Talk:Outposts of tyranny

'Outposts of Tyranny'

The parts you removed are not biased. To claim the Bush 'axis of evil' phrase was highly criticised is fact. There is nothing in the article claiming whether this criticism was justified, only that it occurred. Grunners 02:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This comment belongs here, not on my talk page. And the phrase "often highly" is not NPV, so it was removed.Keetoowah 01:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"often highly criticised" makes the point that it is reguarly highly criticised. NPV as far as I can see, "rightly highly criticised", or "often incorrectly criticised" are biased, but that is not what is stated. The phrase "America is often desvcribed as acting unilaterally" for example is fact, but is neutral as no mention is made as to whether Wikipedia sides with either camp. Grunners 03:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am only here because of the notice at WP:RFC. In my opinion, the "often highly criticized" is highly POV (as well as being awkwardly worded). You don't need to pound the idea into the reader that the phrase was criticized, and unless the reader has been living in a remote cave (and perhaps even then), they already know that the phrase received plenty of criticism from various countries, groups, and individuals. If you have to, just link the mention of the criticism to Axis_of_evil#Criticism_of_the_term.

Also, "the new term has quickly come under fire" is another addition of POV. If you want to make the point that it has been criticized, it would be much better to include an example of the criticism such as a quote from, or an external link to, a critique of the phrase from Human Rights Watch or another NGO. BlankVerse 07:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Georgia

Georgia is clearly one of the freer countries in the world (though certainly far from perfect), and it has improved quite considerably since the Rose Revolution. I've now replaced it with Egypt, which has a considerably worse human rights record. Why do you insist on keeping Georgia in as an exemplar of a US ally with a poor human rights record, when there are other much clearer examples?--Pharos

Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/georgi9903.htm) has this to say in a document dated 15/1/2005: "torture and ill-treatment in pre-trial detention remain widespread. Chechen refugees also remain vulnerable to state discrimination and abuse by Georgian security forces." and "In February, the new government rushed several constitutional changes through Parliament. One change empowered the president to appoint and dismiss judges. This change—which contravenes international human rights norms—increases the president’s influence over a judiciary which already lacked independence." and "The government is engaged in a highly publicized fight against corruption, with frequent arrests of high profile figures. Georgian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and others are concerned that the authorities are selectively targeting individuals for political reasons, and that the law is not being applied equally to all. Allegations of due process violations are common, and some of those detained for corruption allege torture and ill-treatment." That seems pretty clear to me. --Xaliqen 20:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There are clearly some problems with human rights in Georgia, but it is a democracy and compared with other countries it has a relatively good record.--Pharos 20:54, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how Georgia has a much better human rights record than Egypt. I won't start a revert war over this because I don't see the point, but I would have to say that my overall impression is that Georgia does not have a good human rights record. --Xaliqen 21:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) However, I will say that Georgia has a better human rights record than Saudi Arabia. --Xaliqen 21:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Georgia (unlike Egypt) is rather indisputably a democracy with more freedoms than nearly all other countries in the CIS. I think if you followed Georgia more closely, you would see it is clearly not among the worse violators of human rights in the world. I concur about Saudi Arabia, which makes no pretense of the absolute nature of its government.--Pharos 21:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Georgia may not be perfect, but it is far from the worst globally, just look at its neighbour to the north as an example. Grunners 01:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Belarus

