Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Attribution

See [1]. Attributions should be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from linking to your talk page, instead present non duplicate issues on this talk page where appropriate. --N4GMiraflores 17:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have no concrete objections, then Wikipedia policy should be followed and the attributions restored. Do you have any?Ultramarine (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are responding to me, please address my concerns, or if you are making a general comment, refrain from placing your comments under mine, as that typically signifies a response. --N4GMiraflores 17:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am collecting the problems on my Sandbox page for easy overview and to avoid repeating arguments. Do you have any concrete objections for not following policy regarding attributions?Ultramarine (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a policy. --N4GMiraflores 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To quote "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it"Ultramarine (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, not a policy. --N4GMiraflores 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guideline, but as stated Editors should follow it. Any concrete objection to not doing so? Ultramarine (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Over attributing small quotes, as you were in the process of doing, is making the article too long, the quotes are sourced back to who made them, ensuring they meet requirements of Wikipedia policy WP:V --N4GMiraflores 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The guideline which editors should follow states that attribution should not be in the references. If there is to much material, then the quotes should be summarized instead.Ultramarine (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Says notes I believe. --N4GMiraflores 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Footnote. Any concrete objection to not following this? If too long, then the quotes should be summarized.Ultramarine (talk) 17:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A references is neither a note, or a footnote. --N4GMiraflores 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the article do not use footnotes?Ultramarine (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You are the one making an argument, one proven false as the attribution is not taking place as you stated, in footnotes. --N4GMiraflores 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Attribution is now taking place in the footnotes. Again, are you really arguing that this article do not use footnotes?Ultramarine (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Over attributing small quotes, as you were in the process of doing, is making the article too long, the quotes are sourced back to who made them, ensuring they meet requirements of Wikipedia policy WP:V --N4GMiraflores 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is too much material, then it should be summarized as per WP:Quote. There is policy stating that we should move the attributions to the footnotes.Ultramarine (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:QUOTE is not a policy. --N4GMiraflores 18:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly better than a style for shortening articles not mentioned at all and contadicting the manual of style.Ultramarine (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is concluded. Better to keep the article down in size, since its too long as is. and since no policy exists as you stated, it should be fine. --N4GMiraflores 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A guideline that should be followed does exist that have been violated. Again, if too long, we should summarize the quotes. Removing attributions instead violates the obligatory guideline.Ultramarine (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines are ... guidelines. If you failed to notice you were putting in attributes for 5 word quotes. --N4GMiraflores 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Obligatory guideline which editors should follow.Ultramarine (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, its a guideline. As stated, attributing 5 word quotes as you were would increase the article to epic proportions. --N4GMiraflores 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The obligatory guideline do not make an exception for short quotes.Ultramarine (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Putting "obligatory" does not change the fact that it is not a policy. I am done as it seems you are not making any new points, perhaps others can chime in. --N4GMiraflores 18:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Editors should follow it"Ultramarine (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think editors should decide what parts to follow and what not. That is why its just a guideline. Its not policy.76.102.72.153 (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines should be followed unless there is a good reason not to. If inclusion of every attribution is creating an article that is impossible to read, then other methods should be used. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Attributions do not make an article impossible to read. If that were the case there would be no guideline stating that they should be used. What is it that makes this article special so that guidelines should not be used?Ultramarine (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Right wing terrorism

See [2]. Sourced material. Please explain and give reason for not restoring.Ultramarine (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"However" is not just a word to avoid, it is a great tool for spotting SYN violations. [3] is not a response to Falk, and you may not use it as such. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"However" can be removed. Regarding WP:SYN, the same applies to much of the US critical material which do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. Should this be removed? See [4]Ultramarine (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I may consider that question under a heading other than "Right wing terrorism". One issue per section is enough for me. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this has been recently edited, by following the link I am taken to a half sentence. Is this being proposed to be added? --N4GMiraflores 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Two words now removed. Acceptable? "Right-wing organizations such as Kach are listed as terrorist by the US."Ultramarine (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable as what? As a response to Falk? Nope, since [5] still is not a response to Falk. As something else? If so, what? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest version. "Right-wing organizations such as Kach are listed as "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" by the US." Should be included as background material. Like much of the US critical material. Again, see [6]. I can accept such background material if this applies to both sides.Ultramarine (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Background material for where? --N4GMiraflores 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Background to Falk's statement.Ultramarine (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No way. Not with a source that does not even mention Falk nor his statement. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I must insist that all sources not accusing the US of state terrorism but only making allegations against allied nations or criticzing the US but not mentioning terrorism should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur. It does not follow that not being allowed to introduce clearly off topic SYN material, results in you insisting that other on topic, and valid material also be removed. You tried and failed. The arguments to keep the other material withstood scrutiny and consensus (unlike your material). Stop making WP:POINT violations.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just tackle one of them at a time and each under its own section heading, please. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the other editors here that this is SYN, and off topic. I'll remove it. Please respect consensus. Thank you.76.102.72.153 (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No double standard please. US critical and supporting material should be treated equally.Ultramarine (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarines many sections have already been answered many times. Why repeat, again, beating a dead horse?

Again, every single question, point, raised above have already been discussed ad nauseum. Why he is pretending that they have not is a good question to ask. Also, I'm sure that the objections have not changed since they were last raised, which is quite recently.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

False. For example Palparan and the unexceptional sources described above have never been explained. Diff if claiming that. I have updated the other problems with new information and rewritten the presentations.Ultramarine (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Of your gazillion 'new' sections you come up with 1 example? Please withdraw the others so that we can continue to believe that you are actually editing in good faith. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned two. Attribution is another. As stated much material has been added. Ultramarine (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree Giovanni, considering many of the "new sections" are rehashing arguments above, as I tried to rectify, Ultra just undid the fix. The constantly reappearing arguments, even while they are still on the page is becoming quite an issue and I think it may be time to either collectively ignore them, or seek arbitration to resolve the issue. Perhaps a collective statement to Arbcom on the behavior of ignoring the points presented, repeating the same argument that has been asked and answered, repeating sections and discussions when he does not receive the result he wanted etc. --N4GMiraflores 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering your similar editing style and that you restored his edits, are you user:Stone put to sky? Ultramarine (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Please try not to attack your fellow editors. --N4GMiraflores 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an attack. Just a question.Ultramarine (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusing people of violating policy is not simply a question. --N4GMiraflores 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple accounts do not in itself violate policy.Ultramarine (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, multiple accounts editing the same article are. --N4GMiraflores 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, but do if they collectively violate 3RR and so on.Ultramarine (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually you cannot attempt to make it seems as though something presented has a greater support base then it does, since I have replied to Stone, and agreed with them on this page, that should already tell you I am not him/her. Do you have an alternate account? --N4GMiraflores 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some in the past, none recently, like this year.Ultramarine (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What were the account names? --N4GMiraflores 18:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant for anything current. But only minor accounts, say less than 10 edits. Almost all edits by this account.Ultramarine (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a little worried that one of those accounts may be someone who was asked to leave, your style of discussion is not only hostile, its repetitive and ignores the issues presented to you. This has been brought up to you by numerous other people so far. I would like the names of those accounts to verify that none of that had any administrative action taken against them. --N4GMiraflores 18:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

None of them have. Do you have an alternative account this year? Ultramarine (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I Write Stuff. --N4GMiraflores 19:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Any other? Ultramarine (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, as notes on my user page I would prefer you not post any issues this account takes part in, on the other accounts talk page. I prefer them to remain separate. --N4GMiraflores 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is so true. I'm tired of the same issues that I thought were already talked to death brought up again as if they were new issued never talked about before. Rubbish!76.102.72.153 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As noted earlier above, new issues/new arguments. I also note that earlier discussions have been archived.Ultramarine (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tags removed

Do not removed disputed while there are ongoing discussions. Lots of issues. See [7].Ultramarine (talk) 10:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One editor does not a dispute make. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A dispute is a disagreement which obviously exist. If you would like to open mediation, then that is fine with me.Ultramarine (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware me and Ultramarine (and the others that sporadically edit this page) were all one person. I must have missed the memo where we were revealed as sockpuppets of each other. Jtrainor (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is a canonical example of why tags like that are needed. Dance With The Devil (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. One hoppy 'roo can confuse even the best tracker. Trainor is Ultramarine's boy, and all here know it. What comes out of one goes right in the other, in and out in an ugly smear, and neither could reckon straight on the least part of their back yard, much less anything outside their beloved U.S. Keep your eyes on the content, boys, and stop -- how do ya say it? edit warring? Stop. I have nothing wrapped up in this place and will be happy to take your names before the grand board of hoo-hahs. Aho aho (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You have already been warned for your incivlity, Stone put to sky. Do not continue.Ultramarine (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my only warning to you, Ultramarine. Stop with these personal attacks or I -- not Aho -- will take you to AN/I. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You create 3 (at least) sockpuppet accounts (at least two with disparaging names) and you threaten Ultramarine with AN/I on civility? Please use one account as it's getting tedious to follow and refrain from personal attacks with whichever account you choose to use.. --DHeyward (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, Ultramarine -- bring in your sockpuppets and pretend as if anyone here believes you. We are all quite aware that you are Zerofaults, NuclearUmpf, SevenOfDiamonds, and DHeyward. You've been kicked out of Wikiipedia so many times that your backside has treadmarks on it. I suspect you're JTrainor, as well, but i haven't bothered to do the homework to be sure of it.

At any rate, i am certainly not Aho Aho. Not that it matters what i say, because you're just going to stock up on your sockpuppets and run them through the ol' proxy to try and stack the deck here. But anyone who knows wikipedia and has been around this page for any length of time knows that the only person who behaves dishonorably here is you. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Put up or shut up Stone put to sky. You are the only person here who has been proven to have abused sock puppets. It gets hard to follow this page when you change your account with the day of the week. Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that all three Wikipedia sockpuppets of Stone put to sky have long since been indef blocked, it seems rather a bold statement that he changes his account with the day of the week — and one that should have been made elsewhere, or not at all. Take TheRedPenOfDoom's advice, please. — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Aho aho is a likely sockpuppet as per above. Marked with green symbol.Ultramarine (talk) 09:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusations and imputations of Sockputtery have no place on Wikipedia other than at the proper reporting pages. Do not continue to clutter this workpage with your incivilities. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That was a plural "your", as in "each of you stop with your...". right? Stone put to sky (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility certainly does not belong.Ultramarine (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Posada's extradition

Stone put to sky, why did you change "Venezuela have accused the US of hypocrisy on terrorism since the US "virtually" collaborated with convicted terrorist Luis Posada by failing to contest statements that Posada would be tortured if he were extradited to Venezuela. Some U.S. officials, who declined to speak on the record, also deplored the decision by immigration judge William Abbott not to extradite Posada. The administration stressed that Posada may still be subject to deportation to another country, although their efforts thus far to persuade several Latin American countries have proved fruitless" to "As a consequence of continued U.S. refusal to extradite convicted terrorist Luis Posada, Venezuela considers the US guilty of hypocrisy on terrorism."?

The executive branch has not opposed extradition. So your statement is wrong or misleading.Ultramarine (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The United States has not extradited him. Thus, the U.S. is opposing his extradition. This is a simple, undeniable fact: if the U.S. supported extradition, then Posada would now be in a Venezuelan prison. But he's not. He's living in Florida, a free man. Ipso facto, the U.S. does not support his extradition. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

False dichotomy or if you prefer, fallacy of the excluded middle (they both redirect to false dilemma, so it really doesn't matter what you prefer): Failure to support does not imply opposition. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Legally, if a person states that they support the prosecution of murderers, but when asked to turn over a murderer to the police refuses to do so, then that person is opposing the will of the police. Period. Cut and dry. There is no logical middle ground on this. The U.S. has not turned over Posada, who is a convicted terrorist, murderer, and criminal. According to all tenets of International Law, Posada should be immediately extradited. But he hasn't been. Therefore, the U.S. is opposing International Law. Period. No middle ground. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the law requires an extradition treaty. Just because some rogue state convicts someone doesn't mean all their rights are forfeited. The administration wants to extradite him but they are forced to follow the law as interpreted by the judicial branch. Fabricating "International Law" as you did to support your POV doesn't make it so. ---DHeyward (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. has an extradition treaty with Venezuela, and your assertion that it is a "rogue state" is just so laughably foolish that you should be ashamed of yourself. But then, as your other identities so amply show here, you lost any sense of dignity or honor a long, long time ago. The U.S. Judicial Branch considers the Venezuelan conviction valid and has called for his extradition. The U.S. government, however, has -- for some reason -- ignored repeated requests by the Venezuelan government to turn Posada over. It is as if the police come to your house, ask if you have a man inside, ask you if you know that he committed a heinous massacre next door, and after answering yes to both of these ask you to help them bring him out (or open the door to let them in). If you say "no, i'm sorry, he's in the bathroom and i'm sitting here in the living room and can't be bothered" then the police, when they write up their report, will send you over to the prosecutor for obstruction of police business, aiding and abetting a criminal, and pretty much any other thing they can get you on as well. It is clear that in this case the U.S. is opposing not only the will of its own Judicial branch, but also International Law and the duly considered judgment of the Venezuelan legal system. It is clearly obstructing his extradition, and that is just as clearly "opposition", no matter how pathetically you try to dissemble it as something else. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If the article were to present and/or rely on such an argument, it would be original research (and questionable as such, as DHeyward demonstrates). But the article doesn't. So why are you even arguing it? What are we arguing about, anyway? — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We are essentially arguing over an attempt to fluff a simple statement, something like: Venezuela considers the U.S. guilty of hypocrisy on Terrorism and a supporter of state terrorism because it refuses to extradite Luis Posada, or opposes the extradition of Luis Posada, or whatever. Then Ultramarine came along and tried to fluff it up with a lot of meaningless rhetoric and rationalizations looking to make that refusal and opposition sound like they weren't actually refusal and opposition, thereby taking a simple statement of fact -- about what Venezuela believes, and why -- and changing it into an attack on the Venezuelan position and a defense of the U.S. position. It all so farcically contradicts every Wikipedia principle ever concocted, but of course such things are always secondary to Ultramarine's determination to unceremoniously delete all truthful information regarding any mistakes the U.S. has ever made. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultra, how does the executive branch figure into what the article is currently saying? How does opposition figure into it? As I read the current version, we have here a "continued U.S. refusal", which seems supported by the sources. So what if the sources don't support "executive branch opposition"? The article doesn't seem to invoke either! What are we arguing about, anyway? — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As noted in my text the administration has not opposed extradition and actively sought extradition to other nations. Regarding Venezuela it is one judge who opposed. The administration has not made any declaration that they opposed extradition to Venezuela.Ultramarine (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

And? What's the problem with the text as of now? — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The administration has not refused to extradite. So at best misleading.Ultramarine (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Added a tag of factual inaccuracy due to this.Ultramarine (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with the text as of now? It does not refer to the "the administration"! — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it the administration who is waging a War on Terror, then if alleging hypocrisy it is the administration who must be accused of hypocrisy.Ultramarine (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionable. But if you apply this logic to the text as of now, you must apply it to the source as well, in which case it still supports the text as of now. So it looks to me, there's no problem with this text as of now. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the whole context should be mentioned for complete understanding by the readers. The current text implies a misleading position by the administration. Give the reader all the info and let them decide.Ultramarine (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"The People's Tribunal"

In March 2007, the Permanent People’s Tribunal at The Hague, Belgium, rendered a judgment of guilty for “crimes against humanity” against the Philippine government and its chief backer, the Bush administration. The Dutch ambassador to the Philippines Monday said the Permanent People’s Tribuna that found the Arroyo administration responsible for political killings in the Philippines was not much more than a kangaroo court -- a view shared by Malacañang officials and their allies in Congress. He said the verdict was “not serious” because the accused were not even invited to the sessions. The head of the European Commission in the Philippines, said the European Union would not issue any statement on the PPT’s verdict because the tribunal was a "nonofficial body, nongovernment."[8]

This has been changed to:

In March 2007, the Permanent People’s Tribunal at The Hague, Belgium, rendered a judgment of guilty for “crimes against humanity” against the Philippine government and its chief backer, the Bush administration. The Arroyo government was found responsible for human rights abuses "with the support and full awareness of the government of George Walker Bush." The Dutch ambassador to the Philippines stated that the Netherlands, along with other European nations, was concerned about the human rights situation in the Philippines.

Another example of the systematic deletions of all material not critical of the US. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Melo commission

See [9]. Another example of deleted material. Now material important for human rights violations by an US ally. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Words to avoid

In addition to earlier mentioned problems of systematic deletion of attributions required (see [10]), recent edits have introduced many POV words when quoting US critical material. See: [11]Ultramarine (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky

See [12]. Sourced material. Objections with explanation for not restoring? Ultramarine (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Already answered. Please refrain from reposting questions that have already been answered. --N4GMiraflores 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have not given any concrete objection. If you have none, then sourced material will be restored. Do you have any? Ultramarine (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please use your browsers search function, discussion is located on the page. --N4GMiraflores 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of Chomsky being a hypocrite because 'someone else is worse than the US' has not one iota of relation to whether the US sponsored terroristic acts. Plain and simple and stated before. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also a comment on Chomsky's use of sources. Again, are you arguing that all US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism should be removed?Ultramarine (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky sucks is not a counter to the argument presented. --N4GMiraflores 18:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky making dubious statements is certainly a counter to his reliability.Ultramarine (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please address the issues raised above by your fellow editors. The section is: Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#.22within_the_works_Chomsky_has_written_on_this_topic.22 --N4GMiraflores 18:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will continue the recently started factual discussion below so other editors can easily follow the discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to already in progress discussion: [13] When posting, please read the talk page to make sure you are not duplicating discussions, often browsers will contain a search function that can assist in this. --N4GMiraflores 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Never blank my talk page comments.Ultramarine (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They were not, they were moved, you have now duplicated a discussion due to your failure WP:AGF. --N4GMiraflores 17:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have waited until everyone agreed as you yourself have argued.Ultramarine (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article. --N4GMiraflores 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So what? Recently you also reverted back content not everyone had agreed in the article.Ultramarine (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you should be able to add content that no one agrees with, then argue that everyone has to agree to removing it? Sounds pointy --N4GMiraflores 18:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It was you who made the argument that everyone must agree. Not I.Ultramarine (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good, then issue resolved. Either you agree that you should have had a consensus before editing the article, and you did not, so you were wrong. The other option is that you feel a consensus is not needed and so there is no problem with me removing it. If you find that the consensus approach sucked and wanted to prove it, then you were violating WP:POINT --N4GMiraflores 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that you did not follow your own standard.Ultramarine (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like when cops beat up pacifists and one of them swings back? --N4GMiraflores 18:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please just avoid doing this in the future.Ultramarine (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to avoid being taken advantage of in the future. Treat others as they treat you. --N4GMiraflores 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky accuses the US of being hypocritical regarding terrorism. He argues that the US have done much terrorism. Windshuttle accuses Chomsky of being hypocritical himself regarding this. He argues that Chomsky ignores much worse human rights violations by states he has favored. Also not using sources properly. This is relevant for example regarding Chomsky claim that the US is a leading terrorist state.Ultramarine (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the material slightly. Thoughts?Ultramarine (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE TOLD THAT CHOMSKY'S 'HYPOCRACY' IS NOT AT ISSUE IN THIS ARTICLE AND 'THAT SOME GUYS DONE WORSE STUFF THAN THE U.S.' IS NOT A VALID COUNTER ARGUMENT FOR US ACTS OF TERRORISM??????? DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your sentiment accurately reflects the consensus of editors on this page. Our patients has its limits. If he continues I think arbitration might be necessary to put a stop his disruptive editing here, a classic case of tenentatious editing.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only is the horse long dead, its fully decomposed and buried long ago. Lets stop digging it up and let the poor dead horse be.76.102.72.153 (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like factual arguments instead. Are there any?Ultramarine (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No you wouldn't because you have consistantly IGNORED the factual arguments presented to you and continued to BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE BEAT THE DEAD HORSE.

