Talk:Police state/Archive 1

message: I've removed three categories from the article, on the basis that 'Police state' isn't part of any of them (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, for example, might be said to fall under the category of Police State, but not vice versa). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of categories 

message: To avoid editors adding the names of states they don't like, could they propose them here first, giving reasons for their proposals?  I've just removed Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria; to the best of my knowledge, whatever one might say against these three, none of them is a police state. Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding supposed examples 

message: Ancient Rome, particularly after the fall of the Senate and the rise of the Caesars and Emperors, may well have been the first Police State in history, and should likely be mentioned here. Also, North Korea carries many if not all of the characteristics of an Atheist Police State, and should likely also be mentioned. --Lucavix 17:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea and Ancient Rome 

message: This is a slightly different definition of a police state to the ones presented in the main article.
"The defining characteristic of a police state is that the police exercise power on behalf of the executive and the conduct of the police cannot be effectively challenged" Mr Von Doussa 
I prefer this one because it's specific and it explains the sometimes subtle distinction between a dictatorship and a police state.
What do people think?
Regards, Ben Aveling 06:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I have used a definition of the police state as per "The Penguin English Dictionary".
Much of the repetition, I have removed.
The discusion of liberalism, I have trimmed.
Extra section headings, I have added.
The long list of See Also I have trimmed.  Most are referenced in the text.  The others can be reached through the references that remain, expect perhaps van Vogt.  (Why was he in the list?)
Regards, Ben Aveling 05:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reworking

message: I've reverted two assertions:
* the inclusion of Singapore: this is maybe an authoritarian state, but hardly a totalitarian police state.
* the Unitary Executive theory link; the implied assertion is that this theory aims at establishing a police state. This assertion is unsupportable.
Sandstein 09:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those following the debate it is evident that a radical view of the Unitary Executive holds that the President is above the law. There is a clear similarity with a police state. Saying it is unsupported can only mean the editor has not read the numerous comments on the subject. I'll revert. Sincerely.--Nomen Nescio 09:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no; the UE theory holds at most that the POTUS isn't bound to obey laws that are unconstitutional because they infringe -- according to the theory -- on the President's constitutional powers to e.g. organise the Executive or to conduct war. Nobody argues that the POTUS is above constitutional laws, or the Constitution itself (including the Bill of Rights). Your point is taken re: super-duper-war-powers => police state, but there is a difference between the UE theory and practical widespread disregard of civil rights, which doesn't take place. I've differentiated the link accordingly. --- Sandstein 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flamebait reverts

message: *Argentina under the Proceso de Reorganización Nacional from 1976 to 1983
*Chile under Augusto Pinochet from 1973 to 1990
I thought I would ask here, as adding examples seems to be controversial. --Tabor 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible additions? 

message: I think there is potential that FaithfulCamp is a sockpuppet. (S)he joined very recently, and the only contributions listed are on this talk page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FaithfulCamp. (I apologize if this is not the correct or polite way to say that someone thinks another user is a sockpuppet. I've never done it before.) Sophy's Duckling 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same goes for FreedomofSpeech. See his/her contributions here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FreedomofSpeech. Again, I'm sorry if this is the wrong way to go about it or if I am wrong in my suspicion. Sophy's Duckling 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And by "very recently", I mean "today." Sophy's Duckling 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Sophy's Duckling 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Tisquantum removed the suspicions about sockpuppetry is in itself suspcious as well. Sophy's Duckling 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No result yet.  Seems to be a backlog of a week or two.  Remember also that there is no rule against using multiple accounts, so long as it is not an attempt to evade a block/3RR/vote multiple times/etc.  Regards, Ben Aveling 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: FaithfulCamp, Tisquantum, and FreedomofSpeech are sockpuppets. There is no result on whether VinnyCee or WinstonSmith are related at all. Sophy's Duckling 20:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppet

message: The combine do not appear in the original Half-Life. They invaded earth after the Black Mesa incident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.235.102.2 (talk • contribs)  2006-01-30 12:24:56  (UTC)
: Thanks for the catch! -- nae'blis (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police States in Literature 

