Talk:East Germany/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Discussions relating to the name of the country/article

The term "East Germany" is highly offensive and misleading. It is actually not East Germany, but Middle Germany, which was the term used in West Germany. East Germany is the name of Silesia, Pomerania, East Brandenburg, East- and West Prussia etc. Besides, "East Germany" was not the official name of the GDR. I propose we move this article to "German Democratic Republic", the official name of that state. Nico 02:09, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I propose we keep it exactly where it is. Irredentism is no reason to move it. Morwen 07:54, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

The DDR has always been called "East Germany" in English. Quit with the silliness, Nico.

john

19:46, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, "Middle Germany" was the name used in West Germany during the cold war. You are correct that DDR was nicknamed East Germany in English, but it was never the name of the state, and most articles here dealing with states use their official name or their official short name, like France, Spain, Germany. The short name of the German Democratic Republic was DDR, not East Germany. Nico 19:57, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Parden me? You're kidding with this middle germany thing? I've never personally heard someone refer to the DDR as middle germany. The conservatives used to call it "east zone", but "middle germany" was never accepted naming, not if you got over third reich. TRauMa 05:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the term Middle Germany ceased to be used much after the beginning of the

Oder-Neisse-Line as the border to Poland. Before this, the term Middle Germany was used to signify the claim to the former area of the German "Reich". Madcynic

20:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In this context, it is especially important to notice that at since quite a while (since the 80s) the use of the term "middle Germany" is politically charged to a significant amount: While, or rather: because, the majority accepted the recognition of the Oder-Neisse line, the far right opposed to it used the term explicitely to provoke those in favour of the term. Today, somebody with politically centered views will consider you as a probable

neo-nazi if you use the term, or at least as an "Ewiggestriger" (eternally-living-in-the-past, i.e. unwilling to learn from history). Actuelly I noticed that the term has become sufficeintly taboo to be now reintroduced into the German meaning with the harmless meaning of middle Germany in the sense of neither north nor south. Simon A.

20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ostmark. Morwen 21:06, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

And I cite the article: "Officially it was known as the Mark der DDR". Nico 01:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ostmark is an unusual name for Austria 89.57.48.160 13:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

See

Until 1990 German irredentists, mainly from families expelled from this territory, but also to many other Germans, the terms "eastern Germany" and "east Germany" referred to the area east of Berlin which had been settled by German-speaking communities before World War II including those east of the Oder-Neisse rivers. The area from Berlin to the Elbe river, or possibly slightly further west, was called "middle Germany" (Mitteldeutschland). This could cause confusion when translated into English because, in English usage between 1949 and 1990, "East Germany" referred exclusively the area of Germany known as the GDR.

Philip Baird Shearer

• Unless one is a long-term student of German language/culture/politics (so studying German affairs in the long-term context), I believe the term Middle Germany is old-fashioned, and un-politically correct; it's essentially a throwback phrase now, apart from keeping the German question alive sometime longer. Even federal German bodies use the words Westdeutschland, and Ostdeutschland. (RM21 03:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

Although see also Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk as the broadcasting station of the former East. German usage up to 1990 was that "Mitteldeutschland" was only used by revisionists. However after re-unification the term "Ostdeutschland" (East Germany) indeed was deemed insulting by some (no doubt this was the reason for the naming of "Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk"). This didn't stop Westgermans to replace "Ostdeutschland" by even more derogatory terms: "Dunkeldeutschland" (Dark Germany0 being a favourite, even today. Of course none of this affects English usage. 195.128.251.95 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article not at

I suspect the original choice was arbitrary. Move it if you wish. Fred Bauder 18:22, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

"Wik" disagrees (of course). I wish users like Wik would give others a chance to edit before they reverted… — Jor (Talk) 18:40, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, the article obviously belongs at GDR:

1.4 Use common names of persons and things

Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things

East Germany can have more meanings, but GDR always refers to the Soviet satellite state. — Jor (Talk) 18:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And of course there is no need for any disambiguation note if the page is at the proper location. Alas "Wik" moved it back before I could perform an edit or use the talk page to explain why. — Jor (Talk) 18:59, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The best argument for keeping it as East Germany is that West Germany is the logical counterpart.

--Ruhrjung 19:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Jor. East and West Germany were informal names used in everyday English, but carefully avoided by formal writers. While I do not object to the terms West and East Germany being used, but Wikipedia should be using the correct names in article titles. West Germany is indeed the logical counterpart to East Germany, that doesn't logically make it correct.--Timdownie 02:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "Wik" would like to explain why the disambiguation note

This article is about the Soviet satelite state. See Eastern Germany for lands in eastern Europe which at one point in time formed a part of a German nation

is "POV nonsense" according to him? I will not be dragged in his revert war games. — Jor (Talk) 18:45, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is POV nonsense. "East Germany" has a very clear meaning in English; there is no need for disambiguation.

