Talk:Puppet state

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)

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)

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:

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

Firstly it shall be clear what is the state as a notion? If a state is the state - then it must have all three branches: legislative (say US Congress), judiciary (say US Supreme Court), and executive (say US President). Here I noticed that even occupied territories are counted as the states.--Standshown (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

A state or nation may have a much different form of government than the executive/legislative/judicial we have in the west, and still be a puppet state of another power. Intersofia (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, support your point of view by valid and reputable references. Also you must make difference between nation and state i.e. be familiar with basic knowledge of political science.--Standshown (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Because SPA account Standshown is deleting list of German puppet regimes with only intention to delete Serbia from that list right question is if we need to create new article puppet regimes or things will stay like it has been before creation of this account ?

Second thing is that this SPA account has changed definition of state using for that Montevideo Convention. This is false because from wikipedia article it is clear that only american states has accepted this convention. Using like argument for European accepting of convention decision of Badinter Committee is false because 1 thing is EU decision and another thing is decision of 1 committee. When European parliament or commision will made this decision then Montevideo convention will be accepted by EU. Badinter Committee has given only legal advice about Yugoslavia nothing more, nothing less. --Rjecina 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid incivilty/personal attacks (like SPA account ) - if you like to discuss anything. Also, support your claims by valid references.--Standshown (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But Standshown is SPA account !!!

You have not given evidence that Montevideo Convention has been international accepted in official state documents during WW II or even today.

Second point is that you have not writen in which list we need to put puppet regimes which you delete from this list. Wikipedia is not having article puppet regimes but only puppet states. --Rjecina 15:06, 6 December 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)

Occupied Territory vs. State Definition According to International Law

International law defines the state - according to the Montevideo Convention (1933):

ARTICLE 1

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

ARTICLE 3

The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

The articles 1 and 3 clearly rule out that an occupied territory might be the state:

• no integrity and independence
• no capacity to enter into relations with other states
• cannot legislate upon its interests
• cannot define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts

Two more references proving that the Montevideo Convention is widely accepted by the international law:

• Constructing the Nation-State: International by Connie L. McNeely Contributor John W. Meyer Greenwood Press 1995 page 52

Traditional international law has commonly relied on the criteria laid down in the 1933 Montevideo Convention when referring to a state. ... These "classical" criteria rest upon the idea of effectiveness among territorial units and are indeed reflected in the early discussions of statehood in the United nations.

Security Council records also show that, along with the traditional criteria, reference has been made to a member of other matters in connection with the statehood of an applicant, to greather and lesser degree, including mode of the establishment of state, foreign occupation of its territory, relations with a former sovereign, the extent of the applicant sovereignity, the ratification of peace treaties with ex-enemy applicants, war-related disabilities, the legitimacy of the statehood obtained through aggression and conquest, defense arrangements with other powers, the de jure versus de facto status of applicant and its government, recognition of the applicant by United Nations members, and diplomatic relations with other states.

• State Failure, Sovereignty And Effectiveness by Gerard Kreijen, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004 page 110

A telling example of this attitude and the empirical approach underlying it id the questionnaire that applicants for the League of nations were required to complete. The questions were

1. Is the application for admission to the League of Nations in order?
2. Is your government recognized de jure or de facto and by which State?
3. Does your country possess a stable governments and settled frontiers? What are its size and populaton.
4. Is your country fully self-governing?
5. What has been the conduct of your country, including both acts and assurance, with regard to (1) your international obligations; (2) the prescriptions of the League as to armaments?

--Standshown (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This above is absolutely irrelevant. But please feel free Standshown to define what is puppet state according to "International law" or any source. So far the strange removal of the facts by you can't be justified with anything. As first of all an occupied state or country can have puppet regimes installed by the occupying power. Therefore once again the definition of state according to international law is as out of context as it can get.--Termer (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• At first you have to learn the difference between the regime and the state at the level of plain English language and at the level of basic knowledge of political science. Definition of state is already given and known in the international law. Also you are entering into logical contradiction claiming irrelevancy of the definition of state then calling upon the same definition. Denial of an effective, widely accepted knowledge is simply against the Wikipedia code of conduct. To support your claims - which are unclear to me here - you have to provide reliable sources as it was required by Wikipedia:SOURCE

Reliable sources

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

--Standshown (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you'd like to question the facts in the article that are common knowledge, your job would be to tag these with . In case you're going to remove any large junks of text from the article again, you're going to force me to list you at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Thanks!--Termer (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The removed text is not common knowledge - rather a baseless attempt to paint people of the occupied territories as a Nazi collaborators.--Standshown (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

really? for example Quisling etc. mentioned in the article as a head of puppet regime that you have removed was a baseless attempt to paint people of the occupied territories as a Nazi collaborators? --Termer (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already told you: puppet regime is not puppet state. Please, learn very basic notions of the international law and political science.

--Standshown (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? Here you go: The subject was discussed in the report of the International Law Commission in it's 13th session: In situations what are called puppet states or governments set up in a given territory on the initiative of occupying Power, international responsibilities arising out of the conducts of organs of a puppet State would be deprived of international personality and would thus be only a "territorial governmental personality" of the occupying State. The occupying state would be responsible for internationally wrongful acts committed by the puppet Sate or Government. In case Puppet state or Government would act in a sphere of activity under its direction or control, it would be responsible "for the acts of another". Source: The International Law Commission's Draft Articles on State; P. 101 ISBN 0792311795

As the international law clearly makes no difference between puppet state or government/regime, I have to call your opinions unfortunately incompetent. Since I'm the forth editor [1] [2] [3] here who thinks your removals from the article have not been justified, it seems you're working against consensus here. please do not remove facts from the article again or add facts that are not relevant.Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For chrissake stop writing nonsense! You simply do not understand what you are reading about! By no means international law and political science makes equal state to government!

