Talk:United States and state terrorism

Past debates and mediation on this article 2006 straw poll on entire article Past mediation attempts About this article's title

Paragraph deletion

Also, I would like propose the deletion of the following: "Regarding support for various dictatorships, especially during the Cold War, a response is that they were seen as necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships."

The quote above doesn't much further anything in the article. It reads like someone too pro-US trying to defend the US, and it not academic.

The next paragraph, in the same section, is, however, academic, viable, and cited to show another view to this topic. "Empirical studies (see democide which has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism[127]) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[128][129]"

If something like this was posed for the first para, then it would be more appropriate. Lihaas (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Iran Air 655

I just want to propose that Iran Air 655 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655) be added to this list. COnsidering the Pan Am bombing over Loverbie is widely regarded as state-sponsored terrorism by Libya, this would count in the same vein againt the US. Furthermore, with the US payment for indemnities it is a sign (however denied) that the it was not a shooting down of a military aircraft during awartime. Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Iran Air Flight 655 does not call it terrorism, nor quote anyone as calling it such. It's not categorized as such, nor is it claimed by the terrorism wiki-project. Being accepted as terrorism seems a prerequisite for being accepted as state terrorism. In other words: This should be discussed on Talk:Iran Air Flight 655 and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Iran busts CIA terror network

This is pretty interesting. [1]

The group’s plans were devised in the U.S., according to the announcement, which added that they had planned to carry out a number of acts such as bombing scientific, educational, and religious centers, shooting people, and making public places in various cities insecure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmegan (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh. Announcement. By the Iranian intelligence service, which is not a reliable source for such a thing at all. Furthermore, the Tehran Times is affiliated with the Islamic Propagation Organization, which is responsible for translating and distributing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in English.

Also, given your only contribution is to this talk page, I shall assume you are another sock until proven otherwise. Jtrainor (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a perfectly reliable source, and Jtrainor needs to review WP:AGF.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I rather doubt the former, but I'd sign to the latter. — the Sidhekin (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it not reliable? The article is just reporting what the intelligence service announced. Is the Iranian intelligence service not a good enough source for an allegation of terrorism? Interesting way of running things around here ay. And I'm not a "sock", I just don't want to associate my normal account with this controversial article. I have never edited in this article with my main. Tone down the hostility yeesh..Parmegan (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, you'd say an upside down burning cross was a reliable source if it had something negative of the US written on it. Jtrainor (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Lets keep the discussion on the article and the content we're discussing, not on the contributers. Personal attacks will get us nowhere fast. Now please explain why you think this source is unreliable. Do you think Tehrantimes.com made the announcement up? Parmegan (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I explained why the Tehran Times is unreliable above already. As for anything the Iranian government says concerning the US, that is obvious and needs no clarification whatsoever. Jtrainor (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. Do you think the Tehrantimes made the announcement up? If that's not the case, then the validity of the source is not relevant by your own admission. And regarding the actual report, whether or not the accusations are true is not relevant either. They are allegations, and that's what this article is for. When a countries intelligence service makes an announcement, no matter what country, that announcement is ALWAYS relevant. Readers can decide for themselves if they're telling the truth. I find it baffling that some random nobody on wikipedia would actually have the gall to try and withhold this type of information from reaching the public. Parmegan (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoah! Wikipedia is neither the only nor the first way information reaches the public! Try Wikinews perhaps? Or wait until others pick up this item – if there is anything to it, I know of plenty of newspapers I'm sure'll make sure it reaches the public – and when it happens, we just may have a look at it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This claim is without sufficient reliable sources currently, and can't be used. It's not about truth, it's about verifiability. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and there isn't enough to verify this. — Becksguy (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Becksguy and jtrainor. There is no reliable source here. The Iranian government, the ultimate source of the assertion, is not a reliable source. Noroton (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make a principled distinction between gov'ts whose press releases you deem reliable and those you don't. Whether or not the gov't is currently being demonized by the US gov't cannot be the basis for the distinction. Please support your principled distinction with a citation to WP rules.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to base a section of the article on nothing more than a press release by any government. More is needed. - Merzbow (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What if I showed you numerous WP sections based entirely on US gov't sources or allegations?--NYCJosh (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I'll create a bunch of articles about Kim Jong-Il's unusual athletic talent, cooking skill, and sexual prowess all based on North Korean government sources, and expect you to vote Keep in the ensuing AfDs. :) - Merzbow (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We actually don't necessarily disagree about the (non-) reliability of North Korean gov't statements, however North Korea is not presently an issue here. Do you have an objection to including info based on USG sources? You seem to have an objection to gov't of Iran sources but you cannot defend it based on WP rules. If you cannot articulate a reasoned defense based on WP rules, then your objection is without merit. --NYCJosh (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have an objection to including a new section in a major, controversial article like this based on one source. We need more than one source, period. - Merzbow (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Too strict for my tastes – I'd consider how much weight the source carries, how prestigious the scholar, journalist, or whatever, and how impartial. Government sources generally don't fare too well. But the key point, where I think we agree, is that as this would be a new section in a highly controversial article, it would take some heavy weight to move me to include it.

