Jump to content

Talk:East Germany/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:East Germany

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wwoods (talk | contribs) at 07:03, 29 January 2012 (archiving old talk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Title of this article

The title "East Germany" is ambiguous and not the correct title (see e.g. the German or French Wikipediae). The DDR's title was just that - despite the ironies. So the wiki title should be DDR or its English translation.

Aa42john (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion concerning the title was moved to the archive. Let me summarize it, as I remember it. (Don't take this as my agreement to these arguments.) Feel free to look it up:
  • "East Germany" is the commonly used name in the English speaking world, and Wikipedia guidelines prefer these names to official ones.
  • "East Germany" is not so ambiguous in English, as it may be in German or French, because the territories belonging to the German Reich prior to World War 1 / 2 are called Former eastern territories of Germany. Another Term, which is indeed ambiguous, is Eastern Germany.
  • Your argument would consequently result in moving the entries to "Germany" and "Germany" to "Bundesrepublik Deutschland", "Federal Republic of Germany" or "FRG" (merging the two articles). Do you want that? Toscho (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Despite the common use, "East Germany" is slang and not the proper term. The proper term is "German Democratic Republic", this is not ambiguous at all, since it differs from the "Federal Republic of Germany". If you fear, that people won't find the article, then you can let the search term "East Germany" direct to this article. As for the merging argument, are you saying you don't want to remove mistakes from Wikipaedia because it would be too much work? I have a simple solution i already posted on the talk page for "West Germany", call the article "Federal Republic of Germany 1949-1990" and no merger is needed. Although merging those articles would be even better, but since i don't want to do all that work i will not enforce that idea, but i support it. However, it is the sovereign right of a country to name herself, and the official name here is "German Democratic Republic", no matter what other term people use colloquially, this right to choose the own name should be respected even if a country doesn't exist anymore, even more so in a encyclopedia with minimum of an intellectual standard. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 05:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

slang? nonsense. "East Germany" is the term most used by scholars, editors and reference books. For example some book titles: East Germany: Continuity and Change (2000; Uprising in East Germany, 1953 (2001); East Germany: transition with unification (2000); Politics and popular opinion in East Germany, 1945-68 (2000); Exit-voice dynamics and the collapse of East Germany (2006); Science fiction literature in East Germany (2006); Behind the Berlin Wall: East Germany and the frontiers of power (2010); Protestants in Communist East Germany (2010) . etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Will you take back your argument, when i present a list where "experts" use the proper name? Or will we now decide the content of other articles by the number of google hits and not by facts? I don't want to sound polemic, but saying it is the correct title because of some book names is not a valid argument. The books are probably named like this because there is limited space on a book title, and the lenght of the title has to be accordingly, and "East Germany" is simply shorter. It is shorter, but still not correct. This is not "nonsense" and i have to ask you to aviod this kind of phrasing, thank you. Again: The name of a country is not up to personal taste. Not to yours, not to mine. It is choosen by the country, and in this case the country has the official name "German Democratic Republic". I know there is a lot to critizise espicially about the 'democratic' part, but there is room in the article for all that. Judging by your name i guess you are German (like me), so i would ask you to take a look at the German article, does it say "Ostdeutschland"? No, because that is not the name of the country. And just because this is an English article, and fewer people will be offended by the wrong title, doesn't make it right. It is okay to use the term "East Germany" for simplicity reasons in everyday language, but not in an encyclopaedia. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

we go with Wiki policy (most common name) and with the RS and experts not with personal opinions of one editor-- and by the way, "the sovereign right of a country to name herself" is pretty far fetched--all the decisions were made in Moscow and so East Germany had no "sovereign" rights versus the USSR. Rjensen (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, probably the government was a USSR puppet, all of that belongs in the article. Still, the official choosen name was GDR, not East Germany, the latter is never used in any official document, GDR is used in all of them. So please don't make it look like this is my single opinion and therefore doesn't count, i don't say your opinion doesn't count, and please refrain from polemic and derogatory phrasing (i am asking you now for the second time), thank you. To your main argument, you say we have to use the most common name. Still, this is "DDR", this is even in every day language more commonly used than Ostdeutschland, an it translates into "German Democratic Republic" or GDR. And i am pretty sure, how people call themselves is more vital than how foreign media does. I don't put derogatory terms used in colloquial language in WP articles about other countries. This is not politically correct and not a neutral tone. However you put it, if you try to invoke WP policy, if you are trying to make it look like you represent all of WP ("we go with") and what i state is just one single person that has no say (which is absurd since this topic is brought up in other acrticles and by other users as well), or if you call my arguments far fetched, it comes down to GDR beeing the correct title, if not in colloquial language, then at least in an encyclopaedia. Finally, please answer my this question: what would be the harm with renaming the title? The search for "East Germany" can still direct to this page, and a look at the first sentence or the map cleares up any possible confusion. This would most likely help improve education about the topic, since it cleares up that "East Germany" is not the official term, and isn't that closer to the purpuse of WP? So why the objection about this? Will anyone be offended by "German Democratic Republic" for some reason? Is there something else wrong with it? This is not a rhetorical question, i seriously see no good reason for your objection, other than to object, and since i don't want to make insinuations i would like to hear from you what your motivation is. Because why do we need to evaluate the pros for a title, when one possible title has no significant contras. And i think it is unlikely, that with the name "German Democrtic Republic" - and the search term "East Germany" directing to this page combined with the clearification offered by the first passage of the article or the map - a topic like 'why is the title not East Germany' will pop up. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Jonathan, and offer up Côte d'Ivoire as evidence - our article is named as the country's official name, even though the article itself concedes that the most used name in English is "Ivory Coast". Jeff Song (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the policy is that the name most frequently used in sources decides. Frankly I don't know what that is, but I suspect it might be the current one. Renaming to "German Democratic Republic" with a redirect from the current name wouldn't be much of a problem, unless others consider it to be much less recognizable than the present name. --Dailycare (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage archive

Archived the talkpage, as much was old and much repetitive (hence archiving some by topic). If anyone thinks something should not have been archived, then if possible please start the topic anew, summarising previous discussion; or if necessary, move the discussion back here. Rd232 talk 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some polish propaganda in the article

There are many propaganda thing in conection with the area of the GDR in the article. Things like: "eastern portion" of "Nazi Germany" ... while the next part say corectly "middle germany" because the eastern parts are ceeded to poland. there is also a much to often useage of "Nazi Germany". The country who was divided in tree parts was Germany. Nazi Germany seems to be used here as positivation of the annexions. Words like: restored, historical polish lands is also a massiv kind of propaganda and aboslutly not neutral. Wikipedia articles have to be neutral in words and view on facts. In that logic you also could say a german annexion of Belgium, Eastern France and Northern Italy would be a restoration of germanys historical boundary... nonsense you see... Please stop PL-propaganda across the english Wikipedia... 141.64.67.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

Persons of note

Is it me or is it time to make the "persons of note" section a separate article? Especially as it's under section Politics and half of them are cultural or sports figures. (Or given proper use of things like Category:East German people, perhaps it doesn't even need a separate article.) Rd232 talk 08:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


I removed the following from the list, because they might have been born in GDR, but had the bigger parts or their careers after reunification:

Worked in Switzerland

  • Benno Besson, dramatist, actor and director, pupil of Bertolt Brecht and one of the most important directors of German language of this time

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nina Hagen left GDR in 1976 92.195.116.76 (talk) 23:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Satellite State of the Soviet Union

See also talk page archive Nature of the state (to mid-2008)

There are a select few people who keep removing this citing POV. I would like to point out that it most certainly is NOT POV and history regarding the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc "allies" in the Cold War is well documented. People's Republic of Bulgaria, People's Republic of Poland, People's Republic of Hungary and Mongolian People's Republic all have articles here and are listed as Soviet satellite states, so if you do come up with anything valid to prove that East Germany was anything otherwise, at least be consistent and remove those too. Removing it from East Germany but leaving it up in the articles for the aforementioned states makes no sense.

Also, for me there is no discussion in whether or not East Germany was a Soviet satellite. It was created from the Soviet occupied area of Germany during WW2 and aligned its policies with those of Moscow, which had enormous influence over internal affairs and foreign affairs. The COMECON/Warsaw Pact states of Eastern Europe and Mongolian People's Republic were all recognised as sovereign states. However, the degree of autonomy they had was barely more than the individual SSRs of the Soviet Union, such as the Latvian SSR. Actually, the likes of the Tajik SSR may have had more autonomy as Moscow had less economic or geographical interest there. The only exceptions in Eastern Europe were Albania and Romania, both of which broke free from complete Soviet control. Albania stopped participating in COMECON activities in 1961 and became an insular state on its own, and Romania became increasingly nationalistic and neutral to the west under Nicolae Ceauşescu, much to the dismay of the Soviet Union. Those two cannot be considered true satellites of the Soviet Union and shouldn't be labelled as such, but East Germany most certainly was and remained so up until the end.

--Impulsion (talk) 10:07, 11 Novermber 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are forgetting Yugoslavia. Regarding them as a satellite state is incorrect. And I think that the issue is more with people's understanding of the term "satellite state". Madcynic (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention Yugoslavia because it was a different socialist empire which was never directly under Soviet control. It maintained a "neutral" relationship between east and west and was never a member of COMECON or the Warsaw Pact. So yes, Yugoslavia was in no way, shape or form a satelllite state.

