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)

No, it's not. We're not living behind the iron curtain anymore and I won't give up on this, no matter how long it takes. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not about the "correct name". This is not about your feelings. This is not about outlasting anyone who would dare to oppose you. To change this and have it stick, you need to do one of two things:

1) Change Wikipedia's policy on the matter, which you see to have no interest in following or

2) Change common usage in English in the majority of reliable sources (I'd suggest starting with Reuters and Time).

This topic has failed repeatedly for years because it seeks to carve out a very local exception to a long-standing policy of broad applicability. If you manage to change it at any point through any other method, it will eventually be reverted to conform with our policy. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I have to agree with User:SummerPhD. This is the English language version of Wikipedia. In West Germany (FRG) East Germany was most of the time referred to as DDR (GDR) or amongst older people “die Zone” (the zone). In the English speaking world however the GDR was most commonly referred to as East Germany. If you feel insulted by that is not really Wikipedias problem as the term East Germany does not hold the sort of negative connotations you might associate with the term “Ostdeutschland”. --Catflap08 (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's all water under the bridge. Give it some more years and you won't be argueing like that anymore. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, the term for the East German mark was generally "OstMark" in the west -- not "DDRMark" or the like. And Merkel does not generally refer to "DDR" at this point either - I suspect the English usage is not going to change in the near future at all, especially since the former DDR government officials stated it was not actually an independent state. Collect (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The correct name ist German Democratic Republic, not East Germany or Ostdeutschland. --Label5 (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the proper name is "Deutsche Demokratische Republik". However, we use the common name in English language sources which is "East Germany". - SummerPhD (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the examples on the page that SummerPhD cited really applies to the case of the German Democratic Republic. The common names listed there were or are used (in the case of persons and countries) with the permission and sometimes even on request of their bearers. These people or countries simply call themselves by these names. Other examples are accepted versions in other languages, officially used abbreviations, or in the case of the scientific examples, so-called trivial names that are generally accepted also by scientists. The use of "East Germany", however, was frowned upon by the GDR government, as it was considered crude and insulting, and in diplomatic circles (whom we - in my opinion - should follow in such cases, because they are the experts!) the country was called "German Democratic Republic" (not the "East German ...") or short "GDR". Under this name, the country was a member of the United Nations. There was no official short or "common" form of the country's name as there is e.g. in the case of Poland, Mexico or France. The currency changed names over the course of time, but was never officially called "Ostmark", either. - Likewise, the use of "West Germany" is also incorrect, the country should be called the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) (not "... of West Germany") - this is also the correct long form of the name of today's Germany, although in this case the use of the short form is appropriate. The use of search engine results is flawed in this case, as these results are based on (often deliberately) incorrect terminology. Let's not follow bad examples from the increasingly distant past. --178.3.245.213 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Good grief what harm is done by calling the article “German Democratic Republic” and redirect “East Germany” to the article? Thereby the reader can still search the commonly used name “East Germany” AND -god beholds- indeed learn that the official was different. Bit of a catch 22 situation here--Catflap08 (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What harm is done by following our policy, using the common name and redirecting from "German Democratic Republic"?

Should we move apple to Malus domestica and Bill Clinton to William Jefferson Clinton? Where should Mexico go? México, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, United Mexican States, Estados Unidos Mexicanos de America, United Mexican States of America, Ciudad de Mexico, Distrito Federal, Federal District, District of the Federation, República Mexicana or Mexican Republic?

Long story short: We have a policy. If you would like to do something different, we need a better reason than "Why not?" - SummerPhD (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Its over 20 years since that state seized to exist east Germany its now the geographical description of the eastern parts of Germany (Federal Republic of Germany) – a look at the map helps a bit . Simple as that. In the light of the cold war this childish naming game may have made sense for some now it just seems rather redundant. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, the article is named "East Germany". This appears to agree with our policy: WP:COMMONNAME. To change the name of this article, there are three approaches I can think of:

1) Demonstrate that the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) is something other than "East Germany". (Others have looked into this, as discussed above. I don't think you have much hope here.

2) Work to change our policy. You will need a sizable consensus from throughout the project. The new policy will have to have some mechanism for dealing with issues like Mexico/México/Estados Unidos Mexicanos/United Mexican States/Estados Unidos Mexicanos de America/United Mexican States of America/ Ciudad de Mexico, Distrito Federal/Ciudad de Mexico/Distrito Federal/Federal District/District of the Federation/República Mexicana/Mexican Republic or whatever you think we should call the country most English speakers call "Mexico". This will involve a lot of long nights. You'll need lots of 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione.

3) Demonstrate that this topic is -- in some fundamental way -- different and merits an exception to our policy. A big pitfall here is special pleading. In addition to explaining why you feel we should change this article, you'll need to deal with the clear reasons for leaving it the way it is. Additionally, should we change Soviet Union to "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or "Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik" or "Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик"? Why or why not?

Pick one of those options and pursue it if you wish. Repeatedly saying (essentially) "Please change it" won't get it done. The three options above at least could work. Good luck, you'll need it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I do understand where you are coming from, but how does one refer to east Germany in 2014 – appart from simply calling it eastern Germany? In this I mean the east of Germany and what formerly also once was the GDR? In Germany's current affairs east and west Germany is still an issue. I do get the point to consider commonly or colloquially used names via disambiguation page, but why not simply use the names under which countries are or were present in the UN? Its like reinventing the wheel. Same goes for instance for the infobox in the article on West Germany. Its factually wrong. In the Infobox it reads “Federal Republic of Germany” and that it existed until 1990 – this is false, as the the Federal Republic of Germany founded in 1949 still exists, the five New states of Germany simply acceded the Federation. So do carry on if you like but both articles do contain factual errors. --Catflap08 (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

How one refers to eastern Germany is not at issue here (and "western Virginia" vs. West Virginia hasn't really been an issue over the past 150 years). (If you are going to insist on proper names, I'd assume you'd say "east (or eastern) Federal Republic of Germany". The issue here is WP:COMMONNAME. If you find fault with other articles, you will want to address those issues in those articles.

