Talk:United States and state terrorism

-

It has been proposed below that United States and state terrorism be renamed and moved to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.

The proposed move should have been noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
Discussion to support or oppose the move should be on this talk page, under the heading "Title". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the page move is reached, please move the article and remove this notice, or request further assistance.

Maintenance Use Only: {{subst:WP:RM|United States and state terrorism|Allegations of state terrorism by the United States|}}

Fad

I find it sad, and disgusting, that civilized people would engage in this anti-Americanism fad. Every single person who is defending this article knows full-well that they are motivated by a political agenda, and that this article does not belong in a NEUTRAL encyclopedia. I hope one day, probably after GWB is out of office, most of you wake up from your blind fad. I guess the United States is the only nation that sponsors terrorism, right? Garric 05:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

• You probably wanted to say:

removed pointless trolling

Wow, couldn't have said it better. Well done, Nescio.

1) Re "Anti-Amricanism": "The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships [...] Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise." 2) Do you deny the events listed here occured? Do you deny that civilians were the targets? Do you deny that the intent of these actions was to persuade governments or populations to take a certain course of action or oust democratically elected governments when they persued policies not in line with the interests of Washington? 3) There are indeed pages for other state sponsors of terrorism and the acts they've committed LamontCranston 20:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Garric, this isnt really the place to discuss this in a forum like fashion, nor belittle those who subscribe to some of the theory presented. While I agree that the article has serious pov problems, and I have opinions about the very slanted pov pushing that goes on here, as well the original research and synthesis of materials present, the correct action is to edit the article and make it npov, or failing that put the article up for deletion. FWIW, I think this article COULD be useful and accurately describe some of the terrorist allegations against the US. In its current form though, its a piece of slop that has been shaped into an anti-american manifesto and is example of the worst of wiki(which is truly a shame). Dman727 10:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out brutal state policies is Anti-American? LamontCranston 20:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I have not made such an assertion. The ARTICLE in its current form of being out of context, inaccurate, inventive and highly pov certainly is. As I referenced, there is a place in wiki(and beyond) for pointing "brutal state policies" of the US and other states. Indeed it could be done fairly and informatively in this very article. As it is however, , the article is highly radicalized and in the end betrays its purpose. Dman727 11:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not made such an assertion? Dude, wtf! You called it "an anti-american manifesto", are you now denying making such an assertion? As for context, do tell what is the right context for explaining state terrorism - negating it every step of the way with claims of doing it for a greater good? With the exception of the linking to Operation Northwood, these are solid facts presented in the article. LamontCranston 21:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lamont, you very well know that this article is a crock, why blindly defend it like this? You have no one to convince except yourself. Garric 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What here is incorrect? School of the Americas? The actions of men like Orlando Bosch & Luis Posada Carriles? The findings of the Church Committee? The Nicaragua vs. United States of America ICJ trial? Operation Gladio? Operation Ajax? Operation PBSUCCESS? Operation Mongoose? Operation Phoenix? Operation Condor? The Strategy of Tension? Point it out man! Aside from Operation Northwood, what here is exaggerated? Point it out man!

Are you saying these things never happened, it's all an anti-American lie perpetrated by people who hate America because they can't understand its inherent decency & innate moral superiority?

Or are you saying they did happen but are exaggerated, justifiable and just how innocent were these so-called civilians anyway? [the people killed when Bosch & Carriles blew up Cubaba Flight 455 were all Cuban, so naturally they can't be all that innocent. Same goes when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655: Iranian Muslims – a contradiction to call them innocent civilians.]

LamontCranston 03:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid this page like the plague as it is pointless to run a marathon in knee deep shit, but this has gone on too long.

• Orlando Bosch & Luis Posada Carriles: Did Bosch or Carriles work for the CIA when he bombed Flight 455? Oh that’s right, they didn’t, in fact they were glad that the CIA was taking heat for it because it drew the attention off them.
• Nicaragua vs. United States of America ICJ trial: Did the IJC mention the FSLN’s support of the FMLN and ELN who were involved in pretty much the same activities as the Contras? Of course not, because after all, the Sandinistas were only victims, never perpetrators of “State Supported Terrorism”
• Operation Gladio: here’s a sweet one if you ask me, the rantings of “9/11 Scholar for Truth” Danielle “why did 4000 Jews stay home that day” Ganser. Yeah … real credible.
• The Strategy of Tension: see above, pure, unadulterated Ganser bullshit.
• Operation Ajax: The overthrow of an pro-Soviet Iranian dictator during the height of the cold war, what a freakin travesty.
• Operation Condor: OMFG! How terrible of us to relay the communications of Latin American countries facing Cuban and Soviet sponsored insurgencies! The Humanity … Oh the HUMANITY!!!!
• Operation Mongoose: WTF were we thinking! Attempting to undermine a communist dictatorship 90 miles from Florida that was letting the Soviets place short and medium range nuclear missles on its soil.. I blame the fascist AmeriKKKan government for allowing this insanity.
• Operation Phoenix: fighting VC guerrillas with their own tactics? Sheer madness!
• Operation PBSUCCESS: Well … that was pretty shitty I guess.
• Carlos The Jackle: Oh ... wait ...The Cubans and Bulgarians were responsible for him ... move along ... nothing to see here ... just swallow the Red Pill and pretend you didn’t read this
• Iran Air Flight 655: So right you are on this one, in fact I remember watching the video of the bridge after they found out it was a civilian airline the cheers and hoots were almost deafaning ... Oh wait ...they were all pretty stunned ... in fact sickened to realize they just killed a couple hundred people ... move along ... nothing to see here

So yes, we are saying that most of the content of this page is unadulterated garbage from equally dubious sources.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The above section "Fad" does not belong on this talk page. I vote that we remove it as trolling.Giovanni33 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Operation Gladio: here’s a sweet one if you ask me, the rantings of “9/11 Scholar for Truth” Danielle “why did 4000 Jews stay home that day”"

&

• "The Strategy of Tension: see above, pure, unadulterated Ganser bullshit." - You don't actually know what they are, do you? Nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or the conspiracy nonsense that has cropped up around it [nice way to attempt to smear by association btw], I've no idea why you've confused them, its something that occurred in Europe, Italy specifically, decades earlier. Please go and read.
• "Operation Ajax: The overthrow of an pro-Soviet Iranian dictator during the height of the cold war, what a freakin travesty." - Check the facts, democratically elected, but speaking of dictatorships what was the Prime Minister & Parliament replaced with...A KING WITH ABSOLUTE POWER, you've no right to complain about anyone when that is what the US is going around putting in their stead. 'pro-Soviet': by that we mean he wished to pursue independent development rather than hand mineral resources [oil] over to Anglo-American corporations. So independence and use of resources for development is pro-Soviet, while a tyrannical Shah is pro-freedom and democracy and all that nice stuff?
• "Operation Condor: OMFG! How terrible of us to relay the communications of Latin American countries facing Cuban and Soviet sponsored insurgencies!" - organising and coordinating not just relaying communications, you really need to research these things TDC. They kind of shot themselves in the foot with this one when they blew up out the front of the State Department building a dissident who was out of Chile at the time of the coup d'etat and was making trouble by speaking out in western nations, had to tone things down after that, they also tried to put out a contract on Congressman Edward Koch.
• "Operation Mongoose: WTF were we thinking! Attempting to undermine a communist dictatorship 90 miles from Florida that was letting the Soviets place short and medium range nuclear missles on its soil.. I blame the fascist AmeriKKKan government for allowing this insanity." - They were doing this in response to US aggression, it's called a credible deterrent, there's no doubt about it being very insane but consider what drove them to it, at the 30th anniversary conference held in Havana, McNamara and the other Kennedy administration members who attended agreed that under the circumstances Cuba made the only choice available and they'd have done it too [at the conference it also came out the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to within a second of ultimate doom: American destroyers were attacking a Soviet submarine armed with nuclear torpedoes, 2 of the 3 officers on board capable of giving the launch order believed that war had started and they were required - as well as invoking national honour and all that baloney - to fire the nuclear torpedoes at those attacking them, had they done this what do you suppose the American response would have been?].
• "Operation Phoenix: fighting VC guerrillas with their own tactics? Sheer madness!" - Well now here you are in agreement regarding the US targeting civilian population, to the tune of at least 6,000 people killed, no need to be a smartarse about it though.
• "Operation PBSUCCESS: Well … that was pretty shitty I guess." - Why do you say that? You support all these other actions, no doubt plenty of others not listed here too. The official story for PBSUCCESS was the same as all the others here [in reality Guatemalas crime was agrarian reform modelled on the United States 1862 Homestead Act designed to improve the lot of individual farming families. Although extremely limited in scope, just check the wiki page for everything that was exempt, it was naturally something that annoyed folks like United Fruit], Operation Ajax was even used as a blueprint for PBSUCCESS. So why a problem with this when its the same as all the rest? Maybe you've somehow managed to do some serious reading on PBSUCCESS.
• "Iran Air Flight 655: So right you are on this one, in fact I remember watching the video of the bridge after they found out it was a civilian airline the cheers and hoots were almost deafaning ... Oh wait ...they were all pretty stunned ... in fact sickened to realize they just killed a couple hundred people ... move along ... nothing to see here" - They didn't mind being in Iranian territorial waters at the time they did it, you didn't explain how other US ships in the area were able to clearly identify it as a civilian airliner - in a commercial corridor, they didn't mind the heroes welcome they got, they didn't mind the medals they got, they didn't mind the Navy Department cover-up that cleared them of any responsibility, they didn't mind Bush I declaring "I will never apologize for the United States of America—I don’t care what the facts are", did any of them speak up when Iran retaliated with Pan Am 103 later that year?

So we have one where you can't account for the treatment they receive, two cases of mistaken identity, three cases of severely negating what occurred, another where you wallow in a psychopath-esque admittance of what happened which I gotta say is a little creepy and its up their with al-Qaeda guys boasting and laughing about 9/11, another where you admit it was actually the wrong thing to do. The same TDC we've grown to know and love. LamontCranston 08:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Under Construction

Cold we return to the relevant portion of the debate. Please this is not a blog, soapbox or any other nice way to vent your oinions. Returning to this article can we debate the points raised and use arguments to explain why we think something is or is not terrorism. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The lastest edit conflict [1] was with this version, which was a compromised version that had gained some consensus:

"Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of state terrorism based on the verdict by International Court of Justice condemning the United States Government for its "unlawful use of force."

"The claimants say the U.S. is hypocritical because Government regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism."

VS: This version:

"Noam Chomsky argues the U.S. is guilty of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice found it guilty of unlawful use of force."

"The claimants say this is hypocritical because the U.S. Government regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism."

I've asked that we talk about this conflict but the other side claims in the edit summary this has already been discussed. I don't see such discussion. Maybe he can point it out? For me there are two issues that makes the first version better. One is the issue is one of better phrasing. For examples, repeating the word guilty is poor English "US is guilty of...because found it guilty of...", and the use of "it" instead of naming the US, which makes the point clear. The other more important reason is accuracy. To claim that just Chomsky argues this is misleading and false. Its a POV articulated strongly by Chomsky, hence his being mentioned as a respresentative of this POV, but its just Chomsky.Giovanni33 16:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I still support the first sentence in the first version, but for it to say "Some scholars", we need to cite somebody else in addition to Chomsky. I think that's the main objection. I support the second sentence in the second version because it's written better, although the meaning is identical. - Merzbow 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is a typo for the second sentence in the first version.It should read, "The claimants say the U.S. Government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism." I agree we should add more sources, but I wonder if that is the real basis or only objection. If we add another source, I suspect some editors will still oppose it. I guess I'd like to see the editors who opposed the edit state taht this is the issue, and thus we can have the article unprotceted by adding a source. If so that is easily remedied as there are multiple sources besides Chomsky that can be used. Giovanni33 18:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are other scholars who have made this claim, I would like to see who they are and exactly what they said. We might be glossing over a lot of varying opinion with 'some scholars say...' Also, the page needs be restored to the consensus-supported name, 'Allegations of...' Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there are many writers to choose from. I'd say that Dr. Frederick H. Gareau who holds a Ph.D. in international relations and organizations from American University, Washington, DC, as well as in political science from the University of Geneva might be a good second to pick as a source. He is full professor at Florida State University and author of The United Nations and Other International Insitutions: A Critical Analysis as well as an extensive number of articles and conference reports. The book in particular that makes these claims supporting the Chomsky POV is entitled" STATE TERRORISM and the UNITED STATES. An abstract can be found here: [2]. Some other writers expressing this POV for example are: [3] Should the United States Renounce Terrorism? See: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html; FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO IRAQ: A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS, and http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/foreign.html: Terrorism as Foreign Policy.Giovanni33 00:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to cite Dr. Seuss.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 06:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't but I'm glad you are sharing your reading material with us. I'm not suprised.Giovanni33 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly do they say? Do they in fact "argue the U.S. is guilty of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice found it guilty of unlawful use of force?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I never argue that, and that is not the wording that I support. The US is guilty of state terrorism because it commits acts that qualify as state terrorism per every definition that we have, and the instance of the ICJ ruling is a case where the US was found legally guilty of committing such acts, which these scholars identify as state terrorism (which the courts call "unlawful use of force,' and 'in violation of international law," etc.Giovanni33 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't support that wording, why did you revert to it?[4] When you reverted there, you undid the reference formating I added to your own citations, and undid a spelling correction I made as well. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not revert to it. I reverted to "Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of state terrorism based on the verdict by International Court of Justice condemning the United States Government for its "unlawful use of force." Although subtle, its quite different in meaning if you look at the wording you reverted to, which is simply not accurate, and not the wording I support, as explained above. Your spelling error, as fixed, btw, when I reverted you, since it was only introduced by you after you reverted all my changes, and added in only those references, but mispelled them. Since my revert included those references spelled correctly, this point is rather moot.Giovanni33 06:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That and that the U.S. is naughty. That sums it up I think.--MONGO 07:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Naughty is putting it mildly. Criminal is more like it.Giovanni33 09:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that Marshall Plan was pure terrorism.--MONGO 21:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have support for that claim? I think you are confusing terrorism with imperialism. There is some overlap but the two are quite distinct things, esp. for the kind of economic imperialism that you cite.Giovanni33 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It was an imperialist terrorist scheme to make them dependent, and sap their will to defend themselves, or even reproduce. Good thing that plan failed, huh? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you changed your idea of the Marshal Plan from plain dollar imperialism to terrorism, so while its on topic (perhaps create another section for this), do you have any sources that make such a claim? I really think you have a fundamental confusion about the two very different subject matters. Remember this is not a place for OR. Of course, I am assuming good faith with the seriousness of your comments here.Giovanni33 23:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a bit off topic since this article is not about imperialism, but terrorism. Can we stay on topic?Giovanni33 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you have to prove terrorism first...all you have is the opinions of a few well know radicals...who cares. This reminds me of arguments with UFO believers, etc. Cherry picking "facts" to support an a priori premise.--MONGO 05:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not for me to prove, as a matter of fact. That would be OR. It is only for me to prove this is a notable POV as articulated by scholars such as Noam Chomsky and others, and thus we can state such as a fact, as evidenced by the sources. And, who cares? I do, and as many others around the world, even if you call them "radicals." Maybe you dismiss their well grounded and scholary work, but many people, including myself, don't. Lets not impose our own biases here. If you dispute their allegations of fact, then please cite a reputable source of us to include as a balancing opinion in the body of the article. That would be fine. The conflict, again, is to state that just Chomsky says this, as opposed to "some scholars, such as Chomsky..." which implies this is a point of view not unique to Chomsky, which is accurate.Giovanni33 07:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky is a Linguistics expert...not a global terrorism expert. His opinions are no more noteworthy than anyone elses on this subject matter. That no unified group, the UN or other recognized governmental body has agreed with his and the very very few other's radical viewpoints such as his, puts the onus on you to come up with substantial evidence that isn't riddled with your a priori premises. I strongly recommend this article be restored to the correct title which is "Allegations of state terorism by the United States". Your strawman arguments won't work here.--MONGO 07:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with moving the article back to the original "Allegations..." name. - Merzbow 07:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no straw man argument, except on one your making now. I stated what the argument was, and its you who keeps shifting it away from the issue at hand. Now you are attacking Chomsky as a credible source. Sorry, wrong argument. That is the straw man. You were reverting to "Chomsky says,' if you don't think he has a right to be heard on this subject matter, then why revert to what he says? This is not an excuse to deny that other scholars such as Chomsky also have the POV that the "unlawful acts" in "violation of international law," etc. that the court found the US guilty of were in fact actions of state sponored terrorism. I've provided the sources, and its a vew that is rather noteable, and published in many books on the subject. You may want to exclude Chomsky's views to only linguistics, but he has written many well regarded and researched books on the subject of State Terrorism of the US, and he is recognized for his political commentary and analysis, as much as for his theories in linguistics. Moreover, I cited another scholar above, Dr. Gareau, whose academic area of research, is international relations and politics. Sorry, you don't get to say "so what," and dismiss these arguments, or change the issue. As you say, strawman arguments won't work here.Giovanni33 07:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question: Do you also edit under the name Nomen Nescio?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 16:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we keep encountering each other it is unfortunate your style of debating (ignoring facts that might sway your distorted view of reality) has matured into making allegations that are totally unwaranted. I find your repeated and unsupported accusations offensive and you are more than welcome to retract that allegation. After you have done that you might take some time to read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Cheers Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking to you, or was I? Did you lose track?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 14:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop being clever, you clearly suggest I am a sockpuppet, or using one. That is a not-cool thing to do and I am waiting for your retracting. There is some space following this comment. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What about prof Frederick H. Gareau (PhD in international relations and organizations from American University, Washington, DC, as well as a licence in political science from the University of Geneva) and his book State Terrorism and the United States[5]? Or Michael Mandel (professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Canada) in How America Gets Away With Murder? // Liftarn

For what statement do you want to use them as sources? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That there are other scholars who have made this claim. // Liftarn

What claim exactly? As I asked above, do they "argue the U.S. is guilty of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice found it guilty of unlawful use of force?" Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I answered that question above with sources of the claim by other scholars whose academic area of expertise is international relations and pol. sci.Giovanni33 00:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You avoided answering, said it wasn't wording you supported, and restated your position. Kind of like here. I have asked a couple of times now who these scholars are, what exactly they say. Who besides Chomsky argues "the U.S. is guilty of state terrorism because the International Court of Justice found it guilty of unlawful use of force?" I'm beginning to think the answer is just Giovanni33. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did answer you, and your question's premise is wrong. Not even Chomsky argues that. its the wording that you put in the article, which is not acurate. The wording that I've tried to restore is an accurate reflection of the sources. Once again, the US is guilty of state terrorism because it commits acts that qualify as state terrorism per every definition that we have, and the instance of the ICJ ruling is a case where the US was found legally guilty of committing such acts, which these scholars identify as state terrorism (which the courts call "unlawful use of force,' and 'in violation of international law," etc Note how this is quite different than "Us is guilty of...because the ICJ found it guilty." That is too simplistic and finding guilty is not the reason for being guilty--its only a legal finding that establishes the factual basis and legitimacy of the charges presented for examination. Those actions examined fit the definition of state terrorism per the various authors cited above, and that is the point supported by the cited references. They are all there for you to read and verify for yourself.Giovanni33 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I look forward to seeing exactly what it is you want to put in the article, and what the citations are for it. There is clearly no point in asking you here, or else no point in you telling me, so I will wait and see what edit you make to the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no mystery. The version I compromised with, is per talk, and which you reverted. I assume you reverted becaues it lacked a source other than Chomsky, which I'm happy to supply. The wording is: "Some scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of state terrorism based on the verdict by International Court of Justice condemning the United States Government for its "unlawful use of force."Giovanni33 04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Chomsky thinks that terrorism is justified if done by the right people. "In fact, Chomsky was well aware of the degree of violence that communist regimes had routinely directed at the people of their own countries. At the 1967 New York forum he acknowledged both 'the mass slaughter of landlords in China' and 'the slaughter of landlords in North Vietnam' that had taken place once the communists came to power. His main objective, however, was to provide a rationalization for this violence, especially that of the National Liberation Front then trying to take control of South Vietnam. Chomsky revealed he was no pacifist.

I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified."[6]

"Yet Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented."[7]Ultramarine 15:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is off topic as this is about your opinion regarding Chomsky being even handed with respect to his expose of crimes of other states. The US mainstream media already does a good job at that while turning a blind eye to US crimes, so its good we have scholars like Chomsky who can put some balance back in and hold the US accountble to the same standards it applies to others. Also, this charge contains a logical fallacy, as pointing out what others do, does not negate the validity of the argument against the US. Giovanni33 00:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky has been extremely biased as the above link shows, both regarding the states he favors and those he disapprove of. Regarding the US mainstream media, studies have found that it has a bias exactly opposite of what you describe. It reports too much from nations where the US is involved, and to little from other nations. For example, by far the bloodiest recent conflict was the Second Congo War, involving 8 nations and causing millions of civilian deaths, which was almost completely ignored by the media.Ultramarine 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has bias, including you and me. So what? US media report based on its own biases, too, which often serve the agendas and interests of the elites of which they are a part of. Your example serves my very point. The genocide in the Congo is off the radar, but not Darfur, for example. Asking why is important and the answer has to do with the kind of selective reporting that the US media has always done, reflecting those same very biases, you are accusing Chomsky of. Well, as I said, his reporting is a good corrective balance to the mainstream medias own ideological filters. In either case, none of this invalidates the factual basis of any particular story.Giovanni33 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the article now give the misleading impression that the US does disproptionately much violence, while in fact empirical research on democide shows that the US government, as all democracies, do comparatively little external and internal violence. Also, much of the article is OR, with no backing in the sources that anyone has even claimed that these events were "state terrorism".Ultramarine 13:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Cambodia under the communists" - As opposed to the United States favouring the Khmer Rouge following Communist Vietnam ousting them from power in 1979. LamontCranston 12:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

Restore to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

1. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Dchall1 13:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
3. (second choice)  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Merzbow 16:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
5. (second choice)--MONGO 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
6. (2nd choice) Dman727 20:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
7. (second choice) Tbeatty 02:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
8. (2nd choice) - JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
9. (Second Choice) -- Yaf 04:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
10. 2nd choice (it's facts, not "allegations") // Liftarn
11. 2nd Choice. Per Liftarn, this article is about facts, not just "allegations."Giovanni33 10:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Option b. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
13. No evidence has been presented that any international body has accused the United States of "state terrorism". It is only the allegations of some writers, Chomsky in particular.Ultramarine 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
14. 2nd choice, see note below. --Leifern 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
15. 2nd. Arkon 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
16. 2nd choice. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Wandalstouring 08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
18. (Second choice.) Horologium t-c 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
19. second choice. csloat 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
20. First choice because the change of name to accusation of .. or allegations of... will be more easily defended against the inevitable repeated attempts to remove the page. DGG 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
21. 2nd choice - Crockspot 14:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
22. 2nd choice I'd rather see this article eliminated, but if it continues to pollute Wikipedia with its garbage, this title violates NPOV a little bit less than the current one. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
23. 2nd choice If we keep the POV title, Wikipedia is putting all it's (doubtful) authority behind the statement that the U.S. practices State Terrorism. <sarcasm>Yeah, spouting nonsense like this will really help Wikipedia's reputation.</sarcasm> Not! CWC 03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
24. 2nd choice --Strothra 18:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
25. First choice - per User:DGG. -- Petri Krohn 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
26. First choice Edison 22:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
27. --MichaelLinnear 03:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
28. This title is an obvious POV fork, as it implies that the United States government is a terrorist organization. None of the people making the allegation have the authority to declare the United States as a terrorist organization. They are only making allegations, so the article should be titled appropiately. —Sefringle^Talk 02:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
29. 2nd choice, since I find it odd that groups like Hamas that have a far larger international consensus for being labelled "terrorist" cannot be (rightly so), and yet the far less accepted minority positions presented here allow for just that labelling. Tewfik^Talk

Keep State terrorism by the United States

1. Divestment 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)— Divestment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
2. id keep it the name it is, cause its not about allegations ( leas the way it reads)Charred Feathers 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep (1st choice) I'm ok either way but have a preference for keeping the title as it is simply because allegations is a weaker term and most of the facts presented in this article go far beyong mere accusation, to established facts and legal court verdicts. Since this article does list actual acts of state terrorism--not simply those who make accusations--this title is best. If it were the latter, then this article would get much much larger. So far those additions of well known allegations have not been allowed in. I don't see this article is an allegations article, but a neutral description of established facts that no one denies.Giovanni33 09:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   Which court or international body has used the term "state terrorism"?Ultramarine 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

4. Keep (1st choice) // Liftarn
5. Keep name since it has been established the US took part in terrorism activities known today as Operation Condor, it is difficult to see why we are no allowed to call a spade a spade. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   Who has established that it was "state terrorism"?Ultramarine 15:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   Considering that it's been established that the School of the Americas was not terrorism and the U.S. involvement in Operation Condor was not terrorism, I suspect you will want to change your mind to Delete? --Tbeatty 06:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

6. Keep. When something has been established in a court it is no longer "alleged". As Nescio says, whether we like it or not, we need to call it what it is. --John 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   Which court has used the term "state terrorism"?Ultramarine 15:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   The ICJ. What do you think they refered to when they found the US guilty of "unalwful use of force" and of actions that "violate international law? We don't have to guess since they talk about those accusations which were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to the court. In fact, the US has admitted to mining the harbors. If you don't think this is state terrorism, pretell, what do you call it? Verdict for these actions? Guilty.Giovanni33 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   No, the ICJ (with questionable jurisdiction) only found the US guilty of "unlawful use of force" and of actions that "violate international law". Equating this verdict to state terrorism would be equivalent to accusing Japan of state terrorism for hunting whales, although I suppose the whales might consider whale hunting to be state terrorism :-) Yaf 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   They never mention "state terrorism". It is like claiming that all persons found guilty in courts of breaking the law are terrorists.Ultramarine 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   No, the analogies are false. State terrorism is a controversial term, and not widely accepted which lacks the kind of legal clarity as a concept the court would use in its verdict. Thus it uses the established legal description of "violating international law," "unlawful force," etc. State terrorism is not the kind of wording a court would use to describe what this article describes as state terrorism. But, if you look at the kind of actions that US was found guilty of when it used "unlawful force" and broke "international law," you will see that those actions ARE classic and perfect examples of state terrorism. A correct analogy would be the court found the person guilty of "unlawfully and intentionally killing a person," and we report that the court found the US guilty of murder. The actions that the court looked at and found the US guilty of are specific and clear, so that there is no mistake that the criminal actions its condemned the US for was state-terrorism--as the definition is accepted and used in this article. That is why we have sources that state such is the case. Hence, its not merely an accusation, or allegation--its a verfict of guilty legally established as fact. We can report on these as facts, not merely allegations.Giovanni33 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   P.S. The ICJ's juristiction is not questionable. The US only refused to recognize it after it had lost its argument. But it is binding and juristiction was not in quesiton or contested prior. See: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar05/Sanders0317.htmGiovanni33 22:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   If its not being recognized, then its questionable by definition. Dman727 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   For the guilty party to not recognize it after they lose, does not objectively make the issue questionable.Giovanni33 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   Doesnt matter. This isnt small claims court. the ICJ gains it power only through voluntary recognition of its participants. If its being questioned by its participants, then its questionable regardless of whether you think its objective. Dman727 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   Original research such as your own personal interpretation of what the court ruling means is not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 22:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   You need to review OR, then. Its not original, I'm not coming up with anything new; its NOT original research to report on what scholars say, and then fully cite this by reputable, reliable sources. Nor it is OR to make simple deductive inferences that are logical and follow from the premise. Such is the common usage of language on WP. But, even this is a moot point since we are reporting what sources say, connecting this obvious dots of FACT.Giovanni33 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research." -- WP:OR Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   This entire article is an exercise in WP:SYN. Most of the noteable incidents here already have their own articles and are covered there extensively. This is simply an extremist attempt to gather them all up and draw conclusions to fit one POV. Dman727 23:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   Its interesting how you leave out the part of the policy that makes for an exception to this, and thus its NOT OR per policy. Policy goes on to explain: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Because have reliable sources that has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article, it stands as acceptable. You may not agree with that perspective, and you are free to counter it by reporting another valid source that dispute it, however, all sources I've seen clearly identifies this "unlawful use of force" as in fact fitting with all accepted definitions of state sponorsed terrorism, and not one argues that this violation the US was found guilty of is something else other than state terrorism.Giovanni33 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   No judicial body has been presented which says that the court ruling means that the US committed state terrorism.Ultramarine 23:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   We have Chomsky saying that it is "international terrorism", but that is just his allegation, not a fact.Ultramarine 23:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   <outdent Giovanni33, do you want to say "Chomsky says..."? Reporting what Chomsky says is okay with me. I thought you wanted to say as a matter of fact that it was so. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, I want to say "some scholars, such as Chomsky, say..."But, it is a fact that these actions did occur, by whatever name you want to call it. Thus, there rise above mere someone making allegations. These are various descriptions of undisputed facts, which according to the definition we use, are actions of state sponored terrorism--ofcourse according to sources. But to attribute these facts to sources does not make then any less facts. That fact that we don't have any other opinion about it per the sources, futher underscores the point.Giovanni33 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   Not a fact that it was state terrorism, allegations, which is what this discussion is about.Ultramarine 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   Giovanni33, I only care about what you want to put in the article. So far, I have seen no citations to other scholars making the argument you want to attribute to them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   I did cite several other sources above, with links. I think you have seen then, and if not, nothing is stopping you from reading for yourself.Giovanni33 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   I think it qualifies as a fact, not opinion. Unless you can show me a counter argument that disputes this logical connection.Giovanni33 00:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   Again, see the above argument regarding OR. Also regarding Chomsky, he is speaking outside his academic field. Regarding the quote in the article it is from a television interview. Just his personal opinion.Ultramarine 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   Point is moot since we cite other scholars who are not speaking outside their academic field, not to say Chomsky is not qualified to speak on the matter given his extensive published material and reasearch. And, besides the court case, there are various other claims of a factual nature, that are not mere opinion. Again, no one disputes these facts or offers another "opinion." They are as factual as the claim that the US committed acts of genocide against the Native Americans. Not opinion. Fact.Giovanni33 00:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   Many of Chomsky's political books are collections of interviews and similar material. While there were many atrocities against Native Americans, that the US government has a deliberate policy of genocide would be controversial Also genocide is not a controversial term, accpeted in the international justice system, state terrorism is an controversial term not accepted. That the US have supported various dictatorships and rebells is a fact, that this was "state terrorism" is allegations.Ultramarine 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   Repeatedly stating that something is "fact" when you have ten other editors telling you it's not so will not advance the discussion. - Merzbow 01:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   Giovanni33, unless it's something you want to put in the article, I don't care. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

7. Keep Lawarees 03:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)— lawarees (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
8. Strong Keep Stone put to sky 10:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Keep it as the most truthful description of the subject. Allegations my arse. The below votes for deletion are pointless as this isn't the procedure to get an article deleted. --Servant Saber 13:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Keep as is64.201.162.1 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Keep: I don't see much of a compelling argument to rename. It's just not enough. .V. _[Talk|Email] 16:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Keep — IMO, no need to move —Christopher Mann McKay^{user talk} 17:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Keep - I don't see much of an argument to rename either, but either this or the "allegations" name works for me.csloat 16:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Keep, Second choice, because the change of name to accusation of .. or allegations of... will be more easily defended against the inevitable repeated attempts to remove the page. DGG 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Keep as is I strongly oppose changing the name because of the ICJ ruling over the Nicaragua case. That's uncontroversial. Lixy 14:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Keep I am not a huge fan of these "polls."--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
17. Keep --Zache 21:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Keep VOTE CAST UNDER PROTEST.
    • This vote is premature and unproductive at this stage. In keeping with WP rules, the editors should attempt to identify the specific issues that this name change presents under the WP rules, and try to resolve in good faith those specific issues one by one. Then, if an impass is reached about the meaning of one or more WP rules after good faith attempt to reach agreement, then a mediator or arbitrator should be called in to help resolve those issues. None of us are elected representatives of anyone. Our views and votes should count for nothing per se, except in so far as we are making good faith arguments about WP rules. Why should it matter that one more person who happens to take position x has stumbled across this page?--NYCJosh 22:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
19. Second choice per per User:DGG. -- Petri Krohn 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
20. KEEP US is the biggest sponsor of state terrorism in the world, with the possible exception of Israel. InslnShock 14:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
21. Keep as is - the title isn't saying that the US is a terrorist, but proclaiming that that is what the article will discuss. Sfacets 05:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Do something else

1. Delete, (first choice)--MONGO 20:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Delete (first choice) --  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Delete (first choice) Tbeatty 02:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
4. Delete Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
5. Delete (1st choice) - JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Delete (1st choice) - Most all of the actual verified events discussed here could be their own article. As it is, this is simply a collection intended to create a wp:syn pov. Dman727 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Delete (first choice) - All of the content is from highly suspect sources with POV agendas (communist propaganda websites, etc. Clearly WP:SYN issues. Yaf 04:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   What happened to normal process, i.e. AfD? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   The normal AfD process has resulted in several clear keeps. The reasons stated for wanting to delete are clearly POV driven but I guess this makes people feel better. To me it amounts to advocating a type of virtual book burning. Shameful.Giovanni33 09:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   I'd appreciate links to the AfDs if you have them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   Its right on this talk page at the very top.Giovanni33 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   I see American terrorism closed as 'no consensus', and State terrorism by United States of America closed once as 'no consensus' and once as 'keep'; Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America closed once as 'keep' and once as 'speedy keep'. Are these what you choose to call 'several clear keeps'? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, they are clear keeps, several times, including one speedy keep. After an article has survived so many keeps, subsequent ones should just be speedy keeps.Giovanni33 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

   So what,Consensus can change. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

8. Delete, indubitably. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 12:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
9. Delete, first choice. Alleged crimes should be covered, but putting them under the blanket "terrorism" constitutes a double standard with respect to patently terrorist organizations such as Hamas, and actually dilutes the facts related to those crimes that have been alleged and/or committed. --Leifern 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
10. Delete - 1st. Arkon 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
11. Delete, 1st choice - Leifern said it well. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Delete This entire article pretty much hinges on three episodes: the Cuban flight, Nicaragua, and SOA. The first one does not demonstrate that the government ordered it, just that it might have ignored warnings. The second stems from peoples attempts to make "unlawful use of force"=terrorism based on Chomsky. The third might be true but actual evidence is lacking. CJK 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Delete (first choice). Without the writings of a linguist (discussing something far afield of his area of expertise), there is nothing here. Horologium t-c 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
14. Delete (first choice). - Crockspot 14:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
15. Lance this festering, diseased boil and cauterize with a white-hot branding-iron.--Mike18xx 07:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
16. Delete this nonsense Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
17. First choice. Classic example of why POV forks should be deleted instantly. Just sucks up time and energy of editors who could be improving useful articles; see the debate in the "Keep" section above for an example. CWC 03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
18. Delete, (first choice)--Strothra 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    Hello, this is not the process for deleting a page, and some of you well seasoned editors should know better. It is an attempted end-run around WP rules, unless you are simply venting your frustration by casting votes in a non-binding process with no effect.--NYCJosh 22:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    Agreed. The above "vote" is inappropriate. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sure both the deletes and the keeps realise that this is not an AfD. This seems to me to be an attempt at clarifying where everyone stands so that some new consensus can perhaps be reached. Tewfik^Talk 05:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

19. Delete first choice--Sefringle^Talk 02:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
20. That said, my first choice would be to delete the current presentation of information and rewrite to support a neutral thesis, though I suppose the inevitable removal of the large amounts of OR might have the same effect. Tewfik^Talk 05:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Is this inappropriate canvassing? [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] I also object to the reference to "the nationalists on the page," which seems to use people's affiliations to discredit their views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison, weren't you accused by User:NuclearUmpf, along with MONGO, Morton, and Tbeatty of regularly e-mailing each other offline? 69.152.137.187 23:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I havent a clue about whether people email each other, but the above canvasing is certainly inappropriate. Dman727 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Need for a New Page

Actually, the problem here is simple: there are many, many more accusations of terrorism by the United States than are being presented here. I propose, therefore, that we create that page that so many here have been calling for: the one called "Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States", wherein we present all allegations against the United States -- regardless of their perceived validity, slant, or merit -- as opposed to those which appear herein, and have been clearly substantiated and verified.

