Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6

Requested move

The following discussion is an closed debate of a page move. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was: Oppose

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support as per above. Travb (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- only as a temporary stopgap to get the page back up and properly editing.Stone put to sky 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose term is impossible to define and hence sources cannot be supplied specifically stating political violence which then leads to our interpretation and WP:OR --zero faults |sockpuppets| 01:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The term is vague, not in common use, and invites original research. Tom Harrison Talk 13:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Tom. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find political violence too vague, all violence is in some way political, where is the defining line?--Zleitzen 02:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tom. Morton devonshire 02:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tom. There were better names such as "United States Covert Operations".--Tbeatty 03:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

As the mediator I would like to note that allegations is a weasel word. WikieZach| talk 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that allegations is a weasel word, if we are in fact writing about allegations. Tom Harrison Talk 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but "Allegations" just isn't a "weasel word", it's not on the list of weasel words, can't be, and never will be - it's a noun that describes a definite article.--Zleitzen 02:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is a weasel word that takes away the authority of the act. And it is on the list and it is in the style guide. Only when used to describe a crime by a person should it be used. In this case, it opens the door for all sort of WP:OR because it just has to be "alleged" and not real.--Tbeatty 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
See the coversations below, and the hard work of Lisa. There seems to be a constructive comprimise toward a viable name change which we can all agree with, so thankfully, the argument over whether "allegations" is a weasel word appears to now be moot, and we can move on, agreeing to disagree. Travb (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Effects of name change to "political violence" - and an alternative suggestion

I'd like to get an idea of the effects that the proposed name change would have on the article before 'voting'. As this is a non-trivial ponderance, I have broken this out to it's own discussion. Next to each TOC entry in italics is my opinion of the change's effects, and as an experiment you will find, under each entry, my one-line summary (occasionally in a comic style) of the text:

  • 1 Definition and the term American terrorism - obviously is going to change significantly
    Best entry here talks about the CIA and covert acts against hostile states, otherwise focuses on the name itself
    • 1.1 Criticism of the term - most likely will be dropped
      Probably a very good argument for renaming
  • 2 Allegations
    • 2.1 Latin America
      • 2.1.1 Cuba - one of the more strongly terrorist-refering sections
        CIA training of covert/paramilitary groups mostly
      • 2.1.2 Nicaragua - whilst true, does not fit well with either title
        Hello CIA operatives and their training of groups again...
    • 2.2 Middle East - seems to suit the new title
      CIA and others helping paramilitary groups
    • 2.3 Western Europe - parts political but not that violent
      A quote - "covert policy of training partisan"
    • 2.4 Court Cases - supports more the new title
      • 2.4.1 Nicaragua vs. United States ^
      Unlawful use of force by supporting guerrilla forces
      • 2.4.2 Yugoslavia v. United States ^
        Refering to a military action better covered in the Kosovo War article
    • 2.5 Other allegations of American terrorism - would vanish under new title
      Poor collection of points linked only by the term, and not their content. Would be worth removing, really.
  • 3 References
  • 4 Further reading
  • 5 See also - unrelated, but... why global warming?
  • 6 External links

I'm seeing that a change of title is needed, but it's not political violence. Almost all the core sections talk about covert acts by the US against other nations, and I suspect a less cludgy version of that will be exactly what we want - clearly defined, and covers most of the current article's spirit (and allows us to use references to state that some call such acts "american terrorism"). LinaMishima 02:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand, are you advocating we change the name to one that matches only one specific definition of terrorism. Further the Nicaragua thing does not call it terrorism at all, they also specifically state the US was not responcible for the acts of the rebels. The accusers did not file terrorism charges but charges of unlawful force, which was their funding of those rebels, not participation in any actions. There is a big problem basically unless sources are provided that state terrorism specifically and actually contain someone making the allegation. The straw poll was nice but still elaves a burden of proof in sources. --User:Zer0faults 02:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am suggesting that we eliminate the word terrorism in it's entirity. it serves no purpose, as the examples being given are majoritively those of covert actions or support of paramilitary groups. The article should have a name accurate to the intent of the content (and vica-versa, but in this case the content indicates a different title). I'm suggesting a radical rename with virtually no significant effect on the content itself. The references are all there to support a title implying covert acts, and no inferance will ever be needed. LinaMishima 02:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Covert actions of the United States? Perhaps Alleged illegal activities of the CIA? That last one I like most as it can then include things like COINTEL Pro, right cointel = CIA? etc. --User:Zer0faults 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Cointel was FBI turns out, so maybe Alleged illegal activities of the United States. Kinda long but easy to source as the person doesnt have to be saying they did terrorism, just something illegal, that means the court cases are automatically included since they themselves are accusations of illegality. --User:Zer0faults 02:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, not bad. How would Alleged illegal activities by the US effect the sections on Cuba, the Middle East and Western Europe, however? These talk mainly about allegations of terrorism and sabotage, which whilst they probably would fall under the remit, one could be pedantic about it. Perhaps the leading section would detail that allegations of terrorism and support of groups performing illegal actions should count? We're getting somewhere! :) LinaMishima 02:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Well terrorism is illegal, as for sabotage that may be illegal. All in all as long as someone is alleging illegality its fine. So if Alarcon is saying the US commited an illegal act by sabotaging XYZ, then it works. I think its safe to assume terrorism is illegal, so any direct allegation of terrorism would be an allegation of illegality. --User:Zer0faults 03:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Allegations, Alleged violates WP:AWW. We are discussing this on the mediation page right now. We have discussed this ever since rootology (who has now been banned BTW) changed it. Travb (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we're almost there, then. The big question is, however, can we find a means to remove alleged, as this is a weasel word of sorts, and the article would seem stronger if this was avoided. A quick search by prefix, though, shows us to be in good company :P LinaMishima 03:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You can always remove alleged but it then cuts down on what can be added, removing alleged makes it a statement of fact and then removed the ability to add allegations, things like the court case can stay in, but items that have not be proven factual, meaning courts deciding they are illegal is then up in the air. --User:Zer0faults 08:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we will ever get a 100% unanimous consensus. Look at the opinions of User:Zer0faults and User:Stone put to sky. They are the bookends on a wide political spectrum.
What is interesting is that User:Zer0faults and User:Stone put to sky both wanted the same name.[2] State terrorism by the United States. The middle want to keep the status quo (7 votes), but the bookends want to change the title. (6 votes). What does this mean for our suggested title? I don't know.
Until I see a better alternative, which I haven't in five weeks, I am sticking with Political violence by the United States, the most compeling reason is precedence. As I pointed out above: #Can we learn from other's mistakes? All of these alternatives have never been tried or tested. "Political violence" did, and has became a success story. --Travb (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You can keep reccomending it, but please do not move articles as they are not suppose to be moved against concensus. --User:Zer0faults 12:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Apart from a possible use of "Alleged", which can be avoided by a title such as "Covert actions of the US against other nations", we actually seem to be reaching some form of a consensus here based upon what the article covers. To be quite frank, "political violence" is too loose a term, almost a weasel word in it's own right as even the article Political violence has to acknowledge that there is no formal definition. Any use of this will be entirely POV. I really don't see your problem with the new suggestions that avoid 'alleged', other than the fact they are new. If I'm missing something major here, please say. LinaMishima 14:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
"Covert actions of the US against other nations" would be acceptable. If we can get User:Zer0faults and User:Stone put to sky to agree, the two "book ends" in this debate, I will ask the mediator to change the name. How about United States covert actions? Nice and simple. I remember reading a policy of not abbreviating "US" in titles. Good point User:LinaMishima. If you get everyone to agree, I am awarding you the first Herding cats award. Does Stone and Zero agree to the name: United States covert actions? If yes, I can ask the mediator to change the name today, and we can move on to more important issues.Travb (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The only problem I can see with United States covert actions or Covert actions by the United States is that of wide scope, many things not included here now will become suitable for inclusion. This is not a bad thing as such, however.. We'd also need to be sure as to what consitutes a covert action, and to be happy all such actions by the US may be included. LinaMishima 16:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. "Political Violence"??? *ALL* acts of violence perpetrated by a Government are "political violence" -- including wars of aggression, wars of defense, policing actions, the prosecution of political parties and cliques (McCarthy era, anyone?), and whatever else one can think of. Labelling this page "political violence" is essentially the same as renaming it "Violence by the United States"; what's the point? The original entry dealt with a specific *type* of violence; that would be the use of violence not to gain specific logistical ends, nor in the defense of the nation, but instead the use of violence to instill terror in civilian populations so as to force certain polling-booth results and/or treaty concessions from a greater power. Calling the page "Political Violence" is rather like renaming a page explaining sodomy "Human Sexuality" -- and less relevant.Stone put to sky 07:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Moreover, the title "Political Violence..." would leave the article open to including such facts as the Kent State Massacre, the Cointelpro activities of the FBI, the various political assassinations during the late '60's/early '70's for which J. Edgar Hoover is largely considered responsible, the history of the U.S. Labor Movement and how it clashed with State forces throughout the 1800's and up into the mid-1900's, and so on.Stone put to sky 08:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I dont think you understand how sources work. You cannot include an incident then into an article on political violence unless the source specifically calls it that. Hence the idea for simple illegality. You would also be hard pressed to find a definition in line with yours for political violence as it seems partially like your own concoction. We do not do our own research here, meaning you cannot start an article on poltiical violence and define it yourself, then add items that are not being called political violence by the sources themselves. --User:Zer0faults 08:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You're arguing that "Political Violence" as a term is more clearly defined than "terrorism", which is currently debated and defined in hundreds -- if not thousands -- of legal briefs, international treaties, UN referendae, and media handbooks?
And you say *i* don't understand? Stone put to sky 12:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read the thread, we are actually proposing neither terrorism nor political violence, just illegal cia acts kind of thing, so I guess it seems you do not understand. --User:Zer0faults 13:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Lets tone down the rhetoric gentlemen. I am sure Zerofaults "understand"s, and I am sure Stone "read the thread". Thanks. Travb (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Covert actions by the United States sounds like a "new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position." Is this going to be a list? I only see about 150 google hits for the phrase. Is this a subject people have written about? Tom Harrison Talk 21:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I concede that the disambig page for covert action takes us to Covert operation, hence the article name should be Covert operations by the United States or similar. No OR is needed to state any of those, if you simply look through the article, almost all the referenced entries are refering to such things (as I summarised above). "Covert operation" gets 433,000 google hits, and the article on the subject itself clearly defines it, as do the references already in this article. Searching for the exact phrase would be foolish, as the exact phrase isn't the best of copywrite, but if we search for both "Covert Operation" and "United States" and eliminate forums and blogs, we get a rather nice 60,000 web hits. Google news instantly gives us more references, and a crude google scholar gives us 731 results. Is that any help? LinaMishima 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
NB: In addition I suggest Covert operations within other nations by the United States, so as to useably narrow the remit. The wording's cludgy, though, so better suggestions would be good. LinaMishima 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I actually I support this more as its a bit more interesting, that its outside but that is personal preference. By not saying outside the US you are including COINTEL PRO etc, there is quite a bit of content, I support both basically, outside US more for brevity. --User:Zer0faults 23:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess someone could write US covert operations, but that would be a different article. Some of the material now here could go there. If that were to be done, it should probably start as a section of Covert operation.
It seems to me the problem is in the selection and aggregation of bad things America has done, presented as factual. The issue is not so much the title, as the original research by synthesis. It looks to me like the assemblage we have now is well described by the title we have now, or maybe by American terrorism (term). Tom Harrison Talk 23:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Tom, if you look through all the parts to the article as it currently stands, only the yugoslavia bit is not about covert operations. So I really don't see how this makes this article not about covert operations by the US. Any such article would infact be almost the entirity of this article, anyhow. I beg you to put aside your attachment to the current name, and consider simple compromise solutions that allow the article to remain almost unchanged, and better fit the material within. LinaMishima 23:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not want the article to remain unchanged; I want it to improve as it conforms to our policies about original research and verifiability, as it must if it is to exist at all. The article as it is now only presents things thought to be discreditable to the US, with the added 'bonus' of implying US hipocracy in calling anyone else a terrorist. The article as it is now is an example of how "American terrorism" is used in contemporary discourse. It could instead be about how the term is used, as American terrorism (term) was for some time. I have no sentimental attachment to the present title, or to any other. As it is, and as it might develop, it is well described as Allegations of state terrorism by [the] United States of America, or by American terrorism (term). It is not well-described as a sober encyclopedic discussion of American covert operations. It is not that, and cannot be expected ever to be that. Tom Harrison Talk 23:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
So explain to me please exactly how that relates to the idea of renaming the article to Covert operations within other nations by the United States? As that appears to be a rant against the current title to me. LinaMishima 00:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
"As it is, and as it might develop, it is well described as Allegations of state terrorism by [the] United States of America, or by American terrorism (term). It is not well-described as a sober encyclopedic discussion of American covert operations. It is not that, and cannot be expected ever to be that." Tom Harrison Talk 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Tom has some good points, and his opinion is valued and important because he has been a strong advocate of comprimise for some time... I really hate the word "rant".
In an effort to build consensus and comprimise User:Zer0faults has agreed with the term United States covert actions here, User_talk:Zer0faults#Can_we_agree_on_this_title?. Thanks User:Zer0faults. I await: User:Stone's approval.
User:LinaMishima wrote: ...but if we search for both "Covert Operation" and "United States" and eliminate forums and blogs, we get a rather nice 60,000 web hits. Google news instantly gives us more references, and a crude google scholar gives us 731 results. Is that any help?
Yes, it help immensely, LinaMishima, you are on your way to that promised steak dinner and the first ever Herding cats award :)
Covert operations within other nations by the United States IMHO is too clunky I am afraid. United States covert actions is brief. List of United States military history events is a vague title, but what we did in the first paragraph is define what military history events is and is not. "Note that instances where the U.S. gave aid alone, with no military personnel involvement, are excluded." We can do the same in the introduction of United States covert actions. "Note that instances of U.S. covert actions in the US are excluded." Travb (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

