Talk:East Germany

The correct name of the former state is DDR/GDR

This article should refere to the former sovreign state of DDR recognised as a soveriegn state by most countries in the world including the BRD, and later merged into iBRD as new member states of BRD.

The title East Germany is a geographical term and has nothing to do with the sovereign state of DDR, more thamn its location. The specific characteristics of DDR was not that it ws the eastern part of todays BRD but the political body of the DDR, everything that has to be mensioned about DDR is its political body and its name is DDR (not GDR that is an English translation and should be refered to as englsih expression of the name DDR together with the full name of it.

There are certainly people that did not like to (and do not like to) recognised DDR as a soveriegn recognised state, but Wikipedia is not in the political argumentation business. We just observe there was a sovereign internationally recognised state DDR that ended and its reains merged into the BRD as new federal states of the BRD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

East Germany is still existing today as a number of fedral states in the BRD and DDR do not exsist today, and DDR is the topic here and not East Germany. The title shoudl be DDR and nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We use common names on Wikipedia. Thus, the article "Mexico" (the common name in English) rather than "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" (the official "correct" name of the country). In English, people almost always referred to Deutsche Demokratische Republik as "East Germany". In more official contexts, "German Democratic Republic" was sometimes used. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal international documents in English, such as the English text of the Helsinki Declaration, use the term "German Democratic Republic". "East Germany" is a common informal term for the same country. The term Deutsche Democratische Republik, or DDR, is correct in German, but it is like calling the Soviet Union the "Sovetsky Soyuz". Sovetsky Soyuz is quite correct in Russian but not at all common in English. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• When is this perennial discussion going to stop? Have either of you bothered to look at the pages and pages and pages of talk archives here? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want to stop the discussion, Kudpung? 37.247.9.228 has made a GF comment about the article, which SummerPhD, Rjensen and I have responded to. Isn't that what talk pages are for? Re your other question, yes, I did have look at the talk page archives.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"correct" in Wiki language means what the RS in English actually use. They use "East Germany." The role of editors at Wikipedia is to follow the RS as closely as possible. Rjensen (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand these arguments when the country still exists, but c'mon, it's over... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This article still has to be renamed. Let's finally do it! Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be contrary to the consensus repeatedly established here. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Claiming this article is about East Germany (like Northern Germany), but really, this is about a former country ... are you kidding me? Totally misleading and no discussion needed, sorry. I just wanted to move it to German Democratic Republic but I can't find the button to do it?!?! How is that done? --93.133.91.119 (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on Reliable Secondary Sources as of 2013, and they mostly prefer "East Germany" as the books in the bibliography demonstrate. Legalistic arguments made up by editors off the top of their heads as presented above carry no weight in Wikipedia--only reliable secondary sources, please.

Neither the abbreviations DDR nor BRD were recognized by the Federal Republic of Germany. Those abbreviations were used in communistic propaganda exclusively. So far I know, no Western Country has recognized, considering the Hallstein Doctrine the East German State officially. Flk-Brdrf (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Btw: Even the Simple English Wiki calls it simple:German Democratic Republic. As well as practically any other wiki in the respective language. The Cold War era is over, ladies. I say: Let's finally move it! -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No objections prospected, I'm making the move of this page in about 3 days. Cheers Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review the many objections made in the talk page archives. I will revert any move that does not go through the formal requested moves process. —Kusma (t·c) 17:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

To repeat the objection I apparently didn't make: We use common names on Wikipedia. Thus, the article "Mexico" (the common name in English) rather than "Estados Unidos Mexicanos" (the official "correct" name of the country). In English, people almost always referred to Deutsche Demokratische Republik as "East Germany". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, 30 years ago, people did. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, today there is much less reason to refer to it. When it is referred to, though, people call it "East Germany". Google news search for "German Democratic Republic" gives 61 hits. "East Germany" is 4,680. "German Democratic Republic" on the first page of results is used by:

• Today's Zaman
• RT (blog)
• World Politics Review
• Toronto Sun
• Ottawa Community News
• AllAfrica.com
• The German Times Online ("as East Germany was officially known")
• Insidethegames.biz (blog)
• BDlive
• The Media Co-op (blog)

"East Germany" is used by:

• Huffington Post
• The Local.se
• AFP
• The Malay Mail
• Deutsche Welle
• Morning Star
• Reuters
• Haaretz
• Santa Maria Times (blog)
• Fresno Bee

