Talk:Protectorate

Notes

These don't fit the definition.

Examples of "protectorates" include the allied occupation of post-World War 2 Japan and Germany.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 06:51, 25 September 2003 (UTC)

I reverted. Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. etc. are not protectorates under American law. Cuba was something of a protectorate in the early 20th century.

---

According to a history book, a protectorate "had its own government, but officials of a foreign power guided its policies, particularly in foreign affairs" (706) (WORLD HISTORY--by the National Geographic Society) I hope this helps.

67.160.126.132 02:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Actually, the Code of federal regulations defines "protectorate" as the definition is listed!

This is because during the late 20th century a "protectorate" was unethical. Thus all treaties of a protectorate status were altered to exclude protectorates. Today possible protectorates are called Insular Areas, and governed by the OIA. (http://www.doi.gov/oia/).

LINK: http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=76999812516+5+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Volume 8, Revised as of July 1, 2003

“Protectorate means American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.”

---

Remove reference to protectorate.

http://www.doi.gov/oia/FAQ/faq2.htm

---

Meld above with search of CFR. Apparantly the EPA uses the term protectorate in internal correspondence and federal regulations to refer to insular areas, but no one else does, and the OIA argues that this terminology is incorrect.

---User:Roadrunner

By the way if you think that is confusing, look at the the status of a treaty under United States law.

---User:Roadrunner

nominal independence?

Some questions:

1. If a protectorate is a nominal independent state with an own head of state as some say, how can old maps list them as part of British, French or German colonies? When I was a kid i thougt the protectorate was colonies.

2. Could another state, like France, open an embassy in a let's say British protectorate?

Normally, not without British permission, which would be unlikely. The protecting power takes care of the protectorate's foreign relations. (This is also the answer to #1.) Septentrionalis

3. Could a protectorate join international organizations, like the League of Nations or the United Nation

4. What kind of citizenship had the local people in a protectorate. I know that Egypt was a British protectorate between 1914-1922, so were the Egyptians British citizens or Egyptian citizens?

Egyptian subjects. Septentrionalis 19:55, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the answer to the question of whether a protectorate could join the UN, should really be "no." There is a distinction between a protectorate and a "protected power." (I think Morocco was one for a while.), which is basically just this. A protected power may be just like a protectorate, but it maintains a separate international legal personality, while a protectorate does not, and could not be a party in an international court, sign treaties etc on its own.. (So if a protecting power gave all these permissions, it would in effect be making the protectorate into a "protected power" I guess.) I should probably put this in the article once I find the book I am looking for. --John Z 22:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Need more clearcut definition

I think google gives a more clear defintion than this article does... I think that's not a good thing.

--<a href="/wiki/User:Devourer09" title="User:Devourer09"> Devourer09 </a><a href="/wiki/User_talk:Devourer09" title="User talk:Devourer09"> ► </a> 20:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Palau, Micronesia and Marshall islands are associated states, not protectorates, according to the article on associated states.

Macau/Macao

Macau/Macao was a Japanese protecterate from 1943-1945 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.147.54 (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

chartered companies

“ Occasionally, a protectorate was established by or exercised by the other form of indirect rule: a chartered company, which becomes a de facto state in its European home state (but geographically overseas), allowed to be an independent country which has its own foreign policy and generally its own armed forces. ”

This sentence could be improved. Does the first "state" mean province, or what? How is "an independent country" compatible with "in its home state"? —Tamfang (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Basotholand / Lesotho

Is there a reason why the Basotholand Protectorate is not listed? Roger (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

-Because it was a colony; not a protectorate.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Intro

The intro says there are 2 historical definitions of 'protectorate' and then proceeds to give only 1. I feel cheated and hungry for the 2nd definition.

173.25.54.191 (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Protectorates of Mongol Empire, Ilkhanate and Ottoman Empire

Though this is out of the early modern age, Mongol Empire also made several countries into protectorates (this is different from tributary state). - Armenian Cilicia - Sultanate of Rum

These were protectorates of the Mongol Empire and later the Ilkhanate.

Some vassal states of the Ottoman Empire was also like the protectorates; - Crimean Khanate - Regency of Algiers - Beylik of Tunis - Transylvania — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zibran 2 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Liberia I question whether or not Liberia can be described as a US protectorate from 1827-47. It was a "colony" in the sense that it was colonised by African-Americans, but the colony was run by a US society, not the US government. The US government only developed links with post independence Liberia after the US Civil War, expanded during WWII when US currency replaced British. 08:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Croatia

I do not believe that Croatia was an Italian protectorate in the legal sense. If all states under the cotnrol of other states, but not legally declared as protectorates, are going to be included here then we'll have expanded the "Protectorate" item beyond any sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikalmar (talk • contribs) 14:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Satellite state?

