Jump to content

Talk:Police state/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

RFC

Hi there! I came in through the WP:RFC/P.

My first immediate comment is: "why?!". The article you are writing is not List of Police states, it is Police state! I can understand citing several contemporary states as an example of a Police State, but I would suggest using only the most clear-cut examples available. They should serve to illustrate the concept of a police state, rather than provide an exhaustive list.

Moreover, if you do want to create an exhaustive list of Police States, I can assure you right off the bat, that this article will be rampant with vandalism and edit-wars in no time, wasting an otherwise decent article.

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 14:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, as in my opinion almost all states are police states. helohe (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
That is actually a very good idea. Sophy's Duckling 16:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of a discussion held on Talk:Kleptocracy about which governments could be included. The truth seems to be that there is not much benefit to including concrete examples when discussing a theoretical constructs. Similar to articles on mental illness and conceptual engineering being bombarded with examples of "in fiction/film/etc." sections, it seems that articles about types of governments, particularly pejorative terms, are bombarded with inappropriate examples. Per The Minister of War, at the very least split that off to another article, but much better, just eliminate the list altogether. siafu 18:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


Also here from RfC and have commented a bit above. Honestly, the "list" seems like a way for some folks with rather radical (read, not NPOV and certainly not held by consensus) political ideas to start throwing the term "police state" around at any country that they deem to be big old meanies. If you compare and contrast genuine police states to some of the debated nations above (United States? Great Britain? FRANCE?) the differences should be obvious. If they aren't, perhaps you should spend some time in a genuine police state and pop back in later on. --MattShepherd 19:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "list" is largely an exercise in POV-pushing. Unfortunately, it also reflects the POV-pushing of the U.S. State Department, the British Foreign office, and a whole gaggle of NGOs, who inevitably start hollering "police state" at any country that is contemplating repudiating its debts or nationalizing firms that exploit its raw materials. And although I would not call the Anglo-American countries police states, they are certainly not in a position to point any fingers -- the U.S. now has detention without trial, warrantless searches, and the Theory of the Unitary Executive. The vaunted "democracy" of the UK may be overturned at the drop of a hat by the prerogative powers of the monarchy. I would say, regarding the list, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. --HK 23:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to say that it is not correct to say that "democracy of the UK may be overturned [...] by the prerogative powers of the monarchy". The powers of the monarchy are in fact extremely limited, and the last time a monarch tried it there was a civil war to prove him wrong. DJ Clayworth 16:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, another outsider taking a random walk around the Wikipedia quagmires here. I definitely think there should be no list of police states. It's obviously subjective and different people will have different opinions. I strongly object to lists based on some subjective criteria that sit on Wikipedia pretending to be fact. Just describe the general meaning and common traits. — Steverwanda 14:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If we pull the list of real states, I think we should pull the fictional ones as well? Regards, Ben Aveling 16:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with pulling the list, but the fictional ones serve a useful purpose as examples, and are not so likely to be contentious. DJ Clayworth 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This is the problem I have with pulling the list - it seems we're ony doing it because it's contentious. Now I can accept an argument that describing police states is more valuable than listing them, but if so, surely that applies to fictional states as well? Regards, Ben Aveling 17:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Do we have a Category:Police states? If not, I could see having a list somewhere. If so, this article probably ought to be linked to from the category, and remove the 'contemporary' list at the least. Is the historical list contentious, now? I do agree that examples would be better than an "exhaustive" list, we are not an NGO, watchdog group, or government foreign affairs office. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, any list of "police states" suffers from a lack of verifiability. The article, attached to this talk page, states in its opening paragraph:

A government does not describe itself as a "police state". Instead, it is a description assigned to a regime by internal or external critics in response to the law, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime's stance on human rights, the social contract and similar matters.

Meaning that it's not a self-description, and is usually pejorative (read: POV). The best we could do, rather than arguing over who could be included or not (highly contentious, not to mention original research), is to use someone else's list (e.g. Amnesty International) and cite it as such. That way, the content of said can't be argued here or altered. siafu 19:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't advocate pulling the fictional list. Maybe we wouldn't put them in a list--I think I recall seeing that Wikipedia is not a list deposit?--but the dystopiae in We, 1984, &c., are unequivocally police states. Sophy's Duckling 19:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have got to be freaken kidding me. This has got to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. The entire section "Restrictions upon rights and freedoms" has got to go. These articles are not a playground for teenage idiots, mmmkay? What on God's green earth has Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus and the other stuff in that section have to do with a freaken police state? I'm offended. Not by the politics, but by the ignorance.

As for a list, I don't see why some examples wouldn't be illuminating, I'd suggest the famous obvious ones, as those are less likely to be controversial: USSR, Nazi Germany, East Germany. Add the Shah's Iran (SAVAK) and Haitu (Tonton Macoutes) for good measure, maybe. Coomplete lists are at List of historical secret police organizations and List of secret police organizations. I don't think any current states are true police states, except maybe North Korea, but who knows what the hell goes on there. The Chinese government is probably not monolithic enough to qualify. Also, sticking strictkly to historical states will be less controversial. Herostratus 08:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea, and also the nuanced vision underlying. I appreciate that someone tries to understand precisely how things are in "less-democratic" countries, on a finer sampling grain than "Good vs Evil". Rama 09:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I also came here via the RFC.
I think it is a weak compromise to talk only about fictional "police states" without specifying real ones. Right now, it seems the only country that everyone is willing to agree was a police state is Nazi Germany. This beggars the definition to be almost useless.
I understand there is a lot of controversy raised when you label a country as a "police state" because somebody will object and then there will be a long debate and possibly an edit war.
However, it is useful to consider the idea that some nations have characteristics similar to that of a "police state". When phrased this way, we can say that the U.S. has characteristics similar to that of a "police state" without saying that the U.S. is a police state. Same with South Africa.
The challenge then is to identify what are the characteristics of a "police state". Is it having a "secret police" or lack of protection for civil liberties? Once you have identified those characteristics, you could say "any nation that has all of these characteristics is likely to be considered a police state by most people.". You could also say "if a nation has only a few of these characteristics, some people may consider it a police state and some might not."
Does that help? I hope so.
Sure. The current opening paragraph provides the following characteristics.
A police state is
  • an authoritarian state
    • which uses the police, especially secret police,
    • to maintain and enforce political power,
    • often through violent or arbitrary means.
  • A police state typically exhibits
    • elements of totalitarianism or other harsh means of social control.
  • In a police state
    • the police are not subject to the rule of law and
    • there is no meaningful distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
That seems like a pretty good start. Some of that is repetitive, and I would add something about a climate of fear and a network of informers. I think that the German Democratic Republic makes the best prototypical police state. But its probably not useful to state that country XYZ has such-and-such of these elements, I guess the reader can figure that out for himself. Herostratus 03:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Richard 03:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

GPS/GSM bugs - a totalitarian surveillance weapon from hell

Make sure you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps_tracking , and also the ongoing discussion. The latest entry which summarizes the situation is '7 Agent X2: Basically thanks - with a 'little' more'.

Please contribute, if you can, and spread the word!

Michael Laudahn 20:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page

This talk page is way too long. Can we make an archive of up to the topic "Rfc"? Sophy's Duckling 16:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, especially since the previous topics haven't been touched in at least five days. Archived. siafu 16:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Addition of USA

*** Snip ***

Can we delete this discussion again, then? It has no bearing on this article, as it is a polemic against another user. Sophy's Duckling 01:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Offtopic discussion of users' behaviour, good faith and vandalism moved to my talk page. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

In case someone wants to add USA again, first consider this, from Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas):

Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America a Police State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching." The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.