--Impulsion (talk) 11:45, 11 Novermber 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with the the "Empire: Soviet Union" thing. So I removed that. Knotsfalcon (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You have "a problem with" it? That doesn't cut it. Please re-read over what I have said, and at least be consistent. Do you also have a problem with that same "thing" on People's Republic of Bulgaria, People's Republic of Poland, People's Republic of Hungary and Mongolian People's Republic?

--Impulsion (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This is simply a Cold War POV term. It was used by the West but obviously not by those "satellite states" themselves or by the Soviet Union. And if you think it factually makes sense because those states were in alignment with the Soviet Union and under a certain influence by it, then the same went for other states in relation to the U.S. (West Germany, Cuba before the revolution, most of Central America, etc.) but you don't speak of any U.S. satellites. Finally, don't try to fool people by saying other countries "are listed" as Soviet satellite states when it was you yourself who did so. Margana (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

First, do your research before you make sweeping accusations. The only article I originally added it to was Mongolian People's Republic. I added it back to Poland because somebody else had removed it. The rest were NOT added by me, so don't accuse me trying to "fool people".

Second, there were no true US satellites directly under the same sphere of influence that the Soviet Union had on the Eastern bloc "allies". As I said, they had little more autonomy than the internar SSRs. Their economies were entirely subordinate to the Soviet Union, they had complete control over internal and foreign affairs and the leaders were appointed by the Soviet Union. The housing, infrastructure and social programmes were all appointed by and almost identical to that of the Soviet Union.

--Impulsion (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If the Soviet Union had "complete control" how could Albania and Romania "break free" as you say above? Sounds like those "satellites" just were in ideological agreement and voluntarily coordinated their policies and economies, with the Soviet Union as the largest country naturally playing some leading role. The term "satellite" is clearly derogatory to suggest that those countries weren't fully independent, which is a legitimate POV but not an objective fact. Also, Honecker clearly did not follow Gorbachev's reforms, so how was East Germany a satellite "up until the end"? And I didn't say you originally added it; I just note that in several cases you were the most recent one to add it, so it's not very convincing if you pretend the matter is settled on the other articles. Margana (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ceauşescu's Romania gradually became more nationalistic and stopped participating in COMECON activities. The Soviet Union only grudgingly accepted his recalcitrance, and there was wide speculation that Romania would be next after the invasion of Czechoslovakia. Speaking of which, the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia go against your belief that it was just a voluntary ideological agreement. Albania I'm not sure of, but it was a small country of little geographical or economical importance so they probably just let it slide.

As for my "the end" statement. Well, Gorbachev's reforms really were "the end" of the cold war and what ultimately let to the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

I only re-added the "Satellite state of the Soviet Union" when others removed it, not just because I agree with it but for a matter of consistency. Your comment here implied that I was the only one to ever add it, which is not the case.

I'm not saying that it has to stay like that indefinitely. There should be a mutual statement in the first paragraph of each article which both sides can agree on.

--Impulsion (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that speculation proved to be wrong then. Yes, the Soviets intervened in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but that's no different from the U.S. intervening in countries that went out of its orbit. This is not sufficient proof that all of those countries were just taking orders from Moscow out of fear of invasion. And while Gorbachev's reforms may have been the end of the Cold War, they weren't immediately the end of the existence of East Germany, so from that reason alone the satellite designation is wrong.
You were arguing that it should be added here because it's on all the other articles, even though it wouldn't be if you hadn't just (re)added it. That was a dishonest argument. You weren't the only one to ever add it, but you were suggesting that we who were removing it here were the only one to remove it, and only on this article, which isn't the case. It has been added and removed on several of those articles.
Now, I don't object to any indisputable fact going into the article text, but the satellite designation in the infobox suggests that this was some kind of status of international law, when in fact it was generally recognized as a fully independent country. Margana (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Many people were repeatedly removing it from this page without removing it from the others, and that makes no sense. To remove it from East Germany but leave it on the others is inconsistent and suggests that East Germany had broader autonomy than the rest, which certainly was not the case. Anyway, that's just going to lead to a pointless discussion of semantics. To keep everyone happy, I went ahead and removed the "Satellite state of the Soviet Union" from every article and added a line about it being "widely regarded" as a satellite state. I don't retract anything I previously said, but I figured that's better than an edit war. --Impulsion (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)



This is good because satellite state is a western propaganda term and it is wrong to use it as fact. All of the states had differing levels of communist government. Knotsfalcon (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Look further down to #Sports and someone has inverted the phrase to read "US and many of its satellite states" which is certainly a POV. While I haven't yet joined the removal war, I think that inappropriate statement should be corrected.Trackinfo (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Term

The real term for this society is state capitalism, not socialism, as the means of production was owned by a priviledged bureaucracy in the state apparatus, not by the workers/the populace as a whole through workers councils.

By Th. Allan, February 7th, 2009 GMT+1

Look up ownership. The bureaucracy controlled it but didn't own it. They were privileged managers, but not owners. Rd232 talk 17:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
De jure the people was the owner and in theory it could determine and control the bureaucrazy by democratic means. As such the system was not that different from state owned enterprises in capitalist economies. De facto the higher levels of the priviledged bureaucracy e.g. Politbüro were the owners, as they decided what to do, and in fact the people could neither determine nor control them by democratic means. Toscho (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Omg, another person using 'de jure' and 'de facto'. Say it in normal English, and remember this is for a world wide audience, not just more highly educated English speakers who know the meaning of such Latin and Franch phrases. (Considering your 'was' following 'people' should be a 'were' makes it look like your showing off anyway).1812ahill (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. Simply typing "de jure" or "de facto" into the Search bar immediately to your left will bring you the definition. People do not have to dumb down their use of widely-used, well-known expressions simply due to the laziness or ignorance of others. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Owners receive residual profits. Rd232 talk 08:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily. And what should this look like, concerning the people as an owner? Decreased taxes? Honestly, one cannot formulate the situation in a marxist / socialist / state capitalist by using capitalist terms and their implications. Toscho (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Third World foreign policy of DDR?

The article does not seem to have anything on DDR's foreign policy in the Third World, which is strange given the significance of this issue, espeically as it was vital in getting diplomatic recognition from outside the Soviet bloc in the 60s and 70s. There are quite a number of works in this field, eg The Foreign Policy of the GDR in Africa, Romanian and East German Policies in the Third World, The Soviet Bloc and the Third World: The Political Economy of East-South Relations, FRG and GDR in the third world etc... --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The German version of this article seems to have an extensive section on the subject of foreign relations, including a part on Africa. [1].--Goldsztajn (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion in East Germany

The German language Wikipedia has a section and an article on religion in East Germany, De:Deutsche_Demokratische_Republik#Religion De:Christen und Kirche in der DDR These should be copied to this article and possibly a new article created titled Religion in East Germany --T1980 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the issue really significant enough to warrant a separate article for religion in the DDR? However, if the German article is substantial and well-written, then it would be a good idea to have it translated for use in the English article, too. --Ericdn (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reparation Payments to the USSR

I've grown up in Western Germany, and we've learnt in school that it was agreed upon in the treaties between the allied powers and Germany (before 1949) that the GDR's reparation payments to the USSR would end in 1988. Would the GDR then not have become useless to the USSR after 1988? Was the reunification pre-planned? How much of a political show was the Cold War? 91.49.116.110 (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Doping in DDR Sporting teams

Perhaps there should be something on the systematic doping conducted by East Germany's sporting authorities (see DW Article, and also BBC article), and apparently referred to as State Plan 14.25. Wanyonyi (talk) 09:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Doping in East Germany. Rd232 talk 10:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs renovation

As did the DDR in 1989. This is a fascinating topic, and not well treated here. I've added reference-improvement and copy-edit tags at the top. It needs expansion, too: I seem to remember a few years ago that there was more detail on the inner workings of the administration. Some subtopics are poorly dealt with (doping in sport; culture).

The 20th anniversary is coming on 9 November. Tony (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling code

It seems the +37 is intended to be a link, but the footnote is between the brackets. I've tried to edit it, but it seems the [[+ ... ]] for calling codes is built-in in the Wikipedia coding system. Maybe someone else can do this right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.146 (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2009‎ (UTC)

Name

The article says that east Germany was called the "German Democratic Republic" but I though that West Germany was a democracy and east germany was a dictatorship. I guess I assumed that East germany was the communist one because it is closer to Russia. So was West Germany the Communist one then? 124.184.96.26 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No - Democratic is a misnomer here. West Germany was indeed the Democratic one, and East the communist. A lot of communist countries said they were "democratic" in their names but in reality weren't at all. As they say, Read The Darn Article. :-) 213.106.248.201 (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not as clear cut as that. It is still down to interpretation and opinion when talking about the democratic make-up of each state. The main reason the GDR had democratic in its name is because it viewed West Germany (the cold war Federal Republic of Germany) as fascistic country - a stooge of the US and Nato with a government and state still full of Nazi or ex-Nazi employees. West Germany banned membership of the Communist party and 'radicals' from state employment. --maxrspct ping me 15:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree to User:max rspct. The GDR wasn't democratic in the sense, that Germany or the USA are today. Yet, in the strict sense of Democracy (including equality and freedom), neither ar Germany nor the USA. Some other examples for countries, including the term "democratic" in their name:
Make yourself an image, how "democratic" these countries are. But please don't call the GDR (or North Korea for example) communist. That's as far away from the truth as democratic. Toscho (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Even less, becaue the GDR (or even the Soviet Union) never called themselves communist. On the other hand the GDR was never a Dictatorship. There are more than 2 types of goverment. These black and white viewpoints are a cold war legacy --95.88.250.251 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Geography and Historical context of Eastern lands

