This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'd like to see references for each country listed as a pariah state. I put the list there just off the top of my head, so it's not exhaustive. I also might not find sources for some countries, so those can come off. But help would be appreciated. Thanks! Dchall1 (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

First of all, if this page of nothingness is kept, someone needs to clearly define what are the types of acceptable sources for making such a determination. My experience with Israel's supporters is that nothing is good enough short of a new covenant from God, sent down by the angel of the Lord, stating that it is a pariah state. Oh, come to think of it, we have that too in the Old Testament.173.74.22.141 (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Belarus being Pariah state is dead. the wiki on belarus also says nothing about being a pariah state? Evonsdesigns (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From The Rise and Decline of Rogue States:

Midway through the Cold War, the global community ostracized a handful of states by questioning their national legitimacy and by isolating them from normal diplomatic integration. Beset with anxiety about their survival, these states developed—or at least hinted at developing—nuclear weapons. As a result, the developed world branded them pariah states. Israel, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan were lumped into this category despite their varying political and economic systems.

This seems to be the reason Israel is on the list. Not a good reason if you ask me. Anyway, in order to hide the clear bias here, I've added South Korea and Taiwan to the list and added a reference for South Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.118.255 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Removed list item and non-working reference:

• United States of America U.S. is now a ‘pariah state,’ Chomsky says - News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carolyn Kunin

Pasadena"

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

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

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

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

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

You people are out of your minds. The US is not a pariah state, and you will never find a valid source that will say it is. Stop spreading your bias onto this encyclopedia. Seriously. 06:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.154.96 (talk)

well -- why are so many here hiding behind an ip adress .. possibly i have to include myself :)

what is a credible source -- one of the biggest problems of wikipedia

-- accepting one source - denying another credibility by denouncing it as subjective (ex. by only considering rigged media) look up the many stories of john pilger .. certainly the imperialistic USA should be included -- infact _any_ war mongering state or large weapon producer should be

-- imho uk , sweden should also make it to the list -- look up the current assange case --- 178.82.218.147 (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the US (which has been added again) as the only cite is an online opinion piece: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/21-10-2012/122518-usa_pariah-0/ Krem1234 (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. should be added to the list citing these articles:

According to a new poll from WIN and Gallup International, the U.S. represents the largest threat to world peace today. [...] In their annual End of Year poll, researchers for WIN and Gallup International surveyed more than 66,000 people across 65 nations and found that 24 percent of all respondents answered that the United States “is the greatest threat to peace in the world today.” Brown, Eric (2 January 2014). In Gallup Poll, The Biggest Threat To World Peace Is ... America? International Business Times. Archive.

As it happens, the world thinks differently and regards the United States as a “pariah state” and “the greatest threat to world peace,” with no competitor even close in the polls. But what does the world know? Chomsky, Noam (1 May 2014). Politics of Red Lines. In These Times (Archive).

Just as the United States resolved in the aftermath of World War II to counter the Soviet Union and its global ambitions, Mr. Obama is focused on isolating President Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia by cutting off its economic and political ties to the outside world, limiting its expansionist ambitions in its own neighborhood and effectively making it a pariah state. Baker, Peter (19 April 2014). In Cold War Echo, Obama Strategy Writes Off Putin. The New York Times.

Also, the article which went down causing the US to be removed from the list, is available here:

Dr. Noam Chomsky harshly criticized the war in Iraq and the Bush administration’s foreign policy last night, to a crowd of 1,000 members of the Boston College community. [...] Chomsky said the United States has become the world’s ‘leading pariah state,’ and people around the world see it as the greatest threat to world peace. Mayer, Dennis (24 March 2003). U.S. is now a ‘pariah state,’ Chomsky says. The Daily Free Press. Archive.

Frifridom (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The text above the list currently reads, in part, "At various times in the past, the following states have been labeled or treated as pariahs in the international system." (My emphasis.) I don't think the above quotes satisfy that statement. It appears the Gallup poll says people regard the US as the greatest threat to world peace, but the poll doesn't seem to use the term pariah state. It appears to be Chomsky's own justification for using the term. (I think that more closely describes a rogue state than a pariah.) That is Chomsky's opinion and not coming from the international system. The Baker quote says that Obama's actions are focusing on isolating Russia and effectively making Russia a pariah state, not the US.

