Talk:United States and state terrorism

"Opposing views"

I have added many sources to the so called "opposing views" section to make it less of a straw man: [4]. State any objections with explanations please.Ultramarine (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On first review it looks like a much needed improvement to the section. Thank you! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I been watchin this page for, like 5 months now, and I seen a whole big heap uv peeps talkin and sayin they want to see the edits on the page before anyone goes changin stuff around. and then this Dude Ultramarine skips in and sez he wants to start changin things around and suddenly everyone here starts runnin away and pretendin like they never noticed that he doesn't ever listen to anything anyone else sez. I mean -- DUDE!! What's up with all this? Ultramarine -- dude -- IF you want the peeps here to take you seriously then u got to start talkin with them about what u want to do. YOU just come in and start talking STUFF about all the stuff u want to change but when the peeps give back ur own words u start cryin and rolin about how they r dissin u. YOU are the one who is makin all this trubble (and yah, I KNOW I spelled that wrong, get over it!). YOU come on and start talkin STUFF about how u don't agree with everyone here and all and when they ask you how u just say "DELETE MORE!" But when they ask u what u got problems u say STUFF like "Wikipedia rule A" or "Wikipedia rule B" and then when they show u those rules don't fly u just say it again!

Dude! What is UP? UntimelyMaroon (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there concensus that the reverts done by UntimelyMaroon/Ultrastoopid constitute vandalism? I do not want to be violating 3RR by undoing the reversion the IP account just did. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the obvious dubious nature of those accounts their actual reverts were fine with me as they were reverting material introduced by Ultramarine, which is problematic and without consensus. If you could undo your revert and restore the status quo version of before, while discussion continues, it would be best for the article.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not blanket revert from a sourced version of the section to a completely unsourced version simply because the edits were not added per the general working agreements of this page. At this time if there are concerns about the sources, SYN, OR or NPOV, they must be made about the specific sources / statements that have been included the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

tags again?

I understand the NPOV tag, but why is the entire again being tagged for original research, unverifiable claims, unpublished synthesis, ideas not verifiable with the given sources, and inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text--yet again? Editors have asked that if any of the above claims have any veracity to them, to please point out the text in question so that it can be looked at and fixed. No one has been able to do that, other than makes these silly claims that do not hold up to scrutiny. Therefore, I suggest we do not tolerate all these absurd tags defacing this article until such time that they are substantiated. Please consider removing these tags until then. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Per the concensus reached on Jan 14/15 I moved the tags back to the section in question. Any move of the tags to the article overall should be done with specific concerns noted on the talk page so they can be addressed. With the recent re-write of the Criticism section, I removed some of the tags that did not seem to belong. Any addition of tags to that section should include reasons on the talk page so that they can be addressed. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, most of the article violates WP:SYN and WP:OR by making claims of terrorism and state terrorism when the cited sources do not.Ultramarine (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

No no. The others here have showed you that you made a bad interpreting of the wikipedia directives. You must not, like this, keep up the conflit. There are other ways to you to signal your ideas. But this is not the correcte way. Thecryptthing (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome, Thecryptthing! I wouldn't say "bad". Interpretation is necessary; without interpretation, all we have is zeroes and ones. And to attach any semblence of meaning to them, ASCII does not suffice. This may be an interpretation that is not in line with that of most editors. Or not. It is not easy for me to say, as long as both "sides" speak in generics, about the entire article, about the policies and guidelines applying to it, and about the editors working on it. That, at least, is not the correct way. Work with the text instead, present tight arguments for or against specific conflicted passages, and we might just get somewhere. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is not the interpretation. It is the logique. You are say the logique is synthesiste. But the points you gesture to they do not make synthesis. They are part of the logique. All the points are repeted by the articles. This is not synthesiste. This is logical repetition. Thecryptthing (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that's exactly what WP:SYN is referring to: There should be no logic in the article that is not also in the sources. If the sources synthesise something, that's great. If the article synthesises something, that's a WP:SYN violation: If the article makes an argument, we need to find a single source for that argument. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, my english is not good. So maybe I should say it is repetition of the logique? Is that good? Do you understand? You mean there must not have interpretation. But there is not interpretation. There is only repetition. You say that there is synthesisme, but there is not. The other editors put no logique in the article, they only repeate the logique of the articles. I do not think you can show me what synthesisme you are talking about but if you can then please show it for me. Thecryptthing (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Repetition of the argument made in a source is good. If a source gives the argument, WP:SYN does not apply; that's the kind of source we need. And I have not (yet) made any allegations of WP:SYN violations in this article, and I (still) hope I won't. I'd like to discuss the various passages of the article with respect to what purpose they serve, before I even start thinking of what policies and guidelines they may violate. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly thinks there is a place for such criticisms in Wikipedia. Thus, this material could be moved to an article called "Criticisms of the United States foreign policy" or something similar. This would solve the problem. Thoughts?Ultramarine (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts? I'm sure much of this material could find its way into other existing articles. I would not rule out a new article. But neither would I rule out that much of the material you contest belongs in this article. It could well be both relevant and notable, but it really is hard to tell from the mess in which it is presented. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will assume that whenever some (non-vandalism) material has been added to this article, it is because the editor thought it relevant to the article. If I cannot figure out what makes this relevant, my first line of action is to ask. If that succeeds, I'll try to present it better. If the first line fails though, the second line is delete: If anyone thinks it belongs in another article, let them take it there. In this article though, it's at best noise. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Look for example at the very long Philippines section. I see only one source, the so called "People's Tribunal", accusing the US of state terrorism. All of the rest is just a WP:SYN violation. Many of the links do not even mention the United States at all and thus do cannot blame the US of anything.Ultramarine (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I found five state terror's. 118.165.219.150 (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Most don't blame the US, no. All they can do, is provide a source for background info. Is this the purpose they serve? To the extent they do, it should be clarified in the article. To the extent they don't, they don't belong here, WP:SYN violation or not. But let's tackle them one at a time. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I will bring up on of the more strange examples. There is a very long section on Sister Dianna Ortiz's rape charges. The only connection with the US is that she states is that she met a person called "Alejandro" who spoke American English. How is this state terrorism by the United States? Say a woman was raped in West Germany who also received US aid and were some officers have taken some courses in the US. It that also US state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He also worked at the American embassy and was the leader of the torturers. 118.165.219.150 (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be other connections with the US: "Professor Gareau argues that the School of the Americas, a U.S. Army institution where Gramajo-Morales trained as a young officer and taught in later life, is a terrorist training ground." Of course, the connection between Sister Dianna Ortiz and Gramajo-Morales is not made clear in the article text, and the so-called "short excerpt" (which should at least use a quoting template, if included at all, rather than just sourced) does not beyond the rather anonymous "Alejandro" even name him, for crying out loud ... suggestions for clarification? — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree. The connection is very easy to see. Gramajo-Morales was named as a defendant in the nun's case. It says that in the article. Did you read the same thing I did? Because it is very easy to see. Thecryptthing (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was named as a defendant ... apparently for making "several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted." Making statements?! That's all the article text states. Anything else must be lured out of the nauseating wall of blockquote text. That's anything but clear. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No no. The case was against the government. Gramajo-Morales was a government representatif. He is one of the defendants, it is because he was cover up the torture and terror. That is easy to see. Thecryptthing (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I was left with the impression that "Alejandro" was Gramajo-Morales. He is not, then? All the more reason to remove the blockquote then, isn't it? — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See? Something simple but you do not understand. Even my poor english I can see the Alejandro and Gramajo-Morales are not the same. ^_^ If you do not understand then why do you say it must change? Thecryptthing (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why must it change? Precisely because I don't understand it. It is unclear, and it makes the rest of the article less accessible, by distraction if nothing else. It detracts from the point made, and from the entire article. And if it really isn't intended, it is horribly misleading: The general's full name is given as "Hector Alejandro Gramajo-Morales"; the full name of the "Alejandro" of the block quote is not given! Anyone could come from that with the impression that "Alejandro" and Gramajo-Morales were one and the same. If that is not intended, it's horribly poor writing.  :-( — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is clear. I have poor english writing. My reading is better, but still not my language maternelle. Thus my poor english but I even understand! The nun tells me how she suffered and how a man who lead the torturers was an americain and she put the commandant of the men in the legal proces. Another source say some torturers are from amiericain CIA and the commandant of the men took money from them. The legal proces say he cover it so no one know. That is clear, no? Thecryptthing (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, as I just stated, what appears in the article not clear. But rather than trying to clarify it directly to me, why don't you suggest a clarifying rewrite of the article itself? Preferably in a new section (hit the "+"), since we're no longer discussing tags. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not me who want change. It is you. To re-write is your responsibilite. And my english is not so good. Thecryptthing (talk) 11:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see anyone accusing Gramajo-Morales of participating in the rape. That he took a course in the US and later was a minister does not mean that the US have done state terrorism. If arguing that, then a very large proportion of rapes in for example NATO nations would be US state terrorism. Unless sourced link between claiming US state terrorism, then the passage should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See? This is an point artificiele. There are articles to say that Gramajo-Morales was CIA and that he helped to torture. Gramajo-Morales was in the Sister Ortiz case as a defendant because he have responsable for the forces-securite. And the Gramajo-Morales was with the CIA agentes who tortured. That is all in the articles. One nun says that Gramajo-Morales is responsable, and one journaliste says he is responsable, and one say the CIA gives him money to torture, and one says that he was commander of the forces who tortured. That is all easy to see, no? Thecryptthing (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You are violating WP:SYN. Your arguments seems to be A. Sister Ortiz charged Gramajo-Morales because was minister of defence and "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted." B. Other source accuse Gramajo-Morales of being a CIA asset and various atrocities. A + B does not mean that Sister Ortiz accused Gramajo-Morales of state terrorism. She does not accuse the US of anything. The rape case is not linked to state terrorism. Anyone could have raped. Even if Gramajo-Morales ordered her to be raped, that does not mean that the US ordered this in turn.Ultramarine (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No no. I make no argument. I only repeat what the articles say. One article say he is commandant over those torturers and americains men who work together. Sister Ortiz say also he is commander of the torturers and there is americains who work together. See? Same same. Thecryptthing (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no source stating that he raped or ordered the rape or that the US ordered this. Where does Sister Ortiz say "that he is commander of the torturers and that there is americains who work together"? She accuses him of something else, that he "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted.".Ultramarine (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sister Ortiz says he is the commandant and he knows and cover up the torture in her proces. That is very clear. You again make an point artificiele. And she say very clear that Alejandro is americain and Alejandro say he has "friend" in the Embassy and he take her there. You can not believe or you can believe, but it is true she say it. Thecryptthing (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Source please where he says "he is the commandant and he knows and cover up the torture in her proces". She does not accuse him raping her or ordering the rape or that the US is in any way involved.Ultramarine (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sister Dianna Ortiz, brought a U.S. civil court case against the State of Nicaragua, naming the former Minister of Defense — General Hector Alejandro Gramajo-Morales — as one of the defendants. In her complaint, Sister Ortiz specified that Gen. Gramajo "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted." that she was abducted by police officers and military persronnel (i.e. men who would have been under Gramajo's command) and taken to a secret prison where she was tortured and raped repeatedly. See? She say Gramajo-Morales is commandant and she is tortured by men under him and make the proces because he cover it up and say nothing happen. He say she injuries just "self-inflicted" but she raped and beaten? Thecryptthing (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"that she was abducted by police officers and military persronnel" comes from dubious source that does not quote her. In the direct quote she does not state this. And how could she know who they are? Even if they were officers, that does not mean Gramajo-Morales ordered this. Most rapes are not ordered. Even if Gramajo-Morales ordered the rape, this does not mean that the US ordered the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But the article doesn't claim that the US ordered the rape. Concentrate on the article, please. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So how is this "state terrorism" by the United States? Ultramarine (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What is "this" that you speak of? How is what state terrorism by the United States? Concentrate on the article, and point me to the problem. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The rape. No one has accused the US of being behind it, so it cannot be state terrorism by the US.Ultramarine (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Where in the article do we say that the rape is state terrorism by the US? I cannot see it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the rape mentioned then? Ultramarine (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Better question. I have (as yet) no answer. Suggestions? — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

These are points artificiele. "Dbuious"? I look at the sources. One is a report from "Inter-Am.C.H.R." and they are appropriate for the police and personnel. See, they are here Inter-American_Commission_on_Human_Rights. The other I did not find, so I recherche google and I found it here. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/justice/law_background_torture.html It says what I say, not what you say. You say these things are synthesisme, but they are not. Now you say they do not say but they do. The US pay the commandant. The commandant was guilte under the US law. That is what is said. You may believe, you may not believe, but that is what is said. Thecryptthing (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing in the PBS article stating that the US was responsible for the rape or that the US paid Gramajo-Morales.Ultramarine (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahaha! You play with me, no? The article is not say the US responsable, it say the Sister "brought a civil court case" and that it made a big "controversy". It was not used to say US responsible for Gramajo. The other articles say that. Thecryptthing (talk) 11:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article does not state the he was responsible for the rape. Even if he was, then you violate WP:SYN. No evidence has been presented that the US ordered or was responsible for this particular rape.Ultramarine (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Untrue. The particulars of victims of State Terrorism and torture as Sister Ortiz is, are legitimate for inclusion here because the sources state the US was deeply involved in supporting that countries state terrorism. Thus, accounts of the victims of that state terrorism are fair play for inclusion. There is no SYN claim being made here. You are the only editor who claims that misunderstanding of policy. I've removed the SYN tag, too, per consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

None of your sources claims that the US was responsible for the rape. No state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Untrue, and straw man fallacy. Repeating yourself like a broken record is not helpful. You have no consensus to remove this long term section. You are the only editor making these fallacious arguments. Please stop removing content against consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be accurate. Implying state terrorism when the source does not is not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

{{quote}}

I propose to replace each instance of {{Cquote}} and <blockquote> with {{quote}}.

{{Cquote}}, per its own docs, should not be used for block quotes in article text. {{quote}}, on the other hand, "is easier to type and more wiki-like than the equivalent HTML <blockquote> tags, has additional pre-formatted attribution and source parameters, and contains a workaround for Bugzilla:6200, which means you don't need to type <p> tags manually."

Being consistent, both within the article and with the recommendations of WP:MOSQUOTE, will make the article more accessible, and may even make it easier to maintain.

Thank you. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

sounds good to meTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started. So far, just the Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States#Quotes section, which is a convenient show case for this change. Unless there are any objections, I'll continue through the rest of the article. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

... and I've converted Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States#The_Philippines. These were not as well attributed as the "Quotes" section, so someone should perhaps check that I haven't misattributed anything while converting to {{quote}} attribution. Thanks! — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

... and now also Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States#Japan. When converting the attribution here, I found that the rest of the section was left ambiguous, which I resolved by also rewroting an inline quote to the {{quote}} format. This quote is rather short for this treatment though, so if anyone would like to fix the ambiguity while still using an inline quote for this, please do. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see User:Giovanni33 has attempted fixing this[5], but doesn't that fix leave it unclear that the second quote is from the book, and not from the article? Or am I seeing problems that aren't there? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

... and Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States#El_Salvador. I assume "Frederick Garneau", the professor, is the same as "Frederick H. Gareau", the author, but I don't know which way to spell his last name. Anyone? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There goes the Guatemala section. The only surprise I noted was that there was no wikipedia article on speaktruth.org. :-\ — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And there it is complete. I think.  :-\

The last few batches required more rewriting to get the right attribution format than the first did, so you may want to review. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"journal = Reuters"

The source http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0903-01.htm is referenced with the {{cite journal}} template, with the journal name of "Reuters". Now, to the best of my knowledge, Reuters is not a journal.  :)

CommonDreams is not a journal either, it seems, so I don't think this is a matter of replacing CommonDreams for Reuters.

I propose instead to change this to {{cite news}}, as that seems more correct. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I see User:Silly rabbit just did this. But I don't think that is quite correct: The publisher should be CommonDreams, while the author should be Reuters (or "Reuters staff"?). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Reuters publishes www.commondreams.org. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant to bring up a similar issue, but got distracted. Reuters is the publisher, since they published the article originally (read the fine print over at the commondreams site). Ideally the article should provide an archive link (see archive.org) to the precise Reuters article in question. Commondreams, rather than being acknowledged as publisher, should be noted as a "courtesy link" to the article. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ideally. Reuters is the original publisher, according to CommonDreams. But per my reading of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, we cannot cite Reuters. This reference "is really the web page, which is what you must cite." This web page is CommonDreams.org, and I don't think we can say Reuters is the publisher thereof.

But sure, if we find an article actually published by Reuters, this will be no problem. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Already removed the CommonDreams link. Anyway, calling commondreams the publisher would have been misleading, but the point is now moot. Silly rabbit (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I just saw you found one. Objection withdrawn. Good job.  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dianna Ortiz Section Should Be Included

Some people -- two? -- argue for deletion and that's called consensus? They Wikilawyer five pages of backnforth and think they made their case? Standards must be upheld. Moriss levy (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is no consensus to delete this information. Its important part of the context of, as a major example, of the kind of violence perpetrated against civillians of that country for political reasons, by a regime that the US was supporting, directing, financing, arming, etc. And in this particluar instance, the US has its hands all over it. Its an important part of the larger allegations the sum of which has been identified as State sponsored terrorism by many legitimate sources. Please restore.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in this section it says:

While at Harvard, Gen. Gramajo publicly defended himself by saying:

“ "We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system ... which provides development for 70% of the population while we kill 30%. Before, the strategy was to kill 100%." ”

And it links to http://harvardwarcriminals.blogspot.com/2007/05/hector-gramajo.html, but that page actually cites "Jennifer Schirmer, "The Guatemalan military project: an interview with Gen. Hector Gramajo," Harvard International Review, Vol. 13, Issue 3 (Spring 1991)." Should the citation be replaced? Right now it looks like it citing blogspot which is bad. Dance With The Devil (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, replace it or add both as sources. The latter source is much better than a blogspot, which should not really stand on its own. Good catch.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, just seeing Blogspot in the references makes me cringe. Dance With The Devil (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this violate WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? Or did you locate that issue and verify it? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a search to try to find this, and while I don't have this particular source, I have found another source (a good one) that quotes this (and other source). So I'm comfortable with the source. The source I found is a book called, "Vigilance and Vengeance: NGOs Preventing Ethnic Conflict in Divided Societies" by Robert I. Rotberg; Brookings Institution, 1996. It has as its source these two sources (in the notes on page 106: "Government sources cited in La Hora ( 24 September 1988), 3. Also see Jennifer Schirmer , "The Guatemalan Military Project: An Interview with Gen. Héctor Gramajo," Harvard International Review (Spring 1991)."Giovanni33 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I also found this in the notes from an article found in, "International Socialist Review Issue 9, Fall 1999, entitled, "School of the Assassins" by Katherine DwyerGen: "Hector Gramajo: A field commander for the Guatemalan military in the 1980s and defense minister from 1987 to 1990, Gramajo once told the New York Times, "I got a lot of help from U.S. Central Intelligence."3 This is a bit of an understatement. Not only did Gramajo attend the SOA, but he was also granted a fellowship to the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. In an interview with the Harvard International Review, Gramajo gave himself a big pat on the back for instituting Guatemala's unique "civil affairs program." As Gramajo explained, "We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system. We instituted civil affairs [in 1982], which provides development for 70 percent of the population, while we kill 30 percent. Before, the strategy was to kill 100 percent."4 Gramajo, who taught "Counterinsurgency" at the SOA in 1967, spoke at the SOA graduation ceremony in 1991, six weeks after being tried and found guilty of numerous war crimes including the rape and torture of Diana Ortiz."Giovanni33 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the quote is definitely good. Here is another book from the University of California Press, entitled, "Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor", by Paul Farmer; University of California Press, 2003. On page 259, we find the same quote:

"We aren't renouncing the use of force. If we have to use it, we have to use it, but in a more sophisticated manner. You needn't kill everyone to complete the job. [You can use] more sophisticated means: we aren't going to return to the largescale massacres. …We have created a more humanitarian, less costly strategy, to be more compatible with the democratic system. We instituted Civil Affairs (in 1982) which provides development for 70 percent of the population while we kill 30 percent. Before, the strategy was to kill 100 percent (Schirmer 1991, p. 11)." And, Chomsky apparently also cites the same interview: "Noam Chomsky cites a long interview that Gramajo accorded to anthropologist Jennifer Schirmer, who notes that the former Minister of Defense “granted me many hours of taped interviews. ” In the spring 1991 Harvard International Review, the general, then a Mason Fellow at Harvard, goes on record regarding the national-security doctrine he helped to put into practice: (followed by the same quote)..."Giovanni33 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, I

I also found this from the first source which might be good point to add:

"The transition from authoritarian rule to procedural democracy in Guatemala has been contingent upon the military's victories over the guerrillas. In the early 1980s, the Guatemalan military engaged in a counterinsurgency campaign in which 440 indigenous villages were destroyed; an estimated 75,000 people were killed, an estimated 200,000 children were orphaned, and 40,000 women were widowed."Giovanni33 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the book by Farmer also argues significant US involvement with state terrorism, and cites this particular case of Gector Gramajo. He writes:

"Elsewhere, I have tried to underline U. S. complicity in this officially blessed slaughter (Farmer 1994, pp. 237–46). It has deep roots. Even now, when there is supposedly peace, there is cause for shame, all too rare in such matters:

One of the grandest of the Guatemalan killers, General Héctor Gramajo, was rewarded for his contributions to genocide in the highlands with a fellowship to Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government—not unreasonably, given Kennedy's decisive contributions to the vocation of counterinsurgency (one of the technical terms for international terrorism conducted by the powerful) (Chomsky 1993, p. 29)." This is also noteworthy as its is Chomksy's view that "counter insurgency" is one of the "technical terms" for international terrorism by the powerful, in other words by States.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

None of these states the the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article does not allege this directly type of claim, so that comment is a bit of a red herring fallacy. The actual argument you have to comment on, and which the sources to allege, is the claim that the actors involved in this incident are part and parcel of the politically motivated policies, which certainly includes but is not limited to rape, murder, pillage--even genocide--done with significant US complicity, and support. This is what makes this case in point quite an important example and relevant for this article. It was part of the counter insurgency death squad activities, and Chomsky refers to this as international terrorism by the powerful, pointing to the US. So this section is about much much more than one rape, however brutal, it serves as pointed and famous example of the kind of violence and brutality that characterized the counter insurgency tactics, as a campaign of terror, as Chomsky calls it. As Prof. Farmer states, the US deep roots in these officially blessed slaughters. Sister Ortiz was not just some random rape. She was a victim of the larger US sponsored state terror that was inflicted on the people, per the various sources cited, and those I found above. To remind you of the facts regarding her, she was abducted by right-wing forces and brutally tortured. Among other torments she was gang-raped and suffered over 100 cigarette burns. She was physically forced to stab another woman to death with a machete. Ortiz own public testimony implicate the US, and the U.S. and Guatemalan governments staged a cover-up of the incident and a campaign of defamation against her, which is part of the US support for the state terrorism of its puppet regime.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources finding the US responsible, please add them. The US was not responsible for every crime in Guatemala.Ultramarine (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw man fallacy: no one alleged or argues that the US is responsible for every crime in Guatamala. Stick to the real argument.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Add your claimed sources, if there are any. Do not include crimes not the responsibility of the US.Ultramarine (talk) 09:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I never argued for the removal of the entire section, just the nauseating wall of text that was the Ortiz quote, but neither have I any objection to removing it all. The section was poorly accessible and, in my eyes, failed to make its point. I'd agree to restoring it, with an {{Off-topic}} banner, for now at least, if anyone would step up with suggestions for rewriting it, making it more accessible. Until I see any such suggestion, I'll object to restoring it; it makes the rest of the article look bad by association. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, II

Yes, I know your point is different than UltraMarines. And, I actually agree with you. The whole section is rather long and needs to be better written, more condensed. I feel the same way about the Cuba section. I'm not arguing to water down anything, or lose any information, just present the same information better, clearer, which I think is what you have been saying.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If wanting the accuse the US of human rights violations in general in Guatemala, there is already much material. More can be added if desired. But unless the US is responsible for the particular rape, then it should not be included. No reason to include a long graphical description, except in order to shock and propaganda, of something the US has not been shown responsible. The US was not responsible for all crimes in Guatemala or every rape by some kind of guilt by association.Ultramarine (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, where does the articles say the US is responsible for this particular rape? It doesn't, so that is a red herring. Does it say the US is responsible for all crime or every rape? No. These are straw man fallacies. I already explained why this rape is an important part of the larger context that the US is said to be involved in as a sponsor of state terror. So your removal of that section--the only editor who thinks the whole thing needs to be blanked--is against consensus. I suggest you restore it or your actions here can only be seen as disruptive.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we give long graphical descriptions of every rape or murder in Guatemala? Unless the US is responsible for this rape, including a long graphical description has no purpose, except as shock and propaganda.Ultramarine (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be shifting arguments. First you argue that US has no complicity through a straw man fallacy that the US is not directly responsible for every rape, or crime in the country. Clearly a straw man fallacy. Now you are getting more to your real objection: you don't like that its a graphical description that clearly adds a "shock" value to the article. You call it propaganda. I call it exposing the nature of the brutality of State Terrorism. I oppose your wanting to white wash this important example of State Terror. And, I support telling the truth, no matter if its graphic and ugly or not. Face the truth, don't try to sanitize it. You can't.

Let me refer you to another source that claims that this particular act of rape and torture we are talking about (not all crimes or rapes--this one), is a part of the state terror. I refer you to an article entitled, "The Struggle against Impunity in Guatemala,"published in the Journal Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999, by Raul Molina Mejia. The author describes, "impunity as concrete legal or de facto actions taken by powerful sectors to prevent investigation or prosecution, such as amnesty laws, pardons, thwarting investigations, the hiding of documents, and tampering with legal samples, and noted that they were abundant in Guatemala. We mentioned then the historic responsibility of the civilian administrations of Vinicio Cerezo and Jorge Serrano for not properly investigating the cases of Michael Devine, the El Aguacate massacre, the 1990 surge of killings at the National University of San Carlos, the detention and torture of Sister Dianna Ortiz, and the assassination of Myrna Mack." The author explains the "political/psychological" aspect of this impunity, as "a dimension resulting from state terrorism, by which political options in a polity are restricted and controlled through the state's manipulation of fear." This is under the section, "The Many Faces of Impunity in Guatemala," and "Strategic Impunity." So now, drop your straw-man, "every crime," as the sources refers to this particular case an emblematic of US backed State terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your quote does not accuse the US of responsibility for the rape. Why include a long graphical description of crime not the responsibility of the US?Ultramarine (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And for the fourth, time, I never said it did. So why do you keep repeating that and ignoring what it does say? But what the sources do, and which you keep ignoring, is accuse the US as sponsoring State Terrorism, of which the case of Sister Ortiz, serves as a graphic example. You might deny these facts, but its not up to you, or me. Its what the sources argue. Why don't you deal with the actual claims, instead of your straw man claim?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How can this rape serve as an example of "US state terrorism" if the US was not responsible for the rape? Ultramarine (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the sources allege the US was deeply involved in the state terror instituted as part of the counter insurgency war, and the sources state that this rape, and torture of Sister Ortiz, was an example of this state terror, again in which the US is significantly complicit. In fact the source argues that the "political/psychological" aspect of the impunity evident in her case (among others) is part of state terrorism, in that that state manipulates fear through providing impunity for these crimes. Part of the allegation by the sources above is not just the that US supported, financed and trained the various right wing death squads that were responsible for this, but also that the U.S. and Guatemalan governments staged a cover-up of the incident and a campaign of defamation against her. This too is part of the US support for the state terrorism that is argued in the sources above. If you simply read what I wrote, you would not need to to ask this question.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Even assuming the US was responsible for many of the crimes, this does not mean that the US was responsible for this particular crime. That is guilt by association. No evidence has been presented that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Plenty of evidence and arguments regarding the evidence has been presented about this case, above. You may not find it convincing that hardly matters, does it? This is not guilty by association, this is guilt by various associations, "deep roots" of involvement, diplomatic and financial support, training, money, etc. You can't support any more without directly doing it yourself! In anycase, its not up to me to convince you, its up to us to report what the sources argue. We do not get to suppress these arguments of connections and complicity of this state terror simply because we don't agree with the sources arguments. This is basic WP policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have sources showing that the US was responsible for the rape, then cite them.Ultramarine (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Undent. If you have a claim in the article that says "the US is responsible for the rape," let me know and I will remove it. But since that does not exist, then I think this means you have no objection, no argument to what it does say, which is supported by various sources. When you have an argument that deals with what it does say, then let me know. Straw man fallacies only prove you lack a basis to challenge the claims. Ignoring them and making up something else is not going to fool anyone here, I'm afraid.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If the US was not responsible, then no justification for including the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, on the basis of the various claims made above that the rape and torture, including the cover-up and impunity of this crime, was part of the program of State terrorism supported by the U.S. Therefore, its justified to keep it in the article. Unless you have a source that denies this is the case, your personal opinion is irrelevant. And, even if you do have a source, that does not mean you can censor the the claims made by these sources, which is what you are trying to do. That is what lacks any justification. WP is not censored.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you have sources for these claims and that the US was responsible for the rape, the cite them.Ultramarine (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, stop with the straw man fallacy. Sources given above more than support the claims and relevance of the matter, which you have so far failed to even address. Why are you ignoring it?Giovanni33 (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

None of these state the the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, just complicity in State Terrorism, of which Sister Ortiz torture was part of parcel of, and as well as the impunity by which the crime was later dealt with. I'm glad you agree with me, then, and therefore this section stays. Thanks for makign it clear though your silence on the actual arguments, per above. :) No doubt you will be shortly restoring your wholesale deletion of the section.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have no sources stating that the US responsible for the rape, then it cannot be state terrorism by the US.Ultramarine (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your personal POV, and you are entitled to it. Fortunately, though, this has nothing to do with this article or Wikipedia's policies. We do not get to insert our own person POV, OR, into an article, much less censor sourced claims and arguments from reliable sources on such a basis. Thanks for making your stance clear, though. I hope you familiarize yourself better with WP policies. I'm sure once you do, you will cease deleting sourced material on the basis of your own personal POV and original research claims.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WP relies on verifiability. Again, if you have sources for your claim of US responsibility in the rape, then cite them.Ultramarine (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw man fallacy. Article does not make this claim. It makes another claim, which you deleted, and fail to acknowledge that various sources that support what you deleted. Instead you ignore this and create a straw man. I'm not sure if you are doing this on purpose, but since you are ignoring what I"m saying and repeating yourself like a broken record, I can only assume that communication with you about this is not serving any purpose other than to suggest I'm talking to a program/bot. If you are a real person, then please address the actual claims of the article, and the sources arguments that support those claims. Are you able to do that and thus prove I'm talking to a person and not a program?Giovanni33 (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You making the claims of state terrorism by the US and the rape was one such act. You have to provide the source.Ultramarine (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and the sources above make the claim. I even highlighted it in bold so you can see. Look for State Terrorism, and Sister Ortiz. Both in bold to see the arguments of her case and the accusations of State Terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)None of the sources state that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See you did it again. You switched the actual claim and made up your own straw man claim. Again, no, however it DOES state that her rape and torture by right-wing US funded para military forces, and the impunity of the crime, are aspect of the State Terror that was perpetrated, with US complicity. This is what the sources do say. You don't get to make up a completely different argument and substitute your own argument for the one that is actually made, to then say it's not supported. Duh. That is called a straw-man fallacy. How many times do I need to repeat myself? I hope I'm not talking to a bot but that is what it looks like.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still does not accuse the US of being responsible for this particular rape. The US was not responsible for every crime that occurred in Guatemala.Ultramarine (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And it never will. That is something you made up because you can't address the real argument. It's called a straw man fallacy. So this proves you lost the argument and thus your deletion is invalid.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The rape can not be state terrorism if the US was not responsible for it.Ultramarine (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure it can, and the sources I provide make that very case.If you have sources that support your argument, then fine, cite them and we can present their views. Why do you insist on including your own personal POV? That violates WP policy on Original Research and SYN. The sources make the claim that there is US complicity in the actions of State terror, of which what happened to Sister Ortiz, serves as one example, out of many, of State Terror. You are making a logical error by deducing from the premise that the US govt is not responsible for all crimes and rapes in the country, and therefore it is not complicit in the state terror for which the US has been accused of being complicit of? Its a non-sequitur, as the inference does not follow logically. It may be your own personal statement/OR but it is countered by the claims of reputable sources that do make exactly this argument. We are not here to argue with the sources POV, we are here to report it. Giovanni33 (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No source have presented showing US responsibility of the rape. Even assuming that the US was responsible for many crimes in general in Guatemala, this does not make the US responsible for this particular crime. That would be guilt by association.Ultramarine (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your view, but that is NOT what the sources claim. The source I provided lists her as an example of State terrorism, in which the US is complicit. You argue that this is wrong as its guilty by association. That is YOUR own personal POV. Its OR, unless you have a source that makes that argument, in which case you may add it, provided its a good source. You may not, however, censor the arguments that are made, as they are validly sourced arguments. That you don't agree with their logic is not relevant!Giovanni33 (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Folks, please indent intelligently. When you get to about 12, write (Undent) to preserve the thread, then start again at the margin. Thank you so much. Rumiton (talk) 11:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, III

No, they do not. You have still not given a source showing that the rape was the responsibility of the US.Ultramarine (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. They do, and I'll provide the sources again, and quote them. But, keep note (and this is important)--this is completely separate from your straw-man claim that it's about the "US govt being responsible for this rape, or all rapes or all crimes in the country." Please drop that straw-man, as that is not what is alleged at anytime by anyone, except yourself. Lets review what the sources do say, again.

• Book entitled, "Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor", by Paul Farmer; University of California Press, 2003, among many others, argues significant US involvement with state terrorism, and cites this particular case of Gector Gramajo. He writes: "Elsewhere, I have tried to underline U. S. complicity in this officially blessed slaughter (Farmer 1994, pp. 237–46). It has deep roots. Even now, when there is supposedly peace, there is cause for shame, all too rare in such matters:

• "One of the grandest of the Guatemalan killers, General Héctor Gramajo, was rewarded for his contributions to genocide in the highlands with a fellowship to Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government—not unreasonably, given Kennedy's decisive contributions to the vocation of counterinsurgency (one of the technical terms for international terrorism conducted by the powerful) (Chomsky 1993, p. 29)." Note that its Chomksy's view that "counter insurgency" is one of the "technical terms" for international terrorism by the powerful, in other words by States. Again, Farm, Chomsky, et. all, argue for U.S. complicity, in what they describe as state terror. Now, specifically, for Sister Ortiz, as a victim of an aspect of State terrorism:

• The source,"The Struggle against Impunity in Guatemala,"published in the Journal Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999, by Raul Molina Mejia, describes, "impunity as concrete legal or de facto actions taken by powerful sectors to prevent investigation or prosecution, such as amnesty laws, pardons, thwarting investigations, the hiding of documents, and tampering with legal samples, and noted that they were abundant in Guatemala. We mentioned then the historic responsibility of the civilian administrations of Vinicio Cerezo and Jorge Serrano for not properly investigating the cases of Michael Devine, the El Aguacate massacre, the 1990 surge of killings at the National University of San Carlos, the detention and torture of Sister Dianna Ortiz, and the assassination of Myrna Mack." The author explains the "political/psychological" aspect of this impunity, as "a dimension resulting from state terrorism, by which political options in a polity are restricted and controlled through the state's manipulation of fear." This is under the section, "The Many Faces of Impunity in Guatemala," and "Strategic Impunity."

So this section is about much much more than one rape, however brutal, it serves as pointed and famous example of the kind of violence and brutality that characterized the counter insurgency tactics, as a campaign of international terror by those with power, as Chomsky calls it. As Prof. Farmer states, the US deep roots in these officially blessed slaughters. Sister Ortiz was not just some random rape. Her case is mentioned specifically in the context of "impunity" as a dimension of state terrorism, instituted for "political and psychological" and "the States manipulation of fear." Again, she was a victim of the larger US sponsored state terror that was inflicted on the people, per both sources. The facts regarding her? She was abducted by right-wing forces and brutally tortured. So stop calling just some random "rape." Among other torments she was gang-raped and suffered over 100 cigarette burns. She was physically forced to stab another woman to death with a machete. Ortiz own public testimony implicates the US. The U.S. and Guatemalan governments staged a cover-up of the incident and a campaign of defamation against her. Again, you may disagree with the arguments by these sources, but you can not deny this is what they argue, specifically, in this case. Do not try to simplify it, or distort what the argument actually is, nor try to make up your OWN argument, which is just OR. Provide a source that presents your own view, if you want it included. But you have no basis to censor this sourced POV.Giovanni33 (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The only source mentioning the rape is the third one which does not mention the US. Sidenote, what is the source for "She was physically forced to stab another woman to death with a machete." She does not accuse the US of her rape.Ultramarine (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you thought Sister Ortiz was murdered? I see you know very little about the subject. There is a lot of info about her. She has even written a book. Wiliam Blum writes about her, under Guatamala: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Torture_RS.html I do not use her as a source, as she is not needed, but her testimony adds to the evidence, since she identifies who she believes to be an American who was in charge. http://www.democracynow.org/2005/10/12/sister_dianna_ortiz_details_her_abduction Btw, all the sources I mention all implicate the US in support of the Guatemalan government on many levels. Does anyone deny it? The commander in charge of the troops who abducted her was trained in the US, as the School of the Americans and rewarded afterwards, as Chomsky details. Make no mistake about it, the arguments strongly accuse the US has being involved with the State terror that Sister Ortiz was subjected to.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

She never stated that she murdered anyone. She said she saw a person who spoke American English called "Alejandro". Many people speak American English without being US state terrorism agents. Again, possible other problems in Guatemala do not make the US responsible for this one.Ultramarine (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, no one is making that argument. That is, "possible other problems make the US responsible for this one." No one. If that is your understanding of what the sources say, then your understanding is deeply flawed. I'm not sure how to help. I do know what the actual arguments are, and since they are sourced, we can cite them, here. If you have a source for your charactrization of this, with your kind of argument (which I doubt, since it would be embarassing to see something published with that kind of straw man fallacy), please let me see it. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:V. The burden of evidence is on the editor wanting to add or restore material. No evidence presented for US responsibility in the rape. Guilt by association or WP:SYN is not valid.Ultramarine (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, IV

Like Raggz, interestingly enough, you show a lack of understanding of basic policies here on WP. My claims are supported by the sources. Whereas you are making an original, novel, argument, based on a logical fallacy, and expecting that to stand. So while you have engaged in OR and SYN, while providing absolutely no sources to support your claims, seem to misunderstand WP:V, and WP:SYN. WP does not report "Truth" (esp. truth according to what you believe is true). Rather, it reports on the arguments and claims of valid sources. You don't think its true, as you think its "guilt by association," and that there is no "proof" which is good enough for this to be valid in your opinion. Well that is not relevant for WP policies here. It doesn't have to meet with your approval, understanding, or belief. The sources are valid, and thus their claims/arguments, can be reported on. Let the reader decide how much validity to give them. Its clear you know little of the subject, so I'm not surprised. But, I urge you to learn WP policies better before you refer to them.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You still not cited anything stating that the US was responsible for the rape. No responsibility, no state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you still fail to understand the issues, the actual arguments being made, and what the sources claim. For sure they do not claim what you think they should claim, but an absence of your claim does not preclude the validity of its claim. I did try my best to state clearly but you just keep going around in circles as has been characterisitc of your editing style. I think, whatever the cause or intentions behind it, its best described as tendatious editing. For this argument, I suggest you don't keep repeating yourself, as that will get us no where, but instead allow other editors active on this page weigh on, and abide by the consensus on this matter. So far you are the only editor who feels this section should be blanked.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Absence of sources stating that the US was responsible for the rape means the absence of verifiability for that that the rape was state terrorism by the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you repeating yourself? Its not helfpul. I already explained that this is your novel argument, and not what the sources argue. Our arguments can not go in the article. That is SNY/OR. Nor can you use your own argument about what you think the "truth" is to suppress the arguments from valid sources. This not how WP works. You don't like the sources arguments and don't agree with them. We know that. Your definition of "proving" US terrorism is that the US has to be responsible for her being rapped. Well that is yoru standard, and not the standard of any source. So its simply carries no weight. Whereas the sources line of argument do carry weight, since they are published professionals in reliable sources. That is the big difference here. Why don't you just allow other editors to weight in, instead of repeating over and over again your argument? Repeating ourselves is not going anywhere, and you show no sign of understanding this argument. Perhaps its too subtle.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How can it be state terrorism by the US is the US was not responsible for the rape? Ultramarine (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Because that is not the standard the sources use. Go back and read them and what I wrote. No need for me to repeat them again. I doubt you will grasp it either. All I can say is that you need to drop your own standard about what you think proves US complicity in State terror, as that POV of yours is what is blocking you from understanding the arguments that Chomsky, Farmer, and the other sources use to make the claim.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a quote stating that the US did state terrorism with this rape, state it. None of the above does that. State terrorism by Guatemala is not state terrorism by the US.Ultramarine (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did quote. I think the gap here is understanding the argument rests on US support for State terrorism being committed directly the the US client state, but supported at various levels by the U.S., i.e. at the level of advise, taking orders, training, weapons, direct financing, other rewards, and defending the regime, conferring diplomatic shielding, and attempting to discredit its accusers, and lastly harboring and protecting the terrorists and human rights violators. Its this type of more indirect involvement in state terror that the US is accused of as being complicit in State terrorism. This is what the various critics actually argue. For example, Professor Gareau, accuses the US of State terrorism in the case of In El Salvador in 1980-91, where 75,000 people were killed, of whom the government, its army, the National Guard and its death squads, killed 95%. Was it State Terrorism by El Salvador? Yes. But that doesn't mean the US was not complicit in state terror. And he argues the US was. Why? Because the US gave El Salvador's state $6 billion, effectively supporting the terror. In Guatemala in 1962-96, the state's forces killed more than 90% of the 200,000 people killed. In Chile after the coup of 11 September 1973, the state, again, killed more than 95% of those killed. In Argentina in 1976-83, 8,960 were killed. In Colombia in 1986-95, 45,000 were killed, again 95% by the army and death squads. Between 1980 and 1988 the South African state killed 1.5 million people in neighbouring countries. Indonesia's army killed at least 1.5 million people in 1965, 1975 and 1999. In every case, the US state backed the state terrorism before, during and after it was committed. Gareau cites three studies showing that the more a state violated its citizens' rights, the more US aid it received. This was state terrorism, not even-handed civil wars, either, with half the violence committed by one side and half by the other. It was counter-revolutionary murder by US-equipped, US-trained armed forces against people with hardly any means of self-defense. Chomsky calls this support for counter insurgency international terrorism of the powerful. The sources I quote, implicate the US in State Terror. I could go on. Again, it does not matter if you don't accept this line of argument. Again, it does not matter. What matter is that this IS the argument that various credible sources use to implicate the US in State Terrorism. This is why its valid, no matter what you think. Your objection can not be rest on your own POV/beliefs about the veracity of this line of thinking. We don't have that luxury here in WP. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand how WP works.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to argue that since Guatemala is a "client state" every crime in Guatemala is fault of the US. Sorry, that is guilt by association. Most rapes are not ordered.Ultramarine (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, wrong. I make no such absurd claim, nor do any of the sources. In fact, the sources I quote, specifically mention the Ortiz case as an example of State terrorism, and mention the "deep" US role. Like it or not, that is what is claimed. You can call it "guilty by association" if you have a source that supports your argument. So far I've seen nothing of that sort. So your objections fail to stand for inclusion.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Some state that the rape was Guatemalan state terrorism, none that it was US state terrorism. Again, the US was not responsible for every crime in Guatemala.Ultramarine (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not the standard for this article, and the "not responsible for every crime in Guatemala' is a very tired straw-man argument, since no one is making that claim. Hence your rebuttal fails. The scope of this article pertains to direct acts as well as significant indirect complicity, i.e. where the US has been accused of funding, training, those who do engage in state terrorism. Since you agree that this source does call this particular instance of gang rape, torture,etc of Sister Ortiz, state terrorism, and there is no dispute about the US role in supporting the State Terrorism of Gutamala, (as source claims), ergo you have no valid objection to his material. Case closed. Otherwise, we could not mention any of the acts of state terror by US client states, which clearly is not the case with this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Again you are arguing for guilt by association alleging that the US was responsible for every crime in Guatemala. You have presented no source stating that the US was responsible for the rape or that is this rape was US state terrorism. Ultramarine (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you keep repeating things that a reasonable person would now is false, despite being informed several times, your arguments need not an assumption of good faith, but rather can now be pretty certain of being in bad faith. For example, your false claim I have not presented a source that this torture of Sister Ortiz is part of state terrorism--you even admitted that this claim was made! Now you contradict yourself. Secondly, your repeating the same straw-man argument about "every crime" when we are only talking about this one crime in particular that sources characterize as part of the state terror, i.e. Sister Ortiz was targeted for working with the poor, etc. So repeating that straw man about "every crime" despite being very clear several times that saying such is absurd, is further proof of bad faith, disruptive editing. If you continue, I shall report you.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not presented a source stating that the rape was US state terrorism or the responsibility of the US. Source for your claim that Sister "Ortiz was targeted for working with the poor, etc" Why would anyone want to rape her for that? Pure malice?Ultramarine (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Please stop with the "the US was responsible for every crime in Guatemala". Nowhere has anyone in the article or talk page made that claim. Your return to this ridiculous statement is absurd. One can only assume good faith in the presnce of proof otherwise for so long and this is yet another piece. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, V

Correct statement. If a women is raped in Germany, is that then US state terrorism since Germany have received much US aid and some officers have taken courses in the US? Ultramarine (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If we have reliable sources that claim Germany engaged in State terrorism sponsored by the US, against its own people, and that a particular example of that violence was part of that State terrorism, as an example of it, then yes, absolutely it would be valid for this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

But you not presented any source claiming that the rape was US state terrorism. You have sources claiming human rights violations and state terrorism by Guatemala. Some sources claim US responsibility for some of the crimes. But no source showing that this particular rape was US state terrorism. If so quote it here, and everything will be resolved.Ultramarine (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Go back and read the sources. The sources describe the State Terrorism, and include Sister Ortiz as an example. The sources state "deep" US involvement, complicity in that State Terrorism of Gutatamala. Again, we do not need to show that this rape was US state terrorism. The scope of this article pertains to direct acts as well as significant indirect complicity, i.e. where the US has been accused of funding, training, those who do engage in state terrorism. But I repeat myself.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No single source state what you claim. You violate WP:SYN by stringing together different sources, not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This is actually not true, but moot, as its not SYN, since I'm not including any specific new claim. Rather I'm reporting on the various claims the sources made. This is what was done in the section you removed. The commander in charge of the security forces responsible for her torture was trained at the SOA, where our sources describes as a "training ground for State Terrorism." Each statement can have its own unique source making the claim. We do not create any new claims by putting it together. With your logic, one could not write an article unless we only had one source that said everything. False premise and false understanding of SYN.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source stating what you claim, cite it. "We do not create any new claims by putting it together." is exactly what WP:SYN prohibits.Ultramarine (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Many sources already provided. Since no new claims are being made, there is no SYN occurring. If you think there is, please quote the exact text from what you removed, the exact verbiage, where a claim is made that is not directly supported by a source, and is a SYn violation. You have failed to show that. I will be restoring this section shortly, as clearly there was no consensus to remove it; in fact you are the only editor who wants it removed.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No single source state what you claim. You add together several sources which WP:SYN does not allow.Ultramarine (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I claiming? What is the article claiming? Its not claiming what your demanding it should claim, hence the straw man fallacy. Im adding in different sources to talk about the relevance of this information, each statement on its own supported by reliable sources. I do not arrive at any new conclusion that I then state in the article, as that would be synthesis. Simply including it in this article as relevant per the sources does not in itself makes it synthesis, which is what you seem to be saying.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources and material that do not accuse the US of state terrorism due to this rape do not belong to this article. To clarify, should we add details regarding all other rapes in Guatemala at this time, implying that they are US state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Straw man argument. We make no claim that this rape is US state terrorism. However, it belongs in this article because sources say this instance of torture (stop just calling it rape--its was much more!), was State Terrorism, and we have sources that implicate the US as supporting this state terrorism, which is why there is a whole section on the country. This makes it relevant for the article. And, yes, we can include other notable examples of State terrorism, provided that sources describe them as victims of State Terrorism, which the sources do in the case of Sister Ortiz, who accuses the US of being involved herself. If your argument is one of this not being relevant because its just a rape, then you are really putting your head in the sand and ignoring what all the sources say.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"We make no claim that this rape is US state terrorism". If so, irrelevant for this article. "we have sources that implicate the US as supporting this state terrorism" No, you have sources accusing the US of state terrorism in Guatemala, but not for this rape. Sister Ortiz does not accuse the US of state terrorism, the closest is meeting a person speaking American English. No, you cannot violate WP:SYN and draw an original conclusion that this rape was US state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• The source,"The Struggle against Impunity in Guatemala,"published in the Journal Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999, by Raul Molina Mejia, describes, "impunity as concrete legal or de facto actions taken by powerful sectors... the cases of Michael Devine, the El Aguacate massacre, the 1990 surge of killings at the National University of San Carlos, the detention and torture of Sister Dianna Ortiz, and the assassination of Myrna Mack." The author explains the "political/psychological" aspect of this impunity, as "a dimension resulting from state terrorism, by which political options in a polity are restricted and controlled through the state's manipulation of fear." This is under the section, "The Many Faces of Impunity in Guatemala," and "Strategic Impunity."
• This is relevant to this article since you agree this is a case of State Terrorism, in which the US has been implicated. I remind you, again: the scope of this article pertains to direct acts as well as significant indirect complicity, i.e. where the US has been accused of funding, training, those who do engage in state terrorism. Since you agree that this source does call this particular instance of gang rape, torture,etc of Sister Ortiz, state terrorism, and there is no dispute about the US role in supporting the State Terrorism of Gutamala, (as source claims), ergo you have no valid objection to his material. Otherwise, we could not mention any of the acts of state terror by US client states, which clearly is not the case with this article. So why are you repeating yourself with the old refuted and false lines of argument? I know why: because you have NO valid argument. Also you are removing sections without consensus. Also, we have sources taht say Sister Ortiz implies the US was involved in her torture, and this is not me making up this SYN conclusion, this is other analysists who say this, and they are allowed synthesis, and thus we can included it here without any violation of policies.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, claims of state terrorism by Guatemala is not claims of state terrorism by the US. Please cite a single source stating that this rape was state terrorism by the US. "Claims of state terrorism by the US in Guatemala" + "other claims that the rape was Guatemalan state terrorism" does NOT equal "the rape was US state terrorism". That is only valid if the US is responsible for every single state terrorism act done by Guatemala. We have no source stating that "Sister Ortiz implies the US was involved in her torture". Again, the closest thing to the US is meeting a person speaking American English.Ultramarine (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, VI

These arguments have already been dealt with at length; you are attempting to use bad-faith arguments that have already been rejected on the basis of sound, uncontroversial reasoning firmly based in solid interpretation of wikipedia guidelines.

Sister Ortiz is clearly mentioned in several of the sources as an example of the sort of terrorist acts which resulted from the U.S. support and promulgation of the State Terrorists who plagued Guatemala for several decades. Her experiences are clearly relevant to the article, and your own reasoning is based entirely on straw man arguments that have been repeatedly demolished by the other editors here. Stone put to sky (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Which source? Ultramarine (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it has already been mentioned but the Dianna Ortiz affair is described prominently in Frederick Gareau's "State Terrorism and the United States." (p.25) It gets about seven paragraphs.BernardL (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So does he claim that it is state terrorism by the US? Which would be strange, considering that the Sister make no such claim.Ultramarine (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Sister clearly does make such a claim. That's why the quote is included so prominently. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not in that quote, she doesn't. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she clearly does. In that quote she clearly states that an American man who cannot speak proper Spanish was the leader of her torturers; that he was overtly concerned with U.S. media coverage of her kidnapping; that he told her that he would take her to friends at the embassy; that he did so in a government-issued car; that he admitted that he had come down from the U.S. to "help the [Guatemalan Government] fight communism", and that if she were to say anything at all about her experiences that he would leak the torture materials to the media.

It is quite clear that Sister Ortiz is accusing agents of the U.S. government of official involvement in her torture. We could provide further quotes where her lawyer and human rights groups explicitly link her testimony to accusations that the U.S. State Department was actively involved in helping to cover up the incident and guilty of conspiracy with the Guatemalan Government -- that, too, is an act of "State Terror", and we already have plenty of other sources making that explicit assertion.

Would you prefer that we make the section longer, and devote more coverage to Sister Ortiz? If you so desire i assure you -- we will be happy to cooperate. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in this quote implies that he acts on behalf of the US. You may argue that it adds up to a strong case, but unless you find some source that makes this argument, this argument is original research, and does not belong on Wikipedia.

Contrariwise, if we do not make this argument, the quote is off-topic.

I would rather see even a single sentence that shows someone accusing the US for this. One (sourced) sentence would be enough; all else is nauseating fluff. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

True, however, this argument is made by others. They argue that Sister Ortiz implicates the US in testimony; the most relevant parts in the quotes. Perhaps we should add a source that says this outright? I wonder then would Ultramarine drop his objections? I'd like a yes, first, and then I'll go dig up a source. So is it a yes, ultra?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only, I'd like a to-the-point quote like that instead of the contested Ortiz quote. Ultra does not have a veto. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I already know his answer so I going to list one source I found. The title of the article is "Murder as Policy"by Allan Nairn; The Nation, Vol. 260, April 24, 1995. In it we have recounted the argument by of all people former Ambassador to Guatemala, Thomas Stroock (1989-1992), who makes exactly this argument, that Ortiz was implicating the US. The article talks about how Stroock was painted by The New York Times as having tried to rein in an out-of-control C.I.A in Gutamala, but that in fact, his real role was to cover for and facilitate American support for a killer army, the on-the-scene supervisor of a broad, multi-agency program of support for the Guatemalan military. Anyway, it goes into the example of Sister Ortiz. He tried to intimate her because, as the article reasons, "she had stated her belief that the chief of her tormentors was an American who seemed to be linked to the U.S. Embassy (she had escaped by leaping from his jeep as he was, he claimed, driving her to the embassy)." The article explains that Stroock finds these facts mean that Sister Ortiz is implicating the U. S. Government personnel in Guatemala's human rights violations. Of course he hates that she is doing this, and tries to shut her up, and calls it "a scurrilous smear on the good names of the fine Americans who serve their country in this Mission." He goes on to argue that "Ortiz's allegation of U.S. involvement "raises the most serious questions..." So there you have it. One of the head guys himself makes the argument that Ortiz is implicating the US in State terror, and goes on the attack to defame her and defend the US, as a result. The article goes on to explain that:

"Stroock's aide, Lewis Anselem,...was suggesting to foreign visitors that Sister Ortiz had not been abducted but had been wounded in a sadomasochistic lesbian tryst. This lie was publicly repeated by Gen. Hector Gramajo Morales, then Minister of Defense and a paid asset of the C.I.A., whose men had, by all evidence, raped and tortured Ortiz. As Ambassador, Stroock had routine access to the C.I.A.'s list of its assets in the Guatemalan Army, as well as knowledge--widely shared throughout the embassy--that the agency was engaged in "liaison" with the death squad coordinator, the G-2. (Reached in Guatemali on April 4, Stroock, now retired, declined to comment. Asked whether he had had access to the asset list, Stroock said "Good night, sir," and hung up. The C.I.A. "liaison" relationship with the G-2 has been, by standard procedure, sanctioned by the White House and State Department and was even discussed by senior embassy officials in spring 1990 background press briefings. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, both citing "diplomats" and "diplomatic ... sources," reported that the United States was using the G-2 to promote "stability" in Guatemala (the L.A. paper even mentioned that the C.I.A. was paying the G-2). During this period Washington, through its embassy, was supporting the Guatemalan Army in numerous ways:..."Giovanni33 (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any accusation in this that the rape was state terrorism by the US. Also, why would the US want her raped? Pure malice? Even assuming that she had stated that she was raped by the US ambassador himself, that does not make this a deliberate policy by the US state.Ultramarine (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, VII

That certainly seems like an adequate source to me. Another Nairn article is used just below the Ortiz quote, so it seems apropos to add more material in there from Nairn to back up the current section. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no accusation that the rape was state terrorism by the US in the source.Ultramarine (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is clear: 'Ortiz's allegation of U.S. involvement "raises the most serious questions..."'. Not necessarily therefore on-topic, but it is clear, and I think we can use it.

How about, with your ref and a reference to the Ortiz source, something like this:

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

(Provided your ref holds up, of course; given the fragments quoted, I cannot say. For now I'll be happy to take your word for it though.)

If you ask me, something like this would be far more to-the-point than a graphic description of said torture. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Even according to the Nation article, she is only stated that an American linked to Embassy was involved. Not a deliberate action by the US state itself. Even assuming that she had stated that she was raped by the US ambassador himself, that does not automatically make this a deliberate policy by the US state. Also, why would the US want her raped? Pure malice? Furthermore, Wikipedia should not publish inaccurate statements, even if someone make them. Sister Ortize never make any claim regarding the embassy in her actual statement.Ultramarine (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I fear we cannot take your word for it; that would violate WP:OR.  :)

Unless you can provide a source that says she never made any claim regarding US involvement, the best we have is the late Ambassador's statement. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Who does not accuse the US of terrorism or being responsible for the rape. Again, why would the US want her raped? Pure malice? Even assuming that she had stated that she was raped by the US ambassador himself, that does not automatically make this a deliberate policy by the US state. Someone from the embassy might well rape someone without this being ordered by the US.Ultramarine (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are making the mistake, Ultramarine, of assuming that anyone here thinks "the rape", as you call it (actually -- the repeated rapes, gang-rapes, beatings, burial amongst a pit of corpses and rats, forced murder of a cell-mate, burns upon her back, and who knows what else) was ordered by the U.S. That, however, is not what anyone is suggesting. Instead, what we -- and the sources provided -- clearly believe is that the U.S. gave money to a bunch of thugs, put an American agent in charge of them, and then turned them loose on the Guatemalan people. The U.S. then hid and protected their activities locally (Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc), internationally (U.N., OAS, Europe, etc), and domestically (in the U.S.), all with full knowledge of the horrific atrocities that were being carried out.

Moreover, we -- and our sources -- believe that these activities were not restricted to a single group of actors but were carried out by several different groups, at least.

Thus, your argument is a straw man. The sources and statements provided clearly demonstrate that is the considered view of experts on this matter. Thus, your insistence that in this particular quote the Sister does not herself use the phrase "state terror" is clearly irrelevant. What the Sister is describing is quite obviously a pattern of harassment by government forces that was organized at the state level and which U.S. agents knowingly managed and participated in at an official level.

That is all we need to include it in the article. Perhaps you would like to argue that C.I.A. agents who are leading squads of men out into villages to capture stray nuns and take them back to hidden holes in the ground where they repeatedly rape them, burn them with various implements, beat them into submission, eletrocute them with car batteries, dump them into holes filled with rats and decomposing bodies, and then force them to hold a machete they are using to carve up a living person before her very eyes --

Obviously, you want to argue that these things are not "terrorism" that can be attributed to the United States. But until you can find us some reliable sources which take your position -- that is, that this Alejandro, who worked at the U.S. Embassy, drove a government issued vehicle, spoke American english, and, in his words, "had come to help fight communism" --

Until you can find a source that reasonably explains his presence as something other than official U.S. level involvement, then our sources stay, as is. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your argument does not even touch "U.S. involvement". Motives? Irrelevant; this is no court of law. Independent action? Irrelevant; that is not what has been claimed. "U.S. involvement" is the claim, and that trumps your un-sourced objections.

You might do better by pursuing a line of "U.S. involvement" does not imply "terrorism" (for now, I'm reserving judgment on that), but claims of U.S. involvement have been sourced. Without sources of your own, you cannot argue your way out of it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Sidhekin re: the Ortiz quote: Sidhekin, i simply do not understand your position on this. Are you saying that we should divest the article of this passage because...why? Because it's long? Because it's irrelevant? Because it doesn't add anything to the article?

It seems to me that you don't like it because it's unpleasant, and it seems to me that you don't want unpleasant things in this article because you consider them too volatile and irrational for proper encyclopedic or academic discourse. Am i wrong in that? Or do you have other reasons? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I want it gone because it makes the (in this context) interesting information less accessible.

As I see it ...

Yes, it is long. Getting to the point quicker will make a more readable article, and will make the good stuff accessible to a less patient reader.

Yes, it is irrelevant. Descriptions of torture does not tell us anything of the article's topic. Perhaps I should mark it {{off-topic|torture}}? Anything off-topic distracts the reader, reducing signal-to-noise ratio, and in such amounts as these makes the on-topic less accessible.

No, I fear it adds something to the article: Among other things, it adds a strong incentive for anyone of normal human sensibilities to stop reading it. This makes the article less accessible.

Yes, I find it unpleasant. That in itself is insufficient reason to exclude it, but as I see no good reason to include it, it is added incentive to get rid of it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Searching finds many interesting opposing claims regarding this case, like this: [6]. If we include the rape, then the opposing side should be equally presented.Ultramarine (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like the part where it says this:

Based on our inquiry to date, the IOB believes that Sister Ortiz was subjected to horrific abuse on November 2, l989, but US intelligence reports provide little insight into the details of her plight. Because the Department of Justice is still conducting an extensive reinvestigation of the incident, we do not draw any conclusions on the case at this time.

Yah, right! You just showed us a report that unequivocally states the U.S. investigators believe her story but have been stonewalled by all official lines of inquiry. Since that's precisely what the current sources state, all you've done is bolster the case on the page.

Thanks for the source, Ultra. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, VIII

From Sidhekin, above re: Ortiz passage:

I want it gone because it makes the (in this context) interesting information less accessible.

I disagree. I think it makes the content far more accessible: instead of abstract, academic, bureaucratic new-speak about the sorts of violence we're talking about, here, the readers are given one -- one! in the entire article! -- first-person description of precisely what these various commentators mean by "horrific", "terrorism", "human rights", and so forth.

Yes, it is long. Getting to the point quicker will make a more readable article, and will make the good stuff accessible to a less patient reader.

I don't think it's long at all. It's a few paragraphs long, but virtually every sentence could stand alone as an independent fact. They each build on one another, and if you take away any single sentence you reduce the overall meaning of the passage in a significant fashion. Each one is a fact of intrinsic relevance to both this discussion as well as the Ortiz case, in particular.

Yes, it is irrelevant. Descriptions of torture does not tell us anything of the article's topic.

Uhhh -- really? I would think that massive detention centers where civilians are routinely tortured by government agents working with U.S. Embassy personnel are rather central to the topic, and even more so when the agents in question beg off the event by saying that it was a case of "mistaken identity". Do you really think that first-person evidence of government sponsored torture centers is utterly unrelated to the topic of State Terrorism?

No, I fear ...it adds a strong incentive for anyone of normal human sensibilities to stop reading it. This makes the article less accessible.

Well -- i can sort of see your point, here. I'd point out, however, that by removing it from the article we are basically reinforcing the sanitized discourse that currently prevails, where supposedly informed people can maintain with a straight face that Sister Ortiz' case is an isolated incident where a lesbian nun got burned during a tryst with her lover. The example as presented makes it clear that her injuries and experience went quite further than cigarette burns on her back, and the description of the entire experience makes it clear that we're not talking about any normal understanding of military conflict. The description established quite clearly that when the word "human rights violation" is used it's not describing what any sane person would call "honorable" conduct.

Yes, I find it unpleasant. That in itself is insufficient reason to exclude it, but as I see no good reason to include it, it is added incentive to get rid of it.

Well, yeah -- i do too. But we can get to this later, i think. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree it should be removed and replaced by a text making an accusation of the US clearer. Not even the articles on Stalin's horrors have detailed individual descriptions, so no need for it here.Ultramarine (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As you're so fond of citing, Ultramarine: just because it happens on another article doesn't mean it applies here. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No need for very detailed description in an overview article. It should be replaced with a text which clearly accuse the US of something, like the Nation source.Ultramarine (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It clearly states that the Nun believes U.S. Embassy personnel led the men who tortured her. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The word embassy is not even in the quote in the article now.Ultramarine (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, why did you delete the opposing view material completely? Ultramarine (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You pasted an entire section of an investigative report. If this were the habit on this article it would now read well over 5000 printed pages long. That is utterly unacceptable -- please make a clear statement of fact and source it with reference to the article. Moreover, i suggest you first float your suggestion on this page. If you don't, and are reverted, then i will *immediately* report you to AN/I for tendentious editing. We have asked you scores of times, now, to please float your edits on the talk page.

I am not joking. Please respect your fellow editors, Ultra. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The article have a very long quote from the Sister, so what is wrong with a cite from the opposing side? Respect NPOV. But again, we need material that in fact accuse the US of something, the quote does not even mention the embassy. Should be replaced by the nation material.Ultramarine (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the second time you've made that assertion. Obviously, you can't even be trusted to read the texts you are debating. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Make a search of the quote in the article from the Sister. No "embassy". Please explain why you completely deleted the opposing view material.Ultramarine (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, mate -- I can see where he explained himself and the embassy. Aho aho (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Where? Again, make a search of the quote in the article from the Sister. No "embassy". Still no explanation for deleting all the opposing views.Ultramarine (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I just did. And, lo and behold:

....He kept telling me he was sorry. The torturers had made a mistake. We came to a parking garage, where he put me into a gray Suzuki jeep and told me he was taking me to a friend of his at the U.S. embassy who would help me leave the country.

(Emphasis mine.)

I think your search tool needs service, Ultra. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Right. Regardless, no justification for completely deleting the opposing views material. Still no reason for keeping such a long detailed quote.Ultramarine (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultra, I'm disappointed. You're supposed keep arguing along the lines of, "It still does not mention the US Embassy anywhere in any source. Also there is no mention of the US Embassy as having committed "the rape" etc..." So this is not relevant. Not even the articles on Stalin's have individual descriptions, so no need for it here...":) Forgive the comedy but I can just picture this caricature on Saturday Night Live. heheGiovanni33 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I always listen to reason. Back to the issues. No justification for completely deleting the opposing views material. Still no reason for keeping such a long detailed quote.Ultramarine (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

But there is. Its called Consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if there was, Wikipedia is not an ongoing published survey of the current majority opinions among the article editors. See WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a democracy but an encyclopedia. Policies such as NPOV must be followed.Ultramarine (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but what constitutes NPOV itself is determined by consensus, i.e. editors hear arguments and come to agreement about what is appropriate and what is not per these policies. I think the editors here do adhere to NPOV and other core WP policies and disagreements are effectively handled via consensus. That was my point.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputes are resolved by discussion, not straw polls. Again see WP:NOT regarding democracy.

Back to the issues. Completely deleting the opposing views on this issue obviously violates NPOV. Still no reason for keeping such a long detailed quote on this particular rape, compare to all other overview articles discussing human rights violations.Ultramarine (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but disputes are not always resolved where everyone is happy with the result. That is why we have consensus. IF you are the only editor who doesn't agree, consensus becomes clear on the question. And, there is a reason for keeping the long quote: notability of the example that is relevant and informative. Again, remember, consensus is for this article, not other articles. If you disagree, you can follow any of the dispute resolution methods, but talking it to death when no one agrees with your solutions has its limitations, needless to say.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No straw poll has been made so current opinion is unknown. Regardless, discussion is the accepted way to solve disputes, see above. Still no reason given for violating NPOV by completely erasing all the critical material.Ultramarine (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

i screwed up the notes

Somebody please fix it, because i can't see what's wrong. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats happened to me before. I just reverted my self, and started over, being careful to copy the previous formatting. I think just one change with the notes gets it all messed up like that. By the way, I support your edit as I think it is relevant background information about the country.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Capturing the Redflag...and putting it away

User:Raggz has made much of the WP:REDFLAG policy as a rationale for removing sources. An RfC was opened on this issue which found all editors who commented disagreeing with Raggz' interpretation of the policy. However this did not end the dispute so I took the question to the talk page of our WP:Verifiability policy (which is where WP:REDFLAG lives). The relevant thread that followed can be found in WT:V archive number 23 or by clicking here. I will try to summarize though.

Basically two editors responded to my question, wherein I used the Marjorie Cohn source from footnote one as an example. The first direct comment came from User:Brimba who said of WP:REDFLAG (in part) "That section job is to simply say 'Hey, if you see this, it’s likely an exceptional claim'. The bullets themselves are not meant to define exceptional claims so much as to help flag them..." (emphasis added). User:SlimVirgin then weighed in (quoted in full):

"Hi BTP, I agree with you that the "media echo" claim is wrong. It's true that this is an exceptional claim and that it needs a good source. Given that the source is a professor of law, and the publication an academic journal, the source is clearly reliable enough. I would say not ideal, because she doesn't seem to be a specialist in this area (at least not according to her WP article), but certainly good enough." (emphasis added)

To which Brimba then replied "While I would have certainly worded it different, I concur with SV."

For those familiar with this dispute, what we have here is two outside (and very experienced) editors disagreeing with Raggz' claim about a "media echo" and validating the Cohn source (which is just an example, not something to fetishize and discuss ad infinitum!) that Raggz challenged using the "redflag" section of WP:V.

Additionally I would point out a couple of things. SlimVirgin is probably the single most experienced editor of policy pages (a lot of people disagree with her, but her experience is undeniable). Also she does not care for this article in case anyone is wondering. In the AfD last summer she voted to delete saying "Delete. OR, badly sourced, violation of WP:NOT." So Slim is hardly a far-left-friend-of-this-article - indeed quite the contrary. Similarly, while Brimba agreed with SV about the policy question, this user also strongly objected to using Ganser as a source and seemingly to a fair amount of the article content (again see this thread).

Point being that both of these editors - who edit the policy page in question and therefore have the relevant experience - disagree with Raggz' interpretation of WP:REDFLAG but on the other hand have major problems with this article. That is, we should view their opinion on WP:REDFLAG as fairly objective and well-informed. Those opinions are largely in agreement with the opinions expressed in the prior RfC which disagreed with Raggz' view.

I sincerely hope this puts this matter to rest for now and indeed for the future. There are more important things to be discussing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for definitively putting this "Reg Flag," "mainstream Media Echo" argument to rest for good. The song and dance over this, his favorite line of argumentation, was certainly a distracting waste of time. I would hope this would finally convince him that his interpretation of that policy was just a case of being honestly mistaken, and move on to more enlightened policy comprehension. If I never hear "red flag" again, it will be too soon (unless its a completely different kind of red flag...hehe)Giovanni33 (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

CANF

In 1998 the Cuban government charged the Cuban American National Foundation, which was founded in 1981 at the initiative of the Reagan administration and receives U.S. government funding through the National Endowment for Democracy with, according to the official government-controlled Radio Havana Cuba, the continued financing of anti-Cuban terrorist activities. 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.

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 Fidel Castro.

None of these involve actions by the US government, only CANF. One incident even is the US stopping an assassination attempt on Castro. Should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The initiative to and funding of CANF are US government actions, aren't they? — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The given source does not support that the CANF is funded by the NED. Regardless, actions done by individual members without the knowledge of the board is not the responsibility of the CANF, much less the US.Ultramarine (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes; thank you. A superficial reading of the source left me with the impression that it did support this (if obliquely), but on closer inspection, I see it doesn't.

I've tagged the passage accordingly with {{fact}} and the cite with {{failed verification}}. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will remove these paragraphs shortly unless sources are given linking this to US state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Patience, please. It is not as if we have a deadline, right? :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a well known fact. Even the main article on it states that the CANF, "between 1990 and 1992, it received a quarter million dollars from the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization financed by the US government." What is in doubt here?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Source please.Ultramarine (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there are tons of sources. Its well known that the NED is a CIA money funneling creation of Regean, that gave money to the Contras, and in Afghanistan, and esp. well known is its support of the Cuban terrorists. The quote above comes from "Trojan Horse: The National Endowment for Democracy" by William Blum. Here is an article entitled, "The Congress; the Power of the Anti-Fidel Lobby by John Spicer Nichols, published in The Nation, Vol. 247, October 24, 1988, that I quote: "the creation and Federal funding of the National Endowment for Democracy...of a proposal made by President Reagan...One of the first grants awarded by the new endowment was to the Cuban American National Foundation... To date, the foundation has received a total of $390,000 in Federal funds from the N.E.D. Although the deliberations of N.E.D. directors are held out of the public eye in executive session, an endowment spokeswoman confirmed that Fascell has voted for grants to the C.A.N.F. on at least three occasions. The only other elected official on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, also voted for the Federal grants to the C.A.N.F. It goes on to talk about the loblying arm PAC that has ties with Regan, Bush, and various politicians that get lots of PAC money in return.

In another article, titled, "Minority Report" by Christopher Hitchens; The Nation, Vol. 254, June 8, 1992, he talks about CANF founder Mas Canosa, and the NED: "Until now, Mas Canosa and the thuggish periphery of his organization have been able to repress dissent among Cuban-Americans, many of whom tell the opinion pollsters that they favor freedom of travel between Cuba and the United States, cultural exchanges, mail and phone service and other obvious and humane improvements. Against this must be set the domination of a faction, supported by the National Endowment for Democracy, that directly brought us the Bay of Pigs, indirectly brought us the Cuban missile crisis, twenty years ago gave us the Watergate burglars and has consistently supplied fanatics and hysterics to the national security state. This faction has now bought, with contemptuous ease, the Democratic nominee. A fine day's work." And here are some of my favorites sources about the terrorist nature of the CANF:http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10779, http://www.democracynow.org/1998/7/17/cuban_american_national_foundation_sues_theGiovanni33 (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

William Blum is hardly an unbiased source. Regardless, these sources are from 1988 and 1992, before the events mentioned in the article occurred. Ultramarine (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the truth is biased. I am biased for the truth too. Facts are facts. I think it was Lenin who said facts are stubborn things. As far as the money coming first, and then the actions, yes, I believe that it the usual and logical sequence of events: you pay for something, and then it you have money to make things happen. So what is your point? I gave several sources, so the claims are accurate.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have anything from the last ten years arguing funding by the US? Ultramarine (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does that matter? The claims does not allege anything about specific dates. Its irrelevant. It only claims funding by the US govt. of this organization, at the same time this organization is accused of supporting terrorism. This is the only thing that is relevant.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The claims include for example an incident in 2006.Ultramarine (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, and my statements stand. How is this relevant? Do you have a source that says the US govt. made a mistake and no longer will fun the CANF? If you do that would be worthy of inclusion, as it would show the US govt. repudiated the funding of this organization. I don't believe this has ever occurred. So again, what is your point? Please back it up with a source.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If CANF had nothing to do with the US government in 2006, then the US government cannot be responsible for actions CANF or some of it members did.Ultramarine (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says CANF has "nothing to do with the US govt in 2006?" That is your claim and its is unsupported. If you have a source for that, then I agree it would be important to include as it shows the US repudiated its support of this organzation in the tune of large amounts of money that enabled it to carry out its various right wing activities.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are making the claim of state terrorism by the US, you have to provide the source.Ultramarine (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm supporting the claim that the US govt. funded the CANF though the NED, which you denied and asked for a source. Now that that has been given, you seem to be creating a distraction by bring up other issues, such as your claim that the US has nothing to do with CANF. Really? Where do you come to that conclusion from, in light of the information about these connections above? Also, stop changing the subject, and moving the goal posts. The issue was if NED funded CANF. The answer is yes, the claim is supported. You say its not longer the case? Source please.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether the US have done state terrorism. If they nothing do with CANF in 2006, then the US cannot be responsible. It is those arguing for a connection between CANF and the US in 2006 who must provide a source.Ultramarine (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your magical time line premise is not logical, and your claim is unsupported. US funds CANF, CANF is accused of complicity in terror against Cuba. That is the argument. You now are making the claim that the US has nothing to do with CANF because its 2006? Again, this may be your personal opinion but its not relevant here unless you have a source that says that US now no longer has anything to do with it. Even that argument would be hard to swallow given the previous financial support that is well documented. But, I wonder, what is your magical time line for when huge amounts of money cease to have an effect? Did the US take the money back, plus interest, plus the effect that that money had on its ability to operate and expand, thus proving the US no longer has any influence lasting on this organizations activities, that is has not complicity? Again, I've love to see any source that has such an argument. But you failed to show even one. Your own personal POV, and unsourced statements do not count. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If there were any funding by the NED, at the start or in 2006, it should be easily be verifiable by reliable sources such CANF's as annual reports. Guessing that funding may have continued to the present is not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not guessing, but it seems youa re. You are making the claim that the US has no support of CANF. If its easily verifiable as you say, then why have you not supported your claim? You made the claim that, "If CANF had nothing to do with the US government in 2006, then the US government cannot be responsible for actions CANF." First you have failed to show your premise is correct, that "the CANF has nothing to do with the US," and then you have to show how an alleged lack of funding for 2006 abdicates any responsibility or connection to the US govt., despite the previous generous funding? You don't get to make up your own personal criteria regarding time lines and jump to conclusions that it means "no connection" or "no responsibility." That is OR.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you are making the claims and want to include material, it is you who have to provide the source.Ultramarine (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm lost. If you have a source stating that CANF has received $390,000 from NED, why haven't you referenced it in the article? — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just found the source, since it was alleged to be missing. So instead of arguing about it, why doesnt Ultra simply drop the matter and put in the source that he asked for, making any appropriate chagnes per the source? It seems regarless of what the source says, he doesn't want it included because he personally doens't agree the US has any involvement.Giovanni33 (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still lost. "alleged to be missing"? Are you saying it was there all the time? If so, point it out to me, and I'll remove the {{Failed verification}}; after all, it was I who added it.

Either way, focus on the article. You can change the article, but there is no functionality for changing other editors. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You given no source for any funding in recent times. Like in 2006 when one claimed act of state terrorism occurred. Regardless, even shown funding by the NED is not proof of responsibility by the US. NEDs funds are not intended for terrorism. What CANF and its members do on its own is not the responsibility of the US.Ultramarine (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your own personal argument, so not relevant here. What is relevant, is the claims by various sources which disagree with you, and make claims to the contrary.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence for recent funding. You want to include material, you have to give the sources.Ultramarine (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed the need to state "recent" funding. I only claim they have been funded by the US govt, though NED. If you wish to make a counter claim that no such funding has occurred, since xxx, then you have to provide material to support that claim.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, why don't you add it? Why are you waiting for someone else to add it? — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see consensus to add it and its still under discussion. If you agree it should be added then that is making progress. I don't mind waiting and don't want to engage in an edit war. In fact, I avoid editing the article beyond one possible revert per week.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33-John_Smith's#Giovanni33_restricted. Regarding this article, if there are no supporting sourced, material can be challenged and removed anytime. The burden of evidence is on the person arguing adding or keeping material. See WP:V.Ultramarine (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What follows are some sources for the triangular relationship between the U.S., CANF, and Cuban exile terrorism. This material has already been introduced in talk here, and I had suggested a re-write of the Cuban material. For me it seems that the CANF issue is less important than Operation Mongoose (with its side Operation Northwoods) and U.S. complicity with terrorism associated with Orlando Bosch, Posada Carrilles and their associations with Operation Condor. Newcomers here should understand that historically we have moved pretty slowly with the introduction of new material, mostly I think because construction of the article has been constantly distracted by deletionists whose actual motives have been disruption of constructive editing altogether. here is the material...

7. Wayne Smith is a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor at the John Hopkins University.

“In 1985, Luis Posada Carriles, a CIA-trained Bay of Pigs veteran and explosives expert, “escaped” from prison in Venezuela by offering prison officials $28,600. The Miami Herald reported that, “Posada’s friends broke him out of jail in a carefully planned plot, secretly spirited him across the Caribbean and took advantage of the clandestine contra world to stash him in Central America.”33 The Miami Herald later confirmed that Posada had surfaced in Oliver North’s secret contra operation at the Ilopango airbase in El Salvador, with the assistance of CIA operative Felix Rodriguez (a.k.a. Max Gomez)—another Bay of Pigs veteran—who was “a key figure in the Iran-contra scandal with close ties to then Vice-President Bush.”34 …Rodriguez admitted that he harbored Posada at the request of a wealthy Miami resident—“an old friend”—who he said had also financed Posada’s escape from prison.35 Rodriguez refused to answer questions before the Senate about notations in Oliver North’s notebooks that indicated a transfer of $50,000 to Rodriguez from Jorge Mas Canosa (the late chairman and founder of the Cuban American National Foundation), also a Bay of Pigs veteran.36 In his autobiography, Rodriguez calls Mas—who once offered to pay for an attorney for Rodriguez during the congressional inquiry into the contra operation—a “longtime friend.” (Landau, Anya K. and Smith, Wayne S. “Keeping things in perspective: Cuba and the question of international terrorism, Center for International Policy, November 20, 2001)

9. Morris Morley is Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Chris McGillion is a senior lecturer in the School of Communication, and currently directs journalism studies, at Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia.

"terrorist Orlando Bosch, who had specialized in attacks on Cuban embassies and consulates through Latin America and was believed responsible for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner over Venezuela, in which seventy-three people died. Lobbying by CANF and its Florida republican allies, including the president’s son Jeb Bush, was an instrumental factor in Bosch’s release." (Morley, Morris and McGillon, Chris. Unfinished Business: America and Cuba After the Cold War, 1989-2001,37)

"CANF was a perfect candidate for the kind of Faustian deal the ‘public diplomacy program demanded. In return for funds, legitimacy, and access to senior policymakers, it would publicly back the White House covert wars against real and imagined communists and target individual members of Congress to support administration policies using a mixture of rigorous lobbying and inducements in the form of Free Cuba Political Action Committee (PAC) financial contributions to election campaigns." (Morley, Morris and McGillion, Chris. Unfinished Business: America and Cuba After the Cold War, 1989-2001,12)

10. Salim Lamrani is a French researcher at the Sorbonne University and is specialized in U.S.-Cuban relations since 1959.

"During an interview, published in the New York Times of July 12, 1998, Posada Carriles acknowledged that he was financed by CANF. After praising himself as being the person who has made the greatest number of attacks against Cuba, he announced that he was paid by the former president of CANF, Jorge Mas Canosa. “Jorge controlled everything” he declared “each time that I needed money, he asked someone to send me 5 000 dollars 10 000 dollars 15 000 dollars”. At the time of each financial transaction, the following message was attached. “This is for the church.” “All in all, Mas Canosa, CANF, and more particularly Feliciano Foyo, the treasurer of the Foundation, provided more than 200,000 dollars to one of the worst terrorists in the world.” Posada Carrilles boasted about being the paramilitary wing of CANF and added, “As you can see, the FBI and the CIA do not bother me, and I am neutral with them. Each time I can give them a hand I do so." He also revealed that he knew “a very high placed person” in the government who protected him.” (Lamrani, Salim. Superpower Principles: U.S. Terrorism Against Cuba, 104)

"In March 1999, Percy Francisco Alvarado, a Guatemalan agent of Cuban National Security, having infiltrated the Cuban American National Foundation, made a statement at the time of the court case against the assassin of Mr. DiCelmo. He confirmed that he had received 20 000 dollars on behalf of Francisco “Pepe” Hernandez, the president of CANF, in order to explode two bombs in tourist areas of Havana. At the time of the hearing, it was declared that "the CANF played an active and hegemonic part in the financing and organization of the terrorist acts," by means of the creation of a secret paramilitary group bearing the name of Cuban National Front (CNF)." (Lamrani, Salim. Superpower Principles: U.S. Terrorism Against Cuba, 105)

13. Robert M. Levine was Gabelli Senior Scholar in the Arts and Sciences, Director of Latin American Studies, and professor of history at the University of Miami.

“The Orlando Bosch matter made the extent of the CANF’s influence clear. In February 1988, Orlando Bosch Avila, one of the two suspected bombers of the Cubana airline plane over Barbados in 1976 who had been sentenced in Venezuela for the crime, escaped from prison and traveled to Miami, where INS officials arrested him as a fugitive from justice. Through the efforts of right-wing Cuban Miamians and others, Bosch gained his freedom on July 17, 1990. In reaction, the New York Times editorialized that the Justice Department had released him not for legal reasons but rather due to visible political pressure. It also observed that “while the United States had sent the air force to bomb Libya and the army to invade Panama in the name of combating terrorism, the Bush administration was now pampering one of the most notorious terrorists in the hemisphere.” (Levine, Robert M. Secret Missions to Cuba: Fidel Castro, Bernardo Benes, and Cuban Miami, 227)

“Luis Posada Carrilles was the second suspect in the airline bombing. He escaped from a Venezuelan prison in 1985 while awaiting trial, and, disguised as a priest, made his way back to Miami. In his memoirs, The Paths of the Warrior, published in the late 1990’s, Posada Carrilles praised Jorge Mas Canosa for capably leading the anti-Castro fight and for sending Posada Carrilles “a sufficient amount of money, which arrived regularly every month.” (Levine, Robert M. Secret Missions to Cuba: Fidel Castro, Bernardo Benes, and Cuban Miami, 227)

14. Brett Heindl is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Syracuse University.

“During the 1980 election cycle, hardliners in the exile community made their first foray into national politics. Led by businessman and Bay of Pigs veteran Jorge Mas Canosa, they backed Florida Republican Paula Hawkins in her successful bid to unseat incumbent U.S. senator Richard B. Stone and parleyed their connection to the freshman senator to gain access to the administration in March 1981, at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, Mas Canosa formed the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF). The partnership quickly established CANF as the main actor in exile politics and flooded it with federal aid money.” (Heindl, Brett. From Miami With Love in Foreign Policy toward Cuba: Isolation or Engagement, Michele Zebrich-Knos and Heather N. Nicol editors, Lexington Books, 169)

“CANF and other hard-line groups thrived during the Reagan years. By the mid-1980‘s, exile militants had reopened several secret military training camps in the everglades. Among the most prominent was the camp opened in 1980 by an offshoot of the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association. Alpha 66 also opened a training camp in Dale County; Alpha 66 commander Andres Nazario Sargen claimed that by 1992 over twenty-seven thousand people had passed through its gates for training in urban warfare. In the meantime, exile moderates floundered during the Reagan years, CANF‘s sophisticated political and propaganda machine and its ambiguous relationship to political violence smothered moderate perspectives.“ (Heindl, Brett. From Miami With Love in Foreign Policy toward Cuba: Isolation or Engagement, Michele Zebrich-Knos and Heather N. Nicol editors, Lexington Books, 170)

"CANF was also implicated in a thwarted attempt to assassinate Castro at the November 1997 Ibero-American Summit on Margarita Island in Venezuela. This time, the evidence was more damning. On October 27, U.S. Coast Guard personnel received a distress call from a ship off the coast of Puerto Rico. They boarded the boat and, after a routine search, found two .50 caliber sniper rifles, ammunition, and other military equipment stashed in a hidden storage space. When they went to arrest the boat’s four occupants, one of the men allegedly blurted out that he was on a mission to kill Castro. A Subsequent investigation revealed that Jose Antonio Llama, a member of CANF’s board of directors, owned the boat and that one of the high-powered rifles was registered under the name of foundation president Francisco Hernandez. If the foundation’s relationship to political violence had previously been ambiguous, these new revelations struck the organization’s critics as distinctly unambiguous. Llama and five others were indicted for the incident, but not Hernandez. All six men were later acquitted.” ((Heindl, Brett. From Miami With Love in Foreign Policy toward Cuba: Isolation or Engagement, Michele Zebrich-Knos and Heather N. Nicol editors, Lexington Books, 179-80)

17. Saul Landau is the Hugh O. La Bounty Chair of Interdisciplinary Applied Knowledge at the California State Polytechnic University. He is also a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.

“Following his 1963 Fort Benning experience, Mas met Jose "Pepin" Bosch, kingpin of the Bacardi rum family, and abandoned his shoe-salesman career in Little Havana. How does a former shoe salesman with little record of accomplishment get into millionaire Bosch's league? Did the CIA suggest that Bosch back Mas, yet another among many Cuban exiles plotting terrorist raids against Cuba, as a leader of RECE (Representacion Cubana en el Exilio)? Former House Assassinations Committee investigator Gaeton Fonzi says that the CIA, not Bosch, financed RECE. Fonzi cites an FBI document that has Mas delivering $5,000 to Luis Posada, then a CIA contract agent, to blow up a Soviet or Cuban ship docked in Veracruz, Mexico.(3)” Saul Landau, "No Mas Canosa," Monthly Review Mar. 1999: 22

“During the late 1960s, Mas claimed participation in several terrorist operations, including a machine-gun strafing of a Havana residential area. Mas also tried to retrofit some Second World War vintage B-26s to bomb Cuban oil refineries. He even got involved with plans to send missile-carrying speed boats near the Cuban coast to fire at "strategic" targets. These missions didn't materialize - or failed to meet their objectives.” Saul Landau, "No Mas Canosa," Monthly Review Mar. 1999: 22BernardL (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, CANF is accused of many bad things. What is the connection with the US government in the year 2006 when one of the alleged incidents by CANF or its members took place? I see one claim that "in March 1981, at the suggestion of Richard Allen, Reagan’s first national security adviser, Mas Canosa formed the Cuban American National Foundation" That hardly seems evidence for that CANF is just a US proxy which makes th US responsible for everything CANF does.Ultramarine (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Atomic bombing

Extremely pov description with no mention of much greater number of deaths estimated if the US had not bombed. Ultramarine (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of justified terrorism are still allegations of terrorism, no? Anyway, what improvements would you suggest? — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We should at least mentioning the supporting arguments given in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Ultramarine (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree as that is beyond the scope of that section. This is not a section for the pro/con debates about the dropping of the bomb. To do so would be to create a fork. Those arguments are discussed in the main article which it points to. This section only explores the allegations that the action constituted an act of State Terrorism. I feel the section is very balanced and NPOV. If you find any good sources that present arguments about this not being state terrorism, then it can and should be included.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. The views of all sides should be mentioned. For example, the article states that the use of atomic weapons was "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Not a single mention of the much more important reason for using the bomb, the much greater causalities expected if the bomb had not been used.Ultramarine (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The debate about ultimate causalities is off topic since its irrelevant to consideration of the action being an act of state terror or not. The historical record is clear that primary consideration for the target was not as a military purpose, but to create a psychological impact, and that is why civillians were purposely targeted. This is beyond dispute. I merely state that these facts constitute the main reasons why various scholarly consider this an act of state terror. The arguments that it also saved lives (bongus in my view), is besides the point, and already covered in the main article on the subject.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Declarations like "read NPOV" will always be annoying to experienced editors. Avoid them. But, Ultramarine, explain how the last paragraph in the Japan section fails to provide NPOV? You were not a part of that discussion, but it was added for the purpose of providing more balance. The source is a very well respected journal article by a historian who basically believes the bombings were the right decision. If there is a way to frame it in a more NPOV fashion I am open to that. But be specific and be aware of the source that was used in that paragraph.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is no mention of the much larger causalities expected if no using the bomb. See Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Instead, the reason given is "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Obviously do not include all views.Ultramarine (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please differentiate for me the "traditional" and "revisionist" approach to the a-bomb as described in the source. It is quite pertinent to the matter at hand and you seem to missing that point. When you explain the distinction (and how it applies to your point), I will discuss further with you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no mention of primary justification of the bombing. A very serious violation of NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is a main article does not mean the summary should not be balanced -- see WP:SPINOUT.

For now though, I'll just say this is way too long for a summary. I've been considering adding an {{Off-topic|Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki}} banner, and I may yet ... — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidhekin, for a new user with less than 500 edits, you sure know your way around wikipedia and know wikipolicy. 4th edit, 7th edit
On an unrelated note, I strongly suspect that a couple of the conservative regulars, and Zer0faults, who used to edit here, are still editing here as socks. Checkuser is a weapon used by many of the conservative editors here, maybe the other side can start investigating these users. Trav (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do instead of making insinuations. The only proven sockpuppeter is Stone put to sky for which he is now blocked.Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please Trav, chill. Sidhekin - who I've only just encountered in the last couple hours - seems like a thoughtful editor and nothing else. Paranoia and cries for Checkuser are not helpful. At this point this article is only a battleground if we make it that way.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm an old hand on various forums; old enough to know how to lurk for a while before entering the spotlight: My first edit was in 2006. Add my edits on other wikis, in particular as no:Bruker:Sidhekin, and take into account that I've mostly worked with copy-editing, categorizing, and cleaning up (mis-)use of templates, and it may be less surprising. :) I haven't run into socks until I added this article to my watchlist though, so I'll reserve judgment on that. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidhekin thanks for keeping a level head, this talk page can inspire great levels of vitriol and anger unfortunately, but I for one appreciate your contributions here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and also Ultramarine has still not differentiated for me the "traditional" and "revisionist" approach to the a-bomb as described in the source. I need to understand that this user understands this distinction before pursuing the discussion in this threat. We are talking about serious scholarship here and I need to know that Ultra had engaged with it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The arguments supporting and critical was not presented fairly with only the explanation from the "revisionists", "to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union", being presented.Ultramarine (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the last paragraph of the section. Why would you guess the "revisionist" argument was introduced? Answer: it was introduced to contradict the "state terror" argument. I don't think you are reading that passage closely. The passage is citing a fairly left academic POV to argue against another left POV that is well outside the mainstream (and if you did not notice that then we should not be discussing this point). Do you really have a problem with that? I think it makes your case fairly well. If you want a quoted description of the "traditional" school before that I'm all for it, but again please re-read the last paragraph (in the context of this article, not the one on the a-bomb).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since it was only an left-left disscusion, then it was POV to not include some more right or centrist views.Ultramarine (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So if we fully explicate the "traditional" view you would be fine with that?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We should certainly mention the view that to not have bombed would have caused far more deaths.Ultramarine (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In historiographical terms, what is the "traditional" view of Hiroshima. What is the "revisionist" view? Please answer directly. In order to answer this question you will have to have vague knowledge of the scholarship on the a-bomb as used by the US during WWII. Please answer directly. Thank you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I ask the same questions to you.Ultramarine (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I really hope you are joking. I'm trying to determine your knowledge of the scholarship in question given that I provided the key source for the passage we are discussing (footnote 165, Walker, J. Samuel (2005-April). "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground". Diplomatic History 29 (2): 312. Retrieved on 2008-01-30.). I don't think you know what you are talking about when it comes to these questions and am asking you to prove otherwise. "I ask the same questions to you" is a pretty poor comeback. The question of "revisionist" vs. "traditional" schools of thought on the a-bomb was heavily discussed in an earlier thread for god sake. Give me a sense of what you know about that debate or move on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the ad hominem. What is important is that the article follows Wikipedia policies, not claims by anonymous editors.Ultramarine (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the non sequitur and please differentiate the "revisionist" vs. "traditional" schools of thought on the a-bomb question. That's what I am trying to engage you on in order to make some progress.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No double standard, do it yourself. I will shortly add a text having many sources. If you want to dispute these views, you can always add more yourself.Ultramarine (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Do what myself? Honestly I don't know what you are talking about, and the term "double standard" was not mentioned until you mentioned it.

I'll take it though that you are unfamiliar with the very basic distinction between the "revisionist" and "traditional" schools of historiography on the Hiroshima a-bomb question (given your utter lack of response to previous questions) and that you therefore probably are not well informed on these issues. And in that way this certainly has been a revealing conversation.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem is still not a valid argument. I will add sourced material. If you want to criticize this, feel free to add more sourced material.Ultramarine (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there - "Ad hominem is still not a valid argument."

But I would still ask (so we don't get confused): What, as you see it, is the basic distinction between the "revisionist" and "traditional" schools of historiography on the Hiroshima a-bomb question? This is very much a question of interpretation so I would appreciate your opinion so we can move forward on this issue. Discussing this point with you is important to me if we are to ever achieve consensus on this section. If you are not familiar with the "revisionist" and "traditional" schools of thought on the a-bombing of Japan that's fine, however I would like to know that from the outset.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will provide sourced statements. If you want argue with them, provide your own sourced. Claims by anonymous Wikipedia editors are uninteresting.Ultramarine (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well of course, but what about the claims already cited in footnotes 165-66? And what about the basic distinction between the "revisionist" and "traditional" schools of historiography on the Hiroshima a-bomb question? It's a simple question if you are even tangentially connected to the scholarship and I'd love to hear more of your specific thoughts on this question. Not "sourced statements." Your own thoughts. This is an effort to engage with you Ultra. Probably my last.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and policy prevent it being used as such.Ultramarine (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some sources supporting that the US predicted much greater American and Japanese casualties from continuing the war rather than bombing: [7][8][9]Ultramarine (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do I understand correctly that people advocate that if we can justify 9/11 it is not an act of terrorism? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no agreed on definition on what terrorism is which makes the question difficult to answer. The issue here is presenting the arguments from both sides regarding why the bombs was dropped.Ultramarine (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Nomen, I'm afraid you do not understand correctly in terms of this conversation. You've been around awhile, so put a little more thought into your comments please. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I do not understand this threat. Why exactly are we discussing a possible justification for dropping two atomic bombs? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See below.Ultramarine (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ulra, that is not what this article or section tries to do--a pro/con on dropping the bomb. We already have an article on that debate/subject. Support for the bombings or non-support of it, has nothing to do with whether they constituted state terrorism or not. Thus, arguments about saving American lives and hence being justified under some such criteria, is completely off topic and irrelevant to the issue of it being state terrorism or not. The two are not mutually exclusive.Giovanni33 (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur, as my first comment tried to suggest.:) Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article include material on why the bomb was dropped. But gives only a biased presentation favoring the interpretation that they were dropped to intimidate the Soviet Union. NPOV requires the inclusion of the more common view that is was to prevent both American and Japanese casualities. Added two more sources: [10][11][12][13][14]Ultramarine (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, the articles does not argue for or against the bombing. It presents the reasons for the claims of those who argue it was state terrorism, and cites factual material that is not in dispute, i.e. the targeting committees choice of a heavily populated civilian center to make a psychological impact. This is the basis of the reasoning for the claims about why its terrorism--NOT why it should or should not have been used. That is an off topic issue.Giovanni33 (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the bombs was dropped "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." It violates NPOV to not include the more common view that they were dropped to save both American and Japanese lives.Ultramarine (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The article does not state that the "bombs were dropped primarily for...."I would explain it to you however, based on your going around in circles above, I don't have much hope in your understanding my attempts.

I gave a direct quote. The article does not mention to more common explanation at all, violating NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

State Terrorism AND the United States

Everyone knows this current title sucks. Just read it (medium-long pause while you read). Right. Too long, too strange, too unencylopedic. Obviously a legitimate topic, but it needs a better title/focus as most all of us would agree.

Back last summer when there was a huge deletion debate and ensuing discussion that actually drew a lot of good editors into the conversation, the title was a serious sticking point until we settled on the current version (sans the word "committed" I believe). Around that time an editor I did not know (and have never interacted with since I think) e-mailed me and suggested the title "State Terrorism and the United States." Via e-mail, I rejected that suggestion at the time because the "and" made the topic seem too broad.

But now I completely disagree with myself. "State Terrorism and the United States" seems to me a good way to proceed with the content we have here--i.e. expand the topic by using "and" instead of "by." The article would be an NPOV (obviously) discussion of the terms "state terrorism" and "United States" as they relate to one another. Here's a possible outline as I see it:

State Terrorism and the United States

• I. Intro
• II. General definitions of "state terrorism" from various parties in an NPOV fashion
• III. United States government definitions of "state terrorism" (throughout history, not just in the present)
• IV. US accusations of "state terrorism" committed by other nations

  A. From governmental sources

  B. From academic or other expert sources from the U.S.

• V. Accusations that the U.S. committed state terrorism

  A. From governmental sources

  B. From academic or other expert sources (U.S. or elsewhere)

• VI. Brief general discussion, further sources, etc.

Obviously most of the current article would be contained within point V (or 5...or possibly five) but that's fine. I think most of the content here could be easily transplanted into an article along these lines, we would just have to make the content quite a bit tighter in terms of wording, sourcing, etc.

Anyhow this is a fairly long term suggestion (or not if we want to be bold!), but I do hope editors think about this possibility in the future. I'm gonna have to (temporarily) absent myself from this page very soon to work on my own shit, but feel free to drop my a line on my talk page if you like. Also I'll be checking back on this and the above comment (not the CANF thing or the Hiroshima thing, the one before that) in the next coupla days.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Remember WP:OR. Accusations of terrorism must include links accusing the US of terrorism. As for now this article is simply a dumping ground where anonymous editors have added links accusing the US of numerous things but not terrorism or state terrorism. Not allowed per WP:SYN.Ultramarine (talk) 09:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, but you did not respond to my comment which was quite specific.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, "State Terrorism AND the United States" implies proven acts when most if just very dubious allegations. A better title would be "criticisms of United States foreign policy".Ultramarine (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Now I know where you stand, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure about this title change as I can see the article could be quite large, but I do see it as another potential article, modeled after the book by the same title. As of now I'm in fine with the existing one we have, or a title that discusses factual claims of State Terrorism by the US. I do strongly disagree with Ultramarine, whose suggestion would effectively drown out the specific focus that this article's subject looks at: state terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The title is the least of this article's problems. In fact, I kinda like how it is an entire family of articles:

• Allegations of state terrorism by Iran
• Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka
• Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

I would not want to change one without changing the others. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States/Archive_15#Renaming the article Enough said. Why are you arguing about moving the article Big? It is pointless. Last time I just moved it. Trav (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. I guess I love tilting at windmills, though I think this is still kinda a new suggestion in its specifics. And to Sidhekin, the titles of the articles you list all stem from this one - and if it's a family it's one that nobody really likes. I think all should be changed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Including "state terrorism" just attracts people with an axe to grind. Makes using sources difficult since few mentions "state terrorism" even if there are various criticisms. An article instead using "criticisms" solves this.Ultramarine (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok - its at least twice where you have tried to make the ridiculous: a dumping ground where anonymous editors have added links accusing the US of numerous things but not terrorism or state terrorism "argument". 1) How many of the recently contributing eidtors are 'anonymous'? 2) Even so, where in the policy do you see the forbidding of contributions by anonymous editors? 3) Which of the points in the article is currently unsourced? Such completely bogus arguements really impact my ability to WP:AGF in your presence here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) 12:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sources do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. It violates WP:SYN and WP:OR to claim they do.Ultramarine (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Another specious line of argument that: "every" source must mention state terrorism. Not at all true or supported by WP policies. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article lists numerous claimed human rights violations in foreign nations without claiming that this was terrorism. Sometimes not even mentioning the US at all but only the foreign government. It violates WP:SYN and WP:OR to claim that these violations are the responisbility of the US and are terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up a new structure for the article, BTP. I was hoping for more suggestions like that from the recent RFC. One other option would be, now that the criticism section has some sourcing, to bring that up to follow the "definitions" section. Then we would have the begining ofthe article discussing the overall 'conceptual frameworks' for US State terrorism, followed by a list of specific examples. Which could perhaps be spun off to a seperate list of examples article, thus addressing concerns people have voiced about the length of this article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Most importantly would be to actually have sources for specific claims. The article lists numerous claimed human rights violations in foreign nations without claiming that this was terrorism or state terrorism. Sometimes not even mentioning the US at all but only the foreign government. It violates WP:SYN and WP:OR to claim that these violations are the responsibility of the US and are terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks BT for attempting to make a constructive suggestion and laying it out clearly. However I have to admit that I have problems with the suggestion, being aware of the sheer size of the literature on U.S. complicity in state terrorism and the current glaring absence of sections on Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Indonesia, Palestine Territories, among others. Moreover, the state department terrorism list, including accusations against countries like Cuba are far from uncontroversial and have elicited a notable stream of criticism. These themes are best treated in separate articles. Basically I think what you are proposing is perhaps too much of an artificial fix, is too long and would only dilute all subject matter contained therein. I do not have a major problem with the current title, perhaps partly because I understand "allegations" in a figurative sense and not a legal sense. Although I wonder if anyone has previously entertained substituting the word "accusations" for "allegations?" At the moment I see no other option more viable than continued discussion with closer reference to the literature on the subject. We should be comparing different definitions in the literature more thoroughly for guidance as to what evidence falls under the rubric of state terrorism. This is hard work, I do not think that even many established editors have really taken a serious look at the literature, but I think it is ultimately necessary if we are to arrive at a NPOV article deriving from reliable sources. The definitional scope of the article should flow from the literature, we have little power as editors to set it arbitrarily. Since that literature includes indirect support or "surrogate terrorism" as an important theme and there is currently confusion about associated issues perhaps it is worth revisiting and discussing that particular aspect of the definitional scope. Finally, I think your proposal seems to stem from an impression that the article is too POV and is an attempt to provide a fix. Those are worthy intentions. However, I am not yet convinced that there is not sufficient balancing material in the literature directly related to state terrorism. As far as I know no one has really done the legwork in this area. I do have a couple of good leads, but I have not had the time to revisit them being as I am currently overwhelmed by work and school.BernardL (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To RedPenofDoom, offering my opinion as an established editor I think the "Opposing Views" section is far from well-sourced and is very problematic. Much of it's after-the-fact apologetics are only tenuously related to the subject of the article. I do not have time to go into detail about my many objections. Certainly a very thorough discussion and analysis of that section is required. BernardL (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly better than most of the article, see my comment above.Ultramarine (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To Bernard, Agreed that the criticisms section has not recieved the editorial scrutiny of much of the rest of the article - but I think as a concept for the organization of the article, it has potential. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I think it's an excellent idea. I have only three comments:

A) If it turns out that the page gets expanded into multiple, hard-to-maintain pages that come under constant threat of AfD, then we return to the current one.

B) Parity be maintained in the accusations. For instance, while it is true that the U.S. has leveled accusations of State Terror against other states, it would be absurd if we were to see some editors here insist upon an expansion of the allegations made against Iran into a ten page article while demanding that a two-paragraph mention of El Salvador is too long. Considering the shameless lengths some have gone to, here, towards skewing the POV of this article i have no doubt that such shenanigans will be attempted.

C) That we maintain most of the information in the various sections here. I am not averse to introducing these things as links or re-negotiating formats and titles, but the information here -- as well-sourced as it is -- should not be pared down willy-nilly simply because someone things the article is too long. The information should be maintained.

Since we are dealing with a matter of international law then i think BTP's suggestions are clearly an improvement. As my mammy used to say, it takes two to tango. One cannot have a plaintiff without also having a defendant, and academic logic stipulates that both sides be given fair voice. So long as both sides are given fair treatment i, for one, have no problems with this proposal. 118.165.216.211 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed content

The following was removed by Ultramarine:

Sister Dianna Ortiz and General Gramajo

In the early 1990s a U.S. citizen and nun, Sister Dianna Ortiz, brought a U.S. civil court case against the State of Nicaragua, naming the former Minister of Defense — General Hector Alejandro Gramajo-Morales — as one of the defendants. In her complaint, Sister Ortiz specified that Gen. Gramajo "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted." The complaint initiated a firestorm of controversy because Gen. Gramajo was, at the time of the complaint's submission, attending Harvard University by invitation after having given that year's commencement speech at the SOA. Sister Ortiz stated that she was abducted by police officers and military persronnel (i.e. men who would have been under Gramajo's command) and taken to a secret prison where she was tortured and raped repeatedly. Sister Ortiz has given formal testimony on several occasions, beginning with a 1992 report to the United Nations General Assembly. A short excerpt from Sister Ortiz's description of her ordeal follows:

When the men returned, they had a video camera and a still camera. The policeman put a machete into my hands. Thinking it would be used against me, and at that point in my torture wanting to die, I did not resist. But the policeman put his hands onto the handle, on top of mine, and forced me to stab the woman again and again...

The policeman asked me if I was now ready to talk, and one of the other torturers...mentioned that they had just filmed...me stabbing the woman. If I refused to cooperate, their boss, Alejandro, would...turn the videotapes and the photographs over to the press.... This was the first I had heard of Alejandro, the torturers’ boss....

The policeman raped me again. Then I was lowered into a pit full of bodies— bodies of children, men, and women, some decapitated, all caked with blood. A few were still alive. I could hear them moaning. Someone was weeping. I didn’t know if it was me or somebody else. A stench of decay rose from the pit. Rats swarmed over the bodies and were dropped onto me as I hung suspended over the pit by the wrists. I passed out and when I came to I was lying on the ground beside the pit, rats all over me.

The nightmare I lived was nothing out of the ordinary. In 1989, under Guatemala’s first civilian president in years, nearly two hundred people were abducted. Unlike me, they were "disappeared, gone forever." The only uncommon element of my ordeal was that I survived, probably because I was a U.S. citizen, and phone calls poured into Congress when I was reported missing. As a U.S. citizen, I had another advantage: I could, in relative safety, reveal afterwards the details of what happened to me in those twenty-four hours. One of those details: an American was in charge of my torturers

I remember the moment he removed my blindfold. I asked him, "Are you an American?" In poor Spanish and with a heavy American accent, he answered me with a question: "Why do you want to know?" Moments before, after the torturers had blindfolded me again and were getting ready to rape me again, they had called out in Spanish: "Hey, Alejandro, come and have some fun!"

And a voice had responded "Shit!" in perfect American English with no trace of an accent. It was the voice of the tall, fair-skinned man beside me. After swearing, he’d switched to a halting Spanish. "Idiots!" he said. "She’s a North American nun." He added that my disappearance had been made public, and he ran them out of the room.

....He kept telling me he was sorry. The torturers had made a mistake. We came to a parking garage, where he put me into a gray Suzuki jeep and told me he was taking me to a friend of his at the U.S. embassy who would help me leave the country.

For the duration of the trip, I spoke to him in English, which he understood perfectly. He said he was concerned about the people of Guatemala and consequently was working to liberate them from Communism. Alejandro told me to forgive my torturers because they had confused me with Veronica Ortiz Hernandez. It was an honest mistake.

— Dianna Ortiz, Speak Truth

Sister Ortiz has recounted this same story, in formal testimony, on several occasions. Sister Ortiz's testimony initiated a wave of public investigation and scrutiny into the CIA's activities in Guatemala.

Trav (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See earlier discussions. The US was not responsible for this crime and the sister does not make such an allegation.Ultramarine (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, I could care less. :) That is why I didn't even read the section, just cut and paste it here. We both know how I feel about how you delete content, so no need to touch on that again...Trav (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ciao

I've got a lot of other things I should be doing right now, and Ultramarine's utter unwillingness to discuss simple, basic, extremely concrete issues is all the excuse I need to get off this page. That user seems, to me at least, completely uninterested in the opinion of any other editor who disagrees with her or him. Ultramarine's renewed presence here provides more than enough impetus for me to de-watchlist this page. It is not even remotely worth my time to engage with any user who refuses to participate in rationale discussion or - more basically - to answer very simple questions.

Anyone editing here can feel free to contact me via e-mail, but in general I'm making it a point to avoid this page for the foreseeable future for my own reasons and for the basic fact that this unending conversation seems to be forever incapable of making progress in terms of making this page a good encyclopedia article. Ultramarine's presence is only the latest (repeat) manifestation of that.

In the interim, I hope all goes well. Peace!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.Ultramarine (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read those, but of course you know that, and thus your comment says a lot more about you than me. I know it's practically impossible for you to avoid getting the last word in, so feel free to reply again here directing me to some other policy like WP:AGF or something else with which we are all obviously familiar. If you can avoid further comment in this thread I'll be mildly impressed. Good night and good luck and goodbye.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S. State Department's definition

The text quoted includes "The U.S. Government has employed this definition of terrorism for statistical and analytical purposes since 1983." I don't think this is part of their definition, but rather just commentary. I suspect it was brought along by a cut-and-paste error, and I propose to delete this sentence. (I don't see that those "statistical and analytical purposes" have any place in the article as-is.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ultramarine (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"within the works Chomsky has written on this topic"

I don't see this qualifier, nor anything to that effect, in the source.

Quite the opposite: Windschuttle says this in reference to how Chomsky has defended "the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists". Hardly on the topic of state terrorism committed by the United States.

I propose we remove the entire Windschuttle passage as quite off-topic. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. The whole article is about Chomsky's hypocrisy regarding terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, and its a logical fallacy. Saying Chomsky supports other regimes has nothing to do with his claims about US government actions. Attacking Chomsky for alleged hypocrisy belongs on the Chomsky article, not here--unless the arguments are addressin the merits or lack thereof of his claims regarding US sponsored terror (and these do not).Giovanni33 (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It casts doubts on Chomsky's methodology and thus should be mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even say Chomky is wrong. Its a clear logical fallacy, attacking Chomsky, instead of his argument. Completely off topic and not worth including here.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article cites false accusations Chomsky have made against the US, like the Sudan bombings. I can cite such examples from the article if you prefer.Ultramarine (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

False according to whom? You seem to determine this question based on your own personal beliefs instead of valid sources.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions? (Preferably in a new section.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One example "Chomsky has persisted with this pattern of behavior right to this day. In his response to September 11, he claimed that no matter how appalling the terrorists’ actions, the United States had done worse. He supported his case with arguments and evidence just as empirically selective and morally duplicitous as those he used to defend Pol Pot."Ultramarine (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So what is the argument that Chomsky statement is false? It seems true to me. All I see you doing is attacking Chomsky but its more of a personal attack than an argument that shows he is making false statements. Also, what is your source?Giovanni33 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Windschuttle article.[15] If you read the article you can see that after this passage he start with the false accusation regarding the Sudan Bombings.Ultramarine (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is just a low level attack piece, even the title says so, "on his hypocrisy." So far you have failed to support your claim; please quote from the source (I don't know how good this source is, but it doesn't look good), where it shows one of Chomsky's claims on this article as being demonstrably false. If so, we may be able to use it. But I don't see that. Attacking the man is not the same as attacking the merits of his arguments. The former is an ad-hominen fallacy. Also, Chomsky credibility as a scholar is well established and his is not an easily impeachable source, so good luck.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No more low level than Chomsky's accusations. Chomsky is a linguist, not a political scientist. The article attacks Chomsky's claims regarding American terrorism, like the one that the US is a leading terrorist state.Ultramarine (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlike the works of Windshuttle, Chomsky's works in political analysis are seriously discussed all over the world, are featured in university curriculums all over the world. He was even invited by the philosophy department at West Point to speak on the subject of "Just War theory." There is no question that his place in global political discourse is well established, even if many disagree with him. He is a polymath, and like other world class polymaths (ie: Bertrand Russell) his value as an intellectual commentator cannot be restricted to his specialist discipline. Even some of the greatest philosophers who disagreed with him, such as Hilary Putnam, have testified to his vast knowledge and intellectual prowess.BernardL (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is consensus on Chomksy's qualifications to speak on this matter, so I'm not going to debate this point. What I'm asking for, and which you apparently are unable to deliver, is very simple. Support your claim that Chomsky is being cited here making a false claim. I'm still waiting. When you have one, then you have a point. Otherwise, its just hot air, Chomsky bashing, because of disagreements over his analysis. But the funny thing is that they can't counter his arguments because they are apparently quite solid, so they attack him instead. That is a fallacy and evidence of how weak his opponents are on the substantive issues.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus regarding Chomsky's qualification. Even in linguistics there are scholars accusing him of scholarly misconduct. The article includes Chomsky's statement regarding the US being a leading terrorist state; the Windschuttle article criticizes that.Ultramarine (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking about consensus among editors here, which you seem to ignore anyway. And, again, I don't see anything against Chomsky's arguments, only attacks against Chomsky himself. Big difference. Otherwise, what is the counter argument presented that the US is not a leading terrorist state? How is Chomsky's argument refuted?Giovanni33 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the article which is about this. Already mentioned criticisms of Chomsky's claims regarding the Sudan bombings as one example.Ultramarine (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You presented nothing that contradicted Chomsky's claims or showed him to be in any way inaccurate. If you have something, lets see it. I see nothing in that vein.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, one example, Chomsky's claims regarding the Sudan bombings was false.Ultramarine (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. Contradiction is not refutation. Also, is this claim in this article?Giovanni33 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here is Human Rights Watch stating the Chomsky invented a false statement regarding the bombing from them: [16]Ultramarine (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And please, exactly what 'qualifications' mark a 'political scientist' that Chomsky doesn't have? It's not as if you are talking about someone who is practicing medicine or law engineering a building without a license. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No academic degree or education in political science. True, it is possible to be a a good amateur historian or chemist without a formal education. But this lack lessens the authority.Ultramarine (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Windschuttle's "selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented" appeared to be specifically applicable to Chomsky's view of the Sudan bombing as state terrorism by the US; as such it seemed within the scope of the article. The rest of the Windschuttle article has other concerns about previous Chomsky works which included other incidents Chomsky ties to US state terrorism - which lead me to drafting the statement as I did. I am not convinced the Windschuttle is WP:RS, nor am I tied to any particular wording or inclusion. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I had to check again. The full sentence is: "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." It's referring to his "defense" of other regimes. I cannot with my best will read this "defense" as referring to the Sudan bombings. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. My recollection was wrong. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the recent change to this section as the new Windschuttle quote seemed even further off topic. Nowhere in the Chomsky quotes is he mentioning 9/11 or Pol Pot and so criticising his stance on those topics is irrelevant to this article. Is there something else that can be used?TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't this have been better posted at #Possible_replacement_for_the_Windschuttle_passage ?? And, you know, some time within 40 hours of me posting that, rather than after waiting until I acted on it?? And is it really worse to be off-topic than to be dishonest? "within the works Chomsky has written on this topic" still is not substantiated in the source.

Oh well. Personally, I would say it's on-topic to Chomsky's "leading terrorist state", but if you have better suggestions, I'm all ears.

Alternatively, could we just get rid of that "leading terrorist state"? Leaving it in, without also presenting other views, would be a violation of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The current version is dishonest. Getting rid of it all would solve both problems. — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I forgot that there were other threads going on this topic. Sorry. While the specific W quote is referring to Chomsky's defense of certain regimes, it does still seem to be an accurate summary of W's criticisms of Chomsky (less W's "Chomsky's wrong cause other folks done worse stuff" line of argument). TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This topic has resurfaced. Please continue this in a section where it can be easily followed by other editors in the "Chomsky" section below.Ultramarine (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky (more)

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

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

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

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

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

This topic has resurfaced. Please continue this in a section where it can be easily followed by other editors in the "Chomsky" section below.Ultramarine (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Tom Regan claimed that the U.S. government is hypocritical"

Why should we care what Tom Regan claims?

While his arguments may be interesting in this context, and may well be worth including, his person and claims are less so.

I propose that we delete this section as it stands. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a seperate subsection, but it does seem to be a supplemental view point distinct from the one illuminated by the Chomsky quote. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Point. It follows the Chomsky/Windschuttle sequence naturally (which was not obvious to me as I read section by section). However: This sequence, in turn, does not readily belong under the heading "U.S. government's own definitions". So perhaps put all of Chomsky/Windschuttle/Regan in this subsection instead?

I guess if the opinions of an American linguist and an Australian historian qualify, an American philosopher might as well. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But then, why is the Chomsky/Windschuttle exchange presented under the heading "Definition of state terrorism"? It's not about definitions at all. Let me ponder this some more. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Chomsky/Windschuttle material does not really fit under that section header - although it seems very choppy to just end the section after the Chomsky indented {quote} and then start again with him in a new section. If we take BigTimePeace's suggestion of re-visiting the overall structure of the whole article - there may be a better context for that material. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible replacement for the Windschuttle passage

Australian historian Keith Windschuttle has challenged this:

In [Chomsky's] response to September 11, he claimed that no matter how appalling the terrorists' actions, the United States had done worse. He supported his case with arguments and evidence just as empirically selective and morally duplicitous as those he used to defend Pol Pot.

— Keith Windschuttle,

I'm not sure how I feel about that. Better than the current one though. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If not the current text, then this. Should wikify Pol Pot.Ultramarine (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't like linking terms in direct quotes. Worse, unless there is a good reason to do it, it's policyguidelines to avoid it: WP:MOSQUOTE. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing immediately notable about the Windschuttle article linked to is that it does not come even close to meeting the most elementary scholarly standards. It clips "quotes" from Chomsky profusely but makes no effort at all to indicate in which Chomsky books and on which pages these "quotes" are to be found. The reader is being actively deterred from checking the original quotes and their contexts.BernardL (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the WP:BLP policy is in effect here...and Windschuttle is making exceptional claims about Chomsky's views and scholarship (ie: that Chomsky favoured communist regimes and casts all sorts of aspersions against Chomsky's scholarship without adequate sourcing and without serious consideration of Chomsky's actual arguments and positions (as opposed to selective distortions of them) the Windschuttle material is inadmissable for the article, or anywhere on wikipedia except for the entry on Windschuttle. BernardL (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we sure WP:BLP applies? I haven't yet found wikipedia's definition of "biographical material", but to me at least, neither the Windschuttle passage of today nor its suggested replacement qualify as such. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does not apply. Not an attack on his persons but his writings.Ultramarine (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would it not apply? Of course it does. It applies to all negative claims about all living persons anywhere in WP. The point is to protect people from damaging defamatory claims. Thus, any such claims must come from exceptionally reliable sources that whose claims are verifiable. The Widnschutle article is of rather low quality, and makes some serious claims without much verification.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It criticizes his writings. BLP does not apply. Does not say he is an idiot, ugly, or has a bad smell, or something similar.Ultramarine (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Why should it not apply?" Because WP:BLP applies to "biographical material" only. Not to "all negative claims". It seems to me this is one "negative claim" that is not "biographical material". But I cannot (yet) find what WP means with "biographical material"; it may well be using some definition that differs from mine. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us also note that Windschuttle is a respected historian. The New Criterion which published the article is a respected journal.Ultramarine (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Plus, if we say BLP applies, it should also apply to others, not just Chomsky. How about "Arroyo's repressive taxation", "Arroyo's ascendancy was characterized by rampant human rights violations", etc? Surely those are "negative claims" about Arroyo. I don't think we want to go down that slippery slope. Let's read "biographical material" a little more narrowly. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You have not answered my other major point, which was that Windschuttle is making exceptional claims (hypocrite, commie-dictator lover, bad scholarship) but that Windschuttle's article is in fact shoddy scholarship. Chomsky is being "quoted" and his views are being represented all over the place in that article - how many footnotes or references do you see? [[18]]. Verification failure.BernardL (talk) 12:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What is there to answer? Of course it is shoddy scholarship! So are most of our sources, including the Chomsky ones! How many footnotes do you see in [19] or [20]? Shoddy scholarship is not sufficient reason not to reference nor even quote a source. — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It certainly is in this case. Its making exceptional disparaging claims against a living person, thus the source, in order to sustain such claims, must be of exceptionally high quality. This one fails miserably. Saying that other sources likewise fail is not a logical defense.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Windschuttle is a respected historian. The New Criterion which published the article is a respected journal. The statements is not about Chomsky's personal biography, so BLP does not apply.Ultramarine (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, others' failure is not a defence, but you'll note I didn't defend it: I quite agreed it is shoddy scholarship. I just don't see that that in itself is, or even should be, of any consequence to us. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is actually quite a stretch to call Windschuttle a respected historian. The great majority of historians of Aboriginee/early Austrailian history do not respect him. (for example [[21]], or Telling the Truth about Aboriginal History. Contributors: Bain Attwood - author. Publisher: Allen & Unwin. Place of Publication: Crows Nest, N.S.W.. Publication Year: 2005.) Windschuttle is more of culture warrior a la David Horowitz than a "respected historian."BernardL (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is not a historian at all and not respected outside certain parts of the far left.Ultramarine (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course! the far leftists at West Point Academy philosophy department invited to him to lecture on the subject of "Just War theory and the Invasion of Iraq." [[22]] Earlier, the far leftists at the University of Cape Town invited him make the Davie Memorial Lecture on Academic Freedom. and the far leftists at the University of Edinburgh asked to Chomsky to join a list of prestigious lecturers - "among the many gifted lecturers are Hannah Arendt, Niels Bohr, Etienne Gilson, Werner Heisenberg, William James, Max Mueller, Iris Murdoch, Reinhold Niebuhr, Albert Schweitzer and Alfred North Whitehead" to deliver the Gifford Lectures where he delivered the speech "Illegal but Legitimate: a Dubious Doctrine for the Times.” [[23]] We could also consider that for the literature related to this particular topic he is often cited as a pioneer. I would be glad to roll out the quotes from major academic studies if you like. Or we could simply consider the fact that a new peer reviewed journal certainly germane to our topic here, "Critical Studies on Terrorism" includes Chomsky on its editorial board. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t780786797~tab=editorialboard BernardL (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of your claims are unsourced and some of the sources do not support what you state. Obviously Chomsky has some supporters. I will just point out that on his webpage he has an article lamenting that he is widely ignored in political sciene.[24].Ultramarine (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Which specific claims are you disputing? I said I could roll out the quotes if that's what you want. Are you disputing that Chomsky was invited to West Point to talk as part of their Distinguished Lectures Series? Here is the U.S. Military Academies press release. [[25]]. Regarding being described as a pioneer in the relevant literature, there's as just one example, the volume Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror. (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2000) edited by Jeffrey A. Sluka wherein the introduction states: "At the end of the 1970's, at the same time that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations were first beginning to present alarming reports of a new "global epidemic" of state torture and murder, the first academic studies also began to emerge about this, led by the pioneering work of Chomsky and Herman. In a series of important books, they reported that the global rise in state terror was concentrated among Third World states in the U.S. "sphere of influence," and provided extensive information on the terror occurring in the U.S. client states in Latin America. (Sluka, Jeffrey (ed) Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror, p.8)"BernardL (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is great quote. I wonder if we can find a home for it in this article, or maybe on a Chomsky specific related article--or both?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is an excellent quote and should be used. Where? Here are some possibilities that come to mind: 1. in the lead following the Arno Mayer quote; 2. or we could use a lead paragraph to the Central America section that could include this quote as well as references to U.S. led inter-state coordination of terrorism as have been described by J. Patrice McSherry and Greg Grandin, among others. 3. or we could have a section about the literature (critical terrorology, etc), describing significant works in the field which would augment the references section. Any other ideas? BernardL (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Conceptually, I like 3) - that would help move the article to something other than a list of case studies. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Japan section's "main article"

Currently, the "main article" linked from the Japan section is Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I propose to replace this link with one to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is a context of (alleged) terrorism. As such, someone who wants to know more about the bombings likely wants to see it argued in detail whether or not the bombings were terrorism. But the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn't provide that detail: It merely summarizes the matter, and redirects the reader to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for detail.

It would be better if we spared the reader this detour and linked to the detail ourselves. — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Agreed.Ultramarine (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems appropriate.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. 07:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)— the Sidhekin (talk)

Amnesty and HRW accusing the US of state terrorism?

The article under a the title "The Political Nature of the Arrests, Disappearances, Torture, and Killings" states "Amnesty International reports that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution." The AI report continues: "the arrest and threatened arrest of leftist Congress Representatives and others on charges of rebellion, and intensifying counter-insurgency operations in the context of a declaration by officials in June of 'all-out-war' against the New People's Army . . . [and] the parallel public labeling by officials of a broad range of legal leftist groups as communist 'front organizations'...has created an environment in which there is heightened concern that further political killings of civilians are likely to take place.|Amnesty International|"

First, not a NPOV description since Amnesty also notes human rights violations by the insurgents. Amnesty never mentions the US in the report so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. It violates WP:SYN to argue that these violations are the responsibility of the US. If this material does not argue that these crimes are the responsibility of the US, it is irrelevant for the article. As such this material should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does our article claim that Amnesty is accusing the US of state terrorism? All I can see we say is it "reports that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature".

Where does our article argue that these violations are the responsibility of the US? I cannot find it.

I may agree, for now, to tag this section {{Off-topic}} or {{Off-topic|Allegations of state terrorism by the Philippines}} (yeah, I know it'd be a red link). But before we do anything of the sort, I'd like to hear someone argue for it being on the topic of the article. That is, if anyone is willing to? — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No response, Removed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing it is not what I would agree to. It seems you are currently the only one arguing for removing it: Hardly consensus. Reverted.

But yeah, no one has stepped up to argue that it is on the topic of the article, so I've marked it {{Off-topic}} for now. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Another section: "According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate." In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.” In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."

The sources do not claim US responsibility for all of these these crimes. It violates WP:SYN to argue that these violations are the responsibility of the US using other sources. Since this material does not argue that these crimes are the responsibility of the US, it is irrelevant for the article.Ultramarine (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please give WP:SYN a rest: while such claims would be SYN violations, I don't see our article making them.

Again, I might agree to marking it {{Off-topic}} or, again with the redlinks, {{Off-topic|Allegations of state terrorism committed by El Salvador}}. Don't go deleting it until defenders of it have spoken up or have been given plenty time to speak up; we're still on no deadline. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I will probably make some comments about this in the near future, once other matters are dealt with. As far as I know Stone Put to the Sky wrote this section and he will probably be back soon.BernardL (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi-ho. Once again, i will repeat what is obvious: there is no wikipedia guideline that states any article can only be limited to sources which use the phrase outlined in its title. Ultramarine will respond to me on this by claiming that if they don't then the sources are off-topic. However, if we were to follow such logic then the first section of the article about First_Battle_of_Bull_Run would look something like this:

Background

McDowell's plan was to move westward in three columns, make a diversionary attack on the Confederate line at Bull Run with two columns, while the third column moved around the Confederates' right flank to the south, cutting the railroad to Richmond and threatening the rear of the rebel army. He assumed that the Confederates would be forced to abandon Manassas Junction and fall back to the Rappahannock River, the next defensible line in Virginia, which would relieve some of the pressure on the U.S. capital.[4]

The Confederate Army of the Potomac (21,883 effectives[5]) under Beauregard was encamped near Manassas Junction, approximately 25 miles (40 km) from the United States capital. McDowell planned to attack this numerically inferior enemy army.

McDowell searched for a way to outflank Beauregard, who had drawn up his lines along Bull Run. On July 18, the Union commander sent a division under Brig. Gen. Daniel Tyler to pass on the Confederate right (southeast) flank. Tyler was drawn into a skirmish at Blackburn's Ford over Bull Run and made no headway.

McDowell had delayed long enough that Johnston's Valley force was able to board trains at Piedmont Station and rush to Manassas Junction to reinforce Beauregard's men.[6]

On July 19 and July 20, significant reinforcements bolstered the Confederate lines behind Bull Run.

And that would be it.

Obviously, the article as it currently stands is much better. Likewise, the arguments being used to support efforts to delete information from this article clearly do not help in making it better in any way: neither more informative, nor effective, nor more neutral in its presentation. This is simply a ploy to get content deleted from the article: nothing else. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is something wrong with the Bull Run article, discuss is there. Again, it violates WP:SYN to argue that these violations are the responsibility of the US if the material does not. If this material does not argue that these crimes are the responsibility of the US, it is irrelevant for the article. As such this material should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the Bull Run article. There is something wrong with your arguments, which are opposed across the board by virtually every other editor here. Stone put to sky (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"There is something wrong with your arguments" What? Ultramarine (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, most of this page consists of people refuting your arguments, and doing so very effectively. If you want to know the problems with your arguments then i suggest you read the responses of the people posting here opposite you. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no response to my arguments in this section.Ultramarine (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there clearly has been, and if you really are trying to foist that assertion off on us it does call into question WP:AGF. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no response except your strange reference to the Bull Run article. For convenience, I will repeat my point regarding the Amnesty material. First, not a NPOV description since Amnesty also notes human rights violations by the insurgents. Amnesty never mentions the US in the report so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. It violates WP:OR and WP:SYN to argue that these violations are the responsibility of the US. If this material does not argue that these crimes are the responsibility of the US, it is irrelevant for the article. As such this material should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Page Break for Convenience, AI and HRW I

Ultramarine, these arguments you are using are the same ones that have been refuted a bazillion times before. You always say "WP:SYN"; wheezyF, above, just showed you why its wrong. I have already responded to these precise accusations of yours above, at length. The only difference between this time and the last is that you are pretending as if i haven't already addressed them -- but i have, gio has, bernard l has, BTP has, wheezyF has, and that's not even including all of the other times in archive where the same arguments have been made and -- each time -- received the same response:

It is not necessary for each article to include the claim that the United States is guilty of state terrorism. This is a false interpretation of the wikipedia guidelines that is not supported anywhere, by anyone, for any reason. It is entirely your own artificial, personal interpretation of how you wish things were.

The AI and HRW articles are included to validate that the events in question did, indeed, occur and are attested to by third party, neutral sources. That's all. They are relevant to the article (and this is addressed to Sidhekin) for the simple reason that lots of people are unaware of what's going on outside of their own native countries and may not have read or been taught about the events in question. These sources are necessary background that establishes unequivocally that the events being talked about did, indeed, occur. That's all. They are necessary in the same way that, for instance, when one is discussing the idea of Light as it propagates through Space one might need to briefly explain what a vaccuum is and how that relates to electro-magnetic radiation. Or perhaps one might need to explain radiation itself, and then elaborate what sort of radiation Light is. These sources have the same relationship: they establish that there are definitive historical records that establish the events in question actually have happened as described in the article.

Meanwhile, we have many other sources which state that these events can be characterized as State Terror by the United States. As such, there is no "synthesis" taking place. All we have done is provide third-party, NPOV explanations of the events referred to by those making the accusations of state terrorism. These sources make no arguments one way or the other about the instances of State Terror, but they are necessary to establish the background of the events in question. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN: Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This particular point has been explained to you repeatedly. You are wrong, and if you persist in this behavior i will take it to AN/I. Too many editors have explained this to you, already, for me to believe that my words will have any effect on your behavior. I will explain it to you one more time:

Synthesis involves direct argumentation on the part of the editor. The editor states "This source says the Sky is Blue", then says "This other source over here says The Blues are Sadness." And then concludes "The Sky, therefore, is Sad."

These sources you are contesting do not operate in that way. The first source says: "The United States is guilty of sponsoring State Terrorism because it has supported, trained, and aided the Philippine Military and is either complicit or shares direct responsibility for acts of terror perpetrated against the Philippine people, such as 890 people murdered, thousands threatened, beaten or imprisoned, etc, all during the time period from 2002 to 2007." Then source B says "From 2002 to 2007, it appears that the Philippine Military was responsible for 840 murders and the imprisonment and threatening of untold thousands more. This is the evidence."

That's not editorial synthesis. That's one source saying one thing, and then another source corroborating the statements made in the first source. Or, in the language of the guideline you quote above: the sources cited explicitly reach the same conclusion and are directly related to the subject of the article.

This has already been explained to you at great length. Please take it to heart and desist from these fruitless edit wars you have lately been provoking.

Finally, i will remind you also that your attempted edits have introduced more POV skew to the article -- not less. Your choice of words has clearly been undertaken, in each case, to cast the maximum doubt upon the content that follows. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Stringing together two such statements if just what WP:SYN prohibits.Ultramarine (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oi, Mr Ultra! He's explained himself and you've got the hard head. There's no stringing I can see! The guidelines go ranting on all randy about saying the same thing and you're drinking what? One says 890 dead + state terror, the other says 890 dead confirmed. Where's the problem, mate? Aho aho (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Do not make another personal attack. The Amnesty source does not mention the US, so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. Implying that in fact the US is responsible for the crimes described by Amnesty is WP:OR and WP:SYN.Ultramarine (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Gawr. As clear as mud. Stone, you sound like an old woman. Aho aho (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhh...are you saying that you don't understand, either?

And please lay off the...uhhh...personal "characterizations", o.k? I'm not in the mood to be dealing with sarcasm. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oi. Don't get shirty, Stone, I'm only teasing. Yeh, I understand. Is it always this way around here? Aho aho (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Windschuttle, take 1

I've just committed my suggested #Possible_replacement_for_the_Windschuttle_passage.

While no one seems to be happy with it, no one (except possibly Ultra?) seemed to prefer the old version, and no one argued for keeping the old version.

Disclaimer: This is not some kind of "final" consensus version; the consensus seems just that this version is an improvement on the previous one. I expect the discussion will continue, whether or not to reference The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky at all.

Thank you! — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

{{main}}

The way this article uses {{main}} is consistent with documentation. The docs may be difficult to navigate, but if you take the time, you'll find it is intended to mark sections as WP:SUMMARY style, er, summaries of other articles. See for instance Wikipedia:LAY#If_a_section_is_a_summary_of_another_article.

With one possible exception (see below), this is not how this article's sections read, and I don't think rewriting them as such would be feasible, nor even desirable.

I propose that we use {{seealso}} for these sections instead.

The one possible exception is {{main|Operation Gladio}}; I have just skimmed it so am not deep enough to say yet. But even this would at least need cleaning up in order to follow the WP:SUMMARY style guidelines.

While we're at it, we could also consider whether to replace the use of {{further}} with {{seealso}}, for a more consistent look, if nothing else. (Note that while {{seealso}} does indeed support multiple articles, it uses parameters differently from {{further}}, so a dumb global replace will not be a good idea.). — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Dispute

Earlier I removed the POV dispute tag as no discussion was taking place and, atleast to me, the article appears to be NPOV, siting sources and just cataloging what the subject is about. The POV dispute tag was replaced with no discussion started. I'm starting the discussion now so the tag doesn't just sit there for no reason or purpose. This user feels that the current state of the article is NPOV per wikipedia standards, as it discusses both sides and cites sources. A reminder is needed to let people who read it know that just because an article leans to one side or the other doesn't mean it is POV, it just means that our encylopedic cataloging of it is following its sources. Hooper (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussing both sides and citing sources is not sufficient for NPOV. In fact, it is hardly relevant:

WP:NPOV in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

"Fairly"? That's tricky for any article. Are all significant views on these claims "fairly" represented? Who's to say what is "fair" representation?

"Proportionately"? That's even trickier, with a subject as geographically divisive as this. Is the view that what the US is not involved in terrorism really proportionately represented? How can we tell?

"Without bias"? Yeah right. Like using the section heading "U.S. hypocrisy about state terrorism" is "without bias"? Like the selection of quotes with which we represent Sister Dianna Ortiz's and General Gramajo's respective sides of their case is "without bias"? Hardly.

The article is said to have been started by POV pushers. Much has happened since then, but the AfD, peer review, and archives up to and including the most recent clearly show POV is still discussed.

If we're not at it currently, it's just because there are so many problems with this article, we cannot tackle them all at once.

(Me, I have a few walls of text I want to break down. In due time though.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I see. Apparently, if it is not possible to outright ban opposing viewpoints, then the next measure is to call every word of the actual guideline into question, no?

The NPOV guideline seems to work very well for people who would like to delete content from this article. I find it odd that, when applying that guideline in a neutral manner, Sidhekin feels compelled to reduce it to a lexical, word-by-word analysis that rejects every common usage of the chosen words.

What gives? Stone put to sky (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with Wikipedia: Be Bold!

I have moved the page to a more neutral, less POV and less weasel-word laden title.

I presume there will be no objections, but if there are i hope we will be able to work them out amicably on the discussion page.

Edit wars are, after all, a bad thing. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This title is more POV, not less; it presumes that the allegations are true. Jtrainor (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. It simply states a subject -- State Terrorism -- and indicates that this discussion of the topic specifically concerns whatever relationships the United States might have to it. Nowhere in such a title is there any presumption of guilt or innocence. With the word "Allegations", however, there is clearly an implication of innocence or unsubtantiated claims. Moreover, the word "allegations" has caused a great deal of misunderstanding on this page. Some, apparently, have come to believe that, as a consequence of shifting the title to this phrase, all material presented here must and can only mention the phrase "State Terrorism", otherwise it is invalid.

That clearly is an artificial and baseless interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. I have been over those guidelines quite a few times, myself, and see nothing in them supporting such an interpretation. Basic high-school journalism or History class will teach a boy that any good article must answer the five questions: Who, what, where, when, and why.

Who: The U.S. and many academics, human rights groups, legal scholars, journalists, historians, governments and democratic institutions

What: Are engaged in public debate about whether or not the U.S. is guilty of committing acts of State Terror, whether through sponsorship, support of proxy actors, or direct participation.

Where: The U.S., El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, Venzeula, etc.

When: Various times.

Why: Many assert that various heinous acts of terrorism involving torture, mass murder or other forms of political violence have resulted from policies put in place by the U.S. The U.S. in some cases denies responsibility, in others is more willing to admit guilt, and in most denies the interpretation of "State Terror" or the term's legal value.

That's a properly NPOV article, and there is nothing in the current title that precludes us from writing it. The standards used by this current crop of deletionists, however, would see the article reduced to something more like this:

Who: Some Academics

What: Accuse the U.S. of State Terror

When: Various Times

Where: In their Universities.

Why: Because they are all communists, fools without any official political or military responsibility, isolated jerkwater navel-gazers, or people who hate the United States and everything they stand for.

That is precisely the aim of deleting such clearly relevant material as the Ortiz case, which is -- without a doubt -- on-topic, relevant to the discussion, useful for the reader, and presented in a dispassionate, NPOV fashion without any editorial comment or or skew whatsoever. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

At first I was going to agree that it was more POV, but checking other pages on countries and state terrorism, it follows the same style they do. So I'm going to say okay, though it should of been discussed under a Rename tag first I'm sure. Hooper (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Objection #1: Other pages on countries and state terrorism follow the old pattern:

• Allegations of state terrorism by Iran
• Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
• Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Why single out the United States? Or is this just the first step?

• Objection #2: You've broken links! To the peer review, at least. And with the following move, courtesy Dance With The Devil, you two have created a double redirect, so Allegations of state terrorism by the United States is now broken. Sheesh!

• Objection #3: WP:BOLD applies primarily to editing articles, not moving them. This is what it has to say about moving articles: "The unintended consequences of certain significant changes can be more lasting, for better or for worse. This includes changes that are difficult to undo for technical reasons, like renaming the articles [...] Such edits are often warranted but please be sure you know what you are doing and feel free to ask for advice." Even so, see that tag on top of this talk page? "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." Not after — before.

I agree that the old title was weasel-worded, and that the new one has potential. But the process is messed-up. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Objection #1 is baseless - Wikipedia by it's very nature is not going to be consistant throughout and arguements based solely on 'consistnacy' are baseless. Ojecction #2 broken links can be fixed and are certainly not sufficient reason to keep an article under an objectionable name. Objection #3 may have some basis - it probably would have been a good thing to try to discuss beforehand, but no discussions on this page have really shown to come to any sort of concensus so alternative methods may indeed be a way to come to concensus - although WP:BRD should certainly be applicable.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that appears to be two rather guarded and mild approvals. I hope so, at least. I didn't have anything to do with Dance w/Devil's changes. I do suggest, however, that we get started on examining BTP's outline, above. I am in full support of his proposal, and since we obviously have a few people here who would like to add material and viewpoints that are more supportive of the United States then i think it would be good to help them create that space.

My suggestion is to create a new section: U.S. Condemnations of Other States. In it we will include, at first, Syria, Iraq, and Cuba. Hopefully there will be others here who are willing to provide sources for these sections? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that adding this would greatly expand this article. It will simply get much too big. Instead, why not have an article called, "US Condemnations of Other States?" It could include Iran, Syria, Iraq, Cuba, etc, etc. More than enough for its own article. There is a lot of material already to fill up an article under its current--not expanded--scope. I think this article should remain about State Terrorism implicating the United States. That is, it discusses and reports on the various instances described by reliable and notable sources as State Terrorism committed by the United States. I agree the US condemsn other states and that is included already in this article, which makes the US hypocritical given its own support of State Terrorism. I would not be opposed to expanding that point here if we kept it very short, and having it link to the other article that documents all fo these instances, and discusses them.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wholeheartedly, i agree. However, i think it's best if we first develop that article here, in tandem with this one, and then when the page gets too big break it off to another link. It seems to me that would make the most sense for page maintenance, wouldn't it? Also, by operating in this fashion, we would -- in the future -- make an explicit case for using either page as a precedent when editing the other, no? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Sidhekin. The current title applies as well to the US accusing other nations of sponsoring terrorism. I will start adding such material to the article if the title is kept.Ultramarine (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, then. We're all in agreement. Please -- start adding material, Ultramarine. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with his objections, if it was he who made them, the format above is unclear. I do not agree with the title. Regardless, all material not referncing "state terrorism" should be removed. Or should we start adding, for example, all of the crimes of Communist states criticized by the US to this page? 100 million deaths.Ultramarine (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Like i said: you start introducing material, and we'll work on it with you. O.k? The only thing we ask is that you not clutter up the article with a work in progress. Since this is going to be a major edit we should start it in a sandbox. That being said, you have my personal word of honor that, once we've got solid sourcing and clear prose, i will fully back you up and get it posted on the main article. O.k.? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You have yourself not followed this, for example your introduction of the Philippines section. Do you agree to remove it? Ultramarine (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You are utterly incorrect. This last time, we had the Philippines section posted in sand-box for six entire weeks before we introduced it. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You added the very long material without prior discussion on the talk page.Ultramarine (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Got a diff? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[26].Ultramarine (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

From July?! Let it go, please! — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that there is no reason for any double standard regarding my edits, especially in a section citing WP:BOLD in its title. Back to the man argument. I do not agree with the title which allows both accusations by and against the US regarding "state terrorism". Regardless, all material not referencing "state terrorism" should be removed. Or should we start adding, for example, all of the crimes of Communist states criticized by the US to this page? 100 million deaths.Ultramarine (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

One question:

If the FBI doesn't legally define terrorism through the U.S. Criminal Code, then who does?

Disney on Ice? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition given refers to the U.S. Criminal Code, but it does not quote it verbatim. Or is the prior reference in error?

So, where did we get the definition given, that here is attributed to the F.B.I.? Where indeed?

Disney on Ice? — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in any case: The U.S. Criminal Code can hardly be attributed to the FBI. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes it can. No one is above the law, though many think they are.... Hooper (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you must have read "applied", or something along those lines, for "attributed". I was referring to "attribution" as in "authorship": Last I heard, FBI was no legislative power. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The original citation had ellipses at appropriate places. Since the code is written in "legalese", there is little reason to quote it verbatim. The intent is not to establish a legal argument but an academic one, and as such it is the intent of the law that is significant, not how it goes about closing every last legal loophole. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So, this is not a version from the FBI? Don't attribute it to them, then. Attribute it to the U.S. Criminal Code, perhaps? Though frankly I don't think I like having the text rephrased and presented as a quote. If verbatim is not good; if we really need to rephrase it; why not drop the quote template and other quotation marks, and present it as our restatement of the Code? — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in any case, the FBI is the primary agency responsible for enforcing the U.S. Federal Code.

I am sure, Sidhekin, that if you did a quick search on "FBI U.S. Code terrorism" you'd find plenty of evidence to satisfy yourself. Oh! Whadd'ya know! 6,900 hits! Here's one, where the code itself states: "In accordance with regulations prescribed by the Director and approved by the Attorney General, the FBI police may...make arrests and otherwise enforce the laws of the United States, including the laws of the District of Columbia"

Or were you not aware that the U.S. Code constitutes "the laws of the United States"? Stone put to sky (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

They enforce laws, yes. I never denied it. But FBI does not write nor pass laws, so no law should be attributed to them. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Except the law isn't attributed to them. All that is said is that this particular section of the U.S. Code outlines the FBI's basic definition of terrorism. Your request -- that we document the FBI does indeed use the U.S. code as its definition -- is, in that light, only an exercise in triviality. It's rather like demanding a source to validate the statement "Most policemen wear uniforms with badges". That is such a trivial statement most people wouldn't see a need for a source. This is a similar case. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition given is attributed to the FBI, as "Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition". Of course, that is my work, since I was the one who re-wrote that section using {{quote}} ...

Before my edit, however, the article stated "the Federal Bureau of Investigation bases its definition on U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113B,[10] and reads as follows ...". If anything, this version is more adamant in attributing the definition to the FBI. According to this version, this is the FBI's definition — not the US Code, but merely based on it.

So someone seems to think this is the FBI definition. That someone appears not to have left a reference. I stand by my {{fact}}. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The current phrasing/attribution is less straightforward and clear than it should be. The FBI did not write the US code and it should not be listed as the source for the language of the statute itself. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So let's get this straight:

You change the wording of the phrase so that it's less comprehensible, and then ask other people to go out and establish sourcing for your own unclear (and incorrect) edit?

Why don't we just change it back to the former, correct wording, instead? If that "and" is too problematic then we'll just change it to a "which" and then there are no problems. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's anything but straight.

The former wording was not any more "correct". I don't want sourcing for my own edit. The edit was neither "incorrect" nor, in my opinion, unclear.

I want the source for the unsourced claim, present in both versions, that this is the FBI's definition.

Just replacing the "and" to "which" would make it incorrect, as that is not how the US Code reads.

If we are not to claim this is a definition specific to the FBI, but rather federal law, we should drop all mention of the FBI and just attribute it to the US Code. Or Congress, if you prefer. Either would be a good source, while FBI is anything but.

If this is to be presented, as it has been both before and after my edit, as the FBI's definition, and merely based on the US Code, we need a reference.

And that is straight. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just say "federal law definition" considering the FBI operates as a federal entity they would be governed by that law, however I do agree, it is not their law. Perhaps reworking as "definition per federal law in which all federal agencies including the FBI are to abide by". Sounds wordy. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "The definition the FBI uses is the one given in U.S. federal law, which reads" -- and yes, if the ellipses were put back into the places where they originally were then it would be correct.

Mention of the FBI is relevant because they are the main agency dealing with the investigation of domestic terrorism. While Federal Law applies across the board, it isn't the DEA or the BATF that goes around specifically chasing terrorists. That's supposed to be the job of the FBI (and in fact the murky division of responsibilities in this regard is why the "Homeland Security" office was created). Stone put to sky (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If the FBI connection is relevant, it should be sourced; otherwise it is at best a WP:OR violation. You can argue all you want, but unless you find a source that argues the same, it is original research, and does not belong on Wikipedia. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.

I would ask, Sidhekin, that from now on any edits you make preserve the correct wording appropriate for the references provided. If you feel you must change the syntax into something that alters the basic relationship between the source and the wording provided then the community here will consider it your responsibility to provide appropriate sourcing. Otherwise, we will revert it. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job.

I'll decline the request though:

• My edit did not alter this basic relationship. Either way is an attribution to the FBI.
• The source was not provided prior to my edits, and I would have marked it {{fact}} either way.
• Revert my reformatting if you like; I'd just add a {{fact}} either way.
• Revert the {{fact}} if you like; I may just respond with removing the contested material, per WP:V. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Per your own words, the prior edit read like this:

"[T]he Federal Bureau of Investigation bases its definition on U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113B,[10] and reads as follows ..."

Which (i suspect) originally read something more like this (but was changed somewhere along the line):

"[T]he Federal Bureau of Investigation bases its definition on U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113B,[10] which reads as follows ..."

And then was followed by a summary of the laws. In that context, the definition is clearly stated to be based on the U.S. Code, and the citation which follows is clearly the code itself. No problem. In fact, i suspect that the FBI has a collection of guidelines that is quite long that, collectively, define "terrorism" for them. So quoting the code is clearly the most efficient and uncontroversial method, and that is what was used. Nowhere in the original quote was it suggested that the FBI has defined for itself "terrorism", and to do so would be ludicrous: terrorism is a legally defined term in the U.S. Code. Obviously, the FBI must follow the legal definition and cannot invent its own.

It was your edit -- not the original -- that was the problem. I'm not going to dwell on this, i just don't like it when editors come in and change things and then demand that other editors do the leg-work to correct their mistakes. I've had enough of that merry-go-round with people far less pleasant than you; i'm not interested in making the situation worse, i just want you to know that it's not appreciated. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem was whatever revision first attributed this to the FBI without source: Reverting my change would not suddenly produce a version without this problem. Why you keep accusing me of this, I cannot fathom. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're starting to sound like Ultramarine, now. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This section of the introduction...

Is clearly off topic:

Defenders of U.S. policy claim that American military interventions were justified in response to threats such as terrorism and Soviet aggression, and in the end produced superior governments and freer societies.

This article does not treat "U.S. Policy" in general. It treats the concept of "State Terror" and how it applies to the United States. Consequently, this portion should be written something more along these lines:

People who defend the U.S.'s support for groups considered to be international terrorists or regimes which commonly utilize assassination, torture, and other forms of terrorism argue that these policies have been justified as a response to past Soviet aggression and continue to be justified as a response to terrorist groups.

Otherwise, it is clearly off-topic. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I care, we could just remove it. Justifications are off-topic either way: Justified terrorism is still terrorism.

I think your suggested replacement misses the point though: The original refers to American military interventions (such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Japan). Yours refers to something else. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Then again, at least the second reference does not appear to be talking about "American military interventions" ... ? — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

... or maybe it does, just not on the scale I first imagined. "Special Forces [...] training government troops" in other countries is a kind of "military interventioned", no? Bah. Good enough for its purpose, I suppose, if unclear (at least to me). Still off-topic to the article, in my opinion. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually i agree that it's off-topic. My point was just to show exactly how off-topic it actually is (by suggesting the only way i can think of to re-edit the sentence and bring it into line with the article theme).

I myself would much rather see a new section on U.S. condemnations of other countries and have a reference up there to that, instead.

In fact, now that we've got the name changed i think it might be a good idea to write a new intro and re-edit this one for inclusion later on in the article, as a heading for "Allegations Made Against the U.S." -- or some such section.

Contingent on consensus, of course. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to a new introduction. Does anyone want to start work on it? Sky seems to have disappeared for a little while - maybe Sidhekin could have a go? John Smith's (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I'll have a go, partly because I'm more comfortable taking the role of a copy-editor than a writer, partly because I'm still not comfortable with the new wider scope of the article. I've been trying to tighten the article up, and then it's suddenly wider in scope?  :) I'll probably follow up, but I'm unlikely to take the lead, except for copy-editing. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix that off topic sentence. Its very easy, I'll just remove it.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I agree with removing the {{long}}, but until I get a grip on the new scope, I'll let that issue lie.

I quite agree with the removal of {{Synthesis}}, though, and I think I'll keep an eye on it from now on: It is not helpful, as it does not indicate what statements are problematic. If Ultra or anyone else wants to argue SYN violations, they should mark the specific statement with {{syn}} instead. Blanket SYN violation claims are just not constructive. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, most of the article violates OR and SYN by using sources do not make allegations of terrorism or state terrorism. Especially troublesome when there is no definition of these terms.Ultramarine (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYN: Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.Ultramarine (talk) 11:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Point one: If a statement, sourced or not, doesn't say anything about state terrorism, it is no SYN violation. It is {{irrel}}evant. Tag it as such.

Point two: In such a long article, it is not helpful when you say "here be SYNtheses". Please tag each such statement with {{syn}} instead. Then we will know where to look and what to fix.

Point three: If you cannot find a SYN violating statement, there is no SYN violation. The only way I'd agree to a {{synthesis}} tag, would be if a significant number of {{syn}} tags went uncontested and unfixed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If the source or material does not claim state terrorism, then it is irrelevant for this article. Or should we start adding sourced critical material regarding abortion, animal experimentation, or the income tax, just because some anonymous editor argues that it is terrorism or state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Source on US terror campaigns.[27] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is good. We should incorporate some of this into the article.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nomen!BernardL (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you read this?[28] Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A 1984 HRW report on Guatemala, some highlights

“Previous America’s Watch reports on Guatemala have discussed the murder of thousands by a military government that maintains its authority by terror. The killing continues as we document in this, our third report on Guatemala.”

“As best as we can determine the rural massacres are smaller in scope, which partly reflects the fact that so many of Guatemala’s villages had already been decimated during the army’s terror tactics in the counterinsurgency campaign that it waged in 1982 and the early part of 1983. On the other hand the number of rural killings remains very high, and the number of killings in the cities has risen sharply, coming to resemble the situation that prevailed under President Lucas Garcia (1978-1982)” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p. 2-3)

“The government of Guatemala continues to engage in the systematic use of torture as a means of gathering intelligence and coercing confessions. There is also evidence that torture is used for exemplary purposes, to instill fear among those who see themselves as potential victims of arrest or abduction. … We do find that between the Rios Montt and Meija administrations there has been no appreciable difference where the use of torture is concerned. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p11.)

“In such places, the army faces a crucial dilemma: the resources are not now available to permanently garrison each village. Yet, should they be totally neglected, they could become an important stronghold for opposing the regime. In such situations, the army exercises several options designed to place the community under military control and hold back the development of any opposition. One frequent approach is terror: the burning of houses, beatings, torture, selective killings and even massacres. Distant communities visited in northwest Quiche, near the Huehuetenango border, have experienced some form of military terror…Not one community is what it used to be; a forced transformation has befallen each one. The terror does not simply stem from the cruelty of the armed forces or from the policies of a specific government- although both factors are obviously involved- but from the systematic application of force to maintain effective military control in remote areas of the country-side…the terror is sufficient to ensure that the population understands that no level of dissent, let alone rebellion, will be tolerated. When a village is burned and its people abused, the message is that this is punishment for real or imagined cooperation with the opposition.” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p.60)

Finally from the section called “The U.S. Role” (one may wonder why there are no sections for the “Botswana role” or the “Swiss role”, or the "Tahiti role", etc.)

“On December 4, 1982, President Reagan met with Guatemalan President Rios Montt in Honduras and dismissed reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala published by Americas Watch, Amnesty International and others as a “bum wrap” The following month the Reagan administration announced that it was ending a “five-year embargo on arms sale to Guatemala and had approved a sale of $6.36 million worth of military spare parts to the country. This sale was approved despite U.S. law forbidding arms sales to governments engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984,p. 135)

“During most of 1983, the Reagan Administration continued to dispute reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala. When Americas Watch published its May 1983 report on Guatemala, Creating a Desolation and Calling it Peace, Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, attempted to discredit it publicly. (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, 135)

“In light of its long record of apologies for the government of Guatemala, and its failure to repudiate publicly those apologies even at a moment of disenchantment, we believe that the Reagan Administration shares in the responsibility for the gross abuses of human rights practiced by the government of Guatemala.”BernardL (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

arming of state terrorists, apologetics for state terrorists, defamation of critics of state terrorism. (and we could also add other HRW reports criticizing the training of perpetrators of state terror at the School of the Americas).BernardL (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

and a reminder...“Counterrevolutionary terror was inextricably tied to empire. Present at its birth in 1954 and nurturing through its adolescence in the 1960’s, the United States was a distant yet still involved patron during the Guatemalan genocide. Jimmy Carter would cut off direct military aid in 1977 owing to human rights abuses, yet the United States continued to provide training, funds, and material through other avenues. After Ronald Reagan’s 1981 inauguration, the State Department vigorously lobbied Congress to restore direct support. (Grandin, Greg The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War, The University of Chicago Press, 2004, 188)BernardL (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fail to see any mention of state terrorism in the text. Could be added to an article critical of the US foreign policy, but not to claims of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Section on Columbia?

This is a country waging a counter insurgency war with strong US backing, following the familiar pattern. Writers have called it state terrorism, as well. The lastest from Hugo Chavez, see:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23435878.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the only real terrorism in Colombia comes from FARC.

Chavez is rather disqualified from producing a NPOV position given he has openly sided with the terrorists and called for the overthrow of the democratically-elected Colombian government. Maybe we could have something on Chavez backing terrorism.

Plus I don't see how you can justify a new section when you've complained earlier that the addition of material where the US has accused others of state terrorism would make the article too long. You can't have your cake and eat it - choose one position or the other. John Smith's (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference whether the U.S. and Chavez consider each other enemies. That's a straw-man argument and, in fact, rather ludicrous because i doubt quite seriously that allies on the same side would ever accuse each other of sponsoring State Terror against one another.

Further, i have no doubt that there are many in South America who consider the shoes quite reversed -- that is, that the Colombian government is the actual set of terrorists (aided and abetted by the U.S.) and FARC as the honorable revolutionaries combating the untrammeled, immoral aggression of the two.

For my part, i don't take either side. I am content to merely report on both aspects of this argument. It seems odd, however, that you feel the U.S. POV on this is the only legitimate one that should be included. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that a classic violation of NPOV? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp the topic of this article. Its State Terrorism. Hence, it must be terrorism by States. But there is more. Its state terrorism supported by the United States. Therefore any claims that Chavez is supporting terrorism, is complete off topic, unless the source says that the US is behind it, as is the case with Columbia. That is a country that is strongly tied and supported by the US, and has been characterized as practicing State terror. I'm all for expanding this article, provided it stays on topic. There is a lot more material to cover, which is why we should not expand the topic to cover other areas. This stance is consistent. Lastly, your comment about Chavez not being NPOV, this just tells me you don't understand the NPOV policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the topic was state terrorism (allegedly) supported by the United States. Now, it seems to be state terrorism (allegedly or not?) related to the United States. Which means that claims that Chavez is supporting terrorism will still be on-topic, provided the terrorism in question is related to the United States, which seems reasonable in this case. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the response to such accusations is usually accusation in return. I think if we include Chavez calling the US a state sponsor of terrorism, then we should include the US accusing him of the same. While it would be fair, I think it would in the end show the joke of a defense it is, considering all nations that accuse the US, are accused by the US. So which is first, the chicken or the egg? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Was there a consensus reached among the established editors of this article for the major structural changes to which you are referring? BernardL (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't consensus for the name-change. But we are left with a newly titled article and that necessarily leads to a new scope. John Smith's (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be quite useful to include both the charges, each in their own heading. Similarly, the evidence for each should be clearly summed up. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Any sources and material included must mention terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a good article to be used for the Columbia section: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199607--.htmGiovanni33 (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotes section

When discussing ways to reduce unnecessary material in the article - such as making blockquotes brief, which doesn't quite appear to have happened - I remember other editors suggesting there was no need for the quotes section at the end. Was there any reason why it wasn't removed? At the least it needs to be balanced up by some views from the other side, maybe two from each to make a total of four. John Smith's (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I had moved the quotes here for transfer to Wikiquotes, but did not continue the process and someone got tired of waiting and moved them back in. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Tired of waiting does not sound much like a reason to keep them. :) I would have no objection to see them go: They add nothing useful to the article as they stand, and if anyone finds a use for any or all of them, they can always be reinserted. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tags and other changes

I'm not clear where there was consensus to remove those tags and make those other changes. I know I've made the point about the "long" tag before and the article is as long, if not more so, as it was before. Redpen said that someone "got bored" over removing the wikiquotes and restored them - it seems to me that so far no one is taking reducing the size of the article seriously. And before anyone complains about references being a large reason for the large article, I have already said that there is no need having upwards of five citations for a single point, especially if some are from heavily biased sources. So I've put the tag back to keep people focused on that. I've seen objections on synthesis since I was last here too.

Also I disagree that it is off-topic to have reference to a defence of US policy. As for "claimed", I don't mind if consensus agreed with removing those but it is an acceptable word in my opinion. John Smith's (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

See above. There is consensus about my edits, and you have not explained your reverting my changes. You also revered my minor changes regarding the word "claimed," without explanation. If you feel there are SYN violations, please be specific so they can be fixed. I hope someone reverts you and restores my valid changes. I can do so as that would be a first revert, but will allow someone else to do so instead.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly no consensus regarding the changes to the intro.Ultramarine (talk) 10:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There had been no objection to the idea of removing this material from the intro since the idea was posted on the talk page February 27th. See above.

Sufficient consensus by far, IMO. Let those who disagree argue their case instead of just reverting what has been, at least since February 27th, the consensus. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have objected to the OR of the article since long before the 27th with no response. Using this argumentation all of such material should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have had plenty response. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

None recently. You seem to argue that this is what counts.Ultramarine (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You misrepresent my position: "recently" never figured into it. "Since its presentation" would be more like it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My position regarding the OR tag was presented a long time ago with no response recently. I fail to see how this make it less valid and there is no policy either. WP:BOLD could apply, but to both sides, of course.Ultramarine (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is "60.48.29.10"? Someone posted on the article whilst not logged in. John Smith's (talk) 07:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since it's not clear it's obvious that we should contact an administrator and ban the entire range of addresses starting with 60.48.-.-. And since we're not sure, we might as well throw in 60.49.-.- and 60.47.-.-, as well. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sky, what are you talking about? I just asked who the user was. You should calm down rather than make suggestions like that. John Smith's (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Abortion

The Vatican[29] has stated that abortion is a form of terrorism. So we should probable have a section on legal abortion. Thoughts? Ultramarine (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird, but unless you have more (an official statement, for instance), it's hardly even trivia (and this article is more than long enough without a trivia section). — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How can it be more trivial than many of the source now cited in the article? In the spirit of the rest of this article, we can expand with citing how many abortions there are each year in the US and various other arguments by those against abortion. If we use the rest of the article as a standard, there is no need for these sources to mention terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not constructive.

You are arguing that we should remove such material from the article?Ultramarine (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't I done that since I came here? — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a reuters link: [30].Ultramarine (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Same thing as above, really. Problems: (1) It is just this one guy, not the Vatican, making the statement; (2) It is unclear what his statement really is, and whether the abortion case is intended as an example of "terrorism with a human face" or an example of "the media manipulating language". — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The article now quotes similar statements from individuals, like "San Juan" or Chomsky. Why is this person less noteworthy? Ultramarine (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not that he is less noteworthy; it is that you are stating that "The Vatican has stated ...", which is most likely a misattribution and most certainly (so far) a {{failed verification}}. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So how about "Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which oversees Catholic doctrine"? Ultramarine (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We could include that, if we had a section on abortion. It is not nearly enough to justify such a section. A Vatican statement just might have been enough. A Vatican official policy probably would have been. Just this one guy? Nope. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this not enough in order to have a section when the only source accusing the US of state terrorism in the Philippines is a mock trial organization? Or a section on the Nicaragua vs. US trial, only citing an interview in Pakistani television? Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is indeed the only source, it is not enough for me. But I'm not ready to say it is. What's the deal with the other references in that section? Have they {{failed verification}}? Are they {{irrel}}evant? Are they used for {{syn}}thesis? Are there other problems? I haven't checked. Have you? If so, why don't you tag them accordingly? If not, how can you be so sure it is the only one? — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the material in the Philippine section do not accuse the US of state terrorism or terrorism. Some accuse the Philippine government without mentioning the US, some indirectly blame the US but do not accuse the US of state terrorism or state terrorism. The argument seem to be that if there is one source accusing the US of state terrorism, then we can add all these other sources. That is like citing this source regarding abortion, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty.Ultramarine (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just flat-out wrong. If you have actually read the sources in question in some detail then you are either lying or just phonetically-challenged; if you haven't read the sources in question then you should not be making these obviously wrong statements that are utterly contrary to what's posted. Which one is it?

To recap for what must be the thirtieth time, by now: there are at least six sources there which overtly make the statement "state terror" and associate the U.S. with either sponsorship or direct involvement. Of those six sources, one -- the "mock trial organization", as you put it -- is a public statement with multiple Philippine legal and political scholars and some six (? five? eight? i forget) major human rights organizations as signatories. That boosts the number of indirect sources up to something like twelve, now, right? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack. You know the policies regarding this already. Do not continue. Again, the some sources have accused the US of terrorism does not mean that the US is responsible for everything in the Philippines and that we can cite every source mentioning a problem in the country, many times not even mentioning the US, as being more examples of US state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack at all. A personal attack would be as if i called you something like a pediaphile, or said something about your mother, or something like that. I haven't done that. I've simply stated facts:

• I know i have already pointed out to you five times in the last two weeks that this section includes at least five different sources that directly associate the U.S. with state terror in the Philippines.
• I know, also, that at least two other editors have done the same, one at great length over the course of an argument that went on for hours, over the course of two days.

These facts indicate that you cannot truthfully assert that nobody has shown you the sources nor that your attention was never drawn to them. That leaves only three arguments left to support your ludicrous (in the context of this two week long "discussion"), demonstrably false statement that the section is lacking sources: either you have simply failed to read the sources, or you have read them but failed to understand the sources, or you know the sources are there but are pretending as if they aren't because to do so is more convenient for you intended purpose.

So which one is it? 09:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You completely avoided my point. Most of the sources do not mention the US or if they do they do not accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism. As such they are irrelevant or violate WP:SYN. Again, That is like citing this source [31] regarding abortion, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty. Ultramarine (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it is you who are avoiding my point. Regardless of what "most" of the sources do or don't say, the entire section contains six sources that refer back to multiple organizations that make these claims. All sources included directly refer back to these six articles.

You know this. It has been pointed out to you many times. So i am going to ask you again:

• Because I know i have already pointed out to you five times in the last two weeks that this section includes at least five different sources that directly associate the U.S. with state terror in the Philippines, and --
• Because I also know that at least two other editors have done the same, one at great length over the course of an argument that went on for hours, over the course of two days.

I conclude from these facts that you cannot truthfully assert that nobody has shown you the sources nor that your attention was never drawn to them. That leaves only three arguments left to support your demonstrably false statement that the section is lacking relevant sources: either you have simply failed to read the sources, or you have read them but failed to understand the sources, or you know the sources are there but are pretending as if they aren't because to do so is more convenient for you intended purpose.

Which one is it? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will just point out one source. The included Amnesty source [32] and material does not even mention the US so it cannot be accusing the US of anything. Thus irrelevant for the article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: this is a point that has been explained to you repeatedly, by me, over the course of months and years. I will review it briefly:

• Nowhere in Wikipedia guidelines is there a specific statement that says a source cannot be included unless it mentions the title within its text.
• Virtually all historical, military, legal, and political articles include validating examples, explanations, and elaborations of primary points made within the article
• This source clearly refers back to information presented in another source that alleges State Terror by the United States.

This information is provided as validation that the information upon which these allegations are based are widely understood to be true. It is irrelevant whether or not this source mentions the U.S. -- and, in fact, that increases its value as a source, because it indicates a position of extreme neutrality regarding the sources and causes of the events in question.

Thus, the use of this article is utterly uncontroversial and clearly in line with Wikipedia policy.

This has already been explained to you repeatedly. That you are now making the argument again suggests either that:

• You have forgotten what was previously explained to you
• You are ignoring what was previously explained to you
• You are rejecting Wikipedia guidelines and engaging in Wikilawyering (i.e. -- "tendentious editing").

I don't have any idea which one of these is most accurate, but i am most curious and would appreciate reading your explanation. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a policy prohibiting this. WP:SYN: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Amnesty does not reach the same conclusion, it does not accuse the US of these crimes and there is no mention of state terrorism. Again, this is like citing this source [33] regarding abortion and terrorism, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty. Ultramarine (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: it's not synthesis if the material has already been presented by a primary source. This has already been explained to you repeatedly. That you are now making the argument again suggests either that:

• You have forgotten what was previously explained to you
• You are ignoring what was previously explained to you
• You are rejecting Wikipedia guidelines and engaging in Wikilawyering (i.e. -- "tendentious editing").

I don't have any idea which one of these is most accurate. Which one is it? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are arguing that we could cite this source [34] regarding abortion and terrorism, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty.Ultramarine (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism against militia groups

Militia groups argue that for example the Waco Siege is terrorism by the US government.[35] So we should probable have a section on this. Thoughts? Ultramarine (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

At first sight: Why not? Sounds like their argument follows the line of the government definition: "activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population ...".

But this is a WP:FRINGE view, isn't it? (Honest question; I really don't know many hold it, though it is my impression that it is far from mainstream.) I suspect you need a better source. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is more obscure than for example unknown local Philippine websites/organizations or anarchist magazines.Ultramarine (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you see problems with the sources used in the article, tag them, for example with {{verify credibility}}. Then we'll have something to work on. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets discuss E. San Juan, Jr. who has 3 direct quotes in this article. How is this far left individual so noteworthy that he should be given this much space? While at the same far right militia groups are excluded?Ultramarine (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not, until you've tagged the ones you have a problem with.

Let's not, until you take that subject to a better suited section of the talk page.

Let's not, indeed, until you are ready to discuss one thing at a time. To the best of my knowledge, Waco and San Juan have little to do with one another. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged. Note also that this is reported by Associated Press. The argumentation is related. It seems to be a double standard to give so much space to this far left individual if far right groups are excluded.Ultramarine (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see those tags; now perhaps someone will protest them, and we'll get down to the real issues.

To your note: Are far right groups excluded? (I excluded fringes above, but if anyone has excluded far right groups, I was unaware.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The milita groups mentioned in the Associated Press story are not more fringe than E. San Juan, Jr.Ultramarine (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, Ultramarine; since you consider E. San Juan Jr to be a "fringe" commentator on Philippine politics and culture, i presume that you will be able to recommend for me a suitably notable commentator on Philippine culture and politics who is more notable and mainstream than he is. So please: tell us all who you consider to be a suitably mainstream commentator on Philippine politics, culture, and human rights. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should I do that? Discuss the issue at hand, not another person. Why should the far left E. San Juan, Jr. receive so much space if we at the same exclude far right militia groups?Ultramarine (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Apparently you don't know of any other commentator discussing the Philippines. Correct? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We could mention Amnesty or HRW who does not accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism. Back to the point. Why should the far left E. San Juan, Jr. receive so much space if we at the same exclude far right militia groups?Ultramarine (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Ultramarine. Those are not commentators on Filipino culture, politics, and human rights. Those are human rights organizations which operate within a very strict and limited set of guidelines. So again, i will ask you: who do you consider to be a notable commentator that regularly discusses the Philipines' culture, politics, and human rights situation? Remember, please, that you have yet to demonstrate that you have any understanding of the Philippines. Thus, your assertions that San Juan Jr is a "marxist", "fringe", "not mainstream", "not notable", and "unreliable" are all suspicious. Unless you can come up with a reliable commentator that discusses these issues as a counterexample, your assertions will be rejected as the ravings of someone who doesn't know the first thing at all about what they've chosen to argue over. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No double standard here, please demonstrate yourself that you "have any understanding of the Philippines.". You want to include the San Juan material, then it you who must prove the sources. Read WP:V. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So if you want to claim notability, you must provide the source.Ultramarine (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are avoiding my question. It is you who are challenging San Juan as a reliable, notable source. We have already provided a long list of evidence establishing this: Fulbright Scholar, chair of the NYC Philippines' forum, notable academic, specialist in the field, widely published commentator, etc. You, however, maintain that he is not notable enough. Our evidence has already been presented. Now it's time for you to show us what you mean by "notable commentator".

Who do you consider a notable commentator on Philippine culture, politics, and human rights? if you cannot provide one then we can only conclude that you haven't the slightest knowledge of what you're arguing about. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lots of claims, no sources. Lets just look at Google Scholar. Searching for "American Militia" gives more hits than searching on "E San Juan Jr" even assuming that there is just a single person with that name.Ultramarine (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are admitting that you don't know of any Philippine commentators more notable or more reliable than San Juan. Good. I'm glad we've set that to rest. You obviously agree either that a) you don't know enough about the subject in question to be arguing over it, or b) that there are no better commentators than San Juan. That issue is, now, dead.

Now, regarding your claim that the "American Militias" can be used as a source: i'm perfectly willing to consider them. Find me some sources that say "state terrorism" and we'll start working them up. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already presented a source showing that Militia groups accuse the US of terrorism. Again, no reason to give less weight to them than to San Juan as per the Google Scholar search.Ultramarine (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, until i see it in a sandbox, in the context of your proposed edit, i really can't comment one way or another on it, can i? For all i know, you'll be wanting to paste it at the top of the article, above the introduction, with a headline that reads "I WIN!!!! THESE PEOPLE ARE STUPID!!!". Obviously, that would not be acceptable. So until you can show us a sandbox and explain how you want to use it i cannot give any more comment. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You have yourself recently cited WP:BOLD. No double standard please. If you do not have any factual arguments against adjusting the article to give at least equal weight to the views of San Juan and the Militia groups, then I will make the adjustments.Ultramarine (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I cited "bold" in reference to a name change -- a name change that has provided you with more space to make your arguments. Oddly, however, you haven't actually made any arguments -- you've just been sitting around here, plaintively harmonizing with yourself about things nobody else here believes to be sane, reasonable, informed, or relevant.

Even so, when it came to adding the Philippine material i put the stuff up for inspection and waited a full 6 weeks -- as we are all asking you to do.

What's the problem, Ultramarine? Why are you so unwilling to cooperate with your fellow editors? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A name change if far greater than changing some of the article material. I am certainly willing to cooperate. However, you are refusing to follow policy. Again, ff you do not have any factual arguments against adjusting the article to give at least equal weight to the views of San Juan and the Militia groups, then I will make the adjustments.Ultramarine (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And unless you present them in sandbox and work with the other editors here towards incorporating them responsibly you will be reverted. Why are you so unwilling to cooperate with your fellow editors, Ultramarine? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no sandbox requirement. I am discussing the issue here. I have presented sources showing the San Juan is no more notable than Milita groups. Please discuss any objections you have to adjusting the article accordingly.Ultramarine (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Ultramarine -- by overwhelming consensus, the regular editors on this article have asked that all major edits first be floated in a sandbox before introduction to the article page. This is clearly supported by Wikipedia policy. In light of that, i will ask you once again: why do you find it so difficult to cooperate with the wishes of your fellow editors? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What policy are you citing regarding sandbox requirements? No straw poll has been made so current editor opinion is unknown. I am cooperating, it is you who have recently been blocked for using sockpuppets and 3RR violation in order ignore other editors and revert to the version you prefer.Ultramarine (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)No, there is no 'requirement' that material go through a sandbox process. However, the WP:BRD process amounts to the same thing; and for editors who frequent this artcile, following the sandbox process prior to placing material in the article is a way to build concensus without the strife of a Revert setting off an edit war. In general, the process of 'sandboxing of new material' has worked. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very willing to discuss any factual arguments. Discussion is the way resolve disputes. Do you have objection to adjusting the San Juan material as per above? Ultramarine (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism against animals

Animal rights activists see much terror against animals.[36] So we should probable have a section on this. Thoughts? Ultramarine (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you just trying to make a point? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you seeing a point? I am just discussing.Ultramarine (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

What I am seeing looks at first glance to be a blatant attempt at disruptive editing. However, I was asking for clarification in case there was actually an attempt to improve WP that I had missed. The response leads me to believe my initial interpretation was in fact valid. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. "Terror" is not "terrorism". — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good response. Lets have the same standard for the rest of the article.Ultramarine (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not dealing with "state terror" as any sort of legal, ethical, or tactical idea. It's a generalist usage of "terror" applied to humanity in general and not to any particular state or government in particular. Thus, in an article about "State Terrorism", it's obviously inappropriate. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no agreed on definition of terrorism or state terrorism. So how can you claim that it only applies to humanity?Ultramarine (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone can call anything state terrorism" revisited

There is no agreed on definition of terrorism or state terrorism. So how can you claim that it only applies to humanity?Ultramarine (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're making obviously false statements again, Ultramarine. That's, what -- the sixth time in the last 6 hours? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming that there is a definition of terrorism or state terrorism generally agreed on?Ultramarine (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We have already been over this many times. WheezyF demolished this argument only a week or two ago. Yes, i am saying that there is a clearly delineated concept of "State Terrorism" and "State Terror" which informed people discussing this issue can generally agree upon. Some reject that this definition is useful or meaningful, others insist that it must be more precisely defined before it can be properly applied, while still others argue that the idea is already defined well enough that it should be enshrined in legal doctrine. Despite these disagreements, there is no dispute over what is generally meant by the phrase "State Terror". Stone put to sky (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

How can there be a clearly defined concept when there are so many different versions with for example the UN having four different ones regarding terrorism? Could you give the definition of state terrorism and source for that there is no dispute over this? Ultramarine (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I think it's time for you to go back and reconsider Supermassive Black Holes.

Or, to put it another way: just because there's no legal definition doesn't mean that there's no generally agreed upon definition. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, source for your claim that there is a " generally agreed upon definition". Ultramarine (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A source? Look at the article. Multiple sources are presented there. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Which give many different defintions showing that there is no "generally agreed upon definition".Ultramarine (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, actually what the sources show is that there is a "generally agreed upon definition", just that there is no formal definition. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources disagree, so there is no "generally agreed upon definition".Ultramarine (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No. The sources are largely in agreement, and that is quite clear from the definitions. Please remember not to make false statements, Ultramarine. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources have very different definitions. If there was an agreement, then the UN could easily have reached a single definiton.Ultramarine (talk) 10:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That is clearly a false statement. "Legal agreement" is not equivalent to "scholarly consensus". Stone put to sky (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, give source for you claim of "generally agreed upon definition".Ultramarine (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, again. I will take that to be acknowledgment that you no longer have anything new to add and that this issue should now be considered closed. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no source for you claims. if you any regarding a general agreed definiton, regardless of regarding "Legal agreement" or "scholarly consensus", then add it here.Ultramarine (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you appear to be attempting to return to the absurd claim that "anyone can call anything state terrorism". That is one point at which I can no longer by any stretch of the imagination assume good faith in your editing presence here and based on that fact come to the conclusion that you are simply being disruptive. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the issue at hand, do you have any source stating there is a general agreement regarding what terrorism or state terrorism is? Regardless of regarding "legal agreement" or "scholarly consensus"?Ultramarine (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not waste my time with someone who is basing arguments on the absurd claim "anyone can call anything state terrorism". Is that your posisition, yes or no. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

My position is that in this article most of the material and sources do not mention terrorism or state terrorism or even the US. It has simply become a waste dump for various criticisms of the US or allied governments that anonymous Wikipedia editor themselves think are state terrorism by the US. This is OR and not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I will not waste my time with someone who is attempting to base their argument on "anyone can call anything state terrorism". It appears that that statement is your line of reasoning in this discussion. I am asking for a yes or no response. Is your position "anyone can call anything state terrorism". TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In the context of Wikipedia, no. Sources are required or it is OR as per above. More generally, many people have called lots of things terrorism, including abortion or the treatment of animals, as shown elsewhere. Are they wrong? Since there is no agreed on definition of what terrorism is, that is difficult to prove. The lack of agreed on defintion makes it a matter of opinion.Ultramarine (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a straighforward 'yes' or 'no' and did not recieve it. Do I understand your position correctly: "anyone can call anything state terrorism" will only be used if the phrase is attributable to a specific person/group TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If a notable source states claims/opinions of terrorism by someone, then we can certainly cite this in Wikipedia.Ultramarine (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And so my assumption of good faith in your editing presence in the article will not be proved false by a return to the "anyone can call anything state terrorism" * baloney that has previously come from your pen? (*unless you are presenting such arguments from another source.) Again, I am looking for a simple 'yes' or 'no' to clarify that I understand.12:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside of Wikipedia anyone can call anything state terrorism and it would be difficult to disprove due to lack of definition. In Wikipedia, no. Sources required which make that claim.Ultramarine (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem very reluctant to commit to a simple premise: you will use "anyone can call anything state terrorism" only when you attribute the statement to a specific agent and I can assume good faith in your presence here OR you will use "anyone can call anything state terrorism" in contexts where you are not attributing the statement to a verifiable individual and I will have full reason to consider your presence here disruptive. It seems a fairly simple position for you to choose one or the other. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a statement should always be attributed and have a source. Applies to all statements.Ultramarine (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Then I hope then that we will not have to re-revisit this topic again. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine's new suggestions

Ultramarine, if you really feel the article would benefit from the three (is that how many new topics you suggested in the last few hours?) new areas of 'state terrorism and the US', I would suggest that you follow the general procedure for material for this article and bring proposed draft content to the talk page or a sandbox and let other editors comment on specifics. Otherwise, I see the above threads as simply unproductive distraction and I would suggest that other editors ignore your comments until there is some actual content to work with. Even if your proposed sections end up as being not appropriate for this article (and my initial assumption is that they aren't) your reliably sourced content would likely be of value to some other article(s) within Wikipedia. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Such a policy has not been followed previously with the whole Philippine section being added without discussion or even an edit commentary. Also, see WP:BOLD.Ultramarine (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to be bold, but if you do not work with the other editors prior to your inclusion of new material into the article, you can expect that the article will be reverted to previous status and you will be asked to bring a discussion of your materials to the talk page anyway. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly intend to work and discuss with other editors. But please do not make claims of some version being "consensus". From Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "There is no such thing as a consensus version".Ultramarine (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed where I labeled a version "the concensus version". Can you point that out to me? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A general point to the other editors who have claimed this.Ultramarine (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You made massive additions, even though opposed, and made massive deletions--all without consensus. You also reverted even minor improvements and changes I made, without explanation. This editing style is not appreciated and will be reverted until you play nice here.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed the factual issues in sections above. Please discuss any objections there. Also, please do no do blank deletion, including removing disputed tags today added to text without any explanation.Ultramarine (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the things you've discussed and editors opposed it and reverted you, last week. Waiting a week does not change the situation, and you should not just keep restoring. That is edit warring. The objections have already been provided, so no reason to repeat. But it should be clear you don't have consensus to make these changes to the article as of yet. The same goes with that very unhelpful SYN tag, which many editors clearly have opposed, with ample explanation already given more than once. Lastly, I did not blank delete, I even kept the main point of your long section--all from one source, which, as other editors pointed out is undue weight. However, that is what you did: blank delete, in your blind revert, which, like JohnSmith, reverted various small changes without explanation.Giovanni33 (talk)

If you have any factual arguments, please continue the discussions above. You have given no explanation at all for deleting the today added verify credibility tags regarding E. San Juan, Jr.. The opposing view material regarding the rape is appropriate considering the very long critical material including a quote lasting a several paragraphs. Undue weight and violations of npov to not allowed the opposing views to be presented equally.Ultramarine (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I already did. That you have no consensus and your massive deletions and insertions of whole sections all from one source is factual. Also, your material doesn't give opposing views, it only states that they don't know, and that it's under investigation, which is what I left in there, btw. Balance and undue weight is not a concept that means equal space, as you seem to suggest, either.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not responded to the factual arguments and not responded at all lately. There is no permanent veto against changes simply by refusing to discuss an issue. Again, you have given no explanation at all for deleting the today added verify credibility tags regarding E. San Juan, Jr.. Regarding the rape, either the both sides should be allowed to present in full or both be equally reduced.Ultramarine (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You can add the tags back, and I won't oppose that. I opposed your blind revert and most of your other changes for specific reasons already stated, and out of principal for consensus. And, yes, there is a permanent veto if consensus does not change. Waiting a week without seeing any changes in consensus does not make it ok to then make the disputed changes. About equal coverage, that is now how it works. What makes this one source so important that it needs its whole section? Also, what it does is not add anything interesting, it just repeats itself, bloating the whole section to twice its size. If you get consensus to add that much text from that one source, I won't oppose you. So far you are the only editor who wants it, and others have reverted you.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had read the discussion today above you would have learned that from Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "There is no such thing as a consensus version". No, you do not have a permanent veto against changes simply by refusing to discuss issues. See WP:NOT: Wikpipedia is not a democracy but instead uses discussion to resolve issues. Not to mention that no straw polls have been made so the current editor opinion is unknown. Regarding the rape opposing view material, if the very long quote should be in + other material, then also the opposing views which are actually smaller in size.Ultramarine (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bold is not an excuse to edit war, esp. against consensus. If you fail to convince others, then you do have to respect consensus until you can change opinion, or seek the other resolutions to the dispute though Rfc, etc. That is not what you are doing. You are edit warring by making massive changes that have not been discussed or explained, or have been clearly opposed per the talk page. I can not revert again, but if another editor does, I hope you reconsider your editing style here and work with others instead of provoking edit wars, again. I note that you are already at 3RR, if not more. I also note that your revert was once again a blind revert undoing other minor changes, which is rather careless, and disrespectful considering I have complained about this.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Ultramarine needs to gain consensus before making big changes that most other editors disagree with.69.228.198.235 (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss any objections like I do instead of just blankly revert.Ultramarine (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Violations of WP policy

1. Please read WP:SYN: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Most of the articles violate this. The sources do not accuse the US of anything or not of terrorism or state terrorism. All such material should be removed. Otherwise we could for example add this view[37] by a high Catholic Church official in charge of Catholic doctrine that abortion is terrorism and start adding sources criticizing abortion but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

2. Please read WP:Undue Weight and WP:NPOV. Most of the article only present one side of the story or only presents the opposing side as a straw man. Take the very long section regarding the rape. There is no need for a long graphical description of the rape. The only purpose seem to be in order to shock as propaganda. If such a long section is included regarding this one rape, then also the opposing material must be included in full.Ultramarine (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

3. See WP:FRINGE. A marxist writer, E. San Juan, Jr., is given 4 long quotes in the articles. No reason to include such a fringe far left view from one person. If included, no justification for excluding for example the view of militia groups that they are the victims of terrorism by the US government.[38]Ultramarine (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spare your citing poilcies. We know those policies and none of these policies are being violated here, except there is one policy you are currently in violation of. Its called the 3 revert rule. You make your 4th revert against consensus, under 24 hours. I suggest you self revert now, to avoid getting reported and blocked. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not reverted, I removed another piece of OR as per 1. But in the spirit of discussion I will discuss it here. Since it does not accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism it is either OR and WP:SYN to include it or it is irrelevant. See my point 1 above. If no factual arguments are given, it will be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 08:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Similarly, The Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace reports that most of the human rights violations were committed by the AFP, the Philippine National Police, and the CAFGU (Civilian Armed Forces Government Units) under the mantle of the anti-insurgency campaign initially created as one arm of the U.S. War on Terror.

Most of those killed or "disappeared" were peasant or worker activists belonging to progressive groups such as Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, GABRIELA, Anakbayan, Karapatan, KMU, and others (Petras and Abaya 2006). They were protesting Arroyo's repressive taxation, collusion with foreign capital tied to oil and mining companies that destroy people's livelihood and environment, fraudulent use of public funds, and other anti-people measures. Such groups and individuals have been tagged as "communist fronts" by Arroyo's National Security Advisers, the military, and police; the latter agencies have been implicated in perpetrating or tolerating those ruthless atrocities.

— Dr. E. San Juan, Jr., "

I don't care what your purported reasons are, you removed it earlier, and it was restored, so when you removed it again, that counts as a revert, making it 4 reverts within a day. That is a violation and unless you self revert you risk being blocked. Which is it going to be?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Already answered. Now answer the factual arguments.Ultramarine (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you avoided the issue by talking about your reasons for removal. This is irrelevant. Deal with the real issue here: your edit warring and violation of 3RR rule. Its a serious rule and a serious violation, esp. for someone touting policies its hypocritical at best. Are you going to self revert or be blocked? Answer that.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR, see above. In order I avoid any more for not having a factual discussion I have restored the material for now. But if you refuse the discuss the factual arguments I presented, then I will remove the material again.Ultramarine (talk) 08:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is smart of you. I'll look over the arguments and address them. I hope other editors will do and that we can come to some consensus on the issue.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See earlier comments above regarding consensus. If you do not respond, I will remove this material, as well as the other material not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Please also respond to the other points or this material will be removed/reduced.Ultramarine (talk) 08:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And you will be reverted. Again. For reasons that have already been given, repeatedly, over and over again, over the course of days, weeks, months, and years.

In the end this comes down to one simple problem: you have not presented any facts. None. Zilcho. The Big Goose-egg. Absolutimundily negatory. Of the arguments you have made there is only one -- that there is only one side presented -- that has any basis in reality. Yet there is nothing in Wikipedia that says "In cases where one side has failed to respond or acknowledge the grievances of another, neither side can be presented." Which is what you're arguing.

Or, if you're not, then the solution is simple: present the other side. Except that you refuse to do that to. Which then means it isn't our problem -- it's yours.

Of your last few suggestions you have yet to present a single source that mentions "state terror". As has already been repeatedly pointed out to you, ad nauseum: all sections of this article have multiple sources alleging state terror (of one form or another) by the united states. While it may not be true that every source contains the words "State Terror", it is undeniably true that every source included validates facts presented in another source that clearly does make such a statement.

So your pathway is clear, Ultramarine: find us some sources that clearly mention "state terrorism" and start to build on them. I will be glad to help you in that endeavor.

Finally, i'm putting this in a font that will make it utterly impossible for you to miss what i'm saying:

THE EDITORS HERE HAVE OVERWHELMINGLY AND REPEATEDLY REJECTED THESE ARGUMENTS WITH PAGES UPON PAGES OF CLEAR EXPLANATION AND EXAMPLES. PLEASE GIVE THEM UP. THEY ARE INVALID REASONS FOR MAKING YOUR SUGGESTED CHANGES. PLEASE RESTRICT YOURSELF TO ONE TOPIC AT A TIME, AND PLEASE INTRODUCE YOUR EDITS IN A SANDBOX SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THEM.

And yes -- this last time that the Philippine material was introduced it sat up in Sandbox for a full SIX WEEKS -- 42 DAYS -- AND THEN SOME before we finally added it to the article. So no more whining about how we added it categorically and are demanding of you standards we do not apply across the board -- that is a clearly false statement that does not assume good faith on our part. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouting is boring. No, Wikipedia policy does not allowed original research. Again, see WP:SYN and my point 1 above. Regarding "consensus", also see above. Please respond to the other points I presented. No double standard please, you yourself quoted WP:BOLD in a section recently and when you originally adding the Philippine material you did so without discussion and even an edit commentary. But is you have any factual arguments, please state them and I will be happy to respond.Ultramarine (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouting? You really need to get out more.

There is no original research. There is no synthesis. These points have already been explained to you repeatedly. Unless you can make specific reference to specific statements then there really is nothing more to talk about.

Finally: the Philippine material had been absent for the article for nearly 6 months before it was re-introduced. When it was re-introduced it remained in sandbox for 6 weeks before it was posted to the article. This was done deliberately in order to offer other editors the opportunity to comment and hone the material. It is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We ask, therefore, that you please give us all the same courtesy. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack noted. I have already mentioned a specific example, see the quote above. As well as mentioning Amnesty and HRW quotes in section above. I will repeat this again. Since the material does not accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism it is either OR and WP:SYN to include it or it is irrelevant. See my point 1 above. If no factual arguments are given, this material will be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Political Nature of the Arrests, Disappearances, Torture, and Killings" states "Amnesty International reports that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution." The AI report continues: "the arrest and threatened arrest of leftist Congress Representatives and others on charges of rebellion, and intensifying counter-insurgency operations in the context of a declaration by officials in June of 'all-out-war' against the New People's Army . . . [and] the parallel public labeling by officials of a broad range of legal leftist groups as communist 'front organizations'...has created an environment in which there is heightened concern that further political killings of civilians are likely to take place.|Amnesty International|"

"Similarly, The Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace reports that most of the human rights violations were committed by the AFP, the Philippine National Police, and the CAFGU (Civilian Armed Forces Government Units) under the mantle of the anti-insurgency campaign initially created as one arm of the U.S. War on Terror.

Most of those killed or "disappeared" were peasant or worker activists belonging to progressive groups such as Bayan Muna, Anakpawis, GABRIELA, Anakbayan, Karapatan, KMU, and others (Petras and Abaya 2006). They were protesting Arroyo's repressive taxation, collusion with foreign capital tied to oil and mining companies that destroy people's livelihood and environment, fraudulent use of public funds, and other anti-people measures. Such groups and individuals have been tagged as "communist fronts" by Arroyo's National Security Advisers, the military, and police; the latter agencies have been implicated in perpetrating or tolerating those ruthless atrocities.

— Dr. E. San Juan, Jr., "

"According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate." In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.” In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."

Page Break for Convenience, Pt 1

There were no personal attacks there.

And no, this will not be removed, and if you continue to edit-war then we will be heading off to AN/I for a chat over there.

This material is included specifically to show that the events used to justify the allegations a) indisputably occurred, b) are reported accurately by those commentators which allege state terrorism by the united states, and c) are clearly characterizable as terrorist in nature. These sources are relevant to the article and reliable. They stay. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"You really need to get out more." is a personal attack, just one done today. If you continue, I will certainly report you.

None of this material accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism. It violates WP:SYN to argue that they report the same thing as the sources which claim state terrorism. I will quote from WP:SYN again, "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This has already been addressed, above, by multiple editors. See above, the big black heavy stuff you seem to think is "shouting". Obviously it wasn't written largely enough for you, because here you are already neglecting it, repeating yourself, repeating yourself, repeating yourself.... Stone put to sky (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhh -- no. "You need to get out more" is a comment upon your willful interpretation of big, heavy fonts as "shouting", even despite the clearly stated "[Because you seem to keep ignoring or forgetting points that have already been made to you repeatedly] I'm going to type this up so you can't miss it". There's no "personal attack" in that, and your interpretation of it is just silly. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate and against policy that you use personal attacks. Please discuss the factual issues. Again, the above material certainly do not reach the same conclusion, thus violating WP:SYN. If Amnesty does not even mention the US, thus cannot be accusing the US of terrorism, this material is irrelevant for this article.Ultramarine (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: there was no personal attack. Once again: the above material is clearly relevant to the article and reliably sourced. See the big black heavy stuff you want to call "shouting". Stone put to sky (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"You really need to get out more." is a personal attack. Do you apologize? Ultramarine (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you apologize for making a personal attack against me when characterizing my bold fonts as "shouting"? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I will report you.Ultramarine (talk) 10:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky has been warned for his incivility. Please do not continue in the future.Ultramarine (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added disputed tages to some of the material in the Philippine section while we discuss. To repeat: This material does not mention terrorism or state terrorism or in some cases even the US. As such it violates WP:SYN to argue that this is in fact evidence for state terrorism or terrorism or that this is the same violations other sources speak of. Again, from WP:SYN: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You are under a clearly misguided notion if you think that EVERY source within this or any article has to SPECIFICALLY include the name of the article within the source material. Simply and utterly WRONG. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Again read WP:SYN as per above. I will add another. WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included." Claims of terrorism or state terrorism are certainly exceptional claims. Thus, material and sources not mentioning this have no justification for inclusion.Ultramarine (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you two even talking about the same thing? It seems to me Ultra is arguing that the source must be on the topic of the article, while Pen is arguing that the source need not include the name of the article.

The name is a red herring. Drop it. (Ow.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And now back again to REDFLAG - are you the reincarnation of Raggz? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not Raggz. Please respond the argument.Ultramarine (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

We went through the bogus REDFLAG argument in January. Check the archives. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not bogus. The archives are probably a hundred pages. More exact place or unverifiable. WP:SYN also applies. Again: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given the new scope of the article, I can see a REDFLAG argument carrying more weight. As long as the scope was explicitly allegations, there was hardly any exceptional quality to our claims. Now that "allegations" have been dropped (ow!), the recontextualized claims seem far more exceptional. Far enough? I don't know. But the January conclusion no longer need apply. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: SYNTH - it has been explained numerous times TODAY (thank you Stone), not to mention how many other times previously, and you keep coming back with "but that source doesn't say the words 'state terrorism' and so it cannot be used in the article". I have no reason to believe that yet another explanation will make it clear or change your mind. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No justification have been given for ignoring Wikipedia policy. If we do not follow this policy, we could cite this source [39] regarding abortion and terrorism, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty.Ultramarine (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Er, no he doesn't. At least, I cannot see that he does. Got a diff?

As I search through the talk page for "words", all I see is you and Stone talking about the "words 'state terrorism'". I cannot see that Ultra uses the word "words" at all. And even if he has, and it has since been redacted ...

Please state your own case, rather than put words in the mouths of others. That would make it slightly easier for third parties to follow.

Thank you. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See above:

Almost all of the material in the Philippine section do not accuse the US of state terrorism or terrorism. Some accuse the Philippine government without mentioning the US, some indirectly blame the US but do not accuse the US of state terrorism or state terrorism. The argument seem to be that if there is one source accusing the US of state terrorism, then we can add all these other sources. That is like citing this source regarding abortion, and then add many other sources criticizing abortion but having no mention of terrorism or state terrorism. Of which there are plenty.Ultramarine (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is the titles of the two sections "State terrorism and propaganda" and "U.S. hypocrisy about state terrorism". Neutral would be to start with "Claims of..." or "Allegations of...". I tried to change to such a more neutral title. Please explain the revert.Ultramarine (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your usage of english is improper and violates Wikipedia style. Further, these are weasel words which appear to be introduced solely to skew the POV of the article. You will need to come up with something better than your proposed changes. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Any problem with "Claims of U.S. hypocrisy about state terrorism" and "Claims of U.S. propaganda about state terrorism"? POV is to claim that these things are facts.Ultramarine (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A title is not a claim. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A title can certainly claim or state as a fact. The current title implies that the charges against the US are facts when they are only claims.Ultramarine (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that "hypocrisy" is POV (and how!), but I'm not sure "propaganda" is.

I never questioned "propaganda" before you tagged it, and while I can see the point that it is rather a charged word, it refers to a phenomenon that is undeniably present. "Claims of propaganda" just doesn't cut it. I'd welcome a less charged word, or even a brand new title, if it retained the clarity of the current. I've no suggestion though.

As for "hypocrisy", how about "State Terrorism likened to Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict"? — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the last but it is limited since Chomsky also makes other accusations. How about "Chomsky's view on U.S. state terrorism" and "Falk's view on U.S. state terrorism"? Or something similar. Maybe just "Noam Chomsky" and "Richard Falk".Ultramarine (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's missing the angle. It's telling us "who", not "what". What is this section about? Hypocrisy? Double standards? Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict? I can see those. Chomsky and Falk? Nope. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda is also a view, not a fact. How about "State Terrorism likened to Low Intensity Conflict" and "State Terrorism seen as propaganda"?Ultramarine (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like the former, though I wonder if leaving out "military operations" will unbalance it. Let me ponder it.

As for the latter: "Seen as" is not the angle. In fact, the angle seems to be a continuation of the "hypocrisy" angle.

"State Terrorism and the First World"? Or just drop the header to include it in the preceding section? Though that would require keeping a "hypocrisy" angle in the section header ...

"Obfuscation of the term"? Well, that does fit the "definition" header ... and defines this subsection within it. Good? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this presents Falk's view as as a fact when it is only an opinion. I am not sure why you object to including "Claims of", "Allegations of", or "View on" in the titles. Alternatively I still think we could just state "Noam Chomsky" or "Richard Falk" Just like we state Nicaragua or Guatemala. The exact title is not terrible important. It is probably very difficult to express the contents exactly and briefly at the same. What is important is that it is neutral and does not take sides.Ultramarine (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is also important that titles are useful and clear. Seeing "Richard Falk" in the table of contents is anything but useful and clear: What is that section about? Contrast with seeing "Nicaragua" in the table of contents: It is clear what the section is about, and useful to anyone looking for specific info.

Page Break, Pt II

"Claims of State terrorism and propaganda" is just poor English. It is unclear, to the point of being confusing, and therefore not as useful as it might have been.

I'd rather see the current: Though its effect may be questionable, no reasonable man could deny the existence of the propaganda in question. Propaganda is not merely a matter of opinion. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly dispute Falk's view regarding propaganda as he presents it and it is not a fact. My proposal is "Claims/Allegations of U.S. propaganda about state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you dispute it. What matters is if you can come up with another source that disputes it. Until you do, your opinions will remain off this page, restricted to your own brain and your own home.

Obviously, you must be reminded: Wikipedia is not a place for Original Research. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Merely pointing out that reasonable man can object. Extraordinary claims such as propaganda require extraordinary sources.Ultramarine (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You yourself have repeatedly reminded us, here, that it is irrelevant whether "reasonable men" can object. Consequently, we are now using your own standards of inclusion as the measure by which we edit this article. Thus, what matters now is only whether you have a source to back up your proposed edits. Since extraordinarily reliable sources have been provided for this content it is now clear that, unless you have equally reliable, contrasting sources to counter them with then this argument has now drawn to a close. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

An newspaper interview is certainly not enough to prove as a fact that "mainstream media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of first-world privilege." His claim that only leftists have been labeled as terrorists is simply false, see Kach.Ultramarine (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: the source is Richard_A._Falk, quoted from an official interview dealing with the precise subject as outlined in the article introduction and title. Your opinion about his validity or reliability as a source is as irrelevant as your opinion about the ideas he expresses. You are clearly engaging in original research, here, and so your these reservations are simply irrelevant. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not an opinion but a fact the Kach has been classified as a terrorist group by the US.[40]Ultramarine (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are clearly misreading his statements. He does not say "leftists in general", but instead "leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries". That's quite a far cry from the interpretation you are attempting to force upon him. Moreover, Kach is not a state actor; it is a non-state actor, and it is clear from Falk's statement that he is distinguishing between the use of terrorism by state proxies and actors as opposed to the use of terrorism by "revolutionaries", "dispossessed", groups fighting for "self-determination", or however you want to put it.

In other words: you are introducing a straw-man argument that has nothing to do with the posted source. Moreover, the edits you have posted to that section are clearly off-topic. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Falk alleges: "The propagandists of the modern state conceal its reliance on terrorism and associate it exclusively with Third World revolutionaries and their leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries" Exclusively is false since also right wing terrorists like Kach have been designated as such.Ultramarine (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaking the context of the quotation. "The propagandists....conceal [the state's] reliance on terrorism and associate it exclusively with Third World revolutionaries...." This is a minor exaggeration at worst; the interview, however, is focusing upon state and non-state actors in Central America. Kach is clearly not from Central America. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a false statement. Thus the title should mention allegations or claims.Ultramarine (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read the article. It's obviously not a false statement, and your protests are just as obviously misplaced. Further, i will point out that the statement is not talking about what the official government position is, but rather what the propagandized version is. Thus, the official understanding of Kach is really irrelevant; almost nobody who regularly reads mainstream media in the U.S. has heard of Kach, whereas groups like the Sandinistas, Castro's Cuba, FARC, and many others are quite familiar. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you are doing OR research. Reader of mainstream media certainly hear about terrorists such as Neo-Nazi groups, right-wing paramilitary groups in Latin America, Islamic fundamentalists, etc.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It is you who are making the argument from original research -- not i. All i've done is point out that his argument is clear, intelligible, and obviously not at all what you are pretending it is. Now you are trying to justify your proposed changes based on claims you yourself are making about what is and is not the case with the general public. Meanwhile, the quotation -- coming from an extraordinarily reliable source -- stands unaltered while you continue to call for its removal because....you don't like it. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It was you who started claiming that mainstream media do not mention right wing terrorists. Obviously false as shown. Falk makes no mention of your claimed distinction between official position and propagandized version.Ultramarine (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I simply explained the context of the quotation and why it's plausible. Since then, you have badly misinterpreted that statement some three different times, each in a different way, apparently in some sort of hope that you'll trip me up and you'll be able to once again jump-start the disagreement. I will reiterate: the quotation makes perfect sense, it is quite intelligible, and your claims to the contrary amount to original research undertaken in an attempt to delete material so that you can introduce POV skew to the article. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Falk's claim is simply false, as shown. He makes no mention of any distinction between "official position" and "propagandized version". Thus the proper title must include "Allegations"Ultramarine (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Got a source for "Falk's claim is simply false"? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[41] shows that the claim ""The propagandists of the modern state conceal its reliance on terrorism and associate it exclusively with Third World revolutionaries and their leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries" is false. Not exclusively leftists.Ultramarine (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the claim of "Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism" For example the Khmer Rogue killed more people.[42][43]Ultramarine (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in either source given, sorry. I fear you are committing a {{syn}} violation. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Can also quote Rummel's Death by Government which do include the bombings as a crime but in the grand total still ranks the US not in the top ten killers of the last century.Ultramarine (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You may dispute his views on the "propagandists of the modern state", but hardly their existence, right?

Anyway, the claim seems to be not of propaganda about state terrorism, but rather propaganda concealing state terrorism. Neither does the claim appear to restrict itself to US propaganda. But "Claims of propaganda concealing state terrorism" just sounds awful ... :-\ — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"the U.S. and other first-world states, as well as mainstream media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of first-world privilege." Just a view. "The propagandists of the modern state conceal its reliance on terrorism and associate it exclusively with Third World revolutionaries and their leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries." Simply false, many right-wing groups are also listed as terrorists. ""The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism" Again simply false, even accepting that they were state terrorism, for example Stalin killed many more only counting the Great Terror.Ultramarine (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

If no further objections I will change to "Claims regarding U.S. propaganda about state terrorism". As seen many of his statements are disputable claims. The other section to "State Terrorism likened to Low Intensity Conflict"Ultramarine (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see someone support these changes before you make them. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The current text are POV. WP must follow policy. If no objections with explanations, I will change them.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The current titles are not POV. I, personally, consider them rather superfluous -- but then, they weren't added for me. They were added at the urging of Ultramarine, MONGO, TDC, et al, some many months back. I find it interesting that he now shows up on the page and demands that they be removed. Whatever. Were it not for the fact that i am sure Ultramarine will pop back in here 6 months from now and demand the content's removal based on "irrelevance" then i would have no problem with removing some of these rather superfluous titles and consolidating the heading under something more concise. Unfortunately, i've watched how he works and it has become clear that no accommodation short of deleting the page will satisfy him.

Regardless, i will be happy to add more material that will justify the "Hypocrisy...." heading. I require, however, a bit of time -- two weeks or so -- before i can manage it. I am quite busy at the moment with three different projects, and the research this will require is going to set me back a few afternoons. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not added or advocated these titles. If you add more material, then we will discuss that material then. We are now discussing the current material.Ultramarine (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be careful about making such statements, Ultramarine. While your denial may not be outright false, it can be rather easily proven inaccurate. As for the addition of new material i will, of course, provide a sandbox that will allow discussion before inclusion. My point, however, is that this section in particular is easily expanded and so properly titled. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you evidence for you claims, cite them. Hypothetical material that may or may not appear sometime in the future are irrelevant for current discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The suggested replacements also do not follow policy. "Claims regarding U.S. propaganda about state terrorism" fails both WP:V and WP:NPOV, for reasons I have already given; I may add Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim to the list, as this use is not among those "acceptable", though of course that is a guideline, not a policy.

And I think "State Terrorism likened to Low Intensity Conflict" is also POV, as it leaves out an important part of the likening, namely namely the "military operations" parts. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky does not compare it to military operations in LIC, just to LIC without a qualifer. We can use "Allegations" instead of "Claims". Allegations seems to be acceptable according to Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim."Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them.".Ultramarine (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In that quote Chomsky actually compares terrorism (without a qualifier) to LIC; adding a qualifier to one, you should also add a corresponding qualifier to the other. Also, the Chomsky quote is not all there is in this section: We also have a quote from the manual Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict. Remember? :)

"Allegations regarding U.S. propaganda about state terrorism"? Fine in the text, but still not good in the header, if we go by the guidelines, according to which that word "should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear". In the section header, particularly in the table of contents, this identity is not clear. Oh, and you still haven't addressed how the restrictions to "U.S." propaganda and propaganda "about" state terrorism are not in the source. If anything the section is on "Propaganda and U.S. state terrorism". Of course, that header would be hopelessly POV. It's just not easy!  :-( — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to remove the Chomsky material since it does not include "state", then that is fine with me. Regardless, Chomsky does not make a comparison with military operations in LIC, so claiming this is factually incorrect. We could state "Allegations regarding Western propaganda by Richard Falk".Ultramarine (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Chomsky material does not use the word "state" (nor the words "military operations"), but it is still on that topic. There may be other reasons to exclude it, but as off-topic? Won't fly.

Since my proposed header does not mention Chomsky at all, it makes no claim on Chomsky, and so cannot be factually incorrect.

I'd prefer "Richard Falk on state terrorism and Western propaganda", if we have to include his name. I note that you have added material to this section by people other than Richard Falk. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no comparison to military operations in LIC, so it is factually incorrect to state this. Falk's view is still not a fact, just a view. Propaganda is a negative term that implies untruth. Which is not proven. How about "Allegations by Richard Falk on state terrorism and Western propaganda"Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is not in Chomsky, no, but we need not restrict ourself to Chomsky. Propaganda is negatively charged, yes, but it does not imply untruth. Indeed, from Propaganda: "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful" — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no source making a comparison to military operations in LIC. FFalk alleges that " mainstream media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of first-world privilege." A very POV extraordinary statement and not a fact. Would require very extraordinary sources to justify as a fact such a gigantic conspiracy among the media.Ultramarine (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Falk makes no claims of "conspiracy". That is your own interpolation and it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Further, Falk himself qualifies as an "extraordinary source"; thus, your argument is rendered moot on both counts.

As usual, i might add. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

All mainstream media "obfuscating" in order to only show a first-world view is an extraordinary claim. An interview in the Nation is not an extraordinary source. Further, such claims would require multiple sources to show that this view is accepted as a fact.Ultramarine (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia that says extraordinary statements require multiple source, only that they require extraordinarily reliable sources. Interview or not, Richard_A._Falk certainly qualifies as that.

The stuff about "mainstream obfuscating" is utterly unintelligible. At any rate, the long and the short of this is that you do not have consensus for your proposed edits and changes. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If it is unintelligible, blame Falk. An interview in a newspaper is not evidence enough to show as fact that "mainstream media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of first-world privilege." From Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "There is no such thing as a consensus version".Ultramarine (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say "consensus version". I said that you do not have consensus for your proposed changes -- in other words, there are a lot of people who consider your changes to be nothing more than the introduction of ungrammatical, inaccurate, weasel-word-laden, POV language that does not conform to basic, clearly outlined Wikipedia prose styling.

As for the rest: why on earth would i blame Falk for the prose you post to this discussion page? What on earth are you talking about? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia must follow policy and is not a democracy, see WP:NOT. It is not an ongoing survey of current article editors. Besides, no straw poll have been made so current opinion is unknown. If was you who claimed that mainstream obfuscating is "utterly unintelligible". Merely pointing out that this is Falk's words.Ultramarine (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere have i appealed to any survey of the editors here. Instead, i have simply pointed out that the vast majority of editors here have expended a great deal of time and energy explaining to you why your proposed edits do not conform to Wikipedia policy and clearly fail to provide: neutral point of view; reliable sourcing; relevance to the article; and valid context. Where in that do you derive some sort of "democratic appeal"? If ten different editors explain to you that you are in violation of a guideline and then patiently use weeks of effort to show you exactly how then there is clearly no "appeal to democracy" being made. It is, clearly, an appeal to consensually established wikipedia values.

And yet it gets stranger. On the one hand, you say "Wikipedia is not a Democracy". In the very next sentence you say that a straw poll must be taken to guage the will of the editors here -- except that it has now been clear for more than a month that there are no regular editors here who agree with any of your proposed edits -- and of those who have shown up recently, only one or two who admit to even a slight inclination to accept a very small fraction of your suggestions. Why, in this case, should a straw poll be taken? Stone put to sky (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Merely pointing out that your claims of current consensus are unverifiable. I am not advocating straw polls and policy states that they are not relevant for dispute resolution. Discussion is the way to go.Ultramarine (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) That is utter nonsense. You clearly say that, since a straw poll hasn't been taken, we cannot know what anyone here really thinks about the situation. That is an appeal to the majority opinion -- i.e: democracy -- and as clearly in conflict with the statement that came before it as anything possibly could be. Moreover, if my claims about current consensus are so unverifiable then please -- go up and down this page and count the number of long-time editors who have repeatedly objected to your arguments and edits. At my last count there were seven in these last two weeks alone, every one of which made repeated and lengthy rebuttals to your abuse of wikipedia guidelines, each one using similar or identical arguments to the others. That's a pretty clear consensus to me. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

People have disagreed and agreed on different issues. What they think on this issue us unknown. Regardless, policy states that the way resolve disputed is by discussion. Which I am doing.Ultramarine (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There has been near-unanimous agreement that your proposed changes are either unintelligible, irrelevant to the page content, based upon specious interpretations of wikipedia guidelines and policy, or obvious attempts to skew the point of view of the page. In each of these instances policy is clearly against you. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is false. Regardless, disputes are resolved by discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obviously not false. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOT:"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting."Ultramarine (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reinforcing my point. I appreciate the gesture. I hope this means that you will now give up these futile arguments of yours. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to discuss to resolve the issues.Ultramarine (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that you are not discussing, Ultramarine. You are simply deleting or introducing material that pleases you and then, after the fact, justifying your actions by reiterating tired arguments that have been repeatedly rejected, over and over again, by nearly all the editors working here. You are ignoring all responses and entreaties without any regard for Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It is you -- not we, and not the article -- who is in violation of the policies and spirit of Wikipedia. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added much material. Rejected by all editors is simply false.Ultramarine (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re LIC, we seem to be going in circles. Time for a third opinion. Anyone?

Re Falk, since his claim is not repeated in the proposed header, it does not present his claim as fact. What it does present as a fact is that Falk has said something about state terrorism and Western propaganda. I don't think that is an extraordinary claim. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re LIC, are you arguing that there is a source making such a comparison? If not, I fail to see the problem. Wikipedia must be accurate. Re Falk, the header sets the tone. It implies that Falk's claims are accurate, when some are false, and some dubious. It also assumes as a fact that there is something negative about Western statements about terrorism. Exactly what is problems with "allegations"? Ultramarine (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent:)

Re LIC, I don't think we're getting anywhere without a third opinion.

Re Falk: Merely stating that Falk speaks on a subject does not imply his claims are accurate. In fact, I have a hard time imagining what would be a more neutral way of stating it. Nor does the proposed heading imply anything concerning "statements about terrorism". But still, I'm not convinced naming Falk in the heading is correct: You have yourself added to that section material from other sources. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To say -- as Ultramarine does -- that "There is no comparison to military operations in LIC, so it is factually incorrect to state this" is just utterly false. It's quite analogous saying "There is no comparison between Electrons and Neutrons in the Nucleus of an Atom, so it is factually incorrect to state this." So let's get real: "Low Intensity Conflict" is a specialized term used by the United States Military to describe a certain strategic environment in which military operations will be undertaken. So on this point Ultramarine's "protestations" are simply ridiculous. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the definition in the manual. "Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments." So not necessarily military operations.Ultramarine (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And where, exactly, did that definition come from, hmmm??? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The manual on this itself.Ultramarine (talk) 16:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Break, Pt III

Ah. I see. So -- please correct me if i'm wrong, here -- you are arguing that:

A) The U.S. Army has defined, in its manual, the phrase "Low Intensity Conflict" as a specialized term it uses to define strategic and tactical environments.

--and--

B) That "Low Intensity Conflict" -- as a specialized term defined by the United States Army -- does not possess an implied relationship to "Military Operations".

Am i correct? Stone put to sky (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

LIC can be military operations, but not necessarily.Ultramarine (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. Let me ask it again:

The U.S. Army has defined, in its manual, the phrase "Low Intensity Conflict" as a specialized term it uses to define strategic and tactical environments.

-- and --

You are arguing that "Low Intensity Conflict" -- as a specialized term defined by the United States Army -- does not possess an implied relationship to "Military Operations".

Is that correct? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a yes and no question since it contains multiple different claims which I partially agree with, partially disagree with. Again, per the manual, LIC can be military operations, but not necessarily.Ultramarine (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, then -- which claims do you agree with:

A) The part that says this is a specialized term invented and used by the U.S. military to describe a specific tactical and strategic environment --

-- or --

B) That a specialized term invented and used by the U.S. military does not imply "Military Operations". Stone put to sky (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question B is wrongly worded. Not simply military operations or not. Again, per the manual, LIC can be military operations, but not necessarily.Ultramarine (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. From the manual:

This chapter outlines the role of military operations in low intensity conflict (LIC). It describes the environment of LIC and identifies imperatives which the military planner must consider.

End of story. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Military operations can be part of LIC. But again, not necessarily. Definiton from manual: ""Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments." and "The principal US military instrument in LIC is security assistance in the form of training, equipment, services and combat support. "[44]Ultramarine (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Now you are changing your argument. Where before you claimed that "There is no comparison to military operations in LIC", now you are admitting that there are military operations included in the LIC, just not exclusively. Which is entirely consistent with the Chomsky quote. Which means, of course, that your objections are utterly irrelevant. Which of course means that this argument is now, officially, ended -- and that your material should be deleted, since there is no reason whatsoever for its inclusion. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The dispute was originally about whether ""State Terrorism likened to Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict" was a good title. Chomsky does not make such a comparisons, he makes a comparison to LIC without qualifier. Therefore this proposed title is incorrect and "State Terrorism likened to Low Intensity Conflict" is better.Ultramarine (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Section on Colombia and Israel?

In addition to Columbia, which has lots of good information about State terrorism being supported by the US (see Chavez's allegations), I'm wondering why we don't have a section on the State of Israel's State terrorism? Its has to be one of the biggest perpetrators of State terrorism besides the United States (and Appartied South Africa), and certainly its main supporter, of course, is the US.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've wondered the same since I got here, and I have a few thoughts.

• A section on Israel would break with the established pattern: The other sections seem named after the targets (Japan and Iran, obviously).
• Even the existing section on Lebanon does not mention Israel. Surprised me! (The only section that even mentions Israel is that on El Salvador!)
• A section on Palestine would seem obvious to me: I've noticed no shortage of accusations, at least.

I'm no writer, so I won't attempt to remedy this, but I'll assist as I can if anyone does. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think our content should be driven by what is available from quality sources. So when I have some time this week I will do a little research to see what I find. If we find good material then we can start to put it together for a section.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No original research please. Sources must make allegations of terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, just like the rest of this article does. But, not everything need say that, as we would need relevant background information that explains more of the incidents described by at least some reliable sources as examples of the topic of state terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article violates WP:SYN and WP:REDFLAG in many places. Allegations against the US must be allegations of terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no violations here given my, and other editors, understanding of these policies.

Ok, so I took a quick look and it was as I expected, thousands of sources condemning Israel for State Terrorism. Of course, many implicate the US, since the US is the main supporter of that State. Here are just a few we can look at for starters. Since there is so much material out there, we should only pick the best sources, after a more exhaustive search, in particular, in academic journals. Also, we really should have an article on the topic of State Terrorism and Israel, if we don't already since there is an almost endless supply of volumes of information making just such a charge: Israel's Sacred Terrorism excerpted from the book The Real Terror Network by Edward S. Herman http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/IsraelSacredTerror_Herman.html

Published on Monday, April 1, 2002 by Tikkun Magazine Israel's State Terrorism by Lev Grinberg

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0401-04.htm Israel's State-Sponsored Terrorism

By Marwan Bishara, The Nation. Posted July 13, 2006. http://www.alternet.org/story/38937/

http://www.socialism.com/currents/syriabombing.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/04/turkey.israel http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-06-2006/82622-israelterror-0 http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3506409,00.html http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=326850 http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2676.shtml http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/739/38233 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1948634.stm Giovanni33 (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"thousands of sources condemning Israel for State Terrorism. Of course, many implicate the US, since the US is the main supporter of that State." Unless they accuse the US of Israel terrorism, such claims violate WP:SYN. Some of your sources are dubious online far left writings. Remember, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.Ultramarine (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. All it has to do is say the US shares responsiblity or is deeply implicated in the state terrorism of Israel. And, then not every source. We just need a few sources to anchor this claim and other sources and elaborate in more dept giving specific background info, etc. This is in line with the rest of the article. Your claims of SYN? "That dog don't hunt," to borrow an expression.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the article violates WP:SYN and WP:REDFLAG. WP:SYN: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Most of the articles violate this. The sources do not accuse the US of anything or not of terrorism or state terrorism. All such material should be removed. Otherwise we could for example add this view[45] by a high Catholic Church official in charge of Catholic doctrine that abortion is terrorism and start adding sources criticizing abortion but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Are you arguing that? Ultramarine (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is completely untrue. Your assertions to the contrary are rooted in a fallacious argument. The main reason is that no originating claims are made through synthesis. Each claim is supported by its own valid source. Putting them together not for the purpose of creating a new claim but for the purpose of providing more background information about the same claim already contained in a good source, is NOT SYN in any manner. The key to see this is that there are not new, original claims being manufactured by any editors herew, which would be OR. So far you have failed to show this, and your repeating the same old refuted arguments shown to be wrong does not change that.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the same argument could be applied to abortion material as per above. Again, if "If the sources cited do not explicitly

reach the same conclusion", then not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, only if you have multiple, reliable sources that anchors the main claim: that abortion is state terrorism. Do you have that? If you did, then you could add other background info about the details of the issue in question from soures that do not make the claim. This is a rather elementary proposition to grasp. I really don't think its too subtle. The criterion is: we we make up any new claims, or not? If we do, then its our own, i.e. original research, or its variation, SYN. This article does not do that. So question: do you have multiple reliable sources that call abortion state terrorism? The idea is absurd--who is the voluntary abortion terrorizing? Other fetuses? hehe So, I don't think you have any such sources. This means your analogy fails.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been dealt with at length above. The article you are quoting does not talk about "state terrorism" at all. Further, it is clearly a metaphorical usage of the term "terrorism" -- not literal; further, it does not ascribe the "terror" in question to any agents beyond "the media"; further, it clearly does not fall under any generally understood meaning of "state terror"; further, the source it comes from is non-notable (i.e. -- not official doctrine, personal opinion, etc); further, the quotations provided are woefully incomplete and do not convey a precise meaning.

Etc. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Church official is very harsh and talks about "slaughterhouses". So he means terrorism. There is no "generally understood meaning of "state terror"". The person in charge of Catholic doctrine is at least as reliable as a non-political scientist being interviewed in Pakistani Television, now quoted in the article.Ultramarine (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you have been repeatedly warned about making these clearly false claims about there being "no generally understood meaning of state terrorism". The RedPenOfDoom, just above, forced you only today to retreat from this absurd claim and concede that it does not represent good faith editing.

Now, it is utterly irrelevant whether or not the church official is harsh. He is not "the person in charge of Catholic doctrine", and the statement was not made as part of official Church policy. It was not made in a legal or analytical context, nor was it used in a literal sense. So please, simply give up these utterly farcical assertions. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a source for a "generally understood meaning of state terrorism", then state it. A person among those in charge of Catholic doctrine is at least as reliable as a non-political scientist being interviewed in Pakistani Television, now quoted in the article. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You are now simply ignoring what i have already pointed out to you: we went over this earlier today. You have already received your response. You have already been challenged on this by two or three editors. You have already acknowledged that this line of argument is overt bad faith on your part. Most importantly: we have already been around this just today. Thus, i will not reiterate what is so clearly said above. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You have not given a source showing evidence for a "generally understood meaning of state terrorism" so the issue was not resolved. You pointed to many different sources having very different definitions. Which was evidence against your position.Ultramarine (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a red-herring fallacy. If you are unclear about the the term means, then you can go look it up in the dictionary. I know the the term means, and when others use it, I can report it here since its on topic to this article. If you have a source that says that so and so are using it in an unconventional and thus questionable manner, then that would be fine. But you have the burden of making that claim, not me or the many valid sources I provided above which assert the claim. That is what attribution is all about.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will just point to the State terrorism article and the sourced material there. Many different definition, no agreed on meaning.Ultramarine (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You can pool sources from there, however you cannot use a Wikipedia article as a source, Wikipedia fails itself as a source. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations states that "The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols. The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter"." Proposed definitions include:

1. League of Nations Convention (1937): "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".

2. UN Resolution language (1999):"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)

3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992): Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime

4. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).Ultramarine (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated to you by Stone yesterday, no there is not one, single, internationally agreed upon legal definition. Still, one hellufa long way from "anyone can call anything state terrorism." TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the issue of an agreed upon legal definition for a court of law is a red-herring and not relevant to the issue here. The conceptual framework is clear nonetheless, hence this article. If there is someone using it in a very non-standard way, then we can provide sources that say so. But this is no way prevents us from reporting on what sources do say about US sponsored state terrorism. Hence, this is a red-herring fallacy on the part of Ultra.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

" If there is someone using it in a very non-standard way, then we can provide sources that say so." Which sources? Ultramarine (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any reliable source. Do you have any for any specific usages of state terrorism that is currently being used in the article? If so lets see them. Otherwise, I don't see you have any valid point.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets take the abortion case. Terrorism or not? Ultramarine (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get it yet. My personal opinion is not relevant. Its not for us to make the case. That would be OR. The question is: do you have multiple and reliable sources that say that abortion state terrorism by the US govt? Yes or not? If you do, then you could add other sources that talk about the specifics and background info on abortion.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does not have multiple sources accusing the US for terrorism due to Nicaragua vs US case. Only one.Ultramarine (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) Its not up for us to decide "terrorism or not". If you want, feel free to draft a proposed segment in your sandbox and let us know when you are ready for comments. I am thinkin you will have a hard time finding reliable sources to link abortion as state terrorism to the US, but if you have em, go at it.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Using the rest of the article as a model, one is enough. I can then add any source criticizing abortion even if they do not mention terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that even your one, is not reliable. But, also, the point you raised as only having one source actually has many other sources, which are easy to find. For example: http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq13.htmlGiovanni33 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Online only source is hardly reliable. A person among those in charge of Catholic doctrine is at least as reliable as a non-political scientist being interviewed in Pakistani Television, now quoted in the article.Ultramarine (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A better source, and I quote, "the war against Nicaragua, in which the U.S. funded, armed, and trained the Contras in a war "aiming to destroy," writes author William Blum, "the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing" ­ by any definition, a campaign of terror."http://www.counterpunch.org/hammond07062005.html So as you can see there are easily multiple sources that make the same claim. How about your claim? Where are your multiple sources? We can then look at reliability afterwards, but you havn't even met the basic threshold. As far as comparing Chomsky, an internationally known academic, and pioneer on this subject matter, to an some relatively unknown religious writers personal opinion, is a bit silly in the extreme. There is no comparison.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of terrorism in your quote. And I was talking about the court case.Ultramarine (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Read again. It talks about a Terror campaing, supported by the US. I made it bold for you.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. The title, not your quote. Chomsky has no education or degree in political science or history. Here is another source alleging abortion is terrorism.[46]Ultramarine (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of State terrorism of any kind supported by the US govt., in your source. Here is yet another source, and I quote, "Giving the U.S. the benefit of the doubt, its war against Nicaragua was an act of international terrorism, though the case could be made that it amounted to the more heinous crime of aggression, "the supreme international crime," as defined at Nuremberg."http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11162 Also, an important point is that the source making the claim has to be notable enough that their claim is repeated in the press and cited in published papers on the subject. This is teh case with Chomsky. For exmaple:http://www.democracynow.org/2000/5/22/noam_chomsky_speech_on_state_terrorGiovanni33 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that only sources speaking of "state terrorism" are allowed? Not "terrorism"? That would certainly even more reduce the number of correct sources in this article. Chomsky does not mention "state terrorism" in this article, for example. The Catholic claim have been cited by many mainstream sources.23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs)

Of course this article is about terrorism perpetrated by the State. All the incidents of this, in this article, involve the US, which is accused of it. Where in the press is the claim by this religious person repeated? Is it the official policy of the Catholic Church? But this is all moot if its not talking about State Terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A Google search gives 11,000 hits.[47] Chomsky and the other persons expressing their views in this article are not expressing any official policy.Ultramarine (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Personal blogs don't count and I don't see a single mention of State terrorism, anywhere, to ground your basic claim. As such it belongs, if anywhere, in an article on Abortion. Nothing to do with State Terrorism. Chomsky is very notable, so the equivalent would be an official Church policy, or if the Pope said it.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, Chomsky does not state "state terrorism" anywhere in this article. Only "terrorism". So should his statements be removed? Ultramarine (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not speak the truth. As with many times before, you claim that a source doesn't say something it repeatedly says over and over. Either you are not bothering to read and make up stuff, or you just make up stuff. Both are equally bad. I counted several times where Chomsky makes exactly that claim. Here is only one quote from the article. Chomsky says: "the US is very much in favor of state terrorism. In fact, Washington is the center of global state terrorism and has been for years."Giovanni33 (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Not in several of the others, like the Nicaragua one. Should it be removed? Or the Tom Regan material which does not mention "state terrorism"?Ultramarine (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Which one doesn't? No they should not be removed provided they are on the same topic about the claim which is sourced. I provided many sources so the claim is valid, not OR, not SYN. On the other hand your sources fail to show even one instance of calling abortion state terrorism supported by the US. Case closed.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Pakistani television one, fore example. Not mention of "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Link? And is it used to make a claim where no other source has already established the claim in question? I highly doubt it.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[48] It is in the Nicaragua vs. US section. There is no policy stating that you can violate WP:SYN and add any source making criticisms just because another source mentions "state terrorism". If so, quote it.Ultramarine (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I will further add that the Iran, Iraq, or Lebanon sections have no mention of "state terrorism" at all.Ultramarine (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent). I won't repeat myself about SYN and OR, so your claiming something that has been refuted and explained already does not make it valid. If you keep saying 1+1=3, and we already explained that it equals 2, saying it equals 3 later doesn't make it any less incorrect. About that article, I read it and you are again wrong. It clearly claims the US engaged in terror, that is the STATE engaged in terror. Get that? The US GOVT is accused of international terrorism, in clear terms. I quote: "it was a massive terrorist war. The U.S. set off a mercenary army to attack Nicaragua from foreign bases, gave it massive supply, had total control of the air, and ordered the army to attack undefended civilian targets that were called “soft targets.” And that was a serious atrocity. It ended up killing tens of thousands of people and practically destroying the country. That’s even worse than September 11. How did Nicaragua respond? They went to the International Court of Justice—World Court-- presented a case, which in this case wasn’t very difficult because it was obvious who the perpetrators were and what was happening. The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called “unlawful use of force”--which is the judicial way of saying “international terrorism”--ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim."Giovanni33 (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Does not mention "state terrorism", so double standard to exclude the abortion claims for the same reason. The Court in the Nicaragua case found the US not imputable for human rights violations by the Contras, so how can there be terrorism? "Unlawful use of force is" not the same as terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No but state terrorism is unlawful use of force, and that is what Chomsky and others are calling it, so we can report it. Your person view that it isn't does not count. That would in fact be OR. As you know there is no legal definition hence their use of the term as Chomsky explains. And, yes, he is talking about US State Terrorism. He clearly is talking about US actions and calls it international terrorism. Last time I checked the US was a State. Don't play word games. That is like a source saying a person was murdered, and you objecting because it doesn't say he was "killed." Distinction without a difference, and semantics. Moreover, we have a lot of other sources, as I already proved, which do use that exact phrase, to describe the same thing. So any further claims of SYN or OR, are absurd and groundless, in the face of the facts. If you continue making that claim about this, it will be seem as bad faith.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No double standard please. If we can include the Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon material which have no mention of "state terrorism", then abortion material should also be allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no double standard. You just dont understand what the standard is.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the purpose of this section, I will work on adding material about Columbia and Israel in a sand box and then add it to this article with consensus. There are lots of sources that implicate the US as sponsoring these two countrie's State terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember that the material must include sources directly accusing the US of terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget also indirect. I agree there has to be multiple and reliable sources implicating the US of state terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not violate WP:SYN. ["Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Otherwise we could for example add this view[49] by a high Catholic Church official in charge of Catholic doctrine that abortion is terrorism and start adding sources criticizing abortion but not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Is that your position?Ultramarine (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nicaragua, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina, Colombia, Turkey, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia"

"Chomsky has characterized the tactics used by agents of the U.S. government and their proxies in their execution of U.S. foreign policy — in such countries as Nicaragua, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina, Colombia, Turkey, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia — as a form of terrorism" The Chomsky does not state that in the the given source. He may criticize the support, but he does not claim that it was terrorism for most of these nations. Nicaragua being the exception. As such the others should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove! If you find something that is not supported by the sources given, tag with {{failed verification}}! It'll give others a fair chance to find sources supporting this. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do.Ultramarine (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

POV intro, first discussion

Obviously POV. Only arguments from one side. No mentioning of much greater deaths caused by others states, for example.Ultramarine (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record: Agreed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm find with balancing material, however, your example is not logical, and is off topic. Unless, say, the US has "tu quoque" as its official response to these charges, but I doubt that.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is it off topic? Many of critics claims that the US is the worst state.Ultramarine (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Already explained, its a logical fallacy. Also, I just checked the article and no where is the claim made the the US is the worse state. Certainly its a chief perpetrator, a leader of the pack, but where does it say the US is the worst state?Giovanni33 (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mayer in the intro or Falk "the graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism". Here is one response to this and charges against the US regarding LIC etc [50]. Ultramarine (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is off topic, as it never mentions state terrorism, to borrow one of your favorite lines. For example, it doesn't even compare other states LIC with the US, but some rather disputed estimates of all total "political deaths," without quantifying that, comparing apples to oranges. And regardless, its a logical fallacy, too. However, if you have a specific counter claim to that of Faulks regarding Hiroshima not being the number one exhibit of state terrorism, that would be welcome, and could be included.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See below.Ultramarine (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you agree that articles must mention terrorism or state terrorism? Or is there a double standard? Ultramarine (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To create a section, the main claims, yes, must be anorchored in those exact terms, and then further information can be added which do not make that specific claim but elaborate and exapand on information based on the first main claim tied the action to state terrorism implicating the US. This has always been my rather consistent stance.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No such policy. A double standard to claim that for the intro but not other material.Ultramarine (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro's do not follow the same rules of the rest of the article, I am sure you are aware of this, they do not even need to be sourced. The intro's job is simply to present a basic representation of the entire article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Link to policy please.Ultramarine (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No, its not my job to hunt things down for you. Consult someone if you do not believe me. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is those who make the claim who must proved the source.Ultramarine (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a rule for article content, not Wikipedia manual of style. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

He's right, Ultramarine. It's up to you to know the rules here. It's not up to us to go find them and show them to you.Stone put to sky (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something from Kafka. A person is told that he is accused of breaking a rule but is not told what the rule is. Obviously not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Right?! Oh no: He is quite wrong. Appeals to policy must also indicate which policy, at least when questioned, or they are worthless, baseless, useless, and shameless. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is WP:LEAD, which is guideline, not policy. And which has been misrepresented here.

For one thing, the lead should summarize, not the article, but the topic. A slanted article does not justify a slanted lead: "The lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." Also: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." (Emphasis mine.)

For another, the rules are the same for the lead; certainly as regards sources: It "should be carefully sourced as appropriate". And: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." (Emphasis mine.)

{{POV-intro}} should be obvious given the new scope. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Article leads are generally not sourced. They only become sourced when people can't get their way it seems. A lead is not suppose to present anything, its suppose to explain what you are about to read in a general way. You cannot take sources to very specific items as we have now begun sourcing each sentence in this article, and present them as sources for more general information, it will mis-represent the sources. However I will just stand back as the pigs make a mess, then play in it. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So to sum up, any objections against mentioning uch greater deaths caused by others states?Ultramarine (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In a word, YES. Major objections. But you already knew that since these objections have been made clear, and thus your question pretending not to know is rather dishonest.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You were arguing that the sources must mention terrorism or state terrorism. That is a double standard since you do not argue that for other material.Ultramarine (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not, if the source is stating greater deaths from other states as a justification, or means of dismissal against specific claims of state terrorism. If we are discussing the article countering Chomsky, then no, since it is about Chomsky specifically and not the greater view of state terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that sources must mention terrorism or state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how I can rephrase what I typed. Is the first or second sentence the one you are making the false assumption under? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There are claims the US is the worst state. An obvious rebuttal is to point out studies showing far greater deaths to civilians by other states.Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a SYN violation, Ultra. You don't get to determine the criteria that experts use for "worse" (even though they don't use that term). Yet when you are making the SYN assumption that qualitatively asseses via a comparison of "State Terrorism on the basis of a numbers game, cited by some other source. Yet, that source does not make the rebuttal--you are using him to make the argument you want to advance--not the source. In fact, its not an obvious rebuttal at all. In anycase its OR, and its on this basis that I strongly object, and state that it can't stand.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Depending if they are refuting the presented source regarding the presented topic, or if they are just stating the original sources author is dump, or America is cool. Which is why as someone else pointed out, we are lacking context to say yay or nay. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have objections; it rather depends on context and sources. I really don't like comparing in the first place, but if you can find sources that makes the comparison (and don't synthesise any comparison, or any justification, or anything else for that matter), I'm sure there's a place in this article, and quite possibly in the lead, for it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummel's Statistics of Democide is one example.Ultramarine (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A positive note

A good item that has come from all the bickering is the article is quite littered with sources. It seems to be one of the best sourced articles on Wikipedia. Is there any way to cleanup some of the duplicates in the references section? It would be interesting to know how many unique sources exist. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the sources are dubious one from the far left. Most do not mention terrorism or state terrorism and thus violate WP:SYN and WP:REDFLAG.Ultramarine (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Though they are not currently, the sources should all be unique: Latter instances of the same reference should just use the reference name. I've been meaning to clean up that for a while, but I keep getting distracted. Meh. I'll get to it eventually. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be appreciated, I would assist but I not sure how to do this, if you can provide some assistance that would be great. Again, everyone, great work so far. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, it's just making sure the ref elements have an identifying name tag. Search the source for <<ref name="ratner"> for a trivial example of how. Or hey, let me just show you the source (emphasis mine):

In the early 1990s a U.S. citizen and nun, Sister [[Dianna Ortiz]], brought a U.S. civil court case<ref name="ratner">{{cite web|url=http://www.humanrightsnow.org/Ratner2%20david%20ratner%20corrections%20final%20numbered.htm|title=Civil Remedies for Gross Human Rights Violations|last=Ratner|first=Michael|accessdate=2007-07-09}}</ref> against the State of Nicaragua, naming the former Minister of Defense — General Hector Alejandro Gramajo-Morales — as one of the defendants. In her complaint, Sister Ortiz specified that Gen. Gramajo "made several [official] statements to the effect that Sister Ortiz's injuries did not occur or were self-inflicted."<ref>http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/1996/guatemala31-96.htm</ref> The complaint initiated a firestorm of controversy because Gen. Gramajo was, at the time of the complaint's submission, attending Harvard University<ref name="ratner" />

Note how the second does not need any content of its own; it implicitly contains the same as the first.

We have some of these, but other references have been just cut-and-pasted, it seems. Really "fun" when the same reference comes four times in a row.  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I get it, you name the references, then just attribute it later by the name you give it. Is there any rules to the naming? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My one concern about attempting such a clean up is that at the rate material gets added and removed from the article, if the full citation (that is used later in the article several times) gets tossed in someones cut, then the actual reference for all of the later material appears to be missing and as such could be a target for people requiring the removal of 'unsourced material.' If the disappearance is not noted and corrected immediately, tracking back through all the multiple edits to find the original refernce could be a nightmare.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rules, beyond the obvious — that they must be useable as (part of) html link fragments, and that the names of two different references must also be different — none of which I'm aware.

TheRedPenOfDoom's concern is a sensible one, but not a show-stopper: The loss of a reference is easily detectable (just try it and check the preview: it shows up as a big red "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named ratner" or whatever), so we should be able to catch it pretty quickly; and even if editors go crazy and manage to bury the change under dozens unrelated changes, finding the original is not as difficult as you might think. Just use Newton's method (if even necessary!) to find an early enough presence of the broken reference. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that the system was able to flag that type of error, and so I have no objections if someone wishes to proceed with the cleanup. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

source for 9/11 and several terrorist attacks claim needed

I didn't revert but I think its off topic, unless you have sources that state that these individual terrorist attacks are State terrorism. Currently it has no source. I note the claim is that the US has been a victim of several terrorist attacks. We need sources to support this, and keep in mind this is about State Terrorism, not just any act of terrorism. It has to be by States.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The attack was committed with the help of Afghanistan.Ultramarine (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to add a source that alleges that, also your claim is not just this one attack but "several attacks." Please provide sources that support these claims of being a victim of State terrorism. Also, note that you say "has itself been the victim of several terrorist attacks such as 9/11"---do the source say that there were not only many attacks of state terror but that they were "attacks such as 9/11?" I think 9/11 was pretty unique, as far as occurring in the US.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources you added do not support what is being claimed.Giovanni33 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Afghanistan is accused of supporting Al Quada.Ultramarine (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim is several attacks such as 9/11. I read the Bush speech you cited, and I don't see where this claim is made. Can you quote it? Also, it has to be made NPOV, i.e. it doesn't say the Bush/US accused, but states it as a fact. Lastly the intro is not the place to pile on numerous examples--one at most, only to clarify the point--not to argue the case. That is supposed to be for the body of the article. That is why its best to float your proposed changes on talk first before putting it on the main article page. Btw, you already have several reverts, I believe at least 3.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

9/11 is example of a one terrorist attack. I do no state that they were all equal. I will add many more to the body.Ultramarine (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder."Ultramarine (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But you claim, "such as 9/11" implying that you are referring to similar or like-attacks. This is misleading and is without a source. The intro should not be filled with these examples of allegations, esp. not in the form of a fact, as it violates NPOV. Again, why not first propose what you want to add here and let editors comment on it first?Giovanni33 (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"has itself been the victim of several terrorist attacks such as 9/11 by Al Quada, allegedly receiving assistance from Afghanistan, or the Pan Am Flight 103 with allegedly the assistance of Libya, or the Red Army Faction allegedly with the assistance of East Germany." I can change to "for example" instead of "such as" if you prefer.Ultramarine (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I took a shot at it that I hope will make both sides happy: one example each. I agree the intro is best kept concise. Leave the arguments about particulars for the body.71.204.160.68 (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You selectively deleted the arguments from one side and did not move them to the body. Please explain. Also why did you delete opposing views form the atomic boms section?Ultramarine (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, there was no "selective editing" taking place. The sources and statements provided didn't even allege -- much less establish -- the involvement of the Afghan state. And it is quite clear why he deleted the portion under the "Atomic Bombs" section. The rationale has already been explained to you repeatedly: whether or not there were "lives saved" on the American side is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the bombs constituted an example of State Terrorism. It may have been that those lives could have been saved some other way, without the use of the bombs. It may have been that the bombs could have been used on military targets -- rather than defenseless civilians -- and so would not have been considered an act of state terrorism. Neither of those scenarios involve the purposeful murder of millions of defenseless civilians for the sake of a political point scored against the Soviet Union -- and in each case, american lives would have been "saved" just as well.

So once again: it is irrelevant whether or not the bombs are considered to have "saved american lives". The only relevant issue is whether or not the use of the bombs constituted an act of State Terror, and your additions to the section do not speak to that point. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The section discusses the motive for the bombing. "the use of atomic weapons was "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Then also the mainstream opinion regarding this should be presented. That it was to save American and Japanese lives.Ultramarine (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The section discusses the ideas of people who consider it an act of state terrorism. In that light, the motive is only relevant insofar as those experts address it. What you are suggesting is clearly the introduction of your own invented response to those ideas; that is original research and outside the scope of Wikipedia policy. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles must respect NPOV. If presenting negative arguments for why the bombs was dropped, then we must also present the mainstream postive one. I invented nothing, citing many scholars.Ultramarine (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should only those who are attacking the US be allowed to have a view? Very strange and against WP:NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing or ignoring Stone's point: this is not a place for a debate about the pro's and con's of dropping the bomb. That is a much wider scope and we already have an article that explores these debates. It does not logically follow, per NPOV, that the views of those who consider it state terrorism are aired, then so much any view that considers the bombings as justified be equally aired. They can be to the extend that they stay on topic, i.e. the assertions and reasoning that such bombings constituted acts of state terrorism. But, beyond that, they are off topic, and an artificial and skewed way to achieve this utopian NPOV. Remember, this article should only deal with charges of State terrorism and matter directly related to it. Repeating the argument that the bomb saved lives (from bad sources, I might add), is off topic, and a non-sequitur in this context, and opens up the debate for the counter arguments that Stone raised regarding the point of saved lives (as I say its a debate). But its a debate that is beyond the scope of that section. Lastly, you have been opposed by many editors so there is the question of consensus that you keep ignoring by reposting that section--which you did directly to the article instead of taking it to talk first. That is another problem that you persist in repeating, unfortunately.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Repeating the argument that the bomb saved lives (from bad sources, I might add)" Incorrect, I listed multiple scholarly sources. The article now gives undue weight to certain motives for the bombing. "the use of atomic weapons was "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Again, NPOV means that also the mainstream opinion regarding this should be presented. Intending to save both military and civilian lives is hardly terrorism. So obviously relevant for claims of terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you are writing your own argument for why the state terrorism was justified, not a scholarly sources argument, since they are not writing about state terrorism. I will view some Hiroshima sources, I am sure the authors covered both sides of the debate. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So you agree we should remove sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttals to arguments, should be just that, not random information that we as editors believe proves something, or refutes something. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unclear. You agree we should remove sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Or can we include them?Ultramarine (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

My statement wasn't in relation to either. I will paste below what I am working on for the Hiroshima section, both sources are from books discussing the notion of state terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In Terrorism and Collective Responsibility by Burleigh Taylor Wilkins, Wilkins states that "any definition which allowed the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to count as instances of terrorism would be too broad." He goes on to explain "The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while obviously intended by the American government to alter the policies of the Japanese government, seem for all the terror they involved, more an act of war than of terrorism."

In Unspeak by Steven Poole, Poole argues it does not matter if "Hiroshima was justified because it ended the way sooner, saving countless American and Japanese lives, etc. The truth or otherwise of such a claim is not relevant to the fact that in means and intention, it was an act of terrorism."

Comments? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is good. Thanks for finding that, N4GMiraflores (any chance your from Peru?). I have no objections to that material as it is on topic, unlike Ultramarine's info. Also you've made the point clearly and I think everyone understands.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the objection to presenting the mainstream view among scholars that the bombings was intended to and saved lives? Continued war was predicted to cause hundreds of thousands American and millions of Japanese casualties.[51][52][53][54][55]Ultramarine (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as they are refuting the argument of state terrorism, then there is none. As you see, simply stating something was done to save lives, does not mean it was not state terrorism (second paragraph above). I would prefer the article contain the point for state terrorism as a classification, and the refutation as provided by scholars for why it was not terrorism. What I would like to avoid is the following: "Cuba accuses the US of state terrorism when it trained exiles to invade its land", the response section then containing "The US says Cuba sucks" which is not a refutation of the state terrorism charge. The first paragraph specifically examines the concept of Hiroshima as terrorism and refutes it. As for your sources I have not looked at them, however when presenting, try to present them in context of the state terrorism theme. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that sources not mentioning state terrorism and terrorism should be excluded from this article. Right? Your analogy is flawed, a fair one would be "The US says that is trained freedom fighters."Ultramarine (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you do not like the analogy, I tried to keep it simply, however in both cases there is a statement without the theme being present, making it original research. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No OR, the sources given support the view. You want to exclude them for not explicitly mentioning terrorism, right?Ultramarine (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what view you are saying they support. The argument presented is the events constitute state terrorism. Can you please explain to me I guess what your sources are saying about Hiroshima being an instance of state terrorism? As presented above in paragraph 2, Steven Poole argues that even if the instance saved lives, it does not remove it from being state terrorism. The response section should contain a response to the charge, what response are your sources giving? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One response is that this is similar to your analogy. The US would say they support Freedom Fighters, not terrorists. Here similarly, the mainstream view is that the bombings was intended to and saved lives. Continued war was predicted to cause hundreds of thousands American and millions of Japanese casualties.Ultramarine (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to exclude these sources for not including the word "terrorism" and "state terrorism", then say that.Ultramarine (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying it saved lives is not a counter for if it is, or is not, terrorism. Do you consider the Beirut bombing to be terrorism? The goal of the bombers were to remove the US military presence and not engage in a drawn out battle that could tear apart the government and cause mass casualties ... stating that, is not an argument for why it is not terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a double standard. Most of the material used for criticizing the US have no mention of "terrorism" or "state terrorism" at all. But now you are arguing that when using supporting material, then the material must include this. Double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You continue to attempt to put words in my mouth. The idea is context. I would think you would want to present the best argument possible for why these instances are not terrorism, instead you simply want to say, "America had a good reason for being terrorists." This line of reason is directly refuted above by Poole, and I am sure others. Just because an event theoretically saved lives, does not mean it was not terrorism, a refutation to the terrorism charge, should be about the terrorism charge. I am trying to help you here, but it seems instead of letting me research, you are instead desperately attempting to lock me into an argument over whether the source includes the word terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How can intending to and saving lives be terrorism? What definition of terrorism is he using for this? Very strange argument, so should be explained in more detail. We can certainly include this strange view by Poole, carefully explained how he can argue that, but we should also mention the mainstream view.Ultramarine (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing strange about Poole's view to me. And your "mainstream view" is still off topic, and OR in so far as you include it to be a counter to the charges of State terrorism, or the reasoning behind the charges of state terrorism (the source makes no such argument, but addresses a completely different argument in support of the bombings). I think you must understand this but you persist in ignorning these facts. Nonetheless it has been explained to you, it can not stand. Luckily consensus is right.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nothing strange about Poole's view to me" Fine, then explain it please. What definition of terrorism is he using?Ultramarine (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Most ordinary definitions of terrorism. Hint: It is a strategy, not an end in itself. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Terrorism is a tactic, and method, and does not confine itself to any particular political goal.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly which definition is Poole using? Since you stated you understand his view.Ultramarine (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He discusses it on page 128 or so, he talks about the difficulty defining terrorism to a specific definition. He argues that people tend to look at an incident that strikes them as terrorism, and base their definition around that. In the book he looks at events and responses, he does not really say one is wrong, the other is right. Its a good read if you are interested. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically anyone can define terrorism however they like?Ultramarine (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

People have personal definitions for a lot of things. I am sure you do too. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, using that as the definition, he can of course state as personal opinion that the bombings was terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, however Poole does not discuss his personal opinion in the book, he is discussing other definitions and how they relate to world events and peoples classifications and how they come to them. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So does he use any other definition for the bombings?Ultramarine (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He was discussing the concept of "unbelievers" and "infidels", and if those labels permit them to be targets. He was examining the view of cleric who stated there is no "civilian" in Muslim law, hence the non-believers are fair game. Poole then further considers if the definition of terrorism should include "civilians" or should be relabeled to "innocents" and then gets into Hiroshima. It si a full examination stemming from the Oxford Dictionary definition in the beginning of the chapter; "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation ..." --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

terrorism=terror? Seems broad, is bullying terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You should contact Oxford and discuss with them, they would know better then myself, or email Poole and ask him what he thinks, he is the reliable source, not myself. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Shehzad Tanweer was attempting to end a war also, it did not succeed, and we still consider what he did to be terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure some consider him to be a freedom fighter.Ultramarine (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure someone considers those deaths worth the attempt to stop a war. It was still terrorism. What dictionary definition do you use, it may help us all resolve the impasse. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You may give him nobler motives than he had. How do we know that he was not perfectly happy to kill any amount of infidels regardless of if this saved human lives in the end or not?Ultramarine (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason the US says they were not simply attempting to slaughter a bunch of Asians, because they said so. However arguing the "truer" motives does not resolve the fact that motivation does not re-classify an act of terrorism into something different. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many documents and other sources regarding the decision to drop the atomic bombs. How do we know Shehzad Tanweer's motives? For all we know he was a sadist who gained pleasure from killing infidels. The many waiting virgins may also been seen as a less noble influence.Ultramarine (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from racist comments, not all Muslims who have committed suicide bombings, due so for the same reasons video games and Saturday Night Live skits portray. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In August, 2001, the American television channel CBS aired an interview with a Hamas activist Muhammad Abu Wardeh, who recruited terrorists for suicide bombings in Israel. Abu Wardeh was quoted as saying: "I described to him how God would compensate the martyr for sacrificing his life for his land. If you become a martyr, God will give you 70 virgins, 70 wives and everlasting happiness."Ultramarine (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So now if I can quote a soldier saying he hates Muslims, it means all soldiers hate Muslims? My apologies for calling the comments racist, they are apparently the result of stereotyping. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merely pointing out that the motives of alleged terrorists are different. It is wrong to say that everything is relative.Ultramarine (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He has already given his motive. However since you are no longer arguing the point, I guess we can conclude, especially since we have a reliable source, that terrorism can happen for many reasons, even attempting to save lives. Considering Poole is on my side, and you have not presented a source, nor argued the point. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have presented many sources. Regarding Poole, see above.Ultramarine (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

None of your many sources refute Poole. Nor do any say its not terrorism. Oddly the only source that says its not terrorism, is one I presented for you. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

"Nor do any say its not terrorism" Nor do they say that it was terrorism. Again, you seem to fall back to the point that only sources mentioning terrorism are allowed. Which is a double standard. I again also note that negative motives for the US are presented, with mainstream positive one is not.Ultramarine (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So your argument if I understand this is: My sources say it was not terrorism, because the US was trying to save lives by ending a war early" Is this correct? I present to you one source and one admission. The source states that an act can be for a good purpose, yet still be terrorism, you did not refute this, none of your sources say otherwise. The admission, is that of a suicide bomber who stated the reason he committed the act he did, an act you call terrorism, was to end two wars early, however you still call this terrorism. Your own logic now refutes itself, by your own reasoning "stopping more deaths" is not something that disqualifies an act from being terrorism or not. Considering this, you have not presented any source refuting what is in the article, that the bombing of Hiroshima was terrorism. Please refrain from attempting to state my point is based on if the source specifically mentions terrorism, the source needs to be in context and on topic, which your sources are neither. Further they are fully refuted by the line of reasoning your implying, killing civilians to save lives is not terrorism. When you can refute Poole, or the confession of Shehzad Tanweer, or simply have a source dealing with the accusation of state terrorism, let me know. Until then I will look for more myself, since I rather see a fully qualified article, then a poorly qualified one, meaning a better defense for the US, then, "Cuba sucks too" or "They started it" --N4GMiraflores (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can we include many sources mentioning crimes in for example Guatemala or the Philippines, implying US state terrorism, when the source does not mention this, but not include the mainstream view regarding the atomic bombings? Double standard. Regarding the motive, the article states "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Nothing on saving lives.Ultramarine (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He (along with myself and other editors) have already answered that, and your reply is non-responsive to the points N4GM raised, quite clearly. Repeating the same line of questions over again does not change the facts. I suggest you go back and re-read this thread, as your responses indicate you do not yet understand what is being said.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We can solve this easily. Should sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism be allowed? Ultramarine (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources are not toys, we are not picking red or black sources to play with. If the source is not in context with the article it will be rejected. To continue the above, let me give an example, If I accuse Giovanni of killing Ted the Farmer, and Giovanni says in his defense, "Ted was going to kill Martha" this is not an actual defense against what he did, he is admitting guilt and saying why. If that is what you want to present, I have no issue, it only makes the US look like terrorists, since they do not say they are not in your sources (since the sources are off topic), and makes it look like they have a flimsy excuse for their terrorism. I am almost to the point that I would say, even though its off topic, even though it in the end makes you look like you support the idea, go ahead. However I have respect for this project ... --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So do you have objection to me starting removing sources which do not accuse the US of terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have tried helping you, but since you resort to the same question, one that has been answered before, as some fleeting basis of an imaginary argument, I have decided to give up on you. Congrats, you officially exhausted my patience, so instead of dealing with your tendentious editing, I will just ignore you. Before I begin ignoring you, I will answer your question one last time, and ask you do not ask it to me again. A source needs to be in context with the article, sources rebutting arguments, need to be based on the argument presented. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Disputes in Wikipedia are resolved by discussion per policy. Ignoring other editors does not look well.Ultramarine (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(Indent) This is a log of your tendentious editing. Asked is when you asked the question, Answered is when I answered it. As you see, the first time you asked, I answered, yet you continued to fall back and repeat the same question over and over, clearly tendentious. So yes I agree, we should not ignore each other, however you must be ignoring me to have asked the question, that many times and not remember.

• Asked - 17:22, 6 March 2008
• Answered - 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 19:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 19:15, 6 March
• Answered - 19:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Answered - 21:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 21:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Answered - 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Answered - 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Answered - 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Asked - 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Answered - 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So, if you plan to discuss, and not repeat the same question that has been answered ad nauseum, please let me know. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep avoiding my questions, like if sources not mentioning terrorism and state terrorism are allowed. We can resolve this here and now. Are sources not mentioning terrorism and state terrorism allowed or not? If you have an answer, state it clearly, and we are finished.Ultramarine (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. Would you please answer my question? I want a clarification since most of the material used for criticizing the US have no mention of "terrorism" or "state terrorism" at all. So I do not want a double standard where only supporting sources have such an requirement.Ultramarine (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the answer. If you have a source stating "Stewie on Family Guy, thinks terrorism is cool when its aimed at killing Megan" This clearly is not in context of the article, hence stating "Sources mentioning terrorism are permitted" is not a real answer. The question is designed as a poor looking straw man, where once the answer is received you can go against the basic principle of sourcing on its basis. The answer to your question is "Sources need to be in context to the article, and meet WP:RS" as Wikipedia policy states. Context is the most important item, it is why I cannot use a CNN article about a recent South Park episode where it is stated by Kenny, that Bush is Bin Laden. It is not in context of the article. I cannot write "Kenny says Bush is Bin Laden" So instead of attempting desperately to create a straw man, why not look for sources to support your position. Oddly I managed to find one and add it, while arguing with you, over sourcing. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So you keep avoiding giving any clear answer. Allowing the double standard to continue. Are sources not mentioning terrorism and state terrorism allowed or not? Yes or no.Ultramarine (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am off for the day, if you get bored I have copied and pasted the answer below, feel free to add the question in between:

Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

El Salvador (again)

"According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate." In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that the majority of the violence was attributable to government forces.A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.” In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."

No mention of US terrorism. Objections with explanations for not removing? Ultramarine (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, objection, it is in context. Please read the entire section By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact. By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:SYN. "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." That claim is not the sources and material I gave above. It is from a completely different source. Per policy, such combining of sources is SYN which is not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The syn violation is? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that crimes mentioned by HRW etc are US state terrorism. If not arguing that, they are simply irrelevant for this article.Ultramarine (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the sentence you feel is a syn violation. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

All the sentences I quoted above. But we can take the last one if you prefer "In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."Ultramarine (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If arguing that this is US state terrorism, SYN violation. If not, why is it in the article? Ultramarine (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You make the claim this is a syn violation, either quote the sentence and explain the synthesis or I will archive this section. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already done that above.Ultramarine (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No quote is presented above, so I will close this section without a quote being present. If you feel their is a SYN violation, you should be able to show specifically what it is. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Read it again: "In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."Ultramarine (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense Ultramarine. First, a wikipedia article is not merely a stringing together of quotes from reliable sources utilizing the exact same terminology. A wikipedia article is there to educate the reader about a particular subject. Often that involves making background claims, so that the reader can get their bearings corresponding to a particular historical, geographical, political, etc. situation. This is exactly what the sentence saying ...."According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate."... is doing. In terms of the Human Rights Watch Report "El Salvador: A Decade of Terror", it describes systematic terror and ascribes it to a state (El Salvador), and describes U.S. complicity in the decade of terror in a special section wherein is described U.S. compllcity in terms of military funding and advisory roles, apologetics, and diplomatic cover and defamation of critics. NOBODY writes articles tailor made for wikipedia and your personal opinion does not matter in the least. You are engaging in dissembling based on mere semantic technicalities. BernardL (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is a quote accusing the US of terrorism, then state it. Background material should be presented in other articles, like one on the Civil war. Even if we have some some background material then this should be clearly stated since the current version implies that these crimes are the US responsibility. We must also mention human rights violations by the insurgents and good things done by the government to for the text to be NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 05:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusations against the insurgents are already mentioned in the balancing paragraph. Moreover, in the HRW retrospective report under the section "The Perpetrators of Violence" the guerrillas are not even mentioned. First listed are the armed forces, and second are the Death Squads, wherein it is noted, "it has been well established over the decade that from the late 1960's until the mid-1980's the death squads were simply plainclothes paramilitary units run by the armed forces." By the same token the Truth Commission report attributes the great majority of gross human rights violations to government forces and not the FMLN. This article should not be an uncritical expository of U.S. propaganda either.BernardL (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Creating a special background section could be interesting. Would accurately show what are accusations of terrorism and what is not and if the background is presented fairly. Will try that later on some nation.Ultramarine (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Allez-y! Je m'en fou!BernardL (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Break

There is an allegation the following sentence is a SYN violation as pointed out by Ultramarine: "In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992." If anyone has the source for this statement, please present it so we can make sure it is not synthesized. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one example from the paragaph above all of which violate SYN. In turn just one paragraph of many with the same problem.Ultramarine (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You pointed out this sentence as synthesis. Unless you are going to be detailed, do not simply copy and paste a paragraph and say "somewhere in there is synthesis." Highlight specifically what you feel is being synthesized in detail, quoting the relevant passages and what is in each source, and what is being synthesized. I guess we will tackle this sentence first, once you tell us what two or more sources are being synthesized above, and what is wrong with them. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say "somewhere in there is synthesis." Every sentence is a synthesis in the paragraph. None accuse the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not synthesis. Synthesis as noted in WP:OR is taking two sources and combining them to make your statement. The statement above does not even include the word "terrorism" so I am not sure how its synthesis. The sentence does not make the claim the US is a state sponsor of terrorism. Again, please explain the synthesis in the sentence above, if you wish to argue the point of the supporting paragraph, then please give an example of two or more sources being synthesized and the statement they are being synthesized into. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If the statements are not about state terrorism by the US, then they are simply irrelevant for the article.Ultramarine (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain the synthesis in the sentence above, if you wish to argue the point of the supporting paragraph, then please give an example of two or more sources being synthesized and the statement they are being synthesized into. If you cannot support the argument, I will consider this resolved. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two alternatives. 1. The statements are about state terrorism and the US. However, the statements do not mention terrorism. Taking some other statements mentioning terrorism as evidence for that the questionable statements are in fact about state terrorism and the US violate SYN. 2. The statements are not about state terrorism by the US. Then they are irrelevant or could be background info. For that, see the end of the section above.Ultramarine (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can not show the synthesis then this is resolved. Either you are making a complaint about synthesis or you are not. So either highlight it, or admit you were wrong and we can all move on to improving the article. If you want to argue its off topic and not synthesis, then we close this section and you can open a new section with that complaint, that way everything stays organized. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Close of this section" You mean archiving? Not for ongoing discussions. What is your position, do these statements make accusations of state terrorism by the US or not? Ultramarine (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is resolved then. This section was regarding the synthesis of the paragraph, you failed to present anything regarding this, choosing not to show which two or more sources were being synthesized and into what statement. Please start a new section if you are no longer stating this is synthesis, if you are please state which two or more sources are being synthesized, please quote the sources if possible, and explain how the two are being synthesized into the final statement. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above. In particular, see the section above and my last comment to BernardL.Ultramarine (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not play "the last word" game with you. Until you present your argument, by presenting which two or more sources, preferably with quotes, are being used to synthesize a final statement, that statement should be quoted, I will consider this issue resolved and ignore any further comments as tendentious editing, and refusal on your part to support your argument of synthesis. To argue synthesis, you have to present proof, not pick a paragraph and say "Its synthesis" without pointing out what statements are being taken from which sources, and showing the final statement is a result of improper merging of those two sources. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to reply to my last comment to BernardL above, please do so. There I state what I intend to do.Ultramarine (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced material regarding Nicaragua

"The U.S. argued that it was primarily for the benefit of El Salvador, and to help it to respond to an alleged armed attack by Nicaragua, that the United States claims to be exercising a right of collective self-defense, which it regards as a justification of its own conduct towards Nicaragua. El Salvador, joined the US in their Declaration of Intervention which it submitted on 15 August 1984, where it alleged itself the victim of an armed attack by Nicaragua, and that it had asked the United States to exercise for its benefit the right of collective self-defense. The court found evidence for an arms flow between Nicaragua and to the insurgents in El Salvador in 1979-81. However, there was not enough evidence to show that the Nicaraguan government was imputable for this or that the US response was proportional. The court also found established that certain transborder incursions into the territory of Guatemala and Costa Rica, in 1982, 1983 and 1984, were imputable to the Government of Nicaragua. However, neither Guatemala and Costa Rica made any request for intervention by the US and El Salvador only in 1984, well after the US intervention started.[56]

One critic of the is David Horowitz, who argues in the book The Anti-Chomsky Reader, that "unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism" and that the Court has no jurisdiction over sovereign states unless they themselves so agree, which the U.S. did not since the Soviet Bloc states were outside its jurisdiction but they still sent judges to the court. The U.S. did accept the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946, but withdrew its acceptance following the Nicaragua case."

Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The edit is original research. Your introduction of the material amounts to a review of the entire case between the U.S. and Nicaragua. This is not the place for that. If you would like to introduce the counter-arguments and explore them in-depth then please do so on the appropriate page (i.e. -- the Nicaragua_vs._U.S. page).

The only reason so much material from the court case is currently included in the article is because you introduced a butchered, purposefully misleading quotation from the court document that was so badly mauled it appeared to imply the opposite of what the ICJ had actually concluded. Then, you -- no one else, only you -- provoked an edit war any time anyone tried to rectify the falsely constructed passage you had posted up.

The response, then, was to introduce an abbreviated version of the court's findings so that there would be no misunderstanding. Now, you are attempting to re-argue the case on this page. Except that this is not the place for it. The section in question discusses accepted international opinion regarding the Nicaragua vs United States ICJ ruling and how it relates to State Terrorism. As such, a blow-by-blow account of the arguments given during the case is irrelevant and, insofar as none of the material you've introduced has any direct bearing upon the question of "State Terrorism", nor does any of it have anything to do with the conclusions of the court, the material clearly violates WP:SYN and WP:OR.

Aside from being poor writing, this also does not appear to be on the topic. Justifications? Off-topic. (At least to this section.) Lack of jurisdiction? Does not mean what the court says is any less right, merely that they cannot enforce it.

I could see "justification", or perhaps better, "rationale", in a section of its own, like the Terrorism#Causes section. But "justification" or "rationale" ("why did they do this?") is too far removed from the "allegations" themselves ("what did they do?") to be on-topic to every section. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with first text? I presented what the Court stated in the source. Please state any factual error. Note I also stated the Court found the US defence not good enough. Regarding, "edit war any time anyone tried to rectify", that is false, I have not reverted that material anytime. Source if claiming that.

I see no objection to the second text which is much older except possibly "lack of jurisdiction? Does not mean what the court says is any less right, merely that they cannot enforce it." That was only one of its point and hardly trivial. If there is no jurisdiction the court has no right to take on a case. But there were also several other points.Ultramarine (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean to post this in response to me? I never claimed "factual errors", merely "off-topic". I never mentioned "edit war".

Oh, I see: Someone forgot to sign his comments, above mine ... see [57].  :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced material regarding terrorism against the US

"has itself been the victim of several terrorist attacks, for example 9/11 by Al Quada, allegedly receiving assistance from Afghanistan, the Pan Am Flight 103, allegedly with the assistance of Libya, or the Red Army Faction, allegedly with the assistance of East Germany.[58][59]"

Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Being the victim of a terrorist attack is not the same as being the victim of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism. The concepts are distinct. "Terrorism" is a general term, "State Terrorism" more specialized. The sources you used did not make that distinction. Further, this portion of the introduction does not touch upon the U.S. accusations against other countries; it only says that the U.S. has "suffered terrorist attacks" -- which, of course, does not necessarily imply "state terrorism".

In short, the current sentence is pretty much the only thing you can keep from your suggestions. Of course, if you had introduced this in a sandbox beforehand we could have helped you trim it up an get it looking like it should. But you -- only you -- have refused to participate in this consensual agreement that has already been used by the editors here for something like three months, now. Thus, once again i will urge you: please introduce controversial or major edits in a sandbox or on this discussion page before committing them to the article space. It will save you work and all the editors here a lot of headaches. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Many of the sources you use to attack the US only mention "terrorism", not "state terrorism" or "state-sponsored terrorism", so there seem to be a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is wrong. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One of many examples. Much material do not even mention terrorism at all:

The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called "unlawful use of force" — which is the judicial way of saying "international terrorism" — ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim.

— Noam Chomsky, interview on Pakistan Television

Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The source says the US was the victim of terrorism ... Do they say the US employs state terrorism as a counter for state terrorism? I did not see where you put this info, so some context will be needed. Do you want your suggestion in its own section, or as a rebuttal to one of the existing ones? seriously I wouldn't mind a section where the US is saying, you do it so we do it. If it is the reason given by the government, then it should be included. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Own section. Article title do not imply that the content must only be about state terrorism by the US. Can state terrorism against the US as well.Ultramarine (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, it is hard to follow exactly what is being worked out in this section with all of the indent/unindent/indented quotes - but it looks like you are saying that the quote from the Chomsky interview 'doesnt mention terrorism at all'. Am I reading these posts correctly? The material: "the United States for what it called "unlawful use of force" — which is the judicial way of saying "international terrorism"". Are you REALLY trying to say that you do not see that that quote says right there in black and white US (a state) did terrorism? Chomsky is analysing the material and we are quoting what he says. If you honestly were not able to pull those words from the short excerpt you quoted, you really probably should leave editing of wikipedia to people who can read and quote sources. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky argued that material not mentioning "state terrorism" was not allowed. I pointed out the double standard regarding this.Ultramarine (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And how does an example that clearly DOES contain the words apply to anything? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing such an extreme view, including only "terrorism" is fine with me. But Stone put to sky wanted to exclude "has itself been the victim of several terrorist attacks, for example 9/11 by Al Quada, allegedly receiving assistance from Afghanistan, the Pan Am Flight 103, allegedly with the assistance of Libya, or the Red Army Faction, allegedly with the assistance of East Germany.[60][61]" What is your view?Ultramarine (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

First, i didn't remove the Pan Am material. Someone else did, i presume because the sources weren't up to snuff (the sources you suggest do generally seem to share that trait). Secondly, suffering from "a terrorist attack" does not equal "suffering from an instance of state terrorism". Certainly, terrorism by Al Qaida does not qualify as "state terrorism", and in addition i would be extremely surprised if you could find any reliable source, anywhere, that would make the case for an explicit link between Al Qaida and the Afghani-Taleban government. Even the U.S. has only gone so far in their accusations. Nothing in any of the literature i've ever read (and it was a long time ago, but quite a bit) has ever said anything more than that the Taleban "refused" to hand over Al Qaida leadership. That clearly doesn't qualify as "state sponsorship" or "support", even on the farthest stretch.

So simply stating that the U.S. has "suffered" terrorist attacks is inappropriate for this article. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, but i don't think he was a "state terrorist". The U.S. suffered from his attack, as well, but since it's not state terrorism it doesn't get mentioned here. Finally, if you do want to include the Pan Am bombing as an instance of "state terrorism" (or "state sponsored", or whatever) then you'll need to get a clearly worded document that makes that explicit allegation. You haven't done that, yet.

Now, having said that, i'm perfectly willing to make a new section for this proposed content you'd like to include. Once again, however: please set it up in a sandbox for comment, as a courtesy to your fellow editors, here. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Still this double standard. Many of the critical sources do not mention state terrorism, as shown above. Many do not even mention terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go, changing your argument again. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. The other editors here have already explained this to you repeatedly; i myself have explained it to you repeatedly, now, for something close to two years. There is no double standard, here. Either you find some sources to anchor your claim of state terrorism -- and, i will remind you, that this is a standard you yourself imposed on this page -- or you will not be allowed to include your content. It's just that simple. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Again,one of many examples. Much material do not even mention terrorism at all:

The World Court considered their case, accepted it, and presented a long judgment, several hundred pages of careful legal and factual analysis that condemned the United States for what it called "unlawful use of force" — which is the judicial way of saying "international terrorism" — ordered the United States to terminate the crime and to pay substantial reparations, many billions of dollars, to the victim.

— Noam Chomsky, interview on Pakistan Television

Ultramarine (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed with you at length. On that basis, i am going to ignore this question because there is no valid reason for rehashing those arguments. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Has not been answered because there is no good answer. Chomsky does not include the words "state terrorism", so arguing that this is justification for excluding my material is a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No. You have repeatedly declared there is no good answer. The other editors here - totaling well over 20 over the course of this last year or so - have overwhelmingly rejected your arguments as spurious rants without any footing in reality. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are not 20 editors in this section.Ultramarine (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, i'm sorry -- i didn't realize you were temporally challenged. Let me rephrase that for you:

If you count backwards each hour from this moment and then lump them into packets of 24, then i suspect that from today you will discover that, within the space of 365 cycles, there are approximately 20 different editors which have explained to you that the current argument you are using is utterly unsupportable.

Does that make it any clearer? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have only discussed the issue on this deletion for two days.Ultramarine (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Notification for Ultramarine

I have filed a request at AN/I to review your behavior here, which seems to be aimed at maintaining a constant edit-war. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That link did not work for me, so I took the liberty of fixing it. Thank you for the notification. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I have also noted that it is you who have been blocked for edit warring, personal attacks, sockpuppets, and attack accounts. Not I.Ultramarine (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Japan

I want to cut the Japan section down soon, by maybe a paragraph, once I compile more sources in defense of the bombing, specifically stating it was not terrorism and why it was not. I will present something Monday or Tuesday everyone can look at, and hopefully we can agree on a paragraph to cut, the section is much too large, and I do not want to stack a rebuttal onto the end. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout

I have an idea for the layout of the article, something that may be more "clean" and allow for Ultra and whoever else wishes to, to find and add some appropriate sources:

• Location in the world
  • Event (presented as simply the facts
    • Accusation of terrorism (what happened that makes it state terrorism)
    • Rebuttal (the argument why its not)

I think this can help clean everything up a bit, the article is getting messy and finding a rebuttal may be difficult in the mess. Ideas?

I'm not averse to the general outline, but i'd suggest that this should be the general approach to the "second" section of the article (going by BTP's suggestion, above). What i think we should do is write up a good "overview" section that treats the various issues in their full complexity, then have a second area where specific cases are made (one section for U.S. accusations, another section for accusations against the U.S.). Thus, i'm not sure the "rebuttal" section would be even necessary, and almost certain it'd be inappropriate; that's opening up a can of worms that could lead to a never-ending expansion of the article as both sides try to bolster their point of view with increasing evidence.

Moreover, lest people accuse me of simply wanting to delete material to bolster my own POV, i object to this equally for both sides (i.e. -- the U.S.'s claims against others should also not include rebuttals).

I may be wrong about this, though, and it may be that we could set stringent enough limitations on the "rebuttal" sections that we could manage the feat. What might be a good thing to do is limit the "rebuttal" sections only to a fraction of the length of the "accusations" section -- perhaps 1/8 or 1/16 the length -- in which case it might be o.k. But that might appear arbitrary, could cause a lot of headaches should the need for an exception emerge, and i really don't think that everyone here would actually "play by the rules". It's already gotten to the point where a simple, policy-supported request like "Please introduce edits to a sandbox" is being overtly ignored and rejected by a vociferous few (one?). So it might be that, for at least the moment, we would need to just do without "rebuttals" altogether. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the rebuttal sections should be limited in any matter, they should be equal size to satisfy WP:NPOV, if they can be made that large. I also think its important that I differentiate what was being suggested, and what I am suggesting. US accusations of state terrorism against other countries is not a rebuttal to an accusation. For instance as noted above, if I accuse Giovanni of killing Ted the Famer, and he says Ted killed Martha, that does not mean Giovanni did not kill Ted, its not a rebuttal. If such a section was going to be created, and within a reasonable size, that is fine. I honestly think such a section should be in its own article, "State terrorism against the United States" and in contrast "State terrorism by the United States." My suggestion however is direct refutations to the accusation, much like the paragraph I added at the end of the Hiroshima section, where the subject of is the event terrorism is looked at and refuted specifically. As for location I believe they should follow each accusation. It makes for a cleaner read in understanding what is being said, what is being refuted. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. What will happen is that people who object to the material will attempt -- and probably succeed -- to overload the rebuttal sections and make them four times as large as the fundamental sections. The article will then turn into a mockery of its intended subject and essentially be a place where anyone who wants to echo State Department talking points will come to post information, repeating all the various tiny differences in all the various news articles. Obviously, that is neither encyclopedic nor pedagogical. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are more rebuttals then accusation to the specific charge, then it should be noted, not hidden. Limiting the rebuttal of a charge to 1/16th of the charge is creating an article with bias, making them equal (at most) however and following the accusation, allows for NPOV. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. First, this is a place for investigating the concrete relationship between the U.S. and State Terror. By allowing "rebuttals" we will basically be opening ourselves up to every sort of crackpot commentator around. Just look at the sort of stuff Ultramarine has begun to introduce as "rebuttal" -- and i guarantee you, if you don't think people like him will appear and start stomping about in the same manner then you are really being optimistic. Go take a gander at the Propaganda Model page. There, the "rebuttals" take up some 2 to 3 5ths of the page. Most are clearly tangential and irrelevant to the topic, but that doesn't stop a few admins from freezing it every time someone tries to go in and clean it up into something that looks even vaguely respectable.

That's what will happen here. Instead of getting people to contribute to the U.S. "accused" section, we'll get people who spend all their time building rebuttals. Those rebuttals will be based on flimsy, off-topic evidence and we'll all get bogged down in pointless, circular arguments. It'll be a nightmare.

On the other hand, by forcing people to avoid rebuttals -- and that would be equally true for both accusers and the accused -- then we will force folks to develop their own arguments and support them with solid evidence. In contrast, people who contest the evidence will be forced to police the information and make sure it's tight, on-topic, and incontrovertible.

Like i said: i'll be happy to consider rebuttals in the future, but for the moment it's an idea that is clearly before it's time. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

1. "Crackpot commentator around" WP:RS protects against this.
2. "Just look at the sort of stuff Ultramarine has begun to introduce as "rebuttal"" - Not information rebutting, hence why I have been against his additions, however what I added is in context, hence a good rebuttal.
3. "you are really being optimistic." - WP:AGF
4. Propaganda Model - One messy page is not a reason to remove WP:NPOV.

You seem to think John Bobs rebuttal is article worthy. I am talking about WP:RS sources rebutting the argument specifically that these issues are terrorism. Further there is nothing for you to consider, WP:RS says rebuttals can be included, undue weight, says they should be given equal footing, since they are the other side of the coin. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, but we have two fundamentally different conceptions of NPOV working, here.

My vision is that accurate, concise, limited summaries of various concerns be presented on a main page with the supporting evidence presented on a linking page (eventually -- not immediately). In my vision, NPOV consists of presenting accusations the U.S. makes against other nations and the accusations made against the U.S. by other nations.

It seems your idea is that we should allow accusations against/by other nations, and then also include the defenses against them. My suggestion is that these defenses are really beside the point. It's rather like opening up an article on, say, the quantization of light and insisting upon a lengthy rebuttal that includes the concept of ether and string theory. Sure -- the rebuttals exist. But it's not the purpose of the page to present those rebuttals. The purpose of the page is to present the theory and show how it plays out in various nations' accusations and legal proceedings.

Rebuttals are things for courts and judges to decide. Now, that being said, i do not consider the Japan section as it was written some five or ten days ago to contain a "rebuttal". It contains accurate information about the state of the literature, but no "rebuttals". That is as it should be: commentary on the state of the literature is o.k, but "rebuttals" to "arguments" should remain invalid. Technically speaking, this page doesn't present "arguments". It presents quotations from scholars who deliberate over the phrase "state terrorism". Insofar as a scholar debates this particular phrase, then i have no problem presenting the deliberation.

But "rebuttals" should remain beyond the pale. 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not recommended reporting who the US accuses, that is off topic I believe. I do think defenses specifically to calling or labeling an event terrorism should be included. This page is not "Theory of State terrorism and its relation to the US." YOu want to comment on the state of literature, but not mention the state of literature which says specifically, these instances are not state terrorism, thats a violation of NPOV. I think we are partially on the same page, as the Hiroshima information I added, its a rebuttal of the notion it is terrorism. It is a deliberation over the situation and its relation to the phrase, then a refutation of its applicability. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No "rebuttal" section, please. I don't think "rebuttals" as such belong in the article. Rather, a good rebuttal may have us removing the accusation as off-topic (WP:FRINGE).

We can have an "opposing views" subsection, I suppose. (The "view" opposed would be that this is indeed an instance of state terrorism".) If specific "opposing views" are significant, we can have a section for each.

Or we could just present all views in one section. It seems possible, at least while the section remains short.

Either way, the space allotted to each view (other than the truly marginal) should be proportionate to its prominence (WP:NPOV). Not equal. Not severely limited. But proportionate to its prominence. — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree fully. I think you put it the best. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OR debate

No OR please. Accusations of against the US must mention terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We cannot violate WP:SYN and ourselves have a discussion of whether events are state terrorism. Violates OR.Ultramarine (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's see: someone suggests an outline for future content. Someone else suggests a revision. And then Ultramarine comes along and says that we must not have WP:SYN or WP:OR.

Let us assume i am a very stupid person. Please explain to me how your response has even the slightest bit of relevance to the question it is puportedly responding to? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that we cannot state that for example x number of people were killed in this conflict and then ourselves argue in different section regarding whether this was terrorism by the US. We need a source arguing that a specific event was state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Actually what you're indicating is that you have a difficult time distinguishing between meta-level discussions and debate over content. That's fine - i have no problem with it - i just hope that any lurkers here notice that your response to anything you don't really understand is obviously "No WP:OR, no WP:SYN." Stone put to sky (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of part of the definition of Low Intensity Conflict

Stone put to sky, why did you delete without explanation part of the definition of Low Intensity Conflict? [62]Ultramarine (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I introduced Ellipses and edited the quote to relevant passages. What, precisely, do you feel i did that was objectionable? Stone put to sky (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the start of the definition "conflict is a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies." Ultramarine (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And all of that information is provided again, much more clearly and concretely, in what follows -- which i did not delete. So what's the problem? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of for example competing ideologies or "contending states or groups".Ultramarine (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Then let us presume i am a very stupid person and cannot see why these things are important to include in the passage. Explain it to me: why are these things integral components that we must -- in order to fulfill a neutral point of view -- include in this definition of LIC? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For example, some people may assume that it only involves states.Ultramarine (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I was on your side at first, because I read it quickly and seen "states" specifically mentioned. However it does say "states or groups" so I do not see the difference. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"states and groups" only in the deleted text.Ultramarine (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That is utterly unintelligible. Remember: i am very stupid. I do not understand. Presuming that, explain it to me. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Some information was lost. No reason for deleting part of a definition. Someone could assume that LIC only involves conflict between nations. Not between a nation and a group for example.Ultramarine (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I readded the "states and groups" this should be resolved to everyones liking I hope. Shortens it as intended, and lists what Ultra wanted listed. While I disagree it limits it to states, since it says "states and groups" I guess comprehension is up to the reader. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Background and allegations sections

As discussed some section above I have made an attempt to divide the material regarding El Salvador into "Background" and "Allegations" sections. For now I simply just moved material not mentioning the US at all to the background section. This makes it clearer to see what is actually allegations regarding the US and what is simply general material about the conflict. Further sorting required.Ultramarine (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

While I do not agree with the dividing, I moved the "Background" to the beginning, since you give background information before presenting arguments. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, better. Why do you disagree? Ultramarine (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Usually chopping and pasting information causes issues in flow and presentation. Picking a spot and saying cut here and rename could cause further unforeseen issues. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

That would seem to a general argument against any new sections. Do you have anything specific against these? Ultramarine (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. What I am saying is you asked a butcher to be your surgeon. The liver had to come out anyway ... The complaint is not about "new" section, its about simply picking a place and cutting it without regard for form and presentation. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are certainly much more that must be done.Ultramarine (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, hence my point, it seems like no care was taken to structure, especially since a "background" section was put at the end instead of the beginning. I am simply asking you to be more careful, and the obvious seek consensus, but I guess sometimes one needs to be BOLD. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then present them in a sandbox, or expect them to be reverted. As it is, the new section needs to be worked up into a presentable state before any others can be attempted. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything concrete you object to? Please state it so it can be fixed.Ultramarine (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Quite concrete: no sandbox. Use it. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you will apply this to your own edits as well. Jtrainor (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I already have been. Apparently you missed that -- oh, wait -- you were here during that time period. Odd, then. Would you care to explain why that fact escaped your attention just this moment, here, when you posted the challenge? Stone put to sky (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

allegation sections

We should keep the sections together, i.e. US allegations is a title, and subsections fall under it. Accordingly I moved and corrected the title of other US allegations of state sponsored terrorism. Someone should check those references to make sure they do qualify. Also, the one example given of Iran should probably be moved up to the Iran section immediately above. Lastly, I used bullet points, but not sure about preferred and consistent style, although it looks good. Input welcome. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that "opposing views" section should be removed as its off topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The material currently within the section strays far from the topic indeed. Good tag.

Opposing views as such aren't off-topic though; they are more or less required by WP:NPOV.

After sleeping on it (this came up in another context), I don't think we need a section of its own for it. The different cases should all present opposing views, either within one or more subsections on "opposing views" or (if it is small enough to be clear) within the same passage as the "state terrorism" view.

As for the wider scope, I'm still getting to grips with it, but I keep thinking the scope now should cover (allegations of) state terrorism "performed by", "supported by", "suffered by", "fought by", and "condemned by" the United States. The would be a five-way split. Or would any of those be off-topic? — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views are required by NPOV and supporting material not explicitly mentioning terrorism are not more off-topic than all the critical material not mentioning state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If there's critical material you have a problem with, open a new section on it. The presence of off-topic "critical" material is no reason to keep off-topic "supporting" material. — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No explanation for why the "opposing view" section is off-topic has been presented. If arguing that, then please open a new section with arguments on this.Ultramarine (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Its so off topic that is hard to say how its is related. Maybe you can make an argument about how its claims have anything to do with State terrorism? What I see there are claims democratic peace theory, and other issues about the democratization process of former dictatorships, etc. All off topic.

Also, you reverted all my changes, including the correction of the section titles and placement. You also undid all the changes that had been made in the last few weeks, which were the result of consensus on the talk page. It seems that when you can't get any consensus you ignore it and just go back and do everything you wanted to do anyway. This is a major problem with your editing style and why its disruptive. You can not edit by edit warring, and you should respect the consensus process. No doubt you will be reverted.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"consensus on the talk page"? Please look at discussions above. If you want to add to them, please do so. Please, no double standard. The article has numerous quotes critical of the US not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Are you arguing that these should be removed?Ultramarine (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You or I don't need to look since we were both involved in these discussions, among other editors, and you know very well the objections that have been raised, and the arguments have all been heard. So you know very well what you are doing with adding back all the material you were reverted last week by several editors, followed by extensive discussion. You can't just wait a week and start all over pretending not to know anything. This is classic bad faith editing. Just two examples: the reinsertion of the off topic material on Japan, again, and your creating a section for the entire Intelligence Oversight Board. You even un-did all the minor changes/progress that had been made, up to removing the off-topic tag for the Opposing Views section. Like I said, you know what you are doing. You're not a stupid person. So I won't bother to argue with you as if you didn't know. That would be beating a dead horse. But I do point out that your editing is in bad faith, you are ignoring consensus, edit warring, and this will add the the piling evidence against you. Giovanni33 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There was certainly no consensus on the Japan material. Nor any explanation for why a double standard should be followed, where critical quotes do not need to mention terrorism or even the US as all. While supporting quotes must mention "state terrorism", not even "terrorism" is good enough. There has been no attempt to explain why the Intelligence Oversight Board material should be removed on this talk page. If claiming so, give a diff showing that this has happened.Ultramarine (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I read above that discussion and as far as I could tell you were the only one Ultramarine who argued for that material. All other editors agreed it was off topic and explained it pretty well. I would say that there was pretty clear consensus. I don't think anyone has the patients to argue with you over that again. I have restored the previous version. Please gain consensus on there before you reintroduce it again. I also took the liberty of removing the opposing views section as off topic. I see there are three editors who agree it is off topic. If anyone disagrees we can restore that section for now.67.188.208.203 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You reverted many other things also. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored all your new additions that were valid. I only opposed those things you put back that were talked about and opposed by all other editors from last week. We need to work by consensus on this article. I hope you can agree with that.67.188.208.203 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why you reverted the corrections to Gladio sections? There has been no discussion regarding these. Nor have there been any explanation regarding the Intelligence Oversight Mateial you removed. Also, 67.188.208.203, do you have a real username? Are you some editor I know?Ultramarine (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please float your suggested "corrections" here. If you only make a correction to Gladio, I have no problem with it. I restored your valid edits, but I opposed your going against consensus by reinserting disputed material that the talk page made clear already does not belong in the article. If you have an edit to Gladio, then fix it, but stop with the other crap. No one around here is stupid.67.188.208.203 (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, you do not seem to be a new editor or unfamiliar with this article. Do you have a real username? Are you some editor I know? Still no response regarding tge Intelligence Oversight Material, no one has given any reason for excluding it on this talk page.Ultramarine (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont' worry who I am. I choose to be an anon for now. Stick to the edits not the editor. About teh Intel Oversight Material, this has already been discussed on this page. Don't pretend you don't know about it. The compromise that was accepted was to trim it down. It does not need a whole section, where you quote the entire documents. That is undue weight.67.188.208.203 (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Diff for that "teh Intel Oversight Material, this has already been discussed on this page.", please.Ultramarine (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultra, even I remember this. Are you the only one who doesn't remember it? I will find the difference, but I and another editor objected, I and other editor reverted you--with discussion. I compromised and left the conclusion from the report stand, and it was valid. However, an entire section for one source? It was undue weight, as was discussed. You left it alone for about a week. Memories last longer than a week, and its unlikely consensus on the issue has changed. At least we can't assume so and then ignore seeking it before reverting again. The anon editor's edits, also, were good, btw. Whoever you are, thank you!Giovanni33 (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Diff please. The IP editor has been blocked.Ultramarine (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was he blocked? You know the differences. Go back and read.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You stated "I will find the difference". Please do.Ultramarine (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maoism and Gladio

Intending to drawing a pejorative linkage to the atrocities of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, during which millions were persecuted and an estimated half million killed, the centrist Italian Republican party said the report was worthy of a 1970s Maoist group.

— the Europe section

The first part is OR since the report was published after the source given for the Cultural revolution. So the first part should be removed. Leaving only "The centrist Italian Republican party said the report was worthy of a 1970s Maoist group." The comparison is IMHO more correctly to various naive small Western Maoist groups with various very original ideas that flourished during the 70s, praising Mao, blissfully unaware at the time of, for example, the catastrophe of the Great Leap Forward. Should instead expand with more criticism of the report.Ultramarine (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(reformatted for clarity)

I haven't checked the sources, so I cannot yet comment on OR or not, but in general, I think statements of and speculation on intentions and motives (especially for things other than the alleged acts themselves) are rather off-topic for this article. They belong in more in-depth articles, if at all. — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

More sockpuppets and personal attacks by Stone put to sky

Stone put to sky has continued to use sockpuppets here even after his 72 hour block. See the latest Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Stone_put_to_sky. For example, in the section "Amnesty and HRW accusing the US of state terrorism?" Stone put to sky has discussion with one of his own sockpuppets, Aho aho. Stone put to sky uses his sockpuppet to give a false impression of support for his views and to continue his incivility against me: "you're drinking what?".[63]Ultramarine (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong accusations for a  Likely identification.

And why are you posting this here? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Stone put to sky uses his sockpuppets to give a false impression of support for his views on this page. "Aho aho" is just on example See the contributions of the other ones as well. Such an attempt must be thwarted.Ultramarine (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

These accusations do not belong on the talk page. Also, lets assume good faith.67.188.208.203 (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Title

Who removed "allegations" from the title, and why? Yahel Guhan 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky without prior discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There was discussion about the idea before. And you are not one to talk, Ultramarine.67.188.208.203 (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where? Source please. I have not moved the page.Ultramarine (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

POV intro

The intro gives undue weight to one side with much more material and several quotes.Ultramarine (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is tricky because there was never any consensus for a move to a new format, and certainly was not sufficiently discussed. With all respect to Bigtime's proposal, it was full of holes and even surprisingly parochial. As you can see, I do not as yet agree with the "new Scope"; it was introduced illegitimately, so I my approach towards the articles is rather divided at the moment. As for the issue of the title, I was and still am agnostic. If folk's wanted to switch it back to the old title or discuss something even better (Allegations of state terrorism and political violence by the U.S.?), I would not be averse to it. BernardL (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We were discussing the intro, not the title.Ultramarine (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In case I was not clear... until I am convinced otherwise, I am in favour of something resembling the old intro that adorned "Allegations of State Terrorism committed by the United Sates" to coincide with the only legitimately established scope for the article.BernardL (talk) 04:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try and make a sandbox to begin a new intro. I'm busy with a big real-world article right now, though. So MyMMV. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor it limiting the scope that it historically maintained, but keeping the title, making it clear that this article covers teh subject of State terrorism committed directly and indirectly by the US. However, we keep one small section that says the US has also accused several other states of....in keeping with the current intro. Then we link this section to its main own article that gets in depth for each of the accusations. I feel this is a good compromise and we have enough material for both subjects to be their own article. The US allegations of state terrorism of other states likewise can have a small section that says the US has also been accused of sponsoring State terror. I'd like to hear others feedback on this idea. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We were talking about NPOV in the intro. Why is there so much undue weight to the US critical side? Violates NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The scope and range of the article has direct bearing on the intro. What I'm proposing as the correct structure means the current intro is weighted correctly.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then introduce some new material for the new intro, Ultramarine. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So any objections to including some material stating that the US ranks low on the list of state murderers during the last century?Ultramarine (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I object on the grounds it would be off topic, and SYN/OR--since you are making up a counter argument (one that you feel is a counter argument)--which is really a non-sequitur. This is unless you have a source that presents this as an argument to counter the allegations of State terrorism. I doubt you do since its a very poor and weak argument being a logical fallacy, and I doubt any reliable source would make such an argument. But we editors certainly don't get to construct such an argument as if it were in response to this topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here is a source explaining that Rummel's concept of Democide is state terrorism.[64] Thus, I can cite him.Ultramarine (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't follow that his concept is reply to the charges against the US. That would by SYN to construct it as so.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a proposed neutral version: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox4. Any concrete objections?Ultramarine (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i have some. No, i do not accept the current proposed version as accurate or acceptable. But since you will not allow me to play in your sandboxes i obviously cannot help out with that process, so i suppose the most i can say is "Try again!". Stone put to sky (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You can discuss. What do you object to concretely?Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to the oversimplification of the introduction to such mundane, tautological assertions. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So what do you propose? The current version have undue weight to critical side. How about one quote for each side?Ultramarine (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already stated that i have objections. You don't want me to edit the page and make suggestions, so i won't. So i guess you now just need to try again. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You can edit this page for now and show your suggestions. Or create your own sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which page are you talking about when you say "this page"? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine/Sandbox4.Ultramarine (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus yet for making these changes to the article. So why did you? I will revert as I don't agree and you don't have consensus yet to remove the information you did. Seems you are only waiting less than a day for editors to comment. Why the rush?Giovanni33 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. No concrete objections have been made. Do you have any? If so, please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Counter-arguments regarding Gladio report deleted

"Aldo Giannuli, a historian who works as a consultant to the parliamentary terrorism commission, see the release of the Left Democrats' report is a manoeuvre dictated primarily by domestic political considerations. "Since they have been in power the Left Democrats have given us very little help in gaining access to security service archives," he said. "This is a falsely courageous report.""

Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What is your question. What explanation are you looking for? Your question is unclear.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why was this material deleted?Ultramarine (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See this proposed version: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox5. Concrete objections? Ultramarine (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i have some. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please specify.Ultramarine (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't like the parenthetical statement. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It is sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the one i'm talking about. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No parenthesis in material quoted above. If you are arguing about something else, explain what.Ultramarine (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of US position restored

"The U.S. State Department has admitted the existence of Gladio only as a plan which was to be activated in the event of Soviet occupation of Western Europe during the Cold War, but has continued to deny it qualified as terrorism. The United States maintains that several researchers have been influenced by a Soviet Cold War forgery."

I had fixed the broken link and fixed the strange and incorrect language "qualified as terrorism". Please explain the revert.Ultramarine (talk) 02:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

After so many editors asking you to introduce your edits to sandbox one can only wonder: Why is it you cannot cooperate with your fellow editors here, Ultramarine? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any concrete objections to restoring my edit?Ultramarine (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember to give it at least a couple of days for editors in different time zones to have a chance to look at it.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are any objections to it later we can discuss it then. Do you have any objections?Ultramarine (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In principal yes. Give it a few days for other editors to comment first. What is so hard about that?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be inaccurate. To quote Jimob: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Just following this policy.Ultramarine (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

POV language

"The U.S. government has often been accused of being hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism, and as such has two foreign policies, one publicly stated and the other covertly applied."

This only an allegation. I had fixed this to be NPOV. Please explain the revert.Ultramarine (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, why don't you suggest what you want to change to make it more "NPOV" and gain consensus here FIRST. Then it will be very unlikely that you ever get reverted. Its really a simple suggestion and one that should not be too hard to understand. And, it really does work. Then you would not have to ask: why was it reverted? Well, why did you not discuss it here first and gain consensus. That is important, esp. in this article. Please work with others in this more collaborative manner moving forward. Also, I suspect some of your changes are lost due to your massive re-insertions of major changes that were soundly rejected by many editors, and so when you ignore consensus and make massive changes, sometimes good ones are lost in the process. This just goes to underscore my advise above, and why edit warring is messy and unproductive.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So you reverted without reading. Since no objections, I will restore is shortly.Ultramarine (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And if it gets reverted again then so be it. You deserve it. After so many editors asking you to introduce your edits to sandbox one can only wonder: Why is it you cannot cooperate with your fellow editors here, Ultramarine? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not revert, but I would revert, and support you being reverted when you edit against consensus in this matter. If some valid material is lost, its your fault for your poor editing behavior here. Again, edit by consensus, not edit warring. Your promise to continue to edit war is not a good sign and evidence of your disruptive intentions, despite my good advice, answering your rather obvious questions. Is is so hard to make the proposal here first and get your fellow editors take on it first? If you don't do this, then this shows you are not interested in cooperative editing. If you are not, then you are not welcome in Wikipedia. Take it or leave it.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How can someone be arguing that the other is doing something wrong if they do not read before reverting?Ultramarine (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said they didn't read? I'm just suggesting a possible reason why some good parts get lost in edit wars, and the fundamental problem is edit warring, which I accuse you of instigating, and being the party primarily responsible in creating this problem. So you don't have much of a basis to ask why was this also lost in the process? To avoid this, simply follow my suggestion, above, and then you won't have to ask, or get reverted. Again, its really a simple concept, not novel.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. It is you and some other editor who are on probation or have recently been banned for edit warring. Not I.Ultramarine (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing this article and your editing style that results in you being reverted frequently. You keep asking why so I'm answering. Talking about my revert parole of some time ago has nothing to do with your question, and is a logical fallacy, a non-sequitur.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There are always two parties in a conflict. You are still under the parole, right? So still relevant.Ultramarine (talk) 08:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is clearly an ad hominem attack, Ultramarine. I ask you again:

Why do you find it so difficult to assume good faith and cooperate with the other editors, here? At the moment, it sounds as if you are prodding Gio to try and find an excuse to seek administrative discipline. Is that the case? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

False accusations. Any objections to making the change as discussed?Ultramarine (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the ad hominem attacks, Ultramarine. Do you agree to stop with the ad hominem attacks? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is you who are doing ad hominem: "so difficult to assume good faith and cooperate with the other editors".Ultramarine (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. So you admit you are not assuming good faith. That's good.

There are, however, no ad hominems emerging from this end of the discussion. You were clearly saying that Gio's opinion on these editing matters cannot be trusted because he is "on probation". That is as clear an example of ad hominem as one can find. Now, you are making a clearly false aspersion onto my own behavior -- and, just as obviously, because you know that you have transgressed a fundamental Wikipedia tenet and are being asked to make amends.

Thus, i will ask again: what is it, Ultramarine, that you find so difficult about assuming good faith and cooperating with others? Why is it that you cannot retract your comments and make amends with Gio? Why do you insist acting in this way when you know that it will provoke an edit war? Is it because you find it impossible to work towards a middle ground, a fair consensus? If not, then i'd like to know the reason why, because for my part i would like to set aside all of this recent strife and get back to productive editing activity. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to discuss factual arguments rather make insinuations about personality.Ultramarine (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that you have been engaging in ad hominems, first against Gio and now against me. So again, I ask: why is it you cannot assume good faith and work cooperatively with your fellow editors, Ultramarine? Stone put to sky (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your continued incivility has been noted.Ultramarine (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to changing the text above as per the first edit.Ultramarine (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We object to the proposed changes. If you would like suggestions on how to alter them so that we are more willing to accept them then please -- put the proposal on this page and allow us to see the suggestions. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Will create another sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.User:Ultramarine/Sandbox6Ultramarine (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Intelligence Overboard material

The article has a very long section and quote on Sister Ortiz. All critical. I had added some sourced counter-arguments. They were deleted without explanation. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This has been dealt with before, on talk. The source info you added did not present any counter arguments. It only says it doesn't know who the American speaking guy is, and that they don't have intelligence about it. That part is still there. There is no reason to have the ENTIRE report copy and pasted up in its own section as it doesnt add anything of value and bloats the section, giving undo weight to one source.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

False presentation. The material contained much material casting doubt on the testimony. How can there be undue weight when most of the material is anti-US in the section even when this material was in? Ultramarine (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There was nothing anti-US. It was the testimony of Ortiz's torture, which is the subject. I read the other material and I don't see how it casts doubt on her testimony. It basically says "We don't know." And that is what is left in tact. What is missing that is significant and important that changes things? Please explain, and quote.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"At some time prior to October 15, 1991, a source told the station that Ortiz had in fact been kidnapped as she claimed and that it was probably done by the S-2 (Intelligence) office of Military Zone 302, which covers Antigua. This source said that Ortiz had been in contact with the guerrillas, and this contact led to her arrest. The source, however, said that he did not believe that Ortiz had been raped because women prisoners were not normally sexually molested. Instead, he said, women were usually either stabbed to death to make it look like an ordinary criminal incident, or drugged and released in a disoriented state. This report was not sent to DO headquarters or disseminated as intelligence. Station personnel, while not remembering seeing the report at the time, told the IOB upon reviewing it that the report would not have been disseminated because it was not reliable intelligence in that there was no chain of information explaining how the source claimed to have knowledge of it.

In 1992, the station reported to DO headquarters that a source had stated that two guerrillas, captured two days before Sister Ortiz left Huehuetenango, had told the army that they had been waiting for Sister Ortiz to bring them food and ammunition.

In mid-February 1994, the station disseminated an intelligence report from a source who stated that the old Guatemalan Military Academy could not possibly have been the location where Ortiz was held and tortured as she had said. The source said the D-2 had moved out of that building in early 1985 and had completely dismantled all of its detention cells at that time.

In early November 1994, a source told the station about a foreign journalist who had reportedly stated during one of Ortiz's later visits to Guatemala that he had learned from a URNG source that the Ortiz story was fabricated and had been intended to provoke an end to US funding for the Guatemalan security services. The source could remember no details concerning the journalist's identity, however. The station added that it too had doubts about the Ortiz story, but it did not disseminate this report beyond DO headquarters.

In early November 1994, the station disseminated a report from a source who stated that the D-2 headquarters had been at the old Guatemalan Military Academy from 1978 to 1984, and that there were D-2 holding cells there then, but that these cells were dismantled when the D-2 moved out in 1984. (The source did say, however, that from about 1984 to July 1994, the D-2 had holding cells near the Mobile Military Police (PMA) compound in Zone 6 of Guatemala City.) The station commented that this inconsistency in Sister Ortiz's story was viewed by Guatemalans as proof that her claims were fabricated."

So many things casting doubt deleted.Ultramarine (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see the Ortiz case moved to a separate article which might deal with pro/con, evidence, etc, in-depth and leave here a relatively short place-holder in this article. Human Rights Watch has commented on the tendency of the United States, particularly its government to care what was going on in Guatemala mostly to the extent that victims were Americans. Of course, almost all victims were Guatemalans, and many of those were innocent men, women and children. If we are going to use a documentary example to relate conditions of state terrorism in Guatemalan, it seems more appropriate to use examples of Guatemalan victims, of which there were many. For instance, the report "State Violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996: A Quantitative Reflection" by the International Center for Human Rights Investigations (CIIDH) observes that “The mass killing of children is one of the most disturbing aspects of state terror during the Lucas García and Ríos Montt regimes. In giving testimonies about indiscriminate massacres, peasant sources often wondered what kind of "sin" (pecado) children could possibly be guilty of to justify their murder by state forces. Yet the army treated many Indian communities as uniformly hostile. Their rhetoric described all residents, even infants, as dangerous "communists," and worthy of death.” This description seems to me to say more about the nature of the state terror than the Diana Ortiz case. That's my opinion and that's (part of) my proposal...any other opinions?BernardL (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a very reasonable suggestion, and I like it. If editors here so agree, I'd be in favor of cutting down the Ortiz section (moving that info to its own article, which is currently a stub), and expanding with the material you introduced here, instead. Others thoughts?Giovanni33 (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See no accusation of US involvement. Regarding the Ortiz material, if included we must follow NPOV. No undue weight with paragraph after paragraph presenting arguments from one side while excluding the views of the other side.Ultramarine (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is about context and relevant background info. There are lots of sources about US involvement, hence the whole section on it. Its valid and good information that describes how the State terror operated.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The background material is already POV. We should include some descriptions of violence by the insurgents, Cuban support of the insurgents, and positive things done by the government to achieve some NPOV regarding this. More anti-government material not needed. If you want to cut the Ortiz material, then we could reduce the opposing views also. Do you have a proposal?Ultramarine (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I gave my proposal. Lets see what other editors think. I don't agree with your view of NPOV. NPOV is not achieved by creating an artificial balance. Rather it means reporting all notable POV's in porportion to the academic literature on the subject, and doing so without having the voice of wikipedia take one side over the other. Hence, we use neutral language, and report, with attribution. That is NPOV. If the consensus of the literature in this area makes the Govt. look bad overall, then so be it. Its not our job to make them look good or less bad than what the literature indicates. You should be less worried about what is anti-govt. and more with having the article present an accurate understanding of the concept it is supposed to illuminate. I think the material BernardL has does this better than the extended Ortiz quote. Lets see what other editors think, and go with consensus on the matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of the Ortiz supporting material is not academic sources. A government report is a perfectly acceptable RS for a view.Ultramarine (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have descriptions of the violence by the many children and women who were killed because they were considered to be "communists" by the state terrorists according to the International Center for Human Rights Investigations?BernardL (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is someone accusing the US of this? Otherwise background material, see my previous reply.Ultramarine (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidence from the same report on the U.S. involvement...1. “With U.S. guidance, Guatemalan society had become subject to an increasingly powerful military apparatus without any responsibility to civilian authority. The government established a wide-reaching network of counterinsurgency surveillance that it would employ for the next 30 years not only to battle the guerrilla organizations but to also exercise control over the civilian population. Fresh from the conflict in Vietnam, U.S. advisers had the army authorize thousands more military commissioners who became privileged local representatives of the counterinsurgency (see Chapter 18)...Perhaps the most troubling characteristic of Guatemala’s first period of counterinsurgency was the "poisonous flowering" of clandestine terror groups like "Eye for an Eye" and the "New Anticommunist Organization." Most of these paramilitary "death squads" were security forces personnel dressed as civilians; others represented more or less independent interests on the far right of the political spectrum. They converted murder into political theater, often announcing their actions through death lists or decorating their victims’ bodies with notes denouncing communism or common criminality. Their secret nature not only provoked terror in the population, it also allowed the army and police to deny responsibility for a systematic campaign of extra-judicial killing (Aguilera and Imery 1981; Black 1984: 46).” 2. “After Ríos Montt took over, the level of violence increased. Figure 6.4 shows how the number of state killings and disappearances rose even higher in April 1982, Ríos Montt’s first full month in office. The 3,330 documented deaths and disappearances in the CIIDH database that month represent the highest one-month total number of documented violations of the right to life for the entire armed conflict (the actual total is higher). For the first hundred days of the Ríos Montt regime, mass killings continued throughout the highlands, especially in El Quiché and Huehuetenango. Americas Watch, using data from the Peace and Justice Committee and the Guatemala Human Rights Commission, detailed 69 massacres during this period (Americas Watch 1984).”...“In the United States, the switch to Ríos Montt allowed Ronald Reagan’s administration to lobby for a restoration of military aid to Guatemala (cut off by the U.S. Congress in 1977) and an expansion of U.S. intervention throughout the Caribbean Basin. The State Department had previously been reluctant to criticize the Lucas García government. After the March 1982 coup it changed direction and condemned the ousted leader as a terror against his own people, while portraying the Ríos Montt regime as a significant improvement for human rights in Guatemala. In December 1982, President Reagan described Rios Montt as "a man of great personal integrity and commitment" who is "totally dedicated to democracy" (Schirmer 1998: 33). In resuming military aid to Guatemala, Reagan made it clear that the General could fight the war against his internal opposition as he wished, without regard to human rights considerations and without fear of losing his U.S. funding (Department of State Country Reports 1983; Americas Watch 1985b: 7-8).”... Now please include the reliably sourced balancing material apologizing to the innocent victims.BernardL (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I take it that you no longer have any objection to restoring the Ortiz material since you do no longer discuss this. Reply on this if you do. Regarding the accusations of US state terrorism, this is similar to what is already in the article. I am not saying that what the US did should be praised. But for NPOV, we should also mention things like Cuban support, human rights violations by Communists, and the fact the Guatemala was a democracy for long periods where the people voted for the government policy.Ultramarine (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have objections. You don't seem to understand that this is a community editing process by consensus. Allow editors that live in different time zones and with different life schedules to participate in that consensus process rather than constantly steamrolling. As for balancing material, I came up with reliably sourced material for discusion which is close to being ready for inclusion. You should do the same, so that the community can discuss its merits, and what representative proportion it deserves.BernardL (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am getting you right? You want to reduce some of anti-US material Ortiz by replacing it by other anti-US material? The problem is that the article already has undue weight for anti-US material. Regarding the Ortiz material, it must be fairly presented, so if reduced, then the opposing views may also be shortened. But no there is no justification for keeping the current POV state. If keeping the current long material, then also opposing views must be presented in detail. Again, there is already enough anti-US material in the article, so need to add even more. More general opposing views should instead be added.Ultramarine (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since your repeating yourself, I will do the same: I don't agree with your view of NPOV. NPOV is not achieved by creating an artificial balance. Rather it means reporting all notable POV's in porportion to the academic literature on the subject, and doing so without having the voice of wikipedia take one side over the other. Hence, we use neutral language, and report, with attribution. That is NPOV. If the consensus of the literature in this area makes the Govt. look bad overall, then so be it. Its not our job to make them look good or less bad than what the literature indicates. You should be less worried about what is anti-govt. and more with having the article present an accurate understanding of the concept it is supposed to illuminate. I think the material BernardL has does this better than the extended Ortiz quote. Lets see what other editors think, and go with consensus on the matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But you are mostly not citing academic literature. A government report is a RS for a view. No justification for giving this less room.Ultramarine (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernard is correct -- again -- and you are wrong -- again. There is no justification for including off-topic, irrelevant, superfluous, or originally-researched content. Your interpretation of "NPOV" is that justifications must be provided for why the U.S. acted as it did. Except that such content is superfluous, irrelevant, off-topic, and -- so far as it ever comes from you -- almost always originally researched. This is a page for discussing the concept of "State Terrorism" and how it applies to the actions and policies of the U.S. It is not a place to discuss or research why the U.S. is constantly intervening in the politics of ostensibly independent Central American states.

Similarly, there are exceedingly few people of any significance who considers Sister Ortiz' testimony to be insignificant or substantially false. So your attempt to cast doubt upon it is actually the only violation of NPOV taking place, here.

Finally, Government Sources are not intrinsically reliable. They must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The material is directly discussing the rape, so I do not understand your claim of off-topic. "there are exceedingly few people of any significance who considers Sister Ortiz' testimony to be insignificant or substantially false", source please. "Government Sources are not intrinsically reliable" Did not say so, but certainly a view that should be included if the government is accused.Ultramarine (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The government sources you have introduced clearly state that, beyond the fact that Sister Ortiz was tortured, they have no conclusions about what did or didn't happen. Please explain to me how a government report that openly admits that it doesn't know the first damn thing about what happened is relevant? Stone put to sky (talk) 10:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

They give some NPOV. Your latest version has eliminated all statements critical of rape accusations. Please respect NPOV. Also, you introduced a a self-published source, [65], not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Lets see. Your version have 25 lines. None critical of the allegations. Not very neutral.Ultramarine (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the few statements from the report that you include, the report itself dismisses most as unreliable. That is: both the State Department and the DoJ recognize that the few informers who call into question Sister Ortiz' version are unreliable -- and the report itself states this and concludes that it cannot make any definitive statements about the events in question. Thus i have deleted those which the government report itself concludes are not trustworthy and are inconclusive -- which, it turns out, is all of the evidence you have attempted to include.

Finally, of the remaining few that are not openly dismissed by the IOB as unreliable, you have included a few which consist of Guatemalan officials claiming that the cells in question had been officially "closed down" -- which of course does not mean that they weren't being used. Obviously, the IOB report recognized this and concluded that they could not glean any definite knowledge from the intelligence sources they reviewed.

Since the U.S. government itself A) Validated the Ortiz Story, and B) Considered these sources unreliable and inconclusive, i see no reason why you should present them here as somehow casting doubt upon the Ortiz story. This is entirely contrary to the report's conclusions and is clearly dismissed by the IOB when it says that it believes she did, indeed, suffer the torture as described.

Thus, for you to present these excerpts in the way that you are suggesting is an obvious violation of WP:OR -- you are clearly insinuating conclusions into the material that are utterly rejected by the people who wrote the report and the U.S. government's official position. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing for equal space, but there should be some mentioning of the opposing views. Further, I note that neither the US court or the IACHR found any responsibility for the US government. Why should this article have such an extremely long section on this? Maybe a few lines and then a see also to the man article on her.Ultramarine (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The "opposing views", as you put it, have been rejected by the U.S. government as unreliable. Obviously that means they fail WP:RS. The current article already contains the few points of relevance from the report.

If you want to develop the main article on her and then help us shift the content over there then feel free -- for my part, i am spending all my time rejecting your own demands for deletion. I just don't have time to help. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So you agree we could move most the content to her article? This could solve this dispute.Ultramarine (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That is clearly not what i am saying. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a proposed version: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox3. I hope this can solve the dispute. Concrete objections? Ultramarine (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other material moved to main article.Ultramarine (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Attribution regarding Philippine material

I had added several attributions regarding the Philippine material. They were all reverted.[66] Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Attributions are given in the source. Giving the name of the actual journalist and publication is not needed and gives undo weight to them in particular. They are only reporting a story that other papers also picked up on. They are not originating the claim and are not themselves notable, so there is no need to state that in the text. Let the source provide info as to sourcing of the statements.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The claims are presented as fact when they are often only views. Misrepresentation. Wikipedia must be accurate.Ultramarine (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it is accurate, but I agree with you that it could be more NPOV. However, lets wait on this and see with other editors say about it. Lets see what consensus is about this point. I'm willing to grant this to you, looking over it, but I would like to hear others views before we make any changes to make sure we move forward avoiding any further edit warring. Sounds good to you?Giovanni33 (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: "There is no such thing as a consensus version". Or WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. It is an encyclopedia that must be NPOV, follow NOR, and be V. Even if all the editors discussing at some particular time agreed that the Earth was flat on the talk page of the Earth article, that would still not justify stating in the article that the Earth is flat.Ultramarine (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing a big issue here. Its called consensus and working with other editors for implementing these policies. Its part of collaborative editing. You don't get to over rule everyone else based on your sole understanding of these policies to the exclusion of other invested editors with opinions on the matter. Why is this basic point so hard for you to grasp?Giovanni33 (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to be missing what I just stated. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: There is no such thing as a consensus version. Wikipedia must be accurate. There is no justification for having incorrect statements in an encyclopedia.Ultramarine (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not missing what your saying, but its off point, its a non-sequir to the point I've rasied and you keep ignoring. Even if you understand all other policies, if you miss the one I'm making, you will be a failed/bad editor in many instances.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that Wikipedia should contain inaccurate material if this is the "consensus"?Ultramarine (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I"m not but I think you know that. However, the point you miss with your rhetorical question is that its possible that an editor does not understand the policies and thinks something is inaccurate, when its not (or even if it is, the standard is verifiablity not truth in wikipedia), and so consensus on understanding what is proper and what is not, is crucial. You seem to ignore that and determine "truth" according to you and you alone, and disregard consensus, sparking edit wars. Perhaps take a step back and consider that just maybe you are the one who is wrong here, instead of everyone else? At least that is what I think most of the times, as your arguments have been shown many times to be simply false. That is why consensus is so good: many heads are often better than one (provided we are all serious editors following the same policies).Giovanni33 (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

False description. I will just point out that I have been thoroughly reviewed on WP:ANI recently, as you well know, and the consensus of administrator did not agree with the accusations against me.Ultramarine (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Back to the issue. Any concrete objections to having proper attribution of claims and statements?Ultramarine (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the issue as one of attribution, as those sources given suffice for attribution. What can be improved is the NPOV wording. I suggest instead of you mentioning exactly which publication and author its from (redundant) that we simply change some of the words to make it more NPOV. For example, state 'It has is argued/alleged that..."etc.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Exact source is important in order to judge reliability. For example, Amnesty is more credible than an local internet webpage.Ultramarine (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of the source warrants mention esp. if its making a new claim, and not simply reporting one, as any news paper might do. Exact source is important and that is why its given, supporting the claims made. Any reader can click on the reference to view it. Otherwise, it makes it appear, falsely, that the claim is limited to only what some newspaper reporter reported, or that the paper is notable enough to put it and its author in the main text, instead of leaving it in the references.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the attributions I made was to note that this was the opinion of a journalist. Obviously this should be noted.Ultramarine (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well do you have a source that this was just the opinion of this one journalist? That seems untrue and if so, undue weight for us to mention the claim even. Most likely, this journalist is simply reporting the view that is shared by others based on facts that are widely reported.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please let's not; see in particular "Passive voice" and "Repetition" under WP:AWW#Other_problems; but also, higher up on that page: "If a statement is true without weasel words, remove them. If they are needed for the statement to be true, consider removing the statement."

WP:POV is perhaps more to the point, at least regarding this article:

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

• Who advocates the point of view
• What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)
  — WP:POV

But again, I rather like "consider removing the statement." The scope of this article has widened; we should therefore proved less detail (referring instead to more narrowly-scoped articles), not more. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 07:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless objections I will add attributions. If someone want to delete the statements, fine.Ultramarine (talk) 08:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There are repeated objections, here, and i must protest that it appears Sidhekin hasn't even bothered to review the material in question (philippines, attributions). The reporters and sources which were reverted in the Philippines' section were clearly reporting on the findings of multiple human rights groups, international governing bodies, and other independent findings. Thus, Ultramarine's attempt to reduce these reports to the opinions of a single newspaper reporter, commentator, or organization are clearly an attempt to introduce misleading inaccuracies and POV language into the article text. I fully support Gio's edits. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a particuarly serious example "Notorious as the 'Butcher of Mindoro", General Jovito Palparan is considered responsible for an extensively documented, long list of gross human rights abuses." Clearly a potential WP:BLP case. No attribution and presented as an undisputed fact.Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with citing facts, and these are facts that are mentioned in several of the sources provided. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He has not been found guilty in a court according to these sources. Until then, BLP should be respected.Ultramarine (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no legal court one can appeal to that will determine whether or not he actually is known as "the Butcher of Mindoro"; so your argument there is clearly insane.

Beyond that issue, however, is the fact that several different sources have cited this as his nom de guerre. Whether you yourself have heard of it is beside the point. Unless you can show us that he is not, in fact, known by this eponym then the material stays. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Break for Convenience I

But not "is considered responsible for an extensively documented, long list of gross human rights abuses." Remember BLP. Attribution and that is still not proven in court should be mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As the sources indicate: HRW mentions him by name, and i believe AI does as well. Multiple Philippine newspapers and human rights organizations have squarely placed the blame for these human rights abuses at his feet, and he himself has publicly admitted not only to condoning them, but to actually encouraging them. While he stops short of admitting direct responsibility, within the framework of Human Rights and International Law there is more than enough evidence out there which, when coupled with his own admission, justifies this statement as reasonable -- which, as i remind you, many notable human rights orgs, newspapers, and magazines have already asserted. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no proven in court. Remember BLP. Just asking for attribution and stating what form these allegations are. Innocent until proven guilty. He has not declared himself guilty.Ultramarine (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reporting on the conclusions of major investigations undertaken by major, notable, neutral, third-party organizations does not violate WP:BLP. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But we should make proper attribution in order to respect BLP. Again, innocent until proven guilty.Ultramarine (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And since the attributions are already made there is clearly no more point in continuing this ridiculous discussion which has already shifted its point a full three times, conveniently enough each point marked by your inability to continue the previous argument. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is an important policy. The current text does not give any source for the claims in the article text or state this is still not proven.Ultramarine (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly it is important. And it has not been violated. So no problem -- no deletions need be considered. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing that we should presume him guilty before being convicted?Ultramarine (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No assertions about legal culpability have been made. The statements and accompanying evidence provided by reliable sources have merely been reported.

If you feel like a portion of BLP has been violated then i think it is important for you to quote which portion, precisely, you feel has been transgressed, and also how. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"considered responsible for an extensively documented, long list of gross human rights abuses.". Alleged is the common word for charged criminals before found guitly.Ultramarine (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that it is clear from the sources provided that he is, from the viewpoint of the authors of those reports, considered responsible for the abuses cited in those reports. Further, he has publicly accepted indirect responsibility and direct complicity, and in the context of his military and political offices both of these admissions imply responsibility. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He not accepted that he guilty. Allegations is not a conviction.Ultramarine (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a straw-man argument. No mention is made of legal guilt. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference between punishment or not is hardly a straw-man.Ultramarine (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is completely unintelligible. An utter non-sequitur. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference between being alleged and free and convicted and in prison seems very tangible.Ultramarine (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Newspaper do not state that someone is guilty before convicted. They state alleged.Ultramarine (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a repetition of the same non-sequitur. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No it is not. Should wikipedia have a lower standard than newspapers and claim people guilty when not proven so in court? Ultramarine (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Describing points of view.Ultramarine (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views deleted

Double standard since much the anti-US material do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. No justification for such a double standard has been given.Ultramarine (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no double standard, and your criterion for inclusion is too simplistic. Its not about exact words for phrasing its about context and subject matter, along with solid sources that root the issue to the topic: state terrorism and the US. So while we need some sources that are direct, once we have those, many others can be supporting material within the same context.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That violates WP:SYN. Why must pro-US view mention "state terrorism", while critical quotes do not even need to mention terrorism? Or even the US, only mentioning an ally?.Ultramarine (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that doesn't violate SYN. Syn is when we create a new claim from other claims. That is not being done here because we have sources that root the basic allegation of US involvement in state terror. "Pro-US" whatever that means, has to likewise be within the context of the subject matter, with a valid source that anchors it as well. You don't get to pick and choose what you think will make the US look good, i.e. "pro," if its off topic/off from the context. That would be OR. That is why we reject many of your additions, i.e. the Japan section additions. This is the same standard, and always has been. There has been no SYN or OR, except the material you keep trying to introduce, i.e. "abortion is state terror," when there are NO sources that even mention this, and its out of context. Big difference.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First, i'd like to state categorically: Ultramarine, the content you have proposed and pushed for is, by far and away, the most "anti-U.S." content on the page. Bar none. You are, without a doubt, the foremost poster here pushing for introduction of content showing the least respect and least patriotism for the United States. So in the future i would appreciate it if you would restrain yourself from such clearly personal insinuations about others, here.

Second, we will remind you once again: once you can find a source that speaks about "state terrorism" from your preferred perspective then we will be happy to include it. All content on this page is sourced to a specific commentator making a specific claim about State Terrorism. You have enforced these rules on the page, and it is very bad faith for you to now request that we break them on your behalf. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is false. For example Chomsky do not mention "state terrorism" in some of his quotes.Ultramarine (talk) 06:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other sources do use those terms, and Chomsky use of other variations of the words, are within context of the claim (unlike your abortion is state terrorism additions).Giovanni33 (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I could use the same argument regarding the material that you deleted. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

But you didn't, because you can't: your claims such as abortion is state terrorism do not exist in any source---its pure OR.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no source mentioning "state terrorism" in the Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon section. Should they be removed?Ultramarine (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I don't believe you. Everytime I checked, you were proven to be wrong. I bet if I checked this time, the same would be true. I'll get around to it sometime tomorrow. I suspect you are mistaken and state terrorism as a concept within context is indeed discussed.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of "state terrorism" in the quotes given in the article.Ultramarine (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you, either. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Easily solved. Just read the article. If you find a quote in the article in these sections including "state terrorism", then report it here.Ultramarine (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read them. I found them. So now i know you are wrong. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then we can easily solve this. Just add the quote here.Ultramarine (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It was provided many times before, including after this below. The section is completely off topic and should remain out of the article.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no quote from the article from these sections including "state terrorism" has been provided. If there is one, please state it.Ultramarine (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, no double standard please. Much critical material quoted do not mention "terrorism" or "state terrorism". So double standard to exclude supporting material on the same grounds.Ultramarine (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Each case must be looked at for context to the article, and there must be some source that anchors the relevancy of the claims/arguments to State terrorism (or any of the various terms used to describe State terrorism, i.e. state terror, terror campaign of the US, US international terrorism, etc.). No semantic word games, please. Look at context to the articles subject. Off topic OR is not allowed. Standards are consistent here. Deal with one section at at time, and raise specific and concrete objections to each on their own merits. This section is off topic. If other sections are, then you can make your case, but saying others are is not an argument for why this one should stay.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."Amnesty International states that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution."" These quotes do not mention terrorism, state terrorism, or even the US. No double standard for critical and supporting material or between different sections.Ultramarine (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this section was not about State terrorism. If someone can show me how its about this, please do. I have removed it.76.126.64.74 (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, no double standard as per above.Ultramarine (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Respect consensus. You are the only one that insists on this off topic material. Since you are adding it back without consensus, and without explanation as to how its on topic, I will revert it shortly. As you say, no double standards allowed. Keep material on topic, per sources.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this was continued in Opposing views section below. Please continue there.Ultramarine (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight to San Juan

San Juan is given four direct quotes and as well as other citations. Undue weight to a single person. I propose shortening this to may two citations. Objections? Ultramarine (talk) 04:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Its only undue weight if his views are out of being given more weight than should be accorded. Are his views minority views within the field, or pretty mainstream within literature of the field? If San Juan has written a lot about the topic and is recognized as a major contributor within the this literature (terrorology), then its not undue weight. Otherwise, just saying "four is too many, but two is ok" sound rather arbitrary.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Source for all of your claims please.Ultramarine (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the source this is my understanding of NPOV policies as an editor here for a significant time period. My claims are based on this and logic: how do you determine what is too much? Its relative to the academic landscape, otherwise your making rather arbitrary decisions based on your own bias. If you think this is undue weight you need a better argument than simply saying it should be two instead of four. I am saying, I'm open to looking at that possibility but we need to qualify that against an appropriate yard stick, so to speak.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you have no sources for your claims of his reliability or importance for this subject, then there is no justification for giving him so much weight.Ultramarine (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. You have no sources to support your assertion of "undue weight." Thus, there is no justification for giving your proposal any serious consideration. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with stone--I think we are saying the same thing to Ultra here) To Ultra: Well you are the one that is proposing making some changes to the long standing version, and so the burden of making an argument to supports the changes you advance lies with you. Convince us editors and gain consensus by making a valid argument, and we will listen. So far you have not done so, and therefore I'm not convinced that we need to cut down this particular scholar's comments.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the editor who want to include or keep material who must give the sources. See WP:V.Ultramarine (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And the source is given. I'm not making the clam in the article that this scholar is of such and such import, etc. So no claim of that nature is being made. You are the one who is making a substantive claim regarding his lack of standing, yet you failed to come up with an argument supporting this assertion.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing for the inclusion of this material. You are, so you have to provide the notability evidence.Ultramarine (talk) 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We have already shown his notability on many occasions: fulbright scholar, philippines forum, noted philippine academic, noted philippine poli-sci commentator, multiple books treating this particular subject, etc. You know that. Once again: if he is not notable then it is now for you to show us, not the other way around. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, see WP:V. You have to give the sources since you are arguing for inclusion. Sources for the above claims please. Otherwise I must assume that they do not exist.Ultramarine (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since these sources have already been repeatedly provided you there is no point in providing them again; moreover, WP:V and WP:RS are relevant to material presented within the article itself. After having already provided the evidence once, I am now under no responsibility to provide you with sources demonstrating that E. San Juan Jr is who i say he is or has achieved what i say he has. Since i (and BernardL) have both already provided evidence showing the people here E. San Juan's qualifications and since it is you who are challenging his reliability and notability, the burden of evidence is now upon you: either show us that he is not a fulbright scholar, that he has not published any books about state terrorism, and that he is not one of the leaders of the philippine's forum, or provide us with a source that clearly eclipses his notability and reliability and that rejects his opinions as relevant.

Either one will do. For our part, however: E. San Juan's credentials have already been provided (they are, in fact, available in several of those sources cited in the article) and you have yet to explain why they are inadequate. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Since i (and BernardL) have both already provided evidence showing the people here E. San Juan's qualifications". No, you have not. If continuing to claim this, give a diff. Or add them to the Wikipedia page about him which very much needs references. Regardless, assuming all can be verified, why should this person have more space than anyone else in this article? I fail to see that he much more important than for example Amnesty.Ultramarine (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

They are already in the sources provided in the article. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add them to the E. San Juan, Jr. article and we have solved two problems at once.Ultramarine (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, which source? Remember, he cited numerous times in this article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will leave that for you. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can of course have no idea where such possible statements may be hidden in numerous sources. I must conclude that you fail to present sources showing his notability. As such, since it is you who have responsibility since it is you who are arguing for inclusion, notability has not been proven. One or two ciations should be enough. Which should we include?Ultramarine (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He is a noted commentator on the subject in question. Fulbright scholar, leader of the philippines' forum, author of several books on the subject. Citations, therefore, are justified. You have no argument for deleting them. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Much more important than anyone else in this article? More important than Amnesty? Your claims are still unverifiable. Please give the exact source.Ultramarine (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As i told you: pick any two of the included sources and you fill find most of what i have posted here validated at the bottom of the article. Beyond that, i'm not going to spend any more time jumping through your busywork whoop-de-do's. This has already been demonstrated for you several times, and at any rate a quick google search will prove me correct. Your demands beyond that are clearly just petulant whining about your unwillingness to be cooperative, assume good faith, and do your own proper share of the work around here.

There is nothing in the wikipedia guidelines that says i need to show sources on the discussion page to satisfy petulant demands. I have already indicated where the information is and that it can be found. If you want to google it for verification then please -- do so. If you don't, then fine -- don't. But your insistence that i must google it for you and post the results here -- after having already done it twice before -- clearly has no basis in wikipedia guidelines or policy. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree on me adding equally many statements by Rummel?Ultramarine (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I need to see what the statements are and how well they are sourced. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummel concept of democide is state terrorism.[[67] Thus we can cite his numerous well-cited books on the subject.Ultramarine (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As i just said: When you start asking my opinion about specific proposals for article content then i will give it. Until then i cannot say one way or another. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Rummel's research on which state has done most democide=state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I cannot answer a question that has not been asked. Please float your proposed edits here so that i may respond. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Rummel research on shows that the US, like other democracies, have a comparatively low level of state terrorism."Ultramarine (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A) That statement does not address the Philippines and is inappropriate in the Philippine section.

B) That statement does not dispute that the U.S. is responsible for State Terror in the Philippines, and so is inappropriate for that section.

Obviously, stating that the U.S. has a "comparatively low" level of state terrorism may be useful in other parts of the article, but not in this particular section. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Other sections is fine. For example in the general section in the beginning we could have several quotes.Ultramarine (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: show us what you are proposing. Also, i would suggest that you provide full context within the aritcle. It does nobody any good for you to float a single sentence up and ask if you can include it. Unless we know where you want to put it we obviously cannot say whether or not it will be a useful or accurate addition. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose in the intro in order to achieve NPOV. Same text.Ultramarine (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think "several quotes" would be appropriate for the intro. However I think it the above passage would be very good for a general counter section. The lead should feature 2 points against, 2 points for as a nice balance. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. One such point could be Rummel.Ultramarine (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First, i would suggest that Ultramarine start a new thread. This one is about San Juan Jr. Further, i point out -- again -- that Ultramarine's proposed change is unclear and cannot be accepted unless he provides us with some sort of context for the proposed change. Saying "in the intro" doesn't help enough to achieve consensus. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Already a thread about intro so we should not discuss that further here. I will add some proposals regarding the general section shortly.Ultramarine (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The rape and Nicaragua?

Stone put to sky made a blank revert again inserting the strange claim that the Sister won a case against Nicaragua. Please explain.[68]Ultramarine (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I only reverted your edits, Ultramarine. I "inserted" nothing, and my justification is given in the summary: your edits introduced serious textual inaccuracies and unacceptable POV language. If you would like to introduce your sources again then feel free. If you continue to insist upon introducing major edits without first working with the other editors here to guarantee that your edits -- which consistently suffer from bad grammar, original research, violations of WP:SYN, point-of-view language, and terrible logical inaccuracies -- then i can only say that you should expect to see them reverted. Frankly, i just don't have the time to go around hunting after all of your grammar mistakes and guideline or policy violations. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

So you did not read what you reverted and reintroduced a strange factual error.Ultramarine (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I read it. The language that stated she "won" a case was introduced by you. I reverted it. The original language stated that she "brought" a case - nothing more. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You reintroduced that she won a case against Nicaragua. A very strange claim. Are you really arguing that? Ultramarine (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? I just checked and i don't see the passage you're speaking of. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You are not reading what you add? "In the early 1990s a U.S. citizen and nun, Sister Dianna Ortiz, brought a U.S. civil court case against the State of Nicaragua". Ultramarine (talk) 07:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?q=Sister+Ortiz+civil+court+case+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.debian:en-US:unofficial&client=iceweasel-a

Stone put to sky (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I see nothing there regarding Nicaragua. I thought we were in the Guatemala section?Ultramarine (talk) 07:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see, now. Just read right past that word. Now corrected. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The text is still factually incorrect. She won a case against the general as a person. Not the whole state.Ultramarine (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Do you have a source for that? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The source that you deleted when you reverted.Ultramarine (talk) 07:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And which source would that be? There were three or four. Also: what are your proposed changes, exactly? As i remember, you had badly mangled the sentence into a run-on, as well as introducing a bunch of irrelevant POV stuff to cast aspersions onto the Sister. So what, exactly, are you suggesting? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You deleted three or four sources without checking? Here it is [69]. As seen in the rape section of the edit you blankly reverted,[70] I removed the false references to the government of Guatemala. There was also only one defendant, not several.Ultramarine (talk) 08:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, i did not remove them without checking. I removed statements that were introducing irrelevancies, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies into the article. It just so happened that these were supported by the sources you're now citing for me.

Having said that, i will be happy to help out with correcting the text but of course i first need to know what the sources you're referring to are and what are the proposed changes. I can't give an opinion on a question that hasn't been asked. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, source is here [71] and proposed changes regarding the sentence in question can be seen here, in the Sister Ortiz section.[72]

Well, i agree that the passage as it currently stands is a little inaccurate. The sources to which it refers are a 1996 case brought against Guatemala under the IACHR, but improperly associated with a 1992 event (my fault, actually; apologies). The material you want to introduce is the actual 1992 case. Both instances support strong reasons for inclusion. This looks like another instance where it would be good to sandbox and proceed carefully: your current proposals are inconsistent with information later in the section.

As it stands, however, it would be easiest to simply change the 1992 citation to reflect the 1996 report. The 1992 case is more effective, however, so i support moving the example over to the 1992 case; but that will involve a substantial re-write, which i really don't have time for. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to my proposed version as per above? Very little change actually.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I just made some very detailed objections and suggestions. Once again:

Well, i agree that the passage as it currently stands is a little inaccurate. The sources to which it refers are a 1996 case brought against Guatemala under the IACHR, but improperly associated with a 1992 event (my fault, actually; apologies). The material you want to introduce is the actual 1992 case. Both instances support strong reasons for inclusion. This looks like another instance where it would be good to sandbox and proceed carefully: your current proposals are inconsistent with information later in the section.

As it stands, however, it would be easiest to simply change the 1992 citation to reflect the 1996 report. The 1992 case is more effective, however, so i support moving the example over to the 1992 case; but that will involve a substantial re-write, which i really don't have time for. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Stone put to sky (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created a little sandbox and made some clarification, mentioning both the US court and IACHR. OK, regarding these sentences? User:Ultramarine/Sandbox3Ultramarine (talk) 09:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed a blog since it is not an allowed source. I am sure you agree.Ultramarine (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That is not "a blog". That is a student group website that happens to use Blogger software to publish its articles. From their FAQ:

This site was created and is administered by GSAS Alliance for Justice in the Middle East (AJME), a student group at Harvard University. The website is part of our campaign to shed light on Harvard’s pattern of admitting and hiring individuals with publicly documented records of war crimes and/or human rights abuses.

A student group self-publishing material is not a particularly reliable source.Ultramarine (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The information on the page in question is sourced with multiple links to sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V. The source, therefore, stays. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There is another problem. "International Socialist Review" is hardly a reliable source. Also make statements not found in her later testimony. Objections to removal?Ultramarine (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is an utterly false assertion. The International Socialist Review qualifies as a newspaper, and the article in question is straight journalism reporting on the Ortiz case. If you can come up with another article that states the same thing then i will be happy to add it, but as it is there is no problem with the source as it currently stands. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember WP:REDFLAG]. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Dubious far left paper is not exceptional. Very strange that sister does not make such accusations in the testimony.Ultramarine (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Another problem: "by invitation after having given that year's commencement speech at the SOA" The given source is not about this at all.Ultramarine (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected this in the sandbox. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[73] is a self-published source. Not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe not. Regardless, very minor paper at best. Remember WP:REDFLAG.Ultramarine (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Except that the paper isn't making an extraordinary claim, so REDFLAG is irrelevant. The paper is simply restating something that was, at one time, widely reported. The link that was provided before has gone out of business; but that doesn't change the fact that Gramajo gave the commencement at the SOA that year, nor that many people reported on it. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The paper stats 1991, the Court case was 1995.Ultramarine (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Filed in late '91, deliberations begin in '92, and it's decided in early '95. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Source please.Ultramarine (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you are claiming the article is incorrect on the basis of a randomly picked fact, i think it would be more accurate for you to show us the source demonstrating that the article is incorrect. I have shown that the article doesn't make false statements; anyone who's ever filed a legal case knows that A) Initial filings take place weeks and sometimes months before deliberations begin, and B) the media sometimes reports the trial as beginning when filings took place and sometimes when the deliberations/arguments begin. This is common sense. I'm not going to bother sourcing it. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, your version have 25 lines. None critical of the allegations. Not very neutral.Ultramarine (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Stone put to sky (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your version does not respect NPOV. It only has arguments supporting one side of the story.Ultramarine (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing the same section in two different places on talk. I suggest you pick one and stick with. My proposal is here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox3 Other material moved to main article.Ultramarine (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert of Guatemala material

Stone put to sky made a blank revert of the Guatemala section. Please explain.[74]Ultramarine (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I only reverted your edits, Ultramarine. I "inserted" nothing, and my justification is given in the summary: your edits introduced serious textual inaccuracies and unacceptable POV language. If you would like to introduce your sources again then feel free. If you continue to insist upon introducing major edits without first working with the other editors here to guarantee that your edits -- which consistently suffer from bad grammar, original research, violations of WP:SYN, point-of-view language, and terrible logical inaccuracies -- then i can only say that you should expect to see them reverted. Frankly, i just don't have the time to go around hunting after all of your grammar mistakes and guideline or policy violations. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you do not point out any concrete objections, then there can be no good faith improvements. What concretely do you object to? Ultramarine (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You do not "point out" objections. You delete material, introduce bias, and introduce factual, grammatical, syntactical, and logical mistakes without any consideration or input from your fellow editors. Thus, it really is because of your own behavior that there can now no longer be any "good faith" improvements. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing constructive, just general claims. If you want to cooperate in good faith, then please point out concrete errors so they can be corrected. I am eagerly waiting for you cooperation.Ultramarine (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We have already pointed them out repeatedly. Concrete objections: introduction of POV language, logical and factual inaccuracies, poor grammar, poor syntax, no basis for proposed deletions. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is so vague that it is not constructive. Again, I really want to work in Good Faith with you. So please, could you point out for example the POV language so this could be fixed. In Good Faith respond to this humble request.Ultramarine (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Just show me what you're proposing before you put it up on the page. Please cooperate with this humble, good-faith request. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here is my test sandbox: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox. Please point out the POV language.Ultramarine (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph i've changed a couple of minor things. The second sentence needs to be worded more carefully, but i'm not sure how to do so in a way that will satisfy you; "nominally" is an indicator that it wasn't really a democracy, but a bit subtle for an 8th grade reading level (i.e. -- encyclopedia entry). It would be better to either explicitly point out that the U.S. repeatedly instigated coups against whatever "leaders" they didn't like (replacing them with brutal military dictatorships) or -- as i would prefer -- to include a word that unmistakably indicates that the Guatemalan "democracy" was not genuine. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can quote for example Freedom House showing that Guatemala was at least partially democratic, except around 1980-85. If you want to add a source with an opposing view, fine? Ultramarine (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Put it up and i'll let you know what i think. There's no point in discussing something i can't see. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.Ultramarine (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Three comments:

• "Partially free...by Freedom House" really doesn't mean anything. Freedom House and its idiosyncratic rankings aren't notable enough to cite without explanation, and without explanation "partially free" doesn't really mean anything. Further, if you do try to spend a lot of time explaining this ranking then you're opening up a can of worms that begs challenges of OR, SYN, and POV-pushing.
• I myself don't trust anything that's only got commentators like Fukuyama, Henninger and Zakaria quoted on the opening page. These are three of the most conservative corporate journalists out there ("corporate journalist" as opposed to, say, Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, who aren't really journalists, or Robert Fisk or John Pilger, who aren't corporate). They tend to represent extremely pro-establishment, government-sponsored opinions. Thus, i think a better source needs to be gotten for the information in question (also re: notability, see above).
• The source provided is just a link to the website of the group that issued the report. I'd prefer to have a link to the report in question, at the very least. As it is, even i -- who want to read up and find out what all this "partially free" stuff means -- have no way of tracking it down without a lot of work to find what i want.

Personally, since i'd rather not get into all of these various issues about "exactly how free is free", i think the point could be just sidestepped and not included. If you insist upon some sort of mention, however, then i would like to remind you: when a government labors under the full knowledge that, at any point, they could be violently executed by a U.S. sponsored military coup, then even under the best of electoral circumstances, when democratically sponsored decisions are in conflict with clearly enunciated U.S. policy the latter will always be imposed over the former, regardless of the wishes of the electorate.

And that last one clearly means that "freedom", in any real sense, has been eliminated. At least from my perspective (and i'm quite confident i could find a lot of sources that say the same thing).

So, to recap: yeah, i think the source is provocative and notable, and i think you have a good case for inclusion of some sort of point along these lines; no, i do not think it currently adds anything meaningful to the article; yes, i am very afraid that this will lead to more edit-warring and unnecessary expansion of the article; yes, i think that it would be best just to let it lie and not mention it.

So personally, i'd rather see the issue sidestepped, but if you insist on some sort of allusion to this idea then i really think a better source with more carefully worded commentary is needed. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Freedom House rankings are cited in hundreds of peer-reviewed articles. Regardless, claimed POV is not an excuse for deletion, see NPOV. There is a link to the exact rankings for each year in the given link. There is no requirement to have online sources. Many of the quoted sources in this article are not online. If you want to add a sourced opposing view, fine.Ultramarine (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledged that the source was reliable, so you are introducing -- yet again -- another straw man. What i did point out is that "partially free" is an essentially meaningless statement, and unless you can show us what is meant by "partially free" then there really isn't any case for including it. Also, i pointed out that there should be as little elaboration as possible upon this point because it is borderline information to the entire article. So your next step is clear:

Explain what is meant by "partially free" and propose an alternate wording. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Partly free means 3.0 to 5.0 points on their ranking. See Freedom in the World.Ultramarine (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a link from word Partly Free to the page on the report.Ultramarine (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"3.0 to 5.0 points on their ranking" is equally meaningless. Your explanation does nothing to solve the problem. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I added a link to another page. Those interested can go there.Ultramarine (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And once again: you have provided no explanation of what those numbers mean nor how they were arrived at. Moreover, you haven't provided a link or a direct source to the report dealing with El Salvador over the time period in question. Finally, the third statement in the first paragraph is clearly problematic: over the time period from the early 60s to the mid 90s, El Salvador suffered from a far sight more than just one dictator. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a direct link to the scores for the period.[75] Those interested in what FH means with Partly Free can easily find this by following the link from the word to the Freedom in the World page. If you want to add a sourced opposing view regarding dictators, please do.Ultramarine (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have gone to the page you link to and it says nothing whatsoever about how the scores are generated, what they precisely mean, or who did the collating. Until you can find us that information and post it to the page we cannot even consider the statement, much less include it. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a link regarding the methodology to the Freedom in the World page.Ultramarine (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Break for Convenience, I

Your link is is simply a link to the Freedom House page, which clearly does not have a complete description of their methodology and measurements. Moreover, here on Wikipedia we find this quotation from K.A. Bollen, PhD:

The methodology Freedom House uses for its reports has been criticised by social scientist K. A. Bollen for its perceived bias towards countries with pro-US positions.[17] Bollen argues that by relying on 'experts' or 'judges', the methodology falls into what is described as 'systematic measurement error': "Regardless of the direction of distortions, it is highly likely that every set of indicators formed by a single author or organization contains systematic measurement error. The origin of this measure lies in the common methodology of forming measures. Selectivity of information and various traits of the judges fuse into a distinct form of bias that is likely to characterize all indicators from a common publication."

There is no need to include this particular line in the section, Ultramarine. First, whether or not some people (and really, that's all you're saying: some people) believed Guatemala to be "partly free" or not is utterly irrelevant to whether or not the U.S. was involved in the promulgation of State Terror, there. Second, by including this particular statement you are actually opening up the article to include an entire section treating the quality of freedom in Guatemala, which -- believe it or not -- would only make your position on this issue look much worse and make the entire section on Guatemala and U.S. involvement there look much more terrible.

At any rate, if you do insist on including this metric then i will continue to insist that you find us a clearly worded, lengthy treatment of exactly how the metric was generated and what it means. Otherwise i cannot support its inclusion. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to include a lengthy definition in this page any more than than an article on a presidential candidate must include a long description of the methodology used in opinion surveys. That is for other articles of external links. This general important background information. Obviously if the US did not support an outright dictatorship but where the majority more or less agreed with fighting the insurgents, then this affects US responsibility.Ultramarine (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say the definition needed to be included on the page. What i said was that a statement asserting "Guatemala was partially free" is meaningless unless we know what the "partially free" means. Similarly, saying "Guatemala scored between 3 and 5 on the Freedom House scale of Freedom" is equally meaningless. So in order for us to create a meaningful statement, we need to know what a "score between 3 and 5" means; and the only way to know what a score like that means is to see how they created the score. But i haven't seen that, yet, so i can't possibly help you write up an accurate summary of what the score means.

In fact, for all we know it may actually be the case that the Freedom House score doesn't take into account any factors that touch upon our current page content -- in other words, it may be that the score is completely irrelevant to our current discussion. At any rate, until you can show us some sort of description of how this score was measured we can't answer any of these questions. Stone put to sky (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, now we know what Partly Free means since a link to the methodology has been given on the Freedom in the World page. Linked from the proposed article.Ultramarine (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your claims of "does not have a complete description of their methodology and measurements." is unsourced. Since it is used in numerous peer-reviewed studies it is a reliable source.Ultramarine (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the editor introducing the material to provide proper sourcing. As of now, i have not received a clear answer about what sorts of measurements and standards are used to arrive at this "partly free" conclusion. Until i receive an answer to that question i cannot even consider the material for inclusion, much less allow it to be included. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Direct link: [76]Ultramarine (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please quote for me where that material discusses methodology and measurements. I have looked and cannot find it. If it is there then i would like to see it. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The whole text is about the methodology.Ultramarine (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Then quote for me the relevant portions, because in that text i see nothing that describes the specific metrics used to arrive at their measure. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at the "Freedom In The World 2006 Checklist Questions And Guidelines" There they have a point system with criteria.Ultramarine (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: looking at that list i have no idea how or why they arrived at their conclusions about the "state of freedom" in 1980's era Guatemala. Frankly, i think it's absurd that they would suggest the Guatemala of that era was "less free" than the Cuba of that era, and unless i see some sort of concrete explanation for how they reached their conclusions then i can only presume that they are an unreliable, fringe source. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You may of course personally disagree with rankings. But this a widely used ranking in political science research, so a notable source. The correlations with the Polity data is very high.Ultramarine (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again: i am contesting the inclusion of this grade as meaningless, not on the basis of my own distaste for it. Unless we can derive a meaningful statement from the grade given then we cannot include the content. Simply saying "partly free" or "3-5 on a scale of 1-7" is meaningless; the content in an encyclopedia must allow people to make up their own mind, not interpret the data for them.

For instance, if we were to find a source that maintained that any nation practicing genocide scored an automatic 0 on a scale of 1-100 of political freedom, while any nation that provided universal healthcare, abolished the death penalty, and had renounced genocide scored an automatic 95, then that source would say that Cuba scored 95, Guatemala scored 0, and the U.S. somewhere between (but less than Cuba). Obviously, the metric is meaningless unless we know what is being measured and how. So unless you can show me what guatemala scored during the time period in question, explain why, and show me how the metrics were used, then i object that we cannot include the statement. Stone put to sky (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to criticize the peer-reviewed paper which has used these rankings since they are valuable, then I suggest you publish in a scholarly journal. Wikipedia is not the place. I suggest you contact FH if you want the very detailed points and arguments used by the researchers. The final scores have already been linked to.Ultramarine (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Did i fail to make myself clear?

Including a grade is irrelevant unless people know what the object in question is being graded upon. Unless we know the methodology, metrics, and evaluative technique then the statement cannot be rephrased. If it cannot be rephrased then it cannot be included. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I am with Stone on this one - What exactly does a single source definition of 'freedom' on a 1-7 scale have to do with State Terrorism and the US? It is not as if the "Freedom House scale" is a standard and widely used measurement like "mph" or "GDP" or "literacy rate" that a general reader will have an acquaintance with and be able place information in some context. And giving the context will even more expand the article out of the scope of the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, also. This is just another classic example of the methodological flaw that is a classic violation of SYN. We do not get to pick and choose among arguments that we feel make a counter point, unless that source itself makes such an argument related to US state terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Links to the methodology has been given. Good enough for peer-reviewed studies.Ultramarine (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I refer to your method of reasoning for the inclusion of material that that results if SYN/OR violations. You are choosing the counter arguments, instated of reporting the sources own counter arguments. This method is flawed.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that all sources not mentioning terrorism should be removed? Like most of those cited against the US?Ultramarine (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you one more time to kindly put the tired "EVERY source must have the phrase state terrorism" piffle away and not bring it up again. We have been over and over and over and over that point with you. One final analpgy. Your demand for a single Yes or No answer to the question "Does a source need to include the phrase 'state terrorism'?" is like asking "Is it legal to drive 55 miles per hour?" The answer is, as you have been told numerous times, "It depends on the context." In certain areas, it is indeed legal to drive 55. In others, it is not legal to drive 55. No it is not a "double standard" - it is a context related standard. Now PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop wasting your time and ours with this ridiculous line of bad faith editing. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing out that this cannot be cited against this source unless there is a double standard. Notability and reliability established by use in academic literature. Link to methodology given, those wanting even more detail can contact FH. So no reason for exclusion.Ultramarine (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not be logical to assume that your question warrants an answer, because its the same question you've asked before, and many editors, including myself, have already answered it. Yet you ask it again. So I have to assume its simply not a serious question. But if you want an answer, just go above and read the many good responses to it already given many times. No need to repeat it here. What is clear to everyone but you is that there is a consistent standards (no double standard), even if you choose to ignore its existence.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See the "Opposing views deleted" above. Also, remember, you stated there "I'll get around to it sometime tomorrow." I am waiting.Ultramarine (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have to because another editor checked out your claims, and as I suspected, they were false.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact just to humor myself, and once again give you the benefit of the doubt, I took a quick look. I did not have to look too hard or far: right in the first paragraph the clear claim stands out: "U.S. policy of continues...sponsorship of terrorism in Iran."[139][140]. You continue to lose credibility every time you make false claims. I will also point out that to tell a lie is considered a violation of WP policy on civility.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No evidence of false statements presented. The issue was the inclusion of the words "state terrorism". Since none has been found, the issue is resolved and the opposing views sections should be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 07:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a distinction without a difference, hence your argument is pure sophistry. When a state is accused of sponorship of terror, that my friend, is state terrorism. Its like you arguing that someone who was murdered was not killed because it does not say "killed.' Notice how this clearly exposes your double standard with wanting to include Abortion as State terrorism, when there is no mention of a State perpetrating Terror in the form of abortion. As many others have said: context, context, context. We humans are smart enough not to act like robots or computer programs. We can grasp the meaning of language and understand context. I assume you are human and do have these abilities. Every time you repeat this fallacious line of reasoning (many times already), after you are well aware how invalid it is, it looks like you are being dishonest, and that is what is uncivil.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Break II

So, I think all the objections has been answered. Any still remaining? Ultramarine (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i think there is one point that still hasn't been addressed. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Which one?Ultramarine (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The one where you acknowledge that we have a good point and stop trying to include irrelevant, meaningless content. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a constructive criticism. Anything concrete? Ultramarine (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Everything just above this section, going back about ten days. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Such a general statement is not very constructive. Objections have been answered. Do you want to make a further comment or add something new?Ultramarine (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Such a general statement is not very constructive." So now you see why we have been asking you for the past month to provide DETAILS for your concerns. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You have? Could you give an example of when not providing details. Regardless, do anyone have any concrete remaining objection on this issue.Ultramarine (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Are you REALLY serious?

• "Editors have asked that if any of the above claims have any veracity to them, to please point out the text in question so that it can be looked at and fixed- Giovanii Feb 16"
• "But the article doesn't claim that the US ordered the rape. Concentrate on the article, please."— the Sidhekin (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2008 "
• "Where in the article do we say that the rape is state terrorism by the US? I cannot see it. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2008 "
• "Why don't you deal with the actual claims, instead of your straw man claim?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)"

(emphasis added) These are the first four that are still showing on this page that jumped out at me. Do you really want me to continue? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

These are related to general discussion of if the article should be a general dumping grounds for all sorts of allegations. Even if the allegations do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. I have on several occasions provided specific examples. Like quotes in the article from Amnesty and HRW not mentioning terrorism or the US. I can repeat them again if desired. I have as well as pointed out the double standard regarding this, where such critical material is included while supporting material is excluded on exactly the same grounds. If you have anything more to add to this discussion, please add to the "Opposing Views deleted" above.Ultramarine (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

These are all related to your request [77] to show when we have asked you to provide specifics instead of generalities. And agreed - this line of conversation does not have much to do with content of the actual article, but it is another piece of evidence that if you have ignored all these requests for specifics or have never read them that your editing presence here may be less than a good faith attempt at improving the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked for evidence of not providing details. If you have any, please state them. If shown that I have missed something, I will add it or retract my argument. Again, if you want to add something more regarding the general issue of that previous discussion, the double standard regarding citations, please add them to "Opposing Views deleted" above.Ultramarine (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe I may have misunderstood your comment. My apologies. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I repeat again. Do anyone have any concrete remaining objection to my Guatemala proposal and if so concretely why?Ultramarine (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This section has become a wall of text, what is your proposal? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated previously: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The background is not complete, hopefully someone can discuss the appropriate years, 1954. I also do not get the Freedom House mention since its not related to the appropriate starting years as well. It also does not cover when a US backed government was in power, or when there was not one. Is there a comparison perhaps that can be used, for example if Freedom House has said Guatemala's tanking was related to the backing of the government, or who was in power? I also do not like all the SOA stuff at the bottom, its a long section, perhaps SOA related issues should get its own section? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of those things are not included in the current version as well. On the other hand, the proposed version has a background section and some neutral background material which the current one does not. Obviously more improvements can be added in the future. SOA could well be a separate section. FH does not consider US backing or not in their rankings of the degree of democracy. This general important background information. Obviously if the US did not support an outright dictatorship but where the majority more or less agreed with fighting the Communist rebels, then this affects US responsibility.Ultramarine (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am confused on the relevance of the "freedom rating" if its not covering years on either side, nor the full period. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I could use the Polity data instead. It covers the whole period.Ultramarine (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the Polity data? It seems like its more appropriate if it covers the full period. Can you present it for everyone to review? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Polity data series. Varies between -5 to 3 (on a scale from -10 to 10) during the Civil war except for the Monti dictatorship. 3 After 1986. 8 after 1996. 2 in 1954.Ultramarine (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If it covers the full period and you have someone using it in relation to Guatemala, that sounds a lot better and on point with the article. Are they both rating "freedom"? I find that an odd thing to measure, perhaps the sentence will need to be expanded to explain what characteristics are being used. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Degree of democracy is a better summary. Various freedoms are included in this. The Polity project has a lot of information on their webpage for those interested in the gory details.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

While I am not particularly interested, I think we need to explain to the user in a sentence or two, how the information is being arrive at, according to Polity, and what it is showing. If you can update the sandbox accordingly, and let me know that would be great. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to explain without many technical details. I added the scores for every year to the sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks messy, is there anyway to show context, for instance the Polity score during the regime of US backed Johnson was 5, while following his overthrow in 1559 the score dropped to 3. Just an example or form that would give context. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not have any exact data on degree of US support. The score certainly declined after the 1954 coup, was worst under Montt, and improved greatly after the end of the war.Ultramarine (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't keep it in the form it is currently, its messy and does not show why its important, or how it relates, it is just a jumble of numbers and years. I would reccomend you take the time to frame the stats and you can have something very nice. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed. See sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

New quotes

In 1984 Human Rights Watch reported on Guatemala, stating: “Previous America’s Watch reports on Guatemala have discussed the murder of thousands by a military government that maintains its authority by terror. The killing continues as we document in this, our third report on Guatemala.”

“As best as we can determine the rural massacres are smaller in scope, which partly reflects the fact that so many of Guatemala’s villages had already been decimated during the army’s terror tactics in the counterinsurgency campaign that it waged in 1982 and the early part of 1983. On the other hand the number of rural killings remains very high, and the number of killings in the cities has risen sharply, coming to resemble the situation that prevailed under President Lucas Garcia (1978-1982)” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p. 2-3)

“The government of Guatemala continues to engage in the systematic use of torture as a means of gathering intelligence and coercing confessions. There is also evidence that torture is used for exemplary purposes, to instill fear among those who see themselves as potential victims of arrest or abduction. … We do find that between the Rios Montt and Meija administrations there has been no appreciable difference where the use of torture is concerned. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p11.)

“In such places, the army faces a crucial dilemma: the resources are not now available to permanently garrison each village. Yet, should they be totally neglected, they could become an important stronghold for opposing the regime. In such situations, the army exercises several options designed to place the community under military control and hold back the development of any opposition. One frequent approach is terror: the burning of houses, beatings, torture, selective killings and even massacres. Distant communities visited in northwest Quiche, near the Huehuetenango border, have experienced some form of military terror…Not one community is what it used to be; a forced transformation has befallen each one. The terror does not simply stem from the cruelty of the armed forces or from the policies of a specific government- although both factors are obviously involved- but from the systematic application of force to maintain effective military control in remote areas of the country-side…the terror is sufficient to ensure that the population understands that no level of dissent, let alone rebellion, will be tolerated. When a village is burned and its people abused, the message is that this is punishment for real or imagined cooperation with the opposition.” (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, p.60)

In a section of the report entitled “The U.S. Role," it reports:

“On December 4, 1982, President Reagan met with Guatemalan President Rios Montt in Honduras and dismissed reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala published by Americas Watch, Amnesty International and others as a “bum wrap” The following month the Reagan administration announced that it was ending a “five-year embargo on arms sale to Guatemala and had approved a sale of $6.36 million worth of military spare parts to the country. This sale was approved despite U.S. law forbidding arms sales to governments engaged in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights. “ (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984,p. 135)

“During most of 1983, the Reagan Administration continued to dispute reports of human rights abuses in Guatemala. When Americas Watch published its May 1983 report on Guatemala, Creating a Desolation and Calling it Peace, Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, attempted to discredit it publicly. (Guatemala: A Nation of Prisoners, An Americas Watch Report, January 1984, 135)

“In light of its long record of apologies for the government of Guatemala, and its failure to repudiate publicly those apologies even at a moment of disenchantment, we believe that the Reagan Administration shares in the responsibility for the gross abuses of human rights practiced by the government of Guatemala."

Giovanni33 added this material without previous discussion. The Guatemala government material seems to add little new to accusations already there. Cannot add every Guatemala government critical quote ever published to the article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

False, it was discussed on talk. The material was added to the talk page over a week ago by BernardL. The material is valid and gives a better idea of the nature of State Terrorism, than the extended Sister Ortiz quotes. Hence removal of the latter and insertion of the former referenced material--a week after discussion too place.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Right was discussed. Also disputed. Regardless, the material mentioning the US may have a place although there is now much similar material in this section which should be summarized.Ultramarine (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Latest revert

Stone put to sky writes "Reasons already given: POV language, Inaccurate text, improper linking"[78]

However, these are at this moment not mentioned in the sections where these changes were discussed. See "Misrepresentation of US position restored" "Counter-arguments regarding Gladio report deleted" above. Also, you restored the material moved to Wikiquote. Why?Ultramarine (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

US allegations of State Sponsors of Terrorism

Whoever added this section please take the time to summarize, copying and pasting entire sections of a website is not beneficial to the article. Just rephrase and source accordingly. Thanks. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be Ultramarine.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since he is not answering, I want to point out that I also object to this sloppy method of copying and pasting several whole sections in their entirety, from one source, one website. Besides not being the correct style/format, it creates NPOV and undue weight problems. Wikipedia is not a propaganda site for the US State Dept.'s views: presentation of their views should be explained more than one source, and properly balanced, summarized, and in proper purportion. There is a lot of information/claims that were just copy and pasted and which have nothing to do with claims of State terrorism, as well. I suggest we move this off to a sandbox to be properly worked on, and then when its ready for inclusion per consensus, we include it back. Thoughts?Giovanni33 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Article still has much more critical material. No violation of NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 07:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your response is a non-response to the issues raised.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It was you who stated "creates NPOV and undue weight problems". Also, no double standard please. Lots of the US critical quotes do not mention terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What I objected to with the sloppy copying and pasting of entire sections of a website, with no care if they actually fit in this article. Also there was no cosensus for adding all this material. Some of it is valid but it needs to be summarized and material that is clearly not related to allegations of state terrorism by the US against other countries is also included in this copy and past job you did. I do not understand why editor are edit warring over this. I looked at the anon ip's attempt to clean this up and it seems like a good job. I would ask those editor who are edit warring to at least come to the talk page and discuss--preferably instead of edit warring.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Since it discusses terrorism and the US it obviously fits.Ultramarine (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed the section for utter worthlessness. Copyedit, then reinsert. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV requires the views of both sides. Still more critical than supporting arguments regarding the US.Ultramarine (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Both sides? Yes, indeed. But what you had was just one side from one source--in whole--and even if it was not even on topic. That has been objected by many editors. Others have attempted to trim it to make it better and revlevant, but you simply revert them for your sloppy copy and paste.

Ad the same time, I note that you blank most of the sourced material and Guatamala. Wikipedia is not a mirror for State.gov., and use of a single source should be a summary of what the source says that is ON TOPIC to charges of State terrorism. What you did was neither. Lastly, you never presented any of this info to talk first for other editors to comment on it first. As usual you not only ignored but then defied consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The US government certainly deserves more room than other sources since it is the source and target of all the various allegations which the article discusses. Again, npov requires the views of both sides. Imagine a court case where there are many who bring different charges but the defendant is just allowed as much time as one of those of who make accusations. Still more critical than supporting arguments regarding the US. "I note that you blank most of the sourced material and Guatamala." False. "Lastly, you never presented any of this info to talk first for other editors to comment on it first." Same applies to for example the page move or recent additions to the Nicaragua section. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"The US government certainly deserves more room than other sources" ummm - in general this is actually a big 'no'. As the subject of the the article, comments from the US Government are rife with potential conflict of interest. WP articles need to be based on published third party interpretations/analysis. (a section listing who the US govt includes on its official list of "State Sponsors of terrorism" may be an exception - the statements of the govt. are fine primary sources, but analysis should be done by other parties.)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." None applies. Statements by for example the Cuban government are as least as problematic as US government statements. Regardless, I moved the material to a better main article in favor of a brief summary section.Ultramarine (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In this context, administrative documents would be a term that covers the US government's publication of lists of states it considers sponsors of terrorism. The government presumably has other evidence that has informed its decision to label a country a sponsor of terrorism, but in the consideration of which countries the US has named sponsors of terror, the government's published lists are primary sources. (And while statements of the Cuban government should also be taken with a grain of salt, that is why the other supporting background information has been included along with Granma's statements.) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Administrative documents" refers tax records etc. The list is a secondary or tertiary source based on other documents. No general prohibition against the views of governments in WP.Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said that there WAS a general prohibition against the views of governments in WP? My initial comment was just stating that you seemed to have made an inaccurate statement that was overly broad. (And in the context of "Nations the US has declared state sponsors of terrorism", lists published by the US government are primary sources, whether you want to call them administrative documents or any other name.)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Not simply a list but a synthesis of many documents explaining the US view. If arguing for such a scope for primary sources, then the Cuban Government allegations are also primary sources.Ultramarine (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, that is not a false, statement. You did remove it. Here is proof of your removal of much of the sourced material, followed by you insertion of the Polity sets, that are off topic, and have been rejected by editors here on talk when you floated the idea. As always you ignored them and put it in anyway, after deleting sourced material:[79]

As you well know I reinserted the material mentioning the US.[80] I made modfications to the proposed Guatemala material after which no objections were raised.Ultramarine (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

About NPOV, that is not the issue here. Your US.Gov. copy and pastes add nothing for the "other side." Saying that the US also making accusations against others for state terrorism is the "other side" of the allegations against the US for state terrorism, as well, is not logical. So that NPOV/Other side clam is nonsense. This is about you posting the other side. This is about your ignoring consensus and lazily coying the entire sections of a website directly into wikipedia, with no attempt to summarize, use any other sources, or even trim to material so that its on topic (as other editors have attempted to do so, only to have you revert them.). Now, I say work on it in a sandbox, with other editors assisting. Once its ready we can restore the valid parts. If you wish to keep making false arguments, you will lose lose the patience of even editors such as myself who still are willing to put in the effort to respond to you. But even my patients has limits. If you keep this up you will prove yourself not serious enough to warrant a reply.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

If you had read what I wrote above you would see that I have already moved the material to a better main article.Ultramarine (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you moved the material anywhere except blanking it. Show a link where you inserted this material to a "better main article." The material was valid for this article, and gives an understanding of the nature of state terrorism, which the US is implicated in, per the sources.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[81].Ultramarine (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about the Gutatmala material you deleted. Your link has nothing to do with what we are talking about here.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Your link has nothing to do with what we are talking about here." Read the section title. Guatemala discussed in another section.Ultramarine (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I did. Your edit added nothing to it. You simply copied and pasted the same material over there, in whole--again (including off topic material):[82]Giovanni33 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Discuss possible problems in that article on the talk page of that article.Ultramarine (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the one that brought this up here, and when I pointed out that what you claimed was false, now you want to talk about it over there. Funny. Btw, I see you simply reverted my improvements and kept it the same: a complete copy and paste from the one website, with no explanation on talk despite you saying, "see talk." I call this dishonest editing.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to a better article. Discuss possible problems there.Ultramarine (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for atomic bombings

In order to present a fair background we should also mention the man reason for deciding to bomb. To save both American and Japanese lives. Continued war was predicted to cause hundreds of thousands American and millions of Japanese casualties.[83][84][85][86][87]

This Falk quote should be moved from the general material to the Japan section. "Turning specifically to past U.S actions, Falk says "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism... Consider the hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays Qaddafi as barbaric while preparing to inflict terrorism on a far grander scale... Any counter terrorism policy worth the name must include a convincing indictment of the First World variety." Objections with explanation?Ultramarine (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I thought the main reason was scaring the Japanese into surrender ...

I'd rather cut the stuff around "to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War": The scope is wide; we don't need this much background. (Move it to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, unless it is already there.) Of course, if we do give background, we should give no POV undue weight, but I'd rather present the directly on-topic facts, and let the interested reader look up detailed background in a more narrowly scoped article. — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This section is not a pro/con for dropping the bomb. That would be off topic. Its about the subject of state terrorism as it pertains to use of these atomic weapons. Falk quote is fine where it is, and is on topic. Also, the rasoning of using the terror of the bomb to scare other nations for political reasons goes at the heart of why scholars consider it state terrorism (in addition to the fact that civillians were targeted for maximum pyschological impact.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The article in other places has many statements not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Possible they could be included as background material. Then the same applies to this material.Ultramarine (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The "[reasoning] of using the terror of the bomb to scare other nations for political reasons", if reasoning at all, is precisely "a pro/con for dropping the bomb". So, does it belong or doesn't it? (I say it doesn't.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It only belongs to the extend that it elucidates the thinking behind calling it State Terrorism. Its not valid for inclusion as part of arguments of pro/con for using the bomb. I know there is always some cross over, but that is fine. I just don't want to get this off topic, which introducing pros/cons for dropping the bomb would definitely be off topic here.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And the Soviet Union is on-topic??

Either way, if we present one POV on the reasoning behind the bombings, other POVs must also get their due-weight presentation, or we fail neutrality. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree provided its still on topic. Yes, mention of using the bombs for exterior purposes unrelated to winning the war against Japan, i.e. to effect politically the USSR, is on topic, because it forms the basis of the reasoning that using the bomb was state terrorism. All other POVs related to the topic of State Terrorism, are fine for inclusion, but not other POV that we as editors decide to pick and choose to give "the other side"--when in reality it is not giving the other side to THIS issue, but another. Its like trying to make a square peg fit into a circle. To do so would be OR, and only appears to make it more NPOV. The key is sticking to the topic. Anything that seems to stray off topic has to be tied to it by a source. Saving lives is off topic since it has nothing to do with State terrorism---unless a source actually makes that argument (which is very doubtful since its a logical fallacy: saving lives does not negate it being state terrorism).Giovanni33 (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of quotes in this article not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Possible they could be included as background material. Then the same applies to this material. The main reason in mainstream literature for using the bomb is obviously important background.Ultramarine (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We have two motives given for this (alleged) instance of state terrorism: (1) Affecting the USSR; and (2) saving lives. What makes one of them off-topic and the other on-topic? I still say both are off-topic, but on-or-off, we must present both or neither, or we fail WP:NPOV. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Ultramarine (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "saving lives" is not one of the reasons given or involved in the notion that the bombings constituted acts of state terrorism--and that is why its off topic here. The issues raised that are connected to the subject of state terrorism that involve the bombing are: 1. targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal, i.e. Target Committee rejected the use of the weapons against a military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world.the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. Thus they Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Thus the attacks because they were motivated as a show, a display, a demonstration for political reasons, not military ones--they are argued to be State Terrorism. These are from the sources that make these claims directly tied into the thesis that they were state terror. It does not logically follow to mention alleged motivations to "save lives" in this context. Its not a counter argument, as it does not involve the issue of why or why not it was state terrorism. That is why there is no motivation/no mention of the "saved lives" argument. It would be off topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously if the attacks was done to achieve military goals against Japan such as quick and less costly surrender, not to be a demonstration of the bomb to the Soviets and world, then this affects claims of state terrorism. Again, no double standard. There are lots of quotes in this article not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism. Possible they can be included as background material. Then the same applies to this material. The main reason in mainstream literature for using the bomb is obviously important background.Ultramarine (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sourced material/arguments that challenges the fact that the target selection was not against a military target, that civilians were not specifically targeted, and that the dropping of the bombs was not done to create a psychological impact? If you do, then that would be ok with me, even if it does not mention state terrorism, since it deals with the exact argument from the other side of the fence. However, no one one either side of this topic (state terrorism) mentions numbers killed vs. numbers saved. As such its completely off topic. What your proposing is not only off topic but is SYN/OR to the extend that you use it as a counter argument within the context of state terrorism (in the absence of any source linking it to state terrorism).Giovanni33 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that the goal was a military one, to achieve the surrender of Japan, not to impress the Soviets. See the main article. I have added much material recently. Or just this quote by Truman in his speech after the bombing: "We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war."[88] No mention of impressing the world. Regardless, the info numbers killed vs. numbers saved is no more off-topic than the many quotes listing numbers killed and so on in other sections and not accusing the US of state terrorism. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your source only mentions the well known argument that it was to shorten the war, save American lives, etc. Those are parts of the debate surrounding the pros vs cons of dropping the bomb or not. Notice that your source does NOT refute or counter the arguments that the selection of the specific target was motivated NOT by military considerations but political ones, nor that civillians were purposely targeted for this non-military reasons. See:[89] No one refutes that because once these top secret memos came out, no one disputes them. They are undisputed facts. If you do have someone who takes on this claim regarding the selection of targets let me know. They are not opinions, they are facts. They also form the basis for scholars to call it state terrorism. So your sources and arguments remain off topic as they don't touch these issues at all.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your own text states this on Hiroshima: "This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area." So a military target. More importantly, the overall goal was military. To achieve surrender quickly and with little costs. See this on declassified documents for why Truman droppped the bombs.[90]Ultramarine (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, your point does not counter the fact that selection determined and motivated by a non-strictly military target. Again, the fact is (which is not diputable): The Target Committee rejected the use of the weapons to a strictly military target and were motivated by these other non-military factors, which is the basis for the state terrorism charge. No one is saying that it did not have any military considerations. So you are creating a red herring by introducing that. Again, if you have something to counter the facts that are alleged (which of course you don't), or you have a source that argues that despite these facts it was not state terrorism because xyz. No one makes the argument that it was not state terrorism because of the number of lives, etc. Since numbers have nothing to do with its motivations/tactics/methods. Outcome for people killed vs. not killed are a different subject of debate--NOT related to the issue of Terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably impossible to hit an exclusively military target of significant size with an atomic bomb. Especially at this time when aiming was so poor that many bombers often managed to miss hitting entire cities. Again, I have given a source for why the bomb was dropped according to declassified documents.[91] It was not to impress the Soviets but to quickly and with little loss end the war.Ultramarine (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your speculations about what is probably possible, are off topic to the issue. The fact, again, is that the reasoning of the official targeting committee of 1945 is now known for all to see--and they show the reasoning used. Its because these facts are central to the reasons why its considered state terror that make their presentation relevant. Other arguments for dropping the bomb, i.e. to end war quickly, military factors, saved lives, etc. are all off topic to the subject of state terrorism (unless you have a source that ties it to this topic. Otherwise its SYN/OR to pick and choose arguments that YOU think act as counters (esp. since I dont think they do even counter the subject). What you are doing is mixing up two issues. Your points are for another article, not this one. Information for this one must deal with arguments surrounding claims and counter claims of state terrorism (not other reasons to drop or not drop the bomb, which only add extra info that is off topic). For example, say scholars elaborate on why they think that the 9/11 attacks were terrorism, and they do so on the basis that civilians were purposely targeted, and that a purely military target as opposed to a symbolic one was chosen. From this it does not logically follow to say, "but wait, it also was chosen because it contained CIA and other defense connections, financial connections, etc, that had military value in an attack." So what? It doesn't address the claims--it just adds more info, that is not about WHY its still an act of terrorism. Likewise, for someone arguing, but the terrorist attack (hypothetical), saved lives because it scared the country into not going to war. Also, irrelevant, since saving lives has nothing to do with the issue of tactics used (terror)--even if true. This is esp. the case when WE as editors, make up these arguments and pick and choose which one we think acts as a counter, when no source makes these arguments re state terror or not state terror.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The primary goal was a military one: to end the war quickly and few casualties.[92] As Japan was a nondemocracy the primary goal was to impress the leaders. Not the primarily the people who had little influence. I could not see a single mention of civilians in your document. Hiroshima was an important military and industrial center. The destruction of which certainly had a psychological impact on the leaders as intended. If Al Quada had attacked exclusively military targets like military bases it would be more difficult to argue that it was terrorism. Regardless, again, info on numbers saved is no more off-topic than the many quotes listing numbers killed and so on in other sections and not accusing the US of state terrorism. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, even if what you say is true, its not relevant. Saying it has a military purpose as well, does not refute or challenge the facts of the other motivations that are well known, and form the basis for the view that its state terror. Even if the bombings had the result of bringing everyone a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, it would still have been state terrorism for the same undisputed facts, and I quote:

• 7. "Psychological Factors in Target Selection"
• A. "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released."
• B."In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value."

Since there facts are not disputed at all, your arguments about these factual matters are logical fallacies. What you need to do is find a sourced argument that says why it was not state terrorism, and use their arguments--whatever they are, that make such a case. Otherwise, you are either off topic or engaging in OR/SYN.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still no mention of aiming specifically at civilians. Hiroshima also had military personnel. Again, Japan was nondemocracy . Any psychological effect was primarily intended against the leaders. Regardless, again, info on numbers saved is no more off-topic than the many quotes listing numbers killed and so on in other sections and not accusing the US of state terrorism. No double standard please. Or should we start removing all such quotes from other sections? Ultramarine (talk) 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Review the facts:[93]The populous cities themselves were the target, with a factor in the reasoning favoring selection of civilians where were more educated and thus have a greater psychological impact. Again, none of this is in dispute so its pointless for you to argue these facts. Its irrelevant that Hiroshima also has military personnel. Its irrelevant that Japan was not a democracy. Issues of numbers are likewise irrelevant to the question of state terrorism. I'm still waiting for you to produce a single source that ties in your pro-bombing arguments to the issue at hand: state terrorism. You do not get to pick and choose which argument you think apply as a counter, which is exactly what you trying to do here. That is not allowed.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no mention of civilians in the document. For why Truman dropped the bomb: [94] "Issues of numbers are likewise irrelevant to the question of state terrorism." Mentioning numbers saved is no more off-topic than the many quotes listing numbers killed in other sections and not accusing the US of state terrorism. No double standard please. Or should we start removing all such quotes from other sections?Ultramarine (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea what your talking about when you mention these other sections. Lets stick to one section at a time. Plus, when you start to talk about this, it always turns out your claims have been 100% false. So that tactic doesn't sway much, anymore. The fact is that repeating a claim does not make a valid argument. You can say numbers are relevant all day, but that does not mean they are. You have to have a source that says such a numbers argument is indeed used to counter or talk about the claims of those who argue this is state terrorism (notice they don't mention numbers as that is not relevant). Since I asked many times and you failed to provide such a source, I think we can all assume that you have no source, that this is your own argument, and thus it must be rejected as SYN/OR.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"it always turns out your claims have been 100% false" Incivility noted. No double standard for the article per above.Ultramarine (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are factual matter, no incivility. I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm stating that you have been 100% false, to the best of my recollection each and every time you have made those claims about other sections (used to justify your pointy but fallacious arguments of two wrongs make a right). Each time I and other editors checked, you have been shown to be wrong. Nothing uncivil about your poor record on this matter. Its also off topic to this section for you to start with this tactic of other sections when you start to lose the argument. The pattern is clear.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"I'm stating that you have been 100% false" Simply false, incivility, and ad hominem. Please use factual arguments. It is the last resort after having lost the factual argument to use ad hominem.Ultramarine (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying that you are wrong and have been wrong every time so far is an argument based upon refuting your claims each and every time, that is of proving that your claims about these other sections proved to be completely false, each and every time. Thus, your argument carries little to no weight when you go back to the same song and dance. Its your method and argument I'm attacking--not you. That you cry out that I'm attacking you seems to be indicative of your desperation at having failed to make a case. Facts are stubborn things. Calling them something else does not make them go away: you have a 100% failure rate when it comes to claims that other sections are the same as what you are trying to do with introducing off topic material, such as your "abortion is state terrorism" argument (no source, off topic, and there is no double standard)Giovanni33 (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any factual arguments? Or only continued ad hominem and insinuations? Please discuss the issue of double standard raised above.Ultramarine (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

All the above is factual, none is ad hominem, nor insinsuation. I'm simply stating a verifiable fact relevant to your line of failed reasoning and argumentation, in addition to your repeated false claims. Time to try something new, I'd say.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem is not valid argumentation. Again, any factual arguments? Ultramarine (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question for yourself since you are the only one doing that. I am making factual arguments, while you are, ironically, making personal attacks (by falsely saying that I am, when I'm not). I take it you have no arguments to make. It appears you do not like to lose gracefully.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is you who have done ad hominem as per above. I will repeat one of my arguments. Mentioning numbers saved is no more off-topic than the many quotes listing numbers killed in other sections and not accusing the US of state terrorism. No double standard please. Or should we start removing all such quotes from other sections?Ultramarine (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your the only one engaging in ad-hominens. I don't do logical fallacies, while you often do. To repeat, I have no idea what your talking about when you mention these other sections. Lets stick to one section at a time. If you have problem with other sections, raise them in a new section on talk to discuss them. I see no double standards, and this line of argument of your has always proven to be based on false claims. This is a matter of fact. Again, you can say numbers are relevant all day, but that does not mean they are. You have to have a source that says such a numbers argument is indeed used to counter or talk about the claims of those who argue this is state terrorism (notice they don't mention numbers as that is not relevant). Since I asked many times and you failed to provide such a source, I think we can all assume that you have no source, that this is your own argument, and thus it must be rejected as SYN/OR. But if you have a source that ties your argument to that of a sources argument about state terrorism, I'd welcome it. Until then repetition alone does not make your claims any more valid or true.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"it always turns out your claims have been 100% false." One of you ad hominems from this section. Sorry, but you cannot use one standard in one section and another in the rest of the article.Ultramarine (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So far it always has, so that line of argument has little or not credibility. That is an argument against your method--not you the person. Hence, its not an ad-hominen at all. Its a factual representation of your record relevant to this because you are repeating it again. Also, I always use the same standard. Its you who fails to show an understanding of consistent standards.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are arguing we should removed material not explicitly stating terrorism/state terrorism from the article?Ultramarine (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Each case must be looked at for context to the article, and there must be some source that anchors the relevancy of the claims/arguments to State terrorism (or any of the various terms used to describe State terrorism, i.e. state terror, terror campaign of the US, US international terrorism, etc.). No semantic word games, please. Look at context to the articles subject. Off topic OR is not allowed. Standards are consistent here. Deal with one section at at time, and raise specific and concrete objections to each on their own merits.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Then there is a double standard for critical and supporting material. What policy are you citing for using different standards in different sections? Ultramarine (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no double standard. What I described is the consistent standard throughout. Your claims to the contrary have many times been proven to be false. Like I said, so far your record is 100% false, 0% correct.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Spare me the ad hominem. Lets make this specific. Should we remove "In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992."? Since terrorism or the US is not mentioned in the quote?Ultramarine (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No ad hominem on my part. So drop that. About your question, no, that is not how it works. Each sentence, quotation does not need to have the magic words. Again, its about context to the article and on topic information that is anchored by a reliable source that connects it to allegations of state terrorism. To determine if your quote is off topic, we have to look at it in context. I would expect to see somewhere in the same paragraph the main claim with a source that accuses the US of state terrorism. If you say there isn't, and I check and find it (as I will), this will only add to your 100% false record, so be careful about making false claims again.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source explaining that Rummel's concept of Democide is state terrorism.[95] I can add some of Rummel argumentation regarding the bombings. So according to your own standard then everything is fine.Ultramarine (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Given your track record you will excuse me for wanting you to please quote the relevant verbiage and show its context here, i.e. he must mention that he is addressing the claims of the bombings being state terror, and his argument has to be in that context. If so, then I can't have any objections or call it off topic. However, if you are the one picking and choosing what arguments apply on your own, that would be OR/SYN, and then I do object.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet more ad hominem. No double standard for critical and supporting arguments. Are you arguing that all critical material not mentioning "state terror" and that does not follow that an "argument has to be in that context" should be remvoed from the article?Ultramarine (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No ad hominem on my part. So drop that (as each time you claim that you are guilty of it). About your question, no, that is not how it works. Each sentence, quotation does not need to have the magic words. Again, its about context to the article and on topic information that is anchored by a reliable source that connects it to allegations of state terrorism. To determine if your quote is off topic, we have to look at it in context. I would expect to see somewhere in the same paragraph the main claim with a source that accuses the US of state terrorism. Each case must be looked at for context to the article, and there must be some source that anchors the relevancy of the claims/arguments to State terrorism (or any of the various terms used to describe State terrorism, i.e. state terror, terror campaign of the US, US international terrorism, etc.). No semantic word games, please. Look at context to the articles subject. Off topic OR is not allowed. Standards are consistent here. Deal with one section at at time, and raise specific and concrete objections to each on their own merits. Lastly, don't put words in my mouth.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"its about context to the article and on topic information that is anchored by a reliable source that connects it to allegations of state terrorism." What policy are you citing? WP:SYN prohibits sringing together sources. One source mentioning state terrorism does not mean that other sources on the same incident are talking about state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources are not being strung together for the purpose of synthesizing a new claim. That is the crucial difference between the material you object to (which is valid) and the material you want to introduce (that is SYN since there is no source making the claim but yourself).Giovanni33 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Example. "In all, there were more than 70,000 deaths, some involving gross human rights violations, and more than a quarter of the population were turned into refugees or displaced persons before a UN-brokered peace deal was signed in 1992." If arguing that this is an example of state terrorism, SYN violations. If arguing that it is background material, fine. The same standard applies to mentioning the reasons for the bombings.Ultramarine (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your quote of one sentence does not prove anything. Context, context, my boy. Look at the paragraph its in. Is it in context providing information rooted in an incident that a reliable source claims is state terror by the US? Yes or no? Answer accurately, please.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your are violating WP:SYN. I quote from WP:SYN: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly what you're doing when you try to introduce off topic material with a claim that its a counter argument, i.e. saving lives as a counter argument to the claim that the bombing was state terrorism. Or your attempt to introduce abortion as an example of state terrorism. What you are doing is, a classic SYN violation: "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together 'serve to advance the editor's position. On the other hand all the other material in here, has valid sources supporting the claim. Addition material is rooted in context and on topic, with no new claims/argument being advanced by us editors.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are saying that the 70,000 deaths material should be removed? Or is there a double standard?Ultramarine (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You already know the answer to that so the question is not honest. The standard has never been what you pretend it is. Not every quote must mention exactly "state terrorism. False premise. It's all about context, and the paragraph the sentence is in does make the claim of state terrorism. Thus, it is in context, no new argument is made, and the standard is consistent. That you keep hiding behind this false argument--pointing fingers at another section--once again--is telling. That you keep repeating it after its been refuted says a lot of how weak your case is.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Not every quote must mention exactly "state terrorism." Then the same applies to the opposing view section.Ultramarine (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No argument there. As I said, this standard is consistent. The problem with the opposing views section was that we new arguments created without a source that made any such argument addressing claims or counter claims of state terrorism. That is why its off topic, or an exercise of synthesis/OR--since you are picking and choosing other arguments and making them serve the arguments that you think counter the charges of state terrorism. That is where you cross the line and it is in fact off topic. No such similar occurrences in any other section. No double standard.

Certainly a double standard. The quote I gave above does not mention the US or terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is not the standard. Not every quote must mention exactly those words. False premise. It's all about context, and the paragraph the sentence is in does make the claim of state terrorism. Thus, the standard is consistent and you are hiding behind this false argument--pointing fingers at another section--once again. That you keep repeating it after its been refuted says a lot of how weak your case is. Are you saying there is no mention of State terrorism anywhere in the paragraph, or that this factual claims it not connected directly to an argument the purports state terrorism? Because unless you are claiming that, your point is invalid. If you are claiming that then this will continue your track record of making false claims 100% of the time on this point.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Are you saying there is no mention of State terrorism anywhere in the paragraph, or that this factual claims it not connected directly to an argument the purports state terrorism?" Read WP:SYN. Background material can of course be included. But then the same applies to Opposing vews material.Ultramarine (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, however, in the opposing views section you did not have an argument rooted in the claim of state terrorism or an argument to counter it. You simply pick and choose what argument YOU think would be good as a counter argument for the allegations of State terror, yet, no where in any part of any of the sources, is there any argument addressing state terrorism. In order to have background information, you must have valid foreground information that has a source that ties it to the topic (state terrorism). Because you have none, it fails as background information, fails as being on topic, and fails under SYN/OR rules. For example, Democratic Peace Theory, is not connected by any source to the issue of state terrorism. Its off topic to introduce that theory as if it were an "opposing view" to the allegations of state terrorism. That is OR, to make that connection in the absence of any source.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Since you are posting identical material in this section and the one below, see my answer there.Ultramarine (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views section

Please do not blank entire sections without good reason - that is vandalism. It is not off-topic to discuss opposing views in the slightest. If you gain a consensus to remove a section like that or re-write it, great. But as it is the view previous to your deletion was that it should be there, and thus I believe it should remain until consensus proves otherwise. John Smith's (talk) 07:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor have discussed and concluded that this section is indeed off topic, which is why it was previously removed by another editor. So removing it now is not vandalism at all.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, see the section "Opposing Views deleted". No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Opposing views section has editors saying its off topic, and the editor posted why he removed it, finally (which was way over do) No one objected to that. No one has shown why this off topic section should stay. It was removed rightfully, and should stay out (unless you can make it on topic).Giovanni33 (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again. There is a double standard. Much US critical material included do not explicitly mention terrorism or state terrorism. So a double standard to exlude supporting material on the same ground.Ultramarine (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Untrue. There is no double standard. The standard is consistent, and the only double standard is the one where you are insisting on off topic SYN/OR additions for material that you feel counters the other material (but really doesn't).Giovanni33 (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are arguing we should delete all quotes not explicitly mentioning terrorism/state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Each case must be looked at for context to the article, and there must be some source that anchors the relevancy of the claims/arguments to State terrorism (or any of the various terms used to describe State terrorism, i.e. state terror, terror campaign of the US, US international terrorism, etc.). No semantic word games, please. Look at context to the articles subject. Off topic OR is not allowed. Standards are consistent here. Deal with one section at at time, and raise specific and concrete objections to each on their own merits.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that if there is a single source making an allegation that an incident is state terrorism, then we can cite any other material also critical of the US mentioning that incident?Ultramarine (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If the source is strong and reliable it may stand on its own, but multiple sources are preferable. Once that is established then within context additional material discussing the same incident within context may be added provided its still on topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Once that is established then within context additional material discussing the same incident within context may be added provided its still on topic." Which policy are you referring to? Violates WP:SYN. Regardless, here is a source explaining that Rummel's concept of Democide is state terrorism.[96] Thus, we have such a source as you claim is sufficient for then adding more material also for the opposing views section.Ultramarine (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, its only SYN if we are originating a new claim that is not rooted in a reliable source. In fact that is exactly what you do when you try to add material that is off topic, alleging it is but have no source that connects it to state terrorism, such as your attempts to add abortion as an example of state terrorism against the unborn. That would be OR/SYN, and off topic here. About your Rummel source, that may be fine. Why don't you put it in a sand box and let me go in there and make suggestions. If its on topic, I have no objections. Most of the material in the opposing view section however was way off topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"No, its only SYN if we are originating a new claim that is not rooted in a reliable source." Again, what policy are you citing? WP:SYN makes no such statement. However, using your argument, if a single source is sufficient to justify much other material not mentioning state terrorism or terrorism, then Rummel suffice for the opposing views section.Ultramarine (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You can only include it if its in context and not off topic to the sourced material that does make specific claims. Please quote the relevant verbiage and show its context here, i.e. he must mention that he is addressing the claims of the bombings being state terror, and his argument has to be in that context. If so, then I can't have any objections or call it off topic. However, if you are the one picking and choosing what arguments apply on your own, that would be OR/SYN, and then I do object. My understanding is SYN is sound.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Source already given for that his concept of democide is state terrorism. I asked you to state what policies you were citing for your claims. Please state them here.Ultramarine (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the relevant verbiage from source and show its context here, i.e. he must mention that he is addressing the claims of the bombings being state terror, and his argument has to be in that context. If so, then I can't have any objections or call it off topic. However, if you are the one picking and choosing what arguments apply on your own, that would be OR/SYN, and then I do object. I doubt your source actually says what you claim its does based on your poor track record. My grasp of policy is good, and I understand SYN. I think you should go back and read it again, if you think what I'm saying is not correct (or ask someone on the talk page about that policy). SYN is a variation of OR: its proven by us editors making up a claim instead of a valid source. Its really that simple.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummel explicitly lists democide caused by different nations. I asked you to state what policies you were citing for your claims. Please state them here. Exact quotes please.Ultramarine (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a policy page, so no. Take it to that page if you don't understand how SYN works. But you have failed to quote the relevant verbiage from source and show its context here, i.e. he must mention that he is addressing the claims of the bombings being state terror, and his argument has to be in that context. I would bet that you are doing the same SYN violations again by you being the one who is one picking and choosing what arguments think apply on your own, which would be OR/SYN. Since you have failed to quote from your alleged source, I now really doubt your source actually says what you claim its does.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

(indent)So there is no policy supporting your arguments. There should be no double standard for critical and supporting material. If we exclude supporting material for not explicitly mentioning state terrorism, then the same applies to critical. Please do not repeat your claims that a single source making an allegation is justification for including material not making this allegation. You have failed to present policy stating that this is acceptable.Ultramarine (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, policy is Verification, SYN, OR. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand them. There is no double standard. Never was and that is the whole point: you want a double standard. You want SYN (abortion is terrorism is syn). Claims rooted by reliable sources that say the US engaged in State Terrorism is not. Material that gives additional info in the same context supported by the claim is not making any new claims, its adding background info that is ON TOPIC. This is the standard. You have failed to quote your source that makes ANY claims that is on topic. You have failed to show any claims anywhere in this article that has the same failings. Old tricks are getting tiresome.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"Material that gives additional info in the same context supported by the claim is not making any new claims, its adding background info that is ON TOPIC." Which the opposing views material does.Ultramarine (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not true. The Opposing Views was off topic as there was no valid source connecting its arguments (i.e. democratic peace theory, other countries are also bad, etc) to the issue of the US state terrorism. That is you picking and choosing which arguments YOU think apply as a valid counter, or to advance your own position. That is a classic SYN violation.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No more off-topic than for example "Amnesty International states that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution."" Quote does not mention the US or terrorism. No double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is not the standard. Not every quote must mention exactly those words. False premise. It's all about context, and the paragraph the sentence is in does make the claim of state terrorism. Thus, the standard is consistent and you are hiding behind this false argument--pointing fingers at another section--once again. That you keep repeating it after its been refuted says a lot of how weak your case is.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Not every quote must mention exactly those words." The same applies to the opposing views section.Ultramarine (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No argument there. As I said, this standard is consistent. The problem with the opposing views section was that we new arguments created without a source that made any such argument addressing claims or counter claims of state terrorism. That is why its off topic, or an exercise of synthesis/OR--since you are picking and choosing other arguments and making them serve the arguments that you think counter the charges of state terrorism. That is where you cross the line and it is in fact off topic. No such similar occurences in any other section. No double standard.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly a double standard. The quote I gave above does not mention the US or terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, that is not the standard. Not every quote must mention exactly those words. False premise. It's all about context, and the paragraph the sentence is in does make the claim of state terrorism. Thus, the standard is consistent and you are hiding behind this false argument--pointing fingers at another section--once again. That you keep repeating it after its been refuted says a lot of how weak your case is. Are you saying there is no mention of State terrorism anywhere in the paragraph, or that this factual claims it not connected directly to an argument the purports state terrorism? Because unless you are claiming that, your point is invalid. If you are claiming that then this will continue your track record of making false claims 100% of the time on this point.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Are you saying there is no mention of State terrorism anywhere in the paragraph, or that this factual claims it not connected directly to an argument the purports state terrorism?" Read WP:SYN. Background material can of course be included. But then the same applies to Opposing vews material.Ultramarine (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, however, in the opposing views section you did not have an argument rooted in the claim of state terrorism or an argument to counter it. You simply pick and choose what argument YOU think would be good as a counter argument for the allegations of State terror, yet, no where in any part of any of the sources, is there any argument addressing state terrorism. In order to have background information, you must have valid foreground information that has a source that ties it to the topic (state terrorism). Because you have none, it fails as background information, fails as being on topic, and fails under SYN/OR rules. For example, Democratic Peace Theory, is not connected by any source to the issue of state terrorism. Its off topic to introduce that theory as if it were an "opposing view" to the allegations of state terrorism. That is OR, to make that connection in the absence of any source.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Amnesty quote from above is not connected to state terrorism by the US if not violating WP:SYN. Background, yes. Then the same applies to Opposing views which can be seen as background to the article. No double standard please.Ultramarine (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph in the "Opposing Views" section for which there is this reference...[[97]] ... I fail to see how this article could qualify as an "opposing view." First, any connections/defenses made in the article to U.S. state terrorism, or even gross sponsorship by the U.S. of human rights violators are extremely tenuous. Second, the linked article is essentially a highly abstract critique of past U.S. administration's and certain prominent scholar's tendencies to favour authoritarianism over democracy because of supposed considerations of economic development. It says, rather mildly, without seriously coming to grips with the violence perpetrated, that the previous U.S. assumptions about the value of authoritarianism were wrong-headed. It's authors even vaguely embrace a broad definition of democracy that extends beyond formalized electoral procedures to shared power and meaningful participation. These and similar ideas were extant in the broad populist forces in Latin American countries; their advocates were targeted for annihilation by U.S. sponsored terror regimes, and the U.S. defended and apologized for the state terrorists. It is the contention of so many of the more outspoken critics of U.S. foreign policy that by having such an important hand in suppressing popular movements the U.S. was inhibiting democracy and development simultaneously. So I really wonder why this source should really qualify as an opposing view? BernardL (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing in that qualifies as "opposing views" relating to State Terrorism of the US. That is why to use this material, and esp. the rest of it, for that purpose, without the sources themselves being connected logically even to the subject matter is to try to force a square peg into a round hole: it doesn't fit. To force it to fit by sheer will of the editors own POV (instead of the source) is the classic OR violation.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No more off-topic than for example "Amnesty International states that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution."" Quote does not mention the US or terrorism. No double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 09:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison between the two cases could hardly be more disingenuous. In one case we have AI analyzing in detail a specific case describing phenomena such as political killings and death threats, which habitually fall under the rubric of analysts of state terrorism. Moreover reliable sources in the field have repeatedly said that reports by the human rights organizations effectively constitute descriptions of state terrorism. (i already quoted one, and see Gus Martin's textbook, Understanding Terrorism for another example) On the other hand, there is your article from ethereal ivory tower liberals that hardly touches upon violent repression at all, let alone examines specific cases, skims over refugee issues, and certainly does not come close to making or defending descriptions of phenomena that are reasonably within the rubric of an article on state terrorism. It is moreover quite noteworthy that you avoided answering my query as to why this article from Halperin et al. should qualify as an "opposing view."BernardL (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that is Amnesty quote is about state terrorism by the US violates WP:SYN. Background material? Possibly, yes. Then the same applies to opposing views material. No double standard for supporting and critical material. Regarding the Halperin article, it provides one explanation for US support of authoritarian regimes who may have committed state terrorism. Rightly or wrongly it was/is a common view that poor nations have difficulty having a functioning democracy and that supporting an authoritarian regime that at least creates economic growth will in the end create a stable democracy. Arguable this is wrong as per Halperin. As another point, I can point to this article which argues that Rummel's concept of democide describes state terrorism.[98]Ultramarine (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing BernardL's point: The AI report is describing particulars of the incidents described by reliable sources as state terrorism. Hence, no original claim is being advanced by us editors. Therefore its not SYN. SYN is when we have a conclusion A and a conclusion B, but we put both together to SYNTHESIZE a new and original conclusion, C. That what what you are doing with the "Opposing views" section. You are picking up arguments that you think constitute "opposing views" but the sources do not themselves make arguments opposing the views you claim they do. They make separate arguments. For you to present them as argument of opposing views is the original claim absent of a source, hence SYN. This section has been opposed as off topic by many editors. You are the only editor that disagrees. I think consensus is pretty clear on this issue, so please stop inserting that material back.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"The AI report is describing particulars of the incidents described by reliable sources as state terrorism." The quote does not mention state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

opposing views random section break 1

I am going to restore the "opposing views" section because it is important to have balance in the article. A one-sided account of something is not good for the project. To claim it is "off-topic" as the returning anon-IP editor says is ludicrous. I suggest editors try to improve it rather than just censor it completely. John Smith's (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If would be good if you would give a reason for restoring it, such as why you think its not off topic (or if you say its on topic, how its not OR to present it as "opposing views." I see no where in the sources claims of within the context of state terrorism much less "opposing views." The whole section is OR and off topic and this has been obvious to all editors here except Ultramarine and now apparently yourself.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

For example, can someone explain to me how this relates to State Terrorism? It even admits to being off topic (I made bold that sentence):

"Halperin's analysis continues by arguing that research shows poor democracies perform better than poor dictatorships by enjoying better economic growth, with the exception of east Asia.[226] These defenders do not contend that U.S. terrorism advances economic development or democracy in the target countries. In addition, many communist countries opposed by the U.S. have also become democracies, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Ukraine, Romania, Croatia, Albania, Serbia, and Mongolia. Many U.S.-supported dictatorships have not become democracies, such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Morocco,..." Again, what does this have to do with State Terrorism, much less "opposing views" on the state terror?Giovanni33 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no one explained why this part should stay, I plan to trim this part away as off topic.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reference to the Niall Ferguson article [[99]] that was left in is certainly as dubious, if not more so, than the rest of it. Ferguson's article is a criticism that is directed at the Nobel acceptance speech of Harold Pinter, who, as far as I aware, is not referenced as a reliable source in this article. The argument "that the US cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long civil war in Guatemala" is a blatant straw man fallacy since no reliable sources in this article make such a claim.BernardL (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is why I don't find anything worth keeping in that section; I support its removal. Even if one is of the opinion that we need an "opposing views" section, to keep this does a great disservice to such "opposing views." It also does a disservice to Wikipedida, and an insult to all readers to are presented with such rubbish, masking under "Opposing views." I encourage you to make changes as you see fit and see what you find left that is worth keeping.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Ferguson material on Pinter which has no place here, as I explained above, as well as the material on the Intelligence Oversight Board that is specific to Guatemala, and which appears in a more expanded form in the Guatemala section. What is left is still very dubious. The Halperin article is not really an opposing view and is not significantly concerned with violent repression by U.S. client states. Both viewpoints represented in the paragraph conveniently overlook the class nature of the repression. Latin American states did not become dictatorships because popular movements were incapable of functioning in a democracy because of deprivation of capabilities (poverty, literacy, etc.) so much as they were prevented from using the democratic state to build and transforms institutions that would promote their development because such measures threatened the hegemony of both local and international ruling classes. Democracy and development in Latin America had grown by leaps during the tenure of America's least imperialist president, FDR, under his "good neighbor policy." During FDR's time most Latin American countries were constitutional democracies. There were only a handful of dictatorships. When the United Nations was inaugurated Latin America had the greatest regional representation and progressive Latin American politicians played a pioneering role in the forging of key covenants embracing universalistic democratic values. As historian Greg Grandin explains, things changed for the worse around 1947:

“The years 1947-48 were bad ones for global democracy. . The creation of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Truman Doctrine, Taft-Hartley and the National Security Act, the repudiation of Henry Wallace as the legitimate heir to the New Deal, the institutionalization of apartheid, the partition of colonial India, the ideological hardening of the Soviet Union, the communist coup in Czechoslovakia, and Stalin’s betrayal of the partisans of the Greek Civil War are just a few of the omens that dampened the hopes inspired by the defeat of fascism...Events in Latin America were no less ominous as 1947 marked the beginning of a continent-wide reaction. In Peru and Venezuela military coups overthrew elected governments. In countries that maintained the trappings of democracy there was a sharp veer to the right...The dual promises of democracy and development, which just a few short years earlier seemed to be intimately linked, were now practically incompatible. In order to create a stable investment climate and absent a Latin American Marshall Plan, local governments cracked down on labor unrest and other forms of popular mobilization, which in many countries had been on a sharp rise since the end of World War II. At the same time, closer political and military relations with the United States steadily strengthened the repressive capabilities of Latin American security forces...The importance of the intersection between national and international interests in the containment of Latin American democracy cannot be overestimated. “Despite the setbacks suffered in the late forties, reformers and nationalists worked with some success to reestablish democracies. By 1961, there were again only a handful of Latin American nations that were not, at least nominally democratic. And once again, many of these new governments attempted to enact tax, land, and political reforms to promote political and economic modernization, now backed up, verbally at least, by the Kennedy administration’s Alliance for Progress, which aimed to create a prosperous, stable middle-class inoculated against Castroism. Political scientist Victor Alba viewed the period with such hope that he gushed that Latin American militarism would soon wither away. But it did not. At the same time the United States was promoting modernization, it was also invigorating Latin American militaries and centralized intelligence agencies in an effort to counter real and perceived insurgent threats. Starting in Argentina in 1962, emboldened militaries toppled democratically elected administrations. Guatemala (again) in 1963. Brazil in 1964. Bolivia in 1971. Uruguay and Chile in 1973. When national actors proved insufficient to contain the threat of mass politics, the United States directly intervened, mostly through quiet encouragement and support as in the coups just mentioned, but occasionally with more fanfare, such as when it invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965. Once more the wheel had turned, and by 1976 there were only three nations that could be considered democratic. (Grandin, Greg. The Last Colonial Massacre, University of Chicago Press,2004, 9-10)“ I will stop quoting now; suffice to say that other historical analysts such as J. Patrice McSherry and Thomas Wright corroborate Grandin's perspective.BernardL (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernard.

Both viewpoints represented in the paragraph conveniently overlook the class nature of the repression.

I'm not sure what your point is. Whether or not that is correct it doesn't mean the sources cannot be used in the article. On the content you removed, the oversight board's comments on Guatemala is mentioned but in a different way. I can't see a section or paragraph turned over to contrasting views as to how the US was involved. The first reference to cutting aid is when it is being dismissed as continuing through other means.

Rather than keep removing the section, why don't people try to improve it? That was the argument behind every nomination of this page early on. Some people here are putting themselves forward as "unofficial experts", whether or not they say it directly. If they are so knowledgeable then they will know both sides to the story - because there are always two sides. If they profess that they cannot find anything then their knowledge is very one-sided and they should not look down their noses at other commentators.

Even if there is little content just keep it there with an expand tag for the section. John Smith's (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. BernardL, if you have opposing material, add it. Do not delete sourced material you disagree with.Ultramarine (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that for example the Amnesty quote is about state terrorism by the US violates WP:SYN. Background material? Possibly, yes. Then the same applies to opposing views material. No double standard for supporting and critical material. Regarding the Halperin article, it provides one explanation for US support of authoritarian regimes who may have committed state terrorism. Rightly or wrongly it was/is a common view that poor nations have difficulty having a functioning democracy and that supporting an authoritarian regime that at least creates economic growth will in the end create a stable democracy. Arguable this is wrong as per Halperin. As another point, I can point to this article which argues that Rummel's concept of democide describes state terrorism.[100]Ultramarine (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

1) The Niall Ferguson material is a clearcut case for removal. It is directed at Harold Pinter, who is not being used as a source here, moreover what is supposed to be claimed about Guatemala is a strawman, since no such claim is being made in the article. 2) The Intelligence Oversight material in the "Opposing Views" section is redundant with that which appears in the Guatemala section where 2 of 3 the claims made in the "Opposing Views" section are duplicated in an expanded form. The exception is the claim which is that the U.S. stopped a coup in 1993, which can easily enough be put into the Guatemala section too. Of course, the greatest terrorism was perpetrated in the early eighties when "the Reagan administration comforted the murderers" to use historian Piero Gleijeses's apt description. 3) Background material should be directly related to the topic, ie: the historical situations, the specifics of violent repression by state agencies, etc. There is no necessary or inevitable connection between authoritarianism and state terrorism or even political violence by the state. The article mentions authoritarianism but it does not concern itself in detail with the phenomenon of violent repression, political violence, terrorism, etc. The representation of authoritarianism that it provides in fact mentions benign dictators: "Therefore, the prescription was, get yourself a benign dictator—it was never quite explained how you would make sure you had a dictator that spent the money to develop the country rather than ship it off to a Swiss bank account—wait until that produces development,which produces a middle class, and then, inevitably, the middle class will demand freedom, and you will have a democratic government." [101] That's not the topic of this page. You can easily do better than that.BernardL (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No double standard please. Are you arguing that all the critical material not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism should be removed? You ignored my point regarding democide.Ultramarine (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The AI quote is relevant because violence for political reasons supports the claim of terrorism. Thus, "860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature" supports the claim of state terrorism because it goes to the motive for the killings.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That argument violates WP:SYN. No mention of terrorism or state terrorism in quote. Again, no double standard for critical and supporting arguments.Ultramarine (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It supports a claim, but doesn't itself make it? That sure sounds like a WP:SYN violation. — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Support the claim is not the best choice of words. What it does is prove its relevant and in context, and on topic, which then can be used for background information from reputable sources. It is not being used to come up with any new claim, but follows logically in context from the discussion of state terrorism. The other material on the other hand is off topic and theres been no valid arguments for why it should be kept. I agree with BernardL.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, if there is a source (Source A) that makes the complete analysis "US did/supported people who did ACTS we define as terrorism" and another source (source B) says of those same ACTS "here is detailed information about those ACTS", source B is perfectly acceptable and not a violation of SYN. The Guatemala section has several Source A and the AI report is Source B. Please put your 'all sources must call it state terrorism' rant to bed. We have been over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over that issue. Your claim is invalid. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk

Read WP:SYN. "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." The AI quote, for examples, does not mention terrorism or state terrorism. So a SYN violation. Background? Possibly. Then the same applies to supporting material. No double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, feel free to bring the issue up at WP:SYN, or start a RFC. I am not sure why everyone keeps going in circles over this same argument. If you feel everyone here is violating WP:SYN, yourself being the sole objection, please start a RFC, or ask at WP:SYN with quotes from the books/articles and the conclusion you feel is being reached that is not contained in either source and is instead a merging of the two. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The Sidhekin seems to agree with me. If you want to start a RfC, fine.Ultramarine (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to add in response to BernardL, I am worried when we start accepting "it was for a good cause" as a counter to the question of was it terrorism. The answer is not a counter point, its an admission with a reason. We are not satisfying NPOV by adding admissions that simply give a cop out. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty International Quote: Question of OR

In order to avoid a double standard, any objections to removing material not mentioning terrorism/state terrorism or the US? Like this AI quote "Amnesty International states that the more than 860 confirmed murders are clearly political in nature because of "the methodology of the attacks, including prior death threats and patterns of surveillance by persons reportedly linked to the security forces, the leftist profile of the victims and climate of impunity which, in practice, shields the perpetrators from prosecution."" Violates WP:SYN to argue that this is state terrorism by the US.Ultramarine (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of tendentious editing. Please refrain in the future. The worst part is, even though no one would state what you wished, that the requirement for a source is that it says the words "state terrorism", you seem to be imposing the rule against yourself and then complaining of its imposition. You can address the issue the person mentions, or you can continue to attempt to get them to pigeon hold their argument into the straw man you keep presenting. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Why should supporting material be removed on this ground but not US critical? Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone, but yourself, say those were the grounds for which information was selected or rejected. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote from above "In one case we have AI analyzing in detail a specific case describing phenomena such as political killings and death threats, which habitually fall under the rubric of analysts of state terrorism. Moreover reliable sources in the field have repeatedly said that reports by the human rights organizations effectively constitute descriptions of state terrorism. (i already quoted one, and see Gus Martin's textbook, Understanding Terrorism for another example) On the other hand, there is your article from ethereal ivory tower liberals that hardly touches upon violent repression at all, let alone examines specific cases, skims over refugee issues, and certainly does not come close to making or defending descriptions of phenomena that are reasonably within the rubric of an article on state terrorism." None of these texts mention terrorism. But one is included, the US critical one. The one supporting the US is excluded. Cannot have it both ways. Either both texts violate WP:SYN and should be excluded. Or both are allowed as background material.Ultramarine (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I still have not seen anyone but yourself state the term "state terrorism" must be in a source to be included or excluded. Your quote above does not include such a statement. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is no such requirement, then there should be no problem with the excluded opposing views material. There is no agreed definition on what state terrorism or terrorism is. If we can include US critical material even if it does not mention terrorism, then the same applies to supporting material.Ultramarine (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

And around we go. Sources presented have to be in context to the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is no agreed definition on what terrorism is. Arguing that possible US critical sources are in the context of the article while supporting ones are not is a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, just stop. It has been explained over and over and over. The context matters. And no, the context is not whether it supports the US or does not support the US. If you have failed to 'get it' after the probably close to 30 times that it has been explained - perhaps it's time for you to take a wikibreak, come back refreshed and maybe then you will have a new insight into what people have been trying to explain fruitlessly for something close to two months now. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

No good explanation has been given. I gave a scholarly study explaining that the concept of democide is identical to state terrorism. The material about democide has been deleted. While a quote by amnesty not mentioning terrorism or even the US is included. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason you keep assuming, or stating "no good reason has been given" is that you are expecting that reason to fall into the logic you keep presenting, which is, "The source must state the words "state terrorism" to be accepted", even though its been pointed out to you that such logic is false. I am not sure where we can go from here, however it is quite disruptive to this page for you to continually insist that such a rule exist, and then to insist that such a non-existent rule is being used against you. I noticed in each of your arguments you continually fall back on stating that a random source does not mention the term "state terrorism," however never address the actual concern brought to you, which is the source context in relation to the article. For instance I explained to you that stating Hiroshima was a necessary evil as you presented it, was not actually an opposing view to if it was terrorism. I went one step further and presented a source which tackled just this issue and quoted it for you. The discussion however broke down into you asking "Does a source specifically need to mention "state terrorism"" of which I then explained that context and Wikipedia policy are the main determining factors. At no point did you ever counter the point presented to you, which was that a necessary act of terrorism is still terrorism, so presenting a source saying it was necessary terrorism still did not satisfy the requirement of it not being an opposing view. I then added an opposing view that took the question of state terrorism and addressed it directly, not by saying it was necessary, but by stating it was not state terrorism. I ask that you please read over what your fellow editors are saying in relation to the sources being presented and directly address their concerns, not by asking a question repeatedly, in which you have been given the answer repeatedly, but by examining their statement and countering it directly if you feel it is incorrect. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not discussing the atomic bombings section here. No one has explained why the democide material should be excluded. Especially after I presented the a source stating that this is identical to state terrorism. While including for example an AI quote not mentioning either the US or terrorism. If you have an explanation, then please provide it.Ultramarine (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Your explanation is: Your measurement of inclusion and exclusion, based on the presence of the word "state terrorism" is entirely incorrect as has been repeatedly explained to you. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not what I stated in the paragraph above. Do you have any concrete objection to restoring the democide material? Ultramarine (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I decided to follow up with this, even though I was not the one who told you it was not acceptable. Rummel does not make the argument that his statistics was democide as I was under the impression you were stating, instead the argument is made by Kisangani N. F. Emizet who states Rummel specifically classifies such killings of government against civilians as Democide, however Emizet believes it should be called terrorism, this includes mass murder, politicide and genocide. Now correct me if I am wrong, you wish to state Rummels statistics, according to Emizet, show economy is the greatest factor in state terrorism? Also if you can point me to the paragraph that was removed so I can compare it to the provided PDF by Emizet. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"The purpose of this paper is to explain this tragedy or the state as a terrorist. Rummel (1994: 36) calls it democide" The Political Economy of State Terror by Emizet Kisangani & E. Wayne Nafziger. We should include Rummel's estimates. Showing that the US, like other democracies, have little democide. If we can include an Amnesty quote not mentioning the US or terrorism, then we can include democide research.Ultramarine (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading through the paper I have the following questions: Is this a peer reviewed or published paper? In which book/paper does Rummels statistics appear? What is the exact paragraph or information you would like to include, and in which section would you like to include it? --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the US critical arguments are certainly not from peer-reviewed or academic sources. No double standard. Regarding R. J. Rummel's works, see the article. The deleted material from the opposing views section was fine: "Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[102][103][104]"Ultramarine (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. E. Wayne Nafziger, through data compiled by R. J. Rummel's study on democide, found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer of their own civilians than dictatorships. Nafzinger equates democide as state terrorism." I think this would be acceptable, however you can not cite Rummel since its not his argument, you have to cite Nafzinger. To add I wouldn't put it on the same line as Chomsky as it is not addressing him directly, instead in its own paragraph following the Chomsky remark. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Emizet Kisangani & E. Wayne Nafziger do not make this claim. Rummel do. But again, if we can include an AI quote not mentioning the US or terrorism, then we can include democide research.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Do you have a different paper? The one you included was not by Rummel. I can look over it shortly. The one you presented does not say that Rummel thought terrorism was equal to democide, Emizet says it. --N4GMiraflores 17:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was you who argued that the sources do not have to mention state terrorism explicitly. Are you changing your position?Ultramarine (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummels specifically argues that it was democide, excluding terrorism, that incidents of the state acting against the civilian population is democide, hence its off topic in an article on terrorism since his entire paper is countering the idea that it is terrorism, instead stating its "democide." In the paper you presented Emizet states that Rummels definition and classification of democide is in fact terrorism. The point that democide and terrorism are one and the same, is Emizets. Emizet then argues that state terrorism against its own civilian population, often does not take place within democratic states. One can argue this is off topic since this article is not discussing state terrorism taking place within a single country, but instead state terrorism being inflicted on outside countries by the US. In an attempt to assist you I placed this on the back burner, however if you want to nit pick, the information is still off topic, especially since Chomsky is not talking about the state acting against its own civilian population which is what Rummel and Emizet are discussing. --N4GMiraflores 18:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummel does not make an exception for terrorism. Nor is it limited to only its own population. For example, Rummel consider the atomic bombings to be democide by the US. Again, no double standard. Rummel does not explicitly mention "state terrorism", but neither do for example the AI quote.Ultramarine (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummels entire point is that it is democide. If you can prove otherwise, please provide a quote from Rummel. --N4GMiraflores 18:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from Amnesty showing that it is discussing state terrorism and violations for which the US are responsible.Ultramarine (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this discussion is over, it was going so well. Again however, if you wish to use the above as I laid it out, feel free, you just can't quote Rummel if you are not discussing Rummel, and you are instead discussing Emizet's use of Rummel. --N4GMiraflores 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So you are arguing for a double standard. Rummel, a source supporting the US, must mention state terrorism. The AI quote, used to criticze the US, does not have to mention state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Rummel states that any death by the government without an appropriate trial, is democide. He classifies the following as Democide: massacre, genocide, mass murder, terrorism, extra-judicial executions, assassinations, politicide, and atrocities. Which means any item or statistic cannot be linked specifically or solely to terrorism. --N4GMiraflores 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Source please for this definitoon of democide. Others have argued that his definiton is equivalent to state terrorism as noted above. The AI quote have no mention of terrorism. Are you arguing that it should be removed? If not, why, if avoiding a double standard?Ultramarine (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(out)"A study into Democide by R. J. Rummel has concluded that democracies, have committed fewer democides than totalitarian governments."[105][106][107]" This would also work with the sources presented, however I would argue the above item I previous wrote is much better. --N4GMiraflores 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)N4GMiraflores first proposal above would address the reason that I removed the item from the article as 'off-topic' (the second would need to clarify that the person doing the analysis is counting democide as terrorism)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Subsection "Sister Dianna Ortiz"

This is looking good. Brief and to the point, while providing detail by way of the main article. Good work, all!

The only problem I see is the last sentence: "US involvement in her torture has been alleged". I'm tempted to tag it {{citation needed}} or {{who}}. On the other hand, I already know of a source, and I once suggested:

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

It just seems too clumsy and round-about way to express it now. Oh, and I still don't have the source, which per Giovanni33 is the article "Murder as Policy" by Allan Nairn; The Nation, Vol. 260, April 24, 1995. So I'd rather not cite it myself.

The ties to the US are important to this article, of course, so we need a sentence like this. Just less weaselly, please ... suggestions, anyone? — the Sidhekin (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Allan Nairn

According to this interview,[108] Sister Ortiz suspects that "Alejandro" was a US government official. Also, possibly she was mistaken for someone else. I suggest we cite this source instead. Maybe "Sister Ortiz suspects some involvement by US government personnel." I will add more to the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine's removal of sourced material, and reversion

• I object. He says he removed this to the talk page for discussion: [109] Untrue. It has already been in the talk page for over a week and has been discussed. Its funny that he feels it needs to be removed, despite it being worked on by at least three other editors---when at the same time--he added several sections copied and pasted in whole from a web site, without any discussion on this talk page before he did so. Then, after editors agreed it should be summarized instead, he ignores this until editors fix it. Now he restores it back to its bloated state.
• Since Ultramarine feels new sections should be removed to talk, why does he not feel those sections need to also be out of the article, in talk instead? No, he restores it to its previous bloated state, undoing the progress that was made to keep it on topic. I call this POV pushing. I also notice he adds a new section about democracy ratings (polity sets) under the misleading edit summary "as discussed on talk" suggesting there was agreement to add it when the opposite is true.[110] Yes, it was discussed and rejected by every editor.
• So we have removing relevant sourced material without discussion, which was added through the consensus process, and adding in sections that were rejected, I have to ask: does consensus mean nothing to you? As I said, I object to these reversions, and ask that the proper material be restored, and that you remove these off topic material sections until there is at least some consensus for your significant changes.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I made changes due to some objections to the new Guatemala structure and material. No one has objected since. I may have removed to much of the material you added, which was not undisputed, so I restored the material mentioning the US.[111] I still think that there is too much material saying essentially the same thing in the Guatemala section. Should be summarized. Ultramarine (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

"Some objections?" That is vague and unexplained. And, the changes you made was to blank most of the material, while you copied and pasted entire sections from the .gov website, as if wikipedia were its mirror--despite several editors objecting to this. Why the double standard? The Guatamala information is useful, valid, and has been discussed on talk. This is more than you can say for your copy/past sections which have never been placed on talk. Again, double standards.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Double standard and US state department discussed in other sections.Ultramarine (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

School of Americas section

Separate section have been suggested before. I think this is a good suggestion which will make the very long Guatemala section more manageable.Ultramarine (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A new background section and a separation from Guatemala should be good. If you are interested in handling this without cutting content, I would be more than happy to check out a sandbox and propose changes. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see User:Ultramarine/sandbox8.Ultramarine (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like more information should be added, its definitely a step in the right direction. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a main article for more details.Ultramarine (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is too short, there is not enough detail. If you simply refuse to add any further substance to what you have, then I have to disagree with any changes to the existing section as it would be removing much needed content. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is more general material about SOA in this article. Anything I missed? Nothing removed from what I can see. Two persons are mentioned as having taken courses at the SOA but that info is probably better kept as now in the specific nation sections.Ultramarine (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, if it is going to be split into a new section, it should be more "fleshed out" containing a background section which covers issues such as when it was founded, where its located, its original purpose, its renaming and why, etc. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add your suggestions to the sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"by critics"?

What precisely is going on with this move? Stone at least had the decency to explain his ... should we wait for an explanation from DHeyward (talk · contribs), or should we just move back? — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I see it's not the first time DHeyward has moved this article. Meh. — the Sidhekin (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the "by critics" part should be removed, but most of the discussion I see supports the "Allegations of" form. I admit I haven't been following along here at all, and only briefly looked through the history after seeing the post on ANI. Was a consensus formed about removing "Allegations of" in the first place? --Onorem♠Dil 12:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec ... with a move!)

I didn't know this had come up at ANI; I'll check that now. Thanks.

As for consensus: There was no consensus before the move from "Allegations ... by ..." to "... and ...", but I think there has been one, if hesitating, since then. Certainly all "parties" (if that's the word) worked on expanding the scope of the article. — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's now back at State terrorism and the United States. The title DHeyward chose lacks any basis in consensus, and embodies a POV which discounts the possibility that a critical friend would call the US on this, so it was clearly not appropriate. Guy (Help!) 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Allegations" was removed without consensus. I restored it. "allegations" should be in the title. --DHeyward (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors have accepted the change, after the fact, and there was discussion about it before then. Its at least stable, and long term editors here have shown they can live with it, with the understanding that the material where the US accuses others of State Terrorism, will eventually be moved off to its own article. Allegations is a bit of a weasel word esp. since the article deals with a lot of undisputed facts of US state terrorism, not just allegations of facts. Lastly, I will point out that there is much more credibility left for DHeyward in this article given his past disruption, including vandalism (I did not forget your repeated blanking of whole sections, such as the Japan section, against consensus). And this goes for your other user name Tbeatty before you changed it to DHewyard, which showed your very long block log for edit warring. That you come back here and your first act it so move the title without discussion here first, is troubling and in line with this past disruptive behavior.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Diff please for claim "there was discussion about it before then". Agree that allegations should be in the title. "with the understanding that the material where the US accuses others of State Terrorism, will eventually be moved off to its own article." That is false.Ultramarine (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Find it yourself. Few are interested to waste their time arguing with you since that gets no where, and you never respect consensus anyway. So what is the point? When you decide to start respecting consensus and drop your disingenuous arguments, then you will be taken more seriously, meriting an answer.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, it's not helpful when you say things like that. Other users may be interested in seeing the discussion too. If you know where it is then point it out, please. If you refuse to then Ultramarine can argue that there was no consensus in the first place, whether or not that is actually true. John Smith's (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You are conflating two different things: Discussion, which can be found right above here (seriously, couldn't you find that yourselves?), and consensus, which no one claims was there before the move: Even Ultra only asks for a diff for "there was discussion about it before then". And no, I'm not volunteering to dig back through the revisions to see where that section was first added. A hint for anyone who wants to satisfy Ultra: It was posted at 09:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC) (six days before the move). Just go revision digging, anyone who cares. — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct, there was a discussion but no agreement. The moving editor refereed to WP:BOLD.Ultramarine (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sid, Heyward said the move was made without consensus. Giovanni then replied by saying that there was a discussion and then complains that Ultramarine doesn't respect consensus. So you'll have to forgive me if I thought he was implying there was consensus. If he admits there was no consensus then it's difficult to know how the page can progess. If an editor can change the article title without consensus, how can others be asked not to change content without consensus? John Smith's (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni's answer began: "Editors have accepted the change, after the fact". How you get from that to implication of consensus before the move, I cannot quite fathom. But okay, you're forgiven. :)

Re change with/without consensus: Good question. I think an answer not involving double standards must involve more subtle standards, such as WP:BRD. But I haven't yet seen an answer spelled out, so take my musings with appropriate amounts of salt. — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that more US critical material has been added to the Nicaragua section today without prior discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice some major hypocrisy in User:DHeyward page moves [112]. He complains, rightly, that "alledged" is a weasel word in most of the other articles he moved, but is happy to have "alleged" in this article. Trav (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Allegations and "alledged" are different words with different meanings both literally and implied. I'd be happy with the title "Questions of state Terrorism by critics of the United States" if you would like to remove the word "allegations." --DHeyward (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, do not find the above suggested name change acceptable. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Until I see a worthy reason for a name change, especially one involving the words "by critics", expect me also to find it unacceptable. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with the current title, except possibly the scope as its currently understood needs to be refined in practice. When and if the material of US allegations against other countries gets too big, it should spin off into its own article.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Alleged is an acceptable word according to Wikipedia:Words to avoid. Title would be better with this in it.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So how about a compromise of "Allegations of State Terrorism and the United States" restores "allegations" and remove "critics"? --DHeyward (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Give us a worthy reason. — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see that 'allegations' is a necessary qualifier to have an NPOV title or NPOV focus for the article. And I doubt that most people doing a [search] for this topic would start their search with "allegations" - so the addition of the word to the title is in fact un-helpful.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry to have bothered you: It was a worthy reason for such a move I found lacking.  :) For the future, I'll try to voice my requests more specifically. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing and historical

Thoughts on organizing the material into an historical and ongoing sections? The Philippines and Iran seem to be the only current allegations. The other material seem related to the Cold War.Ultramarine (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this would break the sections down too much. The only sorting I would believe is necessary, is alphabetical. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Would adding some form of dates after the country names be something that would be an easy visual cue without adding too much more clutter?

Cuba: 1960's-present

Nicaragua: 1970's-1980's

etc.

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I like it. Though I think I prefer parentheses to colon: Cuba (1960s-present), Nicaragua (1970s-1980s), etc. For one thing, it seems to be more common (see the section headings of Johann Sebastian Bach, for instance). But it also feels more right; as if the colon means something else (though I cannot quite catch what). — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

If parens are the more common usage, (and we have no strong objections) go for it! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither is particularly common, and statistics seem hard to find. It is just my impression that parens are more common. Most of the parens seem to be in artist bios (in addition to Bach, there's Kim Wilde, The Bangles, and I could have sworn I saw it on some painter bios, but I can't find it now), but there's also the random historical article (Pre-Islamic period of Afghanistan, though that mixes several styles, and some renaissance stuff, though again, I cannot find it now).

Two other forms used (but seemingly even more rarely) are non-punctuation constructs, often with "of", "in", or "during" (Cuba of the 1960s to present; Nicaragua during the 1970s and 1980s; I don't think either is a good option here); and constructions wherein the time specification goes before a colon (definitely not a good option here). — the Sidhekin (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Japan

I removed a paragraph in the Japan section that did not address the topic. It was removed as first OR, since it was making an argument against state terrorism that was not made in the book itself, the book was not addressing state terrorism. The second portion of it being removed was as off topic. A valid argument that an event was not state terrorism, is one that tackles or approaches the subject in some manner, however what was placed was instead a look at the event on a separate level, one where it was trying to discern if the bombing was justified or not. A justified act however does not exclude it from being state terrorism. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The battle for Wikipedia's soul: your comments are needed

Please take the time to comment at:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence

The "deletionist guardians" the same editors who contribute nothing too this article except AfDs and deletions, have requested an Arbcom. Ice Cold Beer, one of the editors who deletes sections he personally disagrees with here, has blatantly lied about personal attacks against another editor, user JzG (Guy) has repeated these lies. There is abundant wikilawyering with dubious evidence.

One of the Arbitors in this case is a close friend of one of the "deletionist guardians", and refuses to recuse himself.

Why does this matter? Because the very same intolerant editors who are viciously suppressing any alternative theory of 9/11 are also attempting to delete this page.

I suspect even more off-wiki communication is going on between the "deletionist guardians". These "deletionist guardians" are better organized and have the support of the wikipedia mainstream more than we do.

That is why it is vital to take just a minute to comment on this arbcom.

This arbcom is another WP:BADSITES fight, which will have immeasurably negative repercussions across wikipedia. If Alternative views of 9/11 can be viciously silenced and supressed, this article is next, guaranteed.

The Economist Article called this fight on wikipedia "The battle for Wikipedia's soul". This is truly what this arbcom is, the battle for Wikipedia's soul. Is Wikipedia going to be accepting of many view points, or only an official American one? You decide.

Trav (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit off topic. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

Am I the only one who thinks the use of quotations is starting to pile up, and if we cut down on them, we could also reduce much of the size of the article. --N4GMiraflores (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of material that could be moved to background articles.Ultramarine (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people are wary of being accused of SYN and so are putting everything in direct quotes.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of criticisms of Chomsky

See [113]. The reason given is false. The source states this.Ultramarine (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That has been previously discussed at length already. Its not a reliable source, and attacks Chomsky, instead of of his specific claims. So its off topic here. Maybe it can go on the Chomsky page if it were a reliable source, which it isn't. So I support its being kept out.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticizes Chomsky's claims, not him as a person. Any concrete reason for exclusion?Ultramarine (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Its a personal attack on Chomsky, which under BLP, must be removed. It attacks him of inventing the things and of deception, etc. Also, as I said this is not a reliable source, as explained by other editors. All these are concrete objections. Get some consensus before restoring, in the very least. Its been talked about by many editors so consensus was pretty clear.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticizing his writings and sources is not a personal attack. Source is respected journal and historian.Ultramarine (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with deleting Chomsky's criticisms in this context. There's a difference between criticizing and deleting. Rafaelsfingers (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)rafaelsfingers

To clarify, I agree we should not delete valid criticism of Chomsky about US policy where he names it state terrorism, etc. However, this is an attack on Chomsky himself, instead of his claims, and from not a very reliable source. I think there is some confusion, about that.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a rant about the author's view of Chomsky's politics--it offers no discussion or analysis of any sort that back up the soundbite being offered as "criticism." Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering Chomsky's prominence as a figure in the 'US commits state terrorism' discussions, I would think that there would be some type of 'criticism' from a more reliable source than that particular Wittschuttle tirade. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong regarding the historian Windschuttle writing in a respected magazine? Ultramarine (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-format?

See [114]. Source can be easily provided. But what is wrong with the format? Ultramarine (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The format reads as if it were someone's quickly sketched notes from reading the book. Perhaps placing it in a table or some other cleaner way to display. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is in a table format. If no more concrete suggestions are made I will restore the material.Ultramarine (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This material takes up a lot of space and it is presently far from evident why it should be considered for the article. The line introducing it is extremely dubious: "Guatemala was theoretically democratic for much of this period." I wonder what point is being made here? Who besides Ultramarine is deciding that the definitive way of characterizing this data is to say that the country was democratic for "much" of the time? The data itself is apallingly underwhelming. Ostensibly, by the standards of some undefined "theoretical" democracy, Guatemala was only positively democratic in 6 of the 12 periods. (The average per period is actually -.8) And why are the periods out of the chronological range of the main periods of state repression in Guatemala supposed to be relevant? BernardL (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can remove this particular sentence.Ultramarine (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Without some kind of intro, you are left with a list of seemingly random date ranges, some ratings from -10 to 10 on a fairly esoteric scale (in comparison to something widely known like a table comparing to equivilant wattage of incandescent lightbulbs) and a few random sentance fragments. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Can expand a little more on the polity scale if you prefer.Ultramarine (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bernie. As I pointed out that this has been discussed recently, and the consensus was that it was not needed/useful for background info. It gives undue weight to this particular model of what is a "democracy," and its a bit off topic, and of questionable value to this article. Its fine for the article on the subject, but here its just adds very little useful information to the topic, and takes up space that could be used for something more on topic. What are you going to add this for all countries to show how, according to this model and method, how democratic each state was? Why? That is not the topic here, and its opens up a can of worms regarding democratic theory and methods for measuring it (as I said to present just this is problematic due to undue weight. But more to the point its off topic. Lets keep this out.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No such consensus. Material used in numerous peer-reviewed studies. Are you arguing that all the US critical material not mentioning terrorism or only the Guatemalan government should be removed? If we have background material, then all sides should be presented.Ultramarine (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BernardL and Giovanni. I had discussed the information with Ultra before and thought it could be useful to add if its context was given. The data is suppose to show that democracy was more prevalent during US back governments. If the author of the data, or someone examining the data makes this claim it would make more sense. However I think it may still be off topic unless the author went on to state that forms of state terrorism are less likely to occur in a democratic environment/government. However, the same author would need to make all of these arguments to make it not a violation of SYN. Ultra throughout the discussion however was combative and in the face of hostility I walked away from the discussion, something Ultra seems to have taken a as victory, or a declaration that the content was ok. I am not sure if you can be combative with people and assume their removal from the process has created a consensus. --N4GMiraflores 12:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Again a double standard. Much of the US critical material do not mention terrorism. Should this material be removed? Ultramarine (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What is a double standard? --N4GMiraflores 15:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not a double standard, its an assessment of a particular within the larger context. You are comparing apples and oranges, and using an invented and unspoken singular standard as if everything fits nicely into it, not to mention that WP is not and does not need to be consistent in this manner. Deal with arguments on a case by case bases in their own concrete terms as it relates to their value or lackthereof to the article. If there is some other section that you feel needs to go, then make the case there, in that section and abide by consensus on the matter. This double standard argument of yours is fallacious.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"“The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate." Does not mention the US or terrorism. Background? Possibly. Then we can also include an overview of the degree of democracy.Ultramarine (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps its where you are writing, but I have no clue what you are talking about anymore. Are we still playing the "says terrorism/doesn't say" game in which you have been told repeatedly that such a standard only exists within the confines of your own made up straw man argument that no one has been baited into? I think as a group we should ignore this argument from now on, its obviously not a serious one as its been answered by possibly everyone who posts on this page. --N4GMiraflores 12:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The Source you quote from above Ultramarine, is called El Salvador's Decade of Terror, clearly attributes the great majority of that "terror" to the Salvador regime, and discusses significant U.S. complicity in a chapter called "The U.S. role." It is clearly topical, relevant, and reliable. The paragraph you quoted conveys alot and is useful background for orienting the reader to the conflict. Your example, by contrast is extremely poor on all counts.BernardL (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A discussion of the general level of democracy is at least as useful. The Polity data is used in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, so reliable. Your quote does not mention the US or terrorism, the topic of this article. So cannot be more on topic than my material.Ultramarine (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why Democracy is an issue, can you please elaborate on its relevance? --N4GMiraflores 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument of it stating the words "state terrorism" has already been defeated, if you have further objections to content, please either present a new argument, or refrain from repeating the same argument that everyone has already tried to explain to you is false. --N4GMiraflores 12:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Not been "defeated". Just noting that there should be no double standard, so please do not claim that this material should be excluded for not mentioning state terrorism. Regarding your first point, I can equally well ask why peasant poverty is an issue?Ultramarine (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, if you have further objections to content, please either present a new argument, or refrain from repeating the same argument that everyone has already tried to explain to you is false. --N4GMiraflores 13:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No one has shown that double standard is acceptable. Why is peasant poverty but not democracy acceptable to discuss as background?Ultramarine (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no double standard, and one would not be acceptable if it existed. Perhaps you can tell us why its relevant. --N4GMiraflores 13:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have no reason for including the peasant poverty statement, then there is no justification for keeping it. Degree of democracy is obviously relevant. For example, according to Policy scores there was a higher degree of democracy in the 70s than before the 1954 coup.Ultramarine (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You examined the Polity data and came to that conclusion on your own, or you have a source for us to read? --N4GMiraflores 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is what the Polity data says.Ultramarine (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala and Opposing views, again

Ultra, why did you put this material back in the article? It has been discussed and the consensus was that it was not needed/useful for background info. It gives undue weight to this particular model of what is a "democracy," and its a bit off topic. Its fine for the article on the subject, but here its just adds very little useful information to the topic. So, I'll remove it, in keeping with consenus on that subject.

Lots of discussions above. If you have anything to add, do it there.Ultramarine (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it looks like it was already removed by another editor. I saw you had added it again the other day but did not have time to get to it until now. But as this has already been removed by someone else, quite correctly, its a moot point.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you deleted one quote about the Guatamala report. Why is that? The quote was quite direct on topic. I noticed that after you removed that quote you gave a long quote instead about something that was off topic: the issue of the rebels internal struggles about using the legal arena, etc. I will restore that quote and trim that off topic material.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unclear what you refer to but probably the Truth Commission. Unsourced material replaced with sourced.Ultramarine (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you used the same source, but simply quoted a different part of it. The part you removed was much more on topic. I kept both.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You do have a source. However, your source is a dubious second-hand.[115] I quoted the report itself and it does not make these statements.[116]Ultramarine (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The source is not dubious at all: "Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.' This is a good enough source.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

These statements regarding the US are not in the actual report: [117]Ultramarine (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I bet it does. Here is another source that supports the same claim:[118] "It was therefore an act of high courage and patriotism for the Guatemalan members of the Commission for Historical Clarification to write a report that not only finds the Guatemalan military responsible for mass murder and genocide but does not shrink from pointing out that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some state operations."

Just point out where this statement is in the report. I gave a link above.Ultramarine (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Your link is only a summary. You need to look at the original complete version: [119]Giovanni33 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is this statement exactly? It is not in the conclusion.[120]Ultramarine (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to go digging for it. Apparently the full report is 9 volumes.[121] Since we have reliable third party quotes from it, I'd say that is good. I have not found the full version online, just the summary, which has conclusions and recommendations. The full 9 volumes is what you want to find the exact quote.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Citing entire books without giving page numbers is not allowed. If this was important it would have been in the long conclusion. Your sources are dubious second-hand accounts from online web publications.Ultramarine (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, which is why I did not cite the entire book, I cited reliable third party sources who cite the book. That is what we should be doing. As far your belief only the "important" parts are in the summary, that is not relevant. The third party sources are reliable and we have more than one. Your arguments against inclusion are dubious.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(out)The primary source would be best, but if there are multiple reliable sources confirming content of the original source, then we can probably use them until someone can better identify the original source. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This link [[122]] to PBS on-line provides an independent corroboration of Robert Parry's claim. For an expert analysis of the report see this [[123]] by historian Greg Grandin, who worked on the Truth Commission in 1997-98. He presents a different picture than Ultramarine's selection about the rebels noting that:"the CEH presented the CIA's 1954 intervention as a national "trauma" that had a "collective political effect" on a generation of young, reform-minded Guatemalans. "So drastic was the closing of channels of participation and so extensive was the recourse to violence" by those opposed to democracy, Memoria del silencio argued, that it is "considered one of causes of the guerilla insurgency" that roiled Guatemala for nearly four decades." The article is worth reading in its entirety. Towards the end Grandin describes the events surrounding the initial release of the report in Guatemala: "The CEH presented its findings in Guatemala's National Theater in early 1999 to a front row of military and government officials and an overflowing crowd made up of victims, their relatives, and members of human rights and Mayan organizations, many of whom were survivors of political movements decimated by state repression. Chief Commissioner Christian Tomuschat summarized the CEH's conclusions. While he condemned violations committed by the Left and criticized Cuba for supporting the rebels, his remarks, backed up by overwhelming statistical evidence, left little doubt as to responsibility: "the magnitude and irrational inhumanity of the violence ... cannot be understood as a consequence of a confrontation between two armed parties" but rather of the "structure and nature" of Guatemalan society; the U.S. government and U.S. corporations acted to "maintain Guatemala's archaic and unjust socio-economic system"; the army carried out a "blind anticommunist crusade, without regard to a single juridical principle or the most basic ethical or religious values, resulting in a loss of all human morality."75 The audience greeted the speech with tears and deafening applause."BernardL (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the actual conclusions of the report,[124] the US is only briefly mentioned and given no more place than Cuba.Ultramarine (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual conclusions of the report found: "In the case of Guatemala, military assistance was directed towards reinforcing the national intelligence apparatus and for training the officer corps in counterinsurgency techniques, key factors which had significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation." They found the Cuban influence toward militarism was based on the repressive state. --N4GMiraflores 12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"The CEH concludes that political, logistic, instructional and training support provided by Cuba for the Guatemalan insurgents during this period, was another important external factor that marked the evolution of the armed confrontation. In the context of an increasingly repressive State, sectors of the left, specifically those of Marxist ideology, adopted the Cuban perspective of armed struggle as the only way to ensure the rights of the people and to take power." They also criticizie the rebels for ignoring democratic options and repressing moderates as noted in the article. Marxist ideology partially to blame.Ultramarine (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a classic SYN violation. Notice that you are making the connections to effect your argument that "Marxism is partially to blame,' (really blaming the victim). The sources already state that their conclusion as to who is to blame, who are the victims, and who are the oppressors. There was no democratic options--that is what they were fighting for.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument is humorous you have to admit. The Cubans are to blame since they helped arm the people who were being oppressed by the state which was killing civilians thanks to the training of the US. --N4GMiraflores 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Cuba giving support to oppressed peoples does not negate the illegitimacy of state sponsored terrorism and the importance of bringing out the truth. Rafaelsfingers (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)rafaelsfingers

"sectors of the left, specifically those of Marxist ideology, adopted the Cuban perspective of armed struggle as the only way to ensure the rights of the people and to take power."""During its investigation, the CEH has confirmed that the political work of the guerrilla organisations within the different sectors of society was increasingly directed towards strengthening their military capacity, to the detriment of the type of political activity characteristic of democratic sectors. Likewise, attempts by other political forces to take advantage of the limited opportunities for legal participation, were radically dismissed by some sectors of the insurgency as “reformist” or “dissident”, whilst people who sought to remain distant from the confrontation were treated with profound mistrust and even as potential enemies. These attitudes contributed to political intolerance and polarisation."So yes, Marxist ideology advocating an armed revolution instead of the limited democratic options is partially to blame.Ultramarine (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Blame for what? It does not say they were to blame for the Human Rights violations, it does however state: training the officer corps in counterinsurgency techniques, key factors which had significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation." It does not say the Cuban role had a significant, or any bearing at all on human rights violations. --N4GMiraflores 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"The guerrilla organisations committed violent and extremely cruel acts, which terrorised people and had significant consequences. Arbitrary executions, especially those committed before relatives and neighbours, accentuated the already prevalent climate of fear, arbitrariness and defencelessness."Marxist ideology contributed. It brands as heresy "reformism" or "revisionism". That is, trying to work for reform democratically instead of a violent proletarian revolution.Ultramarine (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The source does not say Cuba is too blame is what you are telling me, correct? --N4GMiraflores 14:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion centered around how dominant the US role was. As noted earlier, the conclusion mention this only briefly and gives equal weight to Cuba/Marxist ideology.Ultramarine (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala and Cuba (more)

See [125]. Sourced material. Objections with explanation for not restoring? Ultramarine (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to state terrorism? It seems what you are presenting does not argue for or against anything, nor is Cuba accused of contributing to the acts. --N4GMiraflores 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been answered as well, please use your browsers search function to find the current discussion and continue it, do not make duplicate sections. --N4GMiraflores 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the US critical material do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. Should this be removed? Or is there a double standard?Ultramarine (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is already present on the page, please continue that one as to not confuse veteran and new readers alike with duplicate sections. --N4GMiraflores 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has objected to mentioning Cuban support of the rebels. Diff or just name the section is claiming this.Ultramarine (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to current discussion so it does not confuse new readers. Please continue above, or below. --N4GMiraflores 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the issue has resurfaced it is better to dicuss in a more recent section. Please continue in the section Guatemala and Cuba below.Ultramarine (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from splitting discussions, if the issues above have not been addressed, then we are simply making the same arguments in multiple places. --N4GMiraflores 19:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Better to keep the discussion in the more recent section where it can easily followed by all editors.Ultramarine (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But I can certainly respond in any place. Please respond to my last argument in either place.Ultramarine (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Title?

When was the title changed from Allegations of state terrorism by the United States to State terrorism and the United States? Just comparing this article to similar articles this doesn't seem to be right at all, taking a look at the "see also" section links you to:

1. Allegations of state terrorism by Iran
2. Allegations of state terrorism by Russia
3. Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Whats more it seems to subtly diminish the acts of terror committed by the U.S. by trying to make it into a more general discussion of state terror. ʄ!•¿talk? 01:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple months ago, and seems to be stable. There is a lot of discussion about this in the talk and archives. Personally I think allegations is not needed at all. I think it should be removed from those other articles.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed without agreement. Certainly not stable since there was a minor revert war regarding the title recently. Agree we should include allegations again.Ultramarine (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There was basic acceptance and willingness to settle with it afterwards. Attempts at other variations proved unacceptable to most.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

False.Ultramarine (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

True!Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Very true, considering the "revert war" was between a person I have not seen edit here and an admin stating they were wrong for moving the article. I agree with Giovanni, it seems to be stable, and it has been growing as such. --N4GMiraflores 12:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Very false. The only reason it wasn't put back is that you can't move an article to an existing name. Jtrainor (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Cuba, Origins, Operation MONGOOSE, and the Missile Crisis

It has always been surprising to me that the Cuba section lacks mention of Operation MONGOOSE, an operation, which, according to my experience, has been referred to as U.S. terrorism against Cuba more frequently than any other case. The main sources are historian Jane Franklin from her "Cuba and the United States: A Chronological History", Noam Chomsky from "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, historians Jorge Dominguez and Stephen Rabe from the peer-reviewed journals "Diplomatic History” and “Presidential Studies Quarterly”, and James G. Blight and Peter Kornbluh’s “Politics of Illusion: The Bay of Pigs Invasion Reexamined.” I propose inserting this material at the beginning of the Cuba section, and moving the material on Operation NORTHWOODS to follow immediately on its heels, as Operation NORTHWOODS is commonly referred to as a side-note of the overall MONGOOSE campaigns. I do have more information to provide on the topic of Operations NORTHWOODS, but one thing at a time. BernardL (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A most excellent addition, something that was much needed, and certainly missing from the section on Cuba. Well done, and thank you. And Prof. Dominquez, and Prof. Rab, are impeccable sources, experts in the field. I made some minor changes, mostly just linking, and font size for the sections. One change I'm not sure about was changing Mongoose from all Caps. My reading on the Operation usually is not in all caps. I'm not sure, though, if all caps is proper and correct, here. If so, I'll be happy to self revert that change.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The very very dead horse of 'double standard'

Quit beating the horse Jagz Ultramarine. You have been told over and over why your 'double standard' is an invalid stance. If you are pretending you havent been told or if you truly dont understand it, you should not be editing. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jagz? Wrong article. No good explanation has been given for the existing double standard excluding material supporting the US. For example, I gave a scholarly study explaining that the concept of democide is identical to state terrorism. The material about democide has been deleted. While a quote by amnesty not mentioning terrorism or even the US is included. Material noting that the degree of democracy improved to better than before the coup in Guatemala has been removed. While material not mentioning the US but being only describing human rights violations in general in Guatemala is included. Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The linked that Ultramarine gave as a reference went to this...http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/polity/data/ ...the home page of the Polity Data sets...no evidence is given that a reliable source actually supports the interpretations that Ultramarine himself provided. Any data set can be selectively interpreted in a number of ways, it's not up to Ultramarine or any other editor to provide such an interpretation.BernardL (talk) 03:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The polity data is used in hundreds or thousands of peer-reviewed studies. I just cited the data. Please explain the general double standard in the article and examples I noted above.Ultramarine (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source relating this view of Guatemala's democratic path to the situational context of the Guatemala war and state repression? If it is so widely cited, then you should be able to come up with one- no? BernardL (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the US critical sources do no mention terrorism or the US. It violates WP:SYN to argue that they do. Background? Possibly. Then we can also include a discussion on the degree of democracy.

Casper, Gretchen, and Claudiu Tufis. 2003. “Correlation Versus Interchangeability: the Limited Robustness of Empirical Finding on Democracy Using Highly Correlated Data Sets.” Political Analysis 11: 196-203. One study noting that the Polity data is one of the most widely used democracy measure in political science research.Ultramarine (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Some other problems. Disputed article tags were removed without explanation. Regarding the atomic bombings this was restored. "Critics also claim that the attacks were militarily unnecessary and transgressed moral barriers." As I noted when this was removed: No opposing views are included. This is discussed in the main article where there are opposing views. Again this double standard were only US critical arguments are allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking the fact that justifications for Arroyo's regime in the Philippines and for El Salvador were allowed. The U.S. critical sources are directly related to the situations at hand. If you find a RS source interpreting the polity data in relation to the violence in Guatemala, we are fine. I do not think that is such an awful or difficult compromise for you.BernardL (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The US critical sources in many cases do no mention terrorism and sometimes only an US ally, not the US. This violates WP:SYN. Double standard to exclude supporting sources on the same grounds. What is your position? Sources must accuse the US of terrorism? Then we must exclude much of the US critical material. Or is it that background material is OK? Why is then material regarding democide or degree of democracy excluded?Ultramarine (talk) 03:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another problem: "Patrice McSherry argues that after a successful (U.S. backed) coup against president Miguel Ydígoras Fuentes in 1963, U.S. advisors began to work with Colonel Carlos Manuel Arana Osorio to defeat the guerrillas, borrowing “extensively from current counterinsurgency strategies and technology being employed in Vietnam.” Between the years of 1966-68 alone some 8,000 peasants were murdered by the U.S. trained forces of Colonel Arana Osorio." "William Blum writes that Arana Osorio earned the nickname "The Butcher of Zacapa" for killing 15,000 peasants to eliminate 300 suspected rebels. [126]2

1. Does not mention terrorism or state terrorism. This is not a general US or Guatemala critical article but one for US and state terrorism. 2. First sources does not mention anything bad. Violates WP:SYN to string together different sources to imply that the US is responsible for the deaths of these 15,000 peasants.Ultramarine (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Now this is getting silly. Both McSherry and Blum forthrightly advance the thesis the U.S. is significantly complicit in state terrorism, and are known in the literature for doing so. You seem to be expecting editors to only grab snippets where the U.S. and state terrorism are mentioned in the same sentence or paragraph, which is ridiculous. As just one example...McSherry has written in "Shadows of State Terrorism: Impunity in Latin American'..." ON THE CUSP OF THE 21st CENTURY, THE LONG SHADOWS OF STATE TERRORISM still haunt Latin America. The memory of predator states that turned on their own citizens is still present for millions of people in the region; and for some, as in Colombia today, political violence and state terrorism are still a reality. Hundreds of thousands lost their lives in the dirty wars of the Cold War era -- 200,000 in Guatemala alone -- and tens of thousands more suffered barbaric tortures, disappearance, and other forms of state terror. Yet most of the architects and agents of these crimes walk free today; many remain in positions of power... As E.V. Walter (1969: 9) once argued, states that employ terror "consciously design a pattern of violence to produce the social behavior they demand" -- and their power resides not only in their capacity to alter present behaviors, but also to prevent future behaviors. The Latin American militaries -- trained, financed, and usually supported politically by the United States -- used counterinsurgency strategies deliberately calculated both to eliminate "subversives" and to "change the mentality" of all citizens. Today the legacy of fear remains a deterrent to full political participation and a sense of citizenship in many Latin American countries." (Social Justice, Vol. 26, 1999). Sources like that are obvious includes, it should not be expected that everything insightful they may say about the topic has to have the magic words. About Blum, here is a link to what he says about Guatemala [127], it should leave no doubts. I'm not sure what you mean when you write that "First sources does not mention anything bad." - It seems to say that Osorio was the military commander of U.S. trained forces that murdered 8,000 forces in 3 years. That's not bad? BernardL (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You avoided my question regarding whether the sources must mention state terrorism and the United States or not. Please answer. McSherry and Blum may accuse the US of state terrorism. Fine. For example Amnesty and Human Rights Watch do not. Why can we cite Amnesty regarding peasant poverty but not Polity research regarding degree of democracy? Why does the article mention that the atomic bombings are seen by critics as militarily unnecessary and transgressed moral barriers, but does not mention any opposing views? Why is academic material regarding democide, argued by a scholar to be equivalent to state terrorism, deleted, while at the same time an unsourced allegation that the US was involved in the worst massacre in modern history in Latin America is included?Ultramarine (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

These questions have already been answered many times. If it does not mention state terrorism then it must be in the context of state terrorism. It must be deemed sufficiently related to the topic, it must be from reliable sources, it must provide further information directly explaining the view of those who regard US actions as state terror, etc. The additions you question, have all past these criteria per the consensus of editors here, such as the Human Rights watch and AI bits. The difference is that many of the additions you are claiming "double standard" have not passed these tests, i.e. they are not sufficiently on topic, they are not what you claim them to be, i.e. "opossing view," and thus really a SYN violation. They are not logically connected to the subject, and form non-sequiturs. They do not add value but merely bloat the article on off topic tangents. Or they are undue weight and barely related, such as your Polity Sets, which also give undue weight to one particular view of a model of democracy. As a consensus of editors determined, it does not belong in this article. The fact that you disagree does not make anything a double standard. That is a failed and false argument. The standard is the same, and only is "double" to you.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree this "double standards" canard is a dead horse, and much too much time has been wasted (see the archives) over this singular argument by Ultramarine, which has been refuted time and again. I won't dignify it by repeating the arguments. But I will say that his edit warring over deleting long term material that was added with consensus is disruptive, and not acceptable. Ultra seems to be deleting good material just because his new off topic material has not won any acceptance. So, in essence, he is violating WP:POINT--disrupting WP to make a point (his point being an alleged "double standard"). If this continues, I will take it to ANI. I strongly suggest you not delete long time material that was added with consensus unless that consensus changes first. The same goes with adding new material whose relevance has been strongly disputed by a majority of editors here.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not possible to repeat the arguments since the questions have never been answered. If you have answers now, please state them.Ultramarine (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Been answered many times. The answer is that its not a double standard, its an assessment of a particular within the larger context. You are comparing apples and oranges, and using an invented and unspoken singular standard as if everything fits nicely into it, not to mention that WP is not and does not need to be consistent in this manner. What is needed is to deal with arguments for inclusion exclusion on a case by case bases in their own concrete terms as it relates to their value or lackthereof to the article. If there is some other section that you feel needs to go, then make the case there, in that section and abide by consensus on the matter. This double standard argument of yours is fallacious. The fact is that material you are removing is deemed by consensus to be very relevant, to the heart of the issues, in understanding the nature of State Terrorism, and have been accepted as impeccable sourced material directly on target. A consensus of editors has also deemed that much of the material you have been advocating for adding (democratic peace theory, polity sets, Chomsky attacks, etc) are barely relevant, and mostly off topic, or are SYN, and undue weight, or are not from RS's. These particulars have been explained. Your turning this around and taking out other material that does not suffer from these failings under the guise of "no double standard" is a false argument in both content and method.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my specific questions regarding issues above. No, they have not been answered.Ultramarine (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will get to your other queries tomorrow. I really need some sleep. I have just discovered that the claim for the phrase "writes that Arana Osorio earned the nickname "The Butcher of Zacapa" for killing 15,000 peasants to eliminate 300 suspected rebels" is actually University of Michigan Sociologist Jeffrey M. Paige. Social Theory and Peasant Revolution in Vietnam and Guatemala in the peer reviewed journal,Theory and Society, Vol. 12, No. 6 (Nov., 1983), pp. 699-737. I will be re-inserting the material with the new adjustments.BernardL (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BernardL for finding that source and making the adjustments. Get some good sleep!Giovanni33 (talk) 07:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the fundamental questions have been answered.Ultramarine (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

False. Been answered many times by many editors, too many times already.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

False. For example, why is there no opposing views in the atomic bombings section which states "Critics also claim that the attacks were militarily unnecessary and transgressed moral barriers." I removed this since this issude is covered with opposing views in the main article. No justification for restoring this without opposing views have been given.Ultramarine (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Not false, and I doubt your memory is that bad. Its been addressed before, and explained well already. The issue might be covered in the main article, as it should be, but that does not preclude it being mentioned briefly here. The reason why it should be mentioned is because this is part of the arguments of the "revisionist" school that characterize the bombs as state terror, i.e. not used for military purposes, but terrorism, and as such transgressed moral barriers. I suggest you go back to the section (probably in the archives now) where you argued this same old argument, and consensus was that this was valid.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There was an older discussion on other material. I removed this material in the past few days. No talk page discussion on that. Diff if arguing otherwise. NPOV requires the inclusion of arguments of both sides.Ultramarine (talk) 08:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, an anonymous IP editor reverted the Palparan material. Does anyone have an explanation for why taking a course in the US means US state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I will from now on collect the problems with this article here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox3. Please give an explanation for problems described.Ultramarine (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala democracy

See [128][129] Sourced material should be restored in order to avoid a double standard. Here is a graphical illustration.[130] Ultramarine (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Still off topic, what is the connection with the topic? Wording is better, however it still lacks something anchoring it to the discussion. --N4GMiraflores 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No more off topic than the current statement in the article "According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate."" No double standard. What happened with democracy after the CIA sponsored coup is relevant.Ultramarine (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the connection to the topic? --N4GMiraflores 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Already answered that. Are you arguing that we should remove statments like the one I quoted? Ultramarine (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not, you actually asked a question in response to mine. If you cannot state why its on topic, then you already know why its not included. If you feel like dropping the combative attitude and simply making your case, then feel free, else your failure to answer why its related or on topic is your own answer for why its not included. --N4GMiraflores 14:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

False. "What happened with democracy after the CIA sponsored coup is relevant." Are you arguing that we should remove statements like the one I quoted regarding peasant poverty?

Why is it relevant, what is democracy and terrorism's connection? Also the data is in regards to Polity, I am not sure where you are getting anything about the CIA as your information does not seem to discuss them. --N4GMiraflores 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to argue that the coup is responsible for killings if democracy had returned to a similar levels before the worst violations. Are you arguing that we should remove statements like the one I quoted regarding peasant poverty that do not discuss terrorism or the US?Ultramarine (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for democracy's impact in relation to the CIA coup in the section? --N4GMiraflores 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Polity source notes the coup in the graph. Do you have a source stating that the Human rights watch quote is related to US state terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot source to a chart, you know that. Charts require interpretation which we are not permitted to do. Further you should know the rules regarding primary sources. --N4GMiraflores 15:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Claimed policy regarding charts please. Do you have a source stating that the Human rights watch quote regarding peasant poverty is related to US state terrorism? Are you arguing that we should remove statements like the one I quoted regarding peasant poverty?Ultramarine (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on primary sources, and WP:OR. --N4GMiraflores 15:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR does not state that charts are primary sources. Again, do you have a source stating that the Human rights watch quote regarding peasant poverty is related to US state terrorism? Are you arguing that we should remove statements like the one I quoted regarding peasant poverty? If not, then there is a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from replying to me as I have withdrawn from discussions with you based on what I have interpreted as your hostile tone and threats: [131] --N4GMiraflores 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have not been able to show any policy violation regarding primary sources, that it settled. Regarding on the issue of on topic, do you have a source stating that the Human rights watch quote regarding peasant poverty is related to US state terrorism? Are you arguing that we should remove statements like the one I quoted regarding peasant poverty?Ultramarine (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Palparan

See [132] Taking a course in the US is not US terrorism. Objections to removal with explanation? Ultramarine (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the specifics, however two points. First, if he is a former student of SOA, then the summary provided by Ultramarine is misleading to simply say "he took a course." If he is not a SOA student however and it simply says John took a course, then it should be fleshed out further explaining his particular connection. --N4GMiraflores 14:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

He is not a former SOA student. Exactly why is taking a course in the US terrorism? Ultramarine (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me? When you post under someone, indented under their post, its seen as a reply. --N4GMiraflores 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have no justification for why this is state terrorism by the US, then we can remove it. Agreed? Ultramarine (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am no ones lord, nor am I the one who included it. I do not speak for the masses, and considering you opened this discussion less than 24 hours ago, it seems you should wait for more voices. --N4GMiraflores 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." I will however wait a short time.Ultramarine (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are quoting, however the information is sourced, its relevance seems to be what you are questioning, so your above is "false" as you like to start your paragraphs. --N4GMiraflores 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Quoted WP:V as stated. If you do not have a justification for why this is US state terrorism, then no reason for including it.Ultramarine (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wherever, policy is policy. Again, its sourced and verifiable, your issue is its off topic, which WP:V does not cover. --N4GMiraflores 15:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is off topic. If you have no justification for it being on topic, then it should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not your lord, I can only offer you guidance, consensus is an important thing. Waiting for one to develop, is useful, and further, asking the person who added the material can be the greatest benefit you receive. Not waiting for a consensus on a topic such as this will often see you met with a revert. --N4GMiraflores 15:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of argument for inclusion have been noted.Ultramarine (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unexceptional sources

See [133]. These unreliable sources should be removed. Objections to removal with explanation? Ultramarine (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the email, however Asia Times and The Inquirer meet WP:RS. --N4GMiraflores 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced op eds are not reliable. Newspapers do not check them like they do their own writings.Ultramarine (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced, you have the link, its from Asia Times. As for if a newspaper checks Op-Ed's it does in fact do. --N4GMiraflores 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. We can include, of course with proper attribution that they are opinion articles. Does not explain the other unreliable sources I mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not self attributed as an Op-Ed. --N4GMiraflores 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Can mark it with whatever the newspapers/online publications calls it. Does not explain the other unreliable sources I mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, and Asia Times does not list it as an op-ed as far as I have seen, please feel free to direct me to where it does if I am incorrect. --N4GMiraflores 15:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The inquirer calls it " Inquirer Opinion / Columns" The AT can be attributed to Journalist Cher S Jimenez. Does not explain the other unreliable sources I mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. It appears its an opinion and a column, interesting. So its not just an op-ed I guess, weird situation. I guess we can state that John Doe writing for The Inquirer and Jane Doe writing for Asia Times have stated in articles and opinions / columns ... --N4GMiraflores 15:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should we state John Doe when we have persons named? Does not explain the other unreliable sources.Ultramarine (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Both John Doe and Jane Doe are fillers, my apologies for confusing you. --N4GMiraflores 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Seem we have settled some of the problems. Does not explain the other unreliable sources I mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

E. San Juan, Jr.

See [134]. Should be shortened. Objections with explanation? Ultramarine (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue with numerous citations to a good piece, however I agree the section could be shortened, perhaps by switching the quotes to notes, and summarizing the information. This however should not be done without everyone agreeing on the final section. --N4GMiraflores 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately those critical of the US do not wait for everyone agreeing. See also WP:BOLD. Ultramarine (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only ask you not purposely make a disruptive edit to make a point. --N4GMiraflores 15:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not do that, only edit to improve the article according to policy.Ultramarine (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to know you will wait for a consensus to develop. --N4GMiraflores 15:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, unfortunately those critical of the US do not wait for everyone agreeing. See also WP:BOLD.Ultramarine (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.

Use your best judgment, I will use mine as well. --N4GMiraflores 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the talk page and article. I will certainly use my best judgment when summarizing. But again those US critical do not wait for everyone to agree.Ultramarine (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait for a consensus to develop, and if reverted, do not become defensive. --N4GMiraflores 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately other editors do not do that.Ultramarine (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Its good you would not do something simply because others are not, that would be pointy --N4GMiraflores 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will certainly follow policy and assure that WP articles also follow policy.Ultramarine (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Red army fraction

See [135]. Terrorist group supported by a state. Objections? Ultramarine (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, you may want to add more than a sentence. Why did they do it, who says they did it, are they comprised of members of a particular group? What are some of the attacks? This would not be an "opposing view" but an example of US being attacked. --N4GMiraflores 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to expand with more material, feel free to do so.Ultramarine (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to include it, simply flesh it out, do not submit single sentences, its "lazy" for a lack of better words. The stronger you make something, the less likely it is to be challenged. --N4GMiraflores 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You cannot demand that others should write for you, that's "lazy" for lack of better words. Do the proposed text violate any Wikipedia policy?

WP:REDFLAG, a single source for a statement that Germany committed terrorism against the US is not appropriate. --N4GMiraflores 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No policy against single sources. Quote policy if claiming that.Ultramarine (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Exceptional claims require exception sources. Allegations of terrorism is an exceptional claim." --N4GMiraflores 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If there were different claims then different sources may be required. This one claim, not several claims.Ultramarine (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I quoted you, so either meet the requirements and expand the section, or I have to say I do not agree with its addition, unless you were misstating policy on your sandbox page. --N4GMiraflores 14:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a statement from WP policy. Could just as well say "an exceptional claim require an exceptional source". There is no requirement for two sources. Or are you arguing that this applies to all statements in this article? Ultramarine (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting you, so either you misstated policy on your talk page, as that quote is directly from it, or I am correct and I await a more fleshed out section as it seems to be a great start. --N4GMiraflores 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the current statement violates any WP policy? Are you really arguing that two sources applies to all statements in this article? Again, if you want to expand with more material, then feel free to do so. That however is not a reason for exclusion unless you cite a policy.Ultramarine (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Passive aggressive = lose. Please let me know when you have fleshed out the section, a sentence is not an appropriate section. --N4GMiraflores 15:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA and WP:Civility. Your incivility has been noted. Do not repeat. Again, if you have any policy you claim the statement is violating, then please state it.Ultramarine (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know when you have fleshed out the section, a sentence is not an appropriate section. Please report my "incivility" I would like an admin to inspect this section and make a judgment. --N4GMiraflores 15:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will report you if you continue. Why need the section be fleshed out, which policy is violated? If you just want a general expansion, sorry, but you have to do your own writing.Ultramarine (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Report me for? Asking you to flesh out a section and not simply add a section without consensus to an article as a lone sentence? Do it. --N4GMiraflores 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will report you if you continue to be incivil and make personal remarks. I you want to flesh out the section due to something that is not a policy violation feel free to do so. Those reader interested in RAF can easily click on the wikilink and read the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments below in "Opposing views", your constant threats and tone have forced me to withdraw from participating in discussions with you until I see a change in such behavior. I will continue however to work with the other users who edit this article and hopefully my comments in regard to these below sections have been of some assistance to you. --N4GMiraflores 15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have no policy reason for excluding this material, then that is settled. Will wait some time before adding back this material to see if someone else have a concrete objection.Ultramarine (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from replying to me, as noted above, due to what I interpret as hostile behavior and your constant threats, I have withdrawn from this discussion and future ones from you. [136] --N4GMiraflores 15:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you refuse to continue a factual discussion, then that is unfortunate. If no else have a concrete objectin, then the material will be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views

See [137] I have added sources and rewritten the text. Any remaining objections with explanation? Ultramarine (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, the entire middle paragraph has nothing to do with terrorism. This article is not about democracy, do you at least have a source stating that democratic nations do not commit terrorism, or something similar to draw a connection? If not it is clearly off topic. --N4GMiraflores 14:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of the US critical sources do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. No double standard. Furthermore, I have added a source arguing that democide=state terrrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I can repeat if you did not get the question. What is the connection to the article? --N4GMiraflores 14:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard. Also, again, I have added a source arguing that democide=state terrrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the connection to the article? If you can not even answer this section, then you are already saying it should not be included, or just being difficult and refusing for some reason. --N4GMiraflores 14:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Replies to Chomsky and explanation for US support for these dictatorships, for example. You have not answered my question. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard. Also, again, I have added a source arguing that democide=state terrrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the connection is, the paragraph is discussing democracy, did Chomsky equate terrorism to democracy? --N4GMiraflores 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, also discusses for example democide, how many victims, and US support for dictatorships. Please answer my question. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard. Also, again, I have added a source arguing that democide=state terrrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still not seeing a connection to the topic. What does democide have to do with democracy, just explain yourself fully, instead of repeating the same boring argument that I will just continue to ignore since its been answered. Yes, I know, you feel it has not, I feel it has, so I will continue to ignore it, you will continue to spam it, hoping someone bites. --N4GMiraflores 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Already stated that I have given a source stating that democide is equivalent with state terrorism. Research on democide shows that the US is one of the more important contributors to democide=state errorism. No, you have not answered the question. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with democracy? --N4GMiraflores 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That the US is not a major contributor to democide=state terrorism does not directly have anything to do with democracy. You have not answered the question. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then my answer to you, since I refuse to play the game of answering the question over and over, is that the entire middle paragraph is off topic, or giving the benefit of the doubt, poorly written and does not explain its relevance. I recommend you rewrite it so it better shows why its on topic. --N4GMiraflores 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is it off topic when I have given a source showing that democide=state terrorism? Please answer. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you to tell me the connection. Democide = State terrorism ... ok. And? What is the connection to democracy? For instance you state "Halperin et al writes that there is a widely held view that poor countries need to delay democracy until they develop" What is the connection back to the topic? How is the an opposing view to what is presented? --N4GMiraflores 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, that the US is not a major contributor to democide=state terrorism does not directly have anything to do with democracy. Regarding the Halperin study, gives general background for why US have supported dictatorships. Are you arguing that we should remove the US critical sources and background material not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this right, I do not want to misquote: You are arguing that Halperin says the US supported dictatorships since the countries were too poor at the time to be democracies. Halperin is then linked to the professor, I forgot his name, that argues that democracies commit less democide, this is supported by Polity. Finally this is linked back to the topic by stating that Elizmet states democide is state terrorism? Please rewrite any parts of this that I have wrong. --N4GMiraflores 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What I stated can be read in the Sandbox. Halperin is not making an argument regarding democide.Ultramarine (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Then it is still opposed as off topic, and your failure to provide an adequate explanation. I am only one voice however, perhaps a consensus in your favor will develop. Unfortunately, my attempts to assist you have been met with threats, so I will have to discontinue our discussions as they are and hope they were of assistance. Please note an end to the discussion due to your passive aggressive behavior and threats are not to be taken as signs of approval, or me not approving. --N4GMiraflores 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Halperin is related to the topic due to another reason than the one regarding democide. As noted above. Are you arguing that we should remove the many US critical sources and background material not mentioning terrorism or state terrorism? Otherwise you have a double standard. Your continued incivility has been noted. It is unfortunate that you do wish to continue a factual discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from replying to me as I have withdrawn from discussing this and future issues with you due to your constant threats and what I interpret as hostile behavior. [138] Continued replies could be interpreted as bating. If you would like to discuss this issue, or apologize, please do so on my talk page. Thank you. --N4GMiraflores 15:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I will be very happy to continue a factual discussion without incivility or other WP policy violations. Please continue the discussion. Otherwise see my earlier comments above.Ultramarine (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan 2

See [139]. One alternative is that add the missing opposing views. Alternatively we can remove this sentence, since this issue is covered with a NPOV in the main article, "Critics also claim that the attacks were militarily unnecessary and transgressed moral barriers." Objections with explanation for not adding opposing views or removing this sentence?Ultramarine (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the sentence should be removed, since we are not discussing morals, or counter arguments based on morals should be permitted, I prefer the first since moral basis is off topic. --N4GMiraflores 14:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Title 2

See [140]. Current title directly contradicts WP policy. Should be changed accordingly. Objection with explanation?Ultramarine (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is not titled "United States terrorism". --N4GMiraflores 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Same objection applies. Inherently implies that Wikipedia takes a view that these actions are considered state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

False, your argument is only legit if the articles was titled United States terrorism, per the examples provided of "Islamic terrorism" and "Israeli terrorism" --N4GMiraflores 16:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That was just examples of not allowed article names. The current title also implies that these actions are considered state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. --N4GMiraflores 17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Ultramarine (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Article not titled "United States terrorism." --N4GMiraflores 17:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Same argument applies. Also, I note that you reverted changes to article that had been added today without talk page discussion. So you do not follow your own requirement that everyone should agree on the talk page before making changes.Ultramarine (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See above for discussions on the content. As for the title, you are again incorrect and have not refuted the point posed. Please do not take it defensively, WP:BOLD specifically warns of not establishing a consensus on articles such as these. --N4GMiraflores 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You above stated that that everyone should agree on the talk page before making changes. Now you do not follow this. Regarding the title, exactly the same argumentation applies.Ultramarine (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did state that, do not act against it, then attempt to force your version by telling other to abide by it. As for title, asked and answered. --N4GMiraflores 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So why did you restored material that not everyone had agreed to one talk? Regarding the title, why do a different interpretation apply? In both cases the title inherently implies that the allegations are correct.Ultramarine (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have a concern, please use my talk page, the above comment seems unrelated to the title of the article. As for the comment regarding the title, this has been asked and answered. --N4GMiraflores 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

We are dicussing the content of this article so it should be discussed here. Again, hy did you restored material that not everyone had agreed to one talk? Regarding the title, of you are arguing that the current title do not imply the correctness of the allegations, then what is the problem with changing the title? Ultramarine (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the material since everyone did not agree to it on talk. As for the title you are incorrect, as noted above, the article is not: United States terrorism. --N4GMiraflores 17:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It had been removed today with no one agreeing on talk to these changes. Regarding the title, same argument applies regardless. Again, please answer, if you are arguing that the current title do not imply the correctness of the allegations, then what is the problem with changing the title?Ultramarine (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is not titled "United States terrorism" hence your argument is false. Asking the same question over and over and over will not net you a different result. --N4GMiraflores 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A minor change does not change the basic argument. If arguing otherwise, explain. Again, please answer, if you are arguing that the current title do not imply the correctness of the allegations, then what is the problem with changing the title?Ultramarine (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, the article is not titled according to statement. The article is not: United States terrorism. --N4GMiraflores 18:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are only two articles with identical titles. These were examples, obviously meant to apply to similar names.Ultramarine (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article title is not "United States terrorism". --N4GMiraflores 18:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You avoided my point. There are only two articles with identical titles. These were examples, obviously meant to apply to similar names. Also, if you are arguing that the current title do not imply the correctness of the allegations, then what is the problem with changing the title?Ultramarine (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not argue anything. I am stating the title of this article is not: "United States terrorism" therefore you are incorrect in your application. --N4GMiraflores 18:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"United States terrorism" is not mentioned as an example either. Obviously the two mentioned examples are meant to apply to similar names in general. Not only your variant.Ultramarine (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess my participation in this particular section is done as it seems we are at an impasse. --N4GMiraflores 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

True. Views by others? Ultramarine (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala and Cuba

See [141]. Sourced material. Objections with explanation for not restoring? Ultramarine (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to state terrorism? It seems what you are presenting does not argue for or against anything, nor is Cuba accused of contributing to the acts. --N4GMiraflores 17:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been answered as well, please use your browsers search function to find the current discussion and continue it, do not make duplicate sections. --N4GMiraflores 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Much of the US critical material do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. Should this be removed? Or is there a double standard?Ultramarine (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is already present on the page, please continue that one as to not confuse veteran and new readers alike with duplicate sections. --N4GMiraflores 17:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No one has objected to this material. Diff or just name the section is claiming this.Ultramarine (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to current discussion so it does not confuse new readers. Please continue above, or below. --N4GMiraflores 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved content to current discussion location: [142] --N4GMiraflores 17:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Never blank my talk page comments. No one had objected to mentioning Cuban support of the insurgents in the section above. Ultramarine (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blanking is deleting, please refrain from violating WP:AGF again. And since you refuse to acknowledge the previous discussion, I will simply say "Asked and answered" to th eproblem with the content you linked. --N4GMiraflores 17:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If no concrete objection to mentioning Cuban support of the rebels, then that issue is settled.Ultramarine (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is presented above, you failed to counter it, feel free to continue that discussion and argue your point further, however creating new sections and re-arguing them is not helpful. --N4GMiraflores 18:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That is false. I made the last argument in that section before you moved material there.Ultramarine (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. I will not participate in this splitting of discussion where you decide to ignore any comments made in the previous one. Your concerns were address above, and ignoring them will not net you the result you seek. --N4GMiraflores 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to continue a factual discussion in either place and I will answer.Ultramarine (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky

See [143]. Sourced material. Objections with explanation for not restoring? Ultramarine (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moved to already in progress discussion: [144] When posting, please read the talk page to make sure you are not duplicating discussions, often browsers will contain a search function that can assist in this. --N4GMiraflores 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attribution

See [145]. Attributions should be restored.Ultramarine (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right wing terrorism

See [146]. Sourced material. Please explain and give reason for not restoring.Ultramarine (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"However" is not just a word to avoid, it is a great tool for spotting SYN violations. [147] is not a response to Falk, and you may not use it as such. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"However" can be removed. Regarding WP:SYN, the same applies to much of the US critical material which do not mention terrorism or state terrorism. Should this be removed? See [148]Ultramarine (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Acceptable as what? As a response to Falk? Nope, since [149] still is not a response to Falk. As something else? If so, what? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest version. "Right-wing organizations such as Kach are listed as "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" by the US." Should be included as background material. Like much of the US critical material. Again, see [150]. I can accept such background material if this applies to both sides.Ultramarine (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amnesty and Human rights watch material

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

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

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

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

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

Edits by Aho

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

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