The fact Wik gets into revert wars with other contributers over the term suggests that the name does have multiple meanings. — Jor (Talk) 18:52, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Satellite state" is POV. And the disambiguation is not needed at all, because "East Germany" in English has no other meaning. --Wik 18:49, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Satellite state just means under Soviet control which anyone of good faith would admit. While "eastern Germany" would probably not be used by an American, even one of German extraction, it might be used by a German using English. As a universal language, such use is contemplated. The use of "eastern Germany" in such a way is mainly of historical interest. Fred Bauder 01:57, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

User:Jor:

If this becomes a revert war, I'll have to revert to the last stable version of the page (12:30, 28 Mar 2004). On pages that attract recurring edit wars, new users often enter the fold. They tend to mean well, but they often bring up concerns that have already been resolved and/or addressed. From my recollection I believe that many of your concerns have already been discussed here on Talk:East Germany. You may want to read through this archive and get up to date on the page history so as to avoid an edit war. 172 19:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As stated I have no interests in Wik's revert war games. — Jor (Talk) 19:02, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that User:Wik is playing games. He is a serious user and among the handful of most active editors on WP. To him this was probably an issue of removing non-neutral language. 172 00:38, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The name of the nation state was German Democratic Republic, not "East Germany". Since when are colloquial names listed first? Please check other nations:

There are counterexamples, though. Egypt has 'Egypt'. Does the WikiProject template specifiy this? By the way, your examples there are both easily explained away as (a) holland is incorrect, even informally, and (b) 'America' is entirely contained within 'United States of America'. What we would really need to draw a precedent from is a country whose official name does not contain all the words from the the frequent, but correct name - East Timor and Greece would support your argument better. Morwen 19:17, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

As for Egypt, the nation's official English name is apparently "Arabic Republic of Egypt", which I feel is how the article should begin. However in light of the strong opposition to the change here I hesitate to edit there. Where is the project discussed? — Jor (Talk) 20:37, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries. Morwen 20:41, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. — Jor (Talk) 21:07, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It might be important to differentiate between state and nation. Few Germans would agree that East- and West-Germany made two nations, however two countries (a.k.a. two independent states), although some held East Germany to be less legitime than West Germany.

One argument for starting both articles on West- and East-Germany with these less formal names is that they emphasize the split of Germany in two halves re-united in 1990, which is and was an important aspect for many Germans, and also symbolically important for some non-Germans.
--Ruhrjung 20:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with these arguments in part, however by insisting on using the names West Germany vs East Germany the idea that these were not seperate states but rather two parts of one country is propagated — which undermines the legimity of both the pre-unification FRG and the GDR. (My use of "nation" in the first comment of this thread should probably be replaced with "country" — I am not 100% familiar with the exact meaning of the different terms). — Jor (Talk) 20:35, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The nation was called the German Nation. ;-) --Ruhrjung 20:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, West Germany should most certainly not be merged with Germany!

West Germany is as historically relevant as the Holy Roman Empire, the Hanseatic League, Deutscher Bund, Imperial Germany, the Weimar Republic, and the Third Reich!

— All of course according to my sincerest, but personal, opinion.

--Ruhrjung 20:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed it has historical reference, but the nation continued directly under the same name with the same government, so it should be treated as a historical entity — something like Federal Republic of Germany from 1945 to 1990, with "West Germany" redirecting to it and a note in the history of the FRG page where this period can be found. — Jor (Talk) 21:05, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So, we have an obvious conflict. How should that be solved?

(Meanwhile, you might want to read the articles on nation, state and country, please. ...Please!)

--Ruhrjung 21:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conflict? Sorry, I fail to see how discussing the FRG from 1945 to 1990 in its own article clashes with discussing the FRG as a whole. — Jor (Talk) 21:22, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conflict, yes, it seems so to me. Two or three, actually:

1. You want the East-Germany—West-Germany dichotomy to be less prominent by naming the articles Democratic Republic of Germany and Federal Republic of Germany, or something in that direction. I prefer status quo.
2. You think that plenty of country articles should have their formal long names (don't remember the exact English terminology right now, but the long form typically stated in CIA factbook. I think it's better to use the short forms most commonly known and used.
3. You think that "Germany formally under foreign occupation" and "Germany fully sovereign (after October 3rd 1990)" better are treated as similar entities, and hence should not have wikipedia articles of their own, only redirects. I wonder where that will end. Third Reich, Weimar Republic and Imperial Germany could well equally well be incorporated in that article too?

