Talk:East Germany

Satellite state of the USSR or not

Should this article describe East Germany (the former German Democratic Republic) as a satellite state of the former USSR? If yes, should "satellite state" be mentioned in the InfoBox (or only in the body)?

This debate is listed at WP:Cent, the Village Pump, and related projects, and will run for 30 days. It will then be closed by a neutral uninvolved editor. 15:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please begin your first rationale statement with an asterisk (*) to create a bullet, and respect discussion threading format indents with incremented colons (:) as required.
You may optionally begin your first comment with Oppose or Support, but please remember that this is a debate and not a straw poll. Please stay friendly and discuss the topic and not each other. Thanks.

Discussion

• Support. The current Oxford Dictionary of English has the following entries under satellite: "[usu. as modifier] something that is separated from or on the periphery of something else but its nevertheless dependent on or controlled by it." and "a small country or state politically or economically dependent on another." I would say East Germany qualified on both counts. It was separated from the USSR, but was totally politically, economically and militarily under its control as one of the Warsaw Pact states and part of COMECON. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Just picked out A Concise History of Germany by Fulbrook at random and, lo and behold, it refers to the "former satellite states of Eastern Europe" clearly referring to East Germany and the other Soviet bloc countries! What a surprise! And IIRC the whole of the East Germany military was integrated into the Soviet military chain of command and, to quote Fulbrook again, East Germany was "forcibly integrated into COMECON." Yes it had all the paraphernalia of an independent state - that's how the Soviets wanted it to look, but it was a puppet nevertheless. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Yes. The German Democratic Republic was essentially the Soviet Occupation Zone of Germany in all but name from 7 May 1945 until its dissolution in 1990. Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Bermicourt and Bwmoll3 are both indulging in WP:OR here. We can certainly cite reliable sources for an opinion that it was a satellite state, but an authoritative assertion in Wikipedia's voice to this effect would be a breach of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Quoting a dictionary is hardly original research! And the reliable sources backing up your vote are...? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Since you clearly don't understand WP:OR, I suggest you read it again. Reading a dictionary definition of a word, and deciding that you 'would say' that it applied to East Germany is OR - actually, not even that, it is your opinion. As for sources for my 'vote', I'm citing Wikipedia policy. (And BTW, this is request for comment, not a vote. Though actually it is a waste of time, since a decision to violate policy cannot be made in a RfC in any case). AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • 'Comment'. You could say that about anything. Anyway, I have quoted a source now - didn't take long - and your authoritative sources are...? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Comment. My source is the WP:OR Wikipedia policy. And what source are you citing for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose [I see that East Germany is described as a "satellite state of the Soviet Union" in the infobox and 10 sources are provided.] It is always possible to find rs that support a position, a google book search for "canada "satellite state"" for example returns many rs that Canada is a satellite state, and wonder if R-41 would agree to adding that desription to Canada's infobox. For controversial descriptions, one would expect a source that says East Germany was a satellite state, explain what this means and state that there is consensus for this description. Of the sources listed above in the unsubtly named 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, three sources are passing references, but one (Rao) explains the term in the section ""Satellite" Communist States" (author's scare quotes): "The Western Allies called these countries as satellite states".[1] TFD (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Why should it not be considered revisionist TFD? Considering the evidence that has been discovered since the Cold War about East Germany. What is wrong about the term satellite state that has been commonly used to describe the well-known massive subordination of East Germany to the Soviet Union? Is the disagreement merely out of political correctness here?--R-41 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It is partly the choice of terminology. We should not use terminology associated with Cold Warriors and anti-Communists any more than we should use terminology associated with Marxists. Whenever an article is loaded with this terminology, it is an alert about the inherent POV. Another reason is that the term is poorly defined. A third reason is that this type of description is not used in the descriptions of nations that have a de jure dependent status (e.g., Palau, Andorra, Bermuda. Finally, East Germany was certainly not considered a satellite state at the end of its existence, when it agreed to join West Germany. TFD (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per everything I said in above discussion. Mewulwe (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support, however this is on the condition that the decision be based upon reference to the reliable sources shown in the introduction at present that follow the statement saying that it is a satellite state, and NOT on the Oxford English Dictionary. There is massive evidence in support of this, from a multitude of scholars - including German and Czech scholars and evidence by East Germans themselves. The fact that "satellite state" was a term coined in the Western world does not affect or taint its applicability, just as the word "totalitarian" was used by the Fascists in Italy to describe themselves has not tainted non-fascists from using the term. communist and pro-Eastern politicians and political movements have used the term "satellite state", such as East German leader Walter Ulbricht to describe West Germany[2] and the Communist Party of India to describe India's government during the Cold War[3]. But as said, there is massive evidence in support of the term satellite state to describe East Germany's status and relations with the Soviet Union. I also stress the need to use Wikipedia:Third Opinion to neutrally bring in more users to discuss and vote this issue that needs a wide overview by many users before a decision is made.--R-41 (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that you misunderstand the real issue. There is no question that many sources have expressed an opinion that the GDR was a satellite state. The point is that this can only ever be an opinion, rather than an unequivocal fact: Wikipedia shouldn't be asserting otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Well then look at the intro and its sources and think: the first source is many many respected German historians, including the left-wing Marxist-leaning German historian Jürgen Kocka, and that many East Germans themselves regarded the regime as a "Stalinist puppet regime" and many East Germans commonly referred to its ruling party, the Socialist Unity Party as the "Russian party". That in combination with the fact that an East German communist regime suddenly appeared on the exact borders of the Soviet-Western demarcation line between the East and the West in combination with the vast Soviet military and economic presence and influence in the country - I could look up scholarly sources on the influences in the creation of the DDR - I guarantee you that the Soviet Union was deeply involved.--R-41 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment. Again, you miss the point. 'Satellite state' is subjective opinion, rather than an unequivocal fact. Even if it was everyone's opinion it would still be opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Comment. The term "satellite state" is not a subjective opinion, it is a term used by many scholars to describe a specific form of client state that involves major levels of subordination to a dominant power that can be analyzed through empirical research of economic, military, and political components of a state.--R-41 (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Comment. Really? You are actually suggesting that scholars (all of them?) have an agreed method of deciding whether a state is a 'satellite' or not? Can you provide a link for this, as I'd be most interested to see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm just giving a basic example to show that it is provable and I have studied the concept of the satellite state and client state at university as a major paper - focusing on Mongolia - many scholarly sources state that it is a satellite state through empirical research - I got a good grade for the paper too. On what grounds to you have to reject the view of multiple scholars - including reputable German historians who have agreed that it is a satellite state of the Soviet Union?--R-41 (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm not rejecting anyone's views - I'm pointing out that that is what they are: 'views'. I suspect most scholars have more sense than to assume that this is a simple yes/no question. As for what you have studied at university, that is firmly in WP:OR territory - I could no doubt refer to what I'd studied at university too, to demonstrate the flaws in such simplistic categorisation - but that would be as irrelevant to this discussion as your comments on your studies are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Your line of argument that all sources are effectively only opinions and can therefore be dismissed as POV is certainly a novel one! I can only imagine it is because so many sources call East Germany a satellite state and none say "it was not really a satellite state", so there are no real sources to back up your view. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • You seem to be attributing to me a view I have not expressed. While I have an opinion on the validity of the term in relation to the DDR, it is merely my opinion - and we don't base articles on the opinions of editors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per all of the points made by User:R-41 and the sources used. Caden ^cool 21:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Not one of those "opposed" has yet cited a source to support their case... Are there any? --Bermicourt (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. it's what the RS say. Rjensen (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support. That every source on the planet does not mention East Germany as a "satellite state" does not make it not so. Of course it was a satellite state. Similarly, not every source states that the Soviet Union illegally annexed the Baltic states when they those sources indicate the Baltics ostensibly became "part of" the Soviet Union, that does not make it not so, either. The argument that "satellite state" is merely a "view" is utterly fallacious. You might as well state it's a "view" that the moon is not made of cheese. (Ah, but just because it is not made of Swiss cheese does not mean it might not be Gouda.) Between the sun rising and the sun falling, all scholarship is a "view" of something. Let's be real, here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per TFD; its revisionist, and not to say biased; its like saying West Germany was a satellite state of the United States or that ba'athist Iraq was a satellite state of the Soviet Union.... --TIAYN (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not "revisionist" to say that East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union - this claim has been backed by sources from east and west - including many major German historians, and from the east - Czech historians.--R-41 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Since the people opposed have been claiming "POV" by a "western-used" term, here is a Ukrainian historian saying that the Soviet Union had satellite states: his full name is Konstantin Feodos'evich Shteppa who on the topic of the Cold War says "The struggle of the two "systems" is seen as a struggle between the Soviet Union and its satellites on one side and the United States and its "satellites" on the other.".[4] TFD may point out that this example uses quotation marks around the term satellite to imply contention by the author - but this is for the claim of US satellite states, not the Soviet satellite states as no quotation mark is put around the term satellite at the beginning. I have looked up other works by Konstantin Shteppa, he was been a Russian historian since at least the 1930s - during which he wrote works on Marx and Engels, and wrote this in the 1950s, he died in 1959 and it was published posthumously. Shteppa wrote about Marx and Engels, he lived in the Soviet Union through the 1930s and 1940s - since he wrote on Marx I doubt that he is an anti-communist POV on issues of Eastern Europe. But Shteppa has said that he was interrogated by Soviet officials during the Great Purge Stalinist era for uttering a "controversial" statement on French revolutionary Joan of Arc - whom the Soviets considered an inspiration and a heroine - whom he criticized - so he may have an anti-Stalinist POV from his life experience - but so did Nikita Khrushchev, so that doesn't discredit him as as having anti-Soviet POV as some who review his history may claim without attention.--R-41 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Shteppa left the Soviet Union during the war, condemned the government and his book was published by Rutgers in 1962. The terminology he used was typical of the Cold War era. TFD (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
        • After Stalin's death many Soviets openly condemned the Stalinist-era government of the Soviet Union - the Soviet Union's leader Nikita Khrushchev spent a whole Communist Party conference in the 1950s denouncing Stalin for tyranny. Khruschchev allowed greater literary liberalization - allowing now-famed Soviet writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to write in the Soviet Union his scathing critique of the Stalinist era from his own experience in The Gulag Archipelago and One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich that fully revealed the brutality and repression of the Stalin era and its gulags. Bear in mind that people have been criticizing the term satellite state is a "Western term" - but here it is being said by an Eastern person - a Soviet historian - who was a historian in the Soviet Union the 1930s - who is saying that the Soviet Union had satellite states. What are we doing now by negating Shteppa - is it that he is somehow not a proper Eastern Soviet person and historian? And that a proper Eastern perspective should be found. I doubt that's your intention TFD, I've known you for a long time, but the thought of disregarding a known Soviet historian who supports the claim that the Soviet Union had satellite states has the natural reaction of disgusting me - because whether you intended it or not, it suggests that Shteppa's views are not "proper", and that seems stereotypical and promoting a myth of Soviet solidarity that did not truly exist.--R-41 (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
          • You said, "What are we doing now by negating Shteppa - is it that he is somehow not a proper Eastern Soviet person and historian? And that a proper Eastern perspective should be found. I doubt that's your intention (my emphasis)." That type of comment is not constructive. TFD (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
            • I meant it sincerely and not as an insult, I know that you are a conscientious user who is ethical and committed to the pursuit of knowledge, and I say those specific things because I mean them, I have encountered many ill-intentioned users ranging from deliberate edit warriors to genocide deniers. I was being honest in that found the statement quite off-putting to suggest that an opinion of a prominent Soviet historian was insignificant because he is saying something on the lines that the West has said - Shteppa lived in the Soviet Union and was a historian who wrote history literature about Marx and Engels there prior to leaving the country, and he witnessed its events on the inside, including the Great Purge - during which he was nearly purged himself - so I consider a Soviet historian utilizing the term "satellite state" to describe the Soviet Union's relations with the Warsaw Pact East to be very significant - it demonstrates that it was not just the Westerners that saw the Soviet Union having a system of satellite states, but that people of the Soviet Union regarded the Soviet Union's policies to include a system of satellite states.--R-41 (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
              • The implication of your posting was that Shteppa represented a non-Western viewpoint, in fact his book forms part of Western scholarship, it was published by Rutgers University Press, not by the Soviet press. This distinction between Eastern and Western scholarship is false anyway. If a scholar's views are notable then a standard book about the subject published in English or any other language will say so and his or her work will be appear in major journals. The point is that the terminology used by Shteppa was typical of scholars during the Cold War era and we find casual use of the term today. As I said before, if you want to categorize a subject, you should be able to provide a source that defines the category and states that there is consensus about the definition and the subject fits. As I pointed out, numerous reliable sources say that Canada is a satellite of the U.S., but I don't see you putting that into the Canada info-box. Even nations that are de jure dependencies, Palau, Bermuda, etc., do not have those descriptions in their info-boxes. TFD (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Many writers have had their work published in English by US publishers - including, as I mentioned, Soviet writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Shteppa also published material in Russian for a reader audience the Soviet Union. The status of Canada is ongoing and changing - recent events have suggested that China is starting to take away a bit of the US influence in Canada - China has major investments in Canada's resources sector and Canada has actually used a bit of muscle by threatening that if the US does not accept the Keystone Pipeline that Canada will seek closer economic activities with China - including oil trade with China. Besides, I would actually believe that most Canadians - including me - would agree that Canada at least historically has been a de facto protectorate of the United States, most Canadians know that Canada is extremely dependent on the United States - it is an open inside joke amongst Canadians to note (at least historically prior to China's growing influence) our complete dependence on the United States - including cartoons in Canadian newspapers that show the United States as Canada's master as well as our near complete inability to resist the demands of the United States. In fact there have been Canadians themselves who have said that since the adoption of the Atlantic Charter and especially after the UK's empire dissolved after WWII that Canada became a de facto protectorate of the United States, I would agree that Canada has been in effect a protectorate of the United States for many years in its history, and bear in mind I am a Canadian saying this - during the signing of NAFTA twenty years ago many Canadians believed that with a stroke of a pen Canada gave up its economic sovereignty to the United States - however China's rising influence in the Canadian economy is gradually challenging the US' dominant position.--R-41 (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per PЄTЄRS J V. Yugoslavia and China (inter alia) were non-satellite Communist states, the Warsaw Pact states were Soviet satellites. That a part of the reason the Berlin Wall came down was because Gorbachev refused to continue propping up Honecker, makes it pretty obvious that the DDR was a Soviet satellite. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose only if there is cleary scientific literature about East Germany saying it was a satellite. --Bomzibar (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • There is scientific literature on East Germany being a satellite state of the Soviet Union along with scientific literature on the nature of client states and satellite states. I can tell you that I did a major paper for my university on the topic of client states - including satellite states such as the Mongolian People's Republic, I can't provide this as evidence for sources because it is original research on my part, . I am not legally able to distribute the material I used from JSTOR - an academic journal database - for references in this article, but on JSTOR I found many academic journal entries that involved scientific discussion on topics of client states and satellite states and their issues of sovereignty.--R-41 (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • • You say there is 'scientific' literature saying the DDR was a satellite state. Can you let us know what branch of science it is that can make such pronouncements? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If you don't find material you can use to say East Germany was a satellite, then you can't even say in the article that it was a satellite. --Bomzibar (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
      • There is massive material that says that East Germany was a satellite state, there are ten reliable sources in the intro that all say it was a satellite state of the Soviet Union, the first reference is by multiple major German historians.--R-41 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
        • R-41: I don't doubt you in the slightest, but it might help convince some of the people disagreeing with you if you could post some citations to the journal entries. I know people won't be able to read them without a JSTOR account, but some people will have those (and you can often get the abstracts without logging in, in any case) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
          • It will take me some time to find a specific indepth source on East Germany at JSTOR, but here is academic use of the term "satellite state" in an indepth study by a scholar to describe the Mongolian People's Republic's satellite state status from 1924 onwards titled The Political Evolution of a Soviet Satellite: The Mongolian People's Republic by the scholar William B. Ballis on the reputable JSTOR academic journal.[5] This is the source I used for the study I did at university I am writing this from a computer at my university, so I don't know if the JSTOR link will show up.--R-41 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support If I were to say anything else, I would be repeating what has already been brought up above. →Στc. 09:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support It is really quite simple - no USSR, no DDR. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 15:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very obvious, we needn't get into philosophical debates over this. As Philaweb points out, the DDR would not have existed without the USSR. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I've heard DDR described frequently as a satellite. What else would you call it? On another note, R-41, do you still have your original research notes? If you found sources saying this, using the same sources wouldn't be OR, & citing journals in JSTOR would be OK, I think. I've seen JSTOR cited elsewhere here. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • (THIS IS A REPEAT FROM ABOVE TO ANSWER ANOTHER USER:) It will take me some time to find a specific indepth source on East Germany at JSTOR, but here is academic use of the term "satellite state" in an indepth study by a scholar to describe the Mongolian People's Republic's satellite state status from 1924 onwards titled The Political Evolution of a Soviet Satellite: The Mongolian People's Republic by the scholar William B. Ballis on the reputable JSTOR academic journal.[6] This is the source I used for the study I did at university I am writing this from a computer at my university, so I don't know if the JSTOR link will show up.--R-41 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That essay was written in 1956, and is typical of Cold War writing. Notice that Ballis refers to Mongolia as Outer Mongolia - do you suggest we change the name of that article as well? TFD (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • That's an excuse to ignore the point I was making - TFD you and others wanted proof that the term "satellite state" is an academic term because you claim it is just Cold War rhetoric - so I found a prominent example. Your claim that "oh that's just typical Cold War writing" is a rhetorical response that has no validity, I could just as easily make up an empty rhetorical remark that denies a reality "Hitler was a genocide perpetrator?! - oh that's just typical post-World War II writing, after all the term genocide was adopted by the Allied powers who fought against him - so the word genocide is biased against Hitler and is not reliable". I hope you can see what I mean, as a user wrote before me, but below here, "satellite state" is a term used in political science to describe a state based on a set of criteria - thus it is not just an value-opinion. I have encountered instances where the term "satellite state" has been used to describe the Independent State of Croatia. Also TFD, note your "impossiblist" stance on this issue - you claim it cannot be demonstrated that East Germany was a satellite state - if I provide a source you say it's probably pro-Western biased and not based on domestic views, then I provide some of the most major German historians and East European Czech historians and then you say "it's typical Cold War writing" - this is ignoring that many of the sources provided in the intro that were written in the post-Cold War era. So essentially TFD you are saying that it is impossible for one to claim that East Germany is a satellite state based on the rhetorical remark "it's typical Cold War writing", one could say in respond to anything in the Cold War with the response "that's typical Cold War writing" to rhetorically invalidate it, so by your logic it is completely impossible to demonstrate by evidence that East Germany was a satellite state.--R-41 (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Could you please avoid using inflammatory comparisons. There is contemporary academic writing that defines genocide and explains that there is academic consensus that Hitler was genocidal. Do you think it would make sense to base articles on Nazi Germany on articles written during the Second World War or would you use modern writing? TFD (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
          • "There is contemporary academic writing that defines genocide and explains that there is academic consensus that Hitler was genocidal." Yes, exactly and there is contemporary academic writing that defines satellite state and there is wide academic consensus that East Germany was a satellite state. Rjensen has provided a source that defines satellite state as a technical term: Sharma and Sharma, Principles and Theory of Political Science (2000) p. 160 - and bear in mind that this is a source from India and India was neutral during the Cold War. Many of the sources in the intro for the statement on the DDR's satellite state status are post-Cold War and the first source in the article on the term satellite state is by multiple major respected German historians, and one of which, Kocka, is a left-wing Marxist-leaning historian. Now please respond to the claim that I made that your argument is implying the impossibility to demonstrate, no matter what the evidence, that East Germany was a satellite state on the basis of the rhetoric that any such sources using the term are just "typical Cold War writing".--R-41 (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Here is a link to p. 160 of Sharma and Sharma. It uses scare quotes for "satellite state" and says that it refers to "a member of some superpower's military alliance". It does not provide East Germany as an example. The section is not even about satellite states but about limited sovereignty. To use you Hitler example, I can find a source that is specifically about genocide, does not use scare quotes, provides a definition, and says there is consensus that Hitler was genocidal. TFD (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Please respond to the claim that I made that your argument is implying the impossibility to demonstrate, no matter what the evidence, that East Germany was a satellite state on the basis of a response by you that any such sources using the term are just "typical Cold War writing".--R-41 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
                • "For controversial descriptions, one would expect a source that says East Germany was a satellite state, explain what this means and state that there is consensus for this description. (17:55, 10 January 2012)" "As I said before, if you want to categorize a subject, you should be able to provide a source that defines the category and states that there is consensus about the definition and the subject fits. (07:36, 11 January 2012)" "There is contemporary academic writing that defines genocide and explains that there is academic consensus that Hitler was genocidal." (06:30, 12 January 2012) "To use your Hitler example, I can find a source that is specifically about genocide, does not use scare quotes, provides a definition, and says there is consensus that Hitler was genocidal. (17:45, 12 January 2012)" I have replied, stop wasting my time, and please keep your postings brief. TFD (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Of course it is impossible, it is an inherently subjective and negatively-connotated concept, therefore any source is a subjective interpretation. I already demonstrated this by pointing out that no state used the concept for itself, even if such state would readily acknowledge all underlying facts which would lead some to use that term (like East Germany, at least in the early period, openly acknowledged the U.S.S.R. as "leader of the Socialist camp" which it was glad to follow). It is in that respect somewhat like the term "terrorist" which even such people as would readily admit to doing violent attacks for a certain higher purpose would typically reject for themselves. Mewulwe (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • "Of course it is impossible, it is inherently subjective" - User:Mewulwe - if it is impossible then why do multiple respected German historians in the first source state it as a matter of fact. Why is it inherently subjective? I did a research topic on it - it is a techical term. But I already know your response to this: "but R-41, there is no agreement on what it means" - well look at multiple Wikipedia topics on major established terms in politics - they typically have many definitions that hold common elements - scholars will debate and challenge definitions as academic scholarly debate common in academia.--R-41 (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • They don't state it as a matter of fact, they state it as a matter of their subjective interpretation! That's what historians do. But here we have to stick to unambiguous facts. And the main issue is not as to what it means, but that it is a propaganda term, which you can see in the simple fact that it is used for Soviet-allied states, but not e.g. for West Germany which you yourself admitted was as much a "satellite" as East Germany. If we were to set down a definition and go by that consistently, we would have to apply the term to West Germany, Israel, etc. just as well. Since you are not prepared to do that, you cannot argue it is a technical term, because you couldn't come up with a reasonable definition that would fit only the Soviet allies. You are arguing only by the fact that you have these "sources" calling East (and not West) Germany a satellite - but this is only subjectivity mirroring the general dominance of the Western world view. You can also find plenty of "sources" speaking "as a matter of fact" of the "Free World," etc. Is "free" also an objective technical term, to be used according to the use by "multiple respected historians"? What about "terrorist"? Mewulwe (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

