Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Guatemala

Here is a source + proof of prior publishing to satisfy WP:RS, further the person is an academic in the field:

As far as America was concerned, then, democracy and social justice were the principal problems. These dire threats to U.S. hegemony in the region had to be violently eliminated. Referring to the decades of bloodshed consequently imposed by U.S.-sponsored terrorists on the Guatemalan population, the chair of the UN Historical Clarification Commission, Law Professor Christian Tomuschat, stressed when presenting the UN report on the crisis that the U.S. government and private companies “exercised pressure to maintain the country’s archaic and unjust socioeconomic structure.”

In particular, the U.S. client regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala regularly massacred their own populations, slaughtering over 100,000 civilians during the 1980s and into the beginning of 1990s. Yet the U.S. continued to sponsor such terrorism, propping up the dictatorships responsible for such violence while actively helping them carry it out, choosing only to militarily subvert the vastly more democratic and egalitarian Nicaraguan government of the Sandinistas.

The judicial wing of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (or World Court) prohibited the American military operation to topple the Sandinistan administration in 1986, calling on the United States to pay substantial reparations. Condemning the “unlawful use of force” against Nicaragua, the Court further ruled that aid to the forces attacking Nicaragua was not humanitarian, but military.

From all this the following correlation can thus be clearly discerned: The U.S. is willing to support dictatorship, state terror and mass impoverishment when these are conducive to opportunities for investment and access to regional raw materials.

A Critical Review Of The Objectives Of U.S. Foreign Policy In The Post-World War II Period -By Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Proof of prior publishing:

• The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism

• Olive Branch press [1]

• The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001

• Progressive Press

• Behind the War on Terror: Western Secret Strategy and the Struggle for Iraq

• New Society Publishers [2]

• The War on Truth

• Arris Books [3]

Comments

Which specific act did the U.S. engage in? This is another personal definition of terrorism that's not supporatable. Souns like thisbelongs in his bio, but not here. --Tbeatty 15:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the source, that is why it is provided. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 19:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I read it. It described Guatemalan state terrorism, not U.S. state terrorism. --Tbeatty 20:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Read it again, direct quotes of US Sponsored terrorism on Guatemala are sourced above. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 20:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"Yet the U.S. continued to sponsor such terrorism," & "Referring to the decades of bloodshed consequently imposed by U.S.-sponsored terrorists on the Guatemalan population" Please check to verify you are reading the source listed below the passages. --74.73.16.230 20:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Read it again. Like I said in the initital paragraph, this is his own special definition of terrorism. Guatamala had a government. Guatemalan troops engaged in counter-terrorsim. Some of those Guatemalan troops engaged in terrorism. No U.S. particpation. Therefore, the U.S. is guilty of sponsoring terrorism. This is an incredible leap of logic that simply is not supportable. Put it in this guys bio, but not here. This definition of terrorism was voted down in the archive (listed above) months ago. It simply does not have any consensus for inclusion. --Tbeatty 21:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We report WP:RS sources. It is ok for scholars to engage in original research, just not us. Thank you for your concerns. I guess if there are no further issues I will add it when the page unprotects. --74.73.16.230 21:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And we can always revert your edit as well. Thanks for contributing.--Beguiled 22:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is called vandalism to removed cited information without discussion or explanation based on policy. Reverting is for acts of vandalism only. Keep your threats to yourself. I see you also do not even present an arguement, just a baseless threat. Try to be productive and offer your opinion if you find something wrong with the above statements. Thank you. --74.73.16.230 22:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism to remove your radical POV from the articles. If you have a problem with that then maybe you're in the wrong website. I completely concur with Tbeatty that your addition is leading the witness as is the references you provide. This website doesn't exist for editors like you to promote fringe evidence as fact, citing far left poppycock to support your biases. This kind of POV pushing is the same style I have seen on the September 11, 2001 articles, where outlandish opinions and non-science are passed off as fact. I never made a threat, Tbeabby made comments and you bascially told him too bad. I am just returning the favor.--Beguiled 22:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Leading the witness? is this para-wiki-lawyering? The criteria set out for this article is that the source meets WP:RS, do you have proof it does not? I have shown multiple published books on international relations, the person is also an academic in the field. The next criteria is that the source must state US supported/sponsored "state terrorism." Are you stating the source does not cite this? --74.73.16.230 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed...claims the U.S. and other western powers are "deeply complicit in the vast majority of the heinous crimes against humanity he (Saddam) perpetrated during his iron fisted rule". No doubt the U.S. initially supported Saddam, but the U.S. and the western powers all condemned his gassing of the Kurds and other atrocities. Ahmed seems to be taking great leaps by proclaiming early support of Saddam by the west as being the same as supporting or being responsible for his actions.[4] Thats like saying that parents are responsible for the crimes some child might do later in his life...maybe they did the child wrong, but no court of law I know of is going to charge parents for the murders their 18 year old child does, or for capital offenses their child might do at any age.--Beguiled 22:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Did the nice Mr Rumsfeld not visit the nice Mr Hussein to continue their relationship despite the massacre you describe? Clearly, the US had no qualms about supporting SH following that heinous crime as he was "the enemy of our enemy": Iran.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Progressive Press, they look like the same company that has published a lot of idiotic September 11 conspiracy theory books: http://www.waronfreedom.org/ including the one you cite above, written by Ahmed.--Beguiled 23:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Published Source ... Doesnt state published sources that have not published books related to 911. You can be angry all you wish. I am still waiting for your policy based argument. If you have a complaint about the text above that will be great, however try to avoid ad hominem attacks on authors. --74.73.16.230 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

We cull sources all the time. This one would be undue weight to include because hte opinion is such an extreme minority viewpoint. Wikipedia can cover his viewpoint in his biography. Not here though. --Tbeatty 04:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy based argument please, not your personal opinion. Thank you. If you do not get the picture I am no longer hearing WP:IDONTLIKEIT based arguments. This is an encyclopedia and the content of the above goes directly to the topic, so well that it uses the terms exactly as asked. --74.73.16.230 10:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

So do I have to actually say Undue Weight? I thought just simply saying "undue weight" would be sufficient. But if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. --Tbeatty 14:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What is undue weight? This is an article on "State Terrorism by the United States" providing sources for acts of State Terrorism by the United States is not undue weight ... In the future to prevent these WP:IDONTLIKEIT based arguments, please read the policies more clearly and if needed request on the policy pages a review of your opinion on its application. Thank you. it seems anyway by looking at active partipants that excluding does not have any support. --74.73.16.230 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support removal of yet more unsourced US bashing--RCT 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Support what? Its not in the article, nor is it being proposed for adding, the content based on the source has yet to be written. It will however be noted you opposed an addittion as US bashing regardless of what it says, good job. --74.73.16.230 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Beguiled made a good point ....... had his example been actually correct. The U.S. did condemn the gassing of the Kurds while at the same time supplying Saddam with satelite targetting and instructions to make more efficient use of the same gas. Does their condemnation pardon their complicity? So too it was in Guatamala. It is now public record they condemned what was done there, but also public record that they knowingly supported it by their actions as well. Wayne 04:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW.. If we exclude a RS because they have published something in another subject that is disputed then we will have precedent for not allowing editors who supported the failed RfD to edit this topic. Basically it's the same arguement and just as spurious. Wayne 04:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely the same argument. The real adagium is criticism of the US is ipso facto anti-americanism, and anti-americanism is not allowed. Subsequently people browse WP-policy to find anything they can use to substantiate deleting said criticism. Even a "sourced critique" cannot remain, hence the refutal of "RS because they have published something in another subject that is disputed," since everybody knows the US is in the business of doing-good and anybody saying otherwise is a liar.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I am in favor of criticising the US for it's role in Guatemala. Support of that regime deserves criticism. So does aspects of U.S. support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. So does aspects of the current support of Israel. It is not, however, State Terrorism by the United States and therefore doesn't belong in this article. --Tbeatty 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Secondary source: What has remained invisible in the past 30 years of US sponsored state terror is now part of a tragic and bitter record of human rights abuses world-wide. From US support of Indonesia in its massive invasion and killing in East Timor in the 1970's to the genocidal campaign against Mayan Indians in Guatemala by US backed military dictatorships and the US induced contra attacks against Nicaragua in the 1980's, US foreign policy has undermined the rule of international law and violated fundamental human rights.

The Visible and The Invisible: US-Sponsored State Terror - Fran Shor

Fran Shor bio:

• Professor in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies at Wayne State University in Detroit
• Teaches courses in the fields of historical and cultural studies
• Fulbright Distinguished Scholars Award to New Zealand
• Visiting Faculty Fellowship to the University of Melbourne

Bibliography:

• Communal Organization and Social Transition: A Case Study from the Counterculture of the Sixties and Seventies - Society for Utopian Studies
• Bush-League Spectacles: Empire, Politics, and Culture in Bushwhacked America - Factory School
• Transcending the Myths of Patriotic Militarized Masculinity: Armoring, Wounding, and Transfiguration in Ron Kovic's Born on the Fourth of July - The Journal of Men's Studies
• Utopianism and Radicalism in a Reforming America: 1888-1918 - Greenwood Press
• Cultural identity and Americanization: The life history of a Jewish anarchist - University Press of Hawaii
• The IWW and oppositional politics in World War I: Pushing the system beyond its limits - Radical History Review

Published in the following journals, some duplicates from above:

• Radical History Review
• International Labor and Working Class History
• Journal of American Culture
• Journal of Men’s Studies
• Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture
• Prospects
• Labour History
• Film & History
• The Insurgent Sociologist
• Utopian Studies

To top the cake a member of the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights. Now that it appears its not undue weight to give a section of this article to two authors who apparently belive Guatemala was state terrorism on behalf of the US. I will obviously have more to come, this was just to dispute the last fragment of wiki-lawyering. --74.73.16.230 15:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty wrote above: "But if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." I want to clarify this as I think it might be helpful. Are you saying that, in your opinion, this point applies to the views of anyone who accuses the US of state terrorism, i.e. there are essentially no sources that can be included in this article because it violates undue weight? If not, what is your threshold for inclusion here? Better yet, what is an example of an acceptable source that accuses the US of state terrorism and is already in the article? With respect to Guatemala specifically, there were a couple of sources that accused the US of state terrorism prior to that whole section being deleted, and now there seem to be one or two more. Is your argument that, no matter how many sources are found, they can not be added in on the Guatemala topic because the argument that the US committed state terrorism in Guatemala is only held by an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority?" If so, how have you determined that that argument is only held by an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority"--i.e. what sources have you located that express the majority view on this topic, and how have you determined that that is, in fact, the majority view? I'm genuinely interested in a response to these points (I think it might help us to move forward), from Tbeatty but also from others who agree with his view.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is not Tbeatty's "opinion"...it is policy..see the undue weight clause of NPOV [5]--MONGO 11:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already included two academic sources not including the one that was already in the section when it was blanked. It seems undue weight does not apply anymore. --SixOfDiamonds 13:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The opinions of a few do not outweigh the mainstream view. That is why there is the undue weight clause of NPOV.--MONGO 14:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct so until you prove its undue weight I do not see a problem. I have proven multiple academics from a variety of backgrounds and fields see it this way. I await your proof that it is undue weight. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at what you add when the article is unprotected.--MONGO 15:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, but you cannot keep information that meets WP:RS and WP:V and has been published out because of Undue Weight, as the section points out, emphasis mine: If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I can further give more sources of discussion that are WP:RS such as Counter Punch articles etc. However I am presenting the most academic writers I find only to meet the requirements here. If preferred I can provide 5 more sources that meet WP:RS, just I was not able to verify their academic backgrounds or bio's. Anyway per the very section you are quoting, it seems this material can be developed further which I will now take up the task of doing. Further I hope you do read it, much like everyone who visits to read this article. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

All you are doing is still a violation of SYNTH. Wikipedia is not the place to promote radical views and pass them off as mainstream ones. To do so is a violation of undue weight.--MONGO 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH, the quotes are given above. Since I have not written anything yet, I am not sure how I could have violated WP:SYNTH. You did check the source right? --SixOfDiamonds 15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

PS Undue Weight does not say you cannot state radical views, especially when they have "been presented and discussed elsewhere" Further the idea that the US committed terrorism in Guatemala is far from "radical" I have already presented 3 sources and you can search amazon.com if you really wish to see the wealth of information on it. --SixOfDiamonds 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've outlined it above. Numerous times. That quote applies to all viewpoints in all articles, including this one. It's simple really. One basic piece is that the source can't use their own personal definition of state terrorism. Put their personal definition in their biography and you can repeat any fringe theories they hold. There are people who would define our immigration laws as "state terrorism" or our minimum wage and hour laws as "state terrorism." Heck, I'd bet Noam Chomsky already does. But that does not make those claims valid for a state terrorism article. They are fringe minority viewpoints. Find a peer reviewed journal on terrorism and find the article that names the U.S. as a state sponsor of terrorism. --Tbeatty 05:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, will we rename the article to "U.S. sponsored State Terrorists" if that source is accepted since that's that claim? I guess Guatamala may fit that unless civil wars don't count as someone on my talk page claimed about Bosnia. --Tbeatty 05:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you quote the passage where he gives his personal definition of terrorism and states that that definition will be the one in use throughout the paper. Thank you. I couldnt find it, but it seems you did. --74.73.16.230 10:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To Tbeatty, I'm trying to get some specificity here (which I did not really get from your last response, and which I'm asking for in a sincere attempt to understand your viewpoint), so let me narrow my questions down and hopefully we can go from there (i.e. I might have other questions, as might you, but if you can answer these directly that would be great).

1) Since, according to Wikipedia, "state terrorism is a controversial term, with no agreed on definition," and since you say that authors cannot use "their own personal definition of state terrorism," which definition or definitions of state terrorism do you require us to use for this article and why?

2) You seem to say that in order to source this article we must "find a peer reviewed journal on terrorism." What specific aspects of Wikipedia policy (for example sentences or phrases in WP:V or WP:RS) are you relying upon in order to argue that the only sources that are acceptable for this article are peer reviewed journals on terrorism? If I'm wrong in seeing that as your argument, what other sources would be acceptable to you?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The opninions you have presented violate Undue Weight. WP:V and WP:RS are the minimum test. The next test is undue weight. Any peer reviewed journal would be acceptable. --Tbeatty 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you did not answer either question, which were quite specific and straightforward. I am not asking you to comment on any specific content. Please do not simply say, WP:V, WP:RS, and undue weight as listing out these well-known policies does not explain your position with respect to this particular article. Let me try again. There is no agreed upon definition for state terrorism. Which definition or definitions of state terrorism do you require us to use for this article and why? What specific policy (a sentence or a phrase from a policy) are you invoking to argue that only peer reviewed journals on terrorism are appropriate sources for this article (as opposed to, for example, published books, or articles in mainstream news sources)? Let me know if this is unclear, but I think these are fairly basic (and crucial) questions.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite interested in this subject and would like to contribute. Here's a couple peer reviewed journals I found relating to terrorism: Studies in Conflict and Terrorism (EBSCO access required) and the Terrorism Research Journal. Although that latter has yet to be published, it is peer reviewed although it mentions nowhere on the page that it is. I also have access to hundreds of subscriber-only journals and archives, so I'm here if anybody needs any sources pulled. east.718 17:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Title

Since there was no consensus for Divestment/Travb/anon's page more from Allegations of state terrorism by the United States to State terrorism by the United States, what is the justification for its continuing to be under that title? Note that I am not asking if there is a consensus to restore it to Allegations of.... I am asking what justification there is, absent consensus for the previous move, for it to remain under this title. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I also support a move to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. east.718 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not have a problem with the current title (I do not know the history of when it was moved from that to this), but I have a feeling that more people are comfortable with the "Allegations of..." title based on earlier straw polls and numerous comments in the AfD (I think somewhere I also saw a suggestion to begin the title with "Alleged..." which is about the same thing but more succinct). If folks want to move to one of these titles, or if there is a creative suggestion for an alternate title which would not fundamentally alter the meaning of this article as some previous suggestions would have, then I am all for that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. - Merzbow 18:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I should also add, though I assume this is what Tom is trying to do, that we should come to some form of consensus before any page move happens, unlike, apparently, earlier page moves. Not that everyone will agree obviously, but let's be sure to let everyone who wants to weigh in and, if we are going to move it, let's determine which specific wording we want to use (I think "alleged" might actually be better, for example). Obviously just because earlier moves were done without discussion does not mean we should repeat that mistake.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not asking for a vote to restore the title. I am asking on what basis it is being kept at the current title, since there was no consensus to move it here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I did not see Tom's edit of his comment before I posted that last note. I disagree with Tom and do think it's better to talk this out and come to some consensus (which I think will be for a page move) rather than moving this unilaterally (even if it was moved without consensus before, I don't know whether that is true or not or what the lengthy move history of this page is). If we can come to a bit if agreement I think it would help us move forward on the article generally if a number of editors can agree on a change together. Still I'll try to answer his question. I think the main argument/justification for this title is that it is common to use a straightforward title even if a topic is controversial, i.e. rather than titling this "allegations of" the article should simply make it clear that the idea that there is something called "state terrorism by the United States" is highly contested and by no means an established fact. For example we have an article called Resurrection appearances of Jesus rather than Alleged Resurrection appearances of Jesus, even though obviously there are only "allegations" (though that's kind of a weird way to say it) that the resurrection of Jesus occurred and obviously it is very controversial. That's my view on it, though others may articulate a stronger rationale, as keeping this title as opposed to moving it to alleged or allegations of is not crucial for me. Also obviously there is some precedence for the latter formulations, such as Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I support a move to "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" per above and precedent. AgentFade2Black 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tom, there never was any consensus. The only way the radicals get their way here is by edit warring (for which three have recently been blocked for 3RR) or by using multiple IP's and sock accounts. That is why we need to figure out a new title, that is if the article isn't renominated for deletion since it is now obvious that Travb canvassed for keep votes which makes the last Afd null and void.--MONGO 21:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another AfD would obviously fail (the previous one was commented upon by dozens of editors, most of whom were not canvassed) so I do hope that strategy is not pursued. The closing admin specifically noted that "AfD is and has shown not to be the solution." MONGO, which name change would you be interested in? That's what we're discussing in this section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, we are discussing the justification for the name change made by Travb and his sock account. There wasn't any. I'll try to come up with a name change suggesting and am considering different ones now.--MONGO 21:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We have already had a name change, against consensus, from Allegation of...' to State terrorism by.... Since that was forced against consensus, that name change should be undone. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Move back to "allegations..." please. Arkon 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree.Ultramarine 21:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

move. The title without "allegations" is just too POV.--Sefringle^Talk 22:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, it really would not bother me to change the title, but I did respond to Tom's question as to an argument for why this title is appropriate, and perhaps others will as well. Rather than simply "undoing" a name change that happened some time back (even if it was against consensus) I think we should come to some agreement about what the name of this article should be. Think of this article as having "no title" at this point and we are trying to figure out what the title will be right here right now. I think most folks will weigh in in favor of "allegations of..." (that's the direction of the current comments) but other options might emerge. We don't have to rush this, let's give people a chance to weigh in and try to come to a conclusion in the next day or two. I think we can work together on this and therefore should really make an effort to do so--this is my main point.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to moving to "Allegations of" as such but I object to such a move as it avoids the current requirement of unambiguous claims. The article can legitimately be easily expanded to many times it's current size if we include allegations as well as what is currently included. Such a title also makes most opposing views irrelevant. Those editors opposing claims now would not have a leg to stand on when argueing for exclusion of material. Wayne 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oddly, what is currently included is little more than opinions, not facts. The problem with this article is that until the radical POV is removed from here, it is an egregious violation of multiple policies.--MONGO 07:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets clean it up then. I agree, though, that the title should be moved back to reflect the consensus, and that the focus and content of the entry should be worked out here on Talk. Tewfik^Talk 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

looks like there is consensus to move the page.--Sefringle^Talk 04:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it. Is "Allegations of" better than "Alleged?" I know the former is the old title, but the latter strikes me as more succinct. Whatever people prefer is fine with me. And I think Wayne makes a good point above, i.e. we should agree that if we change the title to "allegations," this does not lower the bar for inclusion of material. I think there's still obviously disagreement about what can be included and what cannot, but the point is that any old "allegation" cannot be thrown in there--they have to come from notable sources at the very least.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there's unanimous support for this, I'll go ahead and move it. Someone else has to do it later, CSD's really backed up now. east.718 08:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I do apologise, I missed this discussion. If this is truly the consensus I'll move it back, even though I personally think (and have said so several times) that this is a lousy title. --John 21:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the current title, but I do think editors clearly favor the "allegations of" title and therefore we should move it there. This thread has been around for a few days so I think people have had time to comment if they want to, and the consensus seems to be for a move.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There was never a consensus for the move to 'State terrorism by...' and it does need to go back to Allegations of...' Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh you selectively forget the sorid history of this page. There has never been consensus to do anything. We had a straw poll on this (which has been archived), and no one agreed on the title. MONGO, who supports this move, clearly states that he simply wants to delete this page. I never canvassed at all in the last AFD. Ask Morton about the rules about canvassing. He ws once blocked then unblocked for what I did. I simply let other know about the latest AfD by the group of deletionist here, who will never, ever stop until this page is deleted, becuase it does not match their own POVs. Divestment 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Struck comment by indefblocked sockpuppet. east.718 02:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So far East718, John, me, and Pablothegreat85 have moved the page to Allegations of... User:Uga Buga Man, now blocked as a sock, also moved the page - and I don't see how you of all people can complain about a special-purpose account moving the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Divestment this discussion was ongoing for a few days and you could have spoken up sooner, or even complained here on talk after the move was made, but instead you chose to move it back without discussion. Obviously a lot of people who support the name change are in favor of deletion, but others who supported seem interested in working on the article. Though I preferred to keep this title, there is no question in my mind that most editors supported a move. If one skims through the last AfD--which saw a huge number of comments from outside editors--it is apparent that many folks supported a title change. I think we have to respect that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The current title reads as if the US is making the accusations. Rewording would most definately be in order. Maybe Allegations of United States Terrorism or Allegations of United States State Terrorism or Allegations of State Terrorism Committed by the United States. I don't know, it just seems to me that the title would imply they are the accusers.Wiegrajo 08:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Current dispute

UltraMarine added back contested material from the Anti-Chomsky reader, again. This has been discussed at length, and its addition is opposed by several editors. I reverted it. However, Mongo has restored it under the rational that rebutting POV arguments is required for NPOV. Yes, I agree. However, he may not be arware of the reason why it was removed, and the extesive discussion about why it doesn't belong. It doesn't belong because it DOES NOT reubutt any arguments. It only attacks Chomsky. It does not even belong in the sections its being put under.