message: Please provide a reputable source that describes the US as a police state. DTC 19:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So HRW is calling the US a police state in its report? Funny I did not read that in there. DTC 20:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly, I see very little reason to diverge from what is written on the top of the page. If you really cannot refrain from it, you can mention that some particular people say that the USA are a police state, and that they back their claims on authoritarian tendencies as highlighted in reports of Amnesty or Human Right Watch; but flatly saying that the USA are a Police State, beyond being inflammatory and a very minority point, is an exageration which weakens the criticism against actual police states, which I find something in between ill-advised and obscene. Rama 20:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If you see "abuse of administrator power" there, I am not surprised that you should consider the USA a police State; I will not ask you what words you use for coutnries like Saudi Arabia. I would like to remind you that you have ways of recourse in real cases of problems with an administrator . Rama 13:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: In light of repeated POV pushing, most recently by VinnyCee, I would like to suggest that any addition of the US without providing adequate evidence for that assertion must be viewed as an edit in bad faith. Otherwise known as vandalism. Nomen Nescio 21:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for the US

message: This issue is obviously politically charged when nae'blis get's his/her panties in a bunch over the addition of the largest police state in history. I agree with Tisquantum and FreedomofSpeech, sock-puppet or not. I am therefore changing the article to include the United States as a contemporary police state. If unequivocal proof is required for a nation to be listed in the article, then all should be deleted because no evidence has been provided for most of the additions. To simply delete edits because of your own POV (nae'blis) is not logical. -- VinnyCee
: It is perfectly ridiculous to equate the USA with Saudi Arabia. By doing this, you negate the very idea of a measurement of the state liberties and democracy in a country, and prevent any form of discussion on these matters. I strongly suggest that you adopt a more measured point of view on this. Rama 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That said, I do deplore that we do not have more developments on other countries than the USA (be it only because it makes the USA more present in this article than countries more "worthy" of the qualificative, a de facto tendentious thing). But this is really not the way to address the matter. Rama 10:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that unequivocal proof has been provided that places like the PRC *are* police states, and that the United States is *not*. There is no debate in China, for instance, about something like the Patriot Act, which is a minor and hotly contested thing compared to the surveillance and censorship most Chinese live under. Sophy's Duckling 18:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Vinny. I absolutely agree that we should back up all of our inclusions on this page, however I have yet to see a mainstream source refer to the US as a police state. We could all find examples, I'm sure, of someone somewhere who contests that PRC or NK or Cuba are police states; what I'm after is the general consensus of 'experts' or 'the public' or 'a reasonable person' that the US is now or is becoming a police state (although since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, all of the 'predictive' entries are likely to be removable). That is my point of view on inclusion/exclusion; the other entries here are less problematic right now because they have prima facie appearance of being police states, at least to the general public (the fact that they stand in this article uncontested for a long period of time can be taken as evidence of this, whereas recent additions/subtractions do not). -- nae'blis 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are VinnyCee, please sign in and sign by using ~~~~.  If you are not VinnyCee, be aware that forging another person's signature on Wikipedia is considered a serious offense and can lead to your being blocked.  --Nlu (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As the article says, "A police state is a totalitarian state regulated by secret police". The USA are not totalitarian. As for the links, there should be links, and perhaps elaborations, about all States listed there; that there are not always is a case for filling this void, not for putting silly claims. Rama 19:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Reposting a link for Nescio -> *www.prisonplanet.com/ Alex Jones, February 6 2006; Prison Planet] — archive of police state articles compiled by a scholar who contends that The United States of America is now a police state. -- VinnyCee 08:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prisonplanet surely does not constitute an unbiassed source. Start with Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, the UN, et cetera. If these make that claim we can include it.-- Nomen Nescio 08:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting unequivocal proof of each claimed "Police State"

message: Since VinnyCee thinks an edit war is better than a civil discussion we are now in 3 RR territory. I will respect the rule and hope other editors step in and correct this disruptive behaviour.-- Nomen Nescio 09:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we are now in 3RR territory, we are both precluded from editing the main page for 24-hours, nice going. I have provided discussion and I thought we had an agreement that the listings are in need of source citations. However, I guess you would rather start an edit war. -- VinnyCee 09:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: I placed a warning on your talk page. That warning is pertinent to your behaviour and should stay on your talkpage. Please do not remove it again. -- VinnyCee 09:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed your vandalism from my page and asked an admin to intervene. Thank you for the entertaining behaviour.-- Nomen Nescio 09:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Vandalism"? I simply warned you against vadalizing this article. You calling my warning to you vandalism is the same as me saying that you are vandalizing my talk page. What gives? -- VinnyCee 09:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are blocked for this behaviour I would suggest calming down and once again read something about WP:Civility and WP:POINT. Hope we can discuss the US as police state based upon verifiable sources. Sincerely -- Nomen Nescio 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing warnings from [[User:Nescio|Nomen Nescio]]'s talk page