--Error28 07:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

no seriously, your country is a police state with your president openly admitting that he has access to any one citizens phone conversations. your country actually backed half of those police states mentioned.

Outsider view

Came here from the RfC.

To me the article is currently basically OK.

problems:

  1. Section "Restrictions upon rights and freedoms" -- too U.S. focused. The U.S. is not a police state, so the info needn't be there at all.
  2. Intro: "A police state is an autocratic state which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, often through violent or arbitrary means. "
    1. The article does not mention much about the secret police? Is there a source for this? Is the secret police a necessity in theory or is it just the way it is in practice?
    2. Must it be an autocratic state to be a police state? Why?

Other than that, the article is fine, I think.

Fred-Chess 23:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The reaosn we have a section about the US is that we used to have a list of police states, and there was a gigantic edit war over inclusion of the United States in that list. Sophy's Duckling 02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, at least one of the users in that war was blocked for week and hasn't been back since. He's gone, so do the right thing. You don't have to empower trolls and fools. Herostratus 18:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

I feel the article was too much a philosophical discussion of whether the PATRIOT Act makes the USA a police state and not enough about the concept of the police state as would normally be understood. I have done my best to tone down that section, and have also placed it below the section on the types of absolutist government more usually associated with police states. I believe we need some referenced statements in regard of certain current African dictatorships, and greater insight than I have regarding whether notional democracies in modern-day Africa qualify. Also, we need a much better treatment of what separates a police state from a dictatorship.

Well, that's my view, anyway. You may think otherwise. Just zis Guy you know? 19:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Major edits to section "Temporary restriction of rights and freedoms"

Major reduction of this entire section, partly based on the previous several comments in this talk page. There is a lot of excellent work in this section. It just doesn't belong in this article. Editors are encoruaged to take if (from below, or the history) and put it in some article where it belongs. Herostratus 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

ORIGINAL TEXT
TITLE:Temporary restriction of rights and freedoms
 {{NPOV-section}} In times of national emergency or war, the balance which may usually exist between the freedom of individuals and national security in an otherwise well-regulated state often tips in favour of the state (see also National security and rights & freedoms). On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin famously stated that "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". The issue of restriction of civil liberties in advanced democracies is recognised as a contentious one.

It is asserted by several Governments and their supporters that the conduct of the current War on Terrorism falls under this heading, with various countries including Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States enacting legislation designed to hamper the activities of potential terrorists. However, this legislation is widely regarded as contentious, and critics point out that it also has the effect of hampering the legitimate actitivies of citizens, and restricting various rights and freedoms.

There is historical precedent in time of war; for example in the United States, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the American Civil War, Woodrow Wilson allowed many citizens to be imprisoned for sedition during World War I, and Franklin D. Roosevelt allowed many Japanese-Americans to be placed in internment camps during World War II (see Japanese American internment).

In Australia, the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 permits arbitrary constraints on individuals and greatly increases the information gathering ability of the police. Proponents of the legislation argue that it decreases the likelihood of terrorist attacks on Australian targets. [1].

In the United States, the U.S. Congress, with the support of the Bush administration, has passed a number of laws, including the USA Patriot Act, which have expanded the power of the executive to monitor and control those within the U.S. The executive has also wiretapped suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens.

Opponents have viewed the legislation as facilitating the creation of a "police state"[2][3]. This view is not widely accepted, although many do feel that current restrictions are excessive.

Some in the U.S. argue pursuant to the Unitary Executive theory that the U.S. President as Commander-in-Chief and as a "war president", may temporarily set aside some freedoms and rights in order to maintain and protect national security. However, opponents note that no state of war formally exists, and are concerned with the extent to which "national security" may serve as an arbitrary pretext for restricting social and political opposition to government policies, and that without strong and appropriate regulation and a system of checks and balances, there may be little to distinguish a free and just society from a police state[4]www.prisonplanet.com/].

REDACTED TEXT
TITLE:Idomatic expansion of the term
In times of national emergency or war, the balance which may usually exist between the freedom of individuals and national security in an otherwise well-regulated state often tips in favour of the state. Occasionally polemecists will claim that the nation in question is, or is becoming, a police state. Such statements should be seen as valid in the area of political hyperbole, propaganda tactics, and cautionary predictions of long-term trends, but not as a proper scholarly re-definition of the (somewhat narrow) term "police state".

Notes
Of the four references at the end, none use the word "police state". All are worthy articles, I suppose, but not in this article -- except for the Secular Humanist piece which, while not actually using the term "police state", does offer a list of attributes to be found in a states which many would describe as police states. I will move this to the External Links section.

Since I thus don't have any references that use the term "police state" in regards to modern restrictions in the US etc, I dont' think in good conscience we can retain the statement

"Some opponents have viewed the legislation as facilitating the creation of a 'police state'"

Since that statement can't be retained, the entire preceeding passage (shown in a version edited by me):

"For instance, nn recent times, pursuant to the war on terror, the Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 permits certain constraints on individuals and greatly increases the information gathering ability of the police. In the United States, the Congress has passed the USA Patriot Act and other laws which have expanded the power of the executive to monitor and control those within the U.S. The executive has also wiretapped suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens."

has no reason to exist anymore, either. I would have preferred to have retained these two passages and would have if I had any citations. If anyone can find citatations of reasonably notable entity (e.g. not Joe Schmoe's livejournal entry) making claims that the US or Australia is or is becoming a "police state", they may wish to restore that section (although the point -- "A few people say the USA is a police state, although nobody takes that seriously" -- is just an expansion of the preceeding paragraph and probably not that important. In fact, leaving this section in at all is a bone to the original editors, since the statement "Occasionally polemecists will claim that the nation in question is, or is becoming, a police state" actually has no citations. But somebody probably said it somewhere, so OK.)