Just stop it. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have updated with more criticism. Added Windschuttle's criticism of Chomsky's false allegations regarding the 1998 Sudan bombing by the US.[14] Thoughts?Ultramarine (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, Chomsky's 'hypocrisy' is NOT at issue here. DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSE DEAD HORSETheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky making false accusations when criticizing US foreign policy and the War on Terror is hardly off topic.Ultramarine (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence re:validity of Chomsky's claim is one thing. But Chomsky's 'hypocricy' about pointing out US terrorist acts and 'ignoring' other groups' terrorist acts HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH the topic of this article. Again and again and again you have been told this and yet you keep trying to bring it back in and you repeat the same process over and over and over with your 'double standard' claim and you repeated it over and over and over with your 'anything can be called state terrorism' insipidness and you expect people to consider that you are here editing the article in good faith? The dead horses that we have continually climbed over in attempting to assume good faith in your edits are higher than Everest and soon, I for one, will have used all the good faith that I could possibly generate. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read what I wrote regarding Chomsky's false allegation regarding the Sudan bombing by the US? Ultramarine (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean the section that starts 'Chomsky is a hypocrite' and 'Chomsky only criticized the US and not these other guys'? Yes I read it and saw that you are continuing to beat THE DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this "He writes that Chomsky in a response to the 9/11 bombing alleged that a Human Rights Watch report had stated that the US 1998 Sudan bombing probably led to tens of thousands of deaths. Human Rights Watch issued a statement denying it had produced any such figure."Ultramarine (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have refreshed that page and the section still begins: "The historian Keith Windschuttle has in turn accused Chomsky of hypocrisy " DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES. DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES. DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES. DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES. DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES. DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES DEAD HORSES. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you do not respond with factual arguments to new factual information.Ultramarine (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and add the Chomsky material. if he's a source for this material, he should be shown in full light. --DHeyward (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I will revert it. It has no consensus to add, its not a relaible source, and is a personal attack on Chomsky, not his specific claims. Under no circumstance should this nonsense be added to Wikipedia. The fact that DHeyward says to add it is more reason not to.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How is this a personal attack? An article by a historian in a respected journal is a reliable source.Ultramarine (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the "Noam Chomasky's Opinion on the United States." Consequently any citation to Noam Chomsky should be as a notable or expert opinion. His credibility, therefore, is paramount to his inclusion. UM's paragraph is short and speaks directly to Chomsky's credibility which is both relevant and accurate. --DHeyward (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the "Noam Chomasky's Opinion on the United States." Consequently any citations should be about the topic of the article and not Chomsky. The Chomsky quote is WP:V and from a WP:RS. Other WP:RS commenting about the topic providing other viewpoints are perfectly fine, but personal attacks against Chomsky have no place in the article.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It is about the topic and it's not an ad hominem. It brings his credibility on the topic into focus which is the only reason to include him in the article. --DHeyward (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling Chomsky a 'hypocrite' because he points out US Terrorism but doesn't point out that 'others done worse' is NOT about the topic of the article. Tighten the comment to be about the topic of this article (which is not Chomsky) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, noting that Chomsky has falsely used sources when he alleges that the US have done atrocities is certainly relevant. Since the Chomsky have made comparative statements, like alleging that the US is the the worst or leading terrorist nation, then it is also relevant to note that his comparisons are flawed since he ignores atrocities by other nations.Ultramarine (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not said that other views of the materials that Chomsky is referring to cannot be included. I have continued to beat a different dead horse than you have in stating that Whitschfjttes personal criticisms of Chomsky are not valid material for this article. Focus Whitty's rant onto criticisms of or alternate analysis of the Chomsky content in the article and we can talk about its inclusion. Ann Coulter style personal attacks are not allowed in Wikipedia articles.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Windschuttle notes Chomsky's false use of sources as well as Chomsky ignoring atrocities in other nations. Relevant as per my last paragraph above. A comment on his use of sources and lacking comparison is not a personal attack. Please explain how this is a personal attack? Ultramarine (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are questioning Chomsky as a WP:RS do it here on the talk page yourself, it is not an argument to carry out within the article because that is off topic. AND BACK TO THE DEAD HORSE whether or not 'others done worse terrorism' is NOT a valid counter argument to whether or not US did terrorism. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not questioning Chomsky. Windschuttle and Human Rights Watch describes a false statement he made regarding supposed US atrocities. Since the Chomsky have made comparative statements, like alleging that the US is the the worst or leading terrorist nation, then it is also relevant to note that his comparisons are flawed since he ignores atrocities by other nations.Ultramarine (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Windschuttle is not a reliable source and makes blanket statements that are in effect a personal attack on Chomsky. I'm sorry you can't see that but everyone else does. Stop beating this dead horse. If you think Chomsky and Human rights watch make false claims then provide a good source the specifically says so, and let editors here look to see if it fits the bill. All you have done is to beat the same dead horse, and keep adding this material against consensus. I have reverted you.64.118.111.137 (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is a historian writing in a respected journal not reliable source? Why is pointing out a false statement as evidenced by Human rights watch denial a personal attack?Ultramarine (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay enough, I spoke with TheRedPenOfDoom and I believe he is right about Chomsky. This article is not about him and if he is liked or criticize. This is about allegation of state sponsored terrorism by United States. So we should chamge the title back and stay on topic. Period! Igor Berger (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Now get that DEAD HORSE out of here! Igor Berger (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I knew you would come around to wanting to properly dispose of that dead horse sooner or later.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay now clean the Dead Horse off the talk page before we get a citation for littering! WP:No dead animals on talk pages Igor Berger (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty and Human rights watch material

See section above. None of these sources accuse the US of state terrorism. Should all be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what precisely you want to do here. Could you please specify what changes you want to make to the text? What sections, paragraphs, or sentences would you change? Would you delete them outright? Alternatively, how would you rewrite them? — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If they have no relevance to the article topic, then obviously they should be removed as off topic. Seems rather clear to me. Jtrainor (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Only to you and Ultramarine. And you don't contribute much except to revert for your friend Ultra. This is clearly on topic for reasons that have been explained many times by many editors. Your role here thus far has only been to be Ultra's side kick, supporting the disruptive editing.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruption is a matter of opinion. From my point of view, the editors that live here and revert most or all constructive edits to the page are the disruptive ones. *shrug* If you think you have a case, take it to WP:ANI. Jtrainor (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

True but I think most opinions here echo Giovanni33's observations. If this continues then ANI would be the place go.76.102.72.153 (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

See [15]. No double standard please. If we remove US supporting arguments on this ground, then the same applies to US critical.Ultramarine (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If what has no relevance to the article topic? Show me the text you want to remove! — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You can take any citations by Human Rights Watch or Amnesty cited in the article. None accuse the US of state terrorism. This is not a general article for US criticisms. I give three specific examples here: [16]Ultramarine (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pick one. Post it here, in a new section. The other two can wait. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Critics maintain that the U.S. economic and military aid played an essential role in enabling state terrorism in El Salvador. Specifically that the U.S. government — during the period of the worst abuses — provided El Salvador with billions of dollars, and equipped and trained an army, which kidnapped and disappeared more than 30,000 people, and carried out large-scale massacres of thousands of the elderly, women, and children.[17] Given source (BBC) does mention and criticize the US. Does not state that this was terrorism or state terrorism by the US. Again, this is not a general article for U.S. criticisms but one regarding state terrorism. OR/SYN to argue that this is state terrorism. Especially since there is no agreed on definition of what state terrorism is.Ultramarine (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you did not post it to a new section, but I suppose we can give it a try anyway.

• The first sentence seems, at first sight, to be either unsupported or OR. The BBC "reference" does not support that critics actually do maintain the US "played an essential role in enabling state terrorism in El Salvador"; not without reading "terrorism" for "death squad war" or "counter-insurgency war" or similar. Such a reading would be OR, however.
• But then, there are plenty of prior references that seem to support this sentence; Gareau/Garneau, for instance. At which point this passage seems not so much unsupported/OR as just clumsy writing.
• Now, the second sentence, in context, says that what's described here is terrorism. But the source does not say this: It says "death squad war", "counter-insurgency war" etc. If there had been universal agreement that this was terrorism, it would be no problem, but as long as just certain "critics maintain" this, it does not hold up.

I agree the second sentence, in this context, is a SYN violation. Unless substantially (and immediately) rewritten, it should go. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Any objection with explanation?Ultramarine (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem or SYN since the BBC is describing particulars of facts that critics have described as state terrorism. These critics view these terms (counter insurgency, death squad war, etc. as technical terms for state terror (Chomsky makes this point often). In any case, I have made changes to reflect the words that the BCC actually uses, in describing the violence.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still SYN in the context of the first sentence. However, since the first sentence is merely repeating what has been stated in other paragraphs, I think we can safely remove it. In fact, I just did; rewriting the inline external link to a proper (if simple) ref while at it. An argument could still be made that it is SYN, but it seems tenuous to me. Ultra, if you still think this should go, this would be a good time to bring the Wikipedia:Original research/noticeboard into it: I don't feel competent to make the call. Alternatively, feel free to bring on the next case — in a new section, please.  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Better but still a SYN violation. It is implied that this is US state terrorism since it is presented in this article. To quote SYN: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Double standard to allow this statement but not the one regarding Kach in the section above.Ultramarine (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope; not double standard. Kach, in the context of Falk, is rejected under the passage "synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position". This material may be rejected under the passage "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research", but I'm not prepared to make that call.; for one thing, that strict an interpretation runs counter to the practice I've observed elsewhere on wikipedia. Either drop it or take it to the Wikipedia:Original research/noticeboard, please. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Same standard applies to both quotes. None mentions US state terrorism (But the Kach one mentions terrorism). None make any explicit conclusion. Both are argued to be background material. Some may possible argue that both make implicit conclusions. What is important is an equal standard. Either both should be removed or both are allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

None make any explicit conclusion, correct, but the Kack one, in context of Falk, clearly and strongly implies Falk is wrong. SYN, decidedly. The implications of the other one are not as clear, nor as strong. SYN or not? Ask the Wikipedia:Original research/noticeboard, 'cause I'm not ready to make the call, and you sure don't seem ready to drop it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The BBC quote, in the context of this article, clearly and stronlgy implies that this is US state terrorim. SYN. No double standard. Please move this material to a background article or a more general article for US criticisms.Ultramarine (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true that these issues have been gone over and again. The Guatemala material that Ultramarine remove clearly describes state terror by the government of Guatemala and clearly assigns partial blame to the U.S. The background material on El Salvador from HRW comes from a book "El Salvador's Decade of Terror" that attributes the great majority of the terror to El Salvadoran government forces and includes an entire chapter criticizing the U.S. role. There are already some quotes in the article from that section. The part that Ultramarine remove is explaining the background of the war from the chaptet "The Assault on Civil Society." This material has been removed against consensus. BernardL (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

BBC and HRW is not alleging state terrorism by the US. This is not a general article for US criticisms. See: [18]Ultramarine (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The HRW material meets the requirements, it is directly related. Not only by the parameters given (descriptions of terror by gov't, assigning U.S. significant responsibility) but also by reliable sources in the literature who establish direct relation by saying that hr organizations described state terror. For example, “Latin America and Asia are the two main areas identified by Amnesty International as centers of growth of state terror,” writes Jeffrey A. Sluka in the anthology “Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror.”BernardL (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That Guatemala is accused of state terrorism does not mean that the US is responsible for this. Similarly, the US is not responsible for everything that, for example, a NATO ally receiving support like Germany may do. Please give quotes where HRW, BBC and Amnesty accuses the US of "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I see nothing in the material which references the US. I've removed it. - Merzbow (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and its clear there is no consensus to remove this material. At least not yet. I see the information is vital background information from mainstream human rights organizations, which almost never use words like "state terrorism." But since they are describing incident which other scholars do label as state terrorism, and its about the US and the political violence/conflict they describe, I see no problem with keeping this information here. So I have restored it. If there is consensus to remove the section, I'd be happy to abide, though.64.118.111.137 (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If it doesn't reference the US it should go. There are other articles like History of Guatemala that this material can be included in. Dance With The Devil (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

ALso see WP:SYNTH. Dance With The Devil (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As BernardL says: "The Guatemala material that Ultramarine remove clearly describes state terror by the government of Guatemala and clearly assigns partial blame to the U.S. The background material on El Salvador from HRW comes from a book "El Salvador's Decade of Terror" that attributes the great majority of the terror to El Salvadoran government forces and includes an entire chapter criticizing the U.S. role. There are already some quotes in the article from that section. The part that Ultramarine remove is explaining the background of the war from the chaptet "The Assault on Civil Society." This material has been removed against consensus." I am restoring it. By the way you are removing a lot of other material and adding the Chomsky attack stuff, so I'm guessing you are only blindly reverting to Ultramarine because of the Gutamala section? That is sloppy.76.102.72.153 (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the US is accused of supporting a state that performs state terrorism does not give us carte blanch to go into gross detail about every sin this state has ever committed. The detail gone into on this article should only be for specific events sources have accused the US as being somewhat responsible for. Everything else can go into other articles. - Merzbow (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits by Aho

The editor made a number of edits that were fine, in my view. Mostly with style and attribution. I agree there is too much "according too,' in the article, and gives undue weight to the particular person who is being used to establish some basic facts. The attribution provided in the reference should be enough and is more consistent with style on other pages. I note that UltraMarine reverted these changes under a very deceptive edit summary, and then added in lot of other disputed material he keeps trying to add in against consensus. Thanks to other editors for catching this and correcting it. Regarding the edits by Aho, I'd like to hear if we have any consensus on his changes. I think they are fine.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm indifferent on this point. I can go either way. Is there any consensus on this citation style? Maybe for small quotes we can leave off the person's name as was suggested above, but just for space. In parts I think the flow is a bit choppy.76.102.72.153 (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got no problems with it. Aho aho (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not allowed. Quotes should have attributions. See [19].Ultramarine (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That is utterly unintelligible. Either explain yourself or we will take this to ANI as disruptive editing. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Just quoting the Manual of Style which editors should follow.Ultramarine (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How? All quotes from an individual or work will have to be attributed. That's basic policy. Dance With The Devil (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminder that Aho aho is probably Stone put to sky's sockpuppet as per [20]. As such, there is no 'we', but 'you'. Jtrainor (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my only warning, Trainor. No more personal attacks or i will initiate AN/I against you. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL doesn't make you immune to criticism. If you really want to run to WP:ANI and complain because I reminded people about a possible sock of yours, go right ahead. Jtrainor (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as there isn't tag-team edit warring going on, I'm fine. Everybody knows how many actual people are really editing this page. Dance With The Devil (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Another false statement

"Palparan has received advanced training and official support[not in citation given] from the U.S. government, as well as heading up the Philippine forces in the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq."

Palparan has taken an Advance Infantry Course in the US. Also lead a peacekeeping mission in Iraq according to one source. None of the sources state that he has been given official support by the US. Or was "heading up the Philippine forces in the initial 2003 invasion of Iraq". No source accuse him of being an example of US state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the source and it does support those claims. I think you need to go back and read it again more carefully.64.118.111.137 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Give quote please.Ultramarine (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Summarzing

Many of the sections should be summarized. They consist of lists of long quotes with similar contents. For example the Philippines section should be summarized and paraphrased to a few paragraphs. Stating that the Philippine government has been accused of participating in or ignoring human rights violations such as several hundred death squad killings. Some named individuals/groups see US military aid and other support to the Philippine government as being US state terrorism. No need to repeat quote after quote with the same accusations.Ultramarine (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

When editors do not agree about how to summarize, quotations do fine. But their length and weight have to be agreed upon by consensus. That is why there is no double standard here.64.118.111.137 (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Material has been added without any consensus. Articles must follow policy. Background material not mentioning the US or terrorism should not be long.Ultramarine (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

False again. Material added as background is with consensus. Material is valid. Removing it is vandalism.64.118.111.137 (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A content dispute is not vandalism. Most material not added with consensus. The same regarding the title. Again, background material not mentioning the US or terrorism should not be long.Ultramarine (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that was a content dispute and no way near vandalism. However, a plague on both your houses! You were edit warring with them, and you started the edit war by making these changes against consensus. Trying to force the changes in after you can't make a good case for them by enlisting other new editors to revert to your version is not the way to go. It just opens up the article to be locked for edit warring.76.102.72.153 (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Material added without consensus. Again, background material not mentioning the US or terrorism should not be long.Ultramarine (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, matters not concerning the US or terrorism should be left at a minimum. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, in fact matters not concerning the US about State terrorism should not be in the article period. And, that is the way it has been. However, please note that this does not mean a passage must state "US State Terrorism" in order for it to be concerning the subject matter. The formula is not that simple. Context and meaning is paramount.76.102.72.153 (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"background material not mentioning the US or terrorism should not be long." Incorrect, see [21].Ultramarine (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory introduction and ambiguous title

The United States has been accused of having directly committed acts of state terrorism, as well as funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism.

The United States has accused other nations of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism, including terrorist acts against the United States.

• This article is about USA being accused of state terorism not USA accusing other countries of state terorism. The part that states USA accuses other nations of state terorism needs to be removed. It is not relevent to this article. I am sure there is an article about USA accusing other countries of state terorism. Igor Berger (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Actually the whole title is ambiguous and should be reverted to as before! It should follow the format and logic of other articles of same genre.

