Talk:Rogue state

Definition
"Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace."

Well, I live in Europe in the free world, while you Americans are a retarded and manipulated nation promoting capital punishment and torture. America perfectly well fits into this definition, no other nation has started more illegal wars than the USA during the last 50 years. May I ask a question: why does a government create such a term, a government, which is by most civilized and democatic countries (e.g. Canada, France, South Africa, New Zealand) considered to be the worst threat to world peace in our times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.193.74.251 (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The article talks about "official use" of the term. This is misleading. The term is not an official one. At best it is a colloquial expression, used more often in the USA than elsewhere. But it has no official status or meaning.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Random points to consider:

 * Who first used the term?
 * Who still uses it?
 * Is it a US-only thing?

Regarding the US-only question, from European media I have made the observation that, even by politicians, the term (German translation: "Schurkenstaaten") is usually used with the adjective "so-called" and in reference to US activities, especially ABM-related.
 * It should be noted that the recently-advanced doctrine of pre-emptive action, detailed in Bush's new national security policy stance, specifically lists animosity to the united states as one of the criteria for being a "rogue state". It is worth noting that in the absence of this decision, it would be perfectly possible to consider the U.S. itself a "rogue state".

This article uses a strawman definition for the term rogue state. By equating the US desigination of "rogue" as "anti-US" the article destroys its meaning.

The question is: does "rogue state" merely mean "state opposing US interests"? Or does it have a more universal meaning?

The artful phrase "desired norms" conflates what the US wants with internationally recognized standards of behavior.

A "norm" is supposed to mean "what is good". "Interests" is generally accepted to mean "what a country wants".

Each sovereign state pursues its national interests, at all times. This is to be expected.

Often, a country decides that its own interests are more important than another country's interests and decides to exploit it. People who oppose exploitation on principle tend to oppose this sort of thing.

Rarely, a country decides that the interests of another country are just as important as its own, and decides to help it. For example, a sudden famine or plague might be met with offers of foreign aid. Or a country invaded by a neighbor might be defended by a third party.

I think that we need to expand a bit on what the "norms" of international behavior are, before we can adequately define what "rogue state" means -- unless we are all convinced that the US is abusing the term. --Ed Poor

Ed Poor: Some of the following info might be useful for improving the article:

"Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social, political or religous injustice and hypocrisy." (Rogue State, page 30 )

William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower ISBN 1567511945

Noam Chomsky, Rogue States: The Rule of Force in World Affairs ISBN 0896086119

Like many other terms of political discourse, the term "rogue state" has two uses: a propagandistic use, applied to assorted enemies, and a literal use that applies to states that do not regard themselves as bound by international norms. (Noam Chomsky, Rogue States, page 1 )

Excerpt from Bush's June 2002 speech at West Point:

In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of a small number of rogue states that, while different in important ways, share a number of attributes. These states:


 * brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers;
 * display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party;
 * are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes;
 * sponsor terrorism around the globe; and
 * reject basic human values and hate the United States and everything for which it stands.

It might be an interesting exercise to see how much each of these bullet points applies to the US itself, as well as to the axis of evil and sponsors of state terrorism.

This link didn't work when I clicked on it. Would someone fix it please?


 * U.S. State Department Drops 'Rogue State' Tag

Anyway, I don't think the White House has dropped the tag. See this September 17, 2002 statement. --Ed Poor

Perhapse we could make a clearer distinction between opposing the adoption of international law (as the US - or at least the current administration - seem to do), and outright violating it.

AFAIK the US was within its legal rights to not sign onto the International Criminal Court, to opt-out of the Missile treaty with the Russians after giving due notice, etc. This could be contrasted with states like North Korea and (formerly) Iraq which flagrantly violated the terms of the agreements they themselves signed on to. -- stewacide 20:22 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There is a difference between states who break international law and those who completely refuse to recognise its legitimacy, I would say the second is worse – but this should not be a polemical thread. The concept of the rogue state is a troubled one. There are three main uses for the phrase, one rhetorical, one literal, and one philosophical. In all it seems not to be a particularly useful tool http://www.nucnews.net/nucnews/2000nn/0002nn/000220nn.htm - Jptreen

Stuff
We should address how the term rogue state is used in fiction also, not just about the US's use of it. This also digresses somewhat into talk about the US outside of the scope of rogue state... also, is there anyway to reference when presidents have called what states rogue when? because I don't think Iraq is considered a rogue state by the government now... gren 07:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The United States is not held accountable by the U.N.

