Talk:South Yemen

Its name

Its name is the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen.. Sources refer to it as a "people's democracy" here; [1], [2], [3].. 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 Wikipedia 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: [4], 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) 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 ^CLIMAX! 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 ^CLIMAX! 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 ^CLIMAX! 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 ^CLIMAX! 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 Wikipedia. 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 ^CLIMAX! 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 ^CLIMAX! 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 ^CLIMAX! 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. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

Marxist-Leninist single-party socialist state

• Oppose because it implies it was an actual socialist state. Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• 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, Wikipedia is no place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... Roberticus talk 01:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(changing my vote) Roberticus talk 23:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. For reasons stated in previous discussion – "Marxist–Leninist" refers to the ideology, not the type of government, and "single-party" goes without saying. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For reasons stated below. --TIAYN (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Too wordy and ideologically tendentious... Carrite (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

People's Democracy

• Oppose meaningless propaganda term. Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Non-NPOV term based in Marxist political theory. JamesBay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. A democracy is by definition of the people, so "democracy" alone makes more sense. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

People's Democratic Republic

• Oppose meaningless propaganda term. Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Non-NPOV term based in Marxist political theory. JamesBay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This was not the form of government had by South Yemen. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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. While the controversy may still be raging, this term socialist state most adequately describes the actual "type of government" that South Yemen formed based on the ideology of Marxism–Leninism. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support this is the actual form of government; it doesn't matter if doesn't sound enlighthening, it is. Since its the form of government. The ideollogy of the state does not belong in the infobox where the infoboxs asks for form of government. This is ismple. --TIAYN (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Vague and uninformative. Scolaire (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)]
• Support a brief scan of some sources shows wide use in many different types of publications. It seems general use. Over the other options (I know it's not brilliant but a google count shows Option 1:10 results mostly wikipedia, 2:231 results, 3:284 results, 4:400 results, 5:52 results, no analysis was performed to see how many were describing the government). SPACKlick (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose We cannot say it was socialist when there is dispute and probably most experts would disagree. TFD (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @The Four Deuces: Most experts would disagree with you, since communist state is mostly a Western term... --TIAYN (talk) 08:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

They call it a (capital-"C") "Communist" state. We don't throw out books published by Oxford and Harvard and use books published in Moscow when writing about Communism, just as we do not throw out books written by scientists when writing about intelligent design or global warming. TFD (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Oxford, Cambridge, Havard and all the major universities use socialist state, no one uses Communist state TFD. Ideology in a Socialist State (published by Cambridge), the book Market, State, and Community: Theoretical Foundations of Market Socialism (published by Oxford) uses socialist state and the renowned book on Deng, Deng Xiaoping and the Transformation of China (published by Harvard) uses socialist state. No major Western publication uses Communist state. Stop living in you're own "fantasy" of what you feel is right! --TIAYN (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to provide a source saying that "there is consensus among scholars that the Eastern countries were socialists states," otherwise you are just conducting original research. And yes sources do use the term "Communist state",[5] and in fact the term used to refer to those states post-Communism is "post-Communist state." TFD (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: The fact is, I have a source which says "Communist state" is a Western term, you have implied that a non-Western term means sources from socialist state. Non-Western means the rest of the world. I am the one with the source, you're the one missing one. --TIAYN (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Your source says, "Among Western journalists the term 'Communist' came to refer exclusively to regimes and movements associated with the Communist International and its offspring...." Certainly Western journalists use the term, and nothing in policy says that Western journalists are not reliable sources. I notice that David Ramsay Steele provides no sources for this observation. It strikes of cherry-picking that you would pick a book called From Marx to Mises: Post Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. TFD (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Socialist republic

