Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

Opposing views

Controversial Wikipedia articles usually have a section with opposing views. So I am working on one. Suggestions welcome.

  • One reason for the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations the population often lack literacy, education, and are otherwise too poor to be be able to fully participate in a democratic process. Thus, supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth have often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization. Right-wing dictatorships in nations such as Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia eventually become democracies. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows that poor democracies perform better, including also on economic growth if excluding East Asia, than poor dictatorships.[1]
  • Problem with this is that its a response for support of right-wing dicatorships, its not a response for support of State Terrorism. Support can mean many things. I think the standard answer given by the US is simply to deny that is occured, or that it was acting in self defense, as it claimed in the case of the US vs. Nic.Giovanni33 22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As noted in the source, this is one of the reasons. Most of the sources in the article do not mention "state terrorism", so if they are allowed, then this should as well.Ultramarine 22:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
The source is irrelevant because it does not present opposing viewpoints to the events in question. Unless it directly addresses the events in question, it has no place on this page. Stone put to sky 10:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As per NPOV all views should be presented, including reasons for, criticisms etc. This is not a simple list article.Ultramarine 10:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, all views about US State terrorism. Saying the US supports right-wing goverments, and explaining why, does NOT explain why the US committed acts of State terrorism, per se. The source must state that support of conservative governments extends to support of terrorism. If you have a source that rationalizes that, then fine.Giovanni33 05:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, then we must delete all the accusations that do not mention "state terrorism" That is, most of them.Ultramarine 09:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Its not that simple. Back ground info related to the incidents in question (in which a source lists as an exmaple of US terrorism), are perfectly fine to verify and add details about the facts in question. Those don't get deleted, even if they don't mention state terrorism. Likewise, other statments that are back up with references, provided those statments don't allege something not in the source. An example would be the plans for terrorism that the US has addmitted to.Giovanni33 21:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
In practice the article makes an OR synthesis and claims that numerous things are state terrorism which has not been stated in any source.Wikipedia:POV forking prohibits articles only having arguments from one side. If you want to list US support for dictatorships as evidence for state terrorism, then NPOV also requires explaining this support.Ultramarine 21:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Supporters of the United States point out the United States rarely have used violence against other democracies. When the United States was involved in coups against democratic government, part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully imlement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.Weart, Spencer R. (1998). Never at War. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07017-9.p. 221-224, 314.
Saying, "supporters of the United States," is a loaded term. Supporters of what? The people? The policies? Which policies? Do you mean supporters of US terrorism, or the actions that are alleged and accused of being state terrorism? The claims are also very dubious. What does "rarely" mean? The historical record is one of the US being consistently against democratic movements, and supporting elites, big bussiness, which more often than not, means supporting dictatorships. Even overthrowing democracies and installing dictatorships. But, again, even if this dubious claim were true, what does it have to do with the accusations of State terrorism by the US? In fact, I think you mischaracterize the source. I know of this book, and its thesis is simply the claim that democratic states have less of a tendency to go to WAR with each other. That is, states going to war with other states--not all violence, and nothing about US state terrorism.Giovanni33 05:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
This is clearly nonsense, because all of these victims of U.S. aggression were fully functioning democracies at the time of their targeting by the U.S. (and some of them still are): Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Indonesia, Burma, Iran, Angola, the Congo, Argentina, Peru, Guatemala, and most recently the Palestinian Territories (under Hamas) and Lebanon. Stone put to sky 09:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have given sources, you not. The support for a few coups already discussed. Helping an elected democratic government against rebels is not violence against this government.Ultramarine 09:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Look, this is the talk page. I have just stated, as openly and clearly as i can, that i can demonstrably prove that the nations i just mentioned had fully functioning democracies before they attracted the wrath of the U.S. military/state department/cia/government. Now, if you would like to debate whether or not it is useful for us to have a bunch of lies in the article, then feel free. For my part, i can guarantee that the "source" you've "provided" is nothing more than a bunch of claptrap masquerading as scholarship, and i've already stated it's an easy enough thing to prove.
This being the talk-page, though, i don't need to prove it -- and if you were editing in good faith WP:AGF then, instead of falling back on claims that you have "sources", you'd instead engage me in a discussion about how to better improve your proposals to the page.
It is conspicuous, however, that you are not. You are instead trying to bully us to include a bunch of irrelevant claptrap because "you have sources", and i "don't". That's clearly not good faith, and your material is just as clearly totally irrelevant to what's being posted, here. Stone put to sky 10:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I will repeat for clarity: I have given sources, you not. Please read W:V, W:NOR, and WP:RS, so you can see for yourself the importance of giving sources.Ultramarine 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I will repeat for clarity:
Citing sources is not enough. The material must be relevant to the page. Yours is not. Stone put to sky 10:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is and you have presented no reason for not being so.Ultramarine 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, now we are getting somewhere.
Ultramarine, please explain to me how including categorical lies about the U.S's behavior -- lies which are easily disproven by a quick search of Wikipedia -- is relevant to a page that is supposed to deal in facts? Stone put to sky 10:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess you are trying to make a point about something but what is unclear. Regardless, Wikipedia cannot be cited in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 10:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation. However, actual empericial studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[2][3][4]No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003. Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct. Studies have found that New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations is biased, predominantly focusing on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations.[5][6] For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media. Finally, those nations with military alliances with the US can spend less on the military since they can count on US protection. This may give a false impression that the US is less peaceful than those nations.[7][8]
  • This one doesnt work logically. Its a non-sequitur because it confuses the issue of democracies use of violence relative to non-democracies with the claims of US terrorism. They have nothing to do with each other. The claim is of US terrorism. While it may be true that democracies have killed fewer civllians than non-democracies, so what? It does nothing to the claim. The claim of democracies vs. non-democracies may not even be true in the case of the U.S, either, despite it being a democracy (since the studies talk about all democracies vs. non-democracies overall). And, even if it were true, it amounts to saying, "other countries committ terrorism also, and we do it less." That is not a valid argument either, as it forms a logical fallacy of two wrongs make a right.Giovanni33 22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • No, you can see how many the US have killed and its is less than many of the dictatorships of the twentieth century. Regarding the supposed logical fallacy, Chomsky obviously thinks that two wrongs is worse than one, so we can make the same argument in the opposing views section.Ultramarine 22:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • But, this article does not list as an argument how many are killed and uses the number killed to make a qualitative argument regarding the substance or nature of the action. Its terrorism if one person dies or thousands. Therefore, there is no counter point being made regarding citing numbers that the US killed vs. those killed by other States (not to mention that those killed, such as by war, etc, and those killed by terrorism are not the same.) has nothing to do with the accusations of state terrorism by the US. Its a non-sequitur.Giovanni33 22:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, more nonsense; these so-called "empirical studies" are all fatally flawed, insofar as they tend to paint huge, neo-industrial nations like China and the USSR as responsible to the decisions of a single ruler who coordinated all atrocities that occurred during their stewardship -- while at the same time refusing to include atrocities in which the U.S. is widely acknowledged to have had a fundamental role. If we include, for instance, the deaths of all the people in the Great Leap Forward as the sole and singular responsibility of Mao and the CCCP, then we should clearly also include the slaughter of millions of Burmese, Kampucheans and Indonesians that took place after U.S. orchestrated coups.
Lacking, however, a suitably objective standard by which to measure responsibility, these calculations inevitably fall prey to the selective awareness of the people authoring them. They are unsuitable as wikipedia sources.
Finally, unless you believe that "some terrorism is worse than other terrorism, depending on how many you kill", then this argument is totally illogical. By making it, you (and your sources) are not denying that the U.S. has committed State Terrorism, but rather that when the U.S. does it it's not so bad as when other people do (because in the long-run the U.S. tends to kill fewer people).Stone put to sky 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
These academic empirical studies certainly attempt to decide which state is responsible. Thus, verifiable as defined in Wikipedia. You on the other hand, give no sources for your claims. Again, Chomsky argues that quantity matters, so we can make the same argument in the opposing views section.Ultramarine 09:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, beside the fact that "attempting to define" and actually "defining" are two completely different things, the the selection remains irrelevant to the article. It is not arguing that "State Terrorism by the United States" didn't occur, but rather that it is less "terrorist" in nature because it was done by the United States. Again: that's not an issue for this page, because this is, currently, a simple enumeration of the terrorist acts for which the U.S. bears some (or all) responsibility. Stone put to sky 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to dispute these studies, publish in academic literature, Wikipedia is not the place. This page is an OR collection of links, most of which do not mention terrorism or "state terrorism". Again, Chomsky argues that quantity matters, so we can make the same argument in the opposing views section.Ultramarine 10:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I will repeat for clarity:
Citing sources is not enough. The material must be relevant to the page. Yours is not. Stone put to sky 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is and you have presented no reason for not being so.Ultramarine 10:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it does not logically follow from the articles subject. I notice you like to advance the democratic peace theory and stick it in many article where its not related to the subject matter under discussion. The point is not that one agrees or not with the data and studies, the point is that its not relevant here. No where in this article does the issue of "democracies" vs. non-democracies as it pertains to violence, even come up. Its not an issue this article is interested in. So your putting in this democratic peace theory that alleges that so-called democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies is not relevant. Its a non-sequitur when you link to Chomsky's claims that the US committed acts of state terrorism. Pointing to other states that did it too, or even worse, and that there is a correlation between this alleged fact and the extent of the democratic nature of the state is point to make in perhaps articles that deal with this subject. This article does not.Giovanni33 05:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As stated before, the source shows the deaths caused by the US alone, not only democracies in general, which is what I am refering to. The US may have been responsible for killing hundreds of thousands civilians, while dictatorships have killed tens of millions. It is Chomsky who argues that quantity matters, so we can make the same argument in the opposing views section.Ultramarine 09:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That US soldiers have committed war crimes such as rapes and killing POWs is a fact. However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military.[9] They are not the policy of the US government. The same applies even more to acts committed by to foreign groups supported but outside direct US control. Despite this, the US is often blamed for every single human rights violations in nations or by groups they have in some way supported, regardless of if this was approved of by the foreign leaderships or not, and regardless of if the US have tried to use its influence to stop this or not. For example, the US is often blamed for all the human rights violations during the long civil war in Guatemala, despite that the US for long periods cut of its military aid just because such violations, helped stop a coup in 1993, and made efforts to improve the conduct of the security services.[1]
This one has more weight, however international law already has a lot to say on the subject. The odd rape of a woman or murder of a civilian is one thing; rape camps and torture chambers are an entirely different thing. Abu Ghraib was clearly not the work of "a few bad apples", but rather a policy decision endorsed by the highest levels of the U.S. leadership. That makes it State Terrorism.
Further, if one follows this rhetoric out to its natural conclusion then it is as equally applicable to all States everywhere as it is to the United States alone. In other words, it would be just as easy to use this argument for the Yugoslavian government under Milosevic as it would be to use it for the United States; many of the units in the Yugoslav army undertook their atrocities in direct response to atrocities undertaken by the enemy, which they had witnessed in the field. Their actions were not generally policy, but tactical-level command decisions. Nevertheless, the European tribunals have classified them as State Terrorism, largely because the Serbian commanders went unpunished and were not relieved of their command by their civilian leadership.
In other words: this entry would be more suitable for inclusion on the "Definition of Terrorism" or "State Terrorism" page, because it is not dealing with specific U.S. actions. Stone put to sky 09:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
European tribunals have certainly not classified anything as "State Terrorism" since the term in not used in international law. Those responsible at Abu Ghraib was punished. But you miss my point. Again, the US is often wrongly blamed for every single human rights violations in nations or by groups they have in some way supported, regardless of if this was approved of by the foreign leaderships or not, and regardless of if the US have tried to use its influence to stop this or not.Ultramarine 10:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
In order:
A) Yes, they have.
B) No, they weren't, and you do a grave dishonor to our servicemen and women to suggest such a thing.
C) Irrelevant material.
So, here i am, once again repeating myself "for clarity's sake":
Having sources is irrelevant if your arguments don't belong on this page. Stone put to sky 10:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, read WP:V, your unsourced claims are not relevant.Ultramarine 10:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I too have to challenge the assertion that "Those responsible at Abu Ghraib was [sic] punished." Frederick, Graner and and England were punished. Are you seriously suggesting that they are "those responsible", while their officers weren't?
  • What about Lewis Welshofer -- who suffocated the man he was interrogating, by stuffing him, head-first, into a sleeping bag, trussing up the sleeping bad, and then sitting on his chest -- even though he had multiple broken ribs. Was Welshofer punished? A month's confinement to barracks, and docking of a month's pay. When interviews on 60 minutes the guy wouldn't even acknowledge he had done anything wrong. How do you respond to critics who say that even if guys like Welshofer were using their own initiative, the leniency of the punishment amounts to state support of their actions.
  • Consider Ilario Pantano -- in his June 2004 statement to naval investigators he bragged about planning, ahead of time, to use "maximum violence". His original sworn statement was a bald confession to a premeditated act of terrorism. He kept telling the naval investigators that he desecrated the bodies of the unarmed prisoners he shot in order "to send a message". He scrawled a warning about their descrated bodies; he did not call the morgue for a body pickup, so the civilians in the neighborhood would have a greater chance to take in his chilling message. His intention was to terrify civilians -- that is terrorism, by any reasonable definition. Pantano wasn't charged. He resigned his commisison. He is now a Sheriff's deputy in North Carolina. (Note: the accounts that he only shot his captives when they ignored repeated warnings to "stop", is completely at odds with his original sworn statement.) IMO if Pantano had been court-martialed, then the Marines in the First Division, in which he served, wouldn't have felt authorized to murder those two dozen civilians at Haditha.
  • What about Jeanette Arapo-Burkart? She was one of the female interrogators who was observed pretending to smear her menses on bound prisoners. She also ended up at Camp Huaxaco, as an interrogation instructor. Mind you, as a highly paid civilian contractor. She too never faced charges for her abuse.
  • What about Carolyn Wood. As I have read through the transcripts from the Guantanamo captives' Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Board hearings I keep coming across captives who reported the same kind of abuse, while at the Bagram that killed Dilawar and Habibullah, where they were under Wood's authority. The Fay/Jones report recommended Wood as one of the US personnel's whose conduct be formally reviewed for charges by their commanders. Wood's conduct was never reviewed by her command. There was no further inquiry. Instead she was transferred to the Army's interrogation school, where she became an interrogation instructor.
  • So, when an intelligence officer's soldiers beat not one, but two men to death, within a single week, and they are not only not held to account, but are (1) promoted; (2) given medals; (3) posted as an interrogation instructor -- why shouldn't this be interpreted as an indication that her violations of both US and international law was completely supported?
Cheers! Geo Swan 17:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Ultramarine. My views certainly are relevant, because i dislike it very much when vandals target Wikipedia in an attempt to deface pages. This is irrelevant material, and unless you can provide some sort of justification for it then it will be deleted. Stone put to sky 10:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Justification provided. Regarding your unsourced claims, read WP:V.Ultramarine 11:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Defenders of the former School of the Americas argue that no school should be held accountable for the actions of only some of its many graduates. The school has been reorganized and renamed to The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). It is now under the Department of Defence instead of the US army. Now also civilians and police personnel to attend. Before coming to WHINSEC each student is “vetted” by his/her nation. Students are first screened by their own government and then screened by the U. S. embassy in that country. If there is any hint of wrongdoing in the student’s past, the student is not permitted into the United States to attend WHINSEC. All students are now required to receive a between eight and over forty hours of instruction, at beginning of each of the more than twenty classes, in "human rights training in law, ethics, rule of law and practical applications in military and police operations."[10]Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. "FAQ".Center for International Policy. "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation". Retrieved May 6, 2006. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Once again: this is about the School of the Americas, not about State terrorism by the United States. If you want to take this to the SOA/WHINSEC page, then feel free. However, this page is not the place for a debate over the School of the Americas -- unless you are willing to admit an entire section on the School of the Americas, one that clearly accuses it of a role in U.S.-sponsored state terrorism and allows a proper debate over its role and responsibilities.
Unless you are willing to create an entire section on the SOA, then there is simply no place for this passage to be included here. For my part, i'll be happy to let you start that section, provided you are honorable enough to allow a proper debate over its role in these atrocities. By that, i mean you'll need to make sure that sentences like "Because of its role in training the initiators of the Guatemalan genocides and other atrocities" doesn't get deleted by some guy because it's "POV". I would be quite content with seeing your "opposing viewpoints" here just so long as you are willing to accord those of us who disagree with a similar freedom to include our own views.
If not -- if you instead insist upon abiding by the artificial double standard you and your comrades have insisted upon setting for this page -- the i will continue to insist that this is not the place for it. Stone put to sky 10:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the article includes criticisms of the former school, the views of the other side should also be included. One sided bashing is not allowed as per NPOV.Ultramarine 10:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you are introducing yet another straw man. The article contains sourced facts about the graduates of the school and its reputation at the time. Your comments contain sourced opinions about the current school, disseminated by government sources who get their salaries by either working for or defending it, and defending it against current criticism.
When we have mentioned the School of the Americas it is within a strictly limited historical context, a time period that ends in about 1990. You are introducing material about the school that clearly has nothing to do with the events mentioned, that does not explain or elaborate anything of relevance, and which has nothing to do with State Terrorism by the United States. So, once again: either start an entirely new section on the School of the Americas - where this material would be appropriate -- or take it out, because it doesn't have anything to do with the article as it stands. Stone put to sky 10:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouting will not help your case. The article contains statements like "is a terrorist training ground." and certainly does not mention a 1990 limit. So again per NPOV, both sides should be included.Ultramarine 10:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not shouting. Why would you suggest that? I was simply highlighting certain passages to try and help you understand that there are a few fundamental ideas you're not recognizing, even though i have repeated them many times over. Just as i am doing here, once again:
Citing sources is not enough. The material must be relevant to the page. This material is not. Stone put to sky 10:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouting again will not help you. You have not given any reason for you claim.Ultramarine 10:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on "Opposing views" by Ultramarine

If this article were a comprehensive examination of current and past US foreign policy then some of your points would be relevant as responses to criticism. However, this article lists some examples of terrorism perpetrated by the US gov't, and as such, going in the order of your bullet points: 1. the reasons given for the underlying US policy which includes terrorism; 2. the alleged lack of US terror against democratic gov'ts (not true in 1953 Iran, against Arbenz, Chile 1972 and many other examples); 3. the number of victims (again, not true since WWII, since the US achieved superpower status, the US has been number one in number of people killed as part of its wars, offical and unofficial); 4. the lack of US media focus on other conflict zones; 5. the examples of US soldiers committing atrocities without official approval; 6. the alleged current "reformed" activities of WHINSEC; and 7. the policies of other friendly nations, are all irrelevant to the documented terrorist actions in the past. Think about it, we are talking about history not how good or bad we think we feel about current policy or about the context of other policies. Having said that, I am all for including opposing views and if there are pertinent criticims of the article I for one would be all ears.--NYCJosh 19:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You give no sources for your claims, while I have done that. Obviously we should discuss arguments for and against, as per Wikipedia:NPOV.Ultramarine 19:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC) I did not make any factual claims (the parenthetical remarks were included to address errors of fact but could be safely ignored for purposes of the discussion of the relevance, or lack thereof, of the points you raised). --NYCJosh 16:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You points may help explain some points of US policy. However I find far more important the influx of anti-communists from Eastern Europe at the start of the Cold War, and their effect on US foreign policy through diaspora politics in the United States, as well as their integration into American intelligence services. See for example Blowback - America's recruitment of Nazis, and its disastrous effect on our domestic and foreign policy. -- Petri Krohn 20:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting theory. Relative importance is difficult to determine.Ultramarine 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the first two points are great and should be included in some manner, however the bottom four seem to stray, if they are in direct relation to a particular claim it should be noted. The last point given seems the most far off. Saying soldiers kill people often, but they are not sanctioned to kill civilians would seem obvious, just attempt to connect which areas you are defending and it will look tighter. --SixOfDiamonds 20:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on the last points.Ultramarine 21:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to make them clearer.Ultramarine 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

NYCJosh is right in all of his points, and he doesn't need "sources" for them because they are general observations about directions you want this page to be taken. As your response to his point indicates, your bullet points above have little -- if anything -- to do with the page in its current form, but instead introduce an entirely different set of debates about what can be called terrorism, what actions.atrocities/killings does the U.S. ultimately deserve responsibility for, what is the nature of the international legal situation, and so forth.

Most of them are far beyond the scope of this page. The only thing that this page is concerned with -- as NYCJosh deftly pointed out -- is historical facts: what did the United States do, when did it do it, and how is it that people perceive the U.S. as responsible. Your points don't address that, but instead deal with meta-questions: What is responsibility? What is "terrorism", and why is it bad? and so forth.

Once again: i am totally in favor of including opposing viewpoints; if you had been around when i was dealing with NuclearUmpf then you'd remember that i, in fact, pushed to take the page in just such a direction. However, he -- and his cadre of supporters -- made it quite clear at that time that anything they considered to be offensive would not be allowed, regardless of its relevance to the discussion we had agreed upon.

Thus, this page has gotten saddled with the brutish, boring task of simply enumerating those historical facts about international terrorism disseminated by the U.S. Fortunately, however, a page that deals exclusively with the doctrine of State Terrorism has already been created. Insofar as your material deals with general concepts, it is more suitably placed there. For the other stuff, read my criticisms above. Stone put to sky 10:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I cite sources, you not regarding these opposing views. What this page is saddled with is being a dumping ground original research project for anonynomous Wikipedia editors who personally think that something is "state terrorism" regardless if such an allegation has been made or not by a reliable source. The opposing views material above deals with the US, as can be seen in the points and sources.Ultramarine 10:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Citing sources is not enough. The material must be relevant to the page. Yours is not. Stone put to sky 10:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
It is as discussed above.Ultramarine 10:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps rewording will help, perhaps if you stated: In the case of Nicaragua vs. XYZ it is often argued that the perpetrators were acting without direct orders. Often soldiers can commit crimes without the sanctioning of their government ... [1][2][3] etc. Then if there is direct relevance as it seems to be the issue here, it is shown clearly. --SixOfDiamonds 12:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I will see if I can make it clearer.Ultramarine 14:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's on-topic, no problem. If it's off-topic, though, it will be deleted. Stone put to sky 14:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I will follow policy. See also WP:SOAP.However, I do am considering starting to delete all the sections, or at least moving them to talk for discussion, not containing soucrces stating that these acts are state terrorism.Ultramarine 17:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You should absolutely do so, I will support you 100%. - Merzbow 07:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if this article survives based on the very weak arguments to keep it that have shown on on its latest Afd, this article should be reduced to about one paragraph if that.--MONGO 07:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean the weak arguments to delete, if you want to call them arguments at all. This article actually needs expansion to about twice its size. And, I propse a second article, one based only on allegations, which would be much, much larger (and in my view more complete). That way, we can keep this one relatively small, as it is now.Giovanni33 08:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

In the meantime I've begun the cleanup effort by removing links in the lead to vanity presses, non-notable web magazines (those without a Wikipedia article), non-notable organizations (those without a Wikipedia article), and articles which do not specifically accuse the U.S. of state terrorism or of funding terrorism. That leaves Chomsky as the only ICJ accuser, and Chomsky and Cohn as the only overall accusers. Please defend the removed sources individually on talk before re-adding, arguing why they meet WP:RS and where they specifically accuse the U.S. of state terrorism or of funding terrorist organizations. - Merzbow 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent start.Ultramarine 09:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem here is that people seem to be throwing up any link that comes up in a Google search. A page that claims to be a "human rights organization" must be a notable one to meet WP:RS. A book cited must be a notable book to meet WP:RS - i.e. it cannot be published by a vanity or boutique press by an author who is an activist instead of a scholar. Political webzines do not meet WP:RS, with few exceptions for the most notable (Salon). Blogs do not meet WP:RS, again with very few exceptions. The cites I removed either fall into these categories and/or do not support the text cited. - Merzbow 16:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree.Ultramarine 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. I looked at the references and they appear to be from reliable sources. Please list which one you feel does not qualify and state why, so we can come to some consensus about which ones should be removed. Until then I've restored it.Giovanni33 00:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gladly. I expect quick and detailed explanations why each of these satisfy the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V.

Thanks for doing this. Let me comment below on each one. I will need more time to complete this, as I only just now finished reading the paper by redress.org, which I recommend reading for its instructive and scholarly nature, with ample footnotes and well cited sources in this publication, and its done so in a very neutral manner. I think Ultramarine would be able to use a lot of this material found here for the offical rational and defense given by the US govt., which the paper documents.Giovanni33 06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. http://www.leksikon.org/art.php?n=2543 - Some random website in Dutch. Does not appear to be a major publication or notable organization of any kind.
Can't comment on this one as I don't read Dutch. But you might be right. But I thank you for giving it a little time here for other editors to respond to it.Giovanni33 06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Leksikon is not a "vanity" site; it's a website published and maintained by a Danish political organization, one that co-ordinates political activists and reports on local (Norway and Denmark) political developments. It has some links to some 273 different organizations, including universities, political parties, newspapers, and magazines, among others.
It appears that Merzbow is basing his judgment of the site upon its low production values; however, that's a red-herring. Leksikon is an all-volunteer project and its design is consistent with its purpose and approach. Contributing members are, however, members of the local political leadership, activist organizers, and university lecturers. Stone put to sky 06:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If officialy states that it is not neutral and cites no sources. The supposed claim that the US is responsible for state terrorism is simply a general statement claiming that warfare in general is terrorism.Ultramarine 09:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. http://www.redress.org/publications/TerrorismReport.pdf - "redress.org" is not a notable human rights organization. They have no Wikipedia article, for one. What are they notable for and who has recognized them for it? Plus this report does not accuse the US of terrorism.
Ok, I disagree about this not being a reputable human rights and charity organization focused on victims of tourture. This British NGO is, I note, supporte by the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, and count on their staff legal advisors Professor Michael Bazyler, Professor of Law, Whittier University, Los Angeles; Geoffrey Bindman Solicitor specialising in human rights and senior partner at Bindmans and Partners, solicitors; Professor Kevin Boyle, Professor of Law, University of Essex;Professor David Harris, Professor of Law, Nottingham University; Professor David Weissbrodt, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and Chairperson of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, among others. It doesn't matter if WP doesn't have an article about them. My investigation convinces me they are a reputable organization and offer very scholarly and balanced papers and reports on many countries.
However, having read the paper in question, I have to agree that it doesnt make the accusation, directly, that the US has committed state terrorism. But it states that the line between the US's anti-terrorism action and terrorism has not always been clear. It cites the case of US vs. Nicaruaga, to illustrate this point, and does state the US was found guilty of violating international law, and use of unlawful force, etc. At most the paper states that the US may have been guilty of state terrorism, in so far as that line between its alleged anti-terrorism actions and actually committing state terrorism has not always been clear. I'm not sure how others feel about this, but I will not oppose you removing this source for this reason, although I think its an excellent for the external links section on any topic dealing with states and terrorism.Giovanni33 06:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I would be o.k. with moving it to the external links section. Stone put to sky 06:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
External links is fine. - Merzbow 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. http://www.cetim.ch/fr/interventions_details.php?iid=207 - the web site of some French activist group. Non-notable as far as I can tell. No Wikipedia article on them. What have they done and who has recognized them for it?
CETIM is "Accredited to the Economic and Social Council of the UN (ECOSOC) and to the UNCTAD". 'Nuff said. [2] Stone put to sky 06:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Not even the French Wikipedia has an article about it. 'Nuff said.Ultramarine 09:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You're saying it can be cut because it doesn't have a wikipedia page? That's patently absurd. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, because if it's notable enough to quote, it usually already has a page. Not notable. - Merzbow 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20030116&articleId=372 - does not accuse the US of terrorism. "Global Research" is a non-notable activist group. No Wikipedia article on them. What have they done and who has recognized them for it?
Independent publication. It does have a wikipedia page. Contributors include former bureaucrats from military and intelligence services, famed academics, professional journalists, and lots of other folks, too. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/117 - the blog of some guy from the "Post-Carbon" institute. Blogs are only allowed if the blogger is very notable and is writing on his area of expertise. This person is neither a professor nor is he writing about oil or carbon here. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 - "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
Well known, professional researcher? Well, i'd say this qualifies:
In addition to having eight books, three of them deal with the relationship between oil and warfare. I'd say that pretty much makes him a relevant authority. Stone put to sky 06:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Where did you take that from? Even assuming he is an oil expert, then we can still not cite his blog regarding state terrorism.Ultramarine 09:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I took it from his website; material from published professionals in the field of study is clearly allowed per wikipolicy. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html - the personal website of a professor of "Geography and Native American Studies". As above this person is not writing in his area of expertise, thus not allowed per the above quote from WP:V.
Grosman is a professor of geography; i don't know when you last checked, but cataloging geographic locales and their political changes is exactly what geographers are paid to do. This subject matter is well within his expertise, the page contains sources, methodology, abstract, and secondary sources for follow up studies. It meets all academic standards, it is within his area of expertise, and well surpasses wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Stone put to sky 06:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
State terrorism does not fall under geography.Ultramarine 09:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. WP:V is crystal clear about this. His expertise is not foreign policy, and he is not interviewed extensively and published extensively on the subject like Chomsky. - Merzbow 18:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are both clearly out of your element here. Geography is the study of political and physical boundaries, and Native American Studies straddles the North-Central American borders. A professor of geography and Native American Studies is clearly qualified to comment on terrorist and military actions that take place within his field of study, and that is exactly what this lecturer is doing.
You wouldn't argue that a professor of 19th c. European Geography and Germanic Studies is never qualified to talk about the effects of Napoleon's conquests, and so neither can you argue that a professor of Geography and Native American Studies is a priori unqualified to write about terrorist acts within his given field.

Finally, the referenced page is a sourced work published widely across the internet and in media publications.

You both need to do better than that. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Show me what articles and books from academic presses he's published on the subject of US foreign policy, and then he qualifies under the self-published rule. - Merzbow 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/ - From a blog called "What's Left". The author holds no academic post of any type. Gimme a break.- Merzbow 03:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Author is published in Counterpunch and Globalresearch; a search on his name in Google turns up at least 200 separate articles published by various websites. He is a political commentator who reports primarily on conflicts in third-world nations and military campaigns by the United States. Clearly, a professional writing in the subject of his specialty, and in addition the source is up there for no reason other than to prove that "numerous people" actually are talking about this subject. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, proof by Google. So you can't argue here that he has any academic credentials, so your "proof" is the number of websites he's managed to get his screeds on? Err, no. - Merzbow 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Another one:

http://www.rrojasdatabank.org/ - Some page maintained by an activist who holds no academic post, he doesn't even merit a Wikipedia article. - Merzbow 22:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No academic post? You've got to be kidding. From Rojas' website:


Finally, his entire website is set up as a research tool for people interested in "Political Economy":

The website is a repository of data from the World Bank, IMF, WTO, Columbia University, Rojas' own publications, and has had over 4,000,000 hits from 160 different countries.

Looks like a relevant authority to me. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he was even a professor, and he hasn't held an academic post for years. Only book Amazon lists is something from 1976, on Chile. - Merzbow 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Even more:

  1. http://www.ahrchk.net/ahrc-in-news/mainfile.php/2007ahrcinnews/1130/ - article by retired English professor

From his Wikipedia page, E. San Juan, Jr.:

Looks like an authority to me. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. http://www.asia-pacific-action.org/statements/2005/ran_noaid2militaryregimes_250505.htm - non-notable activist group

Look again; first, this is a collation of various news sources; second, the article referenced was originally authored by The Reality of Aid, whose list of members (http://www.realityofaid.org/about.php?id=6) certainly qualifies it as a notable organization. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, what qualifies an organization is notable is other unquestionably notable organizations or people saying so. I don't recognize any of those organizations on that list. Once again you can't find any academic degrees within a mile of this article, so by your own standards above, it isn't acceptable. - Merzbow 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. http://www.counterpunch.org/petras03172006.html - activist magazine, article by former sociology professor

Oh, this is silly. Counterpunch has a wikipedia page, and therein is noted:


The writer is James Petras,

An article written by an academic who has authored at least one book (maybe two) published on the topic in question, and published in a widely read periodical that deals in political commentary. Clearly a valid source. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Zed books? What university or major publishers are they associated with? Another foreign policy amateur. - Merzbow 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. http://www.indcatholicnews.com/shayc218.html - "Fr Shay Cullen is a Columban priest working in the Philippines"

Can't get much more neutral than a priest -- and can't get much more authoritative than this one. From his webpage (found here: http://www.preda.org/frcullen.htm):


'Nuff said. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Good for him. Nothing in there qualifies him to speak on foreign policy. - Merzbow 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. http://www.india-seminar.com/2002/518/518%20roland%20g.%20simbulan.htm - Who the heck is "ROLAND G. SIMBULAN"?


