Talk:Police state/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Police State (2)

I think we should start a new section on talk (it gets way to confusing to have such a long section).

My objections to the recent edit:

"Numerous organizations and experts point out..." should be "argue" instead of "point out"

"Specifically, the Act violates..." should be "that the Act..."

"The ACLU claims" should be "argue" (stronger word)

"these illegal practices" take out "illegal"

"which is being opposed by nine states and has been deemed unconstitutional by a New York Judge, since among other things it allows for the indefinite detention or even killing of American Citizens without trial violating the Sixth Amendment," Should be moved--we should just know what it is first before we know it's being opposed

"it is also claimed" again, "argued" is stronger

"Another example of the dwindling rights" This needs to be changed, and 'dwindling' is a rather pedestrian/unprofessional word for this site (in this sort of context)

I have no other objections. However, you should wait for input from Nidhiki. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2012

Thank you for the input I will correct them now; to save space I will wait for Nidhiki to put specific objections like you have done before I repost the entire section with corrections to be re-evaluated. Jack T. Tripper (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting very irritated at having to weed through all of this material repeatedly, only to see my objections ignored. I have given numerous factual issues with the entire thing including numerous, specific examples of OR, SNYTH, bad sources and presenting opinion as fact. I went through the entire thing just recently and this is the last time I will be going through the whole thing before I try to bring it outside discussion.

"Numerous organizations and experts point out that since 9/11 various legislation has been passed that partially or fully nullifies elements of the guaranteed rights of citizens of the United States found in the Bill of Rights. The Patriot Act was the first example and it was rushed through Congress and signed into law soon after the attacks of 9/11 [86] [87]." The only claim supported by the citations is that the bill was ruled unconstitutional by a judge. Additionally, the whole thing presents as fact, not the opinion that it really is.

"Specifically, the Act violates in full or partially the First Amendment (freedom of speech), the Fourth Amendment (freedom from unreasonable search) and the Sixth Amendment (right to due process), and thus has been used to illegally limit or stop the free speech of individuals, to illegally search a person's property and papers without a warrant, and to deprive people the right to a fair trial [88] [89] [90]." Citation 88 is bad because it doesn't support the claim. Citation 89 is unacceptable as an opinion piece by students, not experts, at a university. Citation 90 is an opinion piece and needs to be represented as such.

"The ACLU claims major problems in the Patriot Act as it violates a number of personal freedoms including allowing agents to breaking into a house and search it without the owners knowledge and they never have to tell the people who own the property that it was searched, this practice is called "sneak and peaks" and the ACLU says, "There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely.[91] [92]" For the most part this is fine... But it once again slips into presenting opinion as fact, which it isn't.

"Although presented as a means of protection from terrorists, these illegal practices have been used more than 11,000% more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists [93], including drug cases, and political opponents and protesters [94]." Once again, presents opinion as fact with statements like "illegal practices".

"Additionally, legislation such as the NDAA, which is being opposed by nine states and has been deemed unconstitutional by a New York Judge, since among other things it allows for the indefinite detention or even killing of American Citizens without trial violating the Sixth Amendment, it is also claimed to violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments [64] [95] [96] [97]." Citation 95 is not reliable. Once again presents opinion as fact.

"Another example of the dwindling rights in America is the limiting of, or harassment for, traveling, and critics say this is being done by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) by setting up road blocks, making travel difficult or impossible through bureaucracy and hard to get papers required for travel, and subjecting would be travelers to embarrassing, dangerous or painful practices and have been harshly criticized for implementing these 'security' prerequisites for traveling that include forcing travelers to endure dangerous [98] [99] radiating body scanners (called 'naked body scanners' because scanner reveals the traveler on screen with no clothes), the alternative to the scanner is having an invasive 'pat down' where travelers genitals are touched (a crime in all states, and something even police cannot do without probable cause), including 'pat downs' of children (a more serious crime) [100] [101] [102]." Citations 98, 99, and 100 are unreliable; particularly bad is 99, PressTV, which is Iran's state television network (incidentally from an actual police state not covered here). Once again, opinion is presented as fact.

"The TSA was placed at airports initially but have been expanding from air travel to other travel such as trains, subways, and highways and are even doing the 'pat downs' for security to events [103] [104]." This is fine, nothing wrong here.

"Another indicator of America being a police state is a Government that unreasonably and/or illegally spies on its own people, which experts and whistleblowers say is something the US Government is involved in violating privacy and constitutional law. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Security Administration (NSA) are monitoring all American citizens, including all internet activity, phone calls, texts, emails, banking and travel information and are compiling and saving this data, blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment [105] [106]." Citation 105 is not reliable and 106 is an opinion piece. Original research and presenting opinion as fact are rampant.

Ok, so please don't add any of this. This is simply not acceptable material and needs far more than a minor tune-up. Toa Nidhiki05 19:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Ok, so please don't add any of this." As in "don't add it up"? As in, "don't go over it"? If so, I find that to be very hostile and unnecessary. Please maintain good etiquette.

"The only claim supported by the citations..." What if the relevant content gets changed to "argue" or "have argued"?

"For the most part this is fine..." If it is scrubbed of presenting opinion as fact, is it ok?

"Citation 95 is not reliable." Do you believe the others (64, 96, 97) are reliable?

"Citations 98, 99, and 100 are unreliable" Do you believe the others (101, 102) are reliable? (talk) 11 September 2012

No, as in "don't add any of this into the article at this point because it isn't good".

"Argue" of "Have argue" only work if it notes the writer of the opinion and that one of them was a judge ruling against it. The first source even argues that the bill has good parts, so judging all of it bad is not applicable. It should probably be left out because most of it is OR and SYNTH.

I needs to note the ACLU's opinion and nothing more, and then it is fine.

The only citations I am saying are unreliable are specifically mentioned. I checked each one and noted the bad ones, but keep in mind most of the claims the citations are 'supporting' are OR, and many claims simply aren't backed after bad citations are removed. I'll work on mine - until then, please don't add anything to the article. Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is my proposal:

United States

Some analysts and individuals have argued that bills such as the USA Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are unconstitutional violations of privacy, in violation of the Bill of Rights. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have opposed the USA Patriot Act and parts of the bill were later ruled unconstitutional by a judge. The NDAA has also been opposed, due to provisions allowing the indefinate detention and killing of American citizens. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been sharply criticized by Senator Rand Paul and The Guardian columnist Jennifer Abel for its practices.