Discussion welcome. Herostratus 16:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For those interested in references:
The slippery slope that Bush has embarked upon leads to a police state, plain and simple.[5]
However, I am not suggesting the US is a police state, merely providing the requested source.Holland Nomen Nescio 16:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Very nice find Nescio, thank you. (The source, the Santiago Times, is not (as might first appear) a newspaper, but an English-language website. However, it is or appears to be part of a several-person project and thus a step above a single-person blog. Nevertheless, its a valid reference (IMO) for "some people say police state" IMO. Herostratus 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Given that police states do exist, and that the skyrocketing incarceration rate in the US provides tangible evidence of such, it was startling to see an entire section, providing essential review of current police states, had been blanked. The Wiki is not the place for such denial of reality. Given that police states typically have plenty of fervent supporters who would rebuke the use of any such label, it seems senseless to require 'verification'. There are tried and messy methods for npoving articles, but outright blanking of essential content is absurd. Ombudsman 21:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is POV, OR, and simple nonsense. Unless you can provide some sort of objective reference for what states constitute a universally accepted definition of police state (you can't, there isn't one), you'll have to stick to a well-accepted list created by a peer-reviewed source and properly attribute it (which hasn't been done). Otherwise, all you're doing is POV-pushing as there's no reason to include or not include any nation in the world. siafu 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
It's knee-jerk US-bashing. There was no source on the paragraph about incarceration rates, and no explanation of how the US prison population indicates that it is a police state. We don't form our own conclusions in Wikipedia. Rhobite 21:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Since a list of current police states provoked an edit war I would think reposting them is not a good idea. Beyond that, if you do feel the need to make a list at least provide sources to substantiate the claims and discuss here. And a blog does not constitute a source.Holland Nomen Nescio 03:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it as US-bashing so much as police-state-excusing. If a student is trying to learn about (say) Nazi Germany, hears the term "police state" applied, comes to this article, and finds basically "Well, Nazi Germany was pretty much like the US", the student, knowing that US has pretty much free speech, free press, jury trial, Bill of Rights, rule of law, and the rest, is being led to believe that Nazi Germany must have been a pretty OK place. Why would anyone want to leave that impression? Herostratus 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I could not agree less with the somewhat-ironically-named Herostratus.
This is an important issue. The use of this term should not be rarified in order to draw distinction between existing police states and the worst that have existed--it should be trumpeted to alert the frog that he is in boiling water. Just because a police state is not as bad as Nazi Germany does not make it "pretty much like the US," and it is fairly alarming to hear anyone suggest a reasonable person, however ignorant of history, would draw that conclusion. Let's face it. In many ways, Nazi Germany is considered the worst case scenario. Nevertheless, even in Nazi Germany, most of the civilian public was allowed to live their lives without interference--provided of course that they knew where to step to avoid the political mines. You say the US "pretty much has" free speech, free press, jury trials, Bill of Rights, the rule of law, etc., but in using the qualifier, you automatically open the door to the plain fact that each and every one of those has been abridged in one or many ways. The advancement of the police state in most of the freest nations known, and particularly in the nation most associated with liberty in our time, is very troublesome, and to deny it is to invite those police states to approach or surpass the most ugly examples in recorded history. Denying it or taking pride in the extent to which it is imperfectly true will guarantee a repeat performance of the worst atrocities in history. Doing so thus far has already demonstrated this inevitability. What's the frequency, Kenneth? 03:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't find that convincing at all - no state in history was ever a perfect example of liberty. To concede that Americans are "pretty much" free is not an admission it is a police state - by that definition every state at every point in history has been a police state, and there have never been any non-police states. Pepik70 (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Countries and regimes which have been described as "police states"

Moved from article page by MSchmahl 17:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A government does not label itself a "police state". Instead, it is a description assigned to a regime or country by internal or external critics in response to the law, policies and actions pursued by that country or regime. When a particular country is described in this way it often serves as a comment on the country's human rights record and its observation of the social contract.

A few examples of regimes which are widely viewed as exhibiting characteristics consistent with the nature of a "police state" are provided below. Although supporters of these regimes or their polices will often dispute the assignment of this description, such regimes also often serve as well-known examples of authoritarian or totalitarian states.

Historical

People are jailed, raped, tortured, and executed in police states, but someone is pretending that they're scholastic enough to edit this section and he keeps censoring pertinent and valid information. Get an education and stop over-reaching above your academic qualifications. In 1990-92, I met people in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile who, in a previous regime, had friends and family members taken away never to be seen again. I assume the puppy who's censoring this article never encountered such experiences. StarHeart 10:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Contemporary

Most of the nations listed below are listed in a 2006 USA Today Weekend Update article written by Andrew Wallensky. The only country I not sure belongs on this list is Columbia. StarHeart 10:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Some modern liberal democratic countries may sometimes be perjoratively described by critics of the government as "police states". Examples of countries which have been labelled in this way include Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and France. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› [citation needed]

Why have these countries been removed and the UK and Sweden left in? These were far better examples of police states.Pepik70 (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The article page is definitely not the place for signed comments. Neither is it the place for original research. ("In 1990-92, I met people in Argentina, Brazil, and Chile who, in a previous regime, had friends and family members taken away never to be seen again.") If a list of examples is really necessary (and I don't think it is), only a half-dozen or so of the most exemplary regimes should be included. A possible criterion for inclusion might be description by three or more cited reputable sources, using the term police state in its usual (not hyperbolic) sense. MSchmahl 17:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Amnesty International and other organisations are available to quote on abuses of human rights, and are WP:RS at least as far as "according to ...". Midgley 22:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you that Amnesty International is a WP:RS. However, the fact that a government occasionally abuses human rights within its boundaries, doesn't necessarily make it a police state. I think that the pervasive abuse of human rights and basic liberties is essential to the definition of a "police state". A Google search on the term "police state" within www.amnesty.org only returns two hits. If examples of contemporary police states is needed at all, the standard for inclusion should be fairly high, and all examples should be cited. After all, the purpose of this article should be to help the reader to understand the concept of "police state", not to make a point. — MSchmahl 08:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the contemporary government of the United States is missing. It is quite obviously a police state. 206.124.6.4 15:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Idomatic? expansion of the term

In times of national emergency or war, the balance which may usually exist between the freedom of individuals and national security in an otherwise well-regulated state often tips in favour of the state. Occasionally polemecists? ... carefully pointed at polemics. Are these accidental or special spellings? Midgley 23:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

  • If there's a misspelling, just correct it. If it's not a regular pattern by that editor, making an issue of it is bad form. Obviously "Idomatic" is a misspelling of "Idiomatic, "Polemecist" of "Polemicist". I don't know why you didn't just make the corrections; I have done so. Herostratus 23:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


History needs reference?

I will not revert again but this is absolutely ludicrous. What do you mean cites for Nazi Germany as police state? Are you kidding?Holland Nomen Nescio 21:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not kidding. (Perhaps your should review WP:V?) As it is, this list is just bait for people to come along and add their favorite to the list. We can't just make our own list, since the requirements for inclusion are so nebulous. Moreover, what do we gain from having a list? A police state is an ideological type that can't actually exist to its fullest, hence its always a matter of degree; Nazi Germany is by far not the best example, in fact. There is no perfect example, and it isn't so helpful to present so many imperfect ones; it's not that the list is incorrect per se, but that it cannot possibly be correct. siafu 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
You make several interesting observations.
  • No country today or in the past fits the definition of "police state." This can only mean "police state" exist only as a theoretical and hypothetical concept.
  • Regarding kidding. If we accept that "police state" is not hypothetical and we refer to Hitler, most people would not need any source for that. However, should anyone have missed history lessons in school, and the multitude of documentaries on the subject there is some good source material. Please see Shoah, Shoah Foundation, Nazi Germany, Auschwitz, Gestapo, Schutzstaffel.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles can't serve as references for other articles. "Common knowledge" is also no good. You'll have to actually refer to a documentary or source material that calls it a "police state", and use that as a reference. However, even if this is done I still disagree that a list is at all a good idea, and the consensus from the RFC, which you can still see above, is the same. It does not add anything to the article and simply creates an invitation for disruption and vandalism-- note that this has already happened since you re-added the list. siafu 12:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the RFC as well. American_Indian_MovementVinnyCee 19:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Both editors clearly have not heard of these documentaries, films and historical events I refer to as they are discussed on Wikipedia. Suffice it to say that I agree with the need for sources and therefore, since no source exists claiming any country to be, or have been, a "police state," I suggest we mention that this term is a theoretical one, and is not used in real life. To paraphrase both editors, there are no police states and never have been.Holland Nomen Nescio 11:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush

George W. Bush was added as "Related". Is this proper? I am reverting it until there is a consenus --Nick Catalano contrib talk 05:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • It's obvious that the George W. Bush regime is a Police State regime. Do a Google on Police state. Read the news. I'm not sure what the doubt is supposed to be. See HomelandStupidity.us [6] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.124.6.4 (talk • contribs) .