For instance, there are many allegations against the U.S. by states such as Zimbabwe (Mugabe, IMO, is a simple thug), N Korea (an embattled and marginalized dictatorship), Libya, China, Russia, and other State governments that are widely viewed as mere propaganda, posturing, or openly hypocritical and irrelevant to serious debate. By creating a page that lists these, i think we'd be able to please everyone here: we could separate the chaff from the wheat and demonstrate the clear, unarguable difference between the events described here (which are based in fact, widely disparaged by citizens of the United States, and openly contrary to the established principles on which most citizens of the U.S. think their government does or should operate) and the rather silly allegations and charges that marginalized states often level.

It would allow us all to make a clear distinction between the objections of a group like, say, Amnesty International, when it condemns U.S. and British complicity or inaction in the 1970s Ugandan genocide, in contrast to the claims of someone like Idi Amin, who sought to divert blame from himself onto the handlers who brought him to power. Clearly, one source is much more believable and valuable than the other.

Regardless, the page as it currently stands is clearly based in fact; ALL of the various objections and complaints currently being aired have withstood the challenge of re-examination many, many times over. Many of these facts have been posted on this board for nearly half a decade. In that time they have survived unremitting, tendentious assaults, all the while receiving clear and unambiguous endorsement by hundreds -- if not thousands -- of conscientious and skilled wikipedia editors and *-ops.

Meanwhile, of the editors currently protesting the current manifestation of this article, Devonshire, TDC and MONGO have each been the recipients of equally clear and unambiguous disciplinary action for their political posturing and abuse of the wiki system. Several of their comrades have been summarily banned from the Wiki pages, most notably among them "NuclearUmpf", who was herein an earlier protagonist of similar behavior. Tom Harrison -- like a few of the others who pop in from time to time -- has never ceased to join this group in calling for the deletion of this page.

This is all very tragic, i think. The fact that this page has received the overwhelming endorsement from the International wiki community is lost on these few. They seem completely numb to the possibility that their own viewpoints are wildly skewed from mainstream, international opinion, and -- unfortunately for those of us who try to maintain this page -- are utterly incapable of reconsidering their own nationalist, partisan sentiments.

The arguments to remove or further water-down this article are vapid and without merit, nor is there any justification for the qualifiers and obsequies currently being promoted. Those who insist on these qualifiers have, many times over, confirmed their utter rejection of this article's very existence -- as they do once again, above, in what is apparently a cynical challenge to firmly established, uncontroversial wikipedia protocol.

The insistence upon "contextualizing" behavior which clearly runs against the agreed upon laws, principles and morality of the wider American people is absurd. The insistence that clearly defined words like "terrorism" may not be applied to widely reported events is absurd. Moreover, any objections that it is the duty of wiki readers to accept -- against all verifiable facts, interpretation, and recorded experience -- unsubstantiated suspicions, opinions and prejudices is absurd.

These last couple of weeks i have seen from this crew -- MONGO, Devonshire, TDC, Harrison, and the people who chime in with them -- nothing more than a series of weak rhetorical postures, not a single one of which is based in any form of fact or substantiation. There have been no challenges to the facts presented, only assertions that these widely reported and analyzed events are not "factual" enough. There have been no demonstrations of an error in research, only repeated accusation that the arguments are invalid. Nor has there been any serious challenge to the sources and archives of these facts and events, but instead a litany of misbegotten opinions that claim to a wide social omniscience.

Instead of solidly argued, fact-based challenges of the ideas, sources and events presented here, we are instead being treated to an energetic exercise in content-free medial "spin" by people who apparently think history was acted out and written by men and women who composed their ideas with an 8th grade vocabulary pruned to 20 second sound-bites. It's a shame that my fellow countrymen feel so fearful as to seek the constraint and limitation of soundly argued, free spirited reasoning, and no doubt a shame that has the true american patriots of bygone years spinning in their various graves. Stone put to sky 10:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the WP:NPA policy before you post again.--MONGO 10:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support. That is an excellent idea which I fully support. We can have an allegations page that is much more expansive than this narrow list of verified and unrefuted acts of state terrorism. The page can be broader too, such as "Allegations of Crimes against Humanity by the United States?" Or, "Crimes against Peace," "War crimes," etc. If an allegations page is what is called for then lets create them. Certainly we have lots of allegations to report.Giovanni33 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is not a single "verified and unrefuted acts of state terrorism" on this page, only allegations.Ultramarine 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, "Crime against the Peace", as I understand it, is a specific and very grave crime under the Nuremberg Principles: it is the crime of launching a war of aggression (a war that is not defensive in nature). It is generally considered worse than terrorism. I would support creation of a page about Wars of Aggression, limited to those launched by the US or more general. Obvious examples are the German attack on Poland in WWII.

Another interesting possible article would be the pretexts used by countries to start wars to justify and sell the war. The Third Reich dressed up soldiers in Polish uniforms to stage an "attack" against Germany, which "justified" the German invasion. Similarly, the non-existent "Gulf of Tonkin incident" was the pretext to justify and sell the US war against Vietnam, the "threat" posed by non-existent Iraqi WMD was the pretext used for invading Iraq, the non-existent "horror" of the Iraqis pulling infants out of incubators and the "threat" posed by non-existent Iraqi tanks in the desert near the Saudi border in 1990 justified the first Gulf War, decades-long CIA asset Manuel Noriega's involvement in the drug trade was the justification for invading the sovereign country of Panama and hauling to courts in the US its head of state, etc. etc. In short, the pretexts offered would make for a very informative article and reveal an interesting pattern. The article could also highlight reasons for the wars proposed by analysts other than those officially offered.--NYCJosh 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait ... I have to know, for clarification’s sake. If the US’s sponsoring of Guatemalan “death squads” constitutes “state terrorism”, does Cuban sponsoring/training of the PFLP or the FARC constitute “state terrorism”? And how exactly would I work a narrative into an article on State terrorism by Cuba?

Comportment

I'd like to see some proof that I have been one of the "recipients of equally clear and unambiguous disciplinary action for their political posturing and abuse of the wiki system"--MONGO 10:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Were you not de-sysopped?

Further, i have read the WP:NPA. It states that "epithets...dismissing or discrediting [someone's] views [through attacking their affiliations]...Threats of legal action...violence...vandalism...[or] which expose editors to persecution...[or]...Insulting or disparaging an editor" qualify as a general outline of what a "personal attack" might be.

Please point out where my words above qualify under any of these measures -- or even something less obvious, unlisted by the WP:NPA but clearly in its spirit. As i have said: i will be happy to reconsider what i have written if you will simply point out to me where it is that i have erred.

I have no problem apologizing. It seems odd to me that i have had to ask four times, now, for clarification. If the offense is so clear as to warrant action, it seems to me that you could have merely stated it clearly and it would already be removed by now. Do you have some reason for not clarifying? Stone put to sky 11:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I was not desysopped for political abuse...that is a lie. Yes, you did above and have several other times recently Insulted and disparaged an editor (more than one editor), naming others by name, and trying to discredit them instead of their arguments. This has been discussed with you now several times.--MONGO 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even know you were desysopped! Show you how much I've been following the internal politics of WP. So, what did you do wrong, Mongo, to get in trouble and lose your sys op status? I looked around but could not find it. Sorry if this is off topic (but a lot of this page is rather off topic, I think). I know that for an admin to de-sysoped another is very rare. I guess it must have been a serious violation?Giovanni33 18:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is not relevant here. - Merzbow 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? Then perhaps i'm wrong. Would you like to explain why you were de-sysopped? Please correct me if my assumption is wrong, but it seems to me that being de-sysopped quite clearly implies that your responsibilities were -- after repeated warnings, and in what was considered quite a rare action by the sys-op board (i'm sorry, but i don't know their official title) -- revoked because of mis-use.

Further, i would like to protest that i have not "insulted and disparaged" anyone personally. I am very scrupulous about that. There have been repeated threats made against me, by quite a few of the posters here -- TDC, you, and Devonshire in particular (and your friend from long ago, NuclearUmpf) -- but i have tried quite diligently to avoid making any sort of personal attack.

Finally, i would like to say how i think it very odd you have removed Devonshire's clear violation of Wikipedia policy -- and something which clearly qualified as a "personal attack" -- without a warning, while you repeatedly level warnings and threats against my own person. Is there a double-standard at work here, MONGO? Stone put to sky 11:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, you know i am not a sock account. My posts here are made in good faith. Would you please stop harassing me? Stone put to sky 11:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep readding this continued attack on several editors here. I guess there is nothing left to do since you don't seem to understand that you can't impune the integrity of others you are disagreement with.--MONGO 11:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, there is no way to justify removing the entire post; in fact, you have yet to point to even a small part of it that clearly qualifies as a personal attack. There are portions of the post that make only general statements about the direction this conflict would best move. Similarly, there are large portions of this post which clearly state that certain editors here are not interested in contributing-to or refining this article, but instead seek only to delete it. I have pointed out that the motivation of such editors when contributing to such a page are rightfully questionable, and that in fact many of the challenges that have been made to the page in its current state are simply pure rhetoric, with no content, analysis, or logic to back them up.

As i have said: please, point me to the specific portions of the entry where you feel i was making some sort of personal attack.

As for my suggestion to ban certain posters from this page: in the context of the informal AfD above, i hardly think that my views on this issue are misplaced or consitute an attack. Many of the people here are calling for deletion of this article, for which i have made cogent arguments in defense. My suggestion that these deletionists be banned from editing this particular article is a simple response to what seems an intransigent problem: how can we definitively protect this article from being defaced by people who consider it an affront?

I do not consider this article an affront. I consider it a work of quality research and long, hard negotiations. I do not want to see it deleted, and i do not want to see it constantly defaced by people who resent its existence. I am defending the article -- defending these facts from being covered up and hidden away -- and my suggestion reflects the importance in which i hold this work. Stone put to sky 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your ongoing inciviliies are noted. That you don't see them as such is no surprise, since the last time you argue about this issue, you stated [17] "Anyone who might suggest that this topic be deleted is either a dumbshit fascist or a dumbshit dupe. In either case, they have no place here in wikiepedia." You are personally attacking people when you make these kinds of comments and when you continue to impune the integrity of those you disagree with by naming them and making accusations about them.--MONGO 11:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I'll admit that one was out of line - way out of line. I was posting-while-drunk. It is, however, an exceptional case and completely unrelated to the present circumstances.

In other words, MONGO -- i learned my lesson. I stayed away and regained my cool. I have returned, now, more level-headed and much more sober.

So, to say it once again: there is no reason for bringing up those words now, because in addition to having been written a long time ago, they also were not directed at you, nor anyone in particular. Stone put to sky 12:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, it sure would be nice if we could post to the page, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately, it appears that we are -- once again -- unable to continue editing this page in good faith because a few people are peeved at the facts and material presented here.

Whatever. Once we get around to editing again i may be too busy to be able to post; so i am including this stuff here, in hopes that some responsible soul will pick it up and place it where it needs to be:

U.S. State Department Definition of Terrorism:

The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant1 targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

The term "international terrorism" means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than one country.

The term "terrorist group" means any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism.

The US Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983.

From:

Patterns of Global Terrorism -2001/2/3

Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism

May 21, 2002

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2001/html/10220.htm

I think these are very interesting definitions, and look forward to playing with them in the future. Stone put to sky 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research. Once unprotected, a massive cleaning will be necessary, most of the article is original research with no backing in the sources that these events have been labelled "state terrorism".Ultramarine 13:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no, ultramarine -- the article is not "original research". The article is a clearly ordered collection of facts about a few of the United States' actions abroad, and how many of these actions clearly meet established definitions of terrorism.

You see, Ultramarine -- you have not been around to witness the evolution of this article. I have. Once-upon-a-time, the article was a rather innocent and sparse entry describing a few ideas and instances that many people around the world recognized as instances of terrorism perpetrated or sponsored by the United States.

However, at some point the page was targeted by a few people who objected to the use of the word "terrorism" to describe any action of the United States, and these people began to make brash deletions. An edit-war sprung up.

That edit war has continued until today, now something close to five years gone. Back at the beginning, the entry looked something like this:

The United States of America, being an economically and militarily powerful nation, has gained numerous perennial critics, who tend to focus on its foreign policy. One of these is author Michael Moore. For his list of charges against the US, some of which would be considered by some to be examples of state terrorism, see Michael Moore and US foreign policy.

Many critics claim that various US policies have negative humanitarian consequences, and that in some cases that could be considered state terrorism. For instance, the UN sanctions on Iraq, actually created by the UN and not the US, are often charged with harming the people more than the government. However, the US responded that the sanctions were necessary to cut off the oil revenue that was funding Saddam Hussein's regime.

The US has also taken sides in various foreign civil wars, often working with organizations with questionable human rights practices in order to help fight an enemy perceived as worse. Some label support of such organizations state terrorism.

The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima is considered by many to be an example of state terrorism

Now, the page has undergone a radical transformation. That transformation has taken place under the watchful eyes of the cadre of deletionists, above, many of whom have been stumping around here as long as i have, some three years or so.

This transformation has, at every step of the way, been a chaotic and unprincipled thing. For some reason, the standards of truth by which we measure the quality of facts presented here keeps changing.

For instance, where it would elsewhere be satisfactory to simply state:

"The U.S. was convicted of the "unlawful use of force" by the ICJ. In the context of the Nicaraguan conflict, this has been widely interpreted by many commentators as a condemnation of U.S. State Terrorism" -- all of which is quite true, and easily demonstrable --

well, here, that's just not good enough. Instead of working with commonly accepted definitions and easily demonstrable facts, the editors of this page find their hands tied to constantly shifting and unpleasantly metamorphic standards. Nothing is ever good enough, see --

And it appears that you, too, wish to join in. Super! We welcome you! But there is very little in this article that can be easily deleted. Until now, too many people and too many editors have invested too much time into these entries for anyone to simply state "Most of the article is original research". Nothing could be farther from the truth! In fact, there is much substantiation on the page.

My suggestion is simple: If the collection of people here consider the article to be so poorly constructed that it deserves only deletion, then why don't we float another AfD?

Of course, that can only take place after we, the opposition editors, have been given the opportunity to re-instate the information which we feel has been unjustifiably removed. It is quite unfair, i think, to have an AfD after a cadre of editors to ride in like a herd, make a big stink to force a great many arbitrary edits, and then demand that the page be protected.

So no, ultramarine -- i do not think this page will be altered nearly as dramatically as you seem to think. There is no case for doing so, and certainly no easy way to argue away the collection of facts and reporting that has so far accumulated. Stone put to sky 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:OR. Everything that an external source has not claimed is "state terrorism" should be removed. When an external source claims this, it should be clearly stated that this is a claim and by which author.Ultramarine 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read it, Ultramarine. My suggestion is that you go back and re-read it, because it appears you have yet to really fathom exactly what direction it seeks to encourage our development.

As of now, there is no "Original Research" in this article. To suggest that there is flies in the face of common sense. Stone put to sky 15:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article consists of incidents that certain anonymous Wikipedia editors personally thinks is "state terrorism". Everything that an external source has not claimed is "state terrorism" should be removed. When an external source claims this, it should be clearly stated that this is a claim and by which author. Not to mention containg numerous factual errors, including numerous fringe conspiracy theories, and being extremely biased in the description of events. Which will be corrected.Ultramarine 15:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misapprehended the amount of scholarship and verification that has gone into these entries. You have completely mis-articulated the nature of this article. There is nothing "fringe" or "personal" about the facts presented. They all clearly use the term "state terrorism", they all clearly demonstrate U.S. involvement, and they all clearly follow from widely acknowledged internationally validated facts.

I'm sorry, but the facts presented in this article are all carefully validated according to internationally recognized authorities. I really think you need to go review Original Research and try to apprehend its spirit and intent. Stone put to sky 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That the Algiers putsch was caused by Glado is a fringe conspiracy theory. Mohammed Mossadegh was not electecd but appointed by the Shah. Stephen Kinzer never states that Iran having an alliance with the US was "state terrorism" by the US. The desciption of the coups are very biased, ignoring the fear at the time of these states becoming Communist dictatorships. The list goes on and on and will be corrected.Ultramarine 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The content regarding the Algiers Putsch is clearly sourced to a validated academic. There are no scholars -- and i mean absolutely nobody -- who contests that Mohammad Mossadegh was democratically elected. Your pointed -- and apparently purposeful -- misinterpretation of Kinzer's work is, frankly, frightening in its newspeak. Regarding the "coups", fears about "communism" are only relevant to the motives underlying the events in question; otherwise, they are utterly irrelevant to questions of the tactics and methods used to prosecute their practical effects. The list goes on and on, truly; but so far, it is all accurate, and will remain so. Stone put to sky 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim regarding Algiers is still a fringe conspiracy theory not accepted by most scholars. You duck the lack of support from Kinzer. That Mohammad Mossadegh was appointed by the Shah is a fact, he may or may not have had popular support. Mentioning oil nationalization but not the fear of a Communist coup violates NPOV.Ultramarine 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

From WIkipedia:No original research: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Original Research?

".. synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" does not apply to situations in which there is only one possible outcome. How about changing mph into km/h. Or, what about the following: 1 four legged animals are quadrupeds, 2 dogs have four legs. Therefore dogs are quadrupeds. To insist we are not allowed to say this ignores "synthesis of published material serving to advance a position," which refers to a myriad of possibilities. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is more like "Four legged animals are quadrupeds. Dogs are quadrupeds. Elephants are quadrupeds. Therefore dogs are elephants." The current argument seems to be whether we should use this logic and title the article 'Dogs are elephants' or "Dogs are alleged to be elephants". But really, it should just be deleted as it's somewhat ridiculous proposition. --Tbeatty 06:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well spoken, Nomen, and i completely agree.

What fascinates me is how so many editors here feel that selectively quoting short phrases from wikipedia policy clarifications are equivalent to legalistic equivalences.

Fortunately, Wikipedia is neither a democracy, nor is it adjudicated.

To quote the most relevant passage of the Original Research entry:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

And further down, it is clarified that "Original Research":

• introduces original ideas;
• defines new terms;
• provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
• introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
• introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
• introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

None of the facts presented here can be disqualified by any of these criteria. All of the ideas presented here have solid sources underlying them. All of the terms here are clearly defined by entities which qualify as authoritative in the concerned field (and yes, that includes Chomsky, Chossudovsky, et al). None of the work presented here provides or presumes definitions which have not been agreed upon in advance, by all editors. None of the entries or facts herein presented engage in analysis or synthesis of "established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments" without first attributing that synthesis to reputable sources. And finally, none of the entries here utilize neologisms without proper attribution.

What i find particularly odd, however, is that the complete lack of relevance that the 4th point represents. Why is it that there have been no reputable sources presented disputing the facts as they are currently presented? Stone put to sky 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The personal claims of Wikipedia editors that many of these events were "state terrorism" is an "synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor".Ultramarine 16:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they do not. All of the events and facts presented on this page are clearly characterized as terrorism by third parties. Our vaunted NuclearUmpf -- who, i might add, was eventually banned for flagrant provocations that flaunted Wikipedia guidelines (and rightfully so, IMO, although it was sad to see such a shaggy and immature intellect purged from a place where he seemed to be learning so much) -- made certain that all entries brought to this page adhered to the clearly enunciated phrase, "State Terrorism". Stone put to sky 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomen Nescio, if Professor Gareau argues the School of the Americas was a training camp for state terrorism, and the Times reports that the Generalissimo attended, and the Globe reports his conviction for crimes against humanity, we cannot record that "the US commited state terrorism.<ref>Gareau</ref><ref>The Times</ref><ref>The Globe</ref>" That would be a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I increasingly think that dealing in hypotheticals does more harm than good. We may have a better idea of each others' positions when we see each others' edits. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, unless we have a source that states that the specific act for which this general was convicted of, i.e. crimes against humanity, qualifies as examples of state sponored terrorism. If we do, then we can use it. I think this article does make such direct connections in its claims based on sources it uses. If not, then we should correct that.Giovanni33 22:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That is like stating that it is a fact that Castro is a terrrorist since he have supported rebells in other nations using violence and doing human rights violations. At the very least, an external source is required and attribution regarding the claim should be made.Ultramarine 01:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my word! Nescio was in no way making such an argument! Gareau himself presents the case in question; the following footnotes demonstrate the basis of Gareau's reasoning -- not Nescio's -- and thus in no way violate the Original Research guideline.

Moreover, Nescio's point - and it remains valid - is that if the United States pays latin-american military leaders to murder 400 civilians so that certain land may be both ethnically cleansed and to encourage local villagers to submit to local Jefe rule, then we can truly say that the U.S. has engaged in "State Terrorism". Stone put to sky 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that is an original synthesis. Could be put in article called "Criticisms of United States foreign policy" or something similar. But claiming that it is the vague and unclear concept of "state terrorism" is OR.Ultramarine 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nescio and Stone--these claims are not in any way OR, nor are they Syn violations since all we are doing is reporting on the 1. facts that are not disputed by anyone, and 2. the arguments that these undisputed facts constitute examples of state sponored terrorism. True, the concept is one whose basis is disputed but this article states as much, i.e. its controverisal, etc. That is no reason to reject reporting on these acts which are said to constitute examples of state terrorism. That you don't like the concept and term "state terrorism" is fine but its not for you to impose your POV by suppressing our reporting on what what reputable scholars have argued.Giovanni33 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Arguing that certain are "state terrorism" is OR unless there is a source stating this. It is like stating that it is a fact that Castro is a terrrorist since he has supported rebells using violence. At the very least, an external source is required and attribution regarding the claim should be made.Ultramarine 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me it would be the same for any of the "State terrorism by XXXX" articles. How do the other ones deal with it? --John 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible errors in other articles is not relevant for this one.Ultramarine 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the other articles are just fine (the standard all other article are using and they don't seem to have a problem with it), and that the error here is your interpretation and understanding of how policy is implemented on this question?Giovanni33 00:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the other articles have similar problems? No evidence have been presented either way. Regardless, I am discussing policy violations in this article, not possible ones in the others.Ultramarine 01:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, i wish it were so simple. Unfortunately, such rhetoric is clearly the consequence of linguistic competence, and nothing more. Stone put to sky 16:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I will report continued attacks.Ultramarine 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attack there. Please try to focus on improvements to the article rather than bickering with others. As to my question above, I made no reference to any errors. I asked how other articles of the "State terrorism by XXXX" deal with this problem. Maybe you thought it was a rhetorical question. It wasn't. --John 17:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You could try asking on the talk page of that article.Ultramarine 17:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop dodging the issue, Ultramarine. The question is valid and deserves to be answered.

With the impasse as it currently exists, it is obvious that this page could stand a bit of education at the knee of other groups. Stone put to sky 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then go and ask on the other talk page. But again, what is important is following policy, which this page does not.Ultramarine 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to let John respond to this -- because i think he'll say it much better than i can -- but i'll attempt it, for now:

The point is that examples from other pages would be instructive. If it's good enough for other groups of wikipedians, then we should be able to learn something from it. That's what the definition of "community" is, and that's what wikipedia is founded on. Stone put to sky 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, then go and ask. However, the violations of policy on this page will be corrected.Ultramarine 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no violations of policy on this page. Apparently, you need to go read up on WP:OR, WP:AGF, and a few other policies. Stone put to sky 17:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Many have been pointed out above. There are many others. I will carefully document them when I correct them.Ultramarine 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And I will back you up. Every single incident in this article must be backed by a reliable source that claims it represents state terrorism by the United States. Claims by editors here that we can infer something is state terrorism are WP:OR, because that is a position held only by analysts like Chomsky on the far side of the left political spectrum. - Merzbow 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, at least in principal, but I don't see the actual violations on this page. There seems to be a disagreement about what that looks like in practice, and I see the claims being made as unsupported. From my reading, the reported facts in this article are backed up by a reliable source, but that this is simply being ignored. And then the false claim is made that one is doing OR or Syn. I am also disturbed by the fact that it looks like those who are doing this are highly driven by a nationalist conservative ideology, which should not be the case. Chomsky is a valid source, as are the other sources given here that are cited to support the various claims made in this article. If there is disagreement about this, then I think we will all need to look at each specific example concretely.Giovanni33 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Spare me the Ad Hominem. I will carefully document everything when starting to correct the article.Ultramarine 22:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any ad hominem. But, why don't you state specifically what needs correction and your proposed text to "correct it" so we can see if it will be accepted or not by others? This seems like the way go forward given the contentious nature of this article and the editors.Giovanni33 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already pointed out factual errors and NPOV violations above, like in regard to the Iranian coup. But the whole article is full of them. Some other quick examples. "The United States Government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens.[6] and fabricating false pretext" Never accepted, just a proposal, and not against its own citizens. "In 2000, a report from the Italian Left Democrat party," For NPOV, should added "former Communist party", and "the centrist Republican party said it was worthy of a 1970s Maoist group.", "To Aldo Giannuli, a historian who works as a consultant to the parliamentary terrorism commission, the release of the Left Democrats' report is a manoeuvre dictated primarily by domestic political considerations." And so on.Ultramarine 00:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have failed to point out anything specifically that stands up as accurate and valid. What I have noticed is that you make grand, highly generalized and vague pronouncements with your claims, but you back away from demands that you support you claim by listing something specific that illustrates it’s validity. Now you have listed something, and it again turns out only to prove that your claim is false.

You say the source does not support this statement: "The United States Government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens.[6] and fabricating false pretext" Then you say “it was never accepted, just a proposal,” But this is quite irrelevant and does not refute the claim. You are creating a straw man fallacy. The accusation is simply that it was a plan--not that it was a plan that was eventually implemented. If it were, we would surely report that, as it would be very significant. You also claim that “not against its own citizens.” I suggest you go back and read the documents again because it clearly provides details supporting that accusation.

The quote details: "the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets…by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”

I'm off to bed. Goodnight, all. Sweet dreams, when they come. Stone put to sky 17:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Blowing up a US ship in an attempt to recreate a phony pretext along the lines of “Remember the Maine” incident is a terrorist attack against US citizens. Any attack on US public (citizen) property, is an attack on US citizens. Hence, the plan did exist. You may not like these allegations against the US govt. but they are real and supported by valid sources. Its not POV to reports on these facts, and it is POV to try to hide them. Can you list anything else? I'm hoping that at least one problem you find is a valid one so that is can be fixed. But so far I'm waiting to see what your talkign about.Giovanni33 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, just a proposal, never executed or accepted by the President. I am sure there is proposal (probably several different) for an attack on North Korea, but it is not accepted as policy. No explicit mention of a planned attack on US citizens, that is your own OR conclusion. You are ignoring my comments on NPOV violations and factual inaccuracy regarding Iran and Glado.Ultramarine 19:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a plan, and thanfully never executed or accepted by the President. But so what? Why do you think stating that such a plan existed is equal to saying that the US actually committed the act of carrying it out? No one is making that claim, except you. Your real argument is that we should not report on this plan per the source because its just a plan? If that is your real argument then I think its very weak because 1. plans to commit terrorism on one's own citizens are NOT ordinary but extraordinary, and 2., all plans relevant to the subject should be reported on anyway, and esp. plans the form a spectrum of various actual implimented plans of terror against Cuba, directly and indirectly. I recommend that others read the sourced document directly here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

As far as your comment about Iran, please be specific about your claim, and make your case.Giovanni33 19:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"The United States Government has also been accused of planning terrorism against its own citizens" That is like stating "The US government is planning a war with North Korea" if a such a possible proposal was found. Correct is "There was a rejected proposal...". Regarding Irana and Glado, see earlier my earlier comments above.Ultramarine 19:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But I can repeat them. The article states: "In 2000, a report from the Italian Left Democrat party," For NPOV, should added "former Communist party", and "the centrist Republican party said it was worthy of a 1970s Maoist group.", "To Aldo Giannuli, a historian who works as a consultant to the parliamentary terrorism commission, the release of the Left Democrats' report is a manoeuvre dictated primarily by domestic political considerations."

Mohammed Mossadegh was not electecd but appointed by the Shah. Stephen Kinzer never states that Iran having an alliance with the US was "state terrorism" by the US. The desciption of the coups are very biased, ignoring the fear at the time of these states becoming Communist dictatorships. And so on, just some examples.Ultramarine 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I will also repeat earlier comment regarding stating as a fact that certain acts are "state terrorism". That is like stating that it is a fact that Castro is a terrrorist since he have supported rebells in other nations using violence and doing human rights violations. At the very least, an external source is required and attribution regarding which authoer has med the claim should be made.Ultramarine 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This article does use external souces for attribution regarding claims that are made. If there is something does lack then, please point it out so we can remedy it. As far as your point about Mossadegh not being elected, that is not quite true. I think you are confusing the fact that in Iran the appointment took place in the context of an election process, the two not being mutually exclusive. Here are sources that support the claims: This is an excellent interview about the kinds of terrorist activities the US committed in that country at that time: [18] "50 Years After the CIA’s First Overthrow of a Democratically Elected Foreign Government We Take a Look at the 1953 US Backed Coup in Iran." If that source is too "left" for you, here is the BBC: [19] Which states: "Document reveals the true extent of Britain 's involvement in the coup of 1953 which toppled Iran 's democratically elected government and replaced it with the tyranny of the Shah." And, if you one a more scholarly source, here is Harvard’s Human Rights Journal Volume 17, Spring 2004, ISSN 1057-5057. Copyright © 2004 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College, that states: "Any analysis of America’s position in the Middle East would be incomplete without a thorough understanding of the U.S. role in overthrowing Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected and revered Prime Minister who nationalized Iran’s oil."See:http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/booknotes-All.shtml As far as your comment about "ignoring the fear of communism" that is POV, and not relevant. The fear is the same fear we have that is typical for all imperialist states bent on global conquest and domination: that people gain control their own natural resources (in this case oil, again), be it in the form of socialism, communism, or nationalism. What you call "communism" I'd call liberation from capitalist expoitation and plunder, etc. But these are POV's that are best left out of this article. If we want to present both sides, then that is ok, in the body of the article about this incident, provided you have a source. I have no objection to that--as long as its not the only pov. Your comment about adding that the plans the US made for some terrorist activies were rejected, is trivial since we only report the accusation of the plans they made. If they were not rejected but carried out, we'd report that fact. But, if you think we need to add in that these particular plans were ultimately rejected by such and such, then that is fine, but not stating that is not a problem either, as it is rather obvious. Plans are just that plans, they are not actions.Giovanni33 22:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, obviously there is a difference between stating "The United States is planning to attack North Korea" and "The United States has plan, if the United States so decide, to attack North Korea." The current article misleadingly implies the first alternative. As well the OR conclusion that plan explicitly targeted US citizens. Regarding Iran, the Iranian Constitution gave the Shah great powers, including appointing and dismissing the Prime Minister. Mossadeq was elected to the parliament and the parliament (initially) supported him. This and street riots forced the Shah to appoint him Prime Minister. The following events were complex, like Mossadeq dissolving the Parliament and taking on dictatorial powers when it didn't obey him but claiming popular support from a plebiscite. Exactly who to believe depend on who you ask, but he was not elected as Prime Minister and the degree of democracy in Iran is questionable (both from the great offical power wielded by the Shah and the great inofficial power taken by Mossadeq after dissolving the Parliament).[20][21] The article names the oil nationalization as the cause for the coup, so it is pov to not mention the very real fear of a Communist dictatorship at the time. Still no explanation how the Iran having an alliance with US or being "client state" after the coup is "state terrorism" by the US. You ignore the argumens regarding Glado and Castro.Ultramarine 23:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC) A quick check yields more problems. "According to the Asia Times, sponsoring terrorist activities inside Iran has been a consistent feature of U.S. regional policy over the past quarter-century. The paper cites The New Yorker Magazine's investigative reports which states that as of at least 1996 the United States has military commando units operating inside Iran." There is no citation of The New Yorker Magazine or claims regarding commandos. Seems completely fabricated. Regarding the first sentence, the opinion piece gives no sources, so only the personal opinion of the writer.Ultramarine 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Now you are doing OR. You have failed to come up with a single source that says his govt. was not democratic, or democratically elected. I showed you several. What you are doing is using your own analysis of complex facts to come to your own conclusion. That is like me saying George Bush, because he was appointed by his buddies on the Supreme Court, is not a democratically elected govt. but I cite no sources, except that events are complex, etc. Lets stick to what sources say and claim, and not do our own OR or Syn. If you have sources that plainly state as a statement of fact that this govt. was not "democratically elected" then produce them, otherwise, we do have sources that make this claim as a statement of fact with precisely such terms.

Your point about the US making plans, and your objection to the current wording is misleading because the example you give, while valid, does not fit into how the article puts it. It says the US has been accused of making plans against its own citizens, using clear past tense language, not like your example, "is planning" language, which I agree would be a problem, as it misleads the reader into thinking this is currently a plan under consideration. No, it planned it. This particular plan was not carried out, but need we say that? If it did carry it out, the accusation would not be about the US making plans, but actually committing the actions. So, I don't see your objection as valid. If the US devised a plan to attack Korea, then we should report on it, just like that: "the US has been accused of constructing a plan to attack North Korea"--not "the US is planning planning to attack..." This article does the former, NOT the latter.