I find it highly unlikely that either you or I should be alone in our opinions, so we have the task in front of us to solve this difference somehow.

Any ideas how that could be done?

--Ruhrjung 21:44, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jumping back to the left...

1. You partially misunderstood: I want the states to be discussed at their proper names: West and East Germany must be kept as redirects, and the nicknames must be mentioned on the first line.
2. Yes, any state should be at its proper name: thus
   French Republic
   , with a redirect from France.
3. No, Germany from 1945 to present should be discussed at
   Federal Republic of Germany. However, since it is desired, what you call West Germany and which actually is a page about the FRG from 1945 to 1990—as opposed to the German Democratic Republic—should be at Federal Republic of Germany from 1945 to 1990 or a similarily titled article. Its contents can be what is now in West Germany! — Jor (Talk)
   21:53, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Proper name— by this I mean its official name in English. If no official English name exists I guess the CIA Factbook will work. — Jor (Talk) 21:55, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, at least that idea is consistent, although I find it otherwise unappealing. However, it would definitely amount to a change in long-established policy, as well as being an exception to the golden rule to 'use common names'. Please discuss this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries and see if you can get a consensus.

Done. — Jor (Talk) 22:08, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why no mention of the Stasi in this article? It was, after all, one of the most powerful forces in East German societyTDC 21:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There is a mention of it, in the history section. Maybe making it more prominent would help more people accept the article? Morwen 21:24, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I think I was viewing the wrong revision. TDC 21:49, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neither of the two versions of the article being flipped back and forth in this latest edit war adds significant information to the article not contained by the other. (although there is a bit of info about who first settled eastern Germany which varies). I think East Germany and West Germany are best as it is the common practice as you can see with South and North Korea and South and North Vietnam. Fred Bauder 18:28, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

"east germany" is a colloquialism, not the legal name, ergo should be "..., commonly called ...". the legal name is the inherently neutral one, anything else is both (possibly) pov, and unprofessional-looking to users. if it is itself controverted as the pov of the government which chose it, it can be replaced with "the name _____ was set by the [name of law] in [year] ..." in the first usage. this may be appropriate in this article: the ddr was a republik, wasn't democratische, and its citizens weren't uniformly deutsch in ancestry or language or religion.

the information regarding the markt is likely being inserted as part of the pov war, but is accurate and should be retained. Badanedwa 22:59, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

As user 82.83.132.165 stated further above, the term "markt" is a typo, meaning market in German. It should be "mark" or "march" instead. -- Doodee 12:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Its citizens were pretty uniformly deutsch in language, with the exception of the very small Sorbian minority. I'm not sure how you can be "Deutsch" in religion.

• "pretty" but not "uniform". german religion = pre-christian. Badanedwa 03:58, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think it should certainly remain at East Germany, and that a disambig at the top is unnecessary, but that the intro should be changed to "The German Democratic Federation (GDF), commonly known as East Germany", exactly like we have on East Timor. Actually I think all country articles should begin with the official English-language long form. We indeed have that at France or Finland or whatever. (I don't think we need original-language forms in the intro, we already have them in the table.) But again, that's for the intro, not the article title. -- Jao 20:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• i failed to note the native name in the box, that may obviate it in the intro. Badanedwa 03:58, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder why nobody complained about the suggestion here for a week, and then when I decided to go through it, it was reverted in eight minutes. Wik is welcome to explain why the current version is better. -- Jao 13:54, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Read up on this page, this has been discussed months ago. East Germany is the most common name, that's why it's naturally first. The usual format should be "<common name>, officially <official name>, is...". --Wik 14:09, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

The Republic of Korea (ROK; Korean: Daehan Minguk (Hangul: 대한 민국; Hanja: 大韓民國)) : 大韓民國)), commonly known as South Korea

The Federal Republic of Germany or FRG (German: Bundesrepublik Deutschland or BRD), informally known as West Germany

It looks like policy is pretty inconsistent on this. Personally, I think the official name should come first - that's what we do for personal names, where we list the full name, and then the commonly known as name.

john

16:18, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Never mind my last posting. I thought people were talking about moving the article. 172 17:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought this might be an issue to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, so I added it there. Let's see if something comes out of it... (And yeah, I'm with john on this, if you didn't notice.) -- Jao 18:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Did anything come of this? I haven't found any trace of a guideline or policy on this. A sample of countries and wikis suggests no consensus, and we could probably do with one. Rd232 19:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For personal names, we usually list the full name only, we don't say "George Walker Bush, commonly known as George W. Bush", we just list the full name, with the common name evident from the title. I think we should do the same for countries where the common short form is entirely contained in the long form, e.g. "The Republic of X is...", not "The Republic of X, commonly known as X, is...". However, where there are different names like East Germany and German Democratic Republic, the name that is used for the article title should be mentioned first in the text. --Wik 20:56, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I was mostly thinking of peers. For instance, our article at Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh opens

Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry, (June 18, 1769 - August 12, 1822), known until 1821 by his courtesy title of Viscount Castlereagh

At any rate, I don't see that it's so important.

