Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

Locked Article

Why is this article still locked? I want to make edits and surprised to find it still like this.Olawe (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Editing is still possible, it just requires consensus prior to placement in the article. Put you proposed edits here or in a sandbox and when a consensus is reached, an admin can make the change in the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Prot is indef, which may have been a mistake by the blocking admin. You or one of your fellow socks could always ask him William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the protection is, unfortunately, necessary given the edit-warring proclivities of William Connlley and his friends. At least it was protected in a version that is not significantly stripped of content.DrGabriela (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Pot calling the kettle black, Giovanni. You and your sockpuppets and friends have been edit-warring too. John Smith's (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
John (and Jtrainor, whose comment was removed) cut it out please. You have your views on the sockpuppet issue, but there's an ArbCom case for that which still has not concluded yet. In the meantime there's no need to label other accounts socks of a certain editor. Do you honestly think that's constructive? A better comment would be, "DrGabriela, you have been edit warring as well," which is absolutely true. If any of you folks are interested in working to end the edit warring and its proximate cause (the Japan section) maybe you can weigh in at the above sections where discussion on the issue of Japan is ongoing but apparently stalled. It's disheartening to see folks all ready to argue about the protection or whose a sock of who but not actually work on the content issues.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion is stalled because we're waiting for arbcomm to clear out the socks William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion on Japan specifically excluded any of the accused socks (Olawe made a comment, but I said at the outset that we should only take comments from established editors until the ArbCom case was resolved). Giovanni has been participating which is appropriate since the committee have not rendered their decision, but I don't see how that at all prevents the discussion from going forward. Keeping the article locked down during the ArbCom makes sense, but precisely because no one is editing now means it is a good time to get the Japan situation hammered out.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Just to clarify, the indefinite protection was not a mistake. Although the original intention was to lock it down and examine the sock puppetry issue myself, the fact that this issue is subject to an ongoing Arbcom case means that I defer to their judgment in this matter--after all, any blocks might be contrary to a forthcoming resolution. I did submit a proposal to unlock this page after putting everyone on 1RR, but the fact that I have yet to receive a reply tells me that this is apparently not sufficient. So for the time being I'm going to leave it locked--you can request consensus-based edits using {{Editprotected}} or request unprotection at WP:RFPP. --jonny-mt 12:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

lastest edit war

Can someone at least discuss the reasons they are edit-warring now? The material seems fine with me, which is why I reverted. However, I self-reverted because I am on a one week revert parole. I would like to see some discussion here about the problem. The material about Nicaruaga is about state terrorism and its not found in the main article. Even if it is, a short mention of the main issues involving the claims of state terrorism do belong here. Lastly, I do not condone this edit-warring, and that includes by accounts that agree with me. So if I have any sway over you guys, I'm asking you to stop edit-warring and discuss it here instead. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to know the reason for the removal of this. If I do not hear a good reason I will assume it is vandalism again.DrGabriela (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)While we agree, think its best if we allow some time for discussion to take place instead of any more reverting. This certainly doesn't make me look good considering the larger concerns. Or at least limit yourself to one revert.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Instead of asking why it is removed and throwing around "vandalism" accusations, why don't you just argue for its inclusion? It's not just that this looks bad – it is bad. Bad and ridiculous.
Bottom line: If you cannot convince others to include it, it won't stay. And as long as you edit war to get it in, you're not doing a good job of convincing others. — the Sidhekin (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and don't ever call good faith edits by editors in good standing vandals. If I could unscramble my pw I'd start blocking some of these socks/spas...this is one of the biggest issues here. Clearly no agreement for these changes. 64.198.97.129 (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Why is the following being removed:

Florida State University professor, Frederick H. Gareau, has written that the Contras "attacked bridges, electric generators, but also state-owned agricultural cooperatives, rural health clinics, villages and non-combatants." U.S. agents were directly involved in the fighting. "CIA commandos launched a series of sabotage raids on Nicaraguan port facilities. They mined the country's major ports and set fire to its largest oil storage facilities." In 1984 the U.S. Congress ordered this intervention to be stopped, however it was later shown that the CIA illegally continued (See Iran-Contra affair). Professor Gareau has characterized these acts as "wholesale terrorism" by the United States.

It appears to be written by an academic, (an Assistant Professor of Government at the Florida State University, who was formerly of the University of Mississippi [1]), and thus a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a re-insertion of material that a significant number of editors (you too at the time Sidhekin?) felt was illegitimately removed because the massive removal was so indiscriminate. IMO the section needs re-writing. I think we should really be looking closely at the Nicaragua section, discussing anew what should be in it (ie: what themes are important for the discussion), how it should be organized, etc.) I do not think outright deletion based on a rationale of "i don't like it" or "it can't be true" is conducive to constructing a good article, or a good encyclopedia. Because of the reliable sources (Greg Grandin, anyone?) that can be mustered, Nicaragua seems a good candidate for a section that could be quite educational.BernardL (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
At this time, I haven't even considered that text. My revert was of an undiscussed reinsertion of an undiscussed unnecessary sentence in the Japan section. (Well, it's unnecessary as long as the Japan case has its own article; that may change, but until then, I deem it unnecessary.) My comment above was against edit warring and throwing around accusations of "vandalism".
I wouldn't mind taking another look at the Nicaragua section, but as long as the discussion, such as it is, is happening in edit summaries and accusation mode, it's just not about to go anywhere but into full protection and possibly other admin actions. I really don't see the point in that. — the Sidhekin (talk) 04:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Full protection due to dispute

I have protected this article (on the wrong version, naturally) against further editing as an uninvolved admin. I will also be examining some of the sock claims over the next day or so. --jonny-mt 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, jonny has opened an ANI on this. - Merzbow (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Right out of the gate, I just want to say I don't dispute that the topic exists. I guess I just don't understand where the lines are drawn on what is and isn't "state terrorism" as defined by any authority with a modicum of credibility.

I do understand that when an article this emotionally charged and open to interpration is hashed out, that some compromises were made, parameters were established and so on, lots of hard work went into it, etc. but I have to question who made those choices and is it even worth it to have an article that provokes this much emotion and debate?

Unfortunately, only the people who want an article to exist are the ones creating, editing, and tenaciously fighting for gray area articles (like this one) and that tends to create POV issues because the people who disagree are either shouted down by the article clique or decide it isn't worth it (in my experience). Given the amount of deletion requests and endless discussion, however, clearly something about this article needs to be fixed in order to make it more encyclopedic and less political science conjecture (or emotionally charged).

The article essentially says that the United States supports terrorists and terrorism, has always supported terrorists and terrorism, and is in fact a terrorist state by the definitions/criteria established in this article (and the world at large). Is that a fact or is that open to debate? Is it far too much a gross oversimplification of many complex issues or is it a brief, accurate description/designation of one country? Maybe I'm in the wrong about Wikipedia should and shouldn't be, but this article just feels like it strays into a point of view (neither good nor bad, just too much opinion and conjecture) without articulating a balanced and/or larger counter-perspective and singles out an entire population to be vilified.

In case this was lost upon anyone, this article offends people. Not because it's wrong in its specific facts, but because it paints a whole country with a very wide brush and calls everyone who lives there a country full of murderers or at least accomplices to murder. If nothing else, it probably should be "by the United States Government" (in a very general sense) or even CIA or FBI or US Military (whoever) Alleged Acts etc. to be more specific about who is to blame for "acts of terrorism". We would never say the United States cured (fill in the blank) because they funded research into a cure, we would say that the scientists or lab where it was being researched were the creators of the cure.

