Talk:Puppet state/Archive 1

Sources?

This article seems to be lacking in sources. There seems to be a good deal of work being done, and as I am not in expert in this area I think I'll leave it up to other contributors. --Saerko 13:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Material for introduction

I don't think it is useful to add a discussion of the Nazi Government-General in Poland to the Introduction. It was not a puppet state and is not generally included in lists of puppet states, so it is out of place in a section which sets out the meaning of the term. I've moved the material further down. Robert Cribb 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to put this, but the introduction seems way overly long. It needs to be streamlined and condensed. I would do it myself but it seems rather daunting. It goes into too much detail. Nblinknpark41 23:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A matter of status

I've never hear the Republic of Texas referred to as a puppet government, and its not clear who it was the puppet government of.

• Republic of Texas (1836-1845)

It ought to be pretty clear.
See the list of states recognizing the Republic, see the relation of the republic's domestic politics, and see which country annexed the republic, and you see who it thought to have been a marionette of.

These words (puppet state, marionette regime, etc) are mostly used by people discontent with the actual government's dependency. In other words: puppet regimes of high-status governments are called something else (why not "friendly government" or "a brave statesman conducting true leadership"). However, puppet regimes of low-status governments (as for instance Imperial Germany - with low-status in English and French literature) are sometimes also called something else (as for instance independent Finland's government), if there are certain reasons not to hurt the national feelings of the government's subject.
-- Ruhrjung 13:59 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I have never thought of the Greek Junta government of 1967-1974 to be a puppet government of the United States, i feel the cause of the Junta was a result of government corruption in Greece.

---

Again, I've never heard the Republic of Hawaii referred to as a puppet government.

• Republic of Hawaii (1894-1898)

---

Can this article ever be NPOV?

Puppet government is a pejorative term, can this article ever be NPOV. When does a vassal state (e.g. Batavian Republic), satellite state(e.g. Communist Czechoslovakia) or an interim administration (e.g. Iraq today) become a puppet government?

Mintguy 11:01, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The current Iraqi government is so far an occupational government. If the occupation ends, but the political leadership in Bagdhad still is dependent on foreign powers, then it's become a marionette régime of those foreign powers.

See, by the way, NPOV - the term marionette government exists and is used. The idea with NPOV can't be to avoid controversial issues, but to describe them, don't you think?
-- Ruhrjung 12:05, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No. This article can never ever be NPOV. It is the nature of Wikipedia. More to the point, this article is a puppet of those educated by the polities that have won the major wars of the past 100 years. They see everything in that light. The winners have allies, losers have puppets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.73.42 (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Israel?

A case could be made for calling The State of Israel a puppet state of the United States. In fact, Noam Chomsky has said on many occasions that Israel is basically a US military base. Thoughts? -- Seeker 04:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't qualify. If anything, it's the other way around. AIPAC is an example of Israeli interest having an incredibly disproportionate influence in US policy making. US cradles Israel like no other state - immense economic aid, immense military aid, immense political aid- over looking and promoting Israel domestic and international policy decision condemned by other civilized states.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.153.183 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

US government as a Zionist puppet

I know that I was messing with other pages and not supposed to. But this isn't vandalism. Some believe this, its not vandalism like when i was putting obscene pictures in the sharon article.

It's POV because expresses opinion of some - like you said - persons. I already signed lots of serious petitions for Palestine freedom. Muriel Gottrop 12:26, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You'll have a hard and long way to go until you re-earn the respect you hope for. So far, you could for instance start by signing your articles, most simply by the "tilde-trick" as in: "-- ~~~~"

-- Ruhrjung 12:31, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You wrote (recently):

some in the Palestinian movement and others regard America as a puppet of the Zionists.

It's some progress, actually, but please note that the article is about puppet régimes - not about puppets. Who, by the way, in the Palestinian movement does this. I know that too many wikipedia editors use the formula "some say" that and "some others say" that, but personally I think this is very bad.

-- Ruhrjung 12:44, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This user has tried to redirect Israel to [[Zionist entity]], inserted a picture of a penis on the Ariel Sharon page,

Cute! A phallos or a softie? -- Ruhrjung

...a picture of Sharon on the Penis page, added in POV rants to pages, etc. He says he is now leaving wiki but given that he said he was going to stop 'messing' with pages and eight minutes later started again, I don't think we can pay much reliance to anything he says. See User talk:Palestinian liberator/ban for the full details. BTW I too have been a critic of Israel and for NPOVing RK's stuff have been called 'anti-semite' by RK so it is a bit amusing to be called a 'zionist'. (But then I was called a 'rapid Irish republican' and and pro-Brit Tory for exactly the same edit, an "openly Australian monarchist" and a "naked pro-Australian republican" for one edit elsewhere, so I guess if both sides think me pro- the other, I am kinda NPOV! :-) FearÉIREANN 12:48, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. :-)
Some conflicts quite simply reach us in the clothing of rage.
-- Ruhrjung 13:24, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

US government as a Zionist puppet...IF ONLY THIS WERE TRUE! Unfortunately its not. But the PLO and Hamas are puppets of Iran. They only exist for the genocide and policide of the Jewish state. Their goal is not statehood but the destruction of Israel. They could have had a state between 1948 and 1967 when Judea and Samaria were Jew free, but they did not once call for a state. The Arabs are liars and chancers and must be crushed. Islamofascism is rampant, killing everyone that is not 'one of them'. The world is becoming ever more dangerous thanks to the Left whose only answer is appeasement. Do not be sidetracked by nonsense such as the 'US government as a Zionist puppet', get real or die! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.25.237 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The previous comment is what I called a totally biased, racist, and ignorant comment. Anyway, we cannot deny the overwhelming influence the United States had on Latin America during the Cold War, and the several dictatorships it supported (e.g. Pinochet's in Chile, Batista's in Cuba, etc.). None of these examples seem to be "of importance" to feature in this article. Aside from that, several governments were "satellite agencies of the US" - example? In Honduras, during the presidency of Ramón Villeda Morales (1957-1963) the country was deeply influenced by US decisions. There are several documents that support this, letters written by Morales in which he states "the country will support whatever the US government decides is best for Western civilization." Of course, the United States controlled the government through trade and commerce, and the Cuban embargo made many of the local governments, Honduras' included, afraid of the United States. Many historians agree that the United States controlled too much to not agree with them. Most of these countries were dwarves in comparison to the United States power, just as the Soviet Union controlled dwarves states in its influence range through condition-based actions. If this isn't applicable to the US, then it shouldn't be applicable to the Soviet Union as well. These are clearly cases of puppet states, and there are several other examples in Latin America.

-- Mariano 12:57, 23 Dec 2011

The Talibans as puppets of Al-Qaida

Removed from the list of wellknown puppet governments:

• The Taliban regime in Afghanistan, controlled by Al-Qaida (1998-2001)

--Tuomas 22:21, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I decided to class the post-1998 Taliban as an al-Qaida puppet because they received massive amounts of funding from al-Qaida, and because they appointed Osama bin Laden as their defence minister and installed other Arab al-Qaida members in positions within the Taliban regime. --GCarty 18:04, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

Could you give a source for any of this? AlistairMcMillan 16:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Order of list items

Is there a reason why the international list is in reverse chronological order, while the European list is in normal chronological order? --Menchi 22:49, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)

I admit I didn't notice. But I think it's logical to have the "big" list, the one covering a century or more, in reversed order as that's how our memory works. --Tuomas 01:45, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Fascist Italy

I don't think Fascist Italy counts as a puppet government, as the de facto ruler (Mussolini) was Italian himself. A puppet state is one controlled by a foreign power...