United States covert operations or actions is fine. Eliminates all the WP:OR and implied terrorism of acts. It will give more material as well. I would also treat this as a merge and not a rename. Purge the speculative stuff. --Tbeatty 03:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just so people are aware US Covert Operations would include domestic by its title, so it will include technically hundreds of articles COINTEL PRO etc FBI operations. It may end up being an article that then needs to be split up. --User:Zer0faults 03:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
United States domestic covert operations and United States international covert operations Problem solved? :) Travb (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
No - strong object. That would mean the removal of the only unopposed and heavily sourced section on the page - Cuba. It means basically deleting (or hijacking) this page with a totally different agenda and writing a new one. As the Cuba section is written around "allegations of State terrorism" - a perfectly legitimate title by the way (see allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba) - it can't go on your new page and thus will have to go somewhere else. Where? --Zleitzen 04:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It appears from reading the section that this was a covert action also. So your Cuba section is quite safe. Travb (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Travb. --User:Zer0faults 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole issue of this page is to show how the use of the word "terrorism" by U.S. government sources is as equally and legitimately applicable to activities that are sponsored and initiated by the U.S. government, but are rarely mentioned or addressed in the U.S. media or educational institutions. With the current debate following its current line, the original page will be entirely effaced by a series of pages that in no way whatsoever address the original issues raised by the original page. 125.232.200.224 05:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Where did you come up with this? "rarely mentioned or addressed" seems to imply "poorly sourced". That is never the intent of a wikpedia page and the problem with the title. It is very difficult to find a consensus for what constitutes terror, therefore including anything on this page implied that it was terrorism even if it was contested. That made for a bad title.--Tbeatty 06:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Articles should not have a point, especially political ones. Perhaps you think this is a political forum, but its an encyclopedia. Please keep that in mind our anon friend. --User:Zer0faults 09:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with User:Zer0faults and especially with User:Tbeatty although Americans actions maybe considered "terrorism" in some circles, their simply is not enough English sources to my knowledge for this title to remain the same, and their is too much oposition to the title for Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America ever to be a stable page, free from large scale deletions, or the threat of AfDs. Anon, my friend, you may be ahead of your time, the idea of "American terrorism" has not gained widespread popular support yet, at least in the first world, and it may never gain widespread support. It is like trying to change the name of the Philippine Insurrection to Philippine American War in 1901. It took the U.S. Library of Congress 101 years to change the official title from Philippine Insurrection to Philippine-American War. Travb (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The term 'Covert Operations' is too broad and inclusive and as a result an article with this title would need to include US Covert Operations such as the CIA planned/executed coups in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, etc.NBGPWS 02:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I susepct that there are editors that would consider those actions "terrorism" so what is the difference? Rather than argue about whether it's 'terrorism' call it covert and source it and no one will argue whether it should be included. --Tbeatty 06:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not support those names, for the same reasons I mention above. Tom Harrison Talk 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally oppose the name change. The idea of a "covert operation" is not something to which i am ethically or morally opposed; "terrorism" is. This simple fact demonstrates that the two ideas are only analagous in a very shallow and irrelevant way, and so to change the name of this article to "covert operations by the United States" is to change the very purpose of the entry. Stone put to sky 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And to address the nonsensical assertion made above: to wit, that "encyclopedia entries" "don't have a point" -- where in the world is this "person" comin' up with these ideas? OF COURSE encyclopedia entries have a point! It's called the title of the entry! When writing an entry about, say, the color Blue, one doesn't put in pictures of the color Red and Yellow and make the claim that they're all the same just because they're colors. Similarly, when explaining the concept of "State Sponsored Terrorism" and how it does or doesn't relate to the United States, one shouldn't be putting in WWII special ops missions (i.e. -- "Covert Ops by the U.S.") and/or 1890's era labor violence (i.e. "Political Violence by the United States") and start claiming that these "compromises" somehow represent the same ideas. They don't. Anyone who argues otherwise is not interested in seeing the topic explored in the way the creators of the page intended. Stone put to sky 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is that "State Sponsored Terrorism" is a term that was popularized by the U.S. Dept. of State and the British Foreign Office, and now that the term has taken hold it is perfectly legitimate to explore how this term does or does not apply to those two countries (or any other, for that matter). In our arguments over the title, we have completely lost track of the simple fact that this entry was created to explore how a term that is routinely heard on U.S. and British nightly news does or does not describe the governments of those same two countries. Stone put to sky 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me restate that once again: the term "State Sponsored Terrorism by the United States" is and always has been meant as an exploration of how the idea of "terrorism" does or does not apply to the United States. If you don't think the term jusifiably applies, then fine: write part of the entry and clearly explain -- through popularly available research and analysis -- you arrived at your opinions. In order for us to properly represent this topic in its entirety, then *both* sides of this issue need to be properly represented. Unfortunately, there is a junta of people who do not like to see the word "terrorism" used in reference to *any* acts of the United States, regardless of the amount of evidence and documentation to support such a judgement. These people want to change the title because *they are offended by it*, when in fact their response should be to *document evidence that shows how the term is inaccurate*. Unfortunately, we have a crew of very lazy and self-serving ideologues here, each of which finds it more entertaining and satisfactory to force the page to remain in its current ambiguous state rather than doing the intellectual and moral heavy-lifting to present a solid case for why it's inaccurate or incorrect. Stone put to sky 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, this page is not merely about current events! There are libraries of books which demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that terrorist tactics were used by the people and government of the United States from its very first founding moment, and by its people's ancestors even long before that. I'll be happy to post some of those long- and widely-accepted historical conclusions once the page is able to be edited again; unfortunately, if we change the title to something like "Covert Operations" or "Political Violence" then we are no longer discussing the topic which this page was initially established to elucidate. We will instead be capitulating to the whimsy and self-congratulatory malaise of right-wing ideologues who can't accept that an ethnically neutral term like "terrorism" does not in fact imply "people other than us". Stone put to sky 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And this is aimed directly at "zerofaults" -- encyclopedia articles most certainly do have a point. They are a place where basic research and understanding of a particular topic can be gained, and from where further research may be undertaken. The point of this page was -- and if i have any say in the matter, will remain -- how the term "State Sponsored Terrorism" can or can not justifiably be applied to the activities of the United States. It is my sincere hope that my children, their friends, and future generations of schoolchildren, university-level historians and political scientists, interested adults and all manner of curious people will be able to look at this page and learn more about why people -- both foreign and native -- say that the U.S. itself engages in terrorism. Without such a page, the protests of people around the world will remain a cypher for the average american hobnobber: people like the Filipinos -- who are currently seeing about 80 major journalists murdered a year, and about half of those by the U.S.-supported, trained, and financed Filipino military (which is itself responsible for two coups of state in the last 10 years) -- and the Indonesians (Aceh, Timor, Suharto); and the Iranians (1952 coup, anyone? 30 years of a brutal, U.S.-trained secret police state?); and the American Indians, and Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, the Vietnamese, and a multitude of other peoples have, can, do, and -- if events continue to spiral out of control like they have these last 6 years may *well increasingly* -- accuse the United States of violent acts widely considered to be terrorism.Stone put to sky 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

When people hear these accusations, they should be able to turn to their encyclopedia and ask "What in hell are they talking about?", and our beloved compatriots, living as they do in the "land of the free", where our "right to free speech" is a deeply cherished part of our very identity, should be able to expect a rational, reasoned, well-documented analysis of exactly what these charges consist of and why they have been made. Indeed, in a land where the right to free speech and open expression is presumed, such a transparent and forthright analysis is *expected*. Consequently, i absolutely refuse to back down on the issue of this page's title. It must as closely adhere to the former title's intent as possible, so as to best serve the needs of the Wikipedia community's queries. Stone put to sky 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In other words, when someone types in a question: "Has the United States ever engaged in terrorism?" -- a perfectly legitimate and honest question, that might be asked by any child or concerned adult -- then Wikipedia's response should be to point them here. Stone put to sky 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If at that point the title of the page they get is "United States Covert Operations", then the person will be only confused and frustrated. "I didn't ask about covert ops! That's spy stuff! I want to know about terrorist acts!" Creating confusion and frustration is not the **POINT** of an encyclopedia entry, regardless of whether zerofaults'd like to dissemble that it is. It's high time we returned the page to proper editing status, and began to resolve these issues within the intended scope of the original page: State Sponsored Terrorism by the United States, Terrorism Sponsored by the United States, Terrorist Acts by the United States or its Agents, The Use of Terrorism by Agents of the United States, The Use of Terrorism by the United States, Acts of Terrorism and United States Involvement, United States Participation in Terrorist Acts, or some other such permutation.Stone put to sky 09:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

I moved the strawpolls page to Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America-strawpolls and Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America-strawpolls-talk. It was necessary to move them out of the main article space. Sorry for any confusion. Tom Harrison Talk 18:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, although I still don't understand why you did what you did, even after you explained on my talk page, I appreciate it. Travb (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediator Review

I will realese my desicion on what will stay and go on the article (per the strawpoll) early Monday morning. Thank you. --WikieZach| talk 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Confused