Proper my ass. You people and your police state just can't handle the truth. 206.124.6.4 15:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually you'll find that real police states are well able to handle the truth - in a very direct and final manner. DJ Clayworth 15:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A Police State

It's what we have here. The truth will be erased by the truth Nazis here at any cost. 206.124.6.4 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth obviously must not be tolerated here. 206.124.6.4 16:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm requesting that this article be semi-protected from editing by anonymous users until he explains himself here and properly and accurately cites RELIABLE sources. - DNewhall 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
206.124.6.4, the purpose of this talk page is not to promote your political ideas, or to call people Nazis. If you can't deal with people civilly we will stop you contributing. DJ Clayworth 03:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I.E., you'll resemble the remark. 206.124.6.4 08:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

LEAVE HIM ALONE his 'IP address' is his identity. When the law is arbitrary and the authorities no longer have any real check and balances to their power..it is most definitely a police state. You people are like the rest of the sheep..refusing to acknowledge that funny smell coming from the 'sausage factory'.

Here's your United States police state documentation:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/topstories_story_101163959.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10280
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061500730.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.nsa27jul27,0,4227826.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/25/AR2006072500992.html
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa23jul23,0,4406054.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607290040jul29,1,3227323.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=25890&cat=HOME
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:8a4W-9nKcTgJ:www.krqe.com/expanded.asp%3FID%3D15249+&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a%22
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsindex/23-ds1.htm
http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=25890&cat=HOME
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/July/19/local/stories/05local.htm
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9559707/detail.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060725/ap_on_re_us/phone_records_lawsuit
http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/NEWS01/106290121
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa23jul23,0,4406054.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/25/AR2006072500992.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701233_pf.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv
http://foi.missouri.edu/domsecenhanceact/policestate.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0607290040jul29,1,3227323.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10280
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,53037,00.html
http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?s=4867916
http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp?s=4635036
http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/05/01/siler-and-abu-ghraib-mix-new-torture-video-on-the-net/
http://realidrebellion.blogspot.com/
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1228-34.htm
http://counterpunch.org/ferner07012006.html
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_07.php#004832
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7975.msg126930#msg126930
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7446.msg119740#msg119740
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7657.msg122862#msg122862
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7656.msg122847#msg122847
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7801.msg124967#msg124967
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes
http://papersplease.org/cases.html
http://counterpunch.org/ferner07012006.html
http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/05/01/siler-and-abu-ghraib-mix-new-torture-video-on-the-net/
http://realidrebellion.blogspot.com/
http://www.eff.org/

206.124.6.4 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

A random sampling of those produces nothing from a reputable source that indicates the US is a police state. One of the ones I sampled was about corruption at a local level. Remember that you can be corrupt without being a police state. BBS and blogs are not reliable sources. DJ Clayworth 18:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Major newspapers aren't necessarily reliable sources either--but I listed many of their articles. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and smells like a duck....206.124.31.24 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This definition is all wrong...the US *IS* a police state in the sense that it only provides common security as oposed to a welfare state say like France that also provides healthcare and such. This is what I learned in law school a few years ago. the definitions on this page seem right for a "policial" state i.e. one that controls and policies it's own citizens Galf 18:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Democratic Nazi Germany!?

The article currently makes the astonishing claim that Nazi Germany was a "democratic police state". What is this supposed to mean, and weren't all other parties than the NSDAP banned in 1933 right after the Nazis came into power? Jpatokal 14:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it refers to the idea that Adolph Hitler was elected by way of a democratic electoral process.
Except that he wasn't. This is a common misconception; he was in fact appointed to the position of Chancellor by Hindenburg (the president), and used the influence of that position to seize power through the "Enabling Act". Adolf Hitler was never elected to any position of power. siafu 19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition here seems too general

Opening sentence of the article: "A police state is a state with authority which uses the police, especially secret police, to maintain and enforce political power, even through violent or arbitrary means if necessary." -- Does not every state use the police (including violence and "arbitrary" means) to maintain and enforce political power? What distinguishes a "police state"? (Or is the article in fact claiming that every state with a police force is a police state?) -- Writtenonsand 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the key term here is 'secret police'. Now to understand what I mean by that you nead to undersatnd my veiw of 'secret police'. Secret Police, as oposed to true police, are answerable to no one except prehaps the head of state. they nead serve no warants and may scarch and seize with impunity. No one is byond their Imediate Juristiction, they may arest anyone at will. They need give no cause or even inform the victim why he was arested. The victim may be held indefenately for any reason or none at all. Above all they operate under a blanket of silence and shadow, never coming under general public scrutiny for anything they do.
Because of this Secret Police allmost allways become what amounts to an internal Terrorist movement strikeing at will from behind the sheald of their position. This marks them as a bread apart from normal honest Police whos sworn duty is to opose all that secret police stand for. Emperors Harbinger 07:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A call for open speech.

206.124.6.4 I would like to hear in your own words what a Police State is and why in simple plain English, short and to the point, you feal that the U.S.A. not only is becomeing one but in fact allready is a Police State. Thank You. Emperors Harbinger 07:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, a thousand times NO! We don't want "his own words", we want reliable sources that have already said it, whereby we can then include it in this encyclopedia. This talk page is for improving the article, not for political debate. Please, let's stay on topic and on point. -- nae'blis 17:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
1: I didnt ask you. 2: I am atempting to resolve the conflict which has raged on this topic for a prolonged period of time. By asking him to express his position, in a consiese and diliberate manner I open the topic to the posibility of final resolution via direct aplication of the relevent policies and guidelines. If however your coment causes him to chose to not answere then this all has been a waste of time. Emperors Harbinger 18:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Probably it's all been a waste of time anyway, and it's unlikely that anything the anon would have to add, if he or she chose to add anything, would change anything. Please learn to spell, and on a wikipedia article talk page Nae'blis, or anyone else for that matter, should feel quite welcome to comment-- especially on a topic that says "A call for open speech". siafu 00:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with nae. If Emperors Harbinger wants to know 206's personal views on the matter, then they can discuss it on one of their talk pages. Personal opinions aren't going to help this article. DJ Clayworth 15:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Law Enforcement tag

I removed the Wp:LE tag as this article is about a politcal tactic or thoery rather than actual law enforcementEMT1871 19:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

what DOES it take to acknowledge a police state?? Has the "patriot act" not confirmed such trivialities? The "read ID ", national ID cards?? Should i go on? National emergencies acts..fema..The president many times saying the constitution does not apply..etc...fools. Why wait until its official..call it as it is!!! WE ARE IN A POLICE STATE. ALL CHECKS AND BALANCES HAVE BEEN REMOVED!!!

Perhaps a week in North Korea might convince you just how ignorant such a statement is. Things may be worse than the were ten years ago, but at least you needn't fear being imprisoned for making that post. siafu 21:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

--HOW DO YOU KNOW HES NOT IN JAIL ALREADY??? the 'patriot act' clearly allows for unchecked spying, harassment, and also unspecified amount of detention time WITHOUT ACCESS TO A LAWYER! (It also allows for torture to be used) So if this is not a police state it is surely fascist and totalitarian.Simply...people can just 'disappear' from society and no one has the authority to question or audit the authorities--

Removal of biased souce on external link.

one of the external links was obviously biased and not from a repuatable source. Pownow 23:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


The link is not biased, it is a regularly updated news site that specifically concerns the content of this article. VinnyCee 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Prison Planet does not meet the WP:RS criteria. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 05:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
AgreedPepik70 (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


HOW THE HELL IS "PRISON PLANET" BIAS??? All its sources are FACTUAL based on STATUTORY LAWS passed. Wikipedia is as phony as the president's website (any president)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.135.111 (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Liberal democracy vs. Constitutional republic

A democracy is form of government where two wolves and a chicken vote on what they eat for dinner. A police state is the inevitable result of this form of government. A constitutional republic protects the rights of minorities. The "liberal democracy" article is in bad shape - it needs citations. Mpublius 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No connection to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement?