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

Colombia

Now I'd be the first to admit that the human rights situation in Colombia is horrible, and to criticize U.S. policy towards the country and towards the drug war, yet that does not equate to even suggesting the existence of something that merits "outpost of tyranny" status. That's an entirely different animal. Colombia, even at its worst, is in an entirely different category than Egypt, China and Saudi Arabia. Especially because even if its a country in the middle of a horrible war (and that's already a big difference, to begin with!), many respected international organizations who, obviously, have completely warranted criticisms (which are very easy to Google up, anyone can do that, but that's not the point) openly avoid making such suggestions, both implicitly and explicitly, and do not place Colombia together with the previously mentioned entities as part of such potential "outposts of tyranny" (and by respected international organizations I mean the UN, OAS, IACHR, RSF, HRW, TI, ISHR, FH, etc. and others, for which I can provide links to). Hence I consider that equating Colombia with China, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in the context of this article is definitely debatable, especially when made in such an offhand manner, "as if" the only reason Colombia wouldn't be included in the list is because of "U.S. political concerns". The situation in Colombia is far more complex than that and the previously mentioned organizations recognize that, even when they make their criticisms. Juancarlos2004 02:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the list of countries is a matter of equating them with one another, or of equating them with the so-called "outposts of tyranny." It is merely to call attention to places where the U.S. has turned a blind eye in certain circumstances. I think it is clear that Colombia belongs in the list of countries to which the U.S. has 'turned a blind eye.' Specifically, I would reference the HRW overview for Colombia for 2004. I don't think there is anything implying that these countries would be better off if the United States did get involved, but it is merely pointing out that there are many countries with certain problems and the U.S. seems to be focusing on only a select few. As I see it, this is the primary nature of the criticism leveled at the U.S. in this area. Here is a more recent report by HRW on Colombia. --Xaliqen 19:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the reply, but my objection still stands, especially due to the exact wording used in the article itself, which still does tend to imply what I've mentioned. HRW's reports (which I have already taken into account, if not I wouldn't mention them in the above list, that would be irrational) do present ample criticism of the situation in Colombia and of the government there. But it is easily forgotten that this is also directed at all the armed groups involved in what is clearly an internal war, not a situation of complete peace where full responsibility lies with official authorities. For what it's worth, of all the groups involved, it can be argued that the government itself, for a structure that has many times as much individuals under its control than all the other parties combined, is the entity less directly and proportionally responsible for the gravest abuses, especially if we are speaking about abuses that would be considered normal procedures in China, Egypt and Saudia Arabia. I must again stress these points, even if it sounds repetitive. The term "outposts of tyranny" doesn't only refer to human rights, but also to political rights which, despite the violence and abuses that do clearly happen in Colombia, are more respected there than in the above mentioned countries, even if it were just a modest difference. Opposition figures have won important elections and the government's supported candidates have lost, the government can't simply ignore Court orders either but must comply, etc. Freedom House classifies Colombia as a "partially free" country, which while it may be nothing to be proud of, is clearly a few places above "not free", where China, Egypt and Saudia Arabia are classified.[1]

And as much as it may pain me to say this (as I spend time criticizing the U.S.'s current perspective towards Colombia here and in real life), even if the U.S. is not implementing the correct policies at all, there are several signs that show that the U.S. cannot completely turn a blind eye to the human rights situation in Colombia (not in the same manner that the article implies is the case for the other countries in the list, hence the comparison is imperfect), among them the fact that the U.S. does require Colombia to fulfill some human rights requirements every year. [2][3] The fact that this is in place, even if the criteria employed by the U.S. to measure this may be questionable, marks yet another difference. Juancarlos2004 23:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Turkey

Yet another country's removed from the list! - I've removed Turkey from the list of countries, the human rights situation in Turkey isn't comparable to any in the outposts of tyranny nor with the likes of Saudi Arabia. How was this list drawn up? Who are these 'political commentators'? What criteria was used? -- Joolz 00:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that depends on where you are in Turkey. The government's operations to put down the KPP uprising were not pretty, and have been widely criticized. The US has an alliance with Turkey (NATO) and does not publicly criticize it to the extent that it criticizes NK or Zimbabwe. It's appropriate for the list. Gazpacho 17:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The fundamental question is who are these political commentators and where is the source? Without that we're using weasel terms. -- Joolz 18:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's OK to speak in general terms in this context since each country might not come from the same commentators, but just for reference: Noam Chomsky in American Interventionism. Gazpacho 20:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The List

I'm not sure if all of these countries belong on this list, but it seems inappropriate to just remove it altogether; you can't just say something is "weasel" b/c you dislike it; [4] Xaligen

Who says I dislike it? It's weasel because it has no source, just "political commentators", not because of how I feel about it. Does HRW (or anyone notable) specifically criticize the US government for "outposts of tyranny"? If so please source it. If not the list should go, because we Avoid weasel terms at Wikipedia. And if you do find a source, is it neutralized by:

Rice's speech did not mention these countries, although the State Department criticizes all of them in its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

It sounds to me as if the US government criticizes these countries at least once a year. --M4-10 05:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and the rest of the year they're busy conducting military and/or trade negotations with those countries. Human Rights Watch is the source I go to for up to date info on the countries in question. It's a fact the United States has close military and economic ties with most of the countries on the list. If you would care to investigate further and figure out which countries have the closest military/economic ties with the U.S. and are currently behaving with the most questionable conduct, then please do so. I'm placing the list back where it was. For an article addressing specific issues of concern, please look here. --Xaliqen 09:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This list has no source. It has nothing to do with the article and you cite no sources of any "political commentators" who used this list. You are the only political commentator here. In any case political commentators comment on news, they don't make it. This article is about Condeleeza Rice, her phrase "outposts of tyranny", any resulting U.S. policy, and the individual countries she named. Anything else is off-topic. North Korean government reaction: on topic. Markos Zuniga reaction: off topic. If you have any links that specificially criticize (or support) Rice or her phrase feel free to put them in an "external links" section. --M4-10 14:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is clearly notable that while the U.S is opposing the "Outposts of Tyranny" here, it has allied with other governments that have very major human rights problems. Criticism of policies is also notable, and should not just be relegated to an external link. I'm not saying we have to have a comprehensive listing of of every questionable government the U.S. is allied with, but there should be at least a few examples to demonstrate the point.--Pharos 17:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then name a source. --M4-10 19:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I listed an article from Human Rights Watch that addresses the topic. The list is relevant and important. --Xaliqen 03:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

POV tag

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

POV and original research

Pharos asks, "it's "hostile original research" that Uzbekistan is widely seen as having a poor human rights record?"

No, though this is not what is in contention, as what the article states is that, "Although the U.S. government has castigated those states designated as "Outposts of tyranny" for their human rights records, it has maintained friendly relations and even alliances with some other governments with poor human rights records." It does not mention the perception of others and neither is either sort of assertion sourced. What the intention plainly is here is to utilize presumed facts about some countries with much better (in many instances, at least) relations with the US as a polemical device against the usage of the term, whereas even of the compiled list (the terms for which are argued over here as no one apparently realizes the inappropriateness of deciding such a list for this site) are there criticisms from the same government (US), agency (State Dept.), and official (Rice), which was frankly admitted in a later edit. So instead what we essentially have is that the State Dept. and Bush administration has come up with gradations of state human rights violators, of which apparently "outpost of tyranny" is the most severe, and some Wikipedia editors object to this practice and wish to ghost write their own criticisms without even the pretense of correlating actual material concerning the subject.

Lastly, it is rather negligent to revert legitimate changes not concerning disputed material alongside it, though such a KOS mentality is revealing. --TJive July 3, 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Are you really accusing me of having the mentality of a member of the counter-intelligence service of the Yugoslav People's Army?! Please, no personal attacks. I am sorry if I didn't notice the small changes you'd made at the top and saw only the major deletion at the bottom, but such "KOS mentality" stuff is really beyond the pale.

:) Well, I guess you can see I'm not one who goes in for much online gaming; I just checked where KOS went on Wikipedia. Hey, I've heard odder things around here before. Sorry for my slightly righteous indignation, but who wouldn't be annoyed by such a crazy-sounding accusation? What a great reference work we have here. Gotta be careful about those TLAs, though...

OK, now, do you dispute that Uzbekistan, Egypt etc. are widely perceived as having poor human rights records? If not, then is it wholly irrelevant that some states that are widely perceived as having poor human rights records are considered "Outposts of Tyranny" and others are not? Your idea that it is simply a matter of "gradations of state human rights violators" is frankly not supported by the Bush administration; noone in the administration has ever said that Uzbekistan has a better human rights record than, say, Belarus.

Noone is disputing that there is some criticism of these states by the U.S.; the issue is of degree and proportionality compared to other states, and more significantly the continuance of friendly relations.--Pharos 3 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)

Cute, though I would have thought "KOS" is a rather familiar acronym on this website.