From State_terrorism#See_also

Allegations of Iranian state terrorism

Allegations of state terrorism by Russia

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (before title) Igor Berger (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Even in the main article State-sponsored terrorism it refers to Unites States as one of the countries that is accused of state sponsored terrorism State-sponsored_terrorism#United_States.
• Having the title ambiguous as it is now State terrorism and the United States and a contradictory introduction is a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and is a systematic bias. Igor Berger (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see Talk:State terrorism and the United States/Archive 18#State Terrorism AND the United States and Talk:State terrorism and the United States/Archive 18#POV Dispute before taking this further. You'll see that the title is intentionally ambiguous, in that it is intended to have a wider scope than it used to. In particular, from the original suggestion, in which we find part 'III. United States government definitions of "state terrorism" (throughout history, not just in the present)'. And you'll see that I have raised some of those concerns before ...

But I'm not committed to the "... and ..." title. I never was happy with it, and as the wider scope does not seem to materialize, we'll have a lasting NPOV/DUE problems, unless something's done. But perhaps we can do something?

My preferred solution would be to summarize the longer sections. There should be a main article for each subsection of "Specific allegations against the US by region" that itself has subsections. But I don't have time right now to plan or push for anything like that. — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So would you prefer State terrorism by the United States? Igor Berger (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer something we could work together on, whatever that may be. I would rather ask what Stone put to sky would prefer. (It was his move, after all.) And I might ask what Ultramarine would prefer. If we could find for this article a title with which those two could work together, we could fix this article. And if pigs had wings ... — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think changing the article back to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States and keeping it on this specific topic is best. If anyone wants to start an article that exams the allegation by USA against other countries and other countries on USA they are more than welcomed to do so, but I would really think it will get the boot - AfD. Because Wikipedia articles are not a Debate! The way the title and the introduction are now written, it is a school essay not an encyclopidic article. Igor Berger (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also unless United States has been convicted in international court for acts of terrorism we must have allegations in the title, because they are allegations and accusations untill proven legaly! Igor Berger (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" is fine with me. Same form as other Wikipedia articles as per above.Ultramarine (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I went to move the article to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States but it is protected from moving. Can we unprotect it and make the move, being it was moved per WP:BOLD not per consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You can thank DHeyward for that move protection, courtesy JzG. But I think we should look before we leap. Or rather, talk before taking reckless action. Please present your case in a new section, and give the regulars time to comment. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The case is already here. The now title does not match the article's topic nor content. Igor Berger (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Was time taken to discuss the move before it was moved to begin with? I'm a newcomer to this article but I IMMEDIATELY saw the NPOV/DUE problems (see my comment at the bottom of this talk page). will381796 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sort of. As I was saying, please see Talk:State terrorism and the United States/Archive 18#State Terrorism AND the United States (for discussion) and Talk:State terrorism and the United States/Archive 18#POV Dispute (for the move, and subsequent reluctant acceptance). — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not acceptance. The current title violates policy. See: [22].Ultramarine (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think whoever made the initial change was trying to expand the article into too broad a topic, but it obviously failed. How much of the article discusses accusations against the US and how much of the article discusses accusations made by the US? 99% of this article discusses allegations made AGAINST the US. "Allegations of State Terrorism Against the United States" is a much more accurate description of what this article is describing and eliminates any NPOV problems that the current title is causing. will381796 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When I first saw this title, I said to myself this article need a rescue! It is like calling Wikipedia Google, because we rank high in Google..:) Please change it quickly before we embarrass ourselves. Igor Berger (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"... State Terrorism Against the United States"? I think you'll want to reread that suggestion. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

* Allegations are made AGAINST someone when you accuse that person/entity of doing something. This article mainly (99%) discusses instances of State Terrorism sponsored or supported by the US. Thus, the allegations are being made against the US. When the US is accusing another nation of supporting terrorism, the allegations are being made BY the US. I think my title correctly reflects the content of the article.  :) will381796 (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Now I sort of see the ambiguity. Perhaps "Allegations of state terrorism made against the United States". Maybe that is less ambiguous. will381796 (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. However, it does not follow the title format that other "state terrorism" articles do. See above. "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" would fit better.Ultramarine (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Special:PrefixIndex/Allegations of state terrorism says "by" works just fine, if we go that way. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, "by" Igor Berger (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Either one works for me and I am the newcomer. Allegations of state terrorism by the United States makes sense with a quick read and it matches the format used in other similar article titles. And I'm not going to push for a systemic changing in the wording of these articles. But grammatically I still don't think "Allegations...by" conveys the true meaning of the article. As I said above, "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" could be interpreted either as allegations that the US was involved in state terrorism (which 99% of the article discusses) or it could mean that the US has made allegations of state terrorism (which is only discussed in one very small section that really should be removed completely from this article as its completely unbalanced). I think the wording should be "Allegations...made against...", and we'd need to make the changes to the other articles. But like I said, if nobody else wants to change the system then I won't push for it. lol. will381796 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a read at this Igor Berger (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to also support the "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" or at least including "Allegations..."Ultramarine (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. So can we go ahead and get an admin to remove the move block and we can get this article renamed? will381796 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are citing a straw poll from a year and a half ago as evidence for current concensus? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The straw poll is not evidence of consensus, but evidence what the title use to be before it was changenged by BOLD without a consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If it were up to me I would change it back to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States following WP:NPoV, given Wikipedia's very wide readership and the helpfulness of skirting titles which may distract from article content. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If this article doesn't show some improvement soon, I will be putting it up for AfD

I have been keeping a record of all the acrimony on the talk page here and the constant edit warring going on, and I intend to present all of that as evidence that this article will never be able to present a neutral point of view of the subject, that it is being used as a coatrack for general criticism of the US, and that it's scope is too large. Jtrainor (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The article cannot be deleted just because some text is unsourced or poorly written. That is why I recommend going back to the original title and make sure everything is sourced per WP:V, also avoid WP:OR. We are an encyclopidia not a place for sides pro or against, not a place for debates, and not a battle field. Igor Berger (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the fact that people worked together to elevate Yasser Arafat to featured article status, your contention that "this article will never be able to present a neutral point of view" is not something that will hold water with me. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, another POV "because I don't like it" AfD is just another bad faith request and will result in a speedy keep. This is one of the best article on WP and should be up for featured status soon (thanks to all the critics).64.118.111.137 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the article needs at least a serious clean-up. Agree that it is a general dumping ground for various criticisms. Many not mentioning terrorism, state terrorism, or even the US. See [23]Ultramarine (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article will never be at featured status. It's neutrality has been disputed for years, ever since it's creation. It has had other tags as well for much of that time.

There is a point when you have to decide something isn't worth it. We are approaching it with this article-- instead of trying to fix something that obviously never will be fixed, I am starting to lean towards the opinion that it would be better to burn it to the ground and start over. I'm going to discount the accusations of bad faith and refer Mr IP Address there to WP:CIVIL. Jtrainor (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"I'm going to discount the accusations of bad faith" <- makes me laugh GundamsЯus (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate it for featured status. Its not quite there yet, I agree, but its getting close. Requesting deleting of this article is laughably absurd. That is like asking delete "George Bush" because I don't like him.64.118.111.137 (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is nowhere near FA status and the reviewers would probably laugh as they denied the nomination. will381796 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is way unlikely this article would be deleted by an AfD. There are plenty of sources to support its notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Need for a compromise

Edit warring will not help anyone. An admin will protect it and no one will be able to edit it. So stop and have WP:TEA. Igor Berger (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Noam Chomsky

There has to be some criticism of Noam Chomsky we cannot just take his word as Holly Truth! So I support the edit that encompasses some criticism of him! This article is about alleged U.S. state sponsored terrorism! We should not care what countries do what terror to USA here. But what we should care about is counter balanced criticism to specific acts of accusations, to adhere to NPOV. Igor Berger (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That was just one problem of many restored with the current revert. See [24] for more.Ultramarine (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is not on trial here. Evidence from other points of view is fine, but Ann Coulter style attacks on people whose comments meet WP:V WP:RS is not allowed - terrible violations of WPSYN. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and this dead horse has been extensively discussed. See above and the archives. This page is not about Noam Chomsky. Any of his claims or those of other cited scholars are always up to be disputed by other scholars, of course, but not blanket attacks on Chomsky. To do so is off topic, a personal attack, and its not a reliable source. So I have reverted that, and yes, I am an IP user but I'm a different person as my history shows I regularly edit this article.76.102.72.153 (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Evidence from other points of view to make the article NPOV - not biased to one POV journalist/historian/researcher/activist. Igor Berger (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you response here is a straw man. No one is saying there should be one POV. This article does not present one POV. It should present all POV's on the subject of state terrorism and the United States. Chomsky talks a lot about this subject, so we use him. If others disagree with Chomsky's claims--or any other scholars claims-- that is good, we can use them too. NPOV demands it. However, that is not what the added material does in any way. It ignores the factual issues of claims of State Terrorism and the United States and instead goes off the scope of the articles subject by talking about Chomsky himself--making sweeping claims about the author, not the subject matter. This is a big difference. NPOV is not achieved in this way. It seems you have not read the many sections devoted to this issue, yet.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There was clearly no concensus for the version of Windschuttle material attacking Chomsky and not addressing State Terrorism by the US. It has been removed again. Find a RS that actually addresses the topic. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This was the first non-massive-revert non-administrative edit in how long now? No, don't answer that ... :) And for the record, I support removing this material, for all the reasons you guys have already given and I won't repeat. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 64.118.111.137

64.118.111.137 has been edit-warring with multiple users in an attempt to make widespread and unilateral changes to the article. Clearly this is unacceptable. Concerns remain about the article as a whole, which is why all those tags have been put up there - I don't see consensus for removing so many of them. Furthermore large amounts of text were removed - simply because, I guess, it presented a POV the editor didn't like. Regardless of whether or not I agree with the current version, anon-IP editors shouldn't make such big changes by themselves.

I think I'll recommend semi-protection for the article. John Smith's (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ultramarine made unilateral changes that goes against consensus. That is unacceptable. Him and Jtrainor tagged team to push it through. I am restoring consensus version. One IP editors (myself) is not a reason to semi-protect, either. Stupid reasons.64.118.111.137 (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been reported for 3RR violation.Ultramarine (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not the only IP editor to have engaged in edit-warring in the last month. Also Sidhekin has disagreed with your edit-warring. John Smith's (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And now Igorberger. John Smith's (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny how in a one-vs-many edit war, the one claims to represent consensus. Yeah, I'd welcome semi-protection. When was the last time any non-disruptive IP editor made any substantial edits to this article? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time an IP address ever made any useful edits to any politically charged article? Jtrainor (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

March 27th? Yeah, that's this year. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No need I asked an admin for help. Igor Berger (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. Blocked for 24 hours by an admin, with a warning to be blocked for lomger if edit warring again. Igor Berger (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this particular IP, but haven't looked thru the history enough to make a judgement about protection. Is protection really warranted? In general, whether or not contributions from IP's are seldom good in this article wouldn't be a reason to semi-protect; the question would be, is it so frequent that normal editing is disrupted? I'll take a look, but my default on protection is usually not to. Comments here or on my talk page welcome. --barneca (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It would have taken less time to look at the history than write that. Although it looks like you folks are having lots of fun here, contributions from IP's and new accounts don't seem to be the problem; I see more frequent problems with IP editing on Chocolate. No need for semi-protection. You may now return to your regularly scheduled arguing, already in progress. --barneca (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. You are welcome to bring your bucket and mop any time..:) We will Fedex you a tip for the hard work! Igor Berger (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to defend any edit warring, or much less violations of the 3rr, but there has been some mischaracterization by those edit warring--not that it matters to the issue of the 3RR violation. But, specifically, "NPOV version," and socket puppet etc-- I see no evidence for either claim. The fact is that it is true that Ultramarine introduced various things that have been rejected by all participating editors on the talk page discussing its merits or lackthereof several times now. What he does is wait a week, and insert it again, only to be reverted, and then a new discussion cycle starts over again. Each time there is nothing new. Like others have said, its a deadhorse, but I guess this tactic is to see if one time it will stick. This time some IP reverted Ultramarine and other editors who have not discussed the problems of his edits, came in to stop the anon IP edit warrior violating 3RR. However, reverting to Ultramarine's contested and major changes despite the discussions rejecting it on talk many times is also wrong. I would like to see discussion by those editors on specific issues that they feel are valid edits that should be incorporated. I'm open minded to hearing arguments from new editors. Ultramarine's arguments thus far have not held up. I think we should respect the long term editors of this page and not force new changes without their input. Until then, I'd strongly advise not edit warring for force these changes in the article. And even if the IP editor was right about the content, he is wrong to edit war and violate 3RR as this makes it look like he is acting against consensus when the reality is otherwise. Since this is a matter of respecting consensus and not forcing disputed changes, I will revert it, for that reason. Lets respect the process, please.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine's cleanup is long-overdue, and I support it fully. These would have been in a long time ago if it wasn't for socks of banned users. - Merzbow (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have a problem WP:AGF about an editor take it to WP:ANI not try to POV it here. Igor Berger (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any valid argument presented that Ultramarine's massive edits are any kind of valid "clean up." My main objection is that this is being forced through by edit warring after several discussions on these content disputes after they did not yield any consensus for making them. In fact it was just Ultramarine and occassionally Jtrainor vs. everyone else. I'm not suggesting that this is a matter of majority rules either--their arguments for these changes simply did not stand up.

Now, consensus does change, and I would have welcomed you and the other new editors participation in these discussions, but that has not happened, and should have before the edit warring. It looks like we will have to have them again (although I asked that you read the many sections above, and the recent archives to familiarize yourself with the arguments so as not repeat needlessly. As far as your claims of socks of banned users, I see no evidence of that. Who are you saying was a sock of a banned user that nullified the consensus against Ultramarines arguments?Giovanni33 (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

... and for all the talk about socks, I see no such request for checkuser. Empty talk. Just ignore it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is what I thought, thanks. I don't think its too much to ask that editors discuss the merits of massive changes and gain some consensus on talk first, instead of forcing the changes in the article though edit warring. That only results in a locked article.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, how quickly you forget the socks of permba-banned users User:Fairness And Accuracy For All and User:NuclearUmpf who plagued this article for many months. Sidhekin, I can't blame you because you weren't around then, but please familiarize yourself with these users. The Nuclear sock was called User:SevenOfDiamonds, and was banned by ArbCom. The FAAFA sock was called User:Bmedley Sutler, and was also banned. - Merzbow (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is ancient history and there is no evidence that these characters are involved in any of the consensus that was achieved regarding the current content disputes. I'm sure every article, if you go far back enough, has these issues, but its rather mood now. About FAAFA, I have never seen him edit here, and I've been editing here for at least a year now.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you were referring to the socks of recent talk. I certainly was. (For the record, I'm vaguely familiar with NuclearUmpf, since two new "card" accounts appeared, and were blocked, recently; FAAFA is new to me.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Title question

Dang server issues. This is my third time typing out this question. I don't have time to read the many pages of archives to see if this has been discussed before, but why is it that other articles on similar topics but about other countries have their article titles prefaced with "allegations of state terrorism" why the US article is simply "State terrorism and the United States." Seems to sound to me as though there is no longer any debate about the issue and it is simply fact, when the truth is, these are all simply allegations just like the allegations against Iran and Russia (see the See Also section on this article for my examples). Is there some fundamental difference between this article and those that means that they should be prefaced with the "Allegations" and this one shouldn't? Any comments? will381796 (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It was changed by an editor as WP:BOLD. I am reverting that edit now. Igor Berger (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Title was changed but there was discussion and editors accepted the change and have worked within the parameters since then. I'd not want to change it back without some good reasons. The new title seems stable enough for the current scope, although I don't mind the previous title either (even though I don't think the name allegations needs to be in the title).Giovanni33 (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is, quite frankly, a lie. There has been considerable dissent about the current topic, and the only reason it hasn't been put back is because you can't move a page to an existing page. Jtrainor (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not a lie, but you calling it that, quite frankly, is a personal attack.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The current title is no longer accusatory, but just pointless since it gives little indication of what the scope of the article is. "Allegations...by..." is better. - Merzbow (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would settle for "Allegations of State Terrorism and Political Violence Committed by the United States." Both terms are frequently interchanged within the terrorology literature.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm wary of widening the scope (as in including political violence), of narrowing the scope (as in excluding acts committed, not by the US, but with funding, training, or other support from the US), and of violating the manual of style on caps in article titles.  :) I'd still prefer the "Allegations ... by ..." title, if we decide the current title and its scope has failed, but as a compromise, how about "Allegations of state terrorism committed or supported by the United States"?

... and I'd still like to hear from Stone and/or BernardL before we ask for such a move, either way. Not that I'd give them veto rights, but those two are the main supporters of the "... and ..." title, so we'd be all the better informed for hearing their views. Neither has been editing since the 6th, but I expect one or both will be around within a few days. And we're in no such hurry that we cannot wait a few days, right?  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was one of the few editors who dissented against the title change at the time and I have never recanted that position. "Allegations of State Terrorism and Political Violence Committed by the United States" is preferable for me because it is consonant with the considerable literature on the subject. Anyone who has experience with the literature knows that the terms are closely related, often used interchangeably. One of the leading terrorology journals is "Terrorism and Political Violence." (Unfortunately, although many here from across the spectrum are mouthing opinions, only myself and perhaps Giovanni have thus far evidenced extensive reading of the scholarly literature on the subject, certainly not Ultramarine. I do not expect my opinion to matter because this is, after-all is said and done, a US-centric pseudocyclopedia dominated by right-wing ideology, despite the NPOV facade. Criticism of the U.S. invariably needs to be suppressed, excused by comparing it with other demons, whitewashed, or rationalized- never mind the memory of the victims.BernardL (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies; I have somehow conflated you and Bigtimepeace. I don't know how I managed that; Bigtimepeace has not edited the article nor talk page since mid-February, when I was new on this article, which may explain something, but that's still rather muddle-headed of me; you even argued against in the original suggestion, as did I. May I claim temporary stupidity? Anyway, we cannot wait for Bigtimepeace to show up, and unless he has followed the later developments, I doubt he would have much to contribute. But I suppose we could still wait a few days for Stone to show up? — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I came after the title change, but as it stands it looks right to me. The title currently says nothing about U.S. involvement in State Terror. It only says that this page deals with how state terror and the United States. If the title is changed to Allegations... then all of the stuff now talking about what the U.S. says about other nations will be deleted. That seems rude because Ultramarine and his bunch are all interested in telling both sides and they won't be able to do that if we preempt them with such a narrow title. Aho aho (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Stone, if you've decided to abandon your old account and start editing as Aho aho, can you make this clear on your user page? Checkuser has already established they are one and the same. - Merzbow (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not quite true. The check did not confirm that Aho aho is Stone, only that its likely. That is a difference. Only one account was confirmed to be his, and I don't recall him using that account in any abusive/illegal manner. I think we should assume good faith towards Aho aho. His participation here has been positive, as well.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are Thatcher's words (to Stone): "The "card" accounts are definitely unrelated to you. However, you appear to be IP hopping within a narrow range but from the same computer, and not only the accounts listed above but also Ultrastoopid (talk · contribs) and UntimelyMaroon (talk · contribs) are likely to be you." A mere coincidence that in addition to this, the accounts in question are all new, focus laser-like on this article, and share Stone's POV. - Merzbow (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying your speculations are not grounded in some facts, nor are they illogical. My point was that it was still in the realm of speculation, and not "established" as you had claimed. I regard the two spheres to be a big difference (call me naive). But, my second point was that Aho aho's participation has been fine, so no need to bring up these negative speculations in the absence of some problem behaviors with the editing.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

They were both editing the article at the same time. That's abuse if both are the same account (which again is clear from CU and behavior). - Merzbow (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again: no ip-hopping. That was the presumption that an incompetent administrator jumped to. The range is hardly "narrow"; the range she cites is over 100,000 ip addresses large, and in fact a subnet to an even larger ip range of over 500,000 addresses which are used locally. Finally, Aho aho is not me; so clearly he couldn't be linked to me by a "CU", as you so adorably put it. The administrator in question doesn't offer any evidence beyond mere speculation. Speculation from an administrator is just as likely to be a biased, political lie as it is from anyone else, here.

