within Germany tend to use the term „DDR“ referring to the state that used to exit while „Ostdeutschland“ is used to describe the area AFTER unification. I never heared somebody say "östliches Deutschland". --Catflap08 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

What people say is interesting, but irrelevant to Wikipedia as they cannot be used as sources. Also irrevelant but interesting is The German Language Today: A Linguistic Introduction says that "one consequence of [the Wende] has been the need to give a name to that part of Germany which was the GDR. In an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung... forty-seven names were listed. Some were humerous, Kohlonie, Kohlrabien, Transwerrranien, others pejorative Dreck-Deponie-Reservat; others were more predictable and neutral such as die neuen Bundesländer, die Ex-DDR, alte DDR, ehemalige-DDR, früherer DDR, einstige-DDR or Deutschland-Ost, östliches Deutschland. Time will tell which of these names will survive." The book appears to use GDR and East Germany interchangeably. For example there is a chapter on "German in East Germany". --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Certainly the common name in English. Brigade Piron (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• This discussion started way too long ago, and has way too much discussion for me to be able to read and make heads or tails of what exactly the different viewpoints on this are. If LegoBot had not invited me, I'd not be here. That said, I don't find East or West or North or South anything derogatory. They are simply geographical directions. It is Germany, and I'm sure there are places in Germany where a person can go north, south, east, or west. It's like saying South America and/or North America are derogatory... Poppycock I say! Yes, I am old enough to remember watching the wall come down, and I think now, what I thought then. Can't we all just get along? I'm guessing you can see by now that I support the article names being whatever they represent. I'm guessing that is the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NOTCENSORED side of this debate. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If you are old enough to remember the Cold War, you may remember that the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) had control over Weat Germany and claimed that East Germany was part of the FRG. They used the terms East and West Germany because they claimed that both sections of the country were part of the FRG. They renounced that claim in the 70s as part of "Ostpolitik", and the GDR was admitted to the United Nations. While "East Germany" is a common term for the GDR, most reliable sources refer to the country in the first instance as the GDR. Naming this article "East Germany", which no reliable source would do, gives the article a Cold War flavor and therefore presents a POV. Similarly, serious articles about the U.S. are called "United States" or the "United States of America", even if they refer to the country throughout as "the U.S.", the "U.S.A.", "the States" or "America." TFD (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As repeatedly stated (and sourced) above, most reliable sources do not refer to East Germany as anything other than "East Germany". Those (the minority) that do, quickly switch over to the supposedly (source?) "derogatory" name after that. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles about the GDR are called "German Democratic Republic." Even the CIA, not generally believed to be a hotbed of Communism, unless one happens to be an extremist, follow that. Indeed the articles may later call the GDR "East Germany", just as articles about the "United States" may later refer to the country as the "U.S.", "the States" or "America." Can you please provide any reliable source that calls its article about the GDR "East Germany?" TFD (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I provide "any"? Have your read any of the discussion here? Not only have I provided reliable sources that call the country "East Germany" exclusively, I have repeatedly demonstrated that it is the most common name in reliable English-language sources.[12][13][14][15] I have also repeatedly asked you to demonstrate otherwise; you have not.[16][17] I have repeatedly asked you to provide sources for your claim that the name is somehow "derogatory"; you have not.[18][19][20] I have repeatedly asked you why the overwhelming majority of sources -- even the minority that start with "German Democratic Republic" quickly switch to this supposedly "derogatory" name; you have not (you "U.S."/"the States"/"America" example is not a switch to a derogatory name).[21][22][23][24] - SummerPhD (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, you have not provided any article in a reliable source entitled "East Germany." You have merely shown that the term is used as an alternative name. Similarly, the terms "U.S,.", "the States" and "America" are used as alternatives to the "United States", but reliable sources do not use those names for article titles. You keep protesting too much that the name is not derogatory. Why else would we use it? TFD (talk) 06:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I am unaware of anything in our policy that demands sources whose titles are the name of the subject. The policy I am aware of says that we use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources)". As I have repeatedly demonstrated, that name is "East Germany". In the sizable majority of reliable sources, this is not "an alternative name", this is the only name used. I repeatedly protest that this widely used common name is not "derogatory" because you repeatedly claim -- without supporting cites -- that it is derogatory and therefore should be avoided. If you would like me to stop saying that you haven't documented this claim, you will need to stop making the claim or document it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 14:23, 22 June 2014