I do not dispute that the countries listed are "widely perceived as having poor human rights records". That, as I said, is not what the article stated. Rather it asserts that states X, Y, Z have poor human rights records, a list whose qualifications it is not within the capacity of Wikipedia to develop and enumerate; that is what constitutes original research. Imagine a Wiki article, "Lists of countries with poor human rights records", which would not only be subject to POV disputes but it does not correlate known facts, merely reflecting the analysis of whatever portion of contributors. That is essentially what has been done here--some editors have decided amongst themselves which countries have "poor human rights records" to whatever degree in comparison with Rice's listed states.

I find your comment that my "idea that it is simply a matter of "gradations of state human rights violators" is frankly not supported by the Bush administration" to be slightly bizarre. The existence of the term implies particularity of the actual countries, from which the exclusion of a perhaps equally deserving country would merit criticism, rather than simply having a shopping list of countries which are all to be presumed (by contributors here) to be of equal merit.

What further hammers home the intention here is the language previously inserted in the article, that the US "rarely, if ever, criticizes" the listed governments--which is flatly untrue, as the State Dept. publishes a report every year which gives detailed criticisms of human rights violations in every relevant country. What, then, is the opprobrium of "outpost of tyranny" but an informal grouping of what are considered by Rice to be special violators?

Frankly, there has been an open forum for a good while here to provide notable or substantive criticism on the concept itself and yet all we have are the opinions of editors, even a (possibly sardonic) insertion of one user as the source for such a criticism. That is inappropriate and bordering on juvenile. --TJive July 3, 2005 23:53 (UTC)

As to the term "KOS", in case you were serious, look here: Internet slang#K

• KOS — "Kill on Sight"; used to designate enemies in online games whom -- based on their prior actions -- one should kill

It is used more generally to refer to a policy of banning--"killing"--particular users or content (or users' content) in a particular online forum, in this case all changes to the article were said by me to have been "killed on sight". That is not a personal attack. --TJive July 3, 2005 23:58 (UTC)

I'd absolutely no idea what KOS meant, I'm not sure that I've seen it being used on Wikipedia too much (or at least, not the parts of wikipedia I frequent). Never the less, as for the edits you've made, I agree with them absolutely. -- Joolz 4 July 2005 00:00 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps I should have clarified that from the start then. It was not my intention to cause offense. --TJive July 4, 2005 00:04 (UTC)

I should probably make an addendum here. The term "outpost of tyranny" was used by Rice in her written testimony and thus can be construed as a single informal reference as I said previously, but may not necessarily reflect a broader view of gradations developed by the State Dept. or Bush administration as a whole (which I previously asserted). Indeed, it seems clear that in the same words of Rice; even some countries listed here might qualify on her own terms but have simply not all been enumerated. In the statement itself, note the following passage in the context of the term:

To be sure, in our world there remain outposts of tyranny – and America stands with oppressed people on every continent ... in Cuba, and Burma, and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe. The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the “town square test”: if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a “fear society” has finally won their freedom.

In the Middle East, President Bush has broken with six decades of excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the hope of purchasing stability at the price of liberty. The stakes could not be higher. As long as the broader Middle East remains a region of tyranny and despair and anger, it will produce extremists and movements that threaten the safety of Americans and our friends.

So, for example, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al are not enumerated specifically as "outposts of tyranny" but rather the entire Middle East is painted with the swath of a "region of tyranny". Certainly the opprobrium is the same even where not specifically targeted. What the question becomes then is whether this is a gradation and, if so, how this was decided. Everything leads me to believe it was as I said before, an informal grouping which can only defer to more substantive criticism, such as in the yearly Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, where all the countries mentioned in this article at any point are fair game. In that case it is simply incorrect to say that certain countries the US is friendlier to receive less harsh condemnation unless one believes that the yearly reports are themselves inaccurate. I will attempt to edit the article to reflect all of this. --TJive July 4, 2005 00:34 (UTC)

I'm glad (and slightly amused) to see we've cleared up the KOS business (see my comment above). To the article, I agree with you that saying that countries have poor human right records is not NPOV; however as there is not dispute that these countries are "widely perceived as having" poor human rights records I would definitely agree to changing that wording; if specific references are needed, many can be easily found (media, rights groups, even, as you say, the U.S. State Dept.).

