| Revision as of 19:56, 28 December 2005 editRosensteel (talk | contribs)35 edits Cleanup← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:34, 16 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,198 edits Assessment: banner shell, Politics, Psychology, Human rights (Top) (Rater) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= |
|
==Inclusion of the US== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|social=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Top}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{split article|from=Police state|to=List of fictional police states|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Police_state&diff=512254506&oldid=512251632|date=13 September 2012}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(730d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Police state/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Afghanistan == |
|
I think that the remarks on the US are going overboard. This is a discussion of police states in general, not of the Bush administration's policies. ] 14:15, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree entirely. I'm about as big of a critic of this administration as they come, but I see no compelling reason to include the US under GWB as an example of an 'alleged police state'. I'm going to give this some time for discussion, but if there is no compelling reason to leave it I am going to consider that line for removal. As it stands, it only hurts the credibility of the article in question. I could reasonably see some information regarding current US policy in a more complete and contextual article, but given the nature of the article as it stands it is simply inappropriate IMO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The paragraph on Afghanistan is poorly written (in a way that makes it hard to understand exactly what is being said), unsourced, unlikely to be factual »most people disappear« and why would the Taliban special police themselves say that the taliban government commits various severe crimes? ] (]) 08:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
Wouldn't the picture of the Department of Justice be more appropriate in a section on the Department of Justice (or possibly the US Patriot Act). The picture seems to imply that the US '''is''' a police state which I believe would not be in the NPOV. Maybe a picture of a historic building of the Stasi would be more appropriate (although I don't know enough about the Stasi to know objectively if they had created a police state). I am fairly inexperienced here, so I could use an explanation of why the picture is or is not NPOV. --] 06:36, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:It seems that although the paragraphs regarding the US have been cut, the picture was left in. I'm removing it. ] |
|
|
::That's unfortunate. That picture was way cool and really gave a "police state" feeling. Can't we keep it? --] 05:42, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Article is biased == |
|
I took the picture, its a real picture. Im not implying that the US is a police state. Think of the picture as a description of what a police state is, rather than something that says the US is or is not a police state. I took a trip to DC, and while I was there we walked by the US DOJ building. The entire building was surrounded by this barbed wire fencing. Then I saw what was carved on the building. Whether the US is a police state or not is irrelevant. This picture shows a representation of what a police state FEELS like. Justice is cut off from the populace by the state. Leave the picture in, but without a caption of what the building is. |
|
|
] 17:32, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This article is biased toward left wing politics. Fix. Make it neutral. ] (]) 05:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
"The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. . . . The Ministry of Love was the really frightening one. There were no windows in it at all. Winston had never been inside the Ministry of Love, nor within half a kilometre of it. It was a place impossible to enter except on official business, and then only by penetrating through a maze of barbed-wire entanglements, steel doors, and hidden machine-gun nests. Even the streets leading up to its outer barriers were roamed by gorilla-faced guards in black uniforms, armed with jointed truncheons." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:@] super agree with this, it didn't list a single Communist state as an example of a police state but instead chose Cuba before Castro holy ] (]) 05:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Unfortunately since the inscription is in English, an attentive reader will guess even without a caption that the building is probably in the United States or Britain, and may well reasonably think we are implying that one of those countries is a police state. I understand what you're saying, but the only way to make that clearly understood to readers would be to add a disclaimer to the caption. e.g. "This picture is only meant to give the feel of a police state, and does not come from an actual police state." That's not really acceptable, so I guess we're left with no choice but to remove the picture. Regrettable, since it was a great picture, but NPOV trumps everything else. I hope it can be used in some other article, though. --] 04:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::@] sorry I should say it does list but the part about the ussr is two sentences and it says that the police state ended after Batista with the establishment of Marxist leninism ] (]) 05:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== Economics meaning == |
|
|
|
|
|
In economics, a Police State is one whose only intervention in the economy is the creation of laws and rules which help the market structure. Shouldn't this be added to the article? |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of categories == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed three categories from the article, on the basis that 'Police state' isn't part of any of them (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, for example, might be said to fall under the category of Police State, but not ''vice versa''). ] 09:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Alas, the article as it now stand, has become very thin. Some discussion of 19th police-states (Tsarist Russia, for example, and also France and the monarchies of Central Europe) would be useful. It seems that in many parts of Europe political policing is as old as the beginnings of modern policing itself. At what point does a state with a political police become a police-state? JohnC |