• Support. Since South Yemen was a supported satellite of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), we might also consider calling this former nation a "socialist republic"? Either that or "socialist state" is acceptable to me. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 08:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Implies first that it was socialist (which is, as described above, highly debatable) and a republic (which is manifestly untrue, if we assume "republic" to mean "democratic", which is usually how the term is used). Rwenonah (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that many people see little or no difference between the two terms; however there are some very important disparate points between them. There are two articles on the subjects, republic and democracy, so no reason to expound on those disparities here. A very good friend once told me, "When people learn to read and write with understanding they automatically become republicans." – Paine  18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Which still ignores the fact that there is extensive dispute over whether these states were in fact socialist, and we shouldn't use the term in the infobox as if it were an undisputed, unarguable fact, which is what said use implies. Yemen's situation and form of governance was, additionally, totally different to the "socialist republics" of the actual Soviet Union (e.g. Belarus) and we shouldn't be using the term to refer to Yemen as if it were the same.There is an important distinction between the USSR's "socialist republics" and the "people's republics" of the wider communist world that we cannot and should not ignore. Rwenonah (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rwenonah: Socialist state/republic implies its form of government, if the states were ideologically socialist is another question. There are just as many out there who claims that none of these states practiced communism either.. The Leninist system is most commonly referred to as the Socialist political system of these system. To not call these states republic is nonsense - were I come from, where we have a constitutional monarchy, republic only means a system without a monarch. That republic is synonymous with democracy is even opposed here, with pro-Monarchists claiming the present framework is more, not less, democratic... Rwenonah, in practice there is no difference in the political system between a people's republic or of those socialist republics which made up the USSR - they were organized on the same political lines. The political system of the USSR was forced upon them by the USSR, and remained identical.. While the operation of the system has changed in China, the institutions remains the same. There is a reason for that. There is no better term (and none more correct) then socialist state/republic - communist state is a generalization, and people think by stating communist state it implies less communism. Communism is a socialist ideology - it may have been implemented by assholes, but the ideology was still socialist, so by calling the state Communist state/republic doesn't make it sound less socialistic. Communist state/republic is a generalization of socialist state/republic, and generalizing the nature of the term does not contribute to the encyclopaedia. --TIAYN (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As TFD has pointed out above, the fact that South Yemen or other nominally socialist states were in fact socialist is highly debatable. By placing it in the infobox, we offer none of this dispute and present it as an unfettered and unmitigated fact; something that is directly untrue (one of many flaws with infoboxes, in my opinion). There is no reason to refer to it as "socialist" when this is debated and less controversial terms are available. There is significant difference between a "socialist republic" of the USSR and the wider communist states; they may have been organized on the same political lines, but to treat them as synonymous is making a huge mistake. All of the SSR's were subordinate to the central government, which governed from and essentially for Russia. Kazakhstan, Belarus, etc. were ruled directly by the Soviet central government. Yugoslavia, Albania, etc (the other Warsaw Pact members) were ruled by single individual rulers, who had varying degrees of autonomy and allowed varying degrees of freedom (like Golmuka or Tito). Even more autonomous were states like South Yemen, Egypt or Vietnam, which may have paid lip service to the Soviet Union, but were in fact highly separate and only play along so long as they received aid to achieve their own goals. Calling them "socialist republic" on the above basis that they were governed the same as the Soviet Union's subsidiary units is making a false generalization. There is also a large difference between communism and socialism; if we are going to be specific with regard to ideology, we should say "Marxist-Leninist" or at the very least "communist". Why use a debatable umbrella term when we can use a specific and less debated term? Rwenonah (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rwenonah: All those states were governed the same, with the exception of Egypt. China, the USSR, Vietnam had a Central Committee, they had a Secretariat, they had a Politburo, they had a unitary National Assembly, they did not a president until the 1980s-90s (they only had heads of parliament), the trade unions were nationalized and so on. You are talking about something very different; the United Kingdom and Norway are both constitutional monarchies, but they are ruled in different ways, it doesn't mean that we should stop using the term constitutional monarchy in their respective infoboxes does it? And to say that these states were not socialist is WP:FRINGE. The most notable theory that the USSR is not socialist, the trotskyist rationale, admit that the state has socialist tendencies, socialist political systems and so on, but that they are deformed/degenerated since true powers were never given to the working classes. However, even Trotsky admitted that Stalin's USSR was socialist, just not socialist in the "correct" way. As he admitted there were socialist features there, a vanguard party, a planned economy in which all was nationalized and so on.. Again, the debate about the ideology of the state has nothing to do with what we are discussing; the form of government of the state. Trotsky even admits to this; there is a difference between ideology and the nature of the state. --TIAYN (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Even Trotsky admits" is not a valid argument. Trotsky was a leader of the Russian Revolution who like the others thought they had created a socialist state. While Trotsky thought the Soviet Union was still socialist, some of his followers, such as Shachtman, thought it no longer was. Socialists outside the Marxist-Leninist tradition never accepted it as socialist, nor did liberal observers. So what you call fringe is in fact the mainstream.

Regarding the term "republic", it merely means it is not a formal monarchy. So people are de jure citizens of the nation rather than subjects of the crown. It is most apparently in the wording of laws, treaties and state actions. So in the UK, prosecutions take the form "The Queen vs. John Doe", while in the U.S., they take the form "The U.S. vs. John Doe." When writing about Latin American countries, we do not say they cease to be republics when they become dictatorships, we say they cease to be democracies.

TFD (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems like we are once again confusing an "ideology" with a "type/form of government". Clearly, it is not incorrect to say that South Yemen was a Marxist–Leninist state, because that was the ideology that fueled the state; however, it very much is incorrect to say that South Yemen's form of government was a Marxist–Leninist state. That is a bit like telling people that you own an Exxon car, or an Amoco pickup truck.