This issue will hopefully be part of a mediation that I have requested - the issue of havng a list and which states should be listed and why. I think we can resolve this contentious issue through that process. I don't know if, at this point, I am allowed to invite other parties to join that process. (And I don't know if you would like to be part of that process.) I will ask the mediator. Dcs002 (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake with the Baker quote.

But if Chomsky's opinion isn't enough to classify US as a pariah state, then we need to remove a lot of states from the list, e.g. Abkhazia -- because it's classified as a pariah state based on Viktor Erfoyev's opinion piece, Belarus -- based on an editorial, Russia -- first article, an opinion piece, says Putin is a pariah, not that Russia is a pariah state, and the second article quotes a lone US congressman; etc. Or we should at least find better citations for claiming countries to be pariah states, if that is even possible.

What is a good source to cite? There is no body with the authority to decide whether a state is a pariah state or not. We could cite official government sources, in which case a lot of countries from the list need to be taken down until such citation can be found.

Every other classification of a country as a pariah state is someone's opinion, and if those opinions are good enough reason to classify a country as a pariah state, then the US deserves to be on the list too, based on Chomsky's opinion. Frifridom (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the phrase "international system" is in the article, and I think that should govern. However, I'm not sure whether that phrase has a specific meaning either.

I have a different solution to propose for all of this. I think we should have examples of pariah states under each of the several criteria for pariahood. Please see the section below, "New proposals for a compromise re-write." Dcs002 (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should states like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan appear in this article, despite existing before the appearance of the term "pariah state"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Frederick (talk • contribs) 13:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beside the point - we can't list states we think are or were pariahs - we cite sources that do. Concerning Nazi Germany the tragedy lies therein that almost till the end every state played along as if everything was "normal". Thus no, it was surely not considered a pariah. --Echosmoke (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, by the same argument, no state or nation commited human rights violations before the universal declration was adopted, and also only if they accepted it and had it available in their language with UN missions to explain its precepts to them. Otherwise, they had acted in the absense of a definition of human rights and cannot be said to have violated them. Hell, the slaves had it good before there was a consensus on the abolition of slavery, and they cannot complain about their enslavement or define their owners as racist bigots because these definitions did not exist either. No country commited genocide except maybe Rawanda and Serbia because it was not defined until recently (Ottoman Turks are surley innocent and you have no argument relative Armenians). Oh, and just for fun, Jesus did not exist because there is no consensus on what a son of God means (even among Christians), and that notion itself is denied by more people than believe in it.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry, but I forgot to say that otherwise I do agree with you. We can't include or exclude states based on our own thinking, but we only cite sources with authority on the subject that do. However, as I have been streesing over and again, whatever rules for inclusion are used, they shall be applied to all states equally. If an OpEd is not a good source type for country A, then it is not good for countries B to Z. And so on.173.74.22.141 (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list on this article should be split into present-day pariah states and past pariah states. There's no distinction now, I highly doubt countries such as South Korea or Argentina are considered pariahs today. Israel and US highly controversial but should be kept for neutrality's sake, provided sources can be found. Someone who knows more about this than I do should reorganize the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.234.219.54 (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why are the US and Israel controversial? If there is anything the majority of the world agrees on it is that Israel is a pariah, rogue, colonizing, occupying, terrorizing, enthically cleansing, racist, apartheid, human rights violating, etc., state. It is only not considered so in the US and some western countries with varying intensity of support. As for the US, while few states dare to speak out against it for fear of retribution, I can assure you that at least more than half of the world's population would like to see it put back in the bottle becuase of US atrocities and violations.173.74.22.141 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think the article is U.S.A biased. The U.N has never sanctioned many of the U.S.A wars yet will U.S.A will listed as a pariah? Things need to reviewed on their merit not from a political bias. For example if pariah were determined by nations which have committed genocide either of a foreign or domestic nature then 99% of the map would be colored yet defined "A pariah state is one whose conduct is considered to be out of line with international norms of behavior" which genocide certainly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommahawk (talk • contribs) 04:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A source that names Abkhazia as a pariah:

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

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

Transnistria:

The Sheriff of the Wild East - The Slavic Football Union

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

The two sources for Israel are some UK MP and a Sri Lankan MP. Is this article supposed to be about states considered pariahs by low level politicians or what? It needs clarification. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 22:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the Sri Lankan one has been removed now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 24 Tishrei 5772 03:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need any clarification - the criteria is spelled out quite clearly in the lead. What it needs is less POV-pushing. Jeff Song (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You are clearly unfamiliar with our WP:RS policy if you are using the Pravda as a source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly the same type of "Reliable" sources as used for other countries referenced in this list, if not more so. Check other sources and let me know if they are reliable at all, but they are added, nevertheless, to advance a certain view. Most have only one reference and a dubious one at that. If you make a list of no value other than to advance a biased POV then expect to be judged by the same standards. Pretty soon I'll be checking and adding the US and other Western countries too when I find "reliable" sources, which are not in shortage, and time.173.74.22.141 (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. why is a YouTube source unreliable when all it is doing is showing a recording of the proceedings of a UN agency pertaining to the subject? Is it becuase the proceedings themselves are considered primary sources (and thus other YouTube type links are valid), or are YouTube links not allwed at all and I should remove them wherever I find them? What about other Video type links, like the one used for Baharin? I am trying to be fair and follow the same criteria used everywhere else.173.74.22.141 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos are not considered reliable because, among other reasons, they require personal analysis in violation of WP:OR. It does not appear that any of the sources you utilized comply with WP:RS. Please review that policy, and if you have any questions you can post your query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring the Israel listing you deleted because your argument is purely a matter of your POV. The sources used were varied in type and attribution and they clearly state in the headings, quotes or body that Israel is a Pariah state. One of them was a quote from Livni, a very top Israeli politician and ex PM. Now, if you want to disbute these sources, you can discuss them one by one, we can vote on then one by one, or we can ask for arbitration.173.74.22.141 (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop doing this, and read what the article is about: it has to be the opinion of the international community, not a politician in an OpEd — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ultimate Washing Machine (talk • contribs) 08:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UN and its bodies and agencies are the optimum of the International Community, so stop removing Israel with the UN sources or articles about them. Also, by the same token, I am removing all other states which are only sourced to a politician's openion and OpEds.173.74.22.141 (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The criteria for inclusion is met. Israel is outside of the norm of behavior of any regular state as shown and designated by all UN sanctions, condemnations and reprimands.68.15.114.35 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