I mean, the agreement's plans would basically turn the U.S. into a police state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.35.139 (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Or at least start to make it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.35.139 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete the vandalism

The section titled 'Police States' and goes on about how people can lose their license in the UK is pure vandalism. Can someone delete this? as someone keeps changing it back. Andrewbriscoe87 03:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues

There is an appalling lack of citations in this article. It repeatedly uses words like "typically" without any examples or references to examples. Given the lack of these citations, some of the claims made in the article seem to be original research. Come to think of it, there are weasel words too... AzureFury (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a really good point. I'd never even noticed! After doing a bit of research, I think most of the article is sourced from Brian Chapman's 'The Police State' - namely the sections on the classification of a police state and enlightened absolutism. Whereas the opening paragraph, I think, is from 'A Dictionary of World History'. I suppose the mentions of Nazi Germany and the apartheid really need referencing as well. I shall have a further look and hopefully, with the correct source, will be able to get rid of the weasel words as well. Tachyon502 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Does anybody still feel the article is biased in some way? If so, how and why? It would be good to remove the neutrality dispute header from the article if there are no objections. Jamie 16:27, 13th July 2008 (GMT)

The fact that the only two contemporary examples of a police state are the UK and Sweden (with the US apparently the only other contender at the moment) is completely absurd. North Korea? Cuba? Even Singapore would be a better example. This article is showing some rather extreme bias.Pepik70 (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have restructured the article somewhat. North Korea and Cuba are now included. It is definately representative to detail some police state like examples, and I have been very careful to express in the article that this is fundamentally subjective and should not represent an exhaustive list. I would really appreciate your positive (or otherwise!) comments. Tachyon502 (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
what about China? they qualify as a police state with honors. any country that has a political police qualifies... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.59.106 (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As stated, the new section is not 'An exhaustive list of potential police states'. If that was the case, the section could easily provide a link to a list of every country on the planet!

The aim is to give a few examples in order to provide the reader with an idea of the characteristics associated with police states. This helps in the clarification (for the reader) of what a true police state actually is.

If, indeed, you know of (and have reputable sources!) for a valid characteristic of a police state which China exhibits that the others listed do not, please feel free to add it as this would truly contribute to the article.

Please clarify if I have misconstrued your point, but I understand it that your claim does not directly relate to the neutrality of the article - as such would you agree if the neutrality banner was to be removed? Tachyon502 (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Reply to RFC I don't see any problems with the neutrality of the article as it currently stands. However, by moving into listing contemporary, rather than historical examples of police states (and ones key to the article's development), you risk making the article a POV magnet. RayAYang (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply. I think your comments are very true and indeed the article has been a POV magnet since 2004. The big problem is that without a list of contemporary states, they are constantly added in the form of uncited sweeping comments and this has made the article a target for vandalism and verging on an edit war. So I do feel that having neutral, referenced contemporary examples somewhat prevents this - but you are definately right that POV-pushing could quickly start at any moment. It seems we have to choose between two equally bad options!? Tachyon502 (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it kind of insulting to have the US and UK in the same list as Nazi Germany, Cuba, and South Africa. The article even says they're "suspected" because politicians have "talked" about policies that would make it a Police State. I'm really tempted to delete it but I thought I'd say something here first. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I suggest you read the article and the associated references. I am very sorry, but it does not really matter whether you find it insulting or not. I tend to agree that it is not great (as a UK citizen), but the bottom line is that high quality referenced material is the underpinning of Wiki and this information contributes to the article, particularly with comments from Downing Street and the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, I have to admit, the reality is that politicians have "talked" about and "introduced" policies that resemble that of a police state structure. This appears to have been in the media more frequently over here in the UK recently with the whole 42 days fiasco. I suppose you could introduce the second side of the coin to the article, although it may have to be done carefully to avoid edit warring?Tachyon502 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My complaint wasn't with the factual accuracy but with the unfair weight. The other examples in the list are undisputed and extreme. You even say that the US "might" be "approaching" a police state. You say yourself that this is not an exhaustive list. If you were to give a numerical value to measure the police states, you would have jumped from the top 10 (Nazi Germany) to somewhere near the middle or bottom. What is your rationale for this? In addition, you say that "are felt by some." This is a weasel phrase. One example of one politician calling the US a police state is not sufficient to generalize such a sweeping and controversial statement. A lot of people hate the US and make all sorts of accusations, even comparisons to Nazi Germany. Does that mean we should include the US in a list of fascist states? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You know what else? It is unfair to lump the US and UK together. I suspect this was done in an attempt to associate the UK's mass surveilance with the US. Civil liberties issues in these countries are massively different and need seperate paragraphs at LEAST. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have a mixed bag of agreements and disagreements with your post! To say that the other examples are undisputed I am sure some North Koreans would disagree, this is what the article expresses however, that identifying a police state is very subjective and so only characteristics can truly be identified. Both the US and the UK have some of these characteristics. I do not really understand your point on applying a numerical value, if you mean the order of the list then I think it is purely arbitrary and could be easily adapted to be more neutral. The comment "are felt by some" does definately seem to be a weasel phrase which needs changing, the references clearly indicate that it is "felt by some" - but perhaps "have been accused" would be more accurate.
I also tend to agree that the statement of one politican does not serve as sufficient justification for the articles claims, I feel the problem lies with the lack of references for the "continuous surveillance, introduction of ID cards, etc." statement - if references were introduced for these for both the UK and the US it would solve that problem. I'm also in agreement that lumping the US and UK together is not really fair, although they both are 'accused' for similar reasons, no other states are listed together and so it is quite biased for these to be - it implies an unwarranted association. Whilst the US most definately does suffer from mass surveillance, I do indeed vote for seperate paragraphs.Tachyon502 (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance, but what mass surveilance is in the US? Are you talking about wiretaps? It's not even comparable to that of the UK where every major public area is monitored with video and sometimes audio.
"Have been accused" is also a weasel phrase. The point is that it's not attributed to anyone. All passive statements are weasel statements. Admittedly, the policy on weasel statements only says to "avoid" them.
What I meant by listing the police states was if you ranked all the states by how "policey" they were, starting with the most authoritarian and ending with the most liberal or free, the states currently listed (minus the US and arguably the UK) would be near the top. My objection is the gap between these well-known highly authoritarian states and the US and (perhaps not) UK. I perceive this as the manifestation of a desire to include the US on this list. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

For mass surveillance in the US, I suggest you start here Mass_surveillance#United_States. Being 'not even comparable' to the UK does not excuse it, and the US has compulsory vaccinations (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RS21414.pdf) whereas the UK currently does not but is considering it. All US citizens also have RFID tags in their passports. Admittedly, the UK is introducing ID cards (whereas the US, as far as I'm aware, is not) and has one of the world's longest periods of detention without trial upheld in law. Although arguably, the US does have Guantanamo Bay.