'Nuff said. Stone put to sky 18:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop throwing up whatever randomly drifts to the top of a Google search, because that's what going on here. - Merzbow 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the issue here seems more to be one of you not reading the sources and simply challenging them off the top of your head. Add to that a healthy dose of what appears to be casual bigotry towards any source that doesn't originate in the United States and i think we've pretty much summed up the whole problem. Stone put to sky 18:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem is respected academics, academic presses and publications for the most part won't touch this stuff. You appear blissfully unaware that you undermine your side by citing priests and bloggers. Those who already agree with you won't change their mind, but those on the fence and those who disagree will check out those cites and see that you've scraped the bottom of the barrel so enthusiastically you've almost broken through. (Those readers too dumb to double-check cites fail at life). In fact, I think I'll support you on this. You mind if I dig up more sources of the quality of those above and add them? - Merzbow 18:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow and Ultramarine clearly have no idea about what research means. Suggesting that a source should not be used because it doesn't have a Wikipedia page is absurd. Redress is highly respected UK based NGO that specialises in torture, they have consultive status with the UN. Zed books is a highly respected specialised publisher, many Oxford University Professors publish with them. It seems that you only want to use mainstream American sources which completely goes against the very idea of Wikipedia, which should be global and should include all views. Pexise 18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Posada Sources

Just to have them handy. Not sure if they are in use already:

  • [11] - Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Ministry of Foreign Affairs - "On the contrary, the current Government of the United States practices State terrorism, something which is questioned by the world and most of the people in the United States. The invasions to Iraq and Afghanistan are emblematic in this regard."

Quotes

What relevance do those have other than to push a pov? One is a prominent leftist, another an openly anti-American leader, and the last a leader of a country were anti-American sentiment runs extremely strong. At best this is extremely unbalanced and pushes a clear viewpoint. --MichaelLinnear 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Should be removed.Ultramarine 06:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; these are quotes regarding State Terrorism by the United States and meet all standards hitherto agreed upon for the page. You are not allowed to delete material simply because you don't like it, or don't agree with those responsible for creating it. Whether or not you consider these people "good americans" or "sympathetic to America" or "neutral regarding America" is irrelevant; the fact is that these statements have been made, they meet our agreed upon standards, and so they belong on the page.

If y'all would like to include some sort of commentary explaining that this is an encyclopedic treatment of the subject -- and not a direct indictment of the United States -- then feel free. I'd suggest you explain how this is merely an encyclopedic treatment of the subject that introduces the concepts, arguments, and evidence used by people to justify the phrase "State Terrorism by the United States". That is how this page is intended (and always has been), and if you wish to add that material the other editors here will be happy to aid you in any way we can.

We will not, however, allow you to delete this material. Stone put to sky 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

So you refuse to allow counter-criticisms as per the section above, but insist on including inflammatory quotes? Ultramarine 08:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. I will happily include counter-criticisms if they are relevant to this article.

Counter-criticisms of the concept of "State Terrorism" do not belong here; we have a separate wikipedia article (called, suitably enough, State terrorism) for that.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't it i who suggested we include a section here that would allow a back-and forth over such ideas? But then, it got deleted per the insistence of several other editors here, of which -- hey? Weren't you the loudest one? Ah, well -- feeling the strain, now, are we?

Likewise, digressions into what "defenders of the SOA" think are equally irrelevant, because this simply isn't an article about the SOA. This is an article about State Terrorism by the United States, so a back-and-forth about the SOA is inappropriate (unless, that is, you care to create a separate section where we can include such criticisms?).

These quotes, however, have been up for nearly two years, maybe longer. Nobody has tried to delete them, and in that time you have been one of the most vocal critics and constraining forces on this page.

Now, just above clearly state that you will "start to delete" things unless you can post material that you think should be here even though it is clearly off-topic. What i find very interesting is that yes, indeed, you are beginning to do just that! In this case, demanding that material which for over two years you have never objected to nor ever suggested should be removed now be deleted. Stone put to sky 09:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:POV forking. One sided bashing is not allowed. Since the article has stataments like that the SOA "is a terrorist training ground", opposite views must also be included.Ultramarine 09:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Global Research

This is a news and commentary site that collates work from professional writers, scholars, and activists. It is published in two languages, and has regular readership in Africa, Western Europe, and North America. It publishes independent news reports for which it has won recognition from several notable awards and standards organizations. Obviously, there is nothing wrong with material from this website. Stone put to sky 07:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Edited by 9/11 alternative theorist Michel Chossudovsky which has also written the article you give as a source for supposed US "state terrorism" While Chossudovsky in this article, as elsewhere, talks about 9/11, he does not accuse the US of terrorism, as far as I can see.Ultramarine 09:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:V - "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.". This is not a newspaper, it's a non-notable political webzine. - Merzbow 16:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala 1

"US Government funding and training of of Guatemalan 'Death Squads'"[12][13]

Source number one is to unspecific. Which of these 32 documents support the allegation? Many speak of the opposite. The second source speaks only of a single person.Ultramarine 08:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Source one is by no means unspecific. Both of those links either directly link to summaries or themselves contain summaries of the content of the documents. The summaries are written by professional historians tasked with maintaining, collating, cataloging and cross-referencing the archives. The statements which these sources footnote are clearly supported by both these summaries and the content itself.

If the editors here are going to quibble over simple statements like "U.S. funding and training of Guatemalan Death Squads", then you should expect such voluminous sources in response. Virtually all of those 32 documents contains a direct reference to funding and/or training. Stone put to sky 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Pleae use proper Indentation when replying. Regarding source one, again, which of these 32 documents support your claim? Many speak of the oppposite, mentioning US criticisms and strained relations due to human rights violations in Guatemala. Again, the second source speaks only of a single person.Ultramarine 09:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The second source outlines the career development of a man convicted of repeated acts of state terrorism and shows how, over a span of nearly four decades, the U.S. government aided and intervened on his behalf in an effort to advance his career and further empower him despite knowing of his long and horrendous list of crimes. It is a single, in-depth case.

The first source excerpts documents from a thirty five year period showing that the U.S. continued to fund, train, and politically support Guatemalan military leaders despite full knowledge of the extent of the Guatemalan state's atrocities. Yes, there are dissenting opinions; however, a dissenting opinion doesn't count unless it changes policy. The documents from the first source clearly show that despite repeated warnings and condemnations of the Guatemalan state apparatus and its primary, Washington-backed, -funded, and -trained leadership, the United States Government even yet maintained support and funding for the criminals. Stone put to sky 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, regarding source one, which of these 32 support your claim? I can find no one that includes training or funding death squads. Regarding the second, giving some training to one man who is alleged (not convicted) to have done human rights violations is not evidence for general support and training of death squads.Ultramarine 09:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Having already answered this specific question twice, i will not waste my time on it again. Please remember, however, that any attempt to delete this material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 06:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No it won't. - Merzbow 07:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala 2

Why the long graphic rape description? That one of the persons involved spoke American English is not evidence for anything.Ultramarine 08:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The rape testimony is taken from the trial of a SOA graduate taken by a US citizen in a US court. The court decided it had jurisdiction because the man in question was then teaching in the SOA. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Source please. He had given a speech at the SOA somewhere around this time, which is not teaching.Ultramarine 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The sources are in the article. 91 and 93. The actual quote is taken from 93. Plain as day. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not. Exact page number and quote please.Ultramarine 09:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Exactly from the article: "93. # ^ Gareau, Frederick H. (2004). State Terrorism and the United States. London: Zed Books, pp22-25 and pp61-63. ISBN 1-84277-535-9." ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Even Stone put to sky agree below that he was at Harvard, not at the SOA.Ultramarine 09:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but the article doesn't say that, it was just my faulty memory on this talk page. I read the book 6 months ago. So he was a student of SOA but teaching in Harvard during the trial? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources are already provided, and clearly support the statements and testimony. Regardless of how you might wish to remove it, the testimony occurred in a court-case that convicted the U.S. funded, Harvard-attending, SOA-commencement-giving, U.S. trained Gramajo-Morales of crimes that clearly qualify as terrorism. The testimony provides insight into what sort of torture these death-squads routinely engaged in, how they were managed, and the participation of at least one man "who spoke broken Spanish with a heavy North American accent" and who (unquoted, but in the testimony) was to deliver Sister Ortiz to the U.S. Embassy.


Call me silly if you want, but i doubt that the North American was from Canada. Stone put to sky 09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of persons who speak American English who are not connected to the US government. That Morales took some courses at the SOA for half a year does not mean that a rape by some of his men, assuming this is true, is state terrorism by the US.Ultramarine 09:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Its not for us wikipedians to determine that. If we did it would be OR. Look at the quoted sources - they claim it does show US state terrorism. That is what is important for wikipedia. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Which source claims that this rape was state terrorism by the US? Ultramarine 09:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
For one: "Gareau, Frederick H. (2004). State Terrorism and the United States. London: Zed Books, pp22-25 and pp61-63. ISBN 1-84277-535-9."
Exactly how does he explain that this rape is state terrorism? Ultramarine 09:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The book explains how the rapists were trained and funded by the US. Their actions were aimed at controlling the population through violence and fear. The author claims this amounts to state terrorism by the US and named his book as such. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Seabhcan, but that's all irrelevant. The standards of this page demand that we show a source considers something to be State Terrorism. Once we have done that, the standards of this page have also demanded that any statements by the source be backed up with referenced sources. We have done both.
Of course, it didn't need to be this way (still doesn't, in fact). These are the standards that you have imposed upon us, Ultramarine. Since we must abide by them, you must, too.
If you would like to add some content to the page to expand its scope beyond what we see here then we will be happy to discuss that with you. As it is, though, there is no need for us to go into Gareau's reasoning. If you want to know that, i suggest you read the book. For the purposes of this page -- and according the strict standards for content that have been largely a product of your own rueful making -- the sources stand as they currently are. Stone put to sky 09:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Fine. Then we can state that Gareau thinks this rape is "state terrorism" but we do not know why. Why is the graphic rape scene included? Ultramarine 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Rape is widely considered to be a form of terrorism. If you read the UN reports on Darfur, state sponsored rape gangs are given as proof of terroristic intent. The rape scene is from testimony from a trial. Why shouldn't it be included? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Why include a long graphic description of just this particular rape? Ultramarine 09:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This 'particular rape' is important because it was recounted as testimony in a trial. That trail was widely reported in the media, at the UN and discussed in academic works. This is why I think it should be included. Why do you think it shouldn't? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Assuming we should mention this particular rape, why must we have a long graphic description of the rape itself? Ultramarine 09:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is the woman's testimony given at the trial of the accused. I don't feel it right to reword it. Would you like to edit what she said? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No need to include it. We can simply state "Frederick H Gareau, Frederick H states in his book that the rape in Guatemala by persons not yet identified of US citizen and nun, Sister Diana Ortiz, was state terrorism by the US".Ultramarine 10:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Seabhcan and i have already given clear, unambiguous, and lengthy (in my case) answers to this question. There is no need for us to answer it again, and we won't.
We are not here to indulge your inquisitive nature, Ultramarine. Having answered the question and given justifications that are clearly supported both by Wikipedia protocol as well as the standards of this page (standards for which you, incidentally, are primarily responsible), there is no need for us to continue responding to repetitions of the word "Why?".
If you ask again, my answer will simply be: "Because. And if you want more, then look at the five entries above that've already answered this question." Stone put to sky 10:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in Ultramarine thoughts on the subject. Do you want to edit the testimony of this rape victim? and if so, why? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you do not want to discuss the issues. The article will then be corrected.Ultramarine 10:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I do want to discuss the issues. You can start by answering the above question.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No need to include the graphic rape scene. We can simply state "Frederick H Gareau has stated that a rape in Guatemala, by persons not yet identified, of US citizen and nun, Sister Diana Ortiz, was state terrorism by the US".Ultramarine 10:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a need to include it. It gives detail and reality to the article. And your version risks being labeled OR. Better to simply quote the book. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is sensationalistic and not needed. Has no relevance for if this was US state terrorism or not.Ultramarine 10:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The fact that it is public testimony in a relevant trial makes it important in itself. Further, the trial only took place because the accused was in the US and had been trained by the US. Further, and most importantly, secondary sources point to the trial and the testimony as evidence of US state terrorism. What is 'sensational' is the fact that it happened, not the recounting of the woman's experience. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Why should we then not quote the whole testimony? Quoting the particular paragraph has no purpose except being sensationalistic and the insinuation that all persons speaking American English are US government agents.Ultramarine 10:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy for more to be quoted. The insinuation was made in the original source, not by US. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If so, that claim is what should be quoted, not the testimony. Even regading the testimony, why include more than one of the involved was a man called "Alejandro" who "was a tall, light complexioned man, who spoke broken Spanish, but perfect North American English." Ultramarine 10:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This claim was in the original and treated as significant in that source. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not copy whole books and should attribute propersly. If there was an insinuation in the book that "Alejandro" was an US agent, then please quote that.Ultramarine 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia does do quotes, and quoting the book is not to "copy whole books". ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If there is a claim that the persons involved were US agents, then the text making that claim should be quoted.Ultramarine 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm at work and don't have the book to hand. You are free to extend the quote yourself, though. It would be a good opportunity to familiarize yourself with the sources (something you clearly have not done). ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Those who make the claims should give the sources.Ultramarine 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The sources are given and publicly available. You seem to be the only one who has a problem with them. You also seem to be the only one who hasn't bothered to read them. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This is really very simple, Ultramarine: there is no consensus on deleting the material, and it meets all standards so far agreed to in the article.
It is not enough for you to say you don't like it; there must be a good reason to delete it, and you have not offered up one. The other editors here, however, have offered up several clearly explained and very intelligent reasons as to why it should be included.
Thus, the material stays. Stone put to sky 11:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Material must follow policy, wikpedia is no a soapbox for presenting false or biased claims.Ultramarine 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Material does follow policy. Moreover, it has gained a long consensus. There are clearly stated reasons for including it. You have yet to make a case that it should be deleted.

The material was included precisely as a result of your insistence that all claism be backed up.

You made the bed. Stone put to sky 11:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have still not seen a reason for including a long graphic description of this particular rape. Any claims should be made in neutral language to be encyclopedia.Ultramarine 11:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And we have seen no reason not to include it. It was deemed fit for inclusion in the academic source quoted. It is fit for wikipedia. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It has no purpose currently. If you want to add that this is evidence of something, then please do so quoting a source.Ultramarine 11:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The material clearly follows policy; many reasons have already been given for why it should remain; and you are trying to buck an already established consensus.

You set the standards for inclusion in this article; it was because of your own insistence that every statement in the article be sourced that we have found it necessary to include this testimony. Clearly, the portion of the article in question is dealing with the case of Sister Ortiz, who was awarded several millions in U.S. dollars (which were never received) because she suffered torture, rape and other abuse at the hands of a squad of Guatemalan military people.

The testimony was given in the U.S. courts and accepted as evidence therein. It demonstrates that what is asserted about Sister Ortiz' case has been accepted as truth; it demonstrates the severity of the abuse and torture Guatemalan victims generally suffered; and it demonstrates that the abuse was clearly suffered while she was under the nominal "care" of the state. All of these things contribute to the various points that are required for an act to qualify as "terrorist" in nature, according to the FBI, CIA, and other definitions of terrorism.

Because the testimony is able to bear witness to all these various facets of the issue at hand, it is extremely powerful. Because it is so succinct, it is very valuable. Thus, because it is succinct and powerful, it is included here.

The material will remain, and please be advised that if you attempt to delete it your actions will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Individual accounts of terror

How do you people have time to get any work done?

The article could use a few graphic descriptions of violence like the rape scene. It is important to convey that this is not just some abstract issue about whether the acts of an abstract entity like a nation-state called the U.S. may be described under the rubric of "terrorism" but it is a very real issue with very real victims and consequences. It should never be just a dry recitation of places, dates and numbers of victims.--NYCJosh 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But the purpose is conversely not to inflame the reader with endless graphic descriptions of torture porn that do not advance the discussion. This is an encyclopedia, not an activist site. Long quotes are summarized, with few exceptions. - Merzbow 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The passages about Guatemala are necessary to provide a personal account of the methods used by the US-supported death-squads to terrorize the population. The mass killings (bodies in pits), the lack of proper burial (the rats), the torture/rape tactics all served to terrorize the population in a very effective way. It is not endless--only several sentences, and is not "torture porn"--the reader is not led to identify with the torturers and is not particularly graphic in describing in anatomical details.

I would call for additional such human narration for countries other than Guatemala to provide the perspective of the victims, bring the discussion down from the abstract level to the human level, and to provide some specifics on the METHODS of terror. As a former graduate student of history, I know that the emphasis on individual human descriptions of important historical pheonmena (to the extent that they are in some sense typical or that they shed light on the larger abstract historical reality under discussion) has been an important trend. It's bottom up history not top-down history. --NYCJosh 21:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to be an expert in encyclopedias or anything, but although it's a trend in history books, I doubt very much that bottom-up history (if I understand what that phrase means) is the trend in encyclopedias. In my opinion, an encyclopedia should portray items in an objective (i.e., "abstract"), rather than a personal, manner.

I agree that in an enclyclopedia bottom-up history should dominate in terms of prominence over succint dry accounts (if you look at my additions to this article, you'll note that they're just about all in the latter category). But there is an important place for the former for the reasons given. --NYCJosh 22:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not for the purposes of containing verbatim narratives by victims recounting their experiences at excruciating length. See WP:ISNOT - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is enough to say that someone was tortured, letting them go on and on about rats and dead bodies is transparently geared to inflame the reader while providing no relevant information to the discussion at hand. The article is not about the methods of torture, it is about allegations of state terrorism. - Merzbow 03:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Your objections are irrelevant, Merzbow; the content is in no way "soap-box" ranting and your attempt to portray it as such is laughable. There is consensus for the content, there is good reason for the content (see above), and it conforms both to Wikipedia policy as well as the contrived standards of content you and Ultramarine have devised for this page.

Please understand that if you try to delete the material your actions will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 04:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala 3

"estimate[s] that the Guatemalan conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s." The OR implication is that the US is responsible for all of these deaths when the in fact the US had cut of military aid during much of this period.Ultramarine 08:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That is pure claptrap; the statement implies only that the U.S. was a responsible party, and in no way suggests full and sole culpability.

As for the funding, the U.S. legislature cut off aid during that period; clearly, you are forgetting the secret CIA aid (quoted -- and sourced -- elsewhere in this article) that continued to be sent. Stone put to sky 09:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use indentation. Then we should obviously mention that the US is not responsible for all these deaths. What is the source for that CIA aid continued during this whole period?Ultramarine 09:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


I only use indentation when it seems appropriate; typically, it's when i'm commenting on a block of text or engaging in a digression from the main point of a conversation. When in a dialogue on the talk page, however, i do not consider it appropriate.

Nor do i consider your request to be all that civil; i don't spend my time correcting your english or formatting options and i think it's a small thing to ask you to exercise restraint and show similar respect.

Finally: no, it is not necessary for us to introduce any such extraneous commentary. The text already makes quite clear that primary responsibility for these atrocities lay with the Guatemalan military, and that the U.S. is culpable only for the training, funding, political support and political leadership of the primary actors. Stone put to sky 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Does not state that. Only evidence presented has been limited training and some material assistance to some of the persons involved. The US did not support the regime politically for long periods.Ultramarine 09:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the text most certainly does state that, and the sources i have provided -- which are summaries of declassified CIA documents -- clearly show that funding, training, political support and political leadership were all provided to the Guatemalan leadership of that era.

You can't argue with declassified documentation, Ultramarine. It's all clearly there, and in no way controversial. Unless you can come up with a better argument, then the text will remain as it stands. Stone put to sky 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The sources you speak shows that the US cut off military support for long periods, helped stop a coup in 1993, and that the CIA, especially in more recent times, tried to lessen the human rights violations.Ultramarine 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not reading the sources:

"The funds the CIA provided to the Guatemalan liaison services were vital to the D-2 and Archivos. This funding was seen as necessary to make these services more capable partners with the station, particularly in pursuing anti-communist and counternarcotics objectives. The CIA, with the knowledge of ambassadors and other State Department and National Security Council officials, as well as the Congress, continued this aid after the termination of overt military assistance in l990.

There have been public allegations that CIA funds were increased to compensate for the cutoff of military aid in 1990. We did not find this to have been the case. Overall CIA funding levels to the Guatemalan services dropped consistently from about $3.5 million in FY 1989 to about l million in l995."

It clearly says the CIA continued to fund them. I understand you want to post counter arguments, but you are not looking well when you do not read the sources. --74.73.16.230 10:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC) More from this source:

Relations between the US and Guatemalan governments came under strain in 1977, when the Carter administration issued its first annual human rights report on Guatemala. The Guatemalan government rejected that report's negative assessment and refused US military aid. The Guatemalan government rejected that report's negative assessment and refused US military aid. The human rights situation deteriorated further in the late 1970's and early 1980's, as the Guatemalan army--in which the intelligence and security services played a central role--waged a ruthless scorched-earth campaign against the communist guerrillas as well as noncombatants. In the course of this campaign in a country with a population that has never been more than approximately 10 million, more than 100,000 Guatemalans died. Through the 1980's and into the 1990's, the human rights situation gradually improved as the insurgency waned, but successive Department of State human rights reports continued to document egregious violations, including murders of political opponents. Relations between the two countries warmed in the mid-1980's with gradual improvements in human rights and the Reagan administration's emphasis on curbing the spread of communism in Central America. After a civilian government under President Cerezo was elected in 1985, overt non-lethal US military aid to Guatemala resumed. In December 1990, however, largely as a result of the killing of US citizen Michael DeVine by members of the Guatemalan army, the Bush administration suspended almost all overt military aid.

The CIA's successes in Guatemala in conjunction with other US agencies, particularly in uncovering and working to counter coups and in reducing the narcotics flow, were at times dramatic and very much in the national interests of both the United States and Guatemala.

The human rights records of the Guatemalan security services--the D-2 and the Department of Presidential Security (known informally as "Archivos," after one of its predecessor organizations)--were generally known to have been reprehensible by all who were familiar with Guatemala. US policy-makers knew of both the CIA's liaison with them and the services' unsavory reputations. The CIA endeavored to improve the behavior of the Guatemalan services through frequent and close contact and by stressing the importance of human rights -- insisting, for example, that Guatemalan military intelligence training include human rights instruction. The station officers assigned to Guatemala and the CIA headquarters officials whom we interviewed believe that the CIA's contact with the Guatemalan services helped improve attitudes towards human rights. Several indices of human rights observance indeed reflected improvement--whether or not this was due to CIA efforts--but egregious violations continued, and some of the station's closest contacts in the security services remained a part of the problem.

So the US cannot be blamed for all of the deaths in the civil war.Ultramarine 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What is your source? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
[14]. So the US cannot be blamed for all the deaths in the civil war.Ultramarine 11:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The US government investigating itself, and finding itself to be blameless? Would you accept such a report from any other government at face value? If Iran investigated itself and found that it didn't support Hamas, would you consider that the final word on the matter? ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again: there is nothing in the text that "blames" the U.S. for "all" the deaths in these incidents of state terrorism. The article clearly connects the U.S. to support -- through funding, training, and political protection -- of the Guatemalan military as it perpetrated many instances of torture, genocide, and terrorism. That's all the article says, and it says it just fine the way things are worded. Stone put to sky 11:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we must include the above material for NPOV.Ultramarine 11:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant portions of the "above material" have already been included. If you peruse the article, mention is made of the vicissitudes in U.S. public policy, with attribution. The fluff, however, has been properly trimmed.

Once again: while it is perfectly appropriate to include material that shows the U.S. government did worry some over this policy, what is relevant to the article -- and the only thing relevant to the article, at this point -- is that the policy of support -- through funding and training -- did not change.

That is what is relevant to an entry titled "State terrorism by the United States". Again -- these are standards which you yourself engineered and insisted upon, with great prejudice and vehemence. Unless you are willing to change your own policy standards, then there is simply no way we can allow extraneous counter-arguments into the article. Stone put to sky 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the article does not mention the CIA attempt to lessen the human rights violations and the help with stopping coups.Ultramarine 11:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you should include it, not remove anything to make a point, but add a criticism section stating the US point of view per WP:NPOV. If you find sources stating the opposite, those should be included, so why not just add a criticism section to each area? --SixOfDiamonds 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
According to the 1996 President’s Intelligence Oversight Board report, the CIA funded D2 continuously from 1965 to 1993 ($3.5 Million/year). The report found that Terry Ward (CIA Latin America Chief) "was derelict in his Constitutional duty to inform Congress of Guatemalan human rights abuses, that he failed to followup the CIA’s commitment to investigate the Honduran military’s death squad, that he looked the other way when the Nicaraguan contras tortured their prisoners". The report stated "in the period since 1984, several CIA assets were credibly alleged to have ordered, planned, or participated in serious human rights violations such as assassination, extrajudicial execution, torture, or kidnapping while they were assets -- and that the CIA was contemporaneously aware". As a result of this report the CIA dropped over 1,000 agents " for lack of productivity, criminality or human rights abuses". The CIA may not have performed the torture themselves but according to U.S. Government documents they did have CIA polygraph experts present during interrogations where prisoners were tortured.
CIA attempts to lessen the human rights violations were rather inadequate. For example the "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual" that the SOA used to train the interrogators in methods of torture was modified. The sentence "we want to make you aware of them and the proper way to use them (torture techniques)" was modified by putting a line through the phrase “the proper way to use them” and writing above it “so that you may avoid them.” Not the most efficient way to prevent torture. With so much U.S. government paperwork detailing the torture and funding available it amazes me that this is disputed. Wayne 16:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Lots of unsourced claims here. Regardless, the opposing views presented by me above should also be included.Ultramarine 16:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find your statements in the Intelligence Oversight Board report here: [15].Ultramarine 16:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to look harder. Some of the statements are from that report and some from related documents. It doesn't specifically mention Ward but he was the station Chief so was held responsible and fired. I also used a summary from George Washington university.
I'm interested in how you can have an opposing view when the U.S. government actually admits guilt. Are we talking about the "end justifies the means" defense? Wayne 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims are not interesting. There are some somewhat similar statements in the acutal report, but very different in crucial aspects, like that the level of aid declined during this period. Many of the quotes seems to be misquotations. Regardless, the opposing views presented in my quotes above should be included.Ultramarine 19:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
For more general opposing views, see the section on Opposing views above.Ultramarine 20:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Wayne, for that comment. I think you have pretty much demolished Ultramarine's line of argument, and i much appreciate the rest.  ;-) Stone put to sky 04:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, unsourced claims are not interesing and the opposing views should be included.Ultramarine 17:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua 1

"Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit." Why is this graphic description of this particular human rights violation included. The ICJ stated that the US did not have sufficient control over the Contras to be responsible for their human rights violations.Ultramarine 11:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


How strange.

First, the ICJ never said any such thing. They clearly laid responsibility for the overall human rights violations upon the United States; that's why the U.S. was found guilty of an "illegal use of violence", or whatever the statement was.

What the ICJ refused to consider, however, was that every act by the Contras would fall to the responsibility of the United States.

Now, this has all been explained quite clearly above. Apparently you didn't understand it, then. I suggest you go back and review, because you are badly misinterpreting the ICJ ruling.

Next, i would like to ask if we are to presume from the above questions that you think:

A) Because the ICJ stated the U.S. was not responsible for all of the Contras' human rights violations, that

B) we should question the inclusion of the passage you cite above?

Because to me that seems like a very strange leap in logic.Stone put to sky 11:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I quote from the voted on statements "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America". They also stated, "It is for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them."Ultramarine 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; you are selectively quoting from the ICJ. This has already been explained to you above. I am not going to go back into it. Either you are able to understand, or you're not. Regardless, your attempt to force this artificial and inaccurate interpretation is easily refuted.

The material remains, unaltered. Any attempt to delete it will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, no such counter-argument has been presented. The court made no judgement regarding whether HRV had occured because the US was not imputable for possible such violations.Ultramarine 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Imputable: To ascribe to or charge (a person) with an act or quality because of the conduct of another over whom one has control or for whose acts or conduct one is responsible. The court ruling is stating that The US broke the law by funding and providing materials including that document, however Bob killing Jane was in the end Bobs fault. I posted the definition since it seems to be ignored. --SixOfDiamonds 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The US was found guilty mainly for actions done directly by US personnel, such as laying mines. There is very little regarding the Contras in the final voted on verdict.Ultramarine 16:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Laying of mines, yes; odd how you fail to mention training of the Contras, teaching them torture techniques, funding the Contras, setting tactical and strategic goals along the lines of "low intensity warfare" (which means "kill and torture unarmed peasants but try to avoid the military"), and political protection in the UN and other international bodies.

The ICJ decision said considerably more than you are alleging here, and included the U.S. as the primary font of a long list of crimes. Stone put to sky 06:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it did not. Yes, the US supported the Contas, but there is very little mention of this in the voted on statements. The support of the Contras was illegal due to the obligation not to interfere in another state. The more serious statements, such as use of force, refered to actions done directly by US personnel. As per human rights violations by the Contras, see above. No reason to have the graphic quote.Ultramarine 08:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it did. You are simply wrong -- yet again, as you often seem to be, lately -- and please be advised that if you seek to delete material from the article based upon your deeply flawed interpretation of the ICJ ruling then your actions will be interpreted as vandalism.

Let me also remind you that you are performing WP:OR. There are plenty of sources which reference the ICJ ruling and unambiguously support the wording provided on the page. There will be no more discussion of this until you can come up with an authoritative legal or interpretive source that supports your perspective. And please be advised: if you seek to delete material from the article based upon your deeply flawed interpretation of the ICJ ruling then your actions will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 09:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already quoted the ICJ ruling itself. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism. I will note further accusations of vandalism as violations of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.Ultramarine 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you are a vandal, but you are clearly not assuming good faith on behalf of the editors you disagree with. We are all part time editors here. It is unreasonable to propose to delete material because page numbers are lacking. It is also unreasonable to demand instant gratification for your demands. Especially on an article that you have not contributed to. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:Reliable sources."the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material""Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time." From the decision by the arbitration commitee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect "Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition."Ultramarine 10:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Ultramarine, you are performing original research. Unless you can find a source which supports your interpretation of the ICJ ruling, the material will be re-worked and the quotation deleted.

If you try to delete other material in retaliation, your actions will be interpreted as vandalism.

If you try to force inclusion of this selective and clearly misleading quotation while excluding material that is more accurate, your actions will be considered vandalism.

There is no middle ground here: either find a source that supports your interpretation of that particular passage of the ICJ, re-work the material so that it provides an accurate sense of the ICJ ruling, or delete it.

And please remember that if you don't, i will - per the consensus of virtually every legal authority on the planet. Stone put to sky 04:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicaragua 2

We should add regarding the "Torture manuals" that the CIA claims that they were intended to "moderate" activities already being done.Ultramarine 11:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Unless we have concrete evidence of what was actually being done at the time then there is no possible way for us to back up that statement.

Of course, if there were evidence that the U.S. and CIA knew what was being done at the time, that would of course implicate them as at least vicarious participants.

