Talk:Pariah state

message: I'd like to see references for each country listed as a pariah state. I put the list there just off the top of my head, so it's not exhaustive. I also might not find sources for some countries, so those can come off. But help would be appreciated.  Thanks!  Dchall1 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, if this page of nothingness is kept, someone needs to clearly define what are the types of acceptable sources for making such a determination.  My experience with Israel's supporters is that nothing is good enough short of a new covenant from God, sent down by the angel of the Lord, stating that it is a pariah state.  Oh, come to think of it, we have that too in the Old Testament.173.74.22.141 (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: From The Rise and Decline of Rogue States:
::Midway through the Cold War, the global community ostracized a handful of states by questioning their national legitimacy and by isolating them from normal diplomatic integration. Beset with anxiety about their survival, these states developed—or at least hinted at developing—nuclear weapons. As a result, the developed world branded them pariah states. Israel, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan were lumped into this category despite their varying political and economic systems. 
This seems to be the reason Israel is on the list. Not a good reason if you ask me. Anyway, in order
to hide the clear bias here, 
I've added South Korea and Taiwan to the list and added a reference for South Africa.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.118.255 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rise and decline of rogue states 

message: Should states like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan appear in this article, despite existing before the appearance of the term "pariah state"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Frederick (talk • contribs) 13:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Beside the point - we can't list states we think are or were pariahs - we cite sources that do. Concerning Nazi Germany the tragedy lies therein that almost till the end every state played along as if everything was "normal". Thus no, it was surely not considered a pariah. --Echosmoke (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thus, by the same argument, no state or nation commited human rights violations before the universal declration was adopted, and also only if they accepted it and had it available in their language with UN missions to explain its precepts to them. Otherwise, they had acted in the absense of a definition of human rights and cannot be said to have violated them. Hell, the slaves had it good before there was a consensus on the abolition of slavery, and they cannot complain about their enslavement or define their owners as racist bigots because these definitions did not exist either.  No country commited genocide except maybe Rawanda and Serbia because it was not defined until recently (Ottoman Turks are surley innocent and you have no argument relative Armenians).  Oh, and just for fun, Jesus did not exist because there is no consensus on what a son of God means (even among Christians), and that notion itself is denied by more people than believe in it.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Sorry, but I forgot to say that otherwise I do agree with you.  We can't include or exclude states based on our own thinking, but we only cite sources with authority on the subject that do.  However, as I have been streesing over and again, whatever rules for inclusion are used, they shall be applied to all states equally.  If an OpEd is not a good source type for country A, then it is not good for countries B to Z. And so on.173.74.22.141 (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-term states 

message: I think the list on this article should be split into present-day pariah states and past pariah states. There's no distinction now, I highly doubt countries such as South Korea or Argentina are considered pariahs today. Israel and US highly controversial but should be kept for neutrality's sake, provided sources can be found. Someone who knows more about this than I do should reorganize the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.234.219.54 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, why are the US and Israel controversial?  If there is anything the majority of the world agrees on it is that Israel is a pariah, rogue, colonizing, occupying, terrorizing, enthically cleansing, racist, apartheid, human rights violating, etc., state.  It is only not considered so in the US and some western countries with varying intensity of support.  As for the US, while few states dare to speak out against it for fear of retribution, I can assure you that at least more than half of the world's population would like to see it put back in the bottle becuase of US atrocities and violations.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past and Present 

message: How about Albania under Enver Hoxha?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.100.56 (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albania? 

message: I think the article is U.S.A biased. The U.N has never sanctioned many of the U.S.A wars yet will U.S.A will listed as a pariah? Things need to reviewed on their merit not from a political bias. For example if pariah were determined by nations which have committed genocide either of a foreign or domestic nature then 99% of the map would be colored yet defined "A pariah state is one whose conduct is considered to be out of line with international norms of behavior" which genocide certainly is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommahawk (talk • contribs) 04:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The two sources for Israel are some UK MP and a Sri Lankan MP. Is this article supposed to be about states considered pariahs by low level politicians or what? It needs clarification. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 21 Tishrei 5772 22:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears the Sri Lankan one has been removed now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 24 Tishrei 5772 03:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need any clarification - the criteria is spelled out quite clearly in the lead. What it needs is less POV-pushing. Jeff Song (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