User AndyTheGrump believes that "satellite" is a metaphor and thus cannot be factual. That is incorrect. "Satellite" (as in "Satellite state") is a technical term commonly used in political science. For example, from a textbook by scholars in India (neutral in Cold War), we have: "the sovereignty of the satellite state is truncated and the superpower has the political right to control its foreign and domestic policies." [Sharma and Sharma, Principles and Theory of Political Science (2000) p. 160]; see also "Satellite state" in Nolan, ed. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations (2002) vol 2 P. 1469. Rjensen (talk) 04:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Con you point me to a definition of this "technical term" that allows an unequivocal judgement as to whether a state is 'satellite' or not? From personal experience within the social sciences (of which political science is a part), any assertions that there is a clear-cut consensus over such matters tend to be treated with the derision they deserve. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is all rhetorical argument, AndyTheGump do you have sources that negate the common statement that East Germany was a satellite state? If it is so contentious and biased to say that East Germany is a satellite state as you claim, then certainly there should be a significant number of available scholarly and reliable sources that reject the claim that it was a satellite state.--R-41 (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing 'rhetorical' in asking for you to provide a source for your assertion that this is an unequivocal, agreed "technical term". And will you please stop putting words into my mouth - I have as yet expressed no opinion whatsoever on whether I consider this term 'satellite state' to be valid in relation to the DDR, for the very good reason that my opinion is irrelevant. As I've already said, that an opinion is widely held is no reason to misrepresent opinion as fact. And without any evidence that there is an unequivocal, agreed definition of what a 'satellite state' is, we should not be suggesting otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You've said that all you are asking is for me just to provide "a source" - I provided 10 sources in the intro by reputable scholars and encyclopedias that all use the term satellite state - with the first one written by multiple respected German historians. And Rjensen provided a source from India - a country that was neutral in the Cold War - that describes the term satellite state as a technical term - so "a source" has been provided. As another user claimed earlier you claim that the term satellite state is merely an "opinion" - and you are the one who is deciding what "opinion" is. So its an "opinion" that East Germany was a satellite state even though multiple scholarly sources support it to describe East Germany. As I mentioned earlier to a similar kind of comment, the problem with your argument of saying that the term satellite state is "opinion" is that your argument implies impossiblism - meaning that because any source that I provide regardless of how scholarly and reliable it is will not be accepted by you because you automatically regard it as "opinion" and thus it is impossible to prove that East Germany was a satellite state.--R-41 (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? You assert that there can be proof over such matters, but provide no evidence whatsoever that it is something that can be proven. Anyway, I've made my point here, and as I've written below, I consider this RfC as invalid, as it is asking Wikipedia to determine its opinion on a matter (or alternatively, if you are right, to determine the 'truth' of this matter) - which is contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So you are seriously contending that the sources that include the first source by multiple respected German historians in the first source are not proof - and that the scholar German historians are all somehow idiots who don't know what they are talking about regarding the history of their own country regarding East Germany's status as a satellite state? So you are indicating that the status can never be proven no matter how many scholarly reliable sources have been provided thus far, and you assume that the German historians in the first source are all wrong then, correct?--R-41 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, I am suggesting that the sources provided aren't 'proof'. And no, I'm not suggesting that historians are idiots. I will however suggest that you don't understand how the humanities (of which historiography is a part) works, and if you did, you wouldn't assume that such metaphors as 'satellite state' are susceptible to being 'proven' - I very much doubt that the historians concerned would argue otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The German historians know what they are talking about in the first source because it is a source from a major historians' conference and all the authors supporting having statement saying that East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union and they are all scholarly experts on German history. If it is so obviously "unprovable" to say that East Germany is a satellite state, then where is there a substantial body of scholarly reliable sources that reject the substantial body of sources that say that East Germany was a satellite state? It would be a reasonable debate of the issue if such a substantial body of scholarly reliable sources rejecting identifying East Germany as a satellite state are available.--R-41 (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Endlessly regurgitating the same false logic doesn't make it true. Any assertion that the DDR was a 'satellite state' is self-evidently subjective. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No it is not "self-evidently subjective", as I said I did research on the topic in university - it is a technical term used by many scholars. Where is there a substantial body of scholarly reliable sources that reject the substantial body of sources that say that East Germany was a satellite state?--R-41 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And your source for your assertion that this is a non-subjective 'technical term' is where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Here it is from an encyclopedia titled: Encyclopedia of Geography Terms, Themes, and Concepts: [7].--R-41 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL! 'A satellite state is a country that lies in the "orbit," metaphorically, of a larger, more powerful country, meaning that it owes political allegiance or economic tribute to the more powerful state.' "metaphorically"! That's what I've just said - it is a metaphor. And do you really think a geography encyclopaedia is an authoritative source for this? Not that it supports your assertion anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No point in arrogantly laughing - it is describing the "orbit" as metaphorical, do you notice this now? And you neglected to mention that it goes on to describe what it means in detail and states it is used by scholars.--R-41 (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, my laughter seems entirely justified, given later paragraphs in the section: on page 296 for instance, it discusses the post-Cold War relationship between Belarus and Russia, and the relationship between Bhutan and India, and says that "[s]ome commentators have argued" or "a case might still be made" that these are/were satellite states - as clear as daylight, there is no 'objective proof' here at all - if there was, why would anyone 'argue' anything? The section ends on a discussion of Lebanon in relation to Syria, which the encyclopaedia states "might" be an example of a satellite state. Thank you for providing such convincing evidence that the author of this encyclopaedia agrees with my perspective on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help but saying this, I am completely fed up with your arrogant attitude to me: you are behaving like a total (... removed an obscenity by me I was frustrated and it was inappropriate) to me, I have spent much time and energy to provide you so many sources to demonstrate that it is a satellite state, you demand more and more and more - so I find more and more, and you treat me like (... removed an obscenity by me I was frustrated and it was inappropriate) for doing so. If you are so certain that East Germany was not a satellite state then provide your sources that say that East Germany was not a satellite state. I've given you the sources you want, you are treating me like a dog, and I won't stand for it much longer.--R-41 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming what I already thought. You just don't understand the meaning of words like 'subjectivity', 'metaphor', 'proof' etc. And why do you assume that my opinion regarding the validity of this metaphor regarding the DDR would be to reject it - as a metaphor? Have I at any time actually expressed an opinion on the matter? Nope. Because it would be opinion, and Wikipedia shouldn't dress up opinion as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's it, I've had it with you saying your arrogant haughty "thank yous for confirming what I already thought", you might as well have just called be "you loser". I've poured sources from reputable scholars including German historians and you disrespect everything I provided for you to review. I'm reporting you for being abusive.--R-41 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The source also says, "The term was widely employed by both politicians and scholars during the Cold War...." But this is 2012, not 1962, the Cold War is over. TFD (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support per all the sources presented above. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Two suggestions:

1. How about, for the article text, something along the lines of "was widely considered one of the satellite states of the Soviet Union"? That should be easily verifiable, there's nothing subjective about it and, unless I'm missing something, it cannot reasonably be held to violate any core content policy.
2. Leave the field in the infobox blank. Not optimal, perhaps, but in this case making no statement in the infobox would seem a reasonable compromise. Rivertorch (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Absolutely. I've already suggested the same thing though, and it appears that some contributors want Wikipedia to make definitive pronouncements on such matters - contrary to policy, as I understand it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, all the other articles on historical states that were satellite states or client states or colonies, or protectorates have the corresponding term in their infobox. I just provided one crappy source and the opponents of inclusion are taking the opportunity to dive at me like vultures going after a dying animal. I've provided 10 to 12 good sources - including the lead source in the article that is by German historians themselves from a historians' conference where they identify East Germany as a satellite state. I admit I am worn out from this discussion, so I might be behaving like a dying animal in this discussion due to exhaustion from this and other personal matters.--R-41 (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 1. However, there is no field in the info-box - it was specifically created for this article and the field does not even have a name. (See: Template:Infobox country) My suggestion was that we should only use existing fields and if we want to add new fields then we should edit the template. However I doubt that de facto status would be a good choice, especially as the first field following the country's name. TFD (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Rivertorch, I urge you to please be aware of the growing consensus of users in the RfC who are in favour of the the argument for inclusion of the term. It is currently 12 in favour to 5 opposed. I also urge you to look through the wide array of sources that those in favour of inclusion have provided - especially the first source that is a post-Cold War book by major respected German historians, it is a book recording a major historians' conference in which East Germany is recognized as being a satellite state of the Soviet Union. The "Support" side has presented a massive array of evidence in those sources, the "Opposed" side has presented no sources that reject that East Germany was a satellite state - if it is so controversial, there should be a wide array of reliable sources that reject that it was a satellite state.--R-41 (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

R-41, I don't need any persuading that East Germany was a satellite state: I have little doubt there is scholarly consensus that it was exactly that, and fwiw I think the policy-based arguments against labeling it as such are a bit far-fetched. Nonetheless, in the interests of stabilizing the article and hoping to curtail what I saw as an unnecessarily combative discussion, I decided to propose what I saw as a potential compromise. I don't expect anyone to think it's ideal, but I hope it might be seen as acceptable. Rivertorch (talk)

Thank you for misrepresenting the arguments of the "Oppose" comments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"I don't need any persuading that East Germany was a satellite state: I have little doubt there is scholarly consensus that it was exactly that" - and there lies the problem with this discussion, Rivertorch. The whole point of this discussion is that the "Support" side acknoweldges that scholarly consensus, the opposed side has many divisions. The opposed side is based upon technicality - that it might be biased, that it might be subjective, that it might not be inclusive, but as you said - just look at the scholarly evidence, it is massive - and we should assume in good faith unless there is evidence to clearly show otherwise, that these scholars know what they are talking about and we should respect that they chose their use of terms with consideration to the issues at hand.--R-41 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think my proposed wording is dismissive of the scholarly evidence; it actually acknowledges it implicitly. Rivertorch (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't misrepresent the arguments, I didn't mention what they are - Rivertorch can see for herself/himself, but I did say if the "Opposed" group wishes to challenge the affirmative that it is a satellite state, it is best to find a negative that rejects that it was a satellite state. Andy, just stop with your arrogant haughty "thank yous" to me that are really snarly remarks - I have already requested that an administrator overview your abusive behaviour towards me, I'll consider mentioning that you are continuing to behave abusively after I told you to stop, and now I will tell you again, STOP demeaning me and treating me in a patronizing way like I am a lesser being to you.--R-41 (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support calling it a satellite state because that's what it was, and everyone who wasn't deaf-dumb-and-blind or recently buried knew it. Why do you think Reagan asked Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin wall? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indifferent. I am unsafe in the ritualized procedure here. I have been a (really small) particle in the process before and after the fall of the wall. I am safe with the content of the discussion, though i cannot contribute new sources now. Part of the remarks and commentaries here are not much over the level of foxnews, while the two main viewpoints are very well worked out. My respect! Notwithstanding the following.

The term „satellite state” is ambiguous and contradictory in itself. Only picking here already brings a list of uses that in encyclopedic interest should not be wiped out: a popular science term used by known historians; a definded science term used by known historians; an ideological cold war category (also used by known historians, who consciously or even unconsciously were part of it); a terminus technicus to make a difference between states like China or Hungaria in relation to the Soviet Union; a term used over the frontlines like Shteppa did.

It would be stupid, to cut the article down to the opinion of a hypothetical winner of the discussion, or to only the two possible standpoints worked out. In the article, as a reader, I demand to get informed about the positions existing in the discourse about the lemma. Letting this pro and contra simplification dominate the article would be like lossy (if not a lousy) compression. It is encyclopedic, to collect the different facts and important views and arguments, and it is wiki, instead of fighting around the beard, to source the different razors. It must be short like a woodcut, but not like the ministry of truth saying war is peace. The meanings in the „satellite box” should be named as far as well sourced, and the same care must be valid for the positions independent of the box dispute, if academic blindness shall be excluded (as far as possible).

No matter how the above subject is treated in the article, there should be a paragraph relating, about the following topic: Since the demonstrations of the inner opposition movements influenced the relation of the inner political powers, and Gorbatchev rejected to intervene, oppositional powers and parts of the transitional government of the GDR (for example at „Roundtables”) had been craving for an independent identity for some months. - Until <irony>the hunger for bananas</irony> strongly paved the way to the Bundesrepublik. There must be secondary sources for example about the political meaning of the Roundtables (Runde Tische) and the connected political forces and their political will and ideas. It happened developments of their own dynamic and in their own right. A term like „Satellite state” for the last months of the state is not the fair tool to describe them.

The difference between the name of the state (DDR or GDR) and the term „East Germany” has a meaning in the scientific discussion. Not only as far as this discussion refers to the use of the term in the two parts of germany at different times for different political forces. The term East Germany is heavy loaded with geographical, historical and ideological connnotations. A better sorting of the lemma in the english consciousness may be impossible. How the terms for the state have been hurling around here in the discussion at least made me think of a „soup of screws and playcards”. No offense, it's amusing. --fluss (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. East Germany was behind the Iron Curtain and as such an Eastern Block nation. It was a member state of the Warsaw Pact and would have fought along side Soviet forces in the event of a NATO war. End of story. SlightSmile 04:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding DDR being a Soviet satellite, I have sources. Anyone who has lived on this planet at anytime during the Cold War. SlightSmile 18:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Noting that this coincides with the views of former DDR officials and citizens. December 4: Mikhail Gorbachev rejects the Ten-Point Programme, telling foreign minister Genscher it is a "diktat". – The end of the State Security (Stasi) is brought closer by the occupation of the buildings used by the district administrations of the Ministry of Security in Erfurt, Suhl and Leipzig [8] makes very clear the "satellite" status of a "nation" which was not even in charge of its own dissolution! At his appeal hearing, Krenz said it would be an "irony of history" if he were to spend the 10th anniversary of the opening of the wall behind bars. He testified that he had been unable to influence the shoot-to-kill policy because East Germany had been a satellite of the former Soviet Union. [9] - directly from a leader of the DDR, of all things. Sorry - it would be "revisionist" to not use "satellite" here. Collect (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Collect, did you actually read the article you cite? The court upheld Krenz's conviction. Evidence presented in court as a defence by a person charged with mansloughter is hardly likely to be seen as a dispassionate neutral analysis. You also fail to mention that Krenz also attempted to lay the blame for the shootings on the superpowers - both of them. I suggest that before you accuse others of historical revisionism, you actually learn a little history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely did, and make allowances for yur irascibility. I agree with you when you are right, and disagree when you are wrong. In the case at hand, you are grasping at straws. You assert that a person out of power lies, which is not exactly a strong argument at all. Krenz' statement is clear, and his status is clear. And he specifically considered the DDR to be a Soviet satellite, that the USSR ordered the "shoot to kill policy", and the killings were therefore due to the USSR-USA "cold war" - but he did not say the USA ordered any of the DDR shootings <g> so that part of your post is "right out." And I doubt anyone could find a stronger source that the former DDR leader, for sure. Cheers - you have made my case. Collect (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Krenz lied when he was in power. I see no reason to assume he did any different afterwards. In any case, this is irrelevant to my objections to Wikipedia stating subjective opinion regarding a metaphor as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- please read what you wrote - it seems to say that a former Communist leader can not be used as RS for his beliefs no matter what he says at any time. I rather think this is quite a novel concept, but one which is unlikely to sway other editors' opinions. Collect (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"beliefs"? Precisely. That is what they were (assuming he held them). I tend not to confuse beliefs with facts, particularly when such beliefs are held by persons in power - or persons in the dock. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment For everyone to take note, the East German man in the article who has admitted in the European Court of Human Rights that East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union is Egon Krenz - head of state of East Germany in 1989 - the last Socialist Unity Party (SED) head of state in the country before its successuor - the non-SED transitional government that sought immediate reunification with West Germany.--R-41 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

For someone who faults other editors' representations of history, your comments regarding Krenz are the ultimate expression of personal opinion having nothing to do with serious scholarship. If you wish to trade personal contentions, indeed, to the diametric opposite of your statements here, I would contend that Krenz, put in the position where there was no purpose served by lying, was simply making a statement of fact as to the socio-political subservience to, and control, by the USSR. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think your novel suggestion that someone in the dock facing charges of manslaughter would have "no purpose served by lying" is, shall we say, counter to received wisdom. Still, whatever. Regardless of whether Krenz believed what he says he did, it is still a belief - a subjective opinion - regarding the applicability of a metaphor with deep roots in Cold-War propaganda. Metaphors aren't facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Metaphors are symbolic descriptions. The notion that anything less than exemplary said about the Soviet legacy and USSR domination over Eastern Europe is Cold War propaganda is as dead as the Cold War itself. Come up with something that can be considered a substantive argument. Or are you saying that Germans shot other Germans trying to escape East Germany purely of their own accord and Putin was there at the time just for the weather? Well, compared to Moscow... PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Metaphors are symbolic descriptions"? Yup: symbolic. The Bald Eagle is a symbol for the United States. The united States is not an eagle... And have I said anything one way or another about "USSR domination over Eastern Europe". No. Please keep your ridiculous insinuations to yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So none of the following can be considered evidence by you: the head of state of East Germany saying that East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union, multiple major German historians saying that it was a satellite state of the Soviet Union, multiple East Germans themselves who identified the regime as a "Stalinist puppet regime" and the common referral by East Germans to the Socialist Unity Party as "the Russian Party", and as Collect provided evidence of Gorbachev's ability to veto East Germany's government decisions. So Germans themselves who witnessed the era cannot be used as sources and that they have no idea what they are talking about - this is ludicrous, listen to what I and PЄTЄRS J V have been saying: provide reliable sources for your claims.--R-41 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What is it that you asking me to provide a source for? All I have claimed is that the term 'satellite state' is a metaphor (which PЄTЄRS J V seems to agree with), and that it is subjective opinion, which the geography encyclopaedia source you yourself provided backs up. What else is there to source? I am not saying anything whatsoever about the relationship between the DDR and the USSR. I am saying that Wikipedia shouldn't represent metaphors and opinions as objective facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Grenz did not use the term "satellite state" but said East Germany's sovereignty was limited by its dependence on the Soviet Union under obligations arising from its alliance.[10] TFD (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That is in the trial. It says in the BBC source that he said it was a satellite state in his appeal process to the ruling. Even if it is a paraphrase of the statement from the court case, what he said means exactly the same thing that it was under control by the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is what reliable scholarship, including post-Soviet, refers to as a satellite state, QED, as you appear to accept his contention otherwise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec, meant to post earlier) @AndyTheGrump, we're not talking about birds, so don't throw in deflecting comparisons. Post-Soviet era scholarship continues to use the term "satellite state", putting cold water on your WP:OR Cold War contentions. Anything any scholar writes on anything is ultimately a story told from their point of view (ummm,... that would be "Writing About History 101"). Whatever descriptive phrases scholars wish to use, including satellite state, are perfectly valid. "Satellite state" precisely refers to USSR domination, so if a satellite state of the USSR is not that, then it is under no control or otherwise dominated by the USSR. Your denial of the metaphor is a denial of the facts of the situation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Pardon? You are seriously asserting that the only possible relations between states are"no control" or total domination? Still, I'm glad you accept it as a metaphor. Now explain why we should be putting metaphors into infoboxes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source does not say that Krenz used the word "satellite state" - he used other words (which has been proved by TFD). If he indeed had used the word satellite state it would have "satellite state" and not satellite state. --TIAYN (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Collect provided evidence of Gorbachev's ability to veto East Germany's government decisions". In fact, Gorbachev "rejected" the West German government's Ten Point plan, which he saw as an attempt by West Germany to dictate to East Germany. In any case, the East German government ignored Gorbachev. But the discussion misses the point, we are not here to argue about whether or not East Germany was a satellite state, but whether the categorizing it as such and creating a new info=box field is neutral. TFD (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I pprovided many sources showing that scholarly sources used the term "satellite" and that Krenz, per the BBC, used at least a term with that meaning, that he was a DDR official, and that he was in a proper position to hold such an opinion. IIRC, the claim was made that a person on trial lies - which clearly was an extremely weak arguent at best. Let's add yet another RS [11] (Googleized)Guenter Schabowski had premiered recently as spokesman of Krenz was certainly not an expert in communication. That evening he announced a new decree on travel ". He said that henceforth the permits to travel in Western Berlin, through the gates of the wall, would be refused only in exceptional cases. It was clear that the Government he loosened the reins under popular pressure. The daily mass disubbidienze and the absence of rituals revealed the fragility of the repression power. The four hundred thousand Soviet soldiers, stationed in Eastern Germany since 1945, not intervened to restore limited sovereignty in the country rather than satellite: they thought as making ends meet, as in the mother country there was a climate from bankruptcy and money for wages and subsistence arrived irregularly from Moscow. As for German soldiers, not even their Durst point weapons against compatriots since Gorbachev had installed in the Kremlin and had ruled out the use of violence to impose order in the Empire. Schabowski is yet another former DDR bigwig. WRT the claim that a "metaphor" can not be used, the fact is that Satellitenstaat is a pecific noun in the german language, with a specific meaning, and is thus not a "metaphor." End that cavil for once and for all. So let's look at Der Spiegel 17.03.1997 [12] A Court of this document from the pen of former Commander of Soviet forces in Germany, Army General p. G. Luschew, however, distinguishes on the 14 September 1961: on this day strict border measures had been has of Marshal I. Konjew that "were in fact binding for the German Democratic Republic".(Googleized) In other words direct testimony in court that the USSR made binding orders on the DDR. Consider [13] (btw, all use the German noun so the issue of metaphor does not apply by a mile) In the meantime had to Germany fight no longer against the negative attitudes from abroad, but was faced with a growing alienation from the GDR. The two new States differed substantially from each other. On the one hand was the Democratic Federal Republic, which was regarded by their neighbours as imperialist and domineering, and on the other hand the Communist neighbor as a Soviet satellite State under the rule of a regime. So we have RS German sources using "Satellitenstaat", we have DDR officials using the exact same term, etc. Is tendentious denial really going to help here? Cheers. Oh and see how deWiki treats it at [14] - I think the use of the single noun "Satellitenstaat" clearly properly applies. Collect (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is written in English, not German. The status of "Satellitenstaat" as a noun is thus utterly irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It makes clear that the usage by a former DDR official is not a "metaphor" for sure. I trust you will grant that as a bare minimum. Collect (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

