Misplaced Pages

Talk:South Yemen: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:14, 7 September 2014 editTrust Is All You Need (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers52,982 edits →Marxist-Leninist state ← Previous edit Revision as of 19:17, 7 September 2014 edit undoTrust Is All You Need (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers52,982 edits This discussion does not make any fucking sense; its just four users who pretend they know something about something they clearly don't know anything about... Playing with words...Next edit →
Line 118: Line 118:


==Request for Comment== ==Request for Comment==
{{closed}}
{{rfc|hist|pol|rfcid=973F703}}
Dispute in progress as to how the type of Government in the country infobox should be described. Options discussed above, in order of their use are: Dispute in progress as to how the type of Government in the country infobox should be described. Options discussed above, in order of their use are:


Revision as of 19:17, 7 September 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconArab world High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSocialism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFormer countries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconYemen Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Yemen, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yemen on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YemenWikipedia:WikiProject YemenTemplate:WikiProject YemenYemen
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on January 13, 2005, January 13, 2006, January 13, 2007, and January 13, 2008.

Gumhuuriyya - not Jumhuriyya

According to the South Yemeni pronounciation which was "offocial" in the timae of PRSY-PDRY the Arabic word "Republic" - "Jumhuriyyah" in Classic Arabic was prononced "Gumhuriyyah" - like as in Egyptian colloquial Arabic. The Arabic "ج" is "g" in Cairo and Aden, but "j" in Sana'a. MutargimMutargim (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


Merge request

South Yemen should not be merged with History of Yemen as this article is more of a terminological explanation of South Yemen (semi-DAB) than a history article. Making South Yemen a redirect to the history article will not help the user elucidate what South Yemen is or where to go for the specific entities usually referred to as South Yemen. —  AjaxSmack  03:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. South Yemen makes a reasonable Misplaced Pages article in its own right. - Peyre —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peyre (talk • contribs) 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

death rate?

"14 births \ 1000 population." Is it normal to describe death rates in terms of births? 82.11.251.232 (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Human rights?

Human rights in South Yemen were violated? And what about human rights in Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and other pro-western Arab countries? Who cares about human rights there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.241.135 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a terrible attitude, definitely not suitable for a Wikipedian. I think it's important for us to find referenc-able sources regarding a lot of items on this page that has citation required. There should also be some information regarding North Yemen as well. It's funny how when one copy information from the CIA World Fact book, there are always huge portions of the article describing the "horrible state of affairs" in Communist countries, such as for South Yemen, but there's almost nothing regarding North Yemen, its counterpart. Children of the dragon (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Name, 1967-1979?

According to some indications, such as the text in the bottom of image File:Coat of arms of South Yemen.jpg — which was also reproduced in the book Guide to the Flags of the World by Mauro Talocci (edited and revised by Whitney Smith, 1982 (ISBN 0-688-01141-1) — the name from 1967-1970 was actually جمهورية اليمن الجنوبية الشعبية jumhuriyat al-yaman al-janubiya al-sha`biya "The People's Republic of South Yemen", not "The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Its name