There are plenty of sources dealing with Israel's violations of international laws and rules, and condemnation by states, organizations and the UN itself. Looking at the history of edits, there had been provided sourcing to articles, books, sites, OpEd's, political statements and everytime one Israeli supporter removes the listing with the claim that it is blah blah blah, whatever suits him or her at the time. Israel is a Pariah state by any standard you want to take it to mean. If Israel is not, then no state on the face of earth is becuase any state would come out smelling like roses in comparison.68.15.114.35 (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please. people, Israel is only considered a Pariah state by Pariah politicians, activists, and the extremist members of the generally extremist anti-Zionist camp. Israel is a completely legitimate island of moderate non-Pariaism within a huge collection of religious extremism. You may disagree with Israel's policies, but anyone who call's Israel a "racist" or "apartheid" state should not be used as an authority on any matter of international scope. There is obviously a huge collection of batshit-insane extremists on both sides, and we should not serve as the platform from which their voices will be given venue. Wikipedia is non-partisan, and should avoid partisan opinions on any topic. ☲Fireyair☲ (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited for Israel in this article were not written by batshit-insane extremists. They are high quality sources. Please have a look through them. We are required by mandatory policy to represent "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Sean.hoyland - talk 05:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is regularly referred to as a pariah state in contemporary university press publications. Seeking better sources is legitimate, however it is impossible to deny—whether you agree or disagree that it should be considered a pariah state—that Israel has failed to gain the recognition of many of its neighbouring countries. That is just a fact. حرية (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are both very old (1976, really?), as well as being op-eds. That's not enough. If we use that standard (the occasional ope-ed labeling a country "pariah", the list will quickly grow to encompass virtually every country in the world. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just an obvious point to make, Libya should be removed from the main image as a 'current pariah state', and changed to a former one. حرية (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's nothing in the article about South Korea being a former pariah state.108.211.37.125 (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Peru under Alberto Fujimori? 80.108.31.215 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "is running the risk of domestic unrest and perhaps turning Peru into the newest pariah state" in the source cited seems a bit weak to justify including "Peru under Alberto Fujimori" in the article. It looks like there are better sources in here, although there is also this to complicate matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's true it's rather weak the argument put in, but the sources you have cited do describe Peru during that time as Pariah, but at the same time the other source claims differently. However Peru was considered a pariah by many and so it deserves a mention in this article. 80.108.31.215 (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During the Colombian Armed Conflict, many attrocities have been committed by rebels, paramilitaries but also the military. Malazivale (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly consider Israel a true pariah state that belongs in the same category as countries such as North Korea. In addition, we only need one reference, not five of them. TBrandley (T • E) 02:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we consider something to be true or not is irrelevant, I'm afraid. For instance, I'm a staunch Zionist, but I also loathe the current government, am an an Arabophile, and pity the Palestinian people as a whole (let's face it, life sucks for them regardless of where they are, even living with other Arabs, because no one likes them). That being said, if the majority of reliable sources hold that view, then we have to abide by it for the purposes of editing Wikipedia. That being said, I'm just making a general statment and don't really know what the majority of sources say. It's been a while. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 28 Kislev 5774 04:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors don't need to write what they consider to be the case in the real world on talk pages because it doesn't matter. The WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions explicitly mandate "utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions". This is a perfect example where one source is certainly not enough to provide an acceptable level of WP:V compliance. Israel's inclusion in this article is highly contentious, but it is supported by multiple high quality sources. There's no policy based reason to remove the other sources, nor does it make sense to do so in my view. Removing reliable sources related to highly contentious and disputed content decisions within scope of WP:ARBPIA reduces the level of WP:V compliance and increases the risk of disruption by nationalist advocates. It weakens policy compliance, which for issues within scope of ARBPIA is how to start a fire. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current list of states that are or were considered "pariah" states seems like a rather random collection of one-off mentions in op-eds, offhand comments made in captions to photos that accompany news stories, politicians' speeches etc.. As the article history shows, similar quotes can be found for just about every country in the world, from the US to South Korea. This is a source of endless edit-wars. Perhaps we'd be better off by describing the concept of a pariah state, as discussed for example in Rogue States and U.S. Foreign Policy: Containment After the Cold War, without compiling a list which is always going to be subjective (since as the article states 'There is no definitive definition of a pariah state') Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article seems to be an Original Research, since no international or well-known institiution is known to have published a list of "pariah states", nor to support the very concept of a "pariah state".

However, as long as the article exists, it's expected to contain some objective figures/data, e.g. Henley's table, that may support the claims included in the article. Note that Wikipedia allows every article to contain tables that have something to do with the general topic discussed in the article, even when they do not mention the very name of the article. For example, see the tables in the article Developed country.

That's why I have reverted back to the stable version of 21.7.2014, and have put back Henley's table.

However, if Henley's table is deleted again, then a request for deleting the whole article will be inevitable, on the ground of Original Research. HOOTmag (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. It is a crystal clear SYNTH violation. The article isn't based on an international or well-known institution's published list of "pariah states", nor does it need to be. It is based on reliable sources that specifically address the notion of 'pariah' status for countries. If you see entries in the article without adequate sourcing to justify inclusion in this article, you can remove them. If you can find a secondary source that uses the Henley's table as some kind of metric for 'pariah' status that source can be included. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have totally ignored my claim about the tables included in the article Developed country.