'For sure'? Are you suggesting that a noun cannot be a metaphor? It certainly can be in English. I'm tempted to offer an example, but per WP:CIVIL will refrain ;-) In any case to quote User:Collect in another context "any opinion, even one held by the most wonderful person on earth, remains an opinion as far as Wikipedia is concerned." [15]. Or is it the case that 'opinions' become 'facts' when you agree with them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all -- a "noun" is a "noun" - a noun can be used as a metaphor, but where the "dictionary definition" of a "nound" does not call it a "metaphor" then it is absurd for us to call the "noun" a "metaphor". The point here is that simply calling "Satellitenstaat" a metaphor does not make it one. Second, I agree that it is the opinion of the DDR leaders and all the other sources that the DDR was a "Satellitenstaat" and we could surely state that. Heck -- add all the usages and let the readers sort it out. Wikipedia, however, for good or ill, says that where reliable sources make a statement that weight be given appropriately to all sides of a claim. Thus the "satellitenstaat" claim would properly be balanced by sources saying that the DDR was not one. At this point, I fail to see such being proffered. Collect (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that you accept that describing the DDR as a 'satellite state' is opinion. Now explain why we should be expressing opinions as facts in infoboxes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you must also be aware that Wikipedia routinely includes "opinions" in infoboxes - and if and only if there is a significant minority view that an opinion is errant does any issue arise. This includes all statements as to any person, group, party or publication having any political position, and especially any position on any political spectrum, their nationality or connections to any national group, any religious affiliation (unless self-ascribed - which is a matter of one's opinion about oneself, as a matter of fact), and so on as far as one could wish. In the case at hand, absent any real sources denying the "Satellitenstaat" status of the DDR, I think your proper distinction between "opinion" and "fact" is problematic. I fear there is no substantial minority view supporting any view other than that of the USSR exercising substantial control over that entity, especially with leaders thereof making such a view on their part explicit, that is making clear that the view was not only the "Western" view f the DDR status. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"I think your proper distinction between 'opinion' and 'fact' is problematic". I'm sure you do. However, if we are going to write a postmodernist encyclopaedia, we should at least make it clear to our readers that there are no 'facts', only opinions, and not present them as anything else - It has repeatedly been suggested that the article text includes a sourced statement that the DDR was widely seen as a 'satellite state', which seems evident. Why do we need to add our own opinion in the infobox? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The following shows the use of the term "satellite state" by the United Nations - specifically the International Court of Justice"

When in the opinion of the three Governments, conditions in any European liberated State or any former Axis satellite State in Europe make such action necessary, they will immediately consult together on the measures necessary to discharge the joint responsibilities set forth in this declaration.

— International Court of Justice, United Nations

The text is from a document "Declaration on Liberated Europe" adopted in 1944 by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States and since recorded as an document affiliated with the United Nations - thus showing that the term predated the Cold War and the use of the term has been supported by the Soviet Union in the case of the Axis Powers. It also shows that the term satellite state is accepted as a legitimate term to describe a state by the United Nations. Here is the source of the International Court of Justice from Google Books: [16]--R-41 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant. The UN isn't referring to the DDR, and your claim that the use of a term in this context 'proves' that the phrase is a 'technical term' elsewhere is pure WP:OR. (And illogical too, but that is also irrelevant). In any case, you are entirely missing the point, yet again. We cannot decide Wikipedia's opinion on the relationship between the DDR and the USSR in a RfC, because Wikipedia doesn't have opinions on such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, IT IS NOT IRRELEVANT. It answers your demand for evidence that the term satellite state is used as a technical term and not a metaphor. It demonstrates that it is not a biased "Western propaganda term" as claimed by Mewulwe because the term was accepted by the Soviet Union in 1944 alongside the UK and the US; or "Cold War rhetoric" as claimed by TFD because the term was adopted before the Cold War. You have your answer: It IS a technical term that IS used by international institutions - including the International Court of Justice of the United Nations. This answers A PART of the issues addressed by those opposed - particularly TFD Mewulwe, and you - AndyTheGrump - that ends the issue of claims that it is a Western propaganda Cold War term or useless metaphor, there now is evidence that it is a term used by international institutions of the United Nations. The OTHER PART is the massive scholarly evidence that recognizes East Germany as a satellite state of the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion. It isn't mine. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that references to the DDR as a 'satellite state' are usages of a 'technical term' in that context. Your attempts to prove otherwise are pure WP:OR. And I note that you have as yet failed to produce any document which defines the phrase 'satellite state' as a 'technical term' (in any context) and tells us exactly what it means. Technical terms need to be defined to be useful. Actually, they need to be defined to be 'technical'. Since you assert below that Israel is a satellite state of the US, one could reasonably assume you have access to this technical definition in order to make this determination. Why are you keeping it to yourself? I have to suspect the reason is that it doesn't actually exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant, you are just living up to your user name by refusing to accept the clear evidence that the term satellite state is not just some "metaphor", or "Cold War rhetoric" or a "Western propaganda term" - it that is used by the International Court of Justice of the United Nations. If you won't accept the International Court of Justice of the United Nations as a reliable source (the institution is put as the "author" of the source) then you will not accept anything - isn't that obvious Andy - you won't accept anything and you have a double standard because you won't provide any evidence for anything you said - such as evidence that says that "satellite state" is a metaphor. Don't play a double standards game Andy, I gave you what you wanted: official documents from United Nations as a source for satellite state being used by institutions as a technical term - that's the best available source; I have fulfilled your request to address the issue of client state status at the Talk:Israel page: now it is your term to provide clear evidence that the term "satellite state" is merely a metaphor and not a technical term.--R-41 (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. You have produced no evidence whatsoever that this is a generally-recognised neutral 'technical term' - if it is a 'technical term' where is it defined? And as I have already pointed out, what may be a 'technical term' in one context may be something else entirely in another. If you want to state in the infobox that the DDR was a satellite state, you need to provide a single source that defines it as such and states that it is applying a 'technical term' with a clear recognised academic meaning (not that you have shown that any such academically recognised meaning exists). Anything else is synthesis. Either provide a source that clearly defines this 'technical term', or withdraw your claim that it is one. Demanding that I somehow prove the negative (that no such definition exists) is ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the German wikipedia uses the wording "gehörte wie die anderen Ostblockländer, der sowjetischen Machtsphäre an" which translates to "belonged like the other eastern bloc countries to the Soviet sphere of influence" They don't use the word "satellite", but still clearly describe the situation. I am not saying that the german wikipedia is a reliable source, but the editors of the german wikipedia will certainly have thought about the wording very carefully. The fact that this wording is used is a significant indication that it is a well chosen wording. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hmmm, while I support the inclusion, I see a good point in your statement and a possible way to bring in more input. What about bringing in editors (those capable of speaking English to some degree) from German Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia and other language Wikipedias involving cultures of the states that were classified as satellite states on this topic - I mean after all - German, Russian, Polish, Czech, Romanian, Bulgarian and other Eastern European sources would add immensely to this discussion from domestic perspectives - perhaps make it a bit more fiesty with dissenting Eastern European opinion with sources from the East involved, considering that most of the users here I assume are Westerners, I like the idea, I hope others do.--R-41 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What? Are you now abandoning your claim that 'satellite state' is a 'technical term'? If it is, we don't need 'opinions' from outside, do we? You are claiming it is 'fact' not 'opinion', aren't you? And no, this is the English-language Wikipedia, we don't engage in cross-Wikipedia discussions regarding article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Look Andy, I never deny that I could be wrong about the satellite state issue of East Germany - I currently doubt that I am wrong as I have found a massive amount of scholarly sources that say that it was a satellite state, but I could be wrong, especially if Eastern European scholarship is ignored. Besides getting Eastern European reliable sources on the issue is important to the issue that there is a western bias here. Don't bring up some dogmatic nonsense "oh this is English Wikipedia and only English Wikipedians can represent it" - if editors from other Wikipedias can arrive here and speak basic English then they CAN contribute as English Wikipedians, Andy!--R-41 (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The German page de:Satellitenstaat discusses that the DDR was called a satellite state and offers several RS. So while _I_ still oppose and would prefer a "sphere of influence" wording. Technically there is RS to support calling DDR a satellite state of the USSR. --POVbrigand (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand, you do understand that this discussion is in regards to putting the term 'satellite state' in the article infobox? I don't think anyone is suggesting we shouldn't say in the article text that the DDR has been described as a 'satellite state' - that isn't the issue. It instead comes down whether Wikipedia should be asserting it as a 'fact', rather than as a subjective opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand, let's focus on the issue of bringing in Eastern European users who are able to speak English into the discussion. I would like to address this option to the administrator overseeing the discussions on the satellite state issue, the administrator is User:Kudpung. I will ask him for permission if we could somehow expand the RfN to German language Wikipedia, Russian language Wikipedia, and other Eastern European language Wikipedias in order to bring Eastern European sources into this article. I will also ask him for permission to have you write out a German language copy of the RfN request in German though it will request that the users contributing here be able to speak basicly understandable English and present their User ID identities from German Wikipedia - if you wish to do so, unless Kudpung sees fit that a German administrator on German Wikipedia do this. Does this sound reasonable?--R-41 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that the former eastern bloc has been described as satellite states by many, many RS. I think eastern germany is in no special position compared to the other eastern bloc states. I see that almost all the former eastern bloc states are called "satellite state" in their infoboxes already and it suddenly doesn't feel wrong to me. Is it a fact or a subjective opinion ? I think the "subjective opinion" has become the mainstream opinion and the notion that the "DDR was not a satellite" might have become a minority view. --POVbrigand (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just checked up on this, and it appears that the reason the articles say this is because R-41 has recently added it - usually based on the same single source. I have of course reverted R-41, for the same reasons as presented here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it might quite possibly be majority opinion - but we shouldn't be presenting opinions as facts. And regarding asking for comments from other Wikipedias, I'd strongly recommend reading WP:CANVASS first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy, when a Wikipedia administrator opens up an RfN, it is NOT canvassing, it is an RfN. I am going to ask User:Kudpung his opinion on whether it is possible to bring in users from other language Wikipedias into the RfN on English Wikipedia - especially Eastern European language Wikipedias - because this involves satellite states in Eastern Europe. It is authorized for English Wikipedia to observe and follow other language Wikipedias, I want to know from Kudpung if it is possible to bring in input from the other language Wikipedias - as they have their own sources, I am asking Kudpung's opinion of whether this can or cannot be done.--R-41 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say the an RfC was canvassing. I merely pointed out that we have policy regarding asking for outside input, which needs taking into consideration. As for asking Kudpung, of course he is entitled to express an opinion on the matter if he chooses so - but he doesn't have any special authority to make a decision. I'd have thought it more appropriate to ask about this in a place where others can respond too - I'd suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

POVbrigand, I can tell you that it is a massive majority view now that the Soviet Union had satellite states in Eastern Europe - since the revolutions of 1989, I can assure you that many Eastern Europeans - especially in Germany, Poland, Hungary, and the former Czechoslovakia can personally attest to the satellite state status of their countries for almost the entire duration of the Cold War - and in brief periods where they sought to become independent - Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 - their pro-independence communist governments were violently crushed by the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact; 1956 and 1968 are testaments in Hungarian and Czechoslovakian histories respectively - of the Soviet Union seeking to crush independence-seeking communist governments - the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the People's Socialist Republic of Albania were the only Eastern European communist states to break away from Soviet domination - and believe me they had stories to tell about Soviet domination: including infiltration of their governments and communist parties by people working for the KGB and Soviet spies.--R-41 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

What has any of this got to do with the question under discussion? Oh, hang on, it has a great deal to do with it - you are now stating that it comes down to a 'majority view'. Can I take it that you've dropped your claim that 'satellite state' is a 'technical term', and a matter of fact not opinion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a massive majority view, and the opposing view that you are protecting unless validated by sources can be categorized as WP:FRINGE. Plus Andy - just outside of Wikipedia parameters for a moment if you really want to know about whether the Eastern European countries were satellite states or not - I suggest that you talk to Czechs and Hungarians who remember the Soviet invasions of their countries over minor policy changes by the Czechoslovakian and Hungarian governments - or people who were part of the hundreds of thousands of protestors at the Berlin Wall - if you told them that there was "no evidence" that their countries were satellite states of the Soviet Union, I guarantee you that unless they were diehard communists, they would laugh in your face and think you are naive. Now Andy, how about that source I've been hoping you'd provide that says that "satellite state" is only a metaphor and not a technical term?--R-41 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Listen <-redacted - AtG ->, I don't need lectures on the criminality committed by agents of the USSR in eastern Europe - I am well aware of them. I am also aware that agents of other states have committed similar acts elsewhere - and some still are. Something else I'm aware of, though, is that vacuous buzzwords, catchphrases and slogans will do nothing whatever to stop such acts happening in future - indeed, they make them more likely. And where have I ever suggested that there was 'no evidence' for anything? I haven't. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of seeing anything except through the ludicrous Cold-War eyes of Reagan or Brezhnev, where the world is divided into good and evil, and the only dispute is which is which. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Satellite state is still used to describe the situation of one state whose sovereignty has been abrogated by another, applied primarily to the former Soviet satellites but even to geopolitical relationships as far back as ancient Greece, so nothing to do with "ludicrous Cold-War eyes of Reagan or Brezhnev". What, when editors disagree with you, yeah, that's an intellectual argument, invoke bodily orifices. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

R-41 wasn't disagreeing with me. He was disagreeing with an imaginary opponent. I find his attempt to compare me to this figment of his imagination objectionable... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW on yours elsewhere "unless you can find as source that explicitly states that in the context of the DDR, the phrase 'satellite state' is a neutral technical term,", all that matters is that scholars of that topic use the term to describe the geopolitical nature of the degree to which a state is, or is not, sovereign. "Socialist" or "Communist state" is objectively an incomplete term in the case of East Germany and of its brethren. You don't get to censor scholarly terminology based on your personally erected gates of admission. Nor can you simply maintain that anything said during the Cold War is crap.