|
|
|
|
|
== A Problem == |
|
|
|
|
|
Alas, the article as it now stand, has become very thin. Some discussion of 19th police-states (Tsarist Russia, for example, and also France and the monarchies of Central Europe) would be useful. It seems that in many parts of Europe political policing is as old as the beginnings of modern policing itself. At what point does a state with a political police become a police-state? JohnC |
|
|
|
|
|
== Adding supposed examples == |
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid editors adding the names of states they don't like, could they propose them here first, giving reasons for their proposals? I've just removed Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Syria; to the best of my knowledge, whatever one might say against these three, none of them is a police state. ] (] 21:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Victims of police states == |
|
|
|
|
|
The (tidied up) text, which I've moved here, was: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>Some victims of repression have become well known; examples include:<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
<nowiki>*</nowiki> ]'s wife, ], was raped on ] ] by a neo-] gang on orders from the Italian ]. The facts were proved only after twenty-five years, when the statutory terms were expired, and no one could be indicted.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
Is this section useful? It seems open-ended and pretty dubious to me. ] (] 3 July 2005 22:09 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== North Korea and Ancient Rome == |
|
|
|
|
|
Ancient Rome, particularly after the fall of the Senate and the rise of the Caesars and Emperors, may well have been the first Police State in history, and should likely be mentioned here. Also, North Korea carries many if not all of the characteristics of an Atheist Police State, and should likely also be mentioned. --] 17:05, 22 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reworking == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is to explain some of the changes that I made to the page. First, I added a long section on the history of "police state", which was based largely on the German edition of this article. Second, I removed the section entitled "examples." This was simply begging for everyone to nominate their pet police state to the list. Interesting examples might be added to the history section (I discuss the US-USSR exchange of "no, you're a police state" there), but I'm not sure how many examples might be useful. |
|
|
|
|
|
As to nitpicking: |
|
|
* Imperial Rome might be a police state in one sense (i.e., it wasn't liberal), but it was by and large characterized by the rule of law. All the lawful imperia just happened to be concentrated in one man. It was not, however, a time of jack-booted thugs, and the major legal reforms which became the basis of the civil law tradition occurred under it. |
|
|
* Saying that police states speak in terms of "terrorism" and "terrorists" is historically inaccurate. Insisting that this is true is just a way to violate ]. |
|
|
* Putting the USA Patriot Act, US government offices, etc., also willfully contemns ]. |
|
|
* While ] was an alternative to the ], linking "police state" with ] is probably going a bit too far, even if we consider North Korea to be just an atheistic ''form'' of a police state. |
|
|
|
|
|
-- ] <sup>]</sup> 04:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''addendum''' I've removed a restored reference to the US and GB. First, can the claim be stated while ]? Which is to say, If the source of this opinion is identified, is that source one that we would take as authoritative regarding what constitutes a police state? Second, the fact that some people may think that the US is becoming a police state may be true: but does this in any way tell the reader anything about what a police state is? Does the addition of this example clarify the article? Or does it only state the editor's view of the US (and GB)? The fact that this statement might be related to the content of the article does not make it appropriate for the article: I might think that ] is ] — many discerning people think so — but does mentioning in the article on noise that many people consider Run-D.M.C. to be noise sound like an encyclopedia?. --] <sup>]</sup> 04:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree with not allowing the US to be mentioned. It does NOT violate NPOV as it doesn't state it as fact. Whenever there is a large amount of support behind an opinion, it should be included in the Wiki, whether people happen to agree with it or not. The comparison has a lot of support and so long as it isn't state as fact, it's not POV. For support for this view, a simple search for "patriot act" + "police state" will suffice. Whether it's a comforting thought or not, a lot of evidence backs this view. I also think it deserves inclusion here because Misplaced Pages isn't a dictionary. This article serves a larger purpose then merely informing people of the meaning. Modern societies that have been compared to Police States are relevant here. |
|
|
EDIT: Excellent source, straight from an official US site no less. -- Harpalus |
|
|
:What I gather from your source is that not even ] thinks the USA is a police state, though he worries it may be moving in that direction...--] 08:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Harpalus, I have no doubt that a lot of people think that the US is (or is becoming) a police state. That is not enough for its inclusion in an article to be NPOV. The ''relevance'' of that fact to the article may depend entirely on a POV. Again, it is perfectly true that a lot of people consider Run-D.M.C. to be noise. It is a fact. But putting this fact in the article on noise violates NPOV. How is this case different? --] <sup>]</sup> 15:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you keep referring to a "Run-D.M.C.?" From what I can gather, they're a hip-hop music group, but they seem to have little to do with America becoming/being a police state. -- Harpalus |
|
|
|
|
|