Saying there was a "real fear of communist dictatorship" is also OR. One does not know about fear or motivations, but if there is a source that states then, then I dont object to quoting from it, but it must be properly attributed to a qualfied source. Then, for NPOV, we woudl have to also report with sources that will point out the US regularly and artifically created and used the anti-communist hysteria to undermine democratic governments and install Nazi-like dictatorships.Giovanni33 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree we should probably use a better source than the report by the Asia Times, but it is not "completely fabricated." The New Yorker article is real: The Iran Plans By Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, 17 April 2006 Issue [22] If your argument is that we should add a better source, or add this New Yorker source, I'm fine with that. I would also like to add the informative sources on the coup, above, which also allege state terrorism. Regarding the claim of comandos in Iran see: "Seymour Hersh: U.S. Conducting Covert Operations in Iran For Possible Military Strike. We speak with investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who is reporting that the Pentagon has already secretly sent in forces to Iran to identify possible future military targets. According to Hersh, the president has authorized the Pentagon to send secret commando forces into as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts. [23]Giovanni33 00:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Still not elected, appointed as per sources. Still do not believe me? Read the 1906 Iranian Constitution, Section 4, Article 46. Democratically appointed? Maybe, we could state that some sources have said this but that they make an incorrect claim regarding being elected. See sources above for fear of a communsit overthrow. Regarding"planning terrorism against its own citizens", this is still not the same as a rejected proposal involving unspecified persons. I still see no support in the New Yorker for commandos in 1996 and also looks like an unsourced opinion piece. Regarding the Democracy Now statements, personal opinions that commandos may use terrorism in the future is conjecture. I have still not seen a response regarding to how being a "client state" is "state terrorism, Glado, or Castro. More problems. The article quotes extensivly from Danielle Ganser who has used Soviet forgeries, which must of course be mentioned, as must Chomsky's double standard regarding state terrorism and Communist regimes.Ultramarine 01:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You're jumping all around again. Stick to one issue at a time and be clear. What about Gladio, which were linked to domestic right-wing terror groups. See [24] What about Castro? As I said, I can claim Bush was not elected. He lost the majority of votes. If I make this claim on an article that the Bush regime, and therefore the US govt. currently does not have a democratically elected govt. that would be in violation of SYN and OR. But that is exactly what you want to do here. Your pulling out particular facts, out of context, and using that to push a POV, in opposition to what the sources say, although it does not counter what the sources say. Again, find a source that says, the govt. is NOT democratically elected, and then we can say its a disputed fact. Otherwise, we just have you own OR. I don't see sources above for fear of communism, but as I said, I'm fine with adding that POV as long as we have the other POV represented as well. And, even if the commandos is an opinion, as long as we properly attribute that to its author, what is the problem?Giovanni33 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ganser is a bit of a stove-piped rube. His work is amateur at best, synthesizing the tabloid press in Italy and elsewhere, taking it all at face-value, without checking the hyped-claims against primary research. For instance, he accepts the validity of FM 30-31B, which the legitimate press has found to be a Soviet forgery. His work reads like the sensationalist tomes of conspiracy theorists and crackpots. Coincidentally, he's a 9/11 conspiracy theory true believer. Big surprise.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(NOTE: the last time Monty attacked Ganser he was forced to admit that he hadn't actually read Ganser's writing. Kafkaesque Seabhcan 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort – that was your assertion. Seab, you seem like an intelligent, educated person – I’m guessing an academic. Surely you can recognize poor scholarly work when you see it – Ganser’s work reads like a 7th-grade book report, making far-reaching conclusions based upon the wild assertions of tabloid journalists, with little to no citation to primary sources. Academics are supposed to synthesize, but first you need to examine the quality of sources, which he doesn’t.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"Ganser’s work reads like a 7th-grade book report, making far-reaching conclusions based upon the wild assertions of tabloid journalists, with little to no citation to primary sources." It does no such thing. Unlike you, I have read the actual book, not merely secondary articles about it. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your assumptions are incorrect. Please stop making things up.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. From what I've read of him, it sounds nothing like the characterizations Morton makes about him. He is a qualified academic on these questions, agree with him or not.If you have other professional historians who make the kinds of wild claims you are making about Ganser, then please cite them. Otherwise, I dismiss it as POV ranting without substance.Giovanni33 09:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ganser has enough written about him that he is not a reliable source. Reading Ganser is not required to establish that he is not reliable as other thrid party sources have done that. I have read him though, and he is not reliable. --Tbeatty

Interesting, instead of attacking his claims, you attack him. This is a fallacy, you know, poisoning the well and ad hominin. But, its also factualy wrong. An "amateur at best?" No, he is a professional. Big difference. Your the amature, my friend. "Daniele Ganser is a is a historian who specializes in inter-national relations and international history from 1945 to today. His research interests are peace research, geostrategy, secret warfare, resource wars, globalization and human rights. He teaches at Swiss universities, including the history department of Basel University. His current research is focusing on the so called "war on terror" and peak oil." [25] And, your claim that he is a "true believer" also appears to be false. From what I've seen he simply raises questions regarding the official story, and says that alternative theories, including, the conspiracy theories, should also be examined against all the facts. But more to the topic, do you dispute the veracity or accuracy of any of the claims he makes in the source above on Gladio? If so I can provide other sources that support his claims. This is really the issue, btw.Giovanni33 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I dispute it. Ganser himself admits, in both the citation you provide, and in his book, that he did not have access to primary sources.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As shown, numerous problems and it seems to be getting difficult to discuss them all on talk. Probably better to wait for the article to be unprotected so we can more easily see sources added and arguments made.Ultramarine 09:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a mainstream source, ABC, to add the Operation Northwoods, claim, which clarifies the quesitons you raised regarding targetting US citizens (a claim this source makes clear is a true allegation and not OR), and the question of the plan being rejected. In connection with that point, if it is to be said the plan was rejected, then it should be made clear that this was only after the plan was also approved by the highest levels of Pantagon. As the report states, it had "the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara." It was only rejected by the Kennedy Administration, but this is what the US military leadership wanted the US govt. to carry out.[26]Giovanni33 16:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no mention of explicitly targeting citizens, most of the actions is clearly directed against non-citizens and the rest is unspecified. If you want to add at what stage the proposal was rejected, fine.Ultramarine 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then we see different things, so lets just directly quote from this ABC source, about the point in question. Agreed?Giovanni33 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What text do you propose? Ultramarine 17:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Text that I think makes the same point, but this time we would be quoting the ABC source, so there can be no possible issue of OR or SYN. Some examples to quote from the source that make this point are:

• plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities
• blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
• America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."''

Giovanni33 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Better to quote from the archieve itself: "These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage."Ultramarine 18:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The ABC source does quote the paper itself, which is more to the point: "*America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

The claim is that US citizens were targeted. You claim this is OR. Well, if we quote that, and now we can quote ABC that makes the argument, this connection, of targeting US citizens, then its no longer OR, as a reputable source advances that rather obvious, conclusion--and we don't have to. Either that or drop the claim that saying "US citizens" is OR, when its really not.Giovanni33 18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the actual docement itself. It is much tamer than any of the sensational summaries. There is no evidence that any deaths at all were intended, at most "wounding". They talk about funerals for mock-victims and blowing up an unmanned drone.Ultramarine 18:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I did read it, and yes, they talk about wounding. Is not violence inflicting injury, even if not death, not still an issue of terrorism targeting US citizens? And, again, the ABC source, quotes the paper itself, which talks about blowing up a US ship and creating "casualty lists" to create anger among the US population. Again, US citizens are the targets of terrorism, which is to incite fear, feel under attack, etc. for political ends, and violence is used. This is not being sensationalistic, this is sticking to the the sources say. Now you have no basis to further claim this is OR, or SYN.Giovanni33 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The context is "The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters 'evacuate' remaining members of the non-existant crew. Causality lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."Ultramarine 19:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving material

Much of the material in the extremely long section on Luis Posada Carriles should be moved to that article and replaced with a summary. No need to repeat the entire article here.

The sections "Definition of the term terrorism" and "Application of United States Government's own definitions" should be merged, same topic.Ultramarine 12:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. When this article becomes too big, then we can look to trim and merge. Right now its fits in well with the article, and it does not go in great details as the main article does. It should cover enough information about the subject in this article. After this article is expanded and size/space becomes and issue, then we can do trimming/merging. The focus should be on expanding, and adding more and better sources.Giovanni33 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreassonable that a single person gets more than all other sections. Size has nothing to with the second merger.Ultramarine 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, expand the others. Not all sections need be the same size. It depends on the amount of information that is available. I'm flexible with cutting, but I'm saying this is not the time to do so. This article overall is rather small, given the subject matter.Giovanni33 18:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes

This is to discuss the latest changes and any on going disagreements. I kept most of the many changes, and attempted a compromise synthesis between Ultramarine's edits, and edits I wanted to incorporate. We can discuss disagreements here, hopefully, instead of edit waring again. One part that was reference, in which I removed was this: "Mossadeq's regime had become increasingly autocratic. When Mossadeq's support in the legislative body had dwindled..." I felt it was too off topic because thisis not about the nature of the regimes, or their internal politics. Its too off topic. I understand you want to make the argument that the US sent the CIA in to topple the govt because it allegedly feared a communist take over. That would be ok, stated alone, and then with a countering pov. The details about the nature of the government of Iran at that time are best left for the main article. This article should really just focus on US actions.Giovanni33 02:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Then the statements about oil nationalization should be removed, as well as claims of being democratically elected.Ultramarine 08:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why was the false statement "The paper cites The New Yorker Magazine's investigative reports which states that as of at least 1996 the United States has military commando units operating inside Iran."? Ultramarine 08:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that I provided that in talk earlier. The paper references Hersh S., work in the New Yorker, which did a series on the question. I provided that link above, and it does support these claims. I agree that the Asia Times does not adequately cite that work, and we should properly cite it by adding in the actual article it references in the Asia Times piece.Giovanni33 08:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not opposed to you stating the US line about fear of communism, etc., and I think oil nationalization and being democratically elected are both important facts that should be included. What I am opposed to is trying to get into details of the internal nature of the govt., which as you admit, is rather complex. The account you gave does not do that justice, is incomplete, and is just one pov. To treat the subject well, would require too much space and then it gets off the topic. There is a balance between too little info and too much info. I want to stick to the most important facts that are directly pertinent to the issue.Giovanni33 08:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, your link above did not, there was no mentioning of this claim. There was no mention of the New Yorker at all in the Asian Times article. Regading Iran, it is a POV violation that only your side of story should be presenented. You make claims regarding the internal nature of the gov and the reasons for the coup, while simply deleting the sourced views you dislike. Unacceptable.Ultramarine 09:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little tired now to go back and look for it, but I recall finding that link that the article references (it does reference the New Yorker by means of the author's series of investigative pieces, which are published in the New Yorker). If I'm wrong, then we can correct that, and would have been able to if some editors here simply allowed us to have progress instead of edit waring on sight. About the reasons for the coup, as I said, I'm ok with presenting all claims as to the reasons, but going into the nature of the governments interal politics in the way you did with that source, is not appropriate for the reasons I've stated above. Instead, just find a source that says, something like "The US felt a need to intervene internally, and overthrow the regime because...." I'm fine with that. I hope you see the difference between that and what you put in there, and the reasons why that difference is important.Giovanni33 09:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the Asia Times never mentions the New Yorker. Please give a quote here if continuing this claim, otherwise it will be corrected as you propose. Regarding Iran, I have already given a source that mentions the fear of a communist overthrow. If for some reason the governments interal politics should be excluded, then the incorrect claim regarding democratically elected is also out. No double standard please.Ultramarine 09:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be talking pass each other now, and have a failture to communicate. I"m not sure if I should repeat myself here, or just wait a bit for you to re-read what I wrote above. There is no double standard. The source you gave said a lot more than just the fear of communism, which was what I objected to. The claim in the Asia Times is accurate, as it cites its author's work, which is in the New Yorker, as I showed before. So, maybe the text should be corrected to state that instead, and then link the article from the New Yorker. These things can be fixed, instead of completely deleted.Giovanni33 09:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the Asian Times never make any statement regarding New Yorker or Commandos in Iran in 1996. Again, give a quote if continuing this. Nor does the link you gave mention this. Again, give a quote here. Regarding Iran, deleting a source for having more info than what is quoted is just strange, all sources usually have much more info than what we quote them on. Explain why the article should state "democratically elected" but not opposing views. That is a double standard.Ultramarine 09:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets go back to the sources, again, and see what they say. Again, you keep saying it never makes a statment regarding the New Yorker, and I keep telling you that while it doesn't mention the New Yorker, it does so indirectly by mentioning the author of the New Yorker Seymore Hersh, who did a series of published works in the New Yorker about this, and those claims are supported there. This is like the 4th time I keep saying this, and you just keep repeating that it doesn't mention the New Yorker. Well, then, I agreed that we should modify the text accordingly. Lets stop beating this dead horse, and just look at the sources I provded and fix the text, instead of deleting the whole thing. About it being strange to delete "too much info," I see nothing strange. Its a question of giving undue weight. You had quoted a large section that presented a particular pov regarding several complex events taking place in the government. Again, two problems with doing that. The source did not make the argument that this interpretation was the reason the US orchestrated a coup there. So, not only does it give undue weight to this pov, it is misleading and a violation of Syn to use it to suggest a connection to the US actions. What would be valid, for balance, is a US govt. source that says its own reasons for taking this action, i.e. 'fear of communism, etc." That would be perfectly fine. The other stuff is best saved for the article about that other subject. I hope I make myself clear because I feel I keep repeating myself.Giovanni33 17:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, no none of your sources mention commandos in Iran in 1996. I quote from my source "As domestic conditions deteriorated, however, Mossadeq's populist style grew more autocratic. In August 1952, the Majlis acceded to his demand for full powers in all affairs of government for a six-month period. These special powers were subsequently extended for a further six-month term. He also obtained approval for a law to reduce, from six years to two years, the term of the Senate (established in 1950 as the upper house of the Majlis), and thus brought about the dissolution of that body. Mossadeq's support in the lower house of the Majlis (also called the Majlis) was dwindling, however, so on August 3, 1953, the prime minister organized a plebiscite for the dissolution of the Majlis, claimed a massive vote in favor of the proposal, and dissolved the legislative body. The administration of President Harry S Truman initially had been sympathetic to Iran's nationalist aspirations. Under the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, however, the United States came to accept the view of the British government that no reasonable compromise with Mossadeq was possible and that, by working with the Tudeh, Mossadeq was making probable a communist-inspired takeover. Mossadeq's intransigence and inclination to accept Tudeh support, the Cold War atmosphere, and the fear of Soviet influence in Iran also shaped United States thinking."Ultramarine 17:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'll just keep copying and pasting, from above, since you keep denying, and I keep showing you. The New Yorker article is real: The Iran Plans By Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker, 17 April 2006 Issue [22] If your argument is that we should add a better source, or add this New Yorker source, I'm fine with that. I would also like to add the informative sources on the coup, above, which also allege state terrorism. Regarding the claim of comandos in Iran see: "Seymour Hersh: U.S. Conducting Covert Operations in Iran For Possible Military Strike. We speak with investigative journalist Seymour Hersh who is reporting that the Pentagon has already secretly sent in forces to Iran to identify possible future military targets. According to Hersh, the president has authorized the Pentagon to send secret commando forces into as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia. The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts." Source provided above.Giovanni33 04:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you now accept the description of the fear of communism in operation Ajax since you voice no opposition. Regarding commandos in Iran, we could state something like: "According to an interview with Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker in 2005, who quotes an anonynmous source, the US has commandos in Iran since 2004 conducting secret reconnaissance missions. An anonymous editor in Democracy Now! quotes this and and further states 'The secret forces could potentially carry out combat operations or even terrorist acts.'"Ultramarine 07:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The description of fear of communism, is fine, if its quoted with a source, and its kept to that point. Your attribution to the claims of comandos is almost ok, except that you overdo it with 'anonymous editor" which I think introduces bias. Saying, that this is decribed as...by Democracy in an interview with Seymore Hersh," is good enough. We want to be accurate but also careful about using certain words with a certain frequency that have the effect (intended or not) to convey through implication; Over doing the word "claims" is another example of things to avoid that introduce bias, as you will notice that our version differ on this account too. Hopefully, we can come to an agreement about these minor linguistic issues.Giovanni33 07:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The connection between this possible future action and "state terrorism" is extremely tenous. Exactly what text do you propose? Ultramarine 09:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ajax hardly merits classification as state sponsored terrorism. The Tudeh were a political party - it's completely absurd to call them a "right-wing terrorist organization." Yes, they were technically illegal in Iran, but the Iranian government was known to still cooperate with the party and no government had ever classified them as a terrorist organization, nor did anyone view them as a terrorist organization in spirit - they were an organization with political goals that the U.S. utilized against a political state entity and that Mossadegh at times used to quell dissent because he was clearly losing his control over the nation. Ajax was never intended to cause terror, but rather to encourage popular sentiment against the Mossadegh government leading to its downfall. Have you actually read the Kinzer book? Kinzer doesn't even come close to classifying the action as state terrorism. A more scholarly work on the subject is Mohammad Mosaddeq and the 1953 Coup in Iran edited by Mark J. Gasiorowski and Malcolm Byrne. Kinzer's research is okay, but not as accurate as what one gets from scholarly texts not directed toward popular consumption. --Strothra 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sudden influx of 'annon' users

Semi-protection is probably in order. I've requested it. Dman727 06:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed, on both sides of the fence, too. But what is also in order is to stop edit warring and discuss the changes. I note you are already at 3 reverts. I accepted most of the changes and worked to incorporate them with my own edits in good faith, yet, I'm completely reverted by a tag team of editors who seem to want no compromise, or discussion, and blindly revert only 2 minutes after have I have labored for over an hour to come up with a synthesis of both versions. That 2 mins of time proves that my edits were not even read or considered. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia, and I protest this as a form of incivility.Giovanni33 06:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm a pretty fast reader...and I understand your point, but it doesnt take to long to quickly identify that the same disputed material is being put into the article. FWIW, I'm noticing the same thing that some folks want to put only highly point of view material in, without compromise or discussion. We'll get there, but only when both sides start listening to each other.

I think there is a wiki-process to mediate this sort of thing, but I don't know how that works. Dman727 06:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Im not blaming you, becaues your not guilty of the above, just joining in, but I wish that there was more of a spirit of comromise and looking at others edits and seeing how to incorporate the changes, wihout reverting everything, giving in to some things you can live with but dont agree with, and then discussing the parts that one can't live with, etc. That is what I tried to do, and acted in good faith, yet I was met by nothing in return. Now, instead of getting anywhere, people are acting like children again reverting each other. That is completely unproductive and will only result in the page getting protected again. Sheesh, we have been editors here long enough to know better! If we can't act correctly, and decently towards other POV's then we should not be here.Giovanni33 06:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I thought we came to an understanding that we couldn't say "some scholars" without also citing those scholars in addition to Chomsky. Surely this is a simple thing to do. - Merzbow 07:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I provided references in talk, and was working to put them in the article, but then the edit warring started, and I didn't get a chance. I wanted to format the reference correctly in line with the format that this article uses. But, I doubt if I did that, it would have made any difference to the outcome of the sorry sequence of events that transpired.Giovanni33 08:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This article shouldn't have been full-protected again; it was mostly the IPs that were stinking up the joint. - Merzbow 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We could suggest semi-protection.Ultramarine 19:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the protecting admin. - Merzbow 21:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, its not just the IP's that continue to edit or, and do not want to discuss at talk, or more importantly, work towards a compromise. So, I think, full protection was the right thing to do, unfortunately, given the current circumstances. Otherwise, we'd just have more edit warring with the established accounts, which are split in an unresolved content dispute. At least this forces those to find a mutally agreedable solution and reach consensus.Giovanni33 06:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Is "compromise" even possible when the article exists solely to quote the contemporary equivalents of Goebbels?--Mike18xx 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a loaded question, and I don't accept your premise. The contemporary equivalent of Goebbels? You must be talking about someone on the George Bush team, I assume?Giovanni33 09:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are liars in the Bush Administration, the Cuban Presidential Palace, the University where Noam Chomsky squats, various offices of CAIR not yet vacant because their particular occupants are not yet in jail with the rest, and assorted other bums and bagmen the world over. Obviously you think "the Bush team" is capable of lying--and you therefore do stipulate to the premise of my argument which you profess to not accept.--Mike18xx 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this legitimate article about real established dejure facts regarding actual commited terrorist crimes by the US. Like it or not, its fact, and this important article stands by virtue of the reliable sources which verify these accepted facts, that is accepted by most people of the world.Giovanni33 09:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Should I consider the Blood libel verified as accepted fact if it should arise that "most of the people in the world" believe it? If, otoh, what "most of the people in the world" think is completely distinct from what is actually true, then why bother bringing it up?--Mike18xx 10:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You should consider the blood libels as facts because their occurence is well documented in reliable sources. Same for the facts listed in this article. You should consider the allegations made by most blood libels as religious superstitions and myths that helped support the perpetrators' feelings of religious superiority, and as not supported by reliable published sources.--NYCJosh 17:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This Shiny, Shiny, Shiny, Grinning, Glass-Eyed Koolade Kult

The problems with this preposterously stupid and POV'd-by-essence article begin with its very nose-leading title. What a hideous mess of hog-slop -- it should be flushed or merged post-haste.--Mike18xx 00:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You are making lots of strong claims but you fail to support your claims. Care to back that up and explain yourself, specifically? This article needs work, and expansion, but your comments are not helping.Giovanni33 02:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on--it's not dawning on you that "State terrorism by the United States" implies by its wording that such events have or are actually occurring, rather than virtually the entire article consisting of prevaricating rubbish from repellent dictatorships, and the scrivenings of that notorious lying bum. Nobody on earth is going to enter "State terrorism by the United States" into a search-engine; this article's entire purpose is to be mounted as a plaque, er, link, on various and sundry crank websites.--Mike18xx 05:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, lots of smoke only. Name calling does not invalidate the facts or views expressed by these serious scholars we cite on the very real subject of US state terrorism. Yes, the title implies events that have or are actually occuring and as it should, as such an implication is quite accurate in today world. It is not rubbish, as you claim. If you have valid sources which dispute the sources claims we have listed in this article, then by all means list them to be included. But, you can not suppress the facts that we report on in this legitimate article, that we are striving to make neutral.Giovanni33 09:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because this horseflop can scrounge enough votes to barely keep dragging along on one good fingernail in RfD after RfD does not constitute prima facia evidence that it's "legitimate". As for your suggestion of what I ought to do with this article, if you really are a Chomskyite, you're going to be kicking yourself for ever asking it of me after protection drops on this thing. Criticism of Noam Chomsky has 39 references--it could easily be ten times that number. I won't even get into the laughable proposition of Cuba being considered even slightly credible.--Mike18xx 10:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about Noam Chomsky, and so the article about his critics is not relevant here. What would be relevant is citing counter claims to the claims being made here by Chomsky and other scholars regarding the subject matter of this article: terrorism by the US. That would be valid. And, I suggest you present your proposed additions, text, here in talk if you think it will be contentious, to avoid another edit war. Lets try to make change through consensus.Giovanni33 10:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Very few of the sources mention Chomsky's unclear term "state terrorism", that these events are state terrorism is an OR synthesis, not allowed in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 12:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum to the above, directed to those who warn me about WP:BLP: The very first listed reference in Criticism of Noam Chomsky has, as its title, "Lying about History" I'd like to hear the logic involved in prohibiting, on a discussion page, a contention identical to one held by a notable source referenced, specifically for their contention, on an article page.--Mike18xx 06:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

As soon as unprotection expires, the article is being moved back to its original consensus name "Allegations of..." per the 22-14 poll above. It would have stayed there if a single-issue sockpuppet hadn't move-warred it less than two weeks ago. - Merzbow 06:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually your math is wrong. 15 votes out of the 22 your cite for changing to Allegations are 2nd choices, including my own vote (which is first for keeping as is). So if out of the 22, there are only really 7 votes to change to Allegations vs. 14 to keep. So if there is any consensus, its to keep, not change. But, I think there is really no consensus yet about this issue.Giovanni33 09:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Misleading, only 3 of those who voted for changing to allegations had keep as their first choice. Subtracting those still gives 19 in support of allegations.Ultramarine 11:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that there were more who voted for delete as their first choice than voted for keep as first or second choice combined.Ultramarine 11:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but straw polls are not meant to be "votes", and facts are simply facts -- just because you have 12 or 19 or 22 people who "vote" that lies are in fact true does not make the falsehoods any more accurate. Unless consensus can be reached -- and it obviously cannot -- then the title remains as it is, unchanged. Stone put to sky 14:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, no, you do not understand what consensus means. The consensus was for the "Allegations" name, where the article was at for a long time. Recently, the article was protected under the new name after a move-war fueled by a sockpuppet. The article WILL return to its previous consensus name. - Merzbow 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hah! You really have no place trying to "educate" me here, because it's quite clear that it is you who do not understand "consensus" -- nor, indeed, the basics of research, commentary, and Wikipedia's guidelines. You can try to play this "consensus was originally for..." game all you like, but i was here when the name-game first started being played. Consensus was never reached; the name was changed whimsically, on the insistence of a vocal minority, who after losing the last AfD saw fit to --briefly -- do the honorable thing and allow the page to develop naturally. The consensus of those editors who actually contribute to the maintenance and scholarship on this page has always been to keep it as "State Terrorism by the United States". The term "State Terrorism" is, however much you may not like to admit it, sufficiently well-defined as to be a neutral, descriptive legal/military term. Insofar as it is thus defined, it is inherently NPOV.

What you and many the others here fail to recognize is that if John Smith is found guilty of murdering his wife, he becomes a convicted murderer. From that point on, it is in no way a "POV" slant to say that Mr. John Smith is a killer, a murderer, or a criminal. All of those words, however unpleasant they may be, nevertheless accurately describe Mr Smith and his actions, and from the perspective of Wikipedia they are NPOV.

So also for the United States. Insofar as it has been demonstrated that the United States has supported terrorist activities, protected terrorists, encouraged and financed terrorists, or engaged in illegal military actions that are classfied as "terrorist" by the international groups who are responsible for defining such things, then it is NPOV to say that the United States is responsible for State Terrorism.Stone put to sky 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

From a more neutral point of view I would just like to say that the title "Allegation of State Terrorism by the USA", can be misleading, because the title can be taken as meaning:

• Allegation that the US has used terrorism

OR

• Allegation by the USA, that other countries use State Terrorism

I think it could be misunderstood because, many people across the world accuse the USA of State Terrorism, and the USA has accused Iran and North Korean (and others) of funding terrorism.Jackaranga 07:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, "Allegation(s)" should be pluralized, for starters, *if* that term is selected. My prefered title for this, er, thing, is "Accusations of Terrorism committed by the United States" Insert "State" if you like, but I think it'd be superfluous. (I hate the word "allegations"; it makes me think of Florida swampland reptiles, not charges of criminality.)--Mike18xx 00:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not an expert on grammar but I think "Allegations of State Terrorism by the USA", means the USA is making the allegations. Also I would like to add that the USA is the defendant against these allegations, they are the ones denying them. If the title is indeed changed to "allegations of ..." then the title of many other articles such as Nanking Massacre, The Holocaust (etc...), could be changed to include "allegations", as Japan denies the massacre took place and Nazi Germany denied the Holocaust took place.

Furthermore, we all agree an article should be about what is in the title right ? Well if the title were to be changed to "allegations of ...", then it could no longer contain any opinions defending the USA against these allegations, as they would have to be in an article called "Denial of state terrorism by the US". I think most of the people supporting changing the title probably did not think of this, but some may also have been hoping for the change so they can tag the article NPOV and have it deleted. In a nutshell, the title "allegations of State terrorism" is unacceptable in my opinion because :

• grammatically it does not have the intended meaning
• it would essentially be like creating an article similar in function to List of terms used for Germans (i.e. there would be no place to deny the allegations)
• it would create a precedent for other articlesJackaranga 07:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, bollocks. Nanking and the Holocaust are accepted as true by an overwhelming number of credible (i.e., not merely "notable") persons with expertise on the subject. (It's up there with the percentage of biologists who agree on evolution.) It is a grotesque equivalence fallacy to equate such mass-murders with offenses considerably lesser by orders and orders of magnitude. If you don't like "accusations", then "Allegations of Terrorism committed by the United States" is perfectly servicable.--Mike18xx 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting point, but the alternatives are generally worse. "Allegations of United States State Terrorism" is just ugly, and "Allegations of American State Terrorism" is idiomatic. - Merzbow 07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There's always the alternative of deleting a blank, white page after chucking every source with a referenced record of lying at least eight inches long in their own Wikipedia articles.--Mike18xx 09:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You sir, should temper your language. Calling people liars is not the best way to make your point. Try real arguments instead of ad-hominems. Lixy 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

After protection is lifted, let's just nominate it for deletion and get this over with.--MONGO 11:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did I not say "a referenced record of lying"?--Mike18xx 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the sixth nomination your lucky number? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if we nominate it once more, we'll be in a tie with Cleaveland Steamer. I suggest we nominate it twice more, and take the record for the most number of unsuccessful deletion nominations. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh...shows how much you get around...[27].--MONGO 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the AfD's in the past had some trolling/socks [28][29]. Perhaps WP:RFCU needs to be cranked up and run a bit. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The only problem with this article is that certain people here are too cowardly to own up to openly established and uncontroversial facts. These facts paint an ugly picture of U.S. activities abroad. The page exists because it is an accurately and properly sourced presentation of unpleasant facts regarding certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

Also, i'd like to point out that the term "state terrorism" was not invented by Chomsky, nor even popularized by him. It is a term that has been used in international legal circles and in the UN now for over 25 years.

Finally, i'd like to ask if Wikipedia has some sort of policy about the owners of banned accounts returning under a different pseudonym. Is that allowed? Perhaps i'm mistaken, but i was under the impression that when the poster can be recognized, then their accounts are once again wiped. What's the story? Stone put to sky 14:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not American nor from a country supporting them in the invasion of Iraq, and even though I believe most of what is in the article, I think it is understandable if the people on wikipedia want to delete it. After all, wikipedia is mainly an American corporation as far as I understand. You will never get Americans to admit that the people they elected committed acts of terrorism, that's normal. If the same page were to exist on a Chinese website about the Chinese government, they would surely have it deleted, so I think deletion is understandable. It's basic politeness not to insult someone when you are in their house, and I think many here take this article as an insult. If people want an alternative view on things they can simply look on other sites made by different countries. It is a bit offensive to be honest to be shoving the faults of a nation into their face like this. Most Americans didn't mean any harm. Maybe next time someone puts this on AfD they should give as a reason that it is deliberately insulting them for no reason. If someone is mentally retarded, you don't go onto his blog and tell him he is a retard. So no need to go onto the American wikipedia and tell them they have committed acts of terrorism. Jackaranga 18:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not valid, and I disagree with your premises. Many Americans are not nationalists. For instance, myself being a firm internationalist. I take a world perspective on matter, irrespective of what State I happen to be born and raised in. You wrongly assume that all Americans want to support whatever crimes their governments have committed, or want to hide the fact about these crimes. Not so. I want to expose it, and stand with the victimes, and the rest of the world in condeming injustices--ESP. when they are committed by my own countries government. That is our duty, in my view. Also, American people and the US govt. are not the same; the common, and majority of the people are not responsible for the crimes of their govt.--they are maniuplated, lied to, and kept ignorant. WP is not an organ of the US govt, WP is the FREE people's encylopedia. If it was a CIA/US Govt. propaganda website your point would be logical. But given that its not, it has crediblity, so it has both the freedom and a duty to counter any systematic bias relating to it being an English encylopedia, or mostly edited by US citizens. Indeed, its crediblity depends on it not taking any pro-US govt. view, and it means that articles just like this one should be allowed its place in the ocean of verifibable knowlege, which prove that its content is not controlled or censored by the Govt. or political groups who are State boot-lickers.Giovanni33 05:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered that possibility that the media you prefer is actually the biased one and that the mainstream media may actually be less biased?Ultramarine 19:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's think about this. We need an article called State terrorism by the French Army or just call it Alleged State terrorism by France . After all, the French army did drop their weapons and let the Germans roll through during WWII, putting all those civilians in harms way. That was just awful. We can combine text from French Army, WWII and this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkreig#France_1940 and create "Alleged State terrorism by France" (we'll remove the word alleged later on). And, it would be well sourced! Yes, and if someone wants to AfD it, we can just go vote and say stuff like "Keep, it's a well sourced article.", and "It's very informative." (see WP:ILIKEIT). Forget the fact that it would violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH like State terrorism by the United States does. Just food for thought, weren't most of the hijackers behind the events of 9/11 Saudi Arabian in background? Perhaps we need to create State terrorism by Saudi Arabia and a couple of other terrorism articles and we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks#Suspected_hijackers to help build them. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You really believe this crap, don't you?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 20:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I know this, Wikipedia is not a place for original reasearch. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 20:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So why is it allowed in this article? For example, there is no evidence that the US was involved in the Cubana bombing. Another example, giving graphic emotional details regarding human rights violations by the Contras, yet if reading the International Court ruling it stated that the US did not have sufficent control over the Contras to be responsible for such actions.Ultramarine 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Check this out: [30] It is an original research, POV playground. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Not to mention that the allegations often have no relation to what the sources actully states. Before it was protected again, I managed the check some of them and the misrepresentations were amazing. Like this one, which stated that Posada has admitted bombing the plane![31] Or that the CIA knew he was going to bomb the plane.[32]Ultramarine 21:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I think the contents of this article are correct, I agree it is original research and more like a collection of facts, made just to annoy Americans who are insecure about their history. It should be separated into separate articles on each precise point. Jackaranga 22:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, when I checked a few sources, there many misrepresentations. Also, lots of things are excluded which does not fit the US bashing, like regarding the Iran coup the Prime minister had dissolved the Parliament when it did not obey him. Or that the School of Americas is now reorganized with obligatory human rights courses and screening of those who attend.Ultramarine 22:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, there are no "misrepresentations" here whatsoever. One does not need to have "state terrorism" included in every document referenced; when presenting evidence that certain events occurred -- when verifying time-frames, showing how certain events occurred, or showing who was involved -- the documents only need to be valid records of the relevant issues. This is the very definition of "NPOV" scholarship: if every commentator admits that the U.S. was responsible for a coup in Iran in the 1950's -- and the CIA perpetrators come out and write a book describing how exactly they did it -- then it is perfectly reasonable to include the book on this page to bolster the arguments of those organizations and legal entities who describe those events as "State Terrorism". Stone put to sky 03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You just announced that your intention is to add sources to specifically "bolster the arguments" of those who support calling this state terrorism. In what alternate Wikipedia is it OK to conduct original research to "bolster the arguments" of those whose arguments are insufficient to begin with (according to you)? - Merzbow 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I keep hearing claims of original research, yet I fail to see any OR, here. The claims are supported by 3rd party sources who makes these arguments. To show that the argument is notable, its a good thing to add as many valid, reputable sources as possible to boslter that case, per WP policies. This is not OR. If there are counter arguments being made about the claims presented, then its fine if we also include those, in proper weight. But, in all cases we should add several relevant sources to indeed bolster the claims (arguments) being made.Giovanni33 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If Chomsky says the U.S. conducted terrorism in country A, then it is original research to attempt to "bolster" his argument by presenting allegedly supporting material written by sources that do not say that the US conducted terrorism in country A—this is the purest form of original research possible. - Merzbow 06:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not OR if the claim (argument) has already been established, from a source. The test of OR or SYN is: is there a new (original) claim being made? One that is NOT found in a published source? The answer in this case is no, therefore its not OR. If the argument is alrady made connecting a certain event to a claim of state terrorism, then we do not introduce any new claims by providing other sources that describe in details those events--even if the other sources do not advance that particular claim. Its irrelevant, since we already have a 3rd party source making that connection, making that argument. This is, ofcourse, provided that the other sources we use to fill in details about the incident(s) in question, are not cited as making that particular claim/argument, but instead provided as filler info about the incidents in question. Again, no new claim is being made, and thus there is not OR.Giovanni33 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See example with Cuba below, assuming one would use the same methodology used in the article now.Ultramarine 19:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I cannot find that Chomsky has stated that any of these conflicts were state terrorism except the support for the Contras. Do you have any more source labeling something "state terrorism"? Ultramarine 19:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Certain Users Badly Misinformed Re: Original Research

No, Merzbow / Ultramarine, you have it wrong yet again. If a certain set of events were declaimed as state terrorism -- by whomever (i think it's quite entertaining the way you and others here try so hard to pin all identified instances of U.S. sponsored terrorist acts upon Chomsky alone) --

As i was saying, if a certain set of events is declaimed as an instance of U.S.-sponsored terrorism, then it is perfectly legitimate to introduce sources that validate the events as described in the judgment. If multiple human rights, foreign government, legal and media sources declare the U.S.-sponsored war against Nicaragua as "state terrorism", then it is perfectly legitimate to quote the New York Times, U.S. State Department, and other sources to fully flesh out how the events transpired.

Ah, good ol' Latin America, where communist propaganda clings with the tenacity of griffnuts long, long after the initially promulgating entity has departed the scene. It only took 35 years to rediscover that the Chilean legislature had *asked* the military to overthrow the odious tyrant Allende.--Mike18xx 11:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the good ol' right-wing ad hominem attack, where lies, half-truths, and anything devoid of truth-value is paraded as insight. Stone put to sky 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the good ol' false-dichotomy logical-fallacy wallowing. Here you go.--Mike18xx 19:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing illegitimate there; we're talking junior high school position-paper-assignment 101, here. This is really basic stuff and absolutely non-controversial. Ultramarine and others are saying that certain sources cannot be included because the sources themselves do not use the words "state terrorism", but that's a straw-man argument. These sources that Ultramarine is "challenging" (more like a mosquito batting around the ankles of a rhino, if you ask me) have not been introduced to the article as definitive judgments about the nature of the violence, but instead are included ONLY to show that the description of events as presented here is uncontroversial and openly admitted by the United States and its defenders.