message: Let's have enough of adding countries to this list when they are plainly not. For anyone wishing to add a state to this article please reread the definition of a police state and explain on this page how the one they want to add fulfils the definition. Do this before adding the name to the article. DJ Clayworth 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No more silly additions

message: Who decided he is relevent? Can't we include a "See also" section and link to his theory? I mean, I know a lot of people who support the Patriot Act, but before this article, I'd not heard of the Unitary Executive Theory or John Yoo. Can't we say "supporters, including political theorist John Yoo" (just so we don't fall into the trap of saying "some people")? Sophy's Duckling 23:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the Unitary Executive Theory should be stuck in the see also section. The Patriot Act is not George Bush's creation; it's a series of expansions former laws, written and passed by Congress. Sophy's Duckling 23:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better?-- Nomen Nescio 23:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. in order to avoid double-linking on the page, I will change "Unitary Executive Theory" to "John  Yoo" in the See Also section. :) Sophy's Duckling 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, but as it is now it is the result of an edit war with some who feel the need to mention the US. As the talk page shows. This is sort of a compromise.-- Nomen Nescio 23:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  compromise is good. The presently article is longer, better, and more well-supported than it was before the first few rounds of edit war. Sophy's Duckling 23:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Yoo

message: I want to query the inclusion of Brave New World in this article. Technically I wonder if that is a police state in the way we describe it here. It's a massively socialy engineered state, but is it police-controlled? It's too long since I read it for me to be sure. DJ Clayworth 23:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The police are called in when "The Savage" destroys the Soma and the Deltas freak out. That is the only specific intervention of the police I can remember, though. Sophy's Duckling 02:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To my mind that doesn't sound like enough. I fact I don't think there is enough 'dissent' to make the  police necessary. I would be for removing it. DJ Clayworth 04:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll replace it with the dystopia from We, which is legitimately a police state. 24.8.218.140 16:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brave New World?

message: It is dishonest and disgraceful to consider Saudi Arabia a police state in this article, for it is a Holy place, the site of Mecca, which is Holiest to Islam. I ask you, in the name of respect for my religon to please consider removing Saudi Arabi from the list of "police states".
Also, the inclusion of contemporary Iran is rather doubtful, and disgraceful as well. May I remind you that the current republic was borne from a very popular uprising against the brutal and inconsiderate ways of the Shah. Iran's goverment is a parliament elected by the will of the people, and guided by the wisdom of respected Clerics, it is not a police state. As a Persian I fnd this deeply insulting to my heritage. It seems as if this article is singleing out Muslim countries which use Shari'a and are disliked by some in the West because of oil politics. I respectfully request that these issues be considered, and that the article be based more upon real facts than subjective opinions that are biased in favor of supposed Western values. 
Why is it that Muslims have no rights anymore in the West. As a Muslim I deeply respect the religious rights of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and all of the world's religions. Why can't the editors of this encyclopedia have the courtesy to do the same. -- Allah-u-Akbar 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhobite 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you might have misunderstood the article, which (a) defines a police state, and (b) lists states that meet that definition. Some mainly Muslim states have fallen under it because some political aspects of the countries' laws qualify them as police states. While Islam might have something to do with the law, the article concerns itself with the law, not the motivation behind the law. Bear in mind that the article does not criticize "police state", either, and so I hope you will not take offense--the only motive here is to display facts. If the facts themselves are what you find offensive, then there is nothing we can do; Wikipedia does not censor itself because someone finds the material offensive. See here for more information. I hope you find this helpful. Sophy's Duckling 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sophy, where are these "facts" that you say prove that X state or nation is a police state? I see no facts presented. Maybe you can bring them to the surface by posting them here with links? -- VinnyCee 18:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rhobite provided one. Go to Amnesty International's site, and read waht they have on Saudi Arabia. 24.8.218.140 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, Stop Blaspheming Islam and The Prophet! 

