This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cold War (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles Soviet Union High‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles High This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Socialism Mid‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles Mid This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Mid‑importance This template is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles Mid This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

excellent article. But I need more written— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.27.56.227 (talk • contribs) September 20, 2011 1:15 (UTC)

Is it neutral? Annexed states taked independense only at 1991? (Kazakhstan, Tajikstan, Kirgizstan) They had`nt statehood before. Sergoman (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently renamed the section in the template from "Allied states" to "Allied and satellite states", as many (but not all) of them were indeed satellites (primarily in Europe), per:

• Overwhelming support by WP:RS: The "satellite state" term is widely used in primary, secondary and tertiary; it's used by historians and institutions; [1][2][3][4][5] and countless number of other references; the term is used in the Eastern Bloc article itself (and related articles as well as their infoboxes); please also see the Satellite state article for more information and sources.
• It's WP:DUE: the sole use of "allied" is misleading, as it suggests that the relevant states (East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc) had sufficient independence and joined the alliance voluntarily. That wasn't the case.

It seems that Mewulwe has a dissenting view, but I don't see it being backed by WP:RS.

-- Mindaur (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Albania and Romania (which were also called satellite states once!) sufficiently proved such states had independence. It's Western propaganda, obviously the term was not used in the Eastern bloc itself. West Germany followed about as closely the U.S. line as East Germany the Soviet line, but we don't call it a U.S. satellite. Mewulwe (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The fact that there were eastern bloc states which had sufficient independence doesn't deny the fact that many others didn't. That's why the title is not just "Satellite states", but "Allied and satellite states". Although some of them ceased being allies (that's why the template has "up to" notes). The "Western propaganda" remark is your WP:POV and immaterial, as the viewpoint is backed by WP:RS. -- Mindaur (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's absurd. How exactly did some Communist states have independence and others didn't? To the extent they aligned with the Soviet Union, they did so out of their own choice, in the same way Western countries chose to align with the U.S. And how could a satellite state just be a satellite state up to a point and then decide not to be? It's a contradiction in itself. The WP:RS remark is your WP:POV actually. These are invariably Western-biased sources. This is more a slur than any meaningful scientific concept after all. It serves to suggest "puppet state" without quite saying so, because that would be too obviously absurd. There are puppet states, like Manchukuo was a puppet state of Japan, but East Germany for example was no Manchukuo. Mewulwe (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term "satellite state" defines a particular relationship where there is a certain degree of independence, but it's limited: [6]. It seems you didn't even bother to read the references. Instead, you invented the "puppet state" analogy (even though the difference between these is clearly explained in the sources) and argued against something that wasn't even suggested.

Some states under the communism, for instance Czechoslovakia and Hungary, attempted to reform or rebel. Both the Prague Spring in 1968 and the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 resulted in a Soviet military intervention and a crackdown. Hence the answer to your question why; it ought to be obvious and it's absurd to suggest the contrary. Some Eastern Bloc communist states, such as Yugoslavia not only had full independence (even though the Soviets tried to exert pressure), but also pursued different foreign policy: Yugoslavia was a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement (hence not being the "allies").

WP:RS are numerous and the fact that you don't like them doesn't disqualify them; if anything, your "Western propaganda" rant suggests your personal bias. Wikipedia is written based on reliable sources: that's on of the pillars, that's how it works. -- Mindaur (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1945, seriously? That is no RS. My point stands regarding the actual usage and its propaganda intent. Your examples also prove the opposite: Czechoslovakia and Hungary were more often called satellite states *before* the events mentioned than after, even though the case would be stronger after. But the fact that they did launch these "rebellions" (which implied that, in their own view, they must have considered a possibility of success) proved they were certainly no satellite states before, or they could not or would not even have launched these. And I wasn't mentioning Yugoslavia, but I see you don't comment on Albania, which *was* a member of the Warsaw Pact but then resigned from it, without being "brought into line." Romania also took massive departures from the Soviet line, although it had been called a satellite. Mewulwe (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I provided multiple WP:RS. What's your RS? Pravda? :) Unfortunately, reasoning doesn't appear to be working with you. I requested WP:3O. -- Mindaur (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You provided nothing like that, just a bunch of random books you googled for the term without any basis to consider them RS, plus journals from deepest Cold War times, or from barely-relevant fields (cartography!). I don't want to change the established version, so I'm not obliged to provide RS for anything. Mewulwe (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really suggest you familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- WP:RULES -- because you are either not familiar with them or you just choose to blatantly ignore them. As mentioned before, I requested WP:3O, so please wait for an uninvolved editor to provide the feedback. -- Mindaur (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL, WP:RULES? Anything more specific or are you just getting desperate? Mewulwe (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mindaur Did you have a specific state in mind that qualifies as a 'Satellite'? Bonewah (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bonewah:

• Per WP:RS -- East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary were generally satellite states of the Soviet Union throughout all or most of the Cold War.
• Romania and Albania were satellite states for some period after WW2, but later they developed a more complex relationship with the Soviet Union (see De-satellization of the Socialist Republic of Romania and Albanian–Soviet split for the background).
• Yugoslavia is a notable exception compared to the other states (see Tito–Stalin split and Non-Aligned Movement for the background).

-- Mindaur (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agree with Mindaur. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I restored @Mindaur's edit. I don't know enough about the subject to judge deeply, but their edit is at least reasonable and importantly it is backed up by reliable sources—which is more than can be said of @Mewulwe's reversion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  What do you consider RS here? If you don't know enough about the subject, maybe you should stay out. The idea *I* need RS to maintain the long-established version is absurd. The onus is on Mindaur, and he has not provided relevant, modern, unbiased sources. The case of Romania proves him wrong. Satellite implies dependency, and if a supposed satellite can just on its own accord decide to cease being a satellite, then it wasn't one to begin with. And nor, then, were the others. The term Allies is perfectly sufficient here. Mewulwe (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  You did not provide *any* WP:RS to back your position whatsoever. Frankly, you did not engange in the discussion constructively either and your arguments are simply illogical. At this point, you are just throwing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Mindaur (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Nice projecting. It's you who's bullshitting. I don't propose any addition so I don't need any RS to counter *yours*, for which *you* have yet to provide adequate RS. And since I said that before and you repeat this nonsensical demand, *you* are obviously not discussing constructively or logically. Mewulwe (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Just because the previous revision lasted for long doesn't mean it's accurate or is based on a consensus; moreover, consensus may change, that's per WP:CON policy. You change it with WP:RS evidence, rather than personal opinions or arguments about the longevity of particular revisions.
  • I presented multiple WP:RS which you failed to refute. There were 6 references with (but there are many more). You randomly picked one and made a remark about it's date. First, the date in itself doesn't automatically disqualify the reference -- you need to demonstrate that it's outdated view. The same applies to source/institution/author: writing "seriously?" is not argument and does not disqualify the source, it's just your emotion. More importantly, you chose to simply ignore the other references, which are recent, including one from year 2020. In fact, my choice to present both the new and old sources was deliberate: it was to demonstrate that the term has been in use through the entire historical period. In summary, you made meaningless remarks about 1 source out of 6.
  • You failed to provide any WP:RS backing your view. That is the fundamental way to support a view, per Wikipedia pillars. This and all the above suggest that you are either not familiar with the WP policies (and the fundamental importance of writing Wikipedia content based on WP:RS) or you choose to simply ignore them and push your WP:POV.
  • We went through a formal WP:3O process where a third, uninvolved, editor provided an opinion. That editor, quite naturally, identified the need for WP:RS. You chose to just dimiss it.