Short, simple, and to the point - no OR, no SYNTH, and it doesn't attribute opinion as fact. Toa Nidhiki05 20:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that's too brief and distilled (example: opposed by whom?). But I'm sure we can synthesize our two proposals, and then add some more stuff (like about how various states have opposed it). (talk) 11 September 2012

References

Proposal

(I was just writing this)

Numerous organizations and legal experts argue that since 9/11 various legislation has been passed that partially or fully nullifies elements of the rights of American citizens found in the Bill of Rights. The ACLU also argues that the Patriot Act violates a number of personal freedoms, including allowing agents to breaking into a house and search it without the owners knowledge and they never have to tell the people who own the property that it was searched, this practice is called "sneak and peaks" and the ACLU says, "There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely." These practices have been used more than 11,000% more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists, including against drug dealers and political protesters. Furthermore, the ACLU argues that legislation such as the NDAA violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2012

This is good but I would like to see the TSA in here (and there are MANY people that object not just 2 people as Toa's article suggests, in fact the Texas House voted unanimously to stop the TSA 'groping' and it is a national issue..., I'd also like to see indefinite detention and killing of Americans under NDAA and possibly adding that there is evidence that there is a kill list and American teenager was killed in a drone strike ordered by Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/06/ben-swann-local-ohio-repo_n_1861943.html, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/18/us-citizens-drone-strike-deaths). I think it's important to show the vast spying on Americans and I can come up with additional sources that tell about Echelon and many other examples of this spying network. I also think the prison population reference is a good point, Infragaurd is relevant and very similar to the Stasi IMO, and how the media is controlled another valid point that points to a police state.

I was thinking that instead of having a bunch of subsections that I was proposing before I think a concise single section that has all the issues I brought up would be more effective (but we would have to change the subsection name because they aren't all constitutional), but if we want a constitutional section I think we should combine it with the one sentence subsection of Free speech zones. So maybe there should be three sections Constitutional, Militarization of police, Other issues... Jack T. Tripper (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That all sounds good. I'm afraid I don't have very specific ideas about how to handle this at the present time. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2012

How about this?

Numerous organizations and legal experts argue that since 9/11 various legislation has been passed that partially or fully nullifies elements of the rights of American citizens found in the Bill of Rights. The ACLU also argues that the Patriot Act violates a number of personal freedoms, including allowing agents to breaking into a house and search it without the owners knowledge and they never have to tell the people who own the property that it was searched, this practice is called "sneak and peaks" and the ACLU says, "There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely." These practices have been used more than 11,000% more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists, including against drug dealers and political protesters. Furthermore, the ACLU argues that legislation such as the NDAA violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments and is conscripted to allow for the indefinite detention of and killing of American citizens. Further arguments that America has become a police state point to the prison population which is higher in total number of prisoners and prisoners per 100,000 people than any other country, despite being merely 5% of the world population and being a fourth the size of other countries such as China (which is a claimed police state). An electronic police state is present in America and is often pointed out to be the most advanced electronic police state, with high tech spying operations such as ECHELON, and whistle-blowers claim that every American is being spied on including all internet activity, phone calls, texts, emails, banking and travel information and are compiling and saving this data, blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment. Aside from an army brigade assigned to the homeland a civilian force called Infragard, which uses business people, civilians and others to spy on clients, and members of the community and report to the FBI , having over 40,000 members it has been criticized by the ACLU saying there "is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate (Terrorism Information and Preventing System) TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations - some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers - into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI", other critics call this the equivalent of the East German Stasi. The last indicators that the US could be becoming a police state is the control over travel and the media, specifically the TSA has been criticized for its procedures of forcing passengers to endure a 'Naked body scanner' or 'Invasive pat down' which have spread from the airport to highways, trains, and other means of transportation , and critics say the media is unbiased being influenced by government similar to the 1950's Operation Mockingbird and there are proven instances of the government paying journalists to report on certain stories from a particular viewpoint.

Jack T. Tripper (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this is pretty condensed from what was first proposed it might make sense to drop the subsections altogether and add the militarization of police and free speech zones into one entry, what do you guys think? If you think it could be a good idea I will add them all together and repost here. Jack T. Tripper (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

One--that's a 'block paragraph', so it needs to get split up.

Other than "An electronic police state is present in America" (neutrality problem), everything else looks good from what I can tell.

I'd prefer to have the subsections. Byelf2007 (talk) 11 September 2012

Splitting it up into appropriate paragraphs is good with me.

I only worded the electronic police state that way because in the wiki article on the subject under examples it states that the US is an advanced electronic police state and probably the greatest in the world, so I would think stating so is ok here but am open to change it if you really think it should be.

Subsections are fine with me, but I think we should consider changing this subsection name as not all the issues are constitutional in nature. If we want a constitutional section then we could combine all of the above constitutional portions with the free speech zone portion and leave the rest in an 'other claims' (or another alternate named) subsection.

Jack T. Tripper (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal 9/12

My proposal:

• Constitutional claims

Numerous organizations and legal experts argue that since 9/11 various legislation has been passed that partially or fully nullifies elements of the rights of American citizens found in the Bill of Rights. The ACLU also argues that the Patriot Act violates a number of personal freedoms, including allowing agents to breaking into a house and search it without the owners knowledge and they never have to tell the people who own the property that it was searched, this practice is called "sneak and peaks" and the ACLU says, "There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely." These practices have been used more than 11,000% more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists, including against drug dealers and political protesters.

Furthermore, the ACLU argues that legislation such as the NDAA violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments and is conscripted to allow for the indefinite detention of and killing of American citizens, and the Act is facing fierce opposition from the public and legally, currently (September 2012) there are nine states that have challenged the law in court and a New York Judge, Forrest, has been successful in placing an injunction on the law, however the Obama legal team and administration refuse to confirm that they will abide by the courts ruling, reporter Tangerine Bolen who is a plaintiff in the case states that the government could be in contempt of court saying, "Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest's injunction, in other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama's government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them.”.

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings in the United States with the stated purpose of protecting the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves, however critics suggest that such zones are "Orwellian" and a clear violation of the First Amendments right to speech and assemble peaceably. If there are Free Speech Zones then that means there are also zones where the Constitutionally protected First Amendment have been removed, clearly violating the First Amendments right and intent.

• Militarization of police

There has been a steady increase in the police being aided by and imitating the military including using their weapons and tactics. Established in 1878 the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for law enforcement and policing activities but this law has been continually violated as the military has been used for years for things such as DUI checkpoints and serving warrants in conjunction with the local or state police. Since 1990 the police have been militarized increasingly and Federal funding has helped this process with steep discounts for military gear for the police, and after 9/11 this militarization has quickened at a concerning rate. This militarization of the police force manifests as using military equipment, military style weapons such as assault rifles armored vehicles (often purchased from the military), helicopters and planes as well as the most recent addition, drones, all of which may be armed.

Two American lawmakers have stated on the record that, in their opinion, Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) legalizes or authorizes martial law in the United States, additionally Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) stated "These provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect...Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil."

