Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

1) The article currently states, without any challenge that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they were civilian populations. These were military targets that were defended by air, land and sea.

2) The people who have been making the charge of "state terrorism" are predominately academics. There isn't a valid historian listed.

3) The passage that states "Some scholars have also argued that the bombings weakened moral taboos against attacks on civilians, and allege that this led to such attacks becoming a standard tactic in subsequent US military actions." doesn't say which "scholar" is making this assertion and is flat out wrong because dropping atomic bombs on cities hasn't become "a standard tactic in subsequent US military actions."

4) Stating that the civilians killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unarmed is false. Both cities were defended by aircraft and anti-aircraft artillery.

5) The Howard Zinn quote is from a web archive listing of a self published pamphlet that was transcribed and then re-self published by Luís Amaral, evidentially a Polymer Studies student at BU in the '90s. Not an RS and even if it were it doesn't mention state terrorism.

6) The Michael Walzer passage doesn't address state terrorism.

7) Tony Coady and Frances V. Harbour don't address state terrorism and operate on the erroneous assumption that there were no military targets involved in the bombing.

8) Steven Poole author of "Unspeak" isn't a "scholar" or even an "academic". According to his website he's a "film composer, writer, author of Unspeak and Trigger Happy." He is not a notable expert.

9) The "Viewed as diplomacy or state terrorism not considered" section doesn't belong here, this is an article about the USA and state terrorism. There already is an article about the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and various other places on Wikipedia where this belongs more then it does here.

This was the material that was being reverted, I'de like to remove all of this as none of it belongs in the article. V7-sport (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Original research / personal opinion. Irrelevant.

2) Personal opinion, no basis in RS policy. Irrelevant.

3) Original research / personal opinion. Irrelevant.

4) Original research / personal opinion. Irrelevant.

5) Agreed. Erikson should go.

6) Agreed. The Walzer part should go.

7) Original research / personal opinion, and false (Coady for example, does address state terrorism). Irrelevant.

8) Academics/scholars are not the only people we can use per WP:RS. It is clearly on-topic, written by a notable author, and published by a major publishing house.

9) Agree that the section does not belong.

--Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• I believe I could find a decent source for Curtis LeMay stating post-war that if the US had lost, he'd be on trial for war crimes. Would that help? --John (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally feel that it would add some important context to many of the third-party claims that his actions were state terrorism. Unfortunately, there is a vocal bloc here for whom clarity and context are not of import (nationalist mythology taking priority), and who will likely prevent its inclusion unless it specifically mentions terrorism. Until this issue is resolved, it might be best to include at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and/or Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so at this juncture we have agreement on #5, #6 and #9. I made the edits, I'll revert if it becomes an issue..

War crimes and state terrorism are different things. (I believe that was McNamara who said if the war was lost they would have been tried for war crimes and he was referring to Tokyo, not the atomic bombings. I've always found the indignation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki odd considering that more people were killed in the Tokyo fire bombings. Is it only "terror" if atoms are split? Would that be "mythology" or rationalization?) V7-sport (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• "I believe that was McNamara who said... -- Both McNamara and LeMay believed that they would have been found guilty of war crimes, if the U.S. had lost, both for the firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombings.[1][2].
• "War crimes and state terrorism are different things." -- Sometimes you can look at the same thing from two different perspectives, and can place things in multiple categories simultaneously. If you were to rape someone, it could be classified as a "sexual assault", "act of degradation and control", "emotionally traumatizing event", "crime", etc.; that is, you can looking at the same event from multiple perspectives, focusing on certain aspects that are relevant to each perspective (i.e. for "crime" you focus on the law, whereas for "act of degradation" you focus on psychological factors). If a military action is both illegal AND intended to instill terror for political purposes, then it is possibly both a war crime AND a state terrorist act. The two categories are not mutually exclusive.
• "I've always found the indignation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki odd considering that more people were killed in the Tokyo fire bombings. Is it only 'terror' if atoms are split?" -- I'm sure that if you asked many of the authors cited here, they would also count the firebombing of 100,000+ civilians in Tokyo to be an act of state terror, but since there are no reliable sources that I am aware of that talk about this as an act of state terror, I don't think we should mention it here (however rational of an argument it may be). I do agree with you, however, that it was certainly a brutal and unnecessary act of slaughter on par with the slaughter of civilians in Hiroshima/Nagasaki (or the slaughter of Chinese civilians by the Japanese in Nanking, etc...).

On the other hand, if we are discussing acts (nuking hundreds of thousands of civilians) that some consider to be state terrorism, and the perpetrator of those acts claims that he feels that the acts were also war crimes, I feel that this is relevant, and gives more perspective to the reader than only having third parties who weren't there doing all of the talking. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Sometimes you can look at the same thing from two different perspectives, and can place things in multiple categories simultaneously. " Sure, but that's not our role here. If the source doesn't state that it is "state terrorism" then it shouldn't be regarded as such for purposes of inclusion here.

"I'm sure that if you asked many of the authors cited here, they would also count the firebombing of 100,000+ civilians in Tokyo to be an act of state terror" War is terrifying. If "an awful demonstration" was the objective, then the square miles of ash in full view of the Imperial Palace evidentially didn't make an impression.V7-sport (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Starting with #3)"Original research / personal opinion. Irrelevant." OK, how is it "Original research / personal opinion. Irrelevant." to point out that it doesn't say which "scholar" is making this assertion and is flat out wrong because dropping atomic bombs on cities hasn't become "a standard tactic in subsequent US military actions."? That refers back to Reference#37 "Selden, War and State Terrorism," an improper citation, there's no page number and it's impossible to determine what he was referring to. So no, it' relevant. V7-sport (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not saying that atomic bombings have become a standard tactic; it's saying that attacks on civilians have. You are, however, correct that a page number and attribution is needed. My apologies for not validating that part of your statement. I would suggest adding the template to that citation, and the template after the word "scholars". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with removing #5, the Zinn quote. Its true this is not a reliable source as given since its a transcription of Zinn's Source, but the reliable source its from is given. The Open Magazine Pamphlet Series are known for their essays by Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Mike Davis, and others, and is considered a leading progressive magazine. 1 Also, Zinn talks about the Bombings as Terrorism. So its relevant. So please revert/restore the Zinn passage and maybe just update its source or tag it, pending further discussion. Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I tracked down a better citation for the work, Hiroshima: Breaking the Silence and found its published in a number of locations. Here is one: Howard Zinn and Yuki Tanaka, "Hiroshima: Breaking the Silence," The Asia-Pacific Journal, 25-1-10, June 21, 2010. This is per: http://www.japanfocus.org/-yuki-tanaka/3375 This is also republished in Zinn's last book, The Bomb, an excerpt of the passage in question is verified here: here I hope this helps. BernieW650 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The asia pacific journal doesn't mention state terrorism and "rob's notebook" doesn't mention terrorism at all. I'll put Zinns book down on the reading list, I already have the library trying to track down a copy of "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory", as that and "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond." don't appear to reference state terrorism, or even terrorism at all. They call it "genocide" which is also a different thing (and also inaccurate).V7-sport (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Zinn writes, "If the word "terrorism" has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." This claim by Zinn qualifies it for inclusion, as clearly falling under the topic of State Terrorism. We have a good source for this now, so please restore this per the 0 revert policy on this article, until there is consensus for removing Zinn. BernieW650 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Source 1 has 3 references to terrorism. "the Japanese edition of Zinn’s book, Terrorism and War," and "“Never Again” only at them, never at ourselves. It is a prescription for the endless cycle of violence and counter violence, terrorism and counterterrorism, that has plagued our times, for which the only response is: “No more wars or bombings, of retaliation. Someone, no, we, must stop that cycle, now.”" Source #2 doesn't mention it at all. V7-sport (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Those were references about the other sources. The claim is the above sentence I quoted, and the title of the work it originally appears is called, Hiroshima: Breaking the Silence". I gave a number of sources this work can be used for proper citation. The original is here: http://openlibrary.org/works/OL15288092W/Hiroshima and here: http://www.books-by-isbn.com/1-884519/1884519148-Hiroshima-Breaking-the-Silence-Howard-Zinn-1-884519-14-8.html, but its reprinted in a number of other publications such as the Asia-Pacific Journal, I listed above, and in his latest book. Is there some question about the contents of this in regards to quoted section? We can see the fully transcribed work here. BernieW650 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What's the page number so it can be verified?V7-sport (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote, I'll get it at the library, either tomorrow or Friday. V7-sport (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't get it it today, just put it back and update the reference, and tag it with the page tag as you did before. One of us will get the exact page soon. Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored the Zinn portion of the quote, provisionally. The library needs a week to source the book and the "breath taking hypocrisy" section of the local Barnes & Nobel was fresh out of that particular brand of BS.V7-sport (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And since you were a blocked sock-puppet that means that there was consensus to remove it. V7-sport (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward, A portion of the text has been duplicated, I'd like to eliminate the redundancy. "Some scholars have also argued that the bombings weakened moral taboos against attacks on civilians, and allege that this led to such attacks becoming a standard tactic in subsequent US military actions.[37]" Is the same text, cited to the same source as:
"Scholars treating the subject have discussed the bombings within a wider context of the weakening of the moral taboos that were in place prior to World War II, which prohibited mass attacks against civilians during wartime." I'd like to remove the former.
Additionally, the Richrd Falk quote beginning at "He writes elsewhere that" has been truncated to remove a section where he acknowleges the reasoning behind dropping the bomb. The full quote is:

Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation. (There were, in addition, the secondary gepolitical goals of avoiding sharing the fruits of an American victory in the Pacific with the Soviet Union and intimidating Moscow in relation to the future.) The public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender. The policy was applauded by most Americans at the time, and has been since[sic], despite the horrors inflicted, as leading to a shortening of the war. But even accepting the rationale for the atomic attacks at face value, which means discounting both the geopolitical motivations and the pressures to show that the immense investment of the Manhattan Project had struck pay dirt, and disregarding the Japanese efforts to arrange their surrender prior to the attacks, the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy. As Michael Walzer puts it, the United States owed the Japanese people 'an experiment in negotiation,' but even if such an initiative had failed there was no foundation in law or morality for atomic attacks on civilian targets.