Fascist Italy was not a puppet, but Mussolini's Italian Social Republic (1943-1945) was controlled by the Germans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.48.71 (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Government vs State

I think there ought to be a clearer distinction drawn between a "puppet government" and a "puppet state". The former typically involves a foreign power installing a compliant leadership in a pre-existing state against the wishes of the people. The latter usually means the foreign power actually carving out the state itself. The remedy proposed (by the POV which uses the label "puppet") for the former would be simply to have a more representative, independent government. The remedy proposed for the latter may well be to abolish the state completely as an artificial, unnatural entity. The foregoing is just off the top of my head; are there any sources making the suggested distinction? Joestynes 05:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The puppet government may be created without the pre-existing or newly carved state. For example, Government of National Salvation was appointed by the German Military Commander in Serbia at the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. That territory was just an area under a military occupation - not a state. Similar is situation with the Province of Ljubljana, after the capitulation of Italy in 1943. Previously, that area has been annexed by Italy. When Nazi Germany occupied that area, it was not recognized as part of Italy anymore. However, it was not annexed by Germany. It was under German military occupation, but with a local Slovenian puppet government. N Jordan (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Vassal state

Removed this. Vassal state and puppet state are quite different. Puppet states have theoretical freedom but are actually controlled by the ruling state. Most historical examples of vassal states are the exact opposite.

Some puppet states must pay tribute to the controlling power - these are known as vassal states.

Remove vassal state from puppet state. "Puppet states have theoretical freedom but are actually controlled by the ruling state. Most historical examples of vassal states are the exact opposite." Exactly. Vassal states demonstrate the weakness of the "ruling" state whereas puppet states demonstrate strength.

"Vassal state" also has a profound difference in historical context from "puppet state." The current nation-state system is a system of (theoretically) equal entities. Earlier systems incoporated a ranking with vassalage (tutelage) accruing from lower to higher levels. It was a mutual arrangement which "puppet state" does not apply.

LuiKhuntek 20:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

In the "See Also" section, there was a link to "Vassal state", but since (for some reason) it redirected back to "Puppet state", so I removed the link. Recommend separating the two articles, as they're clearly two different animals, so to speak. --Micahbrwn 08:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have restored that link, so that the interested reader will have the opportunity to read a topically related article once that article has been written. NP.:] //Big Adamsky 09:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Self-redirects are sloppy. Removed. — Phil Welch 09:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

South Korea Sesel?

I added south korea. The south korean military is under the command of a US general in wartime, the south korean president has no control over his army. North korea uses this to accuse the south of being a puppet. I feel that this has a right to be mentioned. - Yasis

Then it's a puppet army, not a puppet state or puppet government. It is not controlled to the same degree as other states included on the list that you added ROK to. —Seselwa 03:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Any government that has no control over its own army is to a certain degree a "puppet". North Korea, uses this point to justify its claims. The heading that introduces the list reads:

        Some other examples of states sometimes labelled 'puppet governments' are:

South Korea is sometimes labelled a "puppet". That is true. The fact that the ROK president has no legal power to control the "ROK" military during wartime is also true. I feel that this fact, which not many people are aware of, deserves a mention on this particular page that discusses "puppet states". I feel that is fair. - Yasis 18 May 2005

Solomon Island's Invasion

Alright, Sesel, I disagree with your statement about the Solomon Island's being a puppet state, however I understand it being listed as such.

Despite that, describing Operation Helpem Fren as an Invasion is just nonsense. --203.17.44.84 10:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

VFD

I put this page up for deletion due to the fact that this article appears to be thouroughly unencyclopedic due to the fact that there are no sources, and none if this is based off solid fact, it's based more off of popular opinion that these countries where puppet states, and FYI I agree that many of them were, but I still don't think that this article qualifies as a factual article due to the fact that none of this can be backed up. Jtkiefer 05:38, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for verification instead of VfD. Where do you people get this perverted idea of destroying information instead of improving or verifying it? — Phil Welch 05:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

for the sake of reading any comments, here's the link to the vfd Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Puppet_state Jtkiefer 06:44, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

the list

I think the list by itself should not be a part of the article however I think that parts of it would be appropriate for use as a part of the article as examples of puppet states. Jtkiefer 06:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

If that is true then on what basis are there inclusions at all? Apparently mentioning facts that a claim has been made constitutes "original research". Such a high criteria threshold that has been laid out here.... --TJive 06:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm reformatting the list into paragraph form. Try not to remove it until I have it all fixed over. — Phil Welch 06:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for anti-semites and the watchdogs of the Illuminati, the simple fact is that they are not notable. You know, come to think of it, the same thing could be leveled at List of alleged conspiracy theories, where such things are addressed. Oh no, an enumeration of claims of varying plausibility! Original research! --TJive 06:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I am open to the fact that some of these may be suitably verified and if that is the case then they would make great examples of puppet states. Jtkiefer 06:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

To my mind that is precisely what would cause an accusation of original research, or even NPOV, that all claims are evaluated for inclusion (and hence criteria developed for inclusion in a list), though some of the more obvious fallacious examples are commented on already. The Axis examples, however, were written with a clear intent in mind of identification (not that they are necessarily wrong). My solution was to stick with the given formula when I appeared; these states are accused, therefore they appear. --TJive 06:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think though that a paragraph style formatting with several examples from that list that have been shown to be reliably verifiable could be used as examples. Jtkiefer 06:41, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

List as of 6/25 of accused puppet states, here's the list for the archives even if the main page version is deleted, so we can have a copy of the list in case any of it's information can be implemented in the article. Jtkiefer 06:47, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

TJive, given that you are admitting to the possibility of excluding some claims that certain regimes were puppet states but not others, you are implicitly admitting that you have a personal criteria for including and excluding certain regimes in this list, which means that you are indeed creating original research. Yet some of the "accusations" that you find worth listing might be as readily dismissed as dubious by a specialist as some of the ones that you consider not worthy of consideration, particularly a number of "alleged" puppet states listed under the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Generating such a list might be appropriate for a political scientist, but not for a user on Wikipedia. Even professionally written sourcebooks and encyclopedias do not generate original lists along these lines for entries on terms like "satellite state" or "puppet state." For the same reason the list entitled Sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War was deleted, this list should be deleted as well. 172 08:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're not being very clear here. The only qualification for inclusion is a notable accusation, which is not original research, it is explicitly allowed by that policy. As is evaluation of individual claims, i.e. substance aside from simple names and dates. I do not advocate creating a list for the purposes of deciding specifically which are puppet states and which are not, and I also do not hold to the necessity of a lengthy fulmination on the matter. So the extent of excluding some claims is not as to the veracity of the claim but whether the claim is notable to begin with, which you immediately reduced to the strawman of Jew/Masonry-baiting. I'm not particularly concerned with their intellectual wherewithal to the extent that the possibility any loony thing can be said means it should be and my discernment is paralyzed. Or is the problem really with some already given inclusions? --TJive 08:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is really with not only some already given inclusions, but all of them. You are not working with any established criteria for seleting the "accusations" that are worth reporting. 172 23:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For me, the criteria are clear: if it's verifiable that some state or major political figure has claimed that a given state is a puppet state, than it is worthy of being reported in this article. As the list really isn't a list any longer (it *includes* lists, but it isn't a list itself), then it's perhaps a little more clear. — Phil Welch 23:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then I'll test you. Who explicitly called-- just to name any entry in the list-- Mozambique under FRELIMO a "puppet of the Soviet Union?" 172 00:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Obviously I'm not done verifying the list yet or I would have taken the notice off. I assume that you're as qualified at using Google as I am, however, so why don't you find out? By the way, didn't you quit awhile ago? — Phil Welch 00:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) (struck out: — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 12:30 (UTC)) Point taken; you win. It's been removed. — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 12:30 (UTC)

I don't need to do a Google search. I have been working with social science research since most Wikipedia editors were probably born. I fully know why it's silly to take a term that is nothing more than a pejorative, not a concept used by social science researchers, and then try to base something along the lines of scholarly qualitative research on it... Finish verifying the content before restoring the list. There is no reason why you cannot work in a sandbox. Not having gotten around to a "Google search" is no excuse for potentially posting misinformation on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia... If you are interested in what I have to say about my contributions to Wikipedia, please see my user page, and older versions listing some of my work. I have nothing to say about that here, as this matter is irrelevant to this talk page. 172 00:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dude, you do realize that there is a box that states that the content needs to be cleaned up and verified before that section of the article and that furthermore, it isn't a list (try reading it sometime)? The term "puppet state" is a pejorative, and it's a term that has been used in politics and possibly even in history after things cooled down (like the Axis-controlled puppet states). If you don't think the term "puppet state" is a subject worthy of "scholarly research" then why didn't you vote delete on the VfD? — Phil Welch 01:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine, if you are not as bothered about the possibly that articles contain inaccuracies, I guess that I have nothing more to say. I suppose that the reliability of articles means more to some users than to others... The article should not be deleted, and should be more about the concept than the cases, or in other words the usage of the term, often as propaganda, than the countries to which it has been applied. 172 01:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am bothered by the possibility of inaccuracies. Why do you think I posted a box that says "certain factual claims in this section need verification"? Of course, I am also just as bothered by the idea of recklessly destroying information that hasn't been verified yet. And I would wonder how exactly we are to have an article about the term "puppet state" without discussing when and where the term has been used. — Phil Welch 01:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, what exactly have *you* done to make the information in this article more reliable? All I've seen you do is either destroy information wholesale or whine on a talk page. And I've checked the edit history. Aside from that you've even assumed bad faith on my part and wasted your time posturing (working with social science research since most Wikipedia editors were probably born). You're stretching my ability to assume good faith here. — Phil Welch 01:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) (struck out: 30 June 2005 12:30 (UTC))

That's right. I haven't been verifying the information, and I won't, since the list serves no useful propose. But if it's so dear to your heart, clean up your own mess. 172 03:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My mess? I didn't post the list in the first place, dumbass. And try reading the article. There isn't a list. — Phil Welch 03:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) (strikeouts: 30 June 2005 12:30 (UTC))

You restored the content, so it is your mess. I find interacting with you way too unpleasant to even care about this article. Do what you will to it. 172 03:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're no great loss. Between assuming bad faith and blindly destroying content (probably out of some POV-pushing desire for censorship) I'm glad this article is rid of you. — Phil Welch 03:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) (struck out: 30 June 2005 12:30 (UTC))

Well this page is certainly a model for settling disputes. --TJive 04:14, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I really regret all that. I went ahead and struck out all the comments I would like to take back, but there's always the possibility I missed some. — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 12:30 (UTC)

Regarding some of the other listed Soviets

There is certainly room for a mention of Mongolia in particular, as the nation was carved out by the direct interference of Bolshevik troops and the state was subservient to the USSR for the duration of subsequent decades of communist politicking--this is mentioned in virtually every account of the relevant history not inclined to a favorable view of the nascent Soviet regime. I believe also that sometime around the end of the second world war, Stalin quietly annexed a small piece of Mongolian territory just as occurred with Japan, Romania, and Poland.

Some others are less clear, as there was divided opinion on the matters of Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Grenada. One section believed them (except perhaps the Bernard Coard coup) to be largely benign movements for national liberation and social justice. Others labeled them puppet states for their dependency on Soviet and Cuban aid (and by aid I am not implying merely dollars and guns but also thousands of troops). Certainly Rhodesia, South Africa, RENAMO, UNITA, the Reagan administration, and others regarded them in these terms. Hence there is a muddle, as while Cuba's subservience, economically, to Moscow was quite apparent by this time, the extent of its independence in foreign policy matters was less clear--with some intelligence branches serving as extensions of the KGB and others quasi-independent. The two nations regardless had the same goal and when New Jewel and the Sandinistas came to power Castro is said to have remarked, "now there are three of us". What further throws into this mess is the fact that Angola, Mozambique, and Nicaragua were not (full) members of COMECON, the Soviets' tool for economic and political leverage, but qualified for aid apart from this as being vanguard parties even if not quite 'socialist'. COMECON was the fastest way for the term satellite state to be leveraged, hence Cuban satellization in the preceding decades and references in regards to some of these nations as near-satellites. The explicit term puppet state in regards to each and every one of these situations would be more difficult to find, if we are strictly limiting it to the qualification of "X said puppet state/regime/government/leader on Y date", and this goes doubly for the then (half-)Yemeni regime, but much less so for Afghanistan. --TJive 03:53, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Alright. If you want to (you seem pretty well versed in this) you can go ahead and expand that section, although we might want to have some more details and references than we had previously. — Phil Welch 04:00, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I might pick up on it sometime, but if summary deletes end up ruling the day it may not be worth bothering. --TJive 04:01, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think if we can resolve the immediate dispute we can start on the task of verifying and expanding some of this fascinating stuff. — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 12:20 (UTC)

Summary of verification and expansion of material as of yet

I think the Soviet Union portion is looking good, with a lot of the information verified with internal references (Gerald Ford, Brezhnev and Sinatra doctrines, etc.). Obviously more information with more references would be good there, but I think we have a good leg to stand on. United States could use some verification. The Imperial Japan and Axis don't look like a problem (as well as making sense in list form) while Vietnam can be verified. Obviously the long "miscellaneous" section needs the most work. What does everyone else think? — Phil Welch 04:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Remove unverified material. If it is verified at a later date, add it then. I don't think its good to have information of questionable accuracy in an article. -bro 172.147.73.11 09:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that all the unverified material is clearly marked as such, that immediate problem is taken care of. — Phil Welch 13:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it's clearly marked as such, it should be removed. Having an article filled with 'These may not be correct' instances is extremely silly. -bro 172.168.246.192 22:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, given that the notice is temporary until we *can* verify it, then we'll verify it. — Phil Welch 00:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Temporary is too long, people who come for reference aren't likely to come back once you've gotten around to verifying it. Just bad form. -bro 172.165.17.51 28 June 2005 04:15 (UTC)

Then do something about it. Help us verify. — Phil Welch 28 June 2005 16:53 (UTC)

I don't even know what the standard being used to 'verify' is. Secondly, If I were to do something about unverified material being in the article I would remove it. -bro 172.164.105.123 28 June 2005 17:04 (UTC)

Alright, you win. Look below. — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 12:21 (UTC)

Alright 172...

Go ahead and state any specific factual or neutrality dispute here. (So far, you have only disputed the "list" that no longer exists in the article, and you have claimed it is unverified, which it was clearly marked as before you started the neutrality/factual dispute). In other words, specifically state which portion(s) of the article you believe to be non-factual or non-neutral. If you do not respond in 24 hours I will remove the dispute tags, as they are useless unless someone has actually cited a real dispute on the page. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. — Phil Welch 28 June 2005 17:03 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I guess I somehow deleted that. Apologies. -bro 172.175.56.84 28 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)

No big deal. There's some errors with the software upgrade that may have caused that. We'll see if 172 responds. — Phil Welch 29 June 2005 00:17 (UTC)

Last time I tried discussing this with you I got nothing more than insults and accusations, so there is little need to start again. I'll remove the tag once the article reaches a higher standard of verifibility. Otherwise, it looks like a discussion of why some Wikipedia users consider a host of regimes "puppet states." 172 30 June 2005 05:23 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not a neutrality or factual dispute, that's a verifiability dispute. You're using the wrong tags. Incidentally, there's no statement anywhere in the article that any given state *is* a puppet state, only that certain given states are *accused* of being puppet states by others, with specific explanations of those accusations. Furthermore, I don't even particularly want to discuss it, I want you to tell me specifically what's either non-factual or non-neutral. If I agree I'll remove or rephrase it, and if I don't agree I'll leave the tag up and call an RfC to get some sort of consensus, assuming you continue to refuse to actually participate here. — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 06:42 (UTC)

The above comments...just forget them, I struck them out. Look below. — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 12:34 (UTC)

Temporary removal of content

I have decided to *temporarily* remove some disputed content until it can be verified. I am of course leaving in the content I believe to already be verified. I'm also reworking some of the content so it flows a lot better and doesn't read like a list of puppet states. To 172, I would like to sincerely apologize for our previous differences and invite you to help improve this content. I'm working a little blindly because you haven't taken the effort to say what exactly you would like changed at this point, but I thought I should at least make an effort. — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 11:27 (UTC)

I'm done. I removed all of the lists with the exception of "historic puppet states" (which has never been disputed, but if you want to dispute it go ahead) and the list of states that were puppets of the Axis (because I had no freaking idea how to rework that). Thus, everything seems pretty well verified now, with the Eastern Europe stuff "internally verified" (i.e. verified against other content in Wikipedia), the WWII stuff internally verified as well, the Korea and Vietnam bits internally verified, and Afghanistan and Iraq verified with external links. If anyone has *any* problem with what's left I would like to hear it so I have some idea of what needs to be done to make everyone happy. — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 12:13 (UTC)

I'd like to further note that I meant this to be temporary--since we have a subpage serving as a backup of the old list, we can verify some of the content and reinsert it into the article as we wish (albeit in a more useful format). — Phil Welch 30 June 2005 12:19 (UTC)

"Accusations"

While accused puppet states certainly belong here, I think that there should be "comfirmed" puppet states at the very least instead of leaving the reader guessing which ones are actually puppet states. CJK 15 July 2005.

Guess what--it's an open historical question for the most part. NPOV dictates that we keep that question open. — Phil Welch 02:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not particularly within the capacity of (or especially appropriate for) this website; I disagree on the matter of "accusations", which is sloppy (and has been here for a long term) but essential in some form. --TJive 04:08, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's poorly phrased but the NPOV matter is settled. By the way, 172 hasn't been by to make a comment, do you think it's fair to remove the dispute notice by now? — Phil Welch 04:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I do, but I think it's likely to cause him to show up anyway. --TJive 05:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

We'll see. — Phil Welch 05:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Should the "historic puppet states" list be renamed to something like "Accusations of puppet states before 1900"? I'm Finnish I've never heard outside of Wikipedia that Grand Duchy of Finland has ever been accused of being a puppet state. In Finland we generally aknowledge that before 1917 we were a part of the Russian Empire or before that, a part of Sweden.

"A puppet government is a government that owes its existence to a foreign power".

However, before 1917 Finland had always existed as a part of "foreign" power, (as in not ruled by the Finns themselves). Finland got a government under the Russian rule, but before our independence the government never was, or claimed to be independent of Russia, just an autonomous part of it, so I'm not sure can you call the Russian emperor a foreign power any more that you could call the Swedish king a foreign power. And Finland by no means was a puppet state when it was a part of Sweden. It was simply a part of the country. I'm not sure can you label a part of a country as a puppet state when it gets more autonomy. I would not say that the Aland Islands are a puppet state of Finland (an ankward comparsion perhaps).

"Often a proclaimed puppet government faces a rival government which uses the puppet government term to weaken the legitimacy of that government."

This was not the case with GD of Finland. GD of Finland (to my knowledge) had no rival governments. The only rule/government that proved to be a problem for Finns during the autonomy was the Russian emperor himself, who of course did not try to weaken the legitimacy of the Finnish government, since the Emperor himself was the legal ruler of the Finnish government.

"Also usually implied is the government's lack of legitimacy, in the view of those using the term."

The relations between GD of Finland and the Russian Emperor are quite clear. Legally, the ultimate ruler of the Finnish government was the Russian Emperor. The Russian Emperor was represented by a governor-general in Finland. The governor-general was the chairman of the Finnish senate.

Calling the GD of Finland a puppet state is at least debatable. I'd say its more correct to claim that the Grand Duchy of Finland was an autonomous part of the Russian Empire, not a puppet state. To my ear calling the GD of Finland a puppet state makes it seem as if we (Finns) thought we were an independent state of Russia back then, that we thought we were free of Russian rule or influence but in secrecy the Russian Emperor ruled.193.166.69.130 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Treaty of Fredrikshamn says this: "Mainitut läänit kaikkine asukkaineen, kaupunkeineen, satamineen, linnoituksineen, kylineen ja saarineen, samoin kaikki niihin kuuluva, edut, oikeudet ja tuotot tulevat jatkossa kuulumaan Venäjän Keisarikunnan täyteen omistukseen ja valtaan ja pysyen siihen liitettynä", translated in English as "The mentioned provinces [meaning the area of Finland] along with all their people, cities, harbours, fortresses, villages and island, and also with all the privileges, rights and profits associaced with them will belong to the full possession and power of the Russian Empire and staying joined to the Empire."

Essentially the GD of Finland shifted from being a part of Sweden to a part of Russia, although an autonomous part, so I removed GD of Finland from the list.Shubi 19:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Puppet regimes during WW2 were not only created by Axis

What about Soviet puppet regimes in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia?

Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were occupied by Soviets in June 1940, annexed in August 1940. During this period of almost two months Baltic countries were formally independent and rulled by puppet governments. See Occupation of Baltic Republics. Sigitas 09:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

These regimes were never referred to as "puppet regimes" in the Allied literature of the time. You also might notice that this page, in keeping with the neutral point of view, doesn't talk about which regimes were in fact puppet states, but rather, about which regimes were accused as such. Find a source and write according to the neutral point of view and we might accept it. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 22:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"On July 23, 1940, U.S. Secretary of State S. Welles in an official statement did not recognise annexation of the Baltic States by declaring, in no uncertain terms, that: “Everybody is aware of the U.S. Government’s position. The American people protest against invasive acts regardless of the fact of whether they are carried out by violence or threats. We also are against interference of a foreign state, though very powerful, into the internal affairs of another state, though very weak… The U.S. will never forsake those principles".

Not strong enough? Sigitas 00:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That says absolutely nothing about puppet states, although if you had a source for that quote it would be a good thing to mention in the relevant articles about the history of the Baltic states. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 07:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Most often the soviet satellites like Hungary, Czechoslovakia etc. can be called puppet states. The evidence to that is the Soviet invasion during the 50-s and 60 that installed new governments to power after popular uprisings. At the same time , these countries were nominally independent but in reality, controlled by the USSR. therefore these were puppet states alright.

regarding the Baltic countries, from an international point of view, the Baltic countries were not puppet states because they were nominally not independent but de facto part of the USSR. as the Soviet Union occupied the independent republics in 1940. The Western democracies never recognized the occupation de jure and maintained even the Baltic consuls at place all the way up to 1991 when the countries regained their independence. Therefore since the Soviet Union didn't claim internationally that the Baltic republics were independent in any sense but part of the USSR, there is no basis to look at them as puppet states from an international point of view. The Baltic countries internationally can be looked at as puppet states only until they de facto nominally remained independent under foreign, Soviet control. That was a matter of months, from June 1940 up to august 1940, after that the Soviet Union had claimed those countries as it's own.

At the same time, nominally during the era the Soviet republics remained independent by the Soviet constitution. As theses statements of independence in the soviet constitutions were only nominal, not factual, as de facto the soviet Union was an unitary state. Locally in the eyes of the Baltic people the soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania can be looked at as puppet states of the Soviet union as their independence was nominal in their constitutions but de facto the local governments were nominated and controlled by Moscow.--Termer 08:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Japan as a puppet state

I believe that Japan would be a puppet state to America since the signing of the Japanse constitution. Japan has never had any major diplomatic views that challenged the United State's and It can call upon America to defend them in a time of war. Gecko1 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If Japan is now a USA puppet, it is rather atypical one. USA only changed the government mechanics of Japan, making the Emperor nearly disappered in politics. USA imposed very little control on other aspect, except the right for Japan to join other military alliance, and USA is gradually releasing it. The control to limit Japan military is globally accepted norm. Japan's foreign policy is nothing imposed by USA, but rather that is her interest to do so, from the conservative point of view, despite Japan is controlled by conservative party (and Japan is traditionally conservative even without USA intervention). --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

youre forgeting all the u.s troops stationed in japan. one of the first things usa tends to do when it creates a pupet state is by forcing the market to open and making it extremely capitalist, which japan coincidently is.

Lebanon

I am suggesting that someone with some knowledge of the country consider Lebanon. First, there used to be something called the South Lebanese Army which was clearly a puppet. BUT does it qualify as a "puppet state". Then there are any number of other factions in Lebanon which are controlled by outside forces in Syria, Iran, or (historically) a number of other states. BUT, again, I wonder if these factions would qualify as "puppet states".

I thought that this subject would be worth exploring by someone with more background in modern Lebanese history. I get lost before I get very much into the civil war. Mkpumphrey 04:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Puppet states in south America

I think it would be necessary to add the topic of USA puppet states established in Latin America through the "golpe"s, as Argentina, Chile, etc. I hope somebody expert in the field will help with this, because these are one of the most representing examples of puppet states in XX century, along with the United Kingdom! --84.221.102.83 (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Puppet States of the United States of America

The neutrality of this article is seriously undermined unless someone edits it to contain all of the puppet states the U.S. has ever coordinated. The U.S. is probably the largest perpetrator of this type of action in world history. The satellite state article is also due for edits in this regard as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exodus206 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Some Latin America countries has been (saddly) United States puppet states, but it is important to note that this is done by fear of possible economical embargs like the one done to Cuba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will824 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Not so much countries puppetted by America, but political puppetry within America itself. I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I'm certainly not anti-american, but it is true that Carl Rove had a huge amount of influence over George Bush. While not absolute puppetry, he was heavily involved in Bush's rhetoric until he resigned last year. In my own judgement, I believe that the attitude of Bush has visibly changed since his departure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.32.43 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

what a surprise, no mention of south sudan, kosovo, libyan rebels, japan, israel, kuwait, qatar, saudi arabia, uae, hong kong, singapore, all pupet states of either the u.s or britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.163.7.55 (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please try to understand the difference between a "puppet state," vs one whose foreign policy is based on "bandwagoning," or one who sees economic, social and political benefits to having an alliance with the Northern Giant. --Lacarids (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Hamid Karzai someone who sees "benefits to having an alliance with the Northern Giant" or is he someone who got picked up and installed as a domestic figurehead for an invading force? And the distinction between being in a sphere of influence and a puppet is not so clear cut. When considering the degree of the former especially. Your clear cut objection is odd considering that many of the above states were created (Saudi Arabia, Kosovo) by American or British forces. Rarwaw (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Many of the states often listed in talk, are not puppet states, to be aligned and influenced by a state does not make that state a puppet state, or else China would have over 40 puppet states, currently it has none. Puppet states are actually quite rare, mostly used in countries without free press to justify invasions. Also remember there is such a thing as a client state, where the government is truly independent but relies on another country so much that its policies are effected strongly. client states defiantly do exist commonly in the world. So try and make the distinction before making your declaration. Lucinator (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Lucinator

"first puppet states"

I've removed the following list from the article until each item can be individually sourced. If it's controversial whether to regard them as puppet states or not, it's doubly important that we cite sources and say who does and who doesn't.

Other entities sometimes considered puppet states are:

• The Latin Empire (1204 to 1261) established in the aftermath of the dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire by the Crusaders and controlled by France.
• France from 1419 to 1436 during the Hundred Years' War, with John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford as the French regent in Paris and English control of over 40% of the area and the majority of the population of France. The English crown considered this a dual monarchy, but France south of the Loire except for Gascony never recognized it as legal.
• Aztec Empire from 1525 to 1526 under Diego Velázquez Tlacotzin who was selected and controlled by conquistador Hernán Cortés.
• From 1541 to 1699, Transylvania's only guarantee of independence was the paying of an annual tribute to the Ottoman Empire.
• Bengal under Mir Jafar and Mir Qasim from the overthrow of its Nawab Siraj ud-Daulah after the Battle of Plassey in 1757 until 1764. It was tributary to Great Britain, which made it the first British colony of substantial area on the Indian subcontinent after defeating the Bengalis at the Battle of Buxar.
• French client republics (1792 to 1815), controlled by the French First Republic and the First French Empire became client kingdoms with members of the Bonaparte family as nominal heads of state.
• Congress Poland (1815 to 1915), controlled by Imperial Russia.
• The Republic of Nicaragua (1856–1857), under the presidency of American adventurer and soldier of fortune William Walker. Walker attempted to conquer several Latin American countries in the mid-19th century. The Walker regime in Nicaragua was controlled by Wall Street tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt.
• The Second Mexican Empire (1864–1867), under Maximilian I of Mexico installed by Napoleon III of France. Maximilian I was installed by Napoleon III 's Second French Empire after the French intervention in Mexico.
• Honduras (1876-1891), under the de facto control of Guatemala.
• The Republic of Hawaii (1894 to 1898), controlled by American businessman Sanford B. Dole, who became president, manipulated control of its parliament, had Queen Lili'uokalani placed under house arrest, and paved the way for annexation to the United States of America.
• The Kingdom of Poland (1916–1918) and United Baltic Duchy (1918-1919), controlled by the German Empire at the very end of World War I.