So feel free to do the research. i look forward to reading over your discoveries. Stone put to sky 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That is what the CIA claims. As per NPOV, views from both sides should be included.Ultramarine 11:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Claims" by the CIA are not allowed unless they are backed up with evidence. We have no evidence that the former methods of torture were in fact "worse" than the later ones the CIA tried to teach. Unless you can come up with a source that shows what methods of torture were used previously, then we must conclude that these claims by the CIA are questionable.

Otherwise you are guilty of WP:OR and WP:SYN.Stone put to sky 11:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of this article is claims, such as those by the Cuban government.Ultramarine 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think the CIA side should be presented in whole. I will restate this, but I think the opposing side should be presented in each section by adding a criticism subsection. --SixOfDiamonds 15:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am neutral on this, but the opposing views should also be presented.Ultramarine 16:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposing claims may only be included so long as they are backed up by properly sourced evidence and relevant to the text. Your sources do not deny that the U.S. participated in these acts; rather, they only explain the U.S. government's justification for why they felt their support for these methods of torture, genocide, rape and mass murder were justified. Stone put to sky 06:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we can cite Cuba's claims, we can also cite those of the opposing side. NPOV require the inclusion of the views of both sides.Ultramarine 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed we may; but only insofar as they are relevant to the article.

If you wish to include sources here disputing the events in question, then they must address the specific issue of State Terrorism, the specific incidents of state support, or the specific instances of terrorism mentioned. This is the standard to which you have held the other editors on this page, and this is the standard to which you will be now held. Stone put to sky 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Again read Wikipedia:POV forking. Attempts to violate NPOV is not allowed, articles must include the views of both sides. The article criticzes the US for the manuals, then the counter-view shold also be included.Ultramarine 09:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no violation of NPOV here; i know that because you -- one of the most vehement deletionists on this page -- are responsible for laying down the rules to which all material on this page must conform.

It was you who insisted that all initial statements must include reference to "State Terrorism" and attribute it to the United States; it was you who insisted that any discussion or attempts to elaborate upon definitions of "State Terrorism" and their relevance to actions by the U.S. would not be allowed; it was you who insisted that no material could be included unless it directly referenced the claims of state terrorism; and it was you who insisted that each and every fact on this page be sourced and referenced, no matter how trivial.

Obviously, with such standards we could not possibly be in violation of NPOV; similarly, since you clearly felt these standards were fair to impose on us, the other editors, you could not possibly feel that they are now restrictive and unfair.

Unless your material conforms to these three rigid guidelines, the material cannot be included. Stone put to sky 04:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the sources here do not mention "state terrorism". No double standard please.Ultramarine 17:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Iran 1

"According to an article in the Asia Times, "Sponsoring terrorist activities inside Iran has been a consistent feature of US regional policy over the past quarter-century." This is from an unsourced commentary and seems to refer to US support of opposition in general inside Iran. A better source showing that the US have supported a group doing terrorism inside Iran needs to be quoted.Ultramarine 11:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine. That's easily enough done by looking up the articles by Seymour Hersh, which is who the Asia Times are quoting. Why don't you do that, Ultramarine? It'd be a good-faith gesture, and improve the article.

Of course, if you refuse to do so and instead simply attempt to delete the passage, we will interpret that as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and no such evidence has been presented or found. It is those who make a claim that must provide the sources.Ultramarine 11:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; i am sure you haven't tried very hard, because i clearly remember the article by Sy Hersh that made these claims. I believe they were in the New Yorker.

Again: either put up, or the material remains. Stone put to sky 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that referred to that the US might send spies into other nations and that an anonymous editor thought that these may in the future maybe do sabotage. Again, it is those who make a claim that must provide the sources.Ultramarine 12:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The author of the article (M K Bhadrakumar) is the one stating the passage above. I am not sure what the drama is about? Its clear as day in the article that is used as a source. The author is a writer for the Asia Times, which is a WP:RS source ... I am not seeing the argument here. Please either of you fill me in. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

An unsourced commentary is not reliable, very little fact checking. As this is an extraordinary claims, very good sources are required. The commentary seems to refer to US support of opposition in general inside Iran. A better source showing that the US have supported a group doing terrorism inside Iran needs to be quoted.Ultramarine 16:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I'm actually contributing to this page.
Ultramarine, I think you're right in demanding that people who want to make allegations of state terrorism actually have to cite their sources specifically (No! Say it ain't so!). However, I have heard about what they're talking about.
Scott Ritter has spoken about the US supporting Mojahedin-e-Khalq. [16]
Seymour Hersh alleges the US government is funding a variety of terror groups [17] ina variety of ways [18]
There's a RAW Story about the MEK. [19]
And the Asia Times. [20]
And it's pretty obvious by now the US government is funding Jundallah. MarkB2 00:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark. Those are all much appreciated. Stone put to sky 06:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see looking through these sources, there is no allegation that the US is supporting a violent group, only general support for opposition groups, sending spies etc. Please give a specific quotes supporting the allegation.Ultramarine 08:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
State funding and training of terrorist groups is universally defined as state terrorism. As Bush said. "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."[21] ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 08:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Taking this at face value, please give a quote supporting at least the allegation that the US has done this in Iran.Ultramarine 09:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
"A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News."[22]
"The US-funded terrorist rings have launched tremendous attacks against Iran, including the assassination of Iranian officials on early days after the victory of the Islamic Revolution."[23] ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran 2

"Operation Ajax, which involved organised riots and the training of right-wing terrorist groups" None of the given sources mention "terrorist" groups.Ultramarine 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe ref# 100 does. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
No. Page numbers must be provided for books in order to be verifiable.Ultramarine 12:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if you would help in that task, rather than just barking orders at people. This book is widely available. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice it the article is correct. Giving sources is the responsibility of those making the claims.Ultramarine 12:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Source is given, a date missing from an article doesnt call for its removal, it calls for others to attempt to provide the information. I will have to hit the library it seems this weekend and waste valuable time due to these petty claims. I hope you then cease the arguing here over minors since you just WP:DONTLIKEIT in relation to the topic. --SixOfDiamonds 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I will allow some time before removing time.Ultramarine 16:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you allow some time for you to look it up yourself, instead of just wanting to delete? Unless you have some reason to believe that the source is not accurate I dont understand your tact in approaching it the way you are. It should be one of Fix, dont Delete. Only delete when its not fixable. Yes?Giovanni33 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is those who make a claim that have the responsibility to provide a verifiable source.Ultramarine 19:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If Ultramarine does look it up and can't find it, what then? Will you accept his word, or will you then look it up? I'm just curious, because if you wouldn't be willing to accept his word (assuming he couldn't find it, which is honestly possible even if it is in the book), then it doesn't sound to me that you're genuinely interested in his contributions. (For the record, I doubt Ultramarine and I have the same general POV here. I just appreciate a NPOV. Also, I'm new here, so please forgive me if I go astray somewhere.) Benhocking 19:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If he can't veritfy it for whatever reason, and he believe it does not exist or is false, then thats one thing. But if he just says its not referenced, and deletes, without any intention or attempt to fix what may be an easily fixable problem, then thats another thing. I hope you see the difference between the two. And, yes, I always assume good faith, but that doesn't mean I won't try to see if I can't fix it, when he finds himeself unable to. I don't know why you say I don't sound like Im genuinely interested in his contributions. Can you please explain that statement? I'm interested in helping this article and am interested in everyones contributions--that is why I'm here talking to him.Giovanni33 20:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, I have no idea how big that book is. If the book is over a hundred pages, then it seems unreasonable to ask someone to look for it who isn't even sure it's there. On the other hand, someone already found it, so it seems to make most sense for that someone to say where they found it. It's hard enough to find something in a large book if you've already seen it once before. It's much, much harder to find something in a medium-to-large book if not only have you never seen it before, you've never even read the book! Obviously, Ultramarine is expressing a certain skepticism. Would you go looking through a book for something you weren't sure was even in there, instead of asking someone who's already found it to point you to which page it was on? I'm arguing this purely on general principles and not because of the subject matter at hand. If you look at other things I've edited, you'll notice that I'm mainly interested in academic issues. Benhocking 21:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I dont have a problem with skepticism, asking for the page number of the person citing, it, and not doing it yourself. I do have a problem with simply deleting it, without any effort made to fix it, directly or indirectly by asking the that person who might know, cite it. All I am saying is that the emphasis should be on fixing things, instead of deleting as a fix--unless thre is good reason to believe it can't be fixed.Giovanni33 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I am asking for a better citation right here and now.Ultramarine 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad. Just don't delete it, because I'm assuming its valid and the better citation will be provided in due time.Giovanni33 02:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Limited time before deletion. We want an accurate encyclopedia.Ultramarine 08:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Please cease barking orders, you are in no position to order anyone around. --SixOfDiamonds 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Ultramarine; the citation will stand until either you go find the book and give us a clear citation showing that it does not, in fact, state what is asserted, or somebody else does.

If you cannot be bothered to go check on a source, then you will at least remain patient while others do. Stone put to sky 09:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources."the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material""Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time."Ultramarine 10:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I dispute that the material is poorly sourced.... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
The only supposed source mentioning "terrorist" groups is a book without page numbers. From the decision by the arbitration commitee in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect "Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition."Ultramarine 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That is clearly not the case. There are over a hundred sources. Most are articles and don't require page numbers. Most of the cited books have page numbers. We are really only talking about a minority of the numerous sources. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I am talking about the specific claim regarding Operation Ajax, as per my first edit in this section.Ultramarine 10:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Western Europe 1

"an attempted coup in France (1961)" Seems to refer to some very obscure conpiracy theory. The given source is " Pierre Abramovici and Gabriel Périès, La Grande Manipulation, éd. Hachette, 2006" What is this? A book? Then page numbers would be required. Regardless, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article.Ultramarine 11:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; in France, it's a widely accepted account of the post-war situation. A few folks here can read french, and believe it or not just because something isn't written in english doesn't mean that it's an "extraordinary" claim.

This is a widely respected academic history of the post-war situation in France. If you want to argue against it, then please come up with some sourced material. Otherwise, the material stays.

And, as always: any attempt to remove it against the established consensus will be interpreted as vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your unsourced personal claims are not a reliable source in Wikipedia.Ultramarine 11:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
If you don't want to trust his word, you could try reading the sources. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It is those who make claim that must provide the sources.Ultramarine 11:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The sources are given. You refuse to read them. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources have been provided. It's not our responsibility to buy the book for you, prop open your eyelids, and give you shock therapy until you've completed it. Stone put to sky 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, in order to verifiably, page numbers must be provided for books. This has been confirmed in arbitration cases. Regardless, again, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article.Ultramarine 12:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Page numbers can be added to those few references which lack them. However, I advise you to also actually read the sources. It will do you good and you will be able to argue with us more effectively. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless done, this source is unverifiable. Those who make the claims must provide the sources. I repeat, extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article.Ultramarine 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if you would help in that task, rather than just barking orders at people. This book is widely available. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice it the article is correct. Giving sources is the responsibility of those making the claims.Ultramarine 12:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The sources are given. The lack of page numbers on some references is a minor issue which can be corrected in time. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. Please help out by adding some page numbers yourself. Thank you. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The claimed source is currently unverifiable. Extraordinary claims require extrordinary evidence, so more sources should be added if claiming this is an established fact as per the current title of this article. It would be nice it the article is correct. Giving sources is the responsibility of those making the claims.Ultramarine 12:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You seem unwilling to help, even in theory. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You all are acting like children. The source is verifiable, go search to see if the book exists. The source itself is then verifiable as existing. Your issue is then if the source is stating XYZ due to a lack of page numbers. While I agree page numbers would be more helpful, if there are no quotes being used, you cannot really reference a page to explain an overarching theme of a book. I would also be interested in reading the details of those arbitration cases. Please provide some links. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect "Cited references must relate to particular assertions, merely citing a book within which a person after exhaustive searching might find a source for information is not sufficient. Citations need to to be a specific passage on a specific page of an identified edition."Ultramarine 16:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, after reading over it, it seems you are overly stating the point. Not sure what lead you to that case, but it was regarding someone adding false information or general sources, not sources that actually contain the items. I believe this is bordering on Wikilawyering. Nonetheless I will attempt to find some page numbers for you. --SixOfDiamonds 20:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuba 1

"In 2006, a former board member of CANF, Jose Antonio Llama testified that leaders of the foundation had created a paramilitary group to carry out destabilizing acts in Cuba. The foundation’s general board of directors didn’t know the details of the paramilitary group, which acted autonomously, Llama said. He added that current CANF board chairman Jorge Mas Santos was never told of the plan. The plans failed after Llama and four other exiles were arrested in the United States territory of Puerto Rico in 1997 on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Castro.[3][4][5]"

No involvement by the CANF and the US, so should be removed. Should if anything be cited as evidence againt state terrorism, since the it was the US who stopped the assassintion.Ultramarine 11:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is just so silly.

First, it has three different sources, one of which is from the UN. Second, it clearly documents the relationship between Mel Martinez and a famed anti-castro terrorist organization.

This is yet again another instance of supporting information that has been included to clarify statements that appear elsewhere in the article; in this particular instance, that "Granma, the official newspaper of Cuba, also reported that U.S. senator Mel Martinez was meeting with Cuban American terrorists and sponsoring them via CANF."

You have complained that we have cuban sources in the article; but here we have one source from the Miami-Herald and another from UN testimony, and you are complaining about it being "irrelevant".

Sorry; it's relevance as primary source material in support of an originating thesis is indisputable.

Once again: any attempt to delete this material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 11:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Granma is not a reliable source. None of the other sources claims that US government was involved. The plot was stopped in US territory.Ultramarine 11:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Says who? How is the official newspaper of a nation not a reliable source? --SixOfDiamonds 15:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
A state-controlled censored newspaper is not reliable.Ultramarine 15:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Your belief they are censored is not valid. Further a state controlled document is then also not valid. So are you arguing that we should remove all documents from government offices? I doubt you are. Please cease attempts to brand anything Venezuelan or Cuban as not meeting WP:RS, or have the folks at WP:RS rule on that. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
See Reporters without borders. Documents from dictatorships are not reliable. Venezuela is not a dictatorships (yet), so is more reliable.Ultramarine 15:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You are imposing your own POV about what is a dicatorship and what is not, and basing that POV to determine reliablity of the source? That only produced the expected bias of the filtering system it employs. And that is not NPOV. That is like me saying that reports from big corporations are not reliable because big corpoations are elitist, undemocratic institutions, or that capitalist media can not be considered reliable by WP, and only sources from socialist democracies like Cuba, can be considered reliable. Obviously, this is not valid, but is the reasoning your using here.Giovanni33 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
You can look at any respected human rights group, freedom of expression or of the press does not exist in Cuba, while it does in the US. However, I will agree on one pont. If this article was called "Allegations of...", we could list this as another one of Cuba's allegations of state terrorism.Ultramarine 22:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Granma is a valid source. That's all there is to it.

We are sorry that you have a prejudicial attitude towards the content presented there, but that's beside the point. It is a valid source, and the material remains. Stone put to sky 07:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is a state-censored newspaper a reliable source? But again, it could maybe be included as an allegation.Ultramarine 08:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We are sorry that you are prejudiced against Granma as a source. Nevertheless, it remains valid and the material remains. Stone put to sky 09:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeating a claim without giving any evidence does not help your case. Again, you can look at any respected human rights group, freedom of expression or of the press does not exist in Cuba, while it does in the US.Ultramarine 09:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That is true, but before throwing stones in glass houses, you should consider that the US is not an ideal place for journalism either. RsF puts the US at 53rd place, joint with Tonga and Botswana, for freedom of the press. Perhaps you should take the output of US media with a healthy pinch of salt too. [24] ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Still in the upper third, while Cuba is 165 out of 168.Ultramarine 10:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. But if say, Botswana denied state terrorism against Tonga, would you take their denials at face value, or would you treat it with a healthy skepticism?... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Botswana is one of the best functioning and succesful democracies in Africa, so I would certainly consider their newspapers to be fairly free and reliable.Ultramarine 10:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
So no healthy skepticism then, no? You are very trusting. I live in Ireland (pos #1 ), and I'm skeptical of the Irish press. Its what keeps them honest. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you are obviously prejudiced against Granma as a source. That doesn't concern us, though, because it remains a valid source and the material remains. Stone put to sky 10:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All reputable human rights organizations are find Cuba's newspapers to be censored.Ultramarine 10:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Whether it is or not is beside the point. Even an allegation made by a state controlled source is still an allegation. Its perhaps more notable in the fact that it is the states' official view. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 12:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think that it's "more notable", Seabhcan; that's precisely the point. If we cannot count on Granma to communicate the Cuban Government's legal position and official findings, then who can we count on?

The CIA?

(P.S. -- hey, Seabhcan -- how do you pronounce that damn jumble you call a name, anyway?) Stone put to sky 13:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Its something like "Shaw-kawn" ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Regarding Granma, there is not evidence to give. The source meets all qualifications of WP:RS WP:V. There is nothing in either of those that says Cuban publications are not valid, or that views of the Cuban government are not WP:RS, if that is the argument. This is absurd the bickering over Cuba as a source in any form, and unless someone posts something other then, they do not have freedom of the press, which is not a valid argument, this seems to be closed. PS no I do no thave to prove the New York Times is valid, you have to prove it is not. Every source added does not come with a declaration from the author that they were not lying and fully backed by the president of the publishing company/network, then certified by the U.N. Stop asking people to prove nothing. You have an accusation, its that it does not meet criteria, then back it up and prove it. Stating a group says its really the government stating XYZ does not then make it invalid as the government would be a larger WP:RS source, and further a better source. --SixOfDiamonds 20:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already agreed that this particular allegation is really no different than all the others by the Cuban government.Ultramarine 12:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism vs. State-sponsored coups

I don't think that state-sponsored coups can necessarily be labeled terrorism - unless part of their aim can reasonably be considered to be inspiring terror. Perhaps these can be moved to their own article, and have a link to that article added in the See Also section?

Agree.Ultramarine 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I do not agree that there is clear consensus on the blanking of the massive cited section that ultramarine and company have been deleting. --Kukini hablame aqui 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Currently above, we are working out consensus regarding the sources in contention, and progress is being made. Editors should respect this process and not force massive deletions by edit waring. Thanks for restoring the material.Giovanni33 22:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While i admit that a coup in and of itself does not necessarily qualify as an act of state-sponsored terrorism (the coup against Idi Amin was a blessing, right?), coups that are sponsored by a foreign government against a democratically-elected or populist-government are clearly a) political violence, b) illegal, and c) intended to force a political accommodation against the agreed upon will of the people.

These are the essence of all definitions of "terrorism" so far posted, in each and every point. Moreover, in the case of Guatemala the relevance of the planning of the coup is substantiated by the assassination lists which were drawn up and perhaps acted upon as well as the emergence of "death squads" and other "political enforcers" in the aftermath. The realization of these atrocities was contingent upon the coup itself.

I find it hard to believe that you would seriously argue that a foreign-sponsored coup against a popular government -- which is the epitome of state-sponsored political violence against a people -- does not qualify as an act of state terrorism. Stone put to sky 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The good news is what you believe is irrelevant, and so is what I believe. What is relevant is if a reliable source calls a particular coup "state-sponsored terrorism". Anything else is original research. - Merzbow 07:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Since we have such a source there is no need for any further talk about it.

Thank you, Merzbow, for putting an end to the discussion. I look forward to further contributions by you in the future. Stone put to sky 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Mass blanking of properly sourced text without consensus. That would be great. Badagnani 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As some of you may have figured out, editors have divergent views about some of the material included in this article. Accordingly, deleting significant content without first raising the issue on this page is inappropriate and borders on underhanded sabotage. This may not be true for all articles but it is true here.

Also, deleting material in a sneaky way is pointless because people will notice, restore your deletions and you will look like you were trying to pull a fast one and not acting in good faith. If you have a deletion, post it here with your argument for why it does not belong. --NYCJosh 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the burden should be on the people who want to include the material to justify it. Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It is on the people who want to include the material, up to the point that they add sources for the material. If the material is sourced, but the sources are contested, do not blank, but discuss, or add other sourced material that presents a different view. Sancho 15:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a guideline that says that? Tom Harrison Talk 15:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Major_changes are the two that come to mind. Sancho 15:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
We also have policies like WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR, which enjoin us to remove nonsense like cites to blog posts and the pages of 9/11 conspiracy theorists like Chossudovsky. In fact, WP:V says this - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." So does rock break scissors, or does paper cover rock? The point is that "my policy trumps your policy" chest-beating exercises get us nowhere. Simply make sure that the material in the article conforms to policy and it won't be removed or argued about. - Merzbow 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm new here, so I could totally be misinterpreting the various guidelines y'all throw about, but as I understand them the gist is that (a) People shouldn't be deleting sections without discussing first, even if those sections are not sourced properly (unless there are other good reasons to delete as detailed in the afore mentioned guide), and (b) People shouldn't be adding back those deleted sections without sourcing them properly first - even if they were deleted improperly. These two positions can be reconciled, I believe, through another Wikipedia concept. Benhocking 19:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course we can then run into arguments about whether a particular bit of material conforms to policy. In cases like this it is best to discuss before removing. Unfortunately on a topic like this it becomes very difficult to evaluate whether some material does or doesn't conform, which to me underlines the importance of discussion. I agree with you on the futility of setting one policy against another in these discussions. --John 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The dispute resolution policy and editing policy guide you how to resolve disagreement when it comes to the application of the other policies, and there's certainly disagreement at this page :-). Sancho 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

New people here always try to use rational means to thread the needle. However, i would like to point out that Merzbow, Ultramarine, Harrison, Morton Devonshire and the present-not-in-name-only MONGO have all made it clear that their ultimate goal is the deletion of the entire page, all content, without discrimination, always.

For three years, now, it's been this way. They are not going to change. Whatever reasons they come up with now for deleting material, once having managed to get portions or whatever taken away they will begin to work on the next batch.

Chossudovsky is a respected Canadian political commentator, editor of a widely regarded newsletter, and a tenured professor of political science; his commentary on the 9/11 incidents may be controversial, but they are well within the realm of appropriate academic speculation. Isaac Newton was a fierce proponent of Alchemy; that doesn't change the fact that gravity is still a relevant theory. Giordano Bruno believed he could practice witches, demons, and sorcery, but doesn't change the fact that he was a significant proponent of the Copernican model. There is no good reason to delete Chossudovsky's material.

Similarly, there is no evidence of violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:RS, and the only portion of the article that needs to be cleaned up at the moment is the badly misleading, highly selective quote from the ICJ in the Nicaragua section.

Now, there are two ways to go about something like that: either include an entire section on the ICJ, or give a brief -- one- or two-sentence summary -- of its findings, or simply link to the existing Nicaragua vs. United States wiki page and allow that to do all the talking. The cadre of deletionists, however, will not allow this; they insist upon inclusion of their misleading, selective quotation; only their misleading, selective quotation; and nothing but their own distorted, misleading commentary.

Please notice, however, that in addition to such improprieties there are others far more serious: the above commentators insist (based upon principles listed below) that there must be evidence provided to support a general statement like "The United States has been accused by numerous legal scholars, governments, political figures and human rights groups of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism". Now, regardless of how patently and obviously true such a statement is, the editors here are enjoined to "show sources" that it is indeed the case.

When we do, the sources we provide are systematically attacked as "not authoritative enough" -- even though they are all from published, professional journalists, scholars, human rights groups, political figures, and legal scholars! This is the sort of thing we constantly go through on this page: a simple statement that says nothing more than that many people around the world are talking about these ideas is challenged as "not being sourced" or "not having proof", and then when proof is provided the complaint changes, and the sampling of a large spectrum of people is rejected as not being authoritative enough.

On this one sentence in particular, the deletionist editors here have work tirelessly to try and whittle down the sources and re-work the introduction to say "Noam Chomsky says that the United States has been accused of...."

That is not editing in good faith; what would be an easily accepted statement in other articles becomes a point of contention, here. What would be considered nitpicking and bad-faith editing in other articles is elevated here to policy.

I and most of the other contributing editors here have no problem with people wanting to make this page better; however, many here have made it clear they do not want to see this subject treated in any way other than flat denial. This group has further clarified themselves by holding 6 AfDs on this article, not including their posturing (as above), with the phantastical straw polls and mutual back-slapping and so on.

Currently, the other editors here are doing nothing more than holding them to their own standards; artificial and arbitrary standards have been imposed upon contributing editors by this handful of protesters. I personally can testify that, for over two years, every attempt to communicate, reason, or negotiate with them has been met with scorn and disdain. Their insistence has always been that:

A) All formal, predicating content must be related to and include a phrase approximating a claim of "State Terrorism by the United States"

B) All supporting material and any statements must be sourced in every detail, no matter how small or trivial

C) All material must be directly floating condemnations of State Terrorism, or directly referencing a specific set of supporting facts within such a statement.

Each of those rules in itself is already extreme and, by the standards of other Wikipedia pages, unreasonable. They are made many times more frustrating and aggravating when applied with the vigor that the deletionists here insist upon. Moreover, the result has been to steer this page into a list of atrocities with which the U.S. is directly linked. I ask: what else could it be, with rules like that?

My point, in case it's not clear, is this: it is not the contributing editors who have created the current form of this page. It is the deletionists, and their intransigent, obstinate insistence upon these artificial standards of quality.

Now, what has become a clear pattern over these last few AfDs is this: an AfD is called, and that gets the attention of the Wiki-ops. They send someone over -- in this case, i believe it's Sancho? -- who in all good faith jumps in and starts to try and make heads or tails of this morass. Suggestions are tabled, and attempts are made to try and massage the consensus here into something more cooperative.

Unfortunately, what the advisers and arbitrators rarely realize -- or at least, rarely realize until they've worked at it for a good while -- is that this page is really just bickering over a single issue: its right to exist.

There are several contributors here who will balk and resist at any and every attempt to expand, hone, or in any way improve the content of this page. Their only desire is to see all the content deleted -- and if you don't believe me, then go back and look at the six failed AfDs they've participated in. Or review the talk-page history. Or review the history of their edits.

This group rarely introduces content; when they do, the portions posted are poorly enough edited and suffer from such terrible grammar and syntax that they almost qualify as vandalism. Any attempt to change or clean up said passages is met with obstinate resistance, even when the material is clearly irrelevant.

Finally, the material they present rarely -- if ever -- adheres to their own, pre-established standards, and when requests are made that it be tightened up they are vehemently rejected; those requests must then become demands, and those are usually rejected; finally, those demands must simply become deletes, and when that happens we are offered a quid pro quo: either allow the material to remain, or a new round of deletions will begin again on the main page.

This happened most recently with Ultramarine, and if everyone will look just above they will see the offer clearly made: either we allow Ultramarine's content to remain, or he will begin to delete material. The implication is clearly that he won't delete the material if his material is allowed to stay, and i ask: is there any more clear violation of Wikipedia standards? His offer is unambiguous, and goes something like this: "If you allow my content to stay and do not challenge its validity, relevance, or authenticity, then i will not delete material that consensus has already established as valid, relevant, and authentic. But if you do not adhere to my demands, then i will begin to delete this material, regardless of how the community might protest."

In other words: you allow my poor content to remain, and i won't vandalize the page.

And indeed, what do we see, now, these last three or four days?

Continual attempts by Ultramarine to delete large portions of the article, against the established consensus and in contravention to virtually every wiki-policy yet authored. We had to freeze the page to stop him.

Sincerely -- Stone put to sky 04:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Please limit your future statements to some reasonable length, our time is valuable. There are no respected political commentators who hold that the 9/11 attacks were staged. I'm going to be dragged out of Wikipedia feet-first before cranks like Chossudovsky are considered reliable sources for anything other than their own statements. - Merzbow 07:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Merzbow is right. When the flag comes down, this stuff (http://www.globalresearch.ca - A personal site run by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Michel Chossudovsky; http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans - A non-notable political blog called "What's Left"; http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html - Personal website of a geography and Native American Studies professor nobody's ever heard of; http://www.cetim.ch/fr/interventions_details.php?iid=207 - Website of a French activist group nobody's ever heard of) has got to go. All of it violates WP:RS.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 09:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, dear fellows, i must inform you that you are wrong.

First, the citations are nothing more than sources demonstrating that the statement "numerous [commentators, authoritative and professional alike,] have accused the U.S. of state terrorism". The point of contention in this statement has always been the plural "commentators" and the adjective "numerous", which you and several others here have consistently tried to re-write as "Noam Chomsky". Your objections were that the statement was not sourced.

For the purposes of our current requirements, then, these sources are more than adequate: they demonstrate that there are official political, legal and bureaucratic organizations that have officially taken this stance; they demonstrate that professional commentators around the world have taken this stance; they demonstrate that legal scholars and human rights groups have taken this stance; and finally they demonstrate that academics within this area of expertise have taken this stance. Now, since it was y'all who demanded documentation on a trivial statement, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to change the rules midstream and pretend like trivial facts require extraordinary documentation.

Secondly, i really don't care what you think or don't think about CETIM. It's currently on permanent advisory to the UN (as noted above); it's a formal research institute publicly funded; and it has a special research section devoted to International Law. It will most certainly stay. Finally: since y'all demanded documentation on a trivial statement, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to rewrite your own rules and pretend like trivial facts require authoritative documentation.

Thirdly, the Zoltan Grossman site is widely cited as source material; it is published research by an academic well within his area of expertise; it provides clearly cited sources; and finally, it was published by a widely read publication. Say what you like, but that clearly qualifies as valid source material for wikipedia. In addition, if you can't wrap your brain around the idea of a professional "Native American Studies'" researcher as having relevance to this topic, then you are really out of touch with what is being built here. And lastly, i'd like to remind you that it was you and your comrades who contended this trivial statement; you all wanted documentation and we have given it. Now that it's there you're not allowed to change the rules and pretend like your whim is the rule for this page. The source stays.

Fourth, the "non-notable" political blog is the personal website of a published journalist writing in a formal and official manner about his area of expertise. Moreover, it is offered up only as evidence that there are, indeed, numerous commentators who are or have accused the U.S. of state terrorism. That's all we need to qualify that particular statement. Since y'all demanded documentation, we have given it. Now that you have it, you're not allowed to change the rules midstream and pretend like you didn't ask for it.

Finally, there is no reason to delete material simply because it comes from Chossudovsky; you will need to do better than that. Chossudovsky is a widely published political analyst who is editor and founder of a news and commentary site published in two different languages, with regular readership on three continents, and whose authors include a long list of high-profile academics, journalists, authors and ex-bureaucrats. He is a tenured professor and head of two different grass-roots political groups, both of which deal (if i'm not mistaken) with issues of international law and human rights. He is a far, far cry from a mere "conspiracy theorist". Whatever is said about him on other webpages is -- as in the words of our beloved Ultramarine -- utterly irrelevant to this page. Here we do things according to our own consensus, and -- as Ultramarine is so fond of saying -- if other pages want to make that mistake then fine. They may. For our page, however, you will need to do better than ad hominem attacks against Chossudovsky to justify deletion.

Moreover, since it was you, Morty -- along with your cadre of fellow deletionists -- who demanded that the most trivial and uncontestable statement on the page be backed up by sources, you now have no leg to stand on by decrying that a trivial statement is backed up by unremarkable sources. The content of the statement is clear: there are numerous people and groups around the world who have condemned actions by the United States as instances of State Terrorism. Regardless of how deeply you might object to that statement -- and it is clear from the repeated attempts you have made to delete this page that they are deep and fierce -- nevertheless, the statement clearly is substantiated by factual, incontrovertible sources which -- in every way! -- satisfy wikipedia's guidelines for valid references.