Whilst I share your view that the US and UK are not the world's most authoritarian states, I think we have to bear in mind our perspective from the inevitably biased media we receive, portraying China, Cuba, etc. as fundamentally totalitarian. I am sure that from Iran, Russia, China and others viewpoints, our countries appear highly authoritarian and possibly in a similar light as we would view a dictatorship. Ironically, I perceive your objection as being purely based on a political desire to remove the US from the list! Tachyon502 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I didn't know the wiretaps were so widespread. I would argue that Guantanamo isn't so much a Police State issue as it is a War Crime issue.
Your argument on perception would undermine any honest attempt to compare one's native country to any other country. Sure there will be bias, there always is, it's the human condition. The question is whether or not it will be unreasonable bias. Are you honestly saying that any informed person could consider Iran, a country that executes people for Apostasy, the equivalent to the US with regards to civil liberties?
With regards to my bias, you've probably correctly guessed that I live in the US. What you haven't guessed is that I hate the US passionately, for a number of reasons. That being said, people making up reasons to hate the US is a pet peeve of mine; there are plenty of reasons to hate it without making some up, or in this case, exaggerating them.
I'd like to point out that so far you've given a number of reasons against deletion, but no reasons for inclusion. Like you said, it's not a comprehensive list. Why include something so debatable? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You know, all that would be necessary to satisfy me would be to add a few more moderate police states so this didn't scream US bashing. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that a state imposed execution of any individual is the most obscene violation of their civil liberties, regardless of the reasoning. The reason for inclusion is that when this information has not been present in the article, people are always attempting to add it. This has allowed inaccurate, unreferenced, POV-pushing - in a convenient demo of this someone didn't read the article fully today and included the UK at the top - minus any citations or verifiability! So, it's far better in the long term to have a referenced, neutral list of reasons and examples, then to have biased jibberish.
Rather than add more states to the list, I have seperated the US and the UK and included far more references. This actually appears to be in the US' favour - much to my dismay! Hopefully you approve? All the best Tachyon502 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
"The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population." The people in Guantanamo are, unless I'm mistaken, for the most part, not citizens, lolz :p. It is an execution of prisoners of war, not political dissidents. Though whether or not this goes on with the blessing of the government is debatable as several officials have been court-martialed and dishonorably discharged (though probably as scapegoats).
Not surprisingly (:p), I think it looks better the way it is. The mention of the US reads as it should, a lame concession to POV-warriors. You say the current version appears to be in US' favour, but if I'm not mistaken, the list is currently more informative than it was before. Maybe it should read this way. The US is infriging on civil liberties, sure. But a police state it is not IMO. Not yet, anyway. I still think the mention of the UK and US are an example of systemic bias. But you are right that it should stay if only to ward off edit wars. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply to RFCWhy mention countries at all or as a rule? Wouldnt we be better served to list aspects of a police state, rather then anything but the most obvious examples? Bonewah (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no way to present a list of countries and maintain a NPOV. The intro to the section does nothing to diminish the subjectivity of a "Police State" classification. The list is even admittedly non-comprehensive, which contributes even more to possible POV bias for the inclusions. Even the appearance of such should be avoided. To summarize, the article is well written and fully explains the concept of a "Police State", the list simply detracts from the meat and potatoes of a good article. I propose removing the entire section - discuss. 220.70.250.166 (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i took a stab at changing that section. What do you guys think? Bonewah (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Two thumbs up. The article now dosn't appear POV for which countries it includes, or POV for having a list and not including other countries. Overall I think the article feels much more like an informative wikipedia article should be. Doubtless this will not be the end of this, but I say bravo. 220.70.250.166 (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for saying so, i appreciate it. I think the article could use more sources, that list was off the top of my head. Still, lets hope were moving in the right direction. Bonewah (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

With the complete removal of the "police state list", I see no reason not to remove the neutrality banner, and possibly the weasel word banner. In the interest of peace and harmony I'll wait 24 hours for comments before doing so, otherwise I think it is ready. 220.70.250.166 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see why you decided to remove a well-referenced section in order to replace with an unreferenced, subjective list! You then are considering removing the neutrality banner after making the article less neutral!!! I'm really sorry, but this has occurred multiple times with this article, if you look at the edit history you will quickly find that an absence of a referenced list quickly leads to the addition of unreferenced comments regarding why X country is a police state for Y reason.
The article needs a list of examples of police states, and if you care to look at the reference list, you will find all of the claims are accurate, justified and fully substantiated. Hence the list paints a much more consistent picture of the qualities of a police state, far more so than your unsourced information. As such, I have replaced with the original neutral referenced sources - which does not constitute POV!!!. Best Wishes Tachyon502 (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the section was well referenced doesn't affect its POV problems. The text itself says classifying countries as police states is problematic and the article itself gives no indication of what constitutes a police state. The article as it stands just lists a few countries and declares them police states. For example, no where else in the article is it stated that continuous surveillance is an element of a police state, only that the UK is accused of doing it. Likewise with biometrics and compulsory vaccinations, just listed in connection with the US, without providing the reader some context of a police state itself.
Why list countries at all? It is just an invitation to to POV push. The mere inclusion of the US and the UK illustrates my point, in no normal discussion of a police state would either of those countries site aside North Korea and Cuba, but here they are along with an NPOV flag.
You claim your edit paints a much more consistent picture of qualities of a police state, but that claim is absurd, what could possibly show the qualities of a police state better then a list of qualities of a police state? Bonewah (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The article actually doesn't state that these countries are police states, simply that they hold an amount of typical police state characteristics.
'I am going to put this section in bold in the hope that people actually read it! One reason for listing countries is that when they are not included, the article descends into a POV pushing, edit war. It has seemed over time that people want a list of potential police states - when one is not included an unreferenced list quickly appears. As such it was decided the best idea was to include a referenced list. This has prevented warring over the article and has been very successful.'
The inclusion of the US and the UK is an ode to the neutrality of the section, the fact that you find that absurd suggests you are indeed POV pushing. I suggest you check the references, you will find that the UK and US are very much involved in a modern discussion of a police state.
And where would you propose that you obtain this list of qualities of a police state? I am afraid I have looked long and hard for such a list, as that would make an awesome addition to the article, but none exists. Of course, you could just make them up off the top of your head, but that would not be neutral. It is becoming quite exhausting that rather than people attempting to make the article truly neutral, they clearly do not do their research and come to this article trying to push their political agenda. This article is to provide a definition, to clarify for people what a police state looks like. This is best served by painting them a picture, and a picture built on references from reputable news sources and quotes from the US House of Representatives is excellent. This provides the reader with an indepth context of a police state. Tachyon502 (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, if no list of qualities of a police state exists, then i propose we delete this article. Verifiability is key to wiki and if you cant find a list of qualities of a police state, then how do you know the US is one? The UK? North Korea? Why list biometrics as a reason the UK is a police state if you have no way of knowing what qualities make for a police state in the first place? Why not include the country with the most number of theme parks or the state which adheres to the metric system the closest?
You say the article descends into POV pushing without a list of countries (?!?) but that is just absurd. The argument about whether to include a country or not is mostly subjective (as per the article itself), why not include Pakistan or Turkey? Naming countries by name only encourages that country's defenders and detractors to come here and edit war, and why shouldnt they? Without a list of qualities of a police state, any state can be added or removed.
Let me put it to you this way, if a user from, say Greece comes here, are they going to know if their state is a police state? I mean, Greece isnt on the list. Should Greece be on the list? How about Venezuela? I want to include Venezuela on this list. Is that ok? Do i just have to find one person in their government who has said so? Do i just grab one article about that country closing its TV stations and declare Venezuela a police state? Your claim that a list of characteristics is a POV magnet is silly, countries have lots of defenders and detractors, but abstract qualities generally do not.
Tell you what, im going to be in the Library today, ill see if a definition of a police state is available.Bonewah (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your unconstructive argument of deleting the article - that was very useful. As you say verifiability is key to wiki, hence a referenced section of potential police states alongside the referenced statement of "The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement." provides a clear cut, well-thought out, non-weasly and informative article on what a police state is. Which is the point of the article!
Do US citizens experience restrictions on their mobility? Yes! Do UK citizens experience restrictions on their freedom of political expression? Yes! Do North Korean citizens experience excess police monitoring? Yes! Are any of them true police states? Nobody knows! Different political scientists suggest different broad speaking umbrella-terms for police states, none of which are in perfect agreement (see the article's references), and none of which provide a detailed list of qualities of a police state. I suggest you re-read the article, as it does not label the US or UK as a police state, but merely as having characteristic signatures of one. A reader of the article would want to know "What sort of restrictions on mobility would suggest that a country is a police state?" - so let's provide this for them, let's provide referenced detail on a restriction of mobility that has led to a country being accused of moving towards a police state, and 'even led to the government denying the accusations' - hence let's include well-sourced detail on biometric identity cards in the UK for example.
If you want to include Greece or Venezuela, that's up to you, although the article does express it is not intended to be an exhaustive list. However, if you have good sources that suggest they have police state characteristics and that they have been accused of being a police state for having them, then do go ahead - that would be useful and informative for a future reader. I also suggest you look at the history at times when no list was included, POV pushing mayhem?, hmmm, YES! Far more importantly, the invention of the term police state is associated with characteristics of a specific country, it was first used as a term to describe characteristics of Germany's political structure and the impact on its citizens. Yet, you would like to seperate the term 'police state' from association with a specific country? I am afraid this is impossible, unless of course you choose to POV-push or are in fact a member of a secret police force!
To be honest I think you are misconstruing the entire section, for some reason you appear to think that the article definitively labels these countries as police states. It does not. Although perhaps the paragraph entering into the section is not expressing this clearly enough. Would you be happy to work on rephrasing this paragraph to ensure the list is not misconstrued in future? Tachyon502 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For your entertainment http://www.policestate.co.uk Tachyon502 (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To start with, I had nothing to do with the previous deletion or edit war. Look at the history, you will not see my account there anywhere. I take my reputation seriously and do not appreciate being accused of vandalism. Please wikipedia:Assume good faith. Bonewah (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
"Thank you for your unconstructive argument of deleting the article - that was very useful" In the future, if you want to avoid the appearance of accusing someone of vandalism, then dont accuse them of deleting a whole article. I had nothing to do with the previous deletions, the only edits I made were the previous attempts at improvement discussed above. Bonewah (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • '"Well, if no list of qualities of a police state exists, then i propose we delete this article."' Uh, this is your comment, you wrote it. So either you want to help improve the article or you don't. If all you want to do is to try and cause arguments, then please stop writing here. Otherwise, please read my above post again and we shall start over. Tachyon502 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok I see what you were getting at with that statement, my apologies for misunderstanding. However, as your comment came after a swath of vandalism, i hope you can see why i was defensive. I agree lets just start over.Bonewah (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vaccinations and Enlightened Absolutism