I agree that main titles should be neutral and correct: German Democratic Republic and Federal Republic of Germany, rather than misleading colloquilisms, which have the connotation of the two Republics being not entirely sovereign states. Also, the title for the USA should be the United States of America, rather than just the United States, since there are more United States in the worlds than just the 50 ones north from the Rio Grande (e.g. the United States of Mexico).

Yes, please correct the title! The correct title should be German Democratic Republic. East Germany is ambiguous. Nowadays, it refers to the Eastern part of Germany, i.e. the former GDR plus West Berlin (or without West Berlin, as there are still special laws and regulations for that part of Germany officially called "Beitrittsgebiet"="acceding territory"). There is no "former East Germany", AFAIK the cardinal points haven't changed recently. East Germany should be a disambiguation page between

• Eastern part of Germany,
• colloquial use = the former state called GDR,
• the neo-nazi use for parts of Poland and Russia that belonged to Prussia/Germany for some time in history (
  Historical_Eastern_Germany). (I'm not sure whether the latter has any relevance in English.)--84.188.173.232
  20:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with it if you do the same to West Germany also. Ruy Lopez 05:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. West Germany describes WG properly as an informal name for the western part of the current German state in the second half of the twentieth century, linking to the main FRG page. (Could do with some editing but anyway.) It's probably better to leave it as it is than to move all relevant FRG historical information to West Germany, despite the implication of historical inevitability; there's a good case that despite the addition of 16m people the FRG is still practically the same state as before 1989 (certainly it is legally). In fact although the case is clearly weaker, it might be an idea to move the current East Germany to German Democratic Republic and have a similar page at East Germany specifically about the informal name and its usage. Comments? Rd232 10:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree absolutely... Abe Lincoln 20:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia naming convention is to use the most commonly used name. Note that the example cited,

People's Republic of Poland, is a historical entity. The current "Republic of Poland" is at Poland. older≠wiser

01:15, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Wikipedia convention is inconsistent between preferring proper names and most-commonly-used names, but the balance favours the former for countries/places/people, which is as it should be for an encyclopaedia. The major exception is currently-existing countries which tend to reside at the officially-accepted short form. "East Germany" being a form not accepted by the country in question means it does not meet this criterion. (Furthermore, in both English and, especially, in German, official use of the term 'East Germany' was intended as an act of propaganda to deny the legitimacy of the GDR as a separate state - something enshrined in the West German constitution. This usage is less clear in English because the term GDR/German Democratic Republic would often need to carry the bracketed thought ("that's not the one that's actually democratic"), where in German people would know this. So there are also POV issues with the term.) See my comment above on the current West Germany page which I think is a good model for treating informal names that differ significantly from the proper name. Rd232 10:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Naming conventions (country names), a page that (when developed) will hopefully clarify the matter and prevent unnecessary future debate. Rd232 13:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion from