In the blubs on the search result page, 4 of the first 10 "German Democratic Republic" pages explain that it is the formal/official name of East Germany. 0 of the 10 "East Germany" blubs give "German Democratic Republic". On its page for "Germany" (that's what most people call the "Federal Republic of Germany"), the CIA World Factbook says, "West Germany and East Germany unified on 3 October 1990". Yes, the Toronto Sun used "German Democratic Republic", but Reuters, Huffington Post, Wired, The Guardian, Business Week, Time and a host of others currently favor "East Germany", the current common name for the former country. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Since most of the blatantly uninformed, ignorant and buttlazy journalists come here first, of course they tend to use East Germany - since that's the Wiki lemma. ;) To me as an East German, it's simply insulting to be called upon in the same breath with a highly criminal and autocratic state. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the common name for things. That you feel the vast majority of journalists are whatever is irrelevant. I do not believe that Reuters, Time, AFP, etc. turn to Wikipedia to set their manuals of style, but it's a moot point. That you feel there is a great wrong to be righted by avoiding a possible linguistic connection is also a moot point. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Totalitarian rule (revisited)

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a term employed by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life whenever necessary.

Isn't this an accurate description of the DDR? If there are some subtleties that make this inaccurate, perhaps they could be explained in the article.

I appreciate that the use of this term has been discussed before, but to completely ignore the term in the context of the DDR seems odd. 185.14.167.6 (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The totalitarianism article on the German wiki says it is controversial whether the term is applicable to the DDR:

Umstritten ist in der Forschung, ob der Begriff etwa auf die DDR angewendet werden kann. Eckhard Jesse (1994) wandte das Konzept von Juan José Linz, der anhand verschiedener Merkmale totalitäre Diktaturen von autoritären unterscheidet, auf die DDR an. Er kam zu dem Schluss, dass die DDR unter Walter Ulbricht als totalitär bezeichnet werden kann. Unter Erich Honecker habe die DDR aufgrund der abnehmenden Ideologisierung selbst innerhalb der SED sowie der abnehmenden Mobilisierung der Bevölkerung diesen Charakter zunehmend verloren und sich zu einem autoritären System entwickelt.

185.14.167.6 (talk) 10:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite. All the scholars agree it was totalitarian into the late 1980s, as shown by power of STASI. But in late 1980s its control weakened -- as evidenced by the massive demonstrations it did not control. It TRIED to be totalitarian in the last days but had lost its authority and tried to save itself by calling on Russian troops (1989) and Gorbachev said NO. Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

" All the scholars agree it was totalitarian into the late 1980s, as shown by power of STASI"? That seems a rather sweeping assertion to make, and appears not to be borne out - see the section in the German Wikipedia article on the DDR [1] entitled 'Historisch-politologische Einordnung' for several cited examples to the contrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

that passage in the German Wikipedia article is based on a 1968 book by Ludz (he died in 1979)-- long before the secret archives became available in 1990s. Rjensen (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The section also cites Mary Fulbrook, writing in 2008, amongst others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

“All the scholars agree it was totalitarian into the late 1980s” Hannah Arendt did not agree. Furthermore “totalitarism” is a disputed concept in the political sciences. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a good discussion of how analysis has changed at Paul Cooke (2005). Representing East Germany Since Unification: From Colonization to Nostalgia. Berg. p. 42.. At first scholars emphasized "totalitarian" controls over every aspect of life. Then in the 1980s, led by Marxists like Mary Fulbrook, there was an argument that there were some niches where people were slightly freer (inside the family, inside churches). However, after 1990 the pendulum swung back again and "the totalitarian model once again came to the fore." That is where we are now. Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC).

"Marxists like Mary Fulbrook"? Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

And incidentally, I fail to see how Cooke writing in 2005 could have made any assertions regarding analysis published in 2008... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Fulbrook identifies herself with Marxism [Vision and Method in Historical Sociology p 170, 203] and her position on East Germany has been pretty much the same in recent years. the point is that the general consensus among most scholars (with Fulbrook in the minority) has been on the "totalitarian" side since 1990 Rjensen (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If Andy's concerns have been addressed, perhaps we could add to something to this effect to the article? 185.14.167.6 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

As yet, Rjensen has provided no source for the assertion that "the general consensus among most scholars (with Fulbrook in the minority) has been on the 'totalitarian' side since 1990". AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the article is more wrong to not mention totalitarianism at all, than to mention it. If there is no scholarly consensus (or at least no reliable sources that say so), why not follow the approach used on the German wiki by mentioning the two perspectives? 185.14.167.6 (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I suggested before that the article could be much improved by replacing it entirely by a translation of the German Wiki article, and on that basis, I have to agree. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy, do you think East Germany was never a totalitarian regime or do you object to the lack of sources? 185.14.167.6 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Your previous comment answers this question. 185.14.167.6 (talk)

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

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

• Note 184.145.64.67 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of R-41 [2]. --TFD (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