I'de like to remove the whole thing (the article is already chock full of Richard-"fire doesn't melt steel"-Falk) but if we are going to use this at all it should include the language about shortening the war rather then just cherry picking the most indicting aspects.

Further, the atomic bombings section currently has 2 photos which adds undue weight to the section. I'd like to remove the Nagasaki photo with the caption that reads "A Japanese report on the bombing characterized Nagasaki as "like a graveyard with not a tombstone standing" as that is un-sourced and that will kill 2 birds with 1 stone. V7-sport (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So, no objections to that? Or removing the Falk quote?V7-sport (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the caption of the Nagasaki image needs to be changed. Something simple along the lines of "Nagasaki after the atomic bomb was dropped on it." would be more appropriate. However, neither of the photos should be removed, as they are both relevant, and on-topic (there is nothing in WP:UNDUE that applies here).

Regarding the Falk quote, I think it should be expanded to include the entire quote. Falk is obviously highly qualified to discuss the subject, regardless of what your personal views are of his work in unrelated topics. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So you don't think the article is already Richard "the ayatollah aint so bad" Falk heavy? Richard "nanothermite' Falk is making up a large proportion of the article as it is. Aside from that and the photo you are fine with the other edit?V7-sport (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What is "the other edit"? Hans Adler 19:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A portion of the text has been duplicated, I'd like to eliminate the redundancy. "Some scholars have also argued that the bombings weakened moral taboos against attacks on civilians, and allege that this led to such attacks becoming a standard tactic in subsequent US military actions."

Is the same text, cited to the same source as:

"Scholars treating the subject have discussed the bombings within a wider context of the weakening of the moral taboos that were in place prior to World War II, which prohibited mass attacks against civilians during wartime." I'd like to remove the former. V7-sport (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I made that edit, I'll wait for Jrtayloriv or anyone else to comment before I add more Falk. V7-sport (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The notion that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "state terrorism" supposedly depends on civilians being targeted. And yet, there were a lot of legitimate military targets in both cities. Leaflets were dropped to warn that those cities were subject to bombing. Would they still have been bombed if every civilian left who wasn't working at a military target? I think it's obvious that they would.

It's always been legal to attack legitimate military targets even if there are civilians on them. But this article isn't about legality. What we really have here is a vehicle to dampen the opposition to actual terrorism by smearing western countries, particularly the U.S., and claiming that everyone does it. Falk alludes to this when he compares Hiroshima and Nagasaki with Qaddafi's crimes. (It's not surprising that Falk opposes intervention against Qaddafi today in the Libyan civil war.)

I've still got to organize my thoughts. As this point, my biggest gripe is the reliance on the word "scholars" as though this is the best way to describe the general group. What do Falk, et al, have in common other than that they're all scholars?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The cities (and country) were also defended by an air force and anti aircraft artillery. Good point about the leaflets. Re the "scholars," What they have in common is that for the most part they are college professors. V7-sport (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In the "forward effects" section there is no inline citation for the first paragraph and there's no page number for reference #45. I'de like to remove the section and put Seldons quote in the body of "viewed as state terrorism, at the bottom along with Tony Coady, Frances V. Harbour, and Jamal Nassar.V7-sport (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see how it can be argued that Steven Poole, who is not an historian or scholar belongs here. V7-sport (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nicaragua & ...

Nicaragua

Source 78, “The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On” Doesn’t mention “state terrorism” and only mentions terrorism or terrorists referring to the Iranians.

Re Nicaragua vs. United States I’ll refer to AerobicFox who stated:
"With regards to their actions in Nicaragua, the ICJ court ruled twelve to three that the U.S. had violated international law not to use force against another state." The dissenting opinions of one of the judges should also be mentioned to maintain neutrality. However, I am still wondering how this is relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead, or even in the article, since it doesn't find the U.S. committing terrorist acts.”
And:
"The international court ruling concerning Nicaragua states nothing about U.S. terrorism. In regards to the acts of the terrorists the court rules that it: does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America; On another point concerning this text in the article: "In one instance in Nicaragua the U.S. was condemned for “unlawful use of force,”" The court rulings do not appear to even contain that quote. […]“unlawful use of force,” was taken from Noam Chomsky paraphrasing the ICJ's ruling in an interview on U.S. terrorism, yet it is being used here as if it were a direct quote by the ICJ(which it wasn't). There's no indication that Chomsky even had notes with him specifically concerning the ICJ's ruling during this interview…" -AerobicFox

I cut out the sections that didn’t specifically address state terrorism and left the Chomsky quote, even though the crux of it, “unlawful use of force” is wrong.
Guatemala
Source 89, "The Evolution of the National Security State: The Case of Guatemala." Doesn’t make a charge of state terrorism. Source 90, “About Michael McClintock". Human Rights First. “a blurb about Michael McClintock doesn’t address state terrorism. Source 96, ^ "Colonel Byron Disrael Lima Estrada". George Washington University doesn’t address state terrorism. Just “counter-terror”.

School of Americas section
The “who” in is Paul Mulshine. There’s a quote of his that should be included. “Those who opposed the School of Americas argue they did so] “because the school trained Latin American soldiers to kill the innocent. In fact, anyone who was in Central America in the 1980s knows that the single biggest problem the United States faced was trying to keep its allies from the sort of pointless slaughter that accomplishes little politically but gives the enemy a propaganda victory”

The Phillipines
The 2nd Paragraph doesn’t make a charge of state terrorism.
V7-sport (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The lead

I wrote a draft for the lead and would appreciate comments:

Several scholars have written about the liberal democracies and state terrorism, particularly about during the Cold War period. Notable works include Alexander L. George' Western state terrorism (1991), Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman's The political economy of human rights (1979), Herman's The real terror network (1985), Frederick Gareau's State terrorism and the United States (2004) and Doug Stokes' America's other war (2005). Of these, Chomsky and Herman are considered the foremost writers on the United States and state terrorism. According to them, state terrorism was used to protect the interest of capitalist elites, and the United States organized a neo-colonial system of client states, co-operating with local elites to rule through terror. However, little of this work has been recognized by other scholars of terrorism or even of state terrorism. (Blakeley, Ruth. State terrorism and neoliberalism: the North in the South, Taylor & Francis, 2009, pp. 20-21)

Also, now that two editors have been blocked as sockpuppets, the 0RR may be unneccessary. TFD (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment at least, that doesn't look like it is describing the article at hand. I understand that you had wanted to change the article to more of an examination of the concept of state terrorism as it relates to the USA, but the article at present is still the "laundry list". The inclusion of various authors in the lead (No Falk? What the Falk?) makes their inclusion in the article a forgone conclusion. "Several scholars have written about the liberal democracies and state terrorism, particularly about during the Cold War period. " works, as does "little of this work has been recognized by other scholars of terrorism or even of state terrorism."

Re the 0rr, I still haven't finished my 12 step program (I can get to sleep now, but I still dream of reverting.) and if there have been socks for years they aren't going to be deterred by last weeks events.V7-sport (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What about:

Several scholars have written about the liberal democracies and state terrorism, particularly about during the Cold War period. According to them, state terrorism was used to protect the interest of local elites and the United States co-operated with those elites to enable them to maintain power. However, little of this work has been recognized by other scholars of terrorism or even of state terrorism. (Blakeley, Ruth. State terrorism and neoliberalism: the North in the South, Taylor & Francis, 2009, pp. 20-21)

TFD, I changed the lead, adding your language and incorporating a part of a quote you thought germane on a previous incarnation of the talk page into the legal definitions section. V7-sport (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Good. I think that going forward we should explain the literature by Chomsky and others. "Another Perspective" in a book from Homeland Security shows how it is possible to describe Chomsky's views in a neutral manner without either defending or denigrating them. (The author here of course disagrees with Chomsky but does not let that affect his neutral discussion.) TFD (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

TFD -- I agree with you that including such third-party discussion of their views would be very useful. For a long time I've wanted to see this article have a more expansive section discussing the various theories regarding the concept of state terrorism, as opposed to only focusing on the history (which I also think is important to cover, per WP:NPOV, as most of the works cited cover historical events). Anyhow, I think the sort of source you've provided (the fact that it is published by Cengage Learning, notwithstanding) is a good start. Focusing only on Chomsky and Hermann for now, other sources which provide third-party analysis of their views are: Sluka, Rejali, Kapitan, Heryanto, McGovern, Goodwin (to name but a few). Anyhow, I like your approach so far. I just think that if we are going to start including third-party interpretations of Chomsky's views, that it would not be in line with WP:NPOV to have the entire discussion sourced to a person from Homeland Security, and we should integrate some of the thoughts of the authors above into the article as well. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

TFD -- I also support your suggested revision for the lead, and think that it should be used almost verbatim, rather than the current version, which inaccurately represents the views of these scholars. Your original version suggested that they believe that state terror is "used to protect the interest of capitalist elites, and the United States organized a neo-colonial system of client states, co-operating with local elites to rule through terror." This is a fairly accurate description of their views. However, the current version states that they believe it is "used to protect the interest of local elites", which is an inaccurate representation of their views. The scholars listed see the local elites as tools used by the more powerful international capitalist class to protect the latter's interests -- i.e. the local elites are used to order the terror, to promote the interests of the capitalist elites in the U.S. and Europe (who send their ambassadors and State Dept. officials to plot with the local elites). They do not see the goal of U.S. policy as protecting the interests of elites in, say, Guatemala -- they see it as intended to promote U.S. interests.