Ptcamn (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Finland in 1918

The Kingdom of Finland was a German puppet-state no doubt (or supposed to become), but what about the Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic. Could it be said that it was a Soviet Russian puppet state? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The way it works, find some reliable sources that say so.--Termer (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Too much examples and too few description and POVs

Add description and point of views make read can think more before actually accepting this term. The word "puppet state" is easily to be abused and misunderstood. The word can be abused to reinvent history and traditions. Adding different schools of POVs can actually helpful. Do it if you are majoring in politics, history related to nationalism, or other related matters.--Kittyhawk2 (talk) 06:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also noticed it that states get added randomly to this article. I'm not saying that the most of the states here are not considered puppet states, but anything would still need a source of reference pr WP:RS. And anything that is not sourced so may be removed any time by any editor. I'm adding the refimprove tag to ref section for now. But somebody definitely would need to take the time and look up refs for all the states claimed to be puppets in the article. In the future anything added without ref should be simply removed I'd say. If someone can come up with a pupet state, it shouldn't be a problem to find a source for that.--Termer (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

+

why no mention of afganistan and iraq. they are both occupied by pupet govts of the usa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.120.169 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What about Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, Azad Kashmir? -- Hellerick (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the territories often referenced to as a puppet state is Kosovo [6] Hellerick (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Abkhazia does fit into the category of a "puppet state", even though it is not lanlocked and as dependent on Russia as South Ossetia.

Abkhazia does fit into the category of a "puppet state", even though it is not lanlocked and as dependent on Russia as South Ossetia. Abkhazia has declared independence but its ability to maintain independence is solely based on Russian troops deployed on Georgian territory and Russian aid and nor is it internationally recognized by the United Nations and according to the United Nations criteria. Does this not qualify it as a "puppet state", just like South Ossetia?

And those internationally unrecognized "states" that the user Hellrick mentioned above qualify as well, as these have a mothercountry proping them up.

Abkhazia is not a puppet state. It existed for years without Russian aid. Russian soldiers protect Abkhaz-Georgian border according to an agreement between Abkhazia and Russia. Apswaaa (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Economically dependent island states

Wouldn't some independent countries like Palau and the Marshall Islands qualify? They ofthen depend so heavily on foreign aid that I can imagine that their formal independence doesn't really mean much. MMMMM742 (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Typical of Wikipedia

Only mentioning the puppet states of the countries that are against America, while the US has the biggest amount of puppet states in the world, and the CIA has broken the record of installing more puppet dictators in third world countries than any other intelligence organization. Very typical of wikipedia, If the US, Israel, or Britain have something to do with it, then cover it up.--Propaganda328 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Final section

It is quite inconsistent article in its final section. Inclusion of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is dubious. Those territories were de facto independent from 1991, and they initially achieved it without physical support of Russian army. What about: Northern Cyprus (obvious puppet state of Turkey), Nagorno Karabakh, Kosovo, ex-Serb Krajina? It is dubious how to classify Transdnistria. I also agree that Pacific island states are not independent in conventional terms. They are just extra US votes in UN, completely dependent on it in economic and political sense. My suggestion is that we just list, and indicate that these contemporary examples are open to interpretation. The other option is to avoid mentioning these altogether.Jaksap (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Distinction between state and government

"Distinction between state and government" - 9,790 GoogleBooks hits.

• Krystyna Marek: Puppet states are to be distinguished from puppet governments. A puppet State is an entirely new organism created by the occupant, whereas in a puppet government only the governmental functions are a creation of the occupant, the original State having been in existence before the occupation. - "Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law", 1968

I propose to clarify the distinction between state and government. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal, it is a little more complicated than that under the law of belligerent occupation, but your source is a good start. I actually believe that there would be solid justification for separate articles on puppet state and puppet government. Given the approach of the source you have provided, there is sufficient distinction. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article, are size and content relevance. Right now I don't think there is a real need for splitting because the size of article is less than 40kb and having one article for both puppet states and their puppet governments does not sound inappropriate. Therefore, for now, it would be enough to clarify the distinction to the readers.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Lemkin p.11 is probably the original source for your Marek quote - it is verbatim, and Lemkin was originally published in 1944. Lemkin also gives examples of both from WW2(I think we might have discussed this before in the context of Yugoslavia in WW2?). Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Lemkin is the original source. His work (Axis Rule in Occupied Europe) should be used as source for the above mentioned clarification.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How to classify Venezuela

Venezuela has today no constitutionally legitimate president, nor a constitutionally legitimate vice president. In fact it has no constitutionally legitimate head of state. The government travels to Cuba to meet with its president, Raúl Castro, when important decisions are to be taken. Furthermore, there are Cuban flags outside government buildings in Venezuela; Cubans occupy many important positions including in the intelligence and security services; and the former president of Venezuela, now president-elect who was not sworn in on the mandated day (January 10, 2013), is in Cuba, beyond reach for affirming if he is dead or alive, and there has been no sign of life from him for 50 days. It is claimed that he signs laws, but years ago he adopted electronic signing of laws, so the only thing needed for someone else to do it is to hack the 8-character code and have his credit-card like ID. All of this together clearly indicates that the de facto-regime in Venezuela is entirely dependent on Cuba for its survival. Yet Cuba neither created the regime nor the state; the sovereignty was partly handed over by Chávez, partly it was obtained by trickery after his departure from the political scene. --Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 12:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• While no fan of the Venezuela government(with its rigged elections and such) this statement ventures to much into the unfounded conspiracy zone, while not a democracy Venezuela is no puppet state, it makes its own decisions and is not directly controlled by any one state by most reputable sources. Recommend this be deleted.Lucinator (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Lucinator

Romania

Romania was not a German puppet in WW2, it was just like another less powerful axis country, like Finland. They were fighting for their own cause, and what about East Germany?Ovsek (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I also agree that Romania was not a true puppet state in WWII, unlike Vichy France, or Austria.Lucinator (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Lucinator

Puppet states in Asia during and after WWII

Somebody should mention about these puppet states in Asia during WWI. There were lot of them, here is some of my propositions:

1. "Republic of Mahabad", that Soviets atempted to create in Iran in 1946-1947. Someone should add this, as it was a typical Asian pupped state. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Kurdistan

2. So-called "Republic of China" (not Chiang's RoC), Japanese puppet state, ruled by Wang Jingwei (de facto ruled by Japanese) in 1940-1945 with the capital in Nanking. It was the second japanese puppet-state, other than Manzhukuo. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reorganized_National_Government_of_China

3. "Second Philippine Republic" 1943-1945. Japanese puppet state. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Philippine_Republic

4. "Azad Hind" 1943-1945, Japanese puppet state in India. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azad_Hind

5. Something should note Dutch puppet states in Indonesia: East Indonesia, Kartalegawa, West Borneo. Source: http://books.google.pl/books/about/Dutch_puppet_states_in_Indonesia.html?id=oSUyAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.77.100 (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What is a puppet state?

To determine if one is a puppet state, I've posted a definition of puppet sate according to English dictionary. therefore it should be easy now to figure it out considering NPOV.

Puppet state is a country that is independent nominally but under the control of another power in reality.

So, the questions asked it it's a puppet state we're talking about it seems should be:

• Is it a country? meaning is it or has it been internationally de jure and/or de facto recognized political body, a state? If its not a country or has not been, it seems to me it can't be a puppet state.

• Is the country independent nominally? Is it represented in any international organizations? Does it's constitution state that it's an independent one? Is there any questions about the sovereignty of the country?

• Is the country and its government in reality actually under a foreign control? meaning, the local government doesn't represent the will of its people or doesn't have that much local political capital? Meaning. Lets say the government has not came to power with general free elections but for example as a result of a coup d'état supported by any foreign troops?

hope that it helps--Termer 07:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Puppet state

<copied from a user talk page>

• Thank you Otto for sharing your opinion at the Talk:Estonian SSR page and hello to you in Netherlands. Since you think a term puppet government is a POV and not encyclopedic, I have a question if I may. As there is a mentioning of puppet governments of certain France, Denmark and Norway during occupation at History of the Netherlands (1939-1945). Please let me know, how come mentioning of a puppet government in Estonia's case is not encyclopedic but on the Netherlands page it is? Or else your intentions are to edit the Netherlands page and make it in your opinion: encyclopedic?

Thanks--Termer 09:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. the mentioning of the puppet government of Denmark during the German occupation on Netherlands page is factually incorrect BTW. In Denmark the legal Danish government (puppet or not) and the parliament the Folketing were allowed to remain in session until 1943. The German demands eventually became intolerable for the Danish government and it resigned in 1943 and Germany assumed full control of the country.

Hi Termer, I think the term puppet government is always bad. In France you had Vichy: a French government what made concessions to Germany that occupied most of the country; Netherlands was occupied, Arthur Seyss-Inquart was an Austrian appointed by Germany who didn't pretend to be representing the Dutch people. I really have no time to check all those lemmas. I encourage other people to improve them. In this case occasionally I did it. Otto 16:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Otto for not applying double standards for the matter. That makes it possible for me to respect your opinion regarding the issue. Although I reserve an opinion for myself that the mentioned governments during the WWII were puppet aka marionette indeed. As were the "governments" of Estonia during nazi and soviet occupations in my country. Further on, a fact: since the term "puppet government" has entrances in every major encyclopedia and dictionary in the world, listing states as having such a form of "government". Therefore in my opinion you have no basis whatsoever, claim like you did that the term is not encyclopedic once used in Wikipedia in context with the history of Estonian SSR.

The fact is: the "government" of Estonian SSR was not a sovereign subject. The fact is: it was under the control of another power -USSR. Therefor stating it as a marionette aka puppet government is a historical fact, not a "term of political criticism" like you have claimed.--Termer 05:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Termer, it seems to me that we are just repeating arguments. I agree largely with the current lemme "puppet state" which says "Puppet state is mostly a term of political criticism ...". The German wiki says "Dieser Begriff ist abwertend und wird daher ausschließlich von Kritikern solcher Regierungen benutzt." The French wiki: "Le terme est partisan et enclin à des disputes sémantiques, utilisé presque exclusivement par les détracteurs de ces gouvernements ...". The Dutch wiki says something similar. They all agree "puppet state" is a partisan term. If you want to have a neutral point of view you have to avoid that term. Otto 08:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view is not about avoiding terms, but about representing all significant view points, if the majority view point is that puppet state is a valid description, then it forms the basis of the article. If a minority think it is not a valid term, then all we need to is to add a paragraph or section saying that Mr. X (being some published writer) states it is not valid in this case. That's how NPOV is acheived. I suggest you re-read WP:NPOV. Martintg 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Martintg, the view that "puppet state" is a derogatory, partisan description is an anonymous determination as I showed above. Your rhetorical suggestion about what I should read or re-read does not make sense. You and Termer are abusing wikipedia for a personal edit-war. Otto (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Otto please feel free to call taking over another countries and their governments by any foreign powers a "political criticism". It doesn't change the facts those things happening in the world of ours and those facts belong to any encyclopedia.--Termer 09:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To my disappointment I see that Termer at 14 December 2008 [7] has deleted an essential passage from the introductory paragraph of the article: ""Puppet state" is a term of political criticism, used to denigrate a current government which is perceived as unduly dependent upon an outside power. It implies that government's lack of legitimacy, in the view of those using the term." Apparently he felt the need to adjust the semantics of this term to his own prejudices. This lack of integrity harms the objectivity of wikipedia. Otto (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to restore the former introduction

Before user Termer removed it on 14 December 2008 the introduction of this lemma read: ""Puppet state" is a term of political criticism, used to denigrate a government which is perceived as unduly dependent upon an outside power. It implies that government's lack of legitimacy, in the view of those using the term." I propose to restore this introduction. For my arguments I refer to my discussion with Termer and Marting on this page in the paragraph "Puppet state". Otto (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Original research of user Nug

I just reverted the page to the situation before Nug changed the introduction. He should discuss his POV at this talk page. There is obviously no consensus. Otto (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Otto, there is consensus, it exists in WP:RS and WP:OR, which states that text must referenced to cited published sources, policy does not permit the use of un-sourced personal opinions. You claim above that "'puppet state' is a derogatory, partisan description is an anonymous determination". The policies WP:RS and WP:OR require that all views must be referenced to a published source, that you claim it is an "anonymous determination" is by definition a fringe viewpoint. You have not provided any published reliable source that backs your claim despite repeated requests. It is against Wikipedia policy to insert fringe viewpoints and if you continue to do this than it is disruptive. --Nug (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nug, the government, officials and supporters of a state see their own state as legitimate just as of course the presumed donor state will do. It is derogatory and partisan to call such a state a "puppet state". The former follows from common sense and the latter from civility. You are abusing and disrupting Wikipedia with partisan, derogatory and nationalistic rhetoric. Your interpretation of "consensus", definitions of a "fringe viewpoint" and "puppet state", and unanswered "repeated requests" are your own fabrications ("original research"). Otto (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The introduction which has been deleted by Nug under the pretense of being a "fringe viewpoint" was:

Puppet state is a term of political criticism, used to denigrate a government which is either perceived as, or is actually unduly dependent upon an outside power. It implies that government's lack of legitimacy, in the view of those using the term.

Otto (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I see it while puppet state is frequently used to denigrate legitimate states, it is not only a term of political criticism and such states have existed from time to time. On the balance Nug's version is better written, better sourced and cannot validly be accused of representing a non-neutral point of view. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

My view about the term "puppet state" is based on the declarative theory of statehood which is part of customary international law. E.g. ISIS and al-Qaida in Yemen are states according to these criteria. Otto (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a recognition issue: ISIL is arguably a sovereign state and not a puppet state. The issue is that there are a plethora of reliable sources which disagree with you and you have failed (as far as I can see?) to cite even one with agrees with you. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that Nug provided a "plethora of reliable sources". The sources he gave mention puppet states in sidelines or foot notes. It is hard to find academic resources about the concept "puppet state" because it is rarely used. I base my point on the reasoning that the government, officials and supporters of a state see their own state as legitimate. As long as the alleged puppet state full-fills the declarative criteria of statehood recognition of the state becomes meaningful and the description "puppet state" means nothing more then the refusal of recognition. Apart from that I gave some sources 8 years ago. See above at #Puppet state. I just checked Marionettenregierung, Gouvernement fantoche and Gobierno títere. All three lemmas still agree that the term is partisan. Otto (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and, at that, the three articles you give even have banners saying they are insufficiently sourced. At present the lead of this article has three refs, your version had none. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Napoleon's Kingdom of Italy

This state was considered a puppet by France, but many italians were supporting it as a first step to Risorgimento.--82.56.64.68 (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Double standards

SantiLak repeatedly removed the following entry:

• Ukraine Government installed after US sponsored coup.

under the pretext that Globalresearch.ca shouldn't be a reliable source. That is POV from SantiLak and no excuse for removing an actual view about the legitimacy of the current (West-)Ukranian government. Anyway, Ukraine is a failed state: it has no actual control about part of the territory and airspace it claims sovereignty about. Otto (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