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

I suggest you write to all the RS sources referred to in prior discussions and tell them that they are wrong. "Satellite" was frequently used with regard to the DDR. [3] page 165 etc. [4] page 14 (the DDR vied with Albania for the title of most provincial Soviet satellite.), [5] page viii etc. ( The German satellite is the only Communist land where the results of propaganda. ...), [6] page 298 etc. ( The DDR was the most vulnerable satellite of all.) and so on from reliable publisheds (OUP is generally highly regarded, etc.) Collect (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Actually, fairly well-defined [7], and a large number of political science references -- it generally refers to a state which does not have full autonomy for making decisions. The DDR decidedly failed to have "full autonomy" while the Soviets made the decisions. And when the officials of the DDR stated that they did not have autonomy, I suggest it is disingenuous to say that they were now lying about what they could and could not do. In addition, the released Soviet archives make clear that the DDR was far from autonomous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prior discussion - RfC and clear consensus.

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

An RfC which was never formally closed. Anyway, voting to state subjective opinion as fact is hardly compatible with Wikipedia policy. But like I said earlier, removing this relic of cold-war rhetoric from the infobox is probably a waste of time, regardless of policy. There are far too many contributors more concerned with imposing their own subjective POV for it to stay out for long, and accordingly this article is going to remain the unencyclopaedic opinion piece it clearly is. Hopefully at least some readers will recognise it for what it is, and look elsewhere for material on the subject that doesn't tell them exactly what they have to think, and let them think for themselves. From what Google translate makes of it, the German-language Wikipedia article [9] on the subject appears to at least attempt impartiality, if only by indicating that there is a diversity of views on the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. [10] DISSOLUTION THE CRISIS OF COMMUNISM AND THE END OF EAST GERMANY Charles S. Maier; PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS; PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY page 13 Even from more compact quarters at the beginning of its long domination, the ZK supervised the transition to a satellite. page 53 It is safe to say that without the potential for Soviet intervention, none of the satellite regimes would have endured.
2. [11] Germany's Cold War: The Global Campaign to Isolate East Germany, 1949-1969; By William Glenn Gray; UNC; Many mentions for satellite ...

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

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

The concept of "satellite nation" goes back well before the Cold war, and is particularly applicable, according to reliable sources, to East Germany. But it is not our opinions which count, it is what the reliable sources clearly state that we use, even if it not the "truth". [12] White's Political Dictionary, 1947: A small state that is more or less dependent upon, and which ties its policies to those of, a larger power. Thus Cuba, pre-1960, was a "US satellite" etc. Canada was a "British satellite" for many years. If the autonomy is dubious, then "satellite" is reasonable. And the former rulers of the DDR did, in court, swear that they were not autonomous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...And no source for it being an 'overwhelming consensus' either - just your vague and confusing assertions regarding a search you did on Questia. Which is WP:OR. And irrelevant to the point that - as you have just made clear in an edit summary [13] - this consensus (if that is what it is) is 'opinion', not fact. Since when does Wikipedia assert opinion as fact? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, you seem to have forgotten that you yourself provided a source suggesting that the term 'satellite state' was merely metaphorical. [14] I'm not sure Wikipedia policy on sourcing extends to permitting metaphors in infoboxes. If it does, it opens up some interesting possibilities... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Discretionary sanctions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does - but as this archived thread indicates [15], there seems to have been no actual evidence offered that it is merited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Keri added a sanctions template 2 December 2012[16] and Bbb23 changed it to discretionary sanctions the following day.[17] The same day Kudpung told us that discretionary sanctions applied. But placing a sanctions warning does not bring the article under sanctions. Incidentally a current SPI may make this discussion moot. TFD (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

perceptions of the USA

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

I am well aware of 'the rules'. As for 'my opinion', I could start by citing what Schnoor himself writes - see here: [18] This seems to be the same book, but is clearly a different edition, with a differently-titled chapter by Schnoor. It is a heck of a lot more nuanced than the over-simplistic rhetoric of your section. For example, Schnoor writes (p. 521) regarding youth policy that there was "a shift from the intense opposition of the 1950s and 1960s to Western, above all American, influence to an effort at partial appropriation and domestication of that influence. Although rock and beat music had previously been denounced as the Trojan horse of the class enemy, a sometimes incompetent bureaucracy responsible for cultural and entertainment policy now had to devote itself to taming and even promoting it." This seems incompatible with your assertion that "[t]he official Communist media ridiculed the modernism and cosmopolitanism of American culture, and denigrated the features of the American way of life, especially jazz music and rock 'n roll". Since I don't have access to the material you cite, and Google doesn't provide the complete chapter online, I can't compare the two, but it seems odd that Schnoor should be contradicting himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)