I'm now confused. Tbeatty wrote of changing the name : "Eliminates all the WP:OR and implied terrorism of acts". What will happen to the accounts of actual terrorist acts?--Zleitzen 03:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Name an acutal terrorist act by the United States that is NPOV and substantially agreed to as terrorism published by experts? That's the probelm with the current title. There is nothing that everyone could substantially agree on. "terrorism" is a POV term that is hard to achieve consensus with. You can find people and sources who will call almost anything terorrism but it's rare for an event to be described by nearly everyone as "terrorism." --Tbeatty 06:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Jumping in for a second here. . . Can you name an "[actual] terrorist act" by any governmental body, the description of which as such is non-controversial? Jun-Dai 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Bombing of Cubana Flight 455, was that terrorism?--Zleitzen 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
State terrorism by the United States? No. --Tbeatty 06:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well the Cuban government seemed to believe it was, and stated so. They are notable, as of yet, you are not. So it stays on the page, just as "United States Department of State accuses Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism" etc stays on the State terrorism in Syria page. --Zleitzen 09:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Everyone here should read this page: State terrorism in Syria and the opening paragraph
Several groups and individuals have claimed that Syria engages in state terrorism.
The United States Department of State accuses Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism for providing "political and limited material support" to a number of Palestinian rejectionist groups, deemed to be terrorist groups by the United States, Canada, the European Union, and Israel. These groups include the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Hezbollah.[1]
If this Syrian article is allowed to stand (it should be Allegations of State terrorism in Syria by the way) - and I believe it should be allowed to stand, then our article should stand with it's present title also. With all material written and sourced in the same fashion as the above. On the Syrian article one of the allegations is actually made by PBS! If what I consider would be a false consensus to appease partisan disputing users means that we change our title to "Covert actions.." - then this page: State terrorism should become covert actions. This page: List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state should become covert actions sorted by state and so on.
Unless you are prepared to change all of these titles, then you shouldn't try and change this one. My criteria for this page is clearly laid out above. Please see [3]--Zleitzen 07:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Zleitzen if you feel so strongly that there is plenty of sources to be presented stated specifically state terrorism, the please provide them for the entire article. The problem is there are not sources calling the events terrorism for most of them, almost none of them calling anything state terrorism either. If you fel you can populate all the sources for the article then go ahead. However since the AfD I believe 3 sources have been cooked up and all of them attributed to Alarcon ... not really enough to supported the WP:RS idea of claims on that scale needing multiple sources. --User:Zer0faults 09:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I hate to be a spoil sport since Lina's solution is so effective in getting many to agree. There should be a US international covert action article. In addition, so as avoid the charge that WP is a US gov't apologist, we should follow the other "terrorism" articles as Zleitlin points out and have this "terrorism by US" article. There are such articles for other major countries, there is one called "state terrorism," so there should be one for the US too. The sources already cited in this article provide more than sufficient support for the examples provided in the article.--NYCJosh 17:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem as I keep pointing out is sourcing an article on terrorism. The sources has to meet WP:RS and WP:V and specifically accuse the US of terrorism. This means saying John Doe that works for the CIA is a terrorist, is not eligible for inclusion, cause they are accusing John Doe, not the US. The article is also stating a specific type of terrorism, state terrorism, the difference in the end I couldnt tell, however the source should be alleging state terrorism specifically then, or accusing the US of being a terrorist state, are they reversible like that? While I do not mind an article on such a thing existing, the real issue to me is sources calling the US a terrorists state, guilty of state terrorism etc, not simply stating the US did bad bad things, not simpyl headlines with terrorism in the topic, but an actual being making an actual accusation.
As for the others I have no clue if they are actually filled with valid sources maknig accusations, just from recent news however I am sure there are plenty of examples of Syria being accused of terrorism by Israel. However as state covert operations gets rid of the terrorism dark hole of infinite definitions. --User:Zer0faults 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you consider William Blum inclusionable? William Blum quit his job at the State Department in 1967 because of his opposition to the U.S. government's war in Vietnam. He became a freelance journalist and author exposing U.S. malfeasance around the world, culminating in his all encompassing and extensively documented book, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II. Blum's latest book, Rouge State: A Guide to the Worlds Only Superpower, further exposes the dirty underbelly of the U.S. Empire. Both books are must read material.NBGPWS 02:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, I respect Lina's work and in light of the conflicting opinions, she has done an ingenious job. Will someone (Tom, perhaps) now propose watering down the title floated by Lina to the less threatening "Allegations of covert operations by the United States" and then insist that only if the source recites the magic words "covert action" can the source be cited in support, and even then, only in the form "x alleges that the US performed y covert action." I am not trying to be funny. I am simply pointing out the farcical nature of the process that led to this point: a perfectly legitimate title "Terrorism by the US" was consistent with the other such WP articles (State terrorism, state terrorism by country z, etc.). This is an important topic given the high-stakes war on terrorism now under way. But this was a no-go (too close for comfort for long-cherished sacred cows), so we had "Allegations ..." which some maintained had to be limited to sources and sentences as above-discussed. But that runs afoul of WP rules, so we are urged to move to the more bland "covert action." If I cannot stop this I would like to at least register my opposition and note for the record how we got here.--NYCJosh 02:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It has to be "allegations of state terrorism by the US". Without it imples universal agreement which is impossible - as it would be for any account of state terrorism including Syria. There has been talk of allegations being a "weasel word" above which is simply untrue, and it isn't on the Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words page no matter how many times people insist it is, the word on that page is "allegedly" which is an adverb not a noun - a totally different animal. Having been through this on other pages beginning with the title "allegations" agreed by the likes of myself and User:Jayjg [4] there should be no problem here. As a sample of other pages see:

We report notable "allegations of state terrorism". The best thing to do here would be to unlock the page and just let editors detail notable allegations of state terrorism as defined by the source. Releasing it from the stranglehold enforced by these disputing parties. Content editors need to be able to improve this page and abide by policy agreed throughout wikipedia, not the curious interpretations that seem to haunt this talk page.--Zleitzen 04:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%, either allegations of state terrorism by the US or acts and allegations of state terrorism by the US NBGPWS 04:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This page needs to get back on track. Users should look for notable sources describing allegations of state terrorism by the US. And they are widespread - Harold Pinter anyone? He hasn't even been mentioned yet, but his allegations made after receiving a nobel prize were broadcast in full on live peaktime television. That is notable. --Zleitzen 06:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Zleitzen, we have consistently attempted to get this name change taken care of, so we can "get back on track", but some wikiusers stubbornly hold onto views about weasel words and refuse to comprimise, even after third party mediators decide those weasel words should be removed (this mediator decision was supported by liberals and conservatives). In addition these same wikiusers hamper building consensus to the point that we will may never be able to "get back on track". Please don't complain about our inablity to stay on track, when you helped get us lost. :) Travb (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
No, Travb. You say "we have consistently attempted to get this name change taken care of". Who is "we"? Even the strawpoll supported the original title. You can attempt to resolve your differences with Zerofaults and co via mediation - but that shouldn't compromise this page or the majority of us who have no issue with the present title, voted to keep it and just want to edit notable allegations of state terrorism. If you prefer, start a new page about covert actions and take your dispute elsewhere. But I'm here to talk about allegations of state terrorism. ie - staying "on track". --Zleitzen 06:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean we need to have moral equivalence between Syria and the United states. There is a reason why Syria has a terrorism article and it doesn't mean we need a U.S. version of it. How far would you take this logic? Is it unfair that Russia has a "Stalin" and Germany has a "Hitler" but no leader in the U.S. have been identified as a mass murderer of it's citizens? Please. Syria has a strong terrorist component to it's articles in Wikipeida because it has a strong tie to terrorism larger than most countries. Certainly a lot stronger ties to terrorism than the United States. There is no moral equivalence or requirement that the U.S. have a state terrorism article simply because Syria does. --Tbeatty 07:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

We take it as far as this, Tbeatty: Notables have alleged that Syria partakes in "State terrorism". Notables have alleged that the U.S partakes in "State terrorism". We report that. That is the logic.--Zleitzen 07:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There are dozens of incidents that many people, notable and otherwise, consider acts of US terrorism. Mark Twain even condemned the US's 'terrorism' in the Phillipines. Many consider the US use of the 'atomic bomb' in WWII 'acts of terrorism' Alleged Acts of US Terorism NBGPWS 07:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As long as the source is notable (ie.Mark Twain) and refers to "terrorism" in name, initiated or supported by the US then it is acceptable, NBGPWS--Zleitzen 07:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
He didn't use the word terrorism. I consider Howard Zinn and William Blum sufficiently notable though, and they did. NBGPWS 08:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Zinn yes, but I've read Blum on Cuba over the years and in my opinion he is not notable enough to be quoted directly on the page. He's still a marginal writer. But he could provide a good starter point for personal research, to users who wish to improve the page.--Zleitzen 08:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is going to start looking like a joke if you start adding sentences like William Blum accuses the US of terrorism in conflict X by action Y. Cause most people do not care nor know who William Blum is. Mark Twain is going to seem like a comical reference and most people will just laugh at Chomsky. I no longer object to anything in this article case it seems the people who want it to stay as is are going to sufficiently make it a joke. I reserve the right to over turn this later. I hope there is a nice NPOV section countering these events in each section or the POV tag will be slapped on the article. --User:Zer0faults 12:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And why are your opinions as to how YOU will view the article (and your projections on how others might view it) relevent to the discussion at hand ? NBGPWS 21:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on other users. Tom Harrison Talk 22:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I couldnt possibly fathom what an editors opinion on an article could have to do with an article that editors are suppose to be collaborating on ... I dont like anti-government articles, but i rather have one that a joke of an article that will make Wikipedia look bad. That is really my point, having an unsourced article, or poorly sourced one, or a list of quotes of Chomsky hating the US is going to be something else for the media to call Wikipedia out on. --User:Zer0faults 00:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Zero opined that (to him) including certain sources would make the article 'look like a joke'. That is his personal opinion. We judge articles based on informativeness and adherence to WP, not on whether or not we agree with the content. NBGPWS 00:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Whats a straw poll? As for informativeness the very first opinion is just that, I am questioning the important or notability of one of the accusers. As for Mark Twain, well ignorance will prevent people from actually knowing he is more then a book figure. As for Chomsky, well its Chomsky, who other then the far left takes him serious. I am saying if you want to write a good article on this topic you may want to go beyond. If Bill Cosby said america was a terrorist state, would you include it? Its verifiable, but I mean its Cosby ... --User:Zer0faults 00:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If Baron Von Munchausen accused the US of "state terrorism", then it goes in. Whether anyone takes him seriously or not. Because he is notable. Plenty of people don't take John Bolton seriously, but that has not stopped me adding his allegations to various pages. Should I remove these lest other users guffaw at his wild-eyed proclamations and blame wikipedia? No.--Zleitzen 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Include Bill Cosby? Possibly. Did he call America a 'terrorist state'? There's a whole section of controversial statements in the article on Harry Belafonte, including these: "In January of 2006, Belafonte led a delegation of activists including actor Danny Glover and activist/professor Cornel West which met with President of Venezuela Hugo Chávez. Belafonte was quoted as saying, "No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people... support your revolution." and "On a Martin Luther King Day speech at Duke University in 2006, Belafonte claimed he found no difference between the American government and the hijackers of 9/11, saying, "What is the difference between that terrorist and other terrorists?" Why are they there? Because he's notable, and the quotes were notable. I don't believe many people consider Belafonte a respected scholar a la Chomsky or Zinn. What ARE the Bill Cosby quotes you'd like to include, Zero? NBGPWS 00:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly call Bill Cosby's opinion on Terrorism notable. Bill Cosby as a person is notable but not everything he says would be considered a reliable source. It's not peer reviewed, published in notable journals on terrorism, etc.--Tbeatty 01:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Not published in notable journals on terrorism? Erm? Anyway. Following up the John R. Bolton article it reads:
In 2002, Bolton accused Cuba of transfers of biological weapons technology to rogue states and called on it "to fully comply with all of its obligations under the Biological Weapons Convention."[23]
Now, most people in the world who read these extraordinary claims found them ridiculous, (they were quickly discredited and downgraded by his peers). Should they be removed? Of course not. They are notable allegations whether people find them ridiculous or not.
Read these serious and complex allegations against the UK. They could be worded and sourced better, but the inference and style is correct [5]. That's the kind of writing that should be on this page. Once the page is unlocked, that is. I also urge users to read this page: Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid to see how to present material as per agreed at length by many users including arbitrators. --Zleitzen 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
So we are not attempting to make a serious article we are attempting to just list wacky theories, allegations of state terrorism by former actors and singers lol. Like I said, I will not object to anything being added to this article since its sufficiently being given proper treatment by those who actually think its worth keeping. --User:Zer0faults 01:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if the above isn't clear enough for you Zerofaults. But editors will be relating notable allegations of state terrorism, regardless of how amusing you find the subject matter. Is that clear now? If so, then no more comment from either of us is neccessary. Thanks for your input and I think it is time to unlock this page to let editors get back to editing.--Zleitzen 02:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I didnt say it wasnt a serious subject, im saying the people you are willing to settle for as accusers is gonig to make the article look silly. Please read more carefully next time. --User:Zer0faults 09:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Zero, the article on 9/11 even includes conspiracy theories - so does the article on the Oklahoma City Bombing, I'm sure dozens if not hundreds of articles do. The article on Iraq and WMD devotes multiple paragraphs to these "wacky theories" - "Rumors from top governmental officials have abounded of possible transportation of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to foreign countries, namely Syria and Lebanon, right before Operation Iraqi Freedom began." If an allegation of US terrorism comes from a notable person, and has some degree of acceptance, it should be included. I look forward to compiling the fiery quotes from Belafonte! By the way, Ronald Reagan's and Arnold Schwarzenegger's political fortunes were due to their 'notability' as actors. Bad actors, I might note. NBGPWS 02:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about at all. Filling an article with Chomsky accusations or non notable people is different from 9/11 theories. --User:Zer0faults 09:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you are confused. "Terrorism rumors from top government officials" is notable. "Terrorism rumors from top of the chart pop singers" is not. John Bolton is the ambassador of the U.N. His opinion on foreign affairs is notable. His opnion about who the best singer in the world is not notable. Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzeneggers notability in the political arena is due to their political fortunes, not their life as actors. Ronald Reagan's political opinions were not notable until he became a politicion. If Bill COsby becomes a politician and comments on Terrorism, then by all means quote him. --Tbeatty 03:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
So now you contend that we should include 'rumors' if they come from 'top government officials'?That sentence was referring to Iraqi officials, so you are even arguing that claims about alleged American Terrorism from Chavez and Kim Jong Il need to be included! Perhaps the 9/11 article should give equal weight to ex Bush official Morgan Reynolds, since he was a 'gov official' "Morgan Reynolds served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001–2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly state that 9/11 was an "inside job," and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth." WOW! NBGPWS 05:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm now confused too. Wasn't this section originally supposed to be on the title of the article? Lets all stay on point. Travb (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Recap

