Talk:Police state/Archive 5

Refinement of Proposal
While we wait for others to chime in on the request for comment let me present what I think should be included in the US section. I would appreciate if this as a whole is analyzed (assuming it may be entered after the page is updated with other police state information), and additionally what is most important here and should be included in the condensed version, lets see if we can get this into four paragraphs to see if this is a reasonable size condensate, to be included until we get to the entire page updated. I have taken out all RT references, and have added Byelfs latest recommendations. Thank you ahead of time.

Numerous organizations and legal experts argue that since 9/11 various legislation has been passed that partially or fully nullifies elements of the rights of American citizens found in the Bill of Rights. The ACLU also argues that the Patriot Act violates a number of personal freedoms, including allowing agents to breaking into a house and search it without the owners knowledge and they never have to tell the people who own the property that it was searched, this practice is called "sneak and peaks" and the ACLU says, "There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access to your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely." These practices have been used more than 11,000% more on non-terrorist related investigations than on investigations related to terrorists, including against drug dealers and political protesters. Furthermore, the ACLU argues that legislation such as the NDAA violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments and is conscripted to allow for the indefinite detention of and killing of American citizens even without trial, and the Act is facing fierce opposition from the public and legally, currently (September 2012) there are nine states that have challenged the law in court and a New York Judge, (Forrest), has been successful in placing an injunction on the law, however the Obama legal team and administration refuse to confirm that they will abide by the courts ruling, reporter Tangerine Bolen who is a plaintiff in the case states that the government could be in contempt of court saying, "Obama's attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA's section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest's injunction, in other words, they were telling a US federal judge that they could not, or would not, state whether Obama's government had complied with the legal injunction that she had laid down before them”. Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings in the United States with the stated purpose of protecting the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves, however critics suggest that such zones are "Orwellian" (see List of fictional police states) and are a clear violation of the First Amendments right to speech and assemble peaceably. Critics say that if Free Speech Zones exist as regions where the Constitutionally protected First Amendment is valid this means there are areas where the First Amendment has been removed, clearly violating the First Amendments right and intent. America has made torture legal, and has tortured individuals hundreds of times, including waterboarding which we tried and executed Japanese for the exact same crime in WWII as a war crime this is against the Constitution and International Law and Treaties and is a sign of a police state atmosphere, especially since those that ordered the torture have skirted prosecution. Similarly, 'black sites' have been exposed where US Military detainees are taken to be interrogated in countries where torture is routinely done, this is morally wrong obviously but it is also illegal and indicative of police state like activity. Additionally Obama has asserted that there is a "kill list", an issue brought to the forefront after three American citizens were killed in a drone strike ordered by the US Government, and President Obama is butting heads with Congress on the legality of Americans being on a "kill list".
 * Constitutional claims

There has been a steady increase in the police being aided by and resemble increasingly the practices of the military including using their weapons and tactics. Established in 1878 the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for law enforcement and policing activities but this law has been continually violated as the military has been used for years for things such as DUI checkpoints and serving warrants in conjunction with the local or state police. Since 1990 the police have been militarized increasingly and Federal funding has helped this process with large discounts for military gear for the police, and after 9/11 this militarization has quickened at a concerning rate. This militarization of the police force manifests as using military equipment, military style weapons such as assault rifles armored vehicles (often purchased from the military),, blimps, helicopters, planes as well as the most recent addition, drones, all of which may be armed. Two American lawmakers have stated on the record that, in their opinion, Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) legalizes or authorizes martial law in the United States, additionally Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) stated "These provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect...Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil."
 * Militarization of police