The conversation here would go better if you didn't call editors assholes; remember, your self-professed awareness does not mean anything more than that. Awareness does not accord understanding or expertise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support If multiple reliable sources have used the term to describe the state then it seems permissible to include it; it's also not our place to second guess terms that scholars have decided to use. Since it is a bit contentious, however, I would suggest a general attribution in the vein of "East Germany has been described as a satellite state of the USSR" rather than simply calling it a satellite state in Wikipedia's voice. This would not devalue the claim while at the same time recognizing that the line between opinion and technical fact in regard to this term's reference can be vague. N^oformation ^Talk 05:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - The DDR certainly meet the criteria for a so-called "satellite state." I have a hunch that people are talking past each other a bit here; the main point is that it was also a state in an of itself, with its own unique history, ruling caste, organs of state repression, governmental structures, industrial rules and policies, popular culture, etc. It was a satellite, sure — now let's describe what it really was. The USSR loomed large and doubtlessly decisively influenced state actions at various critical intervals. That needs to be discussed. Don't be blind or stupid about that. I doubt people are. But neither was it a place where every move was controlled by a all-seeing and all-powerful puppetmaster in Moscow. It was a complex organism in its own right. And a satellite. Both. Carrite (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I think it is an indication of just how malformed this RfC is that the last two 'support' !votes are actually using precisely the arguments that the 'oppose' camp has been using all along. Nobody is denying that the DDR has been described as a 'satellite state'. The question has always been as to whether Wikipedia should unequivocally characterise it as such in the infobox - and, as the last two comments once again make clear, simplistic statements about 'facts' obscure more than they reveal. History cannot be reduced to catchphrases and stereotypes. Or at least, it shouldn't be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support (but not in InfoBox) - [from uninvolved editor; invited by RfC bot]. The term "satellite state of the USSR" is/was a standard term used by politicians, historians, and analysts. East Germany was one of about 8 or 9 countries included in that rubric (along with Poland, Hungary, etc). Not only is it a standard term used by Reliable Sources, it is also a pithy, understandable term that helps readers of this article (and other related articles) to grasp the underlying concept. --Noleander (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I've amended the RfC question to add a focused question on the InfoBox, since this RfC discussion seems to be migrating in that direction. My opinion is that "statellite state" is not a sufficiently official designation to be in the InfoBox. Furthermore, when it is used in the prose, the term can be clarified and contextualized. --Noleander (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but altering the question in an existing RfC is highly contentious. You also seem to be arguing what the 'oppose' camp have been saying all along. Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't say in the body of the article that the DDR was often described as a 'satellite state'. That is self-evident. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct: RfCs should only be altered in rare circumstances. However, this RfC, apparently, was worded inaccurately. It looks like some responders think it is addressing the body of the article, and others the InfoBox. Since RfCs are primarily aimed at attracting uninvolved editors, it is important that the RfC question be crystal clear. Unless the prior responses specifically mention "InfoBox", there is no way to know if they were addressing the InfoBox or the body. Adding a second, supplemental question to the first question (which was not altered) is harmless and should clarify things for future responders. --Noleander (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC was worded incorrectly. I have said so already. Nevertheless, changing the question now makes any contributions prior to this point ambiguous. Still, I can't see this as closing as anything other than 'no consensus' anyway, given the muddle that has already been caused by the poor wording, and confusion over exactly what it is we're supposed to be deciding. And then again, as I've argued below, it appears that the RfC is asking us to form an opinion on behalf of Wikipedia, which seems to me to violate core principles... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. The closing editor will have an intractable job: she would have to guess whether the responders were "Supporting" the term in the body; or "Opposing" it in the InfoBox (but supporting it in the body). You may be correct: perhaps the best path is to close the RfC and start a new one that focuses on the InfoBox exclusively. --Noleander (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see my comment below the "Oppose/Support" position statement by User:Dingo1729.--R-41 (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose/Support The article should certainly say that the DDR was a satellite state, but this should not be stated in the infobox as it is not in any way an official description of the country. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The problem with excluding the term from the infobox merely because "it shouldn't be in the infobox" is that it is clearly out of step with common practice on Wikipedia,, that is why there is the "status text" in the infobox for former countries or territories. Here are articles that have had these kind of statements on status (colony, client state, mandate, satellite state, etc.) in relation to an empire or Great Power- that have been undisputed - for a long time: Confederation of the Rhine (a confederation of client states of Napoleonic France), Independent State of Croatia (status box: a protectorate of Fascist Italy and puppet state of Nazi Germany), Manchukuo (status box: a puppet state of the Empire of Japan), French Indochina (status box: "Colonial protectorate federation"). As you can see the status boxes are used to describe a relation with an empire or great power - to remove it would simply because of the claim "it shouldn't be in the infobox" would certainly be out of step with what has been common practice already, and removing it merely on the basis that it shouldn't be in the infobox would be a precedent for these mentioned articles and others that use the status box that has been provided for this specific use. I am just putting this out there, otherwise I am taking a break from this discussion for a while.--R-41 (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Just wrong. Ignoring the obvious WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS retort, even if the material in those particular articles is justified, it has nothing whatever to do with the question being discussed here, which is about the DDR, only the DDR, and nothing but the DDR. To put it bluntly, "Proof by analogy is fraud" - Bjarne Stroustrup. [17] AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy, I am not saying that we are obligated to use it, but just bear in mind that the people who invented the former country infobox created the status text section in the infobox, and for better or worse it is commonly used that way - Andy, if youregard it as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - so be it, changing this article on the basis that "it shouldn't be in the infobox" - has a precedent that all similar material should be removed from the many other articles that use the status text this way - if users here want to have the status text removed from all the articles with such an infobox, then it should be a consistent request for all articles with the status text - and that should be addressed with the users who have developed Template:Infobox former country at Template talk:Infobox former country, the question of merely using the status text should not be addressed here, only whether satellite state is an appropriate term - here we are using what they at that template provided us: the status text.--R-41 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

R41, I can see your point about how the infobox is used on other articles. However I'm not too happy with them either, some of them are just too close to editorializing. As to your point that this should be discussed at Template talk:Infobox former country; with the peculiar ways that policy is decided at wikipedia I think that it is actually correct to discuss this particular case here and then take it to the general case for discussion on whether it should be used as a precedent. I'm in favor of keeping the infobox as clean and totally factual as possible. MOS:INFOBOX states "wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". Of course we could endlessly discuss what is or is not "unnecessary", but I think the lede of the article makes it quite clear what East Germany's relationship was to the USSR. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

R41, a couple of points. Firstly, the template document clearly says that "most fields are optional", and that "Certain historical entities may inspire heated debate among some people. Neutrality and sensitivity are required when implementing this infobox". It can in no way be interpreted as a 'precedent' for anything. And secondly, if you look at Template:Infobox_former_country#Status, 'satellite state' isn't even given as one of the options. You seem to be clutching at straws here - Wikipedia article content is not determined by template structure. In any case 'satellite state' is, unless someone provides evidence to the contrary, not a 'status' at all (it apparently has no legal meaning whatsoever) - it is an opinion, albeit in this case a widely-held one. Infoboxes are for information, not opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And on the general subject of infoboxes, an interesting essay: Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes: "If the infobox contains subjective categories, it is a disinfobox". And of course, there is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Many users here, including me and Collect are supporting using that infobox to state that it was a "satellite state". Like I said, this is not the place to discuss a disagreement with template material. AndyTheGrump and Dingo1729, bring up your opposition to inclusion of the status text to Template Talk:Infobox former country, raise the issue there, if users at the template talk choose to remove it then the problem here of opposition to its inclusion in this infobox is solved, and it will be solved for ALL articles with such status texts. Please listen to this: I may lean or change my vote to the opposed side if the argument can be made that having such status texts in ALL former country infoboxes are not useful because they overly simplify complex international relations between states - BUT I support that such descriptions of "satellite state" status CAN be discussed in the article. The i most appropriate venue to address that issue in its entirety, I don't agree that it should be brought up here first, address it at the template talk so that such problems can be resolved as soon as possible for all articles with the status text.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need to go to Template Talk:Infobox former country to discuss using a phrase not given as one of the options for the 'status' field? If you wish to add it as an option, you are of course welcome to raise the matter, but you should expect disagreement, on the basis of the arguments presented here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the strongest arguments of the Opposed side as mentioned by some users, is that the status text section is hopeless in attempting to describe complex and controversial international relations issue, and that these statements would be better to be put in the main body of the article where evidence can be shown for them - it can't be shown in the infobox. Of course this needs to be brought up at Template Talk:Infobox former country because such changes should be universally made so that similar addressing of such issues does not need to be duplicated. The status text in the template is the problem - some users who are opposed to putting the term in the infobox, support putting it in the article where evidence can be shown for it. I support calling for the scrapping of the "status text" section in Template:Infobox former country - as this discussion reveals international relations cannot be summarized in one term without substantial evidence being presented and shown to support the use of such a term. At the same time, I support a statement in the intro saying that East Germany is widely regarded as a satellite state of the Soviet Union. Evidence for the use of this term can be provided later in the article. An alternative if people do not want to scrap the status text would be to retain the infobox, but use a term related to satellite state that the users who created the template have said the status of client state. Client state is a commonly used, less controversial, and probably an array of sources would be available that would say that East Germany was a client state of the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The term 'client state' is still subjective, and as such, doesn't belong in an infobox. AS for whether the term 'satellite state' needs to be mentioned (as a subjective description) in the lede, or later in the article, I'm not sure - as I've repeatedly said, it would seem remiss not to point out that the characterisation has frequently been used. As for other issues regarding Template Talk:Infobox former country, that should probably be discussed there, rather than here - though I'd point out that most of the usages of the term 'satellite state' in the infobox in reference to relations with the Soviet Union are recent, and were seemingly added by R-41 without discussion from others - and the infobox documentation didn't support the usage of the term anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"client state is still subjective"! Andy, almost any definition can be accused of being subjective! Where is your evidence that the term "client state" is subjective? Would you consider the unnecessarily long statement I will make right now "subjective": "East Germany was economically, militarily, and politically dominated and subordinate to the Soviet Union." The term "client state" is even MORE widely used than satellite state by scholars, and is widely accepted as a technical term. Remember, no matter what you want to call it, this is well known: "East Germany was economically, militarily, and politically dominated and subordinate to the Soviet Union."--R-41 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't start this again. Scholars use subjective terms all the time. History (which is what we are discussing here) is one of the Humanities, not one of the Sciences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

So you have already determined that all the sources for the term "client state" WILL be prejudiced and WILL be subjective. Alright Andy, that is open prejudice against it and a clear POV, I cannot discuss the issue of "satellite state" or "client state" with you anymore, you have just revealed with the statement that I am responding to right now, that you are openly prejudiced to the use of any term to describe East Germany's subordinate relations with the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion that I am "openly prejudiced to the use of any term to describe East Germany's subordinate relations with the Soviet Union" is totally misleading, as my previous comments have made abundantly clear. All I have argued is that we should not be representing subjective opinion as objective fact in an infobox. If you cannot discuss this any more, then don't. You recently wrote on ANI that you were going to take a break from this issue. What's stopping you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We are not discussing if East Germany was subordinate to the USSR; it was. We are discussing the right to use such a term (and if you really have to use it R-41, don't use it in the infobox). --TIAYN (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Referring to East Germany or any other state of the former eastern bloc as a satellite state is in line with numerous RS, it is certainly not wrong. If a source would argue against the fact that East Germany was a satellite state that would make me highly suspicious of the source.

Is the use of "satellite state of the Soviet Union" in the infobox a good choice ? As I said, I think that it is not against the facts, but I also think that it not the best choice. I would prefer to use either "member of the Warsaw Pact" or "country of the eastern bloc" for the infobox. There certainly wouldn't be any discussion about those. --POVbrigand (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Warsaw Pact was created in 1955, whereas out article covers the period 1949-1990. As for 'eastern bloc', this isn't really a formal term and is a little vague. Neither really qualifies as a 'status', and in any case, there is no requirement to have anything in the infobox - again, such matters are better discussed in the body of the text. 20:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AndyTheGrump has claimed that it is a "subjective term" and a "metaphor" with no substance and is not a "technical term thus cannot be used, I have now found a source that describes the meaning of a satellite state in detail as a technical term - it is addressing the issue of technical term use, it is not directly related to East Germany or other states widely recognized as Soviet satellite states - the source is based on a study of Scotland in the 17th and 18th century - but it does describe in detail what a satellite state in general is. The model used by the authors use to describe a satellite state is the model developed by Alan Gilbert who studied Latin-American satellite states - and uses it as a technical term, here is the definition (I quote it in its lengthy full to insure no confusion):

• "Firstly, a satellite is a poor country that depends on exporting a small range of goods to one richer area from which it draws the bulk of its imports: such exports ten to be agricultural and mineral products affected by volatile demand conditions because the dependent country is only a marginal producer in the world market for a given good: the imports are usually a wide range of manufactures and other consumer goods for which there is constant hunger in the satellite. Secondly, the satellite depends on imported technology from the richer areas, since research and development is carried out in developed nations and undeveloped nations are insufficiently sophisticated to develop their own. Thirdly, the need both for technology and for manufactured imports leads to dependence on injections of foreign capital from the richer area: these though probably necessary for any form of development, may bring with them unwelcome political ties or determine the direction of short-term economic growth in a way that will not be conducive to long-term economic development. Fourthly, dependence is reflected in cultural relations, so that what happens in the dominant area seems more real and satisfying to the elite inside the satellite than anything they can do themselves - 'imported products are valued more highly than local goods, foreign degrees more than local degrees, foreign consultants more than local experts. This cultural bias enhances and increases the total dependency relationship'. The implication is that if these four factors are present in a country they will tend to hamper its growth. The historian may accept them as defining dependent status yet feel they may not necessarily be causes of a poor growth performance. Rather they may be symptoms of what an economy will be like in the early stage of development. Variations in the rate of population growth, the nature of land tenure, the level of education and the character of sub-elite culture probably do more to determine whether opportunities that arise through trade with the developed core launch a peripheral economy into growth or have no benign effect."
  #Ståle Drvik, Knut Mykland, Jan Oldervoll. The Satellite State in the 17th and 18th Centuries. English edition. Bergen-Oslo-Tromso, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, 1979. Pp. 11-12.</ref>.