There is no global government, thankfully.

This entire article needs to be erased and restarted. Half of the page is reserved for criticisms of the U.S. Iraq War. This does not belong in an article regarding 'rogue states'. Let's consider that the U.N. cannot realistically sanction the U.S.


 * Official criticism of any subject covered by Wikipedia should and must be provided, especially when it is made by well-known authors in published articles or books. If there is any praise or counter-criticism, it should be provided too. We're building a wiki not a propaganda part; too bad if there is a truckload of criticism associated to a concept. It's not about balancing ideas, but about a fair representation of reality. If we ever have to weight the pros and cons of a term such as "Rogue State", then a quantitative analysis of the first 100 references returned by google could be considered fair enough. The best reference could be the Vietnam War: protests were widely covered by the medias, and thus, the subject itself is often dwarfed by its criticism. Hugo Dufort 06:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Map
The map is complicated because more than a handful of nations are at odds with America. I tried out the same map in Axis of Evil, Rogue State, and Outposts of Tyranny to illustrate the fact the certain nations can be declared enemies of America for varying reasons and that one nation can be grouped in more than one designation. Furthermore, by showing where the countries are located on a map, the uniformed will be readily able to recognize that although nations may belong to the same classifications this does not mean that these countries are bound together in some organization or alliance as most do not share similar geography, culture, religion and politics. Additionally, the original maps (by another individual) I felt where not perfect as they were. For example, the font was not easy to read (for myself) and the colours used did not properly contrast (using large fills of red and blue alone is very difficult for the eye to focus on). Also, Vancouver Island was indicated as an American possession! If the maps I have created are also found to be lacking, or wrong, perhaps readers can suggest ways to improve it. I should think though that my original idea of one map for three articles was flawed; I will create three separate maps in the future. I ask that TJLive, who evidently has some issues with the maps inform me next time when they delete the map what they find wrong with it, instead of just simply writing revert. In this way, what is perceived as a small ‘revert war’ can come to an end.--RPlunk 20:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

POV-Specific and ever-changing list
While most experts seem to agree on definition of a "rogue state", there are considerable differences when it comes to categorizing actual states. What point of view should we consider when building this list? The US, the UN, the EU, France, China? Each country or block would come up with a different list, according to their recent military ventures, to their natural allies and to their geopolitical motivations. Hense, it would be better if we keep the definition of "Rogue State" on this page, and any list of "Rogue States from country X's point of view as of year XXXX" on another linked page. This would guarantee POV validity for this wiki page. Hugo Dufort 06:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, history of the term (and of related terms in English and other languages) would be welcomes near the top of the article. Hugo Dufort 06:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
'Many Middle-Eastern and non-Western states on the contrary would claim the state of Israel is a rogue state. This is due to the occupation of more than 3 million Palestinians, its numerous invasions of neighboring countries, and its policy of annexation and colonization. Nevertheless it has been supported by many Western democracies.'

The above paragraph does not cite any sources, does not conform to a neutral point of view and uses weasel words. The paragraph presents the view that Israel is 'occupying', 'annexing' 'invading' and 'colonising' as if it were fact - the use of the phrase 'this is due to' is extremely dubious (weasel words). Also, the phrase 'Many Middle-Eastern and non-western states' is not backed up, and needs to cite sources.

Also, the phrase 'this is due to the occupation of more than 3 million Palestinians' does not make any sense - how can you occupy 3 million (or any number of) people? (the phrase is poor, but the way Palestinian are threated by Israel should be clear)

The final sentence 'nevertheless it has been supported by many Western democracies' is in need of review, references and substantiation.