"Communist state" is also incorrect and plain wrong on several levels; it is a biased, Western term that carries negative connotations for many, many people, and while all that may or may not be relevant, what does have relevancy is the fact that whether one writes "Communist state" or "communist state", one does not refer to a government type in any way, shape or form of the phrase. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Nor did "liberal observers"? Are you kidding me, the vast majority on the streets believe the Soviet Union was a socialist state. Trotsky was not a Marxist-Leninist, sometimes even hard to define him as a Leninist since he opposed Lenin on some of the very basics. I find it humerous that Shachtman is cited by you as a reliable opinion, but not Trotsky, who actually established the movement he became a member of. Socialists outside the Marxist-Leninists tradition did accept that the Soviet Union were socialists; you never heard the UK Labour Party, the Norwegian Labour Party, Sinn Fein, (the lists goes on and on and on) denounce the Soviet Union as unsocialist, they however, like the Trotskyist, denounced dictatorial and unsocialist tendencies. Criticizing some parts is not the same as claiming the whole fabric is nonsocialist. Agree with Ellsworth above. --TIAYN (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Shachtman is as reliable a source for what Shachtman thought as Trotsky was for what Trotsky thought. The point is that the two men were not unanimous on whether the country was socialists. Not interested in arguing semantics about the meaning of Marxism-Leninism - Trotsky was a leader of the Russian Revolution and thought there was something salvageable. But socialists typically saw the Soviet Union as state capitalist or even a regression back to tsarism. The U.K. Labour Party leader, Arthur Henderson, said it lacked an essential attribute of socialism, democracy. Mao considered it social imperialist, maintaining only a facade of socialism. While you are probably right that most Communists and Trotskyists thought it was socialist, some did not. There is no reason to use a self-description rejected by most mainstream sources. We can only call a country socialist if there is a consensus in mainstream writing.

Why anyway would socialists who opposed Communism claim that the Soviet Union had achieved the goal they desired for their own countries?

TFD (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Again, a bad argument.. WHy, please tell me why we are discussing ideology. Mao himself admitted that the USSR had a socialist system (and that China had it too), but that the system could be taken over by non-socialist (as in the case of the USSR), but the system was still socialist. China had a socialist political system in place in China, but he initiated the Cultural Revolution for amongst other reason to ensure that non-socialist tendencies did not take control over the socialist political system, eg. creating a facade. However, very important, as you yourself answered, this facade was a form of government; it was the socialist state. Mao admitted that a socialist political system could co-exist with none socialist rule, literally that non-socialists could head a socialist political system. The argument that some socialists accuse the USSR of not being socialist it totally uninteresting, since thats not what we're supposed to discuss. What we're supposed to discuss is what form of government fits in the government_type parameter. The arguement that communist state with a capital "C" is better because it sounds better, feel better, is not logical at all, since you're not answering the question, what form of government South Yemen has. The fact that you still don't understand that there is a difference between a term often used to describe a state, and the form of government given to institutions organized in a specific way, kills this discussion at the get off. Its a reason why I tried closing this discussion down because people don't seem to understand the difference between the two, and if they do, they sure as hell don't care about it. What does the USSR being socialist or not ideologically have to do with the fact that the system Lenin conceived is most often referred to then not as the "Socialist political system", "Leninist system" and so on. But Leninist doesn't work since some of the states have moved from the original prescription of Lenin to something entirely different, such as North Korea and its Monolithic Ideological System under the Great Leader or Ceaușescu's Romania which displayed similar characteristics to North Korea by the end of the 1980s. Leninist at the top any longer in the 1980s.

To the point, why are you talking about ideology? The ideology the state espouses and the system of governance which has been called socialist by everyone from Western commentators to the communists themselves to this day are two very different things. I'm interested in the form of government. By the end of the day, what the UK Labour Party or what Mao thinks about the USSR's ideological stance is totally uninteresting. And my the end of the day, you're continuing a discussion which doesn't make sense. All socialists agree that Communism is a socialist ideology, it doesn't matter if you ask Mao or certain figures in the UK Labour Party. By stating the country is a Communist state you are not making the state seem less socialist, since communism is a socialist ideology. As the old saying goes "All communists are socialists, not all socialists are communists". Communist state is a generalization of the term socialist; as you may remember communism as a term first became popular around the 1920s. When Lenin and co established the socialist Russia they established a socialist system (and the World in turn called them a socialist state); communism is a relatively new construct which became used prominently to differ the socialists in the USSR from the social democratic movement (remember that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's first name was the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party). It was a term, which was of coursed used before Lenin and co, used to denote a political movement. A communist state can be a member of the political movement, but there cannot according be a communist state if you are to be clear (if the goal is too not generalize). The point of any encyclopaedia is to be succinct, which means by definition no generalization were possible.--TIAYN (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reasons already stated elsewhere, plus "republic" requires elected representatives through democracy. Zozs (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs and The Four Deuces: A republic requires elected representative through elections. That these elections need to be free and fair is an entirely other point. To call it a state doesn't make sense, since a republic is a state formation, a monarchy is a state formation and so on. The only theory which favours the term "State" over "Republic" over other forms of descriptions is Marxism since according to Marxist methodology the state is made up of the leading representatives of the class it represents (which are the leading class is decided by the type of economic system the country has). Therefore if the state is a republic or a monarchy doesn't matter to Marxists as much as what class interests that State represents. In short, use republic.