That in no way approaches "original research". WP::OR is intended to defend against people who appear on Wikipedia and say stuff like "I have recently completed an unpublished scientific experiment using dna evidence to show that everyone who voted for George Bush is descended from a pre-neanderthal society that mated with marsupial swine." Or, in an example closer to home, to protect against people who might say something like "These unpublished documents here show that G.W. Bush's great-granddaddy worked for the Nazis, and this interview i did with Herr Scheissekopf von Wyoming validates the accusation."

WP::OR, however, is not intended to prevent people who already agree on what a word like "murder" means -- even when events obviously meet the definition -- from stating that "X is a murderer" unless someone else said it first. Or to put it another way: if i go to the article on John Wayne Gacy and post up "John Wayne Gacy is one of the U.S.'s most notable serial killers", it is enough for me to simply show that he's been convicted and/or admitted to multiple homicides, and there's a general agreement that he's not lying and/or the conviction was properly obtained. Regardless of how fond you might be of John Wayne Gacy, you would have no leg to stand on if you insisted that he wasn't a serial killer simply because no journalist you trusted had ever used the phrase.

In other words, just as it is not necessary for me to find a prosecutor, detective on the case, or journalist who can be quoted as saying that "John Wayne Gacy is a serial killer," so also it is not necessary for me to find a person who says that an the official U.S. policy of supplying the Contras with weapons and then teaching them to avoid conflict with military targets to instead murder only unarmed farmers was terrorism. Such activity clearly meets all definitions of "terrorism" as recognized by the U.S. government itself -- both the FBI and the U.S. Dep't of State -- and is as uncontroversial as any statement could be.

This is an artificial hurdle that has been introduced to this page by a fellow back-a-ways called "NuclearUmpf". It was my opinion at the time that this guy was someone who rarely got out of the house, watched too much t.v, and had never graduated from High School; his arguments were precisely that weak and uninformed. Eventually he got banned, both because of the outrageous demands he forced upon various threads as well as his inability to deal with his interlocutors in a socially acceptable fashion.

I mention this because it was he who originally made the assertion that "Any reference back to a commonly accepted definition is Original Research". Of course, for anyone who takes any form of research seriously such a position is laughable. Taken to its extreme -- as it is here -- none of us would ever be able to make any statements regarding anything; but of course the rest of Wikipedia is thriving, while this page bickers away because of the insistence by a few upon a double- or triple-standard to which no other pages must adhere.

For the moment, Merzbow, the conscientious and legitimate editors here are willing to abide by some of these artificial restrictions you and others here seek to impose. We will be happy to limit all entries here to widely recognized instances where international experts from legal, human rights, and widely recognized journalistic backgrounds clearly qualify the words "State Terrorism" with "United States". We will not, however, allow you to make up the rules as you go along. Regardless of how you protest, there are indeed Wiki guidelines on the legitimate uses of research, and you are currently attempting to badly abuse them. Stone put to sky 08:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there are no "multiple human rights, foreign government, legal and media sources" who have declarted that"the U.S.-sponsored war against Nicaragua as 'state terrorism'" There is no evidence that the US was involved in the Cubana bombing. As noted above, when I checked a few sources, there many misrepresentations. Also, lots of things are excluded which does not fit the US bashing, like regarding the Iran coup the Prime minister had dissolved the Parliament when it did not obey him. Or that the School of Americas is now reorganized with obligatory human rights courses and screening of those who attend.

Using this argument, one could create an article "State terrorism by Cuba" and state that Cuban support of various rebels and overthrows of governments in Latin America and Africa were state terrorism. Furthermore, one will quote rumors on websites by anti-Castro groups as further evidence of state terrorism. When quoting, be sure to state something much worse than the source states. To spice it up, one will add several graphic decriptions of rape and murder by some rebel group that Cuba has supported. Various UN resolutions condemning human rights abuses in Cuba will be added to show that Cuba has been condemned by international community for state terrrism.Ultramarine 09:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If Cuba were conducting wars in which rebel groups targeted unarmed civilians or in which they were acting as an invading country -- which, incidentally, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting such an assertion -- then yes, you would be correct. If you would like to start a page alleging these acts, then be my guest: i will happily play the devil's advocate and see how things develop. Who knows -- perhaps i'll even learn something new (although i seriously doubt it).

However, there is nothing in what i said that suggests "quoting rumors by anti-Castro groups" (or anyone, for that matter) would be acceptable. if you look over this page you will find that none of the events here are merely rumored to be true; they are incontrovertibly validated as having occurred, and as being either propagated or promoted by the United States. Which of course is the point of those sources which you are currently declaiming as "invalid": they clearly validate that events occurred, they occurred in a certain way, and that either the U.S. itself admits to responsibility, or other International organizations / informed commentators believe it shares.

Nor is there any need to "spice things up" with hearsay evidence (and we have not done so here). If you can show clearly documented evidence from reliable sources that validate the description of events you offer, then of course your words will stand. Yet remember that "reliable sources" are not inclusive of anti-Castro groups, nor their fronts.

Re: Nicaragua and U.S. State Terrorism: I have here multiple sources, in French, Spanish, Danish, Italian, from various groups such as UN officials, international legal experts, widely recognized media commentators, political science professors, and countries such as Costa Rica, Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua itself -- and the list does not end there; there are statements by Amnesty International, Redress, and other human rights groups. Yes, indeed - there are more than "multiple" sources which identify the U.S. war against the Nicaragua people as "State Terrorism"; there is a veritable forest of them.

Re: Cubana: Posada was under contract with the CIA at the time of the bombing, and has since been routinely protected by the U.S. government. That's all that's needed to qualify as "state sponsored terrorism", even by the most loose of definitions; for instance, Osama bin Laden had less of a relationship to the Afghani Taliban than did Posada and the U.S. government, but i am sure that you and others here consider him a tool of "Afghani State Terrorism" (you must, else that war you support against the Afghani people would be merely criminal).

Re: School of Americas: we are not concerned here with unverifiable and hidden present events, but only with verified past ones. It is irrelevant to the Central Americans who lived through Operation Condor if the School of Americas is currently reformed. It was an instrument of terror and torture throughout the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties, and that is all we are concerned with here.

Re: Purported "misrepresentations" -- unless you can coherently articulate something more than vague generalizations, you have no right to demand reform.

Re: Purported omissions: Fine. Include them. We have no problem with that. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. We will not, however, allow you to delete the entry. Stone put to sky 09:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuba massively supported the rebels in Angola and Mozambique and later also sent many thousands of troops there. The large scale human rights violations by Marxist movements there are documented in for example The Black Book of Communism. So yes, I could document everything I said in an article called "State terrorism by Cuba", using the methodology of this article.

So you have no English source by some offical organization stating that the support for the Contras was "state terrorism". Strange.

Posada had stopped being a CIA agent at the time of the bombing. A "contact", which could be nothing more than a chat or he seeking employment, months earlier is not evidence for US involvement. He certainly was not "under contract," despite the rumours that may be spread on pro-Cuba websites.

The Talibans allowed large scale terrorist training camps. Comparing this to Posada, a former CIA agent that (allegedly) bombed the plance with a few associates acting on their own, is strange.

Regarding the School of Americas, read NPOV. Only presenting US bashing is not allowed. Their current policy regarding human rights is documented for example here:[33]Ultramarine 09:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you see? I knew you would lose. All one needs is a quick glance at Wikipedia to find that the MPLA -- with whom the Cubans were allied -- was the legitimate government of Angola from the beginning of its independence from Portugal. Almost immediately, it came under attack by South African and U.S. backed forces, in the form of the FNLA and Unitas. Finally, the vast majority of the atrocities committed in that war were orchestrated by Unitas -- not the MPLA. Now if you think i'm in error and you can document that, then feel free! Please -- start the page! Obviously this is something you are passionate about, so get to work!

Re: English sources: Believe it or not, most of the world doesn't speak English (i know that's hard for some folks to accept, but it's true; don't take your friends' words for it, though -- i suggest you get on a plane and go someplace like, oh, the Iraqi Parliament, and see how they do things there); thus, when dealing with international matters, it is commonplace to make reference to other languages. Do you think that all cases which come before the UN, ICJ or ICC are conducted in English? Of course not! But be that as it may, i think you need to learn how to read a bit more carefully. Besides making reference to several groups whose articles are typically written in English, i also added that it was incomplete.

Re: Posada: CIA payroll before and after the bombing is a bit much of a coincidence, and too convenient not to suspect. Further, the primary issue here is that the U.S. continues to protect him; do i need to remind you that the United States invaded not one, but TWO countries because it claimed that they were "hiding terrorists"?

Re: The Taliban: the Taliban "allowed" nothing. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but by your own logic the United States is currently "allowing" a resurgence of the Taliban and large-scale "Taliban Bases" (for, indeed, the United States controls virtually no part of Afghanistan outside of Kabul and its immediate region). Thus -- by your own logic -- the U.S, under the leadership of George W. Bush, is allied with the Taliban and supporting extremist Islamic militarism.

If this seems a bit hard for you to accept, i suggest you go back and read the press-releases of the Taliban government just after 911. They said, in effect: We have no evidence that demonstrates Osama bin Laden's involvement. We also have no reason to protect him. We will be happy to cooperate with the United States in bringing this man to justice, but insist that the evidence against him first be shown to us.

We all know what happened then: the United States said "Turn him over or else!" But now, we find that the United States itself -- the most powerful military in the world -- hasn't been able to capture the guy. So it does make one wonder, doesn't it: if it's so difficult for the U.S. to achieve, then doesn't it make sense that it would have been at least as difficult for the Taliban to achieve? Which in turn begs a great many more questions that do call your nationalist religious fervor into question.

Your arguments are ill-conceived and do not stand up under scrutiny. It is obvious that you feel the rest of the world should be held to a different, higher, and more vicious standard than the United States. While that is certainly something you are entitled to in your private life, when dealing with facts and scholarly articles it such prejudice is inadmissible. Stone put to sky 10:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuba supported these Marxist movements when they were rebels and committed numerous human rights violations, thus "state terrorism" by Cuba as the term is used in this article. Again, strange that you have no English source by some offical organization stating that the support for the Contras was "state terrorism". And yes, international organization publish at least a translation of important documents in English. Regarding Posada, OR. Not a CIA agent at the time and no evidence that the US was involved in the bombing. The US does not protect him, a judge did. The US and its allies contols much of Afghanistan, the Taliban is losing all the battles. Even if the Talibans has terrorist camps on the territory they control, that is certainly not support by the US for this. I repeat, using the OR and misquotations used in this article, it would be easy to create an article called "State terrorism by Cuba" or "State terrorism by the Sandinistas" (remember their support for rebels in El Salvador).Ultramarine 10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue this here, because it's irrelevant to this page. I shall simply leave it at this: you are wrong, very wrong, totally wrong, absolutely wrong, and in no way whatsoever right, correct, accurate, or knowledgeable of the facts surrounding these incidents.

Having said that, i suggest that we take this to a different page. Feel free to start one: "State Terrorism by Cuba". Perhaps i'll even stop by and join in the discussion. I'm sure that, with your passion, dedication and tenacity, the page will turn into a paragon of virtue and quality scholarship, and i am sincerely interested in reading something that i no doubt would learn so much from.

Re: Posada :: "The US does not protect him, a judge did." ==> I don't know if you were aware of this, but that "judge" who protected him was acting as an agent of the United States' Government. I am surprised that such a basic and fundamental tenet of international law would escape such a weighty and vociferous intellectual man as yourself. Nothing you have said so far qualifies the Posada section as original research.

And yes, international organizations publish at least a translation of important documents in English."

No, they don't. Why is it you keep making these really fundamental mistakes about issues that are very simple and obvious to anyone who has ever dealt in international law, or even just international trade? The only thing i can figure is that you must be testing me, or something, because these statements you are making are just too fundamentally and blatantly inaccurate to be coming from someone who is obviously as passionate and knowledgeable about foreign affairs as you claim to be.

Re: "The US and its allies contols much of Afghanistan, the Taliban is losing all the battles."

Hahahahahha! You are so funny! Where do you come up with these one-liners? Do you spend time thinking them up, or does it just come naturally? My guess is the latter; i cannot imagine that someone would be able to hone their intellect to such obliquion.

But let us leave the laughter aside, and address the point (which you seem, once again, to have missed): there is no evidence -- NONE -- that directly links the Taliban to Osama bin Laden and his network. No money trail, no weapons' trail, no sharing of personnel, nothing. In fact, the relationship between the Taliban and ObL was less substantial than the links between the CIA and ObL: the CIA trained ObL and cooperated with him for many years, the whole time providing him with logistical and financial support. With that in mind, i don't understand how someone could believe that the Taliban -- whose forces were basically a bunch of sidewinder-missile and AK-47 wielding infantry with no air-support, no satellite communications, and no mechanized armaments -- would quickly respond to ultimatums demanding blood and money in what would have certainly been a costly chase after a hostile ObL. Of course they wanted evidence and money -- ObL was, after all, the CIA's creation -- and i think it remarkable they were even willing to help out.

Currently the United States' position in Afghanistan is quite similar; they haven't gotten ObL, and haven't eliminated the Taliban. The U.S. and it's Afghan "allies" control nothing outside of Kabul and its surrounding province. Elsewhere, the Taliban operates with virtual impunity, so long as one doesn't count the odd bombing campaign the U.S. runs on weddings, hospitals, and orphanages and such. Since this is, essentially, the situation that the Taliban faced when the U.S. started its invasion of Afghanistan, by your own logic the U.S. is "harboring" the Taliban and, by extension, whatever remnants of "Al Qaeda" might still be around.

In other words: if we go by your logic, the U.S. is currently allied with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.

Is that what you're suggesting? Because frankly, such an assertion seems patently absurd to me, and i can't imagine how you would ever suggest such a thing. Stone put to sky 11:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless if you want to discuss it, I will continue to make comparisons to Cuba and other nations. Again, Posada was not a CIA agent at the time and there is no evidence that the US was involved. No, a judge stopping him being extradited on fear of torture is not the same as the policy of the Bush administration, they have often ruled against him. Again, international organization publish at least a translation of important documents in English, so it is very strange that you have not managed to find any that state that the US support of the Contras was "state terrorism". The Talibans allowed terrorist camps on territory rhey controlled in Afghanistan, the US does not. Spare me the personal attacks and the ad hominem, that is last resort of those who have lost the factual discussion.Ultramarine 11:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare away. The issue is not if the CIA helped plant the bomb; the issue is that the CIA helped finance and support his activities, and that the U.S. government has protected him from punishment for his acts of terrorism against other peoples.

It is irrelevant what the "policy of the Bush administration" is. What is relevant is whether or not the U.S. government enabled Posada (i.e. -- trained, financed, or advised him) and whether it is protecting Posada from punishment. The answer to both of those questions is yes.

What you apparently have failed to grasp is that by harboring a known terrorist who is in flight from punishment for convictions of terrorist acts, the United States is protecting and enabling a known terrorist. By the definitions used by the U.S. and most international legal assemblies, that is incontrovertibly an act of terrorism in itself. Indeed, it was precisely this logic -- based upon the lies and purposeful deceit of the Bush administration -- that formed part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq. There is no "original research" at work here, and you are simply wrong about the facts surrounding this issue.

"Again, international organization publish at least a translation of important documents in English,"

Again: no, they usually don't, and particularly not in the area of international law. There's no gentle way to say this: you are just utterly and completely wrong.

"it is very strange that you have not managed to find any that state that the US support of the Contras was "state terrorism"."

Again: Yes, i do. And even so, it's not necessary.

The Talibans allowed terrorist camps on territory rhey controlled in Afghanistan, the US does not.

Again: I doubt you even knew who the Taliban was until after 911 happened. I've been studying them now for 12 years. Once again, there's no gentle way to say this: You're so badly misinformed that you are just completely and totally wrong.

Spare me the personal attacks and the ad hominem, that is last resort of those who have lost the factual discussion.

What attacks, and what ad hominem? Show me where i have attacked you and i will be quite happy to edit my words. As it is, i only see sincere commendations of your obvious passion and understanding of those events you have studied and followed, along with a few giggles at what were obviously cute exaggerations. Where you are wrong, however: what do you expect me to say? That you're right?

I am quite sincere in my admiration for your tenacity and energy. You are a man with a strong will and an unflinching loyalty. I really don't understand how you would take away from all this that i have somehow attacked you personally, with ad hominem improprieties. Please be assured that i will happily edit my remarks to be less offensive, if only you'll point it out to me. Stone put to sky 11:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence that US was involved in the bombing, and it did not finance it. No, a judge stopping Posada being extradited on fear of torture is not the same as the policy of the Bush administration, judges have often ruled against him. I will just repeat, again, international organization publish at least a translation of important documents in English, so it is very strange that you have not managed to find any that state that the US support of the Contras was "state terrorism". Not even the Nicaragua case states this and even explicitly states that the US was no responsible for human rights violations due to their lack of control of the Contras, although there may have been some enouragement by manuals.Ultramarine 12:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Never edit my talk page comments, that is vandalism. You had stated you did not intend to discuss them, so I created a new section and added more info.Ultramarine 12:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How to write a "state terrorism" article

Note that beginning of this section down to the "Cuba" section is some material copied by "Stone put to sky" from the section above.Ultramarine 12:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Material removed by me because of antagonistic editing ;-) Cheers! Stone put to sky 12:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

This article massively violates OR. To illustrate, using the methodlogy of this article, one could create an article called "State terrorism by Cuba"

• One points to Cuban support of various rebels committing numerous human rights violations in Latin America and Africa (as documented for example in the Black Book of Communism) and labels this "state terrorism"
• One points to the reports by Cuba defectors, who were close to Castro, of support for terrorist and criminal activites in numerous nations as evidence of Cuban state terrorism.[34]
• In order to not miss anything, one will quote rumors on websites by anti-Castro groups as further evidence of state terrorism.
• When quoting, be sure to state something much worse than the source states. (Like these in this article: [35][36])
• To spice it up, one will add several graphic decriptions of a few especially viscous cases of rape and torture by some rebel group that Cuba has supported.
• Various UN resolutions condemning human rights abuses in Cuba will be added to show that Cuba has been condemned by the international community for state terrorism and that it is doing this against its own people.
• When one is finished, one goes on to a "state terror" article about the Sandinistas, pointing out their support for reberls in El Salvador who committed numerous human rights violations as well as their terror against their own population.[37]Ultramarine 11:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you consider it vandalism i shall allow you to restore them. However, i have had many of my comments "vandalized" here, on less firm grounds, so i thought it appropriate. I am sorry for the minor inconvenience. Stone put to sky 12:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not put material out of context. Last added material last please.Ultramarine 12:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Not material out of context; you are merely re-posting the arguments you added above. You object to removing them -- which i think is most appropriate -- but i object to letting them stand without comment. Since we have already had a full commentary above, i shall simply re-post the discussion that followed.

And i will remind you: do not remove my posts from the talk-page again. That is vandalism. Stone put to sky 12:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The response to the above is as follows:

If Cuba were conducting wars in which rebel groups targeted unarmed civilians or in which they were acting as an invading country -- which, incidentally, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting such an assertion -- then yes, you would be correct. If you would like to start a page alleging these acts, then be my guest: i will happily play the devil's advocate and see how things develop. Who knows -- perhaps i'll even learn something new (although i seriously doubt it).

However, "quoting reports by anti-Castro groups" would be unacceptable simply because these reports are notoriously inept fabrications. Only reliable sources are allowed. If you look over this page you will find that none of the events here are merely rumored to be true and all are incontrovertibly validated as having occurred, and as being either propagated or promoted by the United States.

The sources you offer are sadly inadequate. The Werlau article is essentially a business expose that shows how Castro maintains Cuba's economy in a world where the United States is trying to isolate it. There is nothing in there about Terrorist acts, unless you want to count extremely questionable claims about drug deals by Miami-based "journalists" who work for anti-castro groups. Bank robberies do not count as terrorist acts; while a bank-robbery may be perpetrated by a terrorist group, it is not done so for the purpose of spreading fear or forcing political concessions. So we have some claims about drug-deals from people who are working for Miami-based organizations which are themselves considered to be the root of the Miami-based drug syndicates, and stories about bank robberies and money-laundering, which have nothing to do with terrorism.

Similarly, "FrontPageMag" is inadmissible as a Wikipedia source;....

Horsecrap.--Mike18xx 06:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...quick search on Google under " 'FrontPage Magazine' lies distortions half-truths quotes quotations " turned up 20 sites out of the first thirty (out of a total of ~60,000) that had verified, documented, realio-trulio lies and/or unretracted mistakes in major FrontPage Magazine stories, all within the last three years. In addition, the magazine is openly acknowledged as the publication arm of a far-right-wing activist group. If that doesn't qualify as an unreliable source, i don't know what does. Stone put to sky 07:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

...the publication is notoriously inept at fact-checking, and widely dismissed for its regular distortions and fabrications.

<snicker> The Wikipedia article Criticism of Noam Chomsky has 40 references, the very first one of which includes the word "Lying" in its title. And, it being a Wikipedia article, one presumes it is free of the massive duplication of mirrored blogs entries inherent in Google returns, as well as not counting of cases in which, e.g., Frontpage, et al, is making an accusation that someone else is lying, distorting (etc).--Mike18xx 08:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Snicker away. I have read a great many criticisms of Chomsky by a great many people, and have yet to find anyone who is capable of challenging his facts or reasoning without fabricating sources, making false attributions to him, or purposefully misrepresenting his past publications. But that's neither here nor there; Chomsky's attributions on this page are largely statements of his personal position, and nothing more. Such facts as Chomsky presents are easily corroborated by multiple sources, and have been many times over.

Essentially, the criticisms of Chomsky that you mention are merely the Limbaugh-OReilly-Gingrich echo-chamber doing what it does best: fabricating and distorting an otherwise clearly documented and factually uncontroversial commentary because it (and the lazy, moronic cowards who serve it) cannot reconcile reality with the fantasy they wish were true.

When all is said and done, Chomsky is a university professor whose studies in linguistics revolutionized the way computer languages and computer technology have developed; whose contacts among disparate foreign intellectuals have formed the foundation of a non-aligned internationalist movement that stands against war in all its forms; whose words and articles clearly promote a libertarian ethic that emphasizes human rights and the freedom of all peoples and nations to self-govern. In these endeavors, he has operated individually and independently of any political parties. He hasn't received any donations from interested political actors, and his activities have been entirely financed by the sales of his own books, speaking fees, and whatever cost you would like to put on his own spare time.

That is in dramatic contrast to Horowitz and his "FrontPage Magazine" (and all of its sister organizations/publications), which is directly financed as a partisan political group, which gets most of its donations from corporate sources; which operates in close collusion with the GOP and corporate media outlets; and which, were it not for these donations from organized political and government sources, would be unable to subsist.

Claiming a likeness between the two is like saying Truth and Falsehood are the same thing because they're both nouns. Stone put to sky 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Chomsky, who has criticized tax havens and concentration of wealth, has himself (with a net worth of $2,000,000) used a trust to avoid taxation. "Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income." He has also criticized intellectual property, but himself insists on this for his own works, which has earned him considerable wealth.Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist Regarding his writings, see [38][39].Ultramarine 10:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumors by anyone are simply inadmissible, and there are none in this article.

Nor is there any need to "spice things up" with hearsay evidence (and we have not done so here). If you can show clearly documented evidence from reliable sources that validate the description of events you offer, then of course your words will stand. Yet remember that "reliable sources" are not inclusive of anti-Castro groups, nor their fronts.

UN condemnations are allowable.

To clarify: you are simply re-stating the arguments presented above. Since we have had a good back-and-forth over these claims already, i thought it appropriate to make sure the other readers here got a chance to look at them. I think it is bad faith on your part to simply attempt to re-start the argument and completely bypass the considerable effort we have already spent going over the issues involved. Your post presents nothing that is not already presented above. But since you insist on re-posting your initial claims, i see no reason not to re-post my response, and all that followed. Stone put to sky 12:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already given sources, including academic research such as the Black Book of Communism, above showing that rebels Cuba supported, and Cuba itself, has done such acts. Regarding unreliable sources such as webisites, this page quotes such sources. Frontpagemag quotes reliable sources and is itself no worse than many of the sources in this article. The Werlau article mentions much more than you claim, like this regarding assassinations.

"Cuba has been a sort of clearinghouse for international terrorist and subversive activities, for which Castro seems to have considerable funding discretion. Subversive groups from Latin America and the Middle East have routinely delivered funds for Castro’s reserves with the proceeds of bank robberies, kidnappings, robberies, contraband, and other criminal activities that Cuba has planned, coordinated or in which Cuba had some participation.70 These, together with operations to eliminate opponents overseas by way of assassination, were carried out under the command of Antonio and Patricio de la Guardia."Ultramarine 12:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Great. Start the page, then. (for those of you interested in seeing how this exchange eventually turns out, simply read the section above, ending "Re: Original Research") Stone put to sky 12:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not my point, it would be an OR synthesis to call these acts "state terrorism" unless a source does so. (They could be in an article called "Criticisms of Cuba's foreign policy" or something similar.) My point is that the same applies to this article. More generally, since the definition of state terrorism is unclear and since OR is tolerated in this article, in principle any act that someone dislikes could be called "state terrorism". For example, some opponents of the death penalty could argue that it is terror against the civilian population and add it to this article. Or some supporter of far right-wing groups could decide that the US government is subjecting such groups to "state terrorism".Ultramarine 13:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I see your point quite clearly, just as i see its utter lack of relevance. There is no original research in this article, and the sources used are considerably more solid and legitimate than anything you present or suggest (not rumors, nor simply anti-american fringe groups funded by foreign agencies). Your analogy is quite specious. (for those of you interested in seeing how this exchange eventually turns out, simply read the section above, ending "Re: Original Research") Stone put to sky 13:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect description of my sources, as stated above, as well as the sources this article uses. For example, many of the sources are the Cuban government or its controlled agencies, such as Granma or Radio Habana Cuba.Ultramarine 13:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Government sources are acceptable. Books published by acknowledged anti-Castro front groups are not. You have yet to accept the fact that Cuba is a sovereign nation, and receives full credit as such in the international arena. Furthermore, the rest of the world -- U.S. excluded, of course -- readily accepts Cuban media reports of what goes on within its borders. This, in contrast to states like Libya or Zimbabwe.

Sounds like a load of ambiguous-collective rubbish to me. Others agree.--Mike18xx 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the "rest of the world" is quickly coming to view the United States' media as something not too far off from Libyan or Soviet "news" sources. Fox News, for instance, is categorically dismissed as a valid news source everywhere in the world except for the United States.

You'll never see the BBC quoting Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity as a source on anything;

Of course not! They're busy paying Hezbollah "stringers" to fake photos and stage propaganda.--Mike18xx 06:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

...Granma and Radio Habana will, however. Stone put to sky 14:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So state published material from Communist Cuba is a reliable soruce, but not academic books it they criticize Cuba? The rest if the world certainly do not accept Cuba's state-controlled media as reliable. Except maybe North Korea and similar states.Ultramarine 14:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a statement by the EU condemning the deteriorating state of human rights in Cuba: [40].Ultramarine 14:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This is yet another straw man, set up by you and -- like the rest of this exchange -- completely irrelevant to our current task.

Nobody has argued that "academic books [that] criticize Cuba" are less reliable than "published material from Communist Cuba".

The rest of the world certainly does accept Cuban news sources as valid; i suggest you go read a few Canadian, French, and British newspapers and magazines. Check out their international sections, and you'll find Cuban sources aplenty.

If you are so interested in this hypothetical page you are currently ranting over, then please - go create it. You may add the EU article you are interested in there. Here, however, it is irrelevant. This is not a page about Cuba's acts of State Terrorism, but about acts of State Terrorism by the United States. (for those of you interested in seeing how this exchange eventually turns out, simply read the section above, ending "Re: Original Research") Stone put to sky 14:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Your personal claims are not a reliable source in Wikipedia. In democratic nations Cuba's state-controlled media are not seen as reliable, except maybe in more orthodox Communist circles. Again, as stated above, it is not may intention to start such an article, as it would be original research, as much of this article is.Ultramarine 14:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

These are not personal claims, but facts. I read the BBC regularly. When reporting on Cuban events, they typically quote Cuban media sources (which are, by definition, state owned and operated). This is not opinion, but fact.

Further, i seriously doubt you can read French, Spanish, or German. Of those three, i've got two, plus Chinese. I can guarantee you: other nations certainly do take Cuban media seriously, and in addition they take it far more seriously than they do Fox News.

Finally, if you have no intention of starting that article then fine, let's be done with it. Because this entire line of reasoning is based upon a phantasy you have created from your own imagination, and is utterly irrelevant to anything posted in this article. Nothing you have written these last six hours has had the slightest relationship to anything that is posted in this article. It has all been an utterly futile exercise in day-dreaming and posturing, nothing else. It has proven nothing, and demonstrated nothing.

You have not shown any evidence of Original Research, only reiterated your claims that it has taken place -- despite the clearly documented sources and clearly footnoted arguments that prove you wrong. Once again: simply taking a vote on what is and isn't true doesn't change its value, and neither does faith or repetition.(for those of you interested in seeing how this exchange eventually turns out, simply read the section above, ending "Re: Original Research") Stone put to sky 14:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Still personal claims. I read many foreign newspaper and never seen these media considered reliable. As my example with Cuba shows, much of this article is OR, quoting dubious sources such as Cuba's state-controlled media. The "Original Research" section above does not support your case, quote the opposite. Furthermore, I detected numerous factual inaccuracies the last time it was unprotected and corrected some. I will do the same when it gets unprotected again, as well as presenting the opposing views regarding these incidents, if the article does not get deleted outright.Ultramarine 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read "many foreign newspaper" then you know that what i am saying is accurate.

Your "example with Cuba" shows nothing. It is a straw-man, and completely irrelevant. You are attempting to draw conclusions about this article from a fictitious argument out of your own imagination. The only thing you have "shown" by it is your complete inability to recognize the difference between legal documents, human rights organizations, and governmental organizations on the one hand, and paid front groups working in the service of organized criminal organizations and/or secret police groups on the other.

You have "detected" nothing, because -- as your fictitious "example with Cuba" shows -- you have yet to understand the difference between relevant facts and sentimental desire.

You may go ahead and attempt to delete the article, and sections of the article. As for me, i am going to recommend that it remain on protected status, simply because so long as you continue to resist reaching a consensus on the page, no more edits should take place. Stone put to sky 14:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, as can be seen by reading this section. The consensus, or at least the majority opinion, seems clear from the vote above, your view is the minority view.Ultramarine 15:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are simply wrong.

Wiki-policy clearly states that "Consensus" does not reduce to a vote. Similarly, it clearly explains that regardless of what the majority says, all questions reduce to the relevant facts.

It does not matter if i am "in the minority". What matters is that the information presented here is relevant to the page, properly sourced, and does not violate wikipedia guidelines.

What the majority demands is irrelevant, and the reason it is irrelevant is to protect against groups of dis-satisfied ideologues working together to purge the Wiki of facts they consider unpleasant or inconvenient.

That seems to be precisely what is happening here; in the absence of effective arguments or protests against the quality of the sources, relevance of the facts, or transparency of the reasoning, a group of people are coming together on this page to simply vote portions of it away.

The Wiki's policy on consensus and straw polls is clearly set up to protect against precisely this sort of vandalism. So once again --

You are wrong, utterly wrong, and completely wrong. In no way right, correct, or accurate, and there is no justification for continuing this line of reasoning any longer. Stone put to sky 15:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

But majority opinions does decide the outcome in Wikipedia for the deletion and the name of a page. As shown, this an OR synthesis, in many cases quoting dubious sources, only presenting the issue from one side, and when I checked a few of the sources, there were many serious misrepresentations.Ultramarine 15:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already referenced Wiki guidelines to show that you are wrong. While it is quite apparent that you wish you were not wrong, i am here to inform you that nothing has changed: you are still wrong.

I have already shown that your recent posts have nothing to do with this article, but are instead merely straw-men arguments referencing phantasies of your own invention. Nothing has changed: your fantasies are still irrelevant.

As yet, you have been unable to show how any sources were inaccurate or misrepresented. Until you do, nothing will change. Stone put to sky 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, in Wikipedia the deletion and the name of an article is decided by voting. As can be seen in the history of the article, I found numerous misrepresentations the last time it was unprotected. Like this one, which stated that Posada has admitted bombing the plane![41] Or that the CIA knew he was going to bomb the plane.[42] There were many others. I am sure I will find many more the next time.Ultramarine 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for those sources. They shore up the article quite nicely, and are a welcome addition to the already copious material we have presented here.

Rest assured, you will be seeing more from those pages. Stone put to sky 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean, I only corrected the misrepresemtations.Ultramarine 08:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope Stone and Ultramarine have managed to amuse themselves by repeating several times the points they shot back and forth to each other. I would like remind editors to attempt to come to this project in a spirit of cooperation in an open-minded fashion. Just to correct one thing each of you said: 1. Stone--with regard to Posada, the term used by the Administration to justify invading Afghanistan is "harboring" terrorists. 2. Ultramarine, conflicts on WP are resolved not by "voting" but by attempting to reach consensus based on WP rules, in a spirit of fair-mindedness and attempted objectivity in looking at the facts available. Mediation and arbitration are available as last resort. Majority rule is not ideal because the truth and WP policies might suffer. --NYCJosh 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

In general, yes. But see, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, all non-controversial deletions involve a poll. As does name changes. Not to mention that this article was renamed to the current title from the former "Allegations of..." without any discussion or consensus.Ultramarine 21:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help when one side of the argument ignores the rules so it can push its POV. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This would hardly be a "non-controversial" deletion, which is what you cited to. Also, the rule you cite states that "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Did you read the WP rule you were citing or were you too focused on winning your point to learn anything? --NYCJosh 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why there is a poll above regarding name/deletion.Ultramarine 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I state there, I think voting is premature because first we need to identify the issues under WP rules that we think are involved in the name change, and then try to resolve those issues with an open mind to hearing all sides. That's part of the reason I voted under protest to keep--the process is flawed and inappropriate.--NYCJosh 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again: No, Ultramarine, you are wrong. I suspect that you were around when the name of this article was changed from the current "State Terrorism By..." to "Allegations...."; regardless, when that change took place it was done despite the vocal and energetic protests of close to half of the posters who took part in that straw poll. Moreover, of the posters who voted to change the name in that poll, something like two thirds of them have turned out to be one-time logins, sock puppets, or posters whose accounts were eventually banned because of wiki-abuse.

I remember this clearly, because it was the first time i really got involved in Wikipedia conflict resolution process. I requested a mentor, and he and several other folks in the "Wiki-guides" agreed that the straw poll was badly flawed and that the name should not have been changed. Fortunately, the conscientious and sincere editors here got the name returned to the original.

As usual, your representation of events on this page is one-sided and guilty of significant omissions. Coincidentally, all these omissions favor an interpretation that would aid you in achieving your ends; in other words, just like our own beloved Alberto Gonzales, you seem to not care about the intent, spirit, or processes of the Wikipedia protocols except insofar as they can be manipulated and abused for your immediate convenience.

Yes, there has been a name-change. But changing the article to "Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States" was never a consensual agreement; in fact, of those posters here who are not calling for the full deletion of the article, only a tiny minority ever even expressed a mild assent for the idea. Stone put to sky 06:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of unsourced and incorrect claims. As can be seen, the name changes have been done by a single-purpose account.[43]Ultramarine 10:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism vs Act of War

Is there a clear definition that differentiates terrorism and acts of war? For example, a Palestinian terrorist that targets Israeli civillians is rightfully called so, but if the Palestinian attacks an Israeli soldier or military outpost shouldn't it be classified as an Act of War and not terrorism?Arnabdas 19:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no clear definitions of what constitutes terrorism at all. For example, the British government defines terrorism in 1974 as as "the use of violence for political ends", a definition which would include all war. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 16:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua v. US

RE:

However, regarding possible human rights violations by the contras, "The Court does not consider that the assistance given by the United States to the contras warrants the conclusion that these forces are subject to the United States to such an extent that any acts they have committed are imputable to that State." Therefore, "It is for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them."

