Talk:South Yemen

message: According to the South Yemeni pronounciation which was "offocial" in the timae of PRSY-PDRY the Arabic word "Republic" - "Jumhuriyyah" in Classic Arabic was prononced "Gumhuriyyah" - like as in Egyptian colloquial Arabic. The Arabic "ج" is "g" in Cairo and Aden, but "j" in Sana'a. MutargimMutargim (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gumhuuriyya - not Jumhuriyya 

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

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

message: Human rights in South Yemen were violated? And what about human rights in Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and other pro-western Arab countries? Who cares about human rights there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.241.135 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a terrible attitude, definitely not suitable for a Wikipedian. I think it's important for us to find referenc-able sources regarding a lot of items on this page that has citation required. There should also be some information regarding North Yemen as well. It's funny how when one copy information from the CIA World Fact book, there are always huge portions of the article describing the "horrible state of affairs" in Communist countries, such as for South Yemen, but there's almost nothing regarding North Yemen, its counterpart. Children of the dragon (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human rights? 

message: According to some indications, such as the text in the bottom of image :File:Coat of arms of South Yemen.jpg — which was also reproduced in the book  Guide to the Flags of the World by Mauro Talocci (edited and revised by Whitney Smith, 1982 () — the name from 1967-1970 was actually جمهورية اليمن الجنوبية الشعبية jumhuriyat al-yaman al-janubiya al-sha`biya "The People's Republic of South Yemen", not "The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name, 1967-1979?

message: * Oppose because it implies it was an actual socialist state. Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Marxist-Leninist single-party socialist state

message: * Oppose meaningless propaganda term. Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: People's Democracy

message: * Oppose meaningless propaganda term. Zozs (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: People's Democratic Republic

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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", 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Socialist state

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  "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)

text: Above. --TIAYN (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Marxist-Leninist state

message: * Support - Consistent with use at North Korea. Carrite (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Single-party socialist state

message: *Support as proposer. (1) Communist state (to which  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)  (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)

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

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Communist state

message: This claim isn't substantiated by the sources (unless it's in the one that has a username/password screen); also, best in the region compared to what? the Middle East? East Africa? Arab countries? These reforms were very similar to the ones made by Nasser or Hafez. Also, I don't understand the citation for "mostly secular' citing a Liberal slam-piece about Saudi Arabia with "prominent individuals" that can't be independently verified doesn't make it "Mostly Secular"   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:F378 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: the region is the middle east and obviously not east africa Yemeni Historian (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Best in the region" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: the reason is that there is an article already called Democratic Republic of Yemen Yemeni Historian (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  we need an article about the region, also called South Arabia : , , ,  Panam2014 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Panam2014 it already exists tho Abo Yemen✉ 17:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't seen a specific article for Southern Yemen. Panam2014 (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text:  See Eastern United States for example. No need to be a country. Panam2014 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Name (Article title) 

message: Hello there.
I am Taha Alesayi , I am from PDRY.
I am Muslim and Islam is my religion.
Our whole nation are Muslims, we have a lot of old Masjids everywhere in PDRY 200-300 years old to make sure that our religion is Islam.
Be sure before you write anything about our country.
peace and love from PDRY.
People's Democratic Republic of Yemen was Islamic state and it's Islamic state for ever. Taha alesayi (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure what you're talking about.  Of course, the majority of the inhabitants are Muslim, but in the 1970's and 1980's, the governing ideology was much more Marxist than Islamic. AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

text: how can you be from a country that doesn't exist? also please don't mix up politics with demographics Yemeni Historian (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDRY was Islamic state and it's Islamic state for ever. 

message: @Natemupi know that "this extremely notable fact belongs in the first graf" but it could have been added in a better way Abo Yemen✉ 13:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as? natemup (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: the first paragraph mentions that it is a "communist state" two times. You could have made it mention it one time and add that it is the only arab communist state. Abo Yemen✉ 16:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2023