• Other police state attributes

Other arguments that America has become a police state point to the prison population which is higher in total number of prisoners and prisoners per 100,000 people than any other country, the USA is merely 5% of the world population yet it contains about 1/4 of the worlds prison detainees, despite having populations much smaller than other countries such as China (which is a claimed police state).

An electronic police state is said to be present in America and is often pointed out to be one of the most advanced electronic police states, with high tech spying operations such as ECHELON, and whistle-blowers claiming that every American is being spied on including all internet activity, phone calls, texts, emails, banking and travel information and are compiling and saving this data, blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment.

Aside from an army brigade assigned to America (something that has never happened in our countries history) a civilian force called Infragard, which uses business people, civilians and others to spy on clients, and members of the community and report to the FBI , having over 40,000 members it has been criticized by the ACLU saying there "is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate (Terrorism Information and Preventing System) TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations - some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers - into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI", other critics call this the equivalent of the East German Stasi.

The last indicators that the US could be becoming a police state is the control over travel and the media, specifically the TSA has been criticized for its procedures of forcing passengers to endure a 'Naked body scanner' or 'Invasive pat down' which have spread from the airport to highways, trains, and other means of transportation , and critics say the media is not being unbiased and is influenced by government similar to the 1950's Operation Mockingbird and there are proven instances of the government paying journalists to report on certain stories from a particular viewpoint. Jack T. Tripper (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I put this in a subsection.

That looks pretty good (except for very minor grammar/format stuff).

The only significant problems I have are:

(Constitutional claims) The "Orwellian" reference (as is)--I think it should either be taken out or explained to the reader what it means.

"If there are Free Speech Zones..." violates neutrality. It should be "critics argue", or, at least, the prose should be altered so it's clear to us that it's a continuation of their perspective (there are, for examples, laws pertaining to people not being able to stand up and say whatever they want during a trial if they're in the audience, but this is almost never regarded as a violation offreedom of speech).

(Militarization of police) I think "imitating" should be changed to something like "resembling the practices of".

"steep discounts" should be something like "large discounts".

Finally, there are some odd ways of starting paragraphs in (Other police state attributes):

"Other arguments that America has become a police state point to..." should be something like "Critics point to the fact".

"An electronic police state is said to be present..." by whom?

"Aside from an army brigade" That's a jarring way to start a paragraph. Something like "The ACLU has criticized... ...and for being the first instance in history of..." or similar.

"The last indicators..." is also jarring. I think you should just dive in with the 'indicators'.

I'd wait 24 hours for any additional objections (other than Nidhiki's below) before posting. After that, it's fine with me if you post this (with most or all of my proposed changes). I don't mind if there are minor grammar/format issues to fix when it gets posted. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 September 2012

I still see many of the same issues from the last bit - unreliable sources (145, 158), stating opinion as fact, repeated original research and synth. Aside from that, the content is still overtly long - the US is not regarded as a police state by scholars and thus to give so much focus on it violates WP:DUE. I'll see if I can condense this into two paragraphs at most, but this is far too long and many issues remain. Toa Nidhiki05 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"the content is still overtly long - the US is not regarded as a police state by scholars" All of them? And so what if it's not a popular notion, this is all important content (and presented in a fairly, though perhaps not sufficiently, concise manner). And as far as undue goes, why not just put in content that disagrees with the ACLU's interpretations? Byelf2007 (talk) 12 September 2012

Byelf thank you for the constructive criticism, I'll make the changes.

Tao: I've asked you two times previous and this will be the third maybe you will answer this time? Why is RT not an ok source? I can find other sources that will give the same information, corroborating the content of my material if need be, but they seem reputable to me and I don't see why you call them unreliable and then never give a reason when questioned about it. Once again you say the same thing, SYNTH and OR, and once again the question is where? I know about Americas police state not others so that's what I write about, how can essentially three paragraphs that are very valid be too much on an entire wiki page? If you think other sections are to short then expand them, but mine shouldn't have to be deleted because the others haven't' been fully developed yet. And you are wrong, politicians, professional groups like the ACLU, AND scholars have ALL said America is on the verge of or is a police state, and I can back that up, can you back up that no scholars (or others of importance) think the US is a police state? Jack T. Tripper (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

RT is not reliable partially because it is owned and funded by the Russian (police state) government and partially because has been sharply criticized for being a propoganda channel promoting pro-Kremlin ideas and conspiracy theories such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, New World Order conspiracy theories, and birther conspiracy theories. It simply is not an accurate source of information. I've given specific examples of OR and SYNTH in all of my previous assessments and they have been ignored. It isn't my job to back up that scholars don not think USA is a police state, it is yours to prove they do... And presenting sources owned by the Russian police state simply do not cut it.

As for size, read our policy on due weight - to put it simply, it is not balanced to include three paragraphs on the US when actual police states like Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China aren't covered. It is a minor claim and deserves maybe a paragraph, as I have proposed above:

United States

Some analysts and individuals have argued that bills such as the USA Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) are unconstitutional violations of privacy, in violation of the Bill of Rights. Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have opposed the USA Patriot Act and parts of the bill were later ruled unconstitutional by a judge. The NDAA has also been opposed, due to provisions allowing the indefinate detention and killing of American citizens. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been sharply criticized by Senator Rand Paul and The Guardian columnist Jennifer Abel for its practices.

This is my proposal and I stand by it. I am going to contact WikiProjects to help in this, to get some input on how to improve this. Toa Nidhiki05 19:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

as an outsider coming into this and a quick glance at the article, my first and overwhelming impression is that it appears that editors are playing fast and loose with WP:OR / WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK rather than sticking to what reliable sources have to say directly about the subject of the article "Police state". -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

With respect to which content, specifically? On what grounds? Please be specific.

"editors are playing fast and loose..." Ripper has been guilty of this, but I don't see why I am (this seems to be the implication, but all I'm doing here is constructive criticism and eliminating content rather than proposing new content). Anyway, it's easy to fix--just isolate which parts are bad and correct the mistakes.

There seems to be a general desire by Nidhiki to point out the flaws in this proposal, and then propose that we have an extremely condensed version, ignoring that s/he has not provided objections to all the content/sources s/he wants to take out in their proposed version. Just because there are a lot of problems with these proposals doesn't mean we ought to reject the content that hasn't been criticized (I realize there's also the UNDUE issue, but I feel compelled to point this out). We can have a version which doesn't have content/sources that's been objected to without condensing it *further*. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 September 2012

My comment was about the article as a whole not directed at any of the proposals here, which I have not looked at closely. One of the first sources I checked [17] said nothing that supported the content in the article except that people were arrested. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Understood. It still needs a lot of work to be sure. Byelf2007 (talk) 12 September 2012

refs

References

Analysis of Latest Proposal

I've started a new section to analyze the condensed version of the US Section for supposed police state characteristics. It is here to polish it to the best possible piece it can be. It started as a unprofessional piece with poor wording, bad sources, ect. And with the help of a few members (THANK YOU to those that actually tried to help me with specific examples and explanation of what I was doing wrong with the intent of helping me build my article into something that is worthy of being put on the main page and is factually accurate, and reads well! I understand we aren't all the way there (or maybe even close) but we are getting closer and I'm willing to put the time in to make it a great addition to the police state page.