One other qualm that I have with both the current and the original version is the wording of "However, little of this work has been recognized by other scholars of terrorism or even of state terrorism." As the sources I've listed above (as well as dozens of others that cite the works of Chomsky et al, re: state terrorism) demonstrate, some "other scholars" do accept some or all of their views on state terrorism. Of course, these views are by no means anywhere close to a majority view amongst scholars of terrorism (who tends to use terms like "human rights violations", "repression", "war crimes", etc.; and this fact (i.e. that "state terrorism" is a concept accepted by a minority of scholars) should be mentioned in the lead. The problem is that the term "other scholars", as currently used, is too vague, and can be interpreted to mean all "other scholars", which is clearly false. I think a more accurate way of discussing the acceptance amongst other scholars would be "However, the majority of terrorism scholars accept little, if any, of this work." This still makes it clear that the majority of terrorism scholars do not accept it, but removes the ambiguity. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is already made up of the opinions of left-wing pundits. Chomsky and Hermann aren't in the mainstream of anything. That's one of the major issues of this article, since these academics specialize in offering what is basically porn for the like minded, there isn't a lot of counterargument to balance out their POV because it's inherently fringe. "Stating that "Of course, these views are by no means anywhere close to a majority view amongst scholars of terrorism (who tends to use terms like "human rights violations", "repression", "war crimes", etc." is another way of saying that anything could be labeled as state terrorism, which has been another major issue of this article. And "terrorism scholar"? Is there such a recognized academic field?V7-sport (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism is a major area of study, as can be seen by the books cited, so there are terrorism scholars. As sources say however, "state terrorism" is not normally included because terrorism is considered to be the actions of non-state actors. Even scholars who write about state terrorism generally ignore Chomsky et. al. That is what the sources say anyway, even though there are scholars who accept Chomsky's arguments, that textbooks often refer to him as providing "another perspective" and that his work is cited by authors who do not share his analysis. I would not use a DHS textbook as a source, rather I presented it as an example of how a tertiary source can be written in a neutral tone. TFD (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I made some changes/additions, which may be seen here. TFD (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey TFD, Re the "notable works" section, it's well written but it's illustrative of the problem I was writing about before as it's basically " Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman et al sat the USA is guilty of "state terrorism" and there isn't a counter argument that wouldn't be original research because the idea of "state terrorism" is only only being addressed by the same set of communist/socialist/anarchist pundits. You and I corresponded about this ages ago and the problem has remained the same; The article would go something like: Noam Chomsky says the USA is a "leading terrorist state" because their client states (not defined or using a different definition then commonly accepted.) have engaged in terrorism. Edward Herman says the USA is the "leading terrorist" because they have engaged in trade with oppressive regimes(not defined or using a different definition then commonly accepted.) They both cite Amnesty international that says 74% of the countries that the USA has sold goods to or provided services to have engaged in terror (not defined or using a different definition then commonly accepted.)"

Please tell me how this can be balanced out. (seriously) You had mentioned earlier that this might be a good way of getting rid of the history section which looked like a "rap sheet" (I believe those were the words) and it might be so, but it looks as if the article is stuck with the same problem only with a smarter presentation.V7-sport (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

They are the leading writers and have attracted little notice, including from critics. I think the way to provide balance, in addition to noting the degree of acceptance of the theories, is to say that the events described are usually interpreted differently, e.g., as counterinsurgency. Since this section is about the literature however, balance may not be an issue - the section says these are the main writers, which seems unchallenged. Also, I think removing the history section will improve neutrality. TFD (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"I think the way to provide balance, in addition to noting the degree of acceptance of the theories, is to say that the events described are usually interpreted differently, e.g., as counterinsurgency" That's sounds fine, however unless "so and so" says specifically that "Event a" was not an example of "state terrorism" rather an example of "counterinsurgency" then it's an OR or Synth thing depending on how it's presented. Petraeus, Kilcullen or Thompson et al haven't spent a lot of effort countering the idea that 9/11 and selling radio sets to Suharto have any equivalence, moral or otherwise. I'll take a look around to see if something can be found to present some balance, (Analog life is a bit hectic at the moment, should be better this week) but considering the amount of time we have already spent here I doubt there's been a lot that's been missed.

You are welcome to remove the history section at any time. I would like the "U.S. law and the definition of terrorism" section preserved and put in closer to the beginning as I think it's important to note that by law that by the law of the sovereign nation in question what these authors are saying is terrorism is specifically not terrorism.

As it stands now the lead looks like a UC Berkeley reeducation camp reading list.V7-sport (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. law section is poorly written but of course that viewpoint should be mentioned. If we eliminate the history section, then there is no need to balance each of the examples, I am looking for sources, but the only sections I worked on were the lead and list of literature. TFD (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. law section was written that way in order to make it bulletproof, (there was an editor who didn't want it included) I'de prefer it to be restored to where it was. If you want to take the lead on this may I suggest that you create a sandbox version of what you envision? V7-sport (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this page has recently been targeted again by the deletionists....

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Thread started by sockpuppet of banned user Giovanni33

I have serious issues with most of the deletions and edits that have occurred in the last few months. The changes have clearly been politically motivated edits by people with a political axe to grind.

"Terrorism" is an acknowledged military tactic, and something the US uses as a matter of course. The consensus that has been arrived here, for the last few years, has been to treat "terrorism" as a legally defined violation of certain key military or political principles, but in truth "terrorism" is openly acknowledged by US military leadership as a military *tactic*.

If the deletionists here feel the freedom to dust away the consensus reached by the long-term editors here, then i think it's fair for us all to revisit the original consensus.

"Terrorism" is a military and political tactic.

Further, while a section on US law regarding terrorism is certainly useful, the scope of the article is quite clearly about how US policy does or does not qualify as "terrorist" in nature.

Christ-cons=greedy-demons (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note Christ-cons=greedy-demons has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Giovanni33 [3]. --TFD (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, most of the recent deletions have been valid, and were discussed by many of the editors on the talk page here. Some of them were not, but you can deal with that by mentioning specific information you'd like to include, along with reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That said, may I ask how you came to this article? Have you edited here before under a different name? We've had problems with sockpuppetry here, and it's a bit odd that your very first edit is here, and that you seem to have been keeping track of the article for "years". Will you please answer these questions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giovanni33? Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You should restrict discussion of possible sockpuppetry to SPI. TFD (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits to the lead

An editor has removed most of the lead saying among other things that "notable" is a subjective term and added a description of Chomsky's views that are not in the source. Since there seems to be support for the lead I will restore it. The term "notable" is taken from the source and does not appear controversial. Describing someone's views, when they are not provided in the source is implied synthesis, i.e., Chomsky believes 'x', therefore his views are wrong. TFD (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

"Notable" expresses opinion, not fact, and it suggests, intentionally or unintentionally, a consensus of acclaim for the works or their authors that may not exist. Thus I revised it. If "notable" is taken from the source, I think the sentence should make that clear (e.g., "In what the author refers to as 'notable works' on the subject, Noam Chomsky and ...").Scaleshombre (talk) 02:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed in the source and there is no dispute that these are notable writers in the field. Chomsky and Herman for example pioneered the study. It would be like saying "Einstein was a notable writer on relativity", "Marx was a notable writer on scientific socialism", "Freud was a notable writer on psychoanalysis". etc., are all a matter of opinion. If we provide an in-line citation then we create doubt about the validity of the opinion, as in "according to x, New York is a city in the United States. BTW you may far more changes than that. Could you please explain them. TFD (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The opening paragraph, particularly the third sentence ("However, little of this work") sounds like an indictment of the entire article. It raises serious questions about the article's suitability for inclusion as a self-standing entry in an encyclopedia. The lead needs to demonstrate that the topic merits its own article. Wikipedia is not an opinion journal for airing fringe views.

Again, "notable" is a subjective term. In whose opinion are these works "notable"? If someone believes them notable, it's worth pointing out to the reader who it is. And while there might not be much dispute about the authors' notability in "the field," there seems to be plenty of dispute about just how notable the field itself is. The lead itself demonstrates this.Scaleshombre (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not worth pointing out because there is no dispute that they are notable writers in the field. If you do not think that the field is sufficiently notable to merit its own article, then you are free to set up its tenth nomination for deletion. TFD (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinions vs. facts/"Notability" debate

Could User:Scaleshombre please explain this edit where he changed "observed" to "contended" and "argued". Although the writers contended and argued, their contentions and arguments were based on facts, in this case human rights abuses, which have been recognized by the United Nations and the United States. What they argued was about U.S. government responsibility. Also, it is Wikipedia style to only capitalize the first word in the title of a book. TFD (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

TFD, there's no argument that Chomsky and the others wrote works on the subject. Whether those books are notable to a general audience (I have no doubt they're notable to the Chomsky crowd) is definitely at issue. So why muck up an already-contentious article with weasel words like notable, when we can simply remove the offending adjective and let readers come to their own conclusion about the books' notability?

