Talk:Protectorate

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

Micronesia

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but Micronesia IIRC has no military and voluntarily depends entirely on the United States for its protection. Does that not make it a protectorate? (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

No it’s an associated state, protectorates are usually not voluntary for one, and also usually only able to be unilaterally revoked by the protector. ~2026-46391-22 (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2026 (UTC)