text: You are clearly unfamiliar with our WP:RS policy if you are using the Pravda as a source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is exactly the same type of "Reliable" sources as used for other countries referenced in this list, if not more so. Check other sources and let me know if they are reliable at all, but they are added, nevertheless, to advance a certain view.  Most have only one reference and a dubious one at that. If you make a list of no value other than to advance a biased POV then expect to be judged by the same standards. Pretty soon I'll be checking and adding the US and other Western countries too when I find "reliable" sources, which are not in shortage, and time.173.74.22.141 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

text: P.S. why is a YouTube source unreliable when all it is doing is showing a recording of the proceedings of a UN agency pertaining to the subject?  Is it becuase the proceedings themselves are considered primary sources (and thus other YouTube type links are valid), or are YouTube links not allwed at all and I should remove them wherever I find them?  What about other Video type links, like the one used for Baharin?  I am trying to be fair and follow the same criteria used everywhere else.173.74.22.141 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Youtube videos are not considered reliable because, among other reasons, they require personal analysis in violation of WP:OR. It does not appear that any of the sources you utilized comply with WP:RS. Please review that policy, and if you have any questions you can post your query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am restoring the Israel listing you deleted because your argument is purely a matter of your POV.  The sources used were varied in type and attribution and they clearly state in the headings, quotes or body that Israel is a Pariah state.  One of them was a quote from Livni, a very top Israeli politician and ex PM.  Now, if you want to disbute these sources, you can discuss them one by one, we can vote on then one by one, or we can ask for arbitration.173.74.22.141 (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop doing this, and read what the article is about: it has to be the opinion of the international community, not a politician in an OpEd  — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ultimate Washing Machine (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The UN and its bodies and agencies are the optimum of the International Community, so stop removing Israel with the UN sources or articles about them.  Also, by the same token, I am removing all other states which are only sourced to a politician's openion and OpEds.173.74.22.141 (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: None of you riN sources called Israel a Pariah state. Itch Eye Bear (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The criteria for inclusion is met. Israel is outside of the norm of behavior of any regular state as shown and designated by all UN sanctions, condemnations and reprimands.68.15.114.35 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is your original research. Itch Eye Bear (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of sources dealing with Israel's violations of international laws and rules, and condemnation by states, organizations and the UN itself.  Looking at the history of edits, there had been provided sourcing to articles, books, sites, OpEd's, political statements and everytime one Israeli supporter removes the listing with the claim that it is blah blah blah, whatever suits him or her at the time.  Israel is a Pariah state by any standard you want to take it to mean.  If Israel is not, then no state on the face of earth is becuase any state would come out smelling like roses in comparison.68.15.114.35 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Please. people, Israel is only considered a Pariah state by Pariah politicians, activists, and the extremist members of the generally extremist anti-Zionist camp. Israel is a completely legitimate island of moderate non-Pariaism within a huge collection of religious extremism. You may disagree with Israel's policies, but anyone who call's Israel a "racist" or "apartheid" state should not be used as an authority on any matter of international scope. There is obviously a huge collection of batshit-insane extremists on both sides, and we should not serve as the platform from which their voices will be given venue. Wikipedia is non-partisan, and should avoid partisan opinions on any topic. ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources cited for Israel in this article were not written by batshit-insane extremists. They are high quality sources. Please have a look through them. We are required by mandatory policy to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Sean.hoyland - talk 05:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel is regularly referred to as a pariah state in contemporary university press publications. Seeking better sources is legitimate, however it is impossible to deny—whether you agree or disagree that it should be considered a pariah state—that Israel has failed to gain the recognition of many of its neighbouring countries. That is just a fact. حرية (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: Just an obvious point to make, Libya should be removed from the main image as a 'current pariah state', and changed to a former one. حرية (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there's nothing in the article about South Korea being a former pariah state.108.211.37.125 (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Libya

message: What about Peru under Alberto Fujimori? 80.108.31.215 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement "is running the risk of domestic unrest and perhaps turning Peru into the newest pariah state" in the source cited seems a bit weak to justify including "Peru under Alberto Fujimori" in the article. It looks like there are better sources in here, although there is also this to complicate matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true it's rather weak the argument put in, but the sources you have cited do describe Peru during that time as Pariah, but at the same time the other source claims differently. However Peru was considered a pariah by many and so it deserves a mention in this article. 80.108.31.215 (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peru under Alberto Fujimori 

message: During the Colombian Armed Conflict, many attrocities have been committed by rebels, paramilitaries but also the military. Malazivale (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colombia during the armed conflict 