It does not follow logically to included material just to attack the author, instead of the relevant question/POV/claim that the author is making. It does not present a rubuttal to POV, and thus does not create NPOV. That is why the additions of Ultramarin to bash Chomsky, such as Chomky's "ethical predisposition",, or that "Chomky is no pacifist,' under the topic of "the US own definition," of terrorism is not valid, is off topic, irrelevant, and has been opposed. To be clear, Mongo's reasoning is correct-- disagreement about the authors claims, i.e. which the author is being cited for are valid to include per NPOV--however, Ultramarine's off topic anti-Chomsky reader additions have to go, as it does not do this in any way. I suggest, Mongo, that you consider this and revert yourself, to respect consensus, and this point. If we find counter POV about Chomsky's claims, on topic, then that would be prefectly fine to add.Giovanni33 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's unproductive for you to just edit by reverting. You are an experienced editor. If you start trying to do 'your three reverts every day" you know where that will lead. Try to work with others and incorporate what you want with what they want. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think some of this stuff can stay, but it does need to be culled down a bit. Some things simply go off topic, for example the fact that Chomsky is not a pacifist is simply not pertinent (it would be akin to saying, for example, since you are not a pacifist, your condemnation of Al Qaeda is irrelevant) and the Philippines/Vietnam GDP stuff is way, way off-topic. The Windschuttle stuff should be cut down quite a bit but the basic points preserved. The Sam Harris quote is interesting, but I wonder if the context is appropriate? I don't have this book, so I'm wondering if the editor who introduced this material (I think it was Ultramarine) can briefly describe the context in which Harris was speaking of Chomsky? Specifically, when he refers to "Chomsky's account" what account is he referring to? I also am not exactly clear on how this fits into this article. Chomsky, and others, are clearly arguing that at times the US fully intended for its policies to terrify civilians, which seems different to me than what Harris is talking about (I'm wondering if he's referring Chomsky's take on the US bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which Chomsky viewed as a horrendous murderous act even though bombing it was essentially a mistake--we don't have a discussion of that here so it might be a bit off topic). If the Harris source can be clarified a bit and really is relevant I think it could be included here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It was the nations only domestic manufacturer of pharmaceuticals, what sort of an effect do you suppose destroying it would have? Werner Daum[6] & Near East Foundation estimate the attack "probably led to tens of thousands of deaths" of Sudanese civilians. LamontCranston 5:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no official defintion of these terms, we can only discuss how individuals make up their own definitions and then make claims that certain acts pass their own defintions. This discussion should certainly also include criticisms regarding how these individuals use or do not use these terms. So that Chomsky argues that some forms of terrorism are acceptable or that he argues that intentions do not matter is certainly part of the discussion of Chomsky's personal definition of terrorism and the claims he makes regarding which acts have passed his own definition.Ultramarine 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree, but would you agree that the Philippines/Vietnam GDP stuff etc. is unnecessary and off topic, and if it was you who added in the Harris quote can you quickly describe the context for it? I'm not convinced that it's fully relevant to this article, but if I knew the context in which Harris was criticizing Chomsky maybe the relevance would become more clear.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the book at the moment but the quote is quite clear. Harris accuses Chomsky of taking no consideration of intentions in his accusations. Regarding the Philippines/Vietnam comparison, that is part of the discussion of Chomsky's claims that some forms of terror are acceptable. It there is anything regarding the Philippines that should be removed, it the personal and OE essay in Philippines section.Ultramarine 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the immediately relevant Windschuttle material a bit from its currently massively abbreviated version, but not as much as it was earlier. I personally don't think the "pacifist" quote and the Harris quote are necessary. - Merzbow 23:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, they show what Chomsky personal definition is and how he uses it.Ultramarine 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt even talk about a definition of terrorism. It attacks Chomsky for consistency, not taking into account "intentions" (as is alleged by the critic), and makes other claims about Chomsky---all off topic. Adding it amounts to endorsing an ad hominen fallacy. I know you disagree, but no one else agrees with you about this, and we've gone around and around already about it. Stop adding it against consensus.Giovanni33 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The pacifist quote clearly does not fit, it's just not relevant whether Chomsky is a pacifist or not. I could see the Harris quote being appropriate, but at the very least it was not worked in properly and the context is still unclear. I'm really not trying to be picky here, but the Harris material seems to be about a separate issue--saying Chomsky is wrong to equate unintentional casualties with intentional terrorist acts--which we do not really cover here. We are using Chomsky for his comments on Nicaragua v. United States, which involved actions on the part of the US which were quite intentional, and for his general comments about the US being "a leading terrorist state," particularly when US definitions of terrorism are applied. Thus material calling Chomsky hypocritical for labeling US actions state terrorism but not the actions of other states (the Windschuttle stuff) is clearly relevant (as would be material arguing with his characterization of Nicaragua v. US, some of which has been included from the anti-Chomsky reader). I understand Ultramarine does not have the book on hand, but I'm still unclear as to what Harris is referring to when he talks about "Chomsky's account" (Chomsky has written or spoken 30 different accounts on practically every foreign policy topic imaginable). I think it is important to clarify this. Quite frankly though, I think it should be easy to find other, far more relevant scholars than Harris (his field is quite different) who argue with Chomsky.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This material was added against consensus. At least until we come to agreement about what is appropriate, it should be removed.Giovanni33 02:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)I agree. I'll take a look and fix

Unfortunately you removed all of it. I added back my abbreviated version of the Chomsky material, which includes the portion that has achieved wide support. The other two non-Chomsky bits you removed were appropriately sourced and of proper length, and relevant; there was no reason to delete them, so I restored them. - Merzbow 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources?

Why are we using Michel Chossudovsky and youtube videos as sources? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This ties into the issue of what qualifies as a reliable source here and what doesn't. Certainly many of the cites some people are endlessly trying to push into the lead and elsewhere don't qualify under even the most liberal reading of policy and guideline (see Talk:State_terrorism_by_the_United_States/Archive_10#Unreliable_sources for more this. Above in a recent conversation with Bigtimepeace (who appears to be receptive on principle to cleaning up some of the sourcing) I said that "I think the criteria should be that either the writer have significant and relevant academic credentials, or the publisher be very notable (either a book by a press with major distribution, or an article in a major periodical or academic journal, or an unsigned article by a very notable group like Amnesty)". Random unsigned articles by minor NGOs, articles by priests, articles on foreign policy by professors working in a completely different field who have only self-published on the subject, articles by activists with no credentials in activist magazines, etc. should all be disallowed. - Merzbow 00:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. At the least, sources number 5, 8, 12, 14, and 15 in this version should go immediately. east.718 00:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I certainly agree on those. Referring to that same version, what about 1 (unsigned article by non-notable rights group), 6 (article by a priest on a Catholic news site), 10 (unsigned article by non-notable French activist group), 13 (blog by one Richard Heinberg, an expert on oil depletion), 19 (article by a non-notable human-rights group), and 20 (Chossudovsky article, noted 9/11 conspiracy-pusher whose foreign-policy work is completely self-published it seems). - Merzbow 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

After a quick glance I don't see a problem with removal of the sources east718 listed (twenty sources for the opening is just not necessary). The Chossudovsky source could probably safely be deleted as well, though he actually has a fair amount of respect and credibility and I think would qualify as a notable source. He obviously seems to have latched onto/propagated some of the 9/11 conspiracy junk, but I remember being aware of him prior to 9/11. It would really depend on what he said, and obviously the fact that he propagates 9/11 conspiracy theories would have to be pointed out. Easiest is probably to remove the source.

Merzbow and I had discussed the sourcing issues above and I basically fully agree with his criteria for what is and is not a good source as he describes above. A couple of minor clarifications/additions which I would not think would be too controversial: 1) "Relevant academic credentials" for an author should, I think, not mean they must necessarily hold a university position, one could have the relevant credentials if they worked as an expert or lead researcher in the relevant topic area for a major NGO like Human Rights Watch, or if they worked for a respected think tank (basically a think tank that actually gets frequently quoted and cited by others). 2) One other source which I think should be valid would be articles in newspapers or mainstream journals/magazines which detail the views of various experts on the topic. For example if a New York Times article from the 1980s said "Leading Academics Accuse US of State Terrorism in Nicaragua" (I'm making this up obviously) and then went on to quote the views of various experts who held this view, I think that would obviously be fine as a source. Otherwise I think Merzbow lays it out well (let me know if anyone has a problem with the two points I've made here) and I think it's good for us to try to get on the same page like this as to what sources are valid and which are not. I'm still in favor of cleaning out those sources which are poor in quality and replacing them with better sources, or deleting the material if other sources cannot be found. Obviously I think we should discuss these changes as we go, hopefully using the above criteria as a guide.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add those sources, they were there before. I merely turned links without names into proper cites. Merzbow, I agree with your second comment too, except for #19 which I consider notable, and #1, which doesn't match your description (not that I oppose it's removal though). east.718 02:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Merzbow's proposed deleted sources, source 1 actually details the views of prominent British MP George Galloway and I think it's certainly appropriate for this article, 6 (the priest) can go, 10 I cannot say as I don't know if this French group is notable or not, 13 could be removed, 19 seems on the cusp of notability and probably qualifies, I don't know enough to say, and 20 could probably be deleted, though as I said Chossudovsky probably does qualify as a notable source.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I misspoke on #1, which I agree is notable; I meant to point out #3, which doesn't seem to be by a notable group. - Merzbow 03:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I could be convinced of 19 (and 3) if someone can show why these groups are notable in the way that Amnesty, etc. are notable. (Neither seem to have Wikipedia articles, which is usually a good indicator). I think the standard for notability for articles by independent organizations (where the article author is unspecified or not notable in and of himself) should be high; they are not peer-reviewed or fact-checked publications, they don't hold academic degrees. - Merzbow 03:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Number three could definitely go, 19 I'm not sure. We could probably do a Nexis search to see if that group has been quoted much in news stories, if not they would definitely not be notable. I can't open the PDF file for some reason and thus don't even know why this source was put there--if it's for a trivial reason it's probably not necessary.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No disagreements here. Here's the publication in HTML; I found one mentioning Redress on EBSCO: The 1999-2000 presidential elections in Chile by Hughes and Parsons in Electoral Studies. Lexis turned up nothing, but ProQuest National Newspapers dug up over 800 articles, which I'm not looking through. east.718 04:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the notability of Redress (which still doesn't seem notable, I'm not sure what you're searching on, but "redress" is a common word in English; a search for "redress.org" at findarticles.com turns up nothing), I don't see where in that very large report they accuse the US of state terrorism or of funding terrorist groups. Can anyone point out the specific page? - Merzbow 05:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've killed the links whose removal seems noncontroversial. east.718 06:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits have been good, thanks. But, I think it may be a little too soon to remove those sources. I'd let other editors get a chance to comment, and I will review them, as well by tomorrow.Giovanni33 07:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your changes by accident, restored them and removed a section that had serious POV issues and had never been discussed here.--MONGO 06:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You've been doing a lot of reverting. Note that you are currently at least at three reverts. The section you removed, seemed fine to me and was sourced. What is your objection, specifically? Also, your edit summaries are not accurate. The version you reverted to was NOT the consensus version, as evidenced by the introduction alone.Giovanni33 06:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As have you Giovanni33. The version I reverted to was no less a consensus as the one you have been reverting to.--MONGO 07:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks East718, looks good to me.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like we are approaching consensus on these links. Note that these links aren't just present in the intro, many are also later in the article. My inclination is to give it until tomorrow afternoon for further comments and then remove the agreed-upon links. - Merzbow 08:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why I suggested (to MONGO at least) that we clean up the references before debating them. Just in the first ten references I did, none of them had titles, one was an Amazon link instead of a cite, etc. Several sources are repeated instead of using the name="foo" format; identifying and discussing the text sourced to these would be easier then. east.718 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the link clean up actually helps a lot (thanks 718) because it's easier to determine the source at a glance. Giovanni and perhaps others want a bit more time to look at these, but I agree there is basic agreement about removing the above discussed intro links. This process will probably prove to be a bit easier for the intro than for links later in the article, since links in the body will be sources for very substantive points (whereas whether it's 20 or 10 links in the intro is not that important). I think if the validity of a source/link in the body is challenged, as it will be, and if it is the sole source for a substantive point, a bit of time (not a lot) should be given to find a better source before simply deleting article text. If a claim in the article text is poorly sourced, and if an alternative source cannot be found, then obviously we should delete the claim in the article. I think this is the way to proceed. It will take longer, but I think it will allow us to greatly improve this article and minimize these highly destructive edit wars.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll only remove these cites later in the article if they are redundant (IIRC many, if not all were), and those that aren't, I'll put a fact-tag next to them to give time for replacement. - Merzbow 17:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at the sources that were proposed for deltion, and then restored, here:[7] I appreciate you giving other editors more time to look at them and comment. I would be ok with the ones you deleted, except these two: Should the United States Renounce Terrorism? by Richard Heinberg, and http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html, History of U.S. Military Interventions since 1890, by Prof. Grossman. They both are examples that present the POV that the US is guilty of acts of state terrorism. However, I'm open to hear the reasons why these should also be removed, and will, ofcourse, abide by consensus on the question. All the others you had removed, I'm ok with removing them, speaking for myself only. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Heinberg cite is that it's from his blog, which triggers the WP:V requirement that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." He seems to be an expert on oil and ecology, not foreign policy, plus I can't find evidence his foreign policy work has been published in reliable publications. As for the Grossman cite, it doesn't qualify for the same reasons - it's a self-published work by a geography professor, and I can't find evidence his opinions on foreign policy have been published in reliable publications. - Merzbow 02:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why I removed them. Looking more closely though, this source, which initially seemed nonsensical to me, links to a lot of US-published information that we can use—perhaps on a future section on Chile. I'll give those reports a once-over and come back here. east.718 02:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely comfortable with the removal of the Heinberg and Grossman sources for the reasons mentioned by Merzbow.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

State terrorism and Propaganda

This section is giving way too much weight to a single source, Richard Falk, almost an entire page. This can easily be compressed to 1/3 of its length. - Merzbow 08:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. We should keep the section, but syncopate Falk's opinion and bring in other sources. east.718 08:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhpas it can be trimmed down a bit, or add other sources to balance. Lets wait for the editor who put it there to comment. I dont want another round of edit waring. But can someone please restore the consensus/long term introduction? The current one is terrible, barely coherent, and POV. D. Horowitz is not a reliable source, using terms like "Chomsky cult" is lunancy and insulting (very fringe POV), and the details of the US vs. Nicar. are likewise charactertured by the same source. Please restore the previous version and lets work out an appropriate balanced intro.Giovanni33 08:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Merzbow. Falk is exactly the kind of source we want in this article (I don't think there is anyone who would argue that he fails WP:RS), but the material drawing on him should be much shorter. There are some very useful passages, but I'm not even sure if a section called "State terrorism and propaganda" is warranted. Not everything quoted from Falk relates to this issue, so perhaps the section could be retitled or, more likely, pieces of this could be incorporated in other sections. The sentence, "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism" might actually go well in the intro (a specific quote from a notable author, other than Chomsky, would be useful there). That would actually be an interesting topic to explore, but I think only if Falk has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism, and preferably if others have talked about this as well. I also think some of Falk's discussion of terrorism by state vs. non-state actors (and how the US basically does not recognize the former) could go in one of the previous two sections, though those might have to be tweaked a bit in order to do so. Props to the editor who found this material, but we do need to slim it down and perhaps chop it up and disperse it in a couple of different sections. Perhaps different editors can make a few stabs at that, including BernardL who added this originally.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points and lots of good material, that even if trimmed down can go into other sections. I will add about Hiroshima dn Nagasaki, that its not only Falk, Chomsky, Parenti, but a whole host of other reputable scholars have given the opinon that the nuclear bombing of Japan were acts of state terror, albeit, in the context of war, but this is a notable pov. I've argued for a section on reporting this, and have supplied numerous sources to prove my point. The editors declinded to add this because it was in the context of a war, and state terrorism are actions that generally occur outside it.Giovanni33 08:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you editors believe that continuing to make this article more POV will somehow diminish the reason there is a NPOV dispute on this page?--MONGO 08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reporting all relevant POV's does not make it more POV, it makes it more comprehensive, and is in keeping with NPOV. There is no such thing as a pov that is NPOV. Nuetrality is acheived by reporting on what various sourses say, from all POV's. We are talking about adding more POV's, which is a good thing in this direction.Giovanni33 09:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with MONGO's comment, reply is to Giovanni) Right, and that's an important POV regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki that would obviously have to be represented in a strong fashion if we want to have a section like that (i.e. it's war and therefore cannot be state terrorism) but of course Falk and others would presumably argue that dropping an atom bomb on a civilian population, knowing full well that it will cause mass death, and indeed actually counting on that as a means to terrify the citizens and their leaders, is a form of state terrorism. I don't even know if I agree with Falk about that, but certainly it's a view worth discussing so long as the opposing view is discussed (I might be able to help find sources for the "it's not state terrorism" view actually). Giovanni, if you are going to work on a section like that I would suggest sticking it on the talk page first so we can discuss and revise it before possibly moving it into the article. Obviously it will be quite controversial.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I agree and will work on such a section. I also note that while its true that acts of state terrorism do generally occurre outside a context of war, it doesnt make there are not some notable exceptions where it occurs within it. This is a case in point. And that we hare notable scholars who argue exactly that, can be reported on. I am all for balancing it with all POV, relevant to the issue.Giovanni33 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And to MONGO, I don't see why a section on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have to make the article more POV, so long as there truly are multiple reliable sources who take the view that Falk does on the question, and so long as their view is strongly balanced by the perspective that dropping the a-bombs was not state terrorism (indeed, as many historians argue, was a good thing). If it is a one-sided section with Falk and his ilk as the only sources then obviously it would be unacceptable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I assumed you wouldn't. Too bad the U.S. didn't have the bombs a year earlier...we could have ended that war long sooner. Someone explain how you contend that adding more POV and deleting efforts to get this article to be more NPOV, as was done here by an anonymous IP [8], is making this article meet our policies better.--MONGO 10:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

May have something to do with that ad hominem issue. You know attacking the person, not the arguments we discussed a few sections up and found to be inappropriate. --SixOfDiamonds 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Then don't do that.--MONGO 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The section the anon removed, that you left the dif for, is of a ad hominem on Chomsky. The complaints are not based on the definition presented ... --SixOfDiamonds 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see, so Chomsky is to be taken as a de facto expert and no evidence to show that his work is biased is allowed? That sounds like efforts to refute the misleading innuendo in this article (in an effort to get this thing to be NPOV) will be removed by anonymous editors who have made nary a single contribution to the talkpage. Or maybe they have...seems a lot of IP's revert back to the US=evil empire tenant.--MONGO 16:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I am not really sure what you are talking about, you just agreed it was an ad hominem and that it shouldn't be done. Now you are saying that it is ok? No of course its not allowed on a page that is not about Chomsky to argue if Chomsky is biased, however direct criticism to the section is permitted, such as a critique of the definition he is being cited for. This was discussed above, you may want to continue in its relevant section. --SixOfDiamonds 16:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agreed to nothing. The edit done by the anon IP removed accurate and cited material which did critique the neutrality of those who were cited as having the opinions that the U.S. has engaged in state sponsorship of terrorism.--MONGO 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. I said it was an ad hominem, you said: "Then don't do that.--MONGO 16:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)" I took this to mean they shouldn't have had put that ad hominem. For a comparison, would you find it ok to put critiques of Horowitz then under the Horowitz critique of Chomsky? Even better the passage was sources to the Anti-Chomsky reader, surely that fails WP:RS. --SixOfDiamonds 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that that the POV/"Chomsky cult," "police states,' introduction has been restored, again. I would like to point out that there was no consensus for this version. The anon IP restored what was the long standing version that had the most consensus--worked on by many editors--- before the article was protected, right after the POV additions were added by UltraMarine. The intro that has been restored, just now, is part of those major and contested additions made to the article by UltraMarine-- against consensus, just before the article was protected. All of these additions have already been fixed, except for that introduction, which was just restored, mistakenly I believe, based on a belief that the anon IP was acting out of consensus. He wasn't in this case. The previous introduction should thus be restored, as there is no consensus to use David Horowitz POV claims, as a realiable source.Giovanni33 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Giovanni33, I appreciate your speaking up. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed --SixOfDiamonds 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I only meant to cull the sources but accidentally got the second half of the intro too. east.718 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you did good. You restored relevent critique of the POV of Chomsky et al, and restored a more neutral tone to the article.--MONGO 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-reverted myself before I read that; do with the second half of the intro what you want but don't do a blind revert as I fixed up all of the lead's sources and removed a couple which aren't reliable—namely an oil depletion expert's and an economics professor's blogs. east.718 17:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, East718. You've been the best, most productive editor for this article. I'm sure editors on both sides of the fence are thankful for the much needed, and moderating presence you've had here.Giovanni33 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we need more editors like you here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. east.718 22:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for semi-protection. The IP edits are becoming disruptive. - Merzbow 17:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Declined, ill-advisedly in my opinion. If the IP edits continue and some admin thinks to fully-protect this, don't. (The last admin to fully-protect over an IP-fueled edit war wouldn't even deign to respond to my query on their talk page). - Merzbow 20:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection would have been useful, full protection would definitely be a bad idea since we are making some progress.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added back the sourced information. Remember WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. I have made some changes to the text to clarify the relevance.Ultramarine 23:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And, I've removed them. Please don't add it back until there is some consensus to do so. That is not producive. Currently there is ongoing discussion about what would be appropriate to add for balance and NPOV. Your additions are currently opposed by most editors for reasons that have already been explained numerous times.Giovanni33 00:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this quote is correct, or correctly cited: "To Plan and conduct covert operations which are conducted or sponsored by this government..." under the section (tendentiously titled) "Application of the United States government's own definitions". Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no objection to compressing the Falk material in principle, I gave it a shot. Mostly the quotes were trimmed, his main points are preserved. - Merzbow 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a revised introduction

Okay, I have a proposal for a new intro which needs to be worked on more, but I wanted to put what I have so far out there (I'm not at all wild about the specific wording at points, but I think you'll get the drift). The intro has been the victim of a lot of reversions, and I think it would be good for us to get that straight. Right now there is no criticism of Chomsky's position on Nicaragua v. United States in the intro (actually Ultramarine appears to have added it back, but I have a different version) and I think there obviously should be. I've also added some new stuff. Here it is, and I'll try to explain what I was trying to do and what I think is missing after the proposed text. The first two sentences are the same (including sources) though I have removed some italics which seemed unnecessary.

The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by some legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations, among others. Linguist and U.S. foreign policy critic Noam Chomsky argues that the U.S. has been legally found guilty of international terrorism based on the verdict by the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v. United States, which condemned the United States federal government not for terrorism per se, but for its "unlawful use of force". Critics of Chomsky's position on the ICJ ruling respond that "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. In this case the U.S. government "strongly indicated its view that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy."

In the post 9-11 era, but also earlier during the Cold War, critics have argued that the U.S. government has exhibited a "double-standard" with respect to terrorism which has eroded its credibility (one recent example being the case of Luis Posada Carriles). Toward the end of the Cold War, Princeton professor Richard Falk accused the U.S. and other First World countries of associating terrorism "exclusively with Third World revolutionaries and their leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries" while concealing their own reliance on terrorist methods. Writing during Ronald Reagan's presidency, Falk pointed out what he deemed the "hypocrisy of an Administration that portrays [unelected Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi] as barbaric while preparing to inflict terrorism on a far grander scale."

References
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In order to put this together, I've obviously cannibalized some of the material from the section "State terrorism and propaganda" which is based solely on Richard Falk. I think that's okay because that section needs to be slimmed down if not deleted, but some of Falk's thoughts should be included at various points in the article as he is an excellent source. What's missing in the second paragraph is a response to the positions articulated. A brief counterpoint to the arguments about Carriles would be useful. More important is a response to Falk, which could happen in any number of ways, but should probably come from a source speaking specifically of how the US comported itself during the Cold War. I would particularly like to hear suggestions on what we could put here.

In case you could not tell, I tend to think of issues like "state terrorism" from a historical vantage point, and I think the article could benefit from that kind of approach. I think the Cold War should be specifically mentioned in the introduction. Many of the key allegations in this article relate to the Cold War era, and I think we should consider structuring this article in a chronological fashion perhaps like this: 1) Pre-Cold War (if we have anything there, right now we don't) 2) Cold War 3) Post-Cold War and (possibly) 4) Post-9/11. If we frame many of these events in terms of the Cold War, I think it will quite frankly make it easier to put in sources objecting to those who accuse the US of state terrorism. Many who object to such accusations point out the threat of international communism and the "state terrorism" of the Soviet Union as key contexts when considering US actions in, for example, Guatemala or Western Europe. Arguments along these lines have already been added or proposed for addition. I think it will be easier to express them if we have one broad section about the Cold War, including a section intro which sets up the general debate. It's possible some of the Falk stuff I've added to my proposed intro would go better there.

Anyhow, enough (too much?) said. I welcome comments on this proposed intro and also additions, changes, etc. Even if folks do not like this proposal or want to alter it radically I think it would be advisable for us to try to come to agreement on an intro, and to think of the introduction as a quick preview of the arguments to come, which it currently is not. This might help us to re-organize the rest of the article, something which is also needed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Youtube videos? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentions none of the controversies regarding the concept of state terrorism. That anyone can make up a definition and then claim some acts pass this personal definition should be mentioned. For other arguments, see User:Ultramarine/Sandbox.Ultramarine 00:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You Tube videos can obviously be removed, they were there before in the section of the intro that I did not change. These seem to reference programs on the CBC, so presumably we could just cite the show, date, and time and remove the You Tube links (I don't know how citation of television programs works, but I assume that's it). We can go ahead and deal with the You Tube links right now since they are in the current intro.