Critics accusing the America of becoming a police state point to the prison population which is higher in total number of prisoners and prisoners per 100,000 people than any other country, the USA is merely 5% of the world population yet it contains about 1/4 of the worlds prison detainees, despite having populations much smaller than other countries such as China (which is a claimed police state). . Furthermore private prisons have been allowed to operate and have agreements and contracts with states that grantee the prison will remain 90% full, this is an obvious collusion of a corporation with a state, and is called a civil rights disaster because mandating a percentage of people in prison puts a strain on the legal system potentially forcing judges and prosecutors to modify their sentencing to ensure the prison is filled. Similarly, the court case of Citizens United has made the ruling that corporations are legally equal to people, thus allowing, among other things unlimited donations for use in elections which is dangerous to a free democracy because corporations have far more money than individual donors making candidates susceptible to being controlled by big business. Americas election process has been criticized in the past because lobbyists pay politicians to persuade the politician to vote a certain way, and because of this the US political system has been called Crony Capitalism and the Citizens United case lends credence to this accusation. Additionally, Benito Mussolini has been quoted as saying about fascism (a type of police state), " Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power," and it is clear to see that there is a merging of corporate influence and power in the American political system. An electronic police state is said to be present in America by organizations that rate countries on an electronic police state scale, including in the annual document called "The Electronic Police State" where in the latest release the USA is ranked as the top, most advanced, Western government to be an electronic police state, followed closely by the United Kingdom The USA is an extremely high tech spying operation capable of monitoring all electronic communications and data in real time and stores the information, and operates multination spying systems such as ECHELON, and there are fusion centers locally where data is collected on the American people and disseminated to various National Security, Law Enforcement, Military and sometimes Business Agencies, also whistle-blowers claim that every American is being spied on including all internet activity, phone calls, texts, emails, banking and travel information and are compiling and saving this data, blatantly in violation of the 4th Amendment. There is an entire army brigade assigned solely to the United States, USNORTHCOM, (something that has never happened before in the country's history), and there is a civilian force called Infragard, which uses business people, civilians and others to spy on clients, and members of the community and report to the FBI, having over 40,000 members it has been criticized by the ACLU saying there "is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate (Terrorism Information and Preventing System) TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations - some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers - into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI", other critics call this the equivalent of the East German Stasi. Another claim that the US could be becoming a police state is the control over travel and the media, specifically the TSA has been criticized for its procedures of forcing passengers to endure a 'Naked body scanner' or 'Invasive pat down' (which includes touching of the gentiles of travelers, including children, which in itself is a crime in all states) if they refuse to go through the potentially harmful body scanner, and the TSA have spread from the airport to highways, trains, and other means of transportation , and critics say the media is unbiased being influenced by government similar to the 1950's Operation Mockingbird and there are proven instances of the government paying journalists to report on certain stories from a particular viewpoint. Disarming the population is key to having a police state as an armed populace is more likely to be able to throw off the chains of tyranny, and previous police states of Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot and Mao all implemented disarmament as part of their reign. There have been many attempts to disarm and limit the American populaces Second Amendment Right to own firearms, one of the most recent examples being the UN Small Arms Treaty of 2012, and when that treaty failed to be enacted a Programme of Action Against Small Arms called “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat, and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects” which is compared by a New American article to a "wholesale national expansion of the "Fast and Furious" operation that bore no fruit and resulted in the death of a US border patrol officer" among thousands of other deaths. Gun confiscation has already occurred in one modern American city; in hurricane Katrina the citizens of New Orleans, including those that had plenty of food and water and were in 'high and dry' areas were stripped of their firearms illegally. The "Fast and Furious" operation was carried out by the US Government in which guns were sent to violent drug gangs in the US and to Mexican drug gangs resulting in the killing of many people including Border Patrol agents. This incident was seen by many as a False Flag to demonize the Second Amendment allowing for the passage of very restrictive gun control, but the operation was unsuccessful in this regard when it came out that the ATF, FBI, DEA, ICE and even members of the US Government in the highest echelons including US Attorney General Eric Holder and possibly President Obama knew of the plan to give known violent drug cartels the weapons, and the allowance of tons of cocaine and marijuana to flow back into the United States to be distributed in US cities. Some cities such as New York and Chicago have succeeded in banning types of commonly used guns such as handguns. Groups such as the Oath Keepers, which are serving military and veterans of war, police and others who have taken an Oath to defend and protect the Constitution understand the risk of and the reality that elements of the US Government want and are actively trying to severely limit and end the Second Amendment, thus The Oath Keepers have vowed to uphold the Oath they took to 'protect and defend the Constitution'. The Oath Keepers know that protecting the rights of US Citizens to own and use firearms is paramount to a free society not controlled as a police state and they say they will disobey orders to disarm Americans and fight to protect these rights from being violated by overreaching governments.
 * Other police state attributes

Jack T. Tripper (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect,


 * First, your entry contains not only complete falsehoods, but is blatent plagarism, WP:PLAGIARISM and copied word-for-word from K. Nilsen's OP-ED entitled "Police/Nanny State" on the WeAreChangeWichita.org whose mission statement is "We Are Change is a citizens based grassroots peace and social justice movement working to reveal the truth behind the events of September 11th as well as the lies of the government and corporate elite who remain suspect in this crime." You can sum up the author's rant with "Some fringe organizations believe 9/11 was a cover-up for the US police state to advance its police state."   (note the reference to the article you cut and pasted)


 * Second, Wikipedia is not your soapbox. WP:NOTSOAPBOX You have a place on a blog, use that if you want to just cut and paste walls of text, located here: http://www.opednews.com/articles/It-s-Official-the-US-is-a-by-Jack-Tripper-120919-551.html


 * Third, I am deleting the above from the article - if you want to summarize and source it, great.


 * Fourth, if you want to bring up points on the Constitution, laws, judicial reviews, and events, please cite the Constitution and/or the law, and please refrain from writing things you have no clue about, such as the Posse Comitatus Act "prohibits the use of the military for law enforcement and policing activities" - it does not - there are very specific laws that regulate that, (and if you actually read the reference, you'll note that in the example cited, the Sheriff requested military in a support role - which any Sherriff in the United States can do). Of course if there was a protest about that - by al means, provide a quick summary and cite the source.