Its name is the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.. Sources refer to it as a "people's democracy" here; , , .. THis is what the sources say, there is no reason to argue about it... At last, Marxist-Leninist single-party state is not a government system, its a description.. There never existed anything like a Marxist-Leninist state. A people's democratic republic exists, and a socialist republic existed. But South Yemen had not reached the socialist stage of development, therefore calling it socialist would be wrong. It was a people's democratic republic. --TIAYN (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the state's name, the system of government as it is described on Misplaced Pages is determined by how it is practiced. The system of government of the United States of America is not defined as "United States" on its page; that would be redundant and inaccurate. Similarly, and perhaps for better analogy, the Republic of Zaire is not defined as a "republic", but as a single-party dictatorship - because that is what is was in practice, regardless of how the state defined itself. Moreover, People's Democracy is a theoretical concept within Marxism-Leninism and not, as you have recently edited to read "...and a form of government in socialist states" - again without supporting citations or attempting to reach consensus.
Furthermore, two of your above sources are from within a year after the PDRY was established - incidentally, when it was still the *PRSY*. Another is a single-line quote from a New York Times book review by Edward Said in 1975. Considering South Yemen existed for 23 years, would it not be better to use more comprehensive and/or contemporary sources?
"While the YAR was mainly subsidised by Saudi Arabia and western aid, southerners were tackling the ambitious project of building the People's Republic of South Yemen, the only Marxist state on the Arabian Peninsula, with mostly Soviet-bloc backing."
Clark, Victoria. Dancing on the Heads of Snakes. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010. pg 113.
"South Yemen, the only Marxist regime in the Arab world and located in one of the most strategically important areas of the globe, occupies a unique place among the panoply of contemporary left-wing experiments.
Ismael, Tareq Y, and Jacqueline S Ismael. Marxist Regimes: P D R Yemen. London: Flores Printer (Publishers), 1986. pg V.
"Politics: YSP sole political party. Formally established in October 1978 as Marxist-Leninist "vanguard party based on Soviet model, its mission is revolutionary transformation of society."
"In the mid-1980s the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (South Yemen) was the most radical state in the Arab world; its ruling party, the Yemen Socialist Party, defined its mission in terms of the total revolutionary transformation of society in conformity with orthodox Soviet concepts of Marxism-Leninism."
Nyrop, Richard F. The Yemens: Country Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government, 1986. 219-221.

GrahamNoyes (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@GrahamNoyes: I know the article people's democracy is terrible... I am currently working on it, see User:Trust Is All You Need/Sandbox2... But to the point; dictatorship is not a form of government, a political system or anything else. Single-party state is neither a correct word.. See the Syria article, it describes it as a "Unitary dominant-party semi-presidential republic". Thats the correct way of doing things. South Yemen was a people's democratic republic (and it has to be since none of the major socialist states classified it as socialist.. it was referred to as socialist-oriented state a state with socialist orientation but never socialist), which is important.. Marxism-Leninism is not a type of government, form of government, political system, its an ideology and has no place in the infobox does it? We don't we write in the United States article "Liberal federal presidential constitutional republic" do we? No. The closest we come to actually identifying Yemen is either by calling it a people's democratic republic, a socialist-oriented republic (as the other socialist states viewed it as) or a socialist republic.. Writing "Single-party socialist republic" doesn't make sense either since all socialist states have single-party systems (so one is in fact saying the same thing twice, which isn't a good idea to start with either). --TIAYN (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. How a system of government is defined in the infobox, as is with all edits, is based upon consensus and rooted in WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Subjective interpretations and reasoning solely within a particular form of dialectic are not in keeping with such principles. Until recently, single party socialist-state (Marxist-Leninist or otherwise), has been the accepted and established nomenclature across all articles on Communist dictatorships. Edit warring and ideological crusades across most of these articles, all without supporting citations or first seeking out consensus, run contrary to the core content policies. Be that as it may, I am submitting this page to WP:3O. GrahamNoyes (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@GrahamNoyes: How is this an ideological crusade? I'm not a communist (not even a Marxist). Last time I checked WP is about the truth, and not false dichotomy.. If you want to add wrong, false info which doesn't make sense to anyone with the exception of working as a wrong generalization (a Marxist-Leninist state has never existed), then fine, I give up. Go and fuck up this WP, and while you're add it please add to the United States infobox "Capitalist multi-party state" and see how far you get. You're stupidity surprises me. Just because English sources call South Yemen a socialist state, South Yemen is suddenly only a socialist state. But what the Eastern Europes, the Soviets, teh Chinese call it somehow doesn't matter. Or the fact that it was founded as a people's democracy doesn't matter either, but fine add fantasy labels and try to make sense out of them. You would have thought adults would have understood adding just some random words (which have connections) is not a good idea. But fine, stupidity wins.--TIAYN (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(Re: your comments at my talk page) I have assumed your edits were in good faith, in accordance with WP:GF. It is your methodology I disagree with. Don't be so sensitive. And have a read over WP:NPA. GrahamNoyes (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