References

It isn't an RS, this has been established and it is a good reason for removing what was POV pushing about Ukraine. - SantiLak (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion about Globalresearch.ca is only in your fantasy "established". The POV about Ukraine was just presented, nowhere has had been pushed as you allege. You push your POV by removing a from multiple sides expressed opinion from which you deny the existence because it doesn't fit in your narrow-minded view. It is a waste of time to try to make a meaningful discussion with you. Otto (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been brought to the reliable sources noticeboard before and established that it isn't RS so no it isn't in my fantasy. - SantiLak (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have taken notice of the relevant paragraph on the Noticeboard and see that nothing has been established (e.g. at the end: Podiaebba: "the fact that a piece is published on globalresearch.ca shouldn't immediately and entirely disqualify it from being mentioned, with appropriate "Author X said" attribution"). Your claim is unjustified and the removal of sourced material is still based on your fantasy as I apparently correctly assumed. Otto (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you have done a good job with the removal of context from that quote, the full sentence reads "I conclude that for authors with significant reputations, the fact that a piece is published on globalresearch.ca shouldn't immediately and entirely disqualify it from being mentioned, with appropriate "Author X said" attribution." Key part of that quote being "I conclude that for authors with significant reputations", even the quote that you chose as one to agree with your point of view, doesn't actually support it. You also did a good job ignoring the overwhelming consensus of editors in that discussion that decided it was unreliable. So no, my claim is not unjustified and it seems you are the one fantasizing about the site being RS. - SantiLak (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to be quite intoxicated to read an "overwhelming consensus" in that discussion. The disputed article on GlobalResearch is written by Steve MacMillan. Practically the same analysis from the same author has been published at www.theanalystreport.net. Otto (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to be highly intoxicated to see an overwhelming consensus all you need to be is literate and understand how consensus works in WP, you need to be highly intoxicated to think that globalresearch or the analyst report are RS. - SantiLak (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record:

1. SantiLak is misrepresenting the discussion on the Noticeboard. Sepsis II said there: Actually all DGG argued was that they were bias, but that is immaterial as all sources are. The reason for this RSN is this edit, [8] that Gabriel and friends, socks, keep on cutting out a source written by the article's subject because they dislike the organization hosting the source. As for the source for other cases, the author of the specific article being sourced to is of high importance, and any statement attributed to the website itself must be attributed, and also not refuted by other sources. and later This account is an obvious sock, engaged in blockable offenses. So there was obviously no consensus and the statement of SantiLak that there was "overwhelming consensus" is a big lie.
2. Yet another source for the removed content apart from the discriminated sources Globalresearch and Theanalystreport is the New Eastern Outlook. Otto (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You also seem to fail to mention that "Yet another source" is just the same article. That same article is just posted over and over on another site that also isn't RS. Also yes there is a consensus but obviously as is clear from before, you're very good at playing the out of context quote game. I'll list a couple of users comments on it, just to name a few, bobrayner wrote "Globalresearch.ca appears to be devoted to WP:FRINGE editorials and its content clearly contradicts what reliable sources say", Abecedare wrote "Articles on Globalresearch.ca are certainly not a reliable source for factual unattributed claims", GRuban wrote "Agree with Abecedare. The fact that they're a fringe publication means we shouldn't treat what they wrote as facts.". Also to the quote you listed, in it the commenting user notes how in the previous discussion the user he is citing argued that globalresearch was biased. I seriously don't understand why you are continuing with this ridiculous assertion that globalresearch is RS or neutral at all, quoting user DGG in that discussion "In the earlier discussion,I did not say that they were only biased in the way other sources are, but that they were a frankly and openly politically motivated source, attempting to promote their cause, rather than attempting to be neutral." - SantiLak (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What about the American Puppet States?

Southern Vietnam was for example an American puppet state. Iran was between 1953-1955 during the Operation Ajax a puppet state of the UK and the USA.--Athanasius Lux (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As I understand Southern Vietnam wasn't an American puppet state. Remember, Vietnam was parted in two to give the French occupiers time to leave and waiting for it's elections to reunite again - so, no government to puppeteer. It is that moment the US moved in to 'help with nation building'.

There is a lot of misconception about South Vietnam, both North and South Vietnam were actually communist. The Vietnam war was mainly between America and the resistance in South Vietnam, the latter one supported by the North. After the Gulf of Tonkin incident the US had excuse to start a full war. 145.129.68.224 (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Double Puppet States

After 1000 years the Chinese got expelled from Vietnam, but not much later the French did colonize it again in about 1800 and installed the puppet-ruler Bao Dai. Then, during WW2, the Japanese did invade Vietnam but keeping the French rule as puppet. With other words, the Vietnamese emperor Bao Dai was a puppet of the French, and the French were puppets of the Japanese. The US did support the Viet Minh to fight the Japanese. When it was clear Japan was gonna lose the war, Brittain, US, and USSR did agree during the Yalta conference that Vietnam did belong to France. After WW2 and Japanese gone the people of Vietnam declared independence, which did lead to the Indo-French war. When France got beaten Vietnam was parted by the UN to give the French time to leave and the Vietnamese to set up own government by holding elections. 145.129.68.224 (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've added the NPOV tag because as many editors stated earlier, only some puppet states are portrayed here, while others arent mentioned or were wrongly deleted. For example, USA puppet states as South Vietnam.--HCPUNXKID 10:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with you :-) Otto (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus mentioning in the article

Current (outdated, obsolete):

• Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' isolation and heavy dependence on Turkish support, Turkey has a high level of control over the country's decision-making processes. This has led to some experts stating that it runs as an effective puppet state of Turkey. Other experts, however, have pointed out to the independent nature of elections and appointments in Northern Cyprus and disputes between the Turkish Cypriot and Turkish governments, concluding that "puppet state" is not an accurate description for Northern Cyprus.

My edit (up-to-date, including 2013-2015 developments):

• Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' isolation and heavy dependence on Turkish support, Turkey has a high level of control over the country's decision-making processes. This has led to some experts stating that it runs as an effective puppet state of Turkey.
  Other experts, however, have pointed out to the independent nature of elections and appointments in Northern Cyprus and disputes between the Turkish Cypriot and Turkish governments, concluding that "puppet state" is not an accurate description for Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is a democratic country according to USA's Federal Court, and the laws and the court system of Northern Cyprus are deemed legal by the European Court of Human Rights.

Dr.K. reverted with the pretext of 1. "blatant synthesis" 2. "misrepresentation of sources" 3. "sockpuppetry claim":
1. "blatant synthesis":
No synthesis at all! I take word-to-word decisions of the European Court of Human Rights! I included the negative aspects as well: "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area". If you think this phrase to be included in "Puppet State" article as well, I can put here it as well. Could you show your non-synthesized version as well so that 3rd parties can compare whether any such synthesis exists? By the way, I am welcome to include any info that will come from Dr.K. and any others that they regard as omitted etc.

2. "misrepresentation of sources":
The sources I gave are from the "official" website of USA's Federal Court and "official" website of the European Court of Human Rights. Hence, your misrepresentation of sources claim is false. Aside from this, if you have any problem on the sources I gave, please specify this in detail.

3. Sockpuppetry claim in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexyflemming:
I disprove many accusations there, and will disprove at all. This accusation has its own course just right there.Woodgridge (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

References