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)

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.

Sovereignty of the puppet/client states

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