How South Yemen defines itself is irrelevant - that's a primary source. Reliable sources describe South Yemen as a "Marxist-Leninist state", so it should be described as so. I added four sources. Zozs (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@GrahamNoyes and Zozs: Per you're arguments, none of the sources actually say "Marxist-Leninist state" or "Marxist-Leninist single-party state".. None of the sources you've given me have used those terms in that specific order. You are just adding random words together which the sources use.. When searching on Google for "Marxist-Leninist single-party state", surprisngly, I don't get one reliable source. per WP:SYNTHESIS what you're doing is entirely wrong. --TIAYN (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The sources clearly state that South Yemen is a "Marxist-Leninist state". In some cases, this is part of a greater context; in other cases, they are addressing this directly as fact. Also, if some reliable sources call it a "single-party state" and some others call it a "Marxist-Leninist state", then obviously it's a "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" as per source, and no that's not a violation of SYNTH; if we understood SYNTH that way, then writing an article itself would be a violation of it because an article is written based on information acquired from a mixture of multiple sources. SYNTH is a rule part of original research guidelines; if combining the sources requires original research by the editor, then it's a violation, otherwise not.
For instance, if one source says "there was a population of 500 at City A" and another says "there is a population of 600 at City B", and both City A and City B are part of Community A, one editor may be inclined to put Community A's population as 1100. However, this involves original research and is thus a violation of SYNTH. Why? Because there may also be City C with 400 population in Community A which might actually put the population at 1500. This is not the case with direct combinations of sources which require no original research; calling a state a "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" based on some sources which say it is the former and some other which say it is the latter is valid. Additionally, things are being included, not excluded, there is no guarantee that everything is included, and the sources don't contradict each other, nor there could be a mistake of some kind by including too less information; the degree of correctness can only go up as more is included in this case, and it cannot be objectively wrong but only miss information. Zozs (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: The point is Zozs is that you're adding words that don't combine, and cherry picking from sources won't solve that. If they did combine naturally everything would be great - but logically speaking "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" doesn't make sense. So yes, its synthesis. --TIAYN (talk) 02:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
How do they not combine? They combine, as many reliable sources for example say exactly: "The Soviet Union is a Marxist-Leninist single-party state" (see the sources in the SU article). How does it not logically make sense? This is your own opinion against reliable sources. Zozs (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: A search for "Soviet Union" "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" only give hits to WP or WP mirrors... It doesn't make sense since M-L is an ideology and does not help to describe the political system; should we describe the US as a "Liberal democratic republic"? No, of course not. Why communist articles are treated differently no one here has been able to explain.. They sources say this and this, but no sources actually use the words (in the following order) "Marxist-Leninst single-party state".. The majority of sources just say socialist republic/state... THe majority of the sources use term "Socialist republic" to describe the socialist states of former eastern europe and present China.. Not single-party socialist state, but socialist republic and only socialist republic. --TIAYN (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You have been so far unable to produce evidence. "Marxist-Leninist state" is a term used by reliable sources to refer to South Yemen; it is also qualified by reliable sources as a single-party state. According to reliable sources found in the Soviet Union article, "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" is a correct and encyclopedic term. The infobox for the US says it is a "Federal presidential constitutional republic", which describes its system of government; South Yemen is a single-party state rather than a republic. A republic is where representatives are elected (effectively, not on paper) by the people (which, requires, for instance, free elections), whereas a single-party state is where the state is controlled by one party alone. Marxist-Leninist state denotes a specific form of state, well described by scholars, which is the common set of characteristics between the backbones of states such as the Soviet Union, South Yemen and East Germany. I really don't know what your problem here is; if you think I have something against communism, then become aware I don't. "Socialist" is biased; there are reliable sources to prove that the dispute between whether these states are actually socialist or not is notable. Zozs (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: None of them see to do it however, for instance, only one GrayhamNoyes quotations actually say something of sorts; "Marxist regime". However, none