By the way ... the one source for this other than the Tehran Times I've found so far, states it thusly: it's obviously naive to take a report out of Iranian state-controlled media at face value. Naïve, eh? A kinder word than I'd choose, but okay, it'll do.  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that this is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary sources, and that is policy. One source doesn't cut it. Multiple sources are needed, and the sources have to be independent, neutral, and with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The issue of the US vs. Iranian government as a source is not the main issue, although considering the political situation in the region, one needs to be very careful about the reliability of all sources. Personally, I wouldn't trust any government to be fully forthcoming and honest where it's interests are concerned. Again, this is about verifiability of claims, not necessarily about truth. The Tehran Times may, or may not, be reliable, but until this item is verified by other independent reliable sources, it can't be used. Period. It's really is as simple as that, so lets not read anything else into it. — Becksguy (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are some independent sources that report USG backing for military operations inside Iran:

1. The Asia Times cites a New Yorker Magazine's investigative report, according to which the U.S. has military commando units operating inside Iran. Asia Times, February 24, 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB24Ak01.html That same article in Asia Times reported that U.S. policy is one of lighting "the fire of ethnic and sectarian strife" to destabilize and eventually topple the government of Iran. The Washington Quarterly magazine as cited by the Asia Times article, reported:

"the Sunni Balochi resistance could prove valuable to Western intelligence agencies with an interest in destabilizing the hardline regime in Tehran.... The United States maintained close contacts with the Balochis till 2001, at which point it withdrew support when Tehran promised to repatriate any U.S. airmen who had to land in Iran as a result of damage sustained in combat operations in Afghanistan." Asia Times, February 24, 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB24Ak01.html

2. ABC news reported, citing U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources, that U.S. officials have been secretly encouraging and advising a Pakistani Balochi militant group named Jundullah that is responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran. The Jundullah militants "stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," This militant group is led by a youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, sometimes known as "Regi." The U.S. provides no direct funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "presidential finding" as well as congressional oversight. Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to Abd el Malik Regi through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states. A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false," and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group. ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran, April 3, 2007, http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html Regi and Jundullah are also claimed by Iran to be associated with al Qaida, a charge that the group has denied. "He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.

"Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said. Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan. ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran, April 3, 2007, http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html

3. Another US proxy inside Iran has been the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK). The New Yorker reported in November 2006 that a U.S. government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership leaked the news of secret US support for PEJAK for operations inside Iran, stating that the group had been given “a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.”. name="hersh_next_act">Hersh, Seymour M. (November 20, 2006). "The Next Act". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2006-11-19. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127fa_fact?currentPage=all

--NYCJosh (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an accusation of state terrorism in any of those. - Merzbow (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

First, you attack the original claim because it is "only" from an Iran gov't source. You fail to make an argument based on WP rules for the non-reliability of that source. Then, when additional sources are brought to support major aspects of the claim--USG support for military operations inside Iran, you forget about the claims of the Iran gov't source that we've been discussing, independent support for which you alleged was lacking.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your "major aspects" are not the point of dispute. We're not questioning whether there's USG support for military operations inside Iran; that's besides the point. What is needed for anything to be included is notable claims, as reported by reliable sources, that the US is an accomplice in terrorism. Supporter does not imply accomplice, and military operations does not imply terrorism, even if you could somehow find reliable sources saying they do: The claim must be found in the sources themselves. — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"it is the US (and not Pakistan) that is sponsoring the trans-border terrorism" qualifies, but hey, we're already using it: Allegations of state terrorism by the United States#Iran (1979-present), currently reference 88.

I'll pass on reading the blog, thank you very much.

And the New Yorker article seems to accuse Iran, not the US, of being a "terrorist state", so that one misses the mark.

