Talk:Puppet state
|
|
| Contents |
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.
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.
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)
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)
The Talibans as puppets of Al-Qaida
Removed from the list of wellknown puppet governments:
--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...
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)
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.
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)