Ultramarine I'm fine with a quick sentence in the intro saying that the term state terrorism section is controversial, maybe even incorporating it into the lead sentence, though I don't know if it's really necessary since the first section after the intro describes the controversy and offers different definitions. Perhaps in that (second) section we could include language that explains that, because there is no agreed upon definition, various commentators have deemed certain actions "state terrorism" based on a variety of definitions or no real definition at all. That might be a good lead to the rest of the article, but I don't know if it would go as well in the intro. I'm wondering though how you feel about the rest of it, particularly the way I dealt with countering Chomsky's assertion about the ICJ (using some of the anti-Chomsky reader material) since I know you were concerned to have this included.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is being said is best cited to a published transcript of the show, or less usefully to the show itself. Nobody should record what he sees on a youtube video of unknown provenance and then say he got it from the what the video itself claims to be. There is also a potential problem with linking to copyright-infringing material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I couldn't find a public transcript. east.718 03:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to find an intro that would be acceptable to all. I think we will all need to compromise, here. I am fine with adding in "not terrorism per se but "unlawful force." I am opposed to using Horowitz because he is an unreliable source. We should stick to the best, most serious sources for critical responses, and Horowitz is worse than quoting, say, Bill O'Reilley. Horowtiz is not important enough to be given that kind of undue weight in the intro to report what he says. Plus what he says is not even accurate, factually, and his reasoning is embarrassingly fallacious (for instance, "unlawful force is not another word for terrorism"--who said it was?! Red herring. He is just a bad source to rely on, and this undermines the critic’s response to the Chomsky POV.

On the other hand, using Morrison from the law journal is perfectly fine, stating, "In this case the U.S. government "strongly indicated its view that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy." That’s fine (and thus we don't need to say the same thing twice. Stick with this reliable source). However, I'd add in a footnote here for the bottom, in the manner that this academic paper does on the topic. See footnote #56 in this paper (which is a very balanced account, and can be used to further document the US govt's counter arguments), [9]. The footnote in question explains: "The US accepted the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946, but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on it to "cease and to refrain" from the unlawful 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 reparations, though it never did, cf. Nicaragua v. United States.” The reason these details should be in a footnote is because the article should be about State Terrorism, not legal jurisdiction issues of the ICJ. That belongs on the article on the subject, which this article links to. But, since we need to mention, per NPOV, that the US disputed the court's jurisdiction, the footnote is warranted.

The second paragraph, I'm fine with, although I think it can be trimmed down a bit. We went the intro to be concise, and not bloated. The issue about the definition being controversial has its own section--the very first section. In fact, even a second section on the US definition. It does not need to be in the intro, too. That is pov pushing, in my view, to state the same thing multiple times. Utube videos are just another medium; it’s the content of the videos that determines their suitability. If these are videos of actual interviews of notable people talking about the subjects, then using it as a source (TV journalism) is as perfectly fine as using print journalism as a medium, provided its properly attributed to a legitimate interview with rights to be linked here. I know that Democracy Now, does allow this. And, if we get it directly from Democracy NOW, they do include a transcript, as well.Giovanni33 01:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Horowitz is a great source either--I would put him above O'Reilly though--but I think he is acceptable for the time being. Ideally we would find a better person to contest Chomsky's point that the ruling in Nicaragua v. US meant the US committed state terrorism (in other words I think the Morrison source is not sufficient by itself--there should be a straight forward counterpoint to Chomsky in the intro I think). I'd support leaving Horowitz there for now and looking for something better, given that we're in that same position with a good number of sources in the article.

I also wonder if folks might comment on the idea of organizing this article in a more chronological fashion, and with reference to the Cold War in certain sections. As I said above, the quotes from Falk in the second paragraph might actually work better in a general section on US "state terror" during the Cold War.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Horowitz is on the edge, I suppose... see my latest Sources section below, I think the decision to allow or not allow him ties into the decision to allow or not allow a few other sources of similar notability. - Merzbow 06:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Horowitz's is not a reliable source. He is notable as an activist, yes, but not an expert on this subject that we can rely upon to give a counter voice to someone like Chomsky. He just attacks Chomsky. His reporting on the ICJ case, is not even accurate. If we went to report his personal views about this, then at least it doesn't belong right in the introduction of this article, and we would need more than just him as a source (to show that what he says is even shared by anyone else--and thus even notable enough to report on). Otherwise, sticking what Horowitz says right in the intro is just embarressing, esp. with the kind of extreme POV insulting language he typically uses. As I said, this is not just for WP standards, but in fairness to the other side of the argumement, which looks very bad if its just Horowitz blabbing his usual invective about police states and Chomsky cults.Giovanni33 09:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the discussion below, Horowitz is equally as notable as Bovard and other liberal sources in this article. Standards must be applied equally. (And I see nothing about "Chomsky cults" in the Horowitz excerpt being used.) - Merzbow 17:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed introduction a major problem I see is that it does not include direct violence perpetrated by the U.S. usually in the form of air power or special forces which means it is omitting important aspects of the charges made in the relevant literature. Another problem is that in raising the Nicaragua/ICJ issue the way it does it goes into too much detail for an introductory paragraph. The Nicaragua/ICj issue is a complex controversy best left to the main body of the text. According to the literature it is by no means the defining example of U.S. state terrorism anyway. I think an introduction should briefly point to what American state terrorism is about (ie: an element in an alternative approach to discussing terrorism}, indicate that it is a controversial concept, and lay out the structure of the article. I would like to make a tentative suggestion for an outline tomorrow. I do like the idea of having at least three sections devoted to history, alongside sections dealing with defintional issues and propaganda, with room for expansion.BernardL 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the various definitions of terrorism should be included early on so people know what is being discussed when applying these standards to what the United States has done: the calculated use of violence, primarily against civilians, to coerce and intimidate civilian populations or governments through instilling fear LamontCranston 6:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

State Terrorism and Propaganda 2

Personally I am in favour of a section on ideology/propaganda because in my experience of reading the relevant literature it is common among analysts to raise the role of ideology to the extent that it can probably be considered an essential part of the analysis. For example, in what is arguably the foundational book of analyses of state terrorism, Western State Terrorism, edited by Alexander George, the ideological apparatus obscuring understanding of terrorism is given extensive treatment in two essays. Edward Herman and Gerry O'Sullivan discuss the way government spokepersons, wide-circulation media, and pundits of the "terrorism industry", consisting of terrorism "experts", think tanks, research institutes and security firms, downplay the West's and particularly the U.S.'s role in spawning violence. Alexander George examines in depth what he refers to as "terrorology", the academic study of terrorism. It should come as no surprise that Chomsky spills considerable ink arguing that a propaganda apparatus and "intellectual priesthood" serve power interests by providing one-sided perspectives on the issue. Falk too places significant emphasis on the way he feels a propaganda apparatus impairs understanding. Moreover, he outlines the consequences of such distortions. For example he lambasted George Bush during the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan for a regressive narrowing the conception of terrorism to that of what he refers to as the "statist" conception in which, by definition, only non-state actors could be responsible for terrorism. At the time he noted that it "gave governments around the planet a green light to increase the level of violence directed at their longtime internal adversaries. Several important governments were glad to merge their struggle to stem movements of self-determination with the US war on global terror, and none more than Ariel Sharon's Israeli government." I see a propaganda section as a logical complement to sections that discuss the concept on 1. theoretical terms, dealing with definitions and 2. empirical terms, dealing with facts. Even when these analysts have arrived at a consistent defintion, they have felt the need to explain why the defintion is not widely accepted and also why the facts are not widely known- and that is exactly where the ideological apparatus comes into play. I'm okay with people trimming what I contributed, but nevertheless I feel there is a strong need for such a category and that the literature bears me out on this.BernardL 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I also favor such a section as it goes to the heart of the controversy regarding the conception of State terrorism, and is in line with this article's offering differeing definitions. A discussion of the policial and ideological basis of the controversy over applying the term in an accepted legal international consensus among states is logical within the context and flow of this article, and in in keeping with much of the literature on the subject. Although, I think the point can be made with less words, and thus trimmed a bit, that is only a secondary concern provided its in its own section in the body of the article. I also think it should be looked at for POV issues to make sure its as nuetral and NPOV as it can be, i.e. incorporating those voices that illustrate the POV that State terrorism is not a valid concept (i.e. doesn't apply to States).Giovanni33 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Er, while Falk might have an opinion worth hearing, one wonders how credible it is when he has coauthored 9/11 conspiracy theory junk with the likes of David Ray Griffin and has made some statements that Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinians.[10] Is the radical left traditionally anti-Semetic?--MONGO 16:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He suggests the occupations ultimate goal is obliteration of the Palestinian people (can't imagine why when we have Israel annexing all valuble land, Israeli statesmen declaring that Palestinians who chose to stay will live like dogs, 'acedemics' declaring that there really isn't even a Palestinian people so its okay to kick them out, and so on), Horowitz, and you, jump on this with the usual pejorative - that the mere accusation is anti-Semetic! LamontCranston 6:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Joining the project

I consider myself an expert on U. S. State Terrorism since I wrote so wrote so many papers on it in college. Maybe I could put copies online, and we can use them for sources. I would like to add a section on the State Terrorism and program of genocide directed at the Native Americans by the USG.

Terrorism and the United States: A Pragmatic and Theoretical Approach.

3. Designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target –" Acts of terrorism not only affect the immediate target but they affect the public emotionally and psychologically as well. The USG has been known to employ such tactics in the past to get what it wants. In its early history such strategies were used on the Native American population of what is now the Continental United States. Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States committed the USG to the “removal of the Indians” (Zinn 1995; 125). Under the guise of Manifest Destiny the USG set itself on a course to eradicate the land of ‘savages.’ Coined by John L. O’Sullivan the term Manifest Destiny became an instant battle cry for American expansion to the Pacific Ocean in the mid-1850s. In an editorial written for the New York Morning News O’Sullivan greatly advocated westward expansion and referred to the Spanish-Indian-American populations as a “mixed and confused blood” (Current 1965; 441), a sentiment that surely became bigoted justification for the eradication of those First Nations. The years 1838 and 1839, the period commonly referred to as the Trail of Tears, saw the worst of this mentality as there were multiple forced migrations of the indigenous populations. Every single peace or land treaty between the USG and the Native American populations was broken by the USG (Zinn 1995). These tactics were designed to have psychological impacts on the rest of the indigenous tribes." http://faculty.mckendree.edu/scholars/2003/randol.htm Bmedley Sutler 01:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to WP. Thanks for that source. I feel this article should have a section on US state terrorism against American Indians. I know there is an article about the subject, but a small section here pointing to the main article makes sense to me. Also, I'd be interested in reading your papers if you post them online. While we could maybe use the references your paper may cite, in its claims, we wouldn't be able to use your papers directly for articles on WP, since that would constitute what is known as "original research" and that is not allowed. But, I am interested in reading your papers. Thanks.Giovanni33 01:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep - Another example of how to violate one of our policies - WP:SYNTH (Nothing against the the new user or his college papers - see WP:RS). The last time I checked, the Mayflower was not an American battleship that greeted the American Indians. Who was it who met the American Natives head on? Was it Europeans? The British had Thirteen Colonies. We need to start State terrorism by Europeans then. This POV playground can only go so far. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about State terrorism (or claims thereof) against the already established United States govt. against the native populations. This is big part of US history. The fact that you may need a US history lesson is further reason why a section about this should be in this article.Giovanni33 02:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should hold off on such major introductions for now, the article is in a pretty shabby state as is. The Guatemala section needs a rewrite anyway; let's improve the current article then worry about other allegations. east.718 03:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reply to Giovanni33 - Perhaps you could use a current lesson about the modern day State terrorism by Mexico then. It all violates no original research. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 03:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You can start an article on State Terrorism by American Colonists. I feel that this article should exclude the many acts of terror targeting the indiginous Americans that predate 04/07/76. Bmedley Sutler 05:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs to stick to international affairs, though arguably, the U.S. was only created after the lands that were controlled by the native aboriginal population were taken from them. However, for the scope of this article, I do think it should address U.S. international relationships. I do suggest that you could start an article on such matters, and there are a number of articles about various white---native wars relationships/wars/masscares, etc. which are linked from Indian wars...also check with the WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America to see if a similar article already exists or for further help.--MONGO 05:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We can put my suggestion on hold for now. Bmedley Sutler 06:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MONGO here that this article should stick to US international relationships and his suggestions for thinking about starting a new article (particularly contacting the WikiProject) are good ones. Incidentally, I think an article called "State Terrorism by American Colonists" would be a bit problematic. For one thing, much of the stuff that went down between colonists and natives was not really state directed (though obviously some of it was) but rather more akin to private vigilantism. Perhaps more importantly, it is arguable that there was no such thing as a "nation-state" prior to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. If so key events like the Pequot War (1637) could not be included in an article called "State Terrorism by American Colonists" which would certainly complicate matters. Just food for thought.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

State Terrorism should most definately apply to domestic affairs, why wouldn't it? I think domestic state terrorism is/was a very common occurance in some cases throughout history (thinking USSR or color coded terror-alert warnings, what does that do other than cause domestic 'terror'...kidding). So why not mention it in this article? I do agree there are other things that should be focused on more immediately though.Wiegrajo 11:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For now we could add in the Native American articles about this related subject on the See Other links?Giovanni33 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem a high priority, but what specifically did you have in mind?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Junglecat, did you see the references to Thomas Jefferson and the 1850s? He wasn't talking about the pre-revolution colonies or the Spanish or the British, he was talking about the United States. I think someone needs lessons in reading comprehension before lessons on any nations history. As for the Native Americans, I've previously voiced my support for some sort of 'domestic' or 'internal' section for crimes against the indigious population, the more recent COINTELPRO, and the like. LamontCranston 6:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources (part 2)

After the conclusion of the successful discussion above concentrating on unreliable sources in the lead, I've gone over the rest of the sources in the article and have concerns about the reliability of more of them. The following comments reference sources by number in this version of the article. (Please don't add comments inline in this post, instead discuss the sources by reference number in your subsequent posts). If we can clean these up (or can conclude that some are in fact notable), and agree to keep the quality of future sources in this article high, then my concerns about the article will be significantly allayed.

• (ref 9) Redress.org again... can editors review my above comments on this article, it doesn't seem to criticize the US for state terrorism or sponsoring terrorism, and redress.org doesn't appear to be a particularly notable organization. - consensus appears to be remove
• (ref 12) An activist called Stephen Gowans writing in a self-run blog called "What's Left". Clearly not acceptable. - consensus appears to be remove
• (ref 14) Article in Znet, which seems to be an activist webzine of little notability, by a Jeremy R. Hammond, a writer I can't find any information on. - was replaced with a superior source
• (ref 67, partial) An article by a Bill Vann on the minor World Socialist Web Site. Neither seem reliable enough to stand as a source for foreign policy opinion. - challenge withdrawn
• (ref 69) Article by Lisa Haugaard of the Latin America Working Group, neither of which appear notable for sensitive and careful work like translation and interpretation of documents. - challenge withdrawn
• (ref 71) Opinion article by writer James Bovard on a think-tank. If David Horowitz (re the Anti-Chomsky Reader discussion above) is disallowed, this guy certainly should be also. Conversely, if Horowitz is allowed, then this guy should be, they are of about equal notability. Comments? - challenge withdrawn
• (ref 93) Robert Parry seems to be a journalist of moderate notability, but he is publishing here on his own web-site, Consortium News. According to his Wikipedia article (Consortium News doesn't rate its own), "shortage of revenue forced him to continue it on a part-time basis". I don't think it qualifies. - used to support simple facts/quotes, will be replaced at leisure
• (ref 95, ref 99) Extremist blog. - used to support simple facts/quotes, will be replaced at leisure
• (ref 96) Article by a Palmer Legare on the web site of the Resource Center of the Americas. Neither appear notable. - used to support simple facts/quotes, will be replaced at leisure
• (ref 109) Article by a Felix Würsten in a weekly campus newspaper of some Swiss college? Can someone explain the notability here? - challenge withdrawn
• (ref 117) A list of figures from some guy's personal website on Erols.com. We should easily be able to find a replacement for this clearly unreliable source. - replaced source
• (ref 121) Opinion article by a Tom Allen on the website of a group called BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development). Group seems of borderline notability, Tom Allen seems of no notability. I don't think it qualifies. - used to support simple facts/quotes, will be replaced at leisure
• (ref 122, ref 124) Opinion article by a Dabet Castañeda on the site of a Philippine activist zine call Bulatlat, "The Philippine's Alternative Weekly Online Newsmagazine". I can find no evidence of notability for either the author or zine. - used to support simple facts/quotes, will be replaced at leisure
• (ref 130) Opinion article by a notable liberal think tank. Again, if Horowitz/Bovard are allowed, this probably should be, if not, then not. - challenge withdrawn
• (ref 131) Counterpunch article by Petras; we discussed and decided to disallow a similar Counterpunch/Petras article above. - consensus appears to be to remove

- Merzbow 06:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

71 and 130 seem acceptable, along with Horowitz. 95 and 99 should be easy to replace with a reliable source that says the same. 111 needs to be removed pending a translation from a source that is more reliable than an online tool—or we could just leave the ref in Italian and get a native speaker here to help out. I'm taking a look at the rest now. east.718 07:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is great, and I think I lot of this will obviously have to be removed. I'll try to go through it more carefully and try to parse what should obviously be removed (separating sources which make an important claim and where an alternative source is therefore desirable, and sources which add little or nothing to the article and can therefore be removed out of hand); what is questionable; and what is probably worthy of being kept.

Just a couple of points though--Znet is certainly notable as a source as a whole (an enormous number of notable people on the left write their regularly, including Chomsky, but also many others) although Jeremy R. Hammond is probably not a notable author so that might not be a good source. Also the World Socialist Web Site (which, incidentally, can out-sectarian the most sectarian of sectarian leftist groups--no mean feat) is actually fairly notable and widely read and cited. It is the official organ of the International Committee of the Fourth International which may sound like a nonsense group but is actually a very notable Trotskyist organization with active chapters in multiple countries. They have even run candidates here in the US in places like Illinois and Michigan (if I remember correctly) and received a few thousand votes in local elections. Supposedly it's the "most widely read international socialist news source on the internet" (according to Alexa rankings) and it's published in 13 languages. I used to read that thing years ago and Bill Vann was one of their most senior contributors, so I think it would actually qualify as a source given it's status as a widely read organ of an (admittedly little known) international socialist party. I'll look closer at the rest of this stuff later. Thanks to Merzbow for putting this together.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll concur on the World Socialist Web Site, the IFCI is indeed notable (and I've always had a soft spot for Trotsky anyways). Znet does seem well-known on the Left, but like Counterpunch I don't think it can make up for a lack of notability for an article's author, and Hammond appears to have no relevant academic credentials. From here: "Jeremy R. Hammond is an independent researcher and writer currently residing in Taiwan, where his day job is working as an English teacher." Hmm. - Merzbow 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What? You mean we're like citing to Stone put to sky now, who has a 'remarkably' similar background? Oh yeah, fer sure, good reliable source. How about we just reprint the Worker's World Daily here on Wiki, and skip the middleman.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I mean who doesn't have a soft spot for Trotsky? Wait, actually I guess a lot of people. The information you supplied on Jeremy Hammon is, umm, interesting. Let's leave it there. I agree that footnote can be deleted, the Christian Science Monitor article on Venezuela can still back that sentence in the intro. Additionally we can add this article from Inter Press Service which the CSM article cited (the full citation is in footnote 18 in my proposed intro above). That article quotes various current and former US officials and a couple of experts as well as a Venezuelan official and accuses the US of a "double standard" with respect to terrorism which erodes its credibility (it's this source that caused me to change some of the wording in my proposed intro above). If it's okay I could put this source in and remove the other one. I think this particular sentence of the intro probably needs to be reworked, but we could at least improve the sourcing for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow wrote: "ref 69) Article by Lisa Haugaard of the Latin America Working Group, neither of which appear notable for sensitive and careful work like translation and interpretation of documents." LAWG not notable? You really should have checked your facts first. They are highly notable and highly respected. Your baseless claim which 3 minutes on Google disproves calls into question your impartiality, or abilities, and casts a clowd of doubt over your entire list. Bmedley Sutler 07:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your post is suspicoiusly lacking in anything that might be called evidence for your claims. The need to demonstrate notability resides on those who wish to keep the source. I'll ignore the personal attacks for the moment, but if you continue with those you'll quickly find Wikipedia a very unwelcome place to be. You seem to be a very new user so a review of WP:NPA and other policies might be in order. - Merzbow 07:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, stay cool Bmedley, no need to call into question Merzbow's "impartiality or abilities." If you disagree with the rationale for one of the sources, simply say so and explain why--that's what we're doing in this section and several of us have discussed this. Merzbow is doing us a service by preparing the list, and would, I'm sure, be receptive to any argument you make for keeping a certain source, so long as you shy away from personal attacks. Some good collaboration has been going on here, so let's try to keep it that way.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Unwelcome? How so? User:Bequiled ignores NPA and CIVIL all the time. I don't see him getting into any trouble. Is that because he's a conservative? Thanks for the tip though, I'll read those policies. Bmedley Sutler 08:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, for the record, Beguiled was warned for personal attacks here, by that famous raging lefty MONGO no less! (I joke, obviously).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Has he ever been blocked? For even 1 hour?Bmedley Sutler 09:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not, but I don't think anyone here takes Beguiled seriously either, and if more attacks came the user probably would be blocked. Beguiled has not been around for a few days so it's not a problem right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Haugaard, Executive Director LAWG

"Lisa has been executive director of the Latin America Working Group since June 2002. From 1993 to 2001, she served as Senior Associate at the LAWG, where she worked on Colombia and Central America policy, development assistance and other topics. She has testified before the US Congress and produced numerous reports and articles on US-Latin America policy. Prior to her work at the LAWG, she was executive director of the Central America Historical Institute in Washington, DC and writer, editor and translator for the Jesuit Instituto Historico Centroamericano in Managua, Nicaragua. She has a BA from Swarthmore College, a Master’s degree in Latin American studies from New York University, and was a Fulbright scholar in Central America."

LAWG

The Latin America Working Group is a coalition of over sixty organizations dedicated to promoting US policies toward Latin America that support human rights, social and economic justice, and sustainable development. Many other non-coalition organizations participate in subgroups and steering committees on specific country issues. Organizations make decisions on a case-by-case basis regarding whether to endorse statements and participate in specific projects.