 * Fifth, I agree that a history of events, laws, decisions relevant to moving towards or away from a Police State makes for a good and interesting article, but for God's sakes summarize points (if I want more info, ill click your reference article) - and speaking of references you need that too. Thanks Patriot1010 (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

...the above was written first and the oped and WACW article was taken from here on the Talk page.24.249.118.218 (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to absolutely clear all of those where written by the same person who put it on the TALK page here first but put it on other sites as well since it didn't look like this was going to go up on the main wiki page. I don't think any rules have been broken, they were written here and passed along to other websites that would post the full thing since it became apparent it wouldn't be featured here in full on the main wiki page, the material did NOT originate on ANY webpage first, it was ALL written HERE on the TALK page and then moved to other pages to reach an audience since it wasn't going to be put on the wiki page, is there anything wrong with this?24.249.118.218 (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There is if the other sites got their information from here and are not properly attributing the original source as required by the CC-BY-SA license. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And if the other sites got their information/content from Wikipedia, then there is no doubt that we cannot use them as sources for anything in the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Where was there a link to use them as a source?24.249.118.218 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like us to move forward w/ putting in a lot more U.S. content. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 November 2012
 * I think a lot of material about the U.S. would make this general article too U.S. oriented. There is currently an article Human rights in the United States which might be a better location for large amounts of detailed information.Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

New section "Features of police states"
I searched the web to find a concise, complete list of objective attributes of police states, but was unable to find one. This section is admittedly original research, but if anyone can find such a list or lists, please add then as references. Without such a list, it becomes difficult to differentiate a "normal" state from a police state. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is very problematic that the list recently added headed "Features of police states" is completely uncited as it smacks of original research. We really need some reliable secondary sources that lists these features as citation, otherwise it will have to be removed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The first, fourth, fifth and seventh paragraphs of the article are also completely unsourced. Should they also be deleted? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If no sources can be found to back up their claims they eventually should be deleted (and as per WP:OTHERSTUFF and common sense it is never a good excuse to add more unsourced information to an article on the grounds that it already contains unsourced information). --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also the citation that you added as an unsigned opinion piece from a partisan organisation does not qualify as an reliable source, so it can't be used to source your general claims in that way. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The second citation is again yet another opinion piece. The opinion of John W. Whitehead is probably notable enough to include in a section about US (purely as his opinion), but again it cannot be used to support general claims about police states as you do.
 * Please add a citation for each item on the list, don't just add citations to the bottom of the list, since that will make it impossible to discern which of the many claims in the list it supports. I will give you a couple of days to find some reliable secondary sources for each of the listed features. By that time any uncited or non-reliably cited items on the list will be deleted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding opinion pieces as citations, you are simply wasting your time. You haven't added a single acceptable reliable source to back up general claims in the way you attempt. Try and find some scholarly work that speak of police states in general terms and define their characteristics. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mostly news sources, the ACLU, academics. There seems to be a consensus about what the features of a police state are. Are there any particular features that you feel are inaccurate? Do you have sources that disagree with these features? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I have a problem with most of the features listed, in that they are not exclusively endemic to police states but can be features of many types of states. However you are the one making the claims in the article, so per WP:BURDEN you are the one that needs to present sources that support them. You have provided no scholarly sources, you have provided a lot of different opinion-pieces or single case news stories. Extrapolating to general claims from these would constitute WP:SYNTH. That is why you will need to provide some scholarly sources that discuss and defines police states in general terms and which supports every single listed feature on your list. This is pretty basic Wikipedia procedure. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * All of these sources discuss police states and their attributes. Can you provide details as to which source you object to, or which feature of police states is unsourced, and why you feel these particular references or features are unacceptable? It sounds as if you want the entire list removed for some reason. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do indeed want the entire list removed, because it is unsourced. I have a problem with all your citations for the reasons mentioned (and mentioned again) above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you seem to have put a lot of time and energy into sourcing that last feature on the list, even though most of the sources you have listed there doesn't actually support or mention anything about elections (and of course suffers from being unreliable opinion-pieces or single-case news items or studies which cannot be used for general claims). It would be nice if you took the time to find citations (and again, preferably better and more general) for the rest of the claims in the list. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I just finished placing the references in the correct locations (each source mentions multiple features of police states, so at the end was logical, but I accepted your suggestion). Why would you want to remove this list? Don't you think an objective list of traits of police states helps distinguish police states from normal states? I think it improves the article. What do other editors of this article think? Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Since no scholarly sources describing police state in general terms have been found, I have deleted the list as being in breach of WP:OR. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The OR policy says "reliable sources" not "scholarly sources" and includes "mainstream newspapers" as reliable sources. Also, ask yourself this: Was the deleted material factually inaccurate? Does your deletion improve the quality of the article? I could redo this entirely and use the criteria used by the freedom ranking groups, but those are primary sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Since you are not objecting to the accuracy of the material, but just to the quality of the (numerous) sources cited, I've undeleted this section and added a "cite check" tag. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Added two academic references. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC) These are hard to find because most of the academic material on-line is graduate level research papers, and this list is Political Science 101 material that mostly appears in proprietary textbooks for undergraduate students. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you ever actually read the policies? Try WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is the worst form of transgression of this policy I have ever seen. Each inferior citation you throw at the growing bunch only makes it worse. I am going to take this matter to the No original research/Noticeboard. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't feel this is synthesis. The topic of the article is Police states and the cited references discuss attributes of police states. Feel free to take this to any forum you like - I feel your removal of well sourced material is highly questionable. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC) And it's clearly not OR since there are a wealth of references now. Your re-tagging the material as unsourced is rather strange. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note to other editors: this issue is now being discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Police_state Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the list as original research as per the consensus on the noticeboard. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've challenged your consensus claim and deletion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Police_state Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As an alternative approach, I've paraphrased the criteria used by one "freedom rating" group to determine how free or unfree a society is. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, my bold attempt at a resolution has been immediately deleted without discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=582770964&oldid=582765017 Why is it that this reliably sourced, neutrally worded list of objective indicators has been repeatedly deleted, but at the top of the next section the completely unsourced assertion that "it is impossible to objectively determine whether a nation has become or is becoming a police state" is allowed to stand unchallenged? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state#Examples_of_states_with_police_state-like_attributes Just a little strange, in my opinion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The citation used to source your new list does not mention that the features listed are particular of police states. The features listed in the Freedom House source are merely indicators of the degree of freedom in a society. So again to claim that they are particular indicators of a police state would make it original research. Also please take your time to familiarise yourself with BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The revised edit includes the following line before the list: "Factors which are considered when determining the degree of freedom in a society include things such as:" It is talking about the degree of political freedom, which agrees precisely with the reliable source supplied. How can other editors discuss this edit if it has been deleted? Please see WP:ROWN. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Here is the diff of your deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=582794914&oldid=582788773 Please note that states that score low on this index are labeled "unfree" which means they are police states. There is already a map based on this source in the article which makes this point. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I understand the problem. The term "police state" is not a scientific term, it's an epithet or insult. That's why there are so few academic sources that use the term "police state". But it is easily understood that a police state is a state "where basic political rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied" (per a RS quoted in the article). We can also call them "unfree states", "authoritarian regimes", "despotisms", etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Freedom House source is not an acceptable source, and the fact that it has already been used as a source in this article is not a valid excuse per WP:OTHERSTUFF, since as far as I can see every single instance of its use in this article constitutes OR as well. This article is a mess of unsourced dubious claims and OR, it is badly in need of a trimming, even a stubification, at least every single image in this article needs to be removed, but until that happens, there is absolutely no reason why more OR-crud should be added by you or any other editor. And no, your personal interpretation of what a police state is is completely irrelevant to this article, although highly revealing about your lack of knowledge about the subject itself. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

