Talk:United States and state terrorism

Quick question on archiving talk

Forget article length, the talk page is five times that length! The bot that is archiving this page is currently set to archive only those discussion threads that have gone stale for 14 days. There is a lot of stuff that will be sitting here for awhile which would probably be best moved into the archive asap. Any objections to changing the settings for now so that the bot archives every 10 days, or better yet 7? If something gets archived which should not have we can always move it back, and once the page gets cleared up a bit maybe we can move it back to 14 days if folks so desire. If a few people are okay with this I'll change the settings at the top of the page. 14 days just seems like a really long time for a page that is so active right now and which has a ton of threads that really went nowhere.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with that- by all means be bold ;). Is all of the old material that sticks at the top, such as the Japan and Opposing Views sandboxes really necessary? BernardL (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, those sections should have been archived a long time ago.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, I'm going to try to take it down to 10 days for now (keeping it conservative). If anyone objects they can feel free to move it back to 14, but I really don't think it will be a problem. I manually moved the first three threads that were stuck at the top into the archive.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I will be back soon. Raggz (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now adjusted to 7 days.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Verification

Most of the allegations made in the article lack a reliable source. See the RfC issues articulated below. Primary sources are ineligible to make an allegation of state terrorism because of the WP primary source policy cannot be used unless there is a secondary mainstream source. "Extraordinary claims" challenged under WP:REDFLAG are ineligible to make an allegation of state terrorism because of the WP:REDFLAG policy cannot be used unless there is a secondary "mainstream media" source.

I propose to delete the sections (such as the Cuban and Phillipine material) where there is no reliable source specifically alleging an incident of state terrorism by the United States. Raggz (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, and your claims that there are no reliable sources to support the contents of the sections have been refuted. Since this was so recent, I doubt that consensus on these questions has changed. Btw, you never responded to the various sources that were provided for you to look at by BernardL in the sand box that support the charges found in the Cuba section. So why do you again propose to delete the section? This smacks of bad faith editing.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC

The primary RfC question is if this article follows the Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies. The secondary issues are listed below.

We seem to be unable to resolve the fundamental issue for Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. What does state terrorism really mean, is there such a thing as a legal act of terrorism, terrorist acts that do not violate any laws?

State terrorism defined (RfC)

We don't need two definitions of what state terrorism is - or is not in Wikipedia. I propose that we merge the entire definitions section into state terrorism. We would just link to that definition because there should not be one definition for the world and another for the United States.

• Proposed: The definition of state terrorism for this article will be the same definition used by state terrorism.

I disagree (and again, there was no reason to raise this same argument up again.). Its beating a dead horse. Consensus was that WP articles need not be consistent, one does not have to be based on the content of the other. If there is an issue with either of these articles contents, then they must be addressed on their own basis, without reference to other WP articles. WP is, has much as I hate to say it, not a reliable source. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would state terrorism in the rest of the world be different than terrorism by the United States? Raggz (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what Giovanni is saying is that the state terrorism article is currently not suitable to use as a definition of state terrorism here or elsewhere. Perhaps you should lobby for the improvement of the state terrorism article instead of pressing the point here. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is terrorism always illegal? (RfC)

There are two types of state terrorism now alleged: Legal Terrorism and Illegal Terrorism.

Moral outrage as state terrorism

• Proposed: All allegations of state terrorism will refer in the opening paragraph to a specific national or international terrorism law that is applicable to the United States.

There are a number of allegations of state terrorism arbitrarily excluded by this proposal because they involve moral outrage by an author who finds that although the actions of the United States might be legal, the author (or head of state) finds US actions to be immoral. Is terrorism ever legal?

EXAMPLE: Imagine that the Pope condems the legalization of abortion within the US to be state terrorism against unborn Americans. Although the legalization of abortion is entirely legal, it greatly offends the morality of some. Is moral outrage that leads to claimed state terrorism a claim that should go into WP as state terrorism, even though totally legal?

Does state terrorism imply to the Reader that the allegation involves the violation of some applicable international law? Is a discussion of "legal terrorism" (such as abortion) what the Reader is looking for?

This is also old, and a repetition of what you argued for before. I doubt there has been any change in the consensus against this idea in so short a time. Also, you are making a claim that is hypothetical in nature, and does not apply to this article, and therefore is not relevant. There is no real dichotomy between your concept of "legal terrorism" condemned solely on the basis of "moral outrage" vs. illegal state terrorism. Can you point to a law that codifies acts of State Terrorism as legal per international law? I know the answer is NO because there is no such law. Thus, this division of yours is original research. Now if there is a particular act that an notable critic describes as State Terror, and you have a good source that says such an action is legal, then that would be fine. By all means include it under the talk of that allegation. But, as far as I know the Pope has NOT claimed that abortion is State Terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There never has been any consensus, what consensus do you refer to?

There are allegations of state terrorism for US abortion policy, even if not yet edited into the article.

There are also allegations of state terrorism for 9-11, even if not yet edited into the article.

What definition of terrorism suggests that legal actions can ever be terrorism?

Article 1 of the UN Charter prohibits terrorism. There was a UN Security Council resolution about terrorism. There are many applicable US Code provisions that make terrorism illegal. The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes all terrorism illegal.

You deny that the UN Charter and the UDHR are applicable laws? If you accept these to be laws that prohibit terrorism, why are you making your claim? What allegation of state terrorism might occur that would not violate these two international laws that are fully binding upon the United States? I suggest that if neither are violated, then it cannot be terrorism. Raggz (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I refer to the last time you brought up this argument. No one agreed with you. That was consensus.

If there are notable allegations that this is state terrorism by the US, then please present your sources, quote the relevant wording, and then we can look at it. You keep making claims but when I ask you to support it, you never do. Why is that? I hope this time it will be different.

I never claimed any definition that says it never be legal. I ask for you to support your contention that it is a major issue that there are cases of state terrorism that you say are legal. So again, support that with an example of a source that claims an action that is state terrorism is legal. Do you have one or are you making it up?

Yes, and so what is your point? You were arguing that there is state terrorism that was legal, and thus we had to separate it by legal and moral. But you thus far failed to show even one source, not to mention many, that would justify such a distinction to be used throughout this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I refer to the last time you brought up this argument. No one agreed with you. That was consensus. Actually, that is not consensus. Please read Wp:CON.

If there are notable allegations that this is state terrorism by the US, then please present your sources, quote the relevant wording, and then we can look at it. You keep making claims but when I ask you to support it, you never do. Why is that? I hope this time it will be different. If you notice above, I did. The UN Charter, Article 1 and the UDHR. The ICJ could have found a violation of either - or both. Please respond. Most importantly, the ICJ never mentioned state terrorism.

Yes, and so what is your point? That Chomsky misrepresented the ICJ finding, so he is not a reliable source. Without one reliable source, there can be no discussion of Nicuragua. Raggz (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No you didn't. QUOTE me the section of law that says "State Terrorism." I clearly asked you to do that and you still have failed to do so. As far as disagreing with Chomsky, we are not in a position to do that. But, if there is any disagreement about what Chomsky means, then the solution is to quote his statement, which I think we already do.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Primary and fringe sources (RfC)

This article relies heavily upon primary and fringe sources for allegations. Some allegations will become ineligible for inclusion if primary and fringe sources are excluded.

Primary sources

An example is the media owned by the government of Cuba that have alleged state terrorism.

The "mainstream media" (as defined by WP:REDFLAG) did not echo Cuba's use of the term "state terrorism" when covering these claims.

Cuba has formally often stated that freedom of the press does not exist within Cuba - and should never exist.

Consider that Cuba made these statements as the plantiff in an 18 billion dollar lawsuit against the US.

Proposal: Allegations by primary sources (especially when made to advance a lawsuit) that are not supported by a "mainstream media" echo, are ineligible sources to assert that state terrorism is alleged. Such sources may be used with caution for other purposes, but not to assert state terrorism.

For my part, your proposal is ridiculous. Rejected, of course. Who else agrees? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - this is not a coherent argument. Pexise (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposal is so utterly contrary to WP RS that it does not even merit comment. However, to avoid Raggz assuming 'tacit concensus', I will state: NoTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fringe sources

There is debate about what WP:REDFLAG means. Claims include:

The nature of this topic requires that fringe sources be utilized because it is a topic where the "mainstream media" is either suppressing the truth or is disinterested in the truth. We likely have a near consensus on this, that some of the allegations are not reported by the "mainstream media".

There is a debate if all academics are automatically the "mainstream media" (REDFLAG).

There is a related debate if all "peer-reviewed" publications are automatically the "mainstream media". One side claims this is the case and the other side says that one professor may publish their blog as a "peer-reviewed" electronic journal if they get one friend to review it.

*Proposal: It is proposed that for sources that allege state terrorism that the WP:REDFLAG be applied to exclude claims by fringe sources that are as defined by policy, not the "mainstream media", even if fringe source has academic credentials or is published by a minor academic journal.

BernardL has claimed that WP has a mission to give "a voice" to claims that the mainstream media are afraid or unwilling to cover. There is the possibility that state terrorism has ocurred, and that this has been suppressed as claimed so that the mainstream media is not yet aware of it, or is afraid to cover this. If this is true, WP should wait until there are reliable mainstream media sources to reflect fringe claims.

EXAMPLE: Within our first cited sources is an article by Marjorie Cohn who advances two fringe theories that are not echoed by any of her colleagues or any "mainstream media" source. The first is that the US aid to Israel is a form of state terrorism. (1) State aid to another does not meet any definition of state terrorism (and does not violate any international law. (2) The US policy involved is not secret, many people besides Cohn know of it. (3) The policy challenged by Cohn as terrorism resulted in the awarding of the Nobel Prize (the Camp David Accords) which represents the consensus opinion of the international community on this subject. The second is that the UN-authorized actions within Afghanistan are a form of state terrorism

Cohn's opinion is claimed to be a fringe opinion by WP:REDFLAG.

(1) One side suggests that since a Nobel Prize was awarded and there is no "mainstream media" echo, REDFLAG applies.

(2) The other side argues:

That they agree with Cohn and do not find the claim "surprising", so REDFLAG does not apply.

Marjorie Cohn holds a PhD and has published widely, so by these criteria REDFLAG does not apply.

The claim was made in a minor "peer reviewed" academic journal published by one professor, so REDFLAG may not be applied.

REDFLAG itself is inapplicable for this article because it is not possible to cover most of these allegations using "mainstream media" sources because the mainstream media is unable or is unwilling to cover stories where state terrorism is alleged. Raggz (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia Policy Pages, "Verifiability":

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4]....In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers....

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context.

Same page, regarding "RedFlags":

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim....Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources....

The guidelines clearly state that reliable "third-party" publications "with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" qualify as "reliable sources". While it may be that you consider Granma, Anakbayan, or Arab Studies' Quarterly as sources which do not diligently check their facts, they are each, in fact, internationally recognized as professionally reviewed and fact-checked sources. Thus, the issue is by no means whether or not the citations you have flagged meet WP:RS, but instead whether or not you yourself are willfully distorting Wikipedia policy and guidelines to fit your own POV.

In other words: Proposal Rejected. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC comments by involved editors

This really is not so helpful. We already have an RfC running that largely deals with this issue, since it is about the WP:REDFLAG policy which is Raggz is again invoking here. Unfortunately we have not received much in the way of outside comment (the RFC did not list on the RFCpol list for some reason, I think because there was a prior RFC), but all editors who commented on the issue of WP:REDFLAG disagreed with Raggz's interpretation (except for Raggz).

We're basically re-hashing the same issue here - I don't see why we need a new RFC for that and would suggest we just close this down. There is a strong consensus that Raggz is misapplying WP:REDFLAG and I wish he would take note of that and stop pressing this issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Raggz is simply repeating the same old arguments we have already spend too much time and space addressing, and so far the consensus is that you are misapplying the policies due to, it seems, a lack of understanding of how these policies apply and are to be interpreted. We know you still disagree, so there is no need to lay out all the same arguments that you have already done before, yet again. Its a waste of server and talk space.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a please for help on this issue at this thread on the WP:V talk page. Hopefully someone who is an expert on the policy will comment there or over here on the initial REDFLAG RfC above. We need to put this to bed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with BT and Giovannni. I should probably add that I have not made the claim that Raggz attributes to me above. He also misrepresents and provides an impoverished interpretation of Marjorie Cohn's views above. I am certainly not the first one to bring up this tendency of Raggz to misrepresent other's views. I suggest that he take such comments to heart; first, by reading much more diligently in the future, and secondly by quoting his subject's words whenever he is doubtful as to their interpretation.BernardL (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We do have a dispute. Does anyone have any ideas about how to resolve this? Raggz (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Close this RfC and continue with the old one, for starters. You have not explained why it was necessary to open a new one when there is one running (which admittedly showed that everyone who commented disagrees with you). We can also wait and see if someone from the verifiability talk page answers my question about REDFLAG either there or here. Or, to make it really easy, Raggz could acknowledge that he is the only editor advocating his point of view while somewhere between 5-8 other editors disagree with him and drop this issue. You're really tilting at windmills since you have found no one who agrees with your position and thus don't have much of a possibility of prevailing in this argument.

When I bring up something on Wikipedia and even a couple of people respond with strong disagreement (and no one else supports my position) I drop it. At least three times that many editors have disagreed with you on REDFLAG yet you start section after section challenging content based on that policy. I don't see how you think you will get anywhere by repeating your argument ad infinitum in the face of significant disagreement.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How might we best resolve our dispute? Since the dispute is about policy, not content, maybe we should try arbitration?Raggz (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The prior RfC question was"What is our understanding of the WP:REDFLAG section of our verifiability policy and to what extent does it apply or not apply to some ongoing debates about sources for this article?". It does not seem to be the same question at all. It did not illicit enough input to be useful. Raggz (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That particular RfC elicited input from every editor who's been posting here for more than a month as well as a few others. To a person, they stated that your interpretation of Redflag was incorrect. Now, you introduce this RfC based upon the same definition that has already been clearly rejected by the vast majority of the Wikipedia community.

I have no idea what particular guideline this sort of behavior violates, but i think we all agree that it falls under the general heading of "disruptive editing". Stone put to sky (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC comments by visiting editors

A claim that the US commits "state terrorism" is beyond exceptional, it is patently ridiculous. It is inevitable that in a world of six billion people, including despots, extremists, attention-seekers, malcontents, and true terrorists, that some will make wild claims like this against the dominant nation of its era - against any nation. There is no point looking for reliable sources that the US is a terrorist nation. Nor is that the subject of the article. The article's subject is allegations of state terrorism, not the reality state terrorism. That title is far from ideal, but we can probably find reliable sources to establish that these claims were made, and that the subject is notable. However, the subject is the making of the claims - who made them, under what circumstances, what they are, in what context, and with what results - and the focus should should not be trying to support the truth or falsehood of the claims themselves. Reporting the claims directly as evidence of themselves is original research, and presenting evidence that the United States did in fact commit terrorist acts is incredibly WP:POV. Much of the material here is OR, POV, and impertinent to the subject of the article, and has to go. This one needs a thorough trim or rewrite. Wikidemo (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I partly agree with you about your understanding of how to implement the policy, but I argue that is exactly what this articles does and tries to do--but I disagree with the rest. First of all we do not take any truth or falsehood stances as wikipedians. You seem to violate that when you state your own opinion regarding these claims, i.e., you believe that that claims is "patently rediculous." Really? I disagree, but that is not for us to agree or disagree with the claims. Many people hold the US as a major Terrorist State, and there is a lot of facts supporting this conceptual framework, as articulated by the various notable critics of US policies and practices. This article states these claims and explores the relevant scholarly and notable literature (growing) on the subject. There is nothing exceptional about these widely held views that reflect a significant school of thought within academia about the role of the US empire abroad, much like other empires in the past. That the US has not engaged in any state terror is indeed the patently rediculous claim that is beyond exception, in my view. But again this is not about our views, per se. However, exceptional claim it is not. Even so that sources here are allowed to make exceptional claims, even if this could be construed as such by those who think so for some bizzare reason. Also we are not making any new claims, and then looking evidence to support an argument for the claim. Therefore there is no original research here. We are not originating any of the claims of State terrorism; we are instead reporting from sources who do-- per WP policies.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that we have professors like Richard Falk (Princeton), Arno Mayer (Princeton), Mark Selden (Yale), Michael Walzer (Columbia), Jorge Dominquez (Harvard), Greg Grandin (NYU), Michael Mann (UCLA), Michael Stohl (Perdue),Henry Giroux (McMaster), Thomas C. Wright (UNLV),etc. making this claim, and this is only to name a few. I have often thought of compiling a master reference list. The list would be long and impressive indeed. These are not ridiculous people; their analyses are serious and meet scholarly standards.BernardL (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A claim that the US commits "state terrorism" is beyond exceptional, it is patently ridiculous.

Sorry, but unless you can find a reliable source that makes this claim then it's irrelevant what your personal opinion is. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is inevitable that in a world of six billion people, including despots, extremists, attention-seekers, malcontents, and true terrorists, that some will make wild claims like this against the dominant nation of its era - against any nation.

Your assertion seems quite irrelevant. You're not saying these things never happened, just admitting your own submission to whatever dominant authority you are born under and your own unwillingness to evaluate atrocities from a neutral point of view (i.e. -- contrary to Wikipedia standards). Stone put to sky (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no point looking for reliable sources that the US is a terrorist nation.

Well, if there's no point then how is it that we have found so many? Are you saying that there's no point in it because you won't read it? Then fine; don't. It obviously wasn't written for you. This article was written for people who are interested in hearing a neutral accounting of the evidence supporting the title of this page. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nor is that the subject of the article.

I beg to differ. It clearly is the point of the article. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article's subject is allegations of state terrorism, not the reality state terrorism.

Well, you may argue that; most of the editors here, however, have approached this subject from a responsible angle and only included the clearly acknowledged instances of U.S. State Terror. Also, i think most here would strongly resist any attempt to water it down with inclusion of wild and insubstantial allegations. You may try if you like, but we do request that you first introduce a sandbox so that we can discuss the proposed changes. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That title is far from ideal, but we can probably find reliable sources to establish that these claims were made, and that the subject is notable.

We already have. Feel free to suggest any that you think are missing, though. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

However, the subject is the making of the claims - who made them, under what circumstances, what they are, in what context, and with what results - and the focus should should not be trying to support the truth or falsehood of the claims themselves.

I am so glad we are now on the same page. You clearly support the entirety of this article. Or at least, it seems you do, insofar as you have just recited its entire approach and structure. Oh, wait -- i now see your next few sentences.... Stone put to sky (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reporting the claims directly as evidence of themselves is original research,

I have no idea what you mean by this (and i doubt anyone else does, either). In any event, i think you'll find that our approach is to:

• Cite the claims
• Then show neutral, third party sources who support the evidence mentioned in the claim.

In all cases we have somewhere between three and six sources making the original claim of State Terror by the U.S. So truly, we do more than just "report the claims" -- we take care only to report responsible claims from reliable and respected parties. Similarly, in no case do we "evaluate the evidence"; in each case we only report what experts and involved parties have to say on this subject: nothing more, nothing less. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

and presenting evidence that the United States did in fact commit terrorist acts is incredibly WP:POV. Much of the material here is OR, POV, and impertinent to the subject of the article, and has to go. This one needs a thorough trim or rewrite. Wikidemo (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry; just above you said that we should do more than simply report the claims. Now you are saying we should do nothing more than blandly report the claims. It seems to me that you haven't really gotten a clear grasp on your own personal position; might i suggest that you first make up your own mind about what it is you're thinking? As it is, your comments seem a mish-mash of mutually unintelligible statements that i, for one, can't make heads nor tails of. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Stone this kind of blow by blow, responding to every sentence from someone else comment is really hard to read (for example I did not read it). Please try to avoid this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, BTP, but when faced with something that is so thoroughly antithetical to WP policy and guidelines i just don't know how to respond. Every single sentence was either at contradiction with itself or with WP policy. It just doesn't seem adequate to sum it all up with "Oh, well -- wrong again. And again. And again. And again. And again...." Stone put to sky (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break, that's about the silliest claptrap I've ever seen. I see I'm in a walled garden of nonsense here. There was a section for RfC comments by visiting editors to get some fresh perspective on a problematic article. I offer one of the few comments on this page that makes any sense and the defenders of the article jump in to claim I'm a nitwit - perhaps that's why neutral editors who follow normal Wikipedia editing principles don't seem to prevail here. I understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines reasonably well and this article is off the scale for violating them. I don't need citations or sources to say that - that's not how Wikipedia works. Citations and sources are for article space, not talk space. I can find academic sources for the inferiority of races, Israel bombing the World Trade Center, and all kinds of things. The fact that an Ivy League professor promotes them does not make such a theory respectable. Specific actions of the US in the world are well documented, as is the fact that people make allegations against the US. But arguing in a Wikipedia article that the allegations in fact show that the US is a terrorist state is a non-starter. The approach of reporting an extremist political position then analyzing the evidence pro and con is completely misguided. If you don't see how WP:OR applies you don't understand WP:OR.Wikidemo (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"A claim that the US commits "state terrorism" is beyond exceptional, it is patently ridiculous. It is inevitable that in a world of six billion people, including despots, extremists, attention-seekers, malcontents, and true terrorists, that some will make wild claims" Is it your contention that the sources used in this article are indeed "despots, extremists, attention-seekers, malcontents, and true terrorists" thereby de facto not reliable, POV sources? I respectfully disagree with this characterization would would ask for proof for the basis of your claim. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Just starting with the Cuban section:

• "Fidel Castro meets Caricom leaders". BBC. December 5, 2005. Retrieved 2007-02-02. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Rodríguez, Javier. "The United States is an accomplice and protector of terrorism, states Alarcón". Granma. Retrieved 2007-07-10.
• "Terrorism organized and directed by the CIA". Granma. Retrieved 2007-07-10.

It's a general observation that these wild accusations tend to come from such sources and that it is not surprising to find a bunch of people making them given America's position in the world. I can't go through all 250+ sources, especially with the citations being so messy, but the article cites a number of other Cuban media sources, Noam Chomsky extensively, a blog called "World War 4 report", another blog called "War Criminals at Harvard" (and lots of other blogs), countercurrents, two articles in Monthly Review and on and on. Some of are fringe, some are extremist, and media in Cuba is a mouthpiece for an anti-American dictator. Academics who propose provocative conceptual interpretations of well-known events do it for whatever reason, generally to generate notoriety. We don't cite an academic claim that all sex is rape as support that the statement is actually true. Definitely not appropriate as sources. The more reliable sources are mostly reporting that these people made the accusations, or propositions not directly related to the allegations. The "defenders" side is barely sourced at all, but for what little there is, quoting Dinesh D'Souza isn't that swift either. Anyway, without directing this comment to anyone specifically, if anyone truly cares what the rest of Wikipedia thinks about this article you might actually let people say what they think and listen rather than refute and accuse. This article is not a very hospitable or productive place for one who would care to calmly and seriously go about the business of building the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this talk page can be extremely hostile to new voices and that that is not a good thing. It has always had a rather vitriolic tone to it but that does not excuse anything. I disagree with much of what you say about the sources (there are some mediocre ones and I'm sure some poor ones but many are quite good) and your general attitude toward the article, but the article could certainly use more editors like yourself who are skeptical of the claims being made.

Most of the people who have been working here recently probably agree that the biggest problem is that the "other side" is not well represented - i.e. those who do not view the US actions in question as "state terrorism." Clearly such views are in the mainstream, but there is a significant body of work which makes claims about the US committing state terrorism (this is rather undeniable I think). The goal of this article should be to report those "allegations" which are significant and come from reliable sources and to give appropriate (basically equal) wait to sources which question these allegations and/or frame the facts of the matter in a completely different manner than "state terrorism." The latter point clearly needs some work and it would perhaps be a good way for you to start working on the article.

I do wish this talk page was more welcoming to new editors, although in fairness when the first thing you say on a given article talk page is that the article topic is "patently ridiculous" you can probably expect to receive a bit of a harsh response. I would recommend pointing to some specific sections or sources you have problem with, or (this would be much better since most of the sources have been argued ad infinitum) try to bring in some new sources which counter the state terrorism allegations. I think most folks here are very open to that. You might look at the Japan section as one which uses a number of reliable sources to make an "allegation" about state terrorism but then ends with a long paragraph discussing how those views are not at all in the academic mainstream. I think we need to duplicate that kind of pattern in other sections.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never liked the Cuba section much. A major weakness is that Cuban sources: ie: Castro, Allarcon, Gramma, Radio Havana, Cuba Solidarity, are being given too much weight. Another weakness, I think, is the case study of Posada Carrilles; it would be better to abbreviate that case to at most a major paragraph and then link to his main article for the more gritty details. While it seems reasonable that some mention should be made of accusations from the Cuban contingent, currently this is overdone. It is important to note that some very notable academic sources and issues are presently being omitted. I have already suggested a re-write of the Cuba section, and have created a sandbox comprising some notable academic work accusing the U.S. of being complicit in terrorism against Cuba. [[1]] It is not an exhaustive selection. It simply represents one afternoon’s work. I am willing to work on a re-write that would include ways of representing opposing points of view. I think the first place to start is to discuss a tentative outline for the section. This process would ostensibly involve choosing the relevant sub-issues to be included, what weight to give them, and the structure of the section.

BT’s comments are always intelligent and I usually find myself in accord with them. I would just like to make perhaps a too obvious point of caution. Just because the solution for the Japan section was to make it explicit that charges of state terrorism were not the mainstream position of the relevant historiography, the same general argument may not be legitimate for all sections in the article. For example, I think the scholarly consensuses (consensi anyone?) among specialists for issues such as the Guatemalan genocide and massive repression in El Salvador are much closer to generalized condemnation of US involvement than they are for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and predictably accusations of significant complicity in state terrorism in the literature on repression in Latin American are not uncommon.BernardL (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Nicuragua material inconsistent with policy

Nicuragua v United States

The Nicuragua sources include:

• Hansen, Suzy (2002-01-16). Noam Chomsky. Salon.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.

This source does not allege state terrorism by the US against Nicuragua.

• Chomsky, Noam (2002-05-19). Who Are the Global Terrorists?. Znet. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.

This article does not even mention Nicuragua.

• Official name: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984 ICJ REP. 392 June 27, 1986.

This source does not allege state terrorism by the US against Nicragua.

• Morrison, Fred L. (January 1987). "Legal Issues in The Nicaragua Opinion". American Journal of International Law 81: 160-166. "Appraisals of the ICJ's Decision. Nicaragua vs United State (Merits)"

This source does not allege state terrorism by the US against Nicuragua. The word terrorism does not appear within it.

• a b International Court of Justice Year 1986, 27 June 1986, General list No. 70, paragraphs 251, 252, 157, 158, 233.. International Court of Justice. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. Large PDF file from the ICJ website

This source does not allege state terrorism by the US against Nicuragua. The word terrorism does not appear within it.

This section lacks one single reliable source and so denies WP:Verify This fact requires that this section be deleted for this policy and for WP:OR. In addition, the text ignores many mainstream reviews entirely in favor of fringe comments, most of which are not supported by the cited text. This selected focus violates WP:NPOV

Review a peer reviewed mainstream account..

Note that consensus is not required to delete this section if deletion is done for policy compliance. There is no need to delete without giving other editors the chance to offer a single reliable source that asserts that US policy in Nicuragua was actually state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Item #2 - concerning this article by Noam Chomsky [[2]] is a pretty blatant example of your lack of care in reading sources. Your claim is that "This article does not even mention Nicaragua." Well, here is a direct quote from the article:

"The same convention applies to the war to exterminate the Nicaraguan cancer. On Law Day 1984, President Reagan proclaimed that without law there can be only "chaos and disorder." The day before, he had announced that the US would disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice, which went on to condemn his administration for its "unlawful use of force," ordering it to terminate these international terrorist crimes and pay substantial reparations to Nicaragua (June 1986). The Court decision was dismissed with contempt, as was a subsequent Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law (vetoed by the US) and repeated General Assembly resolutions (US and Israel opposed, in one case joined by El Salvador)."

It is small wonder that many editors here who want to get on with the business of constructing a fine article, have grown a little tired of your often spurious interventions.BernardL (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Or take item #1 Suzy Hansen interviewing Chomsky in Salon. [[3]] Your claim is that: "This source does not allege state terrorism by the US against Nicuragua." Yet on this [[4]] page of the interview it says this:

"I take terrorism to be just how they define it. By that standard, it's uncontroversial that the United States is a leading terrorist state. In fact, it's the only state that was condemned for international terrorism by the highest bodies: the International Court of Justice in 1986 [for backing Contra forces against Nicaragua] and the supporting resolution of the Security Council which followed shortly after that. The United States vetoed it."BernardL (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The word terrorism does not appear in the ICJ decision (to my memory). Chomsky's use of "terrorism" is subject to the "extraordinary claims" policy of WP:REDFLAG, and so it require a mainstream echo. All that is required to resolve this is a single reliable source within the "mainstream media" that echos Chomsky's challenged claim. I suggest that we take this approach to resolving our difference? Simply add a "mainstream media" source and it is resolved. If Chomsky is correct, then the ICJ decision will use the term "international terrorism", you will cite that, and we have no dispute. If it does not, it makes Chomsky an unreliable source. Agreed? Raggz (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not evaluate the reliability of any given source based upon whether or not their opinions coincide with your own, Raggz. It evaluates the reliability of a source based upon the respect accorded to them by (in order of importance) 1) Academics and Scientific/Technical or Professional organizations 2)Political and other Policy-making or -advising bodies, 3) Third-party public-service organizations, and 4) Other published commentators, usually evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Chomsky is well respected both as a Scientist as well as an Academics Specialist in Social Studies. His opinions receive careful scrutiny and consideration among many policy-making bodies (and even in some political circles), and he is widely respected by both third-party and mainstream-media sources. Thus, your attempt to reduce the status of his opinions by declaring them contrary to your own understanding is really irrelevant, here. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article would be a better WP article if it complied with WP policy. Let us focus on the article and not personalities? Raggz (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It does. You don't. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In this case I probably could give examples of what are reasonably mainstream media "echoes" for the claim, but I am not particularly interested in playing this game you have set up because the framework you are suggesting, based on the requirement of a "mainstream media echo" as a criteria for non-deletion of any source, is an illegitimate interpretation of WP. Chomsky himself is a very notable analyst, a reliable source for this article any way you slice it. He makes controversial polemical claims, sure, but he is not just being flippant about it, he backs up his claims with well-reasoned arguments, and with diligent attention to and presentation of relevant facts. It requires careful reading. After a careful reading, you may not agree with his interpretations and analysis, which for our purposes is neither here nor there, because what matters here is verifiability, not the truth as you see it.BernardL (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not compromise then? Chomsky says "... it's uncontroversial that the United States is a leading terrorist state. In fact, it's the only state that was condemned for international terrorism by the highest bodies: the International Court of Justice in 1986 [for backing Contra forces against Nicaragua] and the supporting resolution of the Security Council which followed shortly after that."

Either Chomsky is lying about the ICJ finding - or my memory has failed me. I do not recall the phrase "state terrorism" even being in the ICJ findings, and I think that I would recall. Let's make a deal?

• Option A: The ICJ finding factually alleged "international terrorism", I then apologize, and the whole section is improved because we can then cite the ICJ as well.

• Option B: Chomsky lied, he gets dropped as a source, and without one reliable source alleging "state terrorism", the whole section goes.

Fair enough? Either way, the article improves. Raggz (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice try but this is a false dilemma fallacy. Option C: keep the reference as Chomsky is a credible and notable source that makes this allegation based on the verdict of the ICJ. As you well know there is no such internationally accepted definition for state terrorism, and thus, no such legally based crime called "state terrorism" for a court to find the US guilty of under the law--under that term. So this is a bit of a red herring fallacy, and its misleading as it implies that the court could charge the US with such a description. The world court, rather, can only look at the specific actions and then determine its legality; hence US was found guilty of "unlawful use of force." What is the nature of the violence that the US was found to have enaged in unlawfully? That is no mystery since the court answers that question with details. Therefore, its completely appropriate--and the only way the allegation can be made---is for an analyst like Chomsky to look at those facts and come to a conclusion that it was State Terrorism. Chomsky makes that synthesis, which is what he is supposed to do, and we can then assert his claim here provided its properly attributed to Chomsky. See, if you are not a legal court you not confined by the body of laws we have on the books, but can use and apply the concept of "state terrorism" (what we deal with here) to the actions the court found the US guilty of, and does exactly this. So, your objection does not stand.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Option C does not exist. Chomsky either misrepresented the ICJ finding - or he didn't, there is no third option. (Correct me if you see a third option.) So we just determine if he misrepresented the ICJ - or not. We go from there. Fair enough?

It matters if Chomsky misrepresented the ICJ finding. It matters to determining his credability. He is the only source for the claim, without him, the whole section goes away. There was nothing to prevent the ICJ from finding state terrorism, was there? Chomsky did not make a synthesis, he claims what the ICJ found. If he was stating an opinion or synthesis, he would have said that, he knows the rules. Raggz (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chomsky. The ICJ was taking about actions that are State terrorism. But I can't do that as it would be synthesis if I said the ICJ found the US guilty of the practices. But Chomsky says that and its his opinion that this was the verdict of the court. Chomsky's credibility is well established, and not open for use to question simply because we disagree with his analysis on this matter or any other. And, as I said, there is no law established about the State terrorism that I know of, which the ICJ could have referenced--at least not one that is internationaly accpeted. So that is why they dont use the term. But I repeat myself.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"But Chomsky says that and its his opinion that this was the verdict of the court. No, he doesn't, read it again. He says nothing about his opinion. He makes a misrepresentation of fact. I recommend reviewing WP:NPOV, (the part about facts and opinions). When any of us misrepresents any fact, our reputation suffers. Chomsky is no different than any other human. Raggz (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Chomsky's credibility is well established, and not open for use to question simply because we disagree with his analysis on this matter or any other." Since he (1) misrepresented a key fact and (2) he is the only reliable source to include Nicuragua is this misrepresentation - yes, his misrepresentation is a problem. Every time we express ourselves, our credibility is at risk and Chomsky is not immune to this. Raggz (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"And, as I said, there is no law established about the State terrorism that I know of, which the ICJ could have referenced--at least not one that is internationaly accpeted. So that is why they dont use the term." Actually there are many. I will name just two: the UN Charter (art. 1) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You cannot name one act of state terror that complies with these, can you? The ICJ could have found a violation of these, but did not. Read WP:NPOV again, court findings are facts and are not opinions. We need to cover facts accurately.

Now that we have discredited the only source that claims that there was state terrorism in Nicuragua, you need to find another reliable source, or this entire section cannot stand. Raggz (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A) He says nothing about his opinion. He makes a misrepresentation of fact. ==> Your opinion. Chomsky's the expert: not you. Source and statement stay. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

B) Since he (1) misrepresented a key fact and ==> Your interpretation. WP:OR. Source stays.

C) (2) he is the only reliable source to include Nicuragua is this misrepresentation ==> Straw-man argument. Irrelevant to evaluation of WP:RS. Source stays. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

D) Actually there are many. I will name just two.... ==> Assertion completely contrary to established fact. Source stays. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The source does not support the claims made. We appear to have a dispute? How do you propose that we might best resolve this dispute? Raggz (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, this is why I advised you to read sources carefully. The context is important. Chomsky lays out a definition of terrorism, which he believes is reasonable, then he says by that standard the U.S. is a leading terrorist state and condemned by the ICJ. He is not suggesting that the ICJ literally used the term "terrorism" to condemn the mining of harbours, sabotage of infrastructure, etc, he is saying that given the definitional standards laid out that is the effective meaning of the decision.BernardL (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote I am focused upon is ""... In fact, it's the only state that was condemned for international terrorism by the highest bodies: the International Court of Justice in 1986 ." Did the ICJ use the term "international terrorism - or not. We are discussing a fact, so there cannot be two answers. If the ICJ used that phrase, then I drop my challenge. If it did not, you should. He either misrepresents the ICJ - or he didn't. This is not a question of opinion. Which is it?

We appear to have a dispute regarding what Chomsky meant? Do you believe that we should enter into some form of dispute resolution, perhaps consult a Wikiprojects expert as to what Chomsky said? Raggz (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If and when there is a dispute about what someone meant, the obvious solution that we use is simply to quote what he says. And, that is what we do here, no? If not, then I accept we should quote Chomsky, so we attribute to him this claim, and provide the source. We might also make clear that the verdict by the court read that the US was guilty of "unlawful force"--linking to the main article on the subject. Would this suffice for your objections?Giovanni33 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The primary issue is that the only link between the entire Nicuragua section and state terrorism is the Chomsky quote. Is there another source that ties Nicuragua to allegations of state terrorism? If so, which ones?

We know that the ICJ could have found state terrorism and did not, so we know that he is exaggerating. I don't think we should knowingly use a quote that will mislead the Reader. What purpose does the Chomsky quote serve? (By the way, the ICJ never finds guilt, as it is a civil and not a criminal court.) Why exactly is what he said important if it is untrue?

The primary issue is if there is an allegation of state terrorism and Nicuragua other than by Chomsky? Raggz (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A second Cohn article, here, specifically states tha U.S. support for the Contras can be interpreted as an instance of State-sponsored Terrorism. Stone put to sky (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is published in "Radical History Review", a scholarly journal,and explicitly connects the ICJ ruling with State Terror by the U.S. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this help? It is from the UN Chronicle of November 1986 and has a direct quote from the Acting Foreign Minister of Nicaragua stating that "Washington had reaffirmed "its policy of state terrorism".".--Ubardak (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. It is representative of the official Nicaraguan perspective. BernardL (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"The CIA launched a series of terrorist actions from the “mothership” off Nicaragua’s coast. In September 1983, the agency attacked Puerto Sandino with rockets. The following month, frogmen blew up the underwater oil pipeline in the same port- the only one in the country. In October there was an attack on Pierto Corinto, Nicaragua’s largest port, with mortars, rockets and grenades, blowing up five large oil and gasoline storage tanks. More than a hundred people were wounded, and the fierce fire, which could not be brought under control for two days, forced the evacuation of 23,000 people.”(Nieto, Clara Masters of War: Latin America and United States Aggression from the Cuban Revolution Through the Clinton Years, Seven Stories Press, 2003,343-44)

From historian Greg Grandin:

"“Nicaragua, where the United States backed not a counterinsurgent state but anti-communist mercenaries, likewise represented a disjuncture between the idealism used to justify U.S. policy and its support for political terrorism... The corollary to the idealism embraced by the Republicans in the realm of diplomatic public policy debate was thus political terror. In the dirtiest of Latin America’s dirty wars, their faith in america’s mission justified atrocities in the name of liberty.” (Grandin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and ther Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company 2007, 89)

“In Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Contras decapitated, castrated, and otherwise mutilated civilians and foreign aid workers. Some earned a reputation for using spoons to gorge their victims eye’s out. In one raid, Contras cut the breasts of a civilian defender to pieces and ripped the flesh off the bones of another.” (Grandin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and ther Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company 2007, 90)BernardL (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Europe

Translated from Bologna massacre Association of Victims Italian website. Google.com. Retrieved on 2006-07-30.(Italian)

• This translation to English is inadequate to really understand, I would prefer a link to the Italian version because I cannot really understand the fine details from this translation. In any case, it doesn't qualify for the English language Wiki.

• The editor has violated NPOV by only presenting one version of what happened in Bologna. Yes, I have seen the plaque proclaiming that the facists bombed the train station, and this is a joke, even among Bologna Communists. It is a serious NPOV error to only include one version of what happened in Bologna, please correct this so that this need not be deleted for the NPOV violation. Raggz (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Vulliamy, Ed (5 December 1990). "Secret agents, freemasons, fascists... and a top-level campaign of political 'destabilisation'". The Guardian: 12. This article does not mention the US in regard to terror but does mention the free masons. Raggz (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Würsten, Felix (October 2 2005). "Conference "Nato Secret Armies and P26": The dark side of the West". ETH Life Magazine. This source does not claim state terrorism on the part of the US. It only complains that the CIA was aware of stay behind networks, nothing more. Raggz (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• ^ Richards, Charles (1 December 1990). "Gladio is still opening wounds". The Independent: 12. This cite does not allege US state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose to delete the entire Europe section since neither the text nor the citations have anything to do with allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Read the text from the article (below). Raggz (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On 1990-10-24, Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti told the Italian Parliament that NATO had long held a covert policy of training partisan groups in the event of a Soviet Invasion of Western Europe. Under Operation Gladio the CIA, British MI6 and NATO trained and armed partisan groups in NATO states to fight a guerrilla war if they were captured during a future Soviet invasion. It has been alleged that these groups and individuals in them were responsible for various acts of violence perpetrated against leftists during the cold war, political assassinations in Belgium, military coups in Greece (1967) and Turkey (1980)[229] The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics's, "iron curtain", as Winston Churchill termed it, had "descended across the Continent."[230]

In 2000, a report from the Italian Democratic Party of the Left (formerly the Italian Communist Party) claimed that the strategy of tension had been supported by the United States to "stop the PCI (Communist Party) (itself sponsored to the tune of over $60million from Moscow during the Cold War), and to a certain degree also the PSI (Italian Socialist Party), from reaching executive power in the country." 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,[231] the centrist Italian Republican party said the report was worthy of a 1970s Maoist group.[232][233]

The US 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.[30]" Raggz (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The text clearly states that the Italian Parliament has accused the U.S. of funding -- through NATO -- a series of ultra-right-wing military cells who stand accused of political assassinations and acts of terror. In this case we have European countries (officially the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy) who accuse the U.S. of funding active terrorist groups within their respective nations. We also have academics who have backed these accusations up with solid research.

This section will obviously stay. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is this? "... the Italian Parliament has accused the U.S. of funding -- through NATO -- a series of ultra-right-wing military cells who stand accused of political assassinations and acts of terror." I missed that, and isn't Italy part of NATO? Would this have been done by John F. Kennedy? Lyndon Johnson? Did NATO fund them? Why blame the US? Raggz (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Though this section is actually rather balanced in terms of NPOV, like Raggz I do question whether it belongs here. I don't see specific allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States in this instance. If there are not any I don't see how we can keep it. We have an article about Gladio where this kind of stuff can be covered but if reliable sources don't call it state terrorism then it would seem inappropriate to discuss it here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We agree. I operate on the theory that to have a section about an allegation that at least one source needs to make a relevant allegation. This is why I put a verify tag on the article. Almost every section lacks such a key source, one that alleges state terrorism by the US. Cuba and the Phillipines are examples. We could have 3,000 citations, but if not one alleges state terrorism by the US, what do we really have? Raggz (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to re-include the statement from an academic that the activities amount to "State Terror"; personally, i think the section is adequate as it stands: mention of the accusations, quick review of the accusing parties, and a short description of the evidence. I wish every section were so precise and bland. The demand, however, to introduce specific sources that declare this project "State Terrorism" will only result in making it longer and more involved, but if that is what people want.... Stone put to sky (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the general agreement from the past is that there must be specific accusations that the US committed state terrorism. As I said the section is pretty NPOV which is good (as is the relative brevity) but without an accusation that stuff that went down under Gladio was dictated by the US and constituted state terrorism it seems hard to justify keeping the material we have now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We agree. Raggz (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few:

This first is from an activist Indian Barrister, married to one of India's chief Admirals, involved in National Security issues and activism, human rights issues that specifically deal with terrorism, and the development of International Law:

Freedom of Expression in an Era of State Terror

The title puts the entire discussion within the context of "State Terror", but there is one particular sentence:

We have witnessed the creation of so called Islamic terrorist groups and organizations , admittedly funded by Western and other Intelligence Agencies with a view to control and dominate regions and whole societies, in a manner similar to which Operation Gladio was used in Europe, by covert forces after the second world war .

Terrorism in Western Europe: An Approach to NATO’s Secret Stay-Behind Armies

Italian judge Felice Casson discovered the secret NATO army in summer 1990 in Rome while researching acts of right-wing terrorism in the archives of the Italian military secret service. He concluded that in Italy there were clear links to terrorist operations.

Charles Richards and Simon Jones (16 November 16 1990). "Skeletons start emerging from Europe's closet". The Independent: p. 11

Links have...been proven between P2 and right-wing terrorism. What has not been conclusively shown is what direct links there might have been between the CIA and right-wing terrorism.

This article was reprinted from here:

Italian investigators discovered connections between the secret Gladio plans and well-known terrorist acts, attempted military coups, and the undermining of democratic institutions in the 1970s and 1980s. Later, investigators linked Gladio with terrorist attacks officially attributed to left-wing guerrillas...

If that's not enough then there are more, from articles published in The London Times, The Indpendent, and The Guardian. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You will need an "anchor". An allegation of state terrorism against the US relating to all that old Cold War stuff. None of these do this. There is a reason that you cannot find any mainstream sources for this theory.

I have no doubt that there was Cold War planning for an insurgency after the USSR overrunning of Europe. This was ten years after the French Resistance had battled Nazis, and similar minor insurgencies were encouraged all over Europe. I seriously doubt that the US participated in anything like this after say, 1962. There are no sources for anything important within Europe, especially in a modern context. Raggz (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That is utter claptrap, an artificial hurdle introduced because you are clearly -- once again -- "talking" into the wind. If you would like to introduce material substantiating what you suggest then please -- start a sandbox. I, however, have already met the requirement to produce sources which clearly refer to Gladio as an instance of State Terror. AFAIK, that is all that's required. The argument is not whether Cold War Planning was State Terror, but whether the CIA funded Gladio and then supported it in the use of terror to influence local populations. From my perspective, the article establishes that quite well. If you disagree then please, get to the point and let us see where the article has failed. But remember: distortion of the facts and arguments will not aid you in any way.

Now, in anticipation of the "I don't understand; could you please explain again?" which will undoubtedly be forthcoming, i will explain once again, using a completely different approach:

Your points once again utterly misrepresent what the sources state; in each case, the words "terrorism", "CIA" (or "United States") and "Gladio" are clearly associated. That meets the requirements as laid down for this article: all that's necessary are allegations from reliable sources. Above i have given quotes from:

• A scholarly journal
• An Indian barrister, human rights activist, and defense issues scholar
• The formal opinion of an Italian judge, referenced by
• Yet another scholar in yet another peer-reviewed publication, and finally
• a quote from The Independent

Most are, per WP:Policy, considered to be impeccable sources. Unless you can show why these sources are unreliable then your objections are, yet again, specious. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have more policy disputes:

• One of these involves the citation of foreign languages, you appear to be claiming that the Italian translation is adequate?

• The editor has violated NPOV by only presenting one version of what happened in Bologna. You claim that this is not true? Are you the editor that put this in? Do you need time or guidance in regard to alternative theories for Bologna? One option for an NPOV violation is to edit in text and citations to bring it into compliance. The other is to just delete the text to attain NPOV compliance. I likely will exercise the second option because there is no reliable source linking anything in Bologna to the US and I won't waste my time on text that fails both verifiability and NPOV tests. Do you and I have an irresolvable dispute about policy in regard to this text?

We appear to have another policy dispute in regard to your new quotes. The key issue is what I call "an anchor", a single source that provides the basis to even allege that the US was involved in state terrorism within Europe. None of these do this. "Western does not manage this nor does NATO, the article is about US policies. If some US linkage is established, then these sources might be useful. This link is lacking, so I can now delete the whole Europe section. That however (in my opinion) would be wiki lawyering. As a good faith effort, I'm outlining why this section requires deletion here. If the section lacks a single reliable source, it needs to go, with or without your agreement.

"Cold War issues: Gladio is a perfect illustration of why a Cold War section is necessary. Gladio was initially clearly a legal and customary way to wage war in Europe for that period. It was essentially modeled after forces like the French Resistance of that era. (I have a source that the US support of the French Resistance was state terrorism that we might add later, do you want it for this section?) Times change and laws changed. Policies needed to change as well. Gladio started out fully compatible with all international law, but the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions totally changed this (as they did for Hiroshima or Dresden type attacks). It is a major NPOV issue to neglect this aspect of the Cold War. You cannot start with the premise that military plans prior to GCs II & IV needed to comply with these. You need to integrate the evolution the evolution of law and policy within the Cold War context. If this is not done, Gladio is in my opinion, ineligible by NPOV to remain within the article. Raggz (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The "Cold War" section should be put on the The Cold War page; not here. The origin of the policies and the intended effects or purposes they served are entirely beside the point; once again, you are confusing motives with actions.

This article deals strictly with actions, not motives. If actions undertaken through an official process of the U.S. have led to incidents which are transgressions that can be characterized as "State Terror" then we have reached the end of our purpose, here: it is not our job to undertake a defense of the United States, nor is it for us to speculate about why things that may have originally been useful and good eventually turned out to be something tragic and bad. To do so would be the essence of "Original Research" and "Synthesis", both of which are considered beyond the scope of Wikipedia.

If you would like to make those arguments then i suggest you write a book and get it published. It would probably be well-received in many circles and you might make a tidy sum on it. For the purposes of this page, however, it is utterly irrelevant why the United States did what it did. Our purpose here is simply to catalog those actions for which the United States has been internationally condemned as a sponsor of terrorism and explain to people why these actions are perceived as such. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the rest of what you said: please be more specific in your qualifications. Your past improprieties and exaggerations have made me wary of jumping to any conclusions about what your intent might be. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To Stone, most or all of the new sources you provided seem okay on the face as reliable sources, but I do not see that any of them actually accuse the US of state terrorism via Gladio. The first source from the Indian barrister only vaguely references Gladio, does not explicitly link it to the US, and does not even explicitly call it terrorism (though it is somewhat implied). The second source actually goes against the idea, noting a connection between P2 (an Italian group) and right-wing terrorism (notice it is not called state terrorism) but then stating "What has not been conclusively shown is what direct links there might have been between the CIA and right-wing terrorism." So that does not seem to help at all (in sounds more like an "opposing view" argument to me). The third source says "Italian investigators discovered connections between the secret Gladio plans and well-known terrorist acts." It does not say what these "connections" were. It does not say who in Gladio was involved or if the US government was involved at all. It does not make an accusation of state terrorism against the United States or against anyone else apparently.

So I see little or no use for those sources and still don't see much of a justification for the Europe section. If there are not better sources that actually accuse the United States of state terrorism stemming from the Gladio stuff then this section should be deleted in my opinion, but I'm open to the possibility that there are such accusations from reliable sources. We would need to see them soon though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yah, i knew that Independent article was a gimme to the opposition. I was wondering if anyone was going to catch that. However, the gist of that particular article is to go ahead and show the evidence that exists to make those conclusive connections. Even when they admit the public evidence is "inconclusive" the authors are still making the argument that there was, in fact, a connection. I can dig around for more quotes from the same if you like. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Break for Convenience: Europe, Pt. II

I respectfully disagree.

From the first:

"We have witnessed the creation of ... terrorist groups and organizations ... funded by Western and other Intelligence Agencies ... in a manner similar to which Operation Gladio ...."

The only "weasel-words" that might call that sentence into question really don't do anything to alter its fundamental statement:

"We have witnessed the creation of so called ... terrorist groups and organizations ... funded by Western and other Intelligence Agencies ... in a manner similar to ... Operation Gladio...."

I can't imagine a more explicit connection between the funding and support of terrorism and Operation Gladio. The intent of the sentence is clearly to associate "Western Intelligence Agencies" with the creation of terrorist groups "in a manner similar to...Gladio". While it is true that she does not lay responsibility for the Gladio project solely at the U.S. government's feet, it would be ridiculous to argue that her reference to "Western Intelligence Agencies" doesn't include the C.I.A. (and outlandishly so, considering it was the C.I.A. who organized and administered Gladio). It seems to me that what you are suggesting is that because she does not implicate the U.S. as sole arbiter of this transgression we therefore cannot include it.

Doesn't that seem as great a stretch to you as it does to me?

Now, regarding the next item i can only presume that you didn't read it carefully enough.

Throughout Europe, U.S. and British officials...set up...armies to...prevent Communist electoral victories....incorporated fascists and former Nazis...."to destabilize any left-leaning government, even a Social Democratic one....The U.S. pushed for a secret clause in the North Atlantic Treaty requiring the secret services of all joining nations to establish their own branches of the secret army -- and to oppose Communist influence, even if the population voted for Communist candidates in free elections....The covert project['s]....[a]gents set up hundreds of arms caches all across Europe; one was at the U.S. Army's Camp Derby....Charles deGaulle pulled France out of NATO partially due to the secret protocol, which he considered a violation of sovereignty, and...a danger to his government....Discovery of the covert project in 1990 caused a political firestorm in Europe....the European Parliament passed a strongly worded denunciation of the clandestine organization, its antidemocratic implications, and the terrorist acts associated with it. [36]

I don't think one can get any clearer than that. That paragraph clearly lays out the origins of Gladio in U.S. policy; strongarm tactics by NATO to force the creation of Gladio-type brigades, the clearly illegal and anti-democratic intent of the organization; and an undeniable linkage between the "stay-behind armies" and "terrorist acts". But it goes on:

Italian investigators discovered connections between the secret Gladio plans and well-known terrorist acts, attempted military coups, and the undermining of democratic institutions in the 1970s and 1980s. Later, investigators linked Gladio with terrorist attacks officially attributed to left-wing guerrillas....A parliamentary commission on terrorism concluded that the infamous 1980 bombing of the Bolognarail station...used bomb materials from a Gladio arsenal. [37] One major neofascist figure, Licio Gelli, was found guilty by an Italian court in this bombing case, but later the conviction was overturned, causing a national outcry. According to Arthur Rowse (1991), after collaborating with the Nazis in World War II, Gelli joined the U.S. Army Counterintelligence Corps. He was the founder (in 1964) of the global Masonic lodge Propaganda-Due (P-2), an anticommunist organization with close links to military and intelligence organizations (notably the CIA) and powerful political figures worldwide. [38] P-2 was outlawed in Italy in 1981 after it was discovered to have infiltrated its members into strategic government, military, and intelligence positions, in preparation for taking over the government. P-2 also wielded significant influence in Argentina.

Is that not yet enough? In that one paragraph alone we have -- in addition to the above -- confirmed, reliably sourced assertions that: bomb materials came from official, U.S. administered/established arms caches; direct, official links between the CIA and a convicted terrorist; and reliably sourced revelations of direct links between the C.I.A. and the organization in which that person served as organizer and leader. Not enough, yet? O.k, then -- more:

A 1992 British Broadcasting Company (BBC) documentary on the Cold War featured an interview with U.S. Colonel Oswald LeWinter, who asserted that the CIA had penetrated or controlled right-wing terrorist organizations, including P [2,] and recruited members on the basis of anticommunism.

Direct acknowledgment that the CIA had direct access to, knowledge of, and control of P2's activities.

Gelli was a key figure linking U.S. officials, the CIA, and Argentine military commanders....the CIA deputy station chief in Rome, Ted Shackley, introduced Gelli to General Alexander Haig...Nixon's chief of staff and later...NATO Supreme Commander. Gladio reportedly received major funding with the approval of Haig and Henry Kissinger, then head of the National Security Council.

Confirmation that Gladio was known to be infiltrated by a terrorist organization and then, despite that fact, funded throughout the seventies with approval from the highest levels of U.S. government.

And you're seriously arguing that this isn't enough to prove that this guy is linking the United States and Gladio's terrorist acts? O.k, then -- more:

During the investigation of Gladio, former Italian Defense Minister Paulo Taviani told a judge that the Italian secret services were directed and financed by CIA officers stationed in the U.S. Embassy. Indeed, General Giovanni de Lorenzo, who headed the secret service called SIFAR (1956), later headed the Caribineri (1962), and then became Defense Minister (1964), conducted secret counterterrorism planning with U.S. officials but did not inform his own government. ....[this] illuminate[s] the key role of the CIA. De Lorenzo was the key Gladio contact with the U.S. government, and Vernon Walters was a key U.S. link to De Lorenzo.

"Key link" -- "C.I.A." -- "Italian Secret Services" -- "Assassination" -- "Secret 'counterterrorism' planning without informing his own government" -- but wait! There's more:

....[E]vidence suggests that key individuals formed part of a global anticommunist network that involved P-2, Condor, Gladia, the CIA, and defense and intelligence personnel in Western countries.

Considering that this guy has just spent three paragraphs outlining condemnations of terrorist activity by the italian governnment, i really don't see how you can suggest the article isn't "explicit" in its implications and assertions.

As for the last source (Ganser):

...it is greatly upsetting to discover that Western Europe and the United States collaborated in establishing secret armed networks which in the majority of countries are suspected of having had links to acts of terrorism. In the United States, such nations have been called rogue states and are the object of hostility and sanction.

This statement clearly states that, according to its own measure of "State Terrorism", the United States -- as a consequence of its actions in Europe -- qualifies as a sponsor of "State Terror". That is as explicit a statement as one can imagine, and -- again -- there seems no reason to disqualify it on any grounds.

I honestly have can not understand -- at all -- how you can argue that the statements made in these articles are not explicit enough. I await your reply with interest. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I only read the selected quotes you listed before which I assumed you were offering directly for inclusion in the article. I did not go back and look at the sources because I assumed you were excerpting the most relevant or damning passages, which I still say don't support the allegation of state terrorism. It's difficult to parse all of the new quotes you have added, but it seems after a quick read like the Ganser article might do the trick as far as a reliable source accusing the US of state terrorism. He seems to be the main figure making these claims and if we want to keep the Europe section explicit claims about state terrorism probably should be sourced directly to him. I would recommend that you work on revising the section and then we'll see how it looks. Right now there just are not accusations of state terrorism in the section--they need to be in the article not on the talk page. We don't need the full background (which is what a lot of the passages you have are) but we do need the direct accusations.

I would note as a small aside that Oswald LeWinter, mentioned in a brief passage you quote, will never be a reliable source for us for obvious reasons. I'm fairly skeptical of the 1992 Allan Francovich film as well since LeWinter was apparently a key source (and indeed I'm skeptical of Francovich himself after I put in a good amount of time researching and rewriting The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie). Anyhow.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Opposing views

The opposing views does not actually present any opposing views, has significant OR, was added without consensus, and without TALK. It is a thinly disguised attempt to introduce the balance required by NPOV. NPOV can only be provided when each important claim is offered appropriate coverage, not by a mashed up essay that discusses none of these. Raggz (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That section was added by an editor who is not working on the article anymore. I agree it is no good and probably most others will as well (not many liked it in the first place). NPOV balance should be in each individual section, not in one section at the end. I've worked to add some balance to the Hiroshima section and think such work should continue in other sections.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy if we deleted the entire section, myself. In the interest of NPOV, however, i would first like to see what sort of material we would use to replace it with. For my part, i have allowed it to stand solely as a testament to the utter [insert appropriate term here] of the authors who introduced it. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bigtimepeace, and consider this progress toward consensus. Each editor needs to do their best to comply with NPOV in each edit. None of us will really always manage this, but it needs to be what we strive for. Raggz (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

New sections have been added without consensus. Do we have an understanding (as was claimed) that all edits need to first be discussed? Raggz (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

To what sections are you referring? You'll have to list them here. Obviously we do not have an understanding that all edits first need to be discussed because you apparently do not hold yourself to that standard. You made changes without discussing them (posting a note about it on talk does not constitute "discussion" - you need to wait for other parties to weigh in). You've made these kind of mass changes before without discussing and it did not get you anywhere. I will not revert you though because I've already reverted twice and impose a 2RR limit for myself as a rule. Someone else will probably undo most or all of your changes simply because you refused to solicit opinion about them before editing. Your editing style continues to rub folks the wrong way. I wish you'd adjust it instead of continuing the patter of starting ten new huge talk threads rehashing old arguments and then deleting things without discussing beforehand.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to Europe. Raggz (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay so just that one section on Europe. I don't know when that was added exactly, but at the latest it was last July when there was a section on "Eastern and Western Europe." I have no idea if it was added against consensus or not, but that was well before you came here. What is your evidence that it was added against consensus? Incidentally I personally don't think much of this section and might even agree with you about it in terms of it not belonging - I'd need to look more closely - but it might have had consensus when originally added.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never agreed to edit this article differently than others. I have slowed my editing and discussed everything. Who claims that I never discuss anything? I plan to edit the article, and if others weight the edit carefully, and feel compelled to revert - fine. Just don't engage is mass reverts - or "page blanking". Raggz (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

How can you expect us to take anything you say seriously when you make claims like :I have ... discussed everything when hours before making this statement you have made a dozen undiscussed changes to the article??? Please. We are not idiots and you cannot continue to misrepresent your actions and other editors actions and expect us to give you full credence. AGF has its limits. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Raggz' Edits

Raggz has ignored every request by the editors here to sandbox his edits for debate before introduction to the page. Raggz has also ignored repeated and lengthy explanations regarding his fantastic distortions of Wikipedia guidelines (most significantly, Redflag). Raggz has also deleted material that, after having been repeatedly challenged, has been shown to be reliably sourced. Thus, i reverted his edits.

I will be willing to consider each of these edits individually, upon their various merits. The other editors here were, however, considerate enough to float the recently-introduced Philippine section here for a full month before introducing it to the main article. I think that, in light of the very confrontational and controversial propositions Raggz is beholden to, we should expect at least the same level of courtesy from him (her?).

So this is, once again, a formal request: Raggz, we editors here feel that your creation of a sandbox is a necessary step that must be undertaken before we can seriously consider your proposed edits. In the name of peace and goodwill, would you please use RedPenofDoom's instructions, above, and begin to utilize the tool we have indicated is the proper way to proceed? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Raggz created a sandbox after I provided instructions on their talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Yes, it worked, thank you. Raggz (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss the sandbox for the Europe Section? Raggz (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Each edit was done individually, so that each editor could review if they found cause to revert. Mass reverting is a form of an edit war, you need to consider each revert before reverting. Raggz (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

We've been down this road before Raggz. If you don't bother to discuss first you run the risk of being reverted our of hand on an article like this, even if it's 15 edits in a row - indeed especially if it's 15 edits in a row. You try to work far too quickly and on too many things at the same time even though you have been asked repeatedly to not do this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:Bold. All that I ask is that each be individually considered. Every editor has a responsibility to do this, not doing it is "page blanking". Raggz (talk) 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Page blanking is blanking pages, not reverting edits. You know I am familiar with WP:BOLD so there's no need to tell me to read it. I continue to advise you to pick an issue, discuss it, make a few changes, discuss those, work for consensus, achieve consensus...repeat. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Are mass reversions without reviewing the edits an acceptible editing approach? I see no difference in practice than page blanking. Unreasoned blanking is the same as unreasoned reverting. What am I missing? Raggz (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Stone reviewed the edits or not, but in the comment above and the edit summary Stone made reference to specific revert rationales, so maybe all of your edits were reviewed. This is not fruitful though since you apparently want to reserve the right to make as many changes as you want without discussing but then expect others to carefully review all of your edits and give a rationale for reverting you. Once you start discussing your changes first you can demand that people review your article edits carefully. If you refuse to discuss changes there is very little to talk about.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::::::: So does this mean you think that your editing approach is also unacceptable? Personally, I find your edits extremely distruptive as it is almost impossible to look at one and try to figure out its merits before you add another two to your list (while claiming to be doing it in accordance to WP:Bold apparently which you seem to be taking to an extreme). --Ubardak (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits. As i stated above: in each case where you deleted material, said material had already been successfully defended and justified according to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. In such cases where you added material, said material was often ungrammatical, poorly spelled, or introduced controversial material that is deserving of discussion.

The last time new material was introduced to the page it stayed up in Sandbox for a full month before being added. The editors here acknowledged that it could produce controversy and, out of respect for those people who might object to its addition, sand-boxed it for comment and debate before adding in anything. Your steadfast refusal to use this tool has been that you are "too busy" to learn. Now that you have learned how there is no good reason for you not to accord us the same respect we gave you. Thus, your edits were reverted en masse, per:

• A) Your continued misinterpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources
• B) Your continued unwillingness to cooperate with other editors here towards consensual inclusion of material
• C) Your own violations of WP:OR, WP:SYN, and WP:RS.

As ever, i remain willing to work with you in a good-faith fashion. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why did you revert my correction of what Churchill actually said? Raggz (talk) 08:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• You reverted Richards, Charles (1 December 1990). "Gladio is still opening wounds". The Independent: 12. This cite does not allege US state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC). Why? Do you believe that this citation has any relevance to this topic? If so, please explain. Raggz (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As i said: we have already pointed out to you that not every source needs to use the specific words "state terror" to be included. We have spent many hours explaining precisely why this is so. Therefore, if you want to tag something with that and have us take you seriously you'll need to give more explanation on the talk page, here, and then actually spend the time waiting for an answer before you go and make the change.

Secondly, your "correction" may or may not be correct. However, as with other edits it would be best if you floated your suggestions on the talk page here, first, so that we can discuss the context of the change and whether or not you are actually interpolating your own interpretation in place of the actual wording. You have done that sort of thing before, and we are wary of it.

None of this would be an issue if you had simply cleared your edits here, first. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As i said: we have already pointed out to you that not every source needs to use the specific words "state terror" to be included. Every allegation must have a source that alleges state terrorism. Not every source need allege this. Raggz (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I request again, to know why you made the two specific reverts (above). If you don't tell me, I cannot understand your reasons. Raggz (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think -- but i'm not sure -- that what you meant to type was something more like this:

"I don't understand your explanation. Could you please make it simpler for me?"

To which i respond:

But how can i make it any simpler than it already is? Your edits appeared to violate both established consensus and Wikipedia policy and were of questionable veracity. How much simpler can it be? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I request again, to know why you made the two specific reverts (above). WP:CON does not require consensus for my correction of what Churchill actually said? Do you misunderstand? You also reverted Richards, Charles (1 December 1990). "Gladio is still opening wounds". The Independent: 12. This cite does not allege US state terrorism. Why? Do you believe that this citation has any relevance to this topic? If so, please explain? Raggz (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Churchill thing was not misquoted. He did make that comment about the iron curtain which is what the citation was for. There is no source for the statement "The supposed aim of this group was to prevent Communist movements in Western Europe from gaining power and thus contain the expansion of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics..." which is probably an issue, but Churchill was quoted accurately (though quite frankly I'm not sure that inclusion of that quote is really necessary). I don't know about the other cite and think we should focus on the "Europe" talk section above where we are arguing whether or not the section should remain at all.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I am ready to reach for consensus when you believe that this is possible. We both know what a good article requires. I don't mind having a section on Europe. If we have one, I want a good solid section on Europe. We agree on Churchill. I deleted a bit of OR, revising the text to make grammatical sense of what remained.

My present priority is the deletion of all sections that lack a single reliable source that alleges state terrorism by the US. This includes Nicuragua, Cuba, and Europe and likely others. Alternatively, I am open to properly supporting these. I propose that every allegation needs an "anchor", a single quote that alleges state terrorism by the US. Without such, any allegation then needs to await an "anchor". Raggz (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Since my edits were deleted without evaluation, I will be reverting them back. Please feel free to revert these on a case by case basis. Raggz (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Raggz, but unless you can first float your edits on this page for evaluation towards consensus then i'm afraid they will continue to be reverted.

Once again: the edits were ungrammatical, poorly contextualized, irrelevant to the article as a whole, clearly skewed with POV intent, undertaken without any consideration for wikipedia guidelines and policy, and you attempted to justify them with an interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines that has already been widely and utterly discredited.

This is the third time i have explained myself on this. I trust i won't have to again. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You suggest that the deletion of a citation is "ungrammatical, poorly contextualized"? Raggz (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Raggz, but unless you can first float your edits on this page for evaluation towards consensus then i'm afraid they will continue to be reverted. You misunderstand WP:CON, please review it in regard to policy violations. It applies primarily to content disputes and not to policy disputes. My take is that policy disputes that have been discussed without consensus need to be edited in, reverted, and then taken through a dispute resolution process. Twice you have reverted OR attributed to Churchill. No amount of discussion will persude you on this issue? You will continue to require consensus for OR deletions? Now is the time and this is the place to explain why OR deletions require consensus? Raggz (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

O.k. -- just so we're perfectly clear on this:

• A) I and others here have repeatedly asked you -- over the course of some six weeks -- to please float your edits on the talk page or in a sand-box before committing them to the page. We gave you that courtesy and opportunity when presenting the Philippines' section; similarly, we are asking for the same consideration from you.
• B) The edit of the Churchill quote was, indeed, ungrammatical.
• C) Your edit of the Churchill quote eliminated a key conjunctive phrase linking the quotation to the earlier portion of the passage, thereby breaking any context for the quote within the general topic.
• D) Your edit further eliminated a key component of the original intended meaning.

All of this was undertaken without any consultation or attempt to gain consensus on the talk page.

Further:

• E) There was no "original research" involved in the use of the Churchill quote. He said it. It accurately represents what he meant. As used in the passage there is a significance to it that Churchill himself may not have intended, but this is neither "Original Research", "Synthesis", nor any violation of NPOV. It is, simply, a validation that there was, at the time, a palpable and clearly acknowledged "Us vs. Them" mentality which would have justified the creation of the Gladio/Northwoods brigades.
• F) Your attempted edit to that sentence appeared to imply an attempt to re-work the entire passage into something which was either devoid of content or, perhaps, to expand the section beyond the scope of the page. In either case, proposals you had made along these lines had already been addressed on the Talk page by several editors and explicitly rejected per Wikipedia guidelines.

Finally, the most convincing aspect of this entire affair for me was:

• G) The expansion of content which your edit implies would have run contrary not only to the other editors currently in attendance, but also to people like JohnSmith's and other deletionists who are interested in reducing the scope and content of the article. In other words: my edits were undertaken not merely in support of the overwhelming consensus of the editors currently here, but also in support of editors who have expressed their disapproval with current page development.

This is, what -- the fifth time i've explained myself on this? Will you demand a sixth? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Argh!

I've been playing with my cache/firewall and it seems i've inadvertently deleted some things. Sorry. (re-post of earlier message) Stone put to sky (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Raggz has violated the 3RR

Raggz, i am not interested in antagonizing you, but if do insist on reverting again i will report you. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that I violated the 3RR. It is possible. I won't take reporting policy violations personally if you believe that it is necessary, I am responsible for any errors I may make. Reporting won't antagonize me. Yes, I will be reverting again, presently I am waiting to hear why you reverted OR twice. I have asked you the two questions that you have not answered clearly. You are obliged by WP:CON to clearly answer these. Reporting might be a productive step because then we will both then be held responsible for our reverts, and we are not working well together on reverts right now. If this reverting pattern persists I will likely report us both soon unless some other resolution for our dispute can be worked out. Raggz (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

A source that might help

I was looking for more sources to add when I came across a book on Amazon link here. The Table of Contents and index (among other available pages), accessible for free through Amazon Reader, seems to suggest that there are lots of topics covered relevant to the discussion here. Does anyone have any time they can dedicate to taking a look at this book? --Ubardak (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good find, but I know at least one or two editors are familiar with this book. It's referenced in at least three different footnotes (not that that's easy to spot!).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, there goes my trust in Ctrl+F ;) Thanks for letting me know. --Ubardak (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort anyway. I hope you keep up your researches.BernardL (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall do just that ;) --Ubardak (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I ordered that book last week. Raggz (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest Edits by Uwfruct(?)

Personally, i don't have any problem with the edits; most are merely punctuation corrections, and the one part s/he cut content from has already been acknowledged by several editors as superfluous (at worst) or poorly constructed (at best). I do, however, object to the deletion of content without any mention or prior discussion on the talk page. It seems an extremely bad policy for this page and so i feel it would be best to play devil's advocate and revert them. Except i don't like playing content games and i really hate bureaucratic numbskulls. So what would be best, i think, is if someone comes out to argue in their defense. Any takers? Stone put to sky (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any of these edits as 'controversial' and have no objection (if in fact it is WP MOS to use "U.S."). From the comments and edits made, Uwfruct seems to have actually read the sources. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The edits were fine in my opinion. Most were minor and completely uncontroversial, though some stuff was deleted from the opposing views section. I don't think anyone has a problem with that per an earlier thread but agree that that should have been discussed per our general rule about discussing before making significant changes. I have no urge to revert Uwfruct and don't think that's necessary. If Uwfruct hangs around to make further changes someone can just point out that we generally discuss fairly significant changes before making them (as a new contributor to the article, I think, I would not expect the user to know that). No big deal.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I also took a look and am also fine with the edits. No objections. I guess the editor could tell from reading on the talk page and used common sense that the changes would not be controversial (unlike what Raggz has been doing).Giovanni33 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Those edits were fine according to me.BernardL (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Then we'll take that as an ex-post facto consensus. Stone put to sky (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC) 06:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Greg Grandin on U.S. State Terrorism

Below is a new reference. I will be doing this more regularly in the future, because I think the editing of this page should not be wholly swept away or confined by Raggz's often dubious objections. And also because I think we still have a lot of legwork to do in providing the best possible sources for any given section. If we find that these sources are insightful or important we should work to incorporate them into the article. I would encourage all editors to continue bringing new sources to our attention.

Greg Grandin, phd in history at Yale, recipient in 2004 of a Guggenheim fellowship, member of the United Nations Truth Commission investigating the Guatemalan civil war, professor of Latin American history at New York University, author of The Last Colonial Massacre, Empires Workshop: Latin America, The United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Truth Commissions: State Terror, History, and Memory and The Blood of Guatemala: A History of Race and Nation, (winner of the Latin American Studies Association’s Bryce Wood award for best book published in English in the humanities and social sciences on Latin America), is perhaps one of those who as some would have it, are not sincere and are only doing what they are doing to "generate notoriety." Here are some relevant quotes...

"The government murdered 200,000 people in Guatemala, 30,000 in Argentina, 50,000 in el Salvador and at least 3,000 in Chile. Security forces throughout the continent tortured tens, possibly hundreds of thousands more. To a large degree, it was the expertise provided by the United States, including the training provided by Longan, that made such industrial terror possible.” (Grandin, Greg The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War, The University of Chicago Press, 2004, 74)

“U.S. agents worked with the Secretaria de Intelligencia del Estado; in Chile, the Director Nacional de Intelligencia in Brazil, the Sisterna Nacional de Informationcoes in Uruguay, the Direccion Nacional de Informacion e Intelligencia in El Salvador, The Argencia Nacional de Servicios Especiales. Throughout the 1980’s, the CIA supported Operation Condor- an intelligence consortium established by Pinochet that coordinated the activities of many of the continent’s security agencies and orchestrated an international campaign of terror and murder.” (Grandin, Greg The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War, The University of Chicago Press, 2004, 75)

“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)

“Professional intelligence agencies trained, funded, and equipped by the United States, such as Argentina’s Secretaria de Inteligencia del Estado, Chile’s Direcion Nacional de Inteligencia, El Salvador’s Agencia Nacional de Servicios Especiales, and Brazil’s Sisterna Nacional de Informacoes, worked closely, often indistinguishably, with death squads that had adopted Nazi terror tactics of disappearances, torture and murder. In Guatemala, 1980-82 genocide was surgically precise.” (Grandin, Greg The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War, The University of Chicago Press, 2004, 188)BernardL (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are excellent quotations.

One thing i've recently been mulling over is the lack of any mention how many of these operations worked off of one another, led into one another, and were based upon one another. In one of the articles i mention above there is a direct analogy drawn between Operation Condor and Gladio, and i think there are probably quite a few other mentions made of other relationships between these various programs. I would be surprised, for instance, if there were no mention made of the relationships between Operation Condor and the actions taken against Cuba; or, similarly, the relationships between anti-Castro terrorists and the Nicaraguan Contras.

Although it may take a while for me to find any, i'm going to start looking around for such material and keep a sandbox on my user page to try and bring it together. I'd be much obliged to anyone who sees fit to help out with the research and post stuff up on it.

Give me a day or two, though, because it's the Lunar New Year over here and we're all cruising on a lower gear than everyone else in the world. 118.165.217.189 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

When I discussed the still distant possibility of a future split, above, evidence for regional coordination of state terror apparatuses was one of my major reasons for suggesting splits based on hemispheric or continental parameters rather than individual country splits. If there is indeed good evidence for transatlantic or even global coordination they could be dealt with in the main article which lays out the main concepts and themes. What do you think?BernardL (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Greg Grandin is a top-notch scholar, no doubt about it. Only the third quote seems of possible use to me though (obviously in the section on Guatemala). We need to be really precise with our sources. Actually I guess the other three quotes might be useful as background information, but they don't really make direct enough accusations about the US and state terrorism. The first one accuses the US of providing training but not actually ordering or directing the state repression (I'm also confused about what "industrial terror" is exactly). In the second one the US "supported" Operation Condor but one can't tell just from that quote if that meant the US was actively participating/partially directing Condor or if it merely approved. And the fourth quote again does not make a strong enough connection between the training and funding by the US and the "Nazi terror tactics." That's not to say that these links cannot be made more forcefully and perhaps Grandin does but I don't see it in those quotes.

I fully support finding more sources irrespective of other issues on the talk page, but would ask that all editors make a strong effort to find sources for each section which counter the allegations of state terrorism. I think this is the main thing that needs to be done to improve the article. There was always a bit of sentiment I think that the "deletionist" camp, so to speak, should come up with those sources, but of course we should all being working on that - particularly since said deletionists are not really around anymore.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

By industrial terror, Grandin is referring to a repressive apparatus to perpetrate terror utilizing the technologies and rationalized methods characteristic of modern industrial states. For example, Grandin writes “responding to the Cuban revolution in 1959, the United States actively pushed for the creation of a national and Central America-wide counterinsurgency network, upgrading the intelligence system with new weapons, vehicles, and telecommunications equipment.” The first quote that I provided refers to someone named Longan. John Longan was the U.S. security adviser who set up the first squad in Guatemala circa 1965, complete with the new industrial repression apparatus. Grandin notes that “throughout 1966, the squad conducted a series of captures and assassinations, scoring its most impressive success in March 1966 when, four months after Longan’s training, it kidnapped, tortured, and executed as many as thirty people.” Grandin refers to it as “the first systematic wave of “disappearances” in Latin America.

Almost 200 pages later, Grandin provides insight into the bureaucratic structure of the terror apparatus: “sheltered by a bureaucratic division of labor that protected him from the horrific consequences of his activities, Longan did not have to “think big” in order to perpetuate terror, as Hannah Arendt described Adolf Eichmann’s inability to see the larger universe of his activities.” I think Grandin is making pretty clear links between counter-insurgency structures implemented by the U.S. and their immediate predictable consequences, arguing for significant U.S. complicity rather than just coincidence, or autonomy of the local repressive apparatus (it was a relationship of mutual reciprocity); while at the same time providing insight into the structures enabling the “outsourcing of imperial violence” that allow for “plausible deniability”, which is a theme that Grandin has also discussed at length.

According to Grandin, following the El Mozote Massacre in El Salvador, “the U.S. Embassy and the State Department refused to consider mounting evidence gathered by their own agents that, ”the military continues to engage in massacres of civilians in the countryside.” Grandin also observes that in Guatemala “embassy analysts mostly ignored or downplayed evidence that the intelligence system they had helped put in place was conducting an unrelenting campaign of terror against all political activists, communist or otherwise.” Take note that the sentence concerning El Salvador occurs immediately after the quote about “empire” that you have agreed is suitable to the article. Grandin is not only making claims of significant US complicity in state terror linked to the U.S.- backed genocide in Guatemala but as a Central-America wide phenomenon. I think this notion of Grandin’s that “counterrevolutionary terror” is applicable to more than the case of Guatemala should have been evident from his use of the word “empire.” Grandin writes that “Operation cleanup” in Guatemala, “presaged the installation of counterinsurgent terror states throughout much of the continent, most notably in Brazil in 1968, Chile and Uruguay in 1973, Argentina in 1976; and El Salvador in the late 1970’s.”

The installation of a sophisticated repressive terror apparatus, indoctrination, training in terror techniques, funding and supplying arms, then sheltering your clients from criticism and continuing to supply them, even when the damning facts are known, constitutes the particular form of state terrorism referred to repeatedly in the literature known as “surrogate terrorism”, a conception probably originally attributable to Michael Stohl (a leading specialist on the topic of state terrorism, and an eminently reliable source).

Regarding concrete links between the operations of Condor and the U.S., I will keep my eyes peeled for what Grandin says about it. However, J. Patrice McSherry has done very extensive and highly acclaimed research on the subject. I will be posting some quotes by her in the next few days. I know I can trust you not to scold me just because I am again posting evidence for the positive claim that the U.S. is significantly complicit in state terrorism. And you can trust me that I am already working to find appropriate balancing material.

Finally! …here is another interesting, and I think useful, quote from Grandin…

“Nicaragua, where the United States backed not a counterinsurgent state but anti-communist mercenaries, likewise represented a disjuncture between the idealism used to justify U.S. policy and its support for political terrorism... The corollary to the idealism embraced by the Republicans in the realm of diplomatic public policy debate was thus political terror. In the dirtiest of Latin America’s dirty wars, their faith in America’s mission justified atrocities in the name of liberty.” (Grandin, Greg. Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism, Henry Holt & Company 2007, 89)BernardL (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, i'm not sure those sources exist; and of the people who are actually attempting to counter these arguments, there are none that i've come across i would consider reliable or accurate (i.e. -- David Horowitz, FrontPageMag, etc).

In my experience, those people who argue about this issue fall into three groups:

• Those who agree that the concept of "State Terror" can be applied objectively; these people overwhelmingly qualify some actions by the U.S. under the label.
• Those who argue the concept is patently ridiculous, that Warfare cannot be regulated and any attempt to do so is stupid. Those people do not accept the definition for anyone, but in some instances are quite willing avail themselves of it as a propaganda tool (such usage is consistent with their understanding of violence and warfare).
• Those people who effectively think that the term is only applicable to people who aren't Jews, Western Europeans or White North Americans. Clearly such people do not approach the subject from a scholarly angle, and just as clearly any arguments they make are easily shown as biased caricatures with little (if any) international support.

Thus, what we basically have in this instance is a debate amongst people who believe that international law is capable of enforcing human rights even during a time of war and people who believe in the power of might over right. The latter will not grace the arguments presented here with any serious consideration or debate beyond outright denial of their utility.

In light of all that, while i do believe that a more balanced approach is possible i also am firmly convinced that it's not possible so long as we restrict ourselves to references only back to people who strictly associate the words "State Terrorism" and "United States". The simple fact -- from my perspective -- is that if one neutrally applies the measures used by the United States to condemn nations like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran as "State Sponsors of Terror" then it is clear that the U.S. qualifies under its own definitions. The only counter to these arguments is to outright reject the concepts of international law and inalienable human rights -- and the unfortunate truth is that no examination of these fundamental issues (Human Rights/International Law) is currently allowed.

So: while i fully support the inclusion of reliably sourced counter arguments, i firmly believe that would require either sources who are more speculative than we are allowed to currently include -- OR -- the elevation of clearly mercenary propagandists like the NRO and David Horowitz to the same rhetorical level as the current group of sources we have presented.

That latter alternative is a disgusting suggestion. Such people do not share the same calibre of thought, respectability or understanding as most of the sources presented here. Their publications are rarely -- if ever -- reviewed for factual accuracy, and the amount of purposeful or ignorant falsehoods they propagate are innumerable. I feel no shame in saying that, were i forced to choose between using Granma or David Horowitz (or the NRO) as my first line of information when evaluating new Wall Street investments, i would unhesitatingly turn to Granma as a more reliable, dependable, and factual source. To raise their rhetoric to the same level as, say, Human Rights' Watch, Amnesty International, Dennis Halliday or former Chief Ministers of the Indian Supreme Court is a grave injustice. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I basically agree with you but think there are other things we can do to improve NPOV. Obviously we do not want to use people like Horowitz, and obviously it is very hard (if not impossible) to find people who say "no, this was not state terrorism." I think we have to give the oppose side a little bit of leeway and let in arguments that are clearly germane (and from good sources) and which present views that clearly go against the "state terrorism" arguments without engaging with said arguments directly. The last paragraph I added into the Japan section is an example of that in that it points out that the mainstream scholarship on the a-bomb decision really does not deal with state terrorism. The Europe section gives the view of the State Department. So I think we can bring in NPOV without resorting to Horowitz, we will just have to include sources which implicitly (and obviously) disagree with the state terrorism arguments even if they say nothing about them directly. I think the best kind of sources will be more "centrist" (in a general sense) scholarly works on the topics we are discussing. It might take legwork to find these but personally I think that should be our first priority going forward.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, see -- that's exactly what i'm saying, too.

Except i find it rather bitter that you are willing to relax standards for the purposes of counter-argument but yet seem so intent upon enforcing what i consider to be an artificially high and restrictive standard for the on-topic material.

I will admit that introducing a looser standard for the more provocative material will raise new challenged in editing and judgment, but i'm not sure that allowing greater leeway to one side will do much more than further restrict the ability of people to introduce new material, here. As it is, the obstacles to giving this subject a more complete and historical treatment (i.e. -- Spanish-American war, Indian Wars, Central America in the late 19th c., etc) are well-nigh insurmountable. Stone put to sky (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I exactly understand this last comment. The article is "allegations of state terrorism" so every section has to have an allegation of state terrorism, obviously. That is a burden for inclusion in the article given the title. I don't think it's particularly problematic or a double standard to say that oppose arguments need not categorically say "this is not state terrorism" in order to be included. It would be extraordinary to expect them to do so. We include a lot of material on the "allegations" side that does not directly say something about state terrorism and obviously it should be fine to do this on the "oppose" side as well. I really don't say how bringing in good scholarship which says, for example, that the US had very limited connections to the El Salvadoran death squads (purely hypothetical, though I'm sure that's out there) would be a problem. Clearly anyone making such an argument would believe that the US did not engage in state terrorism and that point of view would be useful to include if it existed in reliable sources.

The standard you seem to want to set basically makes it impossible to include opposing points of view and I do find that troubling and essentially a guarantee that this article will never be as good as it could be. We are detailing a fairly minor (but relevant and interesting) school within the scholarship. The fact that mainstream scholarship does not engage with this school of thought can not be used as a club to avoid mentioning the fact that there are many scholars, governments, etc. that disagree with the minor "allegations" school (for lack of a better term).

Finally I guess I don't see who or what is blocking sections about the Spanish-American War, Indian wars, etc. I would welcome new sections like that and indeed a much more historical method of organization for the whole article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Pg. Break, Pt. II

First off -- before anything else -- i want to remind you that i have never argued for the restrictions on material that have been imposed here. So you simply do not have me to thank for the lack of opposing views, nor should any blame for enforcing that standard be laid at my feet. All i am interested in is a fair space for proper treatment.

Second, the title of the article was likewise imposed against my own better judgment. I have long insisted that the title of the page should be "State Terrorism and the United States". That would enable opposing views to be presented in a neutral manner and would further allow the article to expand to the scope it requires: what are the U.S. positions on State Terror? How is the term used there? How does international law perceive the various aspects of both the U.S. claims and other claims against the U.S? What is the position of major political players in the U.S. (Repubs, Dems, Lib'tns, Greens, McCain, Clinton, CIA, Dept of State, FBI, etc)? How does the media deal with these issues? Etc. d Obviously such a page would require a good deal more negotiation and good judgment. But just as obviously, it is only on a page like that where the issues might be properly explored in a fair and open manner. As it is, you -- and others here -- are arguing that any entries to this article specifically include the phrase "State Terror", refer it as an action by the United States, and then in addition to all of that be recognized as a "reliable source". Considering that there are very powerful and well-financed corporate and government-associated organizations with an interest in seeing public discourse on these issues silenced, those demands are quite strict.

Yet here you want to open it up, essentially, to any ol' fella or gal who could reasonably be interpreted as disputing these ideas.

that's

not

right.

If a single, extremely strict standard is going to be held for material of one approach, then that self-same standard should be held equally and reciprocally for all material.

Similarly, if a decision is made to rescind that standard, then that rescinsion should hold for all material. It is quite contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia to suggest otherwise.

And i dispute your assertion that the material included here is extraneous in any fashion at all. Once again: the material that's been put up has been called for not by the people who are giving voice to these opinions, but instead by the people who wanted to see them whitewashed. The material included on the page has been put up in response to denials that the accusations, allegations, and explanations had any basis in fact. In order to demonstrate the factuality of these accusations editors were forced to refer to other sources that backed up the initial allegations.

As i have said before: i have no problem in linking this content elsewhere; but, again, i do not feel confident in doing so because maintenance of this page is already such a chore. Even so, i myself agree that the page should undergo a fundamental shift in direction. So your arguments that suggest i think otherwise are best just dropped: we're on the same page, there.

Where we're not, however, is where this shift should take us. Your suggestion seems to make clear that you're more concerned with presenting the illusion of balance than actually undertaking the heavy lifting to properly provide it. To reiterate:

• The page name is stupid. It was introduced by pro-Israel activists (elsewhere, on other pages) to introduce yet another layer of rhetorical euphemism between the actions of their military and the media that reports it.
• The page name is really stupid: it is clearly a weasel-word laden atrocity in direct conflict with fundamental Wikipedia principles.
• The page name is really, really, really stupid: you are now using it to justify an artificial limit on legitimate material that could be introduced here (i.e. -- material that clearly deals with State Terror but does not explicitly mention the United States; material that deals with the issue of State Terror as its approached in the U.S. media; material that deals with U.S. attempts to denigrate the official use of the phrase "State Terror" in international agreements; etc) while using that same piss-poor title to open up an artificial hole so that the article appears more balanced.
• The page may be skewed, but it's what those in opposition asked for; if you want to change the skew of the page, then it would be far better to wholly reconsider the grounds upon which it is based. Those grounds can be reduced to one and only one rule: that all primary source material introduced to the page must have "State Terror" predicated to the U.S.

My own suggestion is simple: either change the name to something else and make a serious effort to shift the focus of this page from accusations and allegations, or -- if you choose not to -- then live with it as it is.

This page, as it is, has become a model for a host of other pages on the English Wikipedia. Personally, i find that quite regrettable. I see the failures of this page and note, with sincere regret, that proper treatment of this subject has been hampered and muffled. Your suggestion that we should now open up the "criticisms" side to a "freer" standard of inclusion just reinforces each and every one of my criticisms. To wit:

• The page as it currently stands is unnecessarily confrontational and aggressive. It is not necessary -- in fact, entirely counter-productive -- to force discussions of Human Rights into an "us vs. them" template, and that is precisely what this page currently does.

• The page as it currently stands does not accurately represent the criticisms which are aimed at the United States. A person reading it would be likely to mistakenly conclude that it is argues against the U.S.' People or the greater commonwealth of the U.S. Instead, most people who undertake the criticisms here have specific, tailore reforms and objectives in mind. This page does not accurately represent their side of the story and -- as currently envisioned -- never will.

• The page will never be properly NPOV until it is able to represent the philosophical, moral, and social underpinnings of the topic it seeks to introduce. As it is currently structured it cannot. Moreover, i assert that this is by intentional design; so long as critics of government or military policy are forced to reduce their arguments to legalisms and bureaucratic newspeak they will be forced to "play the govenrment's game", with no feasible way to outline the full scope of their criticisms.

From my perspective, your current suggestion -- of opening up and freeing the "opposition" viewpoints to effectively pick and prod at whatever the hell they happen to get a fix on -- absolutely reinforces each and every one of these failings.

In other words: your suggestion seems to me quite antithetical to good page development.

I hope you will excuse the passion my words represent; this topic, however, is a serious one deserving of serious consideration and -- in my opinion -- one of the few places where Wikipedia really shows its value (and yes, i really did mean "few"). We are not dealing in entertainment trivia or hobnobbing about geek delights; we're not re-packaging the technical or scientific documentation that should be more convenient but isn't; and we aren't working to further this or that political or business goal on behalf of our little section of the economy. Essentially, this is a page dedicated to what should be neutral and inoffensive principles of human rights and a syllabary of the available information --

but instead it has become a battleground between censors and political activists interested in forcing others to see the world as they do. From my perspective, your suggestions play right into that. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Strong word of advice: you really need to better control how much you write and the tone of what you write. It is extremely difficult to respond to what amounts to about 20 paragraphs of material (much of it tangential to what we were just discussing) and whatever effect you were hoping that would have on me it did not. In reading your comment I very much had the feeling that I was being yelled at (largely for things I never even said, which adds to the fun). I'm sure that was not your intention, but I don't know how you expect someone to process and respond to what you have written (imagine how someone who disagrees with you on most everything on the article - which is not me - would take your comment). I will just say:

I don't like the page title either. But that is the title - there was at one point a relative consensus to move it there. We have to work with that title for now apparently. I never defended the title (other than being okay with the change because a bunch of people were clamoring for it) and only mentioned it because it is in fact the title. If it someday is changed to something better I will be happy.

The following are incorrect characterizations of my position:

A) "you want to open it up, essentially, to any ol' fella or gal who could reasonably be interpreted as disputing these ideas." No, not even close. I want to find creative solutions to include the most relevant and scholarly opposing views. In order to do this I feel it is obvious that we may have to drop an insistence on the words "this is not state terrorism" or the like appearing directly. You disagree and that's fine. I would point out that what I have in mind is exactly the kind of thing I added to the end of the Japan section. After I added that material you said "I like the changes." Maybe you thought I was proposing something different in terms of "oppose" sources from what was added to the Japan section, however I am not. You seemed okay with it before, so I don't see why you suddenly think the suggestion is helping to destroy the article (see below).

B) "Your suggestion seems to make clear that you're more concerned with presenting the illusion of balance than actually undertaking the heavy lifting to properly provide it." Not sure how you got in my head on that one, but no I am not interested in presenting the "illusion of balance," whatever that means to you. I actually added sourced material to provide an opposing view to the Japan section. I believe three editors (including you) endorsed the addition with some cosmetic changes. I am not aware of anyone else here who has, recently, added good material to balance out a section.

I was also quite interested to learn that my simple suggestion that oppose sources not be required to mention state terrorism directly "absolutely reinforces each and every one of these failings" (which you discuss) including: making the page "unnecessarily confrontational and aggressive;" contributing to the fact that the page "does not accurately represent the criticisms which are aimed at the United States"; and (most distressingly!) contributing further to the pages "intentional design; so long as critics of government or military policy are forced to reduce their arguments to legalisms and bureaucratic newspeak they will be forced to "play the govenrment's game."" Given all of that it seems an understatement to say as you do that my small suggestion is "quite antithetical to good page development." By suggesting a means to include more sources to balance POV I am basically playing right into the governments' hand apparently. Clearly I need to be stopped.

You might go for wild hyperbole and rambling soapboxing, but suffering through such rhetorical tactics emphatically isn't my pail of blueberries (I do go for sarcasm from time to time, e.g. the preceding paragraph). It's quite unfortunate that a small disagreement on what kind of sources to use leads you to just completely go off like that. You're welcome to discuss things with me, but please don't preach to me, don't put words in my mouth, and don't accuse me of reinforcing all of the main problems with the article by making a couple of comments about how we might better use sources. I think I'm a pretty easy editor to work with, but your comment has put me in "now I don't really give a shit about this" mode so I guess you can do whatever you want at this point. I have no remote inclination to discuss this further and indeed am sorry I even brought it up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Pg. Break, Pt III

Well, i truly am sorry if my arguments came off with some sort of vitriolic overtone; i have a lot of respect for your contributions to both this article as well as off-page. I don't know if teary-eyed emoticons do it for you, but here's one just in case -- ;-(

And yeah -- sometimes i write a lot. I'm a skilled typist and i enjoy delving into complicated issues. Also, where some in Wikipedia have found that it's easiest to communicate with short, stilted phrasing and minimalist commentary i've found the opposite. I say a lot so that i may give voice to those issues that often get cynically swept under the rug, here.

Let me further add that i wouldn't have spent nearly as much time thinking or composing a response like the one above for a person like Raggz. It's precisely because i respect your opinions and status here that i took the time to give you that slice of my perspective. It may have been too heavy on the onions and garlic, but spices are the means by which good meals are created. I sincerely hope you haven't been revolted by them.

Now, i understand and trust perfectly well your motives. But my happenstance wandering into another page's RfC has proven, i think, that my worries are as justified as they clearly aren't aimed at limiting your own productivity or vision.

Further, i haven't put words into your mouth (or at least i tried not to); i think my post, above, made it quite clear that i was speaking of my own understanding of your positions, and i'm sorry if it seemed that was overstepping "probable cause" and mangling your own position. What i did do, howeever, was extrapolate about what i think the eventual endpoint of your proposition might be; i did not suggest that was your own intent nor your own hope for the page, and again -- i'm sorry if my words appeared to imply that. Indeed, i thought -- hoped, but apparently was wrong -- that you would grasp my opposition is not to the spirit of your suggestion but rather to the results it might very well produce.

Finally: no, i don't draw connections between great government conspiracies and what happens in my life. I'm not that important. I limit myself to observations about the practical reality before me and nothing else. I really do hope that you'll refrain from characterizing me in such a light; it is yet another bitter pill to swallow -- you may engage in sarcasm with rivals and people you trust, but i almost never do. I consider it a demeaning mode of expression and you will rarely find me using it with people whose understanding/opinions i respect.

Let me summarize the main points above (wife is calling me to eat) and end with that:

• The current page, content limits, and page title work against NPOV development; they were, in fact, chosen precisely with that intent in mind (i.e. -- people work the page and then it gets deleted as not fulfilling NPOV). That it has so far dodged the bullet is a testament to its relevance and the dedicated collective effort.
• Your suggestions work only to make allowances for deletionists and others who are dissatisfied with this topic (and who are the ones who forced these limitations on the page in the first place)
• I agree with you that the page needs more balance but disagree that your suggestions will achieve the ends you have described.

My suggestion is that we make either a wrapper-page or that we change the name of this one and expand the usage of sources and material.

Now i'm off to eat. And sorry, again, for rubbing you so raw. I speak plainly and directly; but i have said little of what you claim i did, and 'most none of it represents my intent.

Even so, i know i have these failings and am sorry they pricked you so unpleasantly. I'm not trying to be an asp-pole; i was just born that way. Stone put to sky (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious intro

"The United States has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by legal scholars, other governments, journalists, and human rights organizations." As far I can see in the intro, only one legal scholar, no government, and no well-known HR organization. Corrected. Discuss objections with sources here.Ultramarine (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You've raised this objection before and if you look at the sources for that statement (seven), they support the claim. The human rights organization, listed, btw, is well known. There is no requirement that it be well known to you, in order for it to quality as a human rights organization. So I will restore your change, which does not have consensus. If you still disagree, which I'm sure you do, then at least do not revert again until you have gained consensus for making the change.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have looked and count only one legal scholar. What two HROs are you claiming? I can count at most only one That one is dubious.Ultramarine (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you claim that the Asian Human Rights Commission is dubious? http://www.ahrchk.net/index.php They are referenced even in the mainstream press and a google search produces over 500k hits. But more importantly, why are you still reverting without gaining consensus for this change first? Last time you edited in this way the article had to be protected. I hope this time you will change and not keep reverting until you give a chance for editors here to discuss your proposed changes. In a gesture of good will, you should self revert yourself (before someone else reverts you). I have to leave for work now so I can't explain the sources to you at this moment, but if you look again, I'm sure you will see them.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

AHRC has not made any such statement regarding the US. Source if claiming that. You are thinking about a falsely labeled article reference [5] that is not by the the AHRC but by a person, San Juan, mentioning them and primarily relying on "The Permanent People's Tribunal". An organization well-known for staging mock trials. The AHRC merely republishes this article in "Asian Human Rights Commission in News".Ultramarine (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you still ignoring my most important question to you about editing style on this article? Did you self revert yourself fist so we can talk about these proposed changes? Again, that would prove good will and we can then address this. Previously we just went around in circles endlessly. If you are serious this time, then self revert and then we can discuss the details. But so far you have not done so but keep ignoring my question to you about this. If you are right then your edit will gain consensus and be implemented accordingly. What is the problem with doing it that way?Giovanni33 (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have answered your factual questions and will happily continue to do so. There is no justification for keeping factually incorrect statements. See for example WP:BOLD and WP:V. To quote from 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."Ultramarine (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:Bold does not trump Consensus. Bold is intended to inform an editor that they can make a big change to correct something that people don't notice, etc. However, it does not apply when there is a dispute and you are reverted. Then there is a need to achieve some consensus first--before you revert. There is no such thing as Boldly edit warring. Edit warring is always bad and one should not do that boldly or meekly, for that matter. Again, if what you say has merit, we have many good editors here who will address this with you. Why the need to edit war while skipping the consensus process? That kind of editing here is not OK. Unless we can establish this basic framework, you will have trouble making progress.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Factual inaccuracy is not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Ultramarine -- oops, i mean "SixOfDiamonds" -- oops, i mean "SeveOfDiamonds" -- oops, i mean "Zerofaults" -- oops, i mean.... wait -- which name are you editing under, these days -- just this one? Or do there remain others?

Regardless, each of your manifestations demonstrates a categorical inability to grasp simple grammar truths. To use the plural, "Scholars", is to suggest undefined numbers. That there is a single legal scholar listed in this group is beside the point. If you do insist, however, that we include further numbers then i will be happy to introduce two more. Just above, for instance, i have already quoted one from India. I'm sure i can find another; correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it you who suggested that the deletion of a French-language legal journal was no longer necessary to sustain the assertion that there were, in actual fact, legal scholars (plural) who do attest to the introductor statement?

And here you are, going back on your word.

Not that it's any surprise. We on this page have come to expect such flip-flops from you ... and yours.

Anyhow, the arguments you're repeating, here, about the intro have already been addressed several times over -- and you know that. It seems that my recently-renewed presence on the FSLN/Sandinista page has spurred your sudden interest in this one. That's too bad. One might consider such behavior "Wikistalking", no? I suppose you could make the argument that i'm stalking you, except that my presence on both of these pages long predates yours on either (in any of your incarnations, i might add).

Regardless, when introducing content edits here i would suggest that you introduce your edits on the talk page or in a sandbox for debate, so that editors here may first review the intended edits and voice criticisms, suggestions, or additions to the text. This is the established protocol on this page, and has been for some time. Moreover, it is the suggested approach for any contentious page on Wikipedia, and as i'm sure you're aware this happens to be a rather contentious page.

In the meantime i have reverted your last edit; the reasons for that reversion is because you are:

A) Regurgitating arguments and challenges that you have already explicitly received responses to, several times, and about which there is no longer any meaningful debate; and

B) Introducing content edits and deletions without any attempt to gain consensus on the discussion page.

If you feel you truly do have something productive and meaningful to add to this debate then i would request you acknowledge the value of these protocols. Their express intent is to avoid the distraction and intemperance of edit wars, and i am sure that you -- as we -- acknowledge the value of such methods. Stone put to sky (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You confuse with someone else. Never edited under those names. Spare me the personal attacks and incivility. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Scholars and organizations means more than one. At most one scholar and one HR organization (dubious) has been cited. No government. If you have any more, add them. Regarding the supreme importance in WP of accuracy and sources, see above.Ultramarine (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Stone, despite your suspicions, the talk page should be restricted to discussion solely focused on content of/concerns about the article and not editors' potential motives or past affiliations.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Then please -- let me broadcast regrets and apologies, for it is true -- i am in transgression. I should not have aired my suspicions, and in this i have been proven wrong.

Regardless, what cannot be denied is that Ultramarine is repeating arguments that he has -- and others like him-- floated before.

In light of such past conduct i really, really don't think we should be obliged to humour this person. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued ad hominem. Do you have any factual arguments?Ultramarine (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The links are facts, no? And the argument is that these challenges have already been addressed, yah? Fact + Argument, no? Right? No? Stone put to sky (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine, an example of another government making that accusation can be found in the Nicaragua discussion above. For your convenience I am quoting myself from that section but please in the future try to read the other parts of this discussion page before making accusations such as the one you made - "Does this help? It is from the UN Chronicle of November 1986 and has a direct quote from the Acting Foreign Minister of Nicaragua stating that "Washington had reaffirmed "its policy of state terrorism".".--Ubardak (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)". Thanks. --Ubardak (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is also Hugo Chavez, which this article notes. He has accused the US as perpetrating State Terrorism. Iran has as well, I believe, and other nations. This is a well known fact. But, if the issue is adding yet more sources, I guess that can be easily done. Until then reverting to change the claim in the face of the fact that its veracity is not in serious question, and against consensus, is disruptive. Also, funny is an editor who has less than 50 edits, coming here to agree with UltraMarines edit.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

When I was first directed to WP:LEAD sometime last summer/fall, that version stated that comments in the lead did not need to be followed by citations if they were substantiated later in the article. However, it appears (and I think rightly so) that such recommendations have changed. So while the use of plurals (Human Rights Orgnaization(s), nation(s), legal scholar(s)) are substantiated throughout the article, Ultramarine appears to be correct that the footnote for the lead needs to have additional sources from the article (or other articles that have not been used within the main article) which validate the use of the plurals. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says: "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." I think that pretty accurately sums up the situation; we've provided at least one source for each as an example, and the rest of the article leaves no room for doubt that there are still others. If, however, we were to provide, say, three sources each from the body for HROs, legal scholars, academics, journalists and other governments then that would leave us with 12 sources for that one statement. Which, i remind everyone here, we used to have; except that it was then challenged by -- ta da!! -- Ultramarine (and friends) as being unnecessary. Most recently the stack of sources was challenged by Raggz or JohnSmith, wasn't it? So what is essentially a minor point of wikipedia style is now being used to challenge an uncontroversial statement about the sorts of people who consider the U.S. guilty of State Terror?

Isn't there some sort of wikipedia guideline that covers this sort of behavior? Or not? Stone put to sky (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC) 07:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The following Human Rights Groups operating out of the Philippines are mentioned in the PPT document as initiating the complaints of state terrorism:

• Hustisya! (Victims of the Arroyo Regime United for Justice)
• SELDA (Society of Ex-Detainees for Liberation from Detention and Amnesty)
• Desaparecidos (Families of the Desaparecidos for Justice)
• Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (New Patriotic Alliance)
• Ecumenical Bishops Forum
• United Church of Christ in the Philippines
• Karapatan (Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights)
• Peace for Life
• Philippine Peace Center
• IBON Foundation

Please refrain from changing the title to elude only one Human Rights Group makes the claims. You can find the link here: [6] The indictment is [7] in which the state terrorism is mentioned numerous times by the term "state terrorism" --208.120.68.62 (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unclear of these are notable human rights groups, some are cleraly not. Also unclear if they and not the so called "People's tribunal" is making the accusations of "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you respond to someone who did not read nor research. If you believe the Peoples Tribunal is making the accusation, then you need to re-read until you understand the text before attempting to discount it. You should also read up on the history of the Peoples Tribunal so you do not make any other mistakes as above and better understand the document you attempt to critique.

So, can you please name 10 Human Rights organizations that you consider notable, operating out of the Philippines, since you are again equating your knowledge as the bar for notability. --WheezyF (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

some examples...

Legal experts: Marjorie Cohn (president, National Lawyers Guild), Richard Falk (professor of Law at Princeton), Leonard Weinglass (ex-president National Lawyers Guild, one the essayists in Superpower Principles: US Terrorism against Cuba), Matthew Ball [[8]], International Association of People's Lawyers [[9]]

Nations: Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba [[10]],[[11]],[[12]]

Human Rights Organizations:(in addition to those cited above) 1. Human Rights Watch book "El Salvador’s Decade of Terror" (Americas Watch, Human Rights Watch Books, Yale University Press, 1991} which explictily apportioned the great majority of the terror to the U.S.-backed

Salvadoran government forces and included a major section and appendix detailing U.S. links to the repression. The links included training, massive arms and material supply, intelligence sharing, advisers and coordination, protection of the reputation of the state terrorist regime through apologetics and defaming of critics. 2. Pax Christi and numerous other European Human Rights organizations and their 1993 report "State Terrorism in Colombia."...which cites material and military aid given to Colombia by the U.S. during the terror, notes that ten thousand troops had studied at the US Army School of the Americas (SOA), more than from any other Latin American country, and linked 247 Colombia officers (more than 50% of total culpability) who had received training at the SOA to some of Colombia’s most heinous human rights violations. It is also notable that prominent human rights activists such as Michael McClintock (Amnesty International), Cynthia Arnson (Human Rights Watch) have made the accusation in their private publications, and there are others.BernardL (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Linking a state somehow to another state does not make the first state responsible for all the actions of the second state. That is OR. Please give a direct quote accusing the US of "state terrorism". Regarding legal scholars and governments, you have found some sources but not added them to the article. Please do.Ultramarine (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine

I've reverted him once again. I looked over the edits and they are in violation of the 3RR. I will not report for the moment, but am giving formal warning. Stone put to sky (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not make false statements. I have only made 3 edits. Not all the same. Do you have factual arguments? Wikipedia now has factually incorrect statements which are not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Google bot is not recognizing this page

What is interesting is this page is not coming up on google. I checked the html code of this page by using view >> page source and I don't see any "nofollow" tags on this page. Strange. Anyone have any idea why? Trav (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, if I type in certain phrases in this article into google, google pulls up this page, but not if I type in the title with " " around the title. Trav (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, i noticed that too. I'm glad you're concerned by it; it certainly seems strange to me. Could it have something to do with the "B" ranking that this page has gotten? Or could there be something more nefarious? Stone put to sky (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the fact that if you search for "allegations of state terrorism committed by united states" google returns an empty page? This is almost certainly due to the fact that a phrase of 8 words would not ordinarily be stored unless it is a special case. Smaller phrases are stored for re-usability. However even searching for "state terrorism" and "committed by united states" returns almost nothing. '"state terrorism" committed by united states' on the other hand gets a hit on Wikipedia but not to this article - to one of the peer review pages. It is certainly weird since Wikipedia is ranked pretty high in PageRank usually. --Ubardak (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On google.nl it DOES get found. See: [13] Nothing to worry about, google is just censoring Americans using the filter software they developed for China. It happens to me all the time, with Dutch sites. But the solution is simple: just put the URL back in the google form, and it will re-emerge. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Google is censoring Americans? That is news to me, and it is something to worry about, if true. I know China employs filtering/censors and companies comply for the State, but why is Google doing this for the US?Giovanni33 (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote google and reported this issue. Apparently someone can request that a site be removed from Google (due to privacy concerns, etc). I wonder if someone did this and managed to get this article removed from the US/English google search on that basis. Google also says they only censor in compliance with local laws, etc. In any case, I look forward to their reply to my correspondence on the matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there is any sinister reason for this. With google UK it works if you type the article name with or without quotation marks. John Smith's (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: While google did not write me back with an explanation, I did another test today and the censoring of this page by typing in "allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States" is no longer the case; now not only shows up, it ranks #2. Seems they fixed something? However, unless you type on those quotes, the search does not yield this page by typing in State terrorism by the United States, etc.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, Giovanni. This censoring is really quite interesting. Obvious questions arise, such as, who decides to censor?, on what basis or on whose recommendation?, and, what other (WP or other) webpages are being censored? This could also be an interesting story for the press, if certain basic facts could be established, and this page could get some more prominent attention. Please keep posting to this section with any further news, developments or other related suggestions.--NYCJosh (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. It is coming up in first place for me, using the title without quotes on google.ca (google canada)BernardL (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I tried several countries and it was blocking this site only for the United States. I'm happy that as of now, however, it is also coming up without the quotations. Seems like this "error" has been solved. I'd be quite interested in solving the mysterious cause, though. It would also be logical that if this was intentional and politically based, then the actor would have attempted the same for other similar articles. It would be worth a check.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call all around, and thanks to Gio for his action. One other thing i've been wondering about: there used to be wiki-links to this page, back to page names like "state terrorism by the united states" and such. They seem now to have been deleted. Were those deletions undertaken according to some sort of policy, or was it just a back-room deal cut off in someplace where the sun don't shine? Is it possible for us to restore those links (and by doing so get the page ranked by google under a less arcane name)? Stone put to sky (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)