Unless you can come up with better reasons than these, the references stay. Stone put to sky 11:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, they won't. We can bring this up to any additional level of dispute resolution you want, and you won't succeed. 9/11 conspiracists will not be used as sources in articles about (more) mainstream political issues. - Merzbow 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
He has been published so this isnt up for debate.
  • Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
And here is your list:
  • Zed Books
  • Columbia University School of International Public Affairs
  • Institute for International Co-operation, University of Ottawa
  • University of Ottawa Press
  • Faculty of Social Sciences, Dept. of Economics, University of Ottawa
  • Universidad Catolica de Chile, Instituto de Economia
  • Madhyam Books
  • Palgrave Macmillan
All on international politics and economics. --74.73.16.230 00:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
On what grounds are you prepared to exclude all such researchers from being cited in ALL subjects? Do you have a WP rule handy for that one? --NYCJosh 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. WP:RS and WP:Verify.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
See above. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
This subject has achieved no mainstream recognition as far as I can tell. Certainly that is due to his delusional conspiracy theories. Luckily, we have ArbCom precedent for how to deal with persons like this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche - "Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles." Those claiming the Pentagon, the CIA, and the Klingons brought down the Twin Towers against all scientific evidence and all reliable researchers and news organizations are surely just as nuts. - Merzbow 23:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What subject? The one with over 100 sources ... ? Whats la Rouche have to do with anything? Please try to stay on topic. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 00:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And what do the twin towers have to do with improving this article? --John 18:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposing views 2

As per WP:NPOV, the article must also include opposing views. Some proposals can be found here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox. Suggestions and discussion would be welcome, here or on the talk page of that user page.Ultramarine 12:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We have no problem allowing opposing views, Ultramarine; however, any sources you introduce must adhere to the same standards you have set for the page:
  • They must mention, specifically, the idea of "State Terrorism by the United States"
  • Every last fact must directly refer back to the central thesis, and be properly sourced
  • There must be no original research, no references back to commonly accepted definitions of any kind, and no synthesized analysis of any sort.
  • All sources and comments introduced to the page must refer directly to events therein discussed, or else you must create a new section to house them.
So long as all additions to the page adhere to these rules -- which have been set and enforced by you -- then we will be happy to accept them.
Of course, if they fail on any count then they will not be admissible. Stone put to sky 12:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" No double standard please.Ultramarine 12:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


All of the sources in this article either contain a statement that clearly uses the words "state terrorism" or directly reference such an article. Insofar as you wish to include any content, you may either use existing sources which mention "state terrorism" or you may supply your own. If, however, you are unable to manage either of these then the content is clearly inadmissible.


A cursory look at the sandbox:
Source one does not mention state terrorism; it is inadmissible
Source two does not address the events stated within the article, specifically: Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, etc. However, if you would like to start a new section -- and can find an appropriate title for it, something other than "opposing views", because this page is not a POV article but instead merely an encyclopedic catalog -- then this source is admissible.
However, any mention of the Congo or other places must be excluded; they are irrelevant to the article, and irrelevant to the argument being made.
Section 3 -- responding to random rapes and murders by U.S. soldiers -- is irrelevant to the article, since it has been made clear throughout the article that it deals solely and exclusively with acts promoted and approved as U.S. policy.
The third source -- and final paragraph of the sandbox introduction -- is inadmissible because it is a straw-man argument; nobody here is blaming the U.S. for 'every human rights violation', nor is anyone making the argument that elements of the U.S. government -- and its people -- didn't oppose these actions. These arguments are completely outside the scope of the article.
If you would like to relax the standards you and your friends have imposed upon the article, then it would probably be possible for us to find some way to incorporate them into the article. However, as things stand source three does not mention "state terrorism" by name, but instead is dealing with human rights abuses and arguments that are strictly straw-man to the content of this article.
The Cuba subsection is inadmissible because it is clearly POV language. It is not within the scope or power of Wikipedia to judge the authenticity of official government releases, and any presumption to that effect is clearly inadmissible POV language.
This statement:
This statement is, first of all, clearly false; it is not merely Chomsky's personal interpretation, but the interpretation of a great many scholars around the world. Second, it is inadmissible because the claim that the judgment in favor of Nicaragua is interpretable as confirmation of state terrorism is clearly sourced to Chomsky and only a few other commentators. It is not necessary to call attention to this fact in the text of the entry; that is what footnotes and sources are for. To attempt to portray this as a minority -- or a majority -- viewpoint is original research and cannot be included on the page without sourcing.
We have no problem with allowing your fourth source (second paragraph, Nicaragua section); however, such selective editing is clearly misleading and deceptive. The Nicaragua judgment did not find the U.S. innocent of the Contra's actions; it merely ruled that, on the basis of the evidence, it did not have enough information to rule one way or the other. Consequently, this statement says only that the Court cannot rule in favor of Nicaragua's charges -- not that the U.S. is innocent of them.
This is a fine point of law; however, the vast bulk of the Nicaragua vs U.S. judgment clearly enumerates a long list of acts undertaken by the U.S. against Nicaragua for which the ICJ found them culpable and in fault. Most -- if not all -- of these actions are clearly considered to be acts of state terrorism. If we are not going to list all of the relevant passages, i do not see that we should list only one; therefore, my suggestion would be for you to eliminate the quotation and compose a short, one- or two-sentence summary of the point you want to make and source it with links to the ICJ judgment and the Nicaragua vs United States page.
Guatemala: most of what you present there is already included in the article in summarized form. There is no need to fluff it up with lots of irrelevant prose. However, there is some stuff clearly outside the scope of this article:
We don't care about when or why the U.S. called off its relationship with Guatemala unless those sources clearly deal with and mention issues of State Terrorism. Your passages don't.
There is no supporting source for your comments about the CIA and its "ameliorating" effects upon Guatemalan violence. Moreover, it doesn't mention anything at all about State Terrorism.
Finally, your section on SOA will be perfectly acceptable -- provided you create a new section for it, find something that specifically mentions "State Terrorism" and attributes it to the United States, and then source all details therein.
As you can see: i, at least, am willing to work with you. I will not, however, cut you any slack on these standards you have introduced to the page. If you are an honorable man then you will understand my resistance to indulging you a double standard; i trust you will take my observation to heart -- as i have done yours -- and do the necessary investigative research to bring your material up to snuff. Stone put to sky 13:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets start by discussing your first objection. Most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" nor do they link to such an article. Not that a webpage linking to another webpage is evidence for that the first webpage mentions "state terrorism". No double standard please.Ultramarine 13:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox

The first and second paragraph has nothing to do with terrorism. It simply is a justification of US support for dictatorships, and explanation of why democracy is better. In regards to the democracy section, I support these staments, but it is better to be in another article.

The third paragraph says: "Chomsky claims that the United States is a leading terrorist nation." It then states: "However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships." This is true, but this does not mean that the US has or has not committed terrorism. Terrorism is not the same as the number of civilians killed.

Third paragraph: "Media may falsely give the impression that Chomsky's claim is correct." POV. The rest of the paragraph has nothing to do with terrorism either, just more justification of US foreign policy.

The fourth paragraph has little to do with terrorism also. It is also factually incorrect. Many of the actions of the CIA at the Nicaragua v US case were state supported and sanctioned terrorism.

The fifth paragraph is a broad statment "The US is often blamed for every single human rights violations in nations" not, to my knowledge, supported by the reference. This is not an article about the positive aspects of the US governmment, there are several articles like this, which I am sure you have built. Instead it focuses on the terrorism conducted by the US.

The Cuba section disregards the non-Cuba sources. (See footnotes 36-68--32 footnotes for that section alone)

The Nicaragua section ignores that there were 16 finding of the court, and typcially, only focuses on one, the positive one. This one paragraph is not the complete finding of the court.

Further, which is ignored in this white wash article, the court found the US guilty of "unlawful use of force" which is the very defintion of terrorism (look it up). Through out the judgement the judges mention terrorism, as do the witnesses.

The Guatemala section states: "The United States cannot be blamed for all the deaths in the long civil war." No one is.

Your own source: http://www.ciponline.org/iob.htm#Allegations
In the course of our review, we learned that in the period since 1984, several CIA assets were credibly alleged to have ordered, planned, or participated in serious human rights violations such as assassination, extrajudicial execution, torture, or kidnapping while they were assets--and that the CIA was contemporaneously aware of many of the allegations.
Granted this is not terrorism per se...

The School of the Americas section ignores the long bloody history of school of America's graduates. If I recall, it also ignores how many of the students and facilty see the training as a joke. The Torture Manualss from the School of America are also ignored. Not surprising, because the source is the SOA itself.

My question is: How many deaths can the US be blamed for? In this fairytale view of history, it looks like the answer is "none".

I appreciate your efforts. Please avoid blanket statments and narrow your research to terrorism only, especially in the first paragraph. 69.152.139.102 23:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I have modfied the text somewhat and may do more in the future. However, I note that most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or even terrorism. No double standard please.Ultramarine 01:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no double standard here, Ultramarine, except for the one you are trying to beg for yourself.

Once again, Ultramarine: all of the sources in the article have been provided to either back up statements that were made within an article that clearly references "state terrorism by the u.s.", or because they are articles which make a direct statement to that effect.

All sources provided by you must conform to these two stipulations to be admitted to the article. If they do not, then you may not post them to the article. Obviously, you must now simply do more work and more research to find some that conform to these stipulations -- which you have imposed upon the article -- because the content you are currently offering up here clearly does not meet those standards. Stone put to sky 04:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, most of the sources do not mention "state terrorism" or even terrorism. That they instead "make a direct statement to that effect" is of course merely the opinion of the anonynmous Wikipedia editor who added these sources to the article. No double standard please.Ultramarine 08:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Title

A move has been proposed at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move this to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Now that the afd has closed with a recommendation to pursue other editorial venues, such a move back to the former consensus title can hopefully be discussed. The proposed title is a far better solution because it is not an point of view condemnation, would match the other title in the state terrorism series, Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, and would follow the NPOV titles for other contentious articles like Allegations of Israeli apartheid. The United States has never been definitively condemned as having engaged in terrorist acts, and the least the article can do is have the title reflect that. --MichaelLinnear 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the United States has been -- repeatedly -- and the sources are here on this page to prove it.

I'm sorry, but there is no consensus here -- and never has been -- for a change to the name "Allegations of State Terrorism...." That is weasel-language, and i am unconcerned if Jewish people in the United States are outraged by the fact that people want to point out Israeli Apartheid and protest it by defacing wikipedia content; the fact is that there are many, many people in the world who use that phrase -- as well as "State Terrorism" -- and it deserves mention.

The only reason this page is so long and detailed is because of the protesters here; for my part, i would have been happy with a three- or four-paragraph treatment of the subject, but because of the artificial and exaggerated content standards forced upon the editors of this page, it has grown into what it is now.

Open up an Encyclopedia Britannica and you will not find "Allegations of Armenian Genocide", "Allegations of Holocaust", "Allegations of Fascist Atrocities", "Allegations of Apartheid", or "Allegations of Torture at Guantanamo Bay"; in each case there are many people who challenge these ideas. In each case, however, the ideas themselves are listed under a simple declarative heading.

This article should -- and will, per Wikipedia policy -- follow the same pattern. Stone put to sky 04:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's "allegations" because I can count on half of one hand the number of truly reliable sources for this allegation, once you weed out the self-published cranks, the bloggers, and the amateur 'ziners working in the garage. - Merzbow 06:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention allegatins by dictatorships like Cuba.Ultramarine 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wonderful, this article has now been moved to Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States, which is really what it was about in the first place, and what the sources supported. And now it has been moved back, but this is a move that I could support. --MichaelLinnear 06:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have moved it back to the original title. The move Morton Devonshire made had nothing even remotely approaching consensus, and I feel it was inadvisable to make such a drastic move right after the deletion discussion. Many, many people weighed in on the AfD, and without question the page title that most folks agreed on (from both sides) was Allegations of State terrorism by the United States. One editor proposed Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States and Morton Devonshire wholeheartedly endorsed it (and I partially endorsed it if many editors jumped on the bandwagon) but then no one else was interested in that move or else objected wholeheartedly. I don't have a huge problem with the current title, but I think a move to Allegations of State terrorism by the United States would satisfy the highest number of editors (while obviously some would remain unhappy). But let's talk about this for awhile and let feelings from the AfD cool down a little bit before we make any move. If a lot of people really do want to move to {[Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States]] we can obviously do that, but there is not a rush right now. Let's take a breath and see where folks stand on what if any title to change this to before embarking on a move war in the immediate aftermath of the AfD. I think we might actually be able to come to some form of agreement on the title and working to that end in good faith would be a good way to move forward from the heated debate of the last few days.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"Allegations" was the consensus name for a while, and the overwhelming result of this recent move poll was "Allegations". There is no need to poll again. - Merzbow 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense; you are either lying, or ignorant of the facts, I don't know which (and don't really care). Looking at the history page back a year or so ago -- when the name was first changed to "Allegations" -- it is clear that there was no consensus reached, but the name-change was forced upon the page anyway, despite the protests of somewhere between half and two thirds of the contributing editors (in contrast to the deletionists). Stone put to sky 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep making personal attacks like that and you will be blocked, I guarantee. - Merzbow 07:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack? That was an exercise in logic: you made a categorically false statement in an authoritative manner. Therefore, you were either boldly lying, or unaware that you were wrong (or in other words, "ignorant of the facts"). I was not insulting you, but simply pointing out that your pretense to knowledge was in fact badly mangling the truth. I believe it would have been something of an insult had i claimed you were lying, but as i said then: i don't care either way, and the question never even crossed my mind. For my part, i try to assume good faith with all editors. My only concern was that your inaccurate statements not be accepted as truth. Stone put to sky 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
What the situation was one year ago is not interesting now. The current poll supported a move.Ultramarine 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
what happened a year ago is relevant; since we did not protest when the first move was made, i see no reason for you to protest now when it is moved back. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Stone put to sky 18:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about the history of this article and had not looked at that poll carefully, but given that and the comments in the AfD I think a move to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States would be fine (I certainly would not revert it). I won't move it myself at this point, but perhaps someone else will. Even though I think that's the direction this article will go, it might be advisable to discuss this calmly for a day and try to get most folks on the same "page" (or maybe not, it could just prove more divisive). Though personally I have no problem with the "Allegations" move I do definitely object to efforts like that of Morton to bring in the "international law" language since no one seemed interested in that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it even possible to move it back now or is administrator help required? The redirect is in the way. - Merzbow 07:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your measured tone, BTP, but i do hope you understand that changing the title will do nothing to ameliorate the efforts of those who want to see the page deleted; the only thing it will succeed in doing is watering down the page title.
As i have pointed out: millions upon millions of Turks and Muslims protest that the Armenian Genocide never happened, just as there are many thousands of folks (at least) who protest that the Holocaust never happened. We don't have pages called "Allegations of the Holocaust", "Allegations of the Armenian Genocide", nor "Allegations of Holocaust Denial". The place for such language is within the article proper, not in the title; unfortunately, the people here -- the very people now demanding the name change -- have put such artificial limits on the content here that this article could never include such rhetoric (i know, because a year or two ago i was the one who tried to get that language included).
The fact that there are vocal, boisterous people on these pages who protest the title is unremarkable, while the idea that this idea is somehow something that has only achieved the status of hazy allegations is extraordinarily inaccurate.
So basically, what we have here is a group that will not be satisfied by a name change that is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy and does nothing to clarify, improve, or strengthen the article. Do you really endorse that? And if so, then please explain your reasoning, because i just don't see it. Stone put to sky 07:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand that there are some folks who want this page deleted at any cost regardless of the title, and obviously I disagree with that and have no illusions about what a page move would accomplish. But I also think there were a large number of folks at the AfD who preferred that version and did not have an axe to grind. As I said I'm fine with the title as it is, but I don't think preceding it with "allegations" is such a terrible option and I think that it would placate some folks who feel the title is inherently POV (of course others would not be placated). I understand your analogies, but I don't think they are entirely pat. We can obviously prove conclusively that the Holocaust occurred, and though we can prove that the United States did many of the things described in the article, we cannot "prove" that these constitute "state terrorism" simply because, as everyone has acknowledged, that term remains controversial (if there was similar controversy around the term "Holocaust" it would be the same thing, but I at least am not aware of any such controversy in any serious sense). Thus I think the "allegations" label would be somewhat appropriate, and I don't think it fundamentally waters down the content of the article, which should speak for itself. I don't think that article title would be inconsistent with Wiki policy, and though I agree that the title move perhaps does little or nothing to clarify, improve, or strengthen the article I think it may be the best way forward at this point. For those of us interested in keeping this article I think it's also very much a question of picking our battles--whether "allegations" is in the title or not is just not a life and death issue for me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, i can only say i respectfully disagree. State terrorism is a concept that has been rather clearly defined and is seeing increasing use in the international diplomatic, intelligence and legal communities; it's controversy is largely restricted to print and broadcast media and military circles, but even in the latter there's a lot more agreement than is widely acknowledged.

I don't think the name of this article would be an issue at all except that the people who want to see it deleted have made it one. Picking our battles? Everything on this page is a battle, even trivial, patently obvious statements like the opening sentence.

I wholeheartedly believe that changing the title will achieve nothing of value and its effects will work only counter-productively -- and not just for this page, but for all of wikipedia. The changes would only serve the interests of those people who want to see the page deleted and noone else. Leaving it as it is, however, will send a message to all prospective page vandals out to push a point-of-view on wikipedia, while helping to establish clear wikipedia policy on the introduction of weasel-words.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Regardless of the outcome, it's been a pleasure. Stone put to sky 08:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I urge everyone to read the Stone put to sky's last addition, the whole new section on the Philippines. This completely one-sided personal essay regarding the relationship between two democratically elected governments speaks for itself.Ultramarine 10:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"This completely one-sided personal essay regarding the relationship between two democratically elected governments speaks for itself." Well, yes. It speaks well of SPtS's integrity that he is willing to include material even against interest, whether we address Cook's Castile Soap in the Philippines, US Army pinapple plantations in Hawaii, or Guatemala. If the position of the United Fruit Company were only morally relative, most of the methodological work in understanding American terrorism would obviate the requirement that pov-forking not be tolerated within the domain of our contemporary understanding of that term as contributors. Since the theory of political action developed during the Reagan administration must be considered in determining the extent of US latafundian imperialism, we have to work hard to provide a consistent structure for understanding. A case of lazie-faire capitalism of a different sort cannot be arbitrarily imposed by opinion-leaders of the "people" (as they would have us understand that obligation) at Wikipedia. Of course, any demonstrated association with Sam Zemurray should be presented and, at the same time, eliminated from the universe of discourse through demonstrating Reagan's notorious "hands-off' management style, that should not be presented as lack of accountability unless a reliable source has made that connection. The levels of acceptability of this kind of thing were fairly high during the Reagan admministration, if less well-articulated than might have been hoped by both his supporters and detractors. We must bring evidence in support or contradiction of this thesis if we are to present the casual reader with a balanced account. If we all approach this in SPtS's spirit of open-handed generousity by writing for the enemy, this process of "selection" by introduction of important context will, I'm sure we all hope, be determined by the relative distinction of the sources, in the holistic sense in common academic and non-academic use today. Tom Harrison Talk 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Great post Tom. You make some good points, among them that we can only improve this article by the normal processes, and that assuming good faith will be the key. Let's take this idea forward; I think it is a lot more likely to achieve the goal of giving us a better article than watering down the title. --John 18:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The same standards used in other article must be used here. Wikipedia is often over-cautious with the US, let's void double standards.--BMF81 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of double standards and NPOV: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter says "Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms." In that light, I find it beyond absurd to have an article titled State terrorism by the United States, but Palestinian terrorism to redirect to Palestinian political violence. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox, 2

Ultramarine claims that he has improved the text, but so far as i can tell any changes are merely cosmetic and have done nothing to address the objections listed above. Stone put to sky 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean the proposed additiions here: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox. The main objection seem to be that the sources do not mention "state terrorism." That is a double standard since the same applies to most of the sources in this article.Ultramarine 08:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a double standard; this has already been explained to you repeatedly, but i will assume good faith and do so again:

The material introduced to this page must either use the phrase "state terrorism" and predicate that to the U.S, or it must directly reference such a publication. Much of your material does neither and so is inadmissible as content.

Further, you are ignoring the many complaints that much of what you have posted on that page is Original Research, unsourced personal opinions, or plain violations of the neutral point of view that wikipedia demands.

Thus, the consensus here is that the sandbox material does not meet the standards that you yourself have set for this page, and unless you can correct these flaws it cannot be added. Stone put to sky 08:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claims are incorrect and you have not answered to my responses regarding them above. But again, let's discuss your main objection. Again, most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or reference another publication mentioning "state terrorism". Not that your last requirement in any way proves that the first source mentions "state terrorism". Ultramarine 08:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again:

The material introduced to this page must either use the phrase "state terrorism" and predicate that to the U.S, or it must directly reference such a publication. Much of your material does neither and so is inadmissible as content.

All of the material i just added does conform to this standard.

That's all there is to it. These are the standards that you yourself have laid down for the page. Please, do the honorable thing and adhere to your own standards. We will not allow you to create a double standard for this page.

I have deleted your "Opposing" section per the recommendations of the other contributing editors here. Please understand that any more mass deletions of material will be considered vandalism. Stone put to sky 09:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or reference another publication mentioning "state terrorism". Not that your last requirement in any way proves that the first source mentions "state terrorism". By the way, your last section on the Philippines is so obviously a completely one-sided personal essay that that I will probably just let it stand uncorrected.Ultramarine 10:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I shall take your inactivity in that matter as evidence that i have done an excellent job, managing to satisfy both your own high content standards as well as managing to properly exposit the intended subject.

Now, regarding your claims about the content standards on this page: you are plainly wrong.

All of the sources used in the sub-sections dealing with evidence against and condemnations of the U.S. are each clearly built around documents which first predicate the crime of state terrorism by the united states, and then supplemented by sources which outline the events and crimes outlined in those fundamental documents.

Either your sources must directly address those fundamental documents or they must themselves use the phrase "State terrorism" predicated to the United States. If your material and sources do not meet either of these criteria then they cannot be included on the page.

In addition, all contrasting views must be presented under the proper sub-heading. There is no place here for an "Opposing Views" section, because we are describing real-world events, not theories.

I suggest that you try harder to conform to these standards, and am in fact a little shocked at your protests. These are standards of your own creation; for you to claim that they do not hold is, frankly, ridiculous. Your presence on this page for the last two years has guaranteed adherence to them.


These are the rules which you yourself have established.

You plainly have no right to try and change them now. Stone put to sky 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, your so obviously biased personal essay regarding the relationship between two democratically elected governments will only damage your cause. As will your claim that the whole article only have established true facts and that there is no mere allegation. No, most of the sources in this article do not mention "state terrorism" or reference another publication mentioning "state terrorism". Not that your last requirement in any way proves that the first source mentions "state terrorism". So no double standard please. Regarding presenting all sides, see WP:NPOV and WP:Content forking.Ultramarine 10:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Move to Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States

Poll

I concur with MichaelLinnear and Morton devonshire that this is the most appropriate title for this article, especially since that is what the ICJ found the U.S. government to be guilty of in the case of Nicaragua vs United States. Even so, Nicaragua later dropped their suit and claim to reparations that the ICJ decreed that the U.S. was supposed to pay the government of Nicaragua.--MONGO 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get a poll started here:

  • Keep existing title
  1. Stone put to sky 16:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. I'm against moving the article. Adding weasel words to an article, especially to the title, seldom improves it. --John 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Bigtimepeace I'm also fine with Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, but the more I think about it the less I am okay with the breaches of international law option, which simply creates too many problems.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Leave it alone --74.73.16.230 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Have editors considered the consequences of moving the page to “Allegations of”? As it stands the page makes well sourced claims that are mostly admitted to by the U.S. (the dispute is mainly that the U.S. doesn’t consider it's actions terrorism) and is relatively NPOV thus making the current title more appropriate. For allegations, the burden of proof is lower and this will allow for more content that will be even more controversial. For example there is the illegal medical experimentation on pre pubescent children. The Unabomber is known to have taken part in CIA mind-control experiments and Sirhan Sirhan claimed the CIA programmed him to kill Kennedy. I have also read that the CIA sponsored militia in Guatemala wore swastika armbands and were organised along the lines of the SS. Then closer to my home there are the allegations of the U.S. arming terrorists that were fighting Australian troops in Timor. I'm sure the pro-U.S. editors don’t want all those extra claims in there despite them having (marginally) reliable sources. Of course such content being included will probably be a big part of arguments supporting deletion at the next AfD so maybe that is the plan. It’s time editors stopped the POV pushing by trying to get it deleted or violating NPOV by watering it down when that fails. You'd think that 6 AfD failures would give some an idea of what the consensus is. Wayne 18:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think you make an excellent point Wayne, and it is one I considered. However, the alternative, in my view, is to remove some of the allegations that have less merit. As it stands now, it seems to me that there are some editorial gymnastics that have been exercised in order to include items on this list. Having one notable person declare that an action is terrorism, especially when that person is someone with a well-known bias, does not seem like a sufficient condition for such an inclusion on this list. Although I feel that all of the items on this list reflect poorly on the US, and I cannot think of any whose actuality I dispute, many of them do not seem to be easily defined as "terrorism". Benhocking 18:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    Terrorism is hard to define as one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Unfortunately the bar has been set by content in WP articles on organisations and countries the U.S. does not like. WP must be consistant if it's to have credibility. Wayne 19:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    While I appreciate that terrorism is hard to define, it would seem that an intent to instill some sort of terror should be a prerequisite. Although an assertion as to such is made in all cases, in some cases that assertion seems dubious. As for the bar being set, I do not believe that the bar is all that rigid. If the term is applied inappropriately in articles on "organisations and countries the U.S. does not like" (and I'm not disputing that), then the appropriate action is to fix the "bar" there, and not apply an equally incorrect "bar" here. Benhocking 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. I'm against moving the article. Adding weasel words to an article, especially to the title, seldom improves it. --John 16:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Keep, allegations, as John mentions allegations is a weasel word. Changing the title will not change the "usual suspects" frenzied rabid effort to delete this article. 69.152.139.102 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Leave the title alone. Didn't you guys vote on the title last month? Will there be a vote on this next month too (no matter what title is chosen now)? Are you familiar with the work of Sisyphus? How about we get to work on adding to the article? --NYCJosh 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. Leave alone, as explained before. This is getting boring. Also, the credibility of those who really want the article deleted, is strained at best in regards to this article. I suggest a coolling off period from this article from these folks, and let this be delt with new editors whose neutrality is not so compromised, having just failed another AfD, which exposed a very pathetic attempt at nothing less than article vandalimsm (for what is a worse case of vandalism than trying to blank a legitimate articles very existence?).Giovanni33 03:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. Leave it alone. All articles are named for the particular controversy. Whether it turns out to be "true" or not is for the article's body to decide. Putting "allegations of" in the title is as inappropriate as putting "proof of" in the title. .V. [Talk|Email] 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. I'm also in favor of having further separate articles for Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States and Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. The broader the coverage in Wikipedia, the better.--BMF81 19:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. --MONGO 12:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Better describes page content; terminology used by mainstream sources. Tom Harrison Talk 13:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    Your lack of reading the sources goes to show the weight of your agument. The terminology referencing international law only appears under one section, which also calls the acts terrorism. There are currently more sources alleging terrorism, then breaches of international law. --74.73.16.230 17:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed, I don't see how someone can argue that this title better describes the content of the page. It clearly does not so I don't think that's a valid rationale. If the objective is to make the article content conform to the new title ex post facto (i.e., once it is moved anything mentioning state terrorism would be deleted, i.e. an enormous percentage of the article) then please admit to this at the outset as it would seem to be little more than a means to get around the decision in the AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    The result of the AfD was No Consensus. "Getting around that" to achieve consensus should be the goal. Obstructing that is against policy.--Tbeatty 17:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. -- JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Better. But it must be accompanied by the deleteion of all the POV and OR crap. --Tbeatty 16:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. 1st choice. - Merzbow 16:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. First choice --  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Much more appropriate title. --Aude (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. --MichaelLinnear 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. 1st choice. Arkon 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  11. 1st choice, I explained above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  12. 1st choice Allegations is most important for the title, but terrorism is not the best description of the article.--SefringleTalk 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  13. Move Existing title is extremely POV. Edward321 22:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. All of these cases involve definitive allegations of state terrorism and not just breaches of international law. That said, some of the articles seem to be somewhat acrobatic in getting there. Whether this is due to problems in illegitimate synthesis or poor writing, I cannot tell for certain as (a) I'm not familiar with many of the allegations made here, and (b) I'm not a good writer myself. This would be my rule of thumb, however: if you can't tell whether a "case" involves allegations of state terrorism (engaged in and/or sponsored by the US) until the last paragraph, it is, at the very least, not well written. Furthermore, some of the articles posted here are not just allegations, but seem to me to be somewhat dubious or speculative allegations. They are sourced allegations, but they are clearly just allegations. (For those who state this won't solve the bickering, that's not my point. I also don't plan on bringing peace to the Middle East. I just think that this article is consistently about allegations of US state-terrorism more than it is about well-established cases of US state-terrorism.) Benhocking 13:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Since most opponents feel WP is not allowed to have a sourced critique on the US maybe renaming it to a watered down version helps aleviate concerns. Breaches of international law does not describe the numerous terrorism-like actions executed or supported by the US. Heck, for someone to break the law he need only to be jaywalking. Clearly, to include jaywalking with allegations of murder is muddying the waters. As an aside, exactly what is the difference between allegation and established fact? If we mandate a court ruling we should acknowledge that for political reasons no US administration will ever face a court of law. Does this mean no crime has been committed? Of course not. It proves that Justice still is not blind.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    Did the ICJ decree that the US had committed terrorist acts? No...Chomsky and others of like mind have made that comparison. I'll be patiently waiting for similar articles we are long overdue for here to ensure Wikipedia provides a good hearing...such as State terrorism by Cuba, State terrorism by the USSR, State terrorism by Iraq, State terrorism by North Korea, State terrorism by (any other country...pick one). I see plenty of articles condemning U.S. international actions...Criticism of the War on Terrorism comes to mind...all I see regarding other countries "sponsoring" terrorism is Terrorism in Syria and Terrorism in Russia and a few others, with only the latter examining the issue of the country of Syria sponsoring terrorism. Hardly fair and balanced it seems.--MONGO 15:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    In all fairness, MONGO, I don't think anyone would be too upset if you created those articles yourself. I'm sure there is plenty of good evidence to back up those claims, too. However, actually writing the articles and providing the citations is not trivial. Perhaps you could start a project to help organize it? (Being new here, I don't really know what's involved in creating such projects, although I'm sure I could figure it out if I dug around for awhile.) My point is, that complaining that other articles don't exist does not have any bearing on whether or not this article should exist. If those articles should exist (and why shouldn't they?), then someone needs to write them. Just don't sign me up for that exercise. ;) Benhocking 15:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    You seemed to have missed the point...the point is wikipedia is not a here to report opinions as facts. It is the opinion of Chomsky and others that the U.S. has committed acts of terrorism. The only facts we have are that the ICJ decreed that the U.S. had violated Nicaraguan rights...they never said anything in their determination about terrorism and Nicaragua dropped their suit anyway. We don't have these articles because the radical left isn't on Wikipedia to be neutral...they just want to POV push this egregious violation of WP:SYNTH and others like it. I'm not going to create these articles just to be "fair", even though we definitely could find excellent references to support such articles. I'm not here to be a POV pusher...I am here to stop POV pushing.--MONGO 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    I do not feel that they are reporting opinions as facts, but rather reporting notable opinions as notable opinions, which is why I stated that moving this article to "Allegations of..." makes sense. (When it comes down to it, however, how does one separate "opinions" from "facts"? Would it be a fact if it were the opinion of the ICJ?) Benhocking 15:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    Also, allow me to be clear about my point in creating those other articles. I'm not advocating creating them just to be "fair". I'm advocating creating them to help complete the discussion, and because they would be interesting. Although neutral is an admiral goal, "fair" is something that life isn't and never will be. ;) Benhocking 15:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. 2nd choice - Merzbow 16:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Second. --MichaelLinnear 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Second Choice --Tbeatty 01:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Second choice --SefringleTalk 06:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. 2nd choice. Arkon 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  8. 2nd choice as well Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  9. 2nd choice, I explained above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  10. "Allegations..." is a neutral title. utcursch | talk 06:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Do something else
  1. Leave it alone --74.73.16.230 13:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. --"Involvement/complicity of the US in State terrorism and War Crimes", or something similar. It seems to me that there are a lot of sources that imply this in an unambiguous way. In the Cold War the US was involved in conflicts, backing parties who were involved in state terrorism, war crimes and other horrible things. To say that this means that US itself is then guilty of State Terrorism is more controversial. If we change the title to "Allegations of state terrorism by the US", then the focus of the article must be the opinion of the people who make this case, making the article less broad.Count Iblis 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Leave it alone. Stone put to sky 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Rename it to a truthful title. Rename to Terrosim committed by the Great Satan
  5. better than leaving is alone, per Nescio's suggestion below, rename to "Sourced Critique of United States Foreign Policy." It will at least be sourced. --Tbeatty 01:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Tbeatty, I have a hard time believing you are acting in good faith by misrepresenting Nescio. He did not make the suggestion you attribute to him, and certainly this type of behavior is not condoned on Wikipedia. Benhocking 01:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    I don't see how your personal feelings about me are relevant to this discussion. Considering that the article misrepresents the actions of the United States and is marginally sourced and hugely one sided, I would think your concerns about me are somewhat misapplied. --Tbeatty 04:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Nice way of dodging the point. You misrepresented Nescio. That is unacceptable. I have no personal feelings about you at all. However, I do have feelings about spreading misinformation - whether about other people or about entire countries. Do you think spreading misinformation is acceptable, in any format? Benhocking 12:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Absolutely not. That's why this article should be deleted or pared back to the actual sourced facts instead of the half-truths and misinformation that it is today. There is no need for 1984 style disinformation from government when disinformation is created and spread by ordinary people through articles like this. --Tbeatty 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    That's either another dodge, or you're agreeing that your misrepresentation of Nescio was inappropriate. I'd like to believe the latter, but I'd hate to be guilty of misrepresenting you myself. Ben Hocking (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Tbeatty you continue to dodge the point made by Benhocking and others that you are wildly misrepresenting Nescio with your suggestion (it was obviously not "Nescio's suggestion" as you assert and anyone can see that), which incidentally seems to me a clear cut case of WP:POINT. I cannot fathom how you think misrepresenting what someone else wrote (and then blithely ignoring those who call you out on it) is going to get you anywhere. If you aren't going to reply to my point about blatantly misrepresenting the views of another editor, then please don't bother replying at all. I know how you feel about this article and I've already read 1984.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Nescio complained that articles with sourced critiques of the United States were opposed by editors here. I simply obliged him by requesting a rename to the exact thing that he said editors were opposed to. So who is being disingenuous? The reality is that no editor here is opposed to sourced critique of any government yet a neutral title is beyond the reach of some editors that insist on calling actions by the United States "terorrism" when it is no such thing and not supported by any sources as a legitimate viewpoint. Other editors pretend agony over the current title yet oppose all efforts to change it. Disingenuity is not in short supply. --Tbeatty 23:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
    Who is being disingenuous? You are. Complaining that "articles with sourced critiques of the United States were opposed by editors here" is not at all the same as renaming the article to "Sourced Critique of United States Foreign Policy." You're obviously intelligent enough to already know that, however. Is that title NPOV? Sure. While you're at it, I suppose you could rename the "Democratic Party" as just "A Party that Has Members and Nominates Candidates for Various Offices". (For some reason, I feel compelled to point out that was not a serious suggestion.) Ben Hocking (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    Except that you are on the wrong side of your own argument. I am arguing for "Democratic Party" while you want to defend a title along the lines of "Liberal Nutjobs" to describe the Democratic Party (change it to Republicans or Tories or Labour or whatever fills your boots). We could certainly find articles on Theodore Kaczynski and Noam Chomsky to "support" the "liberal nutjob" title and we could fend off all the AfD's that would call it hopelessly POV since the Democratic Party is indeed article worthy. But to what end? So we could have an article on Democrats called "Liberal Nutjobs?" Whose interest does that serve? "Foreign Policy of the United States with regard to Nicaragua" or the Philippines or Italy or Lebanon is fine. Likewise for any neutral article title. Calling it "State terrorism of the United States" however is non-starter and puts it along the lines of above "Liberal Nutjobs" for Democratic Party. --Tbeatty 06:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. Delete--SefringleTalk 06:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  7. Delete, or move, either is a better choice for a shitty article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

The title "Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States" is too weak. Most countries of the world have violated international law in one way or another. So, it doesn't carry much information. In fact the word "allegation" in the title would actually suggest that the US actually performed better than most other countries when it comes to upholding international law. :) Count Iblis 13:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean you are for keeping the existing title? It's unclear. Perhaps you can weigh in above in the appropriate section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This not an article about "breaches of international law by the united states". However, if you all think that such an article is useful then feel free to create it. This article is about state terrorism by the united states -- the concept, who makes these charges, and what evidence there might be to support such an idea.