And not for nothing, but we do live in a time when the perception of the United States has been severly diminished by it's involvement in the Iraq War and politics/emotion shouldn't be involved in creating/keeping (and to be fair, deleting) articles. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a weapon or tool to express politics (or outrage) but there is a sense that's whats happened here. Not to thrown down this ole chestnut, but this article would never be found in a real encyclopedia. Yes, that isn't the only test of an article, but sometimes I wonder if it shouldn't be. 144.92.84.206 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously a thoughtful post. Two small, perhaps rather shoddy points in response. The title: is it not justified by the fact that the US is a democratic republic? The offence caused: I think the consensus, or at least trend, on Wikipedia is that editors need have no qualms about being strident in their assertions if the sources back them up (see the Intelligent design lead, for example). 86.44.28.52 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please take the time to take a couple of examples of US terrorism described in the article and check the citations provided. If you keep an open mind (and that's a big if; it may be helpful as you read the example and the cited sources to think about the events described as a dispassionate historian would about a hypothetical country not about our beloved USA), most of your questions will be addressed. If you then still have specific issues, come back.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of protection

With the close of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33, I have removed the full protection on this article. My apologies for the long wait. --jonny-mt 11:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

attempt to use 'revisionism' as rationale to remove all content re Nuclear bombing as terrorism

The main article discussing the nuclear bombing as terrorism was deemed notable and worthy of an article. Clearly the main Terrorism by the US article can and should include a link to that article. Erasing the sourced content under claims of 'revisionism' is clearly pushing a POV to silence attempt to remove all reference to relevent content. If you wish to continue discussing merging the whole content of the bombing article here, please do so.-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, actually. As long as the other article exists, we should have a link and a summary of it. I disagree that there has been any POV pushing, however. Accusing someone of POV pushing is not productive, and only incites anger. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
If this ridiculous POV has to remain in wiki (and I think it has enough pov pushers for it to remain), it should just be in one place. Either here or the other article. To have it duplicated only makes this pov revisionism more pronounced. Dman727 (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this the place to discuss the potential merge or was the main discussion at the 'sister' article? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Red Pen of Doom (talk • contribs)
Now that the daughter article exists, and survived an AfD, having a short summary here and a link there as we have now is fine. - Merzbow (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that this needs the tiniest of tiny sections, per WP:UNDUE. Then again, any times I see a talk page section with "attempt to silence view...", I'm inclined to tune out. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Apologies for initial strident inflamatory language. I will attempt to use language more conductive to building consensus in the future. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this relevent to article?

Quote: "Empirical studies (see democide which has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism[127]) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships" I don't see how this is relevent to the topic of US state terror policy. It tells the reader nothing about the US. Domminico (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant, but the study alone is ludicrous because it ignores two facts:
  1. although the Soviet Union and China have killed more of their own citizens, we have killed a ghastly number of non-Americans. The United States by some estimates, has killed 6 million non-Americans, and this was before the Gulf War and the Iraq War, which has killed at least a million more.
  1. The United States nearly wiped out an entire race, which Hitler himself much admired and studied. See this link for historical extracts
On a side note, the Nazi concentration camps he used were not new either, albeit early concentration camps were not used for genocide. The first concentration camps were British, in South Africa. Like many wars, Americans strongly and moralistically condemned these actions, then repeated themselves (like the carpet bombing in WW2). America set up their own concentration camps when they overthrew the Philippines.
That said, I think this quote should be left untouched. Inclusionist (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant. Note the paranthatical phrase "see democide which has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism." The purported relevance is premised on the "equivalence" between democide and terrorism. This equivalence is supported by, drumroll, the weasel phrase "has been argued to be." There is no authority cited for the equivalence.
Moreover, even if there were an author who argued for such equivalence, it would still be a stretch, given that democide and terrorism are two different categories. For example, terrorism as commonly defined requires some sort of intent on the part of the perpetrator (e.g. a political objective). Democide on the other hand requires killing a large number of people. I say delete.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A related discussion

A similar article Allegations of state terrorism by Russia just has been nominated for deletion. I believe that either both (this and Russia's) articles should be deleted, or both should be kept. Otherwise, this is not logical. Everyone is welcome to comment there.Biophys (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles are considered on an individual basis, two articles are differently written and sourced, different content etc., therefore just because the title is the same doesn't mean both should meet the same fate. It looks as if that article's going to be kept anyway by the state of things at the moment. - Toon05 23:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Toon. I suppose that like in some cold war "missile gap" argument, Biophys might argue that the lengths of the two articles have to be comparable otherwise we will have to shorten the longer one. Or perhaps we should delete both articles until there is such an article on every single country?
No that's not the way WP works. Editors do what they can to add quality material and to edit based on WP rules. The great invisible WP hand will sort out the rest.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

other relevant uncited wiki articles

Torture and the United StatesCinnamon colbert (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ending the war over the war over Japan

(moved to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Terrorism, now back by request -- Kendrick7talk)

This is the single biggest problem clogging up any progress on this article. Can we start a controlled discussion here about how to put an end to it? Kendrick7 has started the article Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism which is currently up for AfD. I don't agree with that approach but understand why he gave that a try. Rather than simply letting the AfD run its course maybe we can come up with a solution here. Let's try to stay on topic, be very civil, avoid inflammatory language, not point fingers at anyone, etc. No disrespect to IP editors, but I think this should just be between people with user accounts given all the random IP edits lately.

I'll try to characterize where we are at now. Some folks want this section deleted, but I think (and this might be debatable) that there is a much stronger view that something can be here, the debate is about where the "main material" will live and how much of it we will have. I'd suggest we take the problems in that order and thus proceed like this:

1) Take an informal and non-binding poll to see if folks think the main content should be here, at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or in Kendrick's stand alone article. This was previously discussed in Japan break 1 above (more so to the end of the thread) but did not come to a resolution. Below I've started an informal poll on this question (I know they are evil, but I think it could really help us here).
2) Once we determine where to put the material each "side" can select two or three people to work on hammering out the specific content (if there is someone who both sides deem truly neutral, one or two of those folks would be good too). It should be agreed at the outset that we cannot have a sub-section of this article or the "Debate" one as long as what is at Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism. That might not make some people happy, but I think we have to start from that point.

I understand this proposal starts on the assumption that some kind of Japan material will be here, but I think I'm being objective when I say that more people are okay with something being included than with everything being deleted. Those in that delete camp might consider whether it's worth it to let the Japan stuff stay if it will end up being neutral and if it will put an end to edit warring. I'm all for a discussion about the title, as is happening in the sections above, but the biggest disruption right now is coming from this Japan question.

With that I'll start a subsection for a small poll which will hopefully allow us to gauge consensus on the first issue and move toward ending this debate. I'd be thrilled if folks were willing to participate in this in a civil manner, but obviously anyone is welcome to reject this approach.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Informal, evil, poll to get a rough consensus about where Japan material belongs

I'll put three options here. It might be useful for people to indicate their first and second choice. Please indicate if a given option is your first (and/or only) or second choice. A brief comment on your rationale might be good, but back and forth debates will not be fruitful. I included a discussion sub-section as well, which might be a good place to register a strong objection to a certain option, or to hash out certain points. Let's try to avoid unnecessary bickering and treat one another with respect.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan content should be in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States

  • Support
  1. Support, first choice. Atomic bombings of Japan as state terrorism is very much a minority viewpoint, but still a notable one and this article is the appropriate place to cover it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support, with a summary-style lead-in via a section in the "Debates..." article so it can be found from there, of course. - Merzbow (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support Hooper (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support This seems obvious to me and consensus was clear to keep it there, not as a summary but in its full version. Those edit warring to remove it or blank it were doing so against consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support as a brief abstract.Biophys (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Second choice per my comments below. -- Kendrick7talk 05:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Second Choice. Allegations of state terror in this case are directed at the US, so they should go here if not in the bombs debate article. The free-standing article seems to be a POV-fork of this article, making those allegations seem more important or widespread (which they aren't) then the numerous other allegations in this article. Random89 06:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support, My first choice as the site of the most substantial treatment of the issue on wikipedia. Why? Because the great majority of the reliable sources (Richard Falk, Michael Stohl, C.A.J. Coady, Douglas Lackey, Mark Selden) are actually discussing the issue within the theoretical context of state terrorism. Moreover, it is common to discuss the bombings within a wider context of the weakening of the moral taboos that were in place prior to WWII that prohibited mass attacks against civilians during wartime. Falk, Selden, and Lackey all delve quite profoundly into this issue, and all of them relate the Japan bombings to what they believe was a similar pattern of state terrorism in following wars, particularly Korea and Vietnam. It's amazing how actually consulting the reliable sources upon which the articles are supposed to be based can clear up some of these matters.BernardL (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support- But the content should be very limited. We should not give it undue weight. For those who care: this is my second choice.Bless sins (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Second choice. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support I don't see why this topic should be treated differently from every other historical instance of terrorism by the US in this article. Since it is supported by RS, we should follow standard WP rules and include it.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support, second choice to merging it into "Debate over..." I could live with it here, since it fits the subject. There is no problem with it also being in "Debate over..." In fact, that would be appropriate. Noroton (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. This is the subject where it fits best. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Oppose – everybody else is doing oppose votes, so I might as well add mine. This article is about an alleged phenomenon, not a specific instance of it. Only insofar as it illuminates the phenomenon does material belong here. Extended background info and exploration of the arguments made for the bombings to be a specific instance of this phenomenon, belong in an article scoped to the bombings. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose – Per Sidhekin. John Smith's (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strong Oppose Fits much, much better in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as I wrote below. BWH76 (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Japan content should be in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