Protectorate

"They are different from colonies as they have local rulers and people ruling over the territory and experience rare cases of immigration of settlers from the country it has suzerainty of."

"The political interest of the protector is frequently moral (a matter of accepted moral obligation, prestige, ideology, internal popularity, dynastic, historical, or ethno-cultural ties, etc.) or countering a rival or enemy power (e.g., preventing the rival from obtaining or maintaining control of areas of strategic importance)."

Satellite_state

"The term satellite state designates a country that is formally independent in the world, but under heavy political, economic and military influence or control from another country. "

I wouldn't go as far as "Puppet state", but it certainly sounds like some ideological and political influence. The 2 don't seem mutually exclusive.

Lumbering in thought (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

British Protectorate

Create British Protectorate

93.185.19.243 (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Protectorate = Puppet state?

Protectorate is synonymous with puppet state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davi Gamer 2017 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

About Cuba

The article lists Cuba as a protectorate of the United States, from 1898 to 1904. I understand the date 1898 as the date of the Treaty of Paris, where Cuba was taken away from Spain. The great powers did not want to recognize the independence of Cuba, and so put it under the protection of the US, a combatant in the war. Then in 1903, the Treaty of Relations more or less formalized the obligations between the two countries, according to the requirements of the Platt Amendment.

But where does the date 1904 come from? I assume it is intended to mean that the relationship fades away early in the century, but is there anything more substantial than that, especially any document? Thanks ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC))

Exocracy (include the term in the main text)

A protectorate system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410C:2D62:FC16:D355:3A5B:1562 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Maldives

I researched very deeply but couldn't find any document which states Maldives is a semi protectorate of India Is Wikipedia publishing unverified information also? Corrector9990 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Masqat & Oman

But why is written informal on Masqat & Oman? Thanks.--93.36.193.110 (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Stefano.

: i dont know anything about this, but, i do find this quite strange though. i dont rlly think tibet wwas a british protectorate but yet just kind of a protected state TheTankMan001 (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

the thing is that uk only protected it, influence was limited, so, its kind of the same as bhutan and afghanistan, only protected state. TheTankMan001 (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)Posts by blocked sock. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the fact that you added the very source that I discussed above. "Seemed to" does not mean that it was. The source does not support the claim. I do not want to engage in an WP:OR debate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

::::tibet was in fact a british protected state, you can check the very own source you used its said that UK protected tibet from foreign countries (no foreign country can intervene in tibet's internal politics and no foreign country can get tribute or concessions from tibet), and UK also had some small, limited influence in tibetan politics and economy, but tibet still enjoyed a very large autonomy from UK (and also russia, russia had a even smaller, more limited influence in tibet), but not with china, tibet was in fact a autonomous-like region in china, but they were still de facto a protected state of the UK, if your read the source you used again, you will see its said exactly what im trying to explain to you.

heres the things thar prove my point:

"(a) No portion of Tibetan territory shall be ceded, sold, leased, mortgaged or otherwise given for occupation, to any Foreign Power;

(b) No such Power shall be permitted to intervene in Thibetan affairs;

(c) No Representative or agents of any Foreign Power shall be admitted to Thibet;

(d) No concession for railways, roads, telegraphs, mining or other rights, shall be granted to any Foreign Power, or the subject of any Foreign Power. In the event of consent to such Concessions being granted, similar or equivalent Concessions shall be granted to the British Government;

(e) No Thibetan revenues, whether in kind or in cash, shall be pledged or assigned to any Foreign Power, or to the subject of any foreign power"

if that isn't protection, i dont really know what it is, it basically turned tibet into a british PROTECTED STATE, rememeber that, PROTECTED STATE. TheTankMan001 (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC) blocked sock

You are continuing to engage in an WP:OR debate. You cannot say here that Tibet was a protectorate or protected state of Britain, unless there is a reliable source that says exactly that. What you are doing is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

you didnt read the source you so claim to have had read and you just randomly throw wikipedia rules that have nothing to do, im not "combining multiple stuff sources say", its just 1 source, the very own source you "use", also, not engage in debate? when a change to a article is needed, we need to debate, not just throw random stuff and spam that "WP:OR" thing, though as youre a administrator, you can do what you want because you can ban me, historical revisionism is bad, only when others do it, especially if the other is not a administrator, i will probably get blocked and called a sockpuppet of that tanawat dude, but, youre wrong, tibet WAS abritish protected state, and i DO can call it a protected state, BECAUSE THE OWN SOURCE YOU USED SAYS IT IS A PROTECTED STATE, and, it *is* a reliable source, and i will continue to debate that even if you think im breaking some not-existing rule. TheTankMan001 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

also youre the one that is doing WP:SYNTHESIS and original research, im using the source provided, i didnt do original research, though YOU did original research apparently. TheTankMan001 (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

in addition, edit warring is only if you do more than 3 reverts, not only 2, so, no, im not edit warring. TheTankMan001 (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC) blocked sock

The SYNTHESIS page tell you that drawing "therefore C"-type conclusions constitutes original research. Take it to WP:NORN if you don't believe me.