Her translation of the CIA torture manual is the reference standard. What I said was fact, not insult. He surely did not attempt to verify the notability and importance of either Lisa or LAWG, or he wouldn't have swung and missed so badly. Bmedley Sutler 08:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if you're right and the source is notable (you've provided a good rationale this time) you should always follow WP:CIVIL. Calling into question someone's "abilities" is definitely not civil, and definitely would be construed by some as an insult. You're a new editor which is great, and obviously no one expects you to be fully aware of Wiki's complicated policies, but trust me that the way you phrased your comment above was problematic. This is friendly and sympathetic advice.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. He denigrated the source and the notability, but he obviously didn't do a single web search on the person or the NGO that he claimed were not notable. Bmedley Sutler 08:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First, please delete the list of participating organizations above--it takes up space, you can just supply a link if you like. Merzbow was not denigrating a source in my opinion, rather just listing sources which looked questionable and providing a rationale. Again, the whole point is to discuss them, and if some sources are in fact notable we can keep them. This process was agreed to by several editors, my point to you is that you should refrain from any language that could be interpreted as a personal attack. I would drop this point if I were you and accept that you could have worded your reply to Merzbow better--it's really not a big deal so long as you recognize that and just move on. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK Bmedley Sutler 08:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards of notability are stronger than you might think. Lisa herself is not notable, she has no degree beyond a Master's and has held no academic positions (that I can see). And organizations cannot establish their own notability just by producing a laundry list of groups they are allegedly involved with in some manner, this is ripe for abuse. I do see link backs from pcausa.org, however, so that establishes some degree of external validation. But this group is clearly of far less notability than many (like Amnesty, for example). If you want it, I'm not going to fight, but then don't complain when a paper by some consultant at the Heritage Foundation is added by editors with a conservative bent (and there are many, many conservative think tanks and activist groups also). - Merzbow 09:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll look and comment about these sources later when I have more time, but many of them listed above are valid. I don't share most of the characterizations that are being made about them, either, which quite frankly, indicate a suprising ignorance of these organizations and publications--which I'd hope anyone here would be well familiar with. I must say I am rather shocked that even some of the most notable publications like Znet, which has a large readership (in the tune of millions), is offered for deletion as a source on the basis that it "seems to be an activist webzine of little notability."?!?! Go to any bookstore and you will find the magazine on display (at least around here). Similarly with other sources, which it appears the nominator knows very little about. Also, I will note that some of these sources have already been defended earlier in talk by other editors, who showed that they were notable and reputable organizations, with qualified staff who were experts on the subject at hand---so why are they being listed here again with a know-nothing attitude that it "doesnt seem to be a particularly notable organization", again? Perhaps I'm over reacting here, so forgive me if I seem a little harsh with my tone. I'm all for finding the best sources to replace existing sources, but I also think that some of the links would still be good for the External Links section, if not in the body of the article.Giovanni33 08:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen no defense of the above sources prior to this thread. Notability has been checked and found lacking. Wikipedia policy is crystal clear that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (WP:V). I will, of course, give you some time to look into these sources and provide defenses of notability, and I'm sure you'll agree that David Horowitz is at least as notable as many of these (in fairness). The Znet print magazine certainly seems much more reliable than just the web site. Was the Hammond article printed in the magazine or just on the website? - Merzbow 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Merzbow basically conceded above that Znet is probably a notable source, the issue is with the author of the particular piece, who is not notable. I'm very familiar with Znet, and one thing about it is that it's pretty easy to get published there (which I think is cool). There are a lot of notable authors published on Z, but also neighborhood-level activists, etc., and I think we should stick to the former if we want to use Znet here. As I've said I think Merzbow is open to arguments that these sources are valid (see our discussion above about the World Socialist Web Site), so I think we'll be able to hash this out. I just perused the list briefly but some sources did seem problematic. I'm sure we'll keep some, lose others, and hopefully add better sources along the way. Let's just talk it out using specific comments about specific sources. As to Merzbow's last comment, the Hammond piece was almost certainly published only on Znet--anyway I really think it's no big deal to lose that, but some Z material would be worthy of inclusion if the author is sufficiently notable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict in reply to Merzbow). Go back to the list of sources you raised, before on talk. I recall commenting on Redress.org, at that time, after looking at the source. Do you not remember? I'm sure by now its well in the archives but was just last month. Other editors defended most of the other sources you listed (and are relisted here). Zmag often publishes what it publishes in Znet, but not always. Regarding Horowitz, see above. He is notiable as an activist, but not reliable to count on what he says as a serious rebuttle to anything of import on this article. He has no notablity on this subject in any of his writings, other than maybe attacking Chomsky personally. If the POV that Horowitz is going to be cited for is actually echoed by other writers then that at least shows that is POV is notable.Giovanni33 09:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I changed footnote 14 as described above. The source is now an Inter Press Service article quoting multiple sources rather than a Znet article by a non-notable author. I think it still backs the last sentence in the intro, and is an improvement in terms of sourcing. I did this somewhat unilaterally with only a little discussion so feel free to revert it if someone thinks it's a problem, but I did not think it would be too controversial.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not commented on, and I've asked multiple times, look in the "Sources" section. If nobody is willing to defend a source, it will be removed. And we will absolutely, positively, not have double standards for liberal and conservative sources here. James Bovard is in the same boat as Horowitz, both are widely-published authors on a wide variety of subjects who are not academics. Let's take this as an opportunity to educate each other about sources, because otherwise, nothing will get accomplished. - Merzbow 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Sources are not required to meet notability requirements, articles are. You cannot remove sources becaue you never heard of them. --74.73.16.230 10:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "notable" is the wrong word since it could create confusion with another policy, but we do need to use reliable sources, and for the purposes of this article I think we should use expert sources whenever possible. The Znet article was by a independent researcher/teacher/activist, not an expert on the issue at hand as far as we know. At best it is a questionable source. I replaced it with a source that quoted experts, but made the same basic point articulated in the intro sentence it was supporting. I guess I don't see the problem--stronger sourcing will make it much more difficult to delete or AfD this article, so I would think you would view it as a good thing. But again, feel free to revert me if you think the Znet article is particularly important, and then discuss it further here. I'm signing off for now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not referring to Znet in particular, but this idea of removing Human Rights groups because we never heard of them, especially when they are operated out of a country no one here has stated they are from, not that being from France would still have much bearing. I am commenting no a large portion of the complaints which state they cannot find anything on the author, or never heard of them, or their group, or their site. What we know, or how popular a source is on the internet is not a reason to remove the author. This type of argument is not really acceptable and not per any policy. I believe there is a note in a policy specifically warning against judging things by your own knowledge of them. --SixOfDiamonds 15:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref 109 and Felix Würsten are notable. "Some Swiss college" is ETH Zurich, Einstein's Alma Mater, and one of the most prestigious universities in the world. This article is a report of a conference on NATO at ETH's Center for Security Studies. All very notable. ... Seabhcan 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this fact sums up exactly why, "I never heard of it", is not a measuring stick. I am starting to worry about this constant questioning of sources without actual research on the topic. This is starting to become disruptive and I ask anyone who wants to question sources to please look them up and do some research on them first. Apparently the third link on google for ETH brings you to the Wikipedia article which shows not only the prestigious nature of the college, but some of the nobel prize winning faculty. Listing this as "some swiss school" was either disingenuous or a show that research was not done before declaring things "not notable" which as I mention is not a measurement for sources, but for articles. --SixOfDiamonds 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a campus weekly newspaper. Questioning this source was a absolutely necessary. And the standard for sources is reliability, which is a similar concept to notability: WP:RS - "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." I do hope everyone here realizes that the standard you use to judge these liberal sources will be the standard used to judge future sources from conservative sources. - Merzbow 17:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not about liberal or conservative sources, if you are here to wage some political battle and thats what all this is about, then you are working against the spirit of Wikipedia and I am then asking you to leave this discussion, this is not some extended battle ground for next years elections. Further adding a source you believe fails WP:RS to prove a point about "liberal" sources is a violation of WP:POINT --SixOfDiamonds 17:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Civility. Agree with Merzbow. Exception claims require exceptional sources. No double standard please.Ultramarine 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Tried to, apparently its not a real link. Not really sure how its relevant considering Merzbow stated: "I do hope everyone here realizes that the standard you use to judge these liberal sources will be the standard used to judge future sources from conservative sources." You can report it somewhere if you like, I am sure an admin will explain to Merzbow at that point that Wikipedia is not a battleground. --SixOfDiamonds 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. Please read Wikipedia:Civility.Ultramarine 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a battleground. No one is leaving this discussion short of an arbcom remedy, so cease telling people to do so...you don't own this article. If this article ever is going to be neutral, it has to have appropriate rebuttals which examine the basis of evidence and or political rationale for some of the sources some are using here.--MONGO 18:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement was "if you are here to wage some political battle and thats what all this is about, then you are working against the spirit of Wikipedia and I am then asking you to leave this discussion," Please try to read the statement in full before commenting. As for WP:OWN, I think I have barely added anything into the article itself, and have done quite a bit less reverting then you have. Please leave your politics at home. --SixOfDiamonds 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith."Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it."Ultramarine 18:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Who said he was trying to hurt it? Please read more carefully in the future. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 18:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand by every word I said, because I am seeing editors here apply wildly different standards for notability for certain sources with the only difference being that those sources are from a conservative POV (I'll refrain from pointing out specific examples, this talk page is full of them). All I'm looking for is a simple "yes" to the question "Are you willing to apply the same standard for reliability to all sources, regardless of a source's POV"? If the answer is not "yes", then there is no common ground here. I am looking for "yes"'s from all editors here, on all sides. My answer is, of course, yes. - Merzbow 18:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a yes or no question, please leave your politics at home. Anyone who goes out looking for "conservative" sources to counter what they deam to be "liberal sources" is doing harm to Wikipedia, especially if they are not considering WP:RS or willing to work outside of it simply because "liberal sources" are not following it. Which is a violation of WP:POINT. If you have sources to add, do so and they will be measured against WP:RS on their own merit, not what political faction you or anyone else have assigned them to. --SixOfDiamonds 18:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the second time I ask you to read Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith."Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Yes, of course Merzbow is right. No double standard.Ultramarine 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying sources should be added because they are conservative or liberal; they should be added to achieve NPOV, and right now the article is weighted towards the POV of those who claim the US conducts state terror. I will henceforth not mention "conservative" or "liberal", since you seem to be taking great pains now not to refer to the political views of any source. Should I take your statement as a "yes", the POV of a source is irrelevant to its reliability? - Merzbow 18:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS determines reliability. --SixOfDiamonds 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But as far as I am concerned, referencing in known radicals to support the tenant that the US==terrorism sponsor is a violation of SYNTH. From Chomsky to Falk to Ganser, et al, I see repeated and easily demonstrated evidence that these guys have all refused to acknowledge the terrorism supported by such nations as Syria, Iran and others. Falk has apparently pubished a POV laden bilge about 9/11 conspiracy theories with a well known 9/11 CTer. In addition, Falk has also accused Israel of genocide against the Palestinians. Ganser has also been involved in ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theory work. I ask if these people are to be considered to be permitted here as adeqaute referencing to support the radical notion that the US==state terrorism sponsor, then a proper rebuttal of this pov and the authors who are cited as having it is the only way to achieve NPOV. SixOfDiamonds...you leave your politics at home.--MONGO 18:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Rofl, what are my politics since I have expressed them here? I am sure you will sorely fail to categorize them. Again sources are not liberal or conservative, we do not weigh them in that manner. It is good you have all told that to Merzbow as no one supports adding sources based on their political leaning. --SixOfDiamonds 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The article must follow WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP.Ultramarine 19:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This sub-thread has now reached the end of its useful life, let's reserve the rest of this section for discussing the pros and cons of the sources in my list. - Merzbow 19:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Redress, British Overseas NGOs for Development and Bulatlat cannot be challenged because you never heard of them. --SixOfDiamonds 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It can. Exceptional claims requires exception sources.Ultramarine 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He is only claiming he never heard of the source. You cannot say they do not meet the requirement if you don't know anything about them. --SixOfDiamonds 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am stating that for example a Philippine activist zine, "The Philippine's Alternative Weekly Online Newsmagazine, is not an exceptional source.Ultramarine 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am challenging them because I can find no evidence of their notability as organizations qualified to render opinions on foreign policy, searching on Google, findarticles.com, etc. There are no significant mentions of their expertise in foreign policy analysis by other unquestionably reliable sources. Can you provide evidence of that? (Plus, as I mentioned above, I don't see any accusation against the US of supporting terrorism in the redress.org article, maybe somebody can point out in its 60-odd pages where that is). - Merzbow 21:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Taking stock. This is a long comment, but I'm trying to help to draw this discussion to a fruitful conclusion, which I think is very doable. I think some of the recent discussion above has been less than productive, and I want to try to take stock of where we are at. It is much better to speak of specific sources which is what I will do. Once we deal with the sources Merzbow has brought up, we can move on to other work, and hopefully do so feeling that we talked out these issues fairly and worked on them together. To some editors fighting to retain these sources and complaining about this list (who are essentially on "my side" of the debate) I do think Merzbow has been pretty fair here. For example, Merzbow agreed to retain a Trotskyist web site, which I think some other editors would have strongly objected to. I think we should continue to work through the list, which is the point of this talk section and of this comment. Incidentally, I plan to force myself into an extended Wikibreak fairly soon (I have too much academic work to do which I have been putting off) and thus at some point in the next couple of days will probably begin to comment infrequently if at all (at least that's my goal). I do think the discussion here has been much elevated of late from what it was before, and I hope that trend continues. I think it is possible to produce a good, balanced article here which many editors would be okay with, and if we can do that it would certainly be a testament to Wiki-collaborating despite large differences of opinion. Anyhow, on to the remainder of Merzbow's list above, which I have subdivided. Summary thought at the end of the list.

Probable delete, no severe harm if deleted

• ref 9, redress.org. I think this document counts as a reliable source from a notable organization. However I do not see where it argues that the United States has engaged in state terrorism. I searched the PDF for the stem "state terror" and it only appeared a few times, never accusing the United States of this action. Given the focus of the three sections of the paper, and after a quick skim of some of it, I just don't see where there is such an accusation. I did not read the whole thing, so if I missed something and if it does accuse the US of state terrorism in some fashion, then I think it should be retained. Deleting it would not be a major problem, it is one of nine footnotes.
• ref 12, Stephen Gowans, I don't think he constitutes a reliable source for our purposes, he is an activist who has done some writing for left publications. Deleting it would not be a major problem, it is one of three footnotes, and the point in the sentence it follows is about Chomsky, who is dealt with in the other two sources.

Probable delete, should be an effort to replace

• ref 131 (now 137), Counterpunch article by Petras. Makes a controversial claim while vaguely referring to "Human rights groups" as a source. Petras seems to have good academic credentials (albeit with a radical POV), but I don't see any expertise on the Philippines which I think is needed for a controversial claim like this. The claim this source backs up is interesting and important to that section, but I think we must have another source here. Without it, we should delete the sentence for the time being and only reinstate with a good source.

Probable keep

• ref 69, Lisa Haugaard of the Latin America Working Group. Info posted by Bmedley Sutler convinces me that this source is notable, certainly for the purpose for which it is used. The sentence it backs up says: "In 1984 a CIA manual for training the Nicaraguan contras in psychological operations was leaked to the media, entitled "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War". Obviously this is simply a matter of fact (no opinion, no interpretation), and it is mentioned in the article cited. I think Haugaard is thus a perfectly reliable source--she is an expert on these issues, and can clearly be cited for such a basic and uncontroversial claim.
• ref 71, James Bovard. Although this is an opinion article, it is not used in that fashion. The cited passages is actually Bovard citing the manual "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla War" referred to in ref 69. Citing the manual itself would be ideal (I did not check to see if it was available) but I think using a secondary source to quote a primary source in this way is acceptable, though I know there is some debate about this kind of thing. This is the only source for this quote, so if it's deleted a replacement should be found.
• ref 93 (now 95 as I write this), Robert Parry. Parry is fairly notable I think--it's debatable--but here again as in the Bovard piece he is summarizing another source, and I do not have a problem with that (or for any other source on either side of these debates). He is summarizing a report from the Historical Clarification Commission re: Guatemala. Using that source would be ideal, but I think Parry's summary is plenty sufficient for the time being.
• ref 96 (now 98) Palmer Legare, Resource Center of the Americas. You'll have to take my word for this, but I've done primary source research on US involvement in Latin America, and I can assure that Resource Center of the Americas is extremely well respected by scholars and often visited by researches because of their excellent documentary sources (I planned to do so when I was doing some work on the Carter admin but did not have time). But aside from that, look at how the source is used. It is used to establish the very minor fact that General Hector Gramajo Morales gave a commencement speech at the School of the Americas. I completely trust anything posted by Resource Center of the Americas (it seems they were not even the original publisher) for a minor factual detail such as this.
• ref 130 (now 135). Frida Berrigan, a very well known activist and writer and daughter of Philip Berrigan (which is why she is known) and Foreign Policy in Focus together easily pass the reliable source test in my opinion. Merzbow's comparison to Horowitz is quite apt I think, and I think for the time being it's fine to use both of them. If better sources are found, great.

Questionable

• ref 122 (now 127), Bulatlat. Hard to tell if it is notable or not. However the article is summarizing a "report of the human rights alliance Karapatan" which is who we should be concerned about. I think summarizing reports via secondary sources is okay for our purposes as I've said above (mainly because it happens so often on Wikipedia) but we would need to establish if the original report was notable (Wikipedia has an article about Karapatan, so it seems likely). It backs up important claims not made by other sources, so if it is not acceptable there should be an effort to find an alternative source.

Doesn't matter

• ref 121 (now 126), Tom Allen on the website of a group called BOND. Here is the sentence this source backs up: "The Philippines has been considered a United States protectorate and/or colony since the late 1890s, playing a central role in the U.S. Navy's global strategic presence." It could be worded better (colony is indisputable of course, but "protectorate" is unnecessarily POV), but this is an extremely uncontroversial claim. Few would question that the Philippines has been important for the US in terms of its naval strategy, and of course the two countries have a close relationship. If this source is deemed insufficient for backing these claims, it would be very easy to find another one. But I don't know that we need a source at all.

That's my 43 cents for what it's worth. The main thing I noticed in looking through these sources in detail was that some of them backed very minor factual points or summarized the arguments of others which I think should not be controversial. I think we should give close scrutiny to sources which say "this was state terrorism by the US" but not worry as much about sourcing for fairly minor factual claims. I still think going through these sources like this has been a very useful endeavor.

To quote Nietzsche out of context, "objections, digressions, gay [in the 19th century sense] mistrust" directed toward my comment here are of course welcome.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort here. The good news is so many of these will be easier to replace than I thought; i.e. the ones referencing facts or quoting notable reports (detailed comments follow in next paragraph). I hope this effort has served to establish a baseline for reliability of sources for this article. If a source is originating analysis as opposed to just quoting or summarizing some other report, the bar of reliability should be higher. But the best thing to do is avoid reliability challenges in the first place by sourcing from the underlying report directly, eliminating the need for discussions like this in the first place.

For 9, I also couldn't find any accusation in the Redress report, I'll give a couple of days for somebody to find such before removal. 12 of course I agree should go. 131 is making a strong claim with dubious sourcing and reliability, it can also be given a few days before removal to see if an alternative can be found. I withdraw the challenges to 69, 71, and 130. As for 93, it will be easy to use the notable report directly as a source, this can be done at leisure. 96 is indeed backing a trivial fact; without getting into a discussion of the reliability of the source (I have seen objections), we can also replace this at leisure. 122 (and 124, also from Bulatlat) reference reports that can be sourced directly; the one mentioned in 124 might require some looking though. 121 is an absolutely trivial fact, it should be easy to support this from a history book or such.

One last thing... even if you comment more infrequently in your Wikibreak, do keep an eye out here, you've been an important force for stabilizing this article. (So has east; it's likely this would still be on permanent protection if you two hadn't shown up). - Merzbow 07:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's my summary from this version:

• 9 - it should go, the paper makes no accusations and it's from a shaky source at best.
• 12 - not a reliable source in my opinion; POV-pusher; has only been published in marginal publications. Delete it.
• 14 - I've never heard of Hammond and can't seem to find his notability. The publication is of significance though.
• 67, 71, 130 - keep them.
• 93 - this should be backed up by the report that he is summarizing, ideally with a couple direct quotes.
• 96, 109 - I don't know a thing about these authors, I'll defer judgement for now.
• 117 - should obviously be removed.

Here's a couple that Merzbow didn't touch on:

• 95, 99 - a blog with no author that is clearly extremist. It's cited only for a bio, it should be easy to find an RS that says the same.
• 111 - Google translations should not be used; either we should use the original text or get an RS that examines it.

Unfortunately I'm going to be on break too, I'm taking a vacation in a country without Internet access. east.718 07:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, east. I agree with your comments. 95 and 99 are being used to reference simple facts/quotes, they fall into the category of stuff that should be easy to replace with the direct source. 111 seemed to be from the primary victims groups for this particular incident, so I'm inclined to let their voice be heard, but it would be nice for an Italian-speaker to verify that it is accurate. - Merzbow 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:User it-N? east.718 02:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now updated my original list above with what I see to be the consensus opinions on what to do with these sources. It should be less controversial than I originally envisioned because most of the "problem" sources support facts/quotes that can be easily supported by other, superior, sources, with little/no change in the text (and these can be replaced over time). Only three sources face outright removal, 9, 12, 131, for very good reasons discussed above (and only the removal of 131 would necessitate a removal of article text). I think this is a very fair outcome. - Merzbow 03:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That looks good to me, and I agree this is a fair outcome. I don't remember who added the stuff on the Philippines, but perhaps they (or someone else) could look for a source to replace footnote 131 (Petras). If someone does not come up with an alternate source in the very near future that article text should be deleted. The other two footnotes facing removal can and should be removed now in my opinion--there's just no reason to keep them.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

William Blum as a source

William Blum is a socialist US critic praised by bin Laden. His not an academic and does not publish in academic press. He has worked with spreaders of KGB disinformation. Should be removed as an unreliable source. Objections? Ultramarine 13:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his article apparently cites him as more then reliable. --SixOfDiamonds 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What article and how does it proves he is reliable? Ultramarine 14:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, the description "socialist" does not make a person unreliable. William Blum's book was published in 2003, long after "spreaders of KGB disinformation" went out of business, and being praised by Bin Laden does not make one an enemy. Bin Laden also praised Sweden. Do you have anything more than your dislike for what Blum has to say? ... Seabhcan 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not an academic and does not publish in academic press. His prior record casts further serious doubts about his reliability.Ultramarine 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he's not academic. Rather he's notable due to his former employ in the US government and the popularity of his book [11]. If we can't have Blum, why can we have Dennis Halliday? What in his prior record cast doubt, in your opinion? ... Seabhcan 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Working with Philip Agee casts doubts on anyone's reliability, to say the least.Ultramarine 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is an ad hominem, if you have an issue with Blums work that is being cited please state what that issue is. However attacking the people and is no help here. --SixOfDiamonds 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already listed several reasons above.Ultramarine 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are not arguments against what he is being cited for. Saying bin Laden likes to read Blum does not disqualify Blum as WP:RS. Stating his political perspective is further not a reason to disqualify him. He surely meets WP:RS by looking at his article here. He has been published multiple times for his work in the field, that qualifies him under WP:RS. --74.73.16.230 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He has not published in academia literature and is not an academic. It is a double standard to include him and not Horowitz.Ultramarine 22:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Z magazine vs. Frontpage magazine

Both are very partisan activist magazines. If including one of them, then similar sources from the other sides should also be allowed.Ultramarine 14:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS is the guide, we should look at the publisher, author, and their credentials to determine issues. If there was an article in Frontpage that countered an argument in this article by an academic no less, then it would surely be appropriate to add. However attacks on the people are ad hominems, counter arguments to those presented are very much welcome by me at least. --SixOfDiamonds 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Unclear what you mean. Are you saying that ZM and FPM are as good as academic sources? Ultramarine 18:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources that pass WP:RS are acceptable as sources. Not sure why that was not clear. If there was an article in Frontpage that countered an argument in this article by an academic no less, then it would surely be appropriate to add. However attacks on the people are ad hominems, counter arguments to those presented are very much welcome by me at least. --74.73.16.230 01:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-Chomsky Reader