of them use "Marxist-Leninist single-party state". And as I showcased on Talk:China, a quick search on Google Books (where you can only find books, articles, newspapers, magazines, journals), only 8 classified China as a "Marxist-Leninist single-party state"... a search on Google Books for "South Yemen" "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" gives 0 hits (strange that no scholars actually use the term isn't it? --TIAYN (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be unable to address the arguments, and only repeat your previous interventions. Please do not replace sourced information (Marxist-Leninist state) for unsourced information. Zozs (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: Source, Google Books search "Yemen" "socialist state" 1,640 hits, search "Yemen" "Marxist-Leninist state" gives 467 hits. What is more used Zozs by scholars? Tell me. Is Google lying to me? Am I seeing wrong? Are you saying I'm unable to count? What are you saying? I've given you sources, and I've replied back (and always receive the same old mantra); give me sources. I've given you sources, and you reply back, as always, "give me more". "Socialist state", I've proven, is more used then "Marxist-Leninist state".. Finished, please stop dragging this discussion just for the sake of draggin on this discussion. --TIAYN (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, the claim that states such as South Yemen form the basis of any kind of "socialism" is contended; reliable sources give proof to the notability of the debate whether countries based on Soviet model are actually socialist or not, also indicating that this debate has occurred within the left. For example: , which argues that the Soviet Union was not socialist (not genuinely so), while also stating that the notion that it is "capitalist" is "unpersuasive", while also giving proof of notability to the notion that such a model actually constituted capitalism instead of socialism. Additionally, "socialist state" could mean anything, whereas "Marxist-Leninist state" is specific. Zozs (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
You need to stop removing sourced information and replacing it for unsourced information, telling everyone to go check a list containing over a thousand sources which could be saying a disparity of several things, perhaps some in contradiction to each other. This is not encyclopedic behaviour at all. Zozs (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@TIAYN:This is really grasping at straws. There is no policy on Misplaced Pages which states that an infobox government type must directly copy a source word for word. Marxist-Leninist single-party socialist state is a logical conclusion to come to: Marxism-Leninism was the official state ideology and is of critical importance in describing the government, as it qualifies the basis of its policymaking and the means under which it operated; single-party is self-evident, as the Yemeni Socialist Party was the sole legal political organization; and a socialist state (one point that I'll disagree on with you, Zozs) is one which identifies the advancement of a socialist society as its aim, as was the case with the South Yemeni regime. All of these are supported by numerous reliable secondary sources. Put it all together, and you have the established, consensus-supported nomenclature which had been used on all Communist state articles. JamesBay (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: To claim that the Soviet Union is not socialist in a WP:FRINGE theory, and 99 percent of WP editors would agree. Its a reason why you havn't been able to persuade the people at the Soviet Union talk page to remove the socialist term. Secondly, socialist here is used to describe the system of governance which is socialist. Presumably a non-socialist state can have a socialist system (this is what many commentators who view the CPC as non-ideological and capitalist say; Leninist system, capitalist ideas).. That South Yemen has a socialist system (as defined and interpreted by outsiders) doesn't make South Yemen more or less socialist. --TIAYN (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not a fringe theory, for example that paper (reliable source) says it is not socialist. Your next argument is an appeal to majority. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The rest of your comment makes no sense. A non-socialist state having a socialist system? How does whether South Yemen's system is socialist or not, not affect whether South Yemen is socialist? And how is this an argument against anything I am saying? You need to take a Wikibreak, bro, your comments have stepped the boundary from personal attacks to just delusion and bordering on insanity. Zozs (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@JamesBay and Zozs: Logically speaking it doesn't make sense since Marxist-Leninism (by definition means one-party rule), socialist state (which in practice, since post-1917, means one-party rule) and then mentioning one-party rule, is repeating one thing three times. "Socialist state" is correct since, Marxism Leninism is a socialist ideology and two, a socialist state means a one-party state. So instead of mention two things three and two times respectively, we are mentioning them once, in two words "socialist" and "state". Its superfluous. . And Zozs if you're point is that I'm suppose to add fifty sources which call South Yemen a socialist to the article, then you're completely wrong, since you can do the same thing with "Marxist-Leninist state". Thats why I used a google search, since that showed, numerically, socialist state is more used then