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)

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)
  • Please note that not one of these sources actually points to the form of government as "Marxist–Leninist"; they all refer the ideology of the state, not the government type. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • How do you know that they're referring the ideology of the state instead of the government type? Reliable sources say that the term "Marxist-Leninist state" indicates a government type (see for instance The Poverty of Communism. Nicholas Eberstadt. Page 2.). Zozs (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Whether or not the authors think they refer to a type of government, they distinctly refer to the ideology of the state based upon the definition of Marxism–Leninism – an "ideology", not a form of government. For the nth time, a type of government may be based on an ideology; however, the ideology itself is merely the impetus behind whatever form that a government may take, such as a socialist state. Your single source, which you claim goes against what is described in those two articles is unavailable to me and would require corroboration with other sources that also specifically claim Marxism–Leninism is a form of government, which by definition, it is not. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
        • By definition, the authors are referring to what they think they're referring to. You're just going off your personal opinion. You aren't a reliable source. Zozs (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Nor have I ever claimed to be a WP:RS, Zozs. I have linked to the appropriate articles that have all the correct definitions and reliable sources you should need. If that's not enough for you, then hopefully it's enough for the objective contributors in this discussion. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
      • To editor Zozs: To combine one sources use of Marxist Leninist with another sources definition of Marxist Leninist would be pure synthesis and violate policy. I'm not objecting to the use of the term just way sources are being combined.SPACKlick (talk) 07:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll explain it with a simple analogy. Four sources say that a certain spoon, is indeed, a spoon. But then somebody comes and says: "Despite the fact that these sources are calling the object a spoon, they don't actually mean that the object is actually a spoon, they just mean that it shares an attribute with spoons, in that the object's color is gray, just like spoons". So another source is brought in, which explains that the term "spoon" refers to whether the item in question is a spoon or not, not to its colors. Understand? Zozs (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't accept that the analogy is analogous. We have a disagreement over whether something is an adjective, "state which has the properties of marxist-leninism" or a category label "state which is a Marxist-Leninist State". A Conservative State or Conservative Government are not types of state/government, it's adjectives describing the ideologies of the governments. Do you have any quotes that would indicate the above sources are not using Marxist-Leninist in that sense? All that being said, I intended to ping To editor Paine Ellsworth: not you, for which I apologise (I combined two of your posts into one when reading), because they were using dictionary synth..
            • With the core key here being that the state refers to the form of state organization, yet the government refers to who's in charge. There's no such thing as a "conservative state". There is such a thing as an Islamic state. It doesn't refer to the people in charge being Muslims, it refers to a form of state organization in which Sharia is upheld as law, which encompasses several states which hold several things in common. In the same way "Marxist-Leninist state" does not refer to the people in charge being Marxist-Leninists, it refers to a certain type of command economy, etc. Here I'm going off reliable sources (well documented in relevant Wikipedia articles), this person I'm arguing with is going off his personal opinion. Zozs (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
              • @Zozs: No I'm not, and alas, the form of government of a state has nothing to do with the economic system of that given government. You are, again, blending two different concept into one. If the article had asked for "economic_system =" the answer would have been planned economy, but it asks for "government_type =" and last time I checked government_type has nothing to do with what sort of economic system the government uses :p ... The interesting thing here is that you're even admitting that you're not interesting in the form of government, but rather the states orientation; "There is such a thing as an Islamic state. It doesn't refer to the people in charge being Muslims, it refers to a form of state organization in which Sharia is upheld as law, which encompasses several states which hold several things in common. In the same way "Marxist-Leninist state" does not refer to the people in charge being Marxist-Leninists, it refers to a certain type of command economy, etc.". It asks for form of government, its very simple Zozs. --TIAYN (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the qualification as a *single-party* state. I would consider this an acceptable, and not inaccurate, compromise. JamesBay (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Reasons already stated – this term describes the ideology of the state, not the type of government formed by the state. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose << REDACTED – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! >> NO PERSONAL ATTACKS --TIAYN (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support with a proviso: "single-party Marxist-Leninist state" would work. Single-party is the political form, M-L the ideological basis. "Socialist" applies to such a wide variety of countries, ranging from Scandinavia to North Korea, that is strikes me as more confusing than enlightening. Carrite (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite: It asks for the political system, not the ideology of the state Carrite. If it had asked about the state's ideology it would be parameter state_ideology = Marxism-Leninism, but it asks about the form of government. Those are two very different things. At last, no one argues that there exists a socialist political system in Scandinavia (I never heard anyone say that, and neither have you). --TIAYN (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look at Cuba, and that was called "single party socialist republic." North Korea is called "single party socialist state." Either of those would work for me... Carrite (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"Single party" is a given and does not need to be mentioned. Do you know of any socialist or communist regime that has more than one party? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 01:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Carrite: Above. --TIAYN (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "Communist" is a better-known synonym for "Marxist-Leninist." TFD (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Single-party socialist state

• Support - Consistent with use at North Korea. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - not socialist, reasons already given, meaningless term, only scholarly use of "socialist state" is either synonymous of Marxist-Leninist state or self-described socialist state Zozs (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I oppose only the "single-party" phrase. Calling a socialist state a "single-party socialist state" is like describing species arctos as a "two-eyed grizzly" – both "two-eyed" and "single-party" are superfluous givens. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For reasons stated above. --TIAYN (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Communist state