Note that adding Henley's table, is intended to save the article and defend it from deleting. Anyways, since you changed again the stable version of 21.7.2014, a request for deleting the whole article is now inevitable. HOOTmag (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. I have totally ignored your claim about the tables included in the article Developed country. That's because a policy violation here has no dependency what happens in other articles. There are probably several million of policy violations distributed throughout Wikipedia. If they were all corrected, this instance of SYNTH would still be a policy violation and I would still need to remove it. It has to be a secondary source that uses the Henley's table as some kind of metric for the pariah status of a country. It can't be us. Whether the article is to be kept or deleted can only be determined at AfD so I have nothing to say about that here. That is up to the community. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add by the way that I think using Henley's table as some kind of indicator of 'pariah' status is quite reasonable, but it doesn't matter what I think. Are you sure a secondary source hasn't discussed the table in relation to 'pariah' status ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a request for mediation for this article. I think a satisfactory article can be attained fairly easily, given that there is actually very little we all disagree on.

1. We agree that there are no objective criteria for labeling a nation a pariah state,
2. No authority exists for making such designations, and
3. No comprehensive and current list of pariah states exists that is accepted in RS

It is my hope that we can also come to agree that:

1. The above list offers encyclopedic content that could and should be covered in an article about pariah stathood,
2. We cannot claim to know now that such agreements cannot be made in the future WP:Crystal,
3. More current sources might therefore make obsolete the claims in some sources that accepted definitions do not or cannot exist, and
4. There is a difference between a definition of "pariah statehood" and inclusion criteria for pariah statehood.

If we cannot agree on all these points, I think surely, with help, we can agree on enough to make an encyclopedic article on this topic, as we have for usurper, tyrant, and even stupidity, all of which can be defined, though inclusion criteria are not agreed upon by RS. Dcs002 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mediation closed, no action. Our mediator thinks we can resolve the content issues on our own. Therefore I am offering my proposals for the article in the section below. Dcs002 (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has, as I see it, suffered from ongoing disagreements for many years, many resulting from ambiguous definitions and the nature of the list of pariah states. The recent AfD ended with no consensus. I would like to propose the following as a way to completely re-write the article in a way I think we can all agree on. If you have comments or additional suggestions, please share them. Here are my ideas:

• First, WP:TNT. "Blow it up and start again." This item struck. This article can be fixed from its current state.
• Complete Then go with Lawal's simplest definition of "pariah state" meaning nothing but an "outcast state" (in the lead section). Lawal[1] is an academic secondary source who covers the issues of definitions of "pariah state", and he gives a detailed explanation of why "pariah state" means "outcast state" in a nearly universal way, in nearly every country in the world. He also offers examples of more esoteric definitions provided by others, specific to the academic field, but they are largely defined by the criteria for inclusion, not linguistic meaning of the term. (See next item.)
• Complete Discuss the lack of universal criteria and defining authority for pariah statehood in the article, in its own section. The criteria (such as whether the state has violated international law or standards, or is only considered by a certain number of states to be a pariah) are NOT to be mistaken for the definition of "outcast state". They are examples of different criteria used by different entities to qualify a state for the label of "pariah state".
• Complete Alternative and more specific definitions should also be covered in the article (in a dedicated section), but if the primary definition is "an outcast state," that solves most of our controversies. Keep the issues of definition and criteria separate, and in separate sections. The definition is an "outcast state". Everything else is criteria for using the label, not what the label means.
• Complete Focus on non-controversial facts when discussing any individual nation, putting the controversy back where it belongs - with the politicians and academics who now use the term rather flexibly. We should neither agree nor disagree with these sources, only report what they say and make sure they are reliable sources.
• Complete That controversy among experts is itself also an objective, encyclopedic fact. There is real disagreement among academics and political leaders as to which states are pariahs and why, and we should discuss in the article, but the disagreement is theirs, not ours.
• Complete We can describe the criteria proposed by reliable sources, using phraseology like "X has proposed criteria Y, and has given Z as an example pariah state under those criteria." Always attributing criteria (and examples, if possible) to the source will keep that non-controversial as well. I think it will also help to err on the side of permissiveness if other editors add more reliably sourced alternate definitions and criteria, as long as they are attributed. I think it's far more important to be inclusive than to reject content because rejecting content can lead us back to unnecessary, emotionally charged disputes. Again, focus controversial content on those who consider certain states pariahs, not on the states themselves.
• Complete I think we should give examples of states that have at some point met the various criteria discussed in the article (like Lawal did - maybe one, or just a few, under each criterion), but not try to list all pariah states. Examples should be enough. WP is not a repository for all facts, and I think we might be able to agree on a few minimally controversial examples. Attempting a comprehensive list should not be important in this article. (If someone wants to take on a new page, "List of pariah states", be my guest.)
• Needs consensus for future Very important IMO: If a nation is seen as a pariah, I don't think that in itself means it should be included. That has been a point of contention for years. We should not try to maintain a comprehensive list. If our goal is to give examples, that whole emotionally charged disagreement goes away - whether the US or Ukraine or some other nation is now a pariah state doesn't matter as much as discussing pariahood in itself. We might be able to agree on a few non-controversial or minimally controversial examples and leave it there.
• Complete Finally, I think we should avoid all lists of pariah states, even lists of examples, because lists might draw readers' attention to which nations made the list, possibly leading to emotional reactions without having the context of what the list means.