--R-41 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that - as even a superficial reading will reveal, what the authors are describing is an entirely different relationship between states that that which existed between the DDR and the USSR. As such, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Or are you claiming that the authors said that this definition also applied in an eastern European context? If not, it is WP:OR of the most obvious kind to suggest that it does. You already seem to have conceded below [18] that the term 'satellite state' is subjective, and shouldn't be used in an infobox - why have you changed your mind? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The DDR was not "wealthier" than the USSR - it was quite effectively de-industrialized after WW II, and many of its scientists were patriated to the USSR. The only word remotely usable other than "Satellitenstaat" is "protectrate" perhaps - but there is more than sufficient backing for "Satellite." [19] shows a 1950 DDR GDP per capita of about $3,127. [20] shows that the BDR per capita GDP was under that of the DDR area in 1936, and was treble the DDR per capits GDP in 1950, showing the effect of the de-industrialization. The industries left in the DDR were left to stagnate, and to prove wertlos in the aftermath of reunification (that is, they were not able to compete in a free market system). [21] makes this massive wealth transfer by the USSR from the DDR clear. This source, by the way, is assuredly not "western propaganda." Thus confirming "satellite" status - removal of industry by another nation is scarcely an example of that nation respecting any level of sovereignty at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

East Germany was wealthier than the Soviet Union and imported agricultural and mineral products from them, while it exported manufactured goods to them. No foreign capital was injected into the GDR (neither country was even capitalist), and the GDR was more advanced in education and technology. TFD (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The industry from the DDR was substantially moved to the USSR - sorry to mention that bit of inconvenient truth. Pre-WWII, it was the most industrialized part of Germany, post war it became a backwater compared to its former status. Collect (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Under the definition supplied, one could argue that the USSR was a 'satellite state' of the DDR, if one was so inclined. Of course, since the definition is clearly subjective anyway ("The historian may accept them as defining dependent status"), this is all moot when it comes to deciding infobox content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD, where is your evidence that East Germany was wealthier than the Soviet Union? What statistics are you using? Show sources to prove your point.--R-41 (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you not going to respond to the more significant matter - that the definition of 'satellite state' you have produced is (a) irrelevant in the context of easter Europe, and (b) subjective, according to the source you provided? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy, in response to your claim that I am changing my position I say that I reserve the right to change my position based on evidence that I find and on persuasive arguments by others that are backed up with evidence - I will not rigidly say "yes I am totally in agreement with this and will never go against it". The book is about Scotland as a satellite state in the 17th and 18th century, it uses a definition of a satellite state provided by a scholar, they note he studied Latin American satellite states in particular. The authors of that book deemed the model of description of a satellite state to be ascribable to European examples.--R-41 (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And where in this book do the authors assert that this is applicable to the relationship between the DDR and the USSR? Not that it matters, the passage clearly refers to the term 'satellite state' as something subjective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I asked Collect to post something on my behalf because I did not want to discuss anymore, but he/she suggested that I should do it. I will not respond to anything though, I am just posting this material and leaving, I will not respond to any comments - be they positive or negative, others can decide what to make of it. Here is another source on the terminology of satellite state: "On Satelliteship” by George G. S. Murphy, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 21, No 4 (Dec. 1961), pp. 641-651. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2114424.

The author mentions that the term “satellite state” is a metaphor but (Andy in particular, pay attention to the following) the author demonstrates that it ALSO is a relevant technical term that the author describes in the article. The author specifically refers to Soviet satellite states. Here is the author's description of a satellite state:

• "The regime in the satellite state...must, and wants to, model itself on the regime in the protecting country; its aim is to develop the satellite state under policies that will eventually make it homogeneous in social composition, economic characteristics, and political institutions with the state in whose orbit it moves. It regards the fulfillment of such policies as a desirable process of catching up." (Murphy, Pp. 641-642)
• "Satelliteship consists of the exercise by a single decision-maker of a dominant country of complete authority over a smaller country. This authority is used to engineer broad and sweeping programs of social change in the smaller country to suit the preferences of this decision-maker." (Murphy, Pp. 642)
• "the average Soviet satellite is distinguished from the average colony by the fact that it tends to develop at fast rates of growth" (Murphy, Pp. 642)

Final comment by me, per Collect's recommendation that I post this - up to others to discuss and the uninvolved user who reviews this discussion to decide tomorrow.--R-41 (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to JSTOR, so cannot view the source. Can you quote the section where 'satellite state' is referred to as a metaphor? It is difficult from the quotes you provide to determine that anything has been 'demonstrated', or even that this was the author's intention. In any case , this is an article written at the height of the Cold War, and as such perhaps somewhat dated - we should really be using more recent scholarship regarding the issue. (And BTW, RfCs run for 30 days - I'm not sure why you think it is being closed tomorrow) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And a little searching found a review of Murphy's Soviet Mongolia: A Study of the Oldest Political Satellite (in the same journal that R-41 cites above) [22] which criticises him for (amongst other things) using phrases like "naive puppets" and "tool of the Comintern". Hardly a disinterested neutral stance there. We can of course cite Murphy for his opinions, but that is all...AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: this situation is better expressed by the term Warsaw Pact. Calling something a "satellite state" always brings controversy, and using a wording "member of Warsaw Pact" is both clearly neutral and descriptive, with a link explaining the nature of pact and inter-country relations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: per TFD, based on precedent as well as other controversial issues that come with it. It will not be right to state as such. Also, the insight given by POVbrigand is reasonable. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Whatever it might be described as in the text, it should not be described as a "Satellite state" in the infobox. That space is designed for a state's formal constitutional status. On this article the status param should be left blank. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Univolved contribution

The following is a translation of the relevant paragraphs from de:Satellitenstaat (German Wikipedia: Satellitenstaat). Italics are the words as used in the original German text. The bolding is by the translator:

Satellitenstaat (satellite state) is a defintion for a smaller state in a situation of dependency uopon a larger state. Satellitenstaaten (satellite states) are often only formally independent and are politically dominated by the more powerful state. Broadly, classic examples are 'independent' states that shortly before, or during the Second World war were under the control of Germany, Italy, or Japan (Vichy France, 1st Slovakian Republic, Independent Kroatia, Independent Montegenero, Mandschukuo) or member states of the Warsaw Pact whose politics were mainly dominated by the Soviet Union. The latter generally possesed little of their own power, and in fundamental decisions had to conform to the Breschnev Doctrine. [1] The German Democratic Republic was thus described as a Satellitenstaat which was based essentially on the presence of the Soviet military.[3] From the the background of its recognition as a UN member in 1973, the DDR was considered by the West as "still a Satellitenstaat of the Soviet Union". [4]

1. See Theodor Schweisfurth, International Law, p. 26 para 90
2. Quoted in Hans-Ulrich Wehler, German History - Vol 5 West Germany and East Germany 1949-1990, C.H. Beck, 2008, p. 252
3. See more details: Herwig Roggemann, Systemunrecht und Strafrecht am Beispiel der Mauerschützen in der ehemaligen DDR, Verlag Arno Spitz, Berlin 1993, p. 67 ff, Peter-Alexis Albrecht, The Federal Constitutional Court and the criminal processing system of injustice - a German solution, in NJ 1997, p. 1; Uwe Wesel, the Honecker trial, in KJ, 1993, p. 198 ff (200).
4. .Marianne Howarth in: Ulrich Arrow, The East and the West, p. 81 ff (88), previously noted that the United States, the GDR since the popular uprising of 17 June 1953 "was first conceived as a Soviet satellite state" (M. Christian Ostermann in:. Ibid, p. 169 et seq.) See, Uwe Backes in: Eckhard Jesse, Roland Sturm (eds), Democracies in the 21st Century compared, p. 341 ff (349), who writes that the German Democratic Republic since its foundation, "[was a] Soviet-dominated satellitenstadt .. Or Manfred Wilke (Eds.) in:. Karner / Tomilina / Chubarian et al, Prague Spring, Böhlau, Cologne / Weimar 2008, p. 421 is consistent with this view, because "[t] he close SED in [...] consultation with the CPSU [acted as] [equivalent to] this [...] their self-image and status of the GDR as a satellite of the Soviet Union. "

— Satellitenstadt, de.Wikipedia

Offered by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The German-language Wikipedia is not WP:RS. (and for what its worth, the article seems to have been a matter of some dispute - see the talk page) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, if you are going to use German Wikipedia as a source, I suggest that you look at their DDR article. [23] Using Google translate, the infobox tells us that the 'Form of government' was a 'People's republic', and that the 'Government' was a 'Real Socialist party dictatorship / socialist multi-party system (until 1989)". The word "Satellitenstaat" appears not to be used in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I had read both articles and their talk pages (I'm bilingual), the term is used also several times in de:Ostblock, it is not used in many other de.Wiki articles about Germany past and present and its politics. I would suggest that you read both articles and their talk pages for yourself and accurately determine what the actual foci of the discussions were, but I would guard against using Google translations; of all the Western European Germanic and Romance languages, German is probably the most challenging for translation software to parse - it leads often, and especially, to ambiguities or even contradictions between the source and target languages. FWIW, how the German Wikipedia defines Satellitenstaat seems to be undisputed in its present cast; how the German Wikipedia describes its countries and its former states in their various articles is up to them - its their language. German culture however, since 1989, may or may not be more sensitive to some issues (after 16 years there, I left the country some six months before the wall unexpectedly came down). There is however now a generation of Germans who have sufficient post-Wende experience to express themselves objectively. I'll just point out that I am well aware that Wikipdia is not a reliable source. What is probably more relevant are the sources the editors quote in the final articles. That said, I offered that translation as an unbiased tool for all concerned, and I have no personal interest whatsoever in the outcome of the discussion. If anyone would like any other short translations from the articles and/or their sources in order to support any contributions to the RfC, they are welcome to ask, and I may, time permitting, be happy to oblige. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate your endeavours (and might have expressed myself a little more circumspectly earlier), I cannot simply accept an assertion that an individual is 'unbiased' at face value. Nobody in this debate is - which is precisely why we shouldn't be pretending that Wikipedia is capable of determining whether an assertion that the DRR was a 'satellite' is opinion, fact, or uncritical acceptance of "victor's logic". In one sense it doesn't actually matter much - Wikipedia's influence on future history is probably marginal at best - but the fact remains that 'satellite state' is a simplistic characterisation that obscures more than it reveals, tells us next-to-nothing about life as it was experienced in the DDR, and ultimately reduces history to a war between differing ideologies. We can do better than this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I assert that I am, indeed, unbiassed on this. I would concede that the "Western powers" as a group might have been biassed, but would assert similarly that the DDR leaders would have had the precise opposite bias. In fact, I can find no RS source asserting that the DDR was not a "Satellitenstaat." Except for those making the assertion that it was simply an "occupied nation". Including other Eastern European sources (Polish, Czech et al). Cheers - but when the only substantial differing point of view is that the DDR was "occupied" I think you should take the best offer on the table <g>. Else we would add to "satellite" with its cites, "occupied" with those cites as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

[24] And in 1989 Gorbachev announced to "thunderous applause" that "questions which concern the GDR will be decided in Berlin, not in Moscow" which quite likely means those giving the "thunderous applause" saw this as a change from the past. Cheers - even Gorbachev implicitly stated that until that point the decisions were made in Moscow. Game. Set. Match. Collect (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's so easy when you're your own umpire, eh? But seriously, you're missing the point by a mile. We are not discussing what the substantive relationship between East Germany and the U.S.S.R. was. We are only discussing the term "satellite state." I have already conclusively showed that it is a term of Western propaganda. If it were an objective technical term, it would have to be applied as well to West Germany, Israel, and until recently most of Latin America. After all, if the proof of Soviet control is supposed to be Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968, then you have even more proof of Western control of its "satellites" (Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Egypt 1956, Congo 1960, Cuba 1961, Chile 1973, Grenada 1983 etc.). Mewulwe (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Krenz was a purveyor of "Western propaganda"? Gorbachev purveyed "Western propaganda"? I fear you seem to have a POV which seems to think they are Western propagandists, and I humbly suggest that such is an extremely minority position, without any noticeable support from reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you even reading? Neither Krenz nor Gorbachev used the term "satellite state," and we aren't discussing the substance of the relationship. (And Krenz might as well have used it in his trial, it would just be the classic "I was just following orders" defense, saying nothing about his honest beliefs.) Mewulwe (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That's total nonsense that you "have conclusively showed that it is a term of Western propaganda", long ago in this discussion I provided references showing that it was used by communists of the East as well - including a reference of Ulbricht of East Germany describing West Germany as an "American satellite state" and the Communist Party of India describing India under non-communist government as being a satelite state. Plus it is regularly used by German scholars. As to your point on West Germany, Wikipedia has recognized it as being a client state of the United States. You are welcome to provide reliable source material on the relevant articles on Latin American countries' history that demonstrates that they were American satellite states - or client states, protectorates, etc. - I did so for South Vietnam and Zaire - they were both American client states.--R-41 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered that if Ulbricht used it for the West, it was the same propaganda in reverse. But since we're talking here about its use for East Germany, in that respect it was Western propaganda. The fact that no side used it for itself shows it is in any case propaganda. And why do you make a difference between satellite state and client state? If it's a technical term, there should be no difference, since no difference can be proven in substance. You only have your "sources" calling the Soviet allies satellite states, and not the Western ones, but you can't explain why that difference is other than that "satellite" is a propaganda term that naturally appears in pro-Western texts - and never in pro-Communist ones. Mewulwe (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, please look at the source I provided in the voting section above this section on the issue of satellite states. I have found a very important source, the International Court of Justice of the United Nations that uses the term satellite state, in this case in reference to states controlled by the Axis Powers in World War II. The United Nations is a widely accepted institution in both the East and West and it shows that the term "satellite state" has been used as a technical term by the United Nations. The text is from a document "Declaration on Liberated Europe" adopted in 1944 by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States and since recorded as an document affiliated with the United Nations - thus showing that the term predated the Cold War and the use of the term has been supported by the Soviet Union in the case of the Axis Powers.--R-41 (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you provided a link to a document where the UN describes the DDR as a 'satellite state'. Without one, your comments are just conjecture. Though as is self-evident, a phrase used in one context as a 'technical term' (if that is indeed what it was in that context), can later be used in another way entirely in another context. Your arguments about 'technical terms' are utterly irrelevant in this context, unless you can find as source that explicitly states that in the context of the DDR, the phrase 'satellite state' is a neutral technical term, rather than a metaphor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well here's a source from the United Nations that admits that the Soviet Union had client states (the base form of satellite states, puppet states, etc) in the case of Cuba. [25] This is rare though, but overall I ask you this: seriously Andy, do you really believe that the Soviet Union with its major power in the Security Council or even its successor, the Russian Federation that continues to have sway would allow the United Nations to say "yep, the Soviet Union exercised domination over the DDR, and yes that means that we have an empire imposing its will on a formally sovereign country - which means that the international community is obligated to free the people of the DDR due to the UN's commitment to sovereignty of the people's popular will" - of course Russia would not accept that and I doubt will ever state that it had a de facto empire in Eastern Europe - just as the United States will not admit and probably will never formally admit that Israel is a client state of the United States - which it is - yes you will say I should post that statement on the Israel article - I could try but good luck trying to get past patriotic Israeli users who would reject this out of their patriotism - but not facts. "In the context of the DDR" - that's evading that the fact that the United Nations has used the term "satellite state" as a technical term. The statement did not say "in the context of the Axis Powers" in the document, it just said "Axis satellite States", the only reason I mentioned that the Soviet Union used it in the context of the Axis Powers specifically is because they would not officially admit that they had satellite states.--R-41 (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