--Standshown (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

of course Standshown state and government are not the same. Just that this is about puppet state or puppet government here, not about state or government. And any problems you have with the way puppet state or government is defined, you should take it up with the International Law Commission of the United Nations: the sourced facts you have just removed from the article that define puppet state or government.--Termer (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, puppet state is state - in full accordance to international law. Your "sourced facts" are simply misiterpretation of the reference you quoted above!

--Standshown (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for charing your opinions. Please refer to a specific chapter or paragraph in the international law that would back up your idea of "puppet state"="state". So far, according to the International Law Commission of the United Nations: "puppet state" is "territorial governmental personality" of the occupying State at the most.--Termer (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Puppet State vs. Protectorate

The protectorate term cannot be regarded as the puppet state - see, for example, the observation whether the Independent State of Croatia was a puppet state or a protectorate at:

War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941-1945: Occupation and Collaboration by Jozo Tomasevich, Stanford University Press 2001, page 271

or puppet state (Slovakia) vs. protectorate (Bohemia-Moravia) at:

International law in historical perspective by J. H. W. Verzijl, W. P. Heere, J. P. S. Offerhaus, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, page 91

--Standshown (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Standshown, since you don't listen to reasoning and keep removing referenced facts from the article you leave me no other choice than list the case at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. --Termer (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• The very problem with your knowledge of this subject is:

You do not understad that the state has a territory and that the government or the regime is a group of people;

The state has the sovereignity which she exercises through her legislative, judicial, and executive branches;

The executive branch of a state is called the government;

You are not providing referenced facts - rather utter misunderstanding of this subject - tehrefore creating a mess in the text of this article

Also, bear in mind that historians make strict distinction between the state and the occupied territory - see, for example, the maps of the occupied Europe in 1942:

The Holocaust Cronicle by David J. Hogan (editor-in-chief), Publications International Ltd, Lincolnwood Il 2003, page 359 or online [4]

The Destruction of the European Jews, by Raul Hilberg, 3 vols, Holmes & Meyer, New York 1985, Volume 2 page 573

--Standshown (talk) 22:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Because first time you have not answered I will ask second time:

"you have not writen in which list we need to put puppet regimes which you delete from this list. Wikipedia is not having article puppet regimes but only puppet states.". Maybe we need to created article puppet regimes ?

Second point is that you are deleting puppet regimes of Germany (to delete Serbia) but you are not deleting puppet regimes of Soviet Union. This is clearly POV.--Rjecina (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

SPA account Standshown is thinking that this article it is not right place for puppet regimes and there is dispute about this last 2 months. Question is simple:

• Do we need article puppet regimes ? If answer is yes then we need definition of puppet regimes which will be different of definition for puppet states. This question is tricky because sometimes it is very small difference (if difference exist ?) between puppet regime and puppet state.--Rjecina (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Standshown (what is the SPA account?) has a pretty good idea what is the state. This user supported it by good and credible references quite systematically: a basic definition, further elaboration of the basic definition, the definition used by historians and law experts. Anyway, the article is a mess, where the people contributing to it did not demonstrate a respectable level of knowledge. I hope that all participants shall accept that the encyclopedia is all about a knowledge - not about the right to opose and to disagree.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• What? - if there is no agreed-upon distinction, then how can you decide how to split the article? I would say do not split. MilesAgain (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to be agreed-upon. As Stadshown aready explained it - the state is a territory+people living on that territory+sovereignity of the people over that territory. The regime is just a group of people exercising some power. Might have no territory (exiled regime) or their territory might be a town or a city - not necessarily the territory of a state. These two notions are even different on the level of plain English. I am going to repeat: the encyclopedia is all about a knowledge - not about the right to opose and to disagree.--Smerdyakoff (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Because all this has started with question of Serbia I will use Nedic Serbia (1941-44) like example. This puppet state/regime is having government, anthem, currency, police and military forces. Primeminister which has "ruled" has recieved post with support of Serbian nobles and Germany. Later he has been recieved by Hitler (1942 or 1943). On other side this state/territory has been under control of German military. More about this example is possible to read from this comment [5] . All in all Nedic Serbia is best example to show how tiny can be difference between puppet regime and puppet state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjecina (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The regime yes, the state not. I advise you to get a good dictionary of plain contemporary English to see the differences in the meanings of these two terms. What someone thinks about this subject - and puts it on a talk page - is not a reference at all and it is irrelevant here. The stories like the one above demonstrate just further ignorance and refusal to accept valid definitions coming from the political science and the international law.

Accepting one Wikipedia rule (RFC) does not mean the right to ignore other rules (impartial and credible references versus personal point of view)--Smerdyakoff (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the comment from Smerdyakoff (and earlier Standshown). I add that to me it seems that some contributors compensate their lack of understanding of international public law by "original research" which corrupts this article and not only this one. Otto (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia definition of puppet state is : "A puppet state is a state that is nominally independent, but in reality, under the control of another power ". Can somebody please give us definition of puppet regime so that we can create article puppet regime ? This is our real problem ? --Rjecina (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• To Otto: I've already posted the definition of state (therefore puppet-state) above [6]. Also, I pointed at two examples where historians made clear difference between puppet state and protectorate here. The difference between regime and state is fully elaborated by me and by Smerdyakoff. [7]--Standshown (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)