Talk:Puppet state

US as a puppet state of Russia

Hello, I edited this article to list a common view that the United States is in a position to be governed by a group that places Russia's interests in front of American interests, see here. It was reverted as "Not at all similar to the articles definition of puppet state." I understand the reason for the revert, but I would like to state the case. The article defines a puppet state as "a state that is supposedly independent but is in fact dependent upon an outside power.[1] It is nominally sovereign but effectively controlled by a foreign or otherwise alien power, for reasons such as financial interests." In the citations included, I believe that I provided evidence that meets each portion of the definition: dependence on outside power; controlled externally; financial interest of the outside power to exercise such control. This is an item of high discussion, and I understand that it could be labelled as part of an ongoing news story. The facts are changing quickly. However, there is ample evidence that this is occurring in the United States today; President Obama addressed the topic at length at a press conference today. This is noteworthy, factual, NPOV and should be included in Wikipedia. Submitted respectfully, -NC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.223.172.106 (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The reason I rollbacked your edit was that it is somewhat POV (as the CIA and FBI are still arguing about whether it happened), in the case of puppet nations the puppet is smaller, and weaker, this is not the case with America, as it is (objectively) one of, if not the strongest nation in human history when it comes to military. The manipulating of an election (under the assumption it did happen) doesn't fit especially well, as the state over the puppet usually rules the elections (if any) without any need for pretending it's a democracy. America isn't dependant on Russia, nor the other way round, while America is (objectively) militarily and financially stronger, Russia isn't dependant on it. America isn't nominally sovereign either, its fully sovereign, again (assuming it did indeed happen) that is manipulating of politics. That fact alone doesn't necessarily imply puppet status. Generally Wikipedia doesn't adopt a "Post it even if the facts aren't in" mentality, because unlike the news there is no monetary benefit for being the first to talk about it. Thanks. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Essentially, we are subject to WP:RECENTISM, and are WP:NOTNEWS. Aside from that, as explained by Iazyges, it's a WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim to present the global military power as being a 'puppet state' of the RF. It would require some serious WP:RS to back such content up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iazyges, I appreciate you engaging in this discussion (this is the previous editor, I created an account). I'll fully admit that I made this edit, recognizing that it would be a controversial edit - I did not in the least expect it to go unchallenged! I did phrase it in terms of uncertainty, which I recognize is itself an issue. However, given that this is an issue of global importance (to say the least), I believe it is necessary to begin addressing it throughout Wikipedia as a key factor in global politics (i.e not to be limited to the single page thus dedicated). With regards to the facts as you mention. Via review of sources, all intelligence agencies and the FBI now agree on what happened (the RF tried to affect the US election) and why (to help DJT, with the goal of making US government take specific actions more favorable to RF policy). There will certainly be more information that comes out on this topic, and more edits will follow. But until then, I think this situation reaches the definition in the article: the leader of the US is dependent on the RF for his election; the RF will exert significant control over the areas in its interest: these include financial interests (DJT transition already looking to eliminate sanctions), but more importantly geopolitical (DJT already stating that he is ok to accept RF de facto suzerainty over significant portions of Eastern and Central Europe). You say "without any need for pretending it's a democracy", but the definition in the article speaks of "preserving the paraphernalia", and an election is certainly such an example. Many of the other examples in the article had some elections; they were just highly influenced by the "puppeteer" - frequently through propaganda such as recently in the US. Nothing in the definition says that a weaker nation can not puppet a stronger nation - the definition is about influence and control, not raw military strength. I agree entirely that this statement falls into scope of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. However, I believe that there is now both exceptional evidence for what has happened and why - the long NYT article cited goes into high detail of what happened. Puppet states are all different in terms of how control is exerted, but we are in the range as defined by the article; if you do not accept it as I have written, perhaps you could suggest a way to present this information in a way that is NPOV? Again, many thanks for taking the time, especially as I am a new editor. Regards, Trajan99 (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't this specific argument also demand consideration of the Russian Federation as a puppet state of the United States owed to the admitted and acknowledged American influencing of the 1996 Elections, for some length of time? American political actors opened acknowledged as much (and since then, even actors within the Russian government have admitted that the election was fraudulent in at least some way). In 1996, the RF was demonstrably weaker economically and militarily than the US (which would suggest a more plausible arrangement than the reverse today, even if the RF has "bridged the gap" somewhat?). American influence is known to have reached domestically controversial levels in many areas, including the Russian foreign ministry and economic policy (alongside the influence of other states via international organizations like the IMF). Personally I don't think that meets the puppet state criteria fully either, but it seems to be at least as plausible, if not more so, than the US as a puppet state of the RF today (and closer to meeting that criteria given the "common sense" assumptions about power relations between puppets and puppeteers). 68.117.212.113 (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Puppet states or not?

We should make a clear distinction of what were actual puppet states and just states supported by outside forces. The article seems to mix them, particularly in the post-WW2 Soviet section. If no argument is made against it, i will try to change it myself in the coming days. Rikskansler (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

So, i've made my changes which I feel will more accurately portray the reality. If people believe it's better to not mention these 'Soviet-allied states' all together, that's fine as well. Nonetheless, it's an improvement compared to before. Rikskansler (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur with this assessment of this page in that it blends governments that are externally coerced and suppressed by force or threat of force (governments over populations which would prefer independence and/or the absence of the external power), and externally-supported revolutionary states with populations supportive of annexation or incorporation into an external power. Perhaps puppet state is an overly broad term, but it would seem that the latter fall into a different category. Of the examples given, this is clearest in the Republic of Texas and the Duchy of Courland, the Republic of Kuwait, the Republic of Serbian Krajina, and South Ossetia, which were developed through revolution by an ethnic group with the full expectation and intent of being annexed or incorporated by an external sponsor. This is more in line with unconventional warfare than the conventional application of the elements of state power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:800C:1501:FA3D:146C:F26C:21D6:20A5 (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the BPR and the Korean Empire

I removed the Belarusian People's Republic (which could hardly be called a puppet state, because it was established prior to the German occupation of Belarus and never actually received much support from the Germans or was recognised by them) and the Joseon dynasty (which had existed a long time before 1895 and was merely removed from the Chinese suzerainty to be later annexed) from the list. And I really doubt that the Republic of Texas should be here either. --Svawald (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it, it definitely doesn't fit. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Current" section and "multiple issues" tag

This needs to be discussed and the issues resolved or the tag needs to be removed. It's been up for two years. You can't put a tag up expecting it to remain forever purely to voice your personal disapproval of the claims or information presented. It's temporary. 108.34.201.56 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. If the issues remain unaddressed (see the talk archives), tags are not removed, full stop. Problems with content don't disappear because the content hasn't been improved. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Then discuss it. When tags come with no specific objections, then no one knows what needs to be improved—only that some editor at some point didn't like what they read. This is why these tags direct readers to the talk page where these problems are meant to be addressed.

There is nothing in the archive related to these specific tags. One says the section "may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints." Which viewpoints? The other that "this section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies." Which are being given undue weight? Without discussion, the tags serve no purpose—and it's up to the person raising the objections to start the conversation. 108.34.201.56 (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. As you've noted, the tag was added by a user (here) on what appears to be solely on a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT basis. Cheers for the heads up! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Puppet states and client states

I am curious as to why the terms "client state" and "puppet state" are used interchangeably. Puppet states are a type of client state, but many articles refer to puppet states as client states instead of the former. Shouldn't said articles be changed to puppet states or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conner Neu (talk • contribs) 08:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's an good observation. It has, however, only been used the once in this article for the Slovak Republic as having been a German 'client state' which I've tagged as needing a reliable source using the term. I've also started on tracking other articles using 'client state' in contexts where such usage is WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I just found it odd that states that are "classed" as puppet states are called client states. I would understand using "client state" for dependent states whose exact status is questionable, but most "clients" are "puppets".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conner Neu (talk • contribs) 00:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand

Don't you think New Zealand is puppet state of Australia? They have many agreements, both military and civil, and influence of Australian culture is huge in New Zealand. Many post-colonial laws apply to both countries. They recognize the same monarch and have similar flags. New Zealanders can even serie in Australian military forces. Union between New Zealand and Australia is similar to confederation between Belarus and Russia. New Zealand would not survive without Australia's support, and for me it's example of modern puppet state.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.117.32.61 (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

One might as well, using this reasoning, argue that the Republic of Ireland is a puppet state of the U.K. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Sovereignty of the puppet/client states

The puppet/client states are sovereign states? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Illegally annexed Baltic republics"

What does the article mean when it states that the Republic of Latvia, Republic of Lithuania, and Republic of Estonia were illegally annexed? Illegal according to who? The League of Nations? The source given for the information is a paper with a similar title that talks about Baltic nationalism after the fall of the USSR. Edward Benes (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

World War II section issues

It seems to me that the section on WWII puppet states is a duplication of the page List of World War II puppet states and as such to me should be removed, in addition to the fact that its neutrality is disputed and less actively maintained. I suggest it be removed and replaced by a link to the aforementioned page. Cnd474747 (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hungarian Soviet Republic

Hungarian Soviet Republic was not a puppet state. During its short existence, Soviet-Russia was too weak to be able to create puppet states. In fact, leadership asked Russia for help, but they were unable to provide, because they were in the middle of their own civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.110.138 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Kosovo and former afghanistan as US puppet states

Kosovo was created mainly by US intervention, same goes for the former Afghanistan regime. They should be included here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a210:a401:4b80:99c2:49d9:cfd5:a4ad (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of TRWT.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert of Deletion of Links

User:Citobun: Noted that you reverted my removal of three links at the the end of the article. Given that your edit summary "Whitewashing" is quite vague, I invite you to clarify this so we may have a discussion on how we can refine the edit.

Thank you Carter00000 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Belarus

Most people consider Belarus as a puppet state of Russia since the start of the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. There may be some objection voices, but I think it should be (at least) listed out in the "by limited opinion" section. 182.239.85.145 (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Who are these people? Do they also consider Belarus to be under "Russian occupation"? Mellk (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• According to Russian and Belorussian official position, they created a Union State. However, many recent sources are saying just that, e.g. Russia was joined by Belarus (a puppet regime state of Russia), which has served as a launch pad for Russian forces. [1]. That's a book. Or Russia's aggression has brought about fundamental changes in the economic relations of the Baltic states with Russia and the puppet authorities of Belarus, which was the backbone of military operations on Ukrainian soil. [2]. Hence it can be included to the page as such. My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove donestsk and luhansk

They dont regard themselves as contries niether does russia enymore or the rest international community 86.114.251.232 (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with this statement. Due to how the war in Ukraine is going I refuse to edit the republics out, specifically the Annexation of South Eastern Ukraine by Russia. FusionSub (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

One could say they are former puppet states. My very best wishes (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Transnistria's status really disputed?

Outside presumably Russia/Belarus and Transnistria itself, who disputes the status of that entity as Russia's puppet state? (That said, I did check and Transnistria's article currently does not even mention the term puppet state). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it is indeed regarded a puppet state of Russia: "For over two decades, Transnistria has been the puppet state of the Russian Federation on the territory of the Republic of Moldova." (see Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law Volume 18, 2015 - Pages 48-49) [3] - it explans at length why this is puppet state. It needs to be included to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I didn't mean to question the inclusion of Transnistria here. What I question is why is this under 'Disputed examples' section and not the 'Recent and current examples' one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. Actually, I did not check the page where this info was already included. My conclusion was the same: this should not be included. Now, as you are probably aware, arbs are voting to impose a one-sided interaction ban for me for interaction with you and VM. If that happens, I would appreciate if you do not ping me and do not comment on my talk page - just to make it easier for me. But of course you would be welcome to comment about me on any noticeboards if needed since this is a one-sided ban. As I said during arbitration, I have great respect to you and VM. Personally, I am fine and do not care much about these restrictions simply because they do not restrict me from anything I was doing or would like to do, except maybe only one thing: taking part in any administrative proceedings where you or VM would be a party. This is fine. I have no hard feelings whatsoever and probably should say "thank you!" to arbitrators. But if anything, my collaboration with you and VM in the past was productive for improving WP content. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I did the most recent major restructuring and retitling on 3 May 2023 (this month). I changed the title of "#By limited opinion" to "#Disputed examples", but didn't move Transnistria.

While I'm no expert, my own personal impression is that Transnistria is probably no less an artificially-created puppet than were Donetsk and Luhansk (in contrast to Belarus, whose real autonomy has been discussed, and whose borders and U.N. membership pre-date 1990) — and therefore should be moved up to join Donestsk and Luhansk under "#Recent and current examples#Russian Federation". —— Shakescene (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think all such examples are disputed by administration of such states. Therefore, making a specific section for "Disputed" does not make sense. Titles like "recent", "former", etc. do make sense.My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene I'd support moving Transnistria to the recent and current section. The other Russia-related example there, Belarus, is I think much more controversial, so I think it's fine to leave it in the 'disputed' section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Doing a copyedit (notes)

So far, just some nitpicks about passive voice and verb-subject agreement. Many small changes. If someone believes that one of them is in error, please let me know, but I am not addressing any statements made by the article in this first pass. I will probably have some thoughts about the article substance in a couple of days. Offhand I agree with the people saying that some of the examples should move to list articles.

• Do we have an established EngVar?

*Why is a map of the British Empire in the section on Napoleonic France?moved it -el

• Was the French First Empire really "revolutionary"?
• The entry for South Chahar has the flag icon for Chanan. Are these the same polity?
• De Wang - this name is not in his BLP article
• Mengjiang: can we merge with its various constituent parts?
• Princely states
• Tuvan People's Republic - tagged dubious-discuss, see no discussion. No opinion at the moment on whether this was a puppet state
• Yemen: can a government be a puppet of both the UAE and Saudi Arabia?
• " Belarusian Central Council (1944) – The Belarusian Central Council (Biełaruskaja Centralnaja Rada) declared the independence of Belarus on 27 June 1944 before dissolving on 2 July 1944 after the German retreat from Belarus." => suggest moving this to list of puppet states Elinruby (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

1. The British Empire map would go with text about the Indian princely states, but all that's under British Empire right now is a single sentence about Zanzibar. So the map has crept upwards.
2. I was trying to consolidate and distinguish the puppet states established by French revolutionary armies (Batavia, etc.) with those set up by the two Napoleons (like Joseph Bonaparte's Spain and the Mexican Empire), as both kinds of régime came between the French Bourbon monarchy and the Third Republic. I wasn't trying to identify one as part of the other, but on the other hand, I'm trying to avoid Balkanising this any further into one-state categories.

—— Shakescene (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

nod, sounds reasonable enough here on the surface where I still am.Elinruby (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yemen: I knew this was complex, but you have no idea how complex: you could create an entire college course from just the multifarious, densely-connected and very, very long articles about the Yemeni "Civil" War and various participants.

Briefly and much too simplistically, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. back different factions, each commanding (this being a relatively-tribal society) some part of Yemen's territory and people. This is complicated further by the Houthi and U.A.E. backed Southern Transitional Council reviving the old pre-unification divide between South Yemen (Aden & the Aden Protectorate forming the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen) and North Yemen (the Yemen Arab Republic). The U.A.E. sponsored Southern Transitional Council is itself a breakaway from the separatist Southern Movement.

In brief it is intellectually quite possible to see several puppets of different regional powers.

See: Yemeni Civil War disambiguation, Yemeni civil war (2014–present), Foreign involvement in the Yemeni civil war (2014-present), Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, etc., etc. (several of these approach or exceed 200k — just the right length to fill an idle weekend with nothing else to do. ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

was wondering to what extent the interests of the UAE aligned with Saudi America. Enough, I guess. Elinruby (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Also noting complete absence of any mention of the Portuguese or German Empire and previously-mentioned very incomplete British Empire.

• I think we should nail down the categories a bit better then provide 1-2 examples of each category.
• Texas or Puerto Rico wanting to join the United States probably does not equal puppet state, I agree, assuming that nobody is disputing that this is what happened. Elinruby (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Duchy of Warsaw

Seeking second opinions, especially since I see that Piotrus (talk · contribs) has looked at this, but open to anyone else as well. My original question was whether Napoleon was still a revolutionary after he started calling himself emperor and invading other countries. The Duchy of Warsaw is a decent test case on whether Napoleon was creating puppet states. Presumably this was by right of conquest, but apparently he also took the time to go install an administration? Elinruby (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

If the question is if DoW was a puppet state then we need to look at the sources. My own opinion is that yes, it was a puppet state but it was better being Napoleon's puppet state than being the Tsar's puppet state and these were the only alternatives on the table. Not all puppet states are equally puppet-y. Volunteer Marek 17:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A quick check in academic sources ([4]) does show we can find some RS calling Duchy of Warsaw a puppet state. Right now I don't think that is a controversial claim (DoW's main article right now uses the term client state; some RS also use the term satellite state... but realistically those are near synonyms, although we seem to have separate articles for all). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my subhead seems to equate the pre-Thermidor First Republic's clients with those of Napoleon. I just wanted to group these together since they were so closely related and since this article has far too many sub-sub-heads as it is. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It might be just me having a conceptual problem with the idea of an absolute monarch as revolutionary. He did start out as a general for the revolutionary government. Just reality checking some stuff. Unpopular opinion, Vichy pretty much was too. They were just permitted to think otherwise for a while. The Germans were good at that. Elinruby (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest (or write) some alternate sub-sub-subhead. Mine was not intending to call Napoleon a revolutionary, just to group his puppets with those of post-Bourbon/pre-Napoleonic (or revolutionary) France. The latter, as I understand it, became his puppets once he took over France, although (again as I understand it) some of the puppet republics were turned into Napoleonic-era monarchies. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

yeah. I made a an effort to add up the number of Bonapartes installed in random countries such as Brazil, and failed. Strangely, there doesn't seem to be a family tree anywhere. But listen, I usually put such notes on big messy copyedits/translations and they are intended as much for me as anyone else. Certainly not as criticism. Interestingly, though, Piotrus and VM seem to be saying that his effect was indeed somewhat revolutionary, better than the Russians, anyway. I'm just fascinated that on his way to Moscow he stopped off to set up a legal system. (Yes, yes, I am sure this happened over time, but I could reel off a list of other invaders who didn't do that. Stop me if I get too French on you ;) Elinruby (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Definition and distinction look daunting

We've all struggled here over what is a puppet state, and what is something else, but the new template makes this even more intellecutally daunting:

Client state

• Associated state
• Dependent territory
• Dominion
• Protectorate
• Puppet state
• Puppet monarch
• Satellite state
• Self-governing colony
• Tributary state
• Buffer state
• Vassal state
• Viceroyalty

How do we even begin to sort this out, and then sort out our examples? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Very simple. If there are multiple RS describing a state as "protectorate"/"puppet state"/whatever, then it can be mentioned on the corresponding page. There is no requirement that all sources classify the object/state in a certain way. It should not be included to a page only if such assignment represents a "fringe"/negligible minority view. Obviously, one state may belong to several different categories - this only needs to be sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes and perhaps Shakescene needs to be reminded that bottom line it is that simple, but he's been working on structural issues as well as text and I think that's what he is talking about here. I don't know if anyone has gone all the way through the references we already have? I know I questioned the inclusion of Vichy here, if only because the collaboration article doesn't seem to agree. But we should do that, if it hasn't been done. But before I comment further: what new template? Is this something Mathglot did? if so, they are pretty good about accepting input if there is a problem with the template itself. I haven't gotten into the specific definitions on each of those pages, but I wouldn't be surprised if they disagree. Maybe poli sci types are who we should be trying to recruit. Elinruby (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

on second thought, now that I am reminded of previous discussions, isn't the problem with this particular page that there are too many examples? So for purposes of this page maybe we just eliminate the ones that are hybrids of some kind? Any good text about them gets moved to a better place? Let's take Vichy -- the collaboration page makes much of the fact that they were trying to negotiate for the release of French prisoners of war. They are still such a classic example of collaboration that somebody invented the word "collaborationism" for what happened in France. And although they delayed the onset of full-on Nazi-ism, they did not prevent it. Is there a better example of a puppet state? Greece maybe but maybe I am just saying that because I don't know the details of that history. So we maybeshould start by picking the three or four best examples and moving the other sections to better homes. Seems worth thinking about. Elinruby (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

¶ The template (Forms of Government) looked new to me simply because I hadn't noticed it before. In fact it was added on 11 June 2012 at 11:50, so it's been here for 11 years (long before I first saw thus page). See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puppet_state&diff=prev&oldid=497076075 —— Shakescene (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Just wondering Elinruby (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Many entities are called various names. Frankly, I'd seriously consider merging some (not all, mind you) of these articles as many (most?) scholars often use those terms as synonyms. Anyway, for the purpose of this page, I think we should only care if a state was called puppet state. If it was called other things, this can merit listing of it on other pages and/or in the article in question (see for example my recent edits to Duchy of Warsaw). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

On this note I think we should probably delete British Empire until we have something more substantive to put there. Some very rough notes follow, not fact-checked yet. We should think about puppet states vs colonies vs say Commonwealth vs British Raj vs princely states. There is a list I saw somewhere of criteria, such as own flag but little to no autonomy. In my mind Newfoundland possibly may have been a puppet state at some point in the past in that perhaps its government was very geared to getting fishing catches to Britain. After 1867 Canada had its own flag, although it still incorporated the Union Jack. Upper and Lower Canada were overtly designated as colonies. On the other end of the spectrum, Congo Free State was not a puppet state of Belgium because it was the personal possession of Leopold II and made no pretense of being a state. India is hazier for me but the British Raj like Canada was an out-and-out colony that automatically entered World War I because Great Britain did so. (Canada specifically passed a law after World War I to say it would declare its own wars in future.) The East India Company like Leopold made no pretense of providing any sort of governance outside of commerce. Princely states: Mostly irrelevant in terms of foreign policy, no, with the possible exception of Hyderabad and Jammu & Kasmir? Maybe better described as semi-autonomous vassal states?? I will try to post the list I am talking about here when I run across it again, but one of the key takeaways for me was that the puppet government bears responsibility for the actions of the dominant state but has no voice in them. Maybe that sums up what the Tea Party colonists were yelling about. Elinruby (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

removed text, perhaps not puppet states

States seeking to join the United States

During 1836 U.S. citizens living in the Mexican state of Texas revolted against the Mexican government to establish a U.S.-backed Republic of Texas, a country that existed less than 10 years (from 14 May 1836, to 29 December 1845) before it was annexed to the United States of America. However, in August 1837, Memucan Hunt, Jr., the Texan minister to the United States, submitted the first official annexation proposal to the Van Buren administration. The first American-led attempts to take over Mexican Texas by filibustering date back to 1819 and by separatist settlers to 1826.

In 1810 U.S. citizens living in Spanish territory declared the area from the Mississippi River to the present state of Florida to be an independent nation. Known as the Republic of West Florida, it only lasted for 10 weeks. Not desiring to cross American interests, the republic's government encouraged annexation by the U.S., which soon occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

This should move to List of World War II puppet states but is unsourced

"* Belarusian Central Council (1944) – The Belarusian Central Council (Biełaruskaja Centralnaja Rada) declared the independence of Belarus on 27 June 1944 before dissolving on 2 July 1944 after the German retreat from Belarus" Elinruby (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

See http://www.bielarus.org/open.php?n=497&a=10

which, in either an English version or in a browser translation, also says:

The delegates considered the Congress as a successor to the First All-Belarusian Congress, which was held in December 1917 in the same theater, only under the conditions of Bolshevik occupation. It is not by chance that its members were invited to the presidium - Fabiyan Yaremich, colonel Kastus Yezavitau, teacher Alena Pavarotnaya, doctor Yanka Stankevich. It should be noted that the delegate of the First All-Belarusian Congress was also the president of the Belarusian Central Council, Radoslav Ostrovsky.

which suggests another entry for puppets after World War I or puppets during Bolshevik revolution. I don't know, and really one of our East European experts should intervene, for example @Marcelus:, @Scope creep:, @Piotrus: or @Volunteer Marek: —— Shakescene (talk) 06:35, 16 May Jus)t

I am pretty sure that someone on that list should have a more informed opinion on that than I would. I suggest letting it sit tho, until the arbs figure out what the sourcing requirements are. Don't get me started on that. And apparently we can't have both MVBW and VM by the way. Don't get me started on that either. Elinruby (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this seems to be about Belarus as a whole, which would not be "Poland" at any point, although some parts of it may or may As far as I am concerned My very best wishes is welcome here, btw, and I encourage any help he wants to give us, since he has a history of getting the details right. I am just complaining about having to parse through this sort of stuff and I actually think that as to Poland it might be worth seeking clarification as to whether the arbs really intend to have this article for example have one sourcing requirement for Poland and another for Yugoslavia, or Soviet Russia. Elinruby (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I support the move (inclusion) of this as a puppet state of Germany (per the lead of that article). It wasn't a puppet state of Poland, obviously (whether it included some lands that were in the past or present considered 'Polish' is not relevant here, I think). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)not have been in Poland in the WW2 period. Somebody please check me on this. @Piotrus: perhaps. So actually I do not think we have to worry about the sourcing requirements in this instance.

Yet the proposed language says "articles or edits", which to me says that Polish sections of survey articles are included. The proposal here is to move list items from this article to List of World War II puppet states, which I think has consensus, then improve the analysis I guess, starting with some sourcing for what is a puppet state versus what is a client state. Using 3-4 of the best examples. This one was too short-lived to be a really good example but qualify for inclusion on the WW2 list right? Except it isnt sourced and apparently we need a journal article to document its existence before it can be moved</rant> Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC) It needs a source either way though. Elinruby (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Monaco

I was looking at this last night and while our wikipage does call it a puppet state, and says that a fascist government was installed, I am not entirely certain that it wasn't just a continuation of the monarchy (Prince Louis?) with a German military administration. That said, this is an interesting case; it seems the Germans used its nominal neutrality to move money. What I am not seeing however is a homegrown administration with legislative powers. Possibly I just haven't looked hard enough; it's sort of an edge case. I plan to look at the articles about Monaco some more today. Elinruby (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Tuvan republic

this is tagged as disputed, anyone know why? Elinruby (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Architecture

This article is essentially a list, better built out than List of puppet states. Seems like we should rationalize that a bit. Maybe consolidate some of the subsections to make it less list-y? Probably move some of the more minor examples to List of? Elinruby (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is not a puppet state

Collapsed walls of text per WP:NOTHERE and WP:TALK.

Relevant Court Cases International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence, and the recognition of a country is a political issue. International Courts On 22 July 2010, The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in its advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence in 2010 that "the Security Council in an exceptional character attached illegality to the DOI of TRNC because it was, or would have been connected with the unlawful use of force" and "general international law contains no applicable prohibition of declarations of independence". The ICJ's ruling was expected to bolster demands for recognition by Northern Cyprus. The decision of the ICJ has also been regarded as opening more potential options for the TRNC to gain international legitimacy. On 2 July 2013, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus the adoption by the authorities of the "TRNC" of civil, administrative or criminal law measures, and their application or enforcement within that territory, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention". On 2 September 2015, The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decided that "...the court system set up in the "TRNC" was to be considered to have been "established by law" with reference to the "constitutional and legal basis" on which it operated, and it has not accepted the allegation that the "TRNC" courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality". Courts of Countries On 9 October 2014, the Federal Court of the United States (USA) stated that "the TRNC purportedly operates as a democratic republic with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary". On 3 February 2017, The United Kingdom's High Court stated "There was no duty in the United Kingdom law upon the Government to refrain from recognizing Northern Cyprus. The United Nations itself works with Northern Cyprus law enforcement agencies and facilitates co-operation between the two parts of the island". and revealed that the co-operation between the United Kingdom police and law agencies in Northern Cyprus is legal. Therefore, Northern Cyprus must be removed from the Wiki-article. Nepal2000 (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Replies That's why Northern Cyprus is listed under #Disputed Examples, because its status is disputed. And that citation from (what I presume is) the Supreme Court of the United States adds the word "purportedly", which is very far from a declaration. Belarus is also listed under Disputed Examples, and she retains her own seat at the U.N. while exchanging ambassadorw with any number of sovereign states. Few (if any) countries besides Turkey recognise the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus. I and the article are not declaring that North Cyprus is a puppet state, but (as with other examples in this section} simply stating that some countries consider it to be such. Cf. #Yemen @Elinruby: @Mathglot: —— Shakescene (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC) I don't know enough about Cyprus to intelligently opine on its status. However possibly these thoughts are useful: "USA's Federal Court" is meaningless unless followed by "system" and then it would only be a designation not a name. the venue for the decision I looked at was the United States District Court for the District of Columbia most US District Courts are subject to appeal at a Circuit Court and then the US Supreme Court. The structure of the DC Court system may differ somewhat since it is not a state. But someone should do some checking before we accept those court documents as the last word. There is a publication cald "Shephard's" that is used to see if a decision has been overturned but that is all I know about that. this particular venue has been described as a fast-track to the Supreme Count, since DC is the location of the federal government, so despite the above its judges would not be unfamiliar with international law and what its decisions say should definitely be accorded *some* weight It is true that any statement that follows "purportedly" is not being endorsed. Quite the contrary; the word distances the speaker from a statement that is being reported and implies that the speaker may not agree with it. I do not know enough about Cyprus to know whether this statement applies, but there are numerous situations where a government might interact with the de facto government of another jurisdiction in a way that should not be considered diplomatic recognition. Humanitarian aid, incidents that fall under maritime law, and immigration or commercial code proceedings concerning the citizens or legal persons of the jurisdiction come to mind. HtH Elinruby (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Most appeals from he United States District Court for the District of Columbia are heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, except for some specialized technical cases that are heard instead by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Many decisions by one of the 94 United States District Courts do not survive at the Appeals Court level or are negated by the United States Supreme Court, (most recently several controversial decisions by the only judge of the El Paso District of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas). So a decision by the D.C. Federal District Court is far from definitive or declaratory. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC) Response The reference to "Unlawful Territorial Situations in International Law: Reconciling Effectiveness, Legality And Legitimacy" by Enrico Milano (that is used as a reference for Northern Cyprus being a puppet state) must be removed from the Wiki-article "Puppet state" Page 146 of Enrico Milano: "However, following its previous reasoning in Loizidou, the Court concluded that the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legitimate government in Cyprus by looking at international recognition, and that the TRNC should be considered as a puppet-state under Turkish effective control. 36: Cyprus v. Turkey, supra n.34, 28-29 34: Case of Cyprus v. Turkey (Merits), Judgement of 10 May 2001, ECHR Series A (2001-IV), 5" Let's look whether Enrico Milano properly takes the reference he gave in his book or not: Case of Cyprus v. Turkey (Merits), Judgement of 10 May 2001, ECHR Series A (2001-IV), 5 (Body text of 10.05.2001-decision) "2. Alleged violations of the rights of the displaced persons to respect for their home and property 28. The Commission established the facts under this heading against the background of the applicant Government's principal submission that over 211,000 displaced Greek Cypriots and their children continued to be prevented as a matter of policy from returning to their homes in northern Cyprus and from having access to their property there for any purpose. The applicant Government submitted that the presence of the Turkish army together with “TRNC”-imposed border restrictions ensured that the return of displaced persons was rendered physically impossible and, as a corollary, that their cross-border family visits were gravely impeded. What started as a gradual and continuing process of illegality over the years had now resulted in the transfer of the property left behind by the displaced persons to the “TRNC” authorities without payment of compensation and its re-assignment, together with “title deeds”, to State bodies, Turkish Cypriots and settlers from Turkey. 29. The respondent Government maintained before the Commission that the question of the Varosha district of Famagusta along with the issues of freedom of movement, freedom of settlement and the right of property could only be resolved within the framework of the inter-communal talks (see paragraph 16 above) and on the basis of the principles agreed on by both sides for the conduct of the talks. Until an overall solution to the Cyprus question, acceptable to both sides, was found, and having regard to security considerations, there could be no question of a right of the displaced persons to return. The respondent Government further submitted that the regulation of property abandoned by displaced persons, as with restrictions on cross-border movement, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the “TRNC” authorities." There is NO word "puppet" in the body-text of the "Cyprus v. Turkey" case decision of 10.05.2001 BY THE COURT ECtHR ITSELF! When we CTRL+F for the word "puppet", we see the word "puppet" appears only in one place; namely, in the "PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FUAD" not in the body-text of the decision of the "Cyprus v. Turkey" case (I gave above the body-text's 28th and 29th paragraph): "PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FUAD 28. I do not think that this aspect of the case can be approached without a consideration of the events which led to the division of Cyprus. These events were unique. The finely balanced constitutional arrangements, supported by solemn treaty obligations, under which the Republic of Cyprus was established, broke down all too soon. Then there was the 1974 coup, the object of which is common knowledge. What was virtually a war then ensued, followed by a cease-fire and the movement of many members of the community to the north or to the south of a buffer-zone. Starting as long ago as 1963, the Turkish Cypriots began the process of establishing an administration of their own. They did not sit back and rely on institutions of the Turkish Republic, or apply their laws. There was ample evidence to suggest that the “TRNC” might well, after investigation, be found to display all the attributes of a State (although only recognised by Turkey) which exercises independent and effective control over northern Cyprus. IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED, WITHOUT PROPER INQUIRY, THAT THE “TRNC” IS A PUPPET REGIME OR SUBORDINATE JURISDICTION OF TURKEY." Judge Mr. K. Fuad does not say "Northern Cyprus is a puppet state"! He says just the opposite! So, Enrico Milano's book distorts ECtHR's 10.05.2001-decision! Abused references and citations is contrary to Wikipedia! The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) did not conclude "TRNC is a puppet state of Turkey" in its 10.05.2021-decision! Forget that, ECtHR's 10.05.2001-decision does not include any word "puppet"! Hence, the reference "Milano, Enrico (2006). Unlawful Territorial Situations in International Law: Reconciling Effectiveness, Legality And Legitimacy. p. 146" (that is used as a reference for Northern Cyprus being a puppet state) must be removed from the Wiki-article "Puppet state". Nepal2000 (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC) The reference to "Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2015. Unlawful Territorial Situations in International Law: Reconciling Effectiveness, Legality And Legitimacy." by Terry D. Gill (2016) p. 146. ISBN 9004149392. p. 58. (that is used as a reference for Northern Cyprus being a puppet state) must be removed from the Wiki-article "Puppet state" The Wiki-article "Puppet state" includes: "According to the European Court of Human Rights, the Republic of Cyprus remains the sole legitimate government in Cyprus, and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a puppet state under Turkish effective control". and gives 2 references for this: Enrico Milano's 2006-book and Terry.D.Gill's 2016-book. Above, Enrico Milano's 2006-book was shown to distort ECtHR's 10.05.2001-decision. Now, it is Terry.D.Gill's 2016-book's turn: Terry.D., Gill (2016). Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2015. p. 58. ISBN 9789462651418. "All through a long line of case law on the issue of human rights responsibility in puppet states, the ECtHR consistently upheld the principle according to which primary responsibility and liability for human rights violations in a puppet state rests with the sponsor state. The first case in which the ECtHR dealt with the issue of a puppet state is the Loizidou v. Turkey Case. In its judgement on the preliminary objections, the Court refuted Turkey’s claim that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is not a puppet state but a democratic state established on the basis of its right of self-determination, and thus fully responsible for the breaches of law occurring on its territory.50 The Court came to the conclusion that: [b]earing in mind the object and purpose of the Convention, the responsibility of a Contracting Party may also arise when as a consequence of military action - whether lawful or unlawful - it exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory. The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention derives from the fact of such control whether it be exercised directly, through its armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration. In this connection, the respondent government have acknowledged that the applicant’s loss of control of her property stems from the occupation of the northern part of Cyprus by Turkish troops and the establishment there of the “TRNC”. Furthermore, it has not been disputed that the applicant was prevented by Turkish troops from gaining access to her property.51 Therefore, apart from clearly establishing responsibility of the sponsor state for the human rights violations of the puppet state, the Court also stresses that the exercise of effective control does not need to be done through military means, as it is needed for the application of humanitarian law, but can also be achieved through the subordination of the puppet state’s administration. 50 ECtHR, Case of Loizidou v Turkey, Preliminary Objections, 23 March 1995, Appl. No. 15318/89, para 54. 51 Ibid., para 62. ECtHR's 23.03.1995 Preliminary Objections document: "AS TO THE LAW IV. SCOPE OF THE CASE 54. In the application referring the present case to the Court under Article 48 (b) (art. 48-b) of the Convention the applicant Government have confined themselves to seeking a ruling on the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and Article 8 (art. 8), in so far as they have been declared admissible by the Commission (see paragraph 35 above), concerning access to the applicant’s property. Accordingly, as is undisputed, it is only these complaints which are before the Court. The remaining part of the case concerning the applicant’s arrest and detention thus falls within the competence of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention. The Court notes that the issue whether the Convention and the Rules of Court permit a partial referral under Article 48 (art. 48), as in the present case, has not been called into question by those appearing before the Court. Indeed, Turkey ("the respondent Government") has accepted that the scope of the case be confined in this way. In these circumstances the Court does not find it necessary to give a general ruling on the question whether it is permissible to limit a referral to the Court to some of the issues on which the Commission has stated its opinion. V. OBJECTIONS RATIONE LOCI A. Whether the facts alleged by the applicant are capable of falling within the jurisdiction of Turkey under Article 1 (art. 1) of the Convention 2. The Court’s examination of the issue 62. In this respect the Court recalls that, although Article 1 (art. 1) sets limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of "jurisdiction" under this provision is not restricted to the national territory of the High Contracting Parties. According to its established case-law, for example, the Court has held that the extradition or expulsion of a person by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 35-36, para. 91; the Cruz Varas and Others v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28, paras. 69 and 70, and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 103). In addition, the responsibility of Contracting Parties can be involved because of acts of their authorities, whether performed within or outside national boundaries, which produce effects outside their own territory (see the Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain judgment of 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240, p. 29, para. 91). Bearing in mind the object and purpose of the Convention, the responsibility of a Contracting Party may also arise when as a consequence of military action - whether lawful or unlawful - it exercises effective control of an area outside its national territory. The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention derives from the fact of such control whether it be exercised directly, through its armed forces, or through a subordinate local administration." The word "puppet" appears only in 2 places in ECtHR's 23.03.1995 "Preliminary Objections" document: "V. OBJECTIONS RATIONE LOCI A. Whether the facts alleged by the applicant are capable of falling within the jurisdiction of Turkey under Article 1 (art. 1) of the Convention 56. The respondent Government first pointed out that the question of access to property was obviously outside the realm of Turkey’s "jurisdiction". This could be seen from the fact that it formed one of the core items in the inter-communal talks between the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities. Furthermore the mere presence of Turkish armed forces in northern Cyprus was not synonymous with "jurisdiction" any more than it is with the armed forces of other countries stationed abroad. In fact Turkish armed forces had never exercised "jurisdiction" over life and property in northern Cyprus. Undoubtedly it was for this reason that the findings of the Commission in the inter-State cases of Cyprus v. Turkey (applications nos. 6780/74, 6950/75 and 8007/77, supra cit.) had not been endorsed by the Committee of Ministers whose stand was in line with the realities of the situation prevailing in Cyprus following the intervention of Turkey as one of the three guarantor powers of the Republic of Cyprus. Nor did Turkey exercise overall control of the border areas as found by the Commission in its admissibility decision in the present case. She shares control with the authorities of the "TRNC" and when her armed forces act alone they do so on behalf of the "TRNC" which does not dispose of sufficient forces of its own. The fact that the Turkish armed forces operate within the command structure of the Turkish army does not alter this position. According to the respondent Government, FAR FROM BEING A "PUPPET" STATE AS ALLEGED BY THE APPLICANT, the "TRNC" is a democratic constitutional State with impeccable democratic features and credentials. Basic rights are effectively guaranteed and there are free elections. It followed that the exercise of public authority in the "TRNC" was not imputable to Turkey. The fact that this State has not been recognised by the international community was not of any relevance in this context. 57. The applicant, whose submissions were endorsed by the Government of Cyprus, contended that the question of responsibility in this case for violations of the Convention must be examined with reference to the relevant principles of international law. In this respect the Commission’s approach which focused on the direct involvement of Turkish officials in violations of the Convention was not, under international law, the correct one. A State is, in principle, internationally accountable for violations of rights occurring in territories over which it has physical control. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, international law recognises that a State which is thus accountable with respect to a certain territory remains so even if the territory is administered by a local administration. This is so whether the local administration is illegal, in that it is the consequence of an illegal use of force, or whether it is lawful, as in the case of a protected State or other political dependency. A State cannot avoid legal responsibility for its illegal acts of invasion and military occupation, and for subsequent developments, by setting up or permitting the creation of forms of local administration, however designated. Thus the controlling powers in the "puppet" States that were set up in Manchukuo, Croatia and Slovakia during the period 1939-45 were not regarded as absolved from responsibilities for breaches of international law in these administrations (Whiteman, Digest of International Law, vol. 8, pp. 835-37 (1967)). In the same vein, the international accountability of the protecting or ultimate sovereign remains in place even when a legitimate political dependency is created. This responsibility of the State in respect of protectorates and autonomous regions is affirmed by the writings of authoritative legal publicists (Rousseau, Droit international public, vol. V, 1983, p. 31, para. 28; Reuter, Droit international public, 6th ed., 1983, p. 262; Répertoire suisse de droit international public, vol. III, 1975, pp. 1722-23; Verzijl, International Law in Historical Perspective, vol. IV, 1973, pp. 710-11). The applicant further submitted that in the present case to apply a criterion of responsibility which required the direct intervention of Turkish military personnel in respect of each prima facie violation of the Convention in northern Cyprus would be wholly at variance with the normal mode of applying the principles of State responsibility set out above. To require applicants to fulfil such a standard at the merits stage would be wholly unrealistic and would also involve a de facto amnesty and a denial of justice. Finally, if Turkey was not to be held responsible for conditions in northern Cyprus, no other legal person can be held responsible. However the principle of the effective protection of Convention rights recognised in the case-law of the Court requires that there be no lacuna in the system of responsibility. The principles of the Convention system and the international law of State responsibility thus converge to produce a regime under which Turkey is responsible for controlling events in northern Cyprus." The Applicant (Ms. Loizidou) does claim "TRNC is a puppet state of Turkey". European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) does not state "the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a puppet state under Turkish effective control" in its 23.03.1995 document. However, the Wiki-article "Puppet state" includes: "According to the European Court of Human Rights, ... the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a puppet state under Turkish effective control". This is a clear distortion. Hence, "Terry.D., Gill (2016)" must be removed from the references of "According to the European Court of Human Rights, ... the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus should be considered as a puppet state under Turkish effective control".Nepal2000 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Academic studies: Northern Cyprus is not a puppet state Yesilada, Birol Ada. 1989. "Social Progress and Political Development in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", The Cyprus. p. 109: "If the TRNC was indeed a puppet state of Turkey, then these extensive individual civil and political rights would have been far more restricted in Northern Cyprus -- especially the activities of the leftist political parties and trade unions." United States Department of State, 1997: In terms of its actual human rights record, the US State Department finds that "there is a generally strong regard for democratic principles" in the Turkish Cypriot community. There were no reports of political prisoners and no public allegations of police brutality in the TRNC. Representatives from international human rights groups have access to the TRNC, international broadcasts are available without interference, academic freedom is respected, opinions circulate freely, and independent trade unions regularly take stands on public policy issues. United States Department of State, ‘Cyprus Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996’ (Washington, D. C., February 1997). Criteria of whether puppet or not (Pegg, Scott. 1998. International Society and the De Facto State; Ashgate Publishing Ltd.) "the factors identified by James Crawford and Alan James in distinguishing puppet states from other entities include such things as: 1) whether the entity was established illegally, by military occupation or the threat or use of external armed force; 2) evidence that the entity does not have the support of the vast majority of the population it claims to govern; 3) evidence that the entity is subject to foreign control or direction in important matters of policy; and 4) the staffing of important government positions by foreign nationals"35 35: See the discussion of criterion number six in chapter two. The references are to Crawford, 1976–77, pp. 130–133; and James, 1986b, pp. 139–140. Crawford, J. (1976–77), ‘The Criteria for Statehood in International Law’, British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 48, 130–133; and James, A. (1986), Sovereign Statehood: The Basis of International Society, London: Allen & Unwin. pp. 139–140. Pegg, Scott. 1998. International Society and the De Facto State; Ashgate Publishing Ltd.: "Unlike Manchukuo and the Nazi regimes in Slovakia and Croatia during World War II, the TRNC actually does have the support of the vast majority of the population it claims to govern. It is not an alien entity imposed from abroad on an unwilling civilian population. A second component of this argument points to the fact that the TRNC does not always march in step with Turkey. The TRNC’s constitution, for example, has many more liberal democratic principles in it than the Turkish constitution has. The TRNC has also shown a far more tolerant attitude toward the activities of left-wing trade unions and political parties than the mainland Turks have. Birol Ali Yesilada (1989) argues that 'If the TRNC was indeed a puppet state of Turkey, then these extensive individual civil and political rights would have been far more restricted in Northern Cyprus -- especially the activities of the leftist political parties and trade unions.' " Elin Monstad, "I want to break free: an analysis of de facto-states1 and their paths towards success and failure between 1945 and 2012"; Master Thesis; University of Bergen (UiB), Norway, spring 2013; Institute of Comparative Politics; Comparative Politics 350. (1: Disclaimer: Though discussing de facto-states, this thesis holds no opinions on the legitimacy of their existence nor on their present, future or past status. Names of entities may vary elsewhere. For example, Transnistria is also known as Trans-Dniester, and Northern Cyprus as TRNC. Here, the most common names from English and Norwegian literature are used.) Page40: "Another interesting point is whether Northern Cyprus should be considered a Turkish puppet state and therefore excluded from the data here. Again, applying Pegg’s (1998, 112-113) definitions, it is claimed that Northern Cyprus does not fall into the puppet-category for two reasons. Firstly, it was not imposed from the outside on an unwilling population. Secondly, the national administrative staff is Cypriote and the state apparatus independent of the Turkish, even though they closely cooperate." Nepal2000 (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Comment @Shakescene and Elinruby:, the originator of this section is indef-blocked. I vote for collapsing these WP:WALLSOFTEXT dominated by Nepal2000, for WP:NOTHERE reasons (same reason they got blocked for), but I won't if there's an objection. Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC) @Mathglot and Elinruby: I'd cetainly not be at all opposed to either archiving or collapsing this horribly arranged Wall of Text. It was too long for me to plough through, but what I did see was selective cherry-picking, as in citing "purportedly" or a dissenting opinion. You should also look at User:Nepal2000's alterations to the text of Puppet state#Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and the reversions by other editors. No doubt the text could bear some improvement or clarification, but iI doubt that Nepal2000's rewrite advanced anything.—— Shakescene (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC) hmmm? I hadn't been following much since my last post. Yeah all that cut and paste above is painful. Especially -- did he ever say where it was from? I agree that it overwhelms the page, close it if you want, as far as I am concerned. Elinruby (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC) If he did, it's hard to find among the debris. Collapsed per WP:NOTHERE, and with consensus. 06:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Mathglot (talk) Refs

Examples of types of puppet vs exhaustive lists

It's all too easy in an article that's meant to define and describe "puppet states" tp turn representative examples into complete lists (perhaps a whole family of these lists should form their own article or articles).

On the one hand, we have quite deliberately reduced the French-revolutionary and Napoleonic puppet states (1789-1814) to just two examples, when it would possible to list at least 20 (Batavian Republic, Cisalpine Republic, Helvetic Republic, Grand Duchy of Warsaw, etc.)

But at the opposite extreme there are very long lists of Japanese puppet states in Chine (1931-45) — which essentially duplicates the lists in Collaboration with Imperial Japan and List of World War II puppet states — and what appears to be all the short-lived alternative régimes in the Dutch East Indies that the Netherlands set up as alternatives to Sukarno's Republic of Indonesia between Japan's defeat in 1945 and a final peace treaty with Sukarno in 1949.

There might also be a way to abridge the long section on the Kingdom of Iraq which is also treated at List of World War II puppet states.

Any thoughts? @Elinruby and Mathglot: —— Shakescene (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this had to become less of a list and more of a text. Did the ones you removed exist on the list page? In the matter of Japanese puppet states, I think we talkrd about that before; seems like we agree it should be in one place or the other, in other words one text should summarize the other. Maybe some of them should have their own articles. I believe Piotrus made a stub for Duchy of warsaw. I have no idea about the Dutch East Indies. I would imagine due would apply, but I am not sure how that would specifically work. How extensively is the Kingdom of Iraq treated at List of World War II puppet states? it seems like the list should have less explanation. I have a soft spot for French republics, but as long as they are on the List articles, I don't see a problem, sounds good. Elinruby (talk) 06:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Minor aside to @Elinruby:: if you look at the Edit History of Duchy of Warsaw, you can see that it's now over 20 years old and has more than 25k, which would be natural for one stage in Polish history. Cf. Commonwealth of England or French Directory. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What Shakescene said - Duchy of Warsaw is not a stub, and it wasn't started by me. I think pretty much any state has its own article on wiki, sovereign or not-so-much. They tend to be all notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, my quick thoughts: we do not need to list every entity referred to as a "puppet state" here. This article should be in prose format, mentioning such examples as are relevant to the prose discussion - it is not a list, nor it should be. A separate list of puppet states could of course exist, complementing the Category:Puppet states (also see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_20#Category:Puppet_states). Although maybe even better would be a list of states called puppet, satellite, vassal, etc. (title working) with a table listing such states and saying what they have been called, maybe sorteable. Maybe list of client states, if we can agree this is the parent term (see discussion at #Definition and distinction look daunting?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality and US Cold War puppets?

Not a massive deal, but give wikipedia's neutrality policy, why are only Soviet Puppet Governments listed? There were plenty of American puppet governments in Latin America of considerable note and they are absent here. Obviously neutrality may not apply as the Cold War is long over, but is it not remiss to write on puppet governments of the most important state in Modern history. 138.248.180.210 (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)