  Last, but not least, instead of trying to collaborate and have a constructive discussion, you resort to emotional remarks and accusations: "That's absurd.", "seriously?", "LOL", "It's you who's bullshitting", "nonsensical demand" (even though the demand is literally a Wikipedia policy), "maybe you should stay out" (towards IOHANNVSVERVS who provided a neutral opinion per WP:3O). If you will continue this path, you will end up in the administrators noticeboard. -- Mindaur (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Oh yes, my "absurd" is "emotional," but your "illogical" is not. And "maybe you should stay out" is, but "you will end up in the administrator's noticeboard" isn't. It is obvious you are not acting in good faith, as evidenced by the old pattern of repeating points already countered. The fact that you can google and find as many references to "satellite states" as you want does of course prove nothing. Do you think anything in print is per se an RS? Do you think the use of the term "satellite state" in some cartography text, or in some Cold War-era Western political text, proves your point? In that case I can only repeat: "Seriously?" And at the same time you again expect me essentially to prove a negative. Well, fine: simply take a Britannica from around 1980 and look up any of the states you mentioned above. Not one is defined as a "satellite state" or any equivalent term. Now, by your own standard, should I give you five other examples where the term is not used to prove the point? Mewulwe (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  From Encyclopedia Britannica [7]: "With the fall of the Third Reich, Poland effectively lost its independence again, becoming a communist satellite state of the Soviet Union and experiencing nearly a half century of totalitarian rule, though not without challenges from Polish workers." -- Mindaur (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Congratulations on googling another individual example, now should I counter each of yours with another example of non-use or what? (This reversal to simplistic Cold War buzzwords in this particular article is a somewhat ludicrous example of victor's historiography. Not just that Poland obviously lost its independence not with, but six years before the fall of the Third Reich, calling Communist Poland "totalitarian" makes one wonder what words the author then uses for Nazi Germany or North Korea.) The bottom line is that it is not an objective term, as evidenced by the simple fact that no state ever used it to describe itself. It does not carry additional information over the term "ally" except an inherently negative connotation. A very similar case is the equally loaded term "terrorist." No organization uses that for itself. And serious sources, like many news agencies, accordingly avoid it and use the perfectly adequate but neutral term "militant." Wikipedia also seems to do so, seeing that the Hamas article only uses the term by way of reporting who designated it as such, but not describing it thus itself - even though one could obviously find an infinity of "sources" as good as the ones you provided in this case. Likewise Wikipedia should not use the term "satellite state" as fact. Mewulwe (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  In response to this recent reversion Special:MobileDiff/1182419217, I'd advise you to pursue some sort of dispute resolution if you still feel strongly about your position. Opening a Request for Comment might be a good next step. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Be careful about edit warring @Mewulwe. You have every right to stick to your position but you need to follow the dispute resolution process. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS: & @Mindaur:, I restored "Satellite states". Mewulwe, please stop edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS - I think this template will soon need 'protection'. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not that experienced editing Wikipedia, how should the issue of a user engaging in persistent edit warring be handled?, such as in this case. (See most recent reversion) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, GoodDay is a pure stalker who came here after I reverted him on an entirely unrelated page so he looked at my edits to oppose me here maliciously. He of course does not offer any more reasoning than IOHANNVSVERVS, who has said he doesn't know enough about the subject, which however doesn't stop him to take Mindaur's side in this one-on-one dispute, reverts for him, and then has the nerve to accuse me of "edit-warring." I am happy to leave the template alone so long as discussion or dispute resolution is ongoing. Mindaur, on the other hand, does nothing while the template is as he wants. Mewulwe (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ymblanter: Thanks for protecting the page, but can you please restore the "Allied and satellite" as per the WP:3O outcome (please see the whole dispute above)? The single editor disputing the view may still call an RFC, if he/she wishes so, but the editor should follow the process rather than blatanly pursue edit-warring with three other editors. --Mindaur (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sorry but I follow Wikipedia:Wrong version here. Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This doesn't make sense, it was one editor that was edit warring, violating Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and trying to overrule consensus. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's okay. I submitted the report to WP:AN/EW. -- Mindaur (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ymblanter: Thanks for the humour, but the point here is that we already went through a formal dispute resolution process. It was ignored. Anyway, I created an RfC. It is unfortunate that the editors have to spend time repeating this. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]