In the same vein, we should take pains to avoid giving the impression that the opinions of propagandists (at least on political matters) like Chomsky rise to the level of accepted wisdom. No matter how you slice it, his sweeping conclusions about America's misbehavior on the world stage are just not accorded the mainstream respect, say, of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

As far as changing clunky phrases like "particularly about during the Cold War period," I'm just doing my part to make the article more readable.

Are you sure Wiki style is to only capitalize the first word in a book title? For example, see how the book titles are rendered on Chomsky's page.Scaleshombre (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

They are notable works on the subject, regardless of how notable the topic is. And I hope you do not expect us to spell out in the article, "THIS IS ALL PROPAGANDA", because we are supposed to edit from a neutral POV. TFD (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

History section

We have discussed removing this section. Most editors appear to agree and therefore I will take it out. If I am wrong, then it can be restored.

When writing about a theory about history, it violates neutrality to present the narrative of the proponents. The repetition of incidents that could be described as state terrorism present the view that this interpretation is generally accepted and advocates for the view. Also, the writers did not attempt to write a comprehensive history, but used case studies in order to develop a general theory. Examples were chosen based on the quality of evidence rather than their significance. Gareau for example chose cases where there had been truth and reconciliation commissions or other enquiries that generated large amounts of documentation. TFD (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a second but wanted to say that this is looking better, TFD. Thanks. It's gone from being as indicting as possible to a more thoughtful examination of the concept. I might be going a bridge too far but it still would be great if there was some counterargument to offset the predominate viewpoints here. I'll look into it more after the holiday.V7-sport (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult to find sources. Any counterargument must directly address the topic, but I have found one and will add it later. TFD (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your removal of the History section, given that many of the sources cited cover the history extensively. However, before returning to this, I'd first like to deal with writing more on the theoretical aspects of U.S. state terrorism, and dealing with the issue of whether or not we want to insert a bunch of off-topic op-ed quotes about how Chomsky loves Nazis and defends the Khmer Rouge. Once all of that has blown over, I'd like to come back to this. (I do think that it needs to be written differently, but I think that it needs to be here to give some historical context to the theory being discussed). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This has brought much needed neutrality to a page that was a disgrace to wikipedia. Really, you simply can't have both as that would be over the top pov pushing. V7-sport (talk) 05:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, maybe if your definition of "neutrality" is different from that in WP:NPOV. However, as far the "neutrality" described in WP:NPOV is concerned, the removal of the history section actually made the article less neutral, because it removed a large amount of reliably sourced content that directly addressed the topic of the article. However, we can deal with that later. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC

Seeing as it's been nominated for deletion 10 times (often citing POV problems in the discussions for) and that it had become something of a joke on the internet it's obvious that there has been a POV problem with the article. If your strategy is to load up the article with a scholarly debate on the topic per TFD and then re-add the history section (rap sheet) you should spell it out so we aren't wasting our time with one approach. "Good faith" at this point means one or the other. V7-sport (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

David Horowitz

Chomsky himself has been criticized for supporting Hezbollah, an organization designated by the United States as a terrorist group. "Citing with approval a journalist's observation that Hezbollah 'is not a terror organization,' Chomsky explained that the terrorist who blew up 243 U.S. Marines in Lebanon and murdered untold citizens of Israel was only engaging in 'legitimate resistance' against an oppressor and 'avoids striking civilians except in retaliation for Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians.'"[4]

Ther are several problems with this new addition. First, it is not apparent how this relates to the article. Second, it is sourced to an op-ed by David Horowitz, who is the one criticising Chomsky, in FrontPage Magazine ("Noam Chomsky's love affair with Nazis"), which is in violation of rs, especially for biographies of living persons. The editor has also added the book mentioned in Horowitz's article, but provided no page no. (It is doubtful that Chomsky said the same thing as Horowitz.)

We were making progress in removing partisan fringe sources and trying to make this article a serious and neutral account of the topic by using high quality reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Chomsky/Hezbollah reference provides greater context and depth to the article. If the most prominent advocate of the "US-as-terrorist" view is himself a supporter of terrorists, readers would expect an encyclopedia to provide that information. It expands the article and provides fact-driven context for his allegations. By intentionally leaving out or glossing over highly relevant info regarding Chomsky's views on terrorism, we are committing a serious sin of omission. It would be akin to citing Joseph Mengele's views on diseases affecting Jewish twins without mentioning his background as a Nazi and mass murderer of Jews. We're an encyclopedia, not a partisan propaganda mill. Our readers deserve better.

Please explain how FrontPage violates RS. Granted, few people would call Horowitz a non-partisan commentator, but his writings are every bit as reliable as Chomsky's.

TFD, please take a closer look at the cite; I gave the page numbers from Chomsky's book.Scaleshombre (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at WP:BLPN#"Noam Chomsky's love affair with Nazis". TFD (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing notice. I added quotes from former education secretary Bill Bennett to illustrate how criticism of Chomsky's views on terrorism are not limited to so-called "fringe sources." I'm not sure if both critiques are necessary, but somehow it needs to be made clear that Chomsky is far from a universally respected commentator on the subject of the US and terrorism. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The article already says that the theories advanced have received little attention and as I explained to V7-Sport, I would have added informed opinion to balance Chomsky's views. But adding ad hominem arguments against Chomsky in popular media by people who are not terrorism experts does not improve the article. Ironically, by associating criticism with these people, it makes Chomsky appear more credible. The other problem is that if we are to lower standards like that, then we welcome similar sources from the other side. Do you want to go back to the way the article was? TFD (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Re your comment, "[Horowitz's] writings are every bit as reliable as Chomsky's". Notice that Chomsky's writings were not used as a source for this article until you added him. Instead all mention of his work was taken from peer-reviewed academic journals and books published by the academic press. TFD (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be peer reviewed to make it here, it does however have to directly relate to state terrorism. V7-sport (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It is recommended, and I have only used that type of source. The problem with weakening the standards, is that it will allow us to add editorials from liberal and conservative magazines, most of which provide only a superficial analysis of the subject, and get back to where we were before. No real encyclopedia would do this. TFD (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a good point TFD, I concede. We can't expect one "side" of the argument to unilaterally adhere to a more stringent set of standards. However, as I outlined in the beginning and as you know, there isn't a lot of counterargument from academia.V7-sport (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky's critics

"The article already says that the theories advanced have received little attention..." So basically the whole article boils down to, This is what Noam Chomsky and a few others think about the U.S. Then why not renom it for deletion? I might still do that at some point. Certainly, this is an article about a very important, highly charged topic with the potential to shape the views of countless school kids and others in coming generations. How long should we debate it? As long as it takes to get it right. If people are accusing the U.S. of terrorism, are they no less worthy of examination in the context of the discussion than the country they're denouncing?

"I would have added informed opinion to balance Chomsky's views." Then why not do it? It would be a welcome addition to the article. Horowitz is mainly a polemicist, but Bennett is as much of an "expert" on US foreign policy as Chomsky. He certainly has more credentials as a policymaker. Bennett's rhetoric may be sharp, but it sheds essential light on Chomsky, his reputation for America-bashing, and most importantly, his agenda in painting the U.S. a terrorist state.

"Do you want to go back to the way the article was?" At what point in time? The article's gone through lots of iterations. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead and renominate the article for deletion. I'm sure the result will be the same as the last 10 times. That said, once we've finished with that, and everyone has decided to keep the article again, please try to stick to scholarly sources since there are so many available. We don't need to use op-eds and unreferenced news articles here at all. Please see WP:RS which states: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context. Articles which deal in depth with specific studies, as a specialized article on science, are apt to be of more value than general articles which only tangentially deal with a topic." If there is a news article that deals with United States state terrorism, or focuses specifically on one of the sources cited here, then please share it, and we can consider how to include it, assuming that it is a serious study of the subject rather than just some fiery rhetoric in the editorial pages. But including random anti-Chomsky quotes from op-eds that have nothing to do with the subject is not appropriate, as you can see from the WP:BLPN discussion. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Eleven might do it since the sockpuppeter has been banned (and "Strong Keep + a vote to stop wasting everyone's time -- If I'm forced to I'll respond with the numerous arguments against this in the LAST 8 DELETION DISCUSSIONS WHICH HAVE ALL RESULTED IN "KEEP" (yes, I just screamed at you)" isn't going to do it alone). William Bennett has been a Cabinet level secretary in the US government while Noam Chomsky is a linguist. However, anything that Bennett or Horowitz would have to say would have to be in relation to state terrorism and Chomsky's position on it in order for it to be relevant for inclusion here.V7-sport (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Giovanni33 was not the reason that the AfD's all resulted in keeping the article, as anyone can see from looking at the AfD discussions. These were all votes by the wider community, who were brought in by the AfD process, and they all have clearly stated that the article is a notable topic worth having an article on. I'd suggest that people stop disruptively attempting to delete it, and spend time trying to improve the article. Anyhow, Chomsky, in addition to being one of the most notable linguists alive, is also one of the most notable critics of U.S. foreign policy. I'm not sure why you think it's so important that he's also a linguist, but the important point is that his theories on U.S. foreign policy are widely cited in the scholarly literature, and directly address the topic of this article. If you know of views from scholarly sources that you feel are not being presented here that critique the views of Chomsky and the other authors cited in this article (on U.S. state terrorism -- not about the Khmer Rouge or how Chomsky loves Nazis), please share them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't "disruptive" to attempt to delete a problematic article and there has been lot of time spent on improving it. Chomsky's notability here is subjective and debatable (as are his contributions to linguistics) however the point was that quotes from people who are not academics like Bennet or even Horowitz can be included as long as what they are saying is related to state terrorism or Chomsky's critique of the US and state terrorism.V7-sport (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure on what grounds you would claim that Chomsky's notability here is "subjective and debatable" given that most of the sources on the subject discuss his views. (And the notion that his linguistic theories are not notable is absurd, and not relevant here anyhow). I also agree with you that there are cases where people who are not academics can be included here, as long as they are actually talking about the subject and are published in high-quality sources, such as the ones that TFD, GabrielF, and myself have been providing, rather than in op-eds that don't address the topic of the article. And regarding deletion, I do believe that it is disruptive to nominate an article for deletion more than 10 times, when there are clearly plenty of sources that directly address the topic, and when the consensus of the community is clearly to keep it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not sure on what grounds you would claim that Chomsky's notability here is "subjective and debatable"

SUBJECTIVE: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

DEBATABLE: open to dispute.