  • Support
  1. Second choice. An article on the events in question, even if not on terrorism explicitly, always seemed to me preferable to an article not on any specific event. And of course, outright deletion is right out. — the Sidhekin (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. We are talking about a question if the bombings were indeed "state terrorism" or not. This question can be properly described and understood only in a more wider context of Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki‎.Biophys (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support. It seems to me that the belief that the atomic bombing was state terrorism is a position in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Does it not follow that this information therefore belongs in that article? Random89 06:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support If it must be included at all, include it in the proper place for it. Jtrainor (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. SupportVery good information that made me interested in joining Wikipedia. I know some editors do not want this good information to be in one place where everyone can read about this act of terrorism by the US.
  6. Support This is also a good avenue to mention it. But just because content is here, doesn't mean it can't be somewhere else as well. After all wikipedia is not paper. For those who care: this is my third choice.Bless sins (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support I agree with Bless here. I don't see inclusion in the present article as being mutually exclusive with inclusion in the Debate article. It's quite relevant in both articles.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support This is the most appropriate spot for the content. Whether or not it was terrorism is a small point closely related to whether or not it was right and should be presented that way. Noroton (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support Agreed that this is the most appropriate venue for it. John Smith's (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support It is the best was to treat the subject in a NPOV. BWH76 (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Weak Oppose Yes, it should be mentioned there but anything more than a brief mention would be a violation of Undue Weight in my opinion. This view of the Atomic Attacks against Japan in the context of WW2 as incidents of State Terrorism is very much a minority view within the literature on the Bomb Debate, and that is probably an overstatement. Most of the discussion from this conceptual framework is found within the literature of terrorology, discussing the construct of State Terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose beyond a mention. That article is about a moral debate, and this assumes one side of the debate is true (it was immoral), and then asks just how immoral was it (was it as bad as terrorism?). It looks like a fit, but it's really somewhat off topic; a sideline to the debate, not the heart of it. -- Kendrick7talk 05:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Not an alternative to my first and second choice. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Since we are doing oppose votes here I should add mine. I see it as completely inappropriate to include anything but a small mention of this material in the "Debate" article. The question of "state terrorism" is not even a bit player in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." It's a subject worthy of Wikipedia coverage but to put in any remotely lengthy content in the "Debate" article would be a severe violation of WP:UNDUE.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan content should be in stand alone article Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism

  • Support
  1. Second choice. I don't like this option at all, but it's preferable to the second option and to outright deletion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support, first choice. Seems to me the least bad option – that is, provided it even is an option (AfD pending). — the Sidhekin (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. This is not an ideal solution but I list it as a second choice given the fact of those who are trying to delete the material over where it belongs, as a section of State Terrorism by the United States. If properly expanded it can also stay as its own stand alone article as the two options are not mutually exclusive--but a full section is first and best.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support While the debate over the morality of the the killing of a quarter million people is a serious one, I think the question of whether or not it's "state terrorism" essentially begs the question and has little to do with the morality itself (it may not be terrorism even if immoral). Having declared war on terrorism, the U.S. has opened itself up to criticism of it's own past behavior -- and whether after 9/11, perhaps it's "chickens had come home to roost" to coin a phrase. However, my immediate reaction was that this section did not really fit with all the others in the allegations article: it was during a declared war, it was much longer ago than the rest of the timeline of the article, and the impact of it was much more severe and the obviousness that the U.S. did it was more clear than other clandestine issues covered. As such, even apart from the edit warring, I believed a split was justified. -- Kendrick7talk 05:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Second choice. As I noted above our reliable sources on the matter do not describe this as a stand-alone instance of state terrorism; rather they describe a continuity of what they regard as state terrorism threading through choices by the U.S. to employ bombing against civilian populations as a solution to its conflicts. "With the world’s largest air force and a developing habit of preferring the lives of its soldiers over the lives of non-American civilians, the U.S. Government has become accustomed to raining devastation from the air. I suspect that Americans from 1945 to 2001 approved US bombing campaigns because they themselves had never been targets and had no first hand knowledge of the human results. On September 11, 2001, they experienced, as I did from one kilometer’s distance, what a terrorist attack from the air is like. The Americans were correct to judge that the terrorists who flew those planes on September 11 were avatars of evil. What they have not realized is the degree to which their own policies, since January 1945, are more of the same.” (Lackey, Douglas. “The Evolution of the Modern Terrorist State”, in Terrorism: The Philosophical Issues, Igor Primoratz, editor, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.)BernardL (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Also supportI support keeping it here too. It can be bigger here.Olawe (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support this is my first choice.Bless sins (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support First choice and ideal solution. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  9. Second choice as explained by Bigtime and Giovanni.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support Only choice. The subject matter teeters evenly between the two articles. It is an independantly notable debate that needs to be covered in depth somewhere, but can't be covered in depth in either article. From an editorial perspective, removing the discussion from both this and the Debate article will free them up to discuss other issues. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Weak oppose for reason explained above.Biophys (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. As I noted above, having this article separate seems to give more validation or support to these allegations of terrorism as opposed to other allegations listed in the Allegations of state terrorism by US article. If they do not belong in the bombing debate article the belong in that article. Random89 21:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Strongly oppose - POV in spinout's clothing. Sceptre (talk) 00:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose the subject is really a part of the larger subject on whether or not the bombings were moral and the best way to present it is as part of the overall debate. Those who don't agree that this was state terrorism are almost always addressing the larger debate and the same applies to those who use this terminology. Best to have it all in one article. Noroton (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. This is pretty much the worst possible solution. We have never written a high-quality, NPOV article describing a particular viewpoint and this is unlikely to be our first successful attempt. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose I doubt that this could be the only content of a well-rounded article. Equally concerned about POV. John Smith's (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  7. Strong oppose - If the article is detailing discussion whether the act was moral or immoral, the current article name would imply that there is an answer. BWH76 (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Point about participation in the "poll" which is actually fairly critical. I do not think it is appropriate for accounts which appear to be single purpose to participating in this, in part because many here are convinced that these accounts are socks. Only firmly established editors should be counted in the "poll." That may seem unfair to some, but I don't think there is any way some of the people here will find this a fair process otherwise. The accounts I would include as non-established would be Rafaelsfingers, Supergreenred, DrGabriela, Olawe, and also Like A Rainbow (from the other side). Giovanni33 is still an editor in good standing here despite the ongoing ArbCom case so his views should be respected. I'm not all trying to cast aspersion on the accounts named above, it's just that there's been a lot of SPA and sock problems lately and we need some transparency here. I hope the logic of this makes sense.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'm not happy to see the rampant edit-warring by some of these accounts who generally agree with my viewpoint within the article. The bad faith accusations of socket-puppetry has become so shrill that even I've lost appetite to get much involved with editing as of late.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue, Japan being one of the sore points, is that discussions of whether acts of war, covert/overt military and paramilitary actions, assassinations, etc. are state-sponsored terrorism belong in an article (or articles) discussing the validity of that view point, not in any article which mixes the event with contentions that it is terrorism and that the state responsible uses terrorism as a tool of foreign policy. The Japan "controversy" is merely symptomatic of the entire problem with the article, which is that it should not exist in this form in the first place.
   From my own family's history, I support discussing events such as the bombing of Dresden and whether or not they constitute acts of state terrorism. However, having an "Allegations of..." ... "terrorism" article, as here, changes that from a serious, thoughtful dialogue to nothing more than another list of grievances. For those who are truly concerned that the events mentioned in the article constitute terrorism, this article is the worst way to advance discourse on that topic or to commemorate the victims. —PētersV (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this poll to a close

It's been a couple of weeks and no new comments seem to be trickling in so perhaps we should try to come to some consensus here. Since I started this discussion I'll try to interpret what we have here and point the way to a resolution, though obviously no one is beholden to my advice. The article is currently locked down and probably will be until the conclusion of an ArbCom case relating to the article, but in the meantime we can try to come to some agreement here. Ending this dispute would go a ways to allowing the article to come off protection.