  • I explained to Zerofaults that the article will be relating notable allegations of state terrorism, regardless of how amusing he finds the subject matter. And that no more arguments or comments are necessary.
    • Zerofaults continues to argue and make comments replying that "the people you are willing to settle for make the argument look silly." - ie. Zinn, Pinter even Belefonte.
      • That he finds Zinn (historian), Pinter (noble prize winner) or Belefonte (calypso singing-household name-gobshite) silly isn't a satisfactory argument nor a reason to prevent editing. Therefore we can proceed and unlock the page.
  • Tbeatty argues "Only Terrorism rumors from top government officials is[sic] notable"
    • The page already carries allegations from top government officials. But of course there is no rule on any page on any subject that allegations need to be restricted to top government officials. For instance, Harold Pinter's allegations are notable by any interpretation of policy as explained above.
      • Again there are no new arguments from Zerofaults and Tbeatty's corner. Again we can proceed. So can we unlock the page and allow users to continue editing as per their reason for being here? I think it's time. If it reassures these users, I'll monitor the page to ensure that claims by non notables, or claims that don't refer to state terrorism in name are removed. --Zleitzen 11:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please post the quote when I said those people were silly. I specifically named certain people. I think if you cannot rationally discuss something without changing your opponents words around, you perhaps should not attempt to oppose them anymore. Also as I keep stating, I am not objecting to anything, your inability to read is quite disturbing. --User:Zer0faults 11:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"Your inability to read is quite disturbing" is not a satisfactory argument about the article either, Zerofaults. Or anything else for that matter. We can proceed with unlocking this page. By the way, you are not my "opponent". This is not a battleground. Thanks for your input.--Zleitzen 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This is why you have an inability to read. I have repeatedly stated, I am not objecting to anything. Geez, please read comments before making replies, and please stop asserting I said thnigs that I did not. I wish you guys would proceed with quoting Belafonte. I have been waiting for this article to be unprotected forever and was one of the only people advocating it. PS get a dictionary, opponent doesnt mean mortal combat and arenas. --User:Zer0faults 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
"This is why you haev[sic] an inability to read" and "PS[sic] get a dictionary" are not arguments about this article, Zerofaults. You go on to state "I am not objecting to anything. I wish you guys would proceed with quoting Belafonte." As you have no more objections, there is no more need for you to comment now and we can get down to editing an article. Thanks for your input.--Zleitzen 12:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You know what now that I think about it, I do have a problem, WP:RS doesnt just cover notabiltiy but also reliability and I believe actors and singers with no political standing or legal knowledge are not appropriate under WP:RS. WP:RS also states that extraordinary claims require many sources, so I hope that are multiple sources for each claim and not just one. Meaning we cannot bypass WP:RS by simply stating Belafonte said XYZ when the subject is the allegations themselves, therefore more then one person really has to be making them and those people have to pass WP:RS. Also the source reporting the allegation has to pass WP:RS as the subject is still the allegationa nd not the person. --User:Zer0faults 12:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

So just to recap, Zinn & Pinter great, Belafonte no, Chomsky yes (cannot be a legal opinion like converting legal rulings to other things, he is not a legal professor). --User:Zer0faults 12:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You yourself said that "you have no more objections - I wish you guys would proceed with quoting Belafonte". Therefore your objection is moot. Your argument here is not new, is rebuffed above, and is dealt with clearly by WP policy. Political standing or legal knowledge is not a requirement. Thanks for your comment.--Zleitzen 12:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I also stated I reserve the right to remove that, again please read more carefully. As for it being moot, much like you do nto care about my opinion I do not care about yours. The civility and respect you show me will be returned to you. When this article is unprotected I will proceed to edit it according to WP:RS. Please stop responding to me if you do not care what I say, or think my arguments are moot as you are just wasting both of our time then. --User:Zer0faults 12:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I care very much what you say Zerofaults. Is it OK for editors to quote Belefonte? As in "I wish you guys would proceed with quoting Belafonte". Or is it not as in "we cannot bypass WP:RS by simply stating Belafonte"? Do you "reserve your right" to insist on it's inclusion, or it's removal? I think an answer would help us understand your approach to this article. At the moment it is unclear.--Zleitzen 13:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
When the majority of editors here state its unclear, then I will take it as a sign it is. Until then I will just assume its more fo your inability to understand, perhaps there is just lots of miscommunication, as such I will refrain from addressing you, especially since you do not value my opinion as a fellow editor. Good day. --User:Zer0faults 13:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I value your contributions very much Zerofaults and I'm sorry you feel that I do not value your opinion. In fact you agreed wholeheartedly to my proposal to stick by convention and policy higher up the page. You also agreed that editors could "continue quoting Belafonte". But having apparently changed your opinion entirely on both these issues, you now talk about users "inability to understand", "miscommunication" and lack of clarity amongst the majority. Your disappointment is shared. --Zleitzen 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for creating another section User:Zleitzen.
Please lets not take cheap shots at each other "your inability to read is quite disturbing".
Please lets not explain each others positions as:
"arguments from Zerofaults and Tbeatty's corner" and users being "opponents".
I suggest that we try and drop the word "you" and "your" and instead use the words "an argument", making the observations less personal.
Examples:
From:
  • Tbeatty argues "Only Terrorism rumors from top government officials is[sic] notable"
To:
  • A user above argues "Only Terrorism rumors from top government officials is[sic] notable"
From:
"Please stop responding to me if you do not care what I say, or think my arguments are moot as you are just wasting both of our time then."
To:
"I feel like people here don't care what I say. I think my arguments have validity, and are not moot."
Caveat: I do realize that I need to practice what I preach more often. This idea is not my own. I was in a heated debate with the best conservative editor on wikipedia, and a third party mediator suggested dropping the "you" and "your" from the talk page)
Hope this helps. :) Travb (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, partially, but I dont feel as though "people here don't care what I say." Just that Zleitzen specifically says my points are moot, hence the comment is directed at him only. However it is good advice all around. --User:Zer0faults 14:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Zer0, I really appreciate your hard work.
"I suggest that we try and drop the word "you" and "your" and instead use the words "an argument", making the observations less personal."
From:
"Just that Zleitzen specifically says my points are moot, hence the comment is directed at him only."
To:
I get offended when others say my points are moot.
It is tough to learn to write like this, especially when a person is frustrated, and emotions run high. I have tried repeatedly to do write like this, and it is really hard, :( But the few times I have written like this, it seems to reduce the tension. Please don't hesitate to remind me of my own counseling when I start getting emotional and frustrated.Travb (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts however from your follow up example its obvious you completely missed the point. --User:Zer0faults 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Return to Tom Harrision proposal

Earlier on the page Tom Harrison stated

"A better idea would be to avoid original research, include only material backed up by verifiable citations to reliable sources, and present allegations as allegations rather than as fact. At this point I think we all need to verify that each source actually says what it is presented as saying."

Does anyone have any more objections to this proposal which I'm confident is the best way to approach the topic? This seemed to be agreed by a number of users. If not, then can we proceed? --Zleitzen 13:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good I will start checking through them --User:Zer0faults 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Last I knew, that was the original plan months back, before this decended to mediation. And indeed that plan didn't really work, thanks to the need for "terrorism" to be explicitly called out in references. This must be the US, or a department of the US goverment, explicitly being accused of performing terrorism, rather than meerly supporting or protecting terrorists. The other articles on state terror are based on the same premise - since terrorism has almost no definition, we ourselves at wikipedia cannot declare if something is a terrorist action or not. If everyone is willing this time to follow such a plan, then I see no reason why we can't decide now how to strip the article down to such statements. LinaMishima 14:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The source should define whether it is "state terrorism" or not. See the Syria page, Lina. Backing, supporting or protecting terrorist groups is what the US accuse the Syrians of under their "State terrorism" terminology. Therefore it goes into that page. If a notable accuses the US of state terrorism by backing, supporting or protecting terrorist groups then it should go into this page.--Zleitzen 14:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If a notable accuses the US of state terrorism because they are backing, supporting or protecting terrorist groups then it should go into this page. That is how I think that should read, meaning if the accusations is they are supporting terrorists, that is not an act of state terrorism, nor an accusation of it. The source has to say the US commited state terrorism. Its WP:OR for us to say the US says state terrorism = X so all accusations of X = state terrorism. --User:Zer0faults 14:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Although in other forms of writing it is Allowable to go "A is B; B is C; Therefore A is C", that is explicitly not allowed under WP:NOR. Whilst I support some leeway for trivial cases, allegations of state terror is not one of these, especially since terrorism has no real definition. We cannot define that something that there may be cause to allege as state terrorism is alleged as that, unless it infact has been called that. LinaMishima 14:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Read the Syrian page please. The US Government accuse the Syrians of engaging in "state terrorism" using that terminology. That page details those claims. The Cuban Government accuse the US of engaging in "state terrorism" using that terminology. This page details those claims. --Zleitzen 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What I am saying is, if the source says the US is harboring terrorists, that is not an accusations of state terrorism and cannot be included. If the source says the US is commiting state terrorism by harboring terrorists, then that is fine. I believe Lina is saying the same. The direct accusations of terrorism has to be there, not supporting terrorists, not backing or supporting, but actually of terrorism. --User:Zer0faults 15:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The source is saying the US is commiting terrorism. It says: "accomplice of terrorism". --Zleitzen 15:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Not the same thing, sorry. --User:Zer0faults 15:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes the same thing. Sorry. The U.S. accused Iraq of "State Sponsored Terrorism" because it was "harboring terrorists" -- in fact, the terrorists were just living there, very much against the Iraqi Government's wishes -- and then used that as an excues to **initiate**a**war**. So yes -- harboring terrorists is "involvement in international terrorism" by the U.S. government's own estimation, so it's quite o.k. to say the U.S. government is engaged in terrorism simply by harboring a known terrorist; and when it can be shown that the U.S. government was responsible for supporting, training, or aiding (whether through logistical intelligence or the transfer of materiel) a known terrorist group or actor, then yes -- the United States is in that case, as well, sponsoring and/or initiating terrorism.Stone put to sky 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
It is the provenance of this page and the citing editor to make the proper distinctions between initiating and sponsoring, but the efforts of "zerofaults" and "lina" are clearly intended to weight citations down with so much artificial, irrelevant criteria as to make it impossible for there to be any actual, realio, trulio information presented on the page. Stone put to sky 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The use of the word "terrorism" is by no means a valid requirement, because what is called "terrorism" today was at one time called "vandalism", at others "barbarism", at others "violation", at others "pillaging", and so on. "Terrorism" is a word used to describe a set of acts associated with a certain tactical method; its legal definitions are largely non-existent, and its use as an ethical condemnation is haphazard and chauvinistic. Meanwhile, although ancient writers obviously didn't use the word "terrorism", they would yet recognize our intent. Just as it's ridiculous to make the assertion that ancient times didn't suffer identical tactical and military outrages, so also it's ridiculous to pretend as if the one, consistent meaning in all uses of the term is in fact the least relevant to our current debate. Stone put to sky 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
After all this is, once again, nothing more than a disingenuous attempt by people who are offended at the association of the word "terrorism" with the entity of the United States. The response we give them should be singular and loud: tough luck. If you don't like it, then present your case on the page. But kindly do so in a respectful manner, limit yourself to the facts which are presented, and leave the title and structure of the page as it stands. If you disagree that this or that act was terrorist in nature, then find analysis that supports your position and put it on the page. Otherwise, act honorably and let both sides present their case. Stone put to sky 12:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles in need of review