To reinforce the view that "East Germany" is probably not offensive is the source I quoted above: The German Language Today: A Linguistic Introduction which uses predominantly "East Germany" but also "GDR" e.g. Chapter Five: German in East Germany has sub-chapters Normative works on German in East Germany as well as GDR German - another language?. One would have thought a book on modern German linguistics would have been particularly sensitive about using any derogatory terms, yet it is quite happy to use "East Germany". --Bermicourt (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as "East Germany" = WP:COMMONNAME still trumps more ideological and in some cases nearly frivolous arguments for a name which is fairly obscure to English speakers. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well so far no references were given that this IS the name based on common usage, provide the information and please also reaffirm that the sources I stated are unreliable. In the end I still wonder what the big deal is about to give the article its proper title and get the rest settled via the disambiguation page. In the end I must say that the editors of the Simple English page do follow better guidelines than we do here. So smattering seems to bear more weight than knowledge. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see the response to this identical comment below. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep as "East Germany" --Youngdrake (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Change: What sources state that East Germany is the common name? CIA, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Library of Congress and so forth use GDR. Library of Congress, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Wikisource, The year 1989, History Today, Oxford Dictionaries, Encyclopedia Britannica. Interesting enough however is the fact that even the Simple English Version of Wikipedia uses the correct name. So at least Scholl kids will be able to research proper information --Catflap08 (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources for subjects: Bill Clinton, caffeine, Romeo and Juliet, etc. instead of "William Jefferson Clinton", "1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione", The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet, etc. That name is "East Germany".[25][26][27][28] Policies and decisions on other wiki projects have no bearing here. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

All very well, so this in turn means that the CIA, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Library of Congress and Oxford Dictionary are unreliable English language sources then. --Catflap08 (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously. Because we use what is most frequently used in English-language reliable sources, the minority are obviously not English-language reliable sources. Similarly, left-handed people are not humans because most humans are right-handed. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore as some beat the English speakers drum I am bi-national and fluent in English as well as German (even though the English is a bit rusty at times). The issue on the article’s title has been brought up again and again – so much said about the common use issue. What harm is done by giving the article an unambiguous title and solve the whole issue by inserting a disambiguation page making the reader aware that “East Germany” may refer to the GDR, the former German territories like East Prussia etc. or the eastern parts of present day FRG. I do at the present time live in Germany , and without sounding arrogant, somewhat educated English speakers (i.e. British. American and what have you) these days use the term “East Germany” in reference to present day east Germany as a geographical term. And as I said before the territory we are talking about was OFFICIALLY referred to as German Democratic Republic. I would give the common name issue a chance if it was unambiguous, but it is not. Beating the common name issue will result in the fact that Wikipedia reflects mediocrity rather than knowledge. In the end however the also common impression that the information displayed on Wikipedia is somewhat unreliable is in some ways justified. If smattering is the fundamental guideline within Wikipedia then one should think twice about participating. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if you don't accept WP:COMMONNAME or feel that Wikipedia reflects mediocrity by following it (and BTW it's not the only criterion), you need to take that up on the relevant policy page, not here. Meanwhile what counts is not the view of educated English speakers, but authoritative sources. Here, the tide is very much against you and the only way you will get a change is, as I said before, to do some really good research, ideally with other editors, that demonstrates the majority of those sources use GDR. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yes, it has been brought up again and again. Each time the editors involved have found that the common name is "East Germany" and there is insufficient reason to go against our guideline on this.

"What harm...?" As previously discussed[29], see WP:COMMONNAME. If you would like to do something different, we need a better reason than "Why not?"

"...unambiguous title" As previously discussed[30], there is every indication (and none to the contrary) that "East Germany" is not ambiguous in English.