All of my edits have been reliably sourced, neutrally worded, and relevant to the article. You had better cool your jets a little, start assuming good faith, and exhibit a little more civility. You don't own this article. Please see WP:OWN Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No none of your edits have been reliably sourced, that is the issue here and on WP:NOR. The fact that you still try to pretend that they have is just further evidence of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The last version (now deleted) does not claim to be "describing police states". It claims to be a list of indicators used to determine how free or unfree a state is. Unfree states are clearly another term for police states. Paraphrasing is not OR. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are just grasping at straws now. No, "unfree states" is not another term for police states. "Unfree states" includes a whole range of different types of governments. Paraphrasing is indeed not necessarily OR, but, as our article paraphrase states: "Paraphrase may attempt to preserve the essential meaning of the material being paraphrased. Thus, the (intentional or otherwise) reinterpretation of a source to infer a meaning that is not explicitly evident in the source itself qualifies as "original research," and not as paraphrase". And of course that is what you did by reinterpetating "unfree states" as "police states". And that is also what has been done in all the other instances where that source has been similarly used in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disgree. Freedom House is defining unfree states as states "where basic political rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied." Which is also the definition of a police state. I've made a proposal for an WP:RFC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Police_state It's a bit annoying to be having this discussion at two different locations. If you agree to my Rfc proposal, we should post it on this page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not going to stop your forumshopping. Approaching a third venue to present your original research in is not going to make it less annoying, and you are basically just including more and more editors in your timewasting process. Don't be surprised at any WP:BOOMERANGs coming your way. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Refimprove and OR tags
I have renewed the refimprove and OR tags recently removed from the article, since the problems they refer to are still very much present in the article. The article is a mess of original research and unsourced claims. For example all the images using the Freedom House study is original research, since that study doesn't mention police states, only the level of freedom in nations. The "Enlightened Absolutism" section provides no sources that connects this term with "Police state" and as such is also original research. The "History of usage" section contains one citation (not counting the irrelevant "electronic police state" citations, from which I removed some blatant original research), and while that citation is a good one, the section need a lot more citations for the specific claims made about the usage and history of the term. The "Examples of Police state" section also needs citations for 3/5 of the examples mentioned being police states.