  • Granma News - The United States is an accomplice and protector of terrorism, states Alarcón - Alarcon makes no such statement in the article, headline seems to be a dramatization of the actual comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by zer0faults (talkcontribs).
    Doesn't matter - it's not state terrorism, meerly not dealing with independant terrorists. Ergo I suggest this be culled (although it will have a use somewhere, this article probably isn't the right place) LinaMishima 14:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nicaragua Section - Putting this in advance, I know some sources were offered, currently none are given in article however alleging terrorism on the part of the US. --User:Zer0faults 14:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • New York Times - Ex-C.I.A. Aides Say Iraq Leader Helped Agency in 90's Attacks - Article does not contain an allegation of terrorism.
  • Middle East Section - No allegation seems to be made, can someone please post the quote of who is alleging in the book, whoever choose that as a source. No page number given either. --User:Zer0faults 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nicaragua vs. United States - Again Chomsky fails WP:RS, he is giving a legal opinion and is not a journalist, legal professor, holds a legal degree etc, so it makes him not a relaible source for this connection. The blurb at the end about the manual is starting to border on WP:OR as the manual was used to prove unlawful use of force, not terrorism. --User:Zer0faults 14:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    It's still a notable opinion, so I'd let it through, personally, as long as he's not the only source for most of the article. We just shouldn't give a statement by a non-lawyer more weight than one by a lawyer. LinaMishima 14:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    I am willing to be flexible and support this idea, as long as someone with a legal degree makes the same argument as Chomsky does, fair enough compromise? --User:Zer0faults 14:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    WP:NPOV encourages "due weight", which I believe is sufficient to prevent a problem here. Chomsky's opinion can be expressed, but we can give greater weight to, and indeed indicate an overruling of his opinion by the use of, the real legal position. LinaMishima 16:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yugoslavia v. United States - No allegation of terrorism is present here, not sure why its included. The supporting source does not make such an allegation either. --User:Zer0faults 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • International Court of Justice (Website) - List of Contentious Cases by Country: Serbia - Per above --User:Zer0faults 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Other allegations of American terrorism - Chomsky has also described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state." - I dont doubt it, just please source it. --User:Zer0faults 14:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of these sections will be delete when the mediator decides the results of the strawpoll, so we won't have to worry about them. I will message him today. I hope in the spirit of comprimise and respecting the (as of yet decided) results of the strawpoll, that by "review" we all mean "rewrite" and not "delete". Travb (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Some of them are offsite articles, they cannot be rewritten. For onsite articles they need to be sourced according to the title. No sources need to be deleted, they just cannot be used to support an allegation if they do not contain one, they can be used to support an event however if they properly mention one. Z above reccomended we take care of this now, hence my postings, feel free to review some articles yourself. --User:Zer0faults 14:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Travb was right

The only section on this page which directly relates to allegations of State terrorism is the Cuba section, written by me as it happens. The sources clearly refer to "state terrorism". That was also the only piece that went unopposed on the staw poll. Now, Lina has added: Doesn't matter - it's not state terrorism, meerly not dealing with independant terrorists. Ergo I suggest this be culled (although it will have a use somewhere, this article probably isn't the right place. Travb was right. Policy, logic and even a straw poll is getting us nowhere. --Zleitzen 14:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Lina was very specifically replying to that article in which no terrorism is being alleged at all, state or otherwise. Please do not make a new section everytime you have something to write. --User:Zer0faults 14:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Which article? The one titled "The United States is an accomplice and protector of terrorism" written by the Cuban government or "Terrorism and violence, crimes against Cuba, have been part and parcel of U.S. policy for almost half a century." quoting the head of the Cuban parliament?--Zleitzen 15:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The one listed right above where Lina commented ... --User:Zer0faults 15:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
(repeat from above) So a source stating that the US is an "accomplice of terrorism" is not acceptable on this page?--Zleitzen 15:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see above, accomplice does not mean they did it. --User:Zer0faults 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What do you think "accomplice" means? I take it to mean "A person who joins with another in carrying out some plan (especially an unethical or illegal plan)"--Zleitzen 15:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Of all the definitions on Dictionary.Com you choose that one? a person who knowingly helps another in a crime or wrongdoing, often as a subordinate. An associate in wrongdoing, especially one who aids or abets another in a criminal act, either as a principal or an accessory. one who intentionally and voluntarily participates with another in a crime by encouraging or assisting in the commission of the crime or by failing to prevent it though under a duty to do so Accomplice does not specify they commited the act. [6]
Its all pointless anyway as the source is not stating they commited an act of state terrorism, or even terrorism technically. --User:Zer0faults 15:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Then you support the deletion of State terrorism in Syria. No sources on that page say that they commited an act of "state terrorism". It says they engage in terrorist acts, are an accomplice to terrorism and so on. Much like the Cuba section here.--Zleitzen 15:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case then yes, if it goes up for AfD I will review the sources to confirm and vote accordingly, please pass along a message if that does happen.
Also stating they engaged in terrorist acts is different then were accomplices to. --User:Zer0faults 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would dearly appreciate it if people did not take my comments wildly out of context. I was refering to The United States is an accomplice and protector of terrorism, states Alarcón, which only states that the US is an alledged acomplice of terrorism. Now, once again I refer people to read WP:NOR, which disallows the sort of inferance you are attempting to use. The biggest problem in this case is that acomplice is a deliberately vague word, ranging from everything but the attack itself, to training people to be able to commit the attack. Much like terrorism, infact. We could agree to a level of inference that is appropriate, but we must be very careful indeed. I am reviewing other state terrorism articles now. additional: state terrorism is really in need of a rewrite, to give appropriate focus to it's equal meaning as state-sponsored terrorism (should be a redirect). As such, I back down on sponsorship issues - these should be included, as long as we get a rewrite done to state terrorism, and some details proving the interchangability. However, truth be told, I've been reviewing all the state terrorism articles and a few on allegations (preliminary thoughts at User:LinaMishima/Current tasks, I'm pretty tough on them), and I believe that most state terrorism articles need major cleanup and referencing work, and may benifit from a name of the format United States and acts of terrorism, allowing for the full context to be explored, and for a more neutral name. LinaMishima 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above: "That was also the only piece that went unopposed on the staw poll." In otherwords, this section is safe from deletion. This article has been in lock down mode for an entire month, and the well referenced material has stayed on the page. The results of the straw poll show that the majority of this article will remain intact (weasel word title or not). In otherwords: consensus worked, wikipedia worked.
Wikipedians, please keep in mind that it is pointless to engage in the defintion game, especially when some wikipedians definition is so narrow and "tendentious" as to exclude any acts of terorism. Some users hold an overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which cannot be reasoned with. Engaging in repetitive assertions and circular logic gets us nowhere. Those users who participate in repetitive assertions and circular logic should be isolated because they contribute nothing to building wikipedia, and waste the time of those who are building wikipedia. Their games should not be encouraged. I will no longer argue well referenced material on this page, with certain users who fail to negotiate in good faith.
The section I added Psychological Operations In Guerrilla Warfare got the most votes to keep, 8-2, so there was a 4 to 1 margin to keep. I think this was partly because of the exhastive referenced sources.
Every sentence of Psychological Operations In Guerrilla Warfare, which I wrote, was referenced. Despite this, if given the chance, some wikiusers would continue to attack this section using repetitive assertions and circular logic, and an an overly strict interpretation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I simply don't have the time nor patience to play these pointless games, especially when this section is safe from deletion and is exhastively referenced.
Some people come to wikipedia to argue, others come to build an encyclopedia. Those who simply want to argue should be ignored and isolated by more mature wikipedians.
I know it is hard not to have the last word, but sometimes the only way to build comprimise and consensus is too ignore those who want neither. Travb (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said any section not meeting the requirement sof actually containing allegations will be removed 3 days afte protection from the page is removed, giving plenty of time for users such as yourself to source sections. On the first day I will post here articles that do not contain allegations of terrorism, much like I did above. Please see WP:COn WP:STRAW and WP:NOR WP:RS. A straw poll cannot overcome WP:RS and WP:V. Also 4-1 is not a concensus. I know this because i took part in a previous poll and was told by an admin that 23-4 was not sufficient enough to be a concensus. --User:Zer0faults 13:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

RESULTS

Result
Section "Vote" End Result
Title of article
      Allegations of state Terrorism by United States of America: 7 Keep Undecided
      State terrorism by the United States of America
      State terrorism by the United States:
4 change Undecided
      Political violence by the United States 2 change 1 don't change
(maybe 2 change 2 don't change, one unsigned comment)
Undecided
9/11 scholar for truth/Manual 30-31b section 5-2 5 keep 2 delete Keep
Definition of terrorism: FBI, UN and US Code definitions 7-0 (Unanimous) Keep
Criticism of the term: 7-0 (Unanimous) Keep
Cuba/Church committee 7-0 (Unanimous) Keep
Cuba/Northwoods 6 keep 3 delete Keep
Nicaragua (Psychological Operations In Guerrilla Warfare) 8 keep 2 delete Keep
Middle East 6 - 0 (Unanimous)
(2nd section weaker: 5 keep 1 delete)
Keep
Gladio 5 keep 4 delete Delete
Nicaragua v. USA 6 keep 2 delete Keep
Yugoslavia v. USA 6 keep 4 delete Keep
Chomsky 5 keep 3 delete Keep
McVeigh 5 delete (unanimous) Delete
Wounded Knee 3 keep 4 delete Delete
Vietnam 3 keep 6 delete Delete
Ba'ath Party 2 delete (unanimous) Delete
Honduras 5 keep 2 delete Keep
Iran v. USA 6 keep 2 delete Keep
SOA and SOA Watch 5 keep 1 delete Keep
1980's support for Mujahideen
Late entry to strawpoll
2 keep 2 delete Delete
General strawpolls
Exclude military operations by national armies (even if considered war crimes by certain units) 4 exclude 3 keep Delete
Exclude assasinations 3 exclude 5 keep Keep
Exclude plans and other non-implemented material 2 exclude 5 keep Keep

The title is currently being reviewed by other users, and so it will not make the final cut. The following is a rule I used to determine how to keep or delete a section: Only if a consensus wanted to keep it, the result is 'delete'.

SECTIONS TO BE DELETED: Gladio, military operations by national armies (even if considered war crimes by certain units), Vietnam, Wounded Knee, McVeigh, Ba'ath Party, 1980's support for Mujahideem.

All the rest will stay, for any questions please ask me. I will close the case within the next two days. WikieZach| talk 21:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but concensus does not = majority especially such a small majority in some of your cases. Items that will be removed are the ones with no sources stating terrorism. --User:Zer0faults 00:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Based on what User:Wikizach said, I updated the list. User:Zer0faults, please make sure that I am correct. Thanks User:Wikizach. Travb (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second here! Wikizach determined that there was 'no consensus' for '1980's support for Mujahideem'. It was tied 2-2, without my vote ( as I got here too late to vote ) and I support INCLUDING this, so please change from 'delete' to 'keep' or 'no consensus', or I will. Also, who removed the links in the 'end results' column, and why? Here's some documentation: UN report accuses Afghan MPs of torture and massacres NBGPWS 04:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I was the person who added the word "tie", User:Wikizach then determined it was a "delete". I have consistently said that I support anything that User:Wikizach decides. The '1980's support for Mujahideem' section was added the last day or so of the straw poll, so there wasn't really a chance for everyone to decide on this section. I would suggest brining this up to User:Wikizach.
But the results of the straw poll are set, please don't modify this graph unless I made a mistake in counting the votes, or applying User:Wikizach decision on total votes. If we allowed you to add your vote, then anyone could come along and do the same, there needs to be closure on this strawpoll. You are not the only person who has came to this page after the straw poll was closed. Lina has contributred a lot to this page, and she came after the straw poll was closed. I am sorry you came to late--your only option is to talk to the mediator, User:Wikizach about this. Travb (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

OK Travb, but it sounds like Zero doesn't plan on abiding by the results of the straw poll anyway, so why should everybody else be hamstrung by it, if one user chooses to ignore it? Thanks.