I have removed the provocative phrase of the terrorities having historically belonged to Poland, there is very little proof to show that Polish influence was anything but transitory on these lands, and certainly East Prussia had never been Polish. The occupation on the ground since the early middle ages has been predominantly German, Prussian and Teutonic. The reason for the pushing of the borders westwards was to "repay" for the loss of the eastern Polish lands east of the curzon line. The myth of 'regained' terrority was instigated by the soviets to encourage both De-germanisation of the land and settlement of Poles. The Yalta agreement made no reference to a permanent Border but , that the land was to be held under "temporary" Polish administration until a final peace treaty could be agreed by the inheritors of the Reich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.135.164.154 (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"thereby restoring historically Polish lands" was apparently added by the new user Mhazard9 (talk · contribs). You are correct that the Recovered territories claim is a Polish communist propaganda device.--Stor stark7 Speak 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

why isn`t the langauge section coming up on the info box ?

i have been trying for ages, but it doesn`t work !!!, why not ?. 19:45, 6 März 2010 (CET) Craigzomack

Because you changed the text on the left side of the = sign, and broke the template - that changes the field name in the template, and causes it not to work. Pleas be careful when making changes to templates until you understand them better. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Map

I had a problem with the map title "Nazi Germany defeated." The map shows Germany in its pre-Nazi, i.e. interwar boundaries (established by the Versailles Treaty), which incluced Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia. A map of "Nazi Germany" would more reasonably show the so-called Greater German Reich of the Nazi period, with its bloated annexations of Polish and Czech (Sudetenland) territories, plus the interwar Free City of Danzig.

At Yalta and Potsdam, it was decided (or agreed to at Stalin's behest) that Poland should annex Silesia, Pomerania, Danzig (now Gdańsk) and southern East Prussia, while northern East Prussia would go to the Soviet Union. These are the areas shown beyond the Soviet occupation zone in Germany, which subsequently became the DDR/GDR.

Accordingly, I have changed the map title to simply say "Germany defeated." Sca (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection Request

Due to multiple IPs constantly re-applying the same pointless and incomplete cut-&-paste to the beginning of the article, I added the page to the protection request list. ☯ Z.S. ☠ ......(talk) 17:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added that the same IPs also seem to target a couple of other pages, Stalinism and Erich Mielke. I've not specifically requested protection for these two articles, as they don't seem to be the primary target, however the protecting admin might find the info useful and protect these as well. TFOWRThis flag once was red 17:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Article name

Why is this East Germany - the official name should be used for the article! Ingolfson (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the old discussion at Talk:East Germany/Archive 2. However, that is an archive, so don't edit that page. Just add any comments you want to make here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The old discussion apparently took about two minutes before it veered into implications of "silliness" and "irredentism" and then into off-topic talking of Middle Germany. I am solely asking: "On what other Wikipedia article do we call a country by its nickname, rather than by its official name?" - it's a bit like having the United States article sit under "America". Ingolfson (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Those are some old discussions dating back to at least 2004. But further down, the issue of the page being at the official name is dealt with, and there was even a move to the official name for some time. Btw, there is West Germany also, so that's one more, sort of anyway! - BilCat (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In that case, I hereby reopen that discussion. It is just weird, and has no technical or practical reason - a future a redirect will move anyone searching for East Germany here anyway! Even on the German Wikipedia, the article is at "Deutsche Demokratische Republik", despite the term "Ostdeutschland" being in very common use in Germany. I think it is inconsistent, wrong (and maybe even disrespectful in the eyes of some people) to exempt the GDR from the same courtesy that applies for all other countries, former or existing. Ingolfson (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Note that there's recently been a discussion at Talk:United States about this very issue. Per WP:COMMONNAME we don't use the official name ("United States of America"), we use the common name ("United States"). The same applies for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (United Kingdom) and most other countries. A notable exception is Canada, where the official name is also the common name. TFOWR 09:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
In German the country was mostly referred to as the "DDR", in English the country was mostly referred to as East Germany. At the same time, "East Germany" was not the country's (official) name. I realise it's long, but what about "German Democratic Republic (East Germany)" as the title of the article? (perhaps this was already proposed?)--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
My understanding of WP:COMMONNAME is that the English common name is preferred. For that reason I'd still prefer "East Germany" to "GDR" (or any variant thereof). TFOWR 10:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

the use "East Germany" was by politikal reasons in the could war, to suggest, that the GDR would had not the Sovereignty. But I think Wikipedia should be neutral and use the right name (GDR).LutzBruno (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC).

East Germany is the east of Germany, not the GDR. (E-Kartoffel (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC))

I agree with the users above. The proper term should be used and not some slang. See other discussion section about this topic. Jonathan0007 (talk) 05:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

slang? nonsense. "East Germany" is the term most used today by scholars, publishers, editors and major reference books. Variation on DDR/GDR are clearly less common. Proof: some book titles: East Germany: Continuity and Change (2000; Uprising in East Germany, 1953 (2001); East Germany: transition with unification (2000); Politics and popular opinion in East Germany, 1945-68 (2000); Exit-voice dynamics and the collapse of East Germany (2006); Science fiction literature in East Germany (2006); Behind the Berlin Wall: East Germany and the frontiers of power (2010); Protestants in Communist East Germany (2010) . etc etc.-- books.google lists over 16,000 books (since 1990) using "East Germany" compared to 6600 using "German Democratic Republic", a 2:1 ratio Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ritter

One editor has attempted to remove the summary statement of East Germany's history written by Gerhard A. Ritter, suggesting that it was merely one person's opinion. that is not true, and it does not follow from Wikipedia guidelines. In fact, Ritter is one of the most famous and highly regarded historians of modern Germany, with a worldwide reputation as attested by his visiting professorship at leading universities. Ritter is professor emeritus at the University of Munich and has been visiting professor at Washington University, St Louis, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Oxford, and the University of Tel Aviv. A former chairman of the Association of German Historians, he is the author of numerous books on German history. (He is not to be confused with his father the historian Gerhard Ritter who died over 40 years ago.) Rjensen (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not questioning his credentials, I'm questing the placement of his opinion so prominently in the article Gnevin (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
it's not "opinion", it's analysis based on decades of scholarship from a leading RS--one that takes a broad view that suits the needs of the lede. Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Call it opinion or analysis. It shouldn't be in the lead Gnevin (talk)
On a topic as broad as this one, no single person's analysis can be significant enough for the lead. Indeed, it'll struggle to be significant enough for inclusion in the article. However, it might be significant for inclusion in a subarticle (though I'm not quite sure where - History of East Germany may still be too broad). Incidentally, the lead does need improving, it doesn't sufficiently reflect the entire article - see WP:LEAD. Rd232 talk 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've created Gerhard A. Ritter and fixed Gerhard Ritter. -- Matthead  Discuß   13:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Uwe Raab, reference in sports section - can it point to German version of Wikipedia? Help...

Uwe Raab was a very successful professional road racing cyclist whose career began whilst he was an amateur in the DDR. Another editor did well to include Raab in the list of notable athletes from East Germany (though some other fairly big names weren't). but unfortunately, Raab doesn't have an entry in the English version of Wikipedia. He does, however have one in the German version, here: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Raab. Therefore what is the policy or best practice in this situation to proceed with ensuring that Uew Raab has an entry that a reader fluent only in English can understand?Joep01 (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Capital city

Hi, the article now states in the infobox that the capital city of the DDR was Berlin, however this wasn't recognized as a fact by the West. Should we somehow indicate in the infobox that this is the case? For example, by saying "Capital : Berlin (proclaimed)". --Dailycare (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

what the west did or did not recognize is irrelevant to its status as capital. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
We report here what sources say, and sources say the status wasn't recognized. Whether that makes it "really" the capital or no isn't relevant. BTW, are you the IP who just made a revert without comment? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You asked a question, now that you have an answer that you don't like you just ignore it? In addition to the Britannica, here are academic sources that say that Berlin was the capital:


There are many more. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, although what's at dispute isn't whether we mention East Berlin or not. What's at dispute is whether we mention the non-recognition, for which there are e.g. these sources 123. Please stop edit-warring the article, as you haven't established consensus to change it the way you're proposing. Instead of "proclaimed", I'd be OK with saying "disputed" or something similar. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox to more accurately reflect what the article says - that the status of East Berlin was disputed by the three "Western Allies" of the Allied Control Council - UK, US, France. I doubt if this is notable enough for the infobox, though. Jeff Song (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This source "State symbols: the quest for legitimacy in the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic, 1949-1959" Margarete Myers Feinstein (page 78) says " (...) claims of East Berlin as the capital of the GDR (...), East Berlin was not recognized by the West and most Third World countries". This means that not only the three mentioned countries refused to recognize EB as the capital. --Dailycare (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
This source is not used in the article. I don't think the infobox, with its standard format and limited space, is the right place to go into these nuances. There's a section in the article about Partition, and about the GDR identity, which already discusses the lack of recognition by the Western allies, as well as the (lack of) recognition of East Germany, as a separate independent country. We could expand the section to include a more detailed treatment of the capital question, where all viewpoint could be presented. Jeff Song (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a problem in adding the source to the article. The thing is, it's good to qualify the statement in the infobox, since not everyone agreed that EB was the capital and we have WP:NPOV to consider also. Of course, I agree that a brief mark in the infobox is easily sufficient. --Dailycare (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead and and it, then, if you like. But I don't agree that "it's good to qualify the statement in the infobox, since not everyone agreed"- not everyone agrees on many things, but it seems to be the norm that Infoboxes don't have that kind of notation - see for example Republic of China (where China, at least, does not agree that Taipei is the capital), or Western Sahara (Morocco) or Northern Cyprus, where no country except Turkey recognizes Nicosia as the capital. Jeff Song (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I should perhaps have written that since there exists a significant view, it should be represented (the West + third world does amount to a significant view). Per WP:NPOV, we should present views in relation to their prominence. But it's good that we agree, the point you make on Northern Cyprus is valid and I'll look at editing that article, too. --Dailycare (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I had a look at Northern Cyprus and the first paragraph of the lead explains quite clearly the "self-declared" and non-recognized nature of the whole "country", so I don't know if drawing particular attention to the non-recognition of the capital makes sense since the whole country lacks recognition by anyone except Turkey. --Dailycare (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. And similarly, this article has two sections that discuss partition and GDR Identity, and describe in details both the lack of recognition of East Berlin by the Western Allies, as well as the FRG's lack of recognition of the DDR as an independent country. The article is the place to discuss it - not the Infobox. Jeff Song (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No, if you compare the lead of this article to that of Northern Cyprus, you'll see they're rather different. I don't get the notion that East Germany would have been completely unrecognized by the international community from the lead, and in fact that would be erroneous. The capital was unrecognized, not the country. --Dailycare (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
(1) The country itself was unrecognized, by among others, the FRG (2) In the case of North Cyprus, if the country as a whole is unrecognized, it follows that its "capital" is unrecognized. But we do not note EITHER fact in the infobox, only in the article body (3) North Cyprus is not the only example I gave you for infobox treatment - see Republic of China, Western Sahara among several examples. (4) reading over this entire discussion and the article history, I see it is you who has added the infobox material, over the objection of at least two other editors. Please follow WP:BRD and get consensus for your changes, rather than continuing to edit war over this. Jeff Song (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi again, if you feel like editing the Taiwan (or any other) article, go ahead. However, what the Taiwan article says isn't relevant to what we write in this one since Wikipedia isn't a source. What Republic of China says turns on what sources say about Taiwan. What East Germany says turns on what sources say about the DDR. What I wrote above about N. Cyprus remains relevant, too. Of course, if there is a significant view that isn't represented in the Taiwan article, it should be added. However, what comes to this article, the mention in the infobox has been there for a time now, so to remove it you need consensus. And frankly, to build a consensus you'd need to have a policy-based reason for the edit, and so far I haven't seen one. You've said that you don't feel that the infobox is the right place to present this information, but that frankly isn't a policy-based reason. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. It is not that I think that the Taiwan article needs work – I think this article needs work, to make it conform to the way other similar articles are normally written here. Of course, each article should say what reliable sources say about its topic – and both the Taiwan article and this article say plenty about the recognition and non recognition of the country and its capital in the article (this one, mostly due to some recent additions I have made)– but they don’t do this in the infobox. If you want a policy based reason for this, you could read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, which says "keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose" and "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content".
Now, it seems to me that it is you who is edit warring with numerous editors to push your non-consensus, unnecessary content edit into the info box. This article was created way back in 2001 – more than ten years ago, and stated that the Capital was Berlin since early 2002. The info box giving the capital as East Berlin has been in the article, unchanged until your edit, since June 2003. You made your change only recently, in June 2011, and shortly thereafter, in August, there were objections to your edit – first by 87.68.160.34, then by Firkin Flying Fox, then by Alssa1, then by Ruby Tuesday ALMWR, and now me. You revert each one of us, while telling us to "Stop edit-warring" – it would be funny if it was not so disruptive. It would be good if you would stop this, and seek consensus for your desired change. Jeff Song (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the MoS link. Whereas that isn't a policy-based reason, it's a sensible argument. If the idea is to present minimal information in the infobox, I'd propose as an alternative to the current form, that the "Capital" field be left unused. The article body, as you correctly note, explains this issue. The reasons for this proposal are that mentioning only "East Berlin" (or "Berlin") conveys exclusively the DDR's point of view in a contentious issue, and leaves what may be the majority view unrepresented. WP:NPOV says that points-of-view should be presented in rough proportion to their prevalence so "East Berlin" would be wrong from that aspect. However not mentioning the capital in the infobox would elegantly resolve this. Since it's a slightly complicated issue, it can't be accurately conveyed using "minimal information" in an infobox. (for the record, I'm also OK with "de facto Capital" or "Seat of government" in the infobox, that side-step the recognition issues)
Concerning the WP:BRD issue, as you correctly note the note in the infobox was serially opposed by several editors, however none of them succeeded, or even seriously attempted, to build consensus to remove it. We're now in the "D" part of BRD. I'm doing you a favour by ignoring your allegation that my behaviour would be disruptive, BTW. However, your continued reverting behaviour may be seen as disruptive. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
that East Berlin was the capital is not the "DDR view". It is fact, just like Taipei is the capital of unrecognized Taiwan, Nicosia the capital of unrecognized Northern Turkey, etc... There were several counties that refused to recognize it as a capital (only 3 by the time the DDR was admitted to the UN) , but that's for the article to discuss. I see that back in August, when you had this debate with User Flying Firkin Fox you did not dispute this, after being shown numerous sources that described East Berlin as the capital. You said 'what's at dispute isn't whether we mention East Berlin or not. What's at dispute is whether we mention the non-recognition". So you agreed it's the capital, but wanted to mention non-recognition. I've shown you a policy reason on why that's not appropriate for the infobox. And no, you did not have consensus to change something that was in the article for more than eight years, so don't try to reverse the onus now. (And even if you did, there is now a 5:1 consensus against your change.) Jeff Song (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are not doing me any favor by "ignoring" what I rightly describe as you edit warring against 5 other editors. Since it seems we are unable to agree on this, how do you suggest we resolve this dispute? Jeff Song (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What I wrote earlier was what my point has been all along, namely we can mention East Berlin as long as we also mention the other point, or alternatively present the information in another WP:NPOV compliant way. Whether East Berlin "really was the capital" is irrelevant to this discussion. What's relevant is that the DDR considered it so, and others didn't - and that's what the article should convey to comply with WP:NPOV. Taipei and Nicosia are also irrelevant, it's not a strong argument to say that another infobox on another page looks some way and this one ought to, too. This article should be based on sources about the DDR
The MoS does say that infoboxes should present a minimal amount of information, but this isn't an argument to not apply WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is one of Wikipedia's core policies and the MoS can't be used to justify deviating from it. From the very top of WP:NPOV: "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias.". Obviously the most preferable solution is to find a way to apply both MoS and NPOV.
This brings us to the proposals I aired yesterday, all in all there are four ways of covering this each of which I'm OK with: 1) the present wording, 2) no mention of capital in the infobox, 3) "de facto Capital" and 4) "Seat of government". You didn't raise any objections to 2-4 (and only the MoS-based objection to the first one) so it looks like agreement is already here. Or alternatively, do you have policy-based reasons for not agreeing to any of the suggestions? The last one may be a particularly good idea, since the US ("However, this recognition did not extend to recognizing East Berlin as part of the GDR or its capital. The treaties establishing the U.S. Embassy in East Berlin referred only to East Germany's "seat of government" from Embassy of the United States, Berlin) and West Germany (see page 32) used this wording to go around the "capital" problem. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(2) is fine with me. (3) is wrong, or at least ,misleading, since it was also the de jure Capital. What is the difference between "seat of government" and Capital? perhaps that's an option, too. Jeff Song (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
(2) is actually not going to work, since it still leaves the Capital section in the template with "Not specified" which is even worse. Please elaborate on (4). Jeff Song (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
"Seat of government" is where the government is based, that can even be in a foreign country. Since we have sources usingit of East Berlin, it would be an acceptable option to deploy here, IMO. --Dailycare (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, and what then is the "Capital"? Jeff Song (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