Tibet is a well-studied subject and, if you are right that Tibet became a British protectorate, you should be able to find a reliable source that says so, instead of cooking up your own arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

i see youve long been in a fight to remove tibet, but from time to time it gets added back, as i said before, on the source used, it states that britain protected tibet, i dont mean that it was a PROTECTORATE, but it was a de facto PROTECTED STATE, britain recognized the suzerainity of china over tibet, but they also protected tibet's internal affairs from foreign powers as china was kind of unable to at that point, and britain just didnt care and ignored china, tibet was, in fact, a protected state of the UK, but even when i use logics and arguments, instead, you just spam random rule pages that, dont prove that youre right, read the hecking source dude, you refuse to read it and just bamboozle me with "oh so if ur sure give source", its the source used on the first fricking paragraph of this discussion, you also continue spamming "SYNTEHSIS PAGE TELLS YOU THAT THEREFORE C TYPE CONCLUSION IS ORIGINAL SO GO TO *another random rule page* IF YOU DONT BELIEVE ME BECAUSE IM ADMIN SO I MUST BE RIGHT, IM JESUS CHRIST, K?", im taking things from the source itself, im not making original research, also, stop spamming random rule pages, as said before, this wont instantly make you right, also, yes i dont believe you, how could you tell?

tibet is a well studied subject, ok, i am right that they became a british PROTECTED STATE (not protectorate, china still owned it, britain just gave it PROTECTION), "find a reliable source that says instead of cooking up own arguments", i told you several times that the source im using is the very own source cited a whole lot of times in this discussion, and im not making my own arguments, im just taking what the source says and translating it on a way your brain can understand more easily, capiche? TheTankMan001 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC) blocked sock

i see that you continue to claim i have no sources or explanations, like, i do? just check the hecking page of the protectorate, like, for sulu, it clearly says on the page that it was a american protectorate, and i dont need to stop, im not doing anything wrong, though youre doing historical revisionism and vandalism, aswell as original research and causing disruption/edit wars. TheTankMan001 (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC) blocked sock

As per WP:V, All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. If you edit war over this, you will go to WP:ANI.

At a minimum, you need to write a decent edit summary explaining where your information is coming from. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

1st:i checked every protectorate page, you can even look at them to confirm

2nd:yes yes right stop talking about wikipedia rules, jesus christ, also, im not edit warring, youre edit warring, and i wont go to this wp:ani thing.

"at a minimum write a decent edit summary explaining blah blah blah where it come from", really? you can just check on the protectorate pages to confirm im right, i dont need to literally write paragraphs to confirm something to "explain where my information is coming from", wikipedia, duh, go check the pages. dojyannn, TheTankMan001 is here! (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC) blocked sock

Please cut that attitude.

You claimed here that "Banana Reublics" were protectorates. Source please? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

1st:i already removed it, dont bring stuff that ive already corrected to try and prove your non existent point, source? well, in fact they were, USA protected them and had much influence over their politics, economy and military, i just didnt add it back because i knew that, you, being the crying dude you are, would start a massive edit war over this, banana republics were protectorates, but if i add, you start crying over it, like you did with tibet, "cut that attitude"? well, im not the one the crying kid that is vandalizing, disrupting and making edit wars over small things. dojyannn, TheTankMan001 is here! (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

well, atleast youre not a admin, or else i wouldve been banned, called a sockpuppet, globally locked and stuff because youre literally crying over small things, like, dude, correcting small things is not a massive thing that needs paragraphs of edit summaries, explanation on talk page and sources, its a small correction, cut it, dude. dojyannn, TheTankMan001 is here! (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC) blocked sock. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:52, 5 May 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:

• Kokbayraq flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"Protected"

The first sentence of the article claims that protectorates are "protected" by other states. The article cites the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (PBM) as a protectorate. The PBM is one of the very last entities I would call "protective," as its administration actively facilitated the murders of approximately 80,000 Jews and over 1,300 non-Jewish Czechs. I believe that either the first sentence needs to be changed to accommodate the decidedly non-protective PBM as a protectorate, or the PBM should not be listed as a protectorate. CJ-Moki (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by summarising reliable sources. Your own views are not material here. Is the content not validated in the sources? If so, you can raise it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

References