All in all, even considering the relative briefness of the article, it is so problematic that I am tempted to suggest stubbing the article by removing all the unsourced material as well as the OR. That would in my opinion make a much better foundation for improvement than the current mess. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As a first step to improve the article, I suggest that relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV contributions from other editors NOT BE SUMMARILY DELETED. Just a suggestion. I've tried to help, but I give up. The Freedom House material is highly relevant. An "unfree state" is obviously a police state. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, obviously that's not obvious at all ... obviously, in fact, it's obviously false, since a constitutional state can obviously be unfree ... obviously. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinochet
The cited source describing Chile under Pinochet is of dubious quality, being merely one line lacking any argument, and bizarrely asserting that the free-market requires a police state, again without any argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.33.89 (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of Examples
Buenos-Ding-Dong-Didly-Dias:

I liked the part that says: "Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state." Yet the article doesn't provide any examples in modern times. Is Canada such an example? Is the US? Surely there is some honest intellectual out there who would be able to provide an example of this kind other than the typical common examples everyone is taught in grade 12 social studies classes. Are there any Internet radicals out there that would like to bring to light the truth?

Saludos,

70.72.45.131 (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia. Bring sources. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There used to be info about ratings by rights groups, but they were repeatedly deleted from the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=601352639&oldid=601352523 Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

United States
Before anyone asks yes I am an American and I think absolutely that the US should be listed on here, it meets all the requirements for a police state and I would say the only reason it's not on here is 1) Fear 2) Americans on here being patriotic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.199.193 (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Too bad that all the reliably sourced criteria that would help readers objectively discern what makes a society a police state have been deleted from the article. I guess it's just a matter of opinion, like who is a "freedom fighter" and who is an "insurgent". But seriously, if you can find reliable sources (textbooks, journal articles, articles from respected newspapers or magazines, etc.) that say the U.S. is a police state, go for it and we'll see what happens. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a reasonable secondary source which says that the US could be turning into a police state: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/12/former-top-nsa-official-now-police-state.html Smk65536 (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A blog entry is not a reliable source and what something "could be turning into" is not relevant to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Future_event). -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Im German and I also think that the USA is a Police State like Iran and China.--95.113.237.137 (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what you or 173.81.199.193 think and this is not the place for your opinions. (And no, the U.S. does not "meet all the requirements for a police state", since it's a Rechtsstaat ... see the lede.) -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The USA has the largest prison system of world this country is an Unrechtsstaat.--95.114.36.218 (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * and because of the WP:UNDUE policy, any claims that the US is a police state would need to be framed as a minority opinion. Probably want to look for something from a major university press that says something like "While it is a minority position a few noted scholars like X, Y and Z have cited A, B and C to call the US a police state." And there is also the issue that our list of widely-agreed -upon police states is minimal, that including a highly contested claim would be UNDUE - beefing up the actual police state coverage would be a necessary first step.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Edward Snowden showed us that the USA are actually more than only a Police State, in fact the USA are Prevention State.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just removed the US paragraph as it was specific to shootings of blacks by police. While heavily publicized, there is no strong evidence that racially-motivated unjust killings are common. The statistics suggest a much more muted situation. Risc64 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That said, I do think that the pervasiveness and expense of the US's federal intelligence and regional police/SWAT programs justify an encyclopedic suggestion that it's a police state. FWIW, I'm an American. Risc64 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No, under the rules of Wikipedia, we as Wikipedia editors don't add material because we believe that such and such a situation "justifies an encyclopedic suggestion" of something. And, we do not list the United States of America as a "police state" merely because an editor "thinks absolutely" that "the US should be listed on here..." Let's stay serious. Wikipedia articles are not the proper places to push the viewpoints of its editors. Famspear (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes we do, as long as we consider our belief rational and supported by citable evidence. Risc64 (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, we don't. If we actually have reliable, previously published third party sources, and we use those sources properly, then we're not adding material because we believe that such and such a situation "justifies an encyclopedic suggestion" of something. If we have reliable, previously published third party sources, then we are not list the United States of America as a "police state" merely because an editor "thinks absolutely" that "the US should be listed on here..." Famspear (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you add and cite things that you believe to be false? Risc64 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Risc64: In Wikipedia, in deciding whether to a particular matter is appropriate for inclusion, the proper test is not whether you consider the material to be true or false, or whether your consider your "belief" in the material to be "rational" -- or even whether your belief is "supported by citable evidence." We're not here to use Wikipedia articles to promote our personal beliefs. We're here to edit the encyclopedia, observing the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, including most notably Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research (a term of art in Wikipedia).