Ok, as I wrote, I don't think (2) will work, unless someone can fix the template to remove any mention of "Capital" - I don't know how to do this. For the same reason , I don't think your option (4) will work, as it will still leave 'capital' as an "unspecified" entry in the template. Which leaves us where we started. Your arguments regarding the need for NPOV are correct, but NPOV is addressed by describing the viewpoints, in detail, in the article. There is nothing that says that this must also be repeated in the infobox, and indeed I gave a good policy based reason why it should not. Reading through your source (thanks for that new source, BTW) also shows why your proposal (4) is problematic: It does not merely say that the West German embassy in East Berlin referred to it as the "seat of government" rather than the the permanent missions were to be established at the respective "seat of government" of each party. In other words, just as the FRG did not recognize the reality of E. Berlin being the capital, so too did the GDR not recognize Bonn as the "Capital" if West Germany. But if we go to our West Germany article, it states (in the infobox) unequivocally that the Capital is "Bonn". Not "Bonn (proclaimed)" or any other similar disclaimer. Furthermore, on page 42, your source states "when the GDR was established, Berlin was named as its capital city". Earlier, when discussing the reunified Germany , it uses the exact same terminology to refer to Berlin as the capital of Germany: (p. 38) "Berlin was named as the capital city of Germany". So it seems that your source attaches the exact same status to Berlin, the current agreed-upon capital of (the reunited) Germany as it does to its status a the capital of the GDR, when that existed. And again I remind you that you did not dispute the fact that it was the capital in your earlier discussion with Frikicn Fox, you just argued we should mention the issue of non-recognition. This brings us back to where we started - a 5th option you did not allow for: We keep the infobox as it has been for eight years, without any disclaimer, and discuss the recognition of the capital issue, in detail, in the article. Jeff Song (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, you can't wait months after an edit and then decide to revert to the "long-standing version" and claim this is OK since some edit wasn't made in 2003. That's not how things work. You're here again referring to another infobox on another page as an argument concerning this one, and it isn't any more convincing than it was last time. (BTW, I believe Bonn wasn't declared or proclaimed to be a capital city so the box on West Germany may be wrong). To clarify, I'm OK with either Berlin (proclaimed), Berlin (Seat of Government), Berlin (widely unrecognized) etc. in addition to removing "Capital" or changing it to "Seat of Government". Editing the template seems to be restricted, so I'd suggest we keep the current (proclaimed) text while we work to modify the capital field to optional status. As I wrote earlier, the Manual of Style can't override WP:NPOV (which applies to article bodies, boxes and leads equally) so the MoS will have to accept a few extra words in the box for now. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Your edit was reverted within a few weeks of you making it, by several editors. At least one made their case on this page, in this section. I only found this article this month, but there is clearly no consensus for your change now, nor was there consensus for it back when you made it. NPOV is addressed in the article, so please don't raise that straw man argument again . Bonn was indeed chosen as the capital (see http://www.wir-rheinlaender.lvr.de/engl_version/trizonesia/capitalcitybonn.htm). We are not going to limit ourselves to just the 4 options you favor, which are all variations on the same theme of putting some disclaimer in the infobox, when no-one but yourself has shown any support for such a disclaimer. Rather, We are going back to where this was before your bold, non-consensus chnage, until and unless you can find at least someone other than yourself who thinks it is appropriate. Jeff Song (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I made the edit on June 16, 2011. Since then, there has been no consensus editorial decision to change the wording (i.e. for 4 months), and no "bold" edits of the text overall until August 5, 2011 (i.e. for 7 weeks). Before making the edit in June, I queried on this page whether there was opposition to it: there was none, therefore the edit had consensus already on June 16, 2011. I made an edit request to the template page. (Bonn is off-topic, but see page 42 hereCheers, --Dailycare (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
You made the edit after you queried on this page whether there was opposition to it, and there was none , but there was also no support. In fact, there was no response at all, and you assumed, incorrectly, that silence meant consensus. That is not the case. Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, which supplements WP:Consensus, says 'You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others. none of this has happened. It further says "dissent might show up later, and it is then no longer appropriate to assume consensus." and "sometimes it is only when your changes are reverted or substantially changed that you learn that you did not, in fact, have full consensus." - this is exactly what happened here. 7 weeks after you made your edit, which no one used or referred to in the interim, your change was reverted, by SEVERAL editors - showing that you did not, in fact, have consensus when you made it. Wikipedia:Silence and consensus also tells us that Silence is the weakest form of consensus, and that "Where a decision is based mostly on silence, it is especially important to remember that consensus can change." - so it is obvious that you did not then, and certainly do not now have consensus for that bold change you made. Accordingly, I am restoring the version that clearly had consensus - having been in the article for 8 years, and used and referred by dozens of editors before your bold change. :::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Song (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The essay (n.b. not policy) you cite also says "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so". Anyway, what happened four months ago isn't directly relevant to this discussion and can't be used to justify edit warring today. Happily we already have an agreement on the new text, which we can implement once the template is modified. Until then, the content remains as-is. --Dailycare (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:BRD, which you are relying on, is similarly an essay, and not policy. Enough with the double standards. What happened 4 moths ago is just as relevant as what happened 7 weeks before that - you made a bold edit relying on silence, and the first time somebody noticed it, they reverted you. Not just one editor, mind you, but FIVE, the fifth being me, telling you today that you obviously did not have consensus the first time, and certainly do not have it today. Jeff Song (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC).
I'm not "relying" just on BRD, also WP:CONSENSUS (which is a policy) says that editing takes place by consensus decision. You have zero evidence for your claim that when someone first say the edit, they reverted it. To the contrary, during the initial seven weeks before the unexplained Israeli IP drive-by revert, this page was loaded approximately 100.000 times. I'd wager many of them say the text I added in the infobox. --Dailycare (talk) 06:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This was summed up nicely by the administrator who closed your edit warring report: "Dailycare's comments about the nature of consensus do not sound like Wikipedia policy". [2]. Jeff Song (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't agree to this in August, and I don't support the current "compromise" - what the West did or did not recognize is irrelevant to Berlin's status as capital. Discuss in the article all you want, but there's no reason to remove facts from the info box. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Quelle surprise! --Dailycare (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Communist state"

In the infobox it says "Communist state".

Isn't that misleading as there is no "Communist state"?

There are only Socialist States in what would become Communism.

Communism itself is stateless.

Bolegash (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

not with Stalin--he changed the rules and sent the critics to the Gulag. Rjensen (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union

I added that East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union but this was removed by a user who claimed that this was POV. East Germany has been widely regarded by scholarly sources to be a satellite state of the Soviet Union. The state was created with the endorsement of the Soviet Union and Soviet military forces were based throughout East Germany assisted in maintaining order in the country. East Germany collapsed when the East Germany applied for military assistance from Soviet Union to crush opposition protests to the regime in 1989 but Soviet leader Gorbachev refused to commit Soviet forces to repel the protestors.--R-41 (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Mewulwe (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
"satellite" is indeed the term used by the RS and R-41 clearly explains why. Rjensen (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "satellite state" is term used by the RS and East Germany along with the other Warsaw Pact states are widely reocognized by a vast number of scholars as satellite states. Their economies and military forces were tightly connected with the Soviet Union. Almost everywhere in Eastern Europe where the Soviet Union held its military forces during World War II a corresponding Marxist-Leninist state was created with the endorsement and economic and military support of the Soviet Union, later Yugoslavia and Albania abandoned pro-Soviet policies but the rest of the Eastern European Marxist-Leninist states remained satellite states.--R-41 (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ostalgie

The last half of the 'Ostalgie' section seems to be pretty biased toward Western ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.185.67.15 (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

What changes do you propose? Jeff Song (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what sentences you are referring to, can you be more clear?MilkStraw532 (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:DDR national anthem.ogg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:DDR national anthem.ogg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

German Democratic Republic

Hey, what do you think of changing the name of the article to German Democratic Republic to avoid being biased and polarising. That was the actual name of the country. That will be more neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Wiki rules oblige us to follow the RS-- and as the titles in the bibliography demonstrate, RS since 1990 strongly prefer "East Germany." Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union, saying it is not is a revisionist interpretation of history not backed up by facts

Many sources state that East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union. I have provided sources, if someone has a problem with the sources, they need to explain what the problem is with these sources, all the sources are all available on Google Books for examination. Here they are