Toa, I'm sorry if my frustration shown through on my last few posts to you but it seems you are not interested in helping me build my article rather you seem to want to shut down what I'm portraying even if it is by your own account factually accurate. You accused me of ignoring your advice which was not true because if you look up through the record above I DID change what you told me to with the exception of the RT sources because I asked you (multiple times) why RT couldn't be used and I left those in because you didn't respond until I forcibly asked you and pointed out your skipping of my query... I understand that you think RT is a propaganda source that is totally unreliable and a front for Russian state conspiracy and socialist agenda... I don't see it but I don't have to, the point is I can replace the points made from those two RT sources with mainstream sources so we can skip that and I will appease you again by taking out a source you don't like and replace with a source that still proves my point. I did ignore your last suggestions BECAUSE YOU SAID TO, so I don't understand why you would get upset that I did so on your request! As for your claim that NO scholars think America is close to or is a police state, of course you can't prove that point to do so you would have to have a great understanding of what all professors thought thus the reason I asked you to rove it ;) it's almost as silly as making the statement in the first place as how could you know that? The fact is you couldn't have, but instead of saying so, you could have taken five minutes and searched google to see if there was this kind of support from this demographic; I did (using some names of professors I've heard speak on the issue because I knew professors WERE talking about it, and below is a VERY SMALL sampling of some professors (not saying I agree with all or any of them on everything but they are out there) along with at least 3 politicians I can think of off the top of my head (Mark Udall, Ron Paul, Rand Paul), along with professional organizations like the ACLU that all say we are in or headed for a police state! The topic has been on the mainstream media and is being challenged on many fronts in courts going after the Patriot Act and the NDAA 2012, and the TSA by the Texas legislator and countless other lawsuits to the TSA... I could go on, but it should be apparent this isn't some remote issue that nobody talks about;

https://archive.org/details/NewWorldNotes235-PoliceStateUsa; "Has the US become a "police state" ... or are we just rapidly heading in that direction? Law professor Francis Boyle says we're already there, and it is dissenters--not "terrorists"--who are being targeted by the state. And we'll look at two recent reports documenting illegal and often violent acts by the New York Police Department--(1) in their CIA-assisted spying on Muslim citizens and (2) in their harassment of law-abiding Occupy Wall Street protesters. Francis Boyle interview excerpted from Jeff Blankfort's "Takes On the World" program"

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/when-did-dissent-become-crime-americas-police-state-steroids-conventions?paging=off; "When Did Dissent Become a Crime? America's Police State on Steroids at the Conventions - Alex S. Vitale, associate professor in sociology at Brooklyn College and author of City of Disorder and numerous reports on protest policing, told AlterNet that he pinpoints the “intense changes” in policing to the 1999 World Trade Organization Ministerial in Seattle that was disrupted by nonviolent protests. “Policing is more militarized or pre-emptive in depending on the department ... policing in the U.S. is very decentralized [and] the handling of protests is left to the local police.” At the 2000 RNC in Philadelphia, says Vitale, there was a “heavy police response, pre-emptive arrests, mass arrests, holding people on exorbitant bail.” In New York at the 2004 RNC, the police response was “pre-emptive,” as Vitale describes it, complete with “mass arrests, infiltration and surveillance.” In 2000 at the DNC in Los Angeles, the ACLU lambasted the LAPD for creating “an orchestrated police riot” after shooting tear gas and rubber bullets into a crowd at a rally for which organizers held a permit. Vitale says there was a “more militarized response” at the 2008 RNC in St. Paul. Vitale says: “Local officials want to minimize the level of dissent because to them, it’s all a very high-risk endeavor. They don’t want to get caught with the protests interrupting the events in any way. Vitale agrees there is an element of spectacle. He says the militarization of policing “communicates a symbolic message to participants and public that speaking out is dangerous and must be treated as a violent threat. The use of body armor and vehicles is almost never warranted. It communicates a message of fear and violence.”[...]“It’s a military zone. Jesus. It’s a war zone.” In the security state, democracy has withered. In Tampa during the Republican National Convention, what was known as the “free speech zone” was a portable stage on a crumbling road slicing through barren brownfields."

http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-politics/1489-chomsky-warns-of-risk-of-fascism-in-america; "Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America- “I’m just old enough to have heard a number of Hitler’s speeches on the radio,” he said, “and I have a memory of the texture and the tone of the cheering mobs, and I have the dread sense of the dark clouds of fascism gathering” here at home. Chomsky was speaking to more than 1,000 people at the Orpheum Theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, where he received the University of Wisconsin’s A.E. Havens Center’s award for lifetime contribution to critical scholarship. “The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime,” he said. He cited a statistic from a recent poll showing that half the unaffiliated voters say the average tea party member is closer to them than anyone else. “Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” Chomsky said. Their attitudes “are understandable,” he said. “For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy.” There is class resentment, he noted. “The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels,” he said. And Obama is linked to the bankers, Chomsky explained. “The financial industry preferred Obama to McCain,” he said. “They expected to be rewarded and they were. Then Obama began to criticize greedy bankers and proposed measures to regulate them. And the punishment for this was very swift: They were going to shift their money to the Republicans. So Obama said bankers are “fine guys” and assured the business world: ‘I, like most of the American people, don't begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.’ People see that and are not happy about it.” He said “the colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism” is what is fueling “the indignation and rage of those cast aside.” “People want some answers,” Chomsky said. “They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin.” Chomsky invoked Germany during the Weimar Republic, and drew a parallel between it and the United States. “The Weimar Republic was the peak of Western civilization and was regarded as a model of democracy,” he said. And he stressed how quickly things deteriorated there. “In 1928 the Nazis had less than 2 percent of the vote,” he said. “Two years later, millions supported them. The public got tired of the incessant wrangling, and the service to the powerful, and the failure of those in power to deal with their grievances.” He said the German people were susceptible to appeals about “the greatness of the nation, and defending it against threats, and carrying out the will of eternal providence.” When farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, and Christian organizations joined forces with the Nazis, “the center very quickly collapsed,” Chomsky said. No analogy is perfect, he said, but the echoes of fascism are “reverberating” today, he said. “These are lessons to keep in mind.”