Marxist-Leninist state. Since WP follows the majority (follows the story which has most hegemony at the time), numbers matters. --TIAYN (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Single-party state seems relevant to mention, and "socialist state" obviously is a very complex concept different from the simple notion fo a "single-party state" (which means a state in which merely one political party and its puppets is allowed to rule). Well, I've cited "Marxist-Leninist state", which you removed, and replaced for unreferenced information, yet you seem to accuse me of what you're doing. If you're unable to achieve consensus in this article (in fact, it seems that you are the only one defending your own viewpoint), then don't make senseless appeals to majority based on a pseudo-argument which really has at its core "but nobody likes you!". Zozs (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: "nobody likes you!"? WP is based on hegemonic ideas, not fringe theories. Fringe theories can be mentioned, but hegemonic concepts and ideas are what articles should be based on. Thats why numbers matter. By saying that hegemonic ideas doesn't matter you're opposing the very cornerstone WP is premised upon. --TIAYN (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but articles are not written based on the amount of results in a Google search, which actually returns sources which could be saying anything (you just searched for Yemen plus socialist state; the very article could simply be saying that it is commonly referred as so, or in fact arguing that it does not constitute a "socialist state"). You need to cite your information, and if you are unable to, then I am going to have to ask you to remove your unsourced information and restore back the sourced one. Zozs (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: If you actually checked the first ten links you would have noticed they actually called Yemen a socialist state. and me adding sources doesn't refute you're argument.--TIAYN (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I do agree that thus far you have been unable to refute my argument, noting especially that you have not brought reliable sources that deal with the "not socialist" assertion, whereas I have. Zozs (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Though it doesn't seem like it, I believe we are reaching a consensus, as we have now a multitude of reliable secondary sources supporting South Yemen's government as being Marxist-Leninist, single-party, and a socialist state. I would say that is reason enough to return to the original description. JamesBay (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBay: Everyone agrees that South Yemen Was Marxist-Leninist, single-party and socialist.. But calling it a "Marxist-Leninist single-party state" doesn't make sense (and thats not what most commentators call them, and thats not what they called themselves). --TIAYN (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cue This has been an odd type of argument thread under the title "Its name". Anyway, if agreement is being reached, then let's look at JamesBay's statement.
...as we have now a multitude of reliable secondary sources supporting South Yemen's government as being Marxist-Leninist, single-party, and a socialist state.
I am no expert; however, from the little I do know, that statement gives two, main important pieces of this puzzle. Those are Marxist–Leninist and socialist state. Just a scan of those two articles can lead to truth here. The former describes an ideology, not a type of government, although forms of government may be based upon that ideology. The latter, "socialist state", describes a type/form of government that may be based upon an ideology. Ideologies and types of governments are two different things, aren't they? It would seem that no matter how many sources one may provide, it is how those sources are interpreted that applies here. And they should be interpreted by use of the definitions of "ideology" and "type of government". When a source refers to a country as "Marxist–Leninist", the source refers to the ideology, not to the type of government. I could be wrong, but it strongly appears that when the ibox parameter is "government_type", this country's entry should be "socialist state". – Paine Ellsworth  13:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The notion that Soviet-style states (such as South Yemen) constitute a type of "socialist state" is very controversial, especially within the socialist movement, and reliable sources attest to that. "Marxist-Leninist state" is a SPECIFIC type of government which formed the backbone for the common set of characteristics between South Yemen, East Germany and the Soviet Union and which is very well described by scholars. Meanwhile "socialist state" can mean anything at all (and we don't describe the U.S. as a "capitalist state", do we?) Zozs (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the US is often described as a capitalist state – because it actually is a capitalist state. I do understand the controversy; however, to call a state "Marxist–Leninist" refers to its ideology of "Marxism–Leninism" rather than to its form of government, its policy-making structure. – Paine Ellsworth  09:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Marxist Leninist single party state was the term used across all communist country articles for a long time until Truat Is All You need went on a big unilateral editing spree. It's still used for the Soviet Union page, so I think it should be used here. I dunno that's my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.225.222 (talk • contribs)