  • Michael Kort. The Columbia Guide to the Cold War. New York, New York, USA; Chicester, England, UK: Columbia University Press, 2001. Pp. 103.
  • Carlos Ramirez-Faria. Concise Encyclopaedia of World History. Atlantic Publishers & Distributors (P), Ltd, 2007. Pp. 255.
  • Paul Cooke. Representing East Germany since unification: from colonization to nostalgia. Oxford, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Berg, 2005. Pp. 27.
  • B. V. Rao. History of Modern Europe Ad 1789-2002: A.D. 1789-2002. Elgin, Illinois, USA; Berkshire, England, UK: New Dawn Press, 2006. Pp. 280.
I am aware that someone will likely retort that this is a pro-Western (world) bias on my part. My response to that is that I am aware that the West had satellite states and client states of its own in the Cold War, South Vietnam was a French and later U.S. satellite state, Iran under the Shah was a U.S. and Western client state, and then in the Cold War as is now I consider Israel to be a U.S. client state - though I know realistically that there is no chance that discussion boards on the Israel article will accept this reality, because it is current and does not have the neutral, dispassionate review of a distant past to recognize this. I am not saying that East Germany was any worse or better in its position than West Germany - that may itself be rightly considered a satellite state of the Western world and I would think so, as it was militarily dominated by non-domestic Western world armed forces for fifty years. What I am exclusively saying about East Germany is that it is widely recognized as having been a satellite state of the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Just like the other examples you mention, this is intrinsically a subjective interpretation. It doesn't matter how "widely" it is viewed like this, it is not an objective truth. And towards the later period it is completely untenable, since Honecker didn't follow Gorbachev, not to mention the final 1989-90 period. Yet the article deals with the whole existence of the state, so for that reason alone it would be wrong. But even for the earlier period it is just POV. It's like putting "Banana republic" in the infobox of Honduras. The infobox is for universally recognized categories. In international law East Germany was a fully recognized sovereign state, so putting "satellite state" there gives a completely false impression, as if it was some dependent state like a colony, protectorate, or trust territory. Mewulwe (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
What are your grounds for opposing the sources? Why are these sources a POV on the issue of East Germany being a satellite state of the Soviet Union? Satellite state is a term used by scholars to describe states. You claim there is no consensus that it was a satellite state - please present sources that refute the common claims by many scholars that it is a satellite state. Plus isn't it imbalanced to emphasize an alleged period of lack of cooperation between the DDR and the USSR from 1989 to 1990 during the last days of the Cold War while not mentioning that for forty out of its forty-one years of existance during the Cold War it was fully cooperating with the Soviet Union and obeying the Soviet Union's economic and military initiatives? East Germany was only a partially recognized state for 25 years until the mid-1970s (prior to the mid-70s it was almost exclusively recognized by only the Marxist-Leninist states of the Eastern Bloc and non-aligned China and Yugoslavia), following West Germany's recognition of East Germany in 1972, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, India, and many others recognized East Germany in 1972; the United Kingdom, France, and Japan recognized East Germany in 1973; Spain and the United States did not recognize East Germany until 1974; only after this did East Germany become a fully recognized state. Here's an example of use of a term describing subordination or client relations to another state involving partially recognized states: the Independent State of Croatia was a partially-recognized sovereign state that was recognized by Argentina, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, and others - but it is categorized on Wikipedia as being a puppet state of Nazi Germany because there is a wide array of sources that support this. There is an example of a fully-recognized state being recognized as a client state, and that is Austria under Engelbert Dolfuss in the early 1930s that was a client state of Italy during the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini.--R-41 (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Simple, not a single scholarly source from East Germany or the Soviet Union described it as a satellite state. If you say Communist scholarship was obviously biased, you're just begging the question and applying some scientific "victor's justice," as if Western scholarship could not be biased. There is just no way of objectively proving such a point. "Satellite" suggests a state is a complete puppet of another, yet there is plenty of evidence of states that had been described as Soviet satellites starting to act against Soviet wishes (Romania, Albania), showing that it was possible to do so and therefore that acting in accordance with Soviet views did not have to be based on force and dependency but perhaps on actual accordance of views. Any view that the situation between East Germany and the U.S.S.R. was different to that of West Germany and the U.S. is inherently a subjective, namely Western view. The fact that it was described as satellite state can be mentioned in the text (properly making it clear that this was only the Western view) but doesn't belong in the infobox. Now regarding 1989-90, you must be trolling: the U.S.S.R. obviously was still Communist and East Germany wasn't (a short period, but still clearly East Germany was "ahead" of the U.S.S.R. in its change, not vice versa). Thanks for admitting at least it was a fully sovereign state for 16 of its 41 years - indeed even during the Cold War, Western use of the term "satellite state" largely ended in the early 1970s. So again it is inappropriate to put the term up in this blanket way. The "Independent State of Croatia" was never a fully recognized state, so it is admissible there. With the Federal State of Austria, I would also tend to think the "client state" designation doesn't belong in the infobox, but at least this status applied to the whole of its existence, and it is also less of a propaganda term, so it doesn't bother me as much. Mewulwe (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Mewulwe is correct that Romania and Albania broke away from Soviet control and were not considered satellites. Poor East Germany never broke away--it finally collapsed when it called on the USSR for troops to suppress a popular revolt in 1989 and Gorbachev said no, take care of yourself. It could never take care of itself--it always depended on Soviet troops--so it collapsed. Rjensen (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Originally they were considered satellites, and the fact that they could "break away" proved the whole concept wrong. East Germany could have done the same - indeed it did when it refused to copy Gorbachev's reforms. As to the rest, I don't see what your point is - many states depend on foreign protection (e.g. present-day Israel), still it is not objective to call them satellites, since there has never been a case of a supposed "satellite state" that accepted this designation for itself. Mewulwe (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The question is not what the GDR called itself (it called itself Democratic!!) but what the RS today call it...they call it a satellite state that in fact never broke away. (when it tried in 1953 Soviet tanks moved in and shot the people down). One reason is that hundreds of thousands of the best Soviet troops were stationed in the GDR. (recall it cost Bonn lots of cash to send them home in 1990) Rjensen (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, see above. You are completely applying a Western view and identify that with an objective view. "Democracy," too, can be interpreted in different ways, yet you make fun of the GDR calling itself democratic (as if this were "objectively false") while apparently having no doubt about Western democracy, which some would argue is more of a plutocracy. History books contain subjective opinions all the time, and this is intrinsically one, therefore it is immaterial if the sources you talk about are otherwise (when it comes to hard facts) to be considered RS. We may not disagree much about the actual historic facts (and they can be included in all detail in the article text), yet you insist on using a specific term in the infobox in a way that is more misleading than helpful. Mewulwe (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
what do the recent RS say? 1) "Of the various East European satellites, East Germany was the most subdued and pliant" [German Unification by Peter H. Merkl - 2004 p 54]; 2) "East Germany was causing more serious problems for the Soviet Union than the other satellite states." [The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War by Detlef Junker, Philipp Gassert, Wilfried Mausbach - 2004 p. 175]; 3) "the satellite states had been compelled by the Soviet Union to recognize the GDR" [Germany's cold war (2003) p. 73 by William Gray]; 4) among the "satellite states, East Germany lacked legitimacy." [Diplomacy by Henry Kissinger (2009) p. 571]; 5) "Like other former Eastern-bloc societies [after 1989], East Germany was faced with the problem of transformation from a satellite state of the 'Soviet empire' into a democratic civil society." [Representing East Germany since unification by Paul Cooke - 2005 p 27]. Now let's see the RS that Mewulwe is relying upon. Rjensen (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't need an RS for not using a POV term! (It would be trivial to find thousands of books referring to East Germany without the term "satellite.") Mewulwe (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not a POV term, it is used by scholars, I and Rjensen have presented multiple sources. I don't agree with Rjensen's tone or your tone in being so combative and assuming bad faith - which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy - I presented multiple sources - you have to point out what is wrong with them - if you claim they are biased, you have to prove they are biased. I am not advocating a pro-Western stance, I already told you that the West did have many satellite/client states during the Cold War and still does have some today - South Korea, South Vietnam, Israel, Cuba under Battista, Panama, Egypt after 1978, Saudi Arabia, perhaps Pakistan (though it had influence from China as well), Zaire (a Belgian and US client state), and West Germany - that was dominated by non-domestic American and Western Bloc armed forces and huge financial aid from the West just as East Germany was dominated by non-domestic Soviet and Eastern Bloc forces with huge financial aid from the East. Some of the original Soviet satellites did break away or attempted to break away - but not without a struggle - Yugoslavia was the first to break away, Hungary tried to break away in 1956 but was crushed by a Soviet-led Warsaw Pact ambush, Czechoslovakia attempted to break away in 1968 but was violently crushed by a Soviet-led Warsaw Pact invasion, Albania switched to become pro-Maoist to gain independence from the Warsaw Pact through support from China, and Romania gradually manipulated its way to greater autonomy including through building a personality cult around Ceausescu. International politics is complex and often hypocritical - the West officially opposed communism, but was more interested in containing the Soviet Union and made informal alliances with communist-led states such as Yugoslavia and China to challenge the Soviet Union, while US multinational corporations like IBM sold the Soviet Union high tech computers for military use; and economic and political circumstances changed the attitudes of the members involved - the Soviet Union was liberalizing from the 1950s to mid 1960s under Khrushchev that alienated communist leaders like Mao and Ceausescu who preferred Stalinism to Khrushchevism, then the Soviet Union deliberalized under Brezhnev, and pressure of economic challenges left the Soviet Union unable to effectively pursue the Cold War without major economic drain - just as the US had to give up South Vietnam when the pressure of opposition to the Vietnam War became a widely supported social movement. So in this broader context, it is understandable why there were fluctuations in the events of the Cold War in the makeup of the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Bloc, but it does not mean that because at one point a state like Czechoslovakia became nearly completely independent from the Soviet Union in 1968, that Czechoslovakia was not a satellite state before and after that.--R-41 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, since Mewulwe has added the claim that is not supported by the references that East Germany was only viewed as a satellite state of the West, and has insinuated that East Germany was a legitimate sovereign state - that means the inclusion of internal sovereignty involving popular self-determination by the United Nations, let's look into the legitimacy of East Germany by what East Germans themselves thought. This source states that after East Germany was founded, "Many people, both East German citizens and outsiders saw the GDR as illegitimate and artificial; they considered West Germany to be the true German state and East Germany a Stalinist puppet" and it points out the unpopularity of East Germany by mentioning that 2.7 million East Germans fled from East Germany to West Germany in the 1950s, and says that it was a "Soviet satellite state".