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/12/from-america-to-amerika-end-game.html "From America to Amerika: The End Game - McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus, University of Minnesota Duluth "...NDAA, The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, if you haven’t heard, gives the U.S. military the authority to indefinitely detain without charge and incarcerate any American citizen on U.S. soil, for reasons and on grounds that the military does not have to disclose... The consequences of the “new” Pearl Harbor are now coming to their culmination in the complete abdication of our Constitution and the emplacement of a national security/police state. The question thus becomes what we should do about it." AND "The Ten Signs of an Impending Police State" Laurence Britt illuminates the fourteen characteristics of fascism (Britt 2003). And anyone who measures where the United States stands today against his fourteen criteria can well appreciate that we satisfy at least a dozen of those fourteen. But even more interesting for our occasion here is a piece by Alan Uthman (2006) talking the top ten signs of an impending U.S. police state, which in my judgment reflects where we appear to be heading. Listen to these ten, which I have reordered to emphasize the points that I consider most important: (10) Free speech zones.... (9) Electronic Voting Machines.... (8) The long war.... (7) The USA Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act, as I have already stated, has gutted the First, Fourth, and Sixth amendments. The Constitution is in shambles. (6) Signing Statements.... (5) High-ranking whistle blowers.... (4) Warrentless Wiretapping.... (3) The CIA Shakeup.... (2) Prison Camps..... (1) Internet Clampdown....."

And yes I know, some of these sources are not mainstream, they aren't meant for an article and some of the ideas I don't agree with but the reason they may not be on CNN is the portion I want to include about Operation Mockingbird and the paying off of journalists, if you catch my drift... if indeed this is going on you can bet your ass the government wouldn't approve such a story in any serious matter which is why news outlets outside their grasps like RT or PressTV break and host some of the most interesting and true news out there when it comes to the US that is.... Julian Assange is another example, he doesn't get the coverage to break the damning files he has on the US on mainstream (read controlled IMO) US stations, see?

And as far as your claims of OR and SYN on this latest write up let me remind you that the write up is the combination of YOUR and Byelf2007's summaries with what was already on the page (Militarization of police and Free speech zones) along with the some small references to the other points, some that you had approved. So instead of refusing to look at it why not give it a look and see if you still see OR or SYNTH or a citation credibility problem (I'm already fixing the RT for YOU). And if you do let's work together to come up with a reasonable solution, ok? And if you give suggestions I will have already removed the RT and replaced with mainstream sources because I HAVE been listening to the *good* advice you have given... and even if I don't think it is correct (like RT) I am willing to compromise and I think you should be willing to as well.

Now I hope we can get this out of the way and seriously devote time and energy to helping with the creation of a substantial US Police state article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack T. Tripper (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not a 'US Police state' article, this is the article on police states. I am interested in improving this article, which is why I made my example and have fully gone through your (only marginally different) proposals two times. You haven't changed the original research or snyth issues, which are a major concern. Many of you statements simply aren't backed up by sources. In short, it is a mess. I have looked at your proposal and, issues with OR, SYNTH, and unreliable sources aside, the prose is substandard and the claims not given to specific individuals. Another serious issue is that giving such large coverage to the US, which is not recognized by a police state by serious scholars and experts, while giving none to actual examples such as Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China is a clear violation of due weight.

I am willing to compromise, which is why I took the biggest and most reliably sourced claims and shortened them into a paragraph, removing OR and SNYTH issues while retaining the key points. The result is a short, concise, and to the point representation of concerns about the US becoming a police state.

I would say that it appears you have a serious conflict of interest on this subject, and while we all have biases, it appears you are not separating yours from your editing behavior. I would civilly and cordially suggest you recluse yourself from the article due to that; there isn't any issue with opinion or interest, but we have to edit from a neutral point of view. PressTV and RT are not reliable in any sense of the word - they are propoganda outfits run (rather ironically if you ask me ) by legitimate and widely recognized police states. Each of your 'scholarly' sources easily qualify as unreliable internet blogs - 9/11 Truthers like Fetzer (who irrationally assert that the Republican Party murdered Paul Wellstone) , New World Order conspiracists and left-wing radical blogs are not reliable sources. If you aren't able to recognize how these sources are clearly unreliable and have no place in a neutral encyclopedia, I do not see how you can edit on this article from a neutral point of view. Toa Nidhiki05 23:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read this; "And yes I know, some of these sources are not mainstream, they aren't meant for an article", do you not understand that those were to point out to YOU that scholars have repeatedly stated concerns of an American Police State, why don't YOU do a search for yourself and see? It's OK to admit you are wrong... It's not some fringe position and I have NO conflict of interest... 24.255.154.213 (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)(talk • contribs)

Yes, I read your comment. Did you read mine? If the source isn't reliable, it can't really be evidence for a position. Toa Nidhiki05 01:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok so when Ron Paul goes on RT and makes a statement that statement didn't exist, or can't be sourced as something he said because "RT is an unreliable source"? LOL swing and a miss! Jack24.255.154.213 (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

People give interviews with unreliable sources all the time, and you assume Ron Paul is an expert in some sort of field... Which he isn't. RT is not a reliable source, nor is PressTv, as both are owned by police states and serve as their state propaganda media. Toa Nidhiki05 01:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've already told you I will stop using RT and Press TV (Press was used but once) as sources, but are you still saying that no scholars have said a police state is coming or here in America? I've given several examples above from scholars including the reputable Noam Chompsky, but since it wasn't on Fox News or CNN that what he said on the non-mainstream article isn't quotable or doesn't count? 24.255.154.213 (talk) 01:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying it is not a viewpoint held by academia or experts. It is a fringe theory and must be treated as such. Toa Nidhiki05 02:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"have said a police state is coming or here in America?" These are two different things, and I think a better distinction is not "it's here" and "it's coming" (like we're talking like about people with crystal balls?).

"The US is a police state" is fringe. "The US is close to a police state and moving there pretty fast" is not fringe--we're talking ***A LOT*** of prominent reputable news sources, journalists, historians, and scholars. And I believe that what we're proposing here is the latter notion. It should be treated as a minority viewpoint, not fringe.

"it is not a viewpoint held by academia or experts." You mean, by any? That's the obvious implication to draw from that statement? Chomsky isn't academia or an expert? Should I go make a list of every academia/expert who thinks this way?

I really don't think discerning the answer to this issue is relevant here.