WP:RM

German Democratic Republic

• East Germany is an informal name. There seems to be agreement to move to the proper name. Rd232 23:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Semi-oppose. Should other states/countries be moved to the formal names? Is it
    Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia or Ethiopia? Surely it would be better to have a clear overall rule on this. Timrollpickering
    01:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is contrary to Wikipedia naming conventions of using the mosr commonly used name. older≠wiser 01:13, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose - see the
  naming conventions. -- Naive cynic
  01:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• If this is moved, shouldn't West Germany be moved also? Jonathunder 04:29, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)
• Object Naming conventions. Simple. —
  ExplorerCDT
  07:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• This is my request - see also
  wikipedia name conventions page states (last line) "we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people." Rd232
  12:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'll concede Ethiopia isn't the best example but what about South Vietnam? There partition was considered offensive to many - should the Wikipedia article be retitled to avoid using the most common term in the English language? "East Germany" may have been a colloquial term rather than the formal one but Wikipedia has decided time and again to follow common usage, not try to change it. Timrollpickering 13:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • "The truth of a statement is not determined by the number of people that believe in it." (Samuel Johnson?) It would seem reasonable to link to the correct name from the colloquial term page, whilst focussing on the term rather than the entity there. But I agree that if there was a consistent and explicit policy on the subject I'd find it easier to accept "East Germany" as the title. (Though I'd probably still disagree.
      German Democratic Republic redirecting to East Germany - for obvious practical reasons - just gives me the willies. Overriding correct term in favour of colloquial; ouch.) Rd232
      14:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • There is also South Korea and North Korea. I'll venture that if reunification had not occured, the FRG article would be at West Germany and Germany would be an explanation of the division, much like Korea is now. older≠wiser 13:45, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • Well yes - because "West Germany" WAS the FRG. The FRG was the legal successor to the Third Reich, and did not change its legal personality at reunification. (This was one of the fundamental FRG government arguments - "We're the real German state, you 'over there' are just temporarily not part of it.") For Wikipedia, because Germany is the same state now as it was 1949-90, it might involve a fair bit of duplication to describe West Germany in a separate article. So it is reasonable to just point at FRG at Germany as is the case now. Rd232 15:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't understand your point here. East Germany WAS the GDR just as West Germany WAS the FRG. My point is that the common name of both would have been used rather than either "official" name. older≠wiser 15:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
        • My point was that the present German state (FRG) is the same as the one that existed 1945-1990, during which time it was often known in English as "West Germany". And if we were having this conversation in 1988 I'd still say it should be "FRG" and "GDR" not "West Germany" and "East Germany". Rd232 16:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • And I'm saying that under current conventions, both would be at West and East Germany rather than the formal names. older≠wiser 16:22, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
            • Your position was clear. I disagree that the convention is. And if it were clarified to match your position, I'd disagree with it too! (But would of course accept it.) Whatever the outcome on this particular move request (heading rapidly for "no"), isn't there somewhere on Wikipedia to develop a consistent and well-defined policy on the name issue? It is a specific problem where there is an issue of correctness, and it's not obvious that simply the most popular term should be used (instead of acknowledging and using the correct term). At least, it's not obvious to me, and I'd like a clear policy. (Clearer than what there is, especially for institutions.) Rd232 16:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Let me intercede here. We have a consistent and well-defined policy. Simply because you disagree with it does not mean that it is wrong. And to maintain that it's wrong because it doesn't jive with your sentiments...that the world should bend to your will just because...such a vagary the Germans—both East and West—would call Spinnerei. —
                ExplorerCDT
                17:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • "We have a consistent and well-defined policy." - there's a convention, which is clearly stronger than I thought, but I maintain the written policy is not clear for institutions (it is, eg, for persons and most topics). "Simply because you disagree with it does not mean that it is wrong." - true. "And to maintain that it's wrong because it doesn't jive with your sentiments..." - my prerogative. Just as it's yours to dismiss my arguments by calling them "sentiments". ..."the world should bend to your will" - did I say that? I called for a clearer policy, is that really too much to ask? Rd232 18:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Of the 17 interwiki links on East Germany, fully 15 use GDR or DDR or an equivalent; two (Italian and Portuguese, neither with much content) use the equivalent of East Germany. (Declaration: in checking this I corrected two that were pointing at redirects.) Rd232 18:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • What an article is titled in other languages is really not especially relevant for English as it does not tell us anything about what is the most common name in English. And besides, it is possible for the other languages to have established other naming conventions in which the official names are given preference--other language Wikpedias are not bound by the conventions developed on the English Wikipedia. older≠wiser 19:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • The point I was making was that whilst each language wiki develops its own rules and isn't "bound" by any others, the predominance of 'GDR' does suggest that just maybe there's a reasonable case for considering other criteria in conjunction with "the most common". But apparently no-one's interested in debating it even in a general way (non-specific to this page), so forget it, I withdraw the move request; I have better things to expend mental energy on and clearly this isn't going anywhere. :-( Rd232 20:31, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Strongly Support - East and West Germany were colloquial terms - I don't think we should file countries under nicknames (of course, I would also support Deutsche Demokratishe Republik, since I see the value in calling things by their proper name. More importantly, we have a plethora of articles about the U.K., each under the standard name at the time (which gets messy for to link to if you are talking about things that span more than one name). I support the use of the proper name there. More importantly though, as dealt with on the talk page, "East Germany" represents a particular cold war POV. Given the short history of the German state (1871-1945) I think you could make the argument that a plethora of Germany states is the norm...much like Deutscher Osterreich (forgive my spelling, I'm going by ear...I'm an illiterate when it comes to German) was considered for incorporation into Germany post-WWI. For that matter, Austria's name basically lays claim to the name "East Germany" if you really think about it... Guettarda 16:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose move. There's nothing factually inaccurate with the current setup as opposed to the China/Taiwan, Ireland, and Macedonia names. --Jiang 01:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. Last thing we need is people moving
  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk
  ]] 06:04, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