Interpreting the poll would have been simpler had this AfD been closed as delete. However it was not (rightfully so, Sandstein did an excellent job closing in my view, though personally I wanted the article deleted). Here are my feelings about how to read the above straw poll:

A) The least popular option is "Japan content should be in Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Only seven people supported it (eliminating one per the initial rules) and four opposed it. Only a few had it as their first choice. I think we should remove this option and focus on the other two and I hope we can come to agreement on that without much fuss.
B) The most popular option was "Japan content should be in Allegations of state terrorism by the United States." I count 9 first choice votes and 4 second choice votes. There was one opposition but there was less opposition to this than the other two options.
C) "Japan content should be in stand alone article Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism" also received a lot of support, however less strongly and with some strong opposition. I count 5 first choice votes, 4 second choice votes (again I'm excluding Olawe per above), and also 5 opposes - more than for either of the other two choices. We also need to bear in mind the results of the AfD. It was not deleted which gives the article some credibility, however Sandstein's thoughtful close specifically notes that the decision "does not rule out consensus-based editorial solutions, such as merging or redirection, that may be arrived at on the article talk page(s)."

Assuming we eliminate option two I think we are left with a couple of choices:

Choice 1 Given that option one received the most support and hardly any opposition, and given that option three had significantly less support (four fewer first choice votes) and significant opposition, we decide to go with the first option and keep the content here. The article Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism would be redirected to the section here and content re-merged, though a trim would be inevitable (probably it would be easiest to do the trim on the page to be redirected rather than over here).
Choice 2 Discuss the two above options (i.e. option one and three, keep content here or keep content in the new standalone article) further and then come to a conclusion based on that additional discussion rather than the poll above.

I do not think we can simply decide to keep the new article and end it there, at least at this point in the discussion. There is strong objection to this, another option is preferred by more people, and the AfD specifically allowed for a merge/redirect of that content. I have my view which I will express below, but I hope I'm summarizing the situation relatively fairly. I now propose we have a quick (as in several days) show of hands with brief explanation about whether choice one or two is preferred (no need to offer "oppose" votes obviously, it's one or the other). I'm not trying to draw out the discussion here (believe me) but I think we need a sense of where people stand given that the first poll did not produce unambiguous results. Let's do our best to come to a quick decision here so we can move on to other issues - please comment below.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

!Vote/comments on above two choices
Support choice 1. I still don't want the content in a standalone article and feel it can and should be covered here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I've somewhat changed my initial preferences, which before mirrored BTP's, to now want to keep the stand alone article and restore the previous section of it here. This is because of the development and probable continued growth of the stand alone article to include more content that would probably bloat the section in this article, and because of the Keep result of the Afd. This is also based on my preference that all relevant information should find a home somewhere in WP, and since more material would make the section here a little large, spinning it out to it's own article for continued development is consistent with the style guidelines. This does not mean reducing it here to a stub section, though. WP is not paper and there can be some repetition. I feel its important to keep most of material still in this article as it gives the article a certain depths and richness, as explained by BernardL, above. On the other hand, it does no harm to keep the growing material in its own article as well, and I have more I can add to that main article, which is developing nicely.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment If we go by the the AfD, the option to eliminate would be "Allegations". Several of the delete/merge votes did not call for any specific home for this material, and one openly declared uncertainty. But while about 15 called for "Debate", you were the only one calling for "Allegations".
Sure I'm partial, but I'd rather go by the AfD. Is there any impartial reason to prefer the "informal, evil, poll" above? — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is. The AfD did not specifically ask the question "which of these options do you prefer?" As you say some weighed in on the question and some did not. Many of the folks commenting there are not familiar with the issues at hand and do not work on the article (it's almost certain that the reason so many people mentioned the "Debate" option is because the AfD nomination specifically labeled the new article a POV fork of that one). I think it makes sense for the decision to be made by people who actually work on the articles in question, not folks who stop by an AFD and happen to say "merge it back where it came from" (not knowing that it actually came from here, not the "Debate" article). It seems more than a little strange to throw out this discussion (which is taking place where these kind of discussions typically take place, on an article talk page) just because there is another one (which was really on a different topic) with a different result that you happen to prefer. I had no idea what people would say when I started this discussion but it seems obvious that the "Debate" option is the least popular among those who commented here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Good answer, except for the "just because" piece. I could say much about that, and I would (trust me), except I really had missed the point that Sceptre's only mention of "Allegations" when initiating the AfD was with the rather misleading link text "State terrorism talk page", and with no indication that the material was once here as well. Oops. AfD count out the window. — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment BTP's poll-closing comments above are just a head-count. I'd rather see a summary of the arguments given for each option and discussion of how well those arguments are supported by policy and guidelines. It's not numbers that matter, it's arguments. While merging is always an option for any two articles with related content, in this instance I'm not seeing any well-founded reasons to do so. The content is notable enough to have its own article, and there's no reason that article can't have a neutral point of view by presenting all arguments. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course I did a head count, but the purpose of it was not to tally votes and declare a winner but rather to try to move the discussion forward so we can come to some closure. It seemed fair to eliminate one of the options and entertain either an outright decision for the most favored option or further discussion of the two which received the most support (numbers do matter to an extent in a situation like this, they just are not the ultimate determining factor). I take it though from your comment that you are in favor of the second choice, i.e. further discussion of the two options? I have no problem with that and am just trying to get a sense of what people think. If someone wants to take this discussion in a different direction they are welcome to do so - I'm just trying to move us toward some kind of decision so the edit warring over this topic can come to an end.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I voted for the one I supported, I did not bother to vote against the ones I did not. Assuming the discussion regarding Hiroshima/Nagasaki is included here, we are back to the original problem: "Allegations of..." is a weasel title no matter how you cut it because anything can be alleged. One can argue ad infinitum that such "allegations" are "reputably sourced," nevertheless, they are allegations. (In fact, they are not even that, they are largely opinions.) Until the U.S., Russia, et al. that are subjects of these "alleged state terrorism" articles are convicted in a court of international law, this sort of article is an invitation for every possible grievance, from substantial to spurious. This is in no way a serious encyclopedia article as titled. —PētersV (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Noriega

For many years, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (now DEA) wanted to have Manuel Noriega arrested for drug trafficking, but instead George Bush, Sr. kept him on the CIA payroll. For more than a decade, thousands of tons of cocaine poured onto the streets of America through the Panama Canal while the US government looked the other way. This destroyed the stability of millions of American families, and the repercussions to our society are still being felt today. (Lenerd (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

Orlando Bosch

Jeb Bush's friend Orlando Bosch is a terrorist accused of blowing up an airplane killing 76 people in Cuba, but George Bush, Sr. thought so much of him that he gave him a Presidential Pardon. (Lenerd (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

The Contra War

Later in 1981, Bonzo authored $19 million for the C.I.A. to form and fund a counterrevolutionary army - the Contras - to overthrow the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. His meddling in both countries accomplished its objective: covert war in Central America.

December 10,1981: Units of the Atlacatl Battalion, funded and trained by the U.S., arrived at the Salvadoran village of El Mozote searching for rebels. They found only refugees.

¡FunFact!: The U.S. Army trained officers of the Atlacatl Battalion at the infamous School of the Americas (S.O.A.). Many S.O.A. graduates went on to commit atrocities throughout Latin America. Because of citizen protests, the U.S. government shut down S.O.A. in 2000 and reopened it in January 2001 as the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.

The Thistle: On December 17, 1981 the Atlacatl Battalion ordered the people of El Mozote out into the streets. They then sent the women and children back to their houses and all the men in the village to the church where they began executing and decapitating the men. Next, the separated the women from the children and killed both groups in the same fashion.

Days later, the F.M.L.N. discovered the carnage. On December 24, 1981, their rebel radio reported the massacre.

The F.M.L.N. contacted New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner and took him and Photographer Susan Meiselas to the site. Bonner interviewed the sole survivor Rufina Amaya who hid in thorn bushes until the soldiers left. She found the entire village dead (at least 1000 civilians), including her husband and four children.

On January 17, 1982 Bonner's story appeared in the New York Times.

To keep aid flowing, Congress required Bonzo to certify that El Salvador was improving its human rights record. After Bonner's report, he did. "The Salvadoran government is making a concerted and significant effort to comply with internationally recognized human rights."~ Bonzo

Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights Elliot Abrams denounced reports of the massacre at El Mozote as Fiction. "This is nothing but communist propaganda."~ Elliot Abrams

Bowing to pressure from the White House, The Times pulled Bonner off the story. The civil war in El Salvador ended in 1992. A truth commission sent forensic scientists to El Mozote.

It was all true.

It was policy.