• Support as proposer. (1) Communist state (to which Marxist-Leninist state redirects) "is a Western term for a state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party system by a party which claims to follow communism, usually with a professed allegiance to Marxism-Leninism as the guiding ideology of the state." This ticks all the boxes and, since it has a Wikipedia article, it must be deemed to be a thing that actually exists. (2) It is commonly used to describe the state – see Google Books. (3) The article is in Category:Communist states. --Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, socialist more commonly used. --TIAYN (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, that's a meaningless oxymoron, used by right-wing propagandists, which only serves to confuse people. Zozs (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Scolaire, I was thinking the same thing, did not have the time nor wherewithal to construct alternate proposal & rationale... Roberticus talk 23:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support pretty universally accepted term for all states with this form of political system. Accurate and succinct to boot. JamesBay (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support It is the least biased and most descriptive term. TFD (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @The Four Deuces: But alas there you have it, its a term, not the form of government. --TIAYN (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Scolaire, Roberticus, JamesBay, and The Four Deuces: The article on communist state says ""Communist state" is a Western term for a state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party system by a party which claims to follow communism, usually with a professed allegiance to Marxism-Leninism as the guiding ideology of the state." .. This can't fit the bill, its even breaching NPOV. Note that the article on socialist state says "The term socialist state (or socialist republic) usually refers to any state that is constitutionally dedicated to the construction of a socialist society" - that fits the bill. --TIAYN (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

    • It is a term that describes a form of govermnent, as is "socialist state" btw. And your Wikipedia definition of socialist state is unsourced and wrong. The socialist states claimed that they were socialist societies. they were dedicated to the construction of a communist society (which of course would be stateless.) I did not realize you do not believe that they ever achieved socialism. And being a "Western term" does not in itself breach NPOV, since NPOV is not about providing parity to Western and Eastern views. Since "socialist state" is an Eastern term, it would have the same POV problems. TFD (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

    @The Four Deuces: I don't care if they ever achieved socialism, the socialist states themselves didn't believe they had reached socialism, and therefore established a form of government they called people's democratic republic (hence the name People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of Korea, People's Republic of China and so on) - you see, big difference. Socialist state is both used by Western sources and authors/officials from the former and remaining socialist states, communist state is just a Western term. I don't care if the states themselves believed they had reached socialism or not, but the form of government they created, the Leninist political system, is referred to by the socialist states themselves as socialist, and more importantly, by Western writers as socialist. The socialist states, however, never called their system a communist form of government. Socialist is used by both Western and socialist sources, communist only by Western sources. It should be clear, from you're own argument, what you should vote for. --TIAYN (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