Since the article includes left-wing sources such as Z magazine and William Blum, discussed above, what is the objection to the The Anti-Chomsky Reader? Ultramarine 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the past discussion, the comments being drawn from it are not discussing Chomskys definition, they are attacking Chomsky as a person. It is not a correct rebuttal of an argument for his definition to say he should have called Pol Pot terrorism. That is a ad hominem attack, and a logical fallacy. --74.73.16.230 01:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blum beats out the Anti-Chomsky Reader significantly I think, and with Z (which publishes many, many authors) it depends on the author of the article (a piece by Chomsky, or Arundhati Roy or Edward Said would obviously be acceptable in my opinion). I think the Anti-Chomsky Reader can be used in certain contexts but not others, as I have argued before. For example I think it would be okay to use Horowitz's assertion that "unlawful use of force is not another word for terrorism" (referring to Nicaragua v. US obviously) because he is simply stating a view which is obviously held by many, but it would not be okay to use him to say that the reason the US left the World Court was simply because they did not like the fact that Soviet bloc states sat on the court. That's a slanted and controversial claim, and Horowitz is not considered an expert on international relations (less so than Chomsky even, though I believe Horowitz actually did study the topic in grad school). The best thing is to find better sources than Horowitz, Z, and even Blum. I'm not sure why you are so anxious to use the Anti-Chomsky Reader anyway--I'm sure there all kinds of academic articles and books about Nicaragua v. US and it would be fairly easy to find one which, even if it does not discuss Chomsky directly, takes umbrage with the view that the US was convicted of state terrorism in that case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The Anti-Chomsky reader has many significant authors, regarding Blum see above. It is certainly a double standard to include Blum if not including this book.Ultramarine 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really a huge debate here I think, Horowitz's Anti-Chomsky Reader can definitely be used as a source as I said above--depending on the context and author--just as a source like Zmag/Znet can be used depending on the context and author. Neither are ideal, but in lieu of better sources I think we should accept them. I still disagree about Blum. The fact that he worked with--whatever that means exactly--Philip Agee in the 1970s is a good guilt by association argument but otherwise quite irrelevant, of course. Killing Hope--whatever its flaws, and though I have not read it I'm sure it has some serious flaws as far as mainstream academics are concerned--is clearly a notable source and a widely read and (in some circles) cited foreign policy book, and as such Blum obviously passes sourcing tests for our purposes in this article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

All the arguments you apply against Horowitz apply equally to Blum. It is a double standard to include Blum but not Horowitz.Ultramarine 05:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which arguments I've applied against Horowitz you are referring to, but Blum is a former State Department employee who has written a couple of major books on US foreign relations, whereas Horowitz is neither of those things. Regardless, I think David Horowitz is worthy of inclusion for the time being as I have said repeatedly and as I'll say one more time. I think there's no question though that Blum has bigger foreign policy chops than Horowitz--unless you want to look back at the latter's work in Ramparts Magazine.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not an academic and does not publish in academic press. That he had a minor position in the State Department is not evidence for notabillity or scholarship. He has published some books most known for being endorsed by bin Laden and for association with KGB desinformer Agee. Horowitz is at least as notable, if that is the criterion.Ultramarine 09:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Update on Iran

The leader of the terrorist group PJAK, claims in an interview that his group is supported by the US and German governments.(Press TV) ... Seabhcan 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently picked up by Associated Press [12] and mentions it was picked up by the New Yorker, would be interesting to see what the New Yorker article actually says. --SixOfDiamonds 15:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Been denied, so it should be easy to present a counter point and make it NPOV - Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs --SixOfDiamonds 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Trained by US soldiers Turkish Daily --SixOfDiamonds 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dennis Kucinich [13]to congress. Interesting stuff. Plenty of material. If you need help Seabhcan please let me know. --SixOfDiamonds 15:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New Yorker [14], sorry last one. --SixOfDiamonds 15:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid to add anything myself - I'll let someone else do it. ... Seabhcan 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One reasonable speculation is that Washington planners may be seeking to inspire secessionist movements that the United States can then “defend” against the home country. In Iran, the main oil resources are in the Arab areas adjacent to the Gulf, Iran’s Khuzestan—and sure enough, there is now an Ahwazi liberation movement of unknown origin, claiming unspecified rights of autonomy. Nearby, Iraq and the gulf states provide a base for U.S. military intervention.[15] Anyone want to tackle condensing that into the article? LamontCranston 6:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, it'll fit in nicely with what's already there in the section. --MichaelLinnear 07:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphical descriptions of rape and murder

Why is there graphical descriptions of rape and murder that done in Nicaragua and Guatemala. These descriptions add no factual contents but seems to be included only to evoke a emotinal reactio. The connection to the US is extremely thin. The ICJ stated that the US was not imputable for human rights violations by the Contras. The Guatemala rape involved unknown persons. That one of them spoke American English is not evidence for US state terrorism, many people speak American English without being secrect US government agents. Or even being Americans, if they have had some eduction in the US, as many higher government officials in Latin America have.Ultramarine 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that the quote is sourced from a book called "State Terrorism and the United States", and that that book deems the description significant (it goes on for several pages there, this is just a mild excerpt), argues in favour of it remaining. We argued about this point many times before, so this is all I'll say on the topic. ... Seabhcan 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the Nicaraguan rape and murder? Regarding Guatemala, could you explain the connection to US state terrorism? Ultramarine 17:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the source and let me know if you still have a question. I think this idea of asking without researching goes contrary to why the sources are provided in the first place. If you read the source and still have questions, then it is understandable, please let me know then what you would like clarified. --SixOfDiamonds 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still does not anwer the Nicaraguan rape and murder. If no objections and explanation, I will remove it. If I do not understand the connection between the Guatemala rape and US "state terrorism", then many other will not, so it should be removed also.Ultramarine 17:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will revert it as vandalism. This is not a content dispute, your inability, or unwillingness to review a source as provided is before removing it on the grounds of relevance is not acceptable. Again I am more then willing to assist you after you have read the source to answer any question you may have. --SixOfDiamonds 17:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no response regarding why the Nicaraguan rape and murder should be inlcuded. Regarding the Guatemala case, obviously the passage must be coherent to the reader, otherwise it should be removed.Ultramarine 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Says why in the source, please read it and get back to me. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no response regarding the Nicaraguan case. Unless a respone, I will remove due to no objections. Regarding the Guatemala case, that there may be an explanation of the connection between this rape and US "state terrorism" is beside he point. Obviously the passage must be coherent to the Wikipedia reader.Ultramarine 18:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Says why in the source, please read it and get back to me. Mind if I find a bot to keep repeating this for me? I am getting tired of explaining to you that you have to read the source. This is starting to seem like tendentious editing to me. Thank you. --SixOfDiamonds 18:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That goes both way SixOfDiamonds. I find your edits to be tendentious frankly.--MONGO 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Try not to interject simply to attack another editor, its against policy. --SixOfDiamonds 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Nicaraguan rape is not in the book about state terrorism, so the above arguments do not apply, and explanation for its inclusion have not been given. The ICJ stated that the US was not imputable for human rights violations by the Contras. Yes, you say read the source, but my argument is not that there is not someone claiming that the rape in Guatemala was state terrorism by the US. The point is that the connection should be explained, or the text is incoherent.Ultramarine 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

SixOfDiamonds, do not remove other users talk pages comments, like you just did. That is considered vandalism.[16]Ultramarine 18:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF it was a edit conflict. This is why you should ask first. --SixOfDiamonds 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How could it be an edit conflict? You made the edit before this.Ultramarine 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit of mine that he removed was me saying that I agree the Nicaraguan rape material is not relevant. - Merzbow 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It was an obvious edit conflict as my own comments were removed in the dif you provide. This is again, why its better to ask, or make note, before accusing anyone of doing something on purpose for malicious reasons. WP:AGF Ultramarine. --SixOfDiamonds 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, this still does not give any explanation for the inclusion of the Nicaraguan rape.Ultramarine 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I accept your apology. --SixOfDiamonds 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please give an explanation for the inclusion of the Nicaragua material.Ultramarine 20:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is bad form to continue conversations in two locations. This thread is complete. --SixOfDiamonds 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will continue below.Ultramarine 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one wanted to read the original source, I added another. --SixOfDiamonds 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean this unsourced article.[17] There is no mention there that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 19:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a republishing of the article from The Nation, which is why I sourced the original, not the excerpt. --SixOfDiamonds 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still unsourced and still no mention there that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a source listed, its currently source 100. --SixOfDiamonds 19:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The Nation article has no sources. Regardless, it does not mention that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The nation is WP:RS, and states the CIA ran the torture chambers. Sources that meet WP:RS such as The Nation, do not need to list their sources, that is a Wikipedia policy. Newspapers do not operate on Wiki policy. --SixOfDiamonds 20:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is partisan source. That the article lists no sources for its claims make the claims less reliable and unverifiable, reputable newspapers gives sources for extraordinary claims. Regardless, the article does not claim that the US was responsible for the rape.Ultramarine 20:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The nation is WP:RS, and states the CIA ran the torture chambers. Further it does not need to list sources. Perhaps you should ask the people over at WP:RS if sources like newspapers need to list their sources. --SixOfDiamonds 20:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What has some torture chambers got to do with this rape?Ultramarine 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please rephrase your question, considering the context of the discussion and what is being discussed, I do not understand. --SixOfDiamonds 20:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the relation between alleged torture chambers run by the CIA and the rape?Ultramarine 20:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the connection between torture chambers ran by the CIA in Guatemala and a rape of a women who sued the US government for her rape in a torture chamber in Guatemala? --SixOfDiamonds 20:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OR reserch connection, not allowed. The article makes no such connection. Regarding Nicaragua, please give an explanation for the inclusion of the material.Ultramarine 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Chicago Manual of Style and plagiarism. In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia.

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing primary or secondary sources within the provisions of this policy is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

The source specifically comments on Sister Ortiz and makes the same point, that the US supported the Guatemalan terrorism. This is not creating a primary source as a primary source is: documents or people very close to the situation being written about. --SixOfDiamonds 20:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to head off the other jumble of letters, its not WP:SYNTH, because the other source is also stating US involvement and support of the torture. Combining A and B to make C is not permitted, however both A and B are stating the US supported the terrorism. --SixOfDiamonds 20:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, what you are doing is violating "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"Ultramarine 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you stating both sources do not say the US was complicit in the torture? --SixOfDiamonds 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You have a source alleging that the CIA run torture chambers. One place connected to the rape was something that may have been a torture chamber. To synthesize this into claiming that the rape must have taken place in a CÄI torture chamber does not follow logically and is OR reserach.Ultramarine 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still no respone regarding Nicaragua.Ultramarine 20:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a source that states the CIA ran the torture chambers, and another source that states the CIA ran the torture chambers, and also in addition that they taught the torturers how to torture. That is not synthesis. If you read the sources, and not just the quotes, you would know that, but you have been refusing the read them. --SixOfDiamonds 20:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As explained, it does not follow logically that the rape took place in one of those alleged torture chambers. An OR synthesis not allowed. Still no respone regarding Nicaragua, I take it that you agree to removing this scene? Ultramarine 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking again at the source, it alleges "North American C.l.A. operatives work inside a Guatemalan Army unit that maintains a network of torture centers and has killed thousands of Guatemalan civilians" This does not mean that the CIA run the torture chambers.Ultramarine 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Futthermore, the Intelligence Oversight Board in its report does mention some support, but also that the influence was used to try to lessen the human rights violations.Ultramarine 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources I provide seem to say it was not to lessen human rights violations. It seems we have content that is supported by WP:RS sources and you have some content you can add to establish NPOV. The joy of cooperation. --SixOfDiamonds 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I will now remove Nicaragua as per above. An OR synthesis still not allowed as per above.Ultramarine 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cited 2 more sources, the first states that:

1. Gramajo was a CIA asset
2. being paid by the CIA
3. Gramajo was in charge of the men who raped Ortiz
4. CIA was funding Gramajo's unit G-2

Second states:

1. CIA station cheifs directed G-2
2. G-2 is Gramajos unit
3. Gramajo is a CIA asset

In connection with the previous sources that state Gramajo was connected to the rape of Ortiz and a CIA asset at the time. These are not introducing anything new, they are supporting in full Gramajo's command over those responcible, Gramajo being a CIA asset at the time of doing so, and the CIA funding of the unit G-2. As for the details of the rape, I am on the fence and would like to hear more debate regarding keeping it. While I do not think it should be censored, the section on Guatemala looks like it can be shortened. --SixOfDiamonds 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Nicaragua, I will get to it, so do not remove it. Try to have some patience in requesting assistance. I cannot full research and source one section and a second at the same time. This is why others are asking you not to flood the talk page with a million requests at once. When this topic is done I will gladly move on to Nicaragua. --SixOfDiamonds 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not follow logically from any of this that the US was responsible for the blame. That is an OR synthesis.Ultramarine 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am no longer addressing you on this topic until I have seen you have read the sources. Please let me know when you have. --SixOfDiamonds 13:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When you ignore quotes like "But all of this information about the U.S. support for Guatemalan intelligence, for the Guatemalan killing apparatus, has been out there for years and years," from the sources, it does not look good. So let me know when you have read the sources before stating "It does not follow logically ... US was responsible for the blame" Also this article covers state terrorism which includes state sponsored terrorism, please keep that in mind. --SixOfDiamonds 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You cite yet more allegations by the same author as previously, in dubious partisan magazines like Z magazine. I take it that you now accept similar sources such as Frontpage magazine? That a person is a "CIA Asset" does not mean that the CIA control everything that he does. Regarding the relationship between D-2 and the CIA, I quote: "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."[18]Ultramarine 14:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And this is the basis for NPOV. Both sources get included and both sides. I am very happy to work with you as it seems we have accomplished something. Also the interview was Znet Magazine, the other 2 sources where he wrote the article for were The Nation which meets WP:RS. Further, if you still doubt the author, you can read his Wikipedia article, he is highly awarded and praised for uncovering the link to the CIA and South American forces. Please actually read the mans article if you wish to keep this going. The link you provide gets included presenting one side, the link I provide presents the other and we have achieved NPOV, praise the lord! , whichever one you do praise, or none for that matter, or multiples of them ... --SixOfDiamonds 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We can include both of these views regarding the D-2, although the same standard will apply to sources from both sides. Regardless, this does not prove that the US ordered the rape. Assuming that Gramajo's men did the rape and that Gramajo ordered this, both questionable, then this still does not prove that the US ordered Gramajo to order the rape.Ultramarine 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

US Sponsored terrorism. --SixOfDiamonds 14:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess you have a claim for this in the state terrorism book. If so, then the claimed responsibility should be spelled out. Like that someone blames the US for the rape since it is claimed that US funded Gramajo or D-2 ordered men to do the rape.Ultramarine 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is why I keep telling you to read the sources. I already posted an excerpt above, the articles are stating the US is responsible for the action because of their funding. One even says they would not have happened if it was not for the US. Again, please read the sources, this is starting to become highly disruptive. --SixOfDiamonds 15:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the claimed responsibility should be spelled out. Like that someone blames the US for the rape since the US funded Gramajo or D-2 who in turn is claimed to have ordered men to do the rape.Ultramarine 15:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources are given so we do not have to constantly quote from the source. Too many quotes in an article is not good form. If the user needs to, they can reference the source. The miscommunication here stems from your assumption that the source does not fit, people normally do not read an article or journal and believe that all sources given are not correct. They then go and check the source for additional information, a source is given because it is relevant and connected. You have been challenging them as being neither without reading them causing the mess above. Readers do not have this issue, people do not assume they are being lied to, and if they have doubts, they read the source provided. --SixOfDiamonds 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "Some see the US as indirectly responsible for the rape...since it funded persons or organizations allegedly connected to the rape?"Ultramarine 15:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It is greater then that, the article is titled appropriately that the reader will understand that events mention within it are going toward explaining the title. The sources as such are going toward explaining the information presented within that. If you were reading an article titled "Species of reptiles endemic to Cuba" you would not need the article to state in reference to the section "Cuban crocodiles" that they are endemic to Cuba. It is already being said by the article title. In this instance the title is "state terrorism" the sources support this by citing the sponsorship, funding, training, and over seeing as well as payrolling of those involved with terrorist acts sorted by country, in this case it is Guatemala. --SixOfDiamonds 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Already presented evidence that the US tried to stop the HRV. No evidence has been presented that that the US was responsible for this particular rape, so something like above is all that can be stated. Furthermore, what is the reason for having the long graphic rape scene. Not necessary and only polemical.Ultramarine 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources. I am no longer having this discussion with you until you have. It is entirely disruptive to constantly question sources without having read them, once you have read them please let me know, until then removing any will be considered vandalism. As I stated, please let me know when you have finished. --SixOfDiamonds 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Civility. Stop accusing me for vandalism which a content dispute is not. Just for the sake of argument, lets assume that the US ordered the rape. This would still not justify a graphic rape scen, it adds no information.Ultramarine 18:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of vandalism. I am telling you, that if you remove sources without even had read them, on the basis they do not contain content, that you have not read to know, then it will be vandalism. WP:FNHGFHEHR Read the sources. --SixOfDiamonds 19:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is notacontent dipsute or making bold edits. I will note it as a incivility if you make such claims. Back to the issues. Just for the sake of argument, lets assume that the US ordered the rape. This would still not justify a graphic rape scen, it adds no information.Ultramarine 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to have knowledge of the content to dispute it. Please read the sources. I will then discuss them with you, no "assumptions", we can discuss what the sources do say. Once you have read them, and care to discuss them, please let me know. --74.73.16.230 01:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding RS, I think disallowing a source because of perceived bias is unreasonably strict and certainly not based on policy. Of course, if we use left-leaning sources it would be absolutely acceptable to use right-leaning ones. However, whatever the bias they should still be notable, some obscure magazine or blog obviously cannot be used. Respectfully.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory regarding the Algiers putsch of 1961

No verifiable source regarding this very obscure conspiracy theory has been added. Objections to removal? Ultramarine 16:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In Killing Hope, on page 150, William Blum quotes an unnamed French official as saying: "The CIA played a direct part in the Algiers coup, and certainly weighed heavily on the decision taken by ex-general Challe to start his putsch." Bmedley Sutler 18:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will add this.Ultramarine 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your're welcome. Can we agree to a moratorium on adding new challenges until we have time to address that very long list from Merzbow? Thanks Bmedley Sutler 19:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no such moratorium by others who keep adding new material without discussion on talk.Ultramarine 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The above has been changed to misleading version, implying that there is official recognition.[19] Pleaes explain.Ultramarine 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Human rights organizations" accusing the US of "state terrorism"

Who? I cannot find these (at least two are implied by the statement) in the sources. Ultramarine 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Look harder. Human Rights Watch accused the US of state terrorism in Pakistan. Specifically it involves the interrogation and torture in Pakistan of two US citizens by the FBI "FBI agents questioned the brothers on at least six occasions... did not intervene to end the torture...refused to provide consular facilities (requested by the detainees family) normally offered to detained U.S. citizens...and threatened the men with being sent to the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay if they did not confess to involvement in terrorism." The men were released without charge after 7 months and told their release was conditional on not talking to the media. And HRW also accuse the US of supporting Pakistani abduction and torture of people in secret prisons to extract confessions, “The United States should be condemning this, but instead it either directing this activity or turning a blind eye". This is one organisation and I'm sure there are a few more out there. Wayne 08:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Only one and does not accuse the US of terrorism, that is your own interpretation.Ultramarine 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking the other way while another tortures is not the equivalent of performing torture yourself and that is not terrorism. It is not ethical; it is not moral, but it is not terrorism unless we are attempting to change the definition to meet our personal agenda. This feels an awfully lot like a soapbox. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Diana Ortiz

[copyright violation removed]

http://www.encyclopedia.com/printable.aspx?id=1G1:18676175 Bmedley Sutler 18:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is the relevance of this to state terrorism by the United States? Ultramarine 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

Looks like John has decided that there is no consensus to move this page back to where it needs to be, namely Allegations of state terrorism by the United States. Instead of examining the comments from numerous debates on this issue, he has instead acted unilaterally (having offered little in the way of dicussion lately) for this move after it was moved by East718, who has been trying to make the article better and has participated in the latest discussions...can anyone reference where the United States has been demonstrated by an internatioanlly recognized body like the UN or the EU to actually be a state sponsor of terrorism, or do we have to continue to rely on the OPINIONS of well known extreme radicals for a basis in the current title. I mean, Chomsky has repeatedly been shown to overlook terrorism made by the communist block. Falk has made anti-Semitic comments including calling the Israeli government guilty of genocide and has even coauthored a book about 9/11 conspiracy theories (gag). Ganser, well, it's pretty obvious where he is coming from, and he too is an embracer of idiotic 9/11 conspiracy theories. I know I am going to have a long wait for an answer since their is no answer...the fact is, the U.S. has not been decreed by anything like the UN or the EU as a state sponsor of terrorism.--MONGO 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See up the page a bit. I didn't see the discussion you had while I took a break (as I said I was doing), and when I saw it had been moved assumed it was more move vandalism. I moved it back immediately when I saw there was a consensus to adopt the weasel-word title; seems like I missed the talk page. AGF, old chap, can't you? --John 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to respond to the rant above. The UN does not have a list of terrorist groups. It has a list of groups attached to the Taliban and al'Qeada, which I provided a link in the AfD that showed the fallacy of citing that as a terrorist list. --74.73.16.230 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How many times do you have to be asked to sign your username with your IP. Do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you keep being such a waste of time? Besides, it is obvious you're a sockpuppet anyway.--MONGO 06:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not be upset at my contributions. Four articles in 30 days, this boy is hot! How are those parks coming along? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there is no consensus established yet for these title moves. Lets get some consensus first before we make any major changes like that. I can see arguments for both sides of this question, btw, but I prefer that we respect consensus rather than just forcing a title move. Its premature to do so.Giovanni33 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is now a working consensus for the move. - Merzbow 03:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No idea why they are belly aching about this move. It will make it harder to delete it if is titled Allegations...think pepople.--MONGO 06:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the page move, and the straw poll had a majority for the previous title. Article would be better if no american was allowed to edit it.--BMF81 08:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice.--MONGO 09:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your posts would be taken more seriously MONGO if you didn't include so much POV dreck to bolster your arguements. Why exactly does believing in alternate 9/11 theories disqualify a person as a RS? According to polls a majority of Americans also do not believe the "official" account. I have not read much of Falk so can make no comment on his alledged anti semitism but why do you use an example that many experts, in using it's broadest definition, also hold and is supported by statements made by various Israeli politicians? All I can find Falk saying is that Israel's actions in Gaza have "genocidal potential" and that he doesn't consider this type of genocide the same as that of extermination. If Falk is actually saying Israel wants to kill all Palestinians instead of just removing them from Israel then that's different so give me a link. Where is Ganser coming from? You do a lot of good work on WP and are doing yourself a great diservice by using such rediculous examples for why not to use these sources. Wayne 09:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As must unfortunately be pointed out quite often, criticism of Israel--even accusing them of genocide--does not equate to anti-Semitism. Look here for something Falk wrote on the subject of Israeli treatment of Palestinians. It's well outside the mainstream (in the US at least), but also obviously not anti-Semitic. By the way, as he mentions there, Falk himself is Jewish. I also recall that, prior to the Iraq War, Falk wrote a piece in The Nation arguing that it would be possible for there to be a "just war" in Iraq, he just did not like the way Bush was going about it. The article created quite a stir and a bunch of prominent leftists wrote in objecting to Falk's piece. Falk got his JD at Harvard and has been teaching law at Princeton since 1965, and has been published hundreds of times and given expert testimony and served on international panels of jurors multiple times. Reducing him to an anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theorist (I didn't even know he had ever commented on 9/11 until now) is quite ridiculous.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, indeed he has coauthored a book with a well know 9/11 conspiracy theorist about U.S. involvement aka complicity in 9/11. Again, if all we have is the opinions of the radical left to bolster the U.S.=terrorist sponsor state, then we'll just have to do what we can to demonstrate that these opinions aren't mainstream.--MONGO 09:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I believe he simply wrote an intro, not the book itself. The fact is that this guy is an unbelievably respected legal scholar. Maybe he holds some out-there opinions as well, but this does not discount his expertise on international law (which is extremely relevant to this article, of course). Isaac Newton tried to find secret codes in the Bible, but he also knew a hell of a lot about gravity.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess that means gravity was not real, or have we ended this war on sources on the basis of WP:IDONOTLIKEIT --74.73.16.230 10:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

removing specious associations

I think it's time to remove the specious "guilt by association" passages. Things along the lines of 'Person A committed war crimes. Person A trained in location B. Therefore, anyone who trained in location B is suspect of war crimes and location B is also guilty of war crimes.' These are associations that are not established by hard evidence or citation, yet each one statement is factually accurate. It is guilt by association and a logical fallacy that has no place in the article. Consider the following statement: 'Noam Chomsky studied at Harvard University. Harvard University also trained the Unabomber. The unabomber killed a number of persons and published a leftist/anarchist manifesto. Harvard has been criticized for being leftist in it's instruction and faculty.' Then put these statements in an article called "Allegations that Harvard graduates engaged in leftist homicidal bombings" and then having a section on Ted and Noam Chomsky. This is exactly the situation surrounding a large portion of the Guatemala and Nicaragua sections. Osorio is not an American. He wasn't ordered by Americans to commit terrorism. Neither were his soldiers. It's not even alleged that the U.S. participated in any of these activities. --Tbeatty 07:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your concerns to the talk page. Your Chomsky/Unabomber analogy is not very convincing, as the situation you describe is not at all analogous to what is going on in the article. In an article called "Allegations that Harvard graduates engaged in leftist homicidal bombings" why would Chomsky even be mentioned? He had no association with the Unabomber (he was at Harvard well before) nor with any leftist homicidal bombings. No one has even accused of him such actions. There would be absolutely no reason to say anything about Chomsky, and thus doing so would be patently absurd. The situation with Carlos Manuel Arana Osorio, which you mention, is obviously very, very different. The US was honing its counter-insurgency techniques in Vietnam, and trained Osorio's forces in these tactics for use against Guatemalans who gave the government trouble. The techniques, the weaponry, etc. were supplied by the US and thousands of Guatemalans were murdered by the Guatemalan armed forces as a direct result. It is not that the US gave Osorio some guns and training and hoped he would use it only if he really needed to (like if Guatemala was invaded), it is that the US "encouraged" Guatemala to use the same tactics the US was using in Vietnam and the effect of this was that many people were murdered. One expert, McClintock (and I know you don't like that source, but in the past you have only explained why you do not like the argument, which is irrelevant, rather what you think the problem with the source itself is) has labeled this behavior "terrorism of the state" and places primary responsibility for it with the US. You may disagree, and you can find sources which do, but this is what one expert on the topic thinks about it.