That term describes the ideology of the state. It is not a "form of government", which is the parameter of the information box in question – "government_type". – Paine Ellsworth  20:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs, GrahamNoyes, and Paine Ellsworth: You are getting it :) Someone actually understood what I meant! --TIAYN (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You do not understand that there is a specific type of the government with many state organization characteristics in common shared by Soviet Union, East Germany... and which is described by scholars as a "Marxist-Leninist state"? Which means the type of government implemented by the ideology. Well, then you're just going against what the reliable sources say. Zozs (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
You do not understand that there is a specific type of the government with many state organization characteristics in common shared by Soviet Union, East Germany... and which is described by scholars as a "Marxist-Leninist state"?
I understand that the "specific type of government" may be described by the phrase "Marxist–Leninist"; however, that merely is a description of the specific type of government's ideology; that is, it is absolutely and precisely not the specific type of government itself.
Which means the type of government implemented by the ideology.
Now you seem to be getting it. It is the "type of government" (socialist state, in this case) that was implemented and fueled by the ideology (Marxism–Leninism).
Well, then you're just going against what the reliable sources say.
No, of course I'm not; I'm simply interpreting the sources correctly, just as you did with your previous sentence. – Paine Ellsworth  16:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs: But socialist state more commonly used. Secondly, if Marxist-Leninist state was a form of government, its hard to understand why you add "Marxist-Leninist single-party socialist state" because that is not a form of government, thats adding three terms into one. --TIAYN (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Already explained, please don't be a broken record. You're against something which is standard across Misplaced Pages. Zozs (talk) 07:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Standard doesn't make it correct Zozs. It was the standard because people took it at face value; jupp the USSR both upheld Marxism-Leninism, had a single-party state and was a socialist state; in fact cramping two things which was synonymous and adding an extra term which logically doesn't make sense since the two other terms explains it. --TIAYN (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I've read through this discussion and the only explanation I see is something to the effect that "there is a longstanding consensus that the government type is 'Marxist–Leninist single-party socialist state'". That does not explain why the consensus has been to take a simple template parameter, "government_type", and to try to turn it into something it is not. That parameter is for type or form of government, and that is all it is for. It is not a general parameter, so it is not meant to include the ideology (Marxist–Leninist), nor is it meant to include the obvious (single-party), nor is it meant to include how many freckles were on Lenin's wrist. The government type was "socialist state", and that is the only phrase that should fill that parameter. – Paine Ellsworth  15:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
"Marxist-Leninist state" is explicitly defined as a "form of government". Source: The Poverty of Communism. Nicholas Eberstadt. Page 2. Additionally, South Yemen is defined by reliable sources as a "Marxist-Leninist state". Where are your reliable sources which say that Marxist-Leninist state is not a form of government, or that South Yemen is not a Marxist-Leninist state? All you have is your personal opinion. Zozs (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have access to that page of that work, so I cannot confirm nor deny it. I have much more than my mere opinion, Zozs. There is the article on Marxism–Leninism and its sources, the article on Socialist state and its sources, and so on. The ironclad fact remains that the parameter in this ibox that was being misused is the "government_type" param. It is not the "ideology" param. Whereever authors describe South Yemen as having been a "Marxist–Leninist" state, they are labeling the ideology of the state, not the government type, no matter what they call it. When scholars refer to South Yemen as having been a "socialist state", then they are labeling the government type, i.e., the form of government that was implemented by the ideology, as you yourself pointed out and seemed to understand earlier. There is no "ideology" param in these iboxes. Some appear to think there should be one. I do not and feel that the proper place to define and describe the ideology is in the body of the article. – Paine Ellsworth  12:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You are like a broken record, thinking that I do not get it, when it is you who does not get it, either intentionally or not. You do nothing but repeat your original statement, which was already heard. However, you seem to completely ignore the argument that "Marxist-Leninist state" is a form of government. It is perfectly understood that there is a difference between the ideology of the political party which governs, the official ideology of the state and the form of government. China's governing party, for example, declares itself Marxist-Leninist, whereas the state is not what reliable sources describe as a Marxist-Leninist state (it may have been in the past, but now is not anymore). The Soviet Union, however, is a Marxist-Leninist state.
"Socialist state" is a meaningless term, defined in a thousand different ways by each socialist tendency, and which has no scholarly definition other than either a) a state which officially has socialism as ideology or has claimed to have reached it, b) a synonymous for "Marxist-Leninist state". None of the so-called "socialist states" are actually socialist according to original Marxist theory. You must understand the history of this. When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, he implemented a specific series of social and economic policies which came down to his understandings (wrong or correct, it is irrelevant) of what he meant to implement. He came to term this "Marxism-Leninism"; it has little or nothing to do with original Marxism, and is labelled as a deviation by the original Marxist community. (and reliable sources acknowledge this; see, for instance History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis 1976-89. Allan Todd. Page 16.)
Despite the denunciation of Stalin, the form of state organization he implemented stuck. This form of state organization is clearly defined, was the common set of characteristics between the backbones of the Soviet Union, East Germany, and other such states, for their whole life post-Stalin. "Marxist-Leninist state", according to reliable sources, refers to this form of state organization, which is a certain type of state and as relevant as "federal republic", etc. It does not refer to the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, it refers to the specific state organization which is characterized by single-party rule by a party with clearly defined organs such as the Central Committee and Politburo - which becomes blended in with the state organization -, a certain type of economic planning, dominance of state enterprises, certain common economic and social policies and other standard characteristics. It has nothing to do with ideology. The state's official ideology could be capitalist-liberalism and it would still be a Marxist-Leninist state if it met the characteristics for this certain form of state.
Again, reliable sources clearly state that "Marxist-Leninist state" is a form of government. Zozs (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
well, you have teed me off a little with your mild personal attack in the first sentence above, which is interesting because we have both been repeating the same things, so I suppose we've both been behaving as you describe. What you have been ignoring is that there are scholarly sources in both the articles I linked to that clearly show that whenever sources, even reliable sources, use the term "Marxist-Leninist" state, they are describing the ideology of the state and not the form of government of the state, no matter what those sources actually call it. So I guess it's time for me to say, "When you stop ignoring the facts, then I'll stop ignoring your posts, which I fully intend to do from this point on." Joys! – Paine Ellsworth  22:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Personal attack because I said you were merely repeating yourself (which is described in a friendly fashion with the popular saying, "being like a broken record", which is often used by family and friends to refer to each other)? Please don't be ridiculous. I gave sources about South Yemen being described as a "Marxist-Leninist state", I gave you sources about "Marxist-Leninist state" being explicitly defined as a "form of government". That they are describing the "ideology" (for me, it's pretty obvious that the very nature of the term is describing a form of government, not only from how it is worded but also from the context), is your personal opinion - whereas I have produced sources which explicitly say it is a "form of government". You are unable to produce specific evidence, so you tell me to go check out the dozens of sources of two articles, which you imagine are proving your point - except that they're not. You need to make specific statements, backed up by specific evidence, because it's very easy to argue from your position, the way you're doing, and additionally backed by anti-consensus and anti-standard edit warring. Zozs (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion in here is going around in circles. Both Zozs and I have provided ample evidence in the form of reliable secondary sources which favour the consensus-supported status quo. "People's Democractic Republic" is (ironically) an ideologically-based subjective title for a system of government, one based exclusively within a Marxist dialectic. "Socialist state" is an extremely broad term which at the very least requires some form of qualification in order to convey precisely what type of "socialist state" it is.