Not much news, then. — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What Sidhekin said. Rules are not a substitute for editorial discretion, as decided by consensus. - Merzbow (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Issue

Those here should put their insight over on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atomic_bombings_of_Japan_as_a_form_of_state_terrorism Hooper (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ending the war over the war over Japan

(moved to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism, now back by request -- Kendrick7^talk)

This is the single biggest problem clogging up any progress on this article. Can we start a controlled discussion here about how to put an end to it? Kendrick7 has started the article Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism which is currently up for AfD. I don't agree with that approach but understand why he gave that a try. Rather than simply letting the AfD run its course maybe we can come up with a solution here. Let's try to stay on topic, be very civil, avoid inflammatory language, not point fingers at anyone, etc. No disrespect to IP editors, but I think this should just be between people with user accounts given all the random IP edits lately.

I'll try to characterize where we are at now. Some folks want this section deleted, but I think (and this might be debatable) that there is a much stronger view that something can be here, the debate is about where the "main material" will live and how much of it we will have. I'd suggest we take the problems in that order and thus proceed like this:

1) Take an informal and non-binding poll to see if folks think the main content should be here, at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or in Kendrick's stand alone article. This was previously discussed in Japan break 1 above (more so to the end of the thread) but did not come to a resolution. Below I've started an informal poll on this question (I know they are evil, but I think it could really help us here).

2) Once we determine where to put the material each "side" can select two or three people to work on hammering out the specific content (if there is someone who both sides deem truly neutral, one or two of those folks would be good too). It should be agreed at the outset that we cannot have a sub-section of this article or the "Debate" one as long as what is at Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism. That might not make some people happy, but I think we have to start from that point.

I understand this proposal starts on the assumption that some kind of Japan material will be here, but I think I'm being objective when I say that more people are okay with something being included than with everything being deleted. Those in that delete camp might consider whether it's worth it to let the Japan stuff stay if it will end up being neutral and if it will put an end to edit warring. I'm all for a discussion about the title, as is happening in the sections above, but the biggest disruption right now is coming from this Japan question.

With that I'll start a subsection for a small poll which will hopefully allow us to gauge consensus on the first issue and move toward ending this debate. I'd be thrilled if folks were willing to participate in this in a civil manner, but obviously anyone is welcome to reject this approach.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Informal, evil, poll to get a rough consensus about where Japan material belongs

I'll put three options here. It might be useful for people to indicate their first and second choice. Please indicate if a given option is your first (and/or only) or second choice. A brief comment on your rationale might be good, but back and forth debates will not be fruitful. I included a discussion sub-section as well, which might be a good place to register a strong objection to a certain option, or to hash out certain points. Let's try to avoid unnecessary bickering and treat one another with respect.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan content should be in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

• Support

1. Support, first choice. Atomic bombings of Japan as state terrorism is very much a minority viewpoint, but still a notable one and this article is the appropriate place to cover it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, with a summary-style lead-in via a section in the "Debates..." article so it can be found from there, of course. - Merzbow (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Support Hooper (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Support This seems obvious to me and consensus was clear to keep it there, not as a summary but in its full version. Those edit warring to remove it or blank it were doing so against consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Support as a brief abstract.Biophys (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Second choice per my comments below. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Second Choice. Allegations of state terror in this case are directed at the US, so they should go here if not in the bombs debate article. The free-standing article seems to be a POV-fork of this article, making those allegations seem more important or widespread (which they aren't) then the numerous other allegations in this article. Random89 06:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Support, My first choice as the site of the most substantial treatment of the issue on wikipedia. Why? Because the great majority of the reliable sources (Richard Falk, Michael Stohl, C.A.J. Coady, Douglas Lackey, Mark Selden) are actually discussing the issue within the theoretical context of state terrorism. Moreover, it is common to discuss the bombings within a wider context of the weakening of the moral taboos that were in place prior to WWII that prohibited mass attacks against civilians during wartime. Falk, Selden, and Lackey all delve quite profoundly into this issue, and all of them relate the Japan bombings to what they believe was a similar pattern of state terrorism in following wars, particularly Korea and Vietnam. It's amazing how actually consulting the reliable sources upon which the articles are supposed to be based can clear up some of these matters.BernardL (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Support- But the content should be very limited. We should not give it undue weight. For those who care: this is my second choice.Bless sins (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Second choice. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
11. Support I don't see why this topic should be treated differently from every other historical instance of terrorism by the US in this article. Since it is supported by RS, we should follow standard WP rules and include it.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
12. Support, second choice to merging it into "Debate over..." I could live with it here, since it fits the subject. There is no problem with it also being in "Debate over..." In fact, that would be appropriate. Noroton (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
13. This is the subject where it fits best. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. Oppose – everybody else is doing oppose votes, so I might as well add mine. This article is about an alleged phenomenon, not a specific instance of it. Only insofar as it illuminates the phenomenon does material belong here. Extended background info and exploration of the arguments made for the bombings to be a specific instance of this phenomenon, belong in an article scoped to the bombings. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan content should be in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