I understand that you feel "East Germany" is a "mistake" leading to "mediocrity".[31] There is no mistake, "East Germany" is the common name. If WP:COMMONNAME is detrimental, you will want to work to change it. Until then, we use the common name, "East Germany". - SummerPhD (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well so far no references were given that this IS the name based on common usage, provide the information and please also reaffirm that the sources I stated are unreliable. In the end I still wonder what the big deal is about to give the article its proper title and get the rest settled via the disambiguation page. In the end I must say that the editors of the Simple English page do follow better guidelines than we do here. So smattering seems to bear more weight than knowledge. Common name seems to be your constant mantra – but if Wikipedia’s goal is to keep people in the dark so it may be. In the end of the day I had far more serious issues going on concerning Germany related issues lately… to be honest I could not care less if you call the article “Schnitzel”. Cheers for now. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeatedly asked, repeatedly answered.[32] Ask if you need clarification. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So it’s not about knowledge, that’s okay still no sources given on your part. Mediocre --Catflap08 (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"No sources given on (my) part"? Repeatedly asked, repeatedly answered.[33][34][35][36][37][38] Ask if you need clarification. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Change. The name "East Germany" and its various translations were used in the "West" (no offence meant here) to indicate that the new state was not recognised as such, and to avoid the correct name. While the name has entered common usage, it thus started with a derogatory meaning. Common it may therefore be (in more than one sense), but not correct, and not neutral. Note also that in the FRG the use of the name "Ostdeutschland" for the GDR was actually avoided, and other terms were used (see the German wikipedia on these topics). I should like to recommend that the policy regarding "common names" is also changed, in that for political entities the name is used for the article heading by which they refer to themselves, or an appropriate translation, and that other names are only used for referral purposes. --193.174.160.34 (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, we are back to the unsupported claim that the name (widely used by even the few sources that initially use "German Democratic Republic") is derogatory/"not neutral". Again, please provide sources for this claim.

If you wish to change eradicate WP:COMMON, that cannot be accomplished on this level. I would suggest taking your request to the talk page for that guideline or Wikipedia:Village pump. Until such time as it is changed, it applies here as it currently stands. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess nobody wanted to eradicate common sense here? Just remember, neutrality also means (as far as possible) offending nobody, and calling a person, a group of persons, a political entity, a country ... by names they do not like offends them. As for sources why the name in the title could be considered "not neutral" in the political sense, read about the diplomatic relations of FRG and GDR with other countries, in particular from 1949 to 1972. Countries who recognised one of the two states often did not recognise the other, hence the need for "alternative names", to which the countries which were referred to in this way objected. Do we really want to be stuck with the aftermath of these diplomatic squabbles? Even though the GDR as a state is history now, I think it would only be polite to change the names of the articles in question, so that we may stop this seemingly endless discussion. --193.174.160.41 (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, East Germany and West Germany weren't pals. There is still no indication the name is offensive. The "aftermath of these diplomatic squabbles" do not seem to be the cause or result of

the widespread use of the common name. BTW, please remember to sign in when editing. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2014 (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.