I am not pro or anti Israel, I simply feel this paragraph does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral POV and no weasel words policy, and academic quality.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. - OK, the input follows: Generally, this paragraph gives a view that is missing from the so called corporate or mainstream media. It has its own media and you can find an abundance of sources there. Just to name a few: Noam Chomsky, counterpunch.org, commondreams.org, empirenotes.org. Check them out, you will find a lot of facts and of course a lot of "narrative", views, opinions etc. It is very interesting indeed.

Back to the text: The vast majority of Arabs and Muslims and other people regard the current situation of Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan (around 3 million people to fix the number) as occupation, annexion (Golan), ongoing colonisation ("settlements"), and the result of invasions (eg. six day war). And frankly, it is very hard to describe this with other words. I am quite sure that the inhabitants of -say- Ramallah did not want to get under Israeli rule. (Forget about the "disengagement" from Gaza, it is almost completely isolated from the outside world.)

The people of the occupied territories (outside the settlements) are second class citizens, or even worse. They are economically devastated (agricultural lang grabs are well documented, industry has no chance to develop etc), and constantly harrassed by the Israeli Defense Forces and the Air Force (road blocks, incursions, "targeted assassinations"). They have a crippled life and utterly hate the current situation.

Nevetheless, the West supports Israel almost unanimously. I hardly remember any Western government really seriously criticizing Israel, not to mention doing something. Actually, it is pretty hard to criticize a Jewish State in the West, you can get the "anti semite" tag very quickly. But the above criticism is only concerned with what the Israelis are DOING now, and not with their ethnic origin.

Contradiction -- Pakistan
"In late 1990s U.S. officials considered as "rogue states" North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Libya."

"Some point to the double standards over Pakistan which has been blatantly breaching nuclear non-proliferation protocols by exporting nuclear weapons technology, yet has not been declared as a "rogue state" by the U.S."

So does the U.S. consider Pakistan a rogue state or not?--Lairor 09:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on the wording, it is considered a "rogue state", but not declared as one yet. Consider is informal, while declare is formal. Sigil2 21:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this sentence --Some point to the double standards over Pakistan which blatantly breaches nuclear non-proliferation protocols by exporting nuclear weapons technology, yet is no longer considered to be a "rogue state" by the U.S.


 * Based on the sources even in State-sponsored terrorism, Pakistan was listed as a sponsor of terrorism in a 1993 US report and was "considered" to be a rogue state too in the 1990s. Post 9/11, the equations changed and after bullying Pakistan to be an ally in the War on Terrorism, US has since changed its stance and PAK is no longer considered by USA as a rogue state. Hence, the "some point to the double standards..." statement link is correct. Historically, and especially in the current scenario, Pakistan has not been declared as a rogue by USA. Though several are calling for it. Idleguy 04:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording and repeated the part about the alliance in the double standards paragraph. I think this clarifies things enough to remove the contradiction tag. theroachmanTC 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the following sentence or indeed the sources are really up to Wiki standards
 * Some point to the double standards over Pakistan which blatantly breaches nuclear non-proliferation protocols by exporting nuclear weapons technology, yet is no longer considered to be a "rogue state" by the U.S.