The wording, "rarely, if ever criticizes" is something I personally changed, to "rarely criticizes in such strong terms", which is more accurate. The "Outpost of Tyrrany" labelling, in addition to being quite stronger and direct, has also been much higher profile than the State Dept. reports; this is not an issue of "informality", one can't ignore that just six countries were named in this very major policy speech. But, as I said, more than on the subject of verbal criticism, it is a significant issue that the U.S. is friendly with a number of states that are widely percieved of as no better in human rights than the six named "Outposts of Tyranny".--Pharos 4 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Again, I think there is no allowance here as to interpretation. Just as she remarked on "outposts of tyranny" she also labeled the Middle East as a "region of tyranny"--which itself not only included unmentioned traditional U.S. foes such as Syria and Libya (and arguably Sudan) but U.S. allies such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. I edited the article to reflect this but another editor found it to be too subjective a judgement. I do, however, disagree that this can be said to be the only and worst form of public criticism as a short time ago Rice paid a very high-profile visit to the same "region of tyranny" to explicitly chastise human rights practices in those very allied countries. What I am basically saying here is that as "outposts of tyranny" seems to hold no official designation in the parlance of government that it should be taken as a convenient, informal neologism (which the article is designated under) and not as a blanket prescriptive policy for dealing with states based upon a detailed examination of the record (and thus some are said by persons unseen to have eluded it), which is what the attempted interpretation here is. --TJive July 4, 2005 14:23 (UTC)

Instead of doing what we did before, we could link to the list of countries critisised by the U.S. State Department, there must be one around somewhere. -- Joolz 4 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)

Done. --TJive July 4, 2005 14:26 (UTC)

In no way was the list of countries with poor human rights records, which also maintain good relations with the United States, "hostile original research." I find the censorship of this list to be surprising, especially since I'd already listed a good source in hrw.org and the specific link listed in the conversation above. I find the exclusion of the list to be a violation of NPOV because it is rather glaringly representing one viewpoint on the issue to merely list Rice's statements with various verifications without even mentioning the vast controversy sparked by the term. The article as it stands at the moment I find to be rather outrageously biased and almost propagandistic in nature. --Xaliqen 21:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It is original research because the parameters of inclusion for "countries with poor human rights records" are up to you to define. I am not aware that there has been any given examples of criticism concerning the term itself, as opposed to general fulminations on US policy by our own humble editors. Surely if there was a "vast controversy sparked by the term" then there are one or two notable criticisms you are aware of. --TJive 22:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to start an article about "Outposts of Tyranny (Criticism)" and link to it, or simply put an external link section with some links to criticism from credible sources. Commentary doesn't belong in the article body. I don't see how an article can be propagandistic when it states what was said and what was meant by it. It might be considered biased if:

to describe certain countries where, in her opinion, the government is oppressive and shows contempt for democracy and human rights.

... didn't say "in her opinion", though even then a strong argument could be made that the named "outposts" are objectively oppressive and contemptous of democracy and human rights. In its current form it is not biased and certainly not "outrageously" biased. This article is not about the controversy (which barely exists anyway, especially compared to "Axis of Evil"). --M4-10 22:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

While I fully realize and acknowledge that there is a greater controversy surrounding "Axis of Evil," I believe there is a rather substantial controversy additionally surrounding "Outposts of Tyranny" that deserves to be recognized in some form within the article itself, both with regards to its nature and as to its various sources. Regarding the latter, I have come up with several in addition to the HRW articles I listed above: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] I realize that some of these articles introduce their own biases, and this can naturally be expected and should most certainly also be acknowledged. However, I strongly believe that not listing anything regarding the criticisms of the term is to do a disservice to the article as a whole. --Xaliqen 22:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe you fully understand the point here. While you have provided evidence of human rights abuses of regimes that have close relationships to the U.S., you fail to understand how inserting this into the article is inappropriate. This is because you were essentially developing ad hoc criteria for what constitutes "countries with poor human rights records" and inserting into the article as a generic criticism of US policy with no reference to it elsewhere. This isn't a forum for your criticisms or generic charges against the U.S. government, it is specifically concerning the term itself and notable comments on it.