That this debate has continued in this manner with TIAYN's persistent edit-warring in favour of personal opinion, without evidence to support their claims, is quite frankly juvenile. That it has become somewhat of a watershed for determining the system of government for every other Communist state article is at this point rather embarrassing. I am adding this page to WP:RFC so we may conclusively establish consensus. JamesBay (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Dispute in progress as to how the type of Government in the country infobox should be described. Options discussed above, in order of their use are:

  1. "Marxist-Leninist single-party socialist state" (previous consensus-supported version)
  2. "People's Democracy" (first revised version)
  3. "People's Democratic Republic" (second revised version)
  4. "Socialist state" (third revised version)
  5. "Marxist Leninist state" (fourth revised version)

JamesBay (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • @JamesBay: This discussion doesn't solve the problems laid out at the Template talk:Infobox country since it seems you havn't actually understood the point. While "Marxist-Leninist single-party state socialist state" is a good description, its not a form of government, and while "Marxist-Leninist state" may as well be a good description, its not a form of government. "People's democracy" doesn't make sense, since thats the theoretical concept, so again, not a form of government. The only forms of government here listed of the five are "People's democratic republic" and "Socialist state/republic". None of the others are forms of government, they are just known words added together to make sense (when they really don't....) .. By definition 1, 2 and 5 should be dropped from this discussion since they are incoherent and don't even fit within the parameters of the discussion. --TIAYN (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist single-party state socialist state