My opinions on that question are irrelevant - though I'm sure we can agree over what the USSR's opinion would have been. (Just out of curiosity, when are you going to start a RfC on Talk:Israel regarding inserting the term 'satellite state' into the infobox? After all, if it is one, as you assert, and the phrase is an unambiguous academic 'technical term', it will be entirely dishonest of you not to correct this glaring omission. Wikipedia shouldn't let 'patriotism' get in the way of 'facts', surely?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll start a discussion now at the Talk:Israel article, and I will say that you insisted that I bring up the issue there (I don't want to be blamed alone for starting a hellstorm on the Israel talk page) out of your insinuation of the need for fairness on the issue of East Germany's satellite state status. I am doing this out of your request for fairness, but I guarantee you that it will fail due to patriotic opposition by Israeli users, the most patriotic of which who will probably overreact and call me an "anti-Semite", a "Nazi", or a "Israel-hater" because of what you are requesting me to do, sigh, so be it - I will fulfill your request.--R-41 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

While the book was written by members of the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, it does not represent official UN positions. It says Cuba was "a Soviet client-state victimized by the United States.... The United States armed and guided the Guatemalan military in its genocidal war against the Mayan peasants...." Are you going to add that to the U.S. info-box? The U.N. statement says nothing either than that on one occassion the UN used the term but never defined it. TFD (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD, we don't know yet whether the United Nations has defined the term "satellite state" or not, unless you know that it never has? We need more research on the issue of the UN on the issue of satellite states - we now know that the United Nations has used the term in an official document recognized by the International Court of Justice of the United Nations - we have to assume the term was chosen because it has a particular meaning - I mean it's not like they just used a jibberish word "boogolajala" or something - the term was chosen because it bears a meaning. I seriously believe that this whole issue of the status of East Germany as a satellite state requires an extra month of investigation.--R-41 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I have done a number of searches and cannot find the term used in any other sense. The U.N. does in fact categorize states - they categorized East Germany as a "sovereign state", while the disputed territories of Gibraltar and the Falklands are classified as "non-self governing territories". The U.S. did not categorize East Germany as a satellite state until 1953 under NSC 174.[26] TFD (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Um -- took all of ten seconds to find (inter alia) [27] GA speech, and [28] referring specifically to "Soviet satellite states" where no dispute as to meaning could be taken, thus fully and precise;y establishing UN usage as of 2005. Cheers - but the report was endorsed by the Russian Federation as far as I can tell, as a member of the WMD Commission. Collect (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant! And by the same standard, "the UN" has established that George W. Bush is the devil. Because, you know, it was said in a GA speech. Mewulwe (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

What an absurd retort! The UN has not so established anything - and the issue was whether the term "satellite" was used by the UN -- clearly you can show the term "devil" has been used by the UN, and I think that is swell. But when a person says he can not find any usage of "satellite" as a term for nations, and I find two examples in seconds, that is a reasonable point on my part. Cheers - now please try to actually read the posts. Collect (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

On this point I partially agree with Mewulwe - speeches at the General Assembly of the United Nations are not reliable sources - after all Castro, Bush, and Ahmadinejad have ranted speeches based on political rhetoric and material later proven to be false or lies. That being said the second source - an official UN study is generally reliable - official documents by the United Nations or indepth studies by the United Nations - unless proven to be false - are reliable sources.--R-41 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The source from the 2004 report WMD Commission of the United Nations provided by User:Collect that describes "Soviet satellite states" was authored by representatives from a wide array of countries: Sweden, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, United Kingdom, France, Sri Lanka, Australia, Ireland, Japan, the United States, India, Senegal, Jordan, and China. Note the specific country that I bolded. And remember if you are going to respond that it has the Bush-era term "WMD" in the name (actually a term begun in the Clinton era) remember that it was the WMD Commission found that there was no clear evidence of WMD stockpiles in Iraq.--R-41 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Russia is no longer Communist if you haven't noticed. They may use the term as much as anyone else now. And a report by a commission of 15 nations is not "the UN," and even there it was used only once in a footnote. You still have to show the Soviet Union or any supposed "satellite" using the term for these Soviet allies. And if they didn't, why not? It's not that they wanted to hide anything of substance - the Soviet Union's leading role in the "Socialist camp" was openly proclaimed. So why wouldn't they use the term if it's just factual and not derogatory and propagandistic? Mewulwe (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so Mewulwe according to you Russia is now suddenly unreliable on the topic of "satellite state" because it is not longer communist. Hmm, I can't imagine how that could be a POV on your part. I guess Russia has no left over culture of the East, nope - not the Communist Party of Russia nor the Red Square celebrations of the Great Patriotic War with thousands of Soviet flags fluterring in the breeze during celebrations of it. Come on, Mewulwe don't make me go sarcastic, get real - Russia has the ex-KGB leader who called the collapse of the Soviet Union "a tragedy" as the Prime Minister of Russia. Look if you are a communist or something and you believe that the only legitimate source of evidence from Russia has to be from government documents from the Soviet Union, then just say so. If you are you may be slightly happy to know that politically I lean in a left direction - I'm a social democrat - and I think the Cold War was largely a fraud - because IBM and other supposedly "Western pro-capitalist" companies sold equipment to the USSR in the Cold War - but that's my opinion.--R-41 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Recapping- the term was used by no one except as a Western propaganda term. Debunked. The term was not used by any leader of the nations regarded as satellite states. Debunked. The term was not used by the UN. Debunked. I hate to say this but every cavil on the use of the term has been thoroughly debunked, and sticking to them is tendentious in the uttermost. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Bunkum. All you have proved that the term has been used. We know that. We even know that it was used in reference to the DDR. We also know that the term 'Evil Empire' was used to refer to the USSR. Are you proposing that we add that to the relevant infobox? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The "official" report from the Commission clearly states, "The Commission is not responsible for views expressed in this paper." This is typical POV-pushing behavior. Google search for a source supporting an opinion then using a reference in footnote in an article about a totally different subject. TFD (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

And the draft is on the official UN website - which apparently elided your notice utterly. Sorry - your claim is still in the debunked category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

So what. Does it state that "The Commission is not responsible for views expressed in this paper" or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission is not a commission of the United Nations, but "an independent international commission initiated by the Swedish Government" and is presented on the UN website under "Outside Resources". [29] TFD (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was not aware of this - Collect made an error in citing it directly to the UN - it is an outside source, but we should note that the document was made on behalf of the United Nations in Sweden - the lead Swedish author of the document is the UN weapons inspector Hans Blix. But also notice that this document that says that the Soviet Union had "satellite states" is authored by representatives from across the world - including a Russian. Now, TFD you say "oh but this is a random search that just happened to show this up" true it is not directly related but you are ignoring that the piling evidence clearly indicates that the use of the term satellite state is conventionally used by major international institutions and that the document was supported by a Russian. --R-41 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:OR, and in particular WP:SYNTHESIS. You are drawing conclusions not made in any single source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Where do you think that the various authors' came up with using the term "satellite state"? Is it synthesis to assume that they are referring to the same concept when they are speaking about it in international relations - I thought it was common sense. Look, there are many definitions by different authors for a single thing - and many differencies are merely idiosyncratic. TFD should know from experience on the Socialism article of the wild complexity of definitions - but that DOESN'T mean that underlying concepts do not exist - these underlying concepts are addressed in many of the sources - and unless none of us have been paying attention, I know that all of you understand what is implied by the term "satellite state" - namely major subordination to a controlling power that the state associates with out of its obligation to obey that state and out of its own desire of its government for protection and support - Andy before you say it, yes this statement by me cannot be used in the article - but it is a good condensed summary of what a satellite state is. When I can find a detailed scholarly work on the topic or a UN document describing what a satellite state is, I will present it.--R-41 (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"When"? I think you mean "If"... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do remember Andy what I told you earlier, I've looked through JSTOR sources for a university study that describe and use the term satellite state as a technical term (eye wink by me) - the only reason I can't use them is because I would be breaking the law by publishing sources that are only avaliable to universities and because they can't be viewed here online would be considered unverifiable and without the source you can rightly call it "original research". So I am forced to look for substitutes.--R-41 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no law against naming sources and providing summaries or brief passages. TFD (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I earlier told you the source that describes satellite status in the case of Mongolia recognized as the first satellite state of the Soviet Union and a model for future satellite states of the Soviet Union, that was from a JSTOR source, you rejected it on an unrelated issue that it used the archaic term "Outer Mongolia". The whole reason why the source stated "Outer Mongolia" was used is because of a territorial dispute between "Outer Mongolia" and the Republic of China that held Inner Mongolia 7 or 8 years earlier when it controlled mainland China - it still maintained its claims on it AND Outer Mongolia after 1949; a similar issue is that of "Vardar Macedonia" representing the Republic of Macedonia versus "Aegean Macedonia" representing the Greek province of Macedonia. Please reconsider your rejection of it - it was written when the dispute was not resolved, civilization is thousands of years old, I don't see how a minor name change in referring to the name of a country in the last fifty years is that big of an issue.--R-41 (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you really not understand the difference between a single source using a term and that same term being universally recognised as having the same precise meaning? In any case, there are plenty of editors with access to JSTOR - give us a proper citation, and we can get it looked at. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a very detailed source on the topic of satellite states - that's why I specifically mentioned that one. I'll give it to TFD soon if he cannot find it earlier in this discussion - he may find it when he next logs in, but what I would really like from you Andy is that source I've been asking you for that says that "satellite state" is a just a metaphor, after all you ask me and Collect for sources on whether it is a technical term, you don't have double standards do you?--R-41 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You've already provided one yourself: 'A satellite state is a country that lies in the "orbit," metaphorically, of a larger, more powerful country, meaning that it owes political allegiance or economic tribute to the more powerful state'. [30]. More to the point, this source makes abundantly clear that it considers 'satellite state' to be a matter of opinion, not fact, as I've already pointed out. And for the umpteenth time, I don't have to disprove anything. You are arguing that the DDR should be described as a 'satellite state' in the infobox because this is an academic technical term. You have been asked to provide sources to back up your argument. It is for those who wish to include material to provide sources when asked. Nobody is obliged to go around hunting for disproof of unsourced assertions...AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I told you before that it is referring to the "orbit" as metaphorical because the Eastern European countries didn't literally rip themselves off the ground and fly around in the air or in space in a literal gravitational orbit around the Soviet Union. Oh and by the way I thought that you had the standard that we needed more than one source, that's what you just demanded of me minutes ago, but I guess you yourself have already thrown that standard out the window in a matter of minutes.--R-41 (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

In your opinion. And I note that you ignore entirely my point about the source (which you provided) making clear that 'satellite state' is a contested characterisation, not an incontrovertible fact. Anyway, are you going to provide the sources necessary to support your assertion that this is a neutral academic term, or not? Unless you do, this whole discussion is a waste of time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, yes Andy in my opinion I do not seriously believe that the authors were referring to countries flying around in the air in a gravitational orbit around the Soviet Union. Just as I seriously doubt that puppet states literally involve a large life-size hand-puppet of a world leader of a state being literally directed by the hand of a real leader of another country.--R-41 (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) When in doubt, read a dictionary <g>. [31] includes: a country under the domination or influence of another. [32] someone or something attendant, subordinate, or dependent; especially: a country politically and economically dominated or controlled by another more powerful country. [33] etc. All seem to include the definition which appears to be applied to the DDR by RS sources. Collect (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"...or influence..."! That is a really helpful definition then, isn't it. I think it would be reasonable to say that currently Germany 'influences' France, and France 'influences' Germany, in that they tend to discuss matters affecting both with each other. Which one is the satellite of the other? (And BTW, the fact that a dictionary defines a word is no proof that the usage always matches the definition) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you are using "influence" is a much weaker sense than the definition has - and there is no question that the DDR was "dominated" by the USSR by any place I can find. [34] the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others seems to fit the usage pretty well. Would you prefer an effect of one person or thing on another, 2. the power of a person or thing to have such an effect ? Or a: the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command b: corrupt interference with authority for personal gain [35]? Perhaps 1.The power to affect, control or manipulate something or someone; the ability to change the development of fluctuating things such as conduct, thoughts or decisions - seems the term is not as weak as you might like <g>. It is not related to "discussing" but with exertion of a power over another. Collect (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, in relation to this RfC

It seems to me that we have got rather bogged down in minuteae over this issue, while missing the wider picture. As it is, the proposal is to add 'satellite state' to the 'status' field in the Template:Infobox_Former_Country in the article. The first thing to note is that the template does not include 'satellite state' as a parameter for the field, and as the description fror the 'status' field makes clear, this field is intended to describe a formal relationship: "Status describes the relationship between the political entity and other entities, whether colonies to an empire, the (colonial) empire itself, countries with special status by the League of Nations or the UN, etc". And note that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes makes clear that fields should "summarize key facts", and that fields are inappropriate where there is "more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article". A simple, bald, assertion in the infobox that the DDR was a 'satellite state' that wasn't accompanied by text in the article body that made clear that this was an opinion (albeit widely expressed), rather than a description of a formal relationship would be misleading, at minimum, and with such clarification, is clearly self-contradictory. On this basis, I suggest that insertion of the term 'satellite state', which has no legal, diplomatic, or other formal significance and is instead a subjective description, is a violation of core Wikipedia principles. It would seem to me that any legitimate use of the term 'satellite state' in the infobox would require at minimum a revision to the template (though I'd oppose this most strongly), and ought actually be reflected in a revision to MoS/Infoboxes too - both of which would require wided community input, and would undoubtedly lead to further attempts to insert subjectivity into infoboxes elsewhere. On this basis, I suggest that this RfC be closed as an inappropriate attempt to violate policy via a 'consensus to ignore it', and that if contributors wish to discuss revising the template and/or the MoS, they should do it in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. In fact, the clear consensus as I see it is to use the term "Satellite state" ("Satellitenstaat" per many RS sources, including sources from the DDR itself. Cheers, but I rather think the number of conttributors to the discussion makes for a sufficiently broad cross-section of editors to be followed. BTW, Wikipedia is not a "bureaucracy." I incvite any admin to close the RfC and note the consensus therein. Collect (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