You and I do not agree on how we should determine the name to be used in the article. I believe you will find the general consensus supports my view. I am confident current policy supports my view. I've outlined the ways I believe you might be able to rename this article. I believe your chances are slim, but they are the only options I see. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well if I look up the term German Democratic Republic other sites name the term „East Germany“ as a synonym or merely a byname. In the end its not about Bill or William and so forth, but also that an articles title should be precise see: WP:CRITERIA WP:PRECISE. GDR defines a state that used to exist with no doubt. East or Eastern Germany will tend to confuse matters even more so in times to come. I mean some call the toilet commonly a bog still would be a bit odd to have that as the name for the article on toilets. Even in English the official name however was GDR – that is a fact. But do as you please.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The majority of reliable English language sources use "East Germany" and "toilet", not "German Democratic Republic" or "bog". As a result, Wikipedia uses East Germany and toilet even though the official name or the word used by some people might be different. If the majority of reliable English language sources called them "The Italian Chiefdom of Czar George W. Bush IV" and "electric fishwater boxes" Wikipedia would use those names. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Having said that some people commonly say Holland and mean the Netherlands. In this case the commonly used name properly describes a Dutch province in Wikipedia. Sorry your arguments do not make sense.I would call the Encyclopedia Britannica to be quite a reliable English language source by the way--Catflap08 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Common name says that neutrality should be considered. AFAIK this is the only country article that uses a derogatory title. Western nations used the term "East Germany" because they refused to accept the legitimacy of the GDR but changed their position after Ostpolitik. Common name also says, "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register...." Encyclopedia Britannica calls its article "German Democratic Republic",[1] as I imagine would most mainstream political encyclopedias and dictionaries published in the last 40 years. Note also that is more persuasive to present the appearance of neutrality when writing articles. If an article begins with a biased presentation then readers may question the neutrality of the overall article. If for example one picked up an article about Red China, Communist China or Mainland China, one would be less inclined to believe it. TFD (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!! Strictly speaking even the article “West Germany” should be deleted or rather merged with the an article on Federal Republic of Germany as if things are done correctly Germany and the Federal Republic of Germany are not necessarily the same thing from an historic point of view. In the end one could expect form Wikipedia to educate than just reflect what some call common knowledge. But this may be too much for some to bear. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"East" is derogatory?!?! I'm guessing the same powers favor West Virginia over East Timor. Should we rename West Germany because it it laudatory? What was the non-derogatory name for East Berlin? I, for one, have MUCH stronger emotions tied to "Nazi" than "East". Nevertheless, I find the title "Nazi Germany" to be descriptive and in accord with WP:COMMONNAME.

As we do not use "Red China" or "Communist China" and Mainland China is an explanation of the use of the term, we're wandering into straw man territory.

Yes, Britannica uses "German Democratic Republic" as the main title for its one sentence article on the subject. In substantial articles throughout, though, they slip into that supposedly derogatory "East Germany". For what it's worth (which isn't much), they prefer "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" over our Soviet Union.

Yes, WP:COMMONNAME does say that "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful", the main point remains that "...the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred."

As I previously mentioned, the CIA World Factbook, Reuters, Huffington Post, Wired, The Guardian, Business Week, Time and a host of others currently favor "East Germany".

Another Google news search gives me 63 uses of "German Democratic Republic", with 2 of the first ten being blogs using the term like this: "This is why totalitarian North Korea calls itself the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, why the police state of East Germany was the German Democratic Republic..."

A similar search for "East Germany" nets me thousands. (Google scholar is 129,000 verses 258,000. Regular Google is 435,000 verses 227,000,000.) Looking through the results very few of the "East German" ones are referring to a geographic portion of the current country, many of the "German Democratic Republic" results are East Germany results with parenthetic explanations that "German Democratic Republic" is the official name.

The WP:COMMONNAME is clearly "East Germany". - SummerPhD (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Well to be honest the article on “West Germany” is, excuse my wording, complete BS anyway. Wrong from beginning to Start as the Federal Republic of Germany has not seized to exist since 1949. Maybe you should refrain from the matter if it overexerts your knowledge on history, constitutional and international law. By all means Wikipedia should meet at least some standards and it might be a good idea to get editors involved versed on the matter. Arguing with West / East Timor, West Virginia and Bill vs William does not really help matters either. But the state of both articles West Germany and East Germany is somewhat sad and pathetic and does if anything bears testimony of simple and utter dilettantism.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

So as the user:SummerPhD seems the only one to uphold the articles name I have now asked for third opinions on the matter. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone lets say born in in the year 2000 looks up the term “East Germany” he or she should be led to a site that either leads to eastern Germany, the five new sates of Germany or the GDR. The term “East Germany” was never official and even before the end of the Cold War not used in an official setting. It was colloquially used, yes, but repeating a mistake again and again does not make it correct. Same goes for West Germany the term is obsolete – the Cold War is over. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

SummerPhD, your reply is all over the place. It is disingenuous to say ""East" is derogatory?!?!" "East Germany" is derogatory, and there is no need to explain why it is, merely that that was the intention. You hit the nail on the head when you quoted a blog in The Telegraph that explained "why the police state of East Germany was the German Democratic Republic..." The capital of the GDR btw was called "Berlin" or sometimes "Berlin Haupstadt der DDR". The state created from the British, American and French zones was called "Westberlin." TFD (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

"Communist state"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before an edit war starts

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

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

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

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

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

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