message: Reading some of the contributions above, I for one think we need to offer a justification for any regime that is listed here. For example, is Saudi Arabia really a police state? Yes, it has harsh laws, which we in the West would not agree with or think of as fair, but if the rule of law prevails then we can't call it a police state. Likewise Singapore - I have friends there, and I don't think they have ever considered it a police state - strict yes, but arbitrary no. 
At the very least I think every country listed here should be accompanied by a few sentences of explanation of why the country should be considered a ploice state. DJ Clayworth 18:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the rule of law prevails in Saudi Arabia. The families whose children were burned alive in the link Rama provided above, for instance, cannot make a legitimate appeal and have the religious police responsible for the murder of their children punished. 24.8.218.140 22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alas, the same can be said in the United States, as we have seen in the multitude of cases of unwarranted police shootings (mostly of blacks), whose families have no chance whatsoever for legal recourse, as the financial costs are obviously prohibitive. The police who commit these shootings are never prosecuted for the murder of these innocents, and are rarely even reprimanded. As in the U.S. Justice system, the testimony of a police officer is taken at face value as solid fact. -- WaynaQhapaq 22:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily agree with this statement, Clayworth, I hope the other editors will respect this wisdom.  -- WaynaQhapaq 22:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must say, I think VinnyCee's sources present a pretty compelling case that there are many who consider the U.S. to be an emerging police state. Furthermore, for a topic of this Magnitude, I feel that the article is much to small in its current form. Rather than having simplistic (and perhaps somewhat arbitrary) bulletted list of " contenmorary police states" (which is an extrememly contentious and no doubt controversial assertion to make about the government of any nation), I think that each nation that is accused of being a police state should form a subsection, and the reasons for the accusations should be included underneath. Most other Major Articles in wikipedia of a similar nature have been conducted in this manner. I think doing this would greatly improve the quality of this article, as well as conform better with Wikipedia's NPOV policy,(resolving disputes in the process) as well as improve the article's overall credibility. -- WaynaQhapaq 03:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Clayworth, That is your personal opinion, not indisputble fact. Please stop stating them as if they are such. I, for one, dispute some of your assertions,
The examples of shooting in the U.S. that i mentioned, are not the actions of "rogue policemen" they are very widespread and have been and are sanctioned by the highest levels of the U.S. government.
While the means of these types of oppression are perhaps not exactly the same, the effects evinced by the government are the same, as there is no option of legal recourse for the victims, there is no check by the people on the power of the government or the police. This constitutes as aspect of being a police state.
-- WaynaQhapaq 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the best case for calling the USA a "police state" is what is happening in Guantanamo, which is quite reminiscent of Chile under Pinochet; however, this is not applied against the population of the USA, and the government does not rule by this. Rama 14:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, this is not true, Many U.S. citizens have been detained without trial at both Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as well as other secret U.S. detention facilities across the globe, as evidenced in many human rights reports, including those of the U. N., some have possibly even dissapeared. The U.S. government does rule by this intimidation, especially when it comes to making decisions about matters related to the "War on Terror". --  WaynaQhapaq 22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The detainees at Guantanamo are not, according to the sources I have read, US citizens. Please supply any evidence you have to the contrary. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Backing up the statements