• Support

1. Second choice. An article on the events in question, even if not on terrorism explicitly, always seemed to me preferable to an article not on any specific event. And of course, outright deletion is right out. — the Sidhekin (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Support. We are talking about a question if the bombings were indeed "state terrorism" or not. This question can be properly described and understood only in a more wider context of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎.Biophys (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. It seems to me that the belief that the atomic bombing was state terrorism is a position in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Does it not follow that this information therefore belongs in that article? Random89 06:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Support If it must be included at all, include it in the proper place for it. Jtrainor (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
5. SupportVery good information that made me interested in joining Wikipedia. I know some editors do not want this good information to be in one place where everyone can read about this act of terrorism by the US.
6. Support This is also a good avenue to mention it. But just because content is here, doesn't mean it can't be somewhere else as well. After all wikipedia is not paper. For those who care: this is my third choice.Bless sins (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Support I agree with Bless here. I don't see inclusion in the present article as being mutually exclusive with inclusion in the Debate article. It's quite relevant in both articles.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Support This is the most appropriate spot for the content. Whether or not it was terrorism is a small point closely related to whether or not it was right and should be presented that way. Noroton (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. Weak Oppose Yes, it should be mentioned there but anything more than a brief mention would be a violation of Undue Weight in my opinion. This view of the Atomic Attacks against Japan in the context of WW2 as incidents of State Terrorism is very much a minority view within the literature on the Bomb Debate, and that is probably an overstatement. Most of the discussion from this conceptual framework is found within the literature of terrorology, discussing the construct of State Terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose beyond a mention. That article is about a moral debate, and this assumes one side of the debate is true (it was immoral), and then asks just how immoral was it (was it as bad as terrorism?). It looks like a fit, but it's really somewhat off topic; a sideline to the debate, not the heart of it. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose Not an alternative to my first and second choice. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Since we are doing oppose votes here I should add mine. I see it as completely inappropriate to include anything but a small mention of this material in the "Debate" article. The question of "state terrorism" is not even a bit player in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." It's a subject worthy of Wikipedia coverage but to put in any remotely lengthy content in the "Debate" article would be a severe violation of WP:UNDUE.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan content should be in stand alone article Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism

• Support

1. Second choice. I don't like this option at all, but it's preferable to the second option and to outright deletion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, first choice. Seems to me the least bad option – that is, provided it even is an option (AfD pending). — the Sidhekin (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Second choice. This is not an ideal solution but I list it as a second choice given the fact of those who are trying to delete the material over where it belongs, as a section of State Terrorism by the United States. If properly expanded it can also stay as its own stand alone article as the two options are not mutually exclusive--but a full section is first and best.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Support While the debate over the morality of the the killing of a quarter million people is a serious one, I think the question of whether or not it's "state terrorism" essentially begs the question and has little to do with the morality itself (it may not be terrorism even if immoral). Having declared war on terrorism, the U.S. has opened itself up to criticism of it's own past behavior -- and whether after 9/11, perhaps it's "chickens had come home to roost" to coin a phrase. However, my immediate reaction was that this section did not really fit with all the others in the allegations article: it was during a declared war, it was much longer ago than the rest of the timeline of the article, and the impact of it was much more severe and the obviousness that the U.S. did it was more clear than other clandestine issues covered. As such, even apart from the edit warring, I believed a split was justified. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
5. Second choice. As I noted above our reliable sources on the matter do not describe this as a stand-alone instance of state terrorism; rather they describe a continuity of what they regard as state terrorism threading through choices by the U.S. to employ bombing against civilian populations as a solution to its conflicts. "With the world’s largest air force and a developing habit of preferring the lives of its soldiers over the lives of non-American civilians, the U.S. Government has become accustomed to raining devastation from the air. I suspect that Americans from 1945 to 2001 approved US bombing campaigns because they themselves had never been targets and had no first hand knowledge of the human results. On September 11, 2001, they experienced, as I did from one kilometer’s distance, what a terrorist attack from the air is like. The Americans were correct to judge that the terrorists who flew those planes on September 11 were avatars of evil. What they have not realized is the degree to which their own policies, since January 1945, are more of the same.” (Lackey, Douglas. “The Evolution of the Modern Terrorist State”, in Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues, Igor Primoratz, editor, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.)BernardL (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Also supportI support keeping it here too. It can be bigger here.Olawe (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
7. Support this is my first choice.Bless sins (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
8. Support First choice and ideal solution. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
9. Second choice as explained by Bigtime and Giovanni.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. Weak oppose for reason explained above.Biophys (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. As I noted above, having this article separate seems to give more validation or support to these allegations of terrorism as opposed to other allegations listed in the Allegations of state terrorism by US article. If they do not belong in the bombing debate article the belong in that article. Random89 21:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Strongly oppose - POV in spinout's clothing. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose the subject is really a part of the larger subject on whether or not the bombings were moral and the best way to present it is as part of the overall debate. Those who don't agree that this was state terrorism are almost always addressing the larger debate and the same applies to those who use this terminology. Best to have it all in one article. Noroton (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
5. This is pretty much the worst possible solution. We have never written a high-quality, NPOV article describing a particular viewpoint and this is unlikely to be our first successful attempt. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Point about participation in the "poll" which is actually fairly critical. I do not think it is appropriate for accounts which appear to be single purpose to participating in this, in part because many here are convinced that these accounts are socks. Only firmly established editors should be counted in the "poll." That may seem unfair to some, but I don't think there is any way some of the people here will find this a fair process otherwise. The accounts I would include as non-established would be Rafaelsfingers, Supergreenred, DrGabriela, Olawe, and also Like A Rainbow (from the other side). Giovanni33 is still an editor in good standing here despite the ongoing ArbCom case so his views should be respected. I'm not all trying to cast aspersion on the accounts named above, it's just that there's been a lot of SPA and sock problems lately and we need some transparency here. I hope the logic of this makes sense.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not happy to see the rampant edit-warring by some of these accounts who generally agree with my viewpoint within the article. The bad faith accusations of socket-puppetry has become so shrill that even I've lost appetite to get much involved with editing as of late.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• • If you are polling about the contents of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you should probably mention it on it's talk page also. Although this might be as good an excuse to start Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism just to centralize this. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please do start that discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, done. OK, nevermind, moved back! -- Kendrick7^talk 01:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue, Japan being one of the sore points, is that discussions of whether acts of war, covert/overt military and paramilitary actions, assassinations, etc. are state-sponsored terrorism belong in an article (or articles) discussing the validity of that view point, not in any article which mixes the event with contentions that it is terrorism and that the state responsible uses terrorism as a tool of foreign policy. The Japan "controversy" is merely symptomatic of the entire problem with the article, which is that it should not exist in this form in the first place.

   From my own family's history, I support discussing events such as the bombing of Dresden and whether or not they constitute acts of state terrorism. However, having an "Allegations of..." ... "terrorism" article, as here, changes that from a serious, thoughtful dialogue to nothing more than another list of grievances. For those who are truly concerned that the events mentioned in the article constitute terrorism, this article is the worst way to advance discourse on that topic or to commemorate the victims. —PētersV (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Question for Jtrainor

According to the above, it appears that the most agreeable consensus is that Japan should be included in this article (atleast until a proper parent article is first established or the debate article is done properly). Why then have you continued to remove the information from it? Hooper (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

lastest edit war

Can someone at least discuss the reasons they are edit-warring now? The material seems fine with me, which is why I reverted. However, I self-reverted because I am on a one week revert parole. I would like to see some discussion here about the problem. The material about Nicaruaga is about state terrorism and its not found in the main article. Even if it is, a short mention of the main issues involving the claims of state terrorism do belong here. Lastly, I do not condone this edit-warring, and that includes by accounts that agree with me. So if I have any sway over you guys, I'm asking you to stop edit-warring and discuss it here instead. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to know the reason for the removal of this. If I do not hear a good reason I will assume it is vandalism again.DrGabriela (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)While we agree, think its best if we allow some time for discussion to take place instead of any more reverting. This certainly doesn't make me look good considering the larger concerns. Or at least limit yourself to one revert.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead of asking why it is removed and throwing around "vandalism" accusations, why don't you just argue for its inclusion? It's not just that this looks bad – it is bad. Bad and ridiculous.

Bottom line: If you cannot convince others to include it, it won't stay. And as long as you edit war to get it in, you're not doing a good job of convincing others. — the Sidhekin (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and don't ever call good faith edits by editors in good standing vandals. If I could unscramble my pw I'd start blocking some of these socks/spas...this is one of the biggest issues here. Clearly no agreement for these changes. 64.198.97.129 (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is the following being removed:

Florida State University professor, Frederick H. Gareau, has written that the Contras "attacked bridges, electric generators, but also state-owned agricultural cooperatives, rural health clinics, villages and non-combatants." U.S. agents were directly involved in the fighting. "CIA commandos launched a series of sabotage raids on Nicaraguan port facilities. They mined the country's major ports and set fire to its largest oil storage facilities." In 1984 the U.S. Congress ordered this intervention to be stopped, however it was later shown that the CIA illegally continued (See Iran-Contra affair). Professor Gareau has characterized these acts as "wholesale terrorism" by the United States.

It appears to be written by an academic, (an Assistant Professor of Government at the Florida State University, who was formerly of the University of Mississippi [2]), and thus a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a re-insertion of material that a significant number of editors (you too at the time Sidhekin?) felt was illegitimately removed because the massive removal was so indiscriminate. IMO the section needs re-writing. I think we should really be looking closely at the Nicaragua section, discussing anew what should be in it (ie: what themes are important for the discussion), how it should be organized, etc.) I do not think outright deletion based on a rationale of "i don't like it" or "it can't be true" is conducive to constructing a good article, or a good encyclopedia. Because of the reliable sources (Greg Grandin, anyone?) that can be mustered, Nicaragua seems a good candidate for a section that could be quite educational.BernardL (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

At this time, I haven't even considered that text. My revert was of an undiscussed reinsertion of an undiscussed unnecessary sentence in the Japan section. (Well, it's unnecessary as long as the Japan case has its own article; that may change, but until then, I deem it unnecessary.) My comment above was against edit warring and throwing around accusations of "vandalism".

I wouldn't mind taking another look at the Nicaragua section, but as long as the discussion, such as it is, is happening in edit summaries and accusation mode, it's just not about to go anywhere but into full protection and possibly other admin actions. I really don't see the point in that. — the Sidhekin (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Full protection due to dispute

I have protected this article (on the wrong version, naturally) against further editing as an uninvolved admin. I will also be examining some of the sock claims over the next day or so. --jonny-mt 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, jonny has opened an ANI on this. - Merzbow (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Right out of the gate, I just want to say I don't dispute that the topic exists. I guess I just don't understand where the lines are drawn on what is and isn't "state terrorism" as defined by any authority with a modicum of credibility.

I do understand that when an article this emotionally charged and open to interpration is hashed out, that some compromises were made, parameters were established and so on, lots of hard work went into it, etc. but I have to question who made those choices and is it even worth it to have an article that provokes this much emotion and debate?

Unfortunately, only the people who want an article to exist are the ones creating, editing, and tenaciously fighting for gray area articles (like this one) and that tends to create POV issues because the people who disagree are either shouted down by the article clique or decide it isn't worth it (in my experience). Given the amount of deletion requests and endless discussion, however, clearly something about this article needs to be fixed in order to make it more encyclopedic and less political science conjecture (or emotionally charged).

The article essentially says that the United States supports terrorists and terrorism, has always supported terrorists and terrorism, and is in fact a terrorist state by the definitions/criteria established in this article (and the world at large). Is that a fact or is that open to debate? Is it far too much a gross oversimplification of many complex issues or is it a brief, accurate description/designation of one country? Maybe I'm in the wrong about Wikipedia should and shouldn't be, but this article just feels like it strays into a point of view (neither good nor bad, just too much opinion and conjecture) without articulating a balanced and/or larger counter-perspective and singles out an entire population to be vilified.

In case this was lost upon anyone, this article offends people. Not because it's wrong in it's specific facts, but because it paints a whole country with a very wide brush and calls everyone who lives there a country full of murderers or at least accomplices to murder. If nothing else, it probably should be "by the United States Government" (in a very general sense) or even CIA or FBI or US Military (whoever) Alleged Acts etc. to be more specific about who is to blame for "acts of terrorism". We would never say the United States cured (fill in the blank) because they funded research into a cure, we would say that the scientists or lab where it was being researched were the creators of the cure.

And not for nothing, but we do live in a time when the perception of the United States has been severly diminished by it's involvement in the Iraq War and politics/emotion shouldn't be involved in creating/keeping (and to be fair, deleting) articles. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a weapon or tool to express politics (or outrage) but there is a sense that's whats happened here. Not to thrown down this ole chestnut, but this article would never be found in a real encyclopedia. Yes, that isn't the only test of an article, but sometimes I wonder if it shouldn't be. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)