It's "subjective" as there are those who see him as simply preaching to his followers, denouncing the country/capitalism in order to make a buck so he can live in the nicest section of Cambridge Ma.

It's "debatable"...as evidenced by months of debate.

"And the notion that his linguistic theories are not notable is absurd,"

I wrote you would have seen that it says that his contributions to linguistics are subjective and debatable, not the notability of those contributions. (You "mischaracterized" my statement) I could provide some links challenging those contributions, however it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

"And regarding deletion, I do believe that it is disruptive to nominate an article for deletion more than 10 times"

Oh well. If the article continually has unaddressed problems and meets any of the reasons for deletion like WP:ATTACK for instance, then nominating it is appropriate no matter how many times it's done. V7-sport (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote you would have seen that it says that his contributions to linguistics are subjective and debatable, not the notability of those contributions. (You "mischaracterized" my statement) -- I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase your thought into an intelligible English sentence? What you actually wrote (see above) was "Chomsky's notability here is subjective and debatable (as are his contributions to linguistics)". This is what I responded to, and I did not mis-characterize anything you said, as anyone can see by reading the discussion above. Do you have anything you'd like to contribute to the article? Like perhaps something based off of a reliable source that is related to the topic ... -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Chomsky's notability here is subjective and debatable (as are his contributions to linguistics)" is an "intelligible English sentence" to anyone who has the WP:competence to edit here. I even went through the trouble of defining basic english words for you to make it more accessible and explained what I wrote. [5]

What you wrote in response was: "And the notion that his linguistic theories are not notable is absurd". Amazingly enough, you don't see it even after it's been explained and you copied and pasted it yourself. I never claimed his linguistic theories were not "notable" as you have claimed that I have. That's a misrepresentation of my position. Clear?V7-sport (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence I claimed was not intelligible was "I wrote you would have seen that it says that his contributions to linguistics are subjective and debatable, not the notability of those contributions.", as anyone can see above. Also, I was aware of the definition of subjective and debatable, which is why I used them. I didn't need you to waste space copying and pasting them from wherever you looked them up. I did not, however, agree with your application of them. If you were really trying to say that Chomsky's contributions to linguistics were subjective and debatable (rather than some quality of his contributions, such as their accuracy, importance, etc.), then that is a meaningless statement - a string of words that has no sensible interpretation (It's like saying "Chomsky's car is debatable.") . I assumed you weren't just stringing words together, and assumed that maybe you were trying to say that the importance/significance/notability of his theories was "subjective and debatable" (Since you cobbled it into the same sentence regarding the notability of his theories in another area). If not, that's OK, and obviously my response does not apply; but meaningless sentences really don't warrant a response, so we're done either way. What I'm going to do from here on is focus on the article. I'm going to ignore anything you say from now on that doesn't have to do with improving the article. Again -- do you have any good sources on the subject of the article, or comments on how it can be improved? If not, this discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The sentence I claimed was not intelligible was "I wrote you would have seen that it says that his contributions to linguistics are subjective and debatable, not the notability of those contributions.", as anyone can see above

Even with the tacked on verbiage at the beginning it would have made sense to anyone who wasn't out to find some lame way of asserting themselves. and no, the sentence you were responding to, the one that has been posted several times now was: "Chomsky's notability here is subjective and debatable (as are his contributions to linguistics)". You read that and came back with "I'm not sure on what grounds you would claim that Chomsky's notability here is "subjective and debatable". You have done things like this before, misreading what I have written and then trying to use it assert yourself and you have yet to admit you are wrong. All it does is derail progress, which any observer can see has been made without you.

I did not, however, agree with your application of them

If you are writing that there is nothing to debate about the merits of his contributions to linguistics you are wrong. You don't have to agree. (As an aside, aping and defending the edicts of the head guru in a cult of personality doesn't make someone educated. Chomsky is fallible like everyone else.) That said; Again, it's beside the point of this article.

If you were really trying to say that Chomsky's contributions to linguistics were subjective and debatable (rather than some quality of his contributions, such as their accuracy, importance, etc.), then that is a meaningless statement - a string of words that has no sensible interpretation.

Well no, we are back to the whole WP:Competence thing. If you genuinely don't get it then you don't belong here. If you do get it, you are just trying to find another way of lamely asserting yourself. Either way, it's gotten old. It's been old for a while.

(It's like saying "Chomsky's car is debatable.

No, it's not like that. Not even a little.

so we're done either way

Seems to be a pattern: you take some passive aggressive swipes, misrepresent what I wrote, drag the discussion down a cul-de-sac and declare it to be done. OK, done. V7-sport (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms

While the article should have criticisms, we should endeavor to use the same standard of sourcing that we are using to describe the theories. Horowitz and Bennet are obviously just polemical writers, not experts in the subjects and the sources used are an editorial and a CNN interview. But the ones recently added (Daniel Shorrand James S. Fishkin) have problems too. Both are book reviews, written decades ago. Fishkin's review (apparently published by the Council of Foreign Relations) is actually quoted in a book by a U.S. state department official, Sandra Louise Vogelgesang. While we should mention that American media and state department officials reacted angrily at the time, we need to explain the degree to which their views have become accepted. While it is difficult to find current quality literature, it is essential if the article is to be neutral. TFD (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misread the citation for Fishkin. The review appeared in The New Republic and Fishkin was reviewing both Chomsky's book and Vogelgesangs. CFR has nothing to do with it. I disagree that Chomsky's thesis is any less controversial today than it was in 1980. The article specifically states that the book was a seminal text for this idea, so a review of the book which challenges its conclusion is entirely appropriate. GabrielF (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems curious to use a book review for criticism of a book published over 30 years ago. There have been changes however. After 911 the U.S. government has denied due process to some prisoners and used enhanced interrogation techniques, both of which they denied doing when Chomsky wrote. The arguments against Chomsky have accordingly shifted. Also, if are going to use writings of critics in popular media, then we should allow writings by supporters of Chomsky in popular media. If we do this however, it turns the article into nothing more than a blog. TFD (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

William Bennett quote

We should keep Bennett's remarks. They speak directly to Chomsky's credibility as a commentator on the U.S. and state terrorism. Bennett clearly shows that Chomsky has an agenda and that his views should be taken with a boulder of salt. If Chomsky is the principal architect of the U.S. as terrorist argument, then Bennett's critique is essential to the discussion. Scaleshombre (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you please point out what Bennett says regarding Chomsky's theories (or other people's theories) on state terrorism? If he doesn't say anything about these theories, then his commentary is not relevant here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You might want to add that Bennett lost millions of dollars gambling, because he shows that he has a severe lack of judgment and it speaks directly to his credibility. TFD (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, Jrtayloriv. I've added quote where Bennett addresses Chomsky's allegations of US terrorism.--Scaleshombre (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Gareau's definition of terrorism

Gareau's definition is cited, but the passage doesn't specifically implicate the US. Does Gareau do this somewhere else in his writings -- ie, link the US to his definition of terrorism? Unless he does so and someone makes it clear in the article, the citation smacks of OR/Synthesis and should be removed. Scaleshombre (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is taken from Gareau's book The United States and state terrorism, where he defines first terrorism, then state terrorism, before explaining why he beleives the U.S. has engaged in state terrorism. His definition is used because, according to the source, it is the definition used by writers on the United States and state terrorism. As stated in the article, Gareau is one of the notable writers on the United States and state terrorism. TFD (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can tighten it up by saying something to that effect within the text? Scaleshombre (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky

No reason to muck up an already-contentious article by needlessly puffing up Chomsky and his collaborators. I've toned down the passages in question.Scaleshombre (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Did the passage citing Blakely, which you removed, not support the text in question? If it did support the text in question, could you please explain on what grounds you removed it? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I restored it pending a consensus to remove it. --John (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

See "notable," Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#Puffery. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Intentionally or not, peacock terms like "foremost," "notable," and "pioneering" make the article more of a propaganda piece for Chomsky and his colleagues than a serious encyclopedia entry. If you're so wed to these words, at least make it clear within the text who holds these opinions. Otherwise, delete them. All they do is detract from the integrity of an already controversial article.