The full text of the decision is here with the highlighted portions being the portions which were cut and paste to this site:

The Court does not consider that the assistance given by the United States to the contras warrants the conclusion that these forces are subject to the United States to such an extent that any acts they have committed are imputable to that State. It takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, and that the United States is not responsible for the acts of the contras, but for its own conduct vis-a-vis Nicaragua, including conduct related to the acts of the contras. What the Court has to investigate is not the complaints relating to alleged violations of humanitarian law by the contras, regarded by Nicaragua as imputable to the United States, but rather unlawful acts for which the United States may be responsible directly in connection with the activities of the contras. The lawfulness or otherwise of such acts of the United States is a question different from the violations of humanitarian law of which the contras may or may not have been guilty. It is for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them. At the same time, the question whether the United States Government was, or must have been, aware at the relevant time that allegations of breaches of humanitarian law were being made against the contras is relevant to an assessment of the lawfulness of the action of the United States. In this respect, the material facts are primarily those connected with the issue in 1983 of a manual of psychological operations.

What is left out?

Sentence 2: It takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, and that the United States is not responsible for the acts of the contras, but for its own conduct vis-a-vis Nicaragua, including conduct related to the acts of the contras.

i.e. The US is responsible for its acts in Nicaragua, including the acts related to the contras.

Sentence 3: "What the Court has to investigate is not the complaints relating to alleged violations of humanitarian law by the contras, regarded by Nicaragua as imputable to the United States, but rather unlawful acts for which the United States may be responsible directly in connection with the activities of the contras."

i.e. The court should investigate the unlawful acts of the United States which are connected to the contras.

Sentence 4: "The lawfulness or otherwise of such acts of the United States is a question different from the violations of humanitarian law of which the contras may or may not have been guilty. "

i.e. The lawfulness of the US acts is a different than the humanitarian violations that the contracts may have committed.

Sentence 6: "At the same time, the question whether the United States Government was, or must have been, aware at the relevant time that allegations of breaches of humanitarian law were being made against the contras is relevant to an assessment of the lawfulness of the action of the United States."

i.e. It is important to know if the United States is breaking humanitarian law, because this can show if the US actions are lawful.

Sentence 7: "In this respect, the material facts are primarily those connected with the issue in 1983 of a manual of psychological operations. "

i.e. The facts showing that the US was aware of humanitarian crimes can be found in the 1983 of a manual of psychological operations.

This manual is a torture manual, teaching students how to torture. 69.150.212.214 09:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The court never found the US guilty of "state terrorism", "terrorism", or that it was responsible for the human rights violations by the Contras. If you want to dispute this per above, then add to article. But do not simply just delete sourced material you do not like.Ultramarine 09:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not talking about state terrorism in this paragraph, which the ICJ talks a lot about.

My point is that the previous paragraph is completly out of context and was cut and pasted in such a disingenuous way so that a casual reader would think the court found the US innocent of all humanitarian war crimes . This is patently false.

The last two sentences which were excluded, shows that the court says just the opposite: that the US was aware of the humantarian war crimes in Nicaragua. (Sentence 6 and 7). Anyone can read the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare.

69.150.212.214 10:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the ICJ never mentions "state terrorism". In its final voting, "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but 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." Again, if you want expand the material and discussion in the article, fine. But do not simply delete this sourced material.Ultramarine 10:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We discussed this previously, so I'm wondering why you seem not to understand the point being raised. Saying that the court does not use the words "state terrorism" is a red-herring, and off point, since that is not and has never been a claim anyone made, in the article, or on talk. The claim is that the some scholars such as Chomsky, claim the US is guilty of state terrorism, and cite this verdict, who they interpret the findings of the court (unlawful use of force) as state terrorism.

The section you lifted from the article on the case the US vs. Nicaragua doesn't belong in this article, and never out of context like that in any article. The point it makes is a rather trivial point: that the US can not be said to be guilty to the extent that ANY and ALL actions committed by the Contras could be said to be actions of the US itself. Duh. However, the court found the US guilty of unlawful use of force (lots of specific acts of terrorism, such as mining harbors, etc), and it found the US guilty of encouraging the human rights violations of the Contras. Your find legal point belongs not in this artible but in the article you selectively lifted it from--in full context. This article should just link to that article.Giovanni33 16:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The court never voted on "unlawful use of force", that is a few random words from the extremely long preamble before the voted on statements. The court never mentions "terrorism", that is an OR interpretation. Obviously there a difference between encouraging and doing, which should be pointed out.Ultramarine 16:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. We do not cite that the court uses the word terorism. It uses more precise legal terms, i.e. violating the norms of international law, norms of humanitarian law, breaching the norms of the use of force, etc. Again, we cite scholars interpreation of these legalistic terms and the incidents that they refer to, to make the claim of terrorism, with proper attribution. So to bring up that the court does not say this is still a red-herring as its irrelevant. And, its NOT OR for us to cite a 3rd party source that makes these arguments.

The court does say the US was guilty of using unlawful force. Saying that the US has "breached its obligations under international law not to use force" is the same as saying the US used unlawful force. Do you disagree with that? If you do, what is the difference? What is important is that scholarhip on the question says this is a verdict against the US for its "unlawful use of force." That wording is perfectly in keeping with the verdict, which I quote below:

"Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;

Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but 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;"

"Thus the assistance to the contras, as well as the direct attacks on Nicaraguan ports, oil installations, etc., referred to in paragraphs 81 to 86 above, not only amount to an unlawful use of force, but also constitute infringements of the territorial sovereignty of Nicaragua, and incursions into its territorial and internal waters. Similarly, the mining operations in the Nicaraguan ports not only constitute breaches of the principle of the non-use of force, but also affect Nicaragua's sovereignty over certain maritime expanses. The Court has in fact found that these operations were carried on in Nicaragua's territorial or internal waters or both (paragraph 80), and accordingly they constitute a violation of Nicaragua's sovereignty. The principle of respect for territorial sovereignty is also directly infringed by the unauthorized overflight of a State's territory by aircraft belonging to or under the control of the government of another State. The Court has found above that such overflights were in fact made (paragraph 91 above)."

To be clear, Court only says that its can't impute all human rights violations committed by the Contras, except those that the US is connected with, and it found in its verdict that the US encouraged these human rights violations, and awarded reparations to Nic. Chomsky and other scholars use the analysis and findings of the court to argue that the US committed international terrorism, based on the courts verdict. This is not OR, and this is the relevant point for this article (not other points that belong on the article on the case itself).Giovanni33 17:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I repeat again from the voted on statements "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but 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." The US was thus not deemed imputable for any of these acts. Is encouraging such acts state terrorism? Is laying mines and sabotage by US personnel "state terrorism"? Obviously anyone can clam that, since there no agreement on what "state terorism" is, so anyone can make up a definition to fit their claims. Regarding the sabotage and the mines, arguing that this is "state terrorism" means that many wars have involved "state terrorism" Regardless, we should point out that the court did not find the US guilty of HR violations, although of encouraging them.Ultramarine 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And I repeat again. Its not our job to use our own analysis about what the court verdict means or does not mean, even if we quote selected parts of it out of context. That is either POV pushing or boarders on OR. What we do want, in relation to the verdict, is report on the verdict to the extent necessary for reporting on what our 3rd party sources have argued in relation to the verdict on the subject of this article: state terrorism. The details of the verdict beyond that belong in its own article, not this one. This article does not deal with the fact that all the acts of the contras are not imputed to be the acts of the US, which is why the court said it did not even investigate the acts of the contras, since the contras are not the same as the US. This is all rather off topic. The claims are sourced and attributed to the argument that the US has been found guilty of committing state terrorism. Again, it doesnt matter if YOU feel that mining the harbors, sabotauge, and other acts of unlawful force constitute acts of state terror or not (the US was not at war with Nicauraga btw). This is not about what we think, or else there would be no rule against OR.Giovanni33 18:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So you are arguing that this article should remove all the material that does not have sources mentioning "state terrorism"?Ultramarine 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Close but no cigar. I said we should mention facts and details (relevant back ground info) on the issues to the extent that they are necessary in relation to the the sources have argued about the US being guilty of state terrorism. That means, we have to mention the court case since its their argument that its ruling about unlawful use of force involves actions that are argued to be acts of international terrorism by the US. However, to go into details about court case, does not belong on this article as it goes beyond this scope to present a particular POV (that is yours in disagreement with the cited 3rd party sources)--and that is what is not appropriate.Giovanni33 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, there seem to be a double standard here. Regarding the court, we should only include sources mentioning "state terrorism" But most of the rest of the article has no such sources, only being sources describing acts that anonynmous Wikipedia editors themselves think are "state terrorism".Ultramarine 18:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you give an example of this? Then we can look at it and see if its really a double standard. I agree there should be no double standards.Giovanni33 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. "In 2006, a former board member of CANF, Jose Antonio Llama testified that leaders of the foundation had created a paramilitary group to carry out destabilizing acts in Cuba. The foundation’s general board of directors didn’t know the details of the paramilitary group, which acted autonomously, Llama said. He added that current CANF board chairman Jorge Mas Santos was never told of the plan. The plans failed after Llama and four other exiles were arrested in the United States territory of Puerto Rico in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Castro." Does not involve the US government, does not involve CANF, and the it was the US who stopped the deed and protected Castro.Ultramarine 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I never said anything about the court ruling that the US committed state terrorism. This seems to have been ignored, repeatedly. In this section, I am only concerned with the way that the paragraph has been manipulated to say something it does not. I have directly addressed this issue, whereas you have not Ultra.
This exact issue came up before in the archives. The court actually does mention terrorism, several times. I will find the exact quotes. 68.89.128.6 19:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of factual inaccruacy and unsourced text

Giovanni33 has restored a factually incorrect text containing many details not in the claimed source and also deleted much sourced information and restored this with an unsourced text.[44] Explain why.Ultramarine 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would be a little more pacient you would have seen I was working on it, and had restored the update on Posadas. That section is already longer than other sections and it has its own articles. We don't need to expand that section needlessly.[45]Giovanni33 18:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the source of the first paragraph you reverted. The text you restored has no relationship to the source and is longer than the corrected text.Ultramarine 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm if I'm wrong about that my apologies. Please restore that part then, and I'll look at it later. Just please keep it to essential details. Thanks.Giovanni33 18:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that you restore it to avoid any false impressions regarding 3RR.Ultramarine 18:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked and you are fine to restore that. I'm a bit busy at work now. I don't want it to appear that this is not a colaborative effort, and with you restoring it, I feel better that this will be seen as the case, and therefore others will model it.Giovanni33 19:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will restore it tommorrow when I make other edits consecutively to avoid any false impression to outside editors.Ultramarine 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua v US part 2

This was added:

However, regarding human rights violations by the Contras, the Court in its voted on statements "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but 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"

Can someone tell me where in the article it says this quote? I can't find it. (the article is split into three). There were several articles posted about the Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, some more favorable to the US, this one doesnt appear to be very favorable.

Here is a couple of sentences, which are similar:

n105...The I.C.J. held that the manual encouraged the commission of acts that were illegal under international law, but did "not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed as imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America." Id. at 148. As discussed in Part IV, this Comment does not claim that the acts committed by the SOA graduates are imputable to the United States, but claims that the United States is directly liable for the atrocities and torture committed by SOA graduates because of improper training.

Update: I found the actual quote, and updated the link69.153.81.232 01:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala, Final Two Paragraphs

I'd like to know what the purpose of the final two paragraphs are? I can't tell. As they are written, they are extremely sloppy and seem to have little -- if any -- connection to the rest of the entry. They need cleaning up, but unless someone can tell me what they're supposed to be saying then i am afraid i'll delete too much.

Similarly, the next-to-last paragraph should be deleted outright. The SOA has always had "ethics", "law" and "human rights" training. However, when these classes are juxtaposed back-to-back with training in torture and terror tactics, then they become nothing more than training of future terrorists in how to masquerade before the public media as legal and/or ethical regimes.

The inclusion of that sentence is therefore utterly irrelevant, since A) the classes have always existed, and B) the coursework during the time period in question (up through the early '90s) was quite focused on military- and government-sponsored terror tactics.

Some would argue that it still is; i personally don't know enough about that to say one way or the other, nor do i care. The SOA fails basic transparency tests, and it is unethical for Wikipedia to include statements by that school without several second-party sources to back it up. Stone put to sky 04:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the "citation" provided is, in my opinion, invalid; it is an unofficial article on the SOA by an official who has made his career in the military, state department, and now the "Defense Institute of Security Assistance Management", where he heads up a division called "Dean of Academics and International Affairs at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security".

In short: this man teaches at the SOA, gets his salary by promoting it, and is in no way a disinterested or neutral source, nor is his article an official release by the school. DISAM's goals, from the DISAM website:

• Develop a professional security cooperation workforce and build partner capacity....
• Provide research and consultation services to the security cooperation community and international partners
• Conduct a public information program for the security cooperation community and international partners

While i am sure that this man is sincere and more or less honorable in his convictions and efforts, his single word on what the SOA is currently doing and how well he considers it to be succeeding -- but with no second-hand evidence nor concrete testimony to its veracity provided -- is not sufficient to establish the assertion made in the article. Stone put to sky 04:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The statements regarding Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation are sourced. Similar statements could also be sourced to the Institute itself, which if Cuba's government is allowed as a source, also qualify as a source. If you want to dispute them, add to the article. Note that the SOA no longer exists. Regarding Guatemala, these statements are needed to give some background and for describing when the aid ended. But we do need to discuss the Diana Ortiz material, what is the relationship of this rape to United States "state terrorism"? That she states that one of the persons spoke American English is hardly proof of anything, there are lots of Americans, or people educated in America, not connected to the US government.Ultramarine 07:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is not an official statement by the United States Government, nor is it an official statement by anyone -- it is clearly marked as an unofficial opinion piece by a teacher at the WHISC.

Get an official statement -- or a legal statement -- by the U.S. government and it will be o.k. As it is, however, the source is inadequate to support what you are using it to claim. Stone put to sky 12:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

As already stated we can quote WHISC if you prefer. Again, But we do need to discuss the Diana Ortiz material, what is the relationship of this rape to United States "state terrorism"? That she states that one of the persons spoke American English is hardly proof of anything, there are lots of Americans, or people educated in America, not connected to the US government.Ultramarine 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine; but the source you have provided is inadequate. The Dana Ortiz material gives clear, first-hand, court-approved evidence of the presence of a "white North American" who could not speak spanish and who clearly had the authority to over-rule the cabal of police engaged in the torture sessions. This material has been reference by several of the commentators quoted, so it is appropriate to include it in the context of the other material and the unambiguous judgments of the several commentators, experts, and specialists herein cited.

There is no "discussion" that needs to take place. The material stands, and your op-ed by some WHISC "educator" doesn't. Stone put to sky 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I have actually read her testimony, yes, "Alejandro" could speak Spanish. No, again, there is no connection to the United States in any quoted source. Or any mention of a connection in the ruling by the IACOHR, which I have also read, by the way.Ultramarine 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WHINSEC, we can quote them directly.Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. "FAQ".Ultramarine 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is the statement "The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by numerous specialists in international law, including human rights groups, international legal research organizations, and other governments" Most of this is not in the sources given, especially not the claim of "numerous".Ultramarine 11:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the sources given.

It's not my problem if you don't bother to read the information given; however, the sources provided consist of two widely respected and widely influential international law associations, Redress (a large and well-known human rights organization), and a Danish political activist organization. That's enough to show that there are multiple, influential organizations from around the world who have made the claim, and that's enough to support the statement "numerous".

If you do not feel like the citations provided are enough of a sample, i will be happy to link to each and every independent organization or group cited in the article. That, of course, would amount to some thirty or forty citations in total. I think that would be excessive and rather silly, but if you insist on pursuing this point please rest assured -- i have no compunction about filling up three sentence-spaces-worth with citations.

i have removed the "citation needed" flags because the citations are already provided. Stone put to sky 12:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have read the Danish source and fails to see any criticism of state terrorism by the United States. Exact quote please. I have also looked at the Redress source. While it mentions "state terrorism" a few times, I fail to see any criticisms of the US regarding this. Again, exact quote please. Furthermore, it is dubious that these are "specialists in international law" and where are the "international legal research organizations" Ultramarine 12:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• "International Law" Research Organizations: CETIM, The American Association of Jurists (via Marjorie Cohn, of its executive committee)
• Danish page clearly lists Hiroshima, My Lai, and the Nicaraguan war as terrorist acts of the United States. Stone put to sky 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, exact quotes please. The Danish page, which is a web dictionary created by various far left Danish groups, does not mention the term "state terrorism", Please check your claimed sources before quoting them.Ultramarine 14:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again: the Danish page clearly lists Hiroshima, My Lai, and the Nicaraguan War as examples of state terrorism. If you can read the page like you claim then it is an easy enough thing for you to find for yourself (hint: read the page, and look for the words "hiroshima", "my lai", and "Nicaragua"!). If you can't, then i suggest you get to work figuring out some way to it, because i get paid a minimum of US $85.00 an hour to teach foreign languages and unless you're willing to pony up the cash that just ain't my job.

Further, unless you can provide some sort of justification or re-write of the last two paragraphs in the Guatemalan section i am going to simply delete them. As stated before: the source you have provided is inadequate, and the next-to-last paragraph -- besides being virtually unintelligible -- is unverifiable and has little to no relationship to what comes above it. Stone put to sky 15:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the Danish page does not mention "state terrorism". Futhermore, it is equivalent to a Wiki by various far left groups, and thus not a reliable source. I will add a source for WHINSEC. Obviously the report of the Intelligence Oversight Board on CIA's actions is relevant, even if you do not like the descriptions.Ultramarine 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again: Yes, it does, and quite clearly. Since you have told me you have read the original page, perhaps you would like to explain to me what -- exactly -- do you think "USA's terrorkrig" stands for?

No, the page is not a "wiki for various far left groups". It is the homepage for a single organization that coordinates left-wing and labor groups. It has over 273 different Danish organizations linking back to it, including universities and law firms. It is in no way a "wiki", but rather a "political encyclopedia" that invites people to make entries to it. Stone put to sky 16:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That is equivalent to a Wiki. It openly states that it is not neutral.Ultramarine 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material by Stone put to sky

User:Stone put to sky has deleted without explanation sourced counter-criticisms regarding WHINSEC. Please read WP:SOAP, respect the arguments of the other side.[46]Ultramarine 16:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. I clearly explained the deletions in the history; you put an entire section on the School of the Americas under the "Guatemala" heading.

This article isn't about the School of Americas, and the material you provided doesn't address the issues that are being articulated here. This is an article about acts of State Terrorism by the United States; you put in an entire section on what people who "defend the School of the Americas" have to say about its renaming.

If you can explain to me how this topic -- which is acts of state terrorism by the Untied States -- could reasonably digress into an explanation of what the School of the Americas is and isn't, was and wasn't, then i'll be happy to let the material stand. As it is, the material you have added belongs in an article on the School of the Americas.

As far as i can see, there is NO place for any mention of the School of Americas' reorganization; it's clearly beyond the scope of this article and irrelevant to what is being presented here. Because of your obstinate insistence upon including so much clearly irrelevant material -- and the open threats you made upon my talk page -- i'm now going to insist that it all be removed.

There is no place for it here. Get it off the page, because this simply isn't the place for a debate on the SOA. Stone put to sky 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposing views

Controversial Wikipedia articles usually have a section with opposing views. So I am working on one. Suggestions welcome.

• One reason for the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations the population often lack literacy, education, and are otherwise too poor to be be able to fully participate in a democratic process. Thus, supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth have often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization. Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.[47]

• Problem with this is that its a response for support of right-wing dicatorships, its not a response for support of State Terrorism. Support can mean many things. I think the standard answer given by the US is simply to deny that is occured, or that it was acting in self defense, as it claimed in the case of the US vs. Nic.Giovanni33 22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• As noted in the source, this is one of the reasons. Most of the sources in the article do not mention "state terrorism", so if they are allowed, then this should as well.Ultramarine 22:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The source is irrelevant because it does not present opposing viewpoints to the events in question. Unless it directly addresses the events in question, it has no place on this page. Stone put to sky 10:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As per NPOV all views should be presented, including reasons for, criticisms etc. This is not a simple list article.Ultramarine 10:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all views about US State terrorism. Saying the US supports right-wing goverments, and explaining why, does NOT explain why the US committed acts of State terrorism, per se. The source must state that support of conservative governments extends to support of terrorism. If you have a source that rationalizes that, then fine.Giovanni33 05:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, then we must delete all the accusations that do not mention "state terrorism" That is, most of them.Ultramarine 09:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not that simple. Back ground info related to the incidents in question (in which a source lists as an exmaple of US terrorism), are perfectly fine to verify and add details about the facts in question. Those don't get deleted, even if they don't mention state terrorism. Likewise, other statments that are back up with references, provided those statments don't allege something not in the source. An example would be the plans for terrorism that the US has addmitted to.Giovanni33 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In practice the article makes an OR synthesis and claims that numerous things are state terrorism which has not been stated in any source.Wikipedia:POV forking prohibits articles only having arguments from one side. If you want to list US support for dictatorships as evidence for state terrorism, then NPOV also requires explaining this support.Ultramarine 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Supporters of the United States point out the United States rarely have used violence against other democracies. When the United States was involved in coups against democratic government, part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully imlement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.p. 221-224, 314.

Saying, "supporters of the United States," is a loaded term. Supporters of what? The people? The policies? Which policies? Do you mean supporters of US terrorism, or the actions that are alleged and accused of being state terrorism? The claims are also very dubious. What does "rarely" mean? The historical record is one of the US being consistently against democratic movements, and supporting elites, big bussiness, which more often than not, means supporting dictatorships. Even overthrowing democracies and installing dictatorships. But, again, even if this dubious claim were true, what does it have to do with the accusations of State terrorism by the US? In fact, I think you mischaracterize the source. I know of this book, and its thesis is simply the claim that democratic states have less of a tendency to go to WAR with each other. That is, states going to war with other states--not all violence, and nothing about US state terrorism.Giovanni33 05:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly nonsense, because all of these victims of U.S. aggression were fully functioning democracies at the time of their targeting by the U.S. (and some of them still are): Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma, Iran, Angola, the Congo, Argentina, Peru, Guatemala, and most recently the Palestinian Territories (under Hamas) and Lebanon. Stone put to sky 09:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have given sources, you not. The support for a few coups already discussed. Helping an elected democratic government against rebels is not violence against this government.Ultramarine 09:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, this is the talk page. I have just stated, as openly and clearly as i can, that i can demonstrably prove that the nations i just mentioned had fully functioning democracies before they attracted the wrath of the U.S. military/state department/cia/government. Now, if you would like to debate whether or not it is useful for us to have a bunch of lies in the article, then feel free. For my part, i can guarantee that the "source" you've "provided" is nothing more than a bunch of claptrap masquerading as scholarship, and i've already stated it's an easy enough thing to prove.

This being the talk-page, though, i don't need to prove it -- and if you were editing in good faith WP:AGF then, instead of falling back on claims that you have "sources", you'd instead engage me in a discussion about how to better improve your proposals to the page.

It is conspicuous, however, that you are not. You are instead trying to bully us to include a bunch of irrelevant claptrap because "you have sources", and i "don't". That's clearly not good faith, and your material is just as clearly totally irrelevant to what's being posted, here. Stone put to sky 10:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat for clarity: I have given sources, you not. Please read W:V, W:NOR, and WP:RS, so you can see for yourself the importance of giving sources.Ultramarine 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat for clarity:

Citing sources is not enough. The material must be relevant to the page. Yours is not. Stone put to sky 10:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is and you have presented no reason for not being so.Ultramarine 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.

Ultramarine, please explain to me how including categorical lies about the U.S's behavior -- lies which are easily disproven by a quick search of Wikipedia -- is relevant to a page that is supposed to deal in facts? Stone put to sky 10:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are trying to make a point about something but what is unclear. Regardless, Wikipedia cannot be cited in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 10:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. However, actual empericial studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[48][49][50]No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003. Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct. Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.[51][52] For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media. Finally, those nations with military alliances with the US can spend less on the military since they can count on US protection. This may give a false impression that the US is less peaceful than those nations.[53][54]

• This one doesnt work logically. Its a non-sequitur because it confuses the issue of democracies use of violence relative to non-democracies with the claims of US terrorism. They have nothing to do with each other. The claim is of US terrorism. While it may be true that democracies have killed fewer civllians than non-democracies, so what? It does nothing to the claim. The claim of democracies vs. non-democracies may not even be true in the case of the U.S, either, despite it being a democracy (since the studies talk about all democracies vs. non-democracies overall). And, even if it were true, it amounts to saying, "other countries committ terrorism also, and we do it less." That is not a valid argument either, as it forms a logical fallacy of two wrongs make a right.Giovanni33 22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• No, you can see how many the US have killed and its is less than many of the dictatorships of the twentieth century. Regarding the supposed logical fallacy, Chomsky obviously thinks that two wrongs is worse than one, so we can make the same argument in the opposing views section.Ultramarine 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• But, this article does not list as an argument how many are killed and uses the number killed to make a qualitative argument regarding the substance or nature of the action. Its terrorism if one person dies or thousands. Therefore, there is no counter point being made regarding citing numbers that the US killed vs. those killed by other States (not to mention that those killed, such as by war, etc, and those killed by terrorism are not the same.) has nothing to do with the accusations of state terrorism by the US. Its a non-sequitur.Giovanni33 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, more nonsense; these so-called "empirical studies" are all fatally flawed, insofar as they tend to paint huge, neo-industrial nations like China and the USSR as responsible to the decisions of a single ruler who coordinated all atrocities that occurred during their stewardship -- while at the same time refusing to include atrocities in which the U.S. is widely acknowledged to have had a fundamental role. If we include, for instance, the deaths of all the people in the Great Leap Forward as the sole and singular responsibility of Mao and the CCCP, then we should clearly also include the slaughter of millions of Burmese, Kampucheans and Indonesians that took place after U.S. orchestrated coups.

Lacking, however, a suitably objective standard by which to measure responsibility, these calculations inevitably fall prey to the selective awareness of the people authoring them. They are unsuitable as wikipedia sources.

Finally, unless you believe that "some terrorism is worse than other terrorism, depending on how many you kill", then this argument is totally illogical. By making it, you (and your sources) are not denying that the U.S. has committed State Terrorism, but rather that when the U.S. does it it's not so bad as when other people do (because in the long-run the U.S. tends to kill fewer people).Stone put to sky 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

These academic empirical studies certainly attempt to decide which state is responsible. Thus, verifiable as defined in Wikipedia. You on the other hand, give no sources for your claims. Again, Chomsky argues that quantity matters, so we can make the same argument in the opposing views section.Ultramarine 09:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, beside the fact that "attempting to define" and actually "defining" are two completely different things, the the selection remains irrelevant to the article. It is not arguing that "State Terrorism by the United States" didn't occur, but rather that it is less "terrorist" in nature because it was done by the United States. Again: that's not an issue for this page, because this is, currently, a simple enumeration of the terrorist acts for which the U.S. bears some (or all) responsibility. Stone put to sky 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to dispute these studies, publish in academic literature, Wikipedia is not the place. This page is an OR collection of links, most of which do not mention terrorism or "state terrorism". Again, Chomsky argues that quantity matters, so we can make the same argument in the opposing views section.Ultramarine 10:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat for clarity:

Citing sources is not enough. The material must be relevant to the page. Yours is not. Stone put to sky 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is and you have presented no reason for not being so.Ultramarine 10:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it does not logically follow from the articles subject. I notice you like to advance the democratic peace theory and stick it in many article where its not related to the subject matter under discussion. The point is not that one agrees or not with the data and studies, the point is that its not relevant here. No where in this article does the issue of "democracies" vs. non-democracies as it pertains to violence, even come up. Its not an issue this article is interested in. So your putting in this democratic peace theory that alleges that so-called democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies is not relevant. Its a non-sequitur when you link to Chomsky's claims that the US committed acts of state terrorism. Pointing to other states that did it too, or even worse, and that there is a correlation between this alleged fact and the extent of the democratic nature of the state is point to make in perhaps articles that deal with this subject. This article does not.Giovanni33 05:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, the source shows the deaths caused by the US alone, not only democracies in general, which is what I am refering to. The US may have been responsible for killing hundreds of thousands civilians, while dictatorships have killed tens of millions. It is Chomsky who argues that quantity matters, so we can make the same argument in the opposing views section.Ultramarine 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military.[55] They are not the policy of the US government. The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control. Despite this, the US is often blamed for every single human rights violations in nations or by groups they have in some way supported, regardless of if this was approved of by the foreign leaderships or not, and regardless of if the US have tried to use its influence to stop this or not. For example, the US is often blamed for all the human rights violations during the long civil war in Guatemala, despite that the US for long periods cut of its military aid just because such violations, helped stop a coup in 1993, and made efforts to improve the conduct of the security services.

This one has more weight, however international law already has a lot to say on the subject. The odd rape of a woman or murder of a civilian is one thing; rape camps and torture chambers are an entirely different thing. Abu Ghraib was clearly not the work of "a few bad apples", but rather a policy decision endorsed by the highest levels of the U.S. leadership. That makes it State Terrorism.

Further, if one follows this rhetoric out to its natural conclusion then it is as equally applicable to all States everywhere as it is to the United States alone. In other words, it would be just as easy to use this argument for the Yugoslavian government under Milosevic as it would be to use it for the United States; many of the units in the Yugoslav army undertook their atrocities in direct response to atrocities undertaken by the enemy, which they had witnessed in the field. Their actions were not generally policy, but tactical-level command decisions. Nevertheless, the European tribunals have classified them as State Terrorism, largely because the Serbian commanders went unpunished and were not relieved of their command by their civilian leadership.

In other words: this entry would be more suitable for inclusion on the "Definition of Terrorism" or "State Terrorism" page, because it is not dealing with specific U.S. actions. Stone put to sky 09:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

European tribunals have certainly not classified anything as "State Terrorism" since the term in not used in international law. Those responsible at Abu Ghraib was punished. But you miss my point. Again, the US is often wrongly blamed for every single human rights violations in nations or by groups they have in some way supported, regardless of if this was approved of by the foreign leaderships or not, and regardless of if the US have tried to use its influence to stop this or not.Ultramarine 10:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In order:

A) Yes, they have.

B) No, they weren't, and you do a grave dishonor to our servicemen and women to suggest such a thing.

C) Irrelevant material.

So, here i am, once again repeating myself "for clarity's sake":

Having sources is irrelevant if your arguments don't belong on this page. Stone put to sky 10:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, read WP:V, your unsourced claims are not relevant.Ultramarine 10:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Ultramarine. My views certainly are relevant, because i dislike it very much when vandals target Wikipedia in an attempt to deface pages. This is irrelevant material, and unless you can provide some sort of justification for it then it will be deleted. Stone put to sky 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Justification provided. Regarding your unsourced claims, read WP:V.Ultramarine 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Defenders of the former School of the Americas argue that no school should be held accountable for the actions of only some of its many graduates. The school has been reorganized and renamed to The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). It is now under the Department of Defence instead of the US army. Now also civilians and police personnel to attend. Before coming to WHINSEC each student is “vetted” by his/her nation. Students are first screened by their own government and then screened by the U. S. embassy in that country. If there is any hint of wrongdoing in the student’s past, the student is not permitted into the United States to attend WHINSEC. All students are now required to receive a between eight and over forty hours of instruction, at beginning of each of the more than twenty classes, in "human rights training in law, ethics, rule of law and practical applications in military and police operations."[56]Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. "FAQ".Center for International Policy. "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation". Retrieved May 6. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

Once again: this is about the School of the Americas, not about State terrorism by the United States. If you want to take this to the SOA/WHINSEC page, then feel free. However, this page is not the place for a debate over the School of the Americas -- unless you are willing to admit an entire section on the School of the Americas, one that clearly accuses it of a role in U.S.-sponsored state terrorism and allows a proper debate over its role and responsibilities.

Unless you are willing to create an entire section on the SOA, then there is simply no place for this passage to be included here. For my part, i'll be happy to let you start that section, provided you are honorable enough to allow a proper debate over its role in these atrocities. By that, i mean you'll need to make sure that sentences like "Because of its role in training the initiators of the Guatemalan genocides and other atrocities" doesn't get deleted by some guy because it's "POV". I would be quite content with seeing your "opposing viewpoints" here just so long as you are willing to accord those of us who disagree with a similar freedom to include our own views.

If not -- if you instead insist upon abiding by the artificial double standard you and your comrades have insisted upon setting for this page -- the i will continue to insist that this is not the place for it. Stone put to sky 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the article includes criticisms of the former school, the views of the other side should also be included. One sided bashing is not allowed as per NPOV.Ultramarine 10:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you are introducing yet another straw man. The article contains sourced facts about the graduates of the school and its reputation at the time. Your comments contain sourced opinions about the current school, disseminated by government sources who get their salaries by either working for or defending it, and defending it against current criticism.

When we have mentioned the School of the Americas it is within a strictly limited historical context, a time period that ends in about 1990. You are introducing material about the school that clearly has nothing to do with the events mentioned, that does not explain or elaborate anything of relevance, and which has nothing to do with State Terrorism by the United States. So, once again: either start an entirely new section on the School of the Americas - where this material would be appropriate -- or take it out, because it doesn't have anything to do with the article as it stands. Stone put to sky 10:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouting will not help your case. The article contains statements like "is a terrorist training ground." and certainly does not mention a 1990 limit. So again per NPOV, both sides should be included.Ultramarine 10:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not shouting. Why would you suggest that? I was simply highlighting certain passages to try and help you understand that there are a few fundamental ideas you're not recognizing, even though i have repeated them many times over. Just as i am doing here, once again:

Citing sources is not enough. The material must be relevant to the page. This material is not. Stone put to sky 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouting again will not help you. You have not given any reason for you claim.Ultramarine 10:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on "Opposing views" by Ultramarine

If this article were a comprehensive examination of current and past US foreign policy then some of your points would be relevant as responses to criticism. However, this article lists some examples of terrorism perpetrated by the US gov't, and as such, going in the order of your bullet points: 1. the reasons given for the underlying US policy which includes terrorism; 2. the alleged lack of US terror against democratic gov'ts (not true in 1953 Iran, against Arbenz, Chile 1972 and many other examples); 3. the number of victims (again, not true since WWII, since the US achieved superpower status, the US has been number one in number of people killed as part of its wars, offical and unofficial); 4. the lack of US media focus on other conflict zones; 5. the examples of US soldiers committing atrocities without official approval; 6. the alleged current "reformed" activities of WHINSEC; and 7. the policies of other friendly nations, are all irrelevant to the documented terrorist actions in the past. Think about it, we are talking about history not how good or bad we think we feel about current policy or about the context of other policies. Having said that, I am all for including opposing views and if there are pertinent criticims of the article I for one would be all ears.--NYCJosh 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You give no sources for your claims, while I have done that. Obviously we should discuss arguments for and against, as per Wikipedia:NPOV.Ultramarine 19:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC) I did not make any factual claims (the parenthetical remarks were included to address errors of fact but could be safely ignored for purposes of the discussion of the relevance, or lack thereof, of the points you raised). --NYCJosh 16:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You points may help explain some points of US policy. However I find far more important the influx of anti-communists from Eastern Europe at the start of the Cold War, and their effect on US foreign policy through diaspora politics in the United States, as well as their integration into American intelligence services. See for example Blowback - America's recruitment of Nazis, and its disastrous effect on our domestic and foreign policy. -- Petri Krohn 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting theory. Relative importance is difficult to determine.Ultramarine 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the first two points are great and should be included in some manner, however the bottom four seem to stray, if they are in direct relation to a particular claim it should be noted. The last point given seems the most far off. Saying soldiers kill people often, but they are not sanctioned to kill civilians would seem obvious, just attempt to connect which areas you are defending and it will look tighter. --SixOfDiamonds 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on the last points.Ultramarine 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to make them clearer.Ultramarine 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

NYCJosh is right in all of his points, and he doesn't need "sources" for them because they are general observations about directions you want this page to be taken. As your response to his point indicates, your bullet points above have little -- if anything -- to do with the page in its current form, but instead introduce an entirely different set of debates about what can be called terrorism, what actions.atrocities/killings does the U.S. ultimately deserve responsibility for, what is the nature of the international legal situation, and so forth.