Please stop trying to play these name-change games, fellows. There is no consensus for such a change, and there will not be one. You are all currently quite guilty of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Please understand that any attempt to change the title without first reaching a consensus will be considered page vandalism, and acted upon accordingly. Stone put to sky 14:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean like what was done here? Notice that it was marked as minor. That's a minor move??? Looks like vandalism by your definition. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism???? According to the article, that would be "terrorism.". --Tbeatty 06:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It's too soon for this kind of warring junk. SchmuckyTheCat
Then head back to ED, Schmucky. Go troll there for awhile.--MONGO 15:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't call me a troll Mongo. SchmuckyTheCat
Then stop trolling Schmucky. If you have nothing useful to add to the conversation from which we can figure out how to make the article better, then simply go away.--MONGO 04:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In less than 24 hours after an AfD the dissenters, including yourself, are systematically edit warring (including page moves) the page in an organized manner. My statement is that the situation needs to settle down and no particular action needs to happen immediately. It isn't trolling to state that we can all take a breather and discuss things before taking one-sided actions. SchmuckyTheCat
MONGO, a statement like that never does anything other than escalate a situation. Something this page certainly does not need. --MichaelLinnear 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Refrain from attacking people Mongo, you will get further if you try not intimidating others, this is not the school yard. --74.73.16.230 03:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

When the article was first moved from "State terrorism" to "Allegations of..." there was clearly no established consensus, vocal opposition to it, and much protest at the time it happened. Moving it back, therefore, was merely a restoration of the title after vandals had moved it against the wishes of the community. Stone put to sky 16:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The move poll under the "Title" section clearly showed that the consensus is for "Allegations of...", no matter how much you try to ignore it. - Merzbow 16:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, but then what's the point of this

poll?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the folks voting to change the name were hoping it would stop the AfDs. I'm not so sure they'd be that enthusiastic if they realized it wouldn't clean anything up.
As i counted it, there were 8 deletionists -- most of whom haven't contributed a single word to this article -- voting to change the name to something absurd, 5 contributing editors voting not to, and two contributing editors voting for "allegations". So if we cut the deletionist votes down to people who have actually contributed content (or attempted to), we get something like 5 to 4 against.
I think it's rather absurd to have 7 people who have refused any and all attempts to cooperate towards consensus -- and who are, in toto, more responsible than anyone else for the direction the page has taken -- getting the final say in what the title of the article is. Stone put to sky 19:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to "Sourced Critique of the United States" per Nomen Nescio above.
  1. Seems like a good title to me. Seems to be the goal of the article too. --Tbeatty 17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please, this discussion is already going to be ridiculous enough as it is. Let's refrain from adding in jokey make a point comments like this one which serve no constructive purpose whatsoever. Obviously Nomen Nescio did not suggest this title, and you already voted for another option.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That's very disingenuous, Tbeatty, and does not seem like you're acting in good faith with respect to Nomen Nescio, as that was not his suggestion that you're attributing to him. Benhocking 17:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Personally I will be less than impressed by a fairly high vote title for the move to "breaches of international law by the united states." This proposal has, of course, been listed at Morton's Illuminati Noticeboard and will therefore receive votes from all of the usual suspects (many have already weighed in) who usually vote identically on "conspiracy theory" matters (though how this article has anything to do with conspiracy theories eludes me). It's obviously fine for that crew to weigh in here, but I think we should think of this "poll" (I'd much prefer a discussion) as an attempt to reach some consensus on the title (which may be impossible) rather than a straight winner-take-all vote. The proposed move is extremely, extremely radical, and I feel there should be fairly broad agreement about it in order for it to happen, not one well organized group of like-minded editors voting in lock step and thus bringing about a page move (I'm just calling it like I see it).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Discussion is far better than a vote. --John 18:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bigtime and John. --NYCJosh 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Which is why it specifically states that straw polls are not binding. --74.73.16.230 03:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope that none of you are allowing anti-American feelings to influence your interpretation of Wiki policy. Because, you know, this is not about whether you love or hate the US -- it's about following our policies. The US does plenty of stupid things, most of which is well-documented in these pages by reliable sources, without resort to synthesis. Why the need to pin this on America as well by resort to relying on axe-grinding Leftists like Chomsky and Chossudovsky is beyond me (neither of which meet our requirements as reliable sources for this subject matter). Is your disgust with American foreign policy so important that you would allow something which so obviously violates Wiki policies to stand? Let's put this to bed by choosing a title that all of us can live with.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 03:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Speaking for myself Morton, I take great offense at being even implicitly labeled anti-American, so please do not throw that kind of language around anymore. I object just as vociferously to anyone who would label you or other editors "pro-American" in a supposedly derogatory fashion. That kind of talk gets us nowhere, and literally has no meaning among people who do not know one another. Otherwise, I think the issues you bring up with respect to Wiki policy have already been discussed to death, so I see no point in rehashing them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The last thing I expected to be called was anti-American. I know many kids these days like to run around talking about "left" and "right" but people like myself who have served do not play on the political divide. Do not consider yourself more American or any less American depending on the party you serve. If you want to take a moral high road and support your country, enlist. As with Bigtimepeace, I do not appreciate this "Leftists" bashing and labeling of people, we are here to edit, I hope you are not here representing your political party. --74.73.16.230 10:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I will ignore MortonD's name-calling and say that I agree (see my vote above) that we should get down to business and stop fighting over the title. You state: "The US does plenty of stupid things, most of which is well-documented in these pages by reliable sources, without resort to synthesis." OK, if you and some of the other editors (you know who you are) who are consistently trying to delete but hardly ever trying to add to this article each agreee to add one such act of terrorism (or whatever else you would like to call it) appropriate to this page and agree to desist from further attempts to delete the article or change its name, I for one will agree to change the title to "Allegations of State Terrorism by the U.S." Then we could stop playing games and start building the article.--NYCJosh 18:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I further agree with MortonD that we should follow WP policy in trying to resolve some of these issues.--NYCJosh 18:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, too. Should i move my "Honest proposal for Radical Change of Direction" up here? I think it's a bit long, but i'd appreciate y'all's input on it.
The only way we can get the attacks on content to stop is to open up the page a bit more so that the deletionists here are able to post a bit more freely; currently, thanks to the strict rules they've enforced so rigidly, there isn't much room for them to do the ol' rhetorical dance. I think if we modified the title just a bit we could resolve the lengthy content problem as well as make some folks feel like the page is a bit more fair.
Interesting, too: Henrik mentions below that he suggested the same thing a month ago. In light of that, it seems like an even better idea than it did before.Stone put to sky 18:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala and Philippine section

I really support this article, but I suggest the excellent written first section of Guatemala be moved to the 1950s overthrow article, since it has nothing to do with terrorism per se.

The Philippine section is also interesting, but it is so large, maybe it deserves a seperate new article. Military aid to the Philippines is not terrorism, unless it is used for terrorist purposes. 69.152.139.102 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly enough info in the Philippine section to start a new article on the subject. Perhaps someone can do that and later when this article becomes too large, we can start to it down a bit, keeping the sections but moving a lot of the details to the article on the subject. This article needs a section on American Indians who faced terrorism by the US government. There is certainly notable observations of these occurances. Also, the KKK, and such terrorist, racist organizations, might be another one to look at, to the extent that the govt. is complicit.Giovanni33 03:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with including any of this stuff in distinct articles. The page is getting huge. I have always said that i thought a better treatment for this page would be to avoid getting bogged down in the details of the evidence and instead discuss the foundation of the condemnations of U.S. policy and why people think that qualifies as terrorism. The deletionists here have always rejected that approach out of hand.

Now they've got the page they insisted upon, and they want to delete that, too. Anyone surprised?

The first part of the Guatemala section is, IMO, relevant; it establishes that from the very beginning of U.S. involvement in the coup, assassinations, violence, and illegal, subversive action were common tools. All of that has bearing on what followed over the course of the next forty years, has in its own right been called state-sponsored terrorism, and falls within the scope of the definitions laid out at the top of this page. Stone put to sky 06:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


The U.S. also gives to the U.N. Should we explore the "terrorism" by troops under the U.N. banner? It seems to fit the criteria that is used to include these other sections. --Tbeatty 07:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, and i would happily contribute to such a page. Why don't you start it, Tbeatty? Stone put to sky 09:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I would happily assist as well, just point me toward some material and I will crack some books. Thanks Tbeatty. --74.73.16.230 10:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't need a new page, just a new section. I suggest we start with Rwanda. The U.S. gave money to the U.N. The U.N. is responsible for all those deaths. Therefore U.S. = terrorism in Rwanda. Same formula as the Philippines and Guatemala section. We could do the same for a France secion. U.S. trains with France, French soldiers raped and terrorized girls in an African nation they were doing peacekeeping in, therefore U.S. = terrorism. --Tbeatty 14:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Nice we are getting somewhere, what we need now are references citing those things as terrorism attributable to the United States. If you have some books that do, or articles, even authors I will do a little leg work. Thank you much. --SixOfDiamonds 15:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need that? We only need the inference of that for the Philippines and Guatemala. There is no doubt that the Rwanda killings were terrorism. U.N. was supposed to help. Therefore, the United States = Terrorism in Rwanda. This is the same synthesis as we are using in the Philippines and Guatemala sections (and many others). --Tbeatty 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do we need what? sources? I do not get the question. There is a section below regarding the Cultural Terrorism I would like to get your feedback regarding. If you can rephrase your above question into a complete sentence let me know, perhaps I am not understanding why you are advocating not having any sources for your proposed articles above. --SixOfDiamonds 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Move against consensus?

I really can't see any consensus here for the move. This is an awful title. --John 05:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this was most certainly a major move against consensus. This new title has a number of problems. I'm trying to restore it but I'm not sure how its done properly. Please help.Giovanni33 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You'll need an admin to undo the move now. Your edit here made it so that wikipedia can't move the article back to the State terrorism article name.--Bobblehead (rants) 05:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Opps. I've never tried to move, etc. articles. I think John is an admin., and can fix this. Thanks.Giovanni33 05:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved to "State-sponsored terrorism by the United States" until we can get this State terrorism.... bug worked out. Stone put to sky 06:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to move it back. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That didn't work. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this even more POV move which is not supported by the evidence...unless of course by evidence we are using some really extreme opinions to justify this title. I hope you guys keep adding extremism to this article...it will make it easier to demostrate it for what it is...a soapbox. Have fun! Why not just retitle it to The U.S of A., the evil empire...seriously.--MONGO 06:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO: judging from the history, it looks like you were the one to first move it, but to the ludicrously generic and (presumably deliberatly) meaningless title of "Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States". If you read the comments above, that led to them trying to move it back. Difficulties ensued, and this is the result. So, you're the reason for the "even more POV move" that you're bemoaning. Actually, I don't see the difference between "State terrorism" and "State-sponsored terrorism", except for (a) the latter is more common usage, and (b) it seems to be less POV as it indicates sponsorship and not execution. Benhocking 12:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Get your facts straight next time...Morton moved it first so I was reverting to his wise decision [25]--MONGO 12:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That's why I was careful to cite my source. :) If you look at the history logs, you'll note that your name is first on the list of moves. I assume that all of the moves somehow damaged those history logs, which covered up Morton's move. However, the main point still stands. If someone hadn't moved it to that ridiculously generic name (how much additional information could go under such a category?!?), it wouldn't be where it is now. It seems that Stone put to sky was acting in good faith, but could not restore the title to it's original wording. It also seems that those choosing to rename were acting in a rash manner, after drumming up a small bit of support for their move. Do you really believe that "Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States" is a more precise or accurate description of this article?!? Are you actually inviting people to create a list that includes all allegations of breaches of international law and not just those that some consider to be terrorism? Such a title is at best a category title and not an article title. Perhaps someone should create that category! Benhocking 12:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes I do believe the move I made was to a title that could be more accurate based on the ICJ findings in Nicargua vs the U.S. Frankly, you did a few edits with this account two years ago and since returning very recently all you seem to be doing is POV pushing and arguing. In fact, you fit in nicely with the others here who are obvious single purpose editors.--MONGO 13:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Not entirely correct, The name you chose is to generic, encompasses even minor violations, and certainly was not supported by consensus.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
So, are you actually inviting people to create a list that includes all allegations of breaches of international law and not just those that some consider to be terrorism? As for me: (a) I don't know what my editing habits have to do with my argument (the same point I've made in defending critics such as yourself to others, you might note, since you're so interested in my editing habits), and (b) POV pushing?!? Care to cite an example? I have been arguing both sides of this issue. Go ahead and read my edit history again. In this particular discussion (which has occupied the majority of my edits, I imagine), I think you'll find that I have been arguing more for due process than about any particular POV. Unless you consider arguing for a name change to "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" POV! Benhocking 13:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That depends if you are interested in disrupting Wikipedia to make a point...are you? Yes, when I see someone with your editing history, I do see them as being here for one purpose...arguing. Due process? According to who? You? This isn't your only account...is it? If it is, what a waste. We have 1.8 million articles...go forth and create something...anything. I have...once you do, come back and let me know.--MONGO 13:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not interested in disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - which is why I didn't make the name change that you are arguing would disrupt Wikipedia! Yes, I enjoy a good argument. I don't think this qualifies, however, as you never seem to actually answer my points. As for articles, I actually did create a couple a while back, and I'm sure I will again. I'm not a very good writer, however, so I'm more inclined to make minor edits where I see obvious flaws. I also try to make peace where I can. That was one reason I stepped in to defend Ultramarine earlier. Benhocking 13:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The closing admin listed renaming to resolve the conflict. The majority of comments on the AfD were to move it. That is consensus. The only thing left was to determine the new name. Keeping the same name, however, is NOT consensus. --Tbeatty 06:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty you are right that there was strong interest in changing the title (although in truth "renaming" was only one option listed by the closer of the AfD, others included "rewrite" and "cleanup" which many delete voters seem to have no interest in), but MONGO's move was completely improper in my opinion.
MONGO began a poll which several people objected to but nonetheless "voted" in, and as it stood 9 were in favor of keeping the same title, 2 were in favor of moving to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (three said this was their second choice, and you can add me in there for second choice as well) and 9 chose MONGO's option of moving to Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States. A little over 16 hours after opening the "poll," MONGO makes the move to his preferred option. Come on man. If you want to elicit editor's views via a poll, then at least listen to the views of those who disagree with you, and don't end the poll in an obviously premature fashion when other folks might still want to weigh in since it's been an open poll for less than 24 hours (what's the rush to move the title? Nothing that I can see). Also since a compromise option, in the form of Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, is available (i.e. folks on both sides have said it's their second choice, and an earlier poll established that many editors were okay with this option) it's at least worth discussing this other option (and indeed all of the options) before a move.
As I said I agree with Tbeatty that there were many in the AfD interested in a change of title, but there was little or no interest in a move specifically to Allegations of breaches of international law by the United States, and obviously there are strong objections to that here (even if we were "voting" in that poll, it still would have lost). Let's talk about a possible page move, and not make arbitrary moves as both Morton and MONGO have done (hopefully eventually this page will get back to the "State Terrorism..." title while we discuss this, which right now seems to be a technical problem--no one seems to be advocating the "State-sponsored" version). Incidentally, MONGO's absurd comment about moving the article to The U.S of A., the evil empire speaks for itself. MONGO, if you are really that frustrated with how things are going at this article, I would think you should just move on and concentrate on contributing in a more constructive fashion, which you are obviously incredibly capable of doing given your past work. The essay at WP:BDH might be worthy of a quick read.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
So, in other words you think that the move to State-sponsored terrorism by the United States has any consensus? If any move was done unilaterally, it was the one Stone put to sky did when he moved this article to this current title. I see no support for this title either in the polls above or in the latest Afd. You seem to have missed that. I think your overlooking of this point makes your entire rant above absurd and whether you like it or not, I intend to stay around this article, so get used to it.--MONGO 08:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think that move has any consensus, and I already said that quite clearly. I think you overlooked my point about the move to "State-sponsored...", though I will not draw any conclusions from this "overlooking" as you just did so hastily. Let me repeat myself. I don't like the current title (read just above where I said, "hopefully eventually this page will get back to the "State Terrorism..." title while we discuss this, which right now seems to be a technical problem--no one seems to be advocating the "State-sponsored" version"), and I don't think Stone put to sky does either as that editor only made the move "until we can get this State terrorism.... bug worked out" (again see above). I don't understand the mechanics of page moves very well, but it seems there is a problem moving it back to the previous State Terrorism by the United States title because of redirects. Folks above have said it takes an admin to do this (MONGO you would know more about how this works than I) and I support essentially "undoing" the move MONGO did and returning to the pre-AfD status quo "State Terrorism..." while we continue to discuss a possible title change as we were doing before MONGO moved the page prematurely in the first place. This was obviously my point above for anyone who read carefully. You can call this additional comment a "rant" if you want, but such rhetoric probably won't get you very far.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Do i really need to point out that the move i made would have never happened if MONGO hadn't first vandalized the page?
No, of course i don't. Everyone here already knows that. Stone put to sky 09:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your point, but calling the page move "vandalism" does not at all help the discussion I think. Let's call it a really, really bad page move and leave it at that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I see 9 in favor of moving it to the title I proposed and 6 to the title you supported...I don't count IP's...neither does Jimbo Wales for that matter [26]...so that was six on your side. My move wasn't unilateral in the least. The titles Stone put to sky created wasn't even discussed...that is definitely vandalism to move it to the title he created.--MONGO 10:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You already know my account is SixOfDiamonds and that I am editing from home, your failed CheckUser told you that. Kudos on the AfD and that CheckUser. --74.73.16.230 10:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain how renaming in the middle of a debate, and certainly not to a name supported by consensus, is constructive editing?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
By the fact that all the regular editors to this page had chimed in. Of course, you're not badgering fellow radical Stone put to sky either, even though his current title wasn't even discussed.--MONGO 10:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact you missed that my comment addresses all editors renaming the page and is not limited to you shows your inability of having a neutral debate.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Odd I find many non regular editors to this page under your count of 9. Anyway 9-6 that is not a concensus in any shape or form. --74.73.16.230 10:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
They are not "badgering" me, MONGO, because the name i changed it to was, first, a stop-gap measure to revert from what was, in the words of Bigtimepease, "a really, really bad page move", and, second, a very, very, very close approximation to the title you eliminated. Stone put to sky 10:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I see...you create d ahuge mess with your move...we have dozens of busted redirects now. If you don't know how to properly move a page, don't do it. There was never any discussion for the title you unilaterally moved it to. Zero.--MONGO 11:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You conspicuously ignore the fact that a certain editor started this ludicrous renaming shambles.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Odd...the last Afd was made it rather clear that the majority of those who voted delete also said a name change to allegations would be their second choice...as did a lot of the keep voters. The only thing ludicrous is the fact that you choose to ignore this.--MONGO 11:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It is doubly odd that having people propose a name change equates to the radical and incorrect first move. Second, isn't that the reason the debate was started which, while in progress, was being ignored to make a point.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Now you're trying to make me laugh and it's working. I hope you do see some simple math when it is staring you in the face. Radical...well, blame the other 8 people who agree with the title I gave it and the one maybe two who support the current title. Nice try.--MONGO 11:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you seriously stating the debate was concluded and not still ongoing?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, perhaps that will give you pause before you go around attempting unilateral action without first achieving community consensus.
Newbies abound, and always will. Stone put to sky 11:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking to yourself? If not, you should be.--MONGO 11:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I smell duck. --SixOfDiamonds 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I smell stupid.--Beguiled 22:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure you do not mean stupider?[27] --74.73.16.230 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The current title is absolutely unacceptable. It now says that the US is guilty of terrorism which is sponsored by another state. That can't be right.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, it is unacceptable. Can someone move it back to State terrorism by the United States at least temporarily? I believe it requires admin tools to do this. No one seems to like this title so the page should be moved back while discussion continues. Can an admin step in and do this?
For the record, MONGO's description of the vote totals is inaccurate. See this diff where there are clearly nine votes for the keep side. User:John's vote was unaccountably removed at some point though I could not figure out when. One of the IP editors was User:Six of Diamonds who has clearly been a contributor (S of D has acknowledged they contribute from an IP address sometimes--it's not a secret and MONGO of course knows this since he made a CheckUser request on S of D). Perhaps we could discount the other IP (I did not look into their past edits) but still there were clearly 8 keep votes. Combined with the votes for a different move option to "Allegation", a majority of editors were opposed to MONGO's move. This is why the move was (and remains) unacceptable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In my eyes, this title discussion is a bit absurd. The issue of a title has been discussed numerous times and there is no clear consensus to change it. There's not even a rough consensus, and it seems unlikely to change -- at least, not for now. Making proposal after proposal to change the title isn't going to magically generate consensus. .V. [Talk|Email] 07:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
But take together with six AfD's it makes a very clear point.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A question regarding Wikipedia Policy

I just wanted to call attention to this bit of fluff that MONGO felt the urge to delete from the page, and ask if it is standard wikipedia policy to delete such things on behalf of the community or if MONGO was merely acting on some sort of personal decision. Beguiled recently posted:


I am under no illusions that MONGO was acting on my behalf, and in any event the insults don't really bother me. I am curious, however, why he deleted them (as he did above, with Ultramarine's quid pro quo offer regarding the deletion of material); i would think that it would be better to allow them to stand.

Stone put to sky 10:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you aren't offended, then lets leave the comments up.--MONGO 10:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Offended? Of course i'm offended. But they don't bother me, because I have come to expect such things from some of the editors on this page.

I'm sure you know the sorts i'm talking aobut, MONGO. Stone put to sky 11:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The policy is No Personal Attacks and Beguiled has been warned for it. Even if you aren't bothered about it, to conform to policy it would be preferable to remove the quote above. → AA (talk • contribs) — 11:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA#Removal_of_text. // Liftarn
Thanks. Seems removing the attack is not policy but making it is. → AA (talk • contribs) — 11:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations on first sentence

I think that the point has been made; if EVERY editor here -- contributing and deletionist alike -- is willing to allow that first sentence to stand as-is, then i think we can reduce the number of sources on it to a more reasonable number.

I want to get that agreement in writing, on my talk page: a clear promise from Morton Devonshire, Tom Harrison, MONGO, Ultramarine, Merzbow, and TDC -- in particular, no compromises -- that they will not attempt to delete the sentence nor will they attempt to alter it in any way without first achieving full community consensus.

Similarly, i expect them to promise to revert attempts by anyone else to change it.

If they are willing to abide by such a small restriction and act in accordance with their promise, then i'm perfectly happy to reduce the number of sources on it. Otherwise, i think they should stay. Stone put to sky 11:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You don't need 21 refs for one sentence. Besides, if you knew anything about MOS, refs go at the end of a statement, not near the end. Are you deliberately trying to violate WP:POINT?--MONGO 11:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to group them together? Something like this[1-21] ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Not in that manner. But I have grouped some of them together as an example so the list is much smaller now. → AA (talk • contribs) — 12:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, AA. Obviously, that agreement won't be coming, so this method is clearly a better compromise.

RE: MONGO's comment on number of sources: This is a trivial declarative statement describing what a commonly known fact. It was not i who demanded sources on this, but rather other deletionists present on this page. All we have done is back up the statement with incontrovertible evidence that there are, indeed, numerous commentators, experts, and organizations who do predicate "state terrorism" to the United States; we found this necessary because some of the deletionists on this page -- and please correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't you one of them? -- repeatedly tried to change that first statement to a very misleading "Noam Chomsky claims...." Stone put to sky 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, all you need is one source from Chomsky (who is not not trained in international politics) and one from another source such as 9/11 conspiracy theorist Chossudovsky, not 21. I would see if the esteemed Chavez has made any recent declarations too, him being an expert and all...that is, if he can take a time out between shutting down the various news organizations remaining in his kingdom.--MONGO 12:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Its good to see some reason here in the midsts of a lot of insanity. I definitely agree that all anyone needs to promote their POV is a few decent references, not two dozen. When you add so many references, it only makes the argument look even stupider. But, well, at least the radicals have a nice little playground here. We know where to find them, so lets keep them corralled here and maybe they won't go elsewhere on Wikipedia and create further destruction.--Beguiled 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Stupider is not a word. When attempting to take an intellectual high ground, avoid using non-existent words, such as ... stupider. --74.73.16.230 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. [28] - it's in the American Heritage Dictionary. Now who's feeling "stupider"? :) - Merzbow 00:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, American Heritage Dictionary. Why not quote the Urban dictionary? rofl. your response is stupider then the accusation. Write that word in a report and watch your English teacher cry. --74.73.16.230 10:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, all of us who read these comments? There's few things stupider than arguing about whether a personal attack word is actually a word or not. In discussing this we have truly been beguiled (in the sense of the third definition).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of multiple citations for a single comment and have argued against them on other topics but in this case I have to support them as some editors who want to reduce their number are also ironically using the arguement that there are an insuffient number of citations when opposing the same edits and also in support of RfD's. Until the page is stable and not under threat of frivolous RfD requests they should, unfortunately, stay. Wayne 05:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Honest proposal for Radical Change of Direction

As i've said before: the deletionists here have been adamant about rejecting any proposals that have not originated with them, first. What i find amazing, however, is that despite their vehement insistence upon doing things their way and only their way, to date they still are dissatisfied with the content on this page.

The simple and plain fact is that it is they who are most responsible for limiting and directing the development of content on this page. They simply cannot come to grips with the idea that, regardless of what they try, there will remain a page on Wikipedia that presents these facts under the rubrik of State Terrorism, and predicated to the United States.

I have always understood their objections, and contrary to how they would like to portray me have offered up several compromises over the years. All have been rejected out of hand, without discussion.

My suggestion now is a rather radical one; i support a name change, and i have come up with a suitably NPOV name change that should satisfy everyone here.

It will, however, take the page in a radical new direction, and will demand a lot of work on the part of all parties. The deletionists themselves will find, however, that should they accept my proposition they will have a free hand to introduce the sources (properly referenced and of course conforming to the standards they have laid down) and content (so long as it is relevant) they prefer.

My proposal is to change the name to State terrorism and the United States.

This page would then become a summary of other pages on wikipedia where more content could be found regarding the cases in question. We could move the Guatemala, Philippines, and Nicaragua sections to other pages and provide brief (2-5 sentence) summaries of the content there. Similarly, the deletionists would have a free hand to develop pages regarding the charges which the United States' levels against other nations.

In short, we could have the "State terrorism by Cuba", "State terrorism by Syria", "State terrorism by the United States" and all other such pages all clearly referenced and tied back to this single page, which (hopefully) would not become the monstrosity it currently is.

Of course, we would need an introductory section, as well as describing the definitions used by the United States; similarly, any charges or allegations made against the United States could be linked back here, but then that would be the same sort of arrangement as we would get by changing the name to "Allegations..." anyway.

I hope this idea interests some of you, and if it is provocative enough to spark a new direction for this impasse then i look forward to the discussion. Stone put to sky 14:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a superb suggestion. However, I'm a little confused by your paragraph discussing how pages would be referenced back to this page. Why would "State terrorism by Cuba" be linked back to a page titled "State terrorism and the United States"? Also, if there's still an article titled "State terrorism by the United States", I believe the argument will mainly move to that page. Benhocking 14:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
*ahem* beat you to it. :-) I too think it is a better name. Henrik 14:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! Sure did! Kewl! Stone put to sky 14:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd imagine that there aren't that many other countries who accuse Cuba of terrorism. I may be wrong, but my guess is that most such charges come from the United States.