I've invited other editors to share their opinions Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#propaganda_at_United_States_and_state_terrorism.--Scaleshombre (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to explain viewpoints rather than tell the reader what he should believe. Ironically by presenting people such as Horowitz and Bennett as the alternative to Chomsky you are building him up. I have always wondered whether or not that is the secret agenda of self-declared ex-communists and ex-liberals like Horowitz and Bennett. TFD (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm sure that's their real agenda.Scaleshombre (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Puffery says "Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article" (my emphasis). In this case the words are attributed to a book published by the university press and the adjective is not used to describe the subject of the article, but people writing about the subject. In any case this is a guideline, not a policy, and it says, "certain expressions should be used with care". We are using care, not praising Chomsky but pointing out the obvious fact that he is one of the notable writers in a subject that he created. TFD (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is contentious enough as it is. We're not going to turn it into an ode to Chomsky. Peacock terms like "foremost," "notable," and "pioneering" add nothing to the article. Remember, you're writing an encyclopedia article, not a press release celebrating Chomsky's work. The problem is easily fixed: just take out the peacock terms. (Or, as an alternative, quote the source when attempting to puff up Chomsky and his collaborators.) Thanks--Scaleshombre (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky is certainly "notable" and "foremost". Binksternet (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He's also "avuncular" and "cuddly" and "warm and fuzzy." And I hear he smells like a grassy meadow after the first stirrings of spring. Still, such praise has no place in Wikipedia.--Scaleshombre (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is notable regarding the topic of state terrorism? Noam Chomsky, Alexander George and Edward Herman: "George, Chomsky and Herman in particular have played an important role in bringing the question of US-sponsored state terrorism during the Cold War to the fore." Also mentioned is Frank Gareau. Who are the pioneers in the topic? "...Michael Stohl, George Lopez, Alexander George, Noam Chomsky, Frank Gareau and others". Political analyst Martha Knisely Huggins says that Chomsky and Herman "have done more than many others to provide a coherent picture of state terror in the late twentieth century." Paul Wilkinson, a political scientist who is no fan of Chomsky, writes that Chomsky is notable for his opposition to US-sponsored human rights abuses, and US state terrorism. Both enemies and friends of Chomsky acknowledge his top tier status among theorists of US-sponsored state terror. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I noted this at NPOVN and after having a quick look I must agree that the article is very biased in favour of Chomsky & Herman. In fact, I get the impression that the page exists mostly to promote Chomsky & Herman. Note I am an Australian with no particular interest in US politics. I have read Manufacturing Consent and consider myself somewhat sympathetic to their research. Also, on the specific point, Scaleshombre seems to be right about the peacock terms. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also coming in from NPOVN, having encountered the issue elsewhere as well. While I agree that the article shouldn't devote space to "praising" Chomsky, it remains the case that he's frequently described as notable by high-quality sources, and thus having the one word in this article to acknowledge that would IMO be OK, as it adds information to the reader and can be multiply sourced. --Dailycare (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the sentences currently reads "The study of the United States and state terrorism was pioneered by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman who wrote a series of books beginning in the late 1970s." Would it be ok to change it to "Beginning in the late 1970s, Chomsky and Herman wrote a series of books on the United States and state terrorism"? My aim is to move away from the another-feather-in-the-cap-of-Chomsky tone while keeping the factual information intact. The revised sentence would have the advantage of putting the focus where it belongs -- on Chomsky's writing addressing US/state terrorism, not on the writer. Thoughts?--Scaleshombre (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I'm stating the obvious or rehashing what has been said before but the subject of "state terrorism" (as opposed to terrorism and state sponsored terrorism) is primarily talked about in academic circles, and even there is not universally accepted. In diplomatic circles, in terms of international law and most everywhere else what is called "state terrorism" by Chomsky et al is referred to in terms "war crimes" to "acts of war" or even "international relations" or "commerce". There aren't a lot of scholarly rebuttals against the charges of "state terrorism" because other scholars and most everyone else use different terms to describe what is being called "state terrorism".

TFD who (although I think it's fair to say we have different outlooks on the subject) has worked in good faith to improve this article. He proposed (paraphrasing) that it be turned into a more scholarly examination of "state terrorism" and the role that the USA has played in the concept. The upside is that it can be made into a more cerebral examination of the concept rather then just a litany of complaints, many of which had nothing to do with "state terrorism" but were shoehorned in because someone (anyone) who had a grudge and a penchant for moral equivalence called it "terrorism" or "terror". The downside to this approach is that certain authors who can be relied upon to call the actions the usual suspects "terrorism" are going to be featured here. My hope is that the reader will be able to recognize the inherent biases of the sources and adjust their perceptions of the material accordingly.

That said, yes, Chomsky (or anyone else) shouldn't be given undue weight here, and rebuttals of his opinions should be presented whenever possible. V7-sport (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

While I am sure some editors have done some good work to put this article together, it seems to me that much of the material properly belongs in either the article/s on Chomsky/Herman and/or in the article on state terrorism. If we are going to continue with this article, then to answer Dailycare, I wouldn't strongly object to describing Chomsky as 'notable' although I still don't see the point. The fact that Chomsky has a Wikipedia article in the first place implies that he is 'notable'. I think Scaleshombre's proposal above seems to be appropriate. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The article does not say that Chomsky is "notable" but that he is a notable writer on this topic. It is not that he is a notable person who has chosen to write about the subject, but that his books are in the top reading list for people writing about the subject. If we state that Chomsky and Herman wrote a series of books then we should report how reliable sources explain their significance to the subject. TFD (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Both TFD and Alex make good points.TFD is correct that we are saying that Chomsky's works on state terrorism are widely discussed in the literature on state terrorism, rather than saying that Chomsky is notable in general. Alex is correct that some of the content better belongs in the article about Chomsky/Herman or state terrorism. For instance, we shouldn't be obsessing over definitions of state terrorism in general here. We should resolve that at state terrorism or Definitions of terrorism. and work here on summarizing those.

This is also not the place to worry about whether Chomsky loves Nazis or just writes lies to sell books and live in a fancy neighborhood. What we should cover in this article is what reliable sources have to say regarding the notion the the United States government has committed terrorist acts. Some of this will be historical discussion, some will be theoretical -- whatever is informative and covered by quality sources should be fairly and accurately presented here. This includes the works of Chomsky, Hermann, Gareau, Falk, and a variety of others. This is not endorsing their views. It is simply giving them due weight, because reliable sources on the United States and state terrorism tend to discuss these works very often. This is required by WP:NPOV.

Again, there are many sources covering Chomsky's/Falk's/etc. views. That is the reason we need to cover them, not because we are trying to promote their views. Neutrality requires that we fairly and openly discuss even those views that we don't agree with. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The gist of the discussion here seems to be we should acknowledge that Chomsky is a notable writer on this topic without unduly puffing him up. Accordingly, I've revised the sentence in question. Thanks, everyone, for your feedback.--Scaleshombre (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

"Some of this will be historical discussion, some will be theoretical" Again, If the intention is to build up the theoretical section then bring back some kind of "rap sheet" you should man up and state that beforehand, otherwise this isn't a good faith effort. V7-sport (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We can find for example a source that explains why Chomsky sees Operation Mongoose as state terrorism, and how much his view is accepted, and describe that. What we should not do is report that Chomsky views Operation Mongoose as state terrorism, and use it as a coatrack to write about the operation using sources that do not interpret it that way. The point of the article is to explain the view, not to promote or denigrate it. TFD (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This article has very one sided and controversial people whose views are disputed.http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

Chomsky supported the terrorist hate floitilla into Gaza we can't call him reputable.Basil rock (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How neutral to call a humanitarian convoy a hate flotia. Any evidacen it was motivated by hate (and of what pray tell)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We are taling about Chomsky but here is proof on the flotilal which Chomsky lied about. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=2083Basil rock (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious sources

• Examiner.com has been blacklisted for years. It is not a reliable source. See WP:RSN, especially this discussion. There's no need to cite it here, as its content is available in other, more reliable sources.
• As for the essay contest, it is sole-authored by a lawyer who is a "student of international affairs", so there's no special professional expertise. With no expert or published co-author, it lacks intrinsic expertise. It was not vetted by a team of experts or authors on terrorism or the Cold War, so there's no validation by experts. It does not cite its sources, so it's not a research paper. Wikipedia relies on verifiable, reliable sources for its content. Therefore, the essay contest entry should not be considered a reliable source.

I'm not deleting these two sources, to allow their adding editor time to either replace or delete them. --Lexein (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Lexein, I appreciate you leaving them up pending discussion. I had that examiner article whitelisted as it's only being used as a secondary source backing by several primary sources. It is the most concise explanation of US law as it relates to state terrorism I could find. On the whole I agree with you about the examiner however this is backed by several primary sources. Re the contest winner, that was published by American Diplomacy (In cooperation with University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.) I'll give another look Lexein for additional sources. However what is being represented by them is confirmed by other, very high quality sources. V7-sport (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