By the time of the El Mozote Massacre, Bonzo and Casey were already planning the overthrow of Nicaragua's Sandinista government. The C.I.A. organized Somoza's National Guard into a counter-revolutionary force. Because of the Nicaraguan people's hate for the National Guard the decided to base them next door in Honduras. From Honduras, a very poor country dominated by the United States, the Contras moved across the border...

...blowing up bridges...

...burning schools...

...destroying farm co-ops...

...and killing people in cold blood.

Bonzo then imposed a trade embargo and cut off all international loans to the Sandinista state. Casey egged on the Contras to make bolder attacks.

September 8, 1983: A twin-engine Cessna carrying two 500-pound bombs flew low over the Managua airport. Shot down by airport defense it crashed into the airport.

Hours later, U.S. Senators Gary Hart and William Cohen arrived on a fact-finding mission. When reporters asked if it was a C.I.A. attack, Cohen stated that, "The C.I.A. isn't that dumb." Once he was shown a case of C.I.A. documents found in the wreckage he was convinced that U.S. Intelligence was indeed, that dumb. Despite his discovery, Congress did nothing. Casey ordered more attacks.

October 11, 1983, Bay of Corinto, Nicaragua: The Contras blew up oil storage tanks.

October 14, 1983, Port of Sandino: An oil platform was attacked. Exxon announced that it was too dangerous to bring in more tankers. The Contras took the credit.

To top it off, the C.I.A. mined the harbors. When a British ship struck a mine Congress finally had enough and rejected the Administration's request for and additional $21 million in Contra aid.

Lenerd (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PJAK

Seymour Hersh has claimed that the U.S. government has been supporting PEJAK, the Iranian branch of the PKK. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, the head of the PKK's militant arm, Murat Karayilan, claimed that Iran attempted to recruit the PKK to attack coalition forces, adding that Kurdish guerrillas have launched a clandestine war in north-western Iran, ambushing Iranian troops. The Chief of the Turkish General Staff, General Yaşar Büyükanıt stated that even though the international struggle had been discussed on every platform and even though organizations such as the UN, NATO, EU make statements of serious commitment, to this day the necessary measures had not been taken. Büyükanıt continued:

On the contrary, this conduct on one side has encouraged the terrorists, on the other side it assisted in widening their [the terrorists] activities. The most distressful part of it is that many of the European countries being a member of NATO, an organization that had announced that terrorism was the greatest threat to itself.

Sedat Laciner, of the Turkish think tank ISRO, says that US support of the PKK undermines the US war on terrorism.

A former militant, who recently had turned himself in to the Turkish police, claimed that the weapons for PKK in the north of Iraq were provided by US armoured vehicles.


Lenerd (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of all these talk sections you are creating? - Merzbow (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Merzbow. If you've got substance backed by sources, Lenerd, add it to the appropriate articles. This is a talk page about specific editing issues for this article.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Political crimes defence & legal kidnapping

It seems to me that there is a section missing on the US Courts rulings on the "political crimes defense" or "political offense exception" as successfully used by some members of the IRA, Eg Quinn v. Robinson (M. Cherif Bassiouni, Legal Responses to International Terrorism, page ~194; Page 17, NORTHERN IRELAND: TP , T , S 11 (PDF) Queen's University Belfast School of Law).

This has been used in US courts post 9/11 see this report (March 10, 2005) "Under Quinn, the majority explained, an offense committed in connection with a political 'uprising' falls under the exception if its 'causally or ideologically' related to that event. In so holding, the court implicitly rejected Trott’s conclusion that the political exception will never apply to the killing of an innocent bystander, at least in a country where democratic means of change are available." Personally I can't see a US government being very sympathetic to a foreign court that accepted such a defense by a person who attacked US citizen!

On the other side of the same coin is the US law allowing the kidnapping of a person from a country that does not recognize that the US has such a right (see David Leppard US says it has right to kidnap British citizens, Sunday Times December 2, 2007. "Alun Jones QC, representing the US government ... [said in a British court] 'If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.'"

From the point of view of another state, both of these legal positions could be seen as supporting terrorism, as would the U.S. government towards any state that invoked such arguments to refuse extradition to terrorists ("political offense exception") or kidnapped U.S. citizens from the U.S. and then tried them under the laws of a foreign state. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The law of war seems to be the central legal basis for most of this. Prisoners are taken during wars and are held by different laws than if they were criminals and were arrested. Two million Europeans were captured and held by the Allies in WWII, none of them with trials, none were "arrested", and there were no judicial warrents for their arrest. Was this also illegal? If not, why would the same be illegal today? The answer is that the law of war applies, not the laws that you cite.
The section you propose sounds like a new article. We could justify it, but can we do it in 200 words? How large of a section do you propose? Raggz (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Luis Posada

Luis Posada is a Cuban-born Venezuelan and a former CIA operative. He has been accused of a string of terrorist bombings, including that of Cubana Flight 455 in 1976, many years after leaving the CIA.

The edit above was reverted. Why? If Posada was in fact a "CIA operative" in 1976, then this fact should be directly noted and should not be implied. If Posada was not known to be employed by the CIA in 1976, then this fact is critical to avoiding a violation of WP:NPOV. So which is it, do we have a reliable source that he was a "CIA operative" in 1976 - or not? If we do not, is there any objection to informing the Reader of this critical fact? Do we all agree that the present text is a NPOV violation?

Posada article text as a policy question

Note that the question above is a policy and is not a content question. This section is for discussion of this question in regard to NPOV, the section immediately above for Posada-related content issues. Raggz (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's important to clarify with non-partisan sources whether he was ever a CIA operative and whether he was at the time he was supposed to carry out these attacks. If he was merely a former CIA operative then I'm not sure how that's US sponsored state terrorism. John Smith's (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read a reliable source that stated that Posada was employed by the CIA twice, terminated in 1972. He was honorably discharged by the US Army prior. There were many para-military Cubans employed prior to the Bay of Pigs. After the US backed off on Cuba, Posada apparently went his own way and he likely did blow up that plane. The CIA would have kept in touch, they are always looking for information, and it is reported that there were contacts. In my opinion, these contacts mean nothing. People talk to people at their old job all of the time. Context is important, talking about a retirement and discussing an aircraft attack are different. No one suggests that these contacts have relevance. (I don't have cites for any of the above, and will add none of it).
The article includes original research ineligible for retention to the degree that it implies that the US had any role in the aircraft bombing. There are no reliable sources to support such an implication and we need to either find one, or delete this section. There is no US link to the topic, a bombed airliner. It belongs in the article about Posada, which our article should not link to since there is no linkage between these topics. If someone has even one reliable source that links Posada to our article, please offer it soon. Raggz (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
See pages 5-6 of Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, by Noam Chomsky, 2007   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Does Chomsky specifically link Posada to the US in 1976, or link the US to this attack? If so, what source does he cite? What does Chomsky add that the present vague allegations lack? Raggz (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You offered a LINK, cool. Thanks.
I've read a lot on that subject. None of it relates to the topic of our article. It is all about extradition to a nation that might torture the guilty. It was a Federal Court that blocked his extradition on terrorism charges. We could argue that the Federal Court was a terrorist to deny extradition based upon torture concerns, but that would be absurd, even if Chomsky did. Do you want to make this argument? Fine, but the rest still needs to go, unless it is supported. Raggz (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
See page 258 of The Castro obsession U.S. covert operations against Cuba, 1959-1965, By Don Bohning, 2005. - I'm not taking a stance on it's inclusion or not, but there is evidence to draw a link if one chose to.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 03:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Posada was involved with the CIAs' secret war on Cuba, but he is discussed in the article in regard to a 1976 airliner bombing. We need a 1976 link to this act of terrorism. If the CIA blew up the airliner, THAT would deserve mention in the Lead.If not, who cares about Posada except for his victims? The book that you cite suggests that Venezuela had Posada do this. So, do we have a 1976 link? I've read that he was CIA in 1974, but left. If he was CIA when he blew up the airliner THAT would be important to mention. Was he? Raggz (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't answer for sure whether he was or not. Most recognnize that he worked for the DISIP of Venezuala at this time, and if he was still employed by the CIA, I doubt there would be much evidence of it. Most authors who address his "dealings" note that the CIA taught Posada how to blow up airliners, however they usually do not implicate the U.S. in this particular plane explosion.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 04:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That I believe, is a very fair assessment. Raggz (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Cuba