They claimed that they had achieved socialism, which is why they used names such as the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". If you think they meant anything else then please provide a source. And while some Western writers use their self-descriptive term, you need to show that any of them, other than Marxist-Leninsts, ever claimed that these states were socialist. And no one claims that they were "communist" societies, but that they were ruled by big-"C" Communists who wrote their constitutions according to their Communist ideology. TFD (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Yes the Soviet Union reached, or claimed, to have reached socialism under Stalin, but it was Soviet policy not to give the same status to the other European states (another example of Soviet imperialism), and states which were clearly not ready to develop socialist societies (according to any reinterpretation of Marxism)... Countries which broke away from the USSR usually called themselves pure socialists after, for instance, Romania which was turned from a People's Republic to a Socialist Republic in the 1960s, China which officially declared it has reached socialism under Mao (of course, the present-day CPC has backtracked the best way the could, without actually criticizing Mao, and now say they've reached the primary stage of socialism - but China still call their system the people's democratic dictatorship) or North Korea which stopped calling themselves a people's republic, but still has it in its formal name. For instance, South Yemen was a self-declared people's democracy, but South Yemen alongside Somalia were labelled socialist-oriented states by the USSR itself.. Sources for people's democracy, see User:Trust Is All You Need/Sandbox2#References. I don't care if a society was socialist or not, what is clear is that they had a socialist system. The socialist system is clearly definable; a one-party state based upon democratic centralism in which state authority has no checks and balances and all state powers come from the legislative assembly (the head of the assembly as you may know was usually the general secretary or leading POlitburo member...) - of course, in this instance, that "ordinary" members of the legislative assembly didn't have any real power doesn't mean anything, in theory thats how socialist states were and are organized (of course, some of these countries introduced the office of President, but in theory, the presidency is always responsible to the legislative assembly).--TIAYN (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So you draw a distinction between "socialist" and "socialist-oriented" states. All the more reason to ditch the confusing terminology and just called them "Communist states", i.e., states set up by Communists. TFD (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Nope I don't, since socialist-oriented states were not form of governments according to Soviet theory :p ... My point is simple, you refuted yourself. You said socialist states were only used by the communists, which is clearly wrong. Communist state, however, is only used by Western opinion. Socialist state is commonly used, and even more so, and if we are to generalize socialist states is the correct one. If we are to go in depth, then of course South Yemen should be categorized as a "People's democratic republic"... But since the mood here seems to favour generalization, the most correct term would be "Socialist republic/state". Communist state is just a generalization of the term socialist state. --TIAYN (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that the term "socialist state" was only used by "communists", just that only Marxist-Leninists considered them to be socialist or "socialist-oriented" or whatever. In the same sense, writers on "conservatism" in the United States may begin by saying that they are really the right-wing of U.S. liberalism and since they do not support the conservation of medieval institutions, they are misnamed, then refer to them as conservatives throughout their books. It would be tendentious to infer from that they really believed they were conservatives. TFD (talk) 21:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: By the same token it would be unacceptable to call China, Cuba, Hungary, Vietnam, Laos or North Korea communist state. Yes, we support the abolishment of private property, but we support the creation and utilization of the market economy (China, Cuba, Hungary, Vietnam and Laos). Or North Korea, we support the abolishment of feudal ownership (which according to North Korean textbooks in the 1960s also ment hereditary rule by family; breach Kim family) and we support collective rule of the party and state so as to make the most rational decisions (breach, Great leader principle,.. Literally, you can fine holes in everything, but that doesn't make them less socialist (or for that matter, less conservatives).. If it was a general accepted view that the conservatives were the right-wing liberals the WP article should say they were the right-wing liberals, since its the general accepted view amongst scholars. Its not like many have not tried; in Latin America several right-wing parties call themselves the Social Democratic Party, and the Swedish Moderate Party, the second largest party in that country, calls themselves "the only [real LAbour Party"], which it clearly isn't. If, however, this had been accepted by the scholarly community (or share popular opinion), the Moderate Party should have been described as the "only" labour party. Socialist should be used instead of communist since its also accepted by scholars... My point is simple; WP writes what the scholars say, not what we as editors "feel" is correct. If we're talking about feel we should label all dictatorships simply as dictatorships because it feels right, and it certainly does to me (but sadly, dictatorship is neither a form of government, and even if it was, it doesn't clearly distinguish forms of dictatorships from eachother). --TIAYN (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we call them "communist states", which they were not, but that we call them "Communist states". As Sara Diamond writes, "I use uppercase "C" Communism to refer to actually existing governments and movements and lowercase "c" communism to refer to the varied movements and political currents organized around the ideal of a classless society." (Roads to Dominion, p. 8)[6] (See sources the distinction to a book by Joel Kovel.) And I have just explained there is no consensus that these states were actually socialist, but there is consensus they were run by Communist parties, by definition in fact. Re: your Moderate Party example. Your sources no doubt refer to them as "the Moderates." They do not describe their ideology as moderation, it is conservatism, nor are they "the moderates" - presumably there are other "moderate" parties. TFD (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deucues: Its a WP:FRINGE view that the USSR and the Eastern Bloc nations were not socialist.--TIAYN (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not. Socialist parties in Western Europe for example never saw the Soviet Union as socialist. The Labour Party, the SDP in Germany, the Social Democrats in Sweden for example never promised to make their countries another Soviet Union. TFD (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: At last, communist state is not a form of government. You using communist state with a capital C or not doesn't change that fact. Those parties never said the USSR was not socialist, they talked about establishing a different form of socialism, just as the Chinese are doing, just as Alexander Dubček wanted to do and what Mikhail Gorbachev tried to do. Socialism doesn't mean the Soviet Union. But more clearly, none of those parties you mentioned tried to establish a unique socialist political system, they were more then happy existing within the parameters of a liberal democracy. None of those parties tried to establish their own unique Socialist political system; I'm talking about the SOCIALIST POLITICAL SYSTEM, wether the governments were truly socialist or not doesn't matter. A government can both be non-socialist and have a Socialist political system as set up by Lenin, there is no controversy here. This is like saying everyone within the liberal democratic framework have to support liberal democracy, which not everyone does, just look at Venezuela or Ethiopia. --TIAYN (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is incorrect to refer to a form of government as a "communist state". Technically, communist societies are "stateless", so this Western-originating term is an oxymoron. See Communist state#Objections to use of term. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 04:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As explained. "Communist: is big "C". It does not mean that the countries had achieved small "c" "communism", merely that they were governed by big "C" "Communist" parties. They actually called themselves "Communists" - it was not something made up by anti-Communists. TFD (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's really not an encyclopedic argument to use the term as a "form of government" at all. Zozs (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read your argument on that, and my first thought if I am to be honest was that it cannot possibly hold water. One could use the same argument for practically all these choices, even "marxist–leninist", so since this phrase does not describe the government type of what was South Yemen, then I am still opposed to it, nor do I agree that it is the least biased, most descriptive phrase. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Every serious history on the subject of I've seen refers to such nations as "Communist states", regardless of semantical debate. Also, it's more succinct and accurate. Rwenonah (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1972 military conflict infobox

According to the Disputes with North Yemen section, "In 1972 a small proxy border conflict was resolved with negotiations..." Yet for some reason this small proxy border conflict has an infobox, entitled "North Yemen-South Yemen War of 1972", with map, flags, and no fewer than twelve foreign countries who "supported" one side or the other. Overkill? Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