If you are so sure that Aho and i are the same then please: submit a checkuser and test your theory. Knowing -- as i do -- that i am not s/he i have no worries on that count. But of course you won't, simply because you know as well as i do that you are engaging in purposeful ad hominem attacks to try and bolster your own inferior arguments. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the title should not include the word "terrorism", for NPOV reasons, because I think there are a large number of people who object to the use of the word "terrorism" to describe acts committed by the U.S. government. I could be wrong about that. Even if practically everyone agrees that the word can be used to describe some acts by the U.S. government, I think different POV's will include very different sets of acts. I think the phrase "political violence" is probably better. People who are in favour of a given action are more likely to admit that it is "violence", IMO, than to admit that it is "terrorism", a word with very strong connotations. There may be other phrases that are even more NPOV. Adding "Allegations" to the title may improve it but not enough: IMO a strongly POV title does not become sufficiently NPOV simply by inserting "Allegations". I agree that most words in the title should not be capitalized. I suggest "Political violence by the United States government", except that I'm not sure whether that's good enough either and something like "United States foreign policy" might be better: more surely NPOV, anyway, though it may not cover the topic specifically enough. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Philippine background section

Quoting from WP:NOT and WP:QUOTE "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" "On lengthy articles, editors should strive to keep long quotations to a minimum, opting to paraphrase and work smaller portions of quotes into articles." Many of the sections consist of many long direct quotes with similar content. Should be summarized. Especially background material not mentioning terrorism or the US. Here is a proposal for one such section. The Philippine background section only mentions accusations, many not alleging state terrorism, against the Philippine government. This should not be an extremely long section in this article. Allegations that US support of the Philippine government is US state terrorism is mentioned in a later section. I have kept all the references: [25]Ultramarine (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found time to dig into the matter yet, but I'm wondering if much of this material could be moved to Operation Enduring Freedom - Philippines and summarized here? Thoughts? — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I have previously advocated summarising points here and expanding existing, specific articles instead. John Smith's (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong article since this material does not discuss the US. Could be in an article called "Human rights in the Philippines" or something similar.Ultramarine (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Warring

This is clearly not working. The article has recently been semi protected and it seems well on it's way to full protection for edit waring. Please engage in productive consensus building discussion, involve some outside editors, mediation, or start an RfC before you all are forced into talk only mode for a period. Just a constructive suggestion, as if it is locked, it will be locked in a version unwanted by one side or the other. — Becksguy (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That was prescient :-). I've protected it. FWIW I consider the current version a bit cr*p, because I like Chomsky, but I'm not going to intervene content-wise.

Discuss.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is overlong, unreadably dense, and full of irrelevant asides. It could hardly be less readible if someone were paid to make it so. From this discussion page it is difficult to assume good faith editing, it appears to be deliberate obfuscation as part of a nationalistic edit war. Best solution may be an admin to rewrite in short and readible form then lock down with rules of engagement in the mode of Liancourt Rocks. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I have said, I've been leaning towards simply AfDing the article, that it may get a fresh start. It is unlikely a good article will ever emerge out of this current trainwreck of a coat rack. Jtrainor (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It has survived several AFD's. Don't get your hopes up William M. Connolley (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"You know your Wikipedia article has a problem when...", item #483 - "Chomsky is the most reliable source out of 248 cites". - Merzbow (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To suggest that Chomsky is the only reliable source here (and making insinuations about Chomsky’s credibility for this topic, is a :::gross distortion and reveals quite a lot of ignorance.

First, Chomsky is, uncontroversially, a high quality source, as has already been demonstrated frequently here. For a further :::example, we can consider that over the years he has been featured speaker at several high profile Amnesty International events, :::such as the Amnesty International Annual Lecture in Dublin, Ireland in 2006 [26]. Or pick :::up Amnesty’s International Report for 1997. Chomsky is featured in the section “Human Rights Defenders” with a quarter page :::picture and a quote, as Amnesty explains that Chomsky delivered the keynote at the first international human rights defenders conference in Bogota, Colombia, that was convened by AI. I’m not aware that ideologues of the right such as David Horowitz, Keith Windschuttle and Niall Ferguson have been afforded such moral prestige.

Secondly, there is no lack of quality sources who say that the U.S. is significantly complicit in state terrorism. Here is just a :::partial list…

Richard Falk, Emeritus Prof International Law, Princeton, current U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories

Mark Selden, Bartle Prof of Sociology and History and Binghamton

Arno Mayer, Prof of History at Princeton, one of the world’s renowned experts in Holocaust Studies.

Jorge I. Dominguez, Prof of International Affairs, Harvard

Greg Grandin, Prof of History, New York University, member of the Guatemalan Truth Commission team, author of several award winning books.

J. Patrice McSherry, Professor of Political Science, Long Island University

Michael Stohl, currently professor of Communications at UCSB, a world renowned terrorism expert who has made a significant impact in the field.

Stephen Rabe, Professor of History at the University of Texas at Dallas.

Michael McClintock, researcher and director for Amnesty International, for almost 20 years.

As I indicated earlier, this list is only partial. One could add many more professors, and there are quite a few prominent voices especially Latin American writers, who have not made it into the article yet.BernardL (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was good until the recent edit warring. But that will be fixed as soon as it gets unlocked. The usual right wingers who do this damage tend not to stick around, since they can't really argue on the merits of their cause. If it were left in peace to develop, it would soon be the pride of wikipedia, an example of the best that this project can offer--a bright shinning beacon of knowledge within the belly of the imperialist beast. Not that we were there yet, but it during the period of relative peace there was great improvement overall.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Was certainly not a good version. Still not a good version but slightly better. "since they can't really argue on the merits of their cause" False. It is you who have not replied most recently in earlier discussions above. "a bright shinning beacon of knowledge within the belly of the imperialist beast." I thought this was supposed to be an encyclopedia. Not a WP:SOAP.Ultramarine (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, Giovanni. I suggest you read WP:SOAP-- this is not the place for you or anyone else to hold forth on the percieved misdeeds of the so-called 'evil imperialist beast'. You may wish to examine [[27]] as it describes the behaviour of yourself and SPTS quite accurately. Jtrainor (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, and I do not include such political commentary as a basis for content or arguments about it. I simply state my own personal view about shinning beacon of uncomfortable truths that gets exposed to the world, openly, in wikipedia-and yes, that is what wikipedia should do: report and document all notable knowledge about the world around us. That is what an encylopedia is all about. At least any good one. And, no this is not SOAP, etc, so don't twist the meaning of what I said. A poor encylopeida is to borrow BernardL's description one that is perverted into a "US-centric pseudocyclopedia dominated by right-wing ideology, despite the NPOV facade. Criticism of the U.S. invariably needs to be suppressed, excused by comparing it with other demons, whitewashed, or rationalized- never mind the memory of the victims." Everything is political and I don't expect editors to be immune from bias when it comes to this type of topic, esp. because it has some real world implications given the US govt. continued policies along lines being elucidated here. But, we are an encyclopedia, and this article is in its best tradition. That is why I think it also matters that editors working here should have an extensive reading of the scholarly literature on the subject under their belt. The fact that many don't explains a lot about the continued bickering.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem is not a very impressive argument. If you have any factual arguments please continue earlier discussions. Regarding "uncomfortable truths" that would be material such as the opposing views material systematically deleted from this article.[28]Ultramarine (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no ad hominem argument. The Ad hominem arguments is what you keep edit warring to include in the article, which were correctly reverted. As far as opposing views, that has always been welcome. The problem is that you were also including a lot of your own novel arguments and construing that as "opposing views.' The fact is that such material was off topic and SYN. Much of the material you try to push for has not a single source tying the subject to State Terrorism--unlike the material that is tied to State Terrorism such as the Amnesty International reports, which you then cry out falsely, 'double standards." Those fallacious arguments don't stand. If you have real opposing views on the subject (not Chomsky attack rants, polity democratic model theory, peace theory, and all the other stuff that has nothing to do with claims of State terrorism) then they will be welcome additions.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give a quote where Amnesty accuses the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? That is not needed. Its a false premise to assume that those exact words must be used by AI in order for the material that AI writes to be included. The test is one of relevance, context, and that reliable sources say that the AI information is connected to State Terrorism. Thus is not SYN, like your material, and there is no double standard. I don't need to repeat the various quotes that do tie it in, as that has been done many times. Check the archives. But, for the sake of other new editors, I'll do so briefly:

“Latin America and Asia are the two main areas identified by Amnesty International as centers of growth of state terror,” writes Jeffrey A. Sluka in the anthology “Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror.” The region has been one of the focal points of the literature on state terrorism. Sluka states that “at the end of the 1970’s, at the same time that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were first beginning to present alarming reports of the existence of a new global “epidemic” of state torture and murder, the first academic studies also began to emerge about this, led by the pioneering work of Chomsky and Herman. In a series of important books, they reported that the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. “sphere of influence,” and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the United States client states in Latin America. (Sluka, Jeffrey A. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000, 8)

.

Likewise, the contributions of Michael McClintock, former senior researcher at Amnesty International, have been cited as among the pioneering works about state terrorism in Latin America. (McSherry, Patrice J. Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America, Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, 15-17). McClintock is notable for making the connection between state terrorist practice in Guatemala with previous practices by counterinsurgency forces in Vietnam and the Philippines. Various analysts have charged that the U.S. is significantly complicit in terror regimes in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti, Cuba, Uruguay, and Colombia, and the AI material and other human rights reports have always been center to descriptions of these politically motivated violence by the powerfulGiovanni33 (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a quote by Amnesty. None of these are from Amnesty material. The views of a former Amnesty researcher is not a view by Amnesty. Please give quote and Amnesty report taken from. On the other hand, democide is argued to be equivalent to state terrorism. Yet such opposing views material have been deleted.[29]Ultramarine (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What you asked for was not relevant, not not necessary for me to quote. You can go get a quote yourself. All the material by AI, is relevant, in context with the subject, and supported by sources as such. Your material on the other hand is not. Just because you consider it (the argument, "them too!" to be an "opposing views" argument does not make it so--its classic SYN.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Your material does not state that Amnesty have accused the US of state terrorism. Others may do citing Amnesty reports. Not the same thing. None of the many Amnesty and Human Rights Watch quotes in this article accuses the US of state terrorism. Should all be removed as OR and SYN. This is not a general US criticism article. See [30]Ultramarine (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless we settle on hard criteria to judge what material can be included, this article will never be stable, and will always be a mess. Giovanni, the more words you need to use to explain why a source is relevant (such as in your essay above), the less it is relevant. A source is relevant to this article if and only if the words "United States" and "State Terrorism" are used. - Merzbow (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that editors must have consensus about criteria. And we did that. It was just Ultramarine who dissented (until now). But these other editors such as yourself have only come back to this article to revert for him and did not participate in these discussions about standards. That was wrong. As far as the standards that you are advancing, I disagree. Word count has nothing to do with relevance. One should use as many words as deemed sufficient to provide a well rounded understanding of the nature of State Terrorism. The Human Rights Orgs do this well, and are referenced by analysts who describe the information as incidents of state terrorism. The "essay" above illustrates this beyond any doubt. To exclude this explanatory background information directly relevant to the topic that explains in details the nature of state terror, is unjustified. For example the Guatamala material from Human Rights Watch. The agreed standard is, to use other editors description--if there is a source (Source A) that makes the complete analysis "US did/supported people who did ACTS we define as terrorism" and another source (source B) says of those same ACTS "here is detailed information about those ACTS", source B is perfectly acceptable and not a violation of SYN. The Guatemala section has several Source A and the AI report is Source B. The claims that all sources must call it state terrorism' is a false premise, and really a dead horse since its been rather well refuted many times. Note that this is not a double standard when it comes to Ultramarine's various attempts to force some particular subject into an 'opposing view," when there is no source that makes such an argument except himself (OR, SYN). Likewise, to argue "it was for a good cause" as a counter to the question of was it terrorism fails because that is not a counter point, its an admission with a reason. We are not satisfying NPOV by adding admissions that simply give a cop out. The article should not rely on logical fallacies, or steer off topic into OR and SYN. And when he does not get it way, its a POINT violation to then delete other material on false claims of "double standard,' when the only double standard is the one in his head.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No. You are describing a classical WP:SYN violation. That others accuse the US of state terrorism does not mean that Amnesty and Human Rights Watch do. How could they when there is no agreement on what "state terrorism" is? Again, this is not a general US criticism article. Again, there are many and long quotes from Amnesty and Human Rights Watch in the article. Not a single one accuses the US of state terrorism. Those criticizing the US could be in an article called "Criticisms of United States foreign policy" or something similar. They are OR and SYN in this article.Ultramarine (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. Go back and read response again as it refutes your claims here. You have a fundamentally wrong idea about OR and SYN. As other editors have told you, go to the SYN board and ask them. Ironically, while you claim that the above standard is SYN, you yourself employ a much looser standard that in fact really is SYN. The inclusion of material from human rights groups that provide background and describe events that scholars say are acts of state terrorism, fit perfectly, are relevant, on topic, and fully valid. No one is originating any original claim, since those claims are specifically anchored by reliable 3rd party sources. Hence, no SYN. Disagree take it to the SYN board and get informed. Every editor telling you over and over here seems to have no impact.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What is really happening is that you are misrepresenting to the reader that these additional sources share the POV of the source that actually accuses the US of complicity in state terrorism. Plus providing details on additional events not in the original accusation, but which you believe are related. Stick to what the source doing the accusing is saying. - Merzbow (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the source speaks for itself. No one is representing or misrepresenting the POV of the source; a third party source does the synthesis and make the claims, based on these human rights reports that give details. The background material that its based on stands on its own as background information directly related to the accusation of state terrorism. Its the details, the 'beef" and, if the goal of the article is to shed light on the nature of state terrorism, as so identified by reputable scholars, then there is no good reason to suppress these details from which they (the claims) are based.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If you quote long sections about the evils of a certain government in an article entitled "State Terrorism and the United States", right after citing "source A" that accuses the US of supporting terrorism by this state, and attributing these sections to "sources B and C", the implication is obvious - sources B and C support the interpretation. This is clearly misleading the reader. Are you saying that the reader will read "the murder of thousands by a military government that maintains its authority by terror" by HRW, and think "hmm, the article doesn't say that HRW accuses the US of anything, so I'm just going to accept this background information neutrally"? That is ludicrous. - Merzbow (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what I'm saying. If that was what I was saying, then you would be right. What I'm saying is that the descriptions of political violence carried out by the state IS STATE TERRORISM supported by the United States. So I am not intimating it this in some misleading way, as if I'm pretending its describing something else. No. It is what State Terrorism looks like. Now, why can we say this? It's not because any editor here is making the claim. No, other reputable sources must make that claim and say, "these things AI, Humans Rights watch, et. al. describe are prime examples of US supported state terrorism." So its ludicrous we can't use these very good descriptions simply because AI does not say themselves make the politically charged accusation that its "US Supported State Terrorism!" Human Rights organizations don't use language like that. They simply describe the events. Others then say these events are state terrorism and accuse the US. This makes those events, and all details by them by any reputable source valid for inclusion. No one is saying that this organization says something it doesnt. We even put it in a 'background' section to make this clear.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"This makes those events, and all details by them by any reputable source valid for inclusion". Err, no. You don't realize that you are making the accusing source's argument FOR them by picking and choosing the items from the secondary source that you believe the first source is relying upon. If the first source specifically says it relies on this and that passage from a specific document produced by the second source, then you'd have license to reproduce that passage. (And furthermore, to not mislead the reader, you'd have to make it clear in the article text the secondary source is not accusing the US of state terrorism, but the first source is). But you can't just stick in large infodumps from the second source just because, in your judgment, they are relevant. - Merzbow (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If people wish to list versions which they consider good - or better still, good compromises - please do William M. Connolley (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this article can be found here: [31]. Some are fixed in the currently protected version.Ultramarine (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• If this discussion continues in the same vein, it will be a long time before the article is unprotected. At least try to find what ever areas of the article you all can agree on as a beginning point in reaching consensus, rather than repeating political positions. We are all here to write/improve an encyclopedia, not engage in political/philosophical arguments about a very contentious and sensitive subject. Everyone has a POV and many feel passionately about the subjects included in this article and those touched on here, but we should try our hardest to check that mindset at the editing door, as difficult as that is to do sometimes. Otherwise, no progress will be made. Maybe those editors that can't edit without getting so personally and emotionally involved should take a break from this article and work elsewhere for a period to reduce stress. Or is it time for a Request for Comment process. — Becksguy (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly I think some people would prefer to wait until the article is unprotected and then start edit-warring again. I think a RfC is definitely a good idea, though it will probably require mediation as I doubt a RfC will solve much. John Smith's (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

John Smith may be right, the last RfC a couple of months ago resulted in only the current editors of the article re-hashing their positions in a new forum.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The criteria for unprotection should be an agreement on a set of hard criteria for inclusion of material, that can be applied mechanically. Otherwise, it should remain protected forever. This was the only way the article List of events named massacres was made stable. - Merzbow (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Mechanically applicable criteria are an illusion William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're disputing that this worked with List of events named massacres? Are you familiar with that article's history? When left with no other option, it's worth a shot. - Merzbow (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That article's criteria are consensus based criteria. A set of special criteria might work here, assuming the involved editors can agree on that set, but not mechanically applied. Editors still have to judge content on criteria, including the normal required criteria for any article (such as WP:N, WP:V, WP:UNDUE), and any special criteria on a per article basis. BTW, that article is no longer protected. Remember the old adage? When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's difficult to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp (or in our case, write an encyclopedic article). Instead of fighting about what you can't agree on, start with what you can agree on. And then build up consensus from there, step by step. It has to work better than what's been happening recently with this article and discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Simplifying

Don't see a lot of consensus here. Experimentally, I've tried simplifying the article, starting with the largely redundant defn section. Howl in protest if you like, it might do some good. Better still, find something to agree on William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good. The terms have their own pages, defining them here was just cluttering up the start of the article. The next clutter point is the Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict quote. It's a complex primary source, and it's not clear whether it supports the Chomsky claim without interpretation. If there is a secondary source with interpretation it might be relevant. Otherwise it should be ditched. Third clutter point is the Windschuttle section, which is a key point of contention on the talk page and on which an admin decision would be useful. There are two points made under Windschuttle. One is about the Sudan bombings. If Windschuttle states that errors in regard to the Sudan bombings make Chomsky's claims about US state terrorism less reliable, then a sentence to that effect should be included. If not, to include it would be original research. The second Windschuttle point is that Chomsky is not making statements about non-US state terrorism. This criticism does not address the accuracy of Chomsky's analysis of US state terrorism in any way. One cannot say "John's analysis of dog bites should be discounted because he never comments on cat bites". It should be removed. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good start. The problem has always been the level of the bar for inclusion. For most of the sections, the bar is incredibly low and any tie to the United States whether it relates to policy or coincidence is grounds for inclusion. The definition section you deleted kept growing to justify more and more inclusions. As an example: This section. I don't see how this connects the US to state terrorism. If anything, a US court found the perpetrator (not an american) to be responsible for terror. The threshold seems to be that the criminal attended school in the U.S. That seems awfully low bars for inclusion and has lots of WP:SYN overtones. --DHeyward (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done a bit more. I agree that the quote from the low-intensity conflict wasn't really needed and have just linked to it (rather awkwardly inside the Chomsky quote). The Winds section seemed like the Chomsky-Winds fight had intruded too far into this page, so I've heavily trimmed it: having a longer reply from W seemed absurd. And I also cut peoples credentials. We don't need a long list of all the things Chomsky is. Thats what links are for William M. Connolley (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In removing credentials, you left "The" in front of Windschuttle. Can you remove that? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, Will, you deleted the citation. Might want to put that back in. John Smith's (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Done William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cite error

Ultra has been careless: He forgot to close his ref tag. :)

Editprotected

Could we please have the <ref name="hrwUsig"> replaced with <ref name="hrwUsig"/> in the below? I think that should fix the cite error.