Let's just agree on a condensed version. How about about 4 paragraphs/16 sentences? Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2012

Four paragraphs is far too long considering no actual police states are covered in the article. Two at max, maybe eight sentences - that would be about double the size of my proposal. This puts it more in line with the other 'western claims' pieces and would (hopefully) prevent it from focusing too much on states that are not considered police states as opposed to ones that are.. Toa Nidhiki05 15:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a compromise is needed, I also agree that it is being talked about by news organizations (on a nearly daily basis), and that politicians, lawyers, civil liberty groups, scholars, historians, all are talking about this. Toa to help prove this isn't a fringe issue, go to google news, type in "America US "Police State"" and see how many articles are being written in the past few days and weeks, here are some including an entire section of the Huffington Posts website dedicated to the issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/america-commitment-laws-silencing_b_1874803.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/police-state http://www.policymic.com/articles/14549/ron-paul-warned-of-a-police-state-16-year-old-questioned-by-fbi-for-supporting-ron-paul http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/01/police-state-conventions/ http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021247605 http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/when-did-dissent-become-crime-americas-police-state-steroids-conventions http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/31-5 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-american-police-state-massive-expansion-of-domestic-spying-under-obama/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/03/travels-through-the-police-state/ ... many more... I have always been willing to compromise so I agree to this condensed version, it will give the minority (which is all the way up to 49% technically, I don't think it is that high but its most definitely higher than some people would think) the well deserved voice, and it is still under "claims" section so it's not as though it is even being called a police state outright. Also the condensed version will allow us to more easily make sure there is no synth OR, and sources are acceptable (to everyone). Jack T. Tripper (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That some commentators think America is or is becoming a police state is still a super minority aspect of the topic of "police state" and needs to be treated as such. Huff Post is an opinion blog with the commentators who are NOT specialists in the field of knowledge about "police state". -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the precise percentage is, but I don't think it's as low as "super minority" or as high as "45%". In either case, we just need to agree on a compromise. We're probably not going to agree on everything that has been debated between us thus far, so I'd like to see that debating end, and for debating to be limited to preferences regarding various proposals. I think 4 paragraphs/16 sentences works. I'll post a new version in the next day or two if someone else doesn't. One thing that I think will help to get this all condensed is not to be super specific on who said what (like "Rand Paul said..." "Noam Chomsky said..."). Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2012

You going to include ARTHUR M. SCHLESINGER said or RUSSELL BAKER said ?- random individuals accusing US of being or becoming a police state have a LONG history but it is still a minority that needs to be fully placed in context within the broader realm of the actual topic of the article POLICE STATE in general. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

And anyone claiming that Rand Paul is in ANY WAY representative of mainstream academic theory is just plain nuts. WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE clearly come into play if you start walking down that road. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't found any good official polls specifically about police state but I did find a few websites that asked the question (although the one that is on the high side asked it in the context of using drones), with the results listed (about 100 people voting in both) tell that 40% to 85% say the US is becoming a police state. Obviously the data pool is low so once again I'm saying unequivocally that this should be taken with a grain of salt and it is not indicative of America as a whole by any stretch of the imagination. A CNN story reports on a poll by a university on the issue of drones (a US police state indicator); it shows that a large percentage of Americans are concerned about privacy (64%) if drones are used (which they are and increasingly so, 30,000 over the next ten years reportedly), and most don't think they should be used for everyday police activities such as speeding tickets (67%). They also said drones marked high for things such as finding fugitives, and rescue operations. What is not highly debated are aspects of the police state where America is in the top 5 or number 1 and that is the electronic police state and the prison population aspect where the USA is securely #1. These are indicators of an overall police state, and are strongly showing that in these areas America has higher ranking than known, stated, police states. http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/america-becoming-a-police-state/question-2658553/ http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.373048-Poll-Is-the-USA-becoming-a-police-state?page=2 http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/84/159/2147483694/3b904214-b247-4c28-a5a7-cf3ee1f0261c.pdf (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/poll-catching-criminals-is-fine-but-dont-use-drones-for-speeding-tickets-americans-say/comment-page-25/)

Also who said Rand represented mainstream academia? I mentioned Rand as one of 3 politicians I could name off the top of my head who have expressed concern about an American police state, and I see no problem with this statement, do you? Jack T. Tripper (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

After some thought I am sorry I put so much in my last post as I think the debating should end so time and effort and can be used to create a reasonably sized piece WRT the entire issue, one that is expertly written with no original research or synth, and one that has universally accepted sources. So if we can agree on the compromise this is what needs to be done, does anyone object to a 16 sentence write up? Jack T. Tripper (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Almost by definition, any position held and vocalized by Rand Paul will be a clarion case of a FRINGE position that is outside the mainstream of academic theory. The main goal of any wikipedia article is to fully represent the MAINSTREAM of acedemic theory. Therefore inclusion of the FRINGE and minority positions cannot be made or included until the full depth and breadth of the mainstream positions is covered. And you do not seem to be approaching the article to actually cover the encyclopedic nature of supposed subject of the article "police state" but rather to put forward claims that america is becoming one. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There may be a valid place within Wikipedia for History of claims of the United States becoming a police state but such is far outside the scope of THIS article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mention Rand in the Article just when talking about the subject in the TALK section, I don't see how saying he is one of three politicians that think America may be headed for a police state has ANYTHING to do with me or anyone else claiming he represented mainstream or any academia, especially since it occurred on the TALK section, never in the article... What I have put forward for placement on the main page is completely different, I saw that under the Western Claims, there were several issues raised by academia and reporters that should be included, if you take issue with the latest proposal above by all means tell me where you think I have misstated something. Is there a problem if I wish to update the US section of the page? I didn't know that was a problem in Wiki eyes... is it? It seems people add to articles where they see fit all the time. And I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't think it would benefit the article as a whole... Jack T. Tripper (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

People are generally able to add where they see fit. However, if doing so causes the article to present what is a tiny minority or fringe view within the mainstream of the academic studies of the topic to appear be something other than such a minority view, then the addition and content needs to come under scrutiny. and a person who continually makes such additions that unbalance the article may have their individual actions scrutinized. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So are you implying that my proposed additions are false? Do you not see that the prison system and the electronic police state points are well established facts and are mainstream positions? The NDAA and Patriot Act are widely criticized and have been called unconstitutional by experts and ruled unconstitutional by judges, challenged by entire states... Do you dispute any of these as nonfactual or fringe? Then why should they be barred from being put in the Western CLAIMS portion of the Police State page? Or what is it in the latest proposal that is so far from mainstream academia? Jack T. Tripper (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not implying anything. I am stating flat out that such detailed focus on minority views of US actions in the article as it currently stands is incompatible with WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and WP:COATRACK. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So why even have a Western Claims portion if we can't put valid claims being made in there? What is an acceptable amount that can be put in? And who decides what is the acceptable amount? you? And where do you get the idea that it is a vast minority opinion? Do you have proof of this? Jack T. Tripper (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why indeed. It appears that the "Western Claims" section exists only to push a POV and should not be part of a proper encyclopedic coverage of the subject of the article. Hence the NPOV tag that has been there since 2011.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So because YOU don't agree with the point of view means it should be removed, don't the views of the minority deserve to be heard? Sometimes the minority is the correct party (ie earth is round not flat)... And what makes you so sure this is a VAST minority position? Jack T. Tripper (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