Wikipedia is indeed full of statements that you might happen to believe are false. But the fact that you might believe that a particular statement is false does not mean that, under the rules, you as an editor could not "use" it in Wikipedia -- as long as you do not try to make it appear as though Wikipedia itself is taking a stand about the truth or falsity of the statement. Neutral Point of View means, in part, presenting opposing sides of an argument about facts without Wikipedia itself taking a stand as to which statement is true -- or false. Famspear (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Example: Whether a particular country is a "police state" depends on the definition that you are using. But, let's suppose that we have a definition, and (just to make things simple) that everyone in the universe agrees that it's the one and only definition of "police state." Let's also suppose that you have two Reliable Sources (as that term is used in Wikipedia), and Source #1 says "Yes, Country X is a Police State" while Source #2 says "No, Country X is not a Police State". Let's also assume that neither viewpoint is considered a fringe position. Even if you as an editor happen to agree with Source #1, your belief that Country X is a Police State (your agreement with what Source #1 says) should not be a determining factor in how you edit Wikipedia. Under the concept of Neutral Point of View, you could include the views of BOTH Reliable Sources, even though their statements are opposite and if one of the statements must logically be false. What you cannot do as a Wikipedia editor is to try to have Wikipedia take sides and say (or imply) which statement is correct.

Where you have two opposing viewpoints and one of them is a fringe position, the application of the Neutral Point of View concept remains. For example, if 99.9% of all Reliable Sources maintain that The Moon is made of moon dust and 0.1% of Reliable Sources maintain that The Moon is made of Green Cheese, Wikipedia might be able to report both positions in an article. But Neutral Point of View does not mean that Wikipedia would have to give equal weight to both positions. Wikipedia could reflect the fact that 99.9% of the Reliable Sources do indeed maintain that The Moon is made of moon dust. The fringe Green Cheese position might be reported as well -- without Wikipedia itself taking a stand that the Green Cheese argument is right or wrong. Famspear (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to bother reading all that. Regardless, my point is that when a Wikipedia editor says "I believe X", they usually don't mean "X is a personal belief I hold dear". They mean "I believe X is verifiably true". For example, "the amount of its GDP that the US spends on surveillance and the amount of data it collects is unprecedented". Assume good faith. Risc64 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Risc64: I would suggest that because you feel it's too much a "bother" for you to read a four paragraph response, which response you refer to as "all that", then you should reconsider your practice of asking me questions. These are important concepts that all editors need to understand, and the four paragraphs shown above should not be considered an overwhelming amount of information. Learning the rules here in Wikipedia does require effort, even if it means "bothering" to read four paragraphs written in response to your own question.


 * When a Wikipedia editor says that he or she believes that such and such a situation "justifies an encyclopedic suggestion" of something, I assume that the editor means precisely that -- and not something else. When a Wikipedia editor indicates a desire to list a particular country in Wikipedia as a "police state" because the editor "thinks absolutely" that the country "should be listed on here", I assume that the editor really means precisely that -- and not something else.


 * Assume good faith. Famspear (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I took a whack at adding info on the U.S., well supported by reliable sources.Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already been deleted without discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=719748738&oldid=719724654 Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC) I've invited the editor who deleted this to explain why he feels these are a synthesis of "random facts" that warrant deletion, even though many of the cited sources explicitly mention the U.S. as a police state. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We already went through this years ago. Look back in the archives. The fact you still haven't given this up does not hint at an interest in neutrality.  Toa   Nidhiki05  02:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we are discussion your RECENT deletion, not previous edits. Exactly why do you feel the material you deleted is a synthesis of unrelated facts? Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In the absence of an explanation why relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV material was deleted, or why you feel this is WP:SYNTH, I've undeleted the paragraph in question. It might be helpful for the purposes of this discussion to leave this paragraph in the article until editors have a chance to discuss it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's blatantly a synth violation. You've taken a bunch of random stats about the police and are trying to use it to justify calling the US a police state. That's silly.  Toa   Nidhiki05  15:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What do the other editors think? How are stats on incarceration rates, citizens killed by police, mass surveillance, militarized police units being used against underaged drinkers and unlicensed barbers, and mass tracking of people's movements considered to be synthesis and not evidence of a police state? Why are these facts considered to be synthesis when applied to the U.S. but not synthesis when used to demonstrate that the other countries are police states? What about the cited references that explicitly call the U.S. a police state? Here is the deleted paragraph:
 * "'The United States has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world, at 716 per 100,000 people.[23] Police in the U.S. killed between 975 and 1,186 people in 2015, according to various news organizations and citizens groups.[24] According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. government 'is regularly tracking the calls of hundreds of millions of Americans and spying on a vast but unknown number of Americans’ international calls, text messages, and emails.'[25] There is increasing concern about the aggressiveness of policing and use of excessive force against suspects.[26][27][28][29] Nearly one out of every three American adults has a record in a criminal database.[30] Heavily armed SWAT teams have been used against illegal gamblers, barbers operating without licenses, underage drinkers, alcohol permit violaters, child pornographers, chicken fight organizers and political protesters.[31] License plate tracking systems are being used to record the movements of 'millions of innocent citizens'.[32]'"