[W]itnesses are indeed reluctant to cooperate with police investigations, because of fear that they would be targeted by doing so. An extremely weak witness protection program exacerbates this problem....[P]olice are often unwilling to vigorously investigate cases implicating members of the AFP. Families of some victims told Human Rights Watch that when they reported relevant cases to the police, police often demanded that the families themselves produce evidence and witnesses. Even when police filed cases with a court, they often identified the perpetrators either as long-wanted members of the NPA or simply as “John Doe.” Some families told Human Rights Watch that police gave up investigating after only a few days.

— Human Rights Watch, [ replace <ref name="hrwUsig"> with <ref name="hrwUsig"/> here ]

Thank you. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that, I think (I hate ref's) in partial atonement for my other sins William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unprotect

I'm going to experimentally unprotect this. Tendentious editing - which means reverting more than makes sense - will get you blocked. Pretending you are on 1RR might make sense William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Scope / focus of the article

Igorberger recently removed a large chunk of material based on "(this article is about allegations about america not america allegations on other countries)".

However, when the BOLD article name change occurred, the scope of the article was intended to include both state terrorist actions by the US and State terrorist acts against the US.

I am not sure concensus has been reached to return to the previous more limited view. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely looking like it's going that way, though. We haven't heard from Stone (who still hasn't edited since the 6th), and of the editors who have made recent statements on it, Aho aho and Giovanni33 are the only ones who seem to prefer the new title & scope, and Giovanni33 seems at least somewhat ambivalent on the old one.

I really think "experiment: wider scope" has failed, and I would support a move back to the title Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States (I'm getting confused with all the names, but see log entry; this is from what Stone moved the article).

I'm still willing to listen to arguments for the new scope, but it really doesn't seem to be working. — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, move this Beast before it eats us alive! Let's stop wasting time and go fix some other articles that need to be fixing. Igor Berger (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Something new was tried, it didn't work out, after all 90 percent of the article remained material accusing the US of state terrorism. It's time to move back to the long-standing title and concept. Dance With The Devil (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, move it back to "allegations". - Merzbow (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Other state's alleged terrorism acts should have their own articles. This article should be about terrorism the US is accused of committing/supporting, and the title should reflect it. The shortened lead already does, and the content about terrorism against the US in the article is minimal and easily shed.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree to move. Other articles are of the form "Allegations of state terrorism by <nation>", which is a reason in of itself. — Becksguy (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me a consensus has been reached here (although the move can only be done by an admin, now, so it would appear to be up to WMC or another admin to judge this). - Merzbow (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree there is consensus to move, but without the word "committed", as that does not follow the convention used for other similar articles in the State terrorism article (kinda the parent article). In other words, move to: Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. All the other versions can be redirected there very easily (even by an autoconfirmed editor, unless protected). Hopefully this won't be moved again anytime soon, as I counted some 17 versions of the name. — Becksguy (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I could go either with or without "committed". My gut instinct says "without", but when I noticed that the version most recently moved from was "with", my initial reaction was to go with that. But "without" has been discussed at length, and there seems to be consensus for such a move, so either is good.

And the article no longer has move=sysop protection, so anyone but the unregistered and the new hands can move it. Or should I not have mentioned that? :) (Unless there's an issue with moving over a redirect with non-trivial history? I seem to recall such a thing.)

Anyway: If anyone makes the move, I'll support the version discussed, either with or without "committed". — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, window closed: It is now move=sysop again. So, until that changes, it'll take an admin to move the article. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to move. Several editors here -- myself, Aho Aho above, Giovanni, and i believe a few others have clearly stated that it should not be moved.

The plan has been, for some time, to expand the content of the article to include U.S. accusations against other states and to begin farming a lot of this material out to other pages. Unfortunately, neither of you two (posting here, as i see, under your usual pseudonyms) can be relied upon to do what would obviously be in the page's best interests: present your side of the story. Therefore, i am now taking this to AN/I for comment. Good day. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been the plan, but I consider the plan to have failed. Unless you can come up with something that convinces at least some of us it may work, I would judge there to be, at this time, a consensus for a move. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't watching when the name change plan started, but it's clear now that it hasn't worked. The idea of farming out seems unneccessary in any case - let other articles find their content on their own. This article is capable of moving to a fairly complete state now, it shouldn't be languishing as a naming experiment. The "State terrorism and the United States" title is too vague, too inclusive of topics that have little to do with each other. The content is by a huge margin about terrorism acts the US is accused of, and the tiny amount of other content is of poor quality. That other content is better covered on other pages dedicated to it. I agree that it would be better without the "committed", more succinct. Especially if that's in keeping with other similar articles. I'm not part of the history of this discussion, I'm coming at it fresh with the sole interest of making the article readible, and I think the present title is inappropriate to the article because it lends itself to the adding of confusing unrelated information. I think the time is right to reach a new consensus on the name. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"let other articles find their content on their own. " I find this attitude a little disturbing that much WP:RS material should just be thrown out because a selection of editors decided that one article was too detailed/long and that they were too lazy to move/create appropriate articles. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding. My point here was the article should not deliberately be given a too-general name so that it can be used to generate material for other articles, as a kind of "content farm". But perhaps I misunderstood Stone put to sky's point. Perhaps the idea was just normal content forking, which is fine is what the current set of changes are leading to. However, I still think that terrorism against the US and terrorism by the US are subjects too unrelated to occupy the same article.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sister Oritz material removed against consensus

The edit summary is misleading as it says per talk. There is no consensus to remove that already trimmed down section. The rape and torture of Sister Ortiz is an example of State Terrorism supported by the US. This has been discussed much already, earlier, and the compromise was to move most of the material to her own article and keep a trimmed down version. Unless consensus on this has changed, it should be restored (along with the other refrenced Guatamala sections removed).Giovanni33 (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell us which source specifically says that Ortiz's ordeal is "an example of State Terrorism supported by the US"? - Merzbow (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, take a look at above section on this, probably in the archives by now. I'm a bit busy to do that right now but will be able to this evening. The sources explain that Ortiz was an example of State Terrorism by Guatamala. Then there are sources that say the US supported this State Terrorism. Sister Ortiz herself implicates the US in her court testimony.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, we have SYN again. One source says A->B, another source says B->C, but no single source says A->B->C, except maybe Ortiz herself. If she claims that, then it could be relevant, but what exactly does she say? - Merzbow (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting you to say that, but no that is not SYN. We are not originating any claim. Source A says this is State terrorism by Guatamala and cites the example of Ortiz. Then we have another source that says that the very same State Terrorism by Guatamala carried out with significant US complicity, etc. This makes it fair for inclusion, as long as we don't make any claims that are not directly supported by a source. Your standard for inclusion, I think, is too harsh and not reasonable. As far as what she says, its in the previous discussions.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get straight to the point. Uninvolved editors above have already said this article is bloated, long, and unreadable. You already have more than enough material just from sources that explicitly accuse the US of state terrorism to address almost all of the listed topics. Why are you then battling to including endless asides in the text from other sources? Does this article need to be 143k? Do you think anybody ever bothers reading even a quarter of it? You may or may not believe me, but I do not want this article to suck, nor do I want it deleted. You just have to focus it on what's relevant and supportable. - Merzbow (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as Dianna Ortiz makes no claim of state terrorism, I support the removal. Go fix up that article before dumping it here! — the Sidhekin (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All I can find in the archives is a reference to this interview where Ortiz claims some American was there while she was being tortured. Nothing about the US government having responsibility for this. The only other thing I can find is a blog post here, but we all know blogs are not reliable sources. - Merzbow (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are other sources. For example, the article "Murder as Policy" by Allan Nairn; The Nation, Vol. 260, April 24, 1995, that says, aaccording to former United States Ambassador to Guatemala, Thomas F. Stroock (1989-1992), here he claims that Sister Ortiz has in fact alleged U.S. involvement in her rape and torture. See below for full quote in context.

The blog you found, http://harvardwarcriminals.blogspot.com/2007/05/hector-gramajo.html, used to be cited here but we replaced it with a reliable source, one that but that page actually cites "Jennifer Schirmer, "The Guatemalan military project: an interview with Gen. Hector Gramajo," Harvard International Review, Vol. 13, Issue 3 (Spring 19 91)."It was verified as accurate, and other strong sources supported the same claims. One was a book called, "Vigilance and Vengeance: NGOs Preventing Ethnic Conflict in Divided Societies" by Robert I. Rotberg; Brookings Institution, 1996. It has as its source these two sources (in the notes on page 106: "Government sources cited in La Hora ( 24 September 1988), 3. Also see Jennifer Schirmer , "The Guatemalan Military Project: An Interview with Gen. Héctor Gramajo," Harvard International Review (Spring 1991). There is also "International Socialist Review Issue 9, Fall 1999, entitled, "School of the Assassins" by Katherine DwyerGen: "Hector Gramajo: A field commander for the Guatemalan military in the 1980s and defense minister from 1987 to 1990, Gramajo once told the New York Times, "I got a lot of help from U.S. Central Intelligence."3 "This is a bit of an understatement. Not only did Gramajo attend the SOA, but he was also granted a fellowship to the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In an interview with the Harvard International Review, Gramajo gave himself a big pat on the back for instituting Guatemala's unique "civil affairs program." As Gramajo explained, "We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system. We instituted civil affairs [in 1982], which provides development for 70 percent of the population, while we kill 30 percent. Before, the strategy was to kill 100 percent."4 Gramajo, who taught "Counterinsurgency" at the SOA in 1967, spoke at the SOA graduation ceremony in 1991, six weeks after being tried and found guilty of numerous war crimes including the rape and torture of Diana Ortiz. Here is another book from the University of California Press, entitled, "Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor", by Paul Farmer; University of California Press, 2003. On page 259, we find the same quote: "We aren't renouncing the use of force. If we have to use it, we have to use it, but in a more sophisticated manner. You needn't kill everyone to complete the job. [You can use] more sophisticated means: we aren't going to return to the large scale massacres. …We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system. We instituted Civil Affairs (in 1982) which provides development for 70 percent of the population while we kill 30 percent. Before, the strategy was to kill 100 percent (Schirmer 1991, p. 11)." And, Chomsky apparently also cites the same interview: "Noam Chomsky cites a long interview that Gramajo accorded to anthropologist Jennifer Schirmer, who notes that the former Minister of Defense “granted me many hours of taped interviews. ” In the spring 1991 Harvard International Review, the general, then a Mason Fellow at Harvard, goes on record regarding the national-security doctrine he helped to put into practice: (followed by the same quote). The book by Farmer also argues significant US involvement with state terrorism, and cites this particular case of Gector Gramajo. He writes: "Elsewhere, I have tried to underline U. S. complicity in this officially blessed slaughter (Farmer 1994, pp. 237–46). It has deep roots. Even now, when there is supposedly peace, there is cause for shame, all too rare in such matters: One of the grandest of the Guatemalan killers, General Héctor Gramajo, was rewarded for his contributions to genocide in the highlands with a fellowship to Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government—not unreasonably, given Kennedy's decisive contributions to the vocation of counterinsurgency (one of the technical terms for international terrorism conducted by the powerful) (Chomsky 1993, p. 29)." Then there is this article entitled, "The Struggle against Impunity in Guatemala,"published in the Journal Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999, by Raul Molina Mejia. The author describes, "impunity as concrete legal or de facto actions taken by powerful sectors to prevent investigation or prosecution, such as amnesty laws, pardons, thwarting investigations, the hiding of documents, and tampering with legal samples, and noted that they were abundant in Guatemala. We mentioned then the historic responsibility of the civilian administrations of Vinicio Cerezo and Jorge Serrano for not properly investigating the cases of Michael Devine, the El Aguacate massacre, the 1990 surge of killings at the National University of San Carlos, the detention and torture of Sister Dianna Ortiz, and the assassination of Myrna Mack." The author explains the "political/psychological" aspect of this impunity, as "a dimension resulting from state terrorism, by which political options in a polity are restricted and controlled through the state's manipulation of fear." This is under the section, "The Many Faces of Impunity in Guatemala," and "Strategic Impunity."

So we have sources allege the US was deeply involved in the state terror instituted as part of the counter insurgency war, and the sources state that this rape, and torture of Sister Ortiz, was an example of this state terror, again in which the US is significantly complicit. In fact the source argues that the "political/psychological" aspect of the impunity evident in her case (among others) is part of state terrorism, in that that state manipulates fear through providing impunity for these crimes. Part of the allegation by the sources above is not just the that US supported, financed and trained the various right wing death squads that were responsible for this, but also that the U.S. and Guatemalan governments staged a cover-up of the incident and a campaign of defamation against her. This too is part of the US support for the state terrorism that is argued in the sources above.

The sources specifically argue that her rape and torture by right-wing US funded para military forces, and the impunity of the crime, are aspect of the State Terror that was perpetrated, with US complicity.

Now, if we just look at what Sister Ortiz says, we don't quite have enough, as she only implies and raises serious questions about the US govt. role in her torture. For example, she clearly states that an American man who cannot speak proper Spanish was the leader of her torturers; that he was overtly concerned with U.S. media coverage of her kidnapping; that he told her that he would take her to friends at the embassy; that he did so in a government-issued car; that he admitted that he had come down from the U.S. to "help the [Guatemalan Government] fight communism", and that if she were to say anything at all about her experiences that he would leak the torture materials to the media. So while is quite clear to most that Sister Ortiz is accusing agents of the U.S. government of official involvement in her torture--and we could provide further quotes where her lawyer and human rights groups explicitly linking her testimony to accusations that the U.S. State Department was actively involved in helping to cover up the incident and guilty of conspiracy with the Guatemalan Government -- we don't need to rely on that as we already have plenty of other sources making that explicit assertion. That is, we have other sources that argue that Sister Ortiz implicates the US in testimony. For example, the title of the article is "Murder as Policy"by Allan Nairn; The Nation, Vol. 260, April 24, 1995. In it we have recounted the argument by of all people former Ambassador to Guatemala, Thomas Stroock (1989-1992), who makes exactly this argument, that Ortiz was implicating the US. The article talks about how Stroock was painted by The New York Times as having tried to rein in an out-of-control C.I.A in Gutamala, but that in fact, his real role was to cover for and facilitate American support for a killer army, the on-the-scene supervisor of a broad, multi-agency program of support for the Guatemalan military. Anyway, it goes into the example of Sister Ortiz. He tried to intimate her because, as the article reasons, "she had stated her belief that the chief of her tormentors was an American who seemed to be linked to the U.S. Embassy (she had escaped by leaping from his jeep as he was, he claimed, driving her to the embassy)." The article explains that Stroock finds these facts mean that Sister Ortiz is implicating the U. S. Government personnel in Guatemala's human rights violations. Of course he hates that she is doing this, and tries to shut her up, and calls it "a scurrilous smear on the good names of the fine Americans who serve their country in this Mission." He goes on to argue that "Ortiz's allegation of U.S. involvement "raises the most serious questions..." So there you have it. One of the head guys himself makes the argument that Ortiz is implicating the US in State terror, and goes on the attack to defame her and defend the US, as a result. The article goes on to explain that:

"Stroock's aide, Lewis Anselem,...was suggesting to foreign visitors that Sister Ortiz had not been abducted but had been wounded in a sadomasochistic lesbian tryst. This lie was publicly repeated by Gen. Hector Gramajo Morales, then Minister of Defense and a paid asset of the C.I.A., whose men had, by all evidence, raped and tortured Ortiz. As Ambassador, Stroock had routine access to the C.I.A.'s list of its assets in the Guatemalan Army, as well as knowledge--widely shared throughout the embassy--that the agency was engaged in "liaison" with the death squad coordinator, the G-2. (Reached in Guatemali on April 4, Stroock, now retired, declined to comment. Asked whether he had had access to the asset list, Stroock said "Good night, sir," and hung up. The C.I.A. "liaison" relationship with the G-2 has been, by standard procedure, sanctioned by the White House and State Department and was even discussed by senior embassy officials in spring 1990 background press briefings. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, both citing "diplomats" and "diplomatic ... sources," reported that the United States was using the G-2 to promote "stability" in Guatemala (the L.A. paper even mentioned that the C.I.A. was paying the G-2). During this period Washington, through its embassy, was supporting the Guatemalan Army in numerous ways. So with this with this reference alone we could easily say something like this:

According to former United States Ambassador to Guatemala, Thomas F. Stroock (1989-1992), Ortiz has alleged U.S. involvement in her rape and torture.