message: To start with some sources:
Algeria 
Azerbaijan 
Chad 
Chechnya 
China 
Darfur 
Egypt 
Iraq 
Iran 
Lebanon 
Liberia 
Libya 
Middle East 
Morocco 
Nigeria 
Papua New Guinea 
Saudi Arabia 
Sudan 
Syria 
Tunisia 
Uganda 
Ukraine 
USA 
Zimbabwe 
When I find more I will add them here so editors can expand the article. Nomen Nescio 16:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the question is whether the behavior(s) cited are normal. That in itself is hard to define, though. Police shootings of civilians are not the "norm" in the United States--policemen who do not drink on duty do not say "Hey! Let's shoot people, especially those of a minority race so we can stir up media controversy and endanger our jobs!"--but they happen anyway. To read Amnesty International's site, you'd think that execution of the mentally ill is mandated by some sort of government statue, but it's not. Another way to determine whether it should be on the list is the extent to which media personalities and ordinary citizens can get away with criticizing the actions in question. Sophy's Duckling 04:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course none of these sources state that "x is a police state", as it is inherently an inflamatory statement, and a matter of opinion. This article's own definition states that "No state ever claims to be a "police state"; the term is always applied by critics of the state, based on differing perceptions of legitimate law, human rights, and social contract. Given the absence of unambiguous standards for being a 'police state', any such list is bound to be subjective and disputed. The examples below are therefore not presented as any kind of definitive list, or meant to imply universal agreement on the categorisation." Therefore, it would obviously be innapropriate and contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV, No original research, and Not a Crystal ball policies to impose distinctions between alleged police states, based on our own personal prejudices, whatever they may be, as these distinctions wold be higly subjective and based more on perspective opinion, rather than fact. Prudence indeed will dictate, that to treat the matter fairly, instead of a subsection entitled "examples of the police state" historical and contemporary, a more appropriate tile would be something along the lines of "Nations accused of being Police States" or "examples of Police State behaviour". -- WaynaQhapaq 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You make an excellent point Wayna. If it is "inherently an inflamatory statement, and a matter of opinion" then maybe as an encyclopedia we shouldn't be doing it at all. Maybe we should be deleting the list entirely. DJ Clayworth 15:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely, clayworth, as of now, I am deleting the entire list, and I will request that no country be put back on the list, unless it is first discussed on this page, and at the very least a few sentences are written in the article about why it is accused of being a police state. I will also request that when the list is created, distinctions not be made between countres on the list as these distinctions are purely subjective, and therfore un-encyclopaedic. As the list stands now, the only distinctions that are made are between Anglophone countries, and non-anglophone countries. To some, this might seem very Anglo-centric. That is just one reasons why i request that there be no distinctions, as to avoid possible interperetation of the article as being based in  ethno-centrism or racism of any kind. Thank you for your wise suggestion. -- WaynaQhapaq 20:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples

message: Arguments on why we oppose or support any inclusion would be a good way to ascertain what to include as current police states. The following are just suggestions so please add you oppose or support with short comment ( include sources, since allegations that are not substantiated will not be taken into account) and don't forget to sign. Of course, feel free to add countries you feel should be mentioned too.
===Algeria=== 
====Support====
#Support, human rights and freedom of the press are not very well protected.  Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence and sources on what countries to include

message: ====Support====
#Support, human rights and freedom of the press are not very well protected.  Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Algeria]]

message: #Support, human rights and freedom of the press are not very well protected.  Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#Support, police brutality, elections manipulated, I would say this constitutes a police state.-- Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Azerbaijan]]

message: #Support, police brutality, elections manipulated, I would say this constitutes a police state.-- Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#Support, as HRW puts it: The Commission on Human Rights should adopt a resolution condemning the government of Belarus for the further consolidation of state repression.-- Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Belarus]]

message: #Support, as HRW puts it: The Commission on Human Rights should adopt a resolution condemning the government of Belarus for the further consolidation of state repression.-- Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#Support, widespread and systematic abuse of human rights by the military government, according to HRW.-- Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Burma]]

message: #Support, widespread and systematic abuse of human rights by the military government, according to HRW.-- Nomen Nescio 14:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#Support, no freedom of the press, censorship, persecution of dissenting voices. Nomen Nescio 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[China]] and [[Tibet]]

message: #Support, no freedom of the press, censorship, persecution of dissenting voices. Nomen Nescio 14:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#Support, according to HRW, Côte d’Ivoire’s government security forces, allied militias, and the north-based rebels alike routinely harass, intimidate, and even execute civilians as the country’s political stalemate bolsters impunity, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Nomen Nescio 14:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cote d'Ivoire]]

message: #Support, according to HRW, Côte d’Ivoire’s government security forces, allied militias, and the north-based rebels alike routinely harass, intimidate, and even execute civilians as the country’s political stalemate bolsters impunity, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Nomen Nescio 14:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#Support, according to HRW, The Ethiopian government is using intimidation, arbitrary detentions and excessive force in rural areas of Ethiopia to suppress post-election protests and all potential dissent, Human Rights Watch said today after a research trip to Addis Ababa and the Oromia and Amhara regions. Nomen Nescio 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ethiopia]]