NO. the views of fringe minorities do NOT deserve to be heard in a Wikipedia article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Third time. What makes you so sure this is a fringe minority position?Jack T. Tripper (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Rand Paul.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Rand Paul shows up NOWHERE in our latest proposal, or anywhere on anything presented to be placed on the main page! So I ask once again, what makes you so sure this is a fringe position? Jack T. Tripper (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC) If your argument is this what you said earlier: "Almost by definition, any position held and vocalized by Rand Paul will be a clarion case of a FRINGE position that is outside the mainstream of academic theory" to say that if Rand Paul says it then it must be Fringe as your reasoning as to why our proposal has no place on Wiki is silly, let me first remind you he was brought up one time, as a politician, in the TALK section, and never EVER presented as putting anything he said on the main page. But more importantly your insinuation is silly, if Rand says he strongly believes man landed on the moon, according to you that automatically becomes a Fringe position and cannot be stated as fact?! Your argument is flawed and this discussion is moving beyond ridiculous... Jack T. Tripper (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: "What makes you so sure this [the opinion that the US is close to a police state and has been moving in that direction rapidly in recent years] is a fringe minority position?"

Answer: "Rand Paul"

Is any comment necessary? Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2012

"Western claims"

That's a pretty awkward section title for what it is (not really clear from the title what it's about). Anyone have a better idea? Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2012

Disputed police states or Countries at risk of becoming police states? 24.255.154.213 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh. That's what I'm wondering. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 September 2012

Maybe Western Police State Claims is the best title?Jack T. Tripper (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

How about Alleged movements towards police states? --Jonund (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Is the focus on details of actions in countries such as the US providing an UNDUE weight to such claims?

Should the article contain a lot of details about "western" government actions which have been been individually described as moving countries such as the United States in direction of being/becoming "police states"; or is such detail providing an undue focus that is unrepresentative of the mainstream academic view of "police state"? edited to add clarity For example, does the current version of the article [18] where of the approximately 1,800 words of actual article content (when you exclude all of the trivia "fictional examples") having over 1/4 of the article (~500 words) used to provide western "examples" focus too much on the Western incidents? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This is way too vague to be evaluated.

"a lot of details" When do the details constitute being "a lot"?

You may ask, "So what's your standard of undue in this context?" My answer is 17 sentences. You may ask "By what standard?" Admittedly, I don't have one, but neither, apparently, do you. However, I can say what it is broadly: Minority positions which are not fringe (I believe this is the case here) deserve enough attention for the reader to get a good overview of what their claims are. Four or five sentences, with respect to a topic as complicated as this, obviously ain't gonna cut it.

Finally, I have no problem with more than 16 sentences being in this article covering the perspective against the ACLU/Cato Institue/Mother Jones/Truthout/Chomsky et al perspective, because it's currently more popular. And it's not like our choice is "put in US close to police state" vs "add nothing about that debate". Whenever someone gets the 'undue' objection which makes sense (this is one such case), the onus is on me to come up with the additional content to solve the problem, so I guess I'll get around to that in the next couple of days, assuming Ripper doesn't, but I'd certainly appreciate your help.

However, I'm not sure the undue charge applies here (maybe it does, I'm not sure). Either way, I support having the "US ain't close to a police state" perspective get at least 16 sentences as well.

It's my understanding UNDUE only applies when we're dealing with a "superminority position" (I'm not sure, I might be wrong). I don't think we're dealing with a superminority opinion here. It's my understanding that it's not the case that we can't ever have a 20-49% opinion get more representation on a page without a comparable amount of the 51-80% opinion. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2012

per your request, I have added some specificity to the "a lot". in addition, your understanding of UNDUE is not correct. UNDUE applies to all mainstream academic points of view, with minority academic viewpoints being presented as minority and ultra minority not being represented at all. Non academic "popular" viewpoints need to be handled as just that - non-academic viewpoints. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on undue.

The thing about not having too much focus on western governments is also a good point. I think I might leave most of the heavy lifting to you and Ripper on this, but I might have some more proposals in the coming days. Byelf2007 (talk) 13 September 2012

The problem as I see it is NOT that the proposal and info assembled about the US becoming a police state is invalid, rather the other portions of the Police State page are underdeveloped. I know MUCH more can be said about the USSR, China, Nazi Germany, and a whole host of other past and modern day police states such as North Korea and some middle eastern countries. I can help with some of this 'maturing' of the other sections but like I've said previously my 'expertise' is of Western Countries specifically the US, so this is where my desire and talents will reside for the most part. So although UNDUE may be applicable here I think the page as a whole needs a great deal of work and I am far better at what I have been trying to help with; the US section. However I'm willing to touch up and add to the other sections IF that will allow the US section to be added as proposed... is this an attainable goal? 24.255.154.213 (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Honestly, I'm not really all that interested in making proposals/contributing to the article on this issue, so much as I'm interested in discussing it with contributors, and 'stirring the pot' so to speak. Byelf2007 (talk) 15 September 2012

For the most part, I think the claims are notable enough for inclusion. They aren't necessarily accurate, but they do exist. However, when putting DUE and FRINGE into the equation, it must be short and concise at the present time. If we were to expand to give in-depth coverage to current and historical police states (for example, historical coverage of Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and Fascist Italy as well as modern coverage of communist countries like North Korea, dictatorships and modern police states like Iran, Russia, and China) well as give similar coverage to other Western claims/countries, I'd be more than fine with four or five paragraphs on it. At that point, there could be room for response from people who disagree with the claims as well. But as of right now, eight sentences/two paragraphs is more than reasonable to summarize and cover the claims. Toa Nidhiki05 19:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to give my official opinion here in this section, I think around four paragraphs is acceptable for commenting on the page as it is. When the page is updated to include detailed examples of known/undisputed police states then I think my proposal below is what should be on there modified for any problems that the community may find with it of course. I would be extremely concerned that 4 or even 8 sentences is not near enough to give an accurate representation the view that America is becoming a police state, and since America is the top or one of the top viewers of this website the viewpoint shouldn't be overly condensed. Once again I am willing to volunteer to work on updating the other police states if that will allow full coverage of the US police state section. Jack T. Tripper (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that an expansion of the article is a good way of enabling inclusion of the material. Another way might be to start separate articles. There is a prohibition against POV-forking, but if we frame them as, for instance, Freedom in the United States, I think it will be ok.