Giovanni33 (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you edit Dianna Ortiz accordingly? First things first, says I: That article still makes no claim of state terrorism. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that article can be improved. I agree we should do that. But, for whatever reason, I'm focused on this article. I'll try to make it over there, though. But, a shortened version pointing to that main article is appropriate for this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? No mention of state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Should I make the text bold so you can see it?Giovanni33 (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give a statement accusing the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you really needed all the words you wrote on 07:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC) to explain your point, then your point needs too many words. Use less William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

That point has been put to Giovanni many times before..... John Smith's (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Its a lot of words but those are a lot of good sources. It shows that there is quite a lot of good sources that support the material for this article. I enjoyed reading these sources. Sometimes you have to go overkill to show the utter bankruptcy of those who claim there are not sources. I think we have enough information here to keep the section.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so I made some changes based on the information above. I hope we can discuss any disagreements editors have and avoid reverting each other.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No accusation of US state terrorism presented. Allegations of state terrorism by Guatemala is not the same. This is not a general US criticism article. See [32]Ultramarine (talk) 04:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, you have not presented a source that claims Ortiz' ordeal is an example of US-supported state terrorism. You are again stringing together 3 and 4 sources to make this claim. - Merzbow (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

All the sources do. In particular, I cited the Farmer book which says the US shared 'deep roots" of complicity in the State Terror. Of course, we also have the guy in charge of the forces being trained, financed and supported by the US. The US supported the States reign of terror. Is that even in question? To question that is to pretend the sun does not exist in the day sky!Giovanni33 (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no it's not the same and it is in question. Supporting a state and supporting their terror are separate. Ortiz has not shown that the U.S. was involved in her assault. Nor would she participate in the human rights court that had jurisdiction to determine who was at fault for her assault. --DHeyward (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is about direct US state terror and US support of State Terrorism by others. That is the scope. What you think Ortiz has shown or not shown is not up to us to decide: we have sources that say she has implicated the US in the state terrorism, and that source is cited.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed that by adding the Farmer source that says the US is complicit in State Terrorism in this case.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You also reverted a lot of other edits. Does that not violate your 1RR sanction? Also Farmer was written before the court case. Hard to use that to justify the court case shows that the U.S. is complicit. --DHeyward (talk) 07:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

just wanted to add a source that was missing. If you revert, I won't revert you. But, I do point out that your rationale is wrong. The civil court case has nothing to do with the source's claims of state terrorism perpetrated by the State and supported by the US, including this specific case. That Sister Ortiz brought this to court and won, adds more info, but its not necessary for the source to make the connections. And, the University of California published book by prof. Farmer is hardly unreliable. About the the other edits, I'm not sure what all that is about. I'm not sure who or how all the other stuff was taking out in between these edits. I for sure did not add them back. It may have been due to misleading edit summaries by Ultramarine who took a lot more out, while only implying that the Ortiz section needed an additional source tying it to the US.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why won't you guys fix up Dianna Ortiz instead of fighting over this what should, at most, have been a summary of that article?! It is not as if all of wikipedia needs to be in the Universe article: Wide scope means relegating to articles of more narrow scope. Sheesh, I'm the last to edit that article, and I'm relatively clueless on the subject. Hey experts, go fix up [[Dianna Ortiz]9 instead! — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go there now and add in the new additions over there, in the very least.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if there is one source accusing the US of state terrorism, then this does not mean that all other sources discussing this case are accusing the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The claim that this incident is tied to the US is very weak. It is only her claim and statement by one official that if it is true it is terrorism. Where is the proof of the claim and proof of the involvement? If that can't be found, this whole section needs a rework, possibly even total removal. It should merely be a summary of her main article anyway with a main link thereto. This entire article needs major work also. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Giovanni's latest version: "US involvement in rape and torture" is not an accusation of terrorism; otherwise every rapist and serial killer would logically be described as a "terrorist". And Giovanni's text "Raul Molina Mejia, author describes, the sister Oriz incident as an example of State Terrorism" seems not quite accurate, given the quote that follows, which does not contain an accusation of state terrorism. If Mejia does in fact make that accusation, Giovanni, please produce the quote. And also for Farmer, as well. We cannot put words into sources' mouths.- Merzbow (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

All anti-country articles are POV

I am working on anti-Americanism and User:Life.temp declares all Wikipedia anti-country articles POV, requesting them to be deleted by proposing a new policy. here A little heads up. The user maybe coming here soon! Igor Berger (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-included the U.S. defnitions of terrorism

These are obviously important for the page and relevant to all following content. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I see it as helpful to have some definitions here of Terrorism and the problem of an accepted definition for State Terrorism. It should be kept short, though. I wonder, why was it taken out in the first place?Supergreenred (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Why duplicate much of the state terrorism article? There was a short summary.Ultramarine (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The definitions were removed by the admin who temporarily locked the article, in an effort to reduce the clutter and remove duplication. It was the appropriate action. Wikipedia has hyperlinks, it doesn't need to reproduce the same content when a link will suffice. Should every article relating to state terrorism have its own definitions? Clearly not, it should be defined once in one place. This should be removed again. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"it doesn't need to reproduce the same content when a link will suffice." The definitions section included the US state department definitions which I do not see included in the State terrorism or Terrorism articles. These definitions would seem to be appropriate within an article about US terrorism.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I vote "keep". — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are US definitions especially appropriate? So that it can be determined by the reader whether US actions meet US definitions of terrorism? Is that such a great concern, can't readers be allowed to reach their own conclusions about what terrorism is with any definition being given undue weight? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to incorporate the definitions, including the US one if appropriate, into the State Terrorism article?--Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking good

We are looking much better than before and back on track with allegations of acts of terror commited by USA. Change the title back to original to fit the topic. Also have you considered US envoment in Chile? The support for Pinochet junta goverment. USA put him in power becaused fey feared of spread of communism by Castro. Keep up the good work. Igor Berger (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy with the new sources added to support the Sister Ortiz section. They look good. Chile should definitely be covered. There are a few other areas that need to be covered too. Columbia and Israel for example.Supergreenred (talk) 09:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. In fact, I mention this before, and have been keeping it in mind but just not enough time to get it done.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not the place to debunk Chomsky. Someone wants to criticize him, they can sart Chomsky and his lies article. Igor Berger (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad that Chomsky attack piece was removed. It doesn't even mention anything about State Terrorism. How it keeps getting back in this article is one of those unsolved mysteries of the world! heheGiovanni33 (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well is this article about apples or fish? If it is about apples talk about apples. Not how one is better than the other. Also if we are talking about apples we give examples of different shapes and sizes not opinons of which one is better and why. You can stricke it out if you think layman analogy is too volgar. Igor Berger (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it up for sensitive eyes (and restored your message as it makes a very good point).Giovanni33 (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I love Chile covert actions in Chile US senate report Igor Berger (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WAY too big an article

At 158K, this article is WAY beyond standard size limitations and should be broken into sub-articles with links and summaries in the main article. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; but that will take some work to achieve. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people want the article to be longer. -_- John Smith's (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, the article length *minus* *citation* *code* is only something like 70K, which is similar to articles like The United States, Japan, etc.

Thus, it is a really silly argument to say that the article is "too long" when in fact something close to half its length is citations and sources; particularly when this particular article has been the victim of such partisan, political nitpicking.

And last but not least: is there some wikipedia guideline that sets a limit on article length? Please show me where that might be. I am very curious to see it. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too long. Its getting bloated with maginally relevant material. The defn of terror should come out again, as should Ortiz, and probably quite a lot else William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a guide that says pure article length (not counting refs, etc) should be about 30K, but defacto practice allows for very important topics to be bigger, such as major world leaders. This article is at the brink of that. I still think it is too big and could use some article surgery. Cutting unused ref parameters will cut a lot of it. Trivia info cuts would take care of the rest. Aside from all that, it's unstable now due to edit warring, so my full protection stands for now. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, i can only say thank you for first protecting the article in its current state. Unfortunately, the reality is that the article currently suffers a clear stigma: there is a concentrated, well-organized cabal of editors who would like to see it deleted, there is a (much smaller and weaker) group of editors who would like to see it turned into propaganda, and then there are a few other people (me, for one) who simply want to guarantee that the information presented -- and related information that might become available in the future -- doesn't get deleted, whitewashed, or otherwise swept off the website.

I have said -- repeatedly -- that i have no problem with moving some of this content to other pages. Similarly, i've said -- repeatedly -- that i hope this page will receive the kind attention of those people who want to make sure that the U.S. receives fair treatment, and that they get up off of their lazy good-for-nothing-but-deletion tushies and start adding content.

So you are not going to see any resistance from me regarding the *goals*. But having said that, i'll remind you that until now i have seen nothing that suggests Wikipedia administrators or Wikipedia "staff" are operating according to any ethic except the most truncated, immature and cynical vision of academic reliability, and in fact tend to favor political and cultural chauvinism above and beyond all else. In short, i'll believe that promises will be kept once i see them demonstrated here, on this page, in genuinely consensual activity, and only after a precedent has first been established. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

How about picking some allegations and discussing them in lengh hear, while others will just have a summary and a link to the sub article? Let's say 4 to 5 alligations in full and 5 or so summaries with links? We can apply WP:DUE in determining what is full and what is abridge? What you think? Igor Berger (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Just like with the Ortiz section, it has its own article, which has a lot more detailed information, and short section here. Each shorter section here can point to its own article that has all details in depth. Otherwise, this article will get very large. Right now its not at that point, but if we have other main articles on this subject we can look to see what to move over there, and what to keep here.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree that the article is way to bloated. However, the article should be drastically reduced simply by removing all the OR material not mentioning the US or not accusing the US of state terrorism. For example, all of the many Amnesty and Human Rights Watch quotes should be removed. One being six long paragraphs from a single source! See [33]. The other sections often contain long lists of quotes which is not an encyclopedic treatment. See [34].Ultramarine (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Topics which have their own article should get only a brief summary here, and we refer the reader to those sub-pages. I've removed a vast pile of still that fit into that category. I'm sure the summaries could be improved - I just left the first para - but please don't *lengthen* them or re-introduce the original material William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing I wanted to do, though knew I would just be reverted on (not being an admin or anything). I think there are too many sub-sections - it would be better to combine some where possible. Certainly the sub-sub-sections should go. John Smith's (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:SIZE. By that definition this is way oversized. In fact, this is the 96th largest article on the whole of the English Wikipedia (at a total length of about 164k, and that's the current shortened version). The problem is that most of the article is written in an "academic paper" style more suitable to a university project than an encyclopedia, spelling out every argument in excruciating detail. The sections need to clearly summarise the information, paraphrasing or quoting very briefly where necessary and avoiding the frequent and lengthy inline quote sections (see WP:Quote, separate quote sections are best avoided) that require a huge amount of reader concentration to interpret. It looks like some effort has been made in this direction in the current edit. The process of simplifying the content of each section will have the happy side-effect of reducing the article to a readable length. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again: of that 164K, some 80-90 K is citations, pure and simple. No matter how you would and your one or two other comrades here would like to stretch it, citations are not considered part of article content; especially considering the absurd demands that have been made on editors here when attempting to include such mundane facts as "there is no formal international definition of terror", and "Dianna Ortiz believes officers of the U.S. were involved in her torture." This argument just doesn't apply, here, so Conolley, et al, should just drop it. Stone put to sky (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:SIZE, up to about 50KB is a readable article size. I just copied the text of this article (not including contents, see also, or references) into Notepad and it was 99KB. That includes a few square brackets and numbers, but not 49KB worth. So, the article is unreadably long. The question then is: does the content need to be forked, or is the text just too verbose? I believe the latter should be investigated first. We can put the same info across more succinctly, right now it's just too wordy. This should not involve removing any relevant data points, in fact it should make them more accessible. If, having done this, the article is still too long (e.g. longer than about 60KB), then forking the content should be considered. I'm don't understand what you mean by "this argument doesn't apply here", can you clarify? Readable and succinct prose is a goal that applies to all Wikipedia articles.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Philippines background

See [35]. Why is there an extremely long section not mentioning the US at all? All of this material should be, and already is, in the Human rights in the Philippines‎ article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Style point - references

Does anyone object to "shortening"/"compacting" the references so that they take up less space? For example:

cite web
|url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html
|title=18 U.S.C. § 2331
|publisher=Cornell Law School
|accessdate=2007-05-25

would become

cite web |url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html%7Ctitle=18 U.S.C. § 2331|publisher=Cornell Law School|accessdate=2007-05-25

It's a small point, but would make it easier for people to read through when trying to edit. John Smith's (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to ask. Eliminating unused parameters and formatting horizontally is perfectly acceptable and is helpful, as you pointed out. It's even one of the examples on the template page. — Becksguy (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

El Salvador background section

All of this information is already in Salvadoran Civil War. No need to repeat here. Does not discuss the US.Ultramarine (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire section should go into SCW, leaving just a para behind William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Current text is fine.Ultramarine (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be - I'm not particular. I should have said that the para I've left is the intro para to the SCW article, and as a general principle thats often a good way to picking linking paras. It can be a way to defuse argument (or move it elsewhere :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Refocus proposal

This article is currently the text for an article called "List of state terrorism committed by the US" (see, I didn't say alleged - I told you I liked Chomsky). This is an all-too-easy thing to write, and of course you can find piles of stuff thats easy for find RS for. It really needs to become the text of an article that actually puts some hard work into analysing the claims and counter claims and attempts to put the whole thing into some kind of perspective and balance William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer an article called "Criticisms of United States foreign policy" or something similar. That would be easy to find many good sources for. By including "state terrorism" one eliminates the more serious sources since the term has not agreed on definition. Those who use it are often sensationalists. Not more serious scholars. Also cannot discuss, for example, the embargo against Cuba, low foreign aid as percentage of GDP, and opposition to various treaties.

But if there should be an article about US state terrorism, then I think the sources must clearly accuse the US of this. Otherwise we will have endless reverts between those who personally think that something is "state terrorism" and others who do not.Ultramarine (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's barmy there is this article but nothing on Criticism of US foreign policy, when really that can cover this and more. Indeed by removing the "state terrorism" label makes it easier, not more difficult, to evaluate criticisms. John Smith's (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be another aticle, not this one. This one is for State Terrorism.Supergreenred (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, if we have one, then the sources must accuse the US of "state terrorism". Not "I as an anonymous editor think that this source is in fact describing US state terrorism even if this is not mentioned".Ultramarine (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of where "I as an anonymous editor think that this source is in fact describing US state terrorism even if this is not mentioned"? Every incident in the article is based on at least one source identifying the incident as an act of terrorism directly related to US/US sponsorship. Please do not attempt to re-make the article using baseless statements as your reasoning. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's already an article on state terrorism. I think that the term is too specific to warrant an article solely on what might be called US State terrorism - which is why I think it would be better to have an entry on a page with a wider scope. John Smith's (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We are currently seeing one widening of scope failing. Let's not undertake one more. Start a new article on criticism of US foreign policy, if you like; there's no need to bury this article to do that. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This could be a good idea. Then the non-"state terrorism" critique could be moved there without accusations of being deleted from Wikipedia. How about an article called "Debate over United States foreign policy"? Like Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Ultramarine (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's surely a notable subject and that title seems appropriate. Note that there is already a lengthy section on it here: United_States_foreign_policy#Criticisms, which could form the basis of a new article and then be summarised with a link. --Ryan Paddy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of United States foreign policy is another article. This article is allegations of state terrorism by the US. Although there is, obviously, overlap. No one, including the United Nations, the US (and it's agencies), other countries, organizations (NGOs), and expert individuals can agree on the definition of terrorism. A US Army study came up with 109 definitions. How are we here supposed to agree on the definition of terrorism by state actors in a very contentious, politicized, and emotionally sensitive subject, with forces puling the article in different directions. It's a definitional nightmare. See State terrorism. It's a bit like obscenity, in that a Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart, couldn't define it, but said: "I know it when I see it." — Becksguy (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Massive deletions

I have a problem with the massive deletions. I understand that the intentions are good here, and I agree with the goals of trimming and creating articles for each section to get into great depth, as discussed by other editors. However, that has not been done. What has been done is a very large deletions of many sections, with that information not being properly and carefully carried over to other main articles. Also, nothing was left here except the header. Lastly, there has not been discussion about what to move and what to leave. So these massive changes were done without adequate discussion and consensus. What is the rush? I am also concered that admins who are using their admin powers to protect the article and unprotect are editing the article and making changes they see fit. These two things should not be mixed. Admin powers and content disputes they are inovlved in don't go together. I will restore these mass deletions but will be happy to work towards doing this properly.Supergreenred (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Were discussed above.Ultramarine (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Supergreen, you say you were a long time IP editor. Would you mind disclosing that IP (or IPs) to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry? We've had problems with that before here.