message: #Support, according to HRW, The Ethiopian government is using intimidation, arbitrary detentions and excessive force in rural areas of Ethiopia to suppress post-election protests and all potential dissent, Human Rights Watch said today after a research trip to Addis Ababa and the Oromia and Amhara regions. Nomen Nescio 14:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#Support Maybe not yet but its quite fast getting there .Article in German:  helohe (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[France]]

message: #Support Maybe not yet but its quite fast getting there .Article in German:  helohe (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose You thinking that France may one day in the future be something you consider a police state doesn't make it a police state now. --MattShepherd 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ====Support====
#
#
#
====Oppose====
#Oppose Common sense. Democracy, free press, etc. etc. --MattShepherd 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Great Britain]]

message: #Oppose Common sense. Democracy, free press, etc. etc. --MattShepherd 19:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ====Support====
#
#
#
====Oppose====
#Oppose inclusion of the current government because the country is a war zone & human rights violations are result of that more than systematic government persecution. Amnesty Internationals's reports focus on the American government  and terrorist and insurgent groups  rather than the present government.  Sophy's Duckling 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Iraq]]

message: #Oppose inclusion of the current government because the country is a war zone & human rights violations are result of that more than systematic government persecution. Amnesty Internationals's reports focus on the American government  and terrorist and insurgent groups  rather than the present government.  Sophy's Duckling 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ====Support====
#Support, no freedom of the press, , arbitrary justice system, violating human rights. Nomen Nescio 15:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jordan]]

message: #Support, no freedom of the press, , arbitrary justice system, violating human rights. Nomen Nescio 15:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#Support, violation of Human Rights, persecution of dissenting voices. Nomen Nescio 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kazachstan]]

message: #Support, violation of Human Rights, persecution of dissenting voices. Nomen Nescio 15:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: ====Support====
#
#
#
====Oppose====
# Corruption and lawlessness seem to be a problem, but not a police state, nor (yet) a failed state.  Ben Aveling 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Papua New Guinea]]

message: # Corruption and lawlessness seem to be a problem, but not a police state, nor (yet) a failed state.  Ben Aveling 15:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: ====Support====
# Support. Television is censored. Books are banned. And probability is high that you can not take use of your free speek. See: Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States helohe (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[USA]]

message: # Support. Television is censored. Books are banned. And probability is high that you can not take use of your free speek. See: Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States helohe (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose, the administration does not control the media, there is no state sanctioned persecution of dissenting views.Nomen Nescio 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I wish you hadn't started with a poll, Norman, just because I don't think we're anywhere near ready for that stage of this process. First we need to figure out what sources we're going to consider, and then cite those sources for each country that was recently on the list. If we get 'general consensus' of the sources that it is a police state, then it goes in. This isn't a beauty contest, and verifiability should be our highest goal. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I would think it is evident that bloggers and obscure websites do not count as reputable source. Althoug somewhat prematurely, I thought it was save to assume that international Human Rights organisations, the UN, the Counsel of Europe, et cetera would be acceptable to all editors. So, as long as editors include their sources, as I do, what is the harm? Nomen Nescio 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion a poll is entirely the wrong way to do it. States don't become Police states because people vote that they are. The way to do this is to have someone propose a country for inclusion in the list and provide evidence and sources. Then we can discuss whether or not to include it. Otherwise this is going to become a whole set of fact-free arguments. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why part of the poll is argumentation and using sources. Merely an opinion does not suffice, and those votes without substantiating should not be counted. Seems reasonable to me. What's more, I cannot see another way of reaching consensus on what to include. But I am open to suggestions. The countries that I use in the poll would be my selection of candidates, plus the USA on account of popular demand. Nomen Nescio 15:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No poll yet 

message: Personally I think all countries (except the USA) I included in the poll warrant the description police state. I will postpone further explanation since we first have to agree on what sources to use, and if a poll with argumantation would be adequate. Nomen Nescio 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries with comments from some of the above sources

message: *Sigh* Watchlisted. Can we agree on what we're voting on, yet? Ronabop 10:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the vandalism/personal attack by suspected sockpuppets 194.217.231.252 and 24.11.91.3 of VinnyCee. He is at it all morning on my pages for which they are now semiprotected.  Clearly unsatisfied and still looking for a way to express his resentment he has now brought his personal attacks to this page.Nomen Nescio 10:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asking for a vote and then yanking the categories is bad....