Talk:Outposts of tyranny

message: The parts you removed are not biased. To claim the Bush 'axis of evil' phrase was highly criticised is fact. There is nothing in the article claiming whether this criticism was justified, only that it occurred. Grunners 02:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment belongs here, not on my talk page.  And the phrase "often highly" is not NPV, so it was removed.Keetoowah 01:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "often highly criticised" makes the point that it is reguarly highly criticised. NPV as far as I can see, "rightly highly criticised", or "often incorrectly criticised" are biased, but that is not what is stated. The phrase "America is often desvcribed as acting unilaterally" for example is fact, but is neutral as no mention is made as to whether Wikipedia sides with either camp. Grunners 03:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Outposts of Tyranny'

message: Georgia is clearly one of the freer countries in the world (though certainly far from perfect), and it has improved quite considerably since the Rose Revolution.  I've now replaced it with Egypt, which has a considerably worse human rights record.  Why do you insist on keeping Georgia in as an exemplar of a US ally with a poor human rights record, when there are other much clearer examples?--Pharos
Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/georgi9903.htm) has this to say in a document dated 15/1/2005: "torture and ill-treatment in pre-trial detention remain widespread. Chechen refugees also remain vulnerable to state discrimination and abuse by Georgian security forces." and "In February, the new government rushed several constitutional changes through Parliament. One change empowered the president to appoint and dismiss judges. This change—which contravenes international human rights norms—increases the president’s influence over a judiciary which already lacked independence." and "The government is engaged in a highly publicized fight against corruption, with frequent arrests of high profile figures. Georgian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and others are concerned that the authorities are selectively targeting individuals for political reasons, and that the law is not being applied equally to all. Allegations of due process violations are common, and some of those detained for corruption allege torture and ill-treatment."
That seems pretty clear to me.  --Xaliqen 20:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Georgia may not be perfect, but it is far from the worst globally, just look at its neighbour to the north as an example. Grunners 01:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgia

message: it's too unusual not to see Belarus in this list... --Monkbel 08:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Belarus

message: Yet another country's removed from the list! - I've removed Turkey from the list of countries, the human rights situation in Turkey isn't comparable to any in the outposts of tyranny nor with the likes of Saudi Arabia. How was this list drawn up? Who are these 'political commentators'? What criteria was used? -- Joolz 00:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that depends on where you are in Turkey. The government's operations to put down the KPP uprising were not pretty, and have been widely criticized. The US has an alliance with Turkey (NATO) and does not publicly criticize it to the extent that it criticizes NK or Zimbabwe. It's appropriate for the list. Gazpacho 17:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fundamental question is who are these political commentators and where is the source? Without that we're using weasel terms. -- Joolz 18:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK to speak in general terms in this context since each country might not come from the same commentators, but just for reference: Noam Chomsky in American Interventionism. Gazpacho 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkey

message: :I'm not sure if all of these countries belong on this list, but it seems inappropriate to just remove it altogether; you can't just say something is "weasel" b/c you dislike it;   Xaligen
Who says I dislike it?  It's weasel because it has no source, just "political commentators", not because of how I feel about it.  Does HRW (or anyone notable) specifically criticize the US government for "outposts of tyranny"?  If so please source it.  If not the list should go, because we Avoid weasel terms at Wikipedia.  And if you do find a source, is it neutralized by:
:Rice's speech did not mention these countries, although the State Department criticizes all of them in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
It sounds to me as if the US government criticizes these countries at least once a year.  --M4-10 05:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and the rest of the year they're busy conducting military and/or trade negotations with those countries.  Human Rights Watch is the source I go to for up to date info on the countries in question.  It's a fact the United States has close military and economic ties with most of the countries on the list.  If you would care to investigate further and figure out which countries have the closest military/economic ties with the U.S. and are currently behaving with the most questionable conduct, then please do so.  I'm placing the list back where it was.  For an article addressing specific issues of concern, please look here.  --Xaliqen 09:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Then name a source.  --M4-10 19:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I listed an article from Human Rights Watch that addresses the topic.  The list is relevant and important.  --Xaliqen 03:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, though your possible accreditation for the list to me is flattering, I'm afraid I cannot take credit as it has been a part of the article since its inception.  --Xaliqen 04:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The List

message: I removed the POV tag.  Although I wasn't the one to put it up, I think Pharos' last edit is good enough to remove it.  I still think it's silly: we wouldn't put "But communism impoverished millions of workers" in the article about Workers of the World, Unite!.  Not very encyclopedic.  Oh well.  If anyone feels the need to re-add the POV tag, please explain your reasons here.  --M4-10 21:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Ok, people seem to be revert warring over which map version to use, can we discuss it here instead please? To me one version seems overly complicated and introduces other things which aren't related so much to this page, personally I'm not sure a map is really appropriate at all, it seems rather unneccessary. -- Joolz 11:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is complicated because more than a handful of nations are at odds with America.  I tried out the same map in Axis of Evil, Rogue States, and Outpost of Tyranny to illustrate the fact the certain nations can be declared enemies of America for varying reasons and that one nation can be grouped in more than one designation.  Furthermore, by showing where the countries are located on a map, the uniformed will be readily able to recognize that although nations may belong to the same classifications this does not mean that these countries are bound together in some organization or alliance as most do not share similar geography, culture, religion and politics.  Additionally, the original maps (by another individual) I felt where not perfect as they were.  For example, the font was not easy to read (for myself) and the colours used did not properly contrast (using large fills of red and blue alone is very difficult for the eye to focus on).  Also, Vancouver Island was indicated as an American possession!  If the maps I have created are also found to be lacking, or wrong, perhaps readers can suggest ways to improve it.  I should think though that my original idea of one map for three articles was flawed; I will create three separate maps in the future.I ask that TJLive, who evidently has some issues with the maps inform me next time when they delete the map what they find wrong with it, instead of just simply writing revert.  In this way, what is perceived as a small ‘revert war’ can come to an end.--RPlunk 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Thailand has been colored in instead of Burma (Myanmar). Can someone fix this?--KingZog 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, what a goof.  I'll make a new one.  --TJive 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doin't bother, I've already fixed it.--Pharos 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well hell.  How do I go about getting my image deleted?  --TJive 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since, you, the creator, are requesting it, and it's not being used for anything, I can just do it myself without too much ceremony.--Pharos 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  --TJive 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: So what does "the town square test" say about Free speech zones? Ojw 19:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting choice of phrase

message: Looking at the above 2005 discussions, it seems that the passage of three years seems to have calmed things down in this article. The article still needs to focus better on the initial uses of the term as there now are no quotes in the article from Rice containing "Outposts of tyranny". Suntag (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further revision needed

message: The sourcing of this article is very poor. It seems to be little more than an article about a phrase Condoleeza Rice used once, with WP:OR analysis added. No notability is even asserted! I'm pretty sure I'll be coming back to AfD this thing soon, when I'm not busy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: sparkling example of a deletable article

message: dear Wikipedia team. please look up those countries that are known they do not oblidge to cultural exchange programne, or cannot be visited.  And Visa were not granted. 
example: it was not DDR that could not be visited. Sometimes tyrrany countries are nit allowed to VISIT Other Countries.  This worsens tyrrany. 
but if a country is NOT A TYRRANY, and it CAN NOT ENTER SOME OTHER COUNTRIES,
WHATS GOING ON? 2A01:598:C801:A650:3071:73B0:CD0F:FD76 (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries that cannot be visited.