: Ah, how old I feel. Run-D.M.C. was indeed a band (though I think they're still releasing albums). I was making an analogy. Many people criticized them as not being musicians, stating that their music was just noise. Some people call the U.S. a police state. Making reference to this opinion in the police state article, however, even though limited only to a statement of verifiable fact, is no less the advancement of a POV than making reference to the opinion about Run-D.M.C. in the article on noise. If you accept the impropriety of one, you must accept the impropriety of the other, or show the analogy to be flawed. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::(] stopped performing in 2002 on the death of Jam Master Jay. --] 02:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I accept your analogy for the most part, except that the articles are in two very different categories. People reading the article on "noise" would not be likely to find "examples" of noise helpful. People reading the article on a Police state, however, would likely find accusations of being a police state helpful. A reference to Run-D.M.C. in the noise article would not serve any useful purpose, whereas persons researching Police state would find the reference to America, and other countries who have been compared to one useful, as the meaning of "police state" refers not only to a government model, and is far more importance then an accusation of "noise" against a band. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Newbish question. Is there a simple way to append the time and date? -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
A fellow newbie! Harpalus, if you sign your comment with four tildes (~) instead of three, the time and date are appended. As to the question at hand, if there's some important meaning of "police state" that the article as revised by RJC doesn't capture (since, as you rightly say, it "refers not only to a government model"), by all means add it--and if the USA and UK are really the best examples of that meaning, or even just clear examples, by all means adduce them. But isn't it true what RJC says at the end of the present edit, that "in non-scholarly usage, however, it is something of a bogeyman, summoned to represent all that is feared and/or hated concerning a particular regime"? And do purported examples really help where a term is so abused?--] 22:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:An afterthought, too: in the article as written, the USA is already the ''only'' extant regime against which any accusations of police-statehood are noted.--] 22:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Definition == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a slightly different definition of a police state to the ones presented in the main article. |
|
|
|
|
|
"The defining characteristic of a police state is that the police exercise power on behalf of the executive and the conduct of the police cannot be effectively challenged" Mr Von Doussa |
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer this one because it's specific and it explains the sometimes subtle distinction between a dictatorship and a police state. |
|
|
|
|
|
What do people think? |
|
|
|
|
|
Regards, ] 06:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Reworking== |
|
|
|
|
|
I have used a definition of the police state as per "The Penguin English Dictionary". |
|
|
|
|
|
Much of the repetition, I have removed. |
|
|
|
|
|
The discusion of liberalism, I have trimmed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Extra section headings, I have added. |
|
|
|
|
|
The long list of See Also I have trimmed. Most are referenced in the text. The others can be reached through the references that remain, expect perhaps van Vogt. (Why was he in the list?) |
|
|
|
|
|
Regards, ] 05:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
#The definition is fine (so long as it's not too close to the dictionary). |
|
|
#I haven't had time to check the nature of the repetitions; this has been a controversial article, so don't be surprised if someone objects. |
|
|
#The same for liberalism. |
|
|
#] |
|
|
#I've removed the rather surprising misdescription of Hobbes (for whom the purpose of the sovereign is to maintain the covenant by protecting each of his subjects against the others), corrected some typos, wikified a date, etc. --] (] 10:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Looks good. Thanks for improving my improvements. :-) ] 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
="the United States of America, especially under George W. Bush" - a good example of a police state?= |
|
|
Hey guys. It seems to me that this article loses some of its credibility by basing the listed examples on anti-conservative or specifically anti-Bush sentiments. Surely there are less arguable and more self-evident examples of what one might define as modern-day police states? Even if "the United States of America - especially under George W. Bush" is to remain in the list of "good examples" of this particular phenomenon, it would certainly give this article a huge boost if the other examples are not taken from the history books, thus making it look like the authors of this article simple were unable to think of any other good example than "the United States of America - especially under George W. Bush". Perhaps our readers will take this article a bit more seriously. Just a thought here... '';]'' //] 18:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
: That contributor has recently been blocked for vandalism; I think you caught the article on a bad <code>curid</code>. :P -- ] <i><sub>]</sub></i> 22:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I'm glad to see that this has gotten worked out. If anyone were interested in adding information concerning trends in modern liberal states that they feel constitute a creeping police state, I could possibly see that handled properly... so long as it isnt done in a specifically partisan matter. For example mentioning British plans for mandatory ID cards, British plans to actively track car travel, National ID proposals in the US, wiretapping issues, etcetera. Current events issues shouldnt be completely removed, but it must be done in a very careful and impartial manner. ] 19:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
The paragraph on Afghanistan is poorly written (in a way that makes it hard to understand exactly what is being said), unsourced, unlikely to be factual »most people disappear« and why would the Taliban special police themselves say that the taliban government commits various severe crimes? 2001:2042:7900:C180:6C8E:EB20:98E9:3682 (talk) 08:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