satellite state, proxy state, etc. are not valuable for the infobox

I haven't seen a single one of these status boxes not being disputed whenever they refer to the subordination of one country to another. It is often disputed, sometimes for valid reasons, otherwise out of patriotic pride of a user associated with the country being called a subordinate country to another. The box is useless for these issues and will only stir up controversy, resentment, and edit wars. If there are serious sources showing these claims, they should be put in the intro. In the intro, claims for and against association can be presented. The status box appears to end up appearing like a stamp issuing a verdict on history - and history of such complex issues of international relations commonly are not solved in such a judicial-like verdict manners. This status section should be used only for literal legal connections of a country to another, like say Australia being legally connected to the United Kingdom through the monarchy and the Commonwealth for instance, but not for non-legal connections.--184.145.64.67 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note 184.145.64.67 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of R-41 [39]. --TFD (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The GDR was no satellite state whatsoever. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you write to all the RS sources referred to in prior discussions and tell them that they are wrong. "Satellite" was frequently used with regard to the DDR. [40] page 165 etc. [41] page 14 (the DDR vied with Albania for the title of most provincial Soviet satellite.), [42] page viii etc. ( The German satellite is the only Communist land where the results of propaganda. ...), [43] page 298 etc. ( The DDR was the most vulnerable satellite of all.) and so on from reliable publisheds (OUP is generally highly regarded, etc.) Collect (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Some sources use the term, certainly. Other sources dispute the validity of the entire 'satellite state' concept in this context. Accordingly, 'satellite state' is opinion rather than fact, and has no business being asserted as fact in an infobox. I'm sure if it is removed though, another POV-pusher from another era will be along to keep the cold war going... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. By those measures, modern day Germany could also be considered a satellite state of the US. Completely POV. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Find sources from major academic publishers for that claim. The USSR maintained tight control over the foreign relations of the DDR, and criminal trials brought forth the reasoning that the DDR officials could not override the Soviet dictates. When former officials of a country refer to it as having been under the direct control of another country, I rather think that is fairly dispositive. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You may very well find it convenient to think that. Personally, I tend to be sceptical as to the veracity of statements made by defendants during a trial. And yes, I think that few would argue that the Soviet Union (or rather its political leadership) has considerable influence in the DDR, though the degree to which such influence was determinative will no doubt be disputed - and it certainly varied over time. That doesn't alter the fact that 'satellite state' is a term with no formal or legal definition - which makes it an opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, fairly well-defined [44], and a large number of political science references -- it generally refers to a state which does not have full autonomy for making decisions. The DDR decidedly failed to have "full autonomy" while the Soviets made the decisions. And when the officials of the DDR stated that they did not have autonomy, I suggest it is disingenuous to say that they were now lying about what they could and could not do. In addition, the released Soviet archives make clear that the DDR was far from autonomous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, please take the time to read sources before citing them. The book you link (Metaphors in International Relations Theory) refers to "so-called satellite states", and explicitly argues that the term is a metaphor. Or are you suggesting that a term can be metaphorical and factual at the same time? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And incidentally, you know better than to indulge in straw man arguments - nobody has suggested that the DDR was 'autonomous'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

And it is lack of autonomy which is the issue -- unless you prefer "protectorate" as being a nicer term? The DDR was under the effective rule of the USSR. Collect (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I prefer not to use subjective labels in infoboxes. And unlike you, I also prefer not to see the world in black and white - there are shades of grey between complete autonomy and total servitude. Shades which hackneyed cold-war clichés rarely allow for. Perhaps we should present the evidence, and let our readers decide for themselves - or is that allowing them too much autonomy for your taste? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"Satellite state" is a "term of art" for such non-autonomous entities. Grey? As in not. The DDR had absolutely zero autonomy for foreign relations whatsoever. Even the wall was dictated by the USSR per sworn testimony. Can you show me any evidence whatsoever that the DDR had any autonomy for foreign relations at all? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not interested in a convoluted debate here. It is indisputable that the term 'satellite state' is opinion (or metaphor, as the source you yourself cited suggests) rather than fact, and accordingly it doesn't belong in an infobox. Wikipedia isn't here to tell readers how to think... 21:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It is the term generally used in RS sources, and unless you can show that Oxford is hopelessly biased, we are stuck with that WP:RS states. Even if you "know" it is wrong. And since you clearly admit that the DDR was not autonomous, I wonder if you would accept "non-autonomous nation under Soviet control" as also being supported by sources. Collect (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