Plus 2-2 isn't much of a consensus, AND the inroduction of my Guardian link changes one of the votes to result in 3-1 for inclusion (4 to 1, if my vote were to count) : "Oppose per Zer0faults unless someone can document an instance of Mujahedeen terrorism while the US sponsored them, ie against the USSR. Actually I suspect this would be easy, but 'blowback' is not state terrorism. Kalkin 21:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)" NBGPWS 08:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for other wikiusers, this is a concern you can bring up with each other. Further, I would bring up all your concerns with the third party neutral mediator, he speaks with a voice of authority which I personally lack... Travb (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
PLease read WP:CON, a concensus is not just a majority. 70-30 when there is 10 votes or less is surely not a concensus. I think on some items we did reach a concensus and some we did not, that is unfortunate, but you can also read WP:STRAW for more information on straw polls as well. We do not throw WP:RS and WP:V away because many people want to, straw polls cannot overcome the need for sources. --User:Zer0faults 13:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not happy about the Gladio removal or the Mujahideen section, but I wil accept the Wikizach solution. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
On an unrelated note: is everyone aware of Google's new News Archive tool? [7] It will be very useful for finding reliable sources. For Example, (Gladio)(CIA & Terrorism)(US & Terrorism)(CIA & Drugs) Self-Described Seabhcán 14:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry User:Seabhcan, I know that Gladio was something you added. Maybe we can add it to the "see also" section. I also have to abide by no one agreeing to a name change. Sigh. Travb (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just found this page while lookin for... (Gladio)

...something I've read here. Paragraph that broght my attention was:

"During the Cold War, two more chilling examples of so-called false flag operations have come to light. (False flag operations are covert situations conducted by governments or other organizations that are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities.) In his recent book, NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, Dr. Daniele Ganser, a senior researcher at the Center for Security Studies, Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, reports that NATO, guided by the CIA, supported terrorist attacks on civilians in various European countries to discredit the left and create fear on the part of the populace."

I found this article and was very happy to find some info what was that about. I searched for Ganser and found op. Gladio. After some reading I moved on the talk page and found out that there is a hot discussion ongoing and some want to remove Gladio.

Why? It's notable. It's something from a recent research. The title of the article is "Allegations..." so if it's not backed up strongly - I don't see a problem with that. imho. Wow, I've just found out that Gladio has it's own whole article! I don't know what are you arguing here so maybe my argument doesn't apply. For me this article looks like a place for Gladio. --SalvNaut 23:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Gladio was NATO and this is about US operations. --User:Zer0faults 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
?? yes... and CIA, British MI6 and NATO took part in it... I don't know where is a boundary for this article... I don't adhere to the rule of "collective responsibility", if there is an article about British terrorism - put Gladio there, too. A citation from Gladio article:
"CIA founder Allen Dulles was one of the key people in instituting Operation Gladio, and most of Gladio’s operations were financed by the CIA."
You won't find many state-terrorism ops. ordered by Congress, will you. Those orchestrated by CIA belong here, imho --SalvNaut 09:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It would go in a NATO article, this has already been discussed. --User:Zer0faults 20:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It should go here and in a NATO, and in a UK article... imo. --SalvNaut 15:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I completely understand your reasoning, its been well argued by others as well. However Gladio was under the command of NATO. However feel free to rehash the debate, just please see the straw poll page to understand others perspectives so you dont rehash the same arguements as well. No need for us to be redundant. --User:Zer0faults 15:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think most people who voted in the Straw on Gladio were aware of the specific connection this source establishes between the CIA and the Gladio operations. I would ask people to read the source and the mediator to allow a re-vote on this issue based on the new source brought to our attention. Similarly, while I will abide by the mediator's decision, I don't think it is the intent of this mediator or the purpose of this process to freeze this article for ever in its current form. As new sources are brought to bear, the information in the article should be updated, expanded or modified as necessary. This I thought is so self-evident as to be unnecessary to state, but in view of the above debate between Salv and Zero it seems it bears articulation. I would ask the mediator to respond.--NYCJosh 15:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There are competing definitions of Terrorism at work here

There are basically three competing definitions of terrorism:

A) "Terrorism" as a military tactic: This is the usage of the term as a description of a military tactic, typically utilized by small forces, where the intent of military activity is to purposely avoid confronting "hard targets" to instead focus on poorly defended, usually civilian "soft targets". The result of such activity is the spread of fear and undermining of overall economic activity, thereby establishing a deteriorating quality of life for the population in question. "Hard targets", in this instance, would be well-guarded, well-armed, or well-defended installations (usually military or police) where armed resistance would normally be expected. "Terrorism" in this usage strictly describes a tactical usage of violence, and nothing else. Critics of this usage of the term generally contest that all war participates in this sort of activity, and that modern, "Western" (i.e. -- Western European) militaries do not make use of it. Proponents of this usage counter that western militaries do indeed make direct use of terrorist techniques, albeit more rarely than those of third- and second-world nations; they also assert that many actions by modern industrialized militaries wind up having the same effect, regardless of what the stated ethics, aims and motives of the action in question may be, and that in addition many western democracies -- notably france, the U.S, and germany -- have prolifically condoned and supported these tactics in client states, or neighbors. A good example of how this usage can spawn huge disagreements is the debate here over Yugoslavia, where the participation of the United States and Germany in the early part of the war is asserted by some and denied by others, and where the NATO bombing campaign against civilian infrastructure is qualified by some as terrorist in nature, and denied by otheres.Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

B) "Terrorism" as an international legal term: this is the usage of "terrorism" as a legally defined and formally argued political concept. Relevant processes include, but are not limited to, the United Nations, the International Court, and various national governments. As a legal term, "terrorism" is widely debated and few conventions -- if any -- regarding its usage have been established. However, the advantage to this term is that it does provide a legal framework and formal standard by which actions may or may not be classified as "terrorist". The disadvantage, however, is that this term has not been widely tested, and so its definitions are widely acknowledged to be poorly representative of the legal concept in play, and overwhelmingly favor wealthy and powerful states. A good example here is the debate over U.S. activity in Nicaragua; it is widely acknowledged that the activities of the Contras were "terrorist" in nature -- from a tactical standpoint -- but disingenuous debaters reluctant to admit U.S. complicity in those tactics consistently shift the terms of debate to "legal questions", thereby sidestepping the well-documented use of torture and the tactical focus on soft-targets to instead argue the finer points of legal interpretation and how they do or do not apply. A good negative example is the debate over the Yugoslavian conflict: virtually no-one here is arguing a legalistic case to refine their understanding of that conflict, while many -- on both sides -- do avail themselves of legalisms to deny that "terrorism" even applies to that conflict in any fashion. Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

C) Finally, there is the word "terrorist" as a strictly ethical or moral usage, generally used to contrast entities who have submitted or established a national or legal authority as against entities which have not been sublimated to a national authority, or have not yet established those mandates; this usage often appears in casual conversations with military personnel. "Terrorists" are generally described by military personnel as poorly organized or non-regular forces who are utterly lacking in the ethics and morality which most professional, well-disciplined military organizations share. Similarly, they are disdained as self-appointed tyros who do not accurately represent the will of the population they claim to represent. Critics of this usage, however, point out that "terrorist" organizations like Hizb'ullah and Hamas make accusations against Western and Israeli militaries that are precise relfections of this outlook, except re-interpreted into the culture and economic conditions of the region or culture in question. Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Most often, however, the usage of "terrorist" as an ethical or moral condemnation is seen in popular media, where the usage is generally applied to reflect the opinions of the media-item's progenitors. In this usage, there is little or no consistent, defining quality except for negative, sub-human assertions. This usage is overwhelmingly apparent in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, where *both* sides regularly use "terrorist" to characterize the activities of the enemy. Another good example is the sub-human, politically emasculated characterization of the 911 bombers as "cowards", "mere criminals", and so on, thus stripping their act of any message or meaning beyond a desire to kill. Likewise, one finds Hezb'ullah levelling the exact same accusations against the Israeli government (and now the U.S, as well). In such cases, virtually no attempt is made to understand or evaluate the opposition's political goals which, despite public denials, are often accepted as legitimate -- if unacceptable -- by the opposing political elite. Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The overarching problem with this page is that we have several people and groups of people (like "zerofaults") introducing material based on incompatible and conflicting interpretations of what "terrorism" is or is not. For instance, zerofaults likes to assert that *any* discussion of terrorism *must* be based on "legal definitions", despite the fact that if you ask any formal participant in the International Court or UN, they will each tell you that by no stretch of the imagination is there a widely accepted legal basis for what terrorism is or is not. Moreover, although consensus has been nearly reached on several occasions, it has -- in both the UN and the International Court -- been blocked each time because of protests and vetos largely introduced by the United States and Israel (typically objecting alone, against an overwhelming international consensus, i might add). Since most international court decisions haven't reached a conclusion on these issues, and since competing legal visions would of course all be written in languages other than english, to insist that "legal consensus" be the overarching criterion of inclusion would critically hobble the article, so that it could in effect introduce no material whatsoever unless it was in accordance with the U.S. government's stated position. Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, interpretation A) is often confused with interpretation C), although the two usages of the term "terrorism" are quite distinct. In one, the term is used to describe a set of tactical decisions and objectives; in the other, it is a loose, imprecise use of the term to describe something that is basically distasteful, or on the opposite side of an ethical or strategic line. When i use the term, i consistently use it to describe activities which clearly qualify as tactical techniques and objectives and i make a strong effort to avoid using the term loosely, as is commonly done in popular media, propaganda releases, and even some "scholarly" research; for me there's a very clear distinction between the two usages. If someone feels like these differences in usage aren't sufficiently clear, then let's make some quick modifications and move on (the key being, of course, to move on). For the moment, however, i'll assert that these are basically the three different usages at work on this page and that most of the arguments here consist not in disputing whether or not the events in question actually happened nor whether they were reprehensibly violent, but whether or not they actually qualify as terrorism according to whichever definition one or the other poster here favors. Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This situation plays right into the hands of obstinate editors who refuse to allow the association of the word "terrorism" with their idealization of the "United States". For instance, were i to introduce demonstrable evidence that the military utilized terrorist tactics during the revolutionary war -- or during the Indian wars -- the response would be "the idea of terrorism isn't applicable to regular military engagements". My response would of course be that yes, indeed it is, because terrorism is a set of tactics as applied to a military encounter. Another interlocutor would respond that there's no legal precedent, and i would respond that there doesn't need to be a legal precedent because we're not talking about legal issues. There would be an impasse, and an edit war, and then the page gets frozen and nothing would go forward.Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The point is that we would each be right in our own interpretation of terrorism. I don't know why i should need to remind people of this, but it appears that i must: the beauty of Wikipedia is that we can each add our own insights to the page in question (so long as they are relevant). Once those insights are down on the page, properly represented, then there should be no need for further edit wars. The unfortunate circumstance here, however, is that a group of people *refuse* *to* *allow* *this* *page* *to* *remain*, and the appointed "moderators" are acquiescing to this most extreme and unreasonable demand. It is not necessary. *All* of these viewpoints can be accomadated; the page can be expanded to be however large it must, so long as the viewpoints included are relevant and important. *Both* sides of this conflict can be represented, and there is no reason for the article to presume that accusations of Terrorism against the United States are necessarily true or not. It is a small matter for one person to write an entry on the myriad acts of aggression that the United States has condoned and sponsored against Nicaragua, while another editor adds a final paragraph representing equally well-documented arguments about why, in the eyes of some, these acts don't properly qualify as "terrorism". Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That is: the proper challenge against this page is not "That's not a terrorist act!" "Yes it is!" "No, it isn't -- so let's change the name of the page to something different so that we can all just avoid discussing whether or not the event actually was "terrorist" in nature", but instead -- "Many people in ______ view the actions of the United States in this conflict as terrorist in nature. They hold to these conclusions because the United States was obviously supporting ________ in their targeting civlian infrastructure in an effort to erode the social stability and public peace so that __<<put objective here>>__ could be established. Supporters of the U.S. position counter that ________ was not actually a terrorist activity because it was not ________, did not ________, and was ________. Moreover, they assert that __________ are not equatable with __________ because of the inherent structures of command and control."Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the kind of copy we should be generating. Not this "Political violence by the United States" claptrap, and certainly not "Covert Ops by the U.S.", which is as pathetic a compromise as i've yet seen tabled, anywhere.Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Finally, should anyone protest that this is not the place to "define" terrorism, i challenge back that these competing interpretations are more than appropriate on this discussion page, and in fact demand tacit references in the formal article itself; indeed, the discussion page was created to provide a place for just such analysis as this, and i guarantee that if we better structure our discussion and analysis here, then the agreements on the final edit of the front page will become much easier.Stone put to sky 10:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would read my posts more carefully. I do not care what definition of terrorism is being used nor who is really saying it, however they have to actually be saying the US has commited terrorism in XYZ. No I will not accept your personal definition of terrorism, those nice large paragraphs that in the end include almost any act of violence. If the source contains a person, stating that the US commited a terrorist act, then its included, I do not care what the sources definition of, however your definitions are WP:OR. So if John Dole says eating banana's is commiting terrorism and then says the US commited terrorism from eating lots of banana's then its fine to be included, as silly as it is. However if John Dole says the US slaughtered lots of banana's to frighten the population, then thats not an allegation of terrorism. It may fit one of the many many terrorism definitions, but its not actually an allegation of terrorism. So stop mentioning me if you are not gonig to get my arguement right. Present a source, the source must have a person, stating X act was terrorism by the US. Not X act was very very mean, not X source was an outrage, but that it was terrorism. Also supporting people who turned out to be terrorists is not commiting an act of terrorism unless we have some source that proves it and then issues the accusations themselves. Meaning we cannot say John Dole says supporting terrorists is an act of terrorism itself, then state John Fry stated the US helped the terrorists in conflict H, so the US commited terrorism in conflict H. That previous example is synthesis of published material, noone is actually making an accusation that the US commited terrorism. So when you present a source, ask yourself if you can answer this. Who is saying it? What makes them notable? So you have a quote of them actually saying it was terrorism by the US?
Also its WP:OR for us to define terrorism then apply it to acts X Y and Z. We are not allowed to define things here. Is there really not enough enough people stating that act X was terrorism that we resorted to making up our own definition and applying that to other people. If John Dole said the US commited horrible acts in Nicaragua, then we define that as terrorism, is it right for us to say John Dole said the US commited terrorism in Nicaragua? I am almost positive that would be highly illegal and possibly get Wikipedia in trouble.
Right off the WP:OR page:

What is excluded? An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:

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

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

Its very important we follow these rules and realize we are here to report facts, not make them up, not present our views or our definitions, but to report what others have proven, researched, said etc. --User:Zer0faults 14:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Fine, then; let's use the Webster's online definition:
Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Corresponds exactly with my definition A), and completely excludes any and all objections you have yet made to the content of this article. Consequently, we should be able to simply eliminate any and all edits by you and lina -- who have obviously gone out of your collective way to weigh down the article with artificial and contrived definitions of what is and is not "terrorism" -- and the article will finally be in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Stone put to sky 09:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Considering the respect and formality with which you have insisted that we adhere to protocol, i presume that this solution will be as apparent to you as it is to the rest of us; of course you will honorably abide by your own decision, won't you? On that basis, I hereby call on the mediator to declare this "resolution" adjourned, ban Zerofaults from posting on it, and return it back to a responsible set of editors. Stone put to sky 09:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Or, if you don't like that, then perhaps the Britannica Online entry will do:
the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. Terrorism has been practiced by political organizations with both rightist and leftist objectives, by nationalistic and religious groups, by revolutionaries, and even by state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police.
Whups! Sorry! That sounds suspiciously like my definition A) too, doesn't it!!
Wow! This is looking more and more like it's not actually "my" definition, but in fact "THE" definition!!! Gosh, now that we know that will you promise to vamoose and stop defacing this page???? Stone put to sky 09:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Oh, gosh. After looking through those, i thought i'd check out the Wikipedia entry, just to be sure. And look at what i found on the very first line!!
Terrorism: Any violent act perpetrated to cause distress in a population. Also: Political Violence.
Doesn't that look an awful lot like my definition A)? Lemme hear the "Yeaahhh!"
So now we've got: Webster's Dictionary, Britannica, and Wikipedia all agree that my off-handed definition of the term actually allowed for *more* space, for *more* freedom so that you and your cadre could work in peace. But here we are, after hearing you insist that "external definitions shouldn't be introduced", looking my suggestions in the eye, and whadd'ya know!
By Gum!!
I was doing you a favor!!!! I was actually giving you a nice, cushy environment in which you can expound your ideas without any need to worry about the bother and inconvenience of actually adhering to established, public definitions.
Of course, i'm under no illusion that you're going to take this as an opportunity for personal growth and learn a littl bit about not getting involved with issues you don't understand; so no, i'm not really calling for the mediator to ban you and allow this page to do what it's supposed to do, in peace. Instead, my offer still stands: these three definitions allow more than enough room for you to present your side of the case, and those with whom you disagree (because i guarantee, most of them probably don't disagree with you nearly as much as you think) to represent the rest of the story in as much detail as is necessary. Stone put to sky 10:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not really sure what all the talk is about but jsut glancing over I would like to point out that Wikipedia rules on original research prevent us editors from taking a definition we find and applying events to them. I think everyone here needs to take a step back and relax a little. I do not plan to take sides or participate further as their is clearly a hostile environment here, I just hope everyone follows Wikipedia rules and remains civil. --NuclearUmpf 17:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I started a topic at WP:OR talk page for you all to participate in, the link is here --NuclearUmpf 19:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the name ˝Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America˝ is a very well done name it shows the content are “allegations”, by the other side ˝cover operations˝ is misleading because not all cover operations are state terrorism. Milton 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also the article is well referenced, it means that the allegations are linked to whom do it, the topic of credibility of the source is left to the reader.Milton 18:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


What are the pending paragraphs to be agreeded?

WP:NOR

I started a discussion here, if anyone feels I misrepresented them my apologies and feel free to clarify. I posted the link above but figure this will stand out more to people who wish to ask more questions of items that may be on the border. Happy Wikiediting. -- NuclearUmpf 15:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Link

  • please, add this:
U.S. Terrorism in the Americas an Encyclopedia "on violence promoted, supported and carried out by both the U.S. government and its servants in Latin America" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.92.176.23 (talkcontribs).
A Wiki edited and owned by the Cuban government? I dont think so. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
ok, so Wikipedia is edited and owned by the US government?! Adding a link doesn't mean to support its argmentations: if you are interested, you can read it, otherwise not. Where's the problem? (excuseme for my bad english...) --213.140.21.228 18:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not use other wiki's for sources. Further the article is locked, and EL's are not suppose to be bias, just informative beyond content of the original article. --NuclearZer0 19:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the links anon, I will add it to the "external links" section of the article. User:NuclearUmpf is correct, we should not use wiki's for sources for anything we write in the article itself. Travb (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Tags

I put up the unsourced tags, please provide source to those sections of people accusing the US of "terrorism", thank you. --NuclearZer0 10:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the three tags. Respectively, I think the {{unsourced}} tag would not be the correct tag in this case.
Maybe one of the tags here: Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes would be more accurately reflect your valid concerns?
The full list of tags are here: Wikipedia:Template_messages
I added {{Disputed-section}} to each of the three sections. If this is the wrong tag. I hope this clarifies your objections to these sections, if this does not, you can revert my changes (although IMHO, I believe the {{unsourced}} tag is not the best tag), or you can add a different tag from Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes. Happy wikiediting. I am still on a vacation of sorts, so I may not respond soon. Best wishes. Travb (talk) 06:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your attempt however while the sections are sourced to have happened, there are no sources stating it was terrorism by the united states, hence a source is needed not that the factual accuracy is being disputed. --NuclearZer0 11:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

According to the straw poll, the majority of users wanted these sections to remain, and the mediator felt that the consensus was that these sections to remain:

  • Middle East 6 - 0 (Unanimous) (2nd section weaker: 5 keep 1 delete) Keep
  • Nicaragua v. USA 6 keep 2 delete Keep
  • Yugoslavia v. USA 6 keep 4 delete Keep

As stated above, this is not an issue of references, since all three of these sections are well referenced. Travb (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already pointed out to you that they do not contain references related to accusations of terrorism, do not start an edit war if you cannot present these sources. Thank you. Also you are now editing udner two names at the same time, please abandon one name. --NuclearZer0 12:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
All of these issues have been addressed in detail above,
Except: Also you are now editing udner two names at the same time, please abandon one name., which I addressed before:
As per User talk:Thatcher131 at: Arbitration enforcement:
I'd like you to...discuss the substance of each others' edits, not the personalities behind them. (This, of course, applies to everyone on Wikipedia all the time.)
I also addressed it here: [8]
Thank you. Travb (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I await your sources, please do not revert until they are provided. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 12:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have two sources, books, which specifically label these events as terrorism:
  • William Blum, "Killing Hope"
  • Frederick H. Gareau, "State Terrorism and the United States"
Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Three events were removed, also please provide page numbers and quotations ni the form of a notes section so they can be cross references, thank you. Until you are ready to do that please do not revert. --NuclearZer0 13:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
NuclearUmpf, I'm fairly sure, as an admin with 2 years experience, that that isn;t how it works here, but I'll play your game for the moment:
Blum, Nicaragua pp 290-304, Yugoslavia p 383, Middle East pp 64-72
Gareau, Middle East pp172-189, Central America pp22-41.
Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Zer0Faults - do you accept these sources? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 14:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have access to Gareau's book. What assertion is it meant to support? My question is to anyone who cares to answer. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying that the book makes the claim that the US has supported terrorism in central america.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 14:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
On page 41 he says, "By convering up for San Salvador after it had commited terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism. By trainng and equipping the Salvadoran security forces in, and for, counterinsurgency warfare, Washington served as an accessory before and during the fact." I think later the author blames Reagan for the deluge, so it is probably not a stretch to say he claims that the US has supported terrorism in central America. Tom Harrison Talk 15:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This source is more then acceptable for the incident is refering to, Tom can you elaborate on which incident that I removed it is reffering to? All I ever asked if for people to provide sources, everyone claimed they would, the page was unprotected and noone bothered, its sad that I had to remove the sections to get people to actually care about the article they so vigorously defended. All citations to books should be sourced by page btw, its proper bibiliographical format.--NuclearZer0 15:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"Tom can you elaborate on which incident that I removed it is reffering to?" - Sorry, I don't really know. Seabhcán will probably put it where it goes. This book is searchable on Amazon, so page numbers and quotes should be easy to get. Tom Harrison Talk 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on that Tom. Ok, we have one accepted source for the claim. Anybody got a copy on William Blum's book to confirm he also accuses the US of terrorism? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
You can add it with those page numbers etc, however they are talking about el salvadorians, so I am not sure where you want to use that as a source. Noone needs the book at the moment, if I get my hands on it and it doesnt talk about the topic at hand on that page, I will simply remove the source and section again, that is all. --NuclearZer0 15:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
And please attribute it correctly, stating William Blum in "Killing Hope" stated XYZ, prolly better to quote it exactly. --NuclearZer0 15:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I've added the specific references to terrorism on the Nicaragua section from the above sources. The Middle East section is well referenced and the book "All the Shah's men", which is already referenced, goes into considerable detail of the CIA operations and called them terrorism. I don't have my copy of this book handy to find page references, so maybe someone else can look this up. Basically the whole of that book is a documentation of CIA terrorism during the 1953 coup, so I don't see the need for page references anyway. I have removed the Yugoslavia section for the moment. This is because the William Blum book talks about the CIA connections with KLA terrorism and KLA connections with Al Qaeda. However, the Yugoslava vs US case was not about this, but was about the official non-covert bombing. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Very nice work *tips hat*, and that is how you source an article ladies and gentlemen. --NuclearZer0 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad your happy. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Lord?