In the latest AfD, examples were given: Usurper, tyrant, and stupidity. The pages for these articles do not attempt to list usurpers, tyrants, or stupid people, or assert universal criteria for any of those labels, yet they reveal how topics like this can (and IMO should) be covered in an encyclopedic way.

This is the kind of encyclopedic article I think we need here. What are your thoughts? Dcs002 (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complete rewrite begun. PLEASE comment here. Do you like this direction? My goal is to follow the proposals I have listed above. I would prefer not to put hours and hours of work into rewriting this article (which badly needs some sort of re-write) if this is just going to upset people. Keep in mind that I would like to do away with the list and keep only a few examples, hopefully some non-controversial ones, to illustrate the various criteria for pariahood. Please comment, and please add any other definitions and criteria you find from RS. Please attribute them within the text. Thanks all! Dcs002 (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the additional theory detail and focus on secondary sources included as of this version [2] which is the current version as of this writing. I think you should drop the WP:TNT reference in the above principles as that is an AfD focused essay and you so ably argued against deletion, so it is confusing at best as you are not talking about erasing the page history. I think the biggest sticking point is going to be deletion of the sourced list and replacement with selected examples, which sounds good in principle but may be difficult to achieve consensus upon. I hope the RfC below will attract commentary on how to proceed with this aspect of the development. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping out! Rebuilding this article needs to be a team effort. I wonder if there should be just a bit more etymology in the lead? It's pretty lean right now, but then again, I think it's highly important to leave the alternative definitions for later sections. I'm trying a few things on for size in my sandbox for now.

TNT is struck. You make a good point. All that is left is simple content changes. Simple, though surely not easy, but not TNT either. Thank you again for helping! I sure hope others will also participate, especially those who disagree with this direction. I would hope they feel they can have a say and also make meaningful contributions that can also be discussed and not deleted. My goal is not an article as I would have it, but an encyclopedic article we can all accept, and keep the discussion nice and genial. Dcs002 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First draft complete Please visit my sandbox at User:Dcs002/sandbox and leave comments here. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies to everyone involved in this discussion. I did not realize there was a 30 day standard for leaving this open before acting on it. I also did not understand this was a formal process with a formal closure procedure. (I thought "RfC" was an informal "request for comment" or "request for consensus".) I try very hard to stay on top of WP policies and guidelines, but it looks like I missed this one. Please also understand I was quite excited that this contentious issue, which had for years been the subject of sometimes vitriolic debate, at last seemed to have reached a happy conclusion. I am still very happy that we were able to settle this the way we did, and again I apologize for shortcutting the process. I meant no harm, and I am pleased we ALL worked this one out so well. Much respect to you all, and thank you for working this one out. Also, thanks to Number for the close, and for gently clarifying this. Dcs002 (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the draft that has been sitting in my sandbox, but I removed the examples given in the sources in the first paragraph under "Objective designation". I think it makes reading clunky, and my preference is to use examples only as needed for clarity. I didn't think these examples helped clarify the criteria they were associated with. I have left the version with the historical examples from the sources in my sandbox if you want a look. Does anyone feel like putting them into the article? Dcs002 (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this because the revision leaves open the question of who has accepted the meaning, and it de-emphasizes the universal nature of the definition, as given in the source material. The source was very explicit about this point. Lawale says, "All cultures seem to have accepted the usage of the word to mean outcast." "Don't be silly" is not a helpful edit summary. What is silly about this sentence as it stands? Dcs002 (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it implies to readers that there was some kind of overarching international consensus or authority to designate pariah states. Which is not what reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source says that in historical times, there were accepted authorities, but not today. I reverted the most recent change for this reason (to be consistent with the source), and to remove the statement that put religious authorities in the present tense. The source is explicit that religious organizations were historically authorities, but not today. Please let's stick with what the source says. There used to be more universal control on the issue of who was designated a pariah state. There no longer is such universal control. Dcs002 (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pariah state. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://inthesetimes.com/article/16631/russia_ukraine_noam_chomsky