Most of them are far beyond the scope of this page. The only thing that this page is concerned with -- as NYCJosh deftly pointed out -- is historical facts: what did the United States do, when did it do it, and how is it that people perceive the U.S. as responsible. Your points don't address that, but instead deal with meta-questions: What is responsibility? What is "terrorism", and why is it bad? and so forth.

Once again: i am totally in favor of including opposing viewpoints; if you had been around when i was dealing with NuclearUmpf then you'd remember that i, in fact, pushed to take the page in just such a direction. However, he -- and his cadre of supporters -- made it quite clear at that time that anything they considered to be offensive would not be allowed, regardless of its relevance to the discussion we had agreed upon.

Thus, this page has gotten saddled with the brutish, boring task of simply enumerating those historical facts about international terrorism disseminated by the U.S. Fortunately, however, a page that deals exclusively with the doctrine of State Terrorism has already been created. Insofar as your material deals with general concepts, it is more suitably placed there. For the other stuff, read my criticisms above. Stone put to sky 10:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I cite sources, you not regarding these opposing views. What this page is saddled with is being a dumping ground original research project for anonynomous Wikipedia editors who personally think that something is "state terrorism" regardless if such an allegation has been made or not by a reliable source. The opposing views material above deals with the US, as can be seen in the points and sources.Ultramarine 10:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources is not enough. The material must be relevant to the page. Yours is not. Stone put to sky 10:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is as discussed above.Ultramarine 10:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps rewording will help, perhaps if you stated: In the case of Nicaragua vs. XYZ it is often argued that the perpetrators were acting without direct orders. Often soldiers can commit crimes without the sanctioning of their government ... [1][2][3] etc. Then if there is direct relevance as it seems to be the issue here, it is shown clearly. --SixOfDiamonds 12:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will see if I can make it clearer.Ultramarine 14:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's on-topic, no problem. If it's off-topic, though, it will be deleted. Stone put to sky 14:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will follow policy. See also WP:SOAP.However, I do am considering starting to delete all the sections, or at least moving them to talk for discussion, not containing soucrces stating that these acts are state terrorism.Ultramarine 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You should absolutely do so, I will support you 100%. - Merzbow 07:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if this article survives based on the very weak arguments to keep it that have shown on on its latest Afd, this article should be reduced to about one paragraph if that.--MONGO 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean the weak arguments to delete, if you want to call them arguments at all. This article actually needs expansion to about twice its size. And, I propse a second article, one based only on allegations, which would be much, much larger (and in my view more complete). That way, we can keep this one relatively small, as it is now.Giovanni33 08:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

In the meantime I've begun the cleanup effort by removing links in the lead to vanity presses, non-notable web magazines (those without a Wikipedia article), non-notable organizations (those without a Wikipedia article), and articles which do not specifically accuse the U.S. of state terrorism or of funding terrorism. That leaves Chomsky as the only ICJ accuser, and Chomsky and Cohn as the only overall accusers. Please defend the removed sources individually on talk before re-adding, arguing why they meet WP:RS and where they specifically accuse the U.S. of state terrorism or of funding terrorist organizations. - Merzbow 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent start.Ultramarine 09:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that people seem to be throwing up any link that comes up in a Google search. A page that claims to be a "human rights organization" must be a notable one to meet WP:RS. A book cited must be a notable book to meet WP:RS - i.e. it cannot be published by a vanity or boutique press by an author who is an activist instead of a scholar. Political webzines do not meet WP:RS, with few exceptions for the most notable (Salon). Blogs do not meet WP:RS, again with very few exceptions. The cites I removed either fall into these categories and/or do not support the text cited. - Merzbow 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I looked at the references and they appear to be from reliable sources. Please list which one you feel does not qualify and state why, so we can come to some consensus about which ones should be removed. Until then I've restored it.Giovanni33 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. I expect quick and detailed explanations why each of these satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.

Thanks for doing this. Let me comment below on each one. I will need more time to complete this, as I only just now finished reading the paper by redress.org, which I recommend reading for its instructive and scholarly nature, with ample footnotes and well cited sources in this publication, and its done so in a very neutral manner. I think Ultramarine would be able to use a lot of this material found here for the offical rational and defense given by the US govt., which the paper documents.Giovanni33 06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.leksikon.org/art.php?n=2543 - Some random website in Dutch. Does not appear to be a major publication or notable organization of any kind.

Can't comment on this one as I don't read Dutch. But you might be right. But I thank you for giving it a little time here for other editors to respond to it.Giovanni33 06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Leksikon is not a "vanity" site; it's a website published and maintained by a Danish political organization, one that co-ordinates political activists and reports on local (Norway and Denmark) political developments. It has some links to some 273 different organizations, including universities, political parties, newspapers, and magazines, among others.

It appears that Merzbow is basing his judgment of the site upon its low production values; however, that's a red-herring. Leksikon is an all-volunteer project and its design is consistent with its purpose and approach. Contributing members are, however, members of the local political leadership, activist organizers, and university lecturers. Stone put to sky 06:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If officialy states that it is not neutral and cites no sources. The supposed claim that the US is responsible for state terrorism is simply a general statement claiming that warfare in general is terrorism.Ultramarine 09:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.redress.org/publications/TerrorismReport.pdf - "redress.org" is not a notable human rights organization. They have no Wikipedia article, for one. What are they notable for and who has recognized them for it? Plus this report does not accuse the US of terrorism.

Ok, I disagree about this not being a reputable human rights and charity organization focused on victims of tourture. This British NGO is, I note, supporte by the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, and count on their staff legal advisors Professor Michael Bazyler, Professor of Law, Whittier University, Los Angeles; Geoffrey Bindman Solicitor specialising in human rights and senior partner at Bindmans and Partners, solicitors; Professor Kevin Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Essex;Professor David Harris, Professor of Law, Nottingham University; Professor David Weissbrodt, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and Chairperson of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, among others. It doesn't matter if WP doesn't have an article about them. My investigation convinces me they are a reputable organization and offer very scholarly and balanced papers and reports on many countries.

However, having read the paper in question, I have to agree that it doesnt make the accusation, directly, that the US has committed state terrorism. But it states that the line between the US's anti-terrorism action and terrorism has not always been clear. It cites the case of US vs. Nicaruaga, to illustrate this point, and does state the US was found guilty of violating international law, and use of unlawful force, etc. At most the paper states that the US may have been guilty of state terrorism, in so far as that line between its alleged anti-terrorism actions and actually committing state terrorism has not always been clear. I'm not sure how others feel about this, but I will not oppose you removing this source for this reason, although I think its an excellent for the external links section on any topic dealing with states and terrorism.Giovanni33 06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be o.k. with moving it to the external links section. Stone put to sky 06:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

External links is fine. - Merzbow 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.cetim.ch/fr/interventions_details.php?iid=207 - the web site of some French activist group. Non-notable as far as I can tell. No Wikipedia article on them. What have they done and who has recognized them for it?

CETIM is "Accredited to the Economic and Social Council of the UN (ECOSOC) and to the UNCTAD". 'Nuff said. Stone put to sky 06:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even the French Wikipedia has an article about it. 'Nuff said.Ultramarine 09:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're saying it can be cut because it doesn't have a wikipedia page? That's patently absurd. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20030116&articleId=372 - does not accuse the US of terrorism. "Global Research" is a non-notable activist group. No Wikipedia article on them. What have they done and who has recognized them for it?

Independent publication. It does have a wikipedia page. Contributors include former bureaucrats from military and intelligence services, famed academics, professional journalists, and lots of other folks, too. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/117 - the blog of some guy from the "Post-Carbon" institute. Blogs are only allowed if the blogger is very notable and is writing on his area of expertise. This person is neither a professor nor is he writing about oil or carbon here. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 - "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Well known, professional researcher? Well, i'd say this qualifies:

“ Richard Heinberg is one of the world's foremost Peak Oil [educators]...is the author of eight books...a Core Faculty member of New College of California...and a Research Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute.... His monthly MuseLetter has been included in Utne Magazine’s annual list of Best Alternative Newsletters. Since 2002, he has given over three hundred lectures on oil depletion...to a wide variety of audiences—from insurance executives to peace activists, from local and national elected officials to Jesuit volunteers.... ”

In addition to having eight books, three of them deal with the relationship between oil and warfare. I'd say that pretty much makes him a relevant authority. Stone put to sky 06:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Where did you take that from? Even assuming he is an oil expert, then we can still not cite his blog regarding state terrorism.Ultramarine 09:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I took it from his website, and you are wrong on two counts; first, the source is up there for no reason other than to prove that "numerous people" actually are talking about this subject. Second, material from published professionals in the field of study is clearly allowed per wikipolicy; this guy is a political journalist who covers human rights and international relations stories, with articles published in the major media. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html - the personal website of a professor of "Geography and Native American Studies". As above this person is not writing in his area of expertise, thus not allowed per the above quote from WP:V.

Grosman is a professor of geography; i don't know when you last checked, but cataloging geographic locales and their political changes is exactly what geographers are paid to do. This subject matter is well within his expertise, the page contains sources, methodology, abstract, and secondary sources for follow up studies. It meets all academic standards, it is within his area of expertise, and well surpasses wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Stone put to sky 06:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism does not fall under geography.Ultramarine 09:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. WP:V is crystal clear about this. His expertise is not foreign policy, and he is not interviewed extensively and published extensively on the subject like Chomsky. - Merzbow 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are both clearly out of your element here. Geography is the study of political boundaries, and Native American Studies straddles the North-Central American borders. A professor of geography and Native American Studies is clearly qualified to comment on terrorist and military actions that take place within his field of study, and that is exactly what this lecturer is doing.

You wouldn't argue that a professor of 19th c. European Geography and Germanic Studies is never qualified to talk about the effects of Napoleon's conquests, and so neither can you argue that a professor of Geography and Native American Studies is a priori unqualified to write about terrorist acts within his given field.

Finally, the referenced page is a sourced work published widely across the internet and in media publications.

You both need to do better than that. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/ - From a blog called "What's Left". The author holds no academic post of any type. Gimme a break.- Merzbow 03:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Author is published in Counterpunch and Globalresearch; a search on his name in Google turns up at least 200 separate articles published by various websites. He is a political commentator who reports primarily on conflicts in third-world nations and military campaigns by the United States. Clearly, a professional writing in the subject of his specialty. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one:

http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/ - Some page maintained by an activist who holds no academic post, he doesn't even merit a Wikipedia article. - Merzbow 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No academic post? You've got to be kidding. From Rojas' website:

“ Teaching in Britain 1985-2002:

(Open University, University of East London, and other universities in the UK) (undergraduate level)

Teaching in Britain 2001-  : ( University College London (Development Planning Unit), and other universities in the UK ) (postgraduate level)

Education:

BSc, MPhil, PhD

University teaching experience:

Chile, People's Republic of China, and Britain

Publications:

Books published in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Panama, Spain and the United States by major publishing houses ( i.e. Harper and Row in the US). Scores of articles and papers in major magazines and newspapers in Latin America, Spain, Germany and the United States). Main subjects: China, and Latin America as outlined in the sections on research.

Visiting Examinations:

1992-1997 External Examiner at Birbeck College,University of London, for Development Economics. 2001-2003 Visiting Examiner at DPU, University College London, University of London, to the Board of Examiners in MSc Development and Planning. Consultancy:

1986-1999 BBC World Service ( China, South East Asia and Latin America) 1989-1999 Centre for Chinese Studies, SBU 2003-2006 Globalization and Europeanisation Network in Education website. (http://www.genie-tn.net)

”

Finally, his entire website is set up as a research tool for people interested in "Political Economy":

“ RRojas Databank introduce students and researchers to the political economy of the global system of nations and social clases, as a discipline dealing with relations of dependency, interdependency and domination between nations and social groups within and between nations. ”

The website is a repository of data from the World Bank, IMF, WTO, Columbia University, Rojas' own publications, and has had over 4,000,000 hits from 160 different countries.

Looks like a relevant authority to me. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Even more:

1. http://www.ahrchk.net/ahrc-in-news/mainfile.php/2007ahrcinnews/1130/ - article by retired English professor

From his Wikipedia page, E. San Juan, Jr.:

“ San Juan has lectured abroad as Fulbright professor of American Studies at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium, lecturer at the Hogeschool in Antwerp, Belgium; visiting professor of literature at National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu, Taiwan; and resident fellow at the Rockefeller Foundation Center in Bellagio, Italy. He has won numerous awards, among them the MELUS Best Essay Award, Gustavus Myers Center Award, and Centennial Award for Literature, Cultural Center of the Philippines.

His works span a broad spectrum of fields and disciplines, from cultural studies, comparative literary scholarship, ethnic and racial studies, postcolonial theory, semiotics to philosophical inquiries in historical materialism.

Books he has or will soon publish:

• After Postcolonialism: Remapping Philippines-United States Confrontation (2000), Myers Distinguished Book Award
• In the Wake of Terror: Race, Nation, Class in the Field of Global Capital (forthcoming 2007)
• Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines (forthcoming 2007)
• From Globalization to National Liberation: Essays (forthcoming 2007 from University of the Philippines Press)
• Crisis in the Philippines: The Making of a Revolution (1986)
• Ruptures, Schisms, Interventions: Cultural Revolution in the Third World (1988)
• Only by Struggle: Reflections on Philippine Culture, Society and History in a Time of Civil War (1989), reprinted 2002
• From People to Nation: Essays in Cultural Politics (1990)
• Racial Formations/Critical Transformations: Articulations of Power in Ethnic and Racial Studies in the United States (1992). Association of Asian American Studies Book Award; Myers Center Award.

”

Looks like an authority to me. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.asia-pacific-action.org/statements/2005/ran_noaid2militaryregimes_250505.htm - non-notable activist group

Look again; first, this is a collation of various news sources; second, the article referenced was originally authored by The Reality of Aid, whose list of members (http://www.realityofaid.org/about.php?id=6) certainly qualifies it as a notable organization. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.counterpunch.org/petras03172006.html - activist magazine, article by former sociology professor

Oh, this is silly. Counterpunch has a wikipedia page, and therein is noted:

“ Notable contributors to CounterPunch have included Robert Fisk, the late Edward Said, Tim Wise, Ralph Nader, M. Shahid Alam, Ward Churchill, Lila Rajiva, the late Tanya Reinhart, Frank "Chuck" Spinney and Alexander Cockburn's two brothers, Andrew and Patrick, both of whom write on the Middle East, Iraq in particular.

Some paleoconservative writers like Paul Craig Roberts and William Lind can also be found in CounterPunch. The site regularly publishes veteran radicals, such as Lenni Brenner, Fidel Castro, and the late Stew Albert, as well as younger authors such as Diane Christian, Joshua Frank, Norman Finkelstein, Ron Jacobs, Gary Leupp, Cynthia McKinney[1] and David Price.

”

The writer is James Petras,

“ a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York,...an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and...co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed) and Social Movements and the State: Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina ”

An article written by an academic who has authored at least one book (maybe two) published on the topic in question, and published in a widely read periodical that deals in political commentary. Clearly a valid source. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.indcatholicnews.com/shayc218.html - "Fr Shay Cullen is a Columban priest working in the Philippines"

Can't get much more neutral than a priest -- and can't get much more authoritative than this one. From his webpage (found here: http://www.preda.org/frcullen.htm):

“ In 1974, he established the Preda Foundation The People¹s Recovery Empowerment Development Assistance Foundation Inc. (PREDA) with Alex and Merly Ramirez Hermoso to help deal with the many problems and victims of abuse especially the victims of torture and military oppression by the Marcos martial law regime and its political supporters.

The Preda center on a hill overlooking Subic Bay became a sanctuary for those threatened with summary execution by the military. During the 1980¹s He campaigned successfully for the removal of the US Military bases and the establishment of economic zones to replace them.

Fr. Shay is a popular international speaker, campaigner, media commentator, a writer and journalist. He has a weekly Sunday column in the Manila Times (Sunday Times), The Universe (UK) and the Sunday Examiner (HK). He was an invited delegate to the conference drafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Helsinki 1989, and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2001 and 2003 Fr. Shay was awarded a German Human Rights of the City of Weimar Award in December 2000 and an Italian Human Rights Award at the City of Ferrera, 2001. He has testified before numerous Senate committees and the US congress in 2005.

Numerous newspaper articles and television documentaries have reported the success of his work protecting children and campaigning for human rights. ITN/CNN broadcast a report that highlighted his work in releasing and caring for children and youth in subhuman conditions in Philippine prisons.

Fr. Shay is a popular international speaker, campaigner, media commentator, a writer and journalist. He was an invited delegate to the conference drafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Helsinki 1989, and is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 2001. Fr. Shay was awarded a German Human Rights of the City of Weimar Award in December 2000 and an Italian Human Rights Award at the City of Ferrera, 2001.

”

'Nuff said. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1. http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/518/518%20roland%20g.%20simbulan.htm - Who the heck is "ROLAND G. SIMBULAN"?

“ Roland G. Simbulan, Convenor/Coordinator, Manila Studies Program

Vice Chancellor for Planning and Development and Professor in Development Studies and Public Management University of the Philippines

Published Papers: Roland G. Simbulan, Effective Advocacy: Lessons from the People’s Anti- Bases Struggle, Quezon City: Ibon Foundation, 1992. 2. Roland G. Simbulan, “The Betrayal of the Poor”, Today national newspaper, November 6, 2000. 3. Roland G. Simbulan, “How the Battle for the Bases was Won”, www.boondocksnet.com, February, 1992.

”

'Nuff said. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop throwing up whatever randomly drifts to the top of a Google search, because that's what going on here. - Merzbow 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Posada Sources

Just to have them handy. Not sure if they are in use already:

• [57] - Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Ministry of Foreign Affairs - "On the contrary, the current Government of the United States practices State terrorism, something which is questioned by the world and most of the people in the United States. The invasions to Iraq and Afghanistan are emblematic in this regard."

Quotes

What relevance do those have other than to push a pov? One is a prominent leftist, another an openly anti-American leader, and the last a leader of a country were anti-American sentiment runs extremely strong. At best this is extremely unbalanced and pushes a clear viewpoint. --MichaelLinnear 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Should be removed.Ultramarine 06:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; these are quotes regarding State Terrorism by the United States and meet all standards hitherto agreed upon for the page. You are not allowed to delete material simply because you don't like it, or don't agree with those responsible for creating it. Whether or not you consider these people "good americans" or "sympathetic to America" or "neutral regarding America" is irrelevant; the fact is that these statements have been made, they meet our agreed upon standards, and so they belong on the page.

If y'all would like to include some sort of commentary explaining that this is an encyclopedic treatment of the subject -- and not a direct indictment of the United States -- then feel free. I'd suggest you explain how this is merely an encyclopedic treatment of the subject that introduces the concepts, arguments, and evidence used by people to justify the phrase "State Terrorism by the United States". That is how this page is intended (and always has been), and if you wish to add that material the other editors here will be happy to aid you in any way we can.

We will not, however, allow you to delete this material. Stone put to sky 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So you refuse to allow counter-criticisms as per the section above, but insist on including inflammatory quotes? Ultramarine 08:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. I will happily include counter-criticisms if they are relevant to this article.

Counter-criticisms of the concept of "State Terrorism" do not belong here; we have a separate wikipedia article (called, suitably enough, State terrorism) for that.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it i who suggested we include a section here that would allow a back-and forth over such ideas? But then, it got deleted per the insistence of several other editors here, of which -- hey? Weren't you the loudest one? Ah, well -- feeling the strain, now, are we?

Likewise, digressions into what "defenders of the SOA" think are equally irrelevant, because this simply isn't an article about the SOA. This is an article about State Terrorism by the United States, so a back-and-forth about the SOA is inappropriate (unless, that is, you care to create a separate section where we can include such criticisms?).

These quotes, however, have been up for nearly two years, maybe longer. Nobody has tried to delete them, and in that time you have been one of the most vocal critics and constraining forces on this page.

Now, just above clearly state that you will "start to delete" things unless you can post material that you think should be here even though it is clearly off-topic. What i find very interesting is that yes, indeed, you are beginning to do just that! In this case, demanding that material which for over two years you have never objected to nor ever suggested should be removed now be deleted. Stone put to sky 09:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:POV forking. One sided bashing is not allowed. Since the article has stataments like that the SOA "is a terrorist training ground", opposite views must also be included.Ultramarine 09:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Global Research

This is a news and commentary site that collates work from professional writers, scholars, and activists. It is published in two languages, and has regular readership in Africa, Western Europe, and North America. It publishes independent news reports for which it has won recognition from several notable awards and standards organizations. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with material from this website. Stone put to sky 07:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited by 9/11 alternative theorist Michel Chossudovsky which has also written the article you give as a source for supposed US "state terrorism" While Chossudovsky in this article, as elsewhere, talks about 9/11, he does not accuse the US of terrorism, as far as I can see.Ultramarine 09:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:V - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.". This is not a newspaper, it's a non-notable political webzine. - Merzbow 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala 1

"US Government funding and training of of Guatemalan 'Death Squads'"[58][59]

Source number one is to unspecific. Which of these 32 documents support the allegation? Many speak of the opposite. The second source speaks only of a single person.Ultramarine 08:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Source one is by no means unspecific. Both of those links either directly link to summaries or themselves contain summaries of the content of the documents. The summaries are written by professional historians tasked with maintaining, collating, cataloging and cross-referencing the archives. The statements which these sources footnote are clearly supported by both these summaries and the content itself.

If the editors here are going to quibble over simple statements like "U.S. funding and training of Guatemalan Death Squads", then you should expect such voluminous sources in response. Virtually all of those 32 documents contains a direct reference to funding and/or training. Stone put to sky 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pleae use proper Indentation when replying. Regarding source one, again, which of these 32 documents support your claim? Many speak of the oppposite, mentioning US criticisms and strained relations due to human rights violations in Guatemala. Again, the second source speaks only of a single person.Ultramarine 09:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The second source outlines the career development of a man convicted of repeated acts of state terrorism and shows how, over a span of nearly four decades, the U.S. government aided and intervened on his behalf in an effort to advance his career and further empower him despite knowing of his long and horrendous list of crimes. It is a single, in-depth case.

The first source excerpts documents from a thirty five year period showing that the U.S. continued to fund, train, and politically support Guatemalan military leaders despite full knowledge of the extent of the Guatemalan state's atrocities. Yes, there are dissenting opinions; however, a dissenting opinion doesn't count unless it changes policy. The documents from the first source clearly show that despite repeated warnings and condemnations of the Guatemalan state apparatus and its primary, Washington-backed, -funded, and -trained leadership, the United States Government even yet maintained support and funding for the criminals. Stone put to sky 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, regarding source one, which of these 32 support your claim? I can find no one that includes training or funding death squads. Regarding the second, giving some training to one man who is alleged (not convicted) to have done human rights violations is not evidence for general support and training of death squads.Ultramarine 09:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Having already answered this specific question twice, i will not waste my time on it again. Please remember, however, that any attempt to delete this material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 06:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No it won't. - Merzbow 07:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala 2

Why the long graphic rape description? That one of the persons involved spoke American English is not evidence for anything.Ultramarine 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The rape testimony is taken from the trial of a SOA graduate taken by a US citizen in a US court. The court decided it had jurisdiction because the man in question was then teaching in the SOA. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Source please. He had given a speech at the SOA somewhere around this time, which is not teaching.Ultramarine 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources are in the article. 91 and 93. The actual quote is taken from 93. Plain as day. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they are not. Exact page number and quote please.Ultramarine 09:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly from the article: "93. # ^ Gareau, Frederick H. (2004). State Terrorism and the United States. London: Zed Books, pp22-25 and pp61-63. ISBN 1-84277-535-9." ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Even Stone put to sky agree below that he was at Harvard, not at the SOA.Ultramarine 09:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but the article doesn't say that, it was just my faulty memory on this talk page. I read the book 6 months ago. So he was a student of SOA but teaching in Harvard during the trial? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are already provided, and clearly support the statements and testimony. Regardless of how you might wish to remove it, the testimony occurred in a court-case that convicted the U.S. funded, Harvard-attending, SOA-commencement-giving, U.S. trained Gramajo-Morales of crimes that clearly qualify as terrorism. The testimony provides insight into what sort of torture these death-squads routinely engaged in, how they were managed, and the participation of at least one man "who spoke broken Spanish with a heavy North American accent" and who (unquoted, but in the testimony) was to deliver Sister Ortiz to the U.S. Embassy.

Call me silly if you want, but i doubt that the North American was from Canada. Stone put to sky 09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of persons who speak American English who are not connected to the US government. That Morales took some courses at the SOA for half a year does not mean that a rape by some of his men, assuming this is true, is state terrorism by the US.Ultramarine 09:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not for us wikipedians to determine that. If we did it would be OR. Look at the quoted sources - they claim it does show US state terrorism. That is what is important for wikipedia. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Which source claims that this rape was state terrorism by the US? Ultramarine 09:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For one: "Gareau, Frederick H. (2004). State Terrorism and the United States. London: Zed Books, pp22-25 and pp61-63. ISBN 1-84277-535-9."

Exactly how does he explain that this rape is state terrorism? Ultramarine 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The book explains how the rapists were trained and funded by the US. Their actions were aimed at controlling the population through violence and fear. The author claims this amounts to state terrorism by the US and named his book as such. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Seabhcan, but that's all irrelevant. The standards of this page demand that we show a source considers something to be State Terrorism. Once we have done that, the standards of this page have also demanded that any statements by the source be backed up with referenced sources. We have done both.

Of course, it didn't need to be this way (still doesn't, in fact). These are the standards that you have imposed upon us, Ultramarine. Since we must abide by them, you must, too.

If you would like to add some content to the page to expand its scope beyond what we see here then we will be happy to discuss that with you. As it is, though, there is no need for us to go into Gareau's reasoning. If you want to know that, i suggest you read the book. For the purposes of this page -- and according the strict standards for content that have been largely a product of your own rueful making -- the sources stand as they currently are. Stone put to sky 09:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Then we can state that Gareau thinks this rape is "state terrorism" but we do not know why. Why is the graphic rape scene included? Ultramarine 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rape is widely considered to be a form of terrorism. If you read the UN reports on Darfur, state sponsored rape gangs are given as proof of terroristic intent. The rape scene is from testimony from a trial. Why shouldn't it be included? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why include a long graphic description of just this particular rape? Ultramarine 09:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This 'particular rape' is important because it was recounted as testimony in a trial. That trail was widely reported in the media, at the UN and discussed in academic works. This is why I think it should be included. Why do you think it shouldn't? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming we should mention this particular rape, why must we have a long graphic description of the rape itself? Ultramarine 09:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the woman's testimony given at the trial of the accused. I don't feel it right to reword it. Would you like to edit what she said? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to include it. We can simply state "Frederick H Gareau, Frederick H states in his book that the rape in Guatemala by persons not yet identified of US citizen and nun, Sister Diana Ortiz, was state terrorism by the US".Ultramarine 10:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Seabhcan and i have already given clear, unambiguous, and lengthy (in my case) answers to this question. There is no need for us to answer it again, and we won't.

We are not here to indulge your inquisitive nature, Ultramarine. Having answered the question and given justifications that are clearly supported both by Wikipedia protocol as well as the standards of this page (standards for which you, incidentally, are primarily responsible), there is no need for us to continue responding to repetitions of the word "Why?".

If you ask again, my answer will simply be: "Because. And if you want more, then look at the five entries above that've already answered this question." Stone put to sky 10:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in Ultramarine thoughts on the subject. Do you want to edit the testimony of this rape victim? and if so, why? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you do not want to discuss the issues. The article will then be corrected.Ultramarine 10:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I do want to discuss the issues. You can start by answering the above question.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to include the graphic rape scene. We can simply state "Frederick H Gareau has stated that a rape in Guatemala, by persons not yet identified, of US citizen and nun, Sister Diana Ortiz, was state terrorism by the US".Ultramarine 10:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a need to include it. It gives detail and reality to the article. And your version risks being labeled OR. Better to simply quote the book. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is sensationalistic and not needed. Has no relevance for if this was US state terrorism or not.Ultramarine 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that it is public testimony in a relevant trial makes it important in itself. Further, the trial only took place because the accused was in the US and had been trained by the US. Further, and most importantly, secondary sources point to the trial and the testimony as evidence of US state terrorism. What is 'sensational' is the fact that it happened, not the recounting of the woman's experience. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should we then not quote the whole testimony? Quoting the particular paragraph has no purpose except being sensationalistic and the insinuation that all persons speaking American English are US government agents.Ultramarine 10:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy for more to be quoted. The insinuation was made in the original source, not by US. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If so, that claim is what should be quoted, not the testimony. Even regading the testimony, why include more than one of the involved was a man called "Alejandro" who "was a tall, light complexioned man, who spoke broken Spanish, but perfect North American English." Ultramarine 10:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This claim was in the original and treated as significant in that source. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not copy whole books and should attribute propersly. If there was an insinuation in the book that "Alejandro" was an US agent, then please quote that.Ultramarine 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does do quotes, and quoting the book is not to "copy whole books". ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If there is a claim that the persons involved were US agents, then the text making that claim should be quoted.Ultramarine 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm at work and don't have the book to hand. You are free to extend the quote yourself, though. It would be a good opportunity to familiarize yourself with the sources (something you clearly have not done). ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Those who make the claims should give the sources.Ultramarine 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources are given and publicly available. You seem to be the only one who has a problem with them. You also seem to be the only one who hasn't bothered to read them. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really very simple, Ultramarine: there is no consensus on deleting the material, and it meets all standards so far agreed to in the article.

It is not enough for you to say you don't like it; there must be a good reason to delete it, and you have not offered up one. The other editors here, however, have offered up several clearly explained and very intelligent reasons as to why it should be included.

Thus, the material stays. Stone put to sky 11:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Material must follow policy, wikpedia is no a soapbox for presenting false or biased claims.Ultramarine 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Material does follow policy. Moreover, it has gained a long consensus. There are clearly stated reasons for including it. You have yet to make a case that it should be deleted.

The material was included precisely as a result of your insistence that all claism be backed up.

You made the bed. Stone put to sky 11:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have still not seen a reason for including a long graphic description of this particular rape. Any claims should be made in neutral language to be encyclopedia.Ultramarine 11:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And we have seen no reason not to include it. It was deemed fit for inclusion in the academic source quoted. It is fit for wikipedia. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It has no purpose currently. If you want to add that this is evidence of something, then please do so quoting a source.Ultramarine 11:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The material clearly follows policy; many reasons have already been given for why it should remain; and you are trying to buck an already established consensus.

You set the standards for inclusion in this article; it was because of your own insistence that every statement in the article be sourced that we have found it necessary to include this testimony. Clearly, the portion of the article in question is dealing with the case of Sister Ortiz, who was awarded several millions in U.S. dollars (which were never received) because she suffered torture, rape and other abuse at the hands of a squad of Guatemalan military people.

The testimony was given in the U.S. courts and accepted as evidence therein. It demonstrates that what is asserted about Sister Ortiz' case has been accepted as truth; it demonstrates the severity of the abuse and torture Guatemalan victims generally suffered; and it demonstrates that the abuse was clearly suffered while she was under the nominal "care" of the state. All of these things contribute to the various points that are required for an act to qualify as "terrorist" in nature, according to the FBI, CIA, and other definitions of terrorism.

Because the testimony is able to bear witness to all these various facets of the issue at hand, it is extremely powerful. Because it is so succinct, it is very valuable. Thus, because it is succinct and powerful, it is included here.

The material will remain, and please be advised that if you attempt to delete it your actions will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Individual accounts of terror

How do you people have time to get any work done?

The article could use a few graphic descriptions of violence like the rape scene. It is important to convey that this is not just some abstract issue about whether the acts of an abstract entity like a nation-state called the U.S. may be described under the rubric of "terrorism" but it is a very real issue with very real victims and consequences. It should never be just a dry recitation of places, dates and numbers of victims.--NYCJosh 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But the purpose is conversely not to inflame the reader with endless graphic descriptions of torture porn that do not advance the discussion. This is an encyclopedia, not an activist site. Long quotes are summarized, with few exceptions. - Merzbow 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The passages about Guatemala are necessary to provide a personal account of the methods used by the US-supported death-squads to terrorize the population. The mass killings (bodies in pits), the lack of proper burial (the rats), the torture/rape tactics all served to terrorize the population in a very effective way. It is not endless--only several sentences, and is not "torture porn"--the reader is not led to identify with the torturers and is not particularly graphic in describing in anatomical details.

I would call for additional such human narration for countries other than Guatemala to provide the perspective of the victims, bring the discussion down from the abstract level to the human level, and to provide some specifics on the METHODS of terror. As a former graduate student of history, I know that the emphasis on individual human descriptions of important historical pheonmena (to the extent that they are in some sense typical or that they shed light on the larger abstract historical reality under discussion) has been an important trend. It's bottom up history not top-down history. --NYCJosh 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert in encyclopedias or anything, but although it's a trend in history books, I doubt very much that bottom-up history (if I understand what that phrase means) is the trend in encyclopedias. In my opinion, an encyclopedia should portray items in an objective (i.e., "abstract"), rather than a personal, manner.

I agree that in an enclyclopedia bottom-up history should dominate in terms of prominence over succint dry accounts (if you look at my additions to this article, you'll note that they're just about all in the latter category). But there is an important place for the former for the reasons given. --NYCJosh 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not for the purposes of containing verbatim narratives by victims recounting their experiences at excruciating length. See WP:ISNOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is enough to say that someone was tortured, letting them go on and on about rats and dead bodies is transparently geared to inflame the reader while providing no relevant information to the discussion at hand. The article is not about the methods of torture, it is about allegations of state terrorism. - Merzbow 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your objections are irrelevant, Merzbow; the content is in no way "soap-box" ranting and your attempt to portray it as such is laughable. There is consensus for the content, there is good reason for the content (see above), and it conforms both to Wikipedia policy as well as the contrived standards of content you and Ultramarine have devised for this page.

Please understand that if you try to delete the material your actions will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala 3

"estimate[s] that the Guatemalan conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s." The OR implication is that the US is responsible for all of these deaths when the in fact the US had cut of military aid during much of this period.Ultramarine 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That is pure claptrap; the statement implies only that the U.S. was a responsible party, and in no way suggests full and sole culpability.

As for the funding, the U.S. legislature cut off aid during that period; clearly, you are forgetting the secret CIA aid (quoted -- and sourced -- elsewhere in this article) that continued to be sent. Stone put to sky 09:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use indentation. Then we should obviously mention that the US is not responsible for all these deaths. What is the source for that CIA aid continued during this whole period?Ultramarine 09:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I only use indentation when it seems appropriate; typically, it's when i'm commenting on a block of text or engaging in a digression from the main point of a conversation. When in a dialogue on the talk page, however, i do not consider it appropriate.

Nor do i consider your request to be all that civil; i don't spend my time correcting your english or formatting options and i think it's a small thing to ask you to exercise restraint and show similar respect.

Finally: no, it is not necessary for us to introduce any such extraneous commentary. The text already makes quite clear that primary responsibility for these atrocities lay with the Guatemalan military, and that the U.S. is culpable only for the training, funding, political support and political leadership of the primary actors. Stone put to sky 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Does not state that. Only evidence presented has been limited training and some material assistance to some of the persons involved. The US did not support the regime politically for long periods.Ultramarine 09:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the text most certainly does state that, and the sources i have provided -- which are summaries of declassified CIA documents -- clearly show that funding, training, political support and political leadership were all provided to the Guatemalan leadership of that era.