!votes 18 aye, 7 nay (one of each is a "mixed vote" to a greater or lesser extent - thus one who favours the RfC might count 19 to 6, one opposed might get all the way to 17 to 8.) Collect (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the hopeless confusion over exactly what it is we are supposed to be deciding (note that the RfC wording was changed halfway through the discussion), I fail to see how there can be much of a consensus for anything. In any case, your vote count is irrelevant. The RfC is proposing that we violate policy, and pointing that out has little to do with "bureaucracy" - it has instead to do with core Wikipedia principles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@Andy. Look again. The consensus is loud and clear, it is to use the term "Satellite state". Caden ^cool 18:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If so, then the consensus is to violate Wikipedia policy - and invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Cite the precise policy you wish to invoke please, and reasoning therefor. Collect (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly - Wikipedia:Five pillars:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

One other point: If we are going to cite sources for a definitive assertion that the DDR was a 'satellite state', can we at least try to find sources that actually say the same thing. Of the 9 currently cited, at least 3 make no such unequivocal assertion, and several are highly questionable. Should we really be using "an analysis of the post and telephone control" as a source on this matter? Or a tertiary source like a "Concise Encyclopaedia of World History"? Or B. V. Rao's (who he?) "History of Modern Europe Ad 1789-2002: A.D. 1789-2002" which seems to use the phrase in passing - and which may even be a self-published work (it gives no impression whatsoever of any academic rigour, to me at least)? And since when is a source "Germany: the long road west, 1933-1990" that writes that "Many East Germans identified [the DDR] as an artificial state and a Stalinist puppet regime of the Soviet Union" anything other than an assertion about the opinion of "Many East Germans". (And not a very helpful one at that. How many?). There is no lack whatsoever of sources expressing an opinion regarding the relationship between the DDR and the USSR, but can we at least attempt to cherry-pick select some that actually assert it as fact if we are going to do the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And finally, I think it needs to be pointed out that User:R-41, who had been one of the most vociferous supporters of putting 'satellite state' in the infobox seems to have conceded that it instead needs to be discussed, as opinion, in the article: see the 'Scrap the infobox "status text" section, put in the intro that East Germany is widely recognized as having been a satellite state' section below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

i suggest the whole "Satellite state" dispute should be discussed in ONE talkpage

*the whole "Satellite state" dispute (all eastern block countries) should in my opinion be discussed in ONE talkpage as spreading it everywhere creates chaos and confusion Heonsi (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note Heonsi has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Chaosname [36]. --TFD (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Article talk pages are used to discuss the relevant article. We cannot decide here what goes in other articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It is always possible to create an article sub talk page for a specific discussion or as a workshop area. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That isn't what Heonsi is suggesting, as I understand it. Instead he/she seems to be suggesting that we discuss all 'satellite state' articles for the whole of eastern Europe on one page. I'm not sure whether this is a good idea in principle, but I'd think that it would be improper to make decisions regarding the other articles here. As it is, there is an RfC going on regarding at least one other article, and we certainly can't ignore that, and try to decide the matter here instead. Perhaps Heonsi could clarify exactly what is being proposed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to provide a link to any other pages where a similar dsicussion might be taking place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I really like the idea Heonsi is proposing. All eastern block countries who were satellite states of the Soviet Union should be discussed on one talk page to resolve the matter. Maybe we can set up links or something like that and have it all take place on one page. Caden ^cool 14:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC at Talk:Communist_Romania#Request_for_comment. The other articles affected (as far as I'm aware) are People's Republic of Hungary, People's Republic of Bulgaria, Mongolian People's Republic and Republic of Poland - all of which recently had the term 'satellite state' added to the infobox by R-41 (without any talk page discussion whatsoever, and usually based on the same crappy source (Rao, B. V. (2006), History of Modern Europe Ad 1789-2002: A.D. 1789-2002) - which seems to use the phrase in passing. In any case, R-41 seems already to have conceded my point that 'satellite state' is subjective, and doesn't belong in the infobox [37]. It should also be noted that the template documentation doesn't propose the term 'satellite state' as an option of the field anyway. See Template:Infobox_Former_Country#Status, and note the field description: "Status describes the relationship between the political entity and other entities, whether colonies to an empire, the (colonial) empire itself, countries with special status by the League of Nations or the UN, etc" - clearly describing a legal relationship, which 'satellite state' isn't. If we are to discuss the issue anywhere, the template talk page would be the logical place - though I'd suggest that it would take a very strong argument to convince people that we should be adding subjective terms to infoboxes, given that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes states that fields should "summarize key facts". If someone wishes to propose that we ignore this, I'd suggest it would require a revision to the MoS - something that I suspect would be vigorously opposed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

(Note: User:Heonsi has now been blocked for edit-warring, vandalism and sock-puppetry) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually they were the sock of a banned user. As such any you may remove this entire thread if desired, and revert any edits they may have made here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that others have responded, it should probably be kept open, I'd think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, so Mewulwe and the banned user Heonsi have been edit warring on the other Eastern Bloc state articles, rather than discussing their dispute in the talk page. By the way when I added the material on satellite state on the other Eastern Bloc articles, I had no idea that controversy would erupt, few editors were editing those articles - but now a hellstorm is starting because of this article's debate. And Mewulwe and Heonsi were engaging in the same kind of edit warring that Kudpung stopped here by placing a block on all editing. Let's bring up the issue of whether there should even be that controversial "status text" box in the former country infobox - to me that little box is so small and useless as there is no way to explain in detail there why a state is a certain status that I believe it's such a pain in the back that it should be removed from that infobox entirely, let such a statement be in the intro of the article that can have additional explanation. I'm going to bring up the issue of removing the status text section on the template talk page.--R-41 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, Andy, you claim that you support a statement in the article that includes scholarly sources stating that East Germany is widely recognized as being a satellite state of the Soviet Union, but that you oppose it being in the infobox. I believe I am now seeing eye-to-eye with you on that, but you claim that the "opposed" universally support this proposal. You might want to realize that Mewulwe at least appears to explicitly deny that East Germany was a satellite state and rejects the very term satellite state for any Eastern Bloc state that has been considered as such. I am concerned of further edit warring even if we do remove that useless tiny status text section from the former country infobox, because Mewulwe will still reject that there should be any mention that East Germany is widely recognized as being a satellite state of the Soviet Union.--R-41 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't support a claim that the DDR was 'widely recognized' as a satellite state - because it is subjective - you cannot 'recognize' an opinion as anything other than opinion. I support a claim that it was 'widely described' as a satellite state, and if anyone wishes to argue that the article shouldn't say this, I will oppose them. For what it's worth, I don't think the term 'satellite state' is particularly useful in the context of the DDR-USSR relationship (or any of the related ones - the AfD discussion on Talk:Communist Romania raises some interesting issues for that particular instance), because it oversimplifies a complex situation, and because the phrase has Cold War connotations that an encyclopaedia should best avoid - that however is my opinion, and I've already given policy-based arguments as to why we should avoid inserting our own opinions into articles. What is more important is to describe the relationship (or rather, to report how it has been described) in sufficient detail as to avoid the need for simplistic characterisations. We should present the arguments, and let readers decide for themselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Andy, it is "subjective" to you and only you. Caden ^cool 22:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And your evidence that the term 'satellite state' is an objective factual description of the relationship between the DDR and the USSR can be found where? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The relationship between East Germany and the USSR meets the OED definition of a satellite state. The citations there show that the meaning of the phrase has been stable for well over a century. There are numerous references here that the description has been used many times both in German and English. Claiming that East Germany was not a satellite state would be a fringe belief, and a peculiar one at that. I still support the use of "satellite state" within the article. It does not need to be watered down as an opinion. I still oppose the use in the infobox for the same reasons given by R-41. We should not reduce complicated and changing relationships to a word or two. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

TFD, could you clarify? I'm not even sure whether you intended that as a reply to what I wrote. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You have a source that explains what a satellite state is and another source that describes the relationship between the GDR and the USSR, which you conclude meets the criteria. That is synthesis and you need a source that makes this conclusion. TFD (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

R-41 has provided many references which state that the GDR was a satellite of the USSR. It doesn't seem like synthesis to conclude from these that the GDR was indeed a satellite state. My reference to the OED was simply intended as confirmation that this phrasing is neither unclear nor propagandistic. I really don't think there is any synthesis involved. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not the business of Wikipedia, to answer the question, whether the GDR was a Satellite state or not. Full Stop.

The obsession with this question is pre-encyclopedic: a pattern of theory-finding in itself. Further pre-encyclopedic strategies in the discussion above: to vote or crusade for one of the definitions; to imply or find or impose a theory, why one of the definitions must dominate the article.

Encyclopedically appropriate: The article to the lemma can describe, how East Germany/ the GDR was described in different sources, in different times, in different ideologies, in influential scientific works and discourses on all sides of the fence.

Drop the appropriate sentences in the body of the article. After the material has developed, the keywords go to the intro in ultrashort. Keep them off the infobox, if you want to be universally encyclopedic. That's all. --fluss (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately that view can be taken to extremes. Should we state "some people have described the sky as blue" or should we say "the sky is blue"? The former phrasing is often pushed by people with the fringe view that the sky is green. The current argument may be viewed as a discussion on whether this is such an extreme case. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

'Blueness' can be determined objectively (it is a function of the frequencies of visible light). 'Satellite stateness' cannot be - it is a subjective description, and no matter how widely this description is seen as valid, it is still subjective: it has no legal, diplomatic or other formal definition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not a good line of argument, Andy. There's no scientific test which will tell us whether humans will label an object as "blue". All we have for any term, (unless we do mathematics) are dictionary definitions. Try "water has been described as being wet" versus "water is wet". We have to go with the dictionary definition and acknowledge that human language doesn't have the precision of predicate calculus. Dingo1729 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In other words, Dingo1729, since absolute truth is unknowable, we are free to put in any rubbish we want. TFD (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you are not free to put in any rubbish you want. And I would appreciate if you would stop doing so. Dingo1729 (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Since when have 'dictionary definitions' been objective? Actually, we know for a fact they aren't, in regard to a definition of the term 'satellite state' - we have already seen contradictory definitions cited on this talk page. Is it "a country under the domination or influence of another" [38], which would seem to include almost any country other than a superpower, or is it a country that is " dependent on or controlled" by another, as the OED seems to suggest? And how do you determine where 'influence' ends, and 'control' begins? Dictionaries don't define words and phrases, they describe how they are used... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We do not in fact consult with dictionaries and make our own calls, that is synthesis. TFD (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Dingo1729 writes that "R-41 has provided many references which state that the GDR was a satellite of the USSR". R-41 has now accepted that this is an over-simplistic characterisation of a complex issue, and as such shouldn't be stated as fact in the infobox. [39] AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have diverted into a rather sterile cul-de-sac. If you check, you will see that from my very first post to this page I have supported removing the "satellite" statement from the infobox. So we are in agreement on that, yes? However, I am happy with the current wording "East Germany was one of the satellite states of the Soviet Union." in the lede. On the other hand you wish to change this to "East Germany has been described as one of the satellite states of the Soviet Union." or something like that. Is that a correct summary of our (rather minor) disagreement? I'm asking because I'm getting rather lost in the undergrowth about synthesis and absolute truth and definitions of dictionary definitions. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This 'rather minor disagreement' is all we were ever debating, as far as I'm aware. Nobody has suggested that we can't say that the DDR was frequently described as a satellite state - it was, and we have plenty of sources to that effect. It would seem entirely remiss not to say this in the article, though it should only go into the lede if we are going to discuss the issue in more detail later in the article - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, your reference to the infobox confused me, when that issue had already been settled. Should we make an edit request for that or wait until the article is unprotected? Dingo1729 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The RfC on the infobox question is still open - though, as I've noted above, the whole issue has got hopelessly confused regarding what the RfC was actually supposed to be about. As for making an edit request regarding adding material to the article body, I think we'd best try to come to a consensus regarding what we want added first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In reply to my remark above Dingo asked: Should we state "some people have described the sky as blue" or should we say "the sky is blue"? Please excuse, I am not a native speaker, my logic is not calculating for extreme uses, it is just meant for illustrating Wikipedia rules of thumb: Writing in Wikipedia that „Lenin described imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism” is encyclopedic, whereas stating in an article in Wikipedia that „Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism” is theory-finding. My 2pence, I won't stir up further miles of discussion here.--fluss (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Trial to express it better --fluss (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Before I duck and run away … IMHO the infobox is for precise facts like: Member of the Warsaw Pact; form of government people's republic; and so on. The same for other comparable states. Information without bias, to let the lemma be sorted by the reader. The different flavours of the term Satellite state, regarding the GDR are „encyclopedically thrilling” and therefore in the body of the article should be explicitly mentioned. Whereas the basics of the term are cleared by reference to the existing lemma Satellite state.--fluss (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2012 (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) 11:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Misallocation of editors' time

I'm pleased to see that so many editors know of the existence of this article. But what a pity more of us aren't engaging in the task of improving it rather than arguing about satellite status, above. The article has improved since I last saw it, but there's quite a way to go (referencing, to start with). The WP.de article is food for thought. Tony (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes - agree - so many kilobytes wasted on something that is not going to change in the teaching in universities, high schools or genuine academic historical writings. HammerFilmFan (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing how much time is spent arguing that terms which are well understood and widely used in scholarship are imprecise, evolving, or—the best—words strung together to form a "label" with only "opinion" as to what it means. And anything descriptive applied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War is Cold War propaganda, any continued use of such descriptive terms is a Cold War hangover, etc., etc., etc. While it's a pity, it's also quite enlightening the extent to which editors will go to denounce reputable, appropriately descriptive, accounts of history. And I won't even get started on the penchant for precision absent of information, as in "History of X (years)", can't say what those years really were, might offend some dead despotic power, besides, we all "know" what "those years" "mean." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To-do list

Dear colleagues, I wonder whether we might construct a list of important approaches for improving this article over the next few months. May I suggest the following, to start with?

• Full copy-edit (I will do this if no one else volunteers)
• Ref audit for completeness and reliability.
• Image audit (I can look at the placement and sizing of images, I guess)
• Compare with WP.de article (and indeed the other major articles on this topic in other language-WPs)

Your thoughts? Please add to the list above if you wish. Tony (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)