When one considers that the "proxy" part stems from the heavy support for either side, "overkill" does appear to be the reality. If you mean is the infobox overkill? I'd say the ibox is needed to make the "proxy" support clear. I have clarified the event was a short-lived border conflict and not a full-fledged civil war, backed up by reliable sources from the Yemeni unification article. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 08:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The military conflict infobox is designed for articles on military conflicts. Having one in a very brief section of a reasonably long article on a former country is indeed overkill, or to use a more moderate word, inappropriate. This is especially true when the "conflict" in question does not even have its own article! Perhaps an article could be created, and the infobox could be put in it, but it does not belong in this article. Scolaire (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I disagree – for reasons already stated. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 08:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get in a fight about it. I have better things to do. Scolaire (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a lover not a fighter, my own self. And we certainly don't want somebody putting up an ibox on this talk page about the "conflict" between Scolaire and Paine <<<g>>>. I just felt I should be honest with you. – Paine  17:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You could always go with WP:SPLIT

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Name (Article title)

Hi, just wondering why the name of the article is "South Yemen" - a region within current Yemen - when it's officially called "People's Democratic Republic of Yemen?" I think that the title is misleading because some of the areas (such as Al Mahra and Hadramout) - which were part of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen - were not referred to as areas in "South Yemen" but as areas in "South Arabia." Even by looking at the states that preceded the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen in the Wikipedia article, they're called Federation of South Arabia and Protectorate of South Arabia. Additionally, the article is speaking about the country and not a region within current Yemen. And finally, the Wikipedia:Naming conventions for (countries) states that "articles on countries should be named using the official short name in English as defined in ISO 3166-1", which in this case would be "Democratic Yemen". May I request changing it? Thanks,--Danny Wagh (talk) 00:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We usually go by "Common name" in article titles, not the theoretically most correct name, and mainly use the "short forms" of country names. The term "South Yemen" may have some geographical deficiencies, but it was very widely used in English-language newspapers etc. from the 1960s through the 1980s. AnonMoos (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

AnonMoos Thank you for your response. That's completely understandable, however, as I mentioned earleir, It's misleading. I was born in Democratic Yemen and when opening the article, I thought it was regarding the geographical location and not the country. I looked up some old articles and they all referred to it as Democratic Yemen or the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen. I'm not doubting your statement about the term South Yemen being more common, but after doing some research and reading some old archived English articles, it doesn't seem common enough that we don't call the country by it's long or short official names. I still think that the name should be changed for clarity. Sincerely,--Danny Wagh (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (countries) would definitely support your position (sorry I didn't notice that link before I made my previous comment), but I still have a problem with "South Yemen" being the most common form in pre-1991 English-language newspaper coverage. AnonMoos (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

the reason is that there is an article already called Democratic Republic of Yemen Yemeni Historian (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@AnonMoos and Abo Yemen: we need an article about the region, also called South Arabia : [7], [8], [9], [10] Panam2014 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Panam2014 it already exists tho Abo Yemen✉ 17:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: I haven't seen a specific article for Southern Yemen. Panam2014 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Panam2014 you mean the south arabia separatist country thingy? there is no reason to make one yet as they still haven't "formed" the country. they are still in the process of gaining the land first and we should wait for them to regain all their claimed land first and they'll have to have a formal establishment date first Abo Yemen✉ 17:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: See Eastern United States for example. No need to be a country. Panam2014 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Panam2014 eastern united states isn't a country. but the south arabia potential country is (but not established yet) Abo Yemen✉ 17:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: my proposal is not about an article about a country but about a geographical region. I suggest also an article about Central Yemen for example. For South Arabia, we should write that initially, South Arabia means Yemen + Oman but now, it is the name used by the supporters of the South Yemen's secession. Panam2014 (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Panam2014 you mean article names like: south yemen, north yemen, east yemen, west yemen, and central yemen? Abo Yemen✉ 07:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: yes. And for South Arabia, we should only add a paragraph about the modern use of the term by STC's supporters. No need for an article. Also PDRY and ARY was both for Yemen's unity. Panam2014 (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea but the problem here is that these naming conventions areno official, so there will probably be no sources on them; which means that the articles will be, at most, stubs Abo Yemen✉ 10:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

Before I want to ask "how you know if south Yemen isn't state atheism? Syahran Javier A.T (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

read the source cited Abo Yemen✉ 07:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

---

South Yemen → People's Democratic Republic of Yemen – South Yemen (becomes) → South Yemen (Disambiguation) (or keeps its current name and becomes a disambiguation page)

– The political term South Yemen had referred to multiple historical states other than the PDRY, whose official short form name was Democratic Yemen and not South Yemen, like the british Aden Protectorate, the two british South Arabias (The Federation of South Arabia and the Emirates of South Arabia) the People's Republic of Southern Yemen (which used the official short form "Southern Yemen" and not "South Yemen"; I would also propose splitting it from this article as it was more of a nasserist republic and not a marxist one like the PDRY but that's a discussion for another day), the PDRY (of course), the breakaway state of the Democratic Republic of Yemen, and the new separatists (the Hirak (Southern Movement), the STC, and others) that use that term interchangeably with South Arabia. All these previous states should be reffered to in the disamb page