Regardless, any such charges would hopefully be referenced on a "State Terrorism and Cuba" page, or something like it.

And of course, because this is a wiki we could work out the kinks as we go along. Stone put to sky 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So, how would the referenced article "State terrorism by the United States" be different from this article, other than also referencing back to "State terrorism and the United States"? If I understand your suggestions (and there's a decent possibility I don't), the "State terrorism and the United States" article would contain acts of state terrorism alleged by the US and attributed to others, acts of state terrorism alleged by others and attributed to the US, and possibly acts of state terrorism on US soil. Since state terrorism alleged by others and attributed to the US is what this article is about, wouldn't it all essentially get moved to "State terrorism by the United States"? Benhocking 15:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Terrorism?

I don't think that's appropriate for this article. Also, I note that the references refer to cultural imperialism and not cultural terrorism. Cultural terrorism seems to be a completely invented term that waters down the meaning of the word terrorism. Benhocking 14:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the terminology in a few articles, however did not note "state terrorism" in any articles in the section. Noone seems to be advancing the idea of a form of "state terrorism" I would like to know if Tom finds any combination of terrorism and the United States to be implicit as "state terrorism." --SixOfDiamonds 14:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism is offered up in at least one of the articles, but only as a contrasting term to "cultural terrorism", which is clearly not subsumed under it.

I hope that Tom isn't making an issue of this; i had presumed that he was above such silliness. Stone put to sky 14:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think Tom's material should stay. It is an interesting allegation and it fits with the others to a degree. It also highlights the extent to which the term 'terrorism' is stretched by all sides (both US and anti-US) to mean just about anything. Remember that computer hackers are now described, with out irony, as "cyber-terrorists" by the US government, and the UK arrests people who interrupt speeches under anti-terrorism laws. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It's easy to be dismissive of cultural terrorism if you aren't one of its victims. The symbiotic relationship between the media and US government is well known, and supported by Chomsky's work. James Petras is an important scholar, and it is not appropriate to impugn his work as a watered-down fabrication. Tom Harrison Talk 14:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I partly agree. If hacking and heckling are considered terrorism, why not "cultural terrorism". ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if this is hand washing or no one wanting to get involved with a WP:POINT issue back firing. The rule of thumb is a source needs to cite "state terrorism" I was under the impression. True? False? We now accept any combination of terrorism and United States in a sentence? I am only really concerned with the Cuban aspect fo this article, however watch the slippery slope, by allowing material X you will gain Y then Z, then the complaints that 30% of the article does not follow its own rules. --SixOfDiamonds 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point. Material has been rejected in the past because it lacked the phrase "State Terrorism" specifically. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's do one or the other. We can certainly maintain a reasonable page cataloging notable allegations of state terrorism, which we used to have here under American terrorism. What we should not do is maintain some kind of collaborative essay that picks and chooses what to present to avoid watering down Noam Chomsky's message. Tom Harrison Talk 15:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please answer the questions. Do you have any sources that cite this as "state terrorism" and do you believe that the term "state terrorism" is not actually necessary for this article, as long as the source states that the US committed or assisted in an act of terrorism. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You tell me. Are we going to remove the original research that synthesizes actions not called state terrorism in the source, into state-sponsored terrorism on this page, or not? I've told you (or told the page generally, anyway) what I think, and what policy says, but consensus seems mixed on the point. Further, I don't see how people can hold up Chomsky as authoritative when he says what they want, and ignore what he says about the symbiotic relationship between Hollywood and the US government. To paraphrase Giovanni33 (or was it Stone put to sky who said it?), I've answered your question, now you answer mine. Tom Harrison Talk 15:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are refusing to answer the question, then it means you are failing to defend the content. Please answer the questions asked. Thank you. Remember the burden of proof is on the one adding the content to defend it. --SixOfDiamonds 15:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I hate to apply common sense here, as I realize that it's not always the best diviner of truth, but I have a really hard time understanding how "cultural terrorism" inspires any terror. Could you explain that? (I'm not being facetious.) Benhocking 14:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be up to the source to explain, not to us. If a noted academic says it was terrorism and it was enabled by US government policy, we record that view and present it here, with all the others. Tom Harrison Talk 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. If a reader is unable to understand why cultural terrorism is cultural terrorism, then why reference it? If you can't explain why they consider it to be cultural terrorism, then perhaps it is not a good reference. Furthermore, according to Stone put to sky, the noted academic in question did not say it was state terrorism. (Please address all 3 points, if possible.) Benhocking 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think Giovanni33 has already addressed those questions in another context above. Read carefully what he wrote. Tom Harrison Talk 15:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you give me a search phrase? Giovanni33's written a lot on this page. Benhocking 15:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry, you'll just have to read it all. Read-Stone-put-to-sky's too, I think he addressed these topics as well. Tom Harrison Talk 15:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to document something called "cultural terrorism" then thats fine, but it belongs on a page about that concept. This page is for state terrorism, by the US. If you have reputable source that says Cultural Terrorism is a form of State terrorism, and if this is not a fringe claim, then this article can discuss that content, but leave the details on its own article about "cultural terrorism." However, I don't find the term/concept to be a notable one. In fact, WP does't even have an article on this supposed concept, so we can see what it entails. If it even if a notable concept at all, it probably is quite distinct and different than State Terrorism. Likewise with the concept of "Cultural Imperialism." I highly suspect this is just more trolling going on. Last time Tom was claiming that the Marshall plan as imperialism should be added, and when I pointed out state terrorism was very specific type of thing, whearas economic imperialism such as the MP, was quite different, he then changed and claimed it was terrorism, but failed to cite any source. As I recall both Tom and Mongo participated in what is clearly trolling. This smells of the same.Giovanni33 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should permit some of the more stringent critics to chime in on Toms section considering we are in the midst of discussing current content and new content is being added. I would like to know what Mongo for instance thinks of this section and its validity. --SixOfDiamonds 15:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No search phrase, Ben; Tom's mocking me, because i often told Ultramarine to go back up to the top of the page and look at the first three or four explanations he'd been given, rather than reminding him a fifth or sixth time.

Tom,though, hasn't given any explanation yet -- nothing coherent -- so it's just more big-top shuffle.

Agree completely, Six. Unfortunately, Tom here isn't serious. He's just showing off his impersonation skills.

So, Tom: we see you can write nonsense. You've already shown us that more than a few times, now.

Nobody here holds James Petras to be a great scholar; a trivial statement was asked to be backed up, and so a trivial source has been provided. If you don't like it, then it would probably be best to stop acting in a trivial way; i'd suggest first taking off the clown suit and moving away from the bear-in-a-tutu.

I suggest we just delete the content as off-topic and be done with it. If they want to start an edit war, then please ask Bigtimepeace up there to get his sys-op gun working and freeze the page. Stone put to sky 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he knows better than to misuse his admin tools to give you an editing advantage. Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin--not sure what gave the impression I was.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and actually read the posts you cited. Nada. So, is this just a joke? Why would you do that? Benhocking 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni33 is sometimes a bit wordy, but that's no reason to think it's a joke. I assure you, he did address your question. The upshot seems to be that synthesis is fine if it supports the thesis that the US is a sponsor of state terrorism, but even direct citation is forbidden if it somehow waters down that point. Tom Harrison Talk 15:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand. You're making fun of people who are picking on Giovanni33 by using metasatire. Benhocking 16:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So, Tom, you want to put that lower lip out a little farther and drop some tears for us, too? Ultramarine's been harping on this point forever, and i thought i'd already explained it about as clearly as one could. But then, my guess those'd be crocodile tears, wouldn't they?

Really, though -- i'm glad you've pulled off the clown suit and started talking like the rational, cool, relentless Tom Harrison we've all come to know and love. Now if we could just get you to turn out the dancing bear...if you're going to make it wear a tutu you could at least give it a wash every now and then.

There is no synthesis in the article. "The upshot" is this: all of the subheadings in the article are clearly cited directly to at least a single, authoritative source plainly condemning the events as "state terrorism" (sometimes several, as in the Philippines section) and any supporting evidence that is relevant to these statements is included to explain and support. Referred sources for evidence and claims are all highly reliable and easily qualified per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV -- mostly government, popular media, and social-science experts working in an acknowledged field of expertise -- so your mocking tone towards the article's content really has no justification (unless -- as seems the case -- you are really mocking the violence itself, which is just sad).

Benhocking, i think it's obvious the barbs were directed at me, but again i really don't care. If the best Tom Harrison can do is mimic other editors and parrot Ultramarine then i don't think any of the contributing editors here has much to worry about. Stone put to sky 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Folks, don't feed the trolls. This is trolling by defeated right-wingers. Its their last refuge. heheGiovanni33 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Where are all the liberal admins to warn Stone put to sky to not make comments like this. They have no intention of doing anything about these kinds of comments for fear of losing their fellow POV warriors.--Beguiled 21:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you attempt to be civil, your segregation of users by party affiliation is damaging to any prospect of creating a NPOV article here or anywhere it may be moved or renamed. If your goal here to just leave snide remarks, please leave them elsewhere so those who are here to work on the issues mention in the AfD, can actually work on them. --74.73.16.230 23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Palparan

Under our policy on biographies of living people I have removed the material on Palparan, which was both wildly slanted and not consistent with the sources cited. Tom Harrison Talk 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's just nonsense. Stepping from Mockery to page vandalism, are we, Tom?
The material was carefully referenced, stated no views which have not already been extensively reported, and stated no facts that have not already been published by official government and intern'tl legal sources.
I'd revert it, but Tom got me to use up my 3 for the day with his clowning around over the "Cultural Terror" stuff. Stone put to sky 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The material on Palparan was very well sourced and therefore is not a WP:BLP concern. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly caution people not to restore material removed under wp:blp. Tom Harrison Talk 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I readded on the basis that it is not a BLP violation if international courts are citing him as guilty. I did however remove the "Butcher of ..." nickname as it was clearly in violation of BLP as sensationalist. The rest of the information is not sensationalist and is supported by the persons own quote taking responsibility for his effects as attributed by supporting sources, not as a trigger man, but as one putting them in place. WP:BLP is not a ticket to blank information, the goal is to make it less sensationalist and prevent harm. Citing John killed Amy, when John admits and the courts found him guilty, is not a violation of BLP. In the future I would hope you work more to work with the information in the article instead of blanking it. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 19:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The material is grossly slanted, and contradicts one of the sources cited in support of it. Do not restore it again without finding better sources, accurately reporting what they say, and getting consensus for the addition here on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Rewriting now to meet your requirements, I wish you were an editor, then you would be able to contribute here. However I have found some sources that support him such as other Generals and a statement by Arroyo etc. I am actually considering starting an article on Philippino State Terrorism thanks to this information, but first I need to finish writing that article on the Cuban terrorist. --SixOfDiamonds 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Tom Harrison Talk 20:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The only material that makes any direct attributions of Palparan's actions quotes the Melo Commission, an official Philippine government commission set up to investigate human rights abuses. Other sources mention only direct quotations of Palparan widely cited in Philippine media and the officially quoted opinions of human rights groups and media organizations regarding suspicion and the reasons for it.
Nowhere is there any violation of WP:BLP. Your argument is specious.
Finally, wiki-policy is clear: if properly sourced material relevant to the page is added, then the proper response is always to work with it, not delete it. Your deletions -- without warning, any discussion, or even rational justification -- is clearly page vandalism. Want to talk serious violations of policy? Vandalism is about as serious as one can get, Tom. 61.228.241.109 04:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What I have so far:

Please stop accusing others of vandalism over a content dispute. Once your edits meet any of the criteria you mentioned, please put them on the talk page where they can be discussed. --Tbeatty 05:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

General Jovito Palparan has been accused of human rights abuses.[6][7] These allegations have been denied by some members of the Asian Human Rights Commission such as AHRC commissioner Eligio Mallari who stated there was "no prima facie evidence to link Palparan to the reported killings." This view has however been challenged by fellow commissioners Quintin Quito III and acting CHR chair Dominador Calamba II [8] General Hermogenes Esperon of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has also stated "Palparan could no longer be held liable for any abuses attributed to him because he had retired."[9]

The AHRC however is requesting a greater look into the rise of political killings, citing: "[w]hen Palparan was assigned to Central Luzon in September 2005, the number of political assassinations in that region alone jumped to 52 in four months. Prior to his promotion, the regions with the largest number of summary executions like Eastern Visayas and Central Luzon were under then-Colonel Palparan."[10] Palparan has been noted in his comments on the killings:

Looking for Arroyo support still. Found an article but forgot the link where she states in a speech he should not be held responsible for individual soldiers or something to that effect. Just to add while I am willing to work here to improve the NPOV. I will not be looking for consensus to restore what was removed without a consensus, especially since it seems the majority believe it was not a BLP violation in the first place. Consider this an olive branch of good faith. --SixOfDiamonds 20:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The uses of "however" are tendentious, implicitly favoring the reply over the assertion. Tom Harrison Talk 21:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but a suggestion for how you would word it would be even more helpful. For example, are you looking for something like this:

General Jovito Palparan has been accused of human rights abuses.[12][13] However, these allegations have been denied by some members of the Asian Human Rights Commission such as AHRC commissioner Eligio Mallari who stated there was "no prima facie evidence to link Palparan to the reported killings." This refutation has itself been challenged by fellow commissioners Quintin Quito III and acting CHR chair Dominador Calamba II [14] General Hermogenes Esperon of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has also stated "Palparan could no longer be held liable for any abuses attributed to him because he had retired."[15]

Ben Hocking (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
See, this is the kind of problem this article suffers from. Allegations that have little basis in fact and are refutable but they are still there to add the allusion of impropriety. Why is all this in this article anyway? 'Cause POV pushing is about all this article is.--Beguiled 21:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I can see arguments for other sections, however Palparan's incidents has drawn ire from many human rights groups, newspapers, filipino organizations etc. How it is linked to the US? I have not read the sectino that far in as my goal was to fix the section Tom had issue with. But as far as what he has been accused of, investigated of etc. Its not with "little basis in fact," He is quite proud and outspoken about his involvement and connections. Much like the section on Cuba, many of the people mentioned have already stated they commited the acts lists as terrorism by the governments they took place against. I know, I know, those silly South Americans and Philippinos probably do not make WP:RS sources for you, or now Human Rights groups that report to the UN either because they are French, or even the AHRC since ... well I can only imagine the reason for the AHRC. --74.73.16.230 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, that is the continuing problem. Tom Harrison Talk 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ben Hocking, for example:

[Say who] has accused General Jovito Palparan of human rights abuses.[cite1][cite2] Eligio Mallari of the Asian Human Rights Commission says this is not the case: "[there was] no prima facie evidence to link Palparan to the reported killings." Quintin Quito III and Dominador Calamba II say [quote them, or briefly summarize]. General Hermogenes Esperon of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has said "Palparan could no longer be held liable for any abuses attributed to him because he had retired."[cite3]

Tom Harrison Talk 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
A very constructive example, and one I think that many could support. Thanks! Ben Hocking (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course exactly how this is US state terrorism is the usual exercise in the passive voice, synthesizing factoids to support Chomsky's thesis and present it as established fact. Tom Harrison Talk 21:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree. The opinions of people should be stated as that and should be reflected in the article title. I saw above where the argument was made and never refutted that the U.S. has never been listed by any international group as a terrorist state. Syria has, as have a number of other countries and entities, listed by both the U.S. and in some cases the European Union as terrorists states, or sponsors of terrorism. These editors have a premise: The U.S. government is evil, and to support that premise they go looking for whatever source they can, no matter how off the wall or biased that source is. It only proves the agenda of these editors when they behave in this fashion. They expect everyone else to find instances which state the U.S. is not a terrorist country. This is exactly the methodology used by the conspiracy theorists on the 9/11 pages. They look for whatever little tidbid of nonsense they can to support their belief system and then ask us to disprove their innuendos. One wonders if some of these editors actually believe any of the stuff they are trying to add to this article. I might make the suggestion that there is a strong liklihood that they don't and are instead only trying to be disruptive. At least I hope most people have have more intelligence than this.--Beguiled 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you can lump this article in with the 9/11 conspiracy crackpots. There is well-sourced evidence that the US has been involved in activities which can be alleged with good reason to be state-sponsored terrorism (Nicaragua being the most obvious example) - which is exactly why the article needs to be returned to the "Allegations of..." title and slimmed down; at the moment it has too high a signal-to-noise ratio. Incidentally, claiming that anyone who wants the article kept is stupid, is making things up, or merely wants to claim the US is "evil" doesn't do you any favours at all. EliminatorJR Talk 22:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you can. Certainly there were mistakes made on 9/11 and questionable activities in Nicaragua. There are certainly state secrets involved in both. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the U.S. was involved in the attack on 9/11 or that the activities of the U.S. would rise to the definition of "terrorism" as we know it today. At best, the U.S. may have politically supported groups that ended up engaging in terrorism but that has never been the policy and is substantially different than supporting terrorism which is what the article tries to suggest. The overreach by the conspiracy crazies and the people trying to link the U.S. to terrorism is about the same. A lot of the same players here too. --Tbeatty 02:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If terrorism is about using fear to achieve some political gain there certainly are numerous instances of the US doing that. Threatening war with Iran, as a means to destabilise the current government, being the latest example. But the best example is of course the previous support for the people we now call al Qaeda. Oh, sorry, at that time they were freedom fighters and not yet terrorists.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, you could argue that a similar amount of support to that which the US gave some of those terrorist groups, has more recently been enough for the US to label other nations terrorist themselves. There are definitely some double standards going on. EliminatorJR Talk 08:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Critics View of Article, and responses

This "article" is a disgrace It is also symbolic of the massive failures of Wikipedia and why it can never be taken seriously as a source. The conceit of the article is that the "unlawful use of force", per the ICJ, constitutes terrorism. Essentially the article admits the entire project is the creative inspiration of Noam Chomsky and proceeds to original research observations based on that fact.

Here's the thing: Chomsky was lying (big surprise). The "unlawful use of force" is not code for anything and is quite straightforward as a legal conception and as a phrase; Chomsky, being a linguist, knows better, but also being a propagandist knows the importance of emotive words being turned on the accuser (the US being a prime diviner of what constitutes terrorism).

The vast majority of these "allegations" are made tenuously linked to the subject at best, consisting mostly of a litany of subjects for criticisms of US foreign policy throughout the Cold War. The coups in Iran and Guatemala have nothing to do with terrorism, and other sections hinge on specious claims by far left organizations like the Italian communists and a left-wing Filipino [show trial] to make claims about "terrorism". If you want a laundry list of links for every communist or far leftist that has "accused" or made "allegations" about "state terrorism" "by the United States", you can compile such a list. But it is not a subject remotely fit for an encyclopedia.

I might console myself in believing this is merely a joke, but if it were it is in quite poor taste. --72.84.56.55 06:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comment about this article being a disgrace, I disagree. It needs work but the subject matter and the facts are well documented, and should be and could be a featured article with some work.
The problems of this article are not symbolic of failure, but do show some of the pitfalls of the process, i.e. those who are very emotionally and politically affecting by facts and revelations that they wish to bury and suppress, it results in a politically charged issues which brings a fair amount of conflict, some of which, appears to be bad faith editing, i.e. attempts at deleting the article, or making it worse, to sabotauge it, or remove material, remove the facts, etc. But, so far, the process has not failed. The system has worked and this article has withstood the test, once again.
You call Chomky a liar, but I say Chomsky tells the truth. However, our personal opinion about the validity of the claims of the scholars whose research and conclusion we report on, is not something WP is concerned with. It's irrelvent that you disagree with the scholars opinion. You are free to cite another scholar who states a disenting POV. Your interpretation of the legal meaning of the term is also a question of your personal belief. If its not, then list a source that states it. Otherwise, its irrelevant, and your own OR, which is not allowed here.
About your claim that the entire article is the creative inspiration of one scholar, Chomsky, its a funny charge that is often repeated but has no truth to it. Chomsky is only one respected scholar who argues these points in the many scholarly books he has published about US foreign policy. To refute it, I only need to point out the many other people who make the same claims, i.e. other heads of state, governments, NGO's, human rights groups, and various legal scholars--not just Noam Chomsky. This article reports on these facts, and does not tolerate OR. This article follows WP policies. If you have a specific instance of where it fails to do so, please present it, so it can be addressed, and if you're right, fixed. Otherwise, your claim is rather empty and not very useful.
After you say its just Chomsky, now you attack all these other organizations? Interesting. Your claim that the vast majority are not linked to the subject is backwards, at best. The vast majority of these factual observations by reputable organizations, legal experts, human rights groups, and other scholars are very well linked to the subject---in fact, they are the subject: reporting on their observations--what they believe are instances of State terrorism by the US. The political and illegal violence imposed by a state on a domestic popluation though a coup, and installation of and support of death squads,etc., has everything to do with State terrorism, as the sources testify. Again, you can say it doesn't, but that is your POV. Cite sources that dispute the claim and we can add that.
Your bias against "far left organizations" is clear, but their claims are not in any way specious, but well founded. Again, this is just your claim. I say its well founded because we have many sources that show this. Where are your sources to support your claims? The observations that the soruces provied make are supported by numerious additional sources that establish the events as factual, and widely known and written about. The arguments that these are instances of state terrorism are thus very notable. Your anti-communism and red baiting are not valid arguments to dismiss the legitimate views of these legitimate organizations, representing very legitimate content for any comprehensive and serious encylopedia that respects all POV's.Giovanni33 07:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you mischaracterize the criticism in very fundamental ways. First, the suppression is occuring by those that obstinately hang on to this misguided title at the expense of exploring very complex areas of foreign policy. "Sound Bite" encycpledia articles do a disservice to the reader. For example, U.S. foreign policy regarding Nicaragua, Honduras and Cuba is long and complex. It has regional and international ramifications. It affected and was affected by the cold war. It had both strategic and tactical portions and included political, economic and military elements. Cuba tried to influence Nicaragua and Honduras, the U.S. tried to influence all three, Honduras tried to influence Nicaragua, etc, etc. Alliances formed and collapsed. Governments formed and collapsed. A "drive by" article inspired by an extremist ideologue such as Chomsky does not do the reader a service by providing one-soded half truths in an attempt to support a misguided article title. A better article would be U.S. foreign policy with regards to Latin America during the Cold War and all aspects of succes and failure could be explored. But as it stands, this article attempts to sweep it all under the rug in an attempt to make the political point of Noam Chomsky and other like minded ideologues. It's sad really. --Tbeatty 08:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, most people around the world simply disagree with American foreign policy when it disrupts the status quo. It is not a prevailing view in the world that the U.S. sponsors state terrorism or engages in state terrorism. Most in the world would like to see the United States share it's wealth with less political ties to loans or grants (i.e. less hegemony). Most in the world would like to see the U.S. reduce it's barriers to immigration. Most in the world believe the U.S. is ignorant of world affairs yet acknowledge it's the last remaining superpower. Most in the world view the U.N. and the WTO as organizations that should oppose the U.S. to balance power in the world. World opinion is a fickle thing. The U.S. was criticized around the world for not going in to Rwanda and Bosnia and Somalia quickly enough and criticized for entering Iraq too soon. World opinion on Iran seems to oppose both military action and also opposes economic sanctions whilst at the same time opposes doing nothing. Alas, the U.S. will be blamed if Iran launches a missile at Europe or Israel and the U.S. didn't stop it. They will also be criticized if they do stop it. Same is true for North Korea. None of these topics are off limits as part of a broader view of U.S. foreign policy but the subject of this article is sadly POV. It is similar to an article titled Giovanni Beats his Wife (or "Allegations that Giovanni beat his wife"). We'll use quotes from Morton Devonshire to support this claim. we'll even get quotes of you refuting it especially if we can tie other injuries into it ("Giovanni denies beating his wife and claims her broken arm was the result of a car accident. No other drivers have come forward to claim responsibility.") . We'll bring up fights you got into as a kid. We'll bring in anecdotal evidence from other wife beaters to try and establish a correspondence. And at the end, we'll quote you when you speak up about violence against women. ("Despite the allegations of wife beating, Giovanni spoke out on violence against women saying wife beaters should receive long prison terms. Giovanni has never been in prison.") See the problems? --Tbeatty 09:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Some observations:
  1. Most of the world is Muslim amd does not see the US as savior of the world.
  2. Most of the world supports the US and its ideals but abhors the opportunistic interpretation (read: financially and strategically biased) US administrations have of Foreign policy, i.e. the unwavering biased way of handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or dropping bombs as the sole solution to every problem.
  3. Most of the world wants to get rid of dictators and despots but is unable because the US supports them, both militarily and financially, i.e. Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, et cetera. Therefore they oppose the US for its policies.
  4. As to Iran, the world opinion does not favour using nuclear bombs to force it to stop its program. Heck, everybody outside the Bush administration thinks that military force for a possible threat at least 5-10 years away is horribly misplaced. Especially since the last time the US assured the world of an imminent attack it turned out to be a fabricated set of fairy tales disguised as an honest mistake.
  5. Regarding the allegations: I think there is sufficient evidence to support the notion that the US is involved in many violations of international law which, when committed by known terrorist organizations (al Qaeda), are called terrorism.
In your words, anti-americanism.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Most of world is not Muslim unless 16% became "most". No one sees the U.S. as the savior of the world especially Americans.
  2. This can be boiled down to supporting the U.S. financial goals when it supports that country financially.
  3. Most of the world doesn't care about dictatorships in other countries. Doesn't your dictator statement contradict your Iraq opposition. Iraq invasion was opposed because Iraq was spending money and removing Hussein threatened it. That's the difference between the support to remove the Taliban and the opposition to removing Iraq.
  4. No one is proposing a nuclear strike on Iran just like no one proposed a nuclear strike on Iraq. World opinion wants Iran to stop building nuclear weapons. World opinion will be critical of the U.S. response regardless of whether the U.S. acts militarily or not. The U.S. will also be blamed for any strike Iran or North Korea carries out.
  5. And it goes to the goals of the organizations. "violations of international" are violations of treaties the U.S. is a party to. these treaties are treated as laws in the United States. That means that individuals have violated the individual laws of the united states. That is certainly not the goal of U.S. foreign policy. U.S. citizens that violate treaties are prosecuted. The intent of any treaty violation that occurs by the U.S. is not to terrorize. Your equivalence is farcical. Imagine a doctor adminsters too much anti-cancer medication and the medication kills the cancer ridden patient. Now imagine a doctor straps on a suicide bomb and blows himself up in the cancer ward of the hospital. Would you seriously equate the two acts because a) they both involved wrondoing and b) cancer patients died so both are terrorists? come on. --Tbeatty 13:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Ad 3 Most oppose dictatorships. (BTW, it is ironic that you fail to see that the US historically has supported many of those despotes out of strategic and financial consideration.) However, not everybody supports the way the US thinks it should get rid of them. To adopt your medical analogy: everybody thinks a broken leg (dictatorship) should be treated. Not everybody thinks that chemotherapy(war) is the best option. For some strange reason if people voice their concern over the reckless use of chemotherapy in treating broken arms and legs, they, according to chemotherapy advocates, suddenly do not want that leg to be treated. That is a logical fallacy. Opposing CT is not the same as accepting the broken leg. It merely suggests they think another therapy is better suited since CT does not adhere to primum non nocere.
Ad 4 The Bush administration is developing methods of using nuclear arms on a small scale. Further, nobody has any evidence of Iran developing nuclear arms (hmm, where have I heard this before?). But even if it did every agency involved agrees that Iran is at least 5-10 years away from such a bomb. I fail to see the urgency to threaten Iran on a daily basis as the US is doing and has tricked the EU and UN in supporting (hmm, where have I heard this before?).
Ad 5 Let's make a correct analogy. Your doctor is using a suicide bomb to treat his patient. (I am talking about an identical action! See Operation Condor, the previous support for al Qaeda, the use of torture, et cetera) Exactly how is that different from what al-Qaeda does. Further, you are under the impression that it is not the deed but the intention that determines what it is. By your logic if I see somebody crying and shoot him through the head it is not murder since I only wanted to take away his pain.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Jack Nicholson, A Few Good Men. Silly rabbit 09:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any of us here (Giovanni, Tbeatty, me, or anyone else) has our finger on the pulse of "most people in the world" and how they feel about the US so let's not even debate about it. Your analogy is interesting but ultimately I don't think it works (it's also a bit distasteful in my opinion). For one thing, putting in allegations of wife-beating would clearly violate WP:BLP. The United States is not a person (though there could be BLP issues for individual persons discussed within the article obviously), while Giovanni obviously is. We can discuss controversial, sourced accusations about the former with little difficulty while we have to be incredibly careful about doing so in the case of the latter. Also the supposedly analogous "wife beating" evidence you offer is actually much weaker than a great deal of the evidence in this article. If you feel the "don't think it's state terrorism" side is not getting a fair shake in the article, then add in more information. There must be any number of articles in academic journals which deal with the issues discussed in the article and which object to some of the "this is state terrorism" views expressed. Anyone with access to JSTOR or similar databases could include them, so why not get on it. I see that a lot of work has been put in to sourcing the "Yes, it's state terrorism" side but not so much to sourcing the opposing view (instead the strategy by those who disagree with the content here has been to remove sources, or try to remove the whole article, added in the it-is-state-terrorism side). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it would enrich the article if competing sourced material was added to the article which takes the "No, this isn't State Terrorism" side. It shouldn't be hard for Tbeatty and others to find counter argument sources. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You can prove the negative? Interesting. Imagine an article in the paper "Terrorist actions by Seabhcan" We'll quote MONGO and the IRA. then we'll give you a refutation section. Should be easy to refute all the arguments. Do you think running that article titled "Terrorist actions by Seabhcan" would give you fair shake? Do you think your arguments trying to prove the negative would be compelling enough to overcome the title and the premise of the article? --Tbeatty 10:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Unlike the United States, I am not a nation. Many people have written about the US involvement in terrorism, both pro- and anti-. You should at least try to back up your case, Tbeatty. Continuous whining on this talk page isn't doing your argument any good. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 10:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
My case is that article is flawed on a fundamental level. From the title. I have backed it up plenty. If your argument is that defamation can continue because it is a nation and not a person, that seems like a pretty weak argument. There is no point refuting anything on the article page because adding material (any material) only exacerbates the flaws. --Tbeatty 13:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do have a very good finger on the pulse pf "most people in the world" and regulalry interact with people from all over the world. The problem with this article is that the premise is flawed. It's too narrowly constructed. Adding material to refute the "terrorism" charge is too narrow. The "wife beating" argument is an illustrative attempt to show how a flawed premise becomes an indefensible subject. Adding counter information only adds fuel to the flawed argument, it doesn't refute it as there is no way to prove the negative. The title presumes a truth that cannot be established. The principle behind BLP is to prevent undue harm to the reputation of the subject of the article. The concept, if not the policy, applies here. Your tacit admission that an article title "Wife Beatings by Giovanni" would be unnecessarily prejudicial and indeed a BLP violations shows that you understand the problem with this article. We can change the example to "Terrorist actions by Bigtimepeace" and we'll use UltraMarine as the source for the allegations. I could invite you to refute those allegations but wouldn't you still have a problem with the title? And the source? Wouldn't you have a problem with the narrow scope of the article implied by the title? The problem isn't the subject since if you were engaged in terrorism we could cover it in your bio in a balanced way. The problem is a specific article created in a prejudicial way to imply complicity in terrorism. Even if there is a refutation section "Terrorist actions by Nigtimepeace", it would be a violation of Wikipedia policy and principles. There is nothing you can say that refutes the title. Just the same as this article. --Tbeatty 10:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you deny the US is, and has been, involved with people/organizations that other countries consider terrorist organizations? Second, stop the presumptuous I know what the world thinks. It only show that you do not know what the world thinks.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You are seriously asking if the U.S. is a country in the world? Are you denying that you stopped beating your wife? See the logical fallacy in the questions? And I like your logic about what what the world thinks. By that your logic your knowledge of the U.S. being involved in terrorism only shows that the U.S. is not involved in terrorism. --Tbeatty 13:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you misread the question. --SixOfDiamonds 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you misread the answer. --Tbeatty 16:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you deny the US is, and has been, involved with people/organizations that other countries consider terrorist organizations? Its not proper to answer questions with more questions, not sure where I heard that from. --SixOfDiamonds 16:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no answer. Since "involved" seems to include multiple degrees of separation as evidenced by this article, everyone on the planet has been involved in people/organization that other countries consider terrorist organizations. It's a useless question. --Tbeatty 21:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposing views deleted

See User:Ultramarine/Sandbox for earlier proposals. Here are more. Please explain the deletions.