What would be so bad about that? Certainly, in terms of "last things we need" such a scenario falls some way below, say, Microsoft deciding to make Encarta free online and sue Wiki for infringement of Microsoft's right to rule the known universe... ;-) Rd232 14:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even the Ostis call themselves Ostis, not Demokratischers. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:38, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's no such word as "Osti"; it's Ossi (informal name), counterpart to Wessi; both originally disparaging and can still be used disparagingly depending on tone. In any case, if you appeal to the German usage, the country is near-as-dammit always referred to as DDR. Major exceptions are colloquialisms like "Osten" (East) or sometimes "Früher" (Earlier) (i.e. before the 1989/90 Wende). Rd232 15:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Naming conventions (country names), a page that will hopefully clarify the matter and prevent unnecessary future debate. Rd232 13:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There should be an explanation of why "East Germany" is better than "German Democratic Republic" there, as a simple statement that it is "preferred" is not going to make people happy. "Cassell's Dictionary of Modern German History" uses "German Democratic Republic" ("the formal name of the East German state of 1949-90") as does Mary Fulbrook's "20th Century Germany", and Langesnscheidt Muret-Sanders Großwörterbuch Deutsch-English, 2004 gives the translation of "Deutsche Demokratische Republik" as "German Democratic Republic", with no mention of "East Germany". Saintswithin 09:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems very strange to Germans and even more to East Germans like me to realize that the term "East Germany" was so much more common and known in UK and USA than "German Democratic Republic". Nevertheless I don't oppose the use of East Germany generally. Informal terms should imho only be avoided where they are misleading. Since East Germany was indeed in the Eastern Part of the German territory of that time and there are no other meanings, the term does not seem misleading to me. It is important though that the reader can easily realize that the term was NOT used in Germany that often. Maybe there should be a linguistic chapter, because this is an important fact. --Abe Lincoln 12:41, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly support - as far as I recall, the term East Germany was a propaganda term from the cold war era, and used in a derogatory way, similar to the colloquial (and more derogatory) Ostzone. The speaker indicated that he did not recognise the GDR as a sovereign state. It was common in the English language used in western Europe and northern America. Anyway, I think there's an ambiguity: while East Germany refers to a geographical place, GDR refers to a state, which are different entities. Any event occurring e.g. in Dresden before 1949 or after 1990 will have occurred in East Germany, but not in the GDR. j.kanev, 31 May 2005

Apparently there is a revert war. Well, what's the fighting over? Did the U.S. in fact broadcast instructions for the demonstrations? That sounds plausible to me; can we get a reference? I don't see any need for revert warring over such a thing. Everyking 09:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a ref for that, but I read in one of Daniela Dahn's books (years ago now) that the move in the Monday demonstrations from "we are the people" to "we are one people" coincided with the appearance of trucks with West German number plates, handing out West German flags. I think anybody with any sense of US history abroad (both recent - Georgia, Ukraine - and other) would find it very, very odd if they (CIA and chums) weren't involved in any way whatsoever. (Which is not the same as saying their influence was necessarily pivotal - we'll never know what might have happened in its absence.) Rd232 13:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Support countries should be called by their proper name not just some generic cliche Dudtz 7/22/05 7:16 Pm EST

Shouldn't the name of this article be German Democratic Republic? As said in the first paragraph, "East Germany" is an informal name Paul 21:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Yes it should. It is a little juvenile to list the former state this way. It is frustrating that it is not apparent to me how to relabel the article. The "South Vietnam" entry has the same problem. Would we want the United States entry to be listed under "The States"? Pietwithani (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How come nowhere in the entire article it says the population of the country?

This is the very first mention I have ever seen with East Germany being abbreviated as GDR. In an American encyclopedia (of course, written in English) Collier's Encyclopedia, it was referred to as DDR. Could we change each abbreviation to DDR? And since this is an English-language encyclopedia, and since everyone that speaks English knows this country as East Germany, I say it could be left alone. I wouldn't mind changing the name of the article, but if it does get changed, it should be to no other than Deutsche Demokratische Republik.

Google, when searching for DDR Germany gives a little more than 4 million hits. For GDR Germany, only 1 million. At the very least, every abbreviation for the country in question should be DDR. D. F. Schmidt 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

DDR is also a common abbreviation for a type of memory (DDR SDRAM); you have to be careful with Google searches for this kind of thing. GDR is the correct form in English in my experience. Rd232 ^talk 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"DDR" also refers to a very popular video game series. This is an English language encyclopedia, so I lean towards GDR. --TJive 07:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Moving the page without using the proper requested moves procedure.
2. Protecting the page to protect ones own edits.

I also do not like the removal of my {{POV-title}} template. -- Petri Krohn 23:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The common names policy means that this article should be, and is, at East Germany - it was only moved to "German Democratic Republic" in the last few days - a violation of said policy. As for the "GDR" references - look at West Germany, South Vietnam, South Korea and North Korea. the adjectives are rarely "FRG", "RVN", "ROK" "DPRK" etc just as "Australia/n" is preferred over Commonwealth of Australia" and "Commonwealther".