Operation Northwoods

The following text is being deleted because it is irrelevant to the topiv: "A secret plan, Operation Northwoods, was approved by the the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff and submitted for action to Robert McNamara[21] then Secretary of Defense. This plan included acts of violence on U.S. soil or against U.S. interests, such as plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities; blowing up a U.S. ship, and contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "The U.S. could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by U.S. fighters 'evacuate' remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." The plan was rejected by the Kennedy administration after the Bay of Pigs Invasion.[22][23]"

Acts by governments can be state terrorism, but discussions and plans cannot be. Even if they were such, sixty year old plans are too irrel;evant for inclusion. Raggz (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, if someone is plotting a terrorist attack ... and is caught, or merely changes their mind ... they are still labeled a "terrorist" (admittetly I don't favor this neologism in any case, but nevertheless). The fact that the U.S. government chose a different route in attempting to overthrow the Castro regime (Playa Giron), still does not negate the fact that they contemplated implementing a false flag terror attack as a raison d'être for war. Such a fact is notable and worthy of inclusion.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We say in our article that the government considered Operation Northwoods but decided not to. If I think about a terrorist attack and decide against it, what then? If I considered this sixty years ago, am I still a terrorist, was I ever one?
We could choose to include this topic if it involved state terrorism. It doesn't. The decision to not do it ended it. There was no decision to accept it. If there was, and it was reversed, then there would have been a decision. Without a decision by a government can there be state terrorism?
Example: Two US Postal workers discuss bombing the airport to free Tibet, tell their boss to give their plan to the president, does the fact that they are government employees discussing terrorism create state terrorism if their boss says shut up, forget this stupid idea? Raggz (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

General allegations against the US

Arno Mayer, Emeritus Professor of History at Princeton University, has stated that "since 1947 America has been the chief and pioneering perpetrator of 'preemptive' state terror, exclusively in the Third World and therefore widely dissembled."[4] Noam Chomsky also argues that "Washington is the center of global state terrorism and has been for years."[5] Chomsky has characterized the tactics used by agents of the U.S. government and their proxies in their execution of U.S. foreign policy — in such countries as Nicaragua — as a form of terrorism and has also described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state."[6]

After President George W. Bush began using the term "War on Terrorism", Chomsky stated in an interview:[6][7]

The U.S. is officially committed to what is called "low-intensity warfare"... If you read the definition of low-intensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of "terrorism" in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find they're almost the same.''

The section above is presently eligible for an NPOV deletion. It has a single POV. I'm not inclined to work on bringing it into compliance. Who is? If no one wants to, I will delete it. As it says, it only includes unsupported allegations anyway...07:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran

In April 2007, CNN reported that the US military and the International Committee of the Red Cross were protecting the People's Mujahedin of Iran, with the US army regularly escorting PMOI supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf.[74] The PMOI have been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States (since 1997), Canada, and Iran.[75][76] According to the Wall Street Journal[77] "senior diplomats in the Clinton administration say the PMOI figured prominently as a bargaining chip in a bridge-building effort with Tehran." The PMOI is also on the European Union's blacklist of terrorist organizations, which lists 28 organizations, since 2002.[78] The enlistments included: Foreign Terrorist Organization by the United States in 1997 under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and again in 2001 pursuant to section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224; as well as by the European Union (EU) in 2002.[79] Its bank accounts were frozen in 2002 after the September 11 attacks and a call by the EU to block terrorist organizations' funding. However, the European Court of Justice has overturned this in December 2006 and has criticized the lack of "transparency" with which the blacklist is composed.[80] However, the Council of the EU declared on 2007-01-30 that it would maintain the organization on the blacklist.[81][82] The EU-freezing of funds was lifted on 2006-12-12 by the European Court of First Instance.[83] In 2003 the US State Department included the NCRI on the blacklist, under Executive Order 13224.[84]

According to a 2003 article by the New York Times, the US 1997 proscription of the group on the terrorist blacklist was done as "a goodwill gesture toward Iran's newly elected reform-minded president, Mohammad Khatami" (succeeded in 2005 by the more conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad).[85] In 2002, 150 members of the United States Congress signed a letter calling for the lifting of this designation.[86] The PMOI have also tried to have the designation removed through several court cases in the U.S. The PMOI has now lost three appeals (1999, 2001 and 2003) to the US government to be removed from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, and its terrorist status was reaffirmed each time. The PMOI has continued to protest worldwide against its listing, with the overt support of some US political figures.[87][88]

Past supporters of the PMOI have included Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Rep. Bob Filner, (D-CA), and Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, "who became involved with the [PMOI] while a Republican senator from Missouri."[89][90] In 2000, 200 U.S. Congress members signed a statement endorsing the organization's cause.[91]

I propose to delete the section above because there is no allegation of US state terrorism, and no reliable source that claims this. What is alleged is that the US escorts an Iranian terrorist group within Iraq. This is not terrorism. Raggz (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism and propaganda

Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton, has argued that the U.S. and other first-world states, as well as mainstream mass media institutions, have obfuscated the true character and scope of terrorism, promulgating a one-sided view from the standpoint of first-world privilege. He has said that "if 'terrorism' as a term of moral and legal opprobrium is to be used at all, then it should apply to violence deliberately targeting civilians, whether committed by state actors or their non-state enemies."[9][10] Moreover, Falk argues that the repudiation of authentic non-state terrorism is insufficient as a strategy for mitigating it, writing that "we must also illuminate the character of terrorism, and its true scope... The propagandists of the modern state conceal its reliance on terrorism and associate it exclusively with Third World revolutionaries and their leftist sympathizers in the industrial countries."[11]

The section above is presently eligible for an NPOV deletion. It has a single POV. I'm not inclined to work on bringing it into compliance. Who is? If no one wants to, I will delete it. As it says, it only includes unsupported allegations anyway Raggz (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV policy. Such a criteria exists in relation to an editor’s choice of personal vernacular, not to quoted and cited statements by relevant observers to the situation. By implementing this blanket excuse of "NPOV" for everything you deem in anyway critical of the United States government, you are in effect attempting to not only game the system, but leave a distorted and imbalanced final result - which ironically in itself will be POV, through the absence of most critical material. POV is not just achieved by inclusion, but through what is excluded in deference to the overall "weight" (hence the policy of undue weight). I also object to hastily listing everything on a talk page that you attempt to delete, and then waiting a few hours and assuming there is no disagreement on your desired actions – silence is not consensus, especially when only a brief amount of time is given for a response.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I have not made any of the claims that you attribute to me. Please read what I actually said, again? When I read this, there is one opinion, that of Richard Falk. Does only including his opinion meet wp:npov in your opinion? If so, please say this because I'm not sure if you agree on this point. Raggz (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Although the topic of the article is clear enough - Allegations of state terrorism by the United States - and even though I believe it's NPOV to simply catalogue such allegations so long as the article doesn't side with any of them, I have decided to supply a counterbalancing quote for this subsection, from Daniel Schorr. Perhaps at some point the article should be moved to something like "The debate over allegations of state terrorism by the United States", at which point this sort of counterbalancing quote would be much more appropriate. For now, I think supplying balancing viewpoints advances progress on the article. I say this because (1) any serious comment by notable people on such allegations is arguably on-topic, and (2) not supplying counterbalance leads to perpetual debates here on the Talk page for the article, during which no progress is made on the article itself (indeed, it sometimes only goes backwards). As far as I'm concerned, the topic is inherently problematic mainly because the term "terrorism" is emotion-laden, not technical, and hence very ill-defined. We probably wouldn't even have this article if "state terror" did have a firm definition. But these allegations are definitely notable and so I think the article should exist. Yakushima (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon (1985)

The CIA has been accused of being the perpetrator of a 1985 Beirut car bombing which killed 81 people. The bombing was apparently an assassination attempt on an Islamic cleric, Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.[94] The bombing, known as the Bir bombing after Bir el-Abed, the impoverished Beirut neighborhood in which it had occurred, was reported by the New York Times to have caused a "massive" explosion "even by local standards," killing 81 people, and wounding more than 200.[95] Investigative journalist Bob Woodward stated that the CIA was funded by the Saudi Arabian government to arrange the bombing.[96][94] Fadlallah himself also claims to have evidence that the CIA was behind the attack and that the Saudis paid $3 million.[97]