From the Reliable sources/Noticeboard RE Jrtayloriv. Lets provide the diff of what you just did. [6] Notice the edit summary which is, par for the course, untrue: "Removing sources misrepresented by V7-sport". There was nothing misrepresented there.
The sources that you removed are this which was supposed to go toback to this (yes, the link was off) which states: Defining terrorism is the most ambiguous component in terrorism studies, with no universally accepted definition that differentiates attacks against civilian noncombatants or armed military or takes into account the latest trends in terrorist objectives and warfare. In 1983, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) formulated one of the most widely used definitions of terrorism. According to this definition, terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." [1] As part of this definition, the term "noncombatant" includes civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or not on duty. [2] The term 'international terrorism' refers to terrorism "involving citizens or the territory of more than one country," [3] while the term 'terrorist group' refers to "any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism." [4]
That's a reliable, secondary source for what is being presented.
You removed this Which is a state department document stating the Methodology Utilized to Compile NCTC's Database of Terrorist Incidents. It references US law and defines it.
You removed this. It's a "These definitions are set forth in US law, Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d)." It existed to further confirm the secondary documents.
You removed this. A cornell university reprint of US legal code on the subject. It existed there to back what was presented by the secondary sources.
You removed this.Which was a secondary source that "concluded with the fact that terrorism " is perpetrated by a subnational group or non state entity. (This should be attributed to author however)
You removed this Which was there to establish that there is no international consensus on the definition of "terrorism".
You removed this. The UN hasn't agreed on a legal definition of terrorism.
You removed this. "an analyses the anti-terrorism measures undertaken by the United Nations".
All of that in addition to the disputed whitelisted Examiner article and the essay from University of North Carolina/American deplomicy.org. So the misrepresentation here has been on your part. Anyone can see that the text was sourced and verified in triplicate. You have simply used the whitelisted article, which was backed by both primary and secondary sources as a pretext for gutting the definition section, as you have wanted from the onset. In bringing it here you have used the good will of other editors to push for something you wanted all along, something beyond just the reliability of a whitelisted article.....
And I see that the Joshua Sinai reference, which alone went a long way to confirm what I had posted, made it back up. Guess it was reliable after all. V7-sport (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see my response there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A functioning link is here, (on the off chance anyone is interested).V7-sport (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Louis A Perez is a well-respected academic who has extensively researched and documented US-sponored terrorism against the Cuban government and even moreso against Cuban civilians (the true enemy, needless to say).68.193.166.17 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Change to opening line

The opening line reads "Two scholars have accused the United States of conducting state terrorism". In isolation, this implies that only two scholars have accused the US of state terrorism. Suggestions for a revised opening line? Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Do consult the WP:Weasel word guideline on this. Basically, "two scholars" is preferable to "several", "some", or "at least two". If a noteworthy third scholar is cited, sure. But otherwise, just "two" is the neutral way to go at this. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There are more than two scholars cited. Look at the sources. Also, we should go back to the older version which used to point out that it is not only scholars that believe this, but also heads of state, journalists, etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue of weasal words is not to "present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint". The source uses the term "several", then explains who they are. No attempt is made to exaggerate the degree of support for their views. So I would agree with Jrtayloriv to restore an earlier version. TFD (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Would agree with Jrtayloriv here. Would also support expanding the opening line further to reflect accusations by heads of state (From memory, I can recall heads of states of Iran, Venezuela and North Korea) and other political leaders - in power and otherwise (this would cover leaders from almost all Middle Eastern/South Asian/Ex-Soviet-allies). But I suppose, we may need some research done to dig up these statements. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph in general is pretty bad. "Several scholars have accused the United States of conducting state terrorism. They have written about the liberal democracies and their use of state terrorism, particularly in relation to the Cold War."

That is not the opening to an article that can be taken seriously. The entire first paragraph talks about these "somebodies" and only lists several in the next paragraph. You need to introduce the subjects before you can talk about them otherwise the audience has no points of reference; they don't know who you're talking about.

Next, the first sentence talks about the United States specifically and the second sentence talks about liberal democracies in general. The focus should be on one or the other or the subject will be unclear. Either talk about liberal democracies and present the US as an example or talk about the US and explain the liberal democracies connection in a later paragraph as relating to the main point. Is this article about the United States or liberal democracies with the United States as the most prominent example? 70.90.87.73 (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Scholars or not?

An editor has three times taken out the word "scholars" and replaced it with "writers". The persons who are listed in the lead section are all scholars, including Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, Alexander L. George, Frederick H. Gareau and Doug Stokes. To say they are merely writers is to diminish them far too much. Their writing on the subject is fully backed by the weight of their scholarship; they are not dilettantes writing about a hobby topic. I cite WP:NPOV in restoring the word "scholars". Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I find it absurd that he is claiming that an MIT Professor who has been studying foreign policy for decades, and is one of the most cited and widely-published authors in the field, is not a scholar. He might not agree with the results of Chomsky's scholarly work, but to claim that he's not a scholar is to deny reality. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Chomsky is a scholar in international relations. His support for fascism is more of a hobby. The same seems to apply to George.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether you wish to accept that he is a scholar of international relations is irrelevant Randy, because it is a reality that anyone can verify with a minimum of research. The fact is, Noam Chomsky is a university professor who has been studying and publishing on the subject of U.S. foreign policy for decades, and is one of the most widely published (books, academic journals, newspaper articles, speeches, videos, etc.) authors on the subject. He travels all over the world to participate at academic conferences/panels/debates, etc. on foreign policy, along with other scholars who study foreign policy. You might not agree with what you (falsely) perceive his ideas to be (i.e. "supporting fascism"), but for you to deny the fact that he is a scholar of foreign policy is an absurdity that is going to make it very hard for people to take you seriously enough for you to be able to successfully push your ultra-nationalistic, right-wing agenda here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As a university professor, what subject does he teach? -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant, because one does not have to be paid to teach in a subject, in order to be considered a scholar in the subject (look up the definition of the word scholar if you don't understand why this is the case). Nevertheless, the answer to your question is that he teaches linguistics, economics, political theory, and history, amongst other subjects. He is paid by MIT to teach linguistics, but this is not the only place he teaches, nor is it the only subject he teaches. For example, other places that he teaches are the academic conferences, panels, etc. that I mentioned above, events that MIT hosts (such as the CIS Starr Forum), academic conferences around the world, video interviews, etc. His job as a linguistics professor is the only teaching position that he is paid a regular salary for, but that is not relevant in any way to determining whether or not he is a scholar, i.e. "a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject." -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You lost me at "support for fascism". Chomsky is very much against fascism: "Chomsky Warns of Risk of Fascism in America", "Chomsky's Nightmare: Is Fascism Coming to America?", "Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism." Chomsky has written quite a lot on the topic of fascism, and nothing in the oeuvre suggests he is a fan. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Randy, people who have PhDs, lecture at universities and publish articles in peer-reviewed journals are called "scholars". When you mention "support for fascism" you are confusing him with shock jocks on popular networks. BTW I notice that your user page links to a number of articles about conspiracy theories. Editors are trying to improve articles and that type of stuff is a waste of everyone's time. TFD (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Chomsky opposes fascism in the sense that it's not his ideal. But had this been the 1920s, there's no doubt that Chomsky would have sided with Mussolini over Coolidge, and probably over FDR as well. He's a friend of Hugo Chavez. Sure, he criticizes him now, but wasn't swayed at all by Chavez's military ties to Iran.

But the main point is, the word "scholar" implies much more than expertise.

TFD brings up an interesting point, which should settle this nicely. Has Chomsky published anything in a peer-reviewed journal on this subject? I don't know that he has or hasn't. If he has, I'll say it can fit, for Chomsky anyway.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Randy, we discussed this before and you brought up similar points if you want to read through the archives. We call Chomsky a "scholar" because that is how sources describe him. He was the first scholar to write about the US and state terrorism, which is a subject of scholarly study. Nothing in the article is sourced to Chomsky because he can only be seen as a primary source for his opinions and we need to rely on secondary sources. IP, indeed many scholars have accepted Chomsky's analysis. There is a question however whether by definition a state can conduct terrorism, although there is no doubt they can sponsor it, or whether these actions should be considered as alleged war crimes instead. TFD (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's in the sources then it depends on who those sources are.

Which brings up another problem. The source is "Blakely, pp. 20-21".

I suppose such referencing is the norm in subjects that only appeal to the same circle of readers already soaked in this stuff.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

See United States and state terrorism#References. TFD (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it helps when it's spelled correctly.

Okay, I'm not going to argue that one. If you've got a source calling them scholars then it's up to dissenters to say she's a minority viewpoint. I do think she's a loon based on other things she's written, but a lot of scholars are just that. Ward Churchill is a "scholar", too.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

the page is mistaken in limiting the viewpoints to those of chomsky/herman

Many more people than just Herman and Chomsky acknowledge that the US has sponsored state terror. The opening paragraph should be changed accordingly (and frankly, the general article structure, which spends inordinate time focusing on the category and type of those who level the accusations of state terror at the US, and not much time at all on the actual historical incidents alleged to be terroristic and US-sponsored). The list of those who acknowledge US sponsorship of terrorism is long and hardly only includes the "fringe" or "leftists." In fact, in addition to many journalists (often in the mainstream, including Ann Louise Bardach of the NY Times who has interviewed and profiled Luis Posada Carriles; or Allan Nairn, the award-winning journalist who exposed CIA sponsorship of FRAPH and SIN in Haiti) there are also academics who acknowledge that Washington has utilized terrorist proxies. Such as the respected UNC history professors Louis A. Perez and Lars Schoultz -- the latter devotes an entire chapter of his acclaimed history of US-Cuba relations to "State Sponsored Terrorism" and the countless terror attacks launched on Cuba. And US sponsorship of Haitian state terrorists such as FRAPH/SIN (as reported by Nairn and others) has been commented on by academic (secondary) sources, such as Robert Fatton of Duke. Please change the opening paragraph to reflect that US sponsorship of state terror is hardly a fringe "leftist" claim, but is acknowledged by academics, by mainstream media (who hardly tend to be sympathetic to the targeted countries -- Cuba/Nicaragua/Haiti/etc), and even by former US officials (such as Reagan's NSA director, as mentioned on the page). The opening paragraph shouldn't walk back the assertions so much, and with so many weasel words (which only serve to characterize the viewpoints as limited to leftist assertions) -- otherwise the "Iran and state terrorism," "Pakistan and state terrorism," and "Sri Lanka and state terrorism" articles deserve similar qualifiers in their opening paragraphs. After all, between all those articles that currently assert state sponsorship of terror like it's assumed to be true (and, unlike this article, don't spend much time dithering over the category of those who are making the accusations), anything short of consistency with this one would badly reek of American exceptionalism, which sadly is a tendency that I see from some in the discussions about this page. 68.193.162.13 (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