References: Furthermore, in order to be synthesis doesn't there have to be some unsupported conclusion that is being drawn? I am drawing no conclusions here, only supplying facts that are clearly indicators of a police state. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Michelle Ye Hee Lee (July 7, 2015). "Yes, U.S. locks people up at a higher rate than any other country". Washington Post.
 * Dylan Petrohilos (December 28, 2015). "Here’s How Many People Police Killed In 2015". ThinkProgress.
 * "NSA Surveillance". ACLU. Retrieved May 11, 2016.
 * Oliver Laughland and Jamiles Lartey (June 18, 2015). "All 50 US states fail to meet global police use of force standards, report finds". The Guardian.
 * Matthew Harwood (December 21, 2015). "The Biggest Threat to American Public Safety Is the American Police State". The Nation.
 * John W. Whitehead (January 6, 2014). "Life in the Emerging American Police State: What's in Store for Our Freedoms in 2014?". Huffington Post.
 * Gene Robinson (September 1, 2014). "Is America a Police State? For Many, Yes". The Daily Beast.
 * Gary Fields and John R. Emshwiller (August 18, 2014). "As Arrest Records Rise, Americans Find Consequences Can Last a Lifetime". Wall Street Journal.
 * Radley Balko (July 7, 2013). "“Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book”: The new warrior cop is out of control". Salon.
 * James R. Healey, Greg Toppo and Fred Meier (July 18, 2013). "You can't hide from cops with license-plate scanners". USA Today
 * Once again, utterly laughable. Alleged police brutality and a police state aren't the same thing - although you've demonstrated this lack of understanding before, in your previous attempts to inject this sort of material. You've taken a bunch of random sources on vastly different topics to pretend that they say together something they don't. Clear SYNTH violation.  Toa   Nidhiki05  13:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In light of the many reliable sources which support inclusion, many of which explicitly refer to the United States as a "police state", you seem to lack objectivity on this subject. Are their any conflicts of interest WP:COI? Are you an employee or contractor (added) of the U.S. government, one of its national security or law enforcement agencies, or its military? There have been repeated suggestions and efforts by other editors to include similar information in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am an agent of Mossad. My reptilian overlords sent me from the planet Nibiru to examine, study, and prepare the reaping of mankind. In order to ensure this it is vital that Wikipedia remain pure of ungood thought. They cannot know that we blew up the World Trade Centers with space lasers in order to allow the Bushes (fellow Mossad agents) to establish a police state. I'm afraid you have become an inconvenience to us. We have taken custody of your family. You will receive further instruction at 3 AM UST tomorrow. Follow these instructions carefully if you want to live.  Toa   Nidhiki05  22:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia's power lies in its openness, but how can you prevent the powers-that-be from gaming the system? A new series of Twitter bots aims to shed light on government officials tinkering with Wikipedia's articles by tracking and posting any edits made from government IP addresses." https://motherboard.vice.com/read/these-bots-tweet-when-government-officials-edit-wikipedia Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already revealed my status as a Mossad agent. Why not go to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and report it? Are you afraid?  Toa   Nidhiki05  03:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems odd that countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and other U.S. allies are not included in the article, that information about the U.S. contributed by various editors has been totally blanked out, even when it seems well sourced and neutral, and that the reasons for deletion are so vague or even clearly hostile, such as "Not happening". It is a bit suspicious.Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is laughable to not include the United States or other allies, particularly Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, and Israel, to this list. You can't even sneeze in Arabic within Israel without becoming a military target.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.223.93 (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you are convinced I'm a government agent, why haven't you filed a complaint at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard yet? I'll file it for you if you want because it will be very funny to see the reaction.  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