Bonewah. Since you first visited this page, you have attempted to only remove information. You have not assisted in improving the article, but only to push your own POV and political agenda. You attempted on your first day at this article, to cause arguments, and I have already offered once to start a new, in order that some positive progress might be made on the article. However, you have decided not to create progress and to instead attempt to create an edit war.

A quick look at your contributions shows that you have tried to remove sourced information relevant to an article throughout your time at wiki. As a consequence, in your time at Wiki, you have been hit with a string of escalating vandalism warnings. Please stop this now. This is not what wikipedia is about. Please do some independent research, spend the time to read references and contribute new material to Wiki. Do not simply jump page to page deleting 'valid' contributions.

I ask again, that you read the references related to this article. You clearly have not done so. If you had you would find, amongst other things, that:

  • (a) In the CRS report for Congress:

"Jacobson v. Massachusetts is viewed as the seminal case regarding a state’s or

municipality’s authority to institute a mandatory vaccination program as an exercise of

its police powers. ..... In upholding the law, the [Supreme] Court noted that “the police power of a State must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.”

This directly links the police powers of a government with the exercise of compulsory vaccination. In the Jacobson case, the state ruled that the government's wishes were paramount and that Jacobson's right to liberty was void. This is a move on the scale away from a free state and towards a police state as described by Brian Chapman. As per the 'definition' this is totalitarianism and social control, and a restriction on freedom of expression. It also demonstrates that the government was willing, in the case of compulsory vaccinations, to exert rigid and repressive controls over the social life of the population.

  • (b) In the Public Health Strategy and the Police Powers of the State article:

"Police powers of the states are an expression of civil authority, i.e., the state’s ability to control, regulate, or prohibit non-criminal behavior. Health officials may use these powers to compel treatment, prohibit or direct a particular conduct, or detain and isolate in a quasi-criminal nature."

This further advances the case that compulsory vaccinations serve to exercise repressive controls over the population. Further to this, the fact that the law is allowed to be exercised by legally untrained Health Officials is highly indicative of police state-like behaviour i.e. "there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive."

  • (c) In the Bioterrorism Defense: Are State Mandated Compulsory Vaccination Programs an Infringement upon a Citizen's Constitutional Rights?" article:

"Large-scale mandatory medication was first employed under the Nazi Germany regime and has been cited as the first contemporary example of the amalgamation of police powers and medical treatment. ..... As the exercise of state police power in medical matters may be construed as a limitation of liberty, this inherently opens the question of whether it is a facet of an Orwellian society."

Again, this directly links a police state with compulsory vaccinations.

I also suggest you read, In the Wake of Terror By Jonathan D. Moreno [[7]] particularly pages 62-63. And also [[8]],

Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the British Medical Association, said forcing parents to have children immunised was 'morally and ethically dubious' and would go 'beyond the nanny state to a police state'.

So, if you had read the references, you would see that compulsory vaccinations are a characteristic trait of a police state. The US and UK have a great deal of the traits that define a police state, I suggest you read the references of the article - I do not have the time to pull out the key points for your benefit on every reference.

No, Wiki editors are not supposed to ruthlessly delete information that they do not feel belongs in an article. Wiki editors are supposed to check the information that is provided in an article, if the information is not valid then it may be deleted. You have not spent the time doing this. You are simply removing information to suit your political motives.

I suggest that you search for another "definition" of a police state. I can confidently assure you, that the one provided is the best available. If you would like to contribute, why not find some additional information that would expand the article and further a reader's knowledge.