So it's not a question of "guilt by association" (a very direct causal link between Osorio and the US is discussed in the article--completely unlike your Chomsky/Unabomber example because giving guns to some guy and saying "go shoot people with these things" ties those parties together about a billion times more than two guys who later became famous going to the same school in different decades). It's a question of whether or not a particular source labels some particular set of actions by the United States "state terrorism." In the case of Osorio, McClintock believes that training his armed forces in counterinsurgency tactics and encouraging them to use them--coupled with the fact that they were actually used--constitutes state terrorism on the part of the US (and the Guatemalans as well, no doubt). I would cheerfully include sources which offer a different interpretation, and suggest you locate some so we can put that information in the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there are two notable accusation of state terrorism in the Guatemala section, McClintock and Gareau. The question is how much of the other stuff in the section is relevant; much of it appears to be details on the actions of the accused that appear to be making McClintock and Gareau's arguments for them. - Merzbow 07:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The section can definitely be trimmed, and also it jumps around a bit. I think it should run in a fairly chronological fashion (though it already does to an extent). It's difficult to say how much supporting detail one needs to give. Technically we could just put in the accusations (McClintock said what happened here was terrorism of the state) but I think we obviously need to go a bit further. With the Guatemala section we need to include some background information about the Guatemalan government and give some specific examples regarding the behavior of the armed forces (e.g. massacres, rapes, etc.) but we don't want to get too carried away. The rape section has been brought up multiple times as being too long and I fully agree. I also think there was an effort to lard this whole article with sources (which probably made sense as it kept getting AfD'd) but now there are probably too many sources--some of the stuff in the Guatemala section is a bit repetitive, and some quotes are just too long (this includes Ultramarine's recent addition of the Intelligence Oversight Board source, which is also referenced earlier in the section).

Though the section needs to be slimmed down and some sources probably cut, I think we could still greatly improve the sourcing. Prominent scholars who disagree with McClintock and Gareau should be cited, though I don't have any suggestions offhand. The person who arguably knows more about this stuff than anyone (at least anyone writing in English) is Greg Grandin of NYU (history prof), and his book The Last Colonial Massacre: Latin America in the Cold War (and maybe the very end of his earlier book, The Blood of Guatemala) would be worth checking out though I am not familiar with it (he comes very much from the left, but I don't know if he views US behavior in Guatemala as "state terror" or not--he certainly condemns it). But perhaps before focusing on better sources we should work on tightening this and other sections.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no sources to refute the specious claims made in the article, just as their are no sources that refute Chomsky's ties to the unabomber. The argument that I was making is that the article creates a timeless relationship to the School of the Americas. It invents a terrorism link to the United States by association of training without establishing that the training was in terrorism. Like what has been discussed before, counter-insurgency is not terrorism. It's certainly a shame that the Guatamalens killed each other in horrific ways, but it's Guatamaln terrorism in a civil war. These are not allegations that the U.S. engaged in terrorism. It's an allegation that the U.S. trained someone in counter-insurgency and then those people committed crimes completely separate from their training. There is no association established. Many soldiers are trained by the U.S. in various military techniques and they do not turn around and then commit crimes. The training is unrelated just as the Unabombers training at harvard didn't contribute to his bomb-making prowess. Even if he used the Harvard library to learn how to make bombs, Harvard isn't liable. Even if he read Noam Chomsky, Chomsky wouldn't be liable for his criminal acts. --Tbeatty 08:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another analogy: A police officer (Osorio) goes to firearms training(School of the Americas). He shoots at targets all day and is trained in the defensive use of the firearm (counter insurgency). He is encouraged to target practice by his instructors (train your men). He goes home and shoots his wife in the head (terrorism in Guatemala). Do we include this in "Allegations of Police Department sanctioned killings"? I don't think so. We certainly don't take as a reliable source someone who starts off with the premise that "Self defense" and "sanctioned killing" is the same thing so training for self-defense is akin to murder and uses it as the basis for inclusion. The police department didn't do anything near sanctioning the murder. At best, they might be criticised for their selection of whom to train to be a police officer, but that's an entirely different article. It's simply ridiculous to inlcude these "guilt by association" claims. --Tbeatty 08:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll use your own anology to show why some of the claims should be included. A police officer (insert dictators henchmen here) goes to firearms training(School of the Americas). He tells the instructors he needs to know how to shoot his wife (expected and condoned behaviour). He shoots at targets all day and is trained in the defensive use of the firearm (counter insurgency). He is encouraged to target practice by his instructors (train your men). He goes home and shoots his wife in the head (terrorism in Guatemala). Seems like guilt by association and I believe under U.S. law if one party commits a murder, a second party present is also guilty even if he condemns the act and did not know it was going to happen. In the case of Guatamala the U.S. knew it was going to happen and have admitted they did. Claiming innocence because they never actually pulled the trigger is not on. Wayne 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, there are plenty of sources that would argue against the claims made in this article (the United States government for one, if you want the most obvious example, also see footnote 108 for a source that is already in the article). Lots of people have written about what happened in Guatemala and the US's involvement there, and all you would need to find is someone who says this was not state terror or, even more simply, that the US was not complicit (or only partially so) in what the Guatemalan security services did. That really should not be too difficult--it's not like you need to find something that says "Michael McClintock was wrong when he said X." I need to get away from editing here soon, otherwise I would try to find a source for you, but I'm confident that you can do this.

You say--and have said repeatedly--that counter-insurgency is not state terrorism. That's fine, and many would agree with you, but many do not, as sources like McClintock reveal. Stalin may have called his political purges "getting rid of criminals" (I don't what he called it, I'm just making that up) but most of us would obviously call it mass murder. Just because the US and Guatemala called what the Guatemalans did "counter-insurgency" does not mean others cannot disagree and label it something completely different, such as mass political assassination or state terrorism. The point in the Guatemala section is that the US was not simply training the Guatemalans how to shoot a gun or protect themselves, they were training them in counter-insurgency techniques which included killing civilians, a course of action which some have labeled state terrorism. As I said this is the same stuff the US was beginning to do in Vietnam, culminating most famously in the Phoenix Program. Thus the training was not unrelated to what the Guatemalans went on to do, the training was probably the largest contributing factor to what the Guatemalan security services did (at least in the early years). So, again, it is not guilt by association, or at least that is an argument which some make. When you find a source for the argument you are making, please put it in the article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I posted a source to the article for Allan Nairn articles who was instrumental in revealing the link between Guatemalan security forces and the CIA. Nairn as a highly award writer on political events believes these events would not have happened if it was not for the US involvement. This is why I keep saying the people who wish to remove items really need to read the sources. --74.73.16.230 10:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The fairest way to approach this section (and others like it) is to only elaborate upon the items that the reliable sources making the accusation specifically mention. That is, if McClintock and Gareau say that the US committed state terrorism because of A, B, and C, we should only add additional details for A, B, and C. If we add stuff on D, E, and F, because we think it's relevant, that leads into original research. I think we can all agree to this in principle. - Merzbow 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reading the sources is the best way to find out. Also saying the US supported mass murders of the Guatemalan population in order for the Guatemalan government to effect the will of the people, would be the same as supporting terrorism. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Not, it would not be the same. In your mind, maybe, not in the mind of other editors. The source has to say "terrorism". - Merzbow 18:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No it really doesn't, you can ask at WP:OR. It is not WP:OR to state common sense items. An article says John slaughtered Jane and we say John killed Jane, it is not OR. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Source if anyone is interested

While looking for something else I came across this a recent issue of the journal Radical History Review (which is quite respected and has published scads of prominent historians). The title of the issue is "Truth Commissions: State Terror, History, and Memory." I don't think it's available online and I have not looked at it, but it might have some useful information if anyone can snag a copy. At the least I'm sure the article footnotes would list plenty of good sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out for it, but I don;t think its published yet. Its Winter 2007 and the current issue is spring 2007. So Winter comes before Spring in the US? You learn something knew every day! ... Seabhcan 08:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Winter 07 is online for $30 [20]. I'll warm up my credit card and see what it gives me. ... Seabhcan 08:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. We have huge fights in this country about whether winter is before spring or vice versa. It's actually a more divisive issue here than the war in Iraq or gay marriage or other stuff like that, but we're good at hiding this conflict from citizens of other nations. So don't tell anyone I told you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha.... Seabhcan 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Put your credit card away, I just got that article for free. I'm not going to post it here because it'd be a copyvio, but if anybody wants to read it just leave a message on my talk page and I'll email it to you. I don't want to give out my email address. Fuck it, here it is. east.718 10:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have the rest of the issue? ... Seabhcan 10:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have access to know the articles, but I need to know their names first. I'm pretty stupid, they're on their way. east.718 19:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy! east.718 19:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom? on this article?

First of all, I am back with this user name. Stalkers unite!

I was just reading over the requirements of a RfC. We have done RfC's before, several times before. We have had several straw polls on this page, with no conclusion. See:

• Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America-strawpolls

The moderator User:Wikizach decided which sections to keep and delete as a result of this strawpoll:

• Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/Archive_5#RESULTS

As per: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes We have tried all of the "Further dispute resolution" steps. Do any of you feel like a Arbcom is in order?

PS, please lets focus on the article, and avoid attacking each other. Several of the editors who want this page deleted don't have clean records either. I don't think this is a good place to bring this up. Travb (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you define the dispute you want arbitrated? Gronky 09:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I dont know if arbitration is correct. I have never seen arbitration on an article before, only with users. Basically to finally resolve what sections will be in this article, what sources are adequate, and what the name of this article should be. I am sure other editors can make other suggestions. Again, maybe Arbcom is the wrong forum.

I supported changing the name of this article to one that doesnt have terrorism in it some time ago...but there was never enough support. What does everyone else think? What do you think Gronky? Travb (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Then don't bring it up. The ice you are on is so thin it probably wouldn't hold up a feather.--MONGO 09:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Try to address the article and stay on topic. --74.73.16.230 10:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MONGO Travb (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You know that arbcom doesn't deal with content disputes...see if any mediator feels like handling this mess. What alternate title did you have in mind?--MONGO 09:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Okay a mediator will have to do. We had an informal meditor before and it went nowhere.

Suggested titles:

• Sourced allegations of breaches of international law by the United States of America
• American war crimes
• United States covert actions / Covert actions of the US against other nations
• United States international covert operations
• State-sponsored International Terrorism by the US
• American terrorism (term)
• The title I support as I supported before is:

Political violence by the United States/American political violence/United States poltical violence

This title is supported by wikipolicy, which I explained.

The history of the Israel terrorism page shows that this title change dramatically reduced edit wars.

• In regards to the current title, the moderator User:Wikiezach saw a title with "allegations" as a weasel word. His views were ignored. Travb (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  Th one time I did move this article was to a title similar to the top one you suggest...except it didn't have the word "sourced" in it.--MONGO 10:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

title change

I think the most recent page move consesus was an example of tedious editing.

If you wait long enough, people will move on and you will get the result (consensus) which you want. This argument is in every archived discussion. Every straw poll has given no consensus at all.

In the past 500 edits, the following wikiusers have changed the title back to State terrorism by the United States: [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]

Hardly consensus. Travb (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How many times did you and your other account edit war with others over the title? Isotpe moved it because he saw the uga buga character as a page move vandal and for good reason...he had never discussed it. Stone put to sky is counted as doing two moves. I have only moved it once.--MONGO 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My former account moved it several times over the past two months. Those moves were supported by other editors here.

I actually would support a title without terrorism, as I did last year, so that maybe some of the editors would find other articles to delete. The problem is, once the title is changed, then other editors will come along and say the introduction should be removed, because the title has nothing to do with terrorism...etc, etc, etc. Travb (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

For over a year I have repeated that "allegedly" is a weasel word, I just found that Weasel word support this clearly:

"There are some forms of generalization which are considered unacceptable in standard writing. This category embraces what is termed a semantic cop-out, represented by the term allegedly. This phrase, which became something of a catch-phrase on the weekly satirical BBC television show, Have I Got News For You, implies an absence of ownership of opinion which casts a limited doubt on the opinion being articulated." Travb (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations doesn't look like a weasel word to me...since all we have is allegations and opinions...we could change the title to include the word opinions.--MONGO 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Allegations has to be a weasel word because an allegation requires only a single source, and doesn't require proof but only the claim that you have proof to support it. The word can give a reader the impression that possibly the U.S. has not really done most of these actions (or is not responsible for them) and that they are just claims made by people with an axe to grind. Wayne 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Something ceases to be an allegation when it is sufficiently agreed upon by a consensus of relevant, reliable authorities. That is emphatically not the case here. - Merzbow 17:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not? Who are the reliable suthorities who dispute that the facts described in this article are not disputed?Giovanni33 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Show me that a consensus exists among scholars and statesmen across the mainstream political spectrum, and publishing in mainstream books, journals, and magazines, that the U.S. has engaged in state terrorism and it becomes a fact, not an opinion. Until that point it is an allegation. - Merzbow 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I refer you to this article with over 100 references. Surely if this these facts and observations are disputed you can show me some reliable sources which state so?Giovanni33 20:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some are already in there and believe me, more will be coming. But your logic is faulty. A theory does not become fact simply because it is not refuted. The alternative is that it's still too fringe for much attention to be paid to it by mainstream scholars. And there are precious few mainstream scholars referenced here who agree the US committed state terror, and none from the center or the right of the political spectrum. - Merzbow 21:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If your center to right writers ignore it, it doesnt mean they dispute it, either. Since these facts are very well knowns and notable (not fringe), the fact that other writers ignore it, is easily explaned by the fact that its non controverial, and well established facts that no one of reputability disputes. I note that the best that some of the less credible right wing writers can do, on this topic, is attack the authors instead of the facts or their arguments. This is further evidence that we are dealing with undisputed facts. While there may not be an accepted international consensus among nations about what qualifies as state terrorism, there is an understanding of what is state terrorism among academia, and these facts are incontrovertibly established. If we expand the title to allegations, then this article greatly expends to all claims, regardless of their factual basis--and that makes for a much, much larger article. I propose two article--one with only allegations. This one stick to well established and non-disputed facts.Giovanni33 22:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"If your center to right writers ignore it, it doesnt mean they dispute it, either." So academics must agree with any fringe theory that they haven't specifically refuted? (Couldn't be because they don't think it's a notable theory worth spending their time on? Naaaah...) With that observation I'll bow out of this thread. - Merzbow 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your point would only be valid if it was indeed fringe. However, the fact that several notable scholars and multiple reputable sources make these claims, proves they are not fringe. I think the difference we are talking about are the facts, and the conclusion drawn from the facts. The facts are not in dispute. They are factual and everyone agrees with the fact ( just about). What is disputed is the theoretical and political framework that concludes that such acts are acts of state terrorism. The US govt. denies it, and says its just acting in collective self defense, etc. The court ruled that this was not valid, but since state terrorism is not a legally established definition (yet), it uses boader language (violations of the norms of humanitarian and international law, illegal use of force, etc) that are legally established. Still, these actions are factual, and thus its more than simply allegations.Giovanni33 00:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(OK so I lied about bowing out of the thread). Yes, raw facts like who trained who and who took power when are mostly not in dispute here, it is the interpretations of them and the motivations of the actors that is. We can argue if the framework of interpreting all these events as US State Terrorism is "fringe", but it most certainly is not mainstream or widely accepted. But the article name refers to the framework - state terrorism by the US - and not the events. Since the framework is what is not proven, it remains an allegation. If at some point the framework gains wide acceptance across the academic community, it would cease to be an allegation. - Merzbow 01:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Another question. Why does the article Bigfoot not say "Allegations of Bigfoot?" The subject is Bigfoot, and in the article's body we have "alleged sightings," etc. Likewise, the subject of this article is State Terrorism of the US, with a section that clearly states its allegations. If we don't need to say "Alleged Bigfoot" why do we need the, arguably, weasle word, in the title of this article? Besides this issue, there is the semantical, language issue about saying, 'allegations of...by the US" since it can be understood as the US making the allegations, which would not be accurate.Giovanni33 03:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bigfoot comprises not just claims about the alleged animal, but the folklore surrounding him, the sub-subject of cryptozoology, artwork, etc. Only the monster himself is "alleged", the folklore, sub-subject, and artwork aren't, they actually exist. However, "US State Terrorism" is currently just a claim made in various current events/history articles. It is not a subject in college, it is not a genre of artwork. And it involves serious allegations of wrongdoing against living and recently dead people, unlike Bigfoot. That's why "Allegations..." is appropriate for the title. - Merzbow 04:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I can see both sides of this argument and I am fine with either, really, and will respect the consensus on this question against my personal preference. This is esp. the case if it will allow more progress on the content of this article without the obstructions, edit waring, etc. that we've both seen in the recent past. Anyway, thanks again for answering and making clear your rationale on this question.Giovanni33 06:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. - Merzbow 08:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: title change to Political violence by the United States

This is a dispute about changing the title of State terrorism by the United States.

Support

1. As per policy and other successful page histories below, this would radically reduce edit warring. Travb (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
2. The current title is great for POV; put it on the front page of any major newpaper (NY Times) and tell me who would not hear, "there goes the LEFT again, that constant yammering of the bleeding heart". None of the reasons given for opposing the change even attempts to answer the POV issues. Of course, I suppose my support gains strength if I add STRONG or maybe the novel ABSOLUTE. I wonder, based upon the current title it would seem appropriate to rename Colonialism to Racist imperialism and subjugation of the true peoples of the world or some other equally neutral title. This may coddle the left, but at least be honest about it and admit it can not pass NPOV standards. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. No thanks.--MONGO 10:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Lets stop talking about moving the article again! ... Seabhcan 10:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Per Seabhcan. There seems to be progress on content. Let's go with that and get the page stable. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Absolutely not. More changes to the title would be a distraction; the content of the article is improving, and that's what we should focus on. --John 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
5. I oppose strongly, per Seabhcan and John. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
6. Strongly oppose, for all the reasons given here. CWC 15:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
7. I've not been very involved with this article (just a page protection and some template fixes), but I've noticed good progress here recently: in the content, sourcing, and behaviour of contributors. I would suggest working on one thing at a time, perhaps first the content, then when that's all settled, a name change. There is a lot of time to work towards the perfect article. Finding the best name doesn't have to happen right now. Sancho 17:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
8. Agree with others, a radical title change does not make sense now. Perhaps eventually we can come up with a better title, but for now we should try to continue working on the content as we have been doing with some success.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
9. Current name is fine. - Merzbow 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Lets not. Arkon 18:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
11. No. Let's improve the article. east.718 19:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose the word "allegations" isn't in the title. Thus this would make the title POV.--Sefringle^Talk 04:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view says:

An article title "Israeli terrorism" inherently implies that Wikipedia takes a view that Israel's actions are considered terrorism. As of August 2006 "Israeli terrorism" redirects to Zionist political violence.

When this article was changed from Zionist terrorism to Zionist political violence, the edit warring was reduced drastically. I am confident with a name change that edit warring will be reduced here too. Travb (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, so who screams more gets his line passed. As always on wikipedia.

How many time do we have to repeat this? The recent title change was close to vandalism. Ban the American fundamentalists.--BMF81 12:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Trust me...you keep up this way and there will be a banning.--MONGO 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you are that close to being banned MONGO. There is an article here to discuss you know? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fussed. The title (at present) is "Allegations of...", which seems to me to be an altogether proper way of going about it. Methinks the term that should be used is the term used in the allegations alleged to exist... If the term that the "allegers" are using is "terrorism," so be it. The reader need not agree, and a title like "Allegations of..." does not imply Wikipedia's agreement with those allegations. On the other hand, if the "allegers" use the term "political violence," then use that. My 2c. Xenophon777 13:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a New Introduction

THe following is my proposal for a new introduction. I feel that the current introduction is inadequate for the following reasons: 1. it cites only indirect support of terrorism by the U.S. while the relevant literature cites both indirect and direct terrorist practices perpetrated by the U.S. 2. It gives undue weight to Noam Chomsky, when in fact there is a plurality of notable critics that utilize the concept "U.S. state terrorism." 3. When it raises specific evidence of Nicaragua vs. The World Court in the International Court of Justice, this is in fact inappropriate content for introductions, which customarily deal with general and not specific claims. The following introduction makes general claims, anticipating the presentation of specific claims, in using quotes from the following sources:

1. Alexander George, professor of philosophy at Amherst, and editor of the earliest known full-length major study of "Western State Terrorism".

2. Arno Mayer, Emeritus professor of History at Princeton University.

3. Mark Selden, Phd. Yale University, professor of Sociology and History at Binghampton University

4. Richard Falk, Emeritus professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University

5. Noam Chomsky, an eminently notable stand-up comedian perpetually and transitorially residing in Lexington.

Here follows the proposed introduction (purposefully presented in its longest form, and probably in requirement of appropriate trimming):

The United States has been accused by some academics and activists of having directly committed acts of terrrorism and lending crucial suppport to foreign governments who have committed significant terrorist acts. These critics have employed the term "state terrorism" to describe singular acts as well as to conceptualize their recurrent tendencies. Among those that accept this alternative analytical framework U.S. governemts are typically considered responsible for a major portion of terrorist acts committed since the end of World War II. In the introduction to the earliest known book-length study of "Western State Terrorism", Alexander George remarked that "the plain and painful truth is that on any reasonable defintion of terrorism taken literally, the United States and its friends are the major supporters, sponsors, and perpetrators of terrorist incidents in the world today. (George, Alexander,ed. "Western State Terroism",1). Similarly in 2001, Arno Mayer, Emeritus Professor of History at Princeton University, observed that "since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of "preemptive" state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled." [29] Likewise, Mark Selden, professor of Sociology and History at Binghampton, in the introduction to the anthology, "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century" maintains that the "record of Asian wars suggests that the range, scope and frequency of U.S. state terrorist actions have had no rival since World War II." {Selden, Mark, ed. "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century, 13). Richard Falk, Emeritus Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton, arguing in the context of the Middle East conflict, states that "from any objective standpoint, Israel and the United States more frequently rely on terrorism, and in forms that inflict far greater quantums of suffering on their innocent victims, than do their opponents." (Falk, Richard. "The Terrorist Foundations of U.S. Foreign Policy, in "Western State Terrorism,ed. Alexander George, 108). Finally dissident intellectual Noam Chomsky has famously described the U.S. as "a leading terrorist state." [30]. As can be expected of a theoretical framework that is outspokenly oppositional to established views, both the concepts of state terrorism, and the evidence presented for U.S. state terrorism are matters of considerable dispute. The following article attempts to elucidate the relevant concepts and present the evidentiary claims as well as the objections to them.BernardL 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Great work, Bernard. I agree with the principals and reasons for your proposal of a change in the introduction, however, your actual proposal is too large and wordy to all fit in the intro. It needs to be trimmed and made conscise. I offer the following, as a rough example for an the intro:

Intro:

"The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations, among others.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The United States has also been accused by some academics and activists of having directly committed acts of state terrorism. They view the U.S. governemt as responsible for a major portion of terrorist acts committed since the end of World War II (cite sourced you provide below). Critics also maintain that the U.S. government is hypocritical as it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism, and as such has two foreign policies, one publicly stated and the other coverty applied.[11][12]

The theoretical framework for the concept of state terrorism, and the evidence presented for U.S. state terrorism are matters of considerable dispute. This article attempts to elucidate the relevant conceptsand present the evidentiary claims as well as the objections to them."