When there is academic consensus regarding a topic then we get into details, e.g., US and immigration, foreign wars, etc. But if a topic is based on a controversial theory, as this one is, then we discuss the literature and reasons why people make a connection. If we do not do that then we are presenting evidence to prove a point, which is POV, because we are assuming that no other interpretation of the facts is possible. Incidentally, the way we identify the main literature is to use reliable sources that explain the literature, rather than ourselves making the call, which is original research. TFD (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Per TfD; while a small pool of authors make this connection explicitly, it is not a common theoretical understanding of the US' foreign policy role in the world (compared, even, to say "Imperialism"). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Why aren't at least some of the examples listed? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, there's no real detail about any of them on the page. The incidents speak for themselves, both in terms of the anti-civilian brutality and terroristic elements, and in terms of the well-documented US sponsorship. As for the sources other than Chomsky/Herman, such as the history professors I noted in my original post, I'll take care of adding those. 68.193.162.13 (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Factual evidence

I agree with the previous comment, I see no reason for not explaining some specific cases (balancing evidence for all points of view). Most military superpower in history have a well documented series of punctual violation of Human Rights. Declassification of documents by US government has uncovered many debatable actions of former US goverments, against Cuba and other strategic enemies of US. But it is difficult to find concrete examples in Wikipedia. Latin America suffered in the 1970s many coups d'état with the support of some pleople in the CIA. Many people were killed or executed in opressive actions supported by some people in former US governments. See for example the virtual absence of factual data in this article ... we need to face it, there is little place for self-criticism in most Wikipedia pages. It makes no sense to avoid or deploy of content some negative facts in the previous history of US, I am deeply deceived by most of the articles dealing with this subject, as this one. --Davius (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When history can be interpreted in different ways, each article that provides a different interpretation should explain the reasons for that interpretation, arguments against it and the degree of acceptance. If we merely describe the events then we are arguing the case for the proponents of one view, which is a biased approach. TFD (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably in 1940, the nazis interpreted the horrible actions of the SS in a different way than we do now. Do you think this suggest that the article about SS need to be deployed of content? Do you think is more convenient not to mention any concrete action by the SS officials? ... Probably you see now my point. I interpret that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete recommends stating differnt points of view (not to ingnore all of them). I think you are using ideas related to NPOV as excuse for ignoring some facts, --Davius (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Godwin's Law says, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches". Usually there are a few more posts before someone plays the Hitler card, but allow me to reply. If this were 1940, we would reflect the view of the Nazis as they were seen in mainstream sources. If this were 1500, we would say that the Sun revolves around the earth. 2000 years before that, we would have said that the earth was flat and the gods live on Mt. Olympus. If you do not like policy, then argue to change it rather than taking your campaign to individual pages. TFD (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that, as TFD said, we can't "merely describe the events" without context of who has made the allegations, but on this page we don't describe the events at all. The words "Cuba," "Nicaragua," and "Haiti" don't show up at all on the page. I'm fine with focusing on the nature and sources of the allegations, but the page does nothing to cover the rather credible substance of the allegations (Cuba and US sponsorship of Posada-Carriles/Bosch/CORU/Omega-7/Alpha-66, Nicaragua and US sponsorship of the Contras, Haiti and US sponsorship of FRAPH, El Salvador and US training/arming of the notorious Atlacatl Battalion among others; all of which are reported on by credible journalists and commented on by credible academics, and in many cases admitted by the US government itself -- either publicly or via leaked/unclassified documents). Also, as for the nature and source of the allegations, we should include more sources who aren't as left-leaning as Chomsky/Herman. Chomsky and Herman are the overriding focus of the article and this serves to discredit the allegations, which are made to seem "leftist" but are in fact allegations made all across the political spectrum (including many centrists, acclaimed academics and journalists, and even Reagan's former National Security adviser and a slew of former FBI and DEA agents). These include the award-winning journalist Alan Nairn (who broke the story on the US DIA/CIA links to the murderous FRAPH death squads in Haiti), John Dignes (journalist and professor, who wrote a very widely- and highly-praised book about Operation Condor that is subtitled "How Pinochet and His Allies Brought Terrorism to Three Continents"), and Lars Schoultz (UNC History professor who has written the most acclaimed history on US-Cuba relations, which includes an entire chapter titled "State Sponsored Terrorism" about the ceaseless raids/bombings launched from Miami that targeted Cuba in the 60s and 70s). Furthermore, the lead contains a statement that "scholars on terrorism" reject these allegations, which is plainly false. There are few people who are strictly and solely "scholars on terrorism," but many people who have written entire works on terrorism (such as Mike Davis who wrote a history of the car bomb, and Dinges who I've already mentioned) do agree with the assessment that the US has sponsored terrorism. And they outnumber the one source cited as an example of "scholars of terrorism" who reject the allegations. 184.74.184.210 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. It is not for example whether the US tried to kill Castro, arm the contras etc. that is in dispute but whether these actions were terrorism. Chomsky and other writers believe that they were then catalogue all the events they see as terrorism. Most writers on terrorism ignore these events, sometimes saying that by definition governments cannot commit acts of terrorism or considering them to be "counter-terrorism", etc. So what an NPOV article should do is explain the dispute and which writers present which viewpoints. TFD (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I presume you imply that the article on Iran and state terrorism deserves the same treatment? Just the details of who debates whether or not Iran's actions constitute terrorism, with no mention of those actual actions whatsoever? That page merits consistency with this one. 184.74.184.210 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, "no mention of those actual actions whatsoever". We cannot describe the details of debates on whether actual actions were terrorism without mentioning the actions. While we should apply the same policy of neutrality to Iran, I am unfamiliar with the literature about Iran and state terrorism and therefore cannot comment on whether that article is neutral. TFD (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Drone Strikes?

I feel that another section should be added to this to talk about the state funded terrorism of predator drones in countries such as Pakistan and Yemen. According to a report by NYU/Stanford, the US has killed hundreds of civilians to further its goals, and employs 'secondary strikes' that kill rescue workers and family members who go to assist the injured. This is done to strike fear into the rescue workers and other bystanders who would normally have gone to help victims. Drones have also been known to strike funerals of the victims, keeping the family members of the dead from being able to properly morn their dead relatives.

Along with that, drones hover above villages in Pakistan and Yemen, 24 hours a day. This causes terror in the citizens who live there, because they do not know when another drone might strike down and kill either them, their family or destroy their homes. I believe that this would fit the definition of terrorism as it is violence on civilian populations that is intended to terrorize, and is done to further political interests. Does anyone else agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.129.250.194 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC) a source -> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/opinion/the-drone-that-killed-my-grandson.html?_r=0

You need a source that interprets these actions as state terrorism. However since whether state terrorism is a meaningful concept is controversial, to be neutral the posting must discuss who considers it state terrorism and why, and who disagrees, rather than a narrative of events. TFD (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Terrorism#Types_of_terrorism -> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/20/press-freedoms-manning-risen

Neither of your sources says that the drone strikes are "state terrorism". That is based on a definition of state terrorism in Wikipedia (which is not a reliable source for other Wikipedia articles) and an article about the drone strikes. Putting two sources together to form a conclusion not made in either of them is WP:synthesis and not permitted in articles. TFD (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I've a problem with this sentence in the lead: "However, little of this work has been recognized by other scholars of terrorism or even of state terrorism." What exactly is meant by 'recognized'? Ought it say 'agree'? What exactly does the cited text say? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lead

I've a problem with this sentence in the lead: "However, little of this work has been recognized by other scholars of terrorism or even of state terrorism." What exactly is meant by 'recognized'? Ought it say 'agree'? What exactly does the cited text say? Gob Lofa (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It means what it says. Terrorism researchers seldom include the research of scholars on state terrorism and the United States in their writing. Incidentally you need to set up a discussion thread if you want editors to discuss a merger of US and state-sponsored terrorism into this article. Before you do that, you may wish to consider that they are distinct subjects. One involves the US sponsoring terrorist groups overseas. This article is about the US allegedly acting in violation of international law, i.e., state terrorism, a concept that most terrorism scholars reject. TFD (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

content fork created

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

United States and state-sponsored terrorism

The link to this article was deleted in June in the American terrorism page.

Replaced by this content fork.

Thewhitebox (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The topics are distinct; one refers to terrorism sponsored by the United states, and the other to "State-terrorism" committed by the United States. There is more than enough content for both pages, and a merge makes no sense. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There are a world of difference between state terrorism and state sponsored terrorism. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose A reading of the two articles shows that they cover distinct topics. TFD (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger?

Gouncbeatduke, you tagged this page for merging with another without providing any rationale, and without beginning a discussion about it. Please do so. Also, please note the the discussion above established a consensus about the articles being distinct 8 months ago; I don't really see that anything has changed since then. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I removed the merger thing because no explanation was provided. TFD (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, friend. I removed the tag on the other page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

india

delhe is the most polluted city in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAAZ000 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Um, so what? Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

El Salvador

User S0mewhat Damaged05 requested the addition of the following content in the article.Rupert Loup (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Forget it.--S0mewhat Damaged05 (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)