I have 2 problems with this 1. Pakistan (like Israel and India) haven't signed the non-proliferation treaty and therefore are not covered by the protocols. 2. Whether Pakistan as a state or merely Abdul Qadeer Khan as an individual exported nuclear weapons technology is a matter of controversy and therefore to assert that Pakistan exported the technology seems inappropriate. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV, reliable sources
Unsurprisingly, someone has felt the need to insert a whole paragraph about Israel into this tiny article: "Various commentators have maintained that Israel is a rogue state. They cite Israel's occupation of Palestine, invasions of neighboring countries, its alleged proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and argue that Israel has a policy of annexation and colonization.  However, contrary to other termed 'rogue states', Israel has been consistently supported by the United States. Additionally, Israel's supporters claim that it is a liberal democracy with a human rights record similar to that of other democracies.  Israel also participates in friendly relations with Western nations unlike other countries with the rogue state label." Equally unsurprisingly, even after the wildly POV language was somewhat cleaned up, the "rogue state" claims themselves still are not verifiable, as they do not use any reliable sources, are filled with weasel words, and in any case violate the undue weight provisions of WP:NPOV. Who was being quoted? Oh right, noted political scientist Tarek Kapiel, on the noted political academic journal "islamoneline.net". Turns out he's a "Faculty Lecturer Assistant and Researcher at the Botany Department in Cairo University’s Faculty of Science" - amazingly, he seems to have a "M.Sc. in Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology" - no doubt that makes him an expert on "rogue states". Oh, and there's also the self-appointed Middle East expert "Andy Martin", posting on the blog "Political Gateway". Let's try to make this article encyclopedic, rather than yet another propaganda pamphlet. Jayjg (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether one considers Israel an admirable society or a pariah, it is incontrovertible that some in the Middle East consider Israel a society deserving overthrow on behalf of the Palestinian people. Such is the nature of any heated international controversy. Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il, and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad surely consider the United States of America a "Rogue State". That Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini spoke frequently of the USA as the "Great Satan" and of Israel as the "Lesser Satan" suggests the level of excoriation characteristic of one who speaks of "Rogue State" in other contexts. Satan, after all, is the greatest rogue in some theologies.

The concept of a "rogue State" cannot be limited to American and pro-US sources. It can be thrown back at a society that initiates the use of the concept, and it is an imaginable translation of sundry excoriations of enemy powers in international disputes. Ideally it is not used cheaply to describe some government that does a few abominable deeds (surely Saddam Hussein considered Israel the definitive Rogue State for years even if he killed far more Arabs or Muslims than the Israelis ever did, and otherwise repressed people more severely than almost anyone else in history) or is involved in some economic dispute such as a trade war. Furthermore, some societies in the past have become by-words for contempt for severe violations of human rights and dignity -- like Nazi Germany, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Uganda under Idi Amin, the USSR under Joseph Stalin, Apartheid-era South Africa, the World War II-era Japan, and Inquisition-era Spain... and vile regimes are likely to be compared to these should those vile regimes appear.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Lind Quote Inclusion
To those who haven't noticed yet, I've inserted Michael Lind's analysis of the phrase 'rogue state' and the strategic thinking behind the US leadership in its use. User:Green01 3:12, May 27th 2007 (UTC).

List
Are the countries sorted somehow? If not, why are they numbered? And why is North Korea not on the 'former' list? Sevcsik (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Protocols of the learned fiscals of Zion
Someone inserted this conspiracy part in the article:

>A common thread between rogue states is that they don't allow their central banks to be owned by international bankers. After the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, central banks have been re-installed (Afghanistan 2002; Iraq 2003). < —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it verifiable? I didn't add it, but if it accurately describes a common feature of "rogue states" it should be mentioned, regardless of its implications. However, labeling it as a conspiracy or attributing it to "fiscal Zionism" probably goes too far. This is my first time writing anything on Wikipedia, so forgive me if I did something wrong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.193.130 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

and cuba?
Hasn't the US Gov ever considered Cuba a "rogue state"? Eritrea's Foreign relations sections says so. Either that or this article is missing something. According to BBC, it was added this list of nations, but couldn't find anywhere that they were removed.

However, it seems to me that the latest news are telling us nobody was buying it. --190.134.166.100 (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been unable to find information saying it was removed from the list. If someone can find another source stating it was added (I like having multiple sources for things like this) then I think Cuba should be added to the list Zell Faze (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cuba has more allies than Washington in the Western Hemisphere. Not a rogue state. As for the US though, that's worth discussing. 108.27.254.68 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Israel?
Israel has nukes and other WMD and refuses to declare them. Why are they not considered "rogue"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.226.95.18 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

