Talk:Pariah state

References

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)

Many of the sources listed are merely paragraphs which accuse a specific nation as being a "Pariah State". Take Haiti for example. The article which is cited merely called it a "pariah from the offset" which refers to the fact that there was a slave rebellion which the slave trading nations did not like. Simply making a claim in a paragraph does not make it a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.126.52 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 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 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)

The rise and decline of rogue states

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)

United States of America

I removed the United States of America from the list because the reference link does no longer work. In my personal opinion, even if one strongly disagrees with official US policies (i.e. War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc.), listing the US as a "pariah state" is pushing it a bit. Therefore, please add reliable sources that the US has been considered one before re-instating it on this list.

Removed list item and non-working reference:

• United States of America

HagenUK (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a situation where we should avoid the Wikipedia tendancy for lists to expand ad infinitum. The Israel citation didn't work either, so I removed it, too. --24.110.218.195 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a user but Uganda please come on the link is from 2000 when Yoweri Musevani was just taking over. The list also should be expanded some what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.58 (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I also once again removed the United States entry. Whoever is determined to include it as a "Pariah State" needs to find a better source document than a single paragraph in the L.A. Times, written 6 years ago by a practically unknown author, which actualy looks like only a "Letter To The Editor" type comment. That "source" itself is written only in a speculative mode, rather than just flat-out saying the U.S. belongs to that group. If whomever is doing this truly believes the U.S. belongs in this group, then I'm 100% sure they can also find several much more detailed sources which agree with them. If that can't be done, then their argument is a VERY weak one, & pretty much just a perfect example of individual POV, rather than widely accepted fact. That type of speculation isn't suppose to be included in Wiki, per it's own guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.69.146 (talk) 03:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The United States, at least in previous (recent) years has met most of the definitions of a rogue state: One's position as a world power doesnt change this, it just changes the reaction. Though physical difficulties prevent me fromlooking for sources at this moment, I can state without reserve that during 2000-2008, the US removed itself from several treatiest about nuclear armaments; chief among them led to the attempts to establish "Missile Shield" defenses in states near the Russian border. All such missile defense systems are not considerd good things, and its aggressive development and political ramifactions tend to support it. However! I agree that before any of this hits the main page, it should be discussed and sourced heavily. Though I think it DOES meet the definition, it would be foolish to think that no one might try to put the US into categories that are either temporary, poorly understood, or just plain make it look bad when it shouldnt. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the US from the list. The "source" listed is this article: http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/26/opinion/le-kunin26.1

Which reads as follows: "I was saddened to read Ian Buruma's commentary on the U.S., "Lost Love: Americophilia Fades Away" (Oct. 25). It strikes me that there is an interesting confluence of opinion -- I think nearly everyone will agree that there are two great pariah states. But to too many, those states are not North Korea and Sudan, but the U.S. and Israel. It's good occasionally to remember that it is possible to gain the whole world and lose one's soul.

Carolyn Kunin

Pasadena"

Please feel free to add the US to the list when a credible article can be cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.126.52 (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the US from the list of former pariah states. The previous citation was a quote from John Kerry while he was a candidate for President of the United States. His statement is rhetorical, and represents a personal opinion; he is not qualified to define the US as a pariah state. Please find a credible source if the US is to be listed in this section. BosDruid (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I simply provided a reference that stated the US was a pariah state. And why would one need to be qualified to make this statement? I think there needs to be an agreement on what can or cannot be used as a reference, the article isnt clear on this. Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have offered another argument for removal of the US in addition to the Kerry argument. We've defined "pariah state" in the first paragraph, and the US clearly does not fit this definition - despite the fact that world opinion of US policy has not always been positive. So, to debate whether the US should be listed is not really a question of what reference to use (I contend that Kerry's opinionated statement is still not valid), but a question of how we choose to define "pariah state" in this article. If we want to list the US here, we need to change the definition.BosDruid (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an absurd argument. First, the definition of a pariah state in the article does not exclude the US or any other country from inclusion. Surely the rest of the international community does not imply unanimous consent by all states or every person in the in the world. If a sizable number of people or states hold that view then it is valid. Actually, if you look at many of the current listings you will find that say for Saudi Arabia the reference is to an article advancing an Iranian POV relative to the war with Iraq and Saudi Arabia’s role in it. Hardly a source for what is claimed. And if we consent that Saudi is a pariah state, then the US is a pariah by virtue of it being the supporter, supplier of arms, and strongest ally of that state. As for the second criteria for inclusion in the definition, surely the Soviet Union and now Russia and China consider the US, UK and France, and maybe Germany as pariah states. Unless of course you follow the argument that the US is currently the sole super power in the world and thus they alone have the right to designate other states as pariah or rogue states and cannot itself be labeled as such. Further, the second heading in the article, Definitions, clearly states that there are no definitions of what is a pariah state, which brings us back to the general requirement of inclusion if a state falls outside of the normal modes of behavior. The US certainly does not behave like a normal state, invading other countries at will, fabricating evidence and arguments, bombing civilians, assassinating leaders, overthrowing governments, supporting insurgents or fighting them as the need arise, arming to the teeth dictatorships and occupying powers (a defending them in international forums), unilaterally disregards the Geneva conventions and supports Israel which is also in violation of the convention and of other international resolutions. The list goes on and on, which goes to show that your objection to the inclusion of the US and Israel, as well as other western countries, is ideologically biased and has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the sources. In fact, you consider Kerry not qualified when he is the most qualified being part of the system he is criticizing. So what are looking for, a presidential executive order instructing all US federal agencies to put a sign on their buildings stating “We, the people of the US, do solemnly swear that we are a Pariah State” to make it beyond any doubt? Maybe by an act of Congress? Or are you looking for a Supreme Court ruling. A UN resolution is beyond question because the US will veto it and will invade, embargo, or at least cut aid to any country that supports it.173.74.22.141 (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pre-term states

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)

Imperial Japan received very little international pressure or strong sanctions in the lead up to WWII. The limitations of the treaty of Versailles from WWI might count for Nazi Germany but I feel the case is still rather weak.--signed by anonymous, e 28 OCT 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.85.232 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Soverign state within the borders of another soverign state?

Im just wondering if these should be included as pariah states? 74.128.56.194 (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Meaning what? Do you think Monaco is a Pariah state, or Portugal? Oh, maybe these have sea shores and you want them landlocked. How about the Vatican? Or maybe Lesotho?173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Past and Present

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)

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)

Albania?

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

Bias

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)

Unrecognised States

There are a few states with limited recognition that are more often than not, considered to be pariah states, should they be added? Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A source that names Abkhazia as a pariah:

Abkhazia: A promising pariah on the Black Sea - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune

Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Transnistria:

The Sheriff of the Wild East - The Slavic Football Union

Vuvuzela2010 (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Israel

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)

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)

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)

Israel's supporters keep removing Israel from the list making flimsy arguments which are not applied to other countries on the list. You either deal with all countries equally, and in this case the US and Israel would be surely included since they are considered as Pariah states not just by most people outside of their own populations, but by many states around the globe. Israel is at least described as Pariah by all the Arab states and many non-western countries. Even in western countries and in Israel itself, it was decribed as such by many people and politicians at various times. So, either be fair to all or fair to none, but don't apply double standards. Also, if you enlarge the map in the article, you will see that Israel is coloured as current. 173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

None of you riN sources called Israel a Pariah state. Itch Eye Bear (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

That is your original research. Itch Eye Bear (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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)