What is it about letting readers see the evidence and decide for themselves that you find so objectionable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you object to the most common term being in the infobox? I have no ideological basis for any of this -- just the irrational belief that Wikipedia reliable source rules WP:RS apply. Collect (talk) 21:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you cite no source for this being 'the most common term' - which seems an unlikely proposition, given that the most common term for East Germany was surely 'East Germany', followed possibly by 'DDR'. And secondly, if you have "no ideological basis" for insisting that Wikipedia puts subjective cold-war clichés into infoboxes, why are you so insistent on us doing so? What exactly are you afraid will happen if our readers are allowed to make their own minds up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well -- it is by far the most common term found through Questia -- so unless you can show that Questia is biased, we are stuck with it. And it is used in books published by OUP which I am sure you will agree is a WP:RS publisher. What I am insistent on is that we use the terms found in the sources -- which strikes me as what you also should approve of. You will also find "GDR" in many sources, but "autonomous" you will not find. Now is there any reason you really want to rehash what has been settled several times on this talk page already? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The most common term for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Horst-schlaemma - the use of "satellite state" is a charged term that is unnecessary. It's one thing to acknowledge that, in the west, it is/was often referred to as that. It is another thing entirely to make an objective statement of fact that the DDR was a "satellite state." BlueSalix (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, stop changing the subject of what I brought up - it is THE INFOBOX that is the issue. I repeat THE INFOBOX. I repeat again THE INFOBOX. Why should this material on non-legal subordination be in the infobox?--184.145.64.67 (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No one denies that the GDR is considered a satellite state of the Soviet Union. It is right to introduce this label in the article's lead and to discuss the degree and means of the Soviet Union's influence on the GDR in the article's body. However, the relationship between the Soviet Union is not the type of "status" that is meant to be in the "status" field of the infobox. Some forms of relationship or dependency between two principally sovereign countries are to subtle to be dealt with in the "status" field of the infobox, which implies a form of suzerainty and lack of sovereignty (which is unsuitable as the GDR and other SU satellites were recognised as sovereign nations, and not as puppet states, by almost all other nations, even their Cold War enemies). Please consult the enumeration at Template:Infobox former country. The forms of dependency of a suzerain in the "status" mentioned there are considerably heavier than in the case of the Soviet Union and its satellite states. Why is it so important to have a certain label in the infobox if the statement is still conveyed by the lead section and the body of the article? --RJFF (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Btw, looking at the above discussion, there has never been consensus to include the label "satellite state" in the "status" field of the infobox. --RJFF (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC) Satellite State is definitely worth putting in the infobox. I believe that the term accurately applies to certain countries of the Eastern Bloc. East Germany was occupied by the Soviet Union throughout its entire existence, and was primarily defended by the Red Army. If not a Satellite State, it should be classified as a Puppet State. It is clear that the USSR was the true holder of power for this region, as its history of reliance on the USSR will attest. Such things must be put in the status box. Other nations that enjoyed more autonomy than the East Germany do NOT belong in the Satellite State category, but this one does. 205.232.106.254 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC) It doesn't matter whether or not you believe it is a satellite state or not. The fact of the matter is it WAS a Satellite State of the Soviet Union. And yes, that does belong in the status box because it is relevant to the status of the country. Soviet troops continuously occupied East Germany throughout its existence, and the Soviet Union had a major influence and control over its domestic and international affairs. Now, you can choose to call it a puppet state, a satellite state, or whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that its relationship to the Soviet Union belongs in the status box. Don't believe me? Look up the Brezhnev Doctrine if you want proof. That should be all the evidence you need, though there is a lot more evidence if you still need convincing. Toolen (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Here is an article that explains the relationship between the Soviet Union and its satellite states: http://ibatpv.org/projects/soviet_union/sattelite%20state.htm 98.90.88.159 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Here is another, more official source: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/east-german-uprising And here is another source confirming Satellite State status and explaining the country's relationship with the USSR: http://www.gcsehistory.org.uk/modernworld/coldwar/satellitestates.htm And another: http://acienciala.faculty.ku.edu/communistnationssince1917/ch7.html And another: http://elginhistory12.wikispaces.com/The+Satellite+States Do you require anymore? I've got plenty of them. 98.90.88.159 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The term satellite state is a matter of opinion and could/should be mentioned and discussed in the article, but not in the infobox as the term does nothing to define the GDR set by the parameters of international law. Naming and mentioning other definitions will be in the end nothing more than a private opinion. The GDR just as the FRG were members of the UN. The article does not even name the country properly. Since the FRG was, by international law, not a fully sovereign country between 1949 and 1990 it could also be by all means be called a satellite state of the West and the US. The correct naming of both territories during the Cold War could ease some of the tension that would better be described in the respective article. I am by no means a Communist, but both articles in their substance reflect Cold War ideology which, if some have not noticed is over, other wars are taking place now. Please also note the current naming goes against WP:LABEL. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)