[3] This source states that public opinion polls of East Germans states that East Germans who supported unification with West Germany wanted political freedom and the standard of living equivelant to West Germany's, when Helmut Kohl visited the DDR, East Germans displayed placards that said "Helmut, take us by your hand and lead us into the land of Economic Miracle"; and it says that East Germans in 1989-1990 were more confident about unification than West Germans. See pages 16 and 17 of this source for this information: [4].--R-41 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said above, history books, especially those that aim to tell a readable story rather than just assembling hard facts, are almost always, and almost necessarily, biased, full of subjective interpretations. They will often contradict each other, since different interpretations are possible. But Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, it can't have these kinds of histories (untenable anyway with a multiplicity of authors). We cannot pick interpretations from books, which would often be contradictory, only hard facts. The burden of proof is not on me to show how your books are biased if the issue is inherently subjective, which you have confirmed when talking about other cases like Israel "because it is current and does not have the neutral, dispassionate review of a distant past to recognize this" - well, East Germany is not in the distant past either. People are still alive who would defend the system. As to what "popular self-determination" means, this is, like "democracy," also subjective. And whatever standard you use, surely many countries today will not fulfill it; still they are generally considered legitimate sovereign states, as members of the UN (as East Germany was from 1973, no later than West Germany) etc. Clearly the term "satellite state" originated in the West (where else?) and was used in Cold War propaganda (see how its use went up and down mirroring the intensity of the Cold War: [5]). As I said, you are welcome to put all hard facts you want into the article, e.g. it is true that millions of people left for the West ("fled," however, is a POV term for pre-1961 movements; and interpretations like describing these as "political refugees" or speaking of the "unpopularity" of the system are also POV; people often leave their countries for economic reasons without necessarily blaming the difference in economic opportunity on the different political systems, if they are different at all). It's also true that there were mass demonstrations demanding political freedom in 1989 and then later - in 1990 (as the old economic system was collapsing) - demanding unification. You could probably find opinion polls showing how support for unification in the East grew suddenly in 1990 and indeed exceeded support for it in the West. Mewulwe (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I stated that there were Western client/satellite states and that many East Germans themselves saw the state as an illegitimate Stalinist puppet regime - I am not pushing a Western POV, I've included the opinions of East Germans themselves. You have accused me of pursuing a Western POV - I have demonstrated that there have been Western client/satellite states, I believe in reality that it is you who appears to be pushing a pro-Eastern POV in rejecting multiple sources including sources recording East Germans' opinions themselves out of your intuition that they are biased in a "pro-Western" sense - indicating that you are exclusively viewing the issue on an Eastern bloc vs. Western bloc basis. Wikipedia does not rely on users' intuition, it relies on reliable sources, you need to provide sources that directly refute these common claims that East Germany was a satellite state. The United Nations has defined self-determination as involving popular consent of the people. The origins of a term like satellite state don't affect its effectiveness - the term "dictatorship" arose in ancient Rome by the Roman state but it is used today, "totalitarianism" was used by the Italian Fascists to describe themselves and is used by scholars today.--R-41 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Now you are just repeating yourself. I replied to this. "Common claims" don't make objective truth when the matter is not one of hard fact but inherently subjective. Obviously the West won the Cold War, thus "Western" claims are common. To further prove the point, here you have another opinion: "The GDR is not a satellite, but a junior partner, economically, politically and diplomatically more powerful than it ever used to be." (Jonathan Steele, Inside East Germany: the state that came in from the cold, 1977). Now how do you prove that this source is biased and yours aren't? "Dictatorship" and "totalitarianism" weren't propaganda terms directed against others, they were originally adopted by these regimes themselves. "Satellite state" has never been anything but a propaganda term, it was never adopted by a state for itself, nor has any state claimed to have such. Mewulwe (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Steele, a journalist in Moscow, wrote in 1977, long before the documents became available (in 1990s) that showed Moscow controlled all major decisions in GDR, thus proving it was a "satellite". I think no one now agrees with Steele's 1977 opinion. Rjensen (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, so one could only really know it was a "satellite" in the 1990s, and yet the term was widely used in the Cold War. And still you claim it was not a propaganda term! Mewulwe (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Where is your evidence that it is now used as a propaganda term? Because it was a term created in the West? By that standard, the term "totalitarian" is a positive-value propaganda term of the Italian Fascists as they openly described themselves as totalitarian. It is used by scholars to describe the state. "Common claims don't make objective truth" - then what do you claim the "objective truth" about East Germany is - and by your claim that common claims can't be used - there is no possible logical way to confirm that it is a satellite state or is not a satellite state - your argument is illogical and if taken to the extreme of ignoring a large proportion of scholarly research that makes a claim - is a violation of Wikipedia policy. How else would you describe 2.7 million East Germans suddenly moving across the border in mass emigration in the 1950s in combination with the later construction of frontier barriers with guards under orders to shoot people on the spot who did attempt to enter West Germany other than "fleeing" or "escaping"? You clearly seem to have a POV dedicated to disregarding the widely held view that East Germany was one of the Soviet Union's satellite states by rejecting the term satellite state as not reliable because you claim that the term originated in the West - which is a clear anti-Western POV to scholarly works of the west, and original research on your part on the origins of the term satellite state. What sources do you have to reject the assertion by scholars as well as public opinion evidence that comes from both the Western world and East Germany itself that assert that it it is widely regarded as a satellite state. You will probably claim that some people disagree, but Wikipedia has a policy for a small minority of opinion that disagree with prominent representations, that is WP:FRINGE policy.--R-41 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It was used in Western Cold War propaganda, never in the East and rarely in the nonaligned world. It is equivalent to the term "Free World" in this respect. The meaning has not changed since. Those who apply it today apply it for the same states as before. In contrast, the word "totalitarian" has become general and is no longer particularly associated with Italy. The objective truth about East Germany, as far as the infobox is concerned, is that it was a regular sovereign state. It is absurd to suggest that the phenomenon of people leaving a country should be in any way relevant to the infobox. As to fleeing, that implies some danger, therefore, as I said, it doesn't apply to pre-1961 when obviously millions could leave without particular risk. For those who left later, i.e. who cared enough about leaving to risk their lives, you may well say they "fled" or "escaped," but their number is negligible overall. Anyway, what does this have to do with the issue? People emigrating from a country (always primarily economic) hardly proves it is a "satellite state" or non-sovereign state or whatever you want to prove here. You have shown no hard facts about what public opinion was, which in any case are unlikely to exist pre-1989. I disregard "widely held views" because they don't belong in the article, except if properly described as such, and certainly not in the infobox, which is for hard facts: the official name of the country, its area, population, capital, etc. are all hard facts. Some dubious descriptive term which was "widely" (actually not very widely after 1970) used for it does not belong there. WP:FRINGE applies to minority opinions about inherently objective facts, which can be ignored. We use the prevailing opinions about things which can have only one objective truth, but not prevailing opinions about things that are inherently opinions (which would be like writing that so-and-so "is a good politician," because said politician has a high approval rating). Mewulwe (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Satellite state is not a biased term like "free world" because satellite state can be applied to any states that are Eastern, Western, Non-Aligned, etc. There were Eastern scholars who did use the term "satellite state" to describe certain Western states. This is not pro-Western because it does not say that all Eastern or related Marxist-Leninist states were satellites - China was not a satellite - it was already a power of its own during the Cold War, Yugoslavia almost became a satellite before defecting from Stalin and developed a substantially strong and independent military and economy (though it became increasingly dependent on the West especially by the 1970s to 1980s), and Cuba became a bizarre case of quasi-independence as it had economic dependence on the Soviet Union mixed with a politically-independent non-Aligned stance and an independent foreign policy of activist anti-imperialist militant activities in Latin America and Africa. WP:FRINGE states that "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence." WP:FRINGE does apply to this because use of the term satellite state is not a subjective value-based stance on whether East Germany was "good" or "bad", the term involves the dependence and close interconnection of the economic, military, and political components of a state to a stronger power that the affairs of the satellite state are dependent upon. I have provided multiple sources that derive from people from both the West and the East (the views of East Germans themselves) that state that East Germany was a satellite state. So you have to demonstrate that the proportion of claims that it was not a satellite state are significant in comparison to the many sources that say it was a satellite state.--R-41 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I did not claim that the term "satellite state" was inherently pro-Western. If it was used in the East for Western states, then that's the same propaganda in reverse. But that it is always a propaganda term follows directly from the fact that it was never used within a camp, always only to denigrate the other. It has an inherently negative connotation. Thus labelling East Germany this way is very much equivalent to calling it "bad." The term should not be used for the same reason that an encyclopedia should never use the term "murder" except in a strictly legal sense. But of course the type of sources you cite would do so all the time, and so they also use "satellite state." This is hardly surprising. Incidentally, since the RS issue doesn't even arise, I hadn't looked very closely at the cited sources, but, doing so now, I must say you (Rjensen in this case) have quite some nerve in passing off a book by Henry Kissinger as a reliable source! Mewulwe (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