The U.S. National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane admitted that those responsible for the bomb may have had American training, but that they were "rogue operative(s)" and the CIA in no way sanctioned or supported the attack.[98] Roger Morris writes in the Asia Times that the next day, a notice hung over the devastated area where families were still digging the bodies of relatives out of the rubble. It read: "Made in the USA". The terrorist strike on Bir el-Abed is seen as a product of U.S. covert policy in Lebanon. Agreeing with the proposals of CIA director William Casey, president Ronald Reagan sanctioned the Bir attack in retaliation for the truck-bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks at Beirut airport in October 1983, which, Roger Morris alleges, in turn had been a reprisal for earlier U.S. acts of intervention and diplomatic dealings in Lebanon's civil war that had resulted in hundreds of Lebanese and Palestinian lives. After CIA operatives had repeatedly failed to arrange Casey's car-bombing, the CIA allegedly "farmed out" the operation to agents of its longtime Lebanese client, the Phalange, a Maronite Christian, anti-Islamic militia.[95] Others allege the 1984 Bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut as the motivating factor.[98]

The section above requires immediate deletion for its NPOV violations. It does make supportable claims and could be salvaged by someone willing to bring the language and perspective into NPOV compliance. Does anyone want to undertake this? I will just delete it if no one wants to salvage it. Raggz (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, it would be categorically POV if it didn't have quote marks around it. But it does, and cites the source of the quote. And it does supply more than one POV: MacFarlane is mentioned as admitting the possibility of U.S. training for the bombers, while denying any U.S. complicity. I think there should be a few other perspectives on this incident, but I don't think the quote should be deleted. After all, the article is about allegations of state terrorism by the United States, and the quote contain such allegations. There is no Wikipedia policy requiring that sources quoted be NPOV. I'd say allegations of state terroism on the part of the U.S. are inherently POV (at least until there's a mainstream acceptance of the meaning of the term "terrorism"), and therefore should remain in quotes. However, it seems, if you had your way, this article would simply evaporate and be deleted because it's about something you don't believe exists. Well, phlogiston doesn't exist, but there's still a Wikipedia article about it. Why don't you come back here when you've figured out why there's an article about phlogiston? Yakushima (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Panama

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

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

Non-reliable sources and Primary Sources

Granma

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

Raggz, Do you also view White House press releases in the same way ? Or statements made by American governmental officials ?   Redthoreau (talk) RT 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course. These are all "primary sources", and are all subject to these rules. We may use primary sources, but these have special rules. Granma is a government organ. Raggz (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is a government organ ... view it as a printed Dana Perino. However, it can still be used when addressing the claims of the Cuban government, just as a White House press release can be relevant to a host of issues.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 00:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. We seem to have consensus on this, that the White House and Granma are "primary sources" and are subject to this WP policy. Raggz (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If this is agreed, then why did you delete the Cuban government's allegations? Would you support deleting the US govt's statements regarding the events discussed in the article?--NYCJosh (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall now. Primary sources are not always deleted. What I delete first are cites that do not support text. Granma might have cited US immigration policy as terrorism, they have a lot of cites on this. US compliance with the UN Torture Convention as enforced by the Federal Court in New Orleans is not terrorism, but you could debate this point. If it mentions state terrorism, other than immigration policy, fine, revert. Raggz (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Common Dreams

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

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

Raggz, this type of comment undermines your reliability as an editor because it tends to show you are a person with a deletionist POV mission. For one thing, most of the articles on commondreams.com (and all of the articles cited in the present article, as far as I know) are drawn from other reliable newssources, like NY Times, BBC, AP, AFP, etc. So attacking commondreams as a whole is irrelevant. Also, just because a not-for-profit organization has an organizational mission does not in and of itself disqualify the news it reports. Have you ever read the Christian Science Monitor or reports of Red Cross International?--NYCJosh (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
If the particular sources in question can be found from sources such as "NY Times, BBC, AP, AFP, etc" they should be replaced with such. That much is pretty straightforward, I think. Arkon (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. However, commondreams provides a permanent archive of the articles of the newssources it carries, whereas the newssources sometimes do not.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Common Dreams is not in the business of presenting objective facts, this is not their goal. The world needs the advocacy groups like Common Dreams is, but we need to understand that these are not journalists. If Common Dreams were the only reliable source for a news story I might cite redflag. If there is no other reliable source anywhere, why is this? If there is a good reason we could use it. Generally Common Dreams is not the only source in our world on anything, and a news report would be preferred. Raggz (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Raggz, you should consider reading the footnotes containing the commondreams articles, including the first and last lines of the articles cited, and think about my point before responding, because what you have written is non-responsive.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If there is a compelling reason to use any advocacy group, we may. Is this the case? Are there journalistic sources? Does Common Dreams cite entire articles - or summarize them for activists? Raggz (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Why did you not find this out (answers to your last three questions) BEFORE making ignorant comments about commondreams and wasting other editors' time? The answers are in the linked footnotes. If you want to verify that each article carried by commondreams conforms to the original article from the given newssource, feel free to do so, if you think this is necessary. (I have on occasion gone back to the cited newssource and linked to that instead of the commondreams article. I have never found any discreprancy in the article, but even with the computerized replication of digitized text, there is always a first time.) --NYCJosh (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletions by Raggz (see various sections above)

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Nickhh. This is an article in which every sentence has been scoured and debated. To propose delete entire sections of it is reckless. If there is a problem with a specific passage, let's discuss it one at a time. Ultimatums for mass deletions add only heat not light and will result in further edit wars not an improved WP.
In other words, how about every calm their livers and not assume that all previous work here was added incompetently.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Nick, can you not automatically remove material that he adds, please? If you want a citation, tag it and ask him to do it in the next few weeks. There's plenty of unsourced material here but I don't see you removing it. John Smith's (talk) 10:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I only removed two sentences, which were both making the same claim that the US government was somehow acquitted on an appeal of the World Court decision. I know full well what he is doing here, which is to draw in his own amateur interpretation of subsequent UNSC action (or inaction). I'm sorry, but the addition was nonsense. Sometimes it's OK to remove totally ridiculous assertions which an editor has plopped into an article, rather than politely wait for a reference which is never going to come. As I said, I don't care enough about the article itself to trawl through it all, but I noticed these two pretty egregious errors and reverted them. There may be other errors and/or unsourced claims in the article, but that doesn't mean that people should put even more in. --Nickhh (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the addition was nonsense. Then you should identify it as being so on the talk page or at least on the edit summary before removing it. Asking for a source is not the same as denying it ever happened. John Smith's (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That's why the first comment in my edit summary was "Really?", before then pointing out it had no source. Thanks --Nickhh (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The ICJ decision was taken to appeal, and no action on the appeal was taken, so the finding was invalidated as international law. Who debates these facts? There was a finding by the ICJ, so this too is a relevant fact. All of this is in the main article (or was last time I read it). We violate wp:npov to put only part of these facts in. Who disputes this? Raggz (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Nickhh has violated wp:npov by reverting text to deny wp:npov, perhaps inadvertantly. Any editor (I suggest someone other than me would be ideal) must bring this text into compliance with wp:npov. How we do this is subject to wp:consensus, but we need to find a way to comply. I have inadvertantly violated WP policy myself, so I'm not slamming anyone who makes this same mistake. Raggz (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Deleting references to comments by Chomsky, Falk etc on the basis of NPOV is nonsensical. They are here because they are well-known academics/activists articulating some of the allegations. If there is a genuine issue with balance, this should be resolved by adding counter-comments or rebuttals (a brief read suggests there are plenty of these as it is) Feel free to bring NPOV balance to text that you wish to revert that was deleted per NPOV. Nothing is ever lost, it will be there until you manage to do this. I have not volunteered to do your editing. Just don't revert text that obviously requires NPOV balance before your correct this problem. (NPOV is not about the authority of the source - the policy is at wp:npov, please review it on this point? Raggz (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Raggz, I think you misunderstand WP POV policy. Falk etc. are notable perspectives cited from RS. Including their analyses as appropriate for the topic in a fair manner does not violate POV. Other editors can feel free to add additional or contrasting perspectives in a NPOV manner. I agree with Nickhh. See wp:npov. An example of a POV violation would be to delete from an article perspectives with which one disagrees.--NYCJosh (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I see Raggz is back and up to his typical multiple thread discussion tactics. I hope Raggz, that you are not back to your previous declarations of "consensus" when no such consensus has been reached. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Let's not bait people. Arkon (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Requesting someone limit conversations on the talk page to a comprehendable count where editors can follow the conversations and actually build consensus before jumping to start 3 or 4 or 6 more threads as well as hoping that previously demonstrated disruptive behaviors are not repeated can hardly be considered "baiting". -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
What happened to you was long ago, and I had nothing to do with any of that. You are responsible. If you must get into any of that, please on my TalkPage, per policy. I am not interesting in discussing what happened to you, here or there. Now, do you have an opinion? Do these section have NPOV balance? Raggz (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
My opinion, See below - it is not appropriate to remove sourced material from notable figures in the field under some misinterpreted application of NPOV.
As to your initial comments in the paragraph above, I have not a clue what you are talking about. My statment has nothing to do with anything that "happened to me". It has to do with your historical actions. If you wish to put your past reputation behind you, I am all for that, but so far since your return, I see the same actions and behaviors. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I believe that your interpretation is incorrect, Raggz. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me. I encourage you to do this. From your reference is excellent text applicable here:
Information suppression
A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.
  • Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:
  • Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
  • Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
  • Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics).
  • Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
  • Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance:
  • Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
  • Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
  • Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.
  • Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV.
It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.
Your response implies that you agree that there is no NPOV balance, so at least you and I have consensus on this. Now we are debating about how to comply with NPOV, we are making progress! Is there anyone that feels these passages are fairly balanced and offer all significant perspectives? Raggz (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
RPOD has brought up an important policy (below). We should comply by adding material, if we can.
Space and balance
An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.
Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be interesting to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be important. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.
I consider the language to be "an NPOV work in progress, not an irredeemable piece of propaganda". This is why we are discussing it now. Is anyone interested in this salvage project? Raggz (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Policy (rather than content) discussion