Wow, Lord? When were you knighted Seabhcan, and why wasn't I invited? Travb (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mongo knighted me. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
If there is a edit history behind this, I would love to read it. Travb (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha. Its not that interesting. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Multiple references

Some people use notes tag, however you can just name they differently and cite the page in the book title <ref name="BlumPage8"> would work, that way they come up as different references. --NuclearZer0 16:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

its coming up correctly simply by using the pages tag in the cite book system. Thank you. I will fix the others formats later, again please cite all the sections since you reverted all of them. Thank you.--NuclearZer0 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Guatemala

Can you please source this better, it seems there is no accusation in that specific incident that the US commited an act of terrorism, just that the school is a terrorist training ground. The obvious problem with this logic is saying Afghanistan commited 9/11 because the terrorists were trained there, or Germany did it because the terrorists lived there for a while. I am sure the source you have levels a specific allegation against the US for benig responcible for that incident, if not you may want to break off that incident and instead add a section on the School specifically. --NuclearZer0 17:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. I added his conclusion about Guatemala from pages 61-63.Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Does he actually accuse US of terrorism, he says they were simply complicit, not actually responcible or in charge of etc. Currently its not an allegation really of terrorism, just in not caring to stop it. --NuclearZer0 18:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
He specifically claims that the US payed for it, ordered it, trained the individuals who committed it on US soil, and then rewarded them for thier acts. He uses "complicit" in the legal sense, as in someone complicit of a crime is also guilty of it. Remember, the US is a system and and organisation, not a person. The US itself cannot carry out any acts, as it does not have a corporal existence. He accuses the US of State Terrorism specifically, and infact calls his book "State Terrorism and the United States". Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
True and I will simply let this pass as long as it doesnt become a slippery slope, however I want to point out that the title uses, "and", instead of, "of", which would mean the acts were commited by the US, not simply in relation to the US. We really should not try to assume what an author attempts to say and instead go by what they actually did say. Complicit does not equal responcible for. --NuclearZer0 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Please revert what you changed it to, what is now there, that he said the US was guilty of state terrorism does not appear in the book and is simply your drawn out understanding of it. ITs best left complicit as those are actually the authors words. --NuclearZer0 18:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that his words are better. But there should be no doubts raised that the author believes the US simply stood by and watched these events happen on their own. The book's 231 pages make clear the author believes that the United States was deeply involved in the planning and training of acts of state terrorism. He uses the phrase "wholesale terrorism" and concluded that the US population should be informed of the acts of their government. His recommendation is for a South African-style Truth Commission.
It is an acedemic work and the author chooses acedemic language and style. This includes using words like 'complicit' and removing judgement from the title, hence the use of 'and' rather than 'of' or 'by'. Get the book and see for yourself. Its on Amazon.com. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I just want to point out that appreciate you adding sources and contributing, some people just scream and cry and some take action, its what helps this project work and helps the articles actually meet standards. --NuclearZer0 19:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, this pretty much worked itself out, didn't it? I will say I'm not entirely thrilled to see Zer0faults' arbitration case wielded like a sword nor my name used as a shield. If I had to choose sides I would say that Nuclear was generally right in removing the sections originally and RyanF Travb was wrong to revert them. There is an important difference between an editor believing that certain actions were terrorism and finding sources for evidence, versus reporting the allegations and evidence given in third party reliable sources. It was not originally clear which the article was doing, now, thanks to Seabhcan, it is. Ten days was a reasonable time to wait, and consensus does not trump a core policy like NOR.
I do think that this comment [9] was a failure to assume good faith. While it is technically true that unreferenced information may be removed if it contested, patience and good faith are the only social lubricants we have here. (If only we could take Nuclear and Travis out for beer and wings--although they'd probably end up arguing about the smudge on Kenny Rogers' hand.) Thatcher131 03:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

removal of Gladio information (again)

Could User:Brimba explain his removal of a section of Gladio material please? (diff) Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple, there is no proof that any such FM exits now, or ever has, other than a KGB forgery. Thus it can not be used in the manner it was being used here per WS:RS. Brimba 16:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This article is about allegations. Dr Ganser has alleged that he found such a document. We can source that allegation. We don't have to prove he's right. That would be OR anyway. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Allegations, as used for this page would be 1) creditable allegations attributed to a reliably published source; 2) or allegations by a significant party such as another country, the UN, or a promint NGO -even when in the second case the allegations are suspect. Because WP is an encyclopedia, the term “allegations” is not used so broadly as to include any conceivable allegation. You are correct, we have no requirement to prove that the US government actually published the FM, nor is it within our means to prove that one way or the other even if we where intent upon doing so. However, there is considerable doubt as to the source of the FM. The former USSR/KGB had an extensive disinformation program, and the FM could have come from there, as they had a vested interest in producing such documents, or it could be real. In short, it’s not attributable, and therefore not useable, even as an allegation. Brimba 04:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The question is whether Dr Ganser's allegation is notable. Deciding this is not an exact science, but we had a vote here a while ago and decided that it was. Dr Ganser published an academic work on Gladio with the backing of Zurich ETH. The allegation is attributable to Dr Ganser. You don't get much more notable than that. Yes people disagree with his conclusions and evidence. These disagreements were mentioned in the section you deleted. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

“Deciding this is not an exact science, but we had a vote here a while ago and decided that it was.” This would violate WP:CON, you cannot vote something into WP that would otherwise fail guidelines.

Notability is not achieved on the basis of a research grant. If universities funding in someway = notability…what would not be notable? Universities fund things that they hope will ultimately be notable, that’s why they spend the money, but spending money alone does not equal notability. The outcome must stand on its own.

If Dr. Ganser had gained FM 30-31B through the FOIA, or acquired it through another form where a direct link back to the US Government/military could be established, then it would be useable. We where saying that he “uncovered” it. How? Where is the linkage?

Regardless of Dr. Ganser standing as an academic, the FM has an already acquired history, one that does not simply vanish when Dr. Granser steps into the picture. There where questions already attached to the FM concerning its authenticity, and those questions remain.

The interaction of Dr Ganser with the subject does not raise it to the point of inclusion. Brimba 15:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The document is questionable and those questions are presented in the article. I don't see any reason to censor this article for 'questionable' documents. We don't know whether it is true or false. There is no Wikipedia policy which bans mention of 'questionable' information. Wikipedia is not Pravda. Present both sides and let the reader decide which he believes. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"There is no Wikipedia policy which bans mention of 'questionable' information." It bans OR Wikipedia:No original research, another term for 'questionable' information, and clearly what is being presented here. Brimba 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you misunderstand the OR policy. Original Research does not refer to externally published research which is externally questioned by other researchers. OR refers to research carried out by wikipedians. I did not find this FM document. If I had that would be OR. Dr Ganser, who is not a wikipedian, found the document and published this research outside of wikipedia. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can some third party with experience on this page give an impartial opinion of this case? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
As long as it was not Ganser who's Univeristy recently disowned him for not having his work peer reviewed, I have no problem with it being used and do not believe its WP:OR per your rationalization above. However if it was Ganser then the verifiability of the document comes into play. I know, I am not really impartial. --NuclearZer0 13:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
?I haven't heard any of this. Do you have a link? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 14:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No I do not because I am not sure if it was Ganser or not. I know one of the 9/11 conspiracy theory guys was recently found by his University to have not undergone the level of peer review that they felt was acceptable and put him on paid vacation. As I said, I am not sure if its Ganser or not. --NuclearZer0 19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Got it sorted, its Steven_E._Jones that is the one, not Ganser, so as I stated I am not against its inclusion. --NuclearZer0 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Ganser is a quack and FM 30-31B is bull and is the lynchpin of his arguement. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "FM 30-31B is bull"? --NuclearZer0 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Its a forgery. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It isn't relevant whether it is or not or whether you think it is or not. I think the Bible is nonsense, but I don't think all mention of it should be deleted from wikipedia. The fact that notable people proport these things and that people agree with them means that we should also include it as one side of the argument. If Wikipedia only contained TDC's definition of reality I don't think many people would stop by.
We have a whole article on the Hitler Diaries even though it has been proven to be fake. It is still important to comment on its existence.

Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The FACT that 30-31B is a forgery is extremely relevant when it is used to bolster a factual argument from a tin foil wear crackpot. No forgery, no evidence, no argument. And for the record, Ganser did not "unearth" jack, 30-31B has been widely circulated in the Turkish and European leftist press for the past 30 years since it was first “discovered” in the Philippine Embassy in Bangkok. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I am unaware of this fact. I am aware that it was been suggest to be a forgery by other researchers. This no more counts as a proven fact than Ganser's opinion that it isn't a forgery. This is wikipedia, we present both sides. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 22:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We most certainly do not provide equal weight to every POV and yes, this one is garbage. It also goes to show the poor level of scholarship on Ganser’s part that he did not mention either the "debate", if one could call it that, behind the documents authenticity nor did he go through the customary step of having it authenticated, a move that would have been easy because Westmoreland’s signature is on the “document” (itself a red flag that it’s a fake) and a handwriting analyst could easily confirm to Ganser that it’s a fake. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Ganser does address the issue of authenticity, on page 235 of his book. Or perhaps you haven't read it? Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 11:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Uhh, no he doesnt. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
p235: (Its a long section, I'm not going to type it in word of word): Says the BBC investigated the document. Ray Cline, Deputy Director CIA, said "This is an authentic document". William Colby, CIA Director said "I have never heard of it" CIA propaganda expert Michael Ledeen claimed it was a Soviet forgery. Licio Gelli, leader of P2 said "The CIA gave it to me".
Do you claim that the book doesn't say this on page 235? I have it here in black and white in front of me. Who are you trying to kid?! Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 15:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt really sound like its adressing authenticity, at least not in the context you have written it out. The fact that the allegation of a forgery is actually listed there seems to make it a not fully verified document. I think on that basis it shouldnt be included after all. --NuclearZer0 18:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That someone suggests it is a forgery doesn't mean it is a forgery. And even if it was, we have a whole article on a known forgery: Hitler Diaries. I don't see how accusations of forgery should lead to censorship.
Ganser clearly believes that the document is genuine. Secondary sources quote Ganser on this. And he quotes three people who also believe it is real. To delete reference to this document removes important information. Any reader looking of information on this topic expects to see both pro and con sides presented. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
You would consider “that” an overview of the authenticity of 30-31B on Ganser’s part? Of course Ganser believes the document is real, because it one of the key pieces of “evidence” he has to tie his screwball theory together. Interestingly enough, I actually looked at the Allan Francovich’s BBC documentary (The video can be found here in three parts towards the bottom of the page), and found some interesting things about Ganser’s sources. Ray Cline said quite clearly that he never saw the document in question and Colby called it horse manure.
Among some of the better witness in Francovich’s “crock-umentary” is a “Colonel” (like Colonel Sanders evidently) Oswald LeWinter, former literature professor and now Ex-con. According to LeWinter, he has been everywhere, he was in the Korean War and Vietnam War and was even Deputy Director of Counterespionage for the CIA (a position that does not "officially” exist). According to LeWinter he had ties to not only Gladio, but his super-duper triple secret agent status made him a “key player” in the Kennedy assassination, the October Surprise, and even the CIA’s involvement in the death of Princess Diana. Although this last claim put him jail for fraud after he was caught peddling phony documents about this. Naturally though, LeWinter’s records that could prove his long service in US intelligence agencies and the military have all been destroyed.
Funny what you find out about sources when you start digging a little. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh for the love of God. This is like talking to a Stalinist. I give up - I'm taking a wiki-break. Delete what you like while I'm gone, I'll revert when I get back. I suggest you start with topics such as the Great Depression and History of slavery in the United States. I'm amazed you've allowed such anti-Americanism to remain on wikipedia! Its clearly communist propaganda. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 19:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not really sure where the tanget came from but having an article on a document that is a popular forgery is one thing, using that document to support something factually is another. The latter being a violation of WP:RS as we are suppose to make sure our sources are good, not simply that they are existent. --NuclearZer0 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
And Ganser definately aint an WP:RS. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, if anybody on Wikipedia starts using the Hitler Diaries as a reliable source, let me know, and I'll go after it. We shouldn't be using propaganda as sources for facts on Wikipedia, whether the propaganda comes from Ganser or some other Anti-Semite. Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo 23:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of external conflicts today, I have decided to take the initiative and I unwatched this page for a month, so have fun...Travb (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Guatemala

in the Guatemala section I would like to add a couple introductory sentences on the CIA overthrow of Arbenz which was a precursor to civil war. Arbenz - - PSSUCCESS I'm pretty sure that this and other acts of US complicity with Renegade Guatemalan Military Units and Death Squads were admitted to during the Church Comittee hearings.

I'll post here first. Fairness And Accuracy For All 04:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI..... "GUATEMALA CITY, March 10 – President Clinton expressed regret today for the U.S. role in Guatemala's 36-year civil war, saying that Washington "was wrong" to have supported Guatemalan security forces in a brutal counterinsurgency campaign that slaughtered thousands of civilians.
Clinton's statements marked the first substantive comment from the administration since an independent commission concluded last month that U.S.-backed security forces committed the vast majority of human rights abuses during the war, including torture, kidnapping and the murder of thousands of rural Mayans.
"It is important that I state clearly that support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression of the kind described in the report was wrong," Clinton said, reading carefully from handwritten notes. "And the United States must not repeat that mistake. We must, and we will, instead continue to support the peace and reconciliation process in Guatemala." WAPO Admitted to complicity? Fairness And Accuracy For All 05:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
YOu can check through the archives but the majority of editors has gone over this, specifically stating that the source must alledge the US commited an act of terrorism to satisfy this article, as the article is on allegations of terrorism. If you do find a notable WP:RS WP:V source stating its terrorism then feel free to add it, however please add it in the appropriate fashion, Person X in item Y states the US commited acts of terrorism in situation Z. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 12:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)