message: I hardly consider Israel a true pariah state that belongs in the same category as countries such as North Korea. In addition, we only need one reference, not five of them. TBrandley (T • E) 02:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether we consider something to be true or not is irrelevant, I'm afraid. For instance, I'm a staunch Zionist, but I also loathe the current government, am an an Arabophile, and pity the Palestinian people as a whole (let's face it, life sucks for them regardless of where they are, even living with other Arabs, because no one likes them). That being said, if the majority of reliable sources hold that view, then we have to abide by it for the purposes of editing Wikipedia. That being said, I'm just making a general statment and don't really know what the majority of sources say. It's been a while. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 28 Kislev 5774 04:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Editors don't need to write what they consider to be the case in the real world on talk pages because it doesn't matter. The WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions explicitly mandate "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions". This is a perfect example where one source is certainly not enough to provide an acceptable level of WP:V compliance. Israel's inclusion in this article is highly contentious, but it is supported by multiple high quality sources. There's no policy based reason to remove the other sources, nor does it make sense to do so in my view. Removing reliable sources related to highly contentious and disputed content decisions within scope of WP:ARBPIA reduces the level of WP:V compliance and increases the risk of disruption by nationalist advocates. It weakens policy compliance, which for issues within scope of ARBPIA is how to start a fire. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: The current list of states that are or were considered "pariah" states seems like a rather random collection of one-off mentions in op-eds, offhand comments made in captions to photos that accompany news stories, politicians' speeches etc.. As the article history shows, similar quotes can be found for just about every country in the world, from the US to South Korea. This is a source of endless edit-wars. Perhaps  we'd be better off by describing the concept of a pariah state, as discussed for example in Rogue States and U.S. Foreign Policy: Containment After the Cold War, without compiling a list which is always going to be subjective (since as the article states 'There is no definitive definition of a pariah state') Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I have filed a request for mediation for this article. I think a satisfactory article can be attained fairly easily, given that there is actually very little we all disagree on.
#We agree that there are no objective criteria for labeling a nation a pariah state,
#No authority exists for making such designations, and
#No comprehensive and current list of pariah states exists that is accepted in RS
It is my hope that we can also come to agree that:
#The above list offers encyclopedic content that could and should be covered in an article about pariah stathood,
#We cannot claim to know now that such agreements cannot be made in the future WP:Crystal,
#More current sources might therefore make obsolete the claims in some sources that accepted definitions do not or cannot exist, and
#There is a difference between a definition of "pariah statehood" and inclusion criteria for pariah statehood.
If we cannot agree on all these points, I think surely, with help, we can agree on enough to make an encyclopedic article on this topic, as we have for usurper, tyrant, and even stupidity, all of which can be defined, though inclusion criteria are not agreed upon by RS. Dcs002 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * Mediation closed, no action. Our mediator thinks we can resolve the content issues on our own. Therefore I am offering my proposals for the article in the section below. Dcs002 (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for mediation filed 

message: I have posted the draft that has been sitting in my sandbox, but I removed the examples given in the sources in the first paragraph under "Objective designation". I think it makes reading clunky, and my preference is to use examples only as needed for clarity. I didn't think these examples helped clarify the criteria they were associated with. I have left the version with the historical examples from the sources in my sandbox if you want a look. Does anyone feel like putting them into the article? Dcs002 (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples in Objective criteria section? 

message: I reverted this because the revision leaves open the question of who has accepted the meaning, and it de-emphasizes the universal nature of the definition, as given in the source material. The source was very explicit about this point. Lawale says, "All cultures seem to have accepted the usage of the word to mean outcast." "Don't be silly" is not a helpful edit summary. What is silly about this sentence as it stands? Dcs002 (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it implies to readers that there was some kind of overarching international consensus or authority to designate pariah states. Which is not what reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The source says that in historical times, there were accepted authorities, but not today. I reverted the most recent change for this reason (to be consistent with the source), and to remove the statement that put religious authorities in the present tense. The source is explicit that religious organizations were historically authorities, but not today. Please let's stick with what the source says. There used to be more universal control on the issue of who was designated a pariah state. There no longer is such universal control. Dcs002 (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology: "Since its first recorded use in English in 1613..." 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pariah state. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://inthesetimes.com/article/16631/russia_ukraine_noam_chomsky
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The latest updated map contain "Taiwan" as a pariah state which is not make sense, it need to be fix as soon as possible. 36.85.22.108 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The latest map contain "Taiwan" as pariah.