After studying the facts (missing history) I must admit that you may have acted in good faith on the page move. However, editing all references to the slanderous form "East German state" is certainly not called for by the "common names policy". It points to a POV on your part.\

How is it slanderous - as i pointed out in reference to those other articles.

PMA

00:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, we have to restore the history before we know who said what. -- Petri Krohn 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong or "slanderous" with the common term "East Germany," which is, and was, the most widely used term to describe the country in English, and was used by the GDR itself. User Rd235 is, simply, wrong. I have no idea where this particular axe to grind came from. As a resident of eastern Germany myself, I have yet to encounter any scholar or institution arguing against the use of "East Germany" to describe the German Democratic Republic, a term that many erroneously believe means the former West Germany (because of the "democratic republic" bit). The move to the formal name was itself carried out without much in the way of consensus. ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing history

We have lost the edit history of this article from before 23 May 2006. Let's fix this so we can discuss the naming issue. -- Petri Krohn 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The Article's title is East Germany so we use "East German" where possible rather than GDR.

I agree with Petri Krohn, this article should be changed back to the correct name, and East Germany changed back to a redirect. While in the "west" it may have been called East Germany, the Warsaw Pact and many Germans called it "The DDR". Is the West Germany article called that? Of course it is, because today there is still the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Deutsche Demokratische Republik was the proper name for "East Germany" from the beginning of the Cold War until reunification in 1990. I think this page should be moved back to "German Democratic Republic". I would also like to point out "East Germany" is a Cold War POV Stormscape 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If we have an article at West Germany we should have one here.

PMA

06:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As someone above pointed out, East Germany was a term used to illustrate that the user of the term did not acknowledge the GDR as a legitimate state. This changed in West Germany in 1972. It is possible that in other countries belonging to the NATO bloc the name East Germany was continued to be used, but I believe that its use could be out of a motive of denigration, I therefore think the article should be filed under German Democratic Republic. --Madcynic 17:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can come up with some serious proof that the term "East Germany" was used to "illustrate that the user of the term did not acknowledge the GDR as a legitimate state" or that it is "Cold War POV" and was rejected by the GDR itself I would like to see it. I think you might be conflating this usage with terms such as die SBZ, die Zone, drüben, die sogenannte "DDR", etc., that were used to express a position of opposition to the GDR, or non-recognition of any claim to sovereignty, as the West German government did prior to 1970-1972, or the Axel Springer newspapers did until much later. "East Germany" (Ostdeutschland), however, was not a term used in this manner.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we but the East Germany article at: East Germany. You know for a sense of consistency.--Greasysteve13 03:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 08:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the things Wikipedia is not is "consistent". "East Germany" is a bit ambiguous, unlike "GDR". "West Germany" isn't a real article anyway, and as the GDR simply joined the FRG at reunification and so the state previously known as "West Germany" still exists, the situation is not symmetric anyway. Kusma (討論) 09:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

East Germany is certainly not terribly ambiguous. The real issue is that

john k

09:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I will add to this: the statement in earlier discussions that "East Germany" is offensive and somehow denies the right of the DDR to exist is completely absurd, and no evidence has been provided to back up this statement. I would support a move.

john k

09:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

While I understand Kusma's point, and am not all that bothered by the article being at the present name, it runs against

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), and as John points out, the move to "German Democratic Republic" was made based on some pretty nonsensical, agenda-driven "reasoning." (This was point other users and I made at the time, for all the good it did.) I'd like to see it moved back; there is no real ambiguity in English regarding the term "East Germany," nor did the government of that country dissuade use of the term.  ProhibitOnions  ^(T)

16:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess we can all live with it.--Greasysteve13 07:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1. de:Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1945–1990), i.e. History of the Federal Republic of Germany (1945–1990), describing exactly this, and
2. de:Westdeutschland, i.e. West Germany, describing the several meanings of "West Germany".