Whether these sources you now list are notable is open to question; that some are flatly irrelevant and erroneous in the matter you present them is not. "SourceWatch" is a project similar to this one with a political slant that itself has compiled usages of the term. Two articles, from Xinhua and Dong-A Ilbo, refer to the same incident of a repeat of the term and subsequent criticism from Korean officials. In that, it seems as if the (already given) inclusion of criticism concerning the mention of NK has become a melodrama; when does this process of criticism and counter-criticism end? The "Arab View" editorial only mentions "outposts of tyranny" in passing to a general lambasting of US foreign policy which concerns itself mostly with US history other than current support for Israel--completely irrelevant here.

The Iafrica article concerning the president of South Africa is certainly noble, only in the very context the article cites: that Mbeki is explicitly keeping mum on Mugabe's policies. How stirring.

Moreover, it is hard to take the insertion of the NPOV tag without any prior deference to talk concerning the latest edits as but made in bad faith, and with no attempt to edit for your own part with any such thing as you now present in mind. --TJive 00:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I did not endeavor to add to the present article because I saw the determination, most notably that of yourself, to do away with any criticism of the term by coming up with arguments that appear to possibly be generated in "bad faith" in order to keep the article in its present one-sided state. Yes, it is true that two of the articles refer to the same incident. So what? I submitted both because I felt that with that particular issue it was better to corroborate with more than one source. Yes it is true that some of the articles introduce their own particular biases, just as the Secretary introduced her own particular biases in originally stating the term. I already mentioned that such biases should naturally be addressed. In general, I find your stance to be rather unworkable in the sense that your manner is apparently combative. I am attempting to present evidence to work towards a solution to the issue at hand and, in general, I found you at the present time to present an uncompromising and, in my view, somewhat insulting manner. Indeed, it appears to me that you are not operating in good faith and due to this I hesitate to work with you on this issue as I was previously attempting. --Xaliqen 00:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not endeavor to add to the present article because I saw the determination, most notably that of yourself, to do away with any criticism of the term by coming up with arguments that appear to possibly be generated in "bad faith" in order to keep the article in its present one-sided state.

The problem here is that the purpose of this article is not utilize the ostensible subject as a launching board for the general criticisms of editors at Wikipedia [that none otherwise exist here neither implies that there are not nor that there should be so] - it is for the purpose of creating a hopefully acceptable encyclopedic article under the guidelines laid out in the myriad rules of the site. The manner in which you attempted to edit this article quite clearly goes against the no original research policy and so far you have managed to avoid comment on that, rather focusing in on attributing the deletion to a POV of my own, which was itself an implicit attribution of bad faith before I could have ever said to be "combative", much less "insulting", towards you.

Yes, it is true that two of the articles refer to the same incident. So what?

So, it seems to me (as should have been a previous, unspoken inference already), that rather than address the issue pertaining to the material you inserted you have instead chosen to focus on lodging as many articles with the slightest tangential relevance to the discussion--which is specific criticism of the concept of "outposts of tyranny"; why would South Korea merit two and not South Africa? I digress.

I apologize if you perceive me to be intent on warring with you or attempting to engage in any sort of incivility. The drawbacks of the online format connote language to be much more blunt or curt than actually intended. Nonetheless, I view the manner and nature of the dispute you have lodged to have been as much an affront as you view my own comments. If you would contribute to the article yourself in a manner which takes into account the previous discussion you might find I am perfectly willing to treat fairly substantive and notable material which does not agree with my opinions, much less Ms. Rice's, which isn't to suggest I will not necessarily dispute it, but that mere shots in the dark get nothing accomplished but mutual antagonism. --TJive 01:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

First, I would like to remind you that it was not I who originally added the section and the content currently in dispute. Therefore, you attributing some idea of personal research to myself seems somewhat strange to me. Furthermore, I have supplied various articles with criticism of the term, they do vary in the nature of their criticism, but I felt the most recently added article from the 25th January issue of The Progressive specifically references the nature of the claims in the presently disputed material. If you have specific concerns about aspects of the present material that are not represented in the article, then please address those specific concerns and the not the entire issue as if it were somehow irrelevant.