Critics respond that "outside the Chomsky cult, of course, unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism" and that the ICJ has no authority over sovereign states unless they themselves so agree, which the US did not since the "Soviet Bloc police states" were outside its jurisdiction but they still sent judges to the court.[16]

Keith Windschuttle notes that Chomsky has stated that "the United States and Israeli leadership should be brought to trial" for war crimes. "Yet Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes. Instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented."[17]

Windschuttle also notes that Chomsky has revealed he is no pacifist.

I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified.

Windschuttle writes that in 2001, the average GDP per head in the Philippines was $4000. At the same time, twenty-five years of revolution in Vietnam had produced a figure of only half as much, a mere $2100.[18]

In The End of Faith (p. 146), Sam Harris criticizes the ethical propositions that lead Chomsky to direct his rhetoric towards the United States foreign policy (as opposed to the tenets of radical Islam):

Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this "terrorism"), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this "collateral damage"). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, could not be more distinct... For [Chomsky], intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.

Ultramarine 11:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I support your additions on Chomsky. I think they should stay. This is the kind of logical, reasoned and sourced criticism that the article lacks. Looking at your sandbox... I will support some of your suggestions but not all. ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 11:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, apart from the word "cult," which does not sound NPOV to me the argument presented is flawed and therefore should not be included. It is irrelevant how many regimes are ignored. Example: I drive 3000 mph through the city. A police officer (Chomsky) stops me and says I am speeding. My response is that he ignores all those other people that violate the law. Of course he immediately sees his error and lets me go. The logical fallacy here is that even if I can produce a million people this officer has not stopped, it does not negate the fact that I was violating the speed limit. So, although Chomsky may have ignored other violators that simple fact does not negate the allegations he makes against the US.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain why I reverted UltraMarines expansion of the anti-Chomsky additons. First, and I do not object to other views, or listing of critics response. The problem I have here is multiple though: its placement within a section being off topic to the section, undue weight, POV terms, and relevance to topic, and pov arguments made that to not logically flow as a response/counter POV. Attacking Chomsky doesnt present a counter view to his argument.
Also, by adding these to the introduction, and in the section on the US defintion of Terrorism, the whole section's content is changed, making it hard to follow, and off topic. For example, half of the content of the section not dealing with Chomsky becomes an anti-Chomsky tirade, instead of discussing the issue under the title of the section. This article is not about Chomsky, if he was a pacifist, or other subjects related to Chomsky, and belonging on the article about Chomsky's critics. Its about the US defintion of terrorism. Stick with the subject! Relevance is very important, as is not bloating for POV effect, taking over the whole subject of the section and making it about something else--for example, what does it matter of Chomsky is not a pacifist? How is that relevant to the section, which is about the US's own definition of terrorism? Also, by adding David Horowitz's pov terms, 'chomsky cult" and "soviet police states" in the intro, we are giving undue weight to his extreme views, making it again an attack on Chomsky, instead of a relevant counter opinion about the issue at hand (which is NOT Chomsky, but about the issue Chomsky is cited for).
The critical views represented here are already present in the article, which I restored, and they are of a proper weight, and in proper location. If a lot more is to be added, it must be directly related to the issue of the article, addressing claims the article presents--not new claims aimed at attacking the author, unless its directly relevant. And, if its going to be too large, it needs its own section.Giovanni33 11:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you as you say accept some of the criticisms, then do not do a blank revert. The introduction in particular should present views from both sides and not be soapbox for one view. The section on the definition of terrorism must also follow NPOV, as all other sections. The article has numerous very POV words such as "terrorism" despite this not being mentioned in the given sources, and defamatory graphic descriptions of rape and torture only by the remotest connection related to US policy, so unless they are removed, there is nothing wrong with using a sourced phrase such as "Soviet Bloc police state". These criticisms are not in the article elsewhere and they are directly relevant to how Chomsky defines and uses the term terrorism, like in the Vietnam quote where he uses the word.Ultramarine 11:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not relevant to the definition Chomsky provides for terrorism, since he quotes the US's own definition. If you have a source that talks about another definition of terrorism, that disputes Chomsky's, then that would be prefect, and would fit. But you don't do that. You make a different point--NOT about the issue of terrorism--but about Chomsky himself. Your addition is to make the statement to the effect that "Chomsky is not against all terrorism, and some countries he supports their violence etc. This is off topic, and changed it to one being about the defintions of terrorism, to one of 'Chomsky is a hypocrite, and has a double standard about which countries he considers just vs unjust, etc." Again, off topic, and not relevant. The topic is the US's own defintion. Chomsky is merely cited because his point is to offer a definition. You do not offer another definition of the subject to make it NPOV, you offer an attack on Chomsky. Keep that kind of stuff on the Chomsky page. This is not it.Giovanni33 11:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
He critics argue that this is relevant and WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of the views of all the sides, not only soapboxing from one side. Respond to my other points, please.Ultramarine 12:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, all views relevant to the issue at hand, which, being under the section, is the question of the US's own defintion of terrorism--not how consistent or lack of consistent Chomsky happens applies it to other countries he writes about. That is just an attack on Chomsky, and as such is an entirely different issue. The introduction, as well, is only to introduce, breifly, the main accusations. Details about the Soviets sending in judges or not, etc. are details the belong to the article about the case of the US vs. Nic., not even in this body's article, much less the introduction. It strays off course, otherwise, and bloats the intro, even leaving the points incomplete. Organizationally, it doesnt work. And, I left some criticsm in the article, as you can see. I suggest creating a new section in which responses to the accusations can be presented but the responses must be relevant to the actual claims being made--not attacks on the authors. That is a logical fallacy we should not mirror simply because the likes of Horowitz and others engage in it (unless this was an article about the person of Chomsky, which its not in any way.Giovanni33 12:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
i don't think that logical fallacies and ad hominems are mandated by policy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The arguments regarding the ICJ are neither, we can remove "outside the Chomsky cult" if you prefer. Again see above regarding defamatory graphic scenes and unsourced use of the word terrorism. Also regarding Chomsky, wy did you delete The End of Faith material? Ultramarine 12:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've already explained above. As much as I happen to like many of the points Sam Harris makes in his book, this point is off topic. You quote him, and the point you are making with it, is that Chomksy's ethics are off, since he is only looking at body counts, and not at "intentions" and therefore his attacking the US instead of radical Islam is wrong. Again, what you introduce here is a critique on Chomsky, which is a point NOT related to the issue/topic under consideration: the US's own definition of terrorism. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat this point. It belongs on the Chomsky page, not here. The ICJ, I answered above, already, too. Do I have to repeat myself 3 times, all the time?Giovanni33 12:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, the topic under question is Chomsky's interpretation of the US definition. All these critics are criticizing how Chomsky defines and applies the term terrorism. Regarding ICJ, no you have not. Why should the arguments regarding why the US did not accept the juridiction of the court be excluded, for example? Ultramarine 12:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
include the US arguments for refuting ICC but also include the observation that this administration would be sitting in The Hague for war crimes had it signed. Also, include the way the rule of law was abolished by this administration: 1To avoid possible prosecution under the War Crimes Act of 1996 claim the Geneva Conventions do not apply (see torture memo). 2 When confronted by the Supreme Court that the GC did apply and this directly made numerous people, up to the White House, liable for prosecution regarding prisoner abuse, suddenly the War Crimes Act was rewritten to retroactively make those crimes no longer punishable under US law. 3 Following the previous it is still possible to be prosecuted by the ICC should the US be a party to it and this is a solid argument for trying to sabotage its legitimacy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Nope, that is not the name of the topic. Its "Application of the United States government's own definitions." And it cites two academics who discuss the US definition of terrorism. Your source goes off topic, into Chomsky's a critism of the alleged "ethical propositions that lead Chomsky to direct his rhetoric towards the United States foreign policy (as opposed to the tenets of radical Islam)." Again, way off topic. About the ICJ, yes, I did. Details belong in the article about the court case, not here. And, when its presented sources have to be reliable. Horowitz is not. He is even worse than quoting Bill O'Reily. Also, your presentation of the facts is pov and incomplete, even if it were to be included somewhere in the article. If you must include it, put it in a footnote, but it should state for example, See footnote #56 [29] "The US accepted the ICJ's comulsory jurisdiction in 1946, but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgement in 1984 that called on it to "cease and to refrain" from the unlwful use of force against Nicaragua. The US was in "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another sate" and was ordered to pay repartations, though it never did, cf. Nicaragua v. United States."Giovanni33 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The name of the main section is "Definition of the term state terrorism". Chomsky is making a claim regarding what state terrorism is, others are criticizing this. If these "Details belong in the article about the court case" or in the footnotes, then the same applies to Chomsky's "details" No double standard please. You claim that Horowitz is not reliable, I can produce numerous sources documenting that Chomsky is not. Do you want me to start listing them here?Ultramarine 13:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, others are not critizing Chomsky's definition of the term state terrorism, they are critizing Chomsky himself, and his "ethical propositions" that lead him to "direct his rhetoric towards the US instead of radical Islam." This is NOT about a defintion of US State Terrorism, this is about Chomsky again, unrelated to this topic. How many more times need I repeat myself? Should I just start to copy and paste, or directl you to see above, again? And, no this does not belong in the footnotes since its the main argument. Details about juristiction and other legalities about the court case are besides the point (since they do not affect the claim, only the US refusal to accept it), and belong in the footnotes, or in the article it links to. Otherwise, to treat the subject requires more space than the intro allows for (besides it going off topic). It must be concise and to the point. Details are not for the introduction. But, again, I already said all this above, and I repeat myself, again.Giovanni33 13:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, they are criticzing how he defines and uses the term. Again, the topic under question is Chomsky's claim of what state terrorism is. No double standard, if the view of one side is in the introduction, the same applies to the opposite side.Ultramarine 13:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
HE is not the topic, the definition is, hence critiques of him are off topic. The problem is in your statement "I can produce numerous sources documenting that Chomsky is not" this article is not about Chomsky. What would be counter to the POV you believe exists would be other definitions of terrorism that do not fit the ones presented, not attacks on those presenting the definitions. If the subject is US definitions and I cite Lincoln and you write 2 paragraphs of why Lincoln is a jerk, then you have gone off topic. The section isn't titled "Chomsky's Definition" nor is he the only one being cited. If you are looking for a counter point to the definition, let me know specifically what you are trying to counter in it and I will attempt to help you find a source. --SixOfDiamonds 13:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC) --SixOfDiamonds 13:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Now, I will just copy and paste my previous response to Ultramarine, since its come to that: "No, others are not critizing Chomsky's definition of the term state terrorism, they are critizing Chomsky himself: his "ethical propositions" that lead him to "direct his rhetoric towards the US instead of radical Islam." This is NOT about a defintion of US State Terrorism, this is about Chomsky again, unrelated to this topic. If you keep repeating yourself, and ignoring this point, then I'll just keep copy and pasting it. Fun?Giovanni33 13:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, they are criticizing how he defines and uses the term. I have still not got an explanation for why the arguments regarding ICJ should be excluded from the intro, it is not a soapbox for one side.Ultramarine 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, others are not critizing Chomsky's definition of the term state terrorism, they are critizing Chomsky himself: his "ethical propositions" that lead him to "direct his rhetoric towards the US instead of radical Islam." This is NOT about a defintion of US State Terrorism, this is about Chomsky again, unrelated to this topic. If you keep repeating yourself, and ignoring this point, then I'll just keep copy and pasting it. Fun? IJC arguments already presened above, and repeated three times.Giovanni33 13:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the ICJ stuff is good and relevant and should stay. I think it doesn't support a positive look at the US as many governments accept the ICJ, however the US does not, but meh, your choice in the end. --SixOfDiamonds 13:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I quoted above, the ICJ issue, and said its fine, for the body of the article, or connected to a footnote. It just doesnt belong in the intro.Giovanni33 13:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you read the paragraph again, you can see that the End of Faith is clearly criticzing his defintion. NPOV requries the views of both sides, also in the intro.Ultramarine 13:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I read it and quoted it, and no its not. Its going off topic and talking about how Chomsky ignores intentions and thus his "ethical propositions" make him attack the US more than other countries. This is what the text says. Completely off topic.Giovanni33 13:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Repeating this will not help your case. This is clearly a criticism of how his definition and what it includes.Ultramarine 13:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Repeating will not help your case. Thisis clearly a criticism of Chomsky, not of presenting a NPOV presentation of the various definitions of US own defition of terrorism. This section is not about Chomsky, its about the definiton. Your source talks about Chomsky's "ethical propositions" regarding the factoring of "intentions" and thus the lopsided application to the US more than other countries. But NOT the defintion itself. We can keep repeating each other all night, but this fact is not going to change, no matter how many times you repeat yourself, and ignore this point.Giovanni33 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Nor yours. Do you have this source in an online format. I would like to read it as I think I can find somethnig useful. --SixOfDiamonds 13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it is a book, but available for a minor fee.Ultramarine 13:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you find it at Barnes and Nobles? Maybe I can stop by and skim through it, how many chapters deal with Chomsky etc. --SixOfDiamonds 13:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
See The Anti-Chomsky Reader. Back to the issues, NPOV clearly requires the inclusion of views from all sides, soapboxing not allowed. This is sourced criticism and should be included.Ultramarine 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
See this article, which is not about Chomsky. Its about State Terrorism. Stick to the topic of this article.Giovanni33 13:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Indenting out, continued below.Ultramarine 14:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
(indent) Can we get some bots in here to just post back and forth. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 13:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Suppose, for instance, that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features appears to correlate rather closely with the levels of acceptability from fairly high (eg (99a)) to virtual gibberish (eg (98d)). Conversely, any associated supporting element is not quite equivalent to an important distinction in language use. It appears that an important property of these three types of EC is necessary to impose an interpretation on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that a descriptively adequate grammar is to be regarded as problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Let us continue to suppose that the fundamental error of regarding functional notions as categorial cannot be arbitrary in a parasitic gap construction. -- Chomskybot Tom Harrison Talk 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Wonderful, now only if we can get them to say: "It meets WP:RS" and "It doesn't meet WP:RS" we will be all set. However since its linguistics bot I doubt it can output something so simple. Isn't linguistics in relation to Chomsky mathematical however? --SixOfDiamonds 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This article prominently discusses Chomsky's claims regarding what state terrorism is. Criticisms of these claims should be included, as should the opposing views regarding the ICJ.Ultramarine 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think an article from the "Anti-Chomsky Reader" can easily be shot down as not meeting WP:RS however I hate waving policy around. Anyway, perhaps you can post a larger section of it, maybe there is a more directly relevant section that is not attacking Chomsky, such as why he made it, said it, who else he criticizes, but why the definition itself is flawed. Is the article available online. I have only read what you snipped out above. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is it not a reliable source? We are quoting Chomsky uttering something in Pakistani television in this article, and so on. Posting a long section violates copyright.Ultramarine 13:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said I do not wave policy around. Again, I will just look for the book then since you are uncooperative with a simply request. I read the article however at the Criterion and it does not mention the definition anywhere. After reading it I went over and search for "intensity" to see if I missed it, and still no luck. Am I missing something? --SixOfDiamonds 14:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention of violating Wikipedia policy and copyright law. If you want to read more from the book, you have to buy it. I am unclear what you mean, but the Criterion article mention terror and terrorism many times.Ultramarine 14:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It can mention cookies and not be relevant to the cookies article. The article does not even mention the definition. I am guessing by your response that you are not disputing this? --SixOfDiamonds 14:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The article certainly criticizes how Chomsky uses the word terrorism. Chomsky has presented his view, the article criticizes it.Ultramarine 14:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It actually criticizes his moral compass in relation to atrocities in Asia. However it is still not a critique of the definition itself. Tom please find a way to modify the Chomsky bot!! --SixOfDiamonds 14:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
And regarding Islamist terrorism. But also, how Chomsky uses the word terrorism.Ultramarine 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I get this. You have no problem with Chomsky's definition, just with Chomsky, hence why you are attempting to present something says Chomsky's use of the word terrorism in general, not in this specific case, is usually flawed. The definition itself you do not object to, if they were said by John Hancock or Bob Ingram III it would be fine? --SixOfDiamonds 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, if Bob Ingram III still claimed that intentions does not matter, I would still argue that he is wrong.Ultramarine 14:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So post a source stating that definition is wrong, not that Chomsky is a hypocrite. Forget Chomsky said it, find someone criticizing the definition itself as the section is about ... the definition ... --SixOfDiamonds 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That paragraph is criticizing Chomsky's definition, which only looks at body count.Ultramarine 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not see him mentioning body count in either. I thought we were discussing the intro? --SixOfDiamonds 17:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
His critics argue that when he applies his definition he does in practce. I thought we were discussing both the into and the definition of terrorism section, where the deleted material were.Ultramarine 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(indent) This is going in circles and getting everyone nowhere. You believe it is proper to counter the POV of a definition with criticism of who said it. The other side, one that I am on, believes you counter perceived POV of the definition with criticism of the definition. It is basically "ad hominem" attack, critiquing Chomsky instead of his definition. --SixOfDiamonds 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe in NPOV. We are discussing his interpretation of the definition. Again, the article also discusses how he uses the definiton in practice, like when he makes concrete accustions. Then we can also criticze this.Ultramarine 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Also the intro is not a soapbox, there is no justification for only Chomsky's view there regarding the ICJ, but deleting or keeping those from the other side in footnote. Again, not double standard please.Ultramarine 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I support Ultramarine's edits. Since so much of the article is written from Chomsky's point-of-view, it is valid to reproduce criticism of how he applies the word "terrorism" unfairly. This is highly relevant. - Merzbow 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think its time for a greater mediation effort, this routine is becoming stale. I am more then happy to work with Tom Harrison as he has been willing to discuss and talk and find middle grounds, however this is bordering on the absurd. --SixOfDiamonds 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am always happy with continued discussions to resolve the issues.Ultramarine 18:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am as well and hope real discussions will take place to resolve issues. To help promote that I will continue to work with those who have been cooperative and working toward a consensus. --SixOfDiamonds 19:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That has always been my goal.Ultramarine 20:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

A request

To the warring parties, how about we cooperate in creating State terror series on Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and other non controversial but writable articles (I am not being fictitious here) ? Taprobanus 12:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No need since we already have human rights violations articles regarding many of these nations, a term which is both more exactly defined, accepted in international law, and even less POV in itself.Ultramarine 12:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the idea. There should be a series of articles such as this, which is a specific and special category of human rights violations, and a special subset of violations of international law. While the term terrorism is less precise, from an accepted legal consensus standpoint, its sufficiently notable and there are sufficent expert sources to support proper citation and attribution.Giovanni33 12:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no treaty or agreement on what terrorism is, while almost all nations in theory accepts human rights as per the UN.Ultramarine 12:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
To be consistent we should stop referring to Hamas, al-Qaeda, FARC, IRA, ETA, RAF, Tamil Tigers, et cetera, as terrorist organisations. Since we don't know what terrorism is it certainly is impossible to designate them as terroist organisations.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we know that, but so what? My points above still stand. Human rights violations are broader and wider, as are violations of international law. This does not mean we can not also have a series on notable claims of state terrorism by various States so charged. The problematic nature of the defintion of state terrorism, will, ofcourse, always be stated, as it is in this article. I do support, also, a series of articles on various states violations of international law, and human rights violations, in addition. But they do not replace each other.Giovanni33 13:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
See below on Cuba.Ultramarine 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean something like this for an article called "State terrorism by Cuba"?

  • One points to Cuban support of various rebels committing numerous human rights violations in Latin America and Africa (as documented for example in the Black Book of Communism) and labels this "state terrorism"
  • One points to the reports by Cuba defectors, who were close to Castro, of support for terrorist and criminal activites in numerous nations as evidence of Cuban state terrorism.[30]
  • In order to not miss anything, one will quote rumors on websites by anti-Castro groups as further evidence of state terrorism.
  • When quoting, be sure to state something much worse than the source states. (Like these in this article: [31][32])
  • To spice it up, one will add several graphic decriptions of a few especially viscous cases of rape and torture by some rebel group that Cuba has supported.
  • Various UN resolutions condemning human rights abuses in Cuba will be added to show that Cuba has been condemned by the international community for state terrorism and that it is doing this against its own people.Ultramarine 13:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, if you have valid sources to support the claims being made, go for it. But, this should never be a quid pro quo, deal, as you seem to keep thinking. Its not about making a POINT either. Start your article, as part of this proposed series. I think you will find that the imperialist countries have the biggest articles, with the US being the leader of the pack.Giovanni33 13:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I know that dictatorships are the the worst, see User:Ultramarine/Sandbox.Ultramarine 13:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the US is the biggest supporter of dictatorships around the world. Installing them and overthrowing democracies that once existed in their place. Without the US proping up dictatorships the world would be a lot more democratic a long time ago.Giovanni33 13:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sure you can simply quote this government as a source stating Cuba has commited State Terrorism. A simple google search would show that. I know Bush has accused Venezuela of it as well. If you choose to make this article I can provide you sources pretty easily I would say that actually has the US calling Cuba a supporter of State Terrorism, no need for tangents and dramatics. --SixOfDiamonds 13:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
How about my the outline above for sources and content? It is similar to this article in methodology.Ultramarine 13:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Proposal? We have guidelines, not individual proposals. Here is a good faith source for you. PS if you are wasting peoples time and violating WP:POINT please do not, if you are serious enjoy this source and feel free to ask for more.

Cuba continued to publicly oppose the U.S.-led Coalition prosecuting the War on Terror. To U.S. knowledge, Cuba did not attempt to track, block, or seize terrorist assets, although the authority to do so is contained in Cuba's Law 93 against Acts of Terrorism, as well as Instruction 19 of the Superintendent of the Cuban Central Bank. No new counterterrorism laws were enacted, nor were any executive orders or regulations issued in this regard. To date, the Cuban government had not undertaken any counterterrorism efforts in international and regional fora or taken action against any designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. The Government of Cuba provided safe haven to members of ETA, FARC, and the ELN, and maintained close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran. The Cuba-Iran Joint Commission met in Havana in January.

The Cuban government continued to permit U.S. fugitives to live legally in Cuba and is unlikely to satisfy U.S. extradition requests for terrorists harbored in the country. The United States periodically requested that the government return wanted fugitives1, and Cuba continued to be non-responsive. The Cuban regime publicly demanded the return to Cuba of five of its agents convicted of espionage in the United States. The five were variously accused of being foreign intelligence agents and infiltrating U.S. military facilities, but the Cuban government continued to refer to these individuals as heroes in the fight against terrorism. One was accused of conspiracy to murder for his role in the Cuban Air Force's shooting down of two small civilian planes. Cuba has stated, however, that it will no longer provide safe haven to new U.S. fugitives who may enter Cuba.2

Although Cuba did not extradite suspected terrorists during the year, the government demanded that the United States surrender Luis Posada Carriles, whom it accused of plotting to kill Castro and bombing a Cubana Airlines plane in 1976, which resulted in more than 70 deaths. Posada Carriles remained in U.S. custody. Cuba also asked the United States to return three Cuban-Americans implicated in the same cases.

The source is US Department of State --SixOfDiamonds 13:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
We already have an article for those nations US consider states sponsors of terrorism.Ultramarine 13:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Confused then ... are you proposing an already existent article? If you are wasting peoples time again with dramatics and tangents, please just present your point without them. This is getting annoying. --SixOfDiamonds 13:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have already stated, we already have articles regarding human rights violations for these nations, a clearly defined and accepted term, so no need for duplication with more articles.Ultramarine 13:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am just going to ignore you most of the time now. People have heard your point and do not agree, while you are more then encouraged to keep voicing it, you are now wasting my time. Make stories to convey your point and tangent based hypothetical situations is not expressing your point any further. If you have proposals for word changes I will comment on those, however these "what if ..." scenarios are consuming my editing time. --SixOfDiamonds 13:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you do not want to resolve issues by discussion.Ultramarine 13:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If John killed Bob and his only argument was that Mary was an accomplice ... When you have a point, do not do it in a drawn out way, just state it. Arguing in circles is not resolving issues. Your stories are absorbing valuable bytes. --SixOfDiamonds 13:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am still waiting for a response to my arguments.Ultramarine 13:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What is your argument? You said you were starting an article, then said it exists ... Where is the argument here? --SixOfDiamonds 13:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we got way off topic, when he lost the argument. hehe This is the pattern.Giovanni33 13:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
We already have human rights violations articles regarding many of these nations, a term which is both more exactly defined, accepted in international law, and even less POV in itself.Ultramarine 13:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Good, now lets work on a new article about a related but different concept: state terrorism. That is what this proposal was about. I also say we have articles on violations of international law, as another series listing crimes of states.Giovanni33 13:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no international law regarding state terrorism.Ultramarine 13:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself again. Yes, we all know that. So what is your point?Giovanni33 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Since there is already articles about what international law do recognize, there is no need to have articles containing similar material but with an unclear definition.Ultramarine 13:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Some of the material may be similiar, but its a different concept that is worth discusing, and reporting on. WP has many similar articles. Similarity in concepts is not a valid reason to oppose an article on a subject. Its a distinct and separate subject and thus can have its own article detailing it. As I stated, there should be a series of articles such as this, which is a specific and special category of human rights violations, and a special subset of violations of international law. While the term terrorism is less precise, from an accepted legal consensus standpoint, its sufficiently notable and there are sufficent expert sources to support proper citation and attribution of the claims that States are guilty of terrorism, i.e. State terrorism. The problematic nature of the defintion of state terrorism, will, ofcourse, always be stated, as it is in this article--so not having an article on that account is also not a valid reason.Giovanni33 14:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what is the concept of "state terrorism"? Exactly which international laws mention "state terrorism"?Ultramarine 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This page and the article on the subject discuss it. On talk, I've explained the definition and concept a few times, as well. Go back and read. No need to keep repeating myself. Its boring.Giovanni33 14:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This page does not mention any international law or universal definition.Ultramarine 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
And no one claimed it ever did. So what are you talking about now?Giovanni33 14:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You claimed this "As I stated, there should be a series of articles such as this, which is a specific and special category of human rights violations, and a special subset of violations of international law. Ultramarine 14:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, so what? But they are still different concepts, even if they have some overlap and may fall into more than one category. Acts of terrorism fit into is a smaller subset of violations that would fit into international laws, and human rights violations. But, so what? This is not an important point, and not related to the issue at hand, which is that they are separate concepts and thus can have their own articles.Giovanni33 14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, there is no international law regarding terrorism. which is the cental problem. It is not possible to discuss if ther has been a violation since anyone can create a definition, or dispute a definition, without anyone ever being able to prove who is right. It is like haveing an article called "evil things done the united states" Sure, you can find lots of references for such claims, but in the end it is just personal opinions.Ultramarine 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
(indent) Wikipedia is not a law journal. --SixOfDiamonds 14:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Who is stating that it is?Ultramarine 14:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
All I keep reading from you is the title is bad cause "International Law" has not decreed a definition for it. --SixOfDiamonds 14:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
International law is certainly a large subject with many definitions. State terrorism not included..Ultramarine 14:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes ... --SixOfDiamonds 14:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
One could hope that this means that you have seen the wisdom of my thoughts. Or are you are trying to make a point? Ultramarine 14:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I suspect that its simply a reply to your non relevant point, that is off topic to the issue and question at hand.Giovanni33 14:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I answered your question and am still wondering what your point is, or even the argument for that matter. Perhaps a paragraph outlining it would be more helpful then leading questions that go nowhere. --SixOfDiamonds 14:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I cannot remember you answering my fundmental point that ST (State Terrorism) is not well defined and not accepted, while human rights violations as a term is.Ultramarine 14:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually we both anserwered that above. They are related but different things. SO WHAT? Why are you chaning the topic, and going around in circles again, and again? This is not making progress (is that your purpose?)Giovanni33 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not changing the topic. I am still arguing that there is no need for such articles since we already have better.Ultramarine 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So can I start a project page on say State terrorism by Iran in my sandbox and I give permission to anyone who agrees to participate to edit it ? Taprobanus 14:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would say that is ok.Giovanni33 14:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
i doubt that you can use a userpage similarly to a real page, but it is your responibility.Ultramarine 16:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Then should we start a project page ? Taprobanus 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Off Topic Discussions

This edit summary lets Giovanni33 portray himself in a favorable light, but it is inaccurate: "rv to last by Tom Harrision?" That is an impressive level of indentation above though. Tom Harrison Talk 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. It not meant to cast me in any light, its only stated to be accurate. See: [33] I did revert to the last good version, which just happened to be yours. Although I would restore the Philippines sections, I realize that discussion on that still needs to take place to address concerns. But why do you say my edit summary was not accurate? And, how is reverting to you cast me in a good light? Ok, I see reverted to your version, Tom, right before your last version, which has a minor difference (from an edit you did not make). So your point is true, but very trivial, and I still don't know your reasoning for this "light casting" bussiness. Giovanni33 14:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Because you did not "rv to last by Tom Harrision", contrary to what you wrote in your edit summary. You rv'd to an earlier version, suspiciously suppressing the link I added to Ferdinand Marcos. Do you not want our readers to know that the Marcos referred to in passing is in fact Ferdinand Marcos? And why do you try to bury this under the title Off Topic Discussion, and dismiss it as trivial? Is there something here you don't want people to know? Tom Harrison Talk 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
And of course I did link Marcos: [34] What is it about Marcos that bothers you enough to remove links to his bio? Tom Harrison Talk 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I moved it and I do not know nor care who Marcos is or is not. It was not related to the above, or at least did not appear to be. If you feel it is, please move it back and accept my apologies. --SixOfDiamonds 14:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You should assume good faith. There is no conspiracy here to hide anything. I have no objection to that trivial link, which you are free to add back. I only prefered the earlier version because the order of the intro was slightly different. Rv to your version is accurate. You have not answered the question about your claim that it somehow casts me in a more positive light? Care to explain that one?. And this move is correct, since this is a completely different topic of discussion that is a bit off topic. Just fix the minor thing, instead of making all kinds of strange accusations, making it a bigger deal than it is.Giovanni33 14:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Iran 2 - Still no sources

Still no sources for that operation Ajax involved terrorist groups. Objections to removal? Ultramarine 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Western Europe 1 - Still no sources

Still no page number. Objections to removal, and if so, why? Ultramarine 17:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to a public library or a bookshop? If so, why not update the reference yourself? --John 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS"Wikipedia:Verifiability says that any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material."Ultramarine 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it does. Of course, you might want to make the encyclopedia article a bit better by adding the page number, or were you trying to make a WP:POINT? --John 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not have to buy a book and read though hundreds of pages looking for something I do not believe to be there. That is the responsibility of the person making the claim.Ultramarine 20:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The issue has never been what you "have to do," is alwasy been one of why don't you do it? Thus, quoting policy doesn't address the question. Why do you think it does not exist? Do you have a good reason? I think its valid to assume its authentic, and thus, its better to do a little reasearch and look it up to see if you can find the page number, instead of just delete the whole thing--if your interest was what was best for WP. I know its easier to just delete, but doing what is easiest is not why we are here. I think this is the point raised by John, and I've made this same point to you before.Giovanni33 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I do not have to spend money or boring time reading hundreds of pages. That is the responsiblity of the person making the claim, as per Wikipedia policy. If you want to dispute Wikpedia polcy, there are other places for that.Ultramarine 22:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have access to a public library or a bookshop? If so, why not update the reference yourself? LOL because Ultramarine, MONGO, TDC, Tom Harrison, JungleCat, Morton, and Tbeatty will not stop until only wikipedia has only their own exclusive POV. All of these users simply want this article to disappear, since they can't make it disappear by an AfD they will do it section by section. At least Ultramarine adds something to the article, I can't recall any of these other editors ever adding any source to this article.216.60.70.61 00:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala 1 - Still no sources