Maybe this would be a good approach here too. --Abe Lincoln 15:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John K - this article should be at East Germany ala

PMA

00:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm neutral, neither for or against East Germany, or German Democratic Republic. But wasn't the article moved because the formal (hence internationally-recognised) name - in English - of the state was the GDR?? As I see it, that can apply to the country name, but perhaps not to other names/institutions/objects connected with it. (RM21 03:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC))

"Formal" names are irrelevant here, and the country was not broadly recognized internationally until the early 1970s; the country itself accepted "East Germany" at many international events, notably the Olympics. The article was moved counter to

German Democratic Republic in the first place; we already have the pendant West Germany, as well as all the other countries mentioned (North Korea, South Vietnam, etc.). ProhibitOnions ^(T)

11:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

• I really believe that this article should be named German Democratic Republic rather than East Germany. Wikipedia, as a whole, is not consistent. We should be using the official English name and not an informal one. If we just have a redirect from East Germany to German Democratic Republic, what is the problem? Dreieich 05:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've ranted about this on other articles where Wikipedia is completely inconsistent. In some articles, we're using the common English name for a place, such as East Germany (GDR), East Timor (Timor-Leste) and Burma (Myanmar). But in other cases, the official name takes precedence, as in Cote d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Coast, Republic of China instead of Taiwan, or the city of Kolkata instead of Calcutta (and even though that city's largest newspaper still uses "Calcutta"). It's sillier than the edit war over "color/colour", if you ask me. Make a decision, be consistent and stick to it. Jsc1973 (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the heck does "East Germany" redirect to the GDR? People, the GDr is part of the Federal Republic of Germany for 17 years now. East Germany is used to reffer to the territory of the former GDR, true, but these territories have developed since then. I find it insulting for the people of eastern germany, that the name of there home is redirected to the GDR... 87.181.59.81 10:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

East Germany has always referred (in English language) to a political entity which existed in the 20th century. The people of eastern Germany don't live in East Germany, just as people in southern Vietnam don't live in South Vietnam. I think you're confused about the difference between a geographical name and a political one. 202.152.170.254 05:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that if there is bias in the name "East Germany" describing this state (which I personally don't think there is), then the article "West Germany" should be given the same treatment on the issue of reducing bias and named "Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990)". If this is not reasonable, then both articles should just be given the common names applied to them, "East Germany" and "West Germany" so that wikipedia does not appear to be showing preference of the legitimacy of one state or the other. User:R-41

This goes to show why the article should be at "East Germany" after all. I have moved it to this title per

WP:COMMON to match North Vietnam and South Vietnam, North Korea and South Korea, as well as West Germany. ProhibitOnions ^(T)

09:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

They should both actually be called by their offical English names. Dreieich 06:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That works but needs a qualifier. I think "Federal Republic of Germany (1949-1990)" is a little ugly, but "Federal Republic of Germany before reunification" might be better. I'm not sure it needs to be called by an official name, though. The subject of the

History of Germany since 1945, for what it's worth). -- Jao

08:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Its an atrocious violation of POV that this article was moved to East Germany... after so many arguments and decisons to keep DDR. I will press for the move back. -- maxrspct ping me 20:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Go on. I'll support a move to the proper and common English name,

   O   

    02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone please remind me of the 'double redirect' check i have to do. I can't understand how User:PMA thought he was doing the right thing. But the looking at his userboxes makes the reasons clear. --maxrspct ping me 12:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this has been asked several times before, but could anyone of you please answer the question why you're so much against "East Germany" but not against North Korea and North Vietnam? As has been stated before, IF the division of Germany had not ended in 1990, we would most surely have two articles, West Germany and East Germany, just as it is with Korea. Also, personally I would hate to have the articles of the two Cold War era German states be called "West Germany" and "German Democratic Republic". So please don't move anything until there's a consensus for the title of the West Germany article. --Edge 12:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC) p.s. For what it's worth: I was born in the GDR, and I'm totally okay with the term "East Germany".

East Germany is like 'vietcong' - a made-up name coming from the political viewpoint of NATO members (see history of FRG diplomacy up until Ostpolitik etc) and was calculated to delegitimize the DDR. West Germany should be an article on the FRG up until 1990.. which it was before the article moves. Redirects should be made for people typing in east and west germany. --maxrspct ping me 14:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not really an answer to my question. Let me ask again: How is "East Germany" different to "North Vietnam" or "South Korea"? Come to think of it, how is "East Germany" delegitimizing, and "West Germany" is not??

Now, there were terms to deligitimize East Germany in the west. Up until the 1960s West German politicians would call it Soviet Occupation Zone, Soviet Zone, Eastern Zone or the "so-called GDR".

On the other hand, the terms "the west" and "the east" were widely used by the population to describe either state. -- Edge (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a lot of difference. Ok. I see that the naming conventions do require the common name.. though that clashes with NPOV if it is not sourced. I would like to see figures for 'East Germany' being called that as a common name as well as East etc. Provisional or nicknames as article titles the future of wikipedia? What about the Democratic Party (United States) renamed as 'The Democrats' ? You appear to concede that 'East Germany' is a continuation of delegimization or at least a halfway house for FRG politicians in the 60s. Please take note that the German wikipedia article is DDR [1]. --maxrspct ping me 21:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

German Democratic Republic would be the correct name, but wiki doesn't care —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.224.207 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)