real nerve is depending entirely on an outdated journalistic account from the 1970s and ignoring all post 1990 scholarship. Yes, Kissinger is 21st century authority on diplomacy and German history, is that a problem? Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't depend on that at all, it was just a simple counterexample to demonstrate the absurdity of deciding a subjective issue in this way. As to Kissinger, he is also widely seen as a war criminal who is hardly an objective authority on anything. Mewulwe (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Per definition Mewulwe is wrong, the definition of a satellite state (according to wiki) "is a political term that refers to a country that is formally independent, but under heavy political and economic influence or control by another country". This is true of East Germany. But Mewulwe is not entirely wrong, it was a term used by the Western bloc; it was not used by the Eastern Bloc or the non-aligned movement. My proposition is as follows; add information about East Germany being a satellite state according to the Western Bloc in the lead, but not in the actual infobox. Also, in other regards, Soviet economic control over East Germany faltered during the 1970s and 1980s; East German economic growth and actual output in some sectors surpassed the Soviet Union's high economic growth and actual output in certain sectors. Politically controlled can also be disputed; the Soviet Union had much saying when it came to foreign policy, not actual domestic policy - they had, however, influence over domestic policy. The East German state was as eager as the USSR to build a communist society... When it comes to people leaving (escaping) from East Germany, and it being less of a sovereign state because of it, that is entirely subjective; lots of people left (escaped) from North Korea during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s - its still a sovereign state. The only difference between North Korea and East Germany is that East Germany collapsed with the rest of the communist bloc, North Korea continues to live on.... Can't we just write a sentence or two together, and reach an agreement?? --TIAYN (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
"According to wiki" means nothing of course; that article also fails to properly note the propaganda nature of the term. If the term "satellite state" is to be used at all, it has to be ascribed to the "Western world view." The actual facts regarding the Soviet influence or control, such as there was, should be described specifically and without simplistic labels; you made a good start there, so between the two of us we could surely reach agreement. Mewulwe (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No it should not be excluded to being a "Western" view. I provided sources that included the views of East Germans, including one that states that many East Germans identified the DDR as a Stalinist puppet regime. Meuluwe has yet to present sources to refute the claims of East Germany being a satellite state from multiple scholarly sources, and has relied only on her/his opinion and intuition in combination with rhetorical debate that the term "satellite" in front of state somehow implies "bad" and thus is biased - that is personal opinion and original research that cannot be used to disqualify a term used by political scientists to describe some states. Until sources are presented to refute the common claim that East Germany was a satellite state, Meuluwe's opposition is currently based upon opinion, original research, and WP:FRINGE applies to Meulwe's currently unsourced argument in comparison to the widely sourced claim that the DDR was a satellite state, particularly the point under WP:FRINGE that states: "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence.".--R-41 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself again and I have already responded to these points. What "many East Germans" thought is neither here nor there. It is perfectly clear that the term is not in universal uncontroversial use, therefore we must not use it as if it were. Mewulwe (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I can see that there will be no agreement between these two views, so I propose that we have a vote on whether or not to include the term "satellite state" in the status section of the infobox. However it is vitally important that prior to the vote, both the proponents of the "Yes" side and the "No" side organize their arguments in a short paragraph and present sources to back up the claims, and that these sources' material on the subject matter be available for those voting to review prior to casting their vote. We should use Wikipedia:Third Opinion to neutrally invite other users to participate in the vote, and also experts on the subject, if possible. We need to have a larger group of people discussing and reviewing this, as it is a serious issue pertaining to this article and other articles on Warsaw Pact states identified as "satellite states" that may have to be changed by the precedent of this article. I propose that one week (exactly 7 days) of preparation be provided to organize the arguments for and against including the term "satellite state" in the infobox. On the 7th day, both sides will overview the argument statements of both - to ensure that they are reasonable and fair, then Third Opinion should be requested and when a substantial number of users arrive, the issue should be voted on.--R-41 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Die Linke??? They don't seem to believe that East Germany was a satellite state; those who believe that East Germany was a "Stalinist pupet" regime were anti-communists. Die Linke, does not believe that East Germany was a puppet regime, and because of it, Die Linke projects a "nice" image of the former East Germany. There are other sources too.... R-41, the majority of people who believe East Germany was a puppet state, are mostly anti-communist. Of the dusin of books I've read about communist politics, the majority of them do not refer to East Germany as a satellite state. Its a reason for that, its disputed. And yes, you have sources, but believe it or not, I have sources which don't refer to East Germany as a satellite state or a puppet regime. The use of satellite state in the infobox is entirely biased, and shows only one view; this is what makes a biased articles. --TIAYN (talk) 10:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Die Linke is one of the most prominent actors in East German politics; you're sources are not more significant then them. Don't push you're POV here! --TIAYN (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Robert Service does not even mention the term "Satellite" or "puppet" when Soviet policies towards East Germany in A History of Modern Russia from Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin
  • Die Linke walked out of the Saxon parliament, when the parliament (dominated by the CDU) wanted to celebrate the German Unification (source)
  • Die Linke is the second-biggest party in most of East Germany; the majority of East German don't consider East Germany a puppet.....
  • Not mentioned in GDR and Its History either....
  • The first mention of East Germany being a satellite state in the West was by the United States government in 1953; see p. 175 The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War, 1945-1990: 1945-1968
  • The Rise and Fall of Communism (by Sunil Kumar Sarker) does not refer to East Germany neither as a "satellite" or a "puppet state".
There are many more of these . --TIAYN (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Very well, most of these are the kind of sources that I wanted to see from the other side. However Die Linke is not a reliable source because it is a political party with a political agenda, though you are correct that its connection with the SED and large presence in East Germany since reunification does demonstrate that there was legitimacy for East Germany. I added in the intro that there were a substantial number of East Germans who supported the state. It is not a "POV" I am pushing - I want to see sources from the other side. As for Robert Service, just because there is no mention of the specific term "satellite state" that doesn't prove that he regards East Germany or other Warsaw Pact members as independent, for instance on page 387 of his book A history of modern Russia from Nicholas II to Vladimir Putin, Robert Service described the Brezhnev Doctrine in response to Prague Spring, stating "No country of the Warsaw Pact was permitted to follow policies involving the slightest derogation from the premises of the one-party state, Marxism-Leninism and Warsaw Pact membership. The Brezhnev Doctrine was imposed, whereby upon any threat to 'socialism' in any country of the Pact, the other member countries of the Pact had the right and duty to intervene militarily.", see here for source: [6]--R-41 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
We're talking about a specific term. Dependency relations of various degrees between countries exist all over the place, but they need to be described in text and not in artificial categories in the infobox. Mewulwe (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The status text in the infobox is specifically there to describe a relation to an empire or great power, in this case, the Soviet Union. The status section is used in many Wikipedia articles to describe a historical state or territory's relation to an empire or great power - using terms like client state, protectorate, colony, and satellite state in relation to the state deemed that it is dependent and under control by. And the term satellite state was not exclusively used by the West, regardless of its origins, East Germany's leader Walter Ulbricht described West Germany as an "American satellite state", see here: [7]. The Communist Party of India in its 1965 congress and in other documents repeatedly described India under its present government at that time as "a satellite state of the imperialist-capitalist orbit" [8]. Of course, as I said a political party's position is not a reliable source but these sources do show that the term has been used by communist and anti-Western states and movements, and not just by the West. Thus, it is a term used in both the East and West, including by heads of state such as Walter Ulbricht, so it clearly appears to be a universally-accepted term used by East and West.--R-41 (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Thats true, it was a term used by both West and East; following you're logic wer shoudl state that West Germany is a satellite state too, which it was not - it was one of those state that followed, and agreed, with US foreign policy in nearly every area, as with East Germany.. But thats not the point, you're reasoning for calling it a satellite state was the measure of control the Soviet Union had over East Germany's domestic policy. Again, you're right, Die Linke is not a reliable source; but that wasn't my point - 11.9 percent of the German people have voted for the party, and it is the second-largest party in most of the former East Germany. It does say something about what Germans feel about the East Germany; the majority of people who've voted for Die Linke probably wouldn't consider East Germany as a satellite state. Also, see East German general election, 1990, the SED got 17 percent of the votes. Which is, of course, not that much considering that they ruled the country for over 40 years, but still - but we should also take into account that the SED lost much support because of Honecker's continued pseudo-Stalinist policies (the same thing happened in the USSR under Gorbachev; people supported him until they found out that he could't deliver the changes they hoped.... thats democracy for you :) )..The problem with you're claim, is that its disputed. Why does it have to be in the infobox?? Can't we add a sentence about it in the lead? Like East Germany has commonly been referred to as a satellite state by some historians, but some scholars object to this term.?? --TIAYN (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
West Germany was a satellite state of the United States, just as East Germany was of the Soviet Union. It is currently categorized on its article in similar terms as a "client state of the United States" with a reliable source attributed to that statement. West Germany was economically and militarily dominated by the United States and other Western powers during the Cold War. The terms "some historians" and "some scholars" are weasel words that disguise that the term is widely used to describe East Germany.--R-41 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Economically, West Germany was one of the most advanced countries in the world. Dependent? Yes, but all countries are dependent of each other in a globalised market economy.. I'm opposed listing West Germany a client state, satellite state or even a puppet of the United States because one reason; the majority of Germans don't believe that, and would probably laugh if someone said so....... --TIAYN (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
What does this have to do with East Germany being widely regarded by scholars as a satellite state of the Soviet Union?--R-41 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
In short, neither East or West Germany were satellite states. --TIAYN (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
TIAYN says "but some scholars object to this term." which scholars? Rjensen (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
On what evidence can you (TIAYN) say with such authority that East Germany was not a satellite state? Are you refuting every single scholarly source that has said that East Germany was a satellite state? Are you ignoring the massive array of scholarly historical literature that states that East Germany was a satellite state? You need to present sources to counter this widely held assertion by many scholars. If you can't find a large body of sources that refute this common claim, than your position falls under WP:FRINGE. And don't say that Western scholars are automatically biased against the East because they are Western - many Western scholars have challenged U.S. propaganda during the Cold War - and many Western scholars have called South Vietnam a US client state and the Vietnam War an unjust war. Also, as Rjensen has asked, I inquire as well, you claim "but some scholars object to this term." Which scholars?--R-41 (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm tired of this discussion... I'll see what I can do.... I can find some sources, but not today.... --TIAYN (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_Germany/Archive_4&oldid=473816173"