As for the admins, I'm not sure how they have been using their admin powers inappropriately. John Smith's (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not, not sufficent time for discussion or consensus. Not even a day! This is wholey inadquate. Again, what is the rush? Regarding admin powers, its not proper for admins to use their powers to protect the article and then edit it: it gives them a content change advantage. That is not allowed. Since these admins are involved now in content disputes here they should abstain from using any admin powers on this article. Regarding my IP, its changes. Its dynamic, and I edit from many places. I decided finally to start editing with an account. No sock puppets here. Please assume good faith.Supergreenred (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith, which is why I asked you to tell us some more about yourself. You jumped in on a dispute very suddenly - indeed as soon as you created your account by reporting someone for 3RR. That was strange, which is why I wanted to hear your story. John Smith's (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonymous editors usually do not reveal their IP addresses, for privacy reasons. Please continue to assume good faith. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Before major changes are made I'd like to hear from some of the long term editors who have worked a lot on this article such as BernardL, Miraflores, Stone, RedPen, and Giovanni33.Supergreenred (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary action is sometimes needed. As to the deletions: as I said, there is nothing wrong with re-editing the linking paras left. I may well not have chosen all that carefully. Just don't re-insert vast swathes of material that we all agree (I think) really belongs in daughter articles. Carrying stuff across: fair comment. Someone should do it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No arbitrary action here is needed. Lets work with long term editors and use consentual editing practices. Yes, you did not do that carefully, either. Lets talk about what part needs to be moved to daughter articles and then agree before taking the action.Supergreenred (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's important to work with all editors, not just long-term ones. John Smith's (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have any concrete arguments, then please add them to the sections above were this was discussed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked SGR for 24h for tendentious editing William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I was going to report him for 3RR vio, but I guess that's not required now. John Smith's (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention was required because this article had become a WP:BATTLEGROUND, which is against policy.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think this edit [[http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_and_the_United_States&diff=205399960&oldid=205398825}} was way too excessive. It removed sourced material from people that are uncontroversially notable in the literature on state terrorism by the U.S. (Patrice McSherry, Michael McClintock, Greg Grandin, Frederick Gareau). The edit was made by someone who has not yet evidenced any considerable knowledge of the literature on the subject. William M. Connolley's explanations do not hold water. His edit summary saying that most of the material was reflected in sub-articles was a fabrication, the so-called "sub-articles" he refers to but does not name, do not necessarily discuss the subject specifically as U>S. complicity in state terrorism. There was moreover no attempt at all to offer the content up as a subject for discussion, to establish what might be valuable in it. It is very disappointing to see an admin taking sides in a dispute, deleting a mass of well sourced material (some of which was a product of a sincere effort to illuminate the subject, which is not what Connelly or most editing here lately has been interested in doing), and showing total disrespect for the process of consensus.BernardL (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As an expert on the subject, BernardL, can list for us every source that was deleted that actually makes the accusation of "state terrorism" against the United States, in those words? Not accusations that you think amount to state terrorism, because that's original research. I promise I will personally restore every one that you can list. - Merzbow (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I too feel the need to express concern that the admin who locked the article proceeded to make unilateral edits without prior prior discussion. Such actions would appear to be contrary to Wikipedia's spirit of Concensus. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy stipulation that sources must use identical terminology. The baseline criteria is direct relation and not identical phrasing. There is no reputable encyclopedia article that rigidly constrains its discussion of a topic exclusively to those who use the words in the title of the article. This kind of absurdity can only be found in the more ideologically perverted realms of wikipedia. Of the material that was deleted I think at least that which originates from the following sources is uncontroversially directly related to the subject matter: Frederick Gareau, William Blum, Clara Nieto, Greg Grandin, Noam Chomsky, Stephen G. Rabe, Patrice MacSherry, Michael McClintock and Robert White. I would argue that the HRW too is directly related since they describe systematic terror committed by the Guatemalan government and assign the U.S. a significant responsibility in a section called the U.S. role. I would further like to state that if it is against Wikipedia spirit and policy for regular rank and file editors to indiscriminately remove topical, reliably sourced material, what should we think of an admin who does the same (indiscriminately removes topical, reliably sourced material) and then admits to being indiscriminate. This is quite revealing of current wikipedia culture.BernardL (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You have yet to comply with the above request. If the material does not accuse the US of 'state terrorism', then it is a WP:SYNT violation to say that it does. Jtrainor (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BernardL - the comment on that edit is "things which have sub-articles should only have a brief summary here". That does not state that the new brief summaries are perfect, they doubtless need improvement. They are a starting point, and we still have the old text in the edit history to use to improve them. We should strive to ensure that the brief summaries adequately represent all the accusations of terrorism against the US, but not in the fine detail that was present previously. They should be brief. Many of the references that you are sorry to see gone could still be useful at the end of succint generic statements that quickly summarise the positions. In many cases simple statements in the summary can probably be followed by several references that support them (and supporting quotes can be given inside the reference, so that they appear at the bottom of the page with the reference rather than in the main text). That's an approach that will suit here, not hugely detailed descriptions of the arguments about state terrorism in the US. Summaries, not fine detail. Somewhat more detailed discussions can be moved to articles dedicated to each subject, allowing re-use of even more of the contents. Look on this WP:BOLD edit as the start of a process, not the final product.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, so now we have a 1RR edit war instead of a 3RR edit war. Either way it leaves no room for constructive editing.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that RF has been indef-blocked as disruptive SPA [36] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems wrong esp. since the blocking admin is in a content dispute with that editor. I don't see him as being disruptive at all. I doubt that block will withstand review, just as your block of Superredgreen did not, either.76.102.72.153 (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Subarticles?

As a late-comer to this discussion, but sometime observer of this page (and, at one time, a minor character in editing the article), I would like to make a suggestion regarding the recent deletions of material. Mr. Connolley has suggested that material which can be put into a sub-article should be deleted. That is a bit of a hardline interpretation, which I do not believe is supported by policy. May I suggest actually creating the sub-articles so that the deletions will be less objectionable? The text remaining here can then employ summary style. This is, of course, what is normally done when an article becomes too long: it is split into multiple subarticles. I have never heard of an article being hobbled because of potential sub-articles. Having seen Guy and Connolley's vision of the article, it is definitely more streamlined for an encyclopedia, so I do think content should be forked off for this vision to be properly carried out. silly rabbit (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are already subarticles for the removed material. For example, the very long section on human rights in the Philippines is already in Human rights in the Philippines, the long background section on the civil war in El Salvador is already in Salvadoran Civil War, and so on.Ultramarine (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Mainly I noticed that some material apparently germane to the topic of the article had been removed from the section on Nicaragua. Some allegations of terrorism, including the very clear one made by Chomsky, were deleted. Should this section be moved to an article like Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States in Nicaragua? I don't know. I do take your point about the long background sections, but I also think that the deletions went too far. Perhaps if this were done incrementally, with full disclosure on the talk page, it might engender more support for the revision. silly rabbit (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Material was added without any such discussion. There have been discussion on these background section with no opposition raised in many cases. If all the background material not mentioning the US and the OR and SYN material criticizing the US but not for "state terrorism" was removed, then this would be a short article. See [37].Ultramarine (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification, am I correct that you are talking only about the "Background" sections here? silly rabbit (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Many of the criticisms do not accuse the US of "state terrorism". Like all the Amnesty and Human Rights Watch material. This is not a general US criticism article. Please see [38].Ultramarine (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I think at least that some of the Nicaragua material was deleted in error then. There is here a clear statement by Chomsky accusing the US of State terrorism. Furthermore, in the Salon article, Chomsky reads the ICJ ruling as an indictment of US actions as state terrorism or sponsorship of state terrorism. Perhaps this part at least should be restored? I will have to look at the rest of it, but again, if this could be at least done incrementally, with discussion of the merits of each deletion, I think the process would go more smoothly. silly rabbit (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A clear accusation of state terrorism should probably be mentioned. Although I find Chomsky's interpretation strange since there is no concept of "state terrorism" in international law, nor was there any mention of terrorism in the verdict, and finally the Court explicitly found that the US lacked sufficient control over the Contras to be responsible for possible human rights violations done by them.Ultramarine (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This and other recent edits have you once again treading very close to the line of arguement that 'there is no definition of terrorism and so anything can be called terrorism' - at which point I have no reason to believe that your presence here is in any way dedicated to improving the article. I can only assume for so long before actions conclusively prove otherwise.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Title question

Shouldn't the title article be "by" the US not "and" the US? Otherwise it is unclear. --BozMo talk 09:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the current title was a compromise. Previously it was "allegations of state terrorism by the United States" or some such. To drop the allegations I think it was required that this article not pretend it was asserting fact that the US does state terrorism, or whatever. So basically it was a matter of having "by the United States" or removing "allegations". John Smith's (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would rather have "Allegations" then -- otherwise we risk indicating that the article is also about state terrorism where the U.S. was the victim. Listing Port (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There was clear consensus just a few days ago on a move back to "Allegations", perhaps 8-1 for. (Here is the section: Talk:State_terrorism_and_the_United_States#Scope_.2F_focus_of_the_article). We just need an admin to do it. - Merzbow (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm officially requesting a page move using the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Let's settle the issue in this section here. Any admin who is directed here from that page, see the "Scope and focus of the article" section linked to above for evidence of consensus to move (to "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" or close variant). - Merzbow (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem seems to be we are archiving too much. Generally when a move is requested, the discussion should remain on this page until someone comes and closes it. I'll start a thread for this at the bottom of the page, so it is clear. Yahel Guhan 05:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Some of the sources look distinctly dodgy to me - bulatlat.com, for example, who are they and are they an actual news source or just a blog that likes to look like one? I suggest that the sources are reviewed for reliability. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

1953 Iran

Shouldn't 1953's coup d'état in Iran be added to this list? ~ UBeR (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source arguing that it was US state terrorism? Note that this is not a general article for US criticisms.Ultramarine (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Do any of your sources call Guatemala's 1954 coup d'état U.S. state terrorism? Nope. But in many respects Iran's coup d'état was more terroristic than Guatemala's. You guys seem to rely heavily on Chomsky, I'm sure he's called Iran's coup d'état state-sponsored terrorism somewhere (Necessary Illusions, maybe?). The Iranian coup d'état, however, has an important distinction as one the first time the U.S. meddled in Middle Eastern affairs through terroristic means. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the 1954 coup material should be removed. Again, if there is a source alleging that the Iranian coup was US "state terrorism", then please cite this source. This not a general article for dumping various US criticisms. Certain definitions of terrorism speaks about using terror against civilians to influence the government. A coup does not fit such definitions very well. It changes the government directly. But since there is no agreed on definition on what "state terrorism" is, then maybe there is some source who claims that coups and explicitly the Iranian coup is US state terrorism. Then we could possible include it.Ultramarine (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not just some general criticism of the U.S. Operation Ajax is a known false flag operation carried out by the U.S. government through terroristic means, like killing innocent civilians. I do not know how much clearer an "allegation of state terrorism by the United States" could get. If you really are completely in the dark on this subject, I would suggest to you All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. ~ UBeR (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know how much clearer it can be - if you find a source saying that this operation was "state terrorism by the United States", because you ain't gonna get any editors here to agree on what is "state terrorism" from first principles. - Merzbow (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're really serious, try getting the term into 1953 Iranian coup d'état and that article into Category:Terrorism first; I rather doubt that'll work, but that's the way to go. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Move talk page

Since it appears the main article has already been moved to "Allegations of," so too should the talk page. I tried, but couldn't. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that. I think its now done, but I'm in a hurry and must go. Please don't notice the major f*ck up along the way... William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Socks blocked

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rafaelsfingers may be of intereest. Who knows, peace may descend on this page... William M. Connolley (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

New article name

Worse than before. Seriously, if you want it kept, making it an "Allegations" article isn't the right way to do it. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A number of people supporting the move want it deleted (I don't know who proposed it originally, but it could well be someone from the "delete" camp - those who support keeping this article have generally not like this title, while those who don't like the article do liked this title). This was the previous title for a long time, but I agree with you that it's not a very good one. The consensus above seemed to be to move it though - I just wish the word "committed" would be added in per my comment above in the "requested move" section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with this title, the way it is now. It deal with the events that may or may not be called terrorism, hence allegations. Are the events notable? Yes they are! Igor Berger (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

At the least it should be changed to "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States" to avoid any ambiguity. Folks don't seem to notice, but that was the title before it was moved to "State Terrorism and the United States" (see this diff). Had the page not been moved within the first 24 hours after the move was formally suggested (i.e. had there been some time allowed for discussion) perhaps it could have been pointed out what the previous title was and why.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Committed may be more accurate, but it may be overly lengthy. It seems like all of the other "state terrorism" articles are also named "Allegations of state terrorism by <country X>", so precedent also seems to point to this form of title (and we shouldn't dismiss precedent set by editors over a decent number of articles lightly). - Merzbow (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It does imply "commited", so I do not think it is a problem, the way it is worded now. Igor Berger (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But looking at it again, it does suggest ambiguity so modifying to include "commited" would be best "Allegation of state terrorism commited by United States" Igor Berger (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec, reply to Merzbow) I agree about precedent, but the precedent for all of those articles is this article (the Iran and Russia articles were, if I remember, created as direct responses to this one and merely duplicated the title of this article at that time - a title which was not and never had been stable). Given that I think what we should do is suggest changing the other article titles to include the word committed as this one (the "parent" article so to speak) did until February. The word "committed" was in this article title for quite some time and no one objected. It is just undeniable that the current title is very linguistically ambiguous and that is not acceptable. As to length, it's already two long (8 words) and I don't think one more word (which clarifies the meaning) is that big of a problem. Part of the advantage of "State Terrorism and the United States" was that it was a short title. If we're going to go with the long title we should at least choose one that clearly explains what the article is about. This current title does not do that. Incidentally Merzbow it's nice to see that you're back on this article as you've always struck me as very fair minded in your approach, even though I've disagreed with you about a number of issues. I'm still keeping it off my watchlist for now but would like to see this title issue resolved one way or another.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The title change notice box at the top of the page suggests that the name is both being changed from AND to "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States". Is that notice box simply out of date or is there another suggested name change in the offing? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's just an outdated move note now that the article has actually been moved, however it's a hilarious summary of how ridiculous this article has been over the years. There have actually been dumber debates here than debating whether we should move from the current title to the current title.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think in the recent move proposal many people were not a ware of "commited" in the tile, in the previews version, including me. And now that it has been pointed out for languistics, it should be incoporated in the fix. Only when person made a reference to this problem during the title move discussion. I and other editors did not really give it the attention due, because the editor did not metion "commited" but "against" vs "by" but "commited by" makes perfect languistic sense. We can run the move proposal again. Igor Berger (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose "committed", but let's give it some time before creating another proposal to let things settle down. And ideally the debate could be held at a higher level that would also encompass the names of the other articles. - Merzbow (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, we might as well wait until the AfD is over. If it survives I would suggest a discussion about adding the word "committed" and if there is consensus for that we can take it to the other articles and see what they think (or just post notes on those talk pages and ask those editors to come over here).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cutting down to a bulleted list with links

Can we do this in a similar vein to List of designated terrorist organizations? Might get rid of a lot of issues. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem of systematic bias

I think the problem with this article and other articles that criticize America like anti-Americanism is that their is systematic bias against them. As you can see how the mediation of anti-Americanism is being conducted Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14 Anti-Americanism I would like Allegations of state terrorism by the United States to join the project that deals with systematic bias on Wikipedia.

Also it would be good if we creat an article on Wikipedia space that deals with systematic bias' WP:systametic bias Igor Berger (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Restored deletions

I restored deletions of several thousand words that were deleted by editors who have a long history of deleting articles they personally don't agree with.

I would suggest that this information stay in the article until the AfD.

When the AfD is closed "no consensus" yet again, then these editors can continue to attempt their informal AfD of the article, by slowly deleting this article section by section.

I would also suggest that these editors attempt to add content to this article. I think Ultramarine is the only person who actively deletes sections he dislikes, but who actually has added content to this article.

Everyone else simply deletes well referenced material they disagree with, contributing nothing but animosity. Trav (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus for this much-needed cleanup, at long last (after two sockfarmers and their socks were blocked). - Merzbow (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Merzbow, your bogus "consensus" claim is as false as your ridiculous claim that there has not been any edit wars on this page in the past couple of days.

Next you will claim that you are only concerned about a NPOV encyclopedia, using a variety of acronyms to support your bias. Pleassseee. 00:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In the past two days, the only edit war is the one YOU created by jumping in out of the blue, making three reverts, and getting the page locked via your OWN request. A bravura performance indeed. - Merzbow (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one think that the material should be restored, and its removal should be properly discussed. This was never the case. The admin (William M. Connolley) who performed the deletion wrote (above) that the material should be in sub-articles. I suggest either reverting these deletions, or creating the aforementioned sub-articles, or at the very least posting a more detailed rationale for the individual bits of the deletion. For instance, in the Nicaragua section, Noam Chomsky directly criticizes the US of state terrorism, based on the ICJ decision. This was deleted, with the summary that it should be in a sub-article. But so far the editor doing the removal has been the least active in pushing for the creation of sub-articles. I suppose the onus is on us to pick up the pieces then. I suggest the following two options:

• As suggested by User:William M. Connolley, create a sub-article entitled Allegations of state terrorism by the United States in Latin America.
• Restore the deleted material until consensus develops. If it is to be deleted, it should be done incrementally and with full participation of editors involved, rather than under page protection by an admin (who, I should add, was also one of the small number of Delete votes at the AfD).

My vote, for what it's worth, is to create a sub-article. silly rabbit (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time the irrelevant material has been deleted. The issues with it have been pointed out for literally years, and the material has been sustained most recently by an onslaught of socks (an activity I might add the pro-delete side has never been blocked for). It's in the edit history for whoever wants to put it where it belongs. - Merzbow (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33 was recently unblocked FYI, though Merzbow is correct that there has been socking recently and in the past (including on the pro-delete side - there have been dozens of IP edits over the years that were almost certainly socking, but no creation of "pro-delete" sock accounts as far as I know). I haven't been here for a couple of months, but I would point out that much of the material that was at the article (before recent deletions) was much different than what was here last summer during and after the AfD at that time. Some of the new stuff is better, some of it is worse. Most of the new stuff came from a few editors on the "keep" side and, because of an unfortunate (but understandable) absence from folks on the other side of the fence, had nothing to do with socking. There was "consensus" for it at the time because few folks were editing here. Obviously that consensus can be undone, but it takes discussion.

I do think the deletions (and I have not even reviewed the whole history) were made in haste though I'm sure some were advisable. We seem to have a good complement of editors now, so if and when the article passes AfD folks here should go through it section by section and re-instate deleted material, add balancing material, trim prose, etc. One of the main reasons this article has never worked in the past is there are often 12 different threads going at the same time and everyone is working at cross purposes. The solution is for all editors to say, "Okay, let's deal with the Japan section," have a discussion about it, improve it and come to consensus, then move on to the next one. I hope a strategy like this can be implemented once the AfD is over (assuming it's not deleted).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What "pro-delete" IP edits? Diffs please. There was never any consensus for adding the material. Added without any talk page discussions usually. There have been many discussions on the deleted material above. Many with no oppositions raised.Ultramarine (talk) 09:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the material was longstanding. Some of it has been changed recently, but that is not an excuse to summarily delete it. The appropriate thing to do is to delete it incrementally, perhaps one paragraph at a time, over the course of a few days or weeks, with a clearly indicated talk-page section discussing each deletion. That is not what happened here, and I do not see consensus for the removal. In fact, on the contrary, two editors protest-reverted and several other editors battled to have the material reinstated. According to WP:CONSENSUS, the onus is on the parties wanting to make a change, particularly such a drastic change, to obtain consensus once they have been reverted. See for instance WP:BRD. Given the reversions, the edit war, and the discussions that have developed here, I would say that there is clearly not consensus to summarily remove the material. silly rabbit (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It has in fact been deleted over several days and weeks. Many discussions on the talk page. Many without opposition raised. The problem is that some editors have blankly reverted all changes without explanations. Finally, again, material was added without discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This edit happened in under one hour, and resulted in about half of the viewable text of the article being deleted. It was not done incrementally at all. And on the talk page I see some general discussions about article length, and more of the usual bickering, but no general consensus that half of the article should be deleted, and not even a clear statement of what was deleted and why so that it can be properly discussed. The principal reason offered was that all of the deleted material has (or should have) its own article. Am I missing something? silly rabbit (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not correct. Many of these things had been discussed and deleted before this. Several now indefinitely blocked sockpuppets restored this. Much of the deleted material is in already in other articles.Ultramarine (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not true. These massive deletions were done unilaterally prior to any discussions, without consensus and they are thus completely illegitimate deletions of well sourced material, followed by the Afd request. The indef blocked accounts have not been identified as socket-puppets either, so that is false. They will probably be unblocked after sufficient examination. In anycase, I and many other long term editors have reverted this masssive deletion in protest, already, so your point about these other accounts is moot. I hope that this material will be restored and then good faith discussion can finally take place about how to properly trim or move material as consensus dictates--not a single editor as dictator.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