Further to your other attempt to cause an argument, the enlightened absolutism section does not discuss "how enlightened the totalitarianism is". Enlightened absolutism was used by Robert von Mohl to directly contrast a Police state with a regular state which has rule of law. Autocracy ("regular absolutism") is essentially totalitarianism, yes, but differs subtly from Enlightened absolutism. As enlightened absolutism is the medium through which a police state was first defined against an ordinary state, it is extremely obvious as to why it should be included in the article. Tachyon502 (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, id like to thank you for providing direct quotes to support your ideas, knowing exactly what part of a reference supports your claim makes it easy for any editor to understand the basis of your commentary. Secondly, I requested we start the conversation anew because I felt I was being uncivil and unproductive diff, so, in light of that, I would ask that you also remain civil to me. This is an article about police states, not me or my edits to some other page, so please focus on the edits not the editor.
Secondly, there is nothing wrong with removing content that does not fit an article, or violates the rules of wikipedia. Some editors focus on adding content they feel enhances or improves and article, others focus on removing content they feel detracts from an article, both are valid editing styles.
Moving on to the article, your citation (a) does not support the claim that the US is moving toward a police state, the jacobson case was decided by the supreme court, not by the executive. Recall that one element of a police state is the lack of distinction between the law and the exercising of political power by the executive, here the judicial decided compulsory vaccinations are a valid expression of govt. power independent of the executive's desires. Remember, this is not an article about totalitarianism or authoritarianism, where discussion of compulsory vaccinations would be appropriate. I really dont see how vaccinations are a restriction on freedom of expression. What sort of expression? In the US and UK, you can still say "I dont like compulsory vaccinations" or "compulsory vaccinations are wrong", that's expression, not getting vaccinated is not expression, unless you think getting polio is a form of expression. Likewise with your claim that vaccinations are a rigid and repressive control over people's social life. How so?
Citation (b) has the same problems as (a), it really doesnt support the claim of repression.
Citation (c) is most likely incorrect. Check Vaccination policy, it points out that the jacobson case you site above was decided in 1905, long before the Nazi regime.
I can see citing "in the wake of terror" but this gets to a problem alluded to earlier, what does it take to call a nation a police state? The section Examples of police state-like attributes says that the classification of something as a police state is flawed and debatable, i feel, given that, that we should focus on those states which are obviously police states, avoid the debatable ones and take out a bunch of the weasel words in this section. Consider the Ron Paul quote, I respect Ron Paul's opinion, but doesn't it take a bit more than that to prove the US is a police state?
Moving on to the portion about enlightened absolutism, if its obvious to you why it should be included, perhaps you can rewrite the section so that it is clear what the connection is, because I really dont get what is trying to be said in the enlightened absolutism section.
Tell you what, why dont you rewrite the enlightened absolutism section and ill rewrite the Examples of police state-like attributes section? If we dont like the result, we can always revert it back and discuss further. Bonewah (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

FAO Bonewah: "If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag."

"Probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually conformed to the NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one POV had actually been said."

"For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect their own bias enough."

[[9]]

MrCrickity (talk) 14:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality (continued from Archive 3)

All I can say is... Wow. Wow. One more time. Wow. This article was rapidly moving toward a reliable, subjective reference on the term "police state", and the POV warrior have swept in and once again wreaked havoc. Now the US even mysteriously has its own titled subsection. Even if we were to assume that the UK and the US were modern police states, why is the US in its own section and UK in included in the main part? Our goal above all else should be to create articles as NPOV as possible. Including a list of current day police states does little to add to the article, especially compared to the huge amount of controversy and POV accusations it incites. Yes, references have been found to support these concepts, but simply being able to find a reference alone does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. As tempting as reverting the entire article to its pre-list is, I will again open it up to discussion (as I did when the list was first removed). Let us in this discussion consider how an entity such as the Department of Homeland Security apparently earned a nod, but nowhere do we see KGB, or Gestapo. (Check [Secret Police] if you wonder why I mention them). 220.70.250.246 (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the previous edit by Agorist. A quick look at the sources show that they were all from a politically biased site - they were not reputable news outlets or political journal articles. Indeed, giving the US its own section is really... Wow! A ridiculous amount of bias. The article is now far more neutral. The problem appears to now be preventing people from removing this list, contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on Systematic Bias [[10]] and Information Suppression [[11]]. The factuality of the article is now fantastic. It is just unfortunate that the POV warriors appear to be the people trying to delete this reliable, topical and well-sourced section from the article. Tachyon502 (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I applaud your stream lining of the "list" section as it were. It is at least a good step toward a POV stance for the article. However, I am still not feeling as if the modern day list is complete. At this point we include North Korea, Cuba, US, and UK. France? (http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/2007/04/france_as_a_police_state.cfm) (The Economist defiantly a good source). Canada? (www.planetfriendly.net/police.html), (www.cyberclass.net/policestate.htm). Russia? Well just Google "Russia as a police state" there is too many to list here. Soooo... where is the NPOV? It is right here. All these very well referenced sources get no mention, but certain countries have been cherry picked for inclusion. This would of course bring us back to the original concept of focusing the article on merely definition rather than "listing". As always I will make no edits, but rather open it up to discussion. As for MrCrickity's comment, removing the banner should have been a consensus decision, simply because you chose to do so should not mean that it is now in the admins hands, I patently disagree with your statement. 220.70.250.246 (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Got rid of the banner. The page is really good and is neutral. If you don't like it ask an admin, stop pushing your POV. Read the site's guidelines. MrCrickity (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the POV banner. IP is above is right, you cant just wipe it away on a whim and I feel the article is biased anyway. Bonewah (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Enlightened absolutism: What is the point of this section?

What is the purpose of the Enlightened absolutism section in this article? We already say that a police state is usually associated with totalitarianism, what is the point in discussing how enlightened the totalitarianism is? Bonewah (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is political science and provides historical information for the reader on the development of the concept of a police state. Tachyon502 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That is a total non-answer. Saying that it is "political science" does not speak to the relevance in this article, nor does the reference provide any actual history as you claim. Again I ask, what is the point in discussing enlightened absolutism separate from regular absolutism? Bonewah (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, unregistered user making a complaint...

The lines describing 1984 by George Orwell, specifically "that continuously invokes (and helps to create) a perpetual war. This perpetual war is used as a pretext for subjecting the people to mass surveillance and invasive police searches. " spoiled the book for me. I have read the wikipedia policy on spoilers, however I did not expect to have the major plots points of a book revealed to me when I was reading about police states.

Why not write : "George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four describes Britain under a socialist totalitarian régime. The state destroys not only the literal freedom after action and thought meant by expressions like "freedom of thought", but also literal freedom of thought.", as that doesn't ruin the book for anyone reading this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.202.145 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your concern, but I can assure you that whilst the perpetual war is a significant characteristic of the police state portrayed in 1984 - it is only a minor component of the book's synopsis. The plot is far more advanced and sophisticated than to be ruined in a single paragraph. The best thing in the book is the part where the main character goes to the... just joking! Please read the book, it is great and George Orwell is an excellent writer. 128.232.237.98 (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sex Offender Laws?

Would something like Jessica’s Law to require GPS tracking of people that could effect people who had consensual sex (Prositiution/Romeo and Juliet) be a sign that states in America are leaning towards becoming Police states? --MahaPanta (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Attributes and examples

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why is surveillance in the United States called an attribute of a police state, when in the United Kingdom it is commonplace? There are better examples of mass surveillance. I'm not saying US can't be placed here, but I didn't find it to make sense said that way. (Some may say PATRIOT Act, however the use of this is geared toward different things)

I don't think it's right to put opinions of a single representative or a consensus of a marginalized group who (1) are not experts (2) have no evidence to prove it; it's an opinion. Ron Paul is indeed politician, however he is also an OBGYN with no expertise in the area. Even if he was, he would only be one expert, not a team of them.

--Drinkadrink (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note the section is titled "Examples of police state-like attributes" and NOT 'examples of police states'. Hence, as with your discussion of the patriot act, you have answered your own question with regard to the reasons for its conclusion. A US congressman is hardly a marginalised person! Please also see the additional references. Tachyon502 (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Police_state/Archive_2&oldid=812970064"