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seriously needs to be updated. The scale and universality of sanctions against and exclusion of Russia in almost every aspect of life from almost every country in the World is unprecedented, certainly when it comes to such a large and previously well established country. Whether or not anyone agrees with those sanctions, it is clear and well documentable that Russian Federation has become, for the time being, an international pariah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.133.5 (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The definition in the first Paragraph ""A pariah state may face international isolation, sanctions or even an invasion by nations who find its policies, actions, or even its very existence unacceptable" is quite concerning.

Elsewhere I read something about 'international norms' not adhered to. This is all a pathway to destroying sovereign countries. Didn't we think that before? Let's destroy Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya - and everything will be fine? Afghanistan with its discrimination of women now does not adhere to international norms. Why not stop all aid to them after 20 years of invasion did not do the trick? 2001:8003:A070:7F00:2015:2FBA:369B:AA4D (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss global issues or to right great wrongs. This is a place to discuss the article. If you look at the above sections, we went through a very contentious process to decide what should be included in an article about pariah statehood, and we found a strong consensus that we should not be in the business of listing states as pariahs. This article is about what pariah statehood means, not history or events concerning individual states. There is no authority governing which states are pariah states, but there is ample RS material describing the concept of pariahood. Dcs002 (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Russia is considered a pariah state is beyond the scope of this article, which is about what a pariah state is, not who the pariah states are. We went through a contentious process (see above) and reached a strong consensus that we should not be designating or listing states as pariahs. There is no accepted authority for such designation. The case may be strong, but that's not what this article is about. Dcs002 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The latest updated map contain "Taiwan" as a pariah state which is not make sense, it need to be fix as soon as possible. 36.85.22.108 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the map and the list of Pariah states because it seemed an arbitrary list based on original research rather than on reliable sources. It is going to be almost impossible to agree on a list of Pariah states, so it is probably better to not have it. For example, the article's body mentions the US as a Pariah state according to Noam Chomsky. So someone will argue it should also be in the map and in the list. Vpab15 (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now notice there was an RfC nine years ago that concluded the list of countries was original research. So it really shouldn't be added back. Vpab15 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah completely agree. I've opened a RS/N notice about one of the sources used, which seems to be also used on many other pages as references. Zinderboff(talk) 15:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this sort of thing has been going on for a while (beyond just the last few weeks), I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Pariah state so the broader community can weigh in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be more examples given of pariah states, like Francoist Spain. Otherwise, the article has no purpose. It doesn't serve to teach history, and consists of vague conceptions of a hypothetical pariah state, only labeling the United States, Cuba, Iraq and the Ottoman Empire as possible cases. That doesn't excuse poor sourcing though, and I will get to finding sources on Spain's isolation as soon as I can. Salmoonlight (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map and any details relying on worlddata.info shouldn't be restored, the site is using Wikipedia as one of its sources for data (see WP:CIRCULAR). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also hesitate to use opinion pieces as sources for lists, where they can't use intext attribution. Maybe sections discussing the different states and the opinions on / history of them would be a better solution than a list that can't put the labelling in context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well? Shouldn't there be one? 197.91.18.157 (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, see section above. Vpab15 (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]