You can't argue with declassified documentation, Ultramarine. It's all clearly there, and in no way controversial. Unless you can come up with a better argument, then the text will remain as it stands. Stone put to sky 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources you speak shows that the US cut off military support for long periods, helped stop a coup in 1993, and that the CIA, especially in more recent times, tried to lessen the human rights violations.Ultramarine 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not reading the sources:

"The funds the CIA provided to the Guatemalan liaison services were vital to the D-2 and Archivos. This funding was seen as necessary to make these services more capable partners with the station, particularly in pursuing anti-communist and counternarcotics objectives. The CIA, with the knowledge of ambassadors and other State Department and National Security Council officials, as well as the Congress, continued this aid after the termination of overt military assistance in l990.

There have been public allegations that CIA funds were increased to compensate for the cutoff of military aid in 1990. We did not find this to have been the case. Overall CIA funding levels to the Guatemalan services dropped consistently from about $3.5 million in FY 1989 to about l million in l995."

It clearly says the CIA continued to fund them. I understand you want to post counter arguments, but you are not looking well when you do not read the sources. --74.73.16.230 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC) More from this source:

Relations between the US and Guatemalan governments came under strain in 1977, when the Carter administration issued its first annual human rights report on Guatemala. The Guatemalan government rejected that report's negative assessment and refused US military aid. The Guatemalan government rejected that report's negative assessment and refused US military aid. The human rights situation deteriorated further in the late 1970's and early 1980's, as the Guatemalan army--in which the intelligence and security services played a central role--waged a ruthless scorched-earth campaign against the communist guerrillas as well as noncombatants. In the course of this campaign in a country with a population that has never been more than approximately 10 million, more than 100,000 Guatemalans died. Through the 1980's and into the 1990's, the human rights situation gradually improved as the insurgency waned, but successive Department of State human rights reports continued to document egregious violations, including murders of political opponents. Relations between the two countries warmed in the mid-1980's with gradual improvements in human rights and the Reagan administration's emphasis on curbing the spread of communism in Central America. After a civilian government under President Cerezo was elected in 1985, overt non-lethal US military aid to Guatemala resumed. In December 1990, however, largely as a result of the killing of US citizen Michael DeVine by members of the Guatemalan army, the Bush administration suspended almost all overt military aid.

The CIA's successes in Guatemala in conjunction with other US agencies, particularly in uncovering and working to counter coups and in reducing the narcotics flow, were at times dramatic and very much in the national interests of both the United States and Guatemala.

The human rights records of the Guatemalan security services--the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations)--were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. US policy-makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services' unsavory reputations. The CIA endeavored to improve the behavior of the Guatemalan services through frequent and close contact and by stressing the importance of human rights -- insisting, for example, that Guatemalan military intelligence training include human rights instruction. The station officers assigned to Guatemala and the CIA headquarters officials whom we interviewed believe that the CIA's contact with the Guatemalan services helped improve attitudes towards human rights. Several indices of human rights observance indeed reflected improvement--whether or not this was due to CIA efforts--but egregious violations continued, and some of the station's closest contacts in the security services remained a part of the problem.

So the US cannot be blamed for all of the deaths in the civil war.Ultramarine 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What is your source? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[60]. So the US cannot be blamed for all the deaths in the civil war.Ultramarine 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The US government investigating itself, and finding itself to be blameless? Would you accept such a report from any other government at face value? If Iran investigated itself and found that it didn't support Hamas, would you consider that the final word on the matter? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again: there is nothing in the text that "blames" the U.S. for "all" the deaths in these incidents of state terrorism. The article clearly connects the U.S. to support -- through funding, training, and political protection -- of the Guatemalan military as it perpetrated many instances of torture, genocide, and terrorism. That's all the article says, and it says it just fine the way things are worded. Stone put to sky 11:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we must include the above material for NPOV.Ultramarine 11:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant portions of the "above material" have already been included. If you peruse the article, mention is made of the vicissitudes in U.S. public policy, with attribution. The fluff, however, has been properly trimmed.

Once again: while it is perfectly appropriate to include material that shows the U.S. government did worry some over this policy, what is relevant to the article -- and the only thing relevant to the article, at this point -- is that the policy of support -- through funding and training -- did not change.

That is what is relevant to an entry titled "State terrorism by the United States". Again -- these are standards which you yourself engineered and insisted upon, with great prejudice and vehemence. Unless you are willing to change your own policy standards, then there is simply no way we can allow extraneous counter-arguments into the article. Stone put to sky 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the article does not mention the CIA attempt to lessen the human rights violations and the help with stopping coups.Ultramarine 11:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you should include it, not remove anything to make a point, but add a criticism section stating the US point of view per WP:NPOV. If you find sources stating the opposite, those should be included, so why not just add a criticism section to each area? --SixOfDiamonds 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the 1996 President’s Intelligence Oversight Board report, the CIA funded D2 continuously from 1965 to 1993 ($3.5 Million/year). The report found that Terry Ward (CIA Latin America Chief) "was derelict in his Constitutional duty to inform Congress of Guatemalan human rights abuses, that he failed to followup the CIA’s commitment to investigate the Honduran military’s death squad, that he looked the other way when the Nicaraguan contras tortured their prisoners". The report stated "in the period since 1984, several CIA assets were credibly alleged to have ordered, planned, or participated in serious human rights violations such as assassination, extrajudicial execution, torture, or kidnapping while they were assets -- and that the CIA was contemporaneously aware". As a result of this report the CIA dropped over 1,000 agents " for lack of productivity, criminality or human rights abuses". The CIA may not have performed the torture themselves but according to U.S. Government documents they did have CIA polygraph experts present during interrogations where prisoners were tortured.
CIA attempts to lessen the human rights violations were rather inadequate. For example the "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual" that the SOA used to train the interrogators in methods of torture was modified. The sentence "we want to make you aware of them and the proper way to use them (torture techniques)" was modified by putting a line through the phrase “the proper way to use them” and writing above it “so that you may avoid them.” Not the most efficient way to prevent torture. With so much U.S. government paperwork detailing the torture and funding available it amazes me that this is disputed. Wayne 16:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of unsourced claims here. Regardless, the opposing views presented by me above should also be included.Ultramarine 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find your statements in the Intelligence Oversight Board report here: [61].Ultramarine 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to look harder. Some of the statements are from that report and some from related documents. It doesn't specifically mention Ward but he was the station Chief so was held responsible and fired. I also used a summary from George Washington university.
I'm interested in how you can have an opposing view when the U.S. government actually admits guilt. Are we talking about the "end justifies the means" defense? Wayne 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims are not interesting. There are some somewhat similar statements in the acutal report, but very different in crucial aspects, like that the level of aid declined during this period. Many of the quotes seems to be misquotations. Regardless, the opposing views presented in my quotes above should be included.Ultramarine 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For more general opposing views, see the section on Opposing views above.Ultramarine 20:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wayne, for that comment. I think you have pretty much demolished Ultramarine's line of argument, and i much appreciate the rest.  ;-) Stone put to sky 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua 1

"Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit." Why is this graphic description of this particular human rights violation included. The ICJ stated that the US did not have sufficient control over the Contras to be responsible for their human rights violations.Ultramarine 11:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

How strange.

First, the ICJ never said any such thing. They clearly laid responsibility for the overall human rights violations upon the United States; that's why the U.S. was found guilty of an "illegal use of violence", or whatever the statement was.

What the ICJ refused to consider, however, was that every act by the Contras would fall to the responsibility of the United States.

Now, this has all been explained quite clearly above. Apparently you didn't understand it, then. I suggest you go back and review, because you are badly misinterpreting the ICJ ruling.

Next, i would like to ask if we are to presume from the above questions that you think:

A) Because the ICJ stated the U.S. was not responsible for all of the Contras' human rights violations, that

B) we should question the inclusion of the passage you cite above?

Because to me that seems like a very strange leap in logic.Stone put to sky 11:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I quote from the voted on statements "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but 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". They also stated, "It is for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them."Ultramarine 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; you are selectively quoting from the ICJ. This has already been explained to you above. I am not going to go back into it. Either you are able to understand, or you're not. Regardless, your attempt to force this artificial and inaccurate interpretation is easily refuted.

The material remains, unaltered. Any attempt to delete it will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no such counter-argument has been presented. The court made no judgement regarding whether HRV had occured because the US was not imputable for possible such violations.Ultramarine 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Imputable: To ascribe to or charge (a person) with an act or quality because of the conduct of another over whom one has control or for whose acts or conduct one is responsible. The court ruling is stating that The US broke the law by funding and providing materials including that document, however Bob killing Jane was in the end Bobs fault. I posted the definition since it seems to be ignored. --SixOfDiamonds 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The US was found guilty mainly for actions done directly by US personnel, such as laying mines. There is very little regarding the Contras in the final voted on verdict.Ultramarine 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Laying of mines, yes; odd how you fail to mention training of the Contras, teaching them torture techniques, funding the Contras, setting tactical and strategic goals along the lines of "low intensity warfare" (which means "kill and torture unarmed peasants but try to avoid the military"), and political protection in the UN and other international bodies.

The ICJ decision said considerably more than you are alleging here, and included the U.S. as the primary font of a long list of crimes. Stone put to sky 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it did not. Yes, the US supported the Contas, but there is very little mention of this in the voted on statements. The support of the Contras was illegal due to the obligation not to interfere in another state. The more serious statements, such as use of force, refered to actions done directly by US personnel. As per human rights violations by the Contras, see above. No reason to have the graphic quote.Ultramarine 08:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it did. You are simply wrong -- yet again, as you often seem to be, lately -- and please be advised that if you seek to delete material from the article based upon your deeply flawed interpretation of the ICJ ruling then your actions will be interpreted as vandalism.

Let me also remind you that you are performing WP:OR. There are plenty of sources which reference the ICJ ruling and unambiguously support the wording provided on the page. There will be no more discussion of this until you can come up with an authoritative legal or interpretive source that supports your perspective. And please be advised: if you seek to delete material from the article based upon your deeply flawed interpretation of the ICJ ruling then your actions will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 09:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already quoted the ICJ ruling itself. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism. I will note further accusations of vandalism as violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.Ultramarine 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are a vandal, but you are clearly not assuming good faith on behalf of the editors you disagree with. We are all part time editors here. It is unreasonable to propose to delete material because page numbers are lacking. It is also unreasonable to demand instant gratification for your demands. Especially on an article that you have not contributed to. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources."the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material""Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time." From the decision by the arbitration commitee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect "Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition."Ultramarine 10:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Ultramarine, you are performing original research. Unless you can find a source which supports your interpretation of the ICJ ruling, the material will be re-worked and the quotation deleted.

If you try to delete other material in retaliation, your actions will be interpreted as vandalism.

If you try to force inclusion of this selective and clearly misleading quotation while excluding material that is more accurate, your actions will be considered vandalism.

There is no middle ground here: either find a source that supports your interpretation of that particular passage of the ICJ, re-work the material so that it provides an accurate sense of the ICJ ruling, or delete it.

And please remember that if you don't, i will - per the consensus of virtually every legal authority on the planet. Stone put to sky 04:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua 2

We should add regarding the "Torture manuals" that the CIA claims that they were intended to "moderate" activities already being done.Ultramarine 11:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Unless we have concrete evidence of what was actually being done at the time then there is no possible way for us to back up that statement.

Of course, if there were evidence that the U.S. and CIA knew what was being done at the time, that would of course implicate them as at least vicarious participants.

So feel free to do the research. i look forward to reading over your discoveries. Stone put to sky 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That is what the CIA claims. As per NPOV, views from both sides should be included.Ultramarine 11:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Claims" by the CIA are not allowed unless they are backed up with evidence. We have no evidence that the former methods of torture were in fact "worse" than the later ones the CIA tried to teach. Unless you can come up with a source that shows what methods of torture were used previously, then we must conclude that these claims by the CIA are questionable.

Otherwise you are guilty of WP:OR and WP:SYN.Stone put to sky 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of this article is claims, such as those by the Cuban government.Ultramarine 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think the CIA side should be presented in whole. I will restate this, but I think the opposing side should be presented in each section by adding a criticism subsection. --SixOfDiamonds 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am neutral on this, but the opposing views should also be presented.Ultramarine 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposing claims may only be included so long as they are backed up by properly sourced evidence and relevant to the text. Your sources do not deny that the U.S. participated in these acts; rather, they only explain the U.S. government's justification for why they felt their support for these methods of torture, genocide, rape and mass murder were justified. Stone put to sky 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we can cite Cuba's claims, we can also cite those of the opposing side. NPOV require the inclusion of the views of both sides.Ultramarine 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed we may; but only insofar as they are relevant to the article.

If you wish to include sources here disputing the events in question, then they must address the specific issue of State Terrorism, the specific incidents of state support, or the specific instances of terrorism mentioned. This is the standard to which you have held the other editors on this page, and this is the standard to which you will be now held. Stone put to sky 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again read Wikipedia:POV forking. Attempts to violate NPOV is not allowed, articles must include the views of both sides. The article criticzes the US for the manuals, then the counter-view shold also be included.Ultramarine 09:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no violation of NPOV here; i know that because you -- one of the most vehement deletionists on this page -- are responsible for laying down the rules to which all material on this page must conform.

It was you who insisted that all initial statements must include reference to "State Terrorism" and attribute it to the United States; it was you who insisted that any discussion or attempts to elaborate upon definitions of "State Terrorism" and their relevance to actions by the U.S. would not be allowed; it was you who insisted that no material could be included unless it directly referenced the claims of state terrorism; and it was you who insisted that each and every fact on this page be sourced and referenced, no matter how trivial.

Obviously, with such standards we could not possibly be in violation of NPOV; similarly, since you clearly felt these standards were fair to impose on us, the other editors, you could not possibly feel that they are now restrictive and unfair.

Unless your material conforms to these three rigid guidelines, the material cannot be included. Stone put to sky 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Iran 1

"According to an article in the Asia Times, "Sponsoring terrorist activities inside Iran has been a consistent feature of US regional policy over the past quarter-century." This is from an unsourced commentary and seems to refer to US support of opposition in general inside Iran. A better source showing that the US have supported a group doing terrorism inside Iran needs to be quoted.Ultramarine 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. That's easily enough done by looking up the articles by Seymour Hersh, which is who the Asia Times are quoting. Why don't you do that, Ultramarine? It'd be a good-faith gesture, and improve the article.

Of course, if you refuse to do so and instead simply attempt to delete the passage, we will interpret that as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and no such evidence has been presented or found. It is those who make a claim that must provide the sources.Ultramarine 11:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; i am sure you haven't tried very hard, because i clearly remember the article by Sy Hersh that made these claims. I believe they were in the New Yorker.

Again: either put up, or the material remains. Stone put to sky 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that referred to that the US might send spies into other nations and that an anonymous editor thought that these may in the future maybe do sabotage. Again, it is those who make a claim that must provide the sources.Ultramarine 12:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The author of the article (M K Bhadrakumar) is the one stating the passage above. I am not sure what the drama is about? Its clear as day in the article that is used as a source. The author is a writer for the Asia Times, which is a WP:RS source ... I am not seeing the argument here. Please either of you fill me in. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An unsourced commentary is not reliable, very little fact checking. As this is an extraordinary claims, very good sources are required. The commentary seems to refer to US support of opposition in general inside Iran. A better source showing that the US have supported a group doing terrorism inside Iran needs to be quoted.Ultramarine 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm actually contributing to this page.

Ultramarine, I think you're right in demanding that people who want to make allegations of state terrorism actually have to cite their sources specifically (No! Say it ain't so!). However, I have heard about what they're talking about.

Scott Ritter has spoken about the US supporting Mojahedin-e-Khalq. [62]

Seymour Hersh alleges the US government is funding a variety of terror groups [63] ina variety of ways [64]

There's a RAW Story about the MEK. [65]

And the Asia Times. [66]

And it's pretty obvious by now the US government is funding Jundallah. MarkB2 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. Those are all much appreciated. Stone put to sky 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see looking through these sources, there is no allegation that the US is supporting a violent group, only general support for opposition groups, sending spies etc. Please give a specific quotes supporting the allegation.Ultramarine 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

State funding and training of terrorist groups is universally defined as state terrorism. As Bush said. "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."[67] ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking this at face value, please give a quote supporting at least the allegation that the US has done this in Iran.Ultramarine 09:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News."[68]

"The US-funded terrorist rings have launched tremendous attacks against Iran, including the assassination of Iranian officials on early days after the victory of the Islamic Revolution."[69] ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran 2

"Operation Ajax, which involved organised riots and the training of right-wing terrorist groups" None of the given sources mention "terrorist" groups.Ultramarine 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe ref# 100 does. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Page numbers must be provided for books in order to be verifiable.Ultramarine 12:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would help in that task, rather than just barking orders at people. This book is widely available. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice it the article is correct. Giving sources is the responsibility of those making the claims.Ultramarine 12:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Source is given, a date missing from an article doesnt call for its removal, it calls for others to attempt to provide the information. I will have to hit the library it seems this weekend and waste valuable time due to these petty claims. I hope you then cease the arguing here over minors since you just WP:DONTLIKEIT in relation to the topic. --SixOfDiamonds 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I will allow some time before removing time.Ultramarine 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you allow some time for you to look it up yourself, instead of just wanting to delete? Unless you have some reason to believe that the source is not accurate I dont understand your tact in approaching it the way you are. It should be one of Fix, dont Delete. Only delete when its not fixable. Yes?Giovanni33 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is those who make a claim that have the responsibility to provide a verifiable source.Ultramarine 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If Ultramarine does look it up and can't find it, what then? Will you accept his word, or will you then look it up? I'm just curious, because if you wouldn't be willing to accept his word (assuming he couldn't find it, which is honestly possible even if it is in the book), then it doesn't sound to me that you're genuinely interested in his contributions. (For the record, I doubt Ultramarine and I have the same general POV here. I just appreciate a NPOV. Also, I'm new here, so please forgive me if I go astray somewhere.) Benhocking 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If he can't veritfy it for whatever reason, and he believe it does not exist or is false, then thats one thing. But if he just says its not referenced, and deletes, without any intention or attempt to fix what may be an easily fixable problem, then thats another thing. I hope you see the difference between the two. And, yes, I always assume good faith, but that doesn't mean I won't try to see if I can't fix it, when he finds himeself unable to. I don't know why you say I don't sound like Im genuinely interested in his contributions. Can you please explain that statement? I'm interested in helping this article and am interested in everyones contributions--that is why I'm here talking to him.Giovanni33 20:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, I have no idea how big that book is. If the book is over a hundred pages, then it seems unreasonable to ask someone to look for it who isn't even sure it's there. On the other hand, someone already found it, so it seems to make most sense for that someone to say where they found it. It's hard enough to find something in a large book if you've already seen it once before. It's much, much harder to find something in a medium-to-large book if not only have you never seen it before, you've never even read the book! Obviously, Ultramarine is expressing a certain skepticism. Would you go looking through a book for something you weren't sure was even in there, instead of asking someone who's already found it to point you to which page it was on? I'm arguing this purely on general principles and not because of the subject matter at hand. If you look at other things I've edited, you'll notice that I'm mainly interested in academic issues. Benhocking 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with skepticism, asking for the page number of the person citing, it, and not doing it yourself. I do have a problem with simply deleting it, without any effort made to fix it, directly or indirectly by asking the that person who might know, cite it. All I am saying is that the emphasis should be on fixing things, instead of deleting as a fix--unless thre is good reason to believe it can't be fixed.Giovanni33 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for a better citation right here and now.Ultramarine 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad. Just don't delete it, because I'm assuming its valid and the better citation will be provided in due time.Giovanni33 02:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Limited time before deletion. We want an accurate encyclopedia.Ultramarine 08:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please cease barking orders, you are in no position to order anyone around. --SixOfDiamonds 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Ultramarine; the citation will stand until either you go find the book and give us a clear citation showing that it does not, in fact, state what is asserted, or somebody else does.

If you cannot be bothered to go check on a source, then you will at least remain patient while others do. Stone put to sky 09:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources."the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material""Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time."Ultramarine 10:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I dispute that the material is poorly sourced.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The only supposed source mentioning "terrorist" groups is a book without page numbers. From the decision by the arbitration commitee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect "Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition."Ultramarine 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That is clearly not the case. There are over a hundred sources. Most are articles and don't require page numbers. Most of the cited books have page numbers. We are really only talking about a minority of the numerous sources. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about the specific claim regarding Operation Ajax, as per my first edit in this section.Ultramarine 10:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Western Europe 1

"an attempted coup in France (1961)" Seems to refer to some very obscure conpiracy theory. The given source is " Pierre Abramovici and Gabriel Périès, La Grande Manipulation, éd. Hachette, 2006" What is this? A book? Then page numbers would be required. Regardless, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article.Ultramarine 11:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; in France, it's a widely accepted account of the post-war situation. A few folks here can read french, and believe it or not just because something isn't written in english doesn't mean that it's an "extraordinary" claim.

This is a widely respected academic history of the post-war situation in France. If you want to argue against it, then please come up with some sourced material. Otherwise, the material stays.

And, as always: any attempt to remove it against the established consensus will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your unsourced personal claims are not a reliable source in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to trust his word, you could try reading the sources. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is those who make claim that must provide the sources.Ultramarine 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources are given. You refuse to read them. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been provided. It's not our responsibility to buy the book for you, prop open your eyelids, and give you shock therapy until you've completed it. Stone put to sky 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, in order to verifiably, page numbers must be provided for books. This has been confirmed in arbitration cases. Regardless, again, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article.Ultramarine 12:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers can be added to those few references which lack them. However, I advise you to also actually read the sources. It will do you good and you will be able to argue with us more effectively. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless done, this source is unverifiable. Those who make the claims must provide the sources. I repeat, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article.Ultramarine 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would help in that task, rather than just barking orders at people. This book is widely available. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice it the article is correct. Giving sources is the responsibility of those making the claims.Ultramarine 12:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources are given. The lack of page numbers on some references is a minor issue which can be corrected in time. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. Please help out by adding some page numbers yourself. Thank you. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The claimed source is currently unverifiable. Extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article. It would be nice it the article is correct. Giving sources is the responsibility of those making the claims.Ultramarine 12:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem unwilling to help, even in theory. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You all are acting like children. The source is verifiable, go search to see if the book exists. The source itself is then verifiable as existing. Your issue is then if the source is stating XYZ due to a lack of page numbers. While I agree page numbers would be more helpful, if there are no quotes being used, you cannot really reference a page to explain an overarching theme of a book. I would also be interested in reading the details of those arbitration cases. Please provide some links. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect "Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition."Ultramarine 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, after reading over it, it seems you are overly stating the point. Not sure what lead you to that case, but it was regarding someone adding false information or general sources, not sources that actually contain the items. I believe this is bordering on Wikilawyering. Nonetheless I will attempt to find some page numbers for you. --SixOfDiamonds 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuba 1

"In 2006, a former board member of CANF, Jose Antonio Llama testified that leaders of the foundation had created a paramilitary group to carry out destabilizing acts in Cuba. The foundation’s general board of directors didn’t know the details of the paramilitary group, which acted autonomously, Llama said. He added that current CANF board chairman Jorge Mas Santos was never told of the plan. The plans failed after Llama and four other exiles were arrested in the United States territory of Puerto Rico in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Castro."

No involvement by the CANF and the US, so should be removed. Should if anything be cited as evidence againt state terrorism, since the it was the US who stopped the assassintion.Ultramarine 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is just so silly.

First, it has three different sources, one of which is from the UN. Second, it clearly documents the relationship between Mel Martinez and a famed anti-castro terrorist organization.

This is yet again another instance of supporting information that has been included to clarify statements that appear elsewhere in the article; in this particular instance, that "Granma, the official newspaper of Cuba, also reported that U.S. senator Mel Martinez was meeting with Cuban American terrorists and sponsoring them via CANF."

You have complained that we have cuban sources in the article; but here we have one source from the Miami-Herald and another from UN testimony, and you are complaining about it being "irrelevant".

Sorry; it's relevance as primary source material in support of an originating thesis is indisputable.

Once again: any attempt to delete this material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Granma is not a reliable source. None of the other sources claims that US government was involved. The plot was stopped in US territory.Ultramarine 11:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Says who? How is the official newspaper of a nation not a reliable source? --SixOfDiamonds 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A state-controlled censored newspaper is not reliable.Ultramarine 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your belief they are censored is not valid. Further a state controlled document is then also not valid. So are you arguing that we should remove all documents from government offices? I doubt you are. Please cease attempts to brand anything Venezuelan or Cuban as not meeting WP:RS, or have the folks at WP:RS rule on that. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

See Reporters without borders. Documents from dictatorships are not reliable. Venezuela is not a dictatorships (yet), so is more reliable.Ultramarine 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are imposing your own POV about what is a dicatorship and what is not, and basing that POV to determine reliablity of the source? That only produced the expected bias of the filtering system it employs. And that is not NPOV. That is like me saying that reports from big corporations are not reliable because big corpoations are elitist, undemocratic institutions, or that capitalist media can not be considered reliable by WP, and only sources from socialist democracies like Cuba, can be considered reliable. Obviously, this is not valid, but is the reasoning your using here.Giovanni33 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You can look at any respected human rights group, freedom of expression or of the press does not exist in Cuba, while it does in the US. However, I will agree on one pont. If this article was called "Allegations of...", we could list this as another one of Cuba's allegations of state terrorism.Ultramarine 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Granma is a valid source. That's all there is to it.

We are sorry that you have a prejudicial attitude towards the content presented there, but that's beside the point. It is a valid source, and the material remains. Stone put to sky 07:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is a state-censored newspaper a reliable source? But again, it could maybe be included as an allegation.Ultramarine 08:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We are sorry that you are prejudiced against Granma as a source. Nevertheless, it remains valid and the material remains. Stone put to sky 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeating a claim without giving any evidence does not help your case. Again, you can look at any respected human rights group, freedom of expression or of the press does not exist in Cuba, while it does in the US.Ultramarine 09:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That is true, but before throwing stones in glass houses, you should consider that the US is not an ideal place for journalism either. RsF puts the US at 53rd place, joint with Tonga and Botswana, for freedom of the press. Perhaps you should take the output of US media with a healthy pinch of salt too. [70] ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Still in the upper third, while Cuba is 165 out of 168.Ultramarine 10:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But if say, Botswana denied state terrorism against Tonga, would you take their denials at face value, or would you treat it with a healthy skepticism?... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Botswana is one of the best functioning and succesful democracies in Africa, so I would certainly consider their newspapers to be fairly free and reliable.Ultramarine 10:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So no healthy skepticism then, no? You are very trusting. I live in Ireland (pos #1 ), and I'm skeptical of the Irish press. Its what keeps them honest. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you are obviously prejudiced against Granma as a source. That doesn't concern us, though, because it remains a valid source and the material remains. Stone put to sky 10:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All reputable human rights organizations are find Cuba's newspapers to be censored.Ultramarine 10:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is or not is beside the point. Even an allegation made by a state controlled source is still an allegation. Its perhaps more notable in the fact that it is the states' official view. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think that it's "more notable", Seabhcan; that's precisely the point. If we cannot count on Granma to communicate the Cuban Government's legal position and official findings, then who can we count on?

The CIA?

(P.S. -- hey, Seabhcan -- how do you pronounce that damn jumble you call a name, anyway?) Stone put to sky 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Its something like "Shaw-kawn" ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Granma, there is not evidence to give. The source meets all qualifications of WP:RS WP:V. There is nothing in either of those that says Cuban publications are not valid, or that views of the Cuban government are not WP:RS, if that is the argument. This is absurd the bickering over Cuba as a source in any form, and unless someone posts something other then, they do not have freedom of the press, which is not a valid argument, this seems to be closed. PS no I do no thave to prove the New York Times is valid, you have to prove it is not. Every source added does not come with a declaration from the author that they were not lying and fully backed by the president of the publishing company/network, then certified by the U.N. Stop asking people to prove nothing. You have an accusation, its that it does not meet criteria, then back it up and prove it. Stating a group says its really the government stating XYZ does not then make it invalid as the government would be a larger WP:RS source, and further a better source. --SixOfDiamonds 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already agreed that this particular allegation is really no different than all the others by the Cuban government.Ultramarine 12:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism vs. State-sponsored coups

I don't think that state-sponsored coups can necessarily be labeled terrorism - unless part of their aim can reasonably be considered to be inspiring terror. Perhaps these can be moved to their own article, and have a link to that article added in the See Also section?

Agree.Ultramarine 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I do not agree that there is clear consensus on the blanking of the massive cited section that ultramarine and company have been deleting. --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Currently above, we are working out consensus regarding the sources in contention, and progress is being made. Editors should respect this process and not force massive deletions by edit waring. Thanks for restoring the material.Giovanni33 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While i admit that a coup in and of itself does not necessarily qualify as an act of state-sponsored terrorism (the coup against Idi Amin was a blessing, right?), coups that are sponsored by a foreign government against a democratically-elected or populist-government are clearly a) political violence, b) illegal, and c) intended to force a political accommodation against the agreed upon will of the people.

These are the essence of all definitions of "terrorism" so far posted, in each and every point. Moreover, in the case of Guatemala the relevance of the planning of the coup is substantiated by the assassination lists which were drawn up and perhaps acted upon as well as the emergence of "death squads" and other "political enforcers" in the aftermath. The realization of these atrocities was contingent upon the coup itself.

I find it hard to believe that you would seriously argue that a foreign-sponsored coup against a popular government -- which is the epitome of state-sponsored political violence against a people -- does not qualify as an act of state terrorism. Stone put to sky 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The good news is what you believe is irrelevant, and so is what I believe. What is relevant is if a reliable source calls a particular coup "state-sponsored terrorism". Anything else is original research. - Merzbow 07:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Since we have such a source there is no need for any further talk about it.

Thank you, Merzbow, for putting an end to the discussion. I look forward to further contributions by you in the future. Stone put to sky 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Mass blanking of properly sourced text without consensus. That would be great. Badagnani 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As some of you may have figured out, editors have divergent views about some of the material included in this article. Accordingly, deleting significant content without first raising the issue on this page is inappropriate and borders on underhanded sabotage. This may not be true for all articles but it is true here.

Also, deleting material in a sneaky way is pointless because people will notice, restore your deletions and you will look like you were trying to pull a fast one and not acting in good faith. If you have a deletion, post it here with your argument for why it does not belong. --NYCJosh 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the burden should be on the people who want to include the material to justify it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is on the people who want to include the material, up to the point that they add sources for the material. If the material is sourced, but the sources are contested, do not blank, but discuss, or add other sourced material that presents a different view. Sancho 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a guideline that says that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Major_changes are the two that come to mind. Sancho 15:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We also have policies like WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR, which enjoin us to remove nonsense like cites to blog posts and the pages of 9/11 conspiracy theorists like Chossudovsky. In fact, WP:V says this - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So does rock break scissors, or does paper cover rock? The point is that "my policy trumps your policy" chest-beating exercises get us nowhere. Simply make sure that the material in the article conforms to policy and it won't be removed or argued about. - Merzbow 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm new here, so I could totally be misinterpreting the various guidelines y'all throw about, but as I understand them the gist is that (a) People shouldn't be deleting sections without discussing first, even if those sections are not sourced properly (unless there are other good reasons to delete as detailed in the afore mentioned guide), and (b) People shouldn't be adding back those deleted sections without sourcing them properly first - even if they were deleted improperly. These two positions can be reconciled, I believe, through another Wikipedia concept. Benhocking 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course we can then run into arguments about whether a particular bit of material conforms to policy. In cases like this it is best to discuss before removing. Unfortunately on a topic like this it becomes very difficult to evaluate whether some material does or doesn't conform, which to me underlines the importance of discussion. I agree with you on the futility of setting one policy against another in these discussions. --John 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The dispute resolution policy and editing policy guide you how to resolve disagreement when it comes to the application of the other policies, and there's certainly disagreement at this page :-). Sancho 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

New people here always try to use rational means to thread the needle. However, i would like to point out that Merzbow, Ultramarine, Harrison, Morton Devonshire and the present-not-in-name-only MONGO have all made it clear that their ultimate goal is the deletion of the entire page, all content, without discrimination, always.

For three years, now, it's been this way. They are not going to change. Whatever reasons they come up with now for deleting material, once having managed to get portions or whatever taken away they will begin to work on the next batch.

Chossudovsky is a respected Canadian political commentator, editor of a widely regarded newsletter, and a tenured professor of political science; his commentary on the 9/11 incidents may be controversial, but they are well within the realm of appropriate academic speculation. Isaac Newton was a fierce proponent of Alchemy; that doesn't change the fact that gravity is still a relevant theory. Giordano Bruno believed he could practice witches, demons, and sorcery, but doesn't change the fact that he was a significant proponent of the Copernican model. There is no good reason to delete Chossudovsky's material.

Similarly, there is no evidence of violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:RS, and the only portion of the article that needs to be cleaned up at the moment is the badly misleading, highly selective quote from the ICJ in the Nicaragua section.

Now, there are two ways to go about something like that: either include an entire section on the ICJ, or give a brief -- one- or two-sentence summary -- of its findings, or simply link to the existing Nicaragua vs. United States wiki page and allow that to do all the talking. The cadre of deletionists, however, will not allow this; they insist upon inclusion of their misleading, selective quotation; only their misleading, selective quotation; and nothing but their own distorted, misleading commentary.

Please notice, however, that in addition to such improprieties there are others far more serious: the above commentators insist (based upon principles listed below) that there must be evidence provided to support a general statement like "The United States has been accused by numerous legal scholars, governments, political figures and human rights groups of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism". Now, regardless of how patently and obviously true such a statement is, the editors here are enjoined to "show sources" that it is indeed the case.

When we do, the sources we provide are systematically attacked as "not authoritative enough" -- even though they are all from published, professional journalists, scholars, human rights groups, political figures, and legal scholars! This is the sort of thing we constantly go through on this page: a simple statement that says nothing more than that many people around the world are talking about these ideas is challenged as "not being sourced" or "not having proof", and then when proof is provided the complaint changes, and the sampling of a large spectrum of people is rejected as not being authoritative enough.

On this one sentence in particular, the deletionist editors here have work tirelessly to try and whittle down the sources and re-work the introduction to say "Noam Chomsky says that the United States has been accused of...."

That is not editing in good faith; what would be an easily accepted statement in other articles becomes a point of contention, here. What would be considered nitpicking and bad-faith editing in other articles is elevated here to policy.

I and most of the other contributing editors here have no problem with people wanting to make this page better; however, many here have made it clear they do not want to see this subject treated in any way other than flat denial. This group has further clarified themselves by holding 6 AfDs on this article, not including their posturing (as above), with the phantastical straw polls and mutual back-slapping and so on.

Currently, the other editors here are doing nothing more than holding them to their own standards; artificial and arbitrary standards have been imposed upon contributing editors by this handful of protesters. I personally can testify that, for over two years, every attempt to communicate, reason, or negotiate with them has been met with scorn and disdain. Their insistence has always been that:

A) All formal, predicating content must be related to and include a phrase approximating a claim of "State Terrorism by the United States"

B) All supporting material and any statements must be sourced in every detail, no matter how small or trivial

C) All material must be directly floating condemnations of State Terrorism, or directly referencing a specific set of supporting facts within such a statement.

Each of those rules in itself is already extreme and, by the standards of other Wikipedia pages, unreasonable. They are made many times more frustrating and aggravating when applied with the vigor that the deletionists here insist upon. Moreover, the result has been to steer this page into a list of atrocities with which the U.S. is directly linked. I ask: what else could it be, with rules like that?

My point, in case it's not clear, is this: it is not the contributing editors who have created the current form of this page. It is the deletionists, and their intransigent, obstinate insistence upon these artificial standards of quality.

Now, what has become a clear pattern over these last few AfDs is this: an AfD is called, and that gets the attention of the Wiki-ops. They send someone over -- in this case, i believe it's Sancho? -- who in all good faith jumps in and starts to try and make heads or tails of this morass. Suggestions are tabled, and attempts are made to try and massage the consensus here into something more cooperative.