you litteraly only need to read the patriot act and nsa to tell America is a police state with Dhs being secret police wake up department of homeland security is secret police deal with it (I'm sure many sites agree which might soon be sited) not to mention the reversion of the edits here (on USA being police state) are very conservative not unbiased which would say that USA is police state in some way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.194.254 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Deletion/restoration of maps
Someone please explain why "China" is not on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.183.170 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Authoritarian regimes" shown on maps are clearly synonymous with "police states". Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * the term "police state" is widely known and free to use. if the researchers had intended their work to reflect "police state" they certainly could have actively used the term. they didnt. for us to assume "synonymous" would then render this page a POV fork of Authoritarianism and be evidence that this should be a redirect and not a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * and you are going against the overwhelming consensus of just a few months ago . Please stop your nonsense. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  06:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting reliably sourced material that is clearly relevant to the article, why not supply reliably sourced alternative rankings that you feel are less biased? The Economist, Freedom House, etc. are clearly reliable sources, but this doesn't mean they don't have a world view. Low freedom ranking equals police state. What other possible definition could there be? Is it logically possible to have an unfree state that is not a police state? This is "Paris is the capital of France" obvious. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a diff of the most recent deletion of reliably sourced, relevant, NPOV material from the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&diff=601352639&oldid=601352523 Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * it is NOT appropriately sourced as everyone has been indicating. The sources do not discuss "Police state" when they have ample opportunity to do so if they wanted and felt it was appropriate to the context of their material. Taking content out of the specific context of the sources is not allowed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Low freedom ranking equals police state. -- regardless of how many times you assert this, it remains your unsourced opinion. (And you haven't even stated how low, which you could if your sources supported you.) -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we try a Request for Comment WP:RFC on the "Politics, government, and law" issue area. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC) Here is a possible description of the issue: The section "Rating systems", which includes the two maps to the far right on this version of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&oldid=601352523 has been deleted repeatedly, the stated reason being that "police state" and "authoritarian regime" refer to two distinct and different things. Do you feel this section is relevant to the article "Police state", reliably sourced and neutral in point of view, or do you agree that it should be deleted because it doesn't belong in this article? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC) The entire "Rating systems" section of the article Police state has been repeatedly deleted. It includes the text, references, and two maps which appear to the far right in this version of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_state&oldid=601352523. Do you feel this section and these maps are relevant to the article, reliably sourced and neutral in point of view, or do you feel all this material should be deleted because it doesn't belong in the article? Ghostofnemo (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Another, sad Wikipedia fail. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * oppose inclusion of those items - the creators of those lists and studies were very clear in what they were looking and what they were measuring and why they were looking at what they looked at. They were not looking at / measuring indications of "police state". for us to translate their work from their context into a context that is not what their work was about is a violation of WP:SYN. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * and commenters may wish to be aware that this was discussed at the No Original Research notice boards a few months ago. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That section is not properly referenced. It cites four sources, three of which do not even mention "police state", while one just mentions Eritrea being a police state. Connecting those sources and their claims with the "police state" would be an original research, which is prohibited. To include the "rating systems" section, we need some sources about the rating of police states, which I do not see. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with the above editors that including this would constitute original research. AIR corn (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment If multiple human rights organizations and publications are cited which label certain states as "unfree" or "authoritarian", how can it be original research? If this material is deleted, we have no objective basis whatsoever for the concept of "police state" - it becomes just an insult that is thrown around without any precise meaning. I'm not saying there is only one, objective yardstick, but at least this was a start. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think I have made my case against Ghostofnemos repeated and inherent OR tendencies above. Nothing has changed since then. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. They are either fork of authoritarianism or WP:OR with WP:POV. "The Economist, Freedom House, etc. are clearly reliable sources", no they are not in this case. Both represent specific political positions. Sietecolores (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, this was a success ... material that did not refer to police states was correctly rejected as a source for statements about police states. To treat "police state" and "authoritarian regime" or "unfree state" as synonymous (they clearly are not; constitutional states can be authoritarian and unfree) on your say-so would have been a failure. -- 184.189.217.91 (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Objective standards
I've flagged this unreferenced sentence in 'History of Usage' section of the article: "Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no objective standards defining a police state." There are multiple organizations that do in fact rate countries on the basis of the amount of freedom their citizens/residents enjoy, for example, see List of freedom indices. While these rankings are somewhat subjective, they are intended to be based on objective criteria. There used to be information on these indices in the article, but it has all been deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC) For example, Freedom House uses these criteria: "For each country and territory, Freedom in the World analyzes the electoral process, political pluralism and participation, the functioning of the government, freedom of expression and of belief, associational and organizational rights, the rule of law, and personal autonomy and individual rights." https://freedomhouse.org/report-types/freedom-world You could also use incarceration rates, number of people killed or injured by security personnel, number of people charged with ideological crimes, etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is an example from an article by a former U.S. State Department employee: "... Saudi Arabia remains one of the world’s most authoritarian regimes. Women must have the consent of a male guardian to enroll in college, look for a job or travel. They cannot swim in public or try on clothes when shopping. The Saudi government also routinely arrests people without judicial review, according to Human Rights Watch. Citizens can be executed for nonviolent drug crimes, often in public. Forty-eight people were beheaded in the first four months of 2018 alone. Saudi Arabia ranks just above North Korea on political rights, civil liberties and other measures of freedom, according to the democracy watchdog Freedom House. But its wealth, strategic Middle East location and petroleum exports keep the Saudis as a vital U.S. ally." https://theconversation.com/saudi-arabia-is-a-repressive-regime-and-so-are-a-lot-of-us-allies-105106 Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

China
As of 20/08/2021 the article contains the following sentence:

The People's Republic of China is a police state and has been turning Hong Kong in to one.

This is a clear violation of WP:RS. News outlets are not considered reliable sources for anything other than statements of fact. What's more; the opinion piece used as a citation makes no references, nor defines what a "police state" is. It simply cherry picks data such as "As of May 17, 2021, national security police have made 107 arrests under the law, with 57 prosecuted, among whom the majority have been denied bail" and presents it as if lawful arrests are somehow an attribute of a "police state", which again, is not defined anywhere.

I am therefore removing this statement along with the source given, and will continue to do so until the claim is supported by reliable, scholarly sources. WhiteNoise17 (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Black block.jpg