  • Support It was the consensus-backed, secondary source-supported term for South Yemen's government and the government of every single other article on a Soviet-style Communist state prior to August 15. JamesBay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support best to maintain the status quo here, like the other Communist bloc nations this one's ruling party self-identified as such, which should be factored in. The debate within the socialist community as to whether Communist nations were socialist is not NPOV, historically the socialist appellation has stood the test of time with a broad consensus. I doubt I would get very far editing the United States article to identify as a plutocracy, Misplaced Pages is no place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... Roberticus talk 01:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @Roberticus: No socialist state ever called themselves "Marxist-Leninist single-party state socialist state", and no socialist state ever said "Marxist-Leninist single-party state socialist state" was their form of government. --TIAYN (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Because it doesn't make sense. THere has never existed a Marxist-Leninist form of government, yes a Marxist-Leninist regime, ideology, government but not form of government. A socialist state/system implies by definition a single-party state. Idiotic, superfluouos. --TIAYN (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

People's Democracy

People's Democratic Republic


Socialist state

  • Oppose implies that it is socialist, even though reliable sources give proof to the notability of the debate within socialism about whether these states were actually socialist or not, and takes the POV of one socialist tendency (Marxism-Leninism, a term for Stalinism; check article to see why) Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Also has no scholarly definition other than used to mean "Marxist-Leninist state" or "state self-described as socialist". 20:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not adequately describe the system of government. There have been numerous governments that have described themselves as "socialist", yet for the sake of objectivity and accuracy, it is essential to describe exactly *what kind* of socialist state they were. Including the official state ideology (Marxism-Leninism) and the party system (single-party) are the only established means of doing so. JamesBay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support @JamesBay: There have been a number of leaders who have called themselves socialist, there are not many countries which have declared they have a socialist system. A socialist system is clearly definable. --TIAYN (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Marxist-Leninist state

  • Support only reliably sourced, neutral and perfectly accurate term; reliable sources also explicitly say that "Marxist-Leninist state" denotes a form of government (The Poverty of Communism. Nicholas Eberstadt. Page 2.) Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not accuse since there has never existed a Marxist-Leninist form of government. Never--TIAYN (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that it could also be named "Marxist-Leninist single-party state". Zozs (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources for Marxist-Leninist state:

  • The Greenwood Encyclopedia of International Relations: A-E. Cathal J. Nolan. 2002. "Aden was later absorbed by the Marxist-Leninist state of South Yemen."
  • Being Arab. Samir Kassir, 2013. "the future South Yemen, which became a Marxist-Leninist state in 1968"
  • The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power. Daniel Yergin. 2012. "Aden disappeared into the harsh Marxist-Leninist state of South Yemen."
  • The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times. Odd Arne Westad. 2005. "the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (PDRY) - the only Marxist-Leninist state in the Middle East" Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Zozs:, none of those sources say that Marxist-Leninist state was the form of government of South Yemen. Its used as a generalized description of what South Yemen was. --TIAYN (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Categories: