Talk:United States and state terrorism

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

Pakistan and Syria 2008

Why are there no references to the killings in Pakistan and Syria? Syria has publicaly accused the US of terrorism

Panama

Allegations of harboring terrorists ...The U.S. has also been criticized for failing to condemn Panama's pardoning of the alleged terrorists Guillermo and Ignacio Novo Sampoll, Pedro Remon, and Gaspar Jimenez, instead allowing them to walk free on U.S. streets.[21] Claudia Furiati has suggested Sampol was linked to President Kennedy's assassination and plans to kill President Castro.[34]

I expect to delete the above. Whom the President of Panama decides to pardon is not the business of the US. If the men have comitted no crimes, why shouldn't they "walk free"? Is the failure of the US to interfer in Panama's business really state terrorism? Raggz (talk) 09:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources and Primary Sources

Granma

This source is owned by the Cuban Government, which has formally renounced freedom of the press. Does anyone object to treating this source as being the Cuban Government, a primary source, and not a journalistic source. See also WP:REDFLAG. Raggz (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, Do you also view White House press releases in the same way ? Or statements made by American governmental officials ?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course. These are all "primary sources", and are all subject to these rules. We may use primary sources, but these have special rules. Granma is a government organ. Raggz (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is a government organ ... view it as a printed Dana Perino. However, it can still be used when addressing the claims of the Cuban government, just as a White House press release can be relevant to a host of issues.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We seem to have consensus on this, that the White House and Granma are "primary sources" and are subject to this WP policy. Raggz (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If this is agreed, then why did you delete the Cuban government's allegations? Would you support deleting the US govt's statements regarding the events discussed in the article?--NYCJosh (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall now. Primary sources are not always deleted. What I delete first are cites that do not support text. Granma might have cited US immigration policy as terrorism, they have a lot of cites on this. US compliance with the UN Torture Convention as enforced by the Federal Court in New Orleans is not terrorism, but you could debate this point. If it mentions state terrorism, other than immigration policy, fine, revert. Raggz (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Common Dreams

Common Dreams is an advocacy organization and is not a reliable source with fact checking. I suggest that we do not use citations from this source.

From their site: "Common Dreams: "Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization working to bring progressive Americans together to promote progressive visions for America's future. We are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for internet activism. Raggz (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, this type of comment undermines your reliability as an editor because it tends to show you are a person with a deletionist POV mission. For one thing, most of the articles on commondreams.com (and all of the articles cited in the present article, as far as I know) are drawn from other reliable newssources, like NY Times, BBC, AP, AFP, etc. So attacking commondreams as a whole is irrelevant. Also, just because a not-for-profit organization has an organizational mission does not in and of itself disqualify the news it reports. Have you ever read the Christian Science Monitor or reports of Red Cross International?--NYCJosh (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If the particular sources in question can be found from sources such as "NY Times, BBC, AP, AFP, etc" they should be replaced with such. That much is pretty straightforward, I think. Arkon (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, commondreams provides a permanent archive of the articles of the newssources it carries, whereas the newssources sometimes do not.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Common Dreams is not in the business of presenting objective facts, this is not their goal. The world needs the advocacy groups like Common Dreams is, but we need to understand that these are not journalists. If Common Dreams were the only reliable source for a news story I might cite redflag. If there is no other reliable source anywhere, why is this? If there is a good reason we could use it. Generally Common Dreams is not the only source in our world on anything, and a news report would be preferred. Raggz (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, you should consider reading the footnotes containing the commondreams articles, including the first and last lines of the articles cited, and think about my point before responding, because what you have written is non-responsive.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is a compelling reason to use any advocacy group, we may. Is this the case? Are there journalistic sources? Does Common Dreams cite entire articles - or summarize them for activists? Raggz (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why did you not find this out (answers to your last three questions) BEFORE making ignorant comments about commondreams and wasting other editors' time? The answers are in the linked footnotes. If you want to verify that each article carried by commondreams conforms to the original article from the given newssource, feel free to do so, if you think this is necessary. (I have on occasion gone back to the cited newssource and linked to that instead of the commondreams article. I have never found any discreprancy in the article, but even with the computerized replication of digitized text, there is always a first time.) --NYCJosh (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletions by Raggz (see various sections above)

I'm not too bothered about this kind of article as a whole (although this one covers some interesting material, it's too much of a POV magnet really and it's hard to avoid them becoming political polemics). However given that it is here, the deletions proposed above are not acceptable. They appear to fall into two broad categories:

1) Deleting references to comments by Chomsky, Falk etc on the basis of NPOV is nonsensical. They are here because they are well-known academics/activists articulating some of the allegations. If there is a genuine issue with balance, this should be resolved by adding counter-comments or rebuttals (a brief read suggests there are plenty of these as it is)

2) Deleting sections that refer to US support for terror groups eg the MKO, is also absurd given the scope of this article as defined in the lead, and the fact that there is no specific agreed definition of "state terrorism" in any event (ie who says it has to involve direct state action?) Perhaps the article itself might be renamed to avoid any confusion (eg to something discussing "involvement in" or "support for" terrorism or "state-sponsored" terrorism).

More broadly the habit of putting a note on a talk page saying "I propose deleting .." as if prepared to enter into discussion about it, but then just unilaterally deleting the material pretty shortly afterwards anyway before getting any response is hardly best editing practice

--Nickhh (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nickhh. This is an article in which every sentence has been scoured and debated. To propose delete entire sections of it is reckless. If there is a problem with a specific passage, let's discuss it one at a time. Ultimatums for mass deletions add only heat not light and will result in further edit wars not an improved WP.

In other words, how about every calm their livers and not assume that all previous work here was added incompetently.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nick, can you not automatically remove material that he adds, please? If you want a citation, tag it and ask him to do it in the next few weeks. There's plenty of unsourced material here but I don't see you removing it. John Smith's (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I only removed two sentences, which were both making the same claim that the US government was somehow acquitted on an appeal of the World Court decision. I know full well what he is doing here, which is to draw in his own amateur interpretation of subsequent UNSC action (or inaction). I'm sorry, but the addition was nonsense. Sometimes it's OK to remove totally ridiculous assertions which an editor has plopped into an article, rather than politely wait for a reference which is never going to come. As I said, I don't care enough about the article itself to trawl through it all, but I noticed these two pretty egregious errors and reverted them. There may be other errors and/or unsourced claims in the article, but that doesn't mean that people should put even more in. --Nickhh (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the addition was nonsense. Then you should identify it as being so on the talk page or at least on the edit summary before removing it. Asking for a source is not the same as denying it ever happened. John Smith's (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why the first comment in my edit summary was "Really?", before then pointing out it had no source. Thanks --Nickhh (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The ICJ decision was taken to appeal, and no action on the appeal was taken, so the finding was invalidated as international law. Who debates these facts? There was a finding by the ICJ, so this too is a relevant fact. All of this is in the main article (or was last time I read it). We violate wp:npov to put only part of these facts in. Who disputes this? Raggz (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh has violated wp:npov by reverting text to deny wp:npov, perhaps inadvertantly. Any editor (I suggest someone other than me would be ideal) must bring this text into compliance with wp:npov. How we do this is subject to wp:consensus, but we need to find a way to comply. I have inadvertantly violated WP policy myself, so I'm not slamming anyone who makes this same mistake. Raggz (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleting references to comments by Chomsky, Falk etc on the basis of NPOV is nonsensical. They are here because they are well-known academics/activists articulating some of the allegations. If there is a genuine issue with balance, this should be resolved by adding counter-comments or rebuttals (a brief read suggests there are plenty of these as it is) Feel free to bring NPOV balance to text that you wish to revert that was deleted per NPOV. Nothing is ever lost, it will be there until you manage to do this. I have not volunteered to do your editing. Just don't revert text that obviously requires NPOV balance before your correct this problem. (NPOV is not about the authority of the source - the policy is at wp:npov, please review it on this point? Raggz (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, I think you misunderstand WP POV policy. Falk etc. are notable perspectives cited from RS. Including their analyses as appropriate for the topic in a fair manner does not violate POV. Other editors can feel free to add additional or contrasting perspectives in a NPOV manner. I agree with Nickhh. See wp:npov. An example of a POV violation would be to delete from an article perspectives with which one disagrees.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see Raggz is back and up to his typical multiple thread discussion tactics. I hope Raggz, that you are not back to your previous declarations of "consensus" when no such consensus has been reached. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not bait people. Arkon (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting someone limit conversations on the talk page to a comprehendable count where editors can follow the conversations and actually build consensus before jumping to start 3 or 4 or 6 more threads as well as hoping that previously demonstrated disruptive behaviors are not repeated can hardly be considered "baiting". -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to you was long ago, and I had nothing to do with any of that. You are responsible. If you must get into any of that, please on my TalkPage, per policy. I am not interesting in discussing what happened to you, here or there. Now, do you have an opinion? Do these section have NPOV balance? Raggz (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, See below - it is not appropriate to remove sourced material from notable figures in the field under some misinterpreted application of NPOV.

As to your initial comments in the paragraph above, I have not a clue what you are talking about. My statment has nothing to do with anything that "happened to me". It has to do with your historical actions. If you wish to put your past reputation behind you, I am all for that, but so far since your return, I see the same actions and behaviors. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of WP policies, and you correctly suggest that these authors may be cited. You have raised your strawman and now have defeated it, but you have yet to address the issue I raise. [[Wp:npov] is a policy that requires more NPOV balance than these sections now offer. You could add a dozen very notable authors of like opinions, but all that this would do is to make the NPOV problem worse. As an editor, it is required that I either delete NPOV violations OR correct them. I choose to delete. I also choose to discuss this here, so that other editors have the chance to consider and discuss this.

As an editor, you also have the option to (1) debate that there exists NPOV balance, or (2) to edit the text until it is there, or (3) to delete it yourself. Is there a fourth option? Assigning an editing assignment to me is not your fourth option. So what am I missing? Raggz (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that your interpretation is incorrect, Raggz. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I encourage you to do this. From your reference is excellent text applicable here:

Information suppression

A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

• Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

• Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
• Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
• Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
• Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
• Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
• Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
• Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
• Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.
• Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV.

It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.

Your response implies that you agree that there is no NPOV balance, so at least you and I have consensus on this. Now we are debating about how to comply with NPOV, we are making progress! Is there anyone that feels these passages are fairly balanced and offer all significant perspectives? Raggz (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

RPOD has brought up an important policy (below). We should comply by adding material, if we can.

Space and balance

An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.

Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.

I consider the language to be "an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda". This is why we are discussing it now. Is anyone interested in this salvage project? Raggz (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Policy (rather than content) discussion

RPOD said: "My opinion, See below - it is not appropriate to remove sourced material from notable figures in the field under some misinterpreted application of NPOV."

You tacitly admitted (above) that the material does not have NPOV balance. Now we are debating what we should do about material that is out of compliance with NPOV. Here are my suggestions:

• We discuss this, and ask if anyone wants to salvage the out of compliance material.
• We bring it into compliance.

Do we have consensus for these two steps, or do you have a third option? Raggz (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have "admitted" nothing of the sort, tacitly or otherwise. And in your statement you have just shown the behavior that I explicity hoped you had left behind. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"I believe that your interpretation is incorrect, Raggz. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)" When you said "remedy", I thought that you meant remedy to the NPOV violation. What remedy were you referring to? What is the policy you cited intended to fix?

Is there NPOV balance - or not? Please, a direct answer, please?Raggz (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in though RPOD can speak for him/herself as can others. Raggz is the one claiming the notable authorities cited are one sided. Raggz therefore threatened to delete them. RPOD, I and others said that EVEN IF (without conceding the point) they could be shown to be one sided and the existence of other notable points of view on the events discussed in the article were shown to exist, the remedy would be to add the other authorities, not to delete the cited ones. If Raggs or others are convinced that other notable authorities with a different point of view who discuss events in question here exist, let them cite them.

I for one would like nothing more than an article with a vibrant debate on these issues. In general the response of the US punditocracy to much of this history has been to ignore it and hope it goes away, or to write incoherently about "mistakes." That's not to say that other views don't exist however. --NYCJosh (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you NYCJosh - that is indeed my position as well. Raggz, if YOU believe there is an NPOV issue, then YOUR standard options are to add other points of view or to slap a NPOV tag on explaining why YOU believe there is NPOV issue. One of your options is NOT to unilatterally remove sourced content from notable experts in the field. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, deletion is one of my options. If you say please help us, I might. If you say we can't manage this, I likely will. As an editor when I find text out of policy compliance I need to ask if someone wants to salvage it. Does anyone? I don't think that the present points or text are worth salvage. It however is a matter of courtesy to ask. RPOD, text that does not meet policy standards has to go. I have no other option, but it need not happen now. Is it worth your time to salvage - or not? Raggz (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No Raggz, you need to work by policy, which is WP:Consensus. Unilateralism on sourced material is not appropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not the case that text that doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy simply "has to go." It is to be improved. (Reasonable exceptions exist; I work on WP:BLP at times, and the rules there are stringent, to protect Wikipedia legally. In particular, unsourced BLP material should be deleted immediately.) Deletion just because no balancing POV is cited yet is not, in itself, improvement. This article is about allegations of state terror on the part of the U.S. Just deleting a given allegation does not improve the article -- rather, it's more like blatant suppression of information, if it's anything, and that's definitely a policy infringement. Providing other viewpoints on the allegation IS improvement. If a quote goes to seemingly unnecessary lengths, trimming or accurately paraphrasing the quote forming an allegation can be improvement. If a documented and notable allegation exists, counter-arguing commentary shouldn't be hard to find -- after all, the allegation is notable, and the topic is controversial. It should be easy enough to add. Not nearly as easy as simply deleting the quote, of course. But some "improvements" are obviously too easy. Raggz, if you don't agree with an allegation, find sources that express some similar disagreement, quote them, cite them. Is that work? Yeah, it's work. Of course it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What do you expect? 60.42.122.78 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that last was from me, Yakushima (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, please provide some refs to good sources that we could use that would counterpoint whatever you believe is being one sided. Remember, it isn't wikipedia being one sided if all the sources are one sided. We can only do so much. Hooper (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Political crimes defence & legal_kidnapping

See Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States/Archive 25#Political crimes defence & legal kidnapping

User:Raggz we are not talking about the law of war, as the article already mentioned (US says it has right to kidnap British citizens, Sunday Times December 2, 2007.) says:

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Can you imagine the political reaction in the U.S. if another country was to kidnap an American citizen from a city street in America, bundle them into a private plane and fly them to another country to stand trial for a white collar crime, that was not a white collar crime in the U.S? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Title

The title should be changed to "Allegations of state terrorism AGAINST the United States", "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" suggests US allegations against Iran or Korea to me.Research Method (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The title is appropriate. It is about allegations by, not against. Hooper (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Opposing Views

In the Opposing views section, this sentence "Empirical studies (see democide which has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism[101]) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[102][103]"

Doesn't seem to be at all related to the topic of whether or not the US has perpetrated state terrorism. Normally I would just remove it, but this article is controversial enough that I would like to give others a chance to confirm this. Does anyone see how it fits into the article?TrogdorPolitiks (talk)