By the way, the section about fictional police states is also a bit undue. A clean-up may change the situation, but perhaps a separate article could be considered here, too? --Jonund (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

question about process

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm fairly new to wiki editing and have never seen this request for input before... is the input suppose to take place on this page or is there another place where conversations are occurring on the issue? If so please direct me to that url. If not how long does it usually take for comment? What happens if nobody comments? Could we all agree to keep the US section limited but to include the relevant claims that effectively portray the minority opinion say, 16 sentences? Which when the other police states are properly written will still be a very minor part of the page overall. Also I've thought of a few more claims to put in the 16 sentences, such as the Citizens United ruling claiming corporations have the rights of people and examples such as private prisons have agreements with states to keep the prisons 95% full thus private business has merged with the government to large degrees and Mussolini defined fascism (a type of police state) as a merger of corporations and the state, which appears to be occurring at this time in America. Jack T. Tripper (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have subsectioned this and will respond on your talk page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"is the input suppose to take place on this page" Yes.

It looks like there's consensus for 16 sentences yea. Byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2012

there has been only 1 additional outside view so far, so it is really to early to claim that 3 people make a "consensus", particularly when the outside view says essentially "the content is not UNDUE if the rest of the article were appropriately covering the topic". that lack of appropriate coverage in the rest of the article is, I hope, something that we all can agree upon.-- The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there's no apparent objection to 16 sentences with that other stuff to address the UNDUE concern. Also, if someone just says "I don't like that" without explanation, then I'd say that's not a challenge to consensus. I don't recall seeing a "don't have the 16 sentences under any context". Byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2012

I objected to sixteen - I proposed eight at max, with two paragraphs max total. Sixteen is far too many considering how little coverage goes to actual police states and legitimate concerns with UNDUE. Toa Nidhiki05 19:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets remember that the RfC is supposed to be about getting a larger sample of outside editors' opinions and not just the inside hacks repeating ad nausuem the same arguments and positions that they had been expressing ad nauseum before the RfC which were leading to no progress in reaching a consensus. Please make your statement above, once, and then try to let other editors make their comments. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't really appreciate being called a 'hack' - I was responding to Byelf's comment. Toa Nidhiki05 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I was intending "inside hack" as a descriptor for the general RfC process wiki-wide and not a reference to any specific editor on this page and I apologize if you you took it as such.

I do not see that you have officially added a position to the RfC itself above, and I would encourage you to do so if you have one.

This section began with an editor's general question about the process itself, and I think that between here and xir user page, that question has been answered. Does anyone mind if this section is closed? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't we increase the amount of content for all the other things so 16 sentences works? Byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2012

I am hoping to stop by a library sometime this week and find some basic sources. The online stuff I have found seems very aimed at looking as specific actions as evidence of "police state" and it is hard to take that material and go backwards to the subject as a whole. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Since we're probably talking about a large amount of new content in order to get the U.S. thing up to 16 sentences without causing UNDUE problems, I think it might be ideal if we went for 12 (halfway between 8 and 16). I'm concerned that 8 sentences on that topic will not be enough to provide the reader with a clear/not misleading account. Byelf2007 (talk) 17 September 2012

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

===additional question about process===

How long do we wait?24.249.118.218 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The default is 30 days. Wikipedia:RFC#Ending_RfCs. If we land on a consensus before then, we can end it at any time.

I think that is part of the consensus that I see growing: if the article were to more adequately cover the general and traditional application of "Police State", then the current level of content regarding individual examples in the western countries would not be UNDUE.

Although I still have not yet had the opportunity to get to a library and see what kinds of general sources about the topic exist to bolster the meat of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• No, it should not An article about a police state should not be filled with examples of peoples opinions on how one incident in their eyes is bringing about a police state. I see such examples all the time in the UK press, and I feel quite certain the UK is not a police state. The article should focus on actual police states, as for the fictional ones, Orwell is mentioned, but why not Metropolis? The first film on a police state surely warrants a line. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What makes you so certain that the UK is not a police state? What about the US? Do you not see the evidence that they are displaying signs of being a police state?24.249.118.218 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You can personally think whatever you want, but the article must accurately represent the majority view of the subject. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

---

* Yes, the article should contain a lot of details about "western" government actions which have been been individually described as moving countries such as the United States in direction of being/becoming "police states" BUT This section needs some serious re-write, references to the actual laws, etc, false claims deleted (there are some) with a subsection of each act/law/govt decision described as opinion where people can add opinion and special interest articles. This will nullify the UNDUE argument - as the reader can look at the laws - then what happened, and the opinions on the items, with the references for further reading. Most of the text in this section is unsourced (WP:CITE) there are no sources to the actual laws enacted (WP:REF), and the passages that are sourced link to tabloid op-ed pages and opinion writers, with the wiki entries claimed as fact ...WP:RELIABLESOURCES, WP:NPOV. :That being said I think the idea of citing examples of "police state like" movements for the history of the US government is something of encyclopedic value - but if included it should cover the period from day one of the country to present, with space for future laws or occurences. If the entries talk about a law, or proposed laws (bills) then a reference must be made to the actual bill or law itself - any executive orders and any judicial decisions, (which are all available at the Library of Congress Website) - so there is absolutely no reason to not cite the reference document when adding content about a law, executive order, or judicial interpretation/decision.

Thus I propose The Examples of Police State-like Attributes Western Claims" section, US Cite each law/executive order/judicial decision (of a breach of said law) include a brief laymans synopsis with a reference to the actual law/bill/exec order/judicial decision. THEN indented under each one clearly marked "Opinion/Press" (or something to that effect) anyone can throw in whatever (cited) stuff/opinion etc published on that particular action. Edit: Entire US section was WP:PLAG and WP:COPYVIO, deleted and provided a starting point.Patriot1010 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

sorry this probably could have been avoided, if i had actually just looked at the sourcing of the content - 90% of the UNDUE content appears to utterly fail basic content policies of WP:OR particularly WP:SYN, and WP:RS. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well don't be to hard on yourself - but doing a RfC definitely helps get more eyes on it! I'd also like to add as some others have - is that since this is the English version of wikipedia, one is naturally going to have more western "stuff." I would also recommend that a char limit be set otherwise it creates the environment where people soapbox, (especially those with a fringe view of reality). Patriot1010 (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

References

Cuba police state accustations without sourcing

The single source used to place information on Cuba in the article did not once mention the term police state or any similar term. Please do not coatrack this article with which ever information you please. Also, the source was quite out of date, Cuba has zero journalists in prison and Turkey is the nation with the most according to RSF. [19] [20]. Furious Style (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that this section needs updating given the release and/or exile of the journalists in question. I cannot agree, however, that Cuba's repressive, police state tactics have been fully resolved (see https://en.rsf.org/cuba-call-for-release-of-independent-24-09-2012,43441.html), and I do not think it is necessary for an article to use the term "police state" for it to serve as legitimate sourcing. Apostle12 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Support the removal of the incident - in fact the whole section of lists of "examples" is a piss poor way to create an actual encyclopedic entry about "police states". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)