Unfortunately, what the advisers and arbitrators rarely realize -- or at least, rarely realize until they've worked at it for a good while -- is that this page is really just bickering over a single issue: its right to exist.

There are several contributors here who will balk and resist at any and every attempt to expand, hone, or in any way improve the content of this page. Their only desire is to see all the content deleted -- and if you don't believe me, then go back and look at the six failed AfDs they've participated in. Or review the talk-page history. Or review the history of their edits.

This group rarely introduces content; when they do, the portions posted are poorly enough edited and suffer from such terrible grammar and syntax that they almost qualify as vandalism. Any attempt to change or clean up said passages is met with obstinate resistance, even when the material is clearly irrelevant.

Finally, the material they present rarely -- if ever -- adheres to their own, pre-established standards, and when requests are made that it be tightened up they are vehemently rejected; those requests must then become demands, and those are usually rejected; finally, those demands must simply become deletes, and when that happens we are offered a quid pro quo: either allow the material to remain, or a new round of deletions will begin again on the main page.

This happened most recently with Ultramarine, and if everyone will look just above they will see the offer clearly made: either we allow Ultramarine's content to remain, or he will begin to delete material. The implication is clearly that he won't delete the material if his material is allowed to stay, and i ask: is there any more clear violation of Wikipedia standards? His offer is unambiguous, and goes something like this: "If you allow my content to stay and do not challenge its validity, relevance, or authenticity, then i will not delete material that consensus has already established as valid, relevant, and authentic. But if you do not adhere to my demands, then i will begin to delete this material, regardless of how the community might protest."

In other words: you allow my poor content to remain, and i won't vandalize the page.

And indeed, what do we see, now, these last three or four days?

Continual attempts by Ultramarine to delete large portions of the article, against the established consensus and in contravention to virtually every wiki-policy yet authored. We had to freeze the page to stop him.

Sincerely -- Stone put to sky 04:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please limit your future statements to some reasonable length, our time is valuable. There are no respected political commentators who hold that the 9/11 attacks were staged. I'm going to be dragged out of Wikipedia feet-first before cranks like Chossudovsky are considered reliable sources for anything other than their own statements. - Merzbow 07:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow is right. When the flag comes down, this stuff (http://www.globalresearch.ca - A personal site run by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Michel Chossudovsky; http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans - A non-notable political blog called "What's Left"; http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html - Personal website of a geography and Native American Studies professor nobody's ever heard of; http://www.cetim.ch/fr/interventions_details.php?iid=207 - Website of a French activist group nobody's ever heard of) has got to go. All of it violates WP:RS.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 09:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, dear fellows, i must inform you that you are wrong.

First, the citations are nothing more than sources demonstrating that the statement "numerous [commentators, authoritative and professional alike,] have accused the U.S. of state terrorism". The point of contention in this statement has always been the plural "commentators" and the adjective "numerous", which you and several others here have consistently tried to re-write as "Noam Chomsky". Your objections were that the statement was not sourced.

For the purposes of our current requirements, then, these sources are more than adequate: they demonstrate that there are official political, legal and bureaucratic organizations that have officially taken this stance; they demonstrate that professional commentators around the world have taken this stance; they demonstrate that legal scholars and human rights groups have taken this stance; and finally they demonstrate that academics within this area of expertise have taken this stance. Now, since it was y'all who demanded documentation on a trivial statement, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to change the rules midstream and pretend like trivial facts require extraordinary documentation.

Secondly, i really don't care what you think or don't think about CETIM. It's currently on permanent advisory to the UN (as noted above); it's a formal research institute publicly funded; and it has a special research section devoted to International Law. It will most certainly stay. Finally: since y'all demanded documentation on a trivial statement, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to rewrite your own rules and pretend like trivial facts require authoritative documentation.

Thirdly, the Zoltan Grossman site is widely cited as source material; it is published research by an academic well within his area of expertise; it provides clearly cited sources; and finally, it was published by a widely read publication. Say what you like, but that clearly qualifies as valid source material for wikipedia. In addition, if you can't wrap your brain around the idea of a professional "Native American Studies'" researcher as having relevance to this topic, then you are really out of touch with what is being built here. And lastly, i'd like to remind you that it was you and your comrades who contended this trivial statement; you all wanted documentation and we have given it. Now that it's there you're not allowed to change the rules and pretend like your whim is the rule for this page. The source stays.

Fourth, the "non-notable" political blog is the personal website of a published journalist writing in a formal and official manner about his area of expertise. Moreover, it is offered up only as evidence that there are, indeed, numerous commentators who are or have accused the U.S. of state terrorism. That's all we need to qualify that particular statement. Since y'all demanded documentation, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to change the rules midstream and pretend like you didn't ask for it.

Finally, there is no reason to delete material simply because it comes from Chossudovsky; you will need to do better than that. Chossudovsky is a widely published political analyst who is editor and founder of a news and commentary site published in two different languages, with regular readership on three continents, and whose authors include a long list of high-profile academics, journalists, authors and ex-bureaucrats. He is a tenured professor and head of two different grass-roots political groups, both of which deal (if i'm not mistaken) with issues of international law and human rights. He is a far, far cry from a mere "conspiracy theorist". Whatever is said about him on other webpages is -- as in the words of our beloved Ultramarine -- utterly irrelevant to this page. Here we do things according to our own consensus, and -- as Ultramarine is so fond of saying -- if other pages want to make that mistake then fine. They may. For our page, however, you will need to do better than ad hominem attacks against Chossudovsky to justify deletion.

Moreover, since it was you, Morty -- along with your cadre of fellow deletionists -- who demanded that the most trivial and uncontestable statement on the page be backed up by sources, you now have no leg to stand on by decrying that a trivial statement is backed up by unremarkable sources. The content of the statement is clear: there are numerous people and groups around the world who have condemned actions by the United States as instances of State Terrorism. Regardless of how deeply you might object to that statement -- and it is clear from the repeated attempts you have made to delete this page that they are deep and fierce -- nevertheless, the statement clearly is substantiated by factual, incontrovertible sources which -- in every way! -- satisfy wikipedia's guidelines for valid references.

Unless you can come up with better reasons than these, the references stay. Stone put to sky 11:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they won't. We can bring this up to any additional level of dispute resolution you want, and you won't succeed. 9/11 conspiracists will not be used as sources in articles about (more) mainstream political issues. - Merzbow 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

He has been published so this isnt up for debate.

• Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

And here is your list:

• Zed Books
• Columbia University School of International Public Affairs
• Institute for International Co-operation, University of Ottawa
• University of Ottawa Press
• Faculty of Social Sciences, Dept. of Economics, University of Ottawa
• Universidad Catolica de Chile, Instituto de Economia
• Madhyam Books
• Palgrave Macmillan

All on international politics and economics. --74.73.16.230 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds are you prepared to exclude all such researchers from being cited in ALL subjects? Do you have a WP rule handy for that one? --NYCJosh 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. WP:RS and WP:Verify.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See above. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This subject has achieved no mainstream recognition as far as I can tell. Certainly that is due to his delusional conspiracy theories. Luckily, we have ArbCom precedent for how to deal with persons like this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche - "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." Those claiming the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Klingons brought down the Twin Towers against all scientific evidence and all reliable researchers and news organizations are surely just as nuts. - Merzbow 23:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What subject? The one with over 100 sources ... ? Whats la Rouche have to do with anything? Please try to stay on topic. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposing views 2

As per WP:NPOV, the article must also include opposing views. Some proposals can be found here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox. Suggestions and discussion would be welcome, here or on the talk page of that user page.Ultramarine 12:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We have no problem allowing opposing views, Ultramarine; however, any sources you introduce must adhere to the same standards you have set for the page:

• They must mention, specifically, the idea of "State Terrorism by the United States"
• Every last fact must directly refer back to the central thesis, and be properly sourced
• There must be no original research, no references back to commonly accepted definitions of any kind, and no synthesized analysis of any sort.
• All sources and comments introduced to the page must refer directly to events therein discussed, or else you must create a new section to house them.

So long as all additions to the page adhere to these rules -- which have been set and enforced by you -- then we will be happy to accept them.

Of course, if they fail on any count then they will not be admissible. Stone put to sky 12:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" No double standard please.Ultramarine 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All of the sources in this article either contain a statement that clearly uses the words "state terrorism" or directly reference such an article. Insofar as you wish to include any content, you may either use existing sources which mention "state terrorism" or you may supply your own. If, however, you are unable to manage either of these then the content is clearly inadmissible.

A cursory look at the sandbox:

Source one does not mention state terrorism; it is inadmissible

Source two does not address the events stated within the article, specifically: Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, etc. However, if you would like to start a new section -- and can find an appropriate title for it, something other than "opposing views", because this page is not a POV article but instead merely an encyclopedic catalog -- then this source is admissible.

However, any mention of the Congo or other places must be excluded; they are irrelevant to the article, and irrelevant to the argument being made.

Section 3 -- responding to random rapes and murders by U.S. soldiers -- is irrelevant to the article, since it has been made clear throughout the article that it deals solely and exclusively with acts promoted and approved as U.S. policy.

The third source -- and final paragraph of the sandbox introduction -- is inadmissible because it is a straw-man argument; nobody here is blaming the U.S. for 'every human rights violation', nor is anyone making the argument that elements of the U.S. government -- and its people -- didn't oppose these actions. These arguments are completely outside the scope of the article.

If you would like to relax the standards you and your friends have imposed upon the article, then it would probably be possible for us to find some way to incorporate them into the article. However, as things stand source three does not mention "state terrorism" by name, but instead is dealing with human rights abuses and arguments that are strictly straw-man to the content of this article.

The Cuba subsection is inadmissible because it is clearly POV language. It is not within the scope or power of Wikipedia to judge the authenticity of official government releases, and any presumption to that effect is clearly inadmissible POV language.

This statement:

“ The judgment in Nicaragua vs. United States never find the United States guilty of terrorism or state terrorism. That is Chomsky's personal interpretation. ”

This statement is, first of all, clearly false; it is not merely Chomsky's personal interpretation, but the interpretation of a great many scholars around the world. Second, it is inadmissible because the claim that the judgment in favor of Nicaragua is interpretable as confirmation of state terrorism is clearly sourced to Chomsky and only a few other commentators. It is not necessary to call attention to this fact in the text of the entry; that is what footnotes and sources are for. To attempt to portray this as a minority -- or a majority -- viewpoint is original research and cannot be included on the page without sourcing.

We have no problem with allowing your fourth source (second paragraph, Nicaragua section); however, such selective editing is clearly misleading and deceptive. The Nicaragua judgment did not find the U.S. innocent of the Contra's actions; it merely ruled that, on the basis of the evidence, it did not have enough information to rule one way or the other. Consequently, this statement says only that the Court cannot rule in favor of Nicaragua's charges -- not that the U.S. is innocent of them.

This is a fine point of law; however, the vast bulk of the Nicaragua vs U.S. judgment clearly enumerates a long list of acts undertaken by the U.S. against Nicaragua for which the ICJ found them culpable and in fault. Most -- if not all -- of these actions are clearly considered to be acts of state terrorism. If we are not going to list all of the relevant passages, i do not see that we should list only one; therefore, my suggestion would be for you to eliminate the quotation and compose a short, one- or two-sentence summary of the point you want to make and source it with links to the ICJ judgment and the Nicaragua vs United States page.

Guatemala: most of what you present there is already included in the article in summarized form. There is no need to fluff it up with lots of irrelevant prose. However, there is some stuff clearly outside the scope of this article:

We don't care about when or why the U.S. called off its relationship with Guatemala unless those sources clearly deal with and mention issues of State Terrorism. Your passages don't.

There is no supporting source for your comments about the CIA and its "ameliorating" effects upon Guatemalan violence. Moreover, it doesn't mention anything at all about State Terrorism.

Finally, your section on SOA will be perfectly acceptable -- provided you create a new section for it, find something that specifically mentions "State Terrorism" and attributes it to the United States, and then source all details therein.

As you can see: i, at least, am willing to work with you. I will not, however, cut you any slack on these standards you have introduced to the page. If you are an honorable man then you will understand my resistance to indulging you a double standard; i trust you will take my observation to heart -- as i have done yours -- and do the necessary investigative research to bring your material up to snuff. Stone put to sky 13:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets start by discussing your first objection. Most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" nor do they link to such an article. Not that a webpage linking to another webpage is evidence for that the first webpage mentions "state terrorism". No double standard please.Ultramarine 13:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox

The first and second paragraph has nothing to do with terrorism. It simply is a justification of US support for dictatorships, and explanation of why democracy is better. In regards to the democracy section, I support these staments, but it is better to be in another article.

The third paragraph says: "Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation." It then states: "However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships." This is true, but this does not mean that the US has or has not committed terrorism. Terrorism is not the same as the number of civilians killed.

Third paragraph: "Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct." POV. The rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with terrorism either, just more justification of US foreign policy.

The fourth paragraph has little to do with terrorism also. It is also factually incorrect. Many of the actions of the CIA at the Nicaragua v US case were state supported and sanctioned terrorism.

The fifth paragraph is a broad statment "The US is often blamed for every single human rights violations in nations" not, to my knowledge, supported by the reference. This is not an article about the positive aspects of the US governmment, there are several articles like this, which I am sure you have built. Instead it focuses on the terrorism conducted by the US.

The Cuba section disregards the non-Cuba sources. (See footnotes 36-68--32 footnotes for that section alone)

The Nicaragua section ignores that there were 16 finding of the court, and typcially, only focuses on one, the positive one. This one paragraph is not the complete finding of the court.

Further, which is ignored in this white wash article, the court found the US guilty of "unlawful use of force" which is the very defintion of terrorism (look it up). Through out the judgement the judges mention terrorism, as do the witnesses.

The Guatemala section states: "The United States cannot be blamed for all the deaths in the long civil war." No one is.

Your own source: http://www.ciponline.org/iob.htm#Allegations

In the course of our review, we learned that in the period since 1984, several CIA assets were credibly alleged to have ordered, planned, or participated in serious human rights violations such as assassination, extrajudicial execution, torture, or kidnapping while they were assets--and that the CIA was contemporaneously aware of many of the allegations.

Granted this is not terrorism per se...

The School of the Americas section ignores the long bloody history of school of America's graduates. If I recall, it also ignores how many of the students and facilty see the training as a joke. The Torture Manualss from the School of America are also ignored. Not surprising, because the source is the SOA itself.

My question is: How many deaths can the US be blamed for? In this fairytale view of history, it looks like the answer is "none".

I appreciate your efforts. Please avoid blanket statments and narrow your research to terrorism only, especially in the first paragraph. 69.152.139.102 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I have modfied the text somewhat and may do more in the future. However, I note that most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or even terrorism. No double standard please.Ultramarine 01:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no double standard here, Ultramarine, except for the one you are trying to beg for yourself.

Once again, Ultramarine: all of the sources in the article have been provided to either back up statements that were made within an article that clearly references "state terrorism by the u.s.", or because they are articles which make a direct statement to that effect.

All sources provided by you must conform to these two stipulations to be admitted to the article. If they do not, then you may not post them to the article. Obviously, you must now simply do more work and more research to find some that conform to these stipulations -- which you have imposed upon the article -- because the content you are currently offering up here clearly does not meet those standards. Stone put to sky 04:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, most of the sources do not mention "state terrorism" or even terrorism. That they instead "make a direct statement to that effect" is of course merely the opinion of the anonynmous Wikipedia editor who added these sources to the article. No double standard please.Ultramarine 08:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Title

A move has been proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move this to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Now that the afd has closed with a recommendation to pursue other editorial venues, such a move back to the former consensus title can hopefully be discussed. The proposed title is a far better solution because it is not an point of view condemnation, would match the other title in the state terrorism series, Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, and would follow the NPOV titles for other contentious articles like Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The United States has never been definitively condemned as having engaged in terrorist acts, and the least the article can do is have the title reflect that. --MichaelLinnear 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the United States has been -- repeatedly -- and the sources are here on this page to prove it.

I'm sorry, but there is no consensus here -- and never has been -- for a change to the name "Allegations of State Terrorism...." That is weasel-language, and i am unconcerned if Jewish people in the United States are outraged by the fact that people want to point out Israeli Apartheid and protest it by defacing wikipedia content; the fact is that there are many, many people in the world who use that phrase -- as well as "State Terrorism" -- and it deserves mention.

The only reason this page is so long and detailed is because of the protesters here; for my part, i would have been happy with a three- or four-paragraph treatment of the subject, but because of the artificial and exaggerated content standards forced upon the editors of this page, it has grown into what it is now.

Open up an Encyclopedia Britannica and you will not find "Allegations of Armenian Genocide", "Allegations of Holocaust", "Allegations of Fascist Atrocities", "Allegations of Apartheid", or "Allegations of Torture at Guantanamo Bay"; in each case there are many people who challenge these ideas. In each case, however, the ideas themselves are listed under a simple declarative heading.

This article should -- and will, per Wikipedia policy -- follow the same pattern. Stone put to sky 04:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's "allegations" because I can count on half of one hand the number of truly reliable sources for this allegation, once you weed out the self-published cranks, the bloggers, and the amateur 'ziners working in the garage. - Merzbow 06:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention allegatins by dictatorships like Cuba.Ultramarine 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wonderful, this article has now been moved to Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States, which is really what it was about in the first place, and what the sources supported. And now it has been moved back, but this is a move that I could support. --MichaelLinnear 06:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the original title. The move Morton Devonshire made had nothing even remotely approaching consensus, and I feel it was inadvisable to make such a drastic move right after the deletion discussion. Many, many people weighed in on the AfD, and without question the page title that most folks agreed on (from both sides) was Allegations of State terrorism by the United States. One editor proposed Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States and Morton Devonshire wholeheartedly endorsed it (and I partially endorsed it if many editors jumped on the bandwagon) but then no one else was interested in that move or else objected wholeheartedly. I don't have a huge problem with the current title, but I think a move to Allegations of State terrorism by the United States would satisfy the highest number of editors (while obviously some would remain unhappy). But let's talk about this for awhile and let feelings from the AfD cool down a little bit before we make any move. If a lot of people really do want to move to {[Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States]] we can obviously do that, but there is not a rush right now. Let's take a breath and see where folks stand on what if any title to change this to before embarking on a move war in the immediate aftermath of the AfD. I think we might actually be able to come to some form of agreement on the title and working to that end in good faith would be a good way to move forward from the heated debate of the last few days.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations" was the consensus name for a while, and the overwhelming result of this recent move poll was "Allegations". There is no need to poll again. - Merzbow 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense; you are either lying, or ignorant of the facts, I don't know which (and don't really care). Looking at the history page back a year or so ago -- when the name was first changed to "Allegations" -- it is clear that there was no consensus reached, but the name-change was forced upon the page anyway, despite the protests of somewhere between half and two thirds of the contributing editors (in contrast to the deletionists). Stone put to sky 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep making personal attacks like that and you will be blocked, I guarantee. - Merzbow 07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What the situation was one year ago is not interesting now. The current poll supported a move.Ultramarine 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about the history of this article and had not looked at that poll carefully, but given that and the comments in the AfD I think a move to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States would be fine (I certainly would not revert it). I won't move it myself at this point, but perhaps someone else will. Even though I think that's the direction this article will go, it might be advisable to discuss this calmly for a day and try to get most folks on the same "page" (or maybe not, it could just prove more divisive). Though personally I have no problem with the "Allegations" move I do definitely object to efforts like that of Morton to bring in the "international law" language since no one seemed interested in that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it even possible to move it back now or is administrator help required? The redirect is in the way. - Merzbow 07:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your measured tone, BTP, but i do hope you understand that changing the title will do nothing to ameliorate the efforts of those who want to see the page deleted; the only thing it will succeed in doing is watering down the page title.

As i have pointed out: millions upon millions of Turks and Muslims protest that the Armenian Genocide never happened, just as there are many thousands of folks (at least) who protest that the Holocaust never happened. We don't have pages called "Allegations of the Holocaust", "Allegations of the Armenian Genocide", nor "Allegations of Holocaust Denial". The place for such language is within the article proper, not in the title; unfortunately, the people here -- the very people now demanding the name change -- have put such artificial limits on the content here that this article could never include such rhetoric (i know, because a year or two ago i was the one who tried to get that language included).

The fact that there are vocal, boisterous people on these pages who protest the title is unremarkable, while the idea that this idea is somehow something that has only achieved the status of hazy allegations is extraordinarily inaccurate.

So basically, what we have here is a group that will not be satisfied by a name change that is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and does nothing to clarify, improve, or strengthen the article. Do you really endorse that? And if so, then please explain your reasoning, because i just don't see it. Stone put to sky 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there are some folks who want this page deleted at any cost regardless of the title, and obviously I disagree with that and have no illusions about what a page move would accomplish. But I also think there were a large number of folks at the AfD who preferred that version and did not have an axe to grind. As I said I'm fine with the title as it is, but I don't think preceding it with "allegations" is such a terrible option and I think that it would placate some folks who feel the title is inherently POV (of course others would not be placated). I understand your analogies, but I don't think they are entirely pat. We can obviously prove conclusively that the Holocaust occurred, and though we can prove that the United States did many of the things described in the article, we cannot "prove" that these constitute "state terrorism" simply because, as everyone has acknowledged, that term remains controversial (if there was similar controversy around the term "Holocaust" it would be the same thing, but I at least am not aware of any such controversy in any serious sense). Thus I think the "allegations" label would be somewhat appropriate, and I don't think it fundamentally waters down the content of the article, which should speak for itself. I don't think that article title would be inconsistent with Wiki policy, and though I agree that the title move perhaps does little or nothing to clarify, improve, or strengthen the article I think it may be the best way forward at this point. For those of us interested in keeping this article I think it's also very much a question of picking our battles--whether "allegations" is in the title or not is just not a life and death issue for me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, i can only say i respectfully disagree. State terrorism is a concept that has been rather clearly defined and is seeing increasing use in the international diplomatic, intelligence and legal communities; it's controversy is largely restricted to print and broadcast media and military circles, but even in the latter there's a lot more agreement than is widely acknowledged.

I don't think the name of this article would be an issue at all except that the people who want to see it deleted have made it one. Picking our battles? Everything on this page is a battle, even trivial, patently obvious statements like the opening sentence.

I wholeheartedly believe that changing the title will achieve nothing of value and its effects will work only counter-productively -- and not just for this page, but for all of wikipedia. The changes would only serve the interests of those people who want to see the page deleted and noone else. Leaving it as it is, however, will send a message to all prospective page vandals out to push a point-of-view on wikipedia, while helping to establish clear wikipedia policy on the introduction of weasel-words.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Regardless of the outcome, it's been a pleasure. Stone put to sky 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I urge everyone to read the Stone put to sky's last addition, the whole new section on the Philliphines. This completely one-sided personal essay regarding the relationship between two democratically elected governments speaks for itself.Ultramarine 10:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"This completely one-sided personal essay regarding the relationship between two democratically elected governments speaks for itself." Well, yes. It speaks well of SPtS's integrity that he is willing to include material even against interest, whether we address Cook's Castile Soap in the Philipines, US Army pinapple plantations in Hawaii, or Guatemala. If the position of the United Fruit Company were only morally relative, most of the methodological work in understanding American terrorism would obviate the requirement that pov-forking not be tolerated within the domain of our contemporary understanding of that term as contributors. Since the theory of political action developed during the Reagan administration must be considered in determining the extent of US latafundian imperialism, we have to work hard to provide a consistent structure for understanding. A case of lazie-faire capitalism of a different sort cannot be arbitrarily imposed by opinion-leaders of the "people" (as they would have us understand that obligation) at Wikipedia. Of course, any demonstrated association with Sam Zemurray should be presented and, at the same time, eliminated from the universe of discourse through demonstrating Reagan's notorious "hands-off' management style, that should not be presented as lack of accountability unless a reliable source has made that connection. The levels of acceptability of this kind of thing were fairly high during the Reagan admministration, if less well-articulated than might have been hoped by both his supporters and detractors. We must bring evidence in support or contradiction of this thesis if we are to present the casual reader with a balanced account. If we all approach this in SPtS's spirit of open-handed generousity by writing for the enemy, this process of "selection" by introduction of important context will, I'm sure we all hope, be determined by the relative distinction of the sources, in the holistic sense in common academic and non-academic use today. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox, 2

Ultramarine claims that he has improved the text, but so far as i can tell any changes are merely cosmetic and have done nothing to address the objections listed above. Stone put to sky 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the proposed additiions here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox. The main objection seem to be that the sources do not mention "state terrorism." That is a double standard since the same applies to most of the sources in this article.Ultramarine 08:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a double standard; this has already been explained to you repeatedly, but i will assume good faith and do so again:

The material introduced to this page must either use the phrase "state terrorism" and predicate that to the U.S, or it must directly reference such a publication. Much of your material does neither and so is inadmissible as content.

Further, you are ignoring the many complaints that much of what you have posted on that page is Original Research, unsourced personal opinions, or plain violations of the neutral point of view that wikipedia demands.

Thus, the consensus here is that the sandbox material does not meet the standards that you yourself have set for this page, and unless you can correct these flaws it cannot be added. Stone put to sky 08:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claims are incorrect and you have not answered to my responses regarding them above. But again, let's discuss your main objection. Again, most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or reference another publication mentioning "state terrorism". Not that your last requirement in any way proves that the first source mentions "state terrorism". Ultramarine 08:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again:

The material introduced to this page must either use the phrase "state terrorism" and predicate that to the U.S, or it must directly reference such a publication. Much of your material does neither and so is inadmissible as content.

All of the material i just added does conform to this standard.

That's all there is to it. These are the standards that you yourself have laid down for the page. Please, do the honorable thing and adhere to your own standards. We will not allow you to create a double standard for this page.

I have deleted your "Opposing" section per the recommendations of the other contributing editors here. Please understand that any more mass deletions of material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 09:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or reference another publication mentioning "state terrorism". Not that your last requirement in any way proves that the first source mentions "state terrorism". By the way, your last section on the Philippines is so obviously a completely one-sided personal essay that that I will probably just let it stand uncorrected.Ultramarine 10:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I shall take your inactivity in that matter as evidence that i have done an excellent job, managing to satisfy both your own high content standards as well as managing to properly exposit the intended subject.

Now, regarding your claims about the content standards on this page: you are plainly wrong.

All of the sources used in the sub-sections dealing with evidence against and condemnations of the U.S. are each clearly built around documents which first predicate the crime of state terrorism by the united states, and then supplemented by sources which outline the events and crimes outlined in those fundamental documents.

Either your sources must directly address those fundamental documents or they must themselves use the phrase "State terrorism" predicated to the United States. If your material and sources do not meet either of these criteria then they cannot be included on the page.

In addition, all contrasting views must be presented under the proper sub-heading. There is no place here for an "Opposing Views" section, because we are describing real-world events, not theories.

I suggest that you try harder to conform to these standards, and am in fact a little shocked at your protests. These are standards of your own creation; for you to claim that they do not hold is, frankly, ridiculous. Your presence on this page for the last two years has guaranteed adherence to them.

These are the rules which you yourself have established.

You plainly have no right to try and change them now. Stone put to sky 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, your so obviously biased personal essay regarding the relationship between two democratically elected governments will only damage your cause. As will your claim that the whole article only have established true facts and that there is no mere allegation. No, most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or reference another publication mentioning "state terrorism". Not that your last requirement in any way proves that the first source mentions "state terrorism". So no double standard please. Regarding presenting all sides, see WP:NPOV and WP:Content forking.Ultramarine 10:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States

Poll

I concur with MichaelLinnear and Morton devonshire that this is the most appropriate title for this article, especially since that is what the ICJ found the U.S. government to be guilty of in the case of Nicaragua vs United States. Even so, Nicaragua later dropped their suit and claim to reparations that the ICJ decreed that the U.S. was supposed to pay the government of Nicaragua.--MONGO 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get a poll started here:

• Keep existing title

1. Stone put to sky 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Bigtimepeace I'm also fine with Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, but the more I think about it the less I am okay with the breaches of international law option, which simply creates too many problems.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Leave it alone --74.73.16.230 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Move to Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States

1. --MONGO 12:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Better describes page content; terminology used by mainstream sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   Your lack of reading the sources goes to show the weight of your agument. The terminology referencing international law only appears under one section, which also calls the acts terrorism. There are currently more sources alleging terrorism, then breaches of international law. --74.73.16.230 17:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   Agreed, I don't see how someone can argue that this title better describes the content of the page. It clearly does not so I don't think that's a valid rationale. If the objective is to make the article content conform to the new title ex post facto (i.e., once it is moved anything mentioning state terrorism would be deleted, i.e. an enormous percentage of the article) then please admit to this at the outset as it would seem to be little more than a means to get around the decision in the AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

3. -- JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Better. But it must be accompanied by the deleteion of all the POV and OR crap. --Tbeatty 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
5. 1st choice. - Merzbow 16:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
6. First choice --  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
7. Much more appropriate title. --Aude (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Move to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

1. All of these cases involve definitive allegations of state terrorism and not just breaches of international law. That said, some of the articles seem to be somewhat acrobatic in getting there. Whether this is due to problems in illegitimate synthesis or poor writing, I cannot tell for certain as (a) I'm not familiar with many of the allegations made here, and (b) I'm not a good writer myself. This would be my rule of thumb, however: if you can't tell whether a "case" involves allegations of state terrorism (engaged in and/or sponsored by the US) until the last paragraph, it is, at the very least, not well written. Furthermore, some of the articles posted here are not just allegations, but seem to me to be somewhat dubious or speculative allegations. They are sourced allegations, but they are clearly just allegations. (For those who state this won't solve the bickering, that's not my point. I also don't plan on bringing peace to the Middle East. I just think that this article is consistently about allegations of US state-terrorism more than it is about well-established cases of US state-terrorism.) Benhocking 13:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Since most opponents feel WP is not allowed to have a sourced critique on the US maybe renaming it to a watered down version helps aleviate concerns. Breaches of international law does not describe the numerous terrorism-like actions executed or supported by the US. Heck, for someone to break the law he need only to be jaywalking. Clearly, to include jaywalking with allegations of murder is muddying the waters. As an aside, exactly what is the difference between allegation and established fact? If we mandate a court ruling we should acknowledge that for political reasons no US administration will ever face a court of law. Does this mean no crime has been committed? Of course not. It proves that Justice still is not blind. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   Did the ICJ decree that the US had committed terrorist acts? No...Chomsky and others of like mind have made that comparison. I'll be patiently waiting for similar articles we are long overdue for here to ensure Wikipedia provides a good hearing...such as State terrorism by Cuba, State terrorism by the USSR, State terrorism by Iraq, State terrorism by North Korea, State terrorism by (any other country...pick one). I see plenty of articles condemning U.S. international actions...Criticism of the War on Terrorism comes to mind...all I see regarding other countries "sponsoring" terrorism is Terrorism in Syria and Terrorism in Russia and a few others, with only the latter examining the issue of the country of Syria sponsoring terrorism. Hardly fair and balanced it seems.--MONGO 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   In all fairness, MONGO, I don't think anyone would be too upset if you created those articles yourself. I'm sure there is plenty of good evidence to back up those claims, too. However, actually writing the articles and providing the citations is not trivial. Perhaps you could start a project to help organize it? (Being new here, I don't really know what's involved in creating such projects, although I'm sure I could figure it out if I dug around for awhile.) My point is, that complaining that other articles don't exist does not have any bearing on whether or not this article should exist. If those articles should exist (and why shouldn't they?), then someone needs to write them. Just don't sign me up for that exercise. ;) Benhocking 15:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   You seemed to have missed the point...the point is wikipedia is not a here to report opinions as facts. It is the opinion of Chomsky and others that the U.S. has committed acts of terrorism. The only facts we have are that the ICJ decreed that the U.S. had violated Nicaraguan rights...they never said anything in their determination about terrorism and Nicaragua dropped their suit anyway. We don't have these articles because the radical left isn't on Wikipedia to be neutral...they just want to POV push this egregious violation of WP:SYNTH and others like it. I'm not going to create these articles just to be "fair", even though we definitely could find excellent references to support such articles. I'm not here to be a POV pusher...I am here to stop POV pushing.--MONGO 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   I do not feel that they are reporting opinions as facts, but rather reporting notable opinions as notable opinions, which is why I stated that moving this article to "Allegations of..." makes sense. (When it comes down to it, however, how does one separate "opinions" from "facts"? Would it be a fact if it were the opinion of the ICJ?) Benhocking 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

   Also, allow me to be clear about my point in creating those other articles. I'm not advocating creating them just to be "fair". I'm advocating creating them to help complete the discussion, and because they would be interesting. Although neutral is an admiral goal, "fair" is something that life isn't and never will be. ;) Benhocking 15:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

3. 2nd choice - Merzbow 16:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Do something else

1. Leave it alone --74.73.16.230 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
2. --"Involvement/complicity of the US in State terrorism and War Crimes", or something similar. It seems to me that there are a lot of sources that imply this in an unambiguous way. In the Cold War the US was involved in conflicts, backing parties who were involved in state terrorism, war crimes and other horrible things. To say that this means that US itself is then guilty of State Terrorism is more controversial. If we change the title to "Allegations of state terrorism by the US", then the focus of the article must be the opinion of the people who make this case, making the article less broad.
3. Leave it alone. Stone put to sky 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The title "Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States" is too weak. Most countries of the world have violated international law in one way or another. So, it doesn't carry much information. In fact the word "allegation" in the title would actually suggest that the US actually performed better than most other countries when it comes to upholding international law. :) Count Iblis 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you are for keeping the existing title? It's unclear. Perhaps you can weigh in above in the appropriate section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This not an article about "breaches of international law by the united states". However, if you all think that such an article is useful then feel free to create it. This article is about state terrorism by the united states -- the concept, who makes these charges, and what evidence there might be to support such an idea.

Please stop trying to play these name-change games, fellows. There is no consensus for such a change, and there will not be one. You are all currently quite guilty of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Please understand that any attempt to change the title without first reaching a consensus will be considered page vandalism, and acted upon accordingly. Stone put to sky 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean like what was done here? Notice that it was marked as minor. That's a minor move??? Looks like vandalism by your definition. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's too soon for this kind of warring junk. SchmuckyTheCat

When the article was first moved from "State terrorism" to "Allegations of..." there was clearly no established consensus, vocal opposition to it, and much protest at the time it happened. Moving it back, therefore, was merely a restoration of the title after vandals had moved it against the wishes of the community. Stone put to sky 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The move poll under the "Title" section clearly showed that the consensus is for "Allegations of...", no matter how much you try to ignore it. - Merzbow 16:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but then what's the point of this poll?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm against moving the article. Adding weasel words to an article, especially to the title, seldom improves it. --John 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to "Sourced Critique of the United States" per Tbeatty's misrepresentation of Nomen Nescio's above comment.

1. Seems like a good title to me. Seems to be the goal of the article too. --Tbeatty 17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, this discussion is already going to be ridiculous enough as it is. Let's refrain from adding in jokey make a point comments like this one which serve no constructive purpose whatsoever. Obviously Nomen Nescio did not suggest this title, and you already voted for another option.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's very disingenuous, Tbeatty, and does not seem like you're acting in good faith with respect to Nomen Nescio, as that was not his suggestion that you're attributing to him. Benhocking 17:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Personally I will be less than impressed by a fairly high vote title for the move to "breaches of international law by the united states." This proposal has, of course, been listed at Morton's Illuminati Noticeboard and will therefore receive votes from all of the usual suspects (many have already weighed in) who usually vote identically on "conspiracy theory" matters (though how this article has anything to do with conspiracy theories eludes me). It's obviously fine for that crew to weigh in here, but I think we should think of this "poll" (I'd much prefer a discussion) as an attempt to reach some consensus on the title (which may be impossible) rather than a straight winner-take-all vote. The proposed move is extremely, extremely radical, and I feel there should be fairly broad agreement about it in order for it to happen, not one well organized group of like-minded editors voting in lock step and thus bringing about a page move (I'm just calling it like I see it).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)