I am also proposing this change to make the North/South Etymology consistent on wikipedia as the page North Yemen, which is a disamb page, links to the former states of the Yemen Arab Republic and the Kingdom of Yemen Abo Yemen✉ 10:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Cold War, WikiProject Arab world, and WikiProject Yemen have been notified of this discussion. Abo Yemen✉ 11:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support move of South Yemen to People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen due to the above, and to make South Yemen a disambiguation page due to there being multiple states that existed there and to make it consistent with North Yemen. |MK| 📝 09:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Changing (removing) the primary topic is not clarifying. In the current situation, North Yemen and South Yemen do parallel each other. People need to correctly know how the term "South Yemen" is actually used in English. Srnec (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - sounds like an effort to establish "consistency" by creating an unnecessary disambiguation page and complicating things far more than they need to be. The Southern Movement is never known as the "South Yemen Movement" [11]. I haven't found any reference to the STC using the term to apply to themselves, nor has the nominator provided any evidence to support the claim that the actual country of South Yemen isn't the most common application of the term. Feel free to create South Yemen (disambiguation) as proposed, but I don't see any reason to remove the primary topic. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME: inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. This article talks almost completely about the Marxist rule of the Marxist faction of the NLF and the socialist party who both used "Democratic Yemen" as an official name (even used by the United Nations) after the 1969 corrective move. The closest official name to "South Yemen" was the PRSY's official short name "Southern Yemen". The PRSY is barely mentioned in this article and had a very different ruling style than the Marxist faction of the NLF which later formed the YSP. Let's say that we split the PRSY and PDRY into different articles as it has enough sources to be an article on its own, are we going to have a People's Republic of Southern Yemen (Which was referred to as "South Yemen" by rs), South Yemen (PDRY), and the later Democratic Republic of Yemen (Which was ALSO referred to as "South Yemen" by rs)? how does this make it less complicated? Plus since when was violating Wikipedia:Verifiability to make something look less complicated than it actually is a good reason to oppose? Abo Yemen✉ 06:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It's the same country regardless of the change in ruling party. It was "a state from 1967 to 1990". It's like South Vietnam, a state that also underwent constitutional change (in 1967). If the current article is split into two as you propose then we can revisit the question of making a South Yemen dab page like the one for the north, but your suggestion of a dab page that contains the British protectorates and the Southern Movement is a non-starter to me: that's just not what the term South Yemen is ever likely to refer to. Like North and South Vietnam or North and South Korea, they speak to a very particular historical period. They are not like northern(ern) and south(ern) Vietnam/Korea/Yemen. Srnec (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Im pretty sure that i've read and watched multiple british sources calling the protectorates as "South(-ern sometimes) Yemen" Abo Yemen✉ 07:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Collectively? We have no article on British South Arabia. We have individual articles on Aden Colony, Aden Province, Aden Protectorate, Protectorate of South Arabia, Federation of the Emirates of South Arabia, Federation of South Arabia. I don't see how listing all of these at a dab page for the term 'South Yemen' would be helpful. It seems to me the term comes into use (in English) only in the period after 1963, with the rise of the Front for the Liberation of Occupied South Yemen. Now, perhaps a framework article on British South Arabia would be useful... Perhaps you should create South Yemen (disambiguation) so people can see exactly what you have in mind, but I don't think a long dab page is helpful to the average reader who just wants to see what the 'South Yemen' he has encountered in his reading is. Srnec (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI me and another editor are planning on this writing this up in the future Draft:History of Yemen under the British Abo Yemen✉ 17:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Blind assertions of reliable sources using a certain name are, to be rather blunt, worthless when no evidence is provided. Those kinds of blind assertions are even less valuable to the RM process when is only "pretty sure" they exist. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I could have sworn that i've seen those sources somewhere but I couldn't find them. I am going to strike my reply tho Abo Yemen✉ 06:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose South Yemen is the common name of the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, which in turn is the primary topic of that title. What we should be doing (IMO) is merging Kingdom of Yemen and Yemen Arab Republic into a single article covering the entire history of that country, instead of having no single article on that country. Number 57 20:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  please leave those articles alone. They are very different historical periods that deserve their own article. You could do what the Arabic page did as a disamb (translated version of the page) Abo Yemen✉ 07:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – I understand the rationale but disagree with the proposal. It seems to me that the scope of this article is the former sovereign state commonly known in English as South Yemen. Proposing such a move and a change in scope with technical details is not helpful to the average reader and probably more confusing. It's the reason why proposals to move country articles to their official country names have failed in the past, e.g. China → PRC, Taiwan → ROC, North Korea → DPRK, etc. Yue🌙 05:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Very clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  how did you know that the term is commonly used to refer to the PDRY and not the PRSY? or maybe the DRY? Abo Yemen✉ 16:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.