Still no verifiable sources for that the US funded and trained death squads. Objections to removal and if so why.Ultramarine 17:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the paragraph you have in mind is "In a series of 32 declassified documents spanning over 35 years (from 1966 to 1995), George Washington University historians Kate Doyle and Carlos Osorio show that U.S. policy funded, trained, and equipped the Guatemalan military and government despite frequent and recurrent evidence that death squads and "clandestine counter-terrorist units" were being used "to carry out abductions, bombings, torture, and summary executions." This is sourced obviously, although to a collection of primary documents, rather than to a summary by Doyle and Osorio of what the documents show and that's problematic. I do object to removal of this content though. The general point here is not controversial. I studied this fairly closely years ago and will try to find a source that makes this same point. Or if Doyle and Osorio summarized the document release on the NSA web site that would obviously be a valid source. Give this a bit more time, and if you are getting antsy about it you could probably boil it down to a general statement and add a needs a source tag.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That the US supported the government does not mean training and funding the death squads. I have looked through these 32 documents and cannot find evidence for the claim.Ultramarine 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I see it's also probably the sentence "US Government funding[77][75] and training[77][75] of Guatemalan "Death Squads" came to light in the years 1990-91" but there is the same issue with one of the sources I mentioned above.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, exactly which of these 32 sources. There is an enormous difference between supporting a government, sometimes democratically elected, and death squads.Ultramarine 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I already agreed that the primary documents are not a valid source so we don't have an argument about that. I have not looked through them, because they are primary documents which we do not need to use in this case. The point is that the US gave military aid (and training) to the Guatemalan government despite evidence that the armed forces were operating death squads. As I said I'll work on finding a better (secondary) source for this but really this is not very controversial stuff.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The US giving aid to the military is differnt from directly supporting death squads. It is documented elsehere, see User:Ultramarine/Sandbox, that the US also tried to use its influence to lessen human rights violations.Ultramarine 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If the death squads are run by the military and the US knows this, then it is absolutely the same thing, and at certain points after the coup against Arbenz that is unquestionably what was going on. The document in your sandbox does not impress me much at all. The Carter admin did cut off a lot of aid to Guatemala and that should be discussed, but I disagree with the document's characterization of what was going on during the Reagan admin.
I'm putting together something entirely different using different sources (not available online) which will hopefully address some of your concerns. Give me some time and then I'll post it here for comment, sound good?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it is not if they are using influence gained to try to lessen human rights violations. The document at my Sandbox discusses the situation also after the Reagan administration.Ultramarine 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The 1990s is a different story, but that's not what I'm talking about and not what this section of the article is about. Things change over time you know. At the height of the Cold War, the US was encouraging human rights violations in Guatemela, not using influence to lessen them. The US trained the military that created the death squads and felt this was a good thing. Just give me awhile and I post something here on this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I will wait some time.Ultramarine 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay here's what I've come up with, digging up some old sources. I would see this replacing the second paragraph of the Guatemala section (and I would make a better transition from the first paragraph, which also mentions the coup). Also some of the material described above (sourced by the 32 documents) could be deleted. Let me know what you think, but I think this is exactly the kind of thing we should be looking for in this article (if there's any formatting errors or type-o's we can obviously fix that).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting this as I've moved it to the article, see this edit.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

See no obvious problems, except that most relate to the an early period when the civil war was less intense. Regardles, the opposing views in User:Ultramarine/Sandbox should also be included.Ultramarine 19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC) See no mention of death squads.Ultramarine 19:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The civil war was less intense then, but I don't see how that matters either way (a hell of a lot of people died, and the point is that this is when the Guatemalan military learned its "counter-terror" techniques, and it was US military folks who were teaching them). I'll probably go ahead and add this in shortly and delete the sections you had a problem with.
I think you should look for more sources on this beyond the one you have in your sandbox, which is a bit too vague for me (particularly in the last paragraph, where no dates are given). Carter clearly distanced the US from Guatemala, Reagan did not, and G.H.W. Bush did in 1990 as your source states. I think we have to think about how to incorporate this information intelligently though. I'm not arguing that the US always backed the Guatemalan government's state terror, but rather that it unquestionably did this at certain points. The fact that Carter took a more pro-human rights attitude should be mentioned but it does not really refute or address the stuff I talk about above. I would support a paragraph emphasizing the fact that while the US supported the Guatemalan government much of the time, there were notable exceptions (Carter and the first Bush circa 1990 definitely, Reagan I'm not at all convinced by). Maybe you can work up something along those lines and run it by folks here or at your sandbox. And again, see if you can find another source beyond the document from the Intelligence Oversight Board.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The artcle implies that the US was responsible for all 200,000 deaths. You quote mostly from a single source which seem to have a particular POV, so I see no problem with quoting the Intelligence Oversight Board. We should mention the years support was given as stated, that the CIA helped stopp a ooup, and also tried to lessen human rights violatioins at times.Ultramarine 20:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I know the CIA was involved in at least two coups, I don't know what coups it tried to stop--your source is not specific. If it was a coup against a dictatorship, that's probably not something to brag about. As I said the problem with your source is that it is vague, you cannot even tell what time period it is referring to at points. For example the article says "The CIA endeavored to improve the behavior of the Guatemalan services through frequent and close contact and by stressing the importance of human rights." When? Clearly not in the 1950s or 1960s, and I assume not in most of the 70s or 80s. Without a date it's hard to put this information in. The info I have above is very specific about dates, and you need to find info that is the same. I've already said the stuff about Carter and G.H.W. Bush cutting off aid is fine because it is quite specific. If you find more specific information about when and how the CIA "stressed the importance of human rights" then you can include it. This is obviously a historical topic--dates and changes over time matter. Generally assertions that the CIA worked for human rights are no more worthy of inclusion that general assertions that they worked for state terrorism.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It stopped a coup in the 1993. There is more specific information in the report which can be added, I am just quoting the overview statements.Ultramarine 20:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so it sounds to me that (aside from the Carter stuff) what you mainly want to discuss is that after Guatemala returned to nominal democracy beginning in 1986, the US generally made efforts to protect that democracy and sometimes balked when the military did nasty things (for example Bush cutting off aid in 1990 after an American was killed). I'm fine with that kind of discussion, I think it's worthy of a few sentence long paragraph, but nothing too lengthy since it again does not really "refute" the charges of state terrorism described elsewhere, it just shows that the US did not always back state terrorism. It's definitely relevant, but should not be given undue weight. Write something up and I'd love to take a look at it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Let us first note that civil war lasted between 1960 and 1996. The relationship to the 1954 coup is not clear. The military aid was cut off between 1977 and 1985, when many of the worst atrocities occured. And again in 1990. CIA helped stop a coup in 1993 and in the later years tried to lessen human rights violatioins. No evidence of training or supporting death squads has been presented.Ultramarine 20:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This is the thing, and it keeps happening in one form or another. People start with the position that the US is a terrorist state, observe correctly that many people were killed in Guatemala, and then start looking for sources to connect the two. Anything that dilutes that thesis (whether the appalling behavior of the United Fruit Company, Anglo-Persian Oil, or Ferdinand Marcos) is instantly pulled without any consensus for removal. Then the resulting essay is presented as encyclopedic fact. Tom Harrison Talk 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree completely with everything stated.Ultramarine 20:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
In this case Tom you are just wrong. I wrote on this topic years ago (before I ever heard of Wikipedia) and simply went back to find these sources. I did not even remember if there was specific language about state terrorism, I was just trying to establish the connection between the US and the Guatemalan military and their death squads. I did this because Ultramarine asked for better sources, so I provided them. Sorry if you think that's nefarious. I did not start with any position about the US being a terrorist state, I started with knowledge about what the US did in Guatemala in the 1950s and 1960s and then I looked back at sources. And if you think that the appalling behavior of UFCO somehow dilutes the idea that the US was complicit in state terror in Guatemala then I'm afraid you don't know much about the topic. UFCO officials/lobbyists and the US government had a quite cozy relationship in the 1950s, and the former very much influenced the latter (they I don't think UFCO pressure forced the 1954 coup to happen). UAlso, it is clearly not presented as encyclopedic fact, I use language such as "McClintock said" throughout. If you have other sources that disagree with what I've written, then by all means include them. Ultramarine is apparently okay with including the above material in the article, I'm not clear where you stand on that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then why was the material I added about United Fruit pulled from the page? Tom Harrison Talk 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I see no support in your text that the US was responsible for all 200,000 deaths during the very long civil war, your text foucs on 1960s. Nor is there any explicit mentin of death squads. My position is that we can include this, and remove the death squad claims, but must also include the opposing views presented above.Ultramarine 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Tom, I don't know. I don't know when you added it, what it said, or who removed it. That's not what we're talking about here so I don't care, I'm working on something else. Obviously there is nothing in my text saying the US was responsible for all 200,000 deaths, so I don't even know why that is being brought up. If you want to add a caveat to the article that no one said the US is being blamed for all 200,000 deaths please do. I think that would be fairly obvious though to anyone reading this. And you're right, there is no explicit mention of death squads. I did not write any of the stuff that does mention them, and I'm fine with that language being deleted if it is unsourced. Let me add in the stuff I wrote above, delete some of the stuff Ultramarine did not like, and see where we stand. Just give me a few minutes.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It's right here: 17:16, 1 July 2007 Just because it my edit did not explicitly mention death squads doesn't mean we should suppress any mention of Sam Zemurray. You seem to expect me to defer to your edits while quietly letting mine be dismissed as marginal. That's what I mean about people having a thesis, and only wanting to allow material that reinforces it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I was not letting yours be dismissed, it's just that we were talking about something else. One thing at a time is useful, you can bring up your problem with that edit elsewhere. After looking at it though, I see why it was removed. It almost seems like an unfinished thought. Why did you add it in? Are you trying to make a connection to UFCO and the coup? I'm afraid I don't understand.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added in the new stuff I originally posted here. I also deleted the stuff cited from the 32 primary documents which Ultramarine originally wanted removed, and also removed some language about "death squads" (I'll have to look back and see if there is more). I think what we have now is better, providing better sources while still making some of the same arguments that were present before but were not sourced. I think the whole thing could be edited a bit for clarity, probably proceeding chronologically is a good bet. Let me know what you think though.

Also to Ultramarine, there is a paragraph (it begins "In 1995 CIA aid was stopped") which uses your document. I'm not sure if you added that in or someone else, but it seems to discuss the basic points you wanted to make, although not talking about the effort to prevent an undemocratic coup. Perhaps you can just make some changes/additions to that paragraph?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Let us first state that civil war lasted between 1960 and 1996. The relationship to the 1954 coup is not clear. The military aid was cut off between 1977 and 1985, when many of the worst atrocities occured. Again in 1990. CIA helped stop a coup in 1993 and in the later years tried to lessen human rights violations. No evidence of training or supporting death squads has been presented. I propose we add this to the end of the Guatemala section as a counter-view.
As discussed below, we should also remove the graphic rape scen.Ultramarine 21:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"political support of Guatemalan Colonel Byron Lima Estrada" I cannot find this in the source, quote please.Ultramarine 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Futhermore, we should remvoe the many paragraphs mentioning atrocities in general, unless it can be shown the the US was responsible.Ultramarine 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
1) The information about the coup is necessary background and is only briefly mentioned (i.e. it just says it occured and the US supported it), I don't see what your problem is with it. Military aid was cut of in 1977, though I'm not clear if it remained cut off until 1985. Your source does not actually say that, and military and economic aid is extremely complicated and can come in many forms and through many channels. Your suggestion seems to be that because aid was cut off (though we don't know how long that lasted, you'll have to source that), and that because there was bad violence then, thus the US had nothing to do with this or even opposed the violence. I don't agree with that, and anyway that would be a clear violation of WP:SYNTH. Find a source that says that and you can put it in, otherwise you cannot. I don't know why you are harping on "death squads," the evidence about providing support for the Guatemalan military which killed civilians speaks for itself whether we want to call them death squads or not. I deleted that language, if there's another instance, tell me where it is specifically. Please propose a paragraph with specific wording for the new additions you are interested in as I have asked you to do repeatedly--sourced and everything.
2) I support cutting down the rape testimony, but leaving in one sentence or a telling phrase since this is a good example. I don't think you can make an argument for deleting it completely other than that you don't like it. It obviously demonstrates the nature of the Guatemalan military, which the US was providing aid for at the time of the rape (1989).
3) That's not my source, and it's not my job to find things for you. If you want go ahead and remove "political support" such that it just says "U.S. training and cooperation" which is clearly documented in the source.
4) I don't know which "paragraphs mentioning atrocities in general" you are referring to. I do not support deleting paragraphs which describe atrocities committed by an armed force which the US has provisioned and trained. That's a huge part of what this article is about.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

1. We should clearly state when the civil war started as well. The source [35] does say that military aid resumed in 1985, if you want to dispute this, add a source. Obviously the US cannot be responsible for deaths when there is no support.

2. Again, that is like stating we should have a graphic description of rapes by Italian soldier, for example, since they are in NATO.

3. Will do.

4. OR synthesis, that the army in Guatemala committed many crimes under a 36 year long civil war, and some members of the force probably were in death squads, does not mean that the US is responsible for all those crimes by giving aid during some of these years. You have to provide a source linking US to such crimes, not insinuating that the US is responsible for "200,000 deaths", "the army routinely engaged in torture and rape", and "genocide".Ultramarine 22:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there are many channels for aid, the US has very specific and complex laws about it. There are different categories of military aid, and there is also economic aid which can be used for military purposes (though it is not supposed to be). Tell me where in your source it gives a full accounting of what was going on with US aid to Guatemela in the first Reagan administration--"military aid resumed in 1985" does not do it for me, this stuff is far too complicated and there are too many channels. It's something I've read about in depth for the Carter years, but I don't know much about Reagan. I completely reject your analogy to the Italian soldier. If you think US aid to and training of the Guatemalan armed forces was akin to a group of NATO commanded troops who had a few soldiers rape women then I'm afraid you fundamentally do not understand the former situation. On your last point, show me where in the article it asserts (or even insinuates) that the US is responsible for "200,000 deaths" or "for all those crimes by giving aid during some of these years." I obviously don't think that's true, and I don't see that in the article. If it's confusing tell me where and we'll hash out a different wording. Mentioning the number of killed is clearly relevant given that the Guatemalan armed forces were enabled by US support to a very large degree--we have to show the scope of the crime in which the US was at least partially complicit. If the US is only to blame for 1,000 deaths (and obviously we can never parse the numbers, and they would be higher than that) that would still be state terrorism.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You doubt that aid was discontinued, you provide the source. Your personal opinions regarding US training (presumably every single soldier in Guatemala since the US can be blamed for any rape and thus anyone picked out) is unsourced. If you had a source linking the US to a rape, then it would still not be appropriate with graphic details. Again, your personal opinion that the US was responsible for a large share of all the crimes is not interesting, give a source or remove it. Militaries are perfectly capable to be brutal without US teaching.Ultramarine 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I might not have been clear about this, but my point was that I don't think your source is sufficient with respect to aid and therefore I am challenging your use of it and asking you to find an additional source or sources. You want to add in new information about aid (or lack thereof), not me, and I am saying that the source you have provided does not detail what was going on with all forms of aid to Guatemala during the early 1980s. If I'm wrong let me know, I did not read through the whole thing. Still, I'll try and see if I can find something that described aid during the Reagan years and hopefully you will do the same--I really don't know what it will say but I just want to be accurate here. As to the rape stuff (and again I did not put this or anything else in other than what I placed here on the talk page) the point of this as I see it is to demonstrate the kind of actions the Guatemalan military engaged in. The point is not to blame that or any other rape on the US, but to show that the US knowingly supported a military dictatorship which engaged in horrific actions--discussing the rape case is an example of horrific actions. Quite frankly though, I don't think it's a super important part of this section. Finally, I agree that any given military is capable of being brutal without US teaching, but the information I and others added in to this article explained that, in the case of the Guatemalan military, it very much learned its brutality from the United States and the training given by the US was a conscious effort to suppress dissent against the military dictatorship, thus a form of state terror.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The report is certainly a noteworthy view which I use as a source. If you want to dispute it, you have to add another view yourself using another sorce. Regarding the graphic rape scene, again, you cannot blame the US for everything. You have to link the US to a particular crime. Even then, a graphic scene is inappropriate. Regarding the sweeping descriptions of what happened during the civil war, the text should clearly state that these descriptions are for the whole civil war, and how much of this is US responsiblity is unclear.

Nicaragua 3

"The ICJ refused to render judgment on the imputability of any direct acts by the Contras to the United States because of lacking evidence; the court did, however, make clear that the United States could be held liable for any acts it undertook relative to the state of Nicaragua and that this might include acts by the Contras. In their judgment, the ICJ found the United States liable for the funding, training, equipping, and logistical support of the Contras; for the mining of harbors, flyovers, and military attacks; for encouraging the Contras to commit "acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law"; and held the United States liable for reparations and immediate cessation of all such proscribed activity."

This is incorreact. Regarding human rights violations by the Contras, from the voted on sentences "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America".[19]

They also stated, referring to this, "It is for this reason that the Court does not have to determine whether the violations of humanitarian law attributed to the contras were in fact committed by them."[19]

Exact quotes please from the judgement regarding the the US was liable for acts by the Contras, or for the funding, training, equipping, and logistical support of the Contras, or for for encouraging the Contras to commit "acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law".Ultramarine 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, you are quoting, over and over and over, one finding of 16 of the court. Of course, this is the one finding that makes your POV look good. The court did in fact find the US violated international law. You never mention this.

Point 2:

Rejects the justification of collective self-defence maintained by the United States of America in connection with the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua the subject of this case;

Point 3:

Decides that the United States of America, by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the contra forces or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State;

Point 4:

Decides that the United States of America, by certain attacks on Nicaraguan territory in 1983-1984, namely attacks on Puerto Sandino on 13 September and 14 October 1983, an attack on Corinto on 10 October 1983; an attack on Potosi Naval Base on 4/5 January 1984, an attack on San Juan del Sur on 7 March 1984; attacks on patrol boats at Puerto Sandino on 28 and 30 March 1984; and an attack on San Juan del Norte on 9 April 1984; and further by those acts of intervention referred to in subparagraph (3) hereof which involve the use of force, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another State;

Point 5:

Decides that the United States of America, by directing or authorizing over Rights of Nicaraguan territory, and by the acts imputable to the United States referred to in subparagraph (4) hereof, has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State;

Point 6:

Decides that, by laying mines in the internal or territorial waters of the Republic of Nicaragua during the first months of 1984, the United States of America has acted, against the Republic of Nicaragua, in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State, not to intervene in its affairs, not to violate its sovereignty and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce;

Point 8:

Decides that the United States of America, by failing to make known the existence and location of the mines laid by it, referred to in subparagraph (6) hereof, has acted in breach of its obligations under customary international law in this respect;[36]

You are focusing on one point of 16 Ultramarine, ignoring the other 15 points that, to my knowledge, make the US look bad: that the US broke international law. 216.60.70.61 00:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked for "exact quotes from the judgement regarding the the US was liable for acts by the Contras, or for the funding, training, equipping, and logistical support of the Contras, or for for encouraging the Contras to commit "acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law".Ultramarine 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

POV language

The graphic rape and torture scenes are inflammatory and only intended to evoke an emotinal response. No evidence has been presented that the US was responsible for these acts. Since objections has been raised that "Soviet Bloc police states" is POV language, then these long paragraphs should definitely be removed.Ultramarine 17:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this can definitely be trimmed down. I also think this could be reworked a bit, as it strays somewhat off topic. The point of all of this should be to illustrate the horrific nature of the actions of the Guatemalan armed forces. It does not assert anything about US complicity (that happens elsewhere), but I think it is useful to demonstrate how nasty the Guatemalan military was as a companion argument to the fact that the US was supporting them. Perhaps this can be boiled down to one paragraph though.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the military was responsible. Even if it was, what does this has to do with the US? Should we have graphic descriptions of rapes by, say, Italian soldiers since they are members of NATO.Ultramarine 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I also find it a little over-the-top; if the Holocaust article can manage without this sort of graphical description, maybe this one can too. --John 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the purpose of gratuitous and endless graphical descriptions of rape and torture can only be to inflame the reader. - Merzbow 00:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The holocaust article manages without this because it is required reading of anyone in the west who manages to graduate from University, because it has entire museums on at least three different continents devoted to nothing but those graphic descriptions, because it has multiple tv and feature films devoted to reconstructing precisely such graphic descriptions, because it has entire holidays devoted to reminding people of those graphic descriptions, and because any time Israel wants to kill more Arabs local jewish leaders start dropping crocodile tears and reminding everyone of the holocaust by reciting graphic descriptions.

Point me to even a museum that reminds people about the multiple genocides and massacres committed by the Guatemalan military -- using U.S. money and U.S. weaponry and U.S. logistical support -- and i'll be happy to cut the description from the article. Otherwise, the material is justifiably included.

Title of article and allegations in contents

Why are we including allegations when the title does not mention this? Like from Cuba's government and state censored press.Ultramarine 17:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that the more section you make, the more it looks like you are not working in good faith here. You know why the article is under the current title, you know why the content meets the requirements of "allegations" and not "super facts," why are we gonig in circles with this? --SixOfDiamonds 17:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I do not know why the article is under the current title. The long poll while the article was protected supported changing the title. Regardless, claims by Cuba's dictatorship is just that, claims or allegations, not evidence.Ultramarine 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The people have admitted it, do you even read the section. Both Posada and his friend have long admitted their actions. Posada even later implicated the rest of CANF. The reason the case was thrown out regarding La Esperanza was because they admitted it. Are you reading the sections and sources you are complaining about. --SixOfDiamonds 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Posada has never admitted bombing the plane. He may have admitted other actions, but then taken it backA. Lots of people boast of things they have not done. Source if claiming more, please. Even if Posada had admitted everything he is accused of, this does not prove that the US is responsible.Ultramarine 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
We have sources of him saying he did it. The case didn't find him not guilty, it found prosecutorial misconduct. Here is another source if you like, but you may want to bark up another tree. [37] --SixOfDiamonds 18:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
He admitted one bombing, not the plane bombing, and took it back. Again, lots of people boast. Even if Posada had admitted everything he is accused of, and he may well be, this does not prove that the US is responsible.Ultramarine 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It really does not matter, since a court found him guilty we report on Wikipedia that he is guilty. --SixOfDiamonds 18:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, he being guilty of one crime does not prove him guilty of everything he is accused of, even though he may be. More importantly, this is not evidence of US responsibility.Ultramarine 18:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Glad you admitted the fault of your argument, as I stated once the CIA admitted they knew it was coming, that Posada was at the meetings that planned it and that he had intelligence on it in his house ... Anyway ...A CIA asset blowing up a plane ... Hey we are just here to report the stuff WP:RS state. Cuba states the US committed acts of State Terrorism. The end. --SixOfDiamonds 18:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Posasa was not a CIA asset at the time. CIA had heard rumors, no specific details.Ultramarine 18:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever this is off topic. Posada + US = accused of State Terrorism by WP:RS sources. That concludes the argument. -SixOfDiamonds 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Back to my initial point. Allegations of state terrorism by the US, nothing proved.Ultramarine 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There was a poll on this just this week. Can you at least wait a week before rehashing the same arguments. Patience is a virtue, restarting debates until you get the desired result is not how it works. --SixOfDiamonds 18:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
PS the government admitted Posada had contacts with the CIA, he just was not an agent. They also heard more then rumors, they heard him say "We are going to hit a Cuban airliner." --SixOfDiamonds 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Source please, Posada was not a US asset at the time. A man like Posada probably makes lots of boasts. A poll in Wikipedia is not evidence of US guilt. It can be used to decide a title. Assuming that the article should have this title and not include "Allegations of...", then the article should not contain dubious allegations.Ultramarine 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[38] - Please do your own research from this point forward. I am done entertaining your questions of why, without even reading the article you are complaining about. Seems the CIA disagree's with you. So did Nightline btw. --SixOfDiamonds 18:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Answered below.Ultramarine 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that you feel stepped on your toes, Ultramarine. Maybe you should back off a bit and focus on something else, because (although I don't really care about the location of this article) this is a perfect example of "no concensus" for a move. No hard feelings, #29 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the date for CIA document regarding Posada making his boast, and it was after the bombing, not the before, so the US did no learn of the boast until after the bombing had taken place.Ultramarine 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I have also looked at your linked document: "CIA documents posted below reveal that he was terminated as an asset in July 1967, but then reinstated four months later and apparently remained an asset until 1974. The documents also show that he remained in contact with the Agency until June 1976, only three months before the plane bombing." Not an asset at the time.Ultramarine 18:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No read the documents, says amicably let go, then re-established 4 months later. There is no discharge, you are not even reading the CIA documents. The last document the CIA released regarding him was 3 months before the bombing, hence the statement he was still in contact. They state the situation themselves. Furthermore Posada was reported in the CIA documents as stating "We are going to hit a Cuban airliner" in September, its not after the bombing, what are you talking about? It says it in the source, including in the CIA documents. Do not ask for sources if you are not going to read them. I am going to ask an outside admin soon to take a look at your participation here. I am starting to lose good faith in your questions. Now that you are proven wrong, I hope you end this game. --SixOfDiamonds 18:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I will repeat what I just cited. "CIA documents posted below reveal that he was terminated as an asset in July 1967, but then reinstated four months later and apparently remained an asset until 1974. The documents also show that he remained in contact with the Agency until June 1976, only three months before the plane bombing." Stopped being an asset in 1974. An occasional contact could be anything, like meeting him on the street and talking. Yes, Posada boasted before the bombing, but the CIA learned of the boast only after the bombing. Look at the date of the document.Ultramarine 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The document states: "He was amicably terminated in July 1967. But contact was re-established in October 1967. --SixOfDiamonds 19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The bombing was in 1976.Ultramarine 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes ... --SixOfDiamonds 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
And your source states he stopped being an asset in 1974.[39].Ultramarine 19:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sure they all had tea. Now if only we had a source stating it was an act of state terrorism by the US to meet the requirements of WP:RS ... By George I believe we do. Thank you for going in circles, but it seems it meets WP:RS. IT also says he was re-established. Sorry I get asset could mean they used him as a financial write off, possibly claiming he was their child. --SixOfDiamonds 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you have not given such a source stating he was an asset at the bombing. Maybe after the bombing, but not at the time of it.Ultramarine 19:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did we reach consensus to change the title from 'Allegation of state terrorism by the United States' to 'State terrorism by the United States'? Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question. If we changed the title, we could maybe include Cuba's allegations.Ultramarine 18:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not know, either title may work for me. Would have to see how it impacts the article. Do you have any feedback on how you think it would affect certain sections etc. --SixOfDiamonds 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but no removals without consensus. --SixOfDiamonds 19:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So why have opposing views material been removed material without consensus?Ultramarine 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't be an additions without consensus on this article while its undergoing such a strong review. -SixOfDiamonds 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So you agree we should remove the Philippines section?Ultramarine 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What I agree on is if you continue to attempt to put words in my mouth I will seek admin review of your participation here. Unfortunately from this point forward I no longer have good faith in your motives here. I gave you more then enough opportunity, attempted to find sources for you, answered questions and provided sources. WP:AGF does not involve being dumb or blind, or so I keep reading. Hence I will ignore your comments, questions regarding items already in the article, and continue to critique recommended rewordings and work with others such as Tom Harrison on improving sections of the article as necessary. Good day. --SixOfDiamonds 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you do not want to resolve issues by discussing them.Ultramarine 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is unfortunate that you do not read the sources in the article or the content before complaining about it. --SixOfDiamonds 19:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What are you referring to? I have read through many of the sources in the article and made numerous corrections of factual errors before you started editing this article.Ultramarine 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes "I have looked at the date for CIA document regarding Posada making his boast, and it was after the bombing, not the before, so the US did no learn of the boast until after the bombing had taken place. Ultramarine 18:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)" Seems like you read them carefully. --SixOfDiamonds 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What is your point? You stated that the CIA knew of the boast, therefore I read through the source, and made the above statement.Ultramarine 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, the fact that you did not recognize that your statement was incorrect leads me to believe you did not "read the source," you may have browsed it, looked for a date or skimmed through it, but clearly did not read it if you made that statement. Again, until I see something different, such as you working with others instead of against them, I will simply work with those I feel are best representing the spirit of Wikipedia. --SixOfDiamonds 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the supposed statement by me that was incorrect?Ultramarine 19:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So is it 'no removals without consensus' or 'no additions without consensus'? Tom Harrison Talk 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another very good questions. Either one has been ignored recently by those alleging US state terrorism. Ultramarine 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Good question ... We should wait and see if an answer develops on consensus. --SixOfDiamonds 19:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
And if it does not?Ultramarine 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be tragic as Wikipedia is all about developing a consensus. But why bother with "what if" when I am sure everyones willingness to improve this article will surely lead to a consensus. --SixOfDiamonds 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
So let's start building that consensus. Do you want 'no removals without consensus' or 'no additions without consensus', and why? Tom Harrison Talk 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)."Ultramarine 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should have a firm rule other than major changes (either deletions or additions) should be discussed on the talk page first. If consensus does not develop (since that rarely seems to happen here) the change can be made, but a good faith effort should be made to at least discuss changes of any sort before making them. As such, I would welcome comments on new material I'm proposing for the Guatemala section (see "Guatemala 1 - Still no sources" above, first the discussion between Ultramarine and myself and then my proposed addition).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Answered Guatemala above.Ultramarine 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ Report on the Guatemala Review Intelligence Oversight Board. June 28, 1996.
  2. ^ http://www.cetim.ch/fr/interventions_onu.php?currentyear=2007&pid=
  3. ^ "Top exiles in fight over anti-Castro plot funds". Miami Herald. November 26, 2006.
  4. ^ Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla (October 29, 2001). "Measures to eliminate international terrorism" (PDF). United Nations: general Assembly Security Council.
  5. ^ Jean-Guy Allard (December 6, 2004). "The Cuban American National Foundation And The Havana Bombings". Granma International.
  6. ^ http://www.voanews.com/lao/archive/2007-02/2007-02-22-voa1.cfm
  7. ^ http://services.inquirer.net/express/07/03/23/html_output/xmlhtml/20070322-56427-xml.html
  8. ^ http://services.inquirer.net/express/07/03/23/html_output/xmlhtml/20070322-56427-xml.html
  9. ^ Carlos H. Conde (February 21, 2007). "UN expert urges Philippines to solve political killings". International Herald Tribune.
  10. ^ http://www.counterpunch.org/petras03172006.html
  11. ^ http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=65594
  12. ^ http://www.voanews.com/lao/archive/2007-02/2007-02-22-voa1.cfm
  13. ^ http://services.inquirer.net/express/07/03/23/html_output/xmlhtml/20070322-56427-xml.html
  14. ^ http://services.inquirer.net/express/07/03/23/html_output/xmlhtml/20070322-56427-xml.html
  15. ^ Carlos H. Conde (February 21, 2007). "UN expert urges Philippines to solve political killings". International Herald Tribune.
  16. ^ David Horowitz. Chomsky and 9/11. Page 172-4 In The Anti-Chomsky Reader (2004) Peter Collier and David Horowitz, editors. Encounter Books.
  17. ^ Windschuttle, Keith. "The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky", The New Criterion, 05-09-2003.
  18. ^ Windschuttle, Keith. "The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky", The New Criterion, 05-09-2003.
  19. ^ a b "International Court of Justice Year 1986, 27 June 1986, General list No. 70, paragraphs 251, 252, 157, 158, 233". International Court of Justice. Retrieved 2006-07-30. Large PDF file from the ICJ website
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism/Archive_10&oldid=1137284938"