They haven't signed the NPT, thus they can have nuclear warheads, they aren't breaking any treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 19:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, tendentious info
Yugoslavia was never rogue state, even though NATO has attacked it militarily. This is reference on google books that explicitly corrects this misinformation: http://books.google.com/books?id=Tpd_ykOXXeUC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=yugoslavia+rogue+state&source=bl&ots=WlxOgaBxMb&sig=MbEcLOMgv8aYqay9ZC4IR9RCX3s&hl=en&ei=4PhYToT7IuXT4QSMl8isBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=yugoslavia%20rogue%20state&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protect&serve (talk • contribs) 14:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Reliability of Encyclopedia of the New American Nation
I see that many entries are based on the Encyclopedia of the New American Nation as a reference. Can we consider this as a reliable source? Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Speculation
I have tagged the article for unverifiable speculation because of items such as the infobox claim: "State futurely considered by the "Rogue States" by the USA, UK and Chinese Taipei"

It's speculative, POV, and lacks source. As of 2014 there are many related problems with this article as well, such as the note on Cuba using POV wording ("fanatic members"). Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 16:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the speculation template because that problem has been resolved. Other POV issues might still exist. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 10:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Introduction section
I propose moving all but the first two paragraphs in the introduction section to a new 'background and timeline' section. Doyna Yar (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rogue state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212034924/http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=188 to http://www.germanlawjournal.com/article.php?id=188

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

South africa
During the late years of apartheid ,south africa suffered major sanctions ,including an oil embargo ,had its UN membership suspended and most western nations ,Including USA ,severed its ties with south africa. South africa even developed an nuclear program and backed white supremacist groups in North america ,south america and Europe and was reffered as rogue state numerous times,both during the jimmy carter government and by the european economic community (whitch would later became the european union) So i believe that Apartheid-era south africa should be included or mentioned and the 'former rogue states' list. Gregorius deretius (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Original research
The article states: "While most people Ronald Reagan for inventing the term, the United Kingdom used the term to refer to Rhodesia (...) The Carter administration also used the term to refer to Post-revolutionary Iran, Apartheid-era South Africa, and Rhodesia." and "Rhodesia is considered the first country in history to be labelled an "rogue state"". None of the sources cited confirms this information, the sources refer sanctions that these countries experienced during the Cold War. This is original research and POV. See: No original research/Noticeboard. --201.1.43.76 (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rhodesia was called a rogue state, I'll get some sources when time allows Darkness Shines (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Title text format
Regarding this edit, The articles Failed state and Proto-state are about the types of states described, not the terms used to describe them. This article is not about rogue states as actual things, but about the term rogue state, and how said term is used and received. Per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, I believe that rogue state should therefore be in italics, including in the title, when referring to the term itself. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Russia?
Where is Russia in this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.133.196.103 (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

suggestion toward focusing introduction
This introduction isn't as helpful as might be desired by those who come here after seeing the term "rogue state" and wanting a definition. Might I suggest that it's because the article is too concerned with what states may have been called a rogue state on a given occasion (rightly or wrongly) instead of describing what a rogue state is? Trying to come up with a list is a distraction, since this isn't a list article.

Defining a rogue state as any state that's "threatening to the world's peace" is too broad to be useful (you can threaten peace and stability by being an aggressor state or a failed state), and it isn't related to what the word "rogue" means. Note the difference in how the more fully developed article failed state is constructed; the impulse to list, which so often leads to quibbling, is spun off (such as List of countries by Fragile States Index).

A definition referenced in the talk above has to do with a state disregarding international norms or conventions. "Going rogue" in ordinary language means veering away from a body to which one initially adhered and heading off in a self-determined direction; this can either be an outlaw act or an act of impulsive moral courage. It's likely to be disruptive, destabilizing, and a threat to peace in either case, but that isn't the primary meaning of "rogue."