The rest of your prposed introduction is great material for the body of the article. The intro should remain concise. The Chomsky part, that left out above, is, in my opinion, detable for inclusion in the intro (undue weight issue), but should be in mentioned along with the other academics you cite below, as its a significant legal finding.

In the introduction to the earliest known book-length study of "Western State Terrorism", Alexander George remarked that "the plain and painful truth is that on any reasonable defintion of terrorism taken literally, the United States and its friends are the major supporters, sponsors, and perpetrators of terrorist incidents in the world today. (George, Alexander,ed. "Western State Terroism",1). Similarly in 2001, Arno Mayer, Emeritus Professor of History at Princeton University, observed that "since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of "preemptive" state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled." [31] Likewise, Mark Selden, professor of Sociology and History at Binghampton, in the introduction to the anthology, "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century" maintains that the "record of Asian wars suggests that the range, scope and frequency of U.S. state terrorist actions have had no rival since World War II." {Selden, Mark, ed. "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century, 13). Richard Falk, Emeritus Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton, arguing in the context of the Middle East conflict, states that "from any objective standpoint, Israel and the United States more frequently rely on terrorism, and in forms that inflict far greater quantums of suffering on their innocent victims, than do their opponents." (Falk, Richard. "The Terrorist Foundations of U.S. Foreign Policy, in "Western State Terrorism,ed. Alexander George, 108). Finally dissident intellectual Noam Chomsky has famously described the U.S. as "a leading terrorist state." [32].Giovanni33 00:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with Giovanni33 here. We should avoid lots of quotes in the intro, along with lists of names and positions. Summaries of positions are better. Also we should avoid self-referential language like "the following article refers to..." - Merzbow 01:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to go along with the version favoured by Giovanni, at least it is a considerable improvement on the current version. The sentence..."Critics also maintain that the U.S. government is hypocritical as it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism, and as such has two foreign policies, one publicly stated and the other coverty applied.[11][12]" was actually something I was intending to include but forgot to do so when I was typing. As for the sources cited, they are essential sources and will be appearing in the body of the article.BernardL 03:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for those good sources, Bernard. That is what this article needs. Do any editors have any objections to the proposed changes to the introduction? Before we make changes we want to make sure we address any disputes and move forward with consensus. I'm still unsure about the Chomsky bit for the intro. I think it can saved, and added, too, but I'm ok with sticking it somwhere in the body instead. about the rest of your discussion and the sources, they most certainly are valid additions to the body of this article.Giovanni33 03:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Its reading very nicely now. Good work. Bmedley Sutler 03:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree as long as the self-referential last sentence is left out ("This article..."). - Merzbow 04:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Howard Zinn writes: "if "terrorism" has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." [33]

These acts of terror targeting civilians should be included.Bmedley Sutler 03:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, industrial infrastructure are legitimate targets of war. Another personal definition of terrorism. And let's get our English language thinking caps on. Zinn does not says it IS terror. Zinn does not say it is STATE TERROR. --Tbeatty 04:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right he only says it was terrorism by the state ... He didn't murder Jane he killer her, citing that he murdered her is entirely WP:OR. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but Bmedley is right about this, and your point about the choice of targets, actually supports the widely held POV/allegation that this was an act of state terrorism because the target was not industrial infrastructure, it was civillians. That is right, the choice of target was specifically a large civilian population, for the purpose of maximizing the effect of the terror--This was a prime consideration. I refer you to The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, which rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective. After the Hiroshima bombing, President Truman announced, "If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth." That my conservative friend is terrorism. The intended psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members, and they wanted the impact of the bomb to be felt around the world, esp. the USSR. This is well established by historians. Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb. I quote: "Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds. Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender. Even then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower, wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"...Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[80] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet. "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Many, including General MacArthur, have contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages.

Therefore, it clear by the evidence that it was not militarily necessary to acheive the same results from a military/war perspective, but was used anyway, purposefully agaisnt civilians who were targeted as civilians to acheive a psychological effect and a political message to the cold war rival, the USSR, which was poised to move against an already badly defeated Japan--prior to the dropping of these bombs. I'm not saying this is the only POV, as we all know, but it is a very notable one. This means the view that this US action was an action of State terrorism is certainly a legitimate, notable act that we should be able to report on given the many clear and reputable sources that make this argument. Professor Zinn is a respected Historian and we are allowed to report his POV, as this area is his academic expertise.

Zinn, quotes the sociologist Kai Erikson, reviewing the report by the Japanese team of scientists, who wrote:

"The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point."

I will also point out that there is no shortage of sources that express this point of view, mostly, ofcourse among the new left or liberal political spectrum, but also in some libertarian POV's. For example, this is typical: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0815-06.htm which is a POV from the Hiroshima Alliance for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (HANWA). And, ofcourse Znet Mag: "The clear intent, both of the fire bombing and atomic bombing was the terrorizing and killing of civilians and the elimination of Japan's cities." [34] And to show its a POV that is widespread enough, take a look at this from Lewrockwell's article, entitled, "Targeting Civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki." It states, "Having Imperial Japan surrender, even if a worthy goal, was nevertheless a political one, and the targeting of innocents to achieve that goal was an act of terrorism." [35] Here is an academic paper that makes same argument: http://faculty.mckendree.edu/scholars/2003/randol.htm Another Zmag article: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=2310 I quote, "This deployment of air power against civilians would become the centerpiece of all subsequent U.S. wars, a practice in direct contravention of the Geneva principles, and cumulatively the single most important example of the use of terror in twentieth century warfare. As we mourn the 2,800 victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks, including Americans and citizens of more than twenty countries, we should simultaneously recall the millions of civilians who have been victims of American bombing and other acts of terror during and after World War II." Also, we have heads of States express this POV and make the allegation. For instance Presendient of Venezula, Hugo Chavez Calls Dropping of A-Bomb, Greatest Act of Terrorism in Recorded History He was addressing the opening ceremonies for the World Festival of Students and Youth, the Venezuelan president paid tribute to the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: [36] Richard Falk, who is cited above, wrote: "The graveyards of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the number-one exhibits of state terrorism"--he has written in some detail about Hiroshima and Nagasaki as instances of state terrorism, as well. Another source:[37]

And we have books. Lots of books that express this POV. The best one that comes to mind is problably, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" by historian Gar Alperovitz, a historian and political economist, is president of the National Center for Economic Alternatives. He is also Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, and a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies, and formerly a Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, and of the Institute of Politics at Harvard; he has served as Legislative Assistant in the U.S. House of Representatives, Legislative Director in the U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant in the Department of State. His other books include Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, and he has written numerous articles for The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Nation, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic Monthly, and many other academic and popular publications. Other books that acknowlege and mention this POV, and some argue for it:

"Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial" by R.J. Lifton and G. Mitchell Putnam. This book offers a truthful portrayal of how Truman and other American war criminals perpetuated the lie that we had no choice but to drop the bomb.

"Saving Private Power: The Hidden History of "The Good War" by Michael Zezima

A People's History of the United States: 1492 — Present by Howard Zinn

Against Empire by Michael Parenti, Ph.D.

The Sword and the Dollar: Imperialism, Revolution and the Arms Race by Michael Parenti, Ph.D.

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum

Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism by Michael Parenti

The Culture of Terrorism by Noam Chomsky

The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media: Decoding Spin and Lies in Mainstream News by Norman Solomon

Inventing Reality: The Politics of News Media by Michael Parenti, Ph.D.

The Hidden Persuaders: What makes us buy, believe — and even vote — the way we do? by Vance Packard

There are many more, but the point is made: this is a legitimate and real POV, even if you don't agree with it. And this is esp. the case now that the title of the article is "allegations." We can not deny that this is a notable allegation--even if we want to close our eyes to it.Giovanni33 05:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's war and it was a legitimate target. Sorry. No. --Tbeatty 05:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your personal POV. But that is not the POV that is shared by the varous notable academics I cited above, and we are obliged to report on their POV's/arguments. However, you are free to have the counter POV cited, of course, per NPOV. But, that fact that you share the conservative POV, is not a valid reason NOT to report on the left POV. Do you disagree with this basic, core principal of Wikipedia? Im afraid that is not an option. Sorry.Giovanni33 06:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, we are not obliged to report on anyone's POV. It is not a significant viewpoint that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were state-sponsored terrorism. There are lots of WWII articles including articles on atomic bombs. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. --Tbeatty 06:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not anyones POV, just notable POVs from reliable sources about the subject at hand. That is what we have here. We are obligated to report under those conditions. It is a signifant POV, as proved by the many reputable and notable sources provided above--even in bold. Saying it isn't so, doesn't make your claim come true. Yes, this may be a minority view point, but WP policies allow for reporting on miniority view points. In fact, this very articles subject is a minority view. It doesnt matter as it remains signifant and notable. Therefore it belongs in WP, and will be reported on, per consensus.Giovanni33 07:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Lots of good stuff there! I suggest we start a "sandbox" page for the upcoming Hiroshima / Nagasaki section. There will probably be a few naysayers who disagree with us. I hear that some people actually argue that the bombings saved lives! How do you make a sandbox? Bmedley Sutler 05:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in another article: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki...but heck, if Chavez thinks it was terrorism, then it must be.--MONGO 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. It should probably be worked out and consensus acheived via a sand box so as to settle disputes and avoid edit waring. I don't think it needs to be a big section, but just one that summarizes, and lists this, as one of the acts that is alleged to be an instance of state terrorism by the US, and it should link the the larger article on the subject. Even if people disagree and have the POV you mention, its only a reason to cite a source with a counter pov, per NPOV, not to fail to report on this notable allegation, which fits exactly in this article. Its a perfect example of an exception to fact that state terrorism generally occurs outside of the context of a state of war. There are exceptions and this is the one that should be mentioned.Giovanni33 05:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That messes up history of edits...just work on it here and that way you can violate FORK since it is already covered elsewhere. You can add a very brief mention of those you say it was terroism and those who say it wasn't (will you even look for the latter?) and then link to the main article I linked to above. This page is rapidly becoming exactly what I expected it would be, namely, a collection of opinions and innuendo deliberately collated to POV push. That is a definite violation of WP:SYNTH. Yes, we do need to cite Chavez...what has Kim Jong-il had to say on the matter...and also Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?--MONGO 06:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok,then I'm glad you agree with me, then--brief passage of those who make this argument and those who say otherwise, linked to the main article--although I think you are mistaken about SYNTH. We are not making up any new claims. We are only reporting notable ones from reliable sources.Giovanni33 06:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We should add the quotes from Mr. Reagan where he called the Mujahadeen and Contra terrorists "Freedom Fighters" and the "moral equivilant of our founding fathers". Did our founding fathers slit pregnant women's bellies open with bayonets, making sure they lived long enough to watch thier fetuses be hacked into pieces? "The Great Communicator" indeed. Bmedley Sutler 06:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say NPOV says we should present the POV of the other side (i.e. the state-terrorists like Pres.Reagan's, above).Giovanni33 06:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add this material and as you can see it's inclusion is disputed. --Tbeatty 06:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus to add it, so far, by everyone except yourself. I hope you won't go against consensus and edit war. That would not be appropriate. Instead, lets discuss your objections and abide by WP policies to settle the problems you have with its inclusion.Giovanni33 07:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, as I see it, MONGO opposes, and Merzbow has created conditions that you have not yet met. --Tbeatty 08:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't make up stuff (or look again) You are the only editor to oppose. Mongo said it can be brief, linked to the main article on the subject, and Merzbow has also agreed and wants to stick to "well-distributed publishers or articles by academics" (I agree and we have that above, Zinn, Chomsky, Parenti, Falk, Blum, all qualify). Other like Bmedley Sutler, SevenOfDiamonds,BMF81, and others agree. Consensus for inclusion is clear. You are the only one and you havn't even provided any valid objections per policy.Giovanni33 18:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The section should be included, it is highly documented. I personally was not sure if there was that much material, but this is surely a wealth. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to get into an off-tangent here, but I've got to respond... there were many bad things done on both sides during the Cold War, and to a degree you have to consider the end result (Sam Harris makes this point wonderfully in his book). Probably the Soviet empire would have collapsed of its own rotten foundations eventually anyways, but this wasn't apparent at the time. I suspect that if we find relevant words from Reagan's administration to add on this subject, we'll likely find very similar words from Truman defending his atomic bombings. Anyways, I won't oppose this section as long as we take pains to keep the quality of the sources high and if the sources make the accusation of terrorism against the US; let's try to stick to books by well-distributed publishers or articles by academics. - Merzbow 07:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Giovanni33 07:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen it. --Tbeatty 07:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think we need to know what Osama has to say about the atomic bombs used on Japan...or Saddam...what did Saddam have to say about the use of atomic weapons on Japan. What did Stalin say I wonder.--MONGO 10:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that Saddam was a US installed puppet, and strong US ally, I suppose, if he said anything, was to parrot the US line (until he started to rebel and not take orders anymore, but then I doubt he said anything about this matter. I dont see what Osama thinks (another US creation), is relevant. Chavez, a democratically elected head of state with massive support of the public, who speaks for millions, has always been independant and not afraid to speak out against US foreign policy. He is notable for this very thing, infact. Stalin would be interesting and I don't oppose including his view, if you have it.Giovanni33 18:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What did Bob Hope say? That is what I am wondering. Do we have any Hitler quotes? was he already defeated by then ... Maybe we have some baby Fidel quotes we can add ... Tangents are like swings, they are fun to play on. I do not remember Zinn or Parenti invading any countries ... --SevenOfDiamonds 12:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33, you can start adding in this article a subsection that summarizes Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki following Wikipedia:Summary style, and then adding the sources discussing terrorism.--BMF81 11:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I gave it a few more days to see if there was any opposition and to make sure consensus was clear. Since there was only one editor who voiced disagreement with this section, but did not offer any valid arguments, I have done the honor of adding this section. I tried to make it very breif, as requested, summarizing the arguments, and sticking to the best sources. I also added the counter arguments presented by those who support the bombing, and cited them, as well--relevant to the topic/allegations being made. Its a first draft.Giovanni33 03:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks to Bmedley Sutler for the quote from Howard Zinn and Giovanni for many other sources, which aptly encapsulate the justifiable moral repulsion that many feel towards the atomic bombings. Following Merzbow's proposed criteria for "well-distributed publishers or articles by academics" I would put forth the anthology "War and State Terrorism: The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century (War and Peace Library). Contributors include Mark Selden (sociology and History- Binghampton), Alvin Y. So (Hong Kong University), Richard Falk (Princeton), Bruce Cumings (History, University of Chicago) and Ben Kiernan (History, Yale University).

A study of this literature reveals that far from being an issue secondary or peripheral to U.S. state terrorism, the atomic bombings as well as the fire-bombing and napalming of 62 other Japanese cities, are central to allegations of terrorism by the U.S. Amongst these analysts the primary themes tend to be i) the transgression of moral barriers to the destruction of civilian populations ii) the legacy of massive civilian bombong for subsequent wars in Asia and elsewhere, iii) the legacy of nuclear weapons use and iv) the rationalizations employed by government leaders such as Truman and subsequent apologists v) the question of whether Nagasaki is a case of gratuitous slaughter of a civilian population.

For Mark Selden, the transgression of moral boundaries that permitted atrocities by air power was the most important outcome of the U.S.- Japan war of 1941-45: noting that "Thereafter, the slaughter of civilians in area bombing of cities became the hallmark of American warfare. Over the next half century, the United States would destroy with impunity cities and rural populations throughout Asia, beginning in Japan and continuing in North Korea, Indochina, Iraq and Afghanistan, to mention only the most heavily bombed nations...if nuclear weapons defined important elements of the global balance of terror centered on U.S.-Soviet conflict, "conventional" bomb attacks defined the trajectory of the subsequent half century of warfare." (Selden, War and State Terrorism).

For Richard Falk - "Undoubtedly the most extreme and permanently traumatizing instance of state terrorism, perhaps in the history of warfare, involved the use of atomic bombs against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in military settings in which the explicit function of the attacks was to terrorize the population through mass slaughter and to confront its leaders with the prospect of national annihilation....the public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender..."But even accepting the rationale for the atomic attacks at face value, which means discounting both the geopolitical motivations and the pressures to show that the immense investment of the Manhatten Project had struck pay dirt, and disregarding the Japanese efforts to arrange their surrender prior to the attacks, the idea that massive death can be deliberately inflicted on a helpless civilian population as a tactic of war certainly qualifies as state terror of unprecedented magnitude, particularly as the United States stood on the edge of victory, which might well have been consummated by diplomacy. As Michael Walzer putis it, the United States owed the Japanese people "an experiment in negotiation," but even if such an intiative had failed there was no foundation in law or morality for atomic attacks on civilian targets>" (Falk, State Terrrorism versus HumanitarianLaw in War and State Terrorism, Mark Selden ed.)BernardL 21:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Historian Bruce Cumings' ruminations on the subject are particularly instructive since it seems that those arguing that the atomic attacks "saved lives" or was an "automatic reaction" stimulated by previous actions in the war are really using obsolete arguments no longer accepted by historians.

According to Cumings, "Of course there is still much controversy among the historians over these decisions, but the consensus as given by a moderate and mainstream historian (J. Samuel Walker), is that the official story of Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb- that it was done to save American lives... is wrong. "The United States did not drop the bomb to save hundreds of thousands of American lives," Walker writes,. The number of lives that might be lost in an invasion of Japan set to commence with the island of Kyushu in November, according to military estimates from the time, was around 25,000, not the half million to one million that Stimson and Truman later claimed. Nor did the bombs end the war: "The scholarly consensus holds that the war would have ended within a relatively short time without atomic attacks and that an invasion of the Japanese was an unlikely possibility.

"The consensus also extends to the second bomb, the plutonium device detonated over Nagasaki. Martin Sherwin's 1975 book contains evidence that the Nagasaki bomb made a gratuitous contribution to the end of the war at best, and was genocidal at worst. Although Nagasaki does not draw the attention that Hiroshima does, it is fair to say that most historians agree with Sherwin.(Cumings, Bruce, "American Airpower and Nuclear Strategy in Northeast Asia since 1945, "War and State Terrorism", Mark Selden, ed.) BernardL 22:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The estimates of deaths if the U.S. had invaded...the ones Truman had to go on, were much higher than 25,000 combined allied and Japanese. Truman was pressured by Senators to not go easy on Japan...and that Hirohito should not remain in power.[38] and by atomic scientists to not use the bombs[39], Truman declared afterwards that he believed not using the bombs may have caused the loss of 250,000 Americans and that the Japanese had been given fair warning and had failed to surrender.[40]. Prior to dropping the bomb, Truman held dozens of meetings with his advisors and other allies such as Churchill. In one meeting between Truman and his advisors on June 18, 1945, it was mentioned that losses in just four campaigns the U.S. had against the Japanese, in Leyto, Luzon, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, were almost 100,000 U.S. casualities. MacArthur and Marshall and King all believed that an amphibious landing should be directed at Kyushu and that 766,700 troops would be needed to combat an estimated 350,000 Japanese troops. Estimated causalities for invading Kyushu approached those that had been incurred when taking Luzon...or 31,000 U.S. in the first 30 days of fighting. However, several present at the meeting stated they believed that the assault would have created 34,000 U.S. causalities, comparable to what the U.S. experienced in Okinawa. It was mentioned that Kyushu was just another island and all it might do logistically would be to provide an even closer point from which heavy bombers could bomb the cities located on Honshu. Weather was a factor as well, the leaders believed that an invasion any later than October would be too late, would be difficult to support and the spring of 1946 would be the next time an invasion might be possible.[41] Truman gave the Joint Chiefs a basic approval for an invasion of Kyushu. Then the first successful atomic test on July 16, 1945 occurred and the decision to use the bomb instead of the amphibious assault was made.--MONGO 08:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the other POV. We can also breifly summarize this for the section, when its added (I've been a bit busy to get to it just quite yet).Giovanni33 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not the other POV..it is from the precise meetings and decision making papers from the Truman Library. The POV is those who have written books based on a skimming of the facts...they quote Generals such as MacArthur as later saying the bombs weren't necessary, but fail to understand that what Generals and Admirals didn't like about the bombs was that it changed the face of war forever...they saw them as lacking chivalry and a few generals felt cheated that they wouldn't be able to launch a massive land invasion as some of their counterparts had been able to do in Normandy. Truman was sick of the war and wanted it to end asap. The prospect of more island hoping after another Okinawa sized series of casualties was not amusing to him and the prospect of the war possibly dragging on for another year wasn't either. Countries always look after their best interests, yet even so, Truman responded to one seantor who declared that there should be no mercy on Japan and told him he wanted to minimize further suffering of the Japanese civilian population. The targets chossen were not civilian but military. Stimson decided to NOT bomb kyoto because it was more of a cultural place than a strategic one.--MONGO 19:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

While your paragraph may reference certain archives it is no less selective or interpretive of what those archives contain than the work of those you criticize. Yes MacArthur is quoted by those you accuse of skimming, as well as many other important military and political figures close to Truman. Gar Alperowitz has garnered exhaustive evidence to show that “In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.” [42] And “military necessity” certainly is a key question; and so is the existence of viable diplomatic alternatives. This is not the place to get into a point-to-point refutal of all the points you raise, suffice to say that anyone curious about some of the best researched arguments, the following website with material from Gar Alperowitz’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb” is very useful.[43]BernardL 00:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

He did utilize quite many sources, yes, but not exhaustive. His sources include mostly American sources and leave out many Japanese and Soviet ones. This is a problem that Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has remedied in later works. Moreover, Alperowitz makes controversial interpretations of key documents as Richard Frank points out. There's a good historiographical article on this debate in a back issue of Diplomatic History. I think it's the April 2000 issue, not sure though. Also, not all military leaders denounced the bomb use. Marshall for instance was almost entirely silent on the issue. It is interesting to note that Jimmy Carter is the only U.S. president to denounce its usage. Alperowitz, Frank, and Hasegawa are likely the three leading contemporary historians of this topic, however. Franks is far more conservative on the issue, of course he doesn't say that either of the bombs were necessary to defeat Japan - only that one was necessary to keep the Soviets out. No credible contemporary historian accepts that both bombs were justified and practically all acknowledge the fact that myth of necessity concerning massive troop losses if we invaded was created after the use of the bombs. There are other interesting studies that show how popular culture in the US was completely opposed to their use for the first few years after the war, but quickly ended as the Cold War heated up and this is when you really started seeing that whole troop numbers argument arising. --Strothra 03:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction, I found the article. The cite is Walker, Samuel J. "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground" Diplomatic History 29, no. 2 (April 2004): 311. You should read it if you have access to the journal. --Strothra 03:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

the question, regardless of the military necessity, is whether this is state-sponsored terrorism. the answer, of course, is "No" and there are no significant viewpoints that have established it as such. There simply was no element of terrorism involved. It was a military act in a time of war with a devastating weapon. It certainly can be criticised and explored as it is in other articles but there is nothing that says it is an act for state-sponsored terrorism. --Tbeatty 06:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That question has already been answered and we are obliged to report on it. You have already given your own personal POV that it was not state terrorism, but many others, including notable scholars, historians, and others, disagree with you. I would say their are signifiant viewpoints. You seem to ingore the many sources above which state quite clearly that, in their view, it is a prime example of state terrorism. And, I think the evidence for their claim is compelling. In anycase, this is a valid subject that all edtors here so far (except you) have already agreed is appropirate for a section in this article. The only remaining issue is to find the other POV to include (I guess yours), but it has to come from a reputable and reliable source.Giovanni33 07:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