Furthermore, I would like to mention that it is specifically not my intention to include material based on some personal opinion that I hold. I apologize if that was the impression you were under.--Xaliqen 01:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not strictly relevant to what extent the disputed content was either created, modified, or reverted to by you. It is what it is in any case. You were in fact engaging in arguments over the specific inclusion of some countries or the other, and yet you say this is not to imply the necessity of your own opinion.

On the contrary, it is very well known and accessible with statements such as, "it is merely pointing out that there are many countries with certain problems and the U.S. seems to be focusing on only a select few"; and "Yeah, and the rest of the year they're busy conducting military and/or trade negotations with those countries. Human Rights Watch is the source I go to for up to date info on the countries in question. It's a fact the United States has close military and economic ties with most of the countries on the list"; it is quite clear what your view of the subject matter is. --TJive 06:43, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

"it is quite clear what your view of the subject matter is" This does not strike me as highly relevant. My view of the subject matter may be apparent to you on this discussion page, but I have not included my view within the article itself. And, in case you didn't know, it does happen to be a fact that 'the United States maintains close military and economic ties with most of the countries on the list.' So, I really don't consider that piece of info all that opinionated. --Xaliqen 20:28, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

TJive, I wholeheartedly support your recent addition providing further information about 'Reactions' to the term, and consider it a vast improvement over the previous material. I believe that, in addressing these issues in this specific manner, the article has been greatly improved.--Xaliqen 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. --TJive 01:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Does it not seem strange to anyone else that the "reactions" section, essentially criticisms, is longer than the actual subject of the article? In my opinion, the speech given should be quoted more thoroughly or something done to keep this encycolpedic. Perhaps drop the reference to a writer's opinion from "The Progressive"? haha. There are reactions from the governments of South Africa, N. Korea... and a random writer from "The Progressive"?? The article is unbalanced... specifically because that source is noticably out of place. If Wiki subject articles were to allow inclusion of random social and political commentary from pundits and/or unknown editors from any newspaper... it's going to get messy. You'll have Pravda, Daily Kos, The Constitution, KKK Weekly (if that exists), etc.. taking up the majority of space in articles that are fairly straightforward. The relevence to the thoughts of Joe Smith from a partisan newspaper is what exactly? Cowboy357 07:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Map

Ok, people seem to be revert warring over which map version to use, can we discuss it here instead please? To me one version seems overly complicated and introduces other things which aren't related so much to this page, personally I'm not sure a map is really appropriate at all, it seems rather unneccessary. -- Joolz 11:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The map is complicated because more than a handful of nations are at odds with America. I tried out the same map in Axis of Evil, Rogue States, and Outpost of Tyranny to illustrate the fact the certain nations can be declared enemies of America for varying reasons and that one nation can be grouped in more than one designation. Furthermore, by showing where the countries are located on a map, the uniformed will be readily able to recognize that although nations may belong to the same classifications this does not mean that these countries are bound together in some organization or alliance as most do not share similar geography, culture, religion and politics. Additionally, the original maps (by another individual) I felt where not perfect as they were. For example, the font was not easy to read (for myself) and the colours used did not properly contrast (using large fills of red and blue alone is very difficult for the eye to focus on). Also, Vancouver Island was indicated as an American possession! If the maps I have created are also found to be lacking, or wrong, perhaps readers can suggest ways to improve it. I should think though that my original idea of one map for three articles was flawed; I will create three separate maps in the future.I ask that TJLive, who evidently has some issues with the maps inform me next time when they delete the map what they find wrong with it, instead of just simply writing revert. In this way, what is perceived as a small ‘revert war’ can come to an end.--RPlunk 20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Thailand has been colored in instead of Burma (Myanmar). Can someone fix this?--KingZog 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a goof. I'll make a new one. --TJive 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Doin't bother, I've already fixed it.--Pharos 21:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well hell. How do I go about getting my image deleted? --TJive 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Since, you, the creator, are requesting it, and it's not being used for anything, I can just do it myself without too much ceremony.--Pharos 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --TJive 22:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting choice of phrase

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

Further revision needed

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

sparkling example of a deletable article

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

Countries that cannot be visited.

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