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

You tacitly admitted (above) that the material does not have NPOV balance. Now we are debating what we should do about material that is out of compliance with NPOV. Here are my suggestions:
  • We discuss this, and ask if anyone wants to salvage the out of compliance material.
  • We bring it into compliance.
Do we have consensus for these two steps, or do you have a third option? Raggz (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I have "admitted" nothing of the sort, tacitly or otherwise. And in your statement you have just shown the behavior that I explicity hoped you had left behind. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
"I believe that your interpretation is incorrect, Raggz. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance. "The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it." -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)" When you said "remedy", I thought that you meant remedy to the NPOV violation. What remedy were you referring to? What is the policy you cited intended to fix?

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

Allow me to jump in though RPOD can speak for him/herself as can others. Raggz is the one claiming the notable authorities cited are one sided. Raggz therefore threatened to delete them. RPOD, I and others said that EVEN IF (without conceding the point) they could be shown to be one sided and the existence of other notable points of view on the events discussed in the article were shown to exist, the remedy would be to add the other authorities, not to delete the cited ones. If Raggs or others are convinced that other notable authorities with a different point of view who discuss events in question here exist, let them cite them.
I for one would like nothing more than an article with a vibrant debate on these issues. In general the response of the US punditocracy to much of this history has been to ignore it and hope it goes away, or to write incoherently about "mistakes." That's not to say that other views don't exist however. --NYCJosh (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you NYCJosh - that is indeed my position as well. Raggz, if YOU believe there is an NPOV issue, then YOUR standard options are to add other points of view or to slap a NPOV tag on explaining why YOU believe there is NPOV issue. One of your options is NOT to unilatterally remove sourced content from notable experts in the field. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of policy, deletion is one of my options. If you say please help us, I might. If you say we can't manage this, I likely will. As an editor when I find text out of policy compliance I need to ask if someone wants to salvage it. Does anyone? I don't think that the present points or text are worth salvage. It however is a matter of courtesy to ask. RPOD, text that does not meet policy standards has to go. I have no other option, but it need not happen now. Is it worth your time to salvage - or not? Raggz (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
No Raggz, you need to work by policy, which is WP:Consensus. Unilateralism on sourced material is not appropriate. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not the case that text that doesn't comply with Wikipedia policy simply "has to go." It is to be improved. (Reasonable exceptions exist; I work on WP:BLP at times, and the rules there are stringent, to protect Wikipedia legally. In particular, unsourced BLP material should be deleted immediately.) Deletion just because no balancing POV is cited yet is not, in itself, improvement. This article is about allegations of state terror on the part of the U.S. Just deleting a given allegation does not improve the article -- rather, it's more like blatant suppression of information, if it's anything, and that's definitely a policy infringement. Providing other viewpoints on the allegation IS improvement. If a quote goes to seemingly unnecessary lengths, trimming or accurately paraphrasing the quote forming an allegation can be improvement. If a documented and notable allegation exists, counter-arguing commentary shouldn't be hard to find -- after all, the allegation is notable, and the topic is controversial. It should be easy enough to add. Not nearly as easy as simply deleting the quote, of course. But some "improvements" are obviously too easy. Raggz, if you don't agree with an allegation, find sources that express some similar disagreement, quote them, cite them. Is that work? Yeah, it's work. Of course it is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What do you expect? 60.42.122.78 (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, that last was from me, Yakushima (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Raggz, please provide some refs to good sources that we could use that would counterpoint whatever you believe is being one sided. Remember, it isn't wikipedia being one sided if all the sources are one sided. We can only do so much. Hooper (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Political crimes defence & legal kidnapping (Part 2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading Title

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

The title is appropriate. It is about allegations by, not against. Hooper (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is about terrorism by, not against the United States; and allegations against, not by. I can see how some could find this title confusing or ambiguous. - Kent Heiner (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
We have a group of editors who insist on putting "allegations of" into the title. This renders the title both weasely and somewhat ambiguous. No matter how long the list of credible "allegations" from RS, no matter how many different chapters of US history are cited, it is axiomatic that state terrorism is a term inapplicable to the actions of our favored state. Hence, the article can only discuss "allegations" and even the title must be made more cumbersome, weasily and ambiguous because of this sensibility.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposing Views

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

Doesn't seem to be at all related to the topic of whether or not the US has perpetrated state terrorism. Normally I would just remove it, but this article is controversial enough that I would like to give others a chance to confirm this. Does anyone see how it fits into the article?TrogdorPolitiks (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC).

I agree that it's irrelevant. It is an attempt at an apologia but it is irrelevant and OR.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree for it to be removed, its like saying "Hey our crimes are not so bad compared to "dictatorships""

Nuclear Weapons NPOV

I'm not entirely sure how to make a citation, but some of the counterpoints from Atomic_bombings_of_Japan_as_a_form_of_state_terrorism should be copied over to this section to neutralize the point of view. This whole article is generally WP:POV but that's the most striking example of it. The issue of using nuclear weapons is on the whole a controversial topic. Even limiting it to whether the nukes used against Japan can be defined as terrorism has several points of view.

Also the "Opposing Viewpoints" section is not the right way to go about balancing the POV issue for the article. Each section should be balanced to the point of WP:NPOV. This is a fairly radical topic so stating the cases as if there was consensus in the world that these things can be considered terrorism is inherently POV. 64.132.80.134 (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Try proposing a counterpoint section on this talk page to a particular terrorism episode, if you like, instead of offering a general comment. I agree with you about the ineffectiveness and inappropriateness of a stand-alone "opposing views" section.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

People's Mujahedin of Iran section

I don't understand how the section on the PMOI relates to the article's subject. There's a single sentence at the beginning of the paragraph that indicates the US is protecting the group. The rest of the section details US efforts to keep the group listed as a terrorist entity and curtail it's activities. Yes, there are US politicians and opinion writers who think the group should be used against Iran. But the fact is that they haven't committed an attack on Iran (or anywhere else for that matter) since 2003. I'd propose removing the whole paragraph as unrelated. Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 12:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Your argument would be clearer if you dudn't use acronyms. What the hell is PMOI?
Oh People's Mujahedin of Iran. I changed the title of this section.
The section should stay. May it should be cut down. Inclusionist (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
My bad on the acronym - sorry. Could you explain how it relates to State Terrorism by the US? I'm just not seeing it in the section as written. Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 21:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A cursory glance at the first couple of sentences again, it seems self explanatory:
In April 2007, CNN reported that the US military and the International Committee of the Red Cross were protecting the People's Mujahedin of Iran, with the US army regularly escorting PMOI supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf.[1] The PMOI have been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States (since 1997), Canada, and Iran.[2][3]
If the US is actively protecting a group that itself designates as a terrorist organization, that seems like it is relevant to the article.
I fear this conversation is quickly leading to a definition game, a "meaning of the word 'is'" debate. Inclusionist (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill Moyers link

Link to a segment in which Bill Moyers explicitly states that US actions in Vietnam and Iraq were state terrorism:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/01/bill_moyers_reflects_on_middle.html

I'm not an active editor on this page. But this may be of use and is certainly relevant. 76.229.176.118 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


Pakistan and Syria