False. See for example the sections "El Salvador background section" and "Philippines background" above. No "good faith discussion" took place before adding the material.Ultramarine (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You say "many of these things had been discussed and deleted before this." What and when? You are not accurately characterizing the recent (as in last few months) history of this article from where I sit. If there was a past consensus for massive deletions, you are going to have to direct us to the appropriate section in the talk archives.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Never any consensus for adding this material. If you look at the edit history you can see that many of these things had been deleted before edit activity Silly rabbit mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, talk page sections? Saying "look at the edit history" is not helpful (there are thousands of edits over several years). There was consensus for adding much of the material at various times. That's a fact. That consensus can change, of course, but you cannot claim there was never consensus with referring to specific diffs and/or talk page sections.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[39]. Regarding claims that there was a consensus for adding the material, that is your claim, so you have to provide the sources. As far as I remember material have usually simply been added without any talk page discussions.Ultramarine (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

For a more general discussion of the problems with the article and the OR and SYN used see: [40]Ultramarine (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

More deletions (proposed)

Looking through this, "operation mongoose" and "luis posada" strike me as more examples of over-long sections. Indeed the section here on OM is longer than the OM article. Thats not right. The Posada section is long (is there anything here that isn't duplicated there?), and though it connects with this article the connection isn't strong William M. Connolley (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Much of the "operation mongoose" material should be in the main article about that. As pointed out, strange that this section is longer than the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Posada, I am not sure that even Cuba now accuses him of being an US agent who did the bombing(s) with US support. There are accusation of hypocrisy since he is not extradited. But not of US state terrorism. Those statements in the article implying that Cuba are making current accusations of US terrorism seems to be OR. Here is a recent statement by a Cuban official: [41].Ultramarine (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone disagreeing. That surprises me. I had another look at the LP section and again I'm astonished by how tenuous it is. It looks to me like he did the bombing; and that there was some US involvement; but that its weak. There are so many other things that are so much more solid that could be in here: have people just got an attachment to this section and won't let it go? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I proposed a better text below. See the "Posada" section below. Thoughts? Should have mentioned this proposal here also.Ultramarine (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan (1945)

An editor has deleted the Japan (1945) section on the grounds that actions taken during war cannot be terrorism: see edit here. This is one point of view. The section previously contained a number of alternative points of view. Both should be represented in the article, that's Wikipedia policy on achieving a neutral point of view in POV disputes. However, rather than just jamming that overlong Japan section back in (and inevitably starting another oscillating edit-war section), how about we try a test-case in actual cooperation here on the talk page, and collaborate to write a suitable summary of the section agreeable to both sides, and in forking content out to main articles so that none is lost? I'm going to spend some time today working on a first draft, will post it up here when done (other first draft contributions welcome). I won't change it in the article unless there is consensus here. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JzG's interpertation of the matter, and have posted so in the past. Actions conducted by a nation's regular military obviously cannot be terrorism. Jtrainor (talk) 23:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no basis to remove this well referenced section. The editor who removed it only does so based on his own POV. That is telling. Its as if he did not bother to read the many sources that disagree with him. We are not supposed to only include material that we personally agree with. That is the wrong criteria. The section was balanced and the product of many editors working together. It should be restored and changes should be discussed before making major changes like this. I would restore it myself right now except I'm an IP editor and this article is on semi-protect. I urge another editor to please restore it.76.102.72.153 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked there were some reliable sources that specifically said US WW2 action in Japan was state terrorism, so that qualifies it for inclusion. But only those sources that do so (and those that respond to the charge), no irrelevant stuff. - Merzbow (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Below is what I've drafted to replace the Japan section. I have not removed or added any content, just put it in summary form.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan (1945)

Main article: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Some have characterized the United States' controversial atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as state terrorism, and even as the greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th century.

Interpretations of the attacks as state terrorism focus on the bombing of large civilian (rather than military) targets to achieve political goals, namely Japan's surrender through fear of national annihilation and the creation of a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. This has been said to meet one definition of terrorism, "indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose" or a definition of "war terrorism: the effort to kill civilians in such large numbers that their government is forced to surrender."

It has also been argued that the US practices seen in 1945 did not end then, rather the "deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare."

It has been countered that "the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while obviously intended by the American government to alter the policies of the Japanese government, seem for all the terror they involved, more an act of war than of terrorism."

If you think that the section should not be there at all, please read WP:NPOV. It is specifically stated that facts about opinions should be included (i.e. we can state what people have been credibly reported to believe), and that opposing viewpoints should be described. That makes this a clearcut case of material that should be addressed, because so many reliable sources describe the bombings as terrorism by the US. Whether they are right or wrong is a matter of opinion, but their views (and those opposing) should be described. I'm proposing that we replace the section with this draft text (or any amended text agreed here by consensus) and then let normal editing fine-tune it as usual. If anyone has significant objections (as opposed to just amendments), please describe them with reference to relevant wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Ryan Paddy (talk)

The arguments for why it's not state terrorism need to be bolstered, as presented above it's not balanced enough. There is some good material from that POV in Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki although careful work would be needed to ensure that the arguments addresses the terrorism claim directly (as opposed to just why it was ethically justifiable, why they were weren't really civilian targets, etc).--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan for trying to find trimmed down version, workgin with others on talk. We need more of that. I think we can talk about that, and make some progress this way-- and your first try is a good start. However, the whole section should not have been deleted, esp. without any discussion or consensus about doing so first. Therefore, will restore the massive deletions on principal. Personally, I think the Japan section was not too large at all but we will see what we can work out with other editors. As long as its done with consensus I'm fine with any major changes to this article.Supergreenred (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been discussions. Please see many sections above.Ultramarine (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have and they are just beggining, and certainly there is no consensus for the mass blanking of all the material that you keep doing Ultramarine. Why the rush to delete it all? Stop edit warring against consensus. Get consensus first, and when we have that we can make appropriate changes. Thanks.Supergreenred (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There have been no objections raised at all to many of the changes. There was no consensus asked for when adding this material. See also WP:BOLD.Ultramarine (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't edit war. That is not helping anything. These are long standing additoins that were added through the consensus process with compromise. There is no consensus to remove it, esp. all of it, as you are doing. I will take you to ANI if you persist in edit warring against consensus and blanking material over and over.Supergreenred (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No objections at all have been raised to many of these changes. Material was certainly not added by consensus. Many editors, not only me, have removed this material.Ultramarine (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Flat out false. Material was added with full consensus among editors here. Only one editor choose to delete the section without ANY discussion. The discussion showed that this was lacking consensus, and restored. You are the ONLY editor who is now edit warring to blank it right away, and can't wait for on going discussions. I will now report you, unless you self revert and stop the edit warring against consensus.Supergreenred (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Material was removed by Dance With the Devil, JzG, Jtrainor, Merzbow, William M. Connolley, Rlevse, DHeyward in the past 48 hours. Certainly not one editor.Ultramarine (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Flase again. The section was first taking out by:(cur) (last) 20:11, 14 April 2008 JzG (Talk | contribs) (73,294 bytes) (→Japan (1945): Nope. I believe Nagasaki was an atrocity, but a state of war existed and therefore this does not fit any reasonable definition of terrorism.) (undo)[42] NO ONE else has removed it, except YOU, who is edit warring now to blank the section. Editors here have shown they are opposed to this removal. Again, NO CONSENSUS. STOP EDIT WARRING. Discussion has just started on it. The other massive deletions were done without conensus and did not last. They were reverted by many editors. Edit warring is not the way to go. I am preparing a report now, btw.Supergreenred (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You certainly did not revert only the Japan section but many other section discussed and removed by the editors described above. Many of which have not been objected to at all on the talk page when discussed.Ultramarine (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are obviously not a new editor. Have you edited this article before? If so, then why are you not using that account?Ultramarine (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, no consensus for these massive changes. No consensus for blanking the Japan section, as you are doing against consensus. Why the rush to delete? What are you scared of allowing discussion and consensus to form first? Stop edit warring.Supergreenred (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Answered above.Ultramarine (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Already answered that question, above. No need to repeat myself.Supergreenred (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You appear to believe that having a source is a magic talisman that allows for all content to be included and defended against whatever objections. You are wrong. The onus is always on the editor seeking to include disputed content, to demonstrate its relevance, significance in context, and achieve consensus for its inclusion. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement, it means agreement to stand by the result. That is plainly missing in the case of the edits you dispute, which amount to a laundry list of people who have alleged something - and this actually weakens the article very considerably, making it look like a long litany of schoolyard complaints. As to the atomic bombings, I think that it is wrong to call them terrorism. I am firmly of the opinion that the Nagasaki bombing was the single worst atrocity of the war, but a state of war did exist and it was and always had been an all-out war which involved both military and civilian targets. To call it terrorism is historical revisionism. It was an act which so appalled Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, VC, OM, DSO and Two Bars, DFC, the most decorated bomber pilot in the RAF, that he quit the force and set up a charity for the terminally ill, but it was not an act of terrorism by the standards of the time, and it was not just the US either as the Manhattan Project was an Allied project not just a US one and the operation was also an Allied operation, with a British observer on the Nagasaki mission at least. On top of this personal view, I just checked the sources and they are thin. A few individuals, including individual self-published sources on university personal microsites. If this was a significant view, there will be more and bigger and better quality sources. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Guy said, but especially the point about this being an Allied attack. It's wrong to single the US out over the atomic bombings. It was an Allied operation, even if US aircraft actually dropped the bombs, so it shouldn't be labelled as US act of anything. If someone wanted to enter it into an article on Allied war crimes, that would be differnt. John Smith's (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"It's wrong to single the US out over the atomic bombings" John Smith - Are you actually trying to argue that if the US didn't 'act alone' that absolves the US from responsibility for terrorist acts? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it means it's not an act of state terrorism even if it is an act of terrorism, which is an assertion supported by very few sources. I don't know what the term would be for an act of terrorism sponsored by multiple states acting in concert, but it is historical revisionism to apply the term to these attacks and factually incorrect to ascribe them to the US. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? "State terrorism is a term used to describe terrorism carried out by governments." Who carried out these bombings, if not governments? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, I don't see the need for such a long discussion. Many of the citations deal with the horror of large scale bombing of civilians, but as Guy says, if they don't make the connection to terrorism, we shouldn't be using them. I do observe that Michael Walzer, who is the most reliable source on just war theory currently alive, believes that the term war terrorism is useful, and applies it here. I would support a single line in the article saying that while some (Frey) have characterised the actions as state terrorism, the general view (Burleigh Wilkins) is that it isn't applicable here, and indeed Walzer (name him in the text) believes that "war terrorism" is a useful term for this sort of act. If nothing else, it will keep people from wondering why it isnt in here. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I would retain a section heading, one line as you suggest (more only to the extent explicit and solid "state terrorism" sources are found), and a link to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Keep it brief yet in the TOC and to the point. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A section on "acts of war" in general would be a better place, since the same might apply to the joint US / British carpet bombing of Germany earlier in the war, and litle distinction is drawn in principle between Dresden and Hiroshima (or indeed Coventry, in some books I've read). Guy (Help!) 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Not to mention that there is currently nothing on Dresden to put in such a section; I'm sure that can be remedied.) The allegations are currently sectioned "by region". I'm not sure how a section like this might work. But since the considerations are the same, having two sections (for Japan and Germany) would surely be suboptimal. Ideas? — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had the firebombing of Dresden in the back of my mind too while summarising that Japan section. Firebombings and atom-bombings of cities full of (arguably) civilians during war, presumably similar arguments apply. Although the political context may be relevant too - there may be arguments made that the time and place (the specific war context) of the atom bombings made them more like terrorism. However, the main difference is that we seem have a whole lot of sources specifically describing the atom-bombings as terrorism, and I don't know if the same is true for the other bombings. Whereas the accusation of atom-bomb terrorism is specifically mentioned in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there's nothing similar in Bombing of Dresden in World War II (just one reference there with a "terrorism" title). We need to see if there are reliable sources asserting that the other bombings were terrorism before re-jigging the section's focus. The Mark Selden reference does go some way towards tying it into other US war actions, so it already belongs in an "Acts of war" (or similarly titled) section. I agree that the coverage doesn't need to be any longer than necessary to address the core arguments and refutations, it can certainly be shorter than my draft.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a specious argument to claim that "it is wrong to single out the U.S." for the atomic bombings. Whether or not they had collaborators which merit a portion of the moral scrutiny- the fact is that the U.S. was significantly responsible, in this case directly responsible for the decision. The allies were by no means uniform in the military tactics they chose. In fact prior to 1945 the U.S. had rejected the terrorist area bombing tactics of the British. Yet by 1945 the Americans were joining the British in the firebombing of Dresden. According to Douglas Lackey in "The Evolution of the Modern Terrorist State", "Hap Arnold, commander of the Twentieth Air Force in the Pacific Theater, recommended that the XXI Bomber Command consider taking the RAF as their model and commencing incendiary attacks on Japanese cities.“ (Lackey, Douglas. The Evolution of the Modern Terrorist State in Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues, Igor Primoratz, ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 130-136) Lackey provides a thorough analysis of the question whether the area bombings, culminating in the nuclear attacks against civilian populations should be considered an act of terrorism. His conclusion is: “By the Ratio of Damage standard the fire raids of 1945 were terrorist attacks. The vast majority of people killed were civilians; the vast majority of structures destroyed were non-military structures. The intent of the raids was to induce surrender by inducing death and pain on the civilian population. About 500,000 Japanese civilians died in these raids. In nine months American bombing had killed almost as many civilians as British bombing had killed in three and a half years" also noting that “Terror bombing was employed by the United States during the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the action against Serbia in 1999.” (Lackey, Douglas. The Evolution of the Modern Terrorist State in Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues, Igor Primoratz, ed. Palgrave Macmillan, 130-136)BernardL (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

BernardL, would you approve of a single section that covered all US bombings of "civilians" during wartime that have been characterised as terrorism in reliable sources, including those in Japan, Germany, and any other examples or general statements on the matter of US bombings of "civilians" as being terrorism and all counterarguments? If so, would you be willing to write a draft for the section together in summary form and post it here, perhaps using some of my Japan summary above as raw material? We should keep it down to two or three paragraphs, and the more logical flow it has (as opposed to a list of quotes) the better. It would be encouraging to see some real progress on content.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to undergo the attempt to do it, and evaluate the product. When the section was originally created way back when I had provided material from Selden and So about the firebombings prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, if I recall correctly, the book "Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues" may contain some balancing material in the other essays in the book. It might take a few days. My main problem is personal, unlike the past, my current schedule does not allow me very much time for editing wikipedia. We should really be opening the idea up to everyone to provide relevant material and ideas from reliable sources, placing them here, as well as to discuss a possible structure for the section. It seems to me that pinning down the moral reasons why Selden, So, Lackey, Walzer, Coady, etc. describe it as an act of terrorism, distinguishable from an act of war, should be an important element. I know that BigTimePeace, who also worked on the section, is familiar with, among other stuff, a notable historiographical article from Samuel Walker that may be of use, in addition to your own raw material and suggestions.BernardL (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that the way to address some of the major criticism of the article: that it is 'merely' a laundry list of incidents - relook at the article and identify and group material based on various 'types' of terrorist acts with links to articles that provide greater detail? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth thinking about and discussing, but at the moment it seems to me that grouping by types of state terrorist acts, as well as institutions (such as death squads) is more under the rubric of the general state terrorism article.BernardL (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The advantage of grouping by type of action is the arguments about whether that type of action is terrorism could be stated just once. There are two types of contraversy discussed in this article. One is whether a given type of action is terrorism. The other is whether the US committed that type of action. If this article was sectioned by type of action, then each section would have to first address the discussion of whether the US performed actions of that type (except in cases like the atom bombings where it is uncontraversial), followed by arguments about whether actions of that type constitute terrorism. Both parts could summarise and link to other articles, such as historical incident articles or a relevant section of State Terrorism. I didn't mean to burden BernardL by asking for a draft, if anyone with good access to sources and an overview of the subject is able to put together a draft here of a war bombings of "civilians" section that'd be great. I put civilians in quotes because one of the opposing arguments in regards to the atom bombs is that Japan's "total war" approach meant there were no civilians in Hiroshima & Nagasaki. Even the babies were military (black humour, sorry).--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

break

I will be re-adding this section when the protection is up, since not valid point was presented above. If someone wants to add a counter, please start writing it now, however I will not accept anyone's personal opinion over the actual sources presented. Since this section contains 6+ source identifying the incident as "state terrorism" specifically, even meeting the most stringent demand place by a certain few, it clearly is acceptable for the article. If you want to debate this point of inclusion feel free to do so, however peoples personal opinions will be discounted as just those, cite your sources and please debate the point presented fully, that even if it was an act of war, it can still be terrorism, as terrorism does not negate "war time" activities even in the U.S. definition. --I Write Stuff (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the sources in the original text have no mention of state terrorism. As well as completely excluding opposing views. Like "Some allege that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." No mention of state terrorism in sources given and completely ignores opposing views given in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Ultramarine (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not worry I will cut the fluff, just to note, removing content that could have been simply edited is a no no. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed text we can discuss? Ultramarine (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am currently working on an article, once its complete I will rewrite the section and re-add it to the article, barring the article is not protected at the time. We can then discuss the content on its merits as relevant, and policy, as opposed to personal opinions of what constitutes terrorism. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi I Write stuff, could you please post your revised version here for discussion, and not edit the article until it has been discussed and refined by the interested editors? The history of this particular article is that undiscussed material turns into reversion war material. In most articles it would be fair enough to just post it up and let wikipedia take its course, but for this article it would be unconstructive, please be sensitive to the specific editing context of this article. Also, please note the discussion above of broading the scope of the "Japan" section to a general discussion of large civilian bombings in wartime. I respectfully suggest that this could form a new top-level section, in between "General allegations against the US" and "Specific allegations against the US by region " and called "Allegations of wartime terrorism by the US". I would love to see a draft of such a section here.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Only problem with that Ryan Paddy, is that the last war we were engaged in was WW2. None of the conflicts since, including Korea, Vietnam, the so-called "war on terror" or any of the Persian Gulf conflicts is a declared war. So that pretty much limits that section to WW2 and before. By definition. Unless we change it to something like military actions or conflicts. The 1945 atomic attacks against Japanese civilian populations are labeled, by multiple reliable sources, as state terrorism, or equivalent, and definitely belong in the article. However, the section should be discussed here first, before adding to the article. Otherwise there will be reverting, or worse again. — Becksguy (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a pretty minor nominal issue, given that all those wars have "war" articles here on wikipedia (e.g. Korean War), and that the Douglas Lackey reference that BernardL gave above discribes them as wars while calling some US actions within them terrorism. If the references discuss the fact that they weren't "declared" wars as relevant to whether their bombings can be called terrorism, then that could be mentioned. But on the whole if the references call them war and terrorism then it's reasonable for us to label the section that way. I don't have major objections to some sort of "military actions" phrasing, but I think "war" is clearer. I'd be equally happy with "war terrorism" in the section title, but that seems to be an existing phrase that not all the references use so it could lead to arguments here on talk.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)