In the body of the article, there's a quoted reference to"recalcitrant and outlaw states that not only choose to remain outside the family [of democratic nations] but also assault its basic values" (italic mine). It's the choosing to remain outside, the departing from the conventions of international relations, that makes the state rogue; as the construction "but also" indicates, aggression is an enlargement upon that primary meaning. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

WIN/Gallup poll in infobox
I'm not so sure that "The survey's entire topic is rogue states and fits this page's description ("threatening to the world's peace")" is an accurate justification of it's inclusion and is selective of the articles' description. To the contrary the poll's topic is "...results of its annual End of  Year  Survey which explores the outlook, expectations, hopes and fears of people from 65 countries around the world." Also strangely, it does not appear on the official gallop site []. Arguably an opinion poll is a snapshot, in this case from 2014, and could be viewed simply as an un-popularity contest. It does not reflect the terminology of the article in my opinion. Doyna Yar (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The list in this article is the result of the question which country people believe (polled across the globe) to be the largest threat to world peace. It is to my knowledge the largest poll ever conducted about this. The rest of the survey has no bearing on the topic of this question.


 * Secondly, the poll cannot be found on the Gallup site because it is not a Gallup poll. It is a poll that was conducted as a cooperation between the Worldwide Independent Network of Market Research (WIN) and the Gallup International Association (GIA). The polls arising from this cooperation were hosted on its own site (wingia.com), but since there are no new joint polls between those two organisations, the site has been taken offline. You can browse the site and polls via archive.org. To quote directly from the website as archived by archive.org: "US is considered to be the greatest threat to peace in the world, followed by Pakistan and China."


 * Thirdly, if you consider it unfit for - in your opinion - being an "unpopularity contest," then why should this article contain a list of rogue states that is to one hundred per cent controlled by the US government, which by its very nature changes the list to fit its own political goals? Certainly, if a large international survey carried out by reputable public research agencies does not fulfil your standards, then a list created by a potential rogue state's own government with no public methodology does not fulfil these standards either. Sarrotrkux (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sarrotrkux, the 2014 opinion poll on "threats to world peace" that you have cited has nothing to do with the concept of "rogue states"; the poll simply does not employ that term or any equivalent term (e.g., outlaw state). Because the "rogue state" designation is not synonymous with "the largest threat to world peace," it really does not matter if this article should or should not include public opinion on which states are considered "rogue" to supplement the positions of governments and academics, as the poll that you cited relates to a completely separate topic. At best, you are employing this poll as a form of synthesis to lead readers to a conclusion not backed by any particular reliable source—namely: "Who cares what states the U.S. has categorized as 'rogue,' when public opinion around the globe considers the U.S. to be a leading 'threat to world peace'?" That may well be your opinion, but unless the same point has been made by other commentators (e.g., Chomsky and Blum, two critics of the "rogue state" concept cited in this article) it really does not belong on Wikipedia. (If Chomsky, Blum, or other critics have invoked this poll in their criticism, then that could be mentioned with attribution.) Furthermore, your argument that the U.S. government's usage of the "rogue state" label deserves no more weight than a 2014 survey of global opinion does not hold water because, as this article currently indicates, "the U.S. government remains the most active proponent of the expression rogue state"—if you removed all of the content pertaining to the terminology promulgated by U.S. observers from this article, then there would be hardly anything left. As I read it, this article hardly endorses the view of the U.S., or Turkey, or Chomsky, or Blum, or Robert Ellis—it does not even assert in wikivoice that "rogue state" is a meaningful and useful appellation—but it does define the term and provide a historical overview of the contexts in which it has been employed, which necessarily stipulates that it originated with the U.S. Department of State.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "That may well be your opinion, but unless the same point has been made by other commentators (e.g., Chomsky and Blum, two critics of the "rogue state" concept cited in this article) it really does not belong on Wikipedia."


 * Chomsky does invoke the poll in his criticism and I linked to this in one of the sources. I simply added more sources because I wanted to give people the direct link to the poll and methodology too, so the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR deletion does not really hold up. The sources I linked to do not give contradictory information and are all about the same poll. The article I linked to is literally written by Chomsky. Direct quote:


 * "For the United States, the characterization is familiar. Fifteen years ago, the prominent political analyst Samuel Huntington, professor of the science of government at Harvard, warned in the establishment journal Foreign Affairs that for much of the world the U.S. was “becoming the rogue superpower... the single greatest external threat to their societies.” Shortly after, his words were echoed by Robert Jervis, the president of the American Political Science Association: “In the eyes of much of the world, in fact, the prime rogue state today is the United States.” As we have seen, global opinion supports this judgment by a substantial margin."