They are such minority extreme viewpoints that they simply don't belong in this article. Perhaps in their biographies this could be included, but here the standard is whether it is a significant view of state terrorism. You have failed to achieve consensus or show there is a significant viewpoint that this was state terrorism. --Tbeatty 07:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

When we are talking about viewpoints being presented by professors at major universities (Falk-Princeton, Selden-Binghampton, Phd at Yale, Yo,Hong Kong, or for that matter Howard Zinn), we are talking about people that easily pass the test of notability. While they may have minority viewpoints, they are nevertheless notable.BernardL 11:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard Zinn? Hehehe, maybe do some reading about his perversions of history.[44]--Beguiled 11:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no perversions--only truthful representations by an oustanding historian and academic. This article, if anything, validates Zinn's notablilty. But, since we rely on multiple academics in this field, we need not worry about what Zinn has to say, only. He is supported by many others.Giovanni33 00:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What about the firebombing of Tokyo and many other Japanese cities that preceded Hiroshima/Nagasaki? These were attacks against civilian populations with high numbers of casualties (100s of thousands). In the documentary The Fog of War, Robert McNamara quotes the general in charge of these bombings and of the atomic bombs as saying that if the US had lost the war, he and McNamara would have been tried for war crimes. Pexise 14:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A better example is the Doolittle Raid, which as intended to strike fear into the Japanese population [45]. ... Seabhcan 15:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, the Doolittle Raid was terrorism? Sure. Maybe the Marshall Plan was too? The multiple academics that Giovanni33 keeps bringing up are all well known lefties, not imparital in the least and their opinions aren't notable in the least. Give someone a doctorate and they instantly become experts, eh.--Beguiled 21:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Notable lefties and therefore, whose writing on the subject of their expertise, passes the notabilty test for WP (or are you saying being left wing disqualifies them? Hardly.)Giovanni33 02:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Zinn and Chomsky have questionable scholarly practices. They tend to write more for a popular audience and rely on sensationalism rather than meticulous research. Further, they are unquestionably divisive figures. Please review BernardL's comments above as well as my own if you wish to gather actual scholars on the decision to drop the bomb. None of the scholars involved in the bomb debate consider it an act of terrorism, but they all acknowledge its significant and troubling history. Authors such as Zinn give discussions of the bomb that are far more tangential to the actual debate. Here are a few:

• • Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth
  • Richard Frank, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (1999)
  • Paul Boyer, By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age (1985)
  • Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Race the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and Japan’s Surrender in the Pacific War (2005)
  • Marty Sherwin,A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance (1985)
  • Thomas Allen and Norman Polmar, Code-Name Downfall: The Secret Plan to Invade Japan-- And Why Truman Dropped the Bomb (1995)
  • Robert Lifton and Greg Mitchell, Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denial (1995)
  • Ronald Takaki, Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb (1995)

--Strothra 04:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't deny what you say is true, but its besides the point. As BernardL said above, when we are talking about viewpoints being presented by professors at major universities (Falk-Princeton, Selden-Binghampton, Phd at Yale, Yo,Hong Kong, or for that matter Howard Zinn), we are talking about people that easily pass the test of notability. While they may have minority viewpoints, they are nevertheless notable. This article reports on those academics who do make the charge that this act was state terrorism. Our job is to report on these notable allegations. Still, the section, does state the consensus view, which I felt was important to include, and then the other POV. It had to be kept very brief, per consensus, so it can't, nor should it, deal with a compreshensive range of view on the much debated topic. That is for the main article which it links to. Btw, I'm glad you did not retire from WP. I did enjoy reading your article. I thought it was insightful on some of the dynamics in WP.Giovanni33 07:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You name a few professors who think this way and they do not constitute a majority viewpoint in the least. I think it was well argued over at the bombings article you have been edit warring on that if anything, most professors who have a similar view claim the bombings were equivalent to war crimes, not state sponsored terrorism. I have reverted you ongoing efforts to OWN this article.--MONGO 09:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no where have I nor anyone else every claimed they are the majority view points. In fact, I have repeatedly stated they are a minority viewpoint, but a signifant one with notable adherents, from reliable sources. Please consider that this article is the kind of article where we can get in depth and report on this POV, as it is about reporting on this subject matter, which itself is a minority view point. This article reports on well sourced and notable accusations of US actions as being actions of State terrorism. This section therefore passes that test, and you previously agreed it did! I also point out that in the section I explained the consensus view, as well, and included the other side with a reference and statement.Giovanni33 16:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Those views belong in their biographies, but the are not significant viewpoints for inclusion here (or in the atomic bombings articles). --Tbeatty 13:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When I first read the suggestion my gut instingt was no since it was done during a war. It may have been military insignificant, but not terrorism as such, but after reading all the sources I think it should be included since so many researchers have called it state terrorism. // Liftarn

• This section is well referenced and includes several notable academics who refer to the acts as "State Terrorism". This certainly qualifies it for inclusion. It is a valid section - just because it is in the article, doesn't mean you have to agree with it, or that it is true. However, it is obviously a notable theroy and should therefore be included. Pexise 17:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this section and its contents were discussed with all editors for a long time, and ever I was told to add it, I held off for even longer to make sure it was being added with consensus, taking into account all editors requirements. Conensus for its addtion was thus acheived. Now, if some editors wish to re-open this question, then please do so, but please obtain consensus for its removal, before you remove it, as it will be opposed by a majory of editors, and edit waring is counter productive. Thanks.Giovanni33 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree there is no consensus for this minority pov. Dman727 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

We must set and follow standard conventions for article titles. If state terrorism by the United States has been moved to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, then the same goes for Islamist terrorism. --BMF81 17:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• You are under the impression that WP needs to be consistent. Wrong. An islamic attacker is a terrorist, a US attacker is waging war. How many times do we need to have this debate? The US by definition cannot be guilty of terrorism or even of supporting it. But in all fairness, we should leave that discussion for later since focussing on content is more important.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. And, by the way, I'm thinking about creating an article: Appeasement of terrorists by Europeans and liberals. The Evil Spartan 19:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Can we make a cool subsection on the bolstering of terrorism by Republican presidents? You know like the report that AQ is actually back to full 9/11 strength if not greater? o that would be so cool ... Maybe we can make one on US support for terrorists like when they ... o wait ... I love these tangents, swings are fun to play on. Perhaps snide remarks will not help the article ... I wonder, perhaps if we all made nothing but sarcastic comments and snide remarks we can elevate this to FA status? --SevenOfDiamonds 21:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that there is a wide consensus of scholars and statesmen that Islamist terrorism is indeed such. - Merzbow 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's also wide consensus the the war in Iraq has increased terrorism. Since Mr. Bush and the USA's actions have increased terrorism and emboldended the Islamic terorrists, should he be listed as an enabler of Islamic Terrorism, like Ahmadinejad? Bmedley Sutler 22:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends how far removed you can be to be considered an "enabler". The accusations against Ahmadinejad and other Iran leadership is that they directly planned and ordered terrorist actions (and, in the case of Ahmadinejad, personally participated); having terrorism increase as an unintended side effect of something else one does isn't as strong of a claim. - Merzbow 23:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From the islamic point of view there is certainly "christian terrorism" and number of scholarly articles about it, but we are NPOV eem, I mean er, were we talking about terrorism? Is this a scholarly discipline? Where is this teached? In School of the Americas? Seriously, we should get rid of word "terrorism" and all its siblings (terrorist, terrorism, terrorist organisation, etc) in articles and categories for good. Except in direct quotes of course. But all those "terror-" based words are inherently _loaded_ and POV. But until we can do so we need to keep at least some kind of equilibrium. So if blowing up bombs in civilian installations is "terrorism" for Syria or Iran or United States then it is also "terrorism" for Russia and Israel. --Magabund 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Balancing additions for NPOV

This was added to the intro, which I agree needs a statement to balance for the other POV/NPOV. However, I'm not sure if the sources provided support the claims. The claim is: "Defenders of U.S. policy argue that American military interventions were justified in response to threats such as terrorism and Soviet aggression, and in the end produced superior governments and freer societies." The sources are these two. The first one is an opinion pieice about that old debate regarding crediting Ronald Reagan for bringing down the Berlin Wall by means of the arms race, which the USSR couldnt keep up, etc. [46]. The other one, Kaplan, who is certainly a writer who does support US military adventures, I'm unsure if his source supports the statment,though: [47] I'd like other editors to review this and if someone can cite the statements in these sources to show that they support what we are saying they are saying.Giovanni33 19:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following you. The first piece clearly seems to support the claim - if the summary you gave of it is true. The Evil Spartan 19:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are the specific quotes, they do support the claim. From the D'Souza article: "The only man who foresaw the Soviet collapse and implemented policies to bring it about was Reagan.... He sent weapons and other assistance to anti-communist guerrillas in Soviet satellites like Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua." The Kaplan article goes into much more detail (and I'll probably use it in other places in the article also). For example: "Here we can learn a great deal from the history of U.S. policy in Latin America over the past several decade... The results were not always pretty and, frankly, not always moral—consider what occurred in Chile in the aftermath of the 1973 coup against Salvador Allende Gossens. Yet for a relatively small investment of money and manpower the United States defeated a belligerent Soviet and Cuban campaign at its back door while paving the way for the democratic transitions and market liberalizations of the 1980s and 1990s... Economy of force in Latin America produced regimes that in almost every case were better than what the Cubans and the Russians offered." - Merzbow 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer. The Kaplan article, I agree supports the claims, as you quoted above. I'm still not sure about the other one, which says the US sent weapons and other assistence, but it doesnt claim that it was justified in response to "threats such as terrorism and Soviet Agression, and that in the end produced superior governments, and freerer societies." I have no doubt this would probably be the authors POV, but I just want to make sure we have a source that supports that claim.Giovanni33 21:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The D'Souza article definitely supports the first claim - that the intervention was justified due to the Soviet threat (specifically, the sentence "During his first term Reagan pursued tough policies aimed at curtailing the Soviet nuclear threat and stopping Soviet advances around the world" precedes the "anti-communist guerrillas" sentence, implying the latter is an example of such). However, only the Kaplan article makes the second claim - "superior governments, and freer societies". I'll move the D'Souza reference to come directly after the first comma to make it clearer who is claiming what. - Merzbow 23:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

D'Souza is too loopy to use. This if from the Wiki article on him.

In early 2007 D'Souza published "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and its Responsibility for 9/11," in which he argues that the American left was in large part responsible for the Islamic anger that led to the September 11 attacks.During an interview on The Colbert Report on January 16, 2007, while promoting his book, The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, D'Souza blamed American liberals for provoking the September 11, 2001, attacks.

This thesis has been widely disputed by, among others, prominent conservatives such as Michelle Malkin and Hugh Hewitt, who contend that D'Souza openly sympathizes with Al Qaeda in The Enemy At Home, and who contend that his thesis that Muslim radicals would not hate the United States if not for cultural liberalism is a myth.

The book was almost universally criticized in major American newspapers and magazines and called, among other things, "the worst nonfiction book about terrorism published by a major house since 9/11."[48]

D'Souza's book caused a controversy in the conservative movement, invoking a barrage of attacks back and forth between D'Souza and his conservative critics who widely mocked the thesis of his book, that the cultural left was responsible for 9/11. In response to his critics, he posted a 6,500-word essay on National Review Online, and NRO subsequently published a litany of responses from conservative authors who accused D'Souza of character assassination, elitism and pseudointellectualism.[49] Bmedley Sutler 02:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

His qualifications make him reliable: (from Dinesh D'Souza): "Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. D'Souza is the author of numerous New York Times best selling books and one of the most prolific and prominent conservative writers and speakers in the United States." The qualifications of the individual and the publisher are all that matter; plently of individuals associated with left-wing think-tanks are cited in the article also. If we start arguing about who is "loopy" based on our personal viewpoints, we'll never agree on anything and the article will collapse again. - Merzbow 03:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

When Hewitt and Malkin turn against you for being too 'far out' you have to be really far out. Please ascribe that position to him, and it should be OK. Bmedley Sutler 04:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I certainly will if he's quoted or used as a source in the article text, but we agreed above that it's best for brevity not to name people in the intro, just summarize the opinions of whoever is cited (both him and Kaplan make the same argument in the first clause). None of the first eight cites who accuse the U.S. of terrorism are named (and among them there are some pretty extreme figures, like Galloway). - Merzbow 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I still can't edit the article

How long until a newbie can edit an article after it's locked?

Will somone add this to the quotes?

Ronald Reagan. March 1, 1985:

"Throughout the world the Soviet Union and its agents, client states, and satellites are on the defensive—on the moral defensive, the intellectual defensive, and the political and economic defensive. Freedom movements arise and assert themselves. They’re doing so on almost every continent populated by man—in the hills of Afghanistan, in Angola, in Kampuchea, in Central America. In making mention of freedom fighters, all of us are privileged to have in our midst tonight one of the brave commanders who lead the Afghan freedom fighters—Abdul Haq. Abdul Haq, we are with you.

They are our brothers, these freedom fighters, and we owe them our help. I’ve spoken recently of the freedom fighters of Nicaragua. You know the truth about them. You know who they’re fighting and why. They are the moral equal of our Founding Fathers and the brave men and women of the French Resistance. We cannot turn away from them, for the struggle here is not right versus left; it is right versus wrong." [50] Bmedley Sutler 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to adding it, but we should think about removing the quotes section altogether, since quotes sections are discouraged by Wikipedia layout guidelines (WP:LAYOUT). Relevant quotes are best worked into the article text in relevant sections. - Merzbow 23:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I added the famous Reagan quote. Also, you can edit now. I requested unprotection and it was granted. If there is a problem with anon IP's again, then a re semi-protect, will not affect you.Giovanni33 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see your addition, and added my own with background on Haq and Hezb-e-Islami. I then combined yours into mine. Maybe you can improve it. It is imperative that the hardline Islamic stances, and anti American positions of these 'Freedom fighters' be documented. Lets not forget that Reagan armed the Shiite radicals in Iran-Contra too. He certainly supported those Islamofascists, as long as they were anti commie. Were the Iranian Shiites fighting commies? Bmedley Sutler 04:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We really shouldn't have anything aside from quotes in the quotes section. Analysis and criticism of groups and figures should go in the article text in the appropriate section. This could go into a new Afghanistan section if a source can be cited accusing the US of terrorism in Afghanistan. - Merzbow 04:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Merzbow is right about this. Otherwise the quotes section turns into more than a quotes section. :)Giovanni33 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We'll need an AFG section then. Bmedley Sutler 07:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick googling found To End terrorism, End State Terrorism that says "The US media never mention the state terrorism exercised by the USA on other countries." and also talks a lot about Afghanistan. Also ICC complaint over UK-US state terrorism & war crimes. MWC News: Australia threatened by US state terrorism(mirror) says "There is an appalling record of US state terrorism over the last half century and of US support for non-state terrorism in Africa (e.g. in civil wars), Asia (e.g. mujaheddin and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, US Al Qaeda support in the Balkans into the mid-1990s; US covert terrorism in Iraq) and Latin America (e.g. the US School of Americas trained 60,000 Latin American military and police personnel including torturers, dictators, death squads, state terrorists and non-state terrorists; US terrorist squads bombed churches in Ecuador; horrendous death squads, Contra rebels and other terrorism in Latin America).". The Threat Of Global State Terrorism calls the attack on Afghanistan terrorism. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have called the attacks state terrorism(NY Times). // Liftarn

Should the CIA backed assassination attempt of Sayed Fadlallah be included?

"Finally in 1985," according to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward in Veil, his book on Casey's career, "he worked out with the Saudis a plan to use a car bomb to kill [Hezbollah leader] Sheikh Fadlallah who they determined was one of the people behind, not only the Marine barracks, but was involved in the taking of American hostages in Beirut.

The CIA's own operatives, however, proved incapable of carrying out the bombing, so Casey subcontracted the operation to Lebanese agents led by a former British SAS officer and financed by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar. In March 1984, a large car bomb was detonated about 50 yards from Sheikh Fadlallah's house in Bir El-Abed, a crowded Shiite neighborhood in southern Beirut. The sheikh wasn't harmed, but 80 innocent neighbors and passersby were killed and 200 wounded. Fadlallah immediately had a huge "MADE IN USA" banner hung across the shattered street. [51] 1985_Beirut_car_bombing? Bmedley Sutler 07:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How does that fit into U.S. terrorism?--MONGO 08:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this terrorism? The CIA is only paying to have car bombs detonated in crowded neighborhoods ... Seriously there are questions beyond the one above, the real issue is since the target was a terrorist, is this not more like a bad air strike? I think the idea we have been working with, that the population is specifically targeted, is the best to stay with. I am sure the CIA did not think this through and certaintly figured a few dead people were fine, but it seems they were not actually targetted for the reason of terror. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They could had used a sniper to target him individually, or a rocket aimed at the car he was riding in. Choosing a method that was sure to inflict massive civilian casualities and 'terrorize' the population is terrorism. I can't see how a massive car bomb that kills 81, (but not the target!) injures 200+, and destroys a city block can be consindered anything but terrorism Bmedley Sutler 19:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

and let's not start citing lewrockwell.com. --Tbeatty 15:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I put it in, not having seen this section. I didn't cite lewrockwell, whoever he or it is. Bob Woodward is certainly enough of an establishment figure these days that if HE alleges something, then it can't be dismissed as fringe lunacy. --Aim Here 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The sources quoted were Bob Woodward, Tom Engelhardt and Mike Davis. Lew Rockwell has nothing to do with it. If the article appeared in High Times it could still be used.

Where is the list of publications that are not allowed to be used as sources? Bmedley Sutler 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't exist but you can make it youself. Just take Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and then list every source that isn't considered reliable. From my very brief glance at the site, lewrockwell.com does look like a partisan politics website that mostly carries opinion pieces, so it's probably not that useful as a source except for opinions of some libertarian-inclined folks, though I did spot at least two libertarian-inclined folks whose opinions would be very notable in there. --Aim Here 18:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that a very notable writer can make up for a not-so-notable publication, or vice-versa. If the publication is not very notable (or even self-published), the writer should be an academic/professor (not just a commentator). If the writer is not very notable, then the publication should be a major newspaper/magazine/book (not just an online site). - Merzbow 03:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What are the currently disputed sections?

I'm new to this article. It has a POV/disputed/synthesis/citecheck tag up top, but I can't figure out from this talk page which problems refer to which sections, other than the fact that the Guatemala section seems to have been in more dispute than the rest. Can we make a list of which parts are disputed and in what way, and which parts aren't? I would be willing to do some cite checks if I knew where to start. BenB4 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Much of the article is original research, in that it synthesizes sources to construct accusations of state terrorism where none were made. The article continues to use tendentious language to advance a position ("Application of the United States government's own definitions"; "The US State Department has admitted... but has continued to deny...). The choice of topics is selective, emphasizing some accusations (or implied accusations) of state terrorism and suppressing others (eg. sourced accusations of cultural terrorism) that might blunt the point the article tries to make. Throughout the article, points are presented as if they were matters of settled fact rather than fringe views. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, it basically uses all logically fallacious arguments listed below. Especially, Association fallacy, Appeal to authority and Appeal to motive. It's rife for a big cleaning. {{Red Herring Fallacy}} --Tbeatty 15:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking for specifics: what parts in particular are disputed? I find it hard to believe that an article with 150+ references is original research. If it presents fringe views, the right way to deal with it is to cite references contradicting them or saying specifically that they are fringe view. Let me ask another question: which of the events described in the article are disputed? BenB4 16:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, BenB4. I've asked the same questions, as have others, and it all comes down to vauge charges of OR and SYN violations but no specifics, so it can be corrected. When specifics are given, it turns out to be not a valid charge. I'm convinced there is no OR, or SYN. Editors here have not originated any new claims; all claims come from reputable, notable, and reliable sources. In fact, we've been taking out the weaker sources and replacing them with better ones. This is an ongoing process. I see no reason to have that disputed tag on this article because there is no real dispute here. Both sides are working to improve this article. Some people just don't like this subject and wanted it deleted.Giovanni33 19:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read the neverending condemnations made by myself and numerous others that this page violates numerous policies and guidelines? That there is no real dispute here is laughable. Check virtually every section on this page and in the archives if this is still unclear to you.--MONGO 19:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you've already made up your mind, there is no point in asking. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The question of reliability of sources has mostly been dealt with. The issue now is if certain sources and the text they support is relevant. For one, the Afghanistan stuff in the quotes sections that was recently added is not relevant since there is no accusation of terrorism against the US contained therein; it should be removed. Much of the The Philippines and Guatemala sections go into detail on issues that at most tangentially relevant, or are examinations of issues not mentioned by those cited accusing the US of terrorism. I just looked through the Philippines section and can't actually find an accusation that the US is committing or abetting terrorism ("allegations by human rights groups that [human-rights abuses] worsened" is not an accusation of terrorism). E San Juan's article seems to carefully not take the step of directly accusing the US of this, if I'm reading it correctly. We have to build the article around the arguments of reliable sources arguing this specific issue, and only expand upon elements of those arguments, not make our own we think are relevant. - Merzbow 17:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a third party referee (Mediator). That person needs to be non-American since most of the Americans working on this article are not impartial, and some even a bit jingoistic. Bmedley Sutler 18:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a third party referee (Mediator). That person needs to be an American since most of the non-Americans working on this article are not impartial, and some even a bit anti-American....thought I would reverse your comments to show you how stupid they look.--MONGO 18:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is your only goal here to create stife and insult people? Please try to play a constructive role not a disruptive one. In answer to your insincere comment, an equally insincered nomination for Howard Zinn as referee. Bmedley Sutler 19:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As if your comment wasn't insulting? Go figure.--MONGO 10:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT Try not to cause more anguish over this topic to prove a point. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How about a handsome, intelligent Irish man? I'll happily mediate! What do you say, Mongo? ... Seabhcan 10:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need formal mediators here, just additional people willing to consider the issues raised with an open mind. - Merzbow 20:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Handsome" "Intelligent" Irish" "Man". Usually we think of opposites in terms of a binary "either" "or" scenario. But I have just witnessed a four-way system of opposites. Multi-dimensional orthogonality. "Ginger-headed", "college dropout" from "Dublin" passed out in the "men's" room is a more congruous image. (just playing for those that uptight not to see a joke). --Tbeatty 07:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What I think we should do is move the tagging to sections since many of Ultramarines issues were addressed. Then we can examine each section for cleanup, and from there address those. After all the work that was done earlier I think its time for a re-examination of what sections people have issues with, sources, etc. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see that my issues have been adressed.Ultramarine 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? None at all in any section? --SevenOfDiamonds 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Which do you claim have been resolved?Ultramarine 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? its a straight forward question, I am not sure why the turn around game. My point is it will be easier to tag sections and then readdress those sections point by point, instead of tagging the article and claiming things were not resolved without stating what. Is this unreasonable? --SevenOfDiamonds 00:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many problems to not tag the entire article.Ultramarine 00:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Then you can tell us which sections and issues you still have trouble with and why. Perhaps in a numbered list below. That would allow me to work on those issues. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A partial list includes the problems mentioned in "Sources (part 2)", " Graphical descriptions of rape and murder", " Conspiracy theory regarding the Algiers putsch of 1961", "Human rights organizations" accusing the US of "state terrorism". More generally is the exclusion of opposing views, like regarding Chomsky's definition, and the general OR where editors make up their own definiton of "state terrorism" and claims that something violates this, like most of the Philippines section.Ultramarine 00:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just realized...

...that the MoS semi-bot I used to clean up this article's sources a while back also converted all single brackets into double brackets (diff); an example would be turning "[he] quoted" into "[[he]] quoted." I don't have the time to do this, plus it's a low-priority issue, could someone please fix this? east.718 04:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)