 * When Chomsky says "[a]s we have seen, global opinion supports this judgment [the United States being the prime rogue state] by a substantial margin," he is clearly referencing the poll (which he cited earlier in the article) in regards to confirming the previous notion of scholars that the US is becoming the "prime rogue state" for much of the world. I am not sure why you paint this as my opinion when I am simply using Chomsky's article to supplement this page. Sarrotrkux (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm trying to give you a way to add this material to the article without violating Wikipedia rules or contributing to further edit warring. Rather than your WP:POINTY insertion of the poll into the infobox, I would suggest citing Chomsky on this matter directly (e.g., "Chomsky further cited a 2014 poll indicating that the U.S. itself is considered the greatest threat to peace throughout much of the world").TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Syria
, you keep adding Syria to the list even though you haven't provided sources. Why is this? Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the latest source. I don't know if other editors have any objections, so I'll leave this note here. Best wishes. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019
Bolivia Is A Rouge State 175.158.225.247 (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 12:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Nazi Germany
Could Nazi Germany be considered a historical rogue state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.97.233 (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No it can't. Term is somehow recent and that case not inside that scope. 79.101.189.152 (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * maybe it could, that's not for us to decide. If you can find smoeone outside of WIkiepdia using that description, feel free to add it to the article.  –DMartin  02:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

List & general content change and lead change
I removed note from the list about rogue states. Part what I removed is "states considered rogue states by other countries". There is one problem about two listed countries, 1. the United States and 2. Turkey. Even if that both countries entry is sourced there is no talk about some other country and to some official government or government official accusing that two states about beeng rogue. About Turkey it is commentator Robert Ellis what in his opinion says it, and about the US it is mostly internal foreign policy criticism and not some other official government making that qualification. There is big political difference in status and weight about official deisgnation or officials talking about some country and just some criticism from some circles. If some other government or official make some statement about some country it can go to the list otherwise it can make some confusion to readers as it did to me to it is type of official stance by some country. Also to add, things as huge change of content has to be nicely explained even to be under discussion at talk page before.79.101.189.152 (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Turkey
Okay, I might just be an idiot but why is turkey highlighted on the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnSoThin (talk • contribs) 19:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

What's with Sudan?
Why was Sudan a former rouge state? 86.29.173.55 (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Insignificant informations and their representation
Alright, why do we consider words of a political party's spokesman as a state recognition? Berk Berk 68 19:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Changes in Colors and Borders in the Map
1. Cuba should be colored in dark pink as it is currently designated as a rogue state by the United States.

2. Syria should be in striped colors of dark pink and blue as it is also designated as a rogue state by Turkey.

3. As a country that was formerly designated as a rogue state by the U.S., the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should include Serbia (with Kosovo) and Montenegro. The map only colors in Serbia (including Kosovo) with light pink, Montenegro should also be colored in light pink and the border between the two countries should be removed.

4. The People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen (South Yemen) was formerly designated as a rogue state by the U.S. until it unified with the Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen) into the Republic of Yemen. So, South Yemen should only be colored in as light pink, instead of the entirety of Yemen. There would also be a border between North and South Yemen as well. Maximations (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Russia since 2022
Quite a few sources have discussed the theory that Russia is a rogue state, especially since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, although my ability to investigate deeply has been hampered by my doomscrolling problem. Maybe someone could cover for me and it looks like if Russia does get an entry, then statement attribution will be needed since US politics since 1992 is a contentious topic. -- Minoa (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

== "The US has also passed a law threatening to invade The Hague if American officials or military personnel were to ever be prosecuted for war crimes called the American Service-Members' Protection Act, arousing suspicion that they are trying to cover up human rights abuses." ==

Should we not mention that this is talking about courts that don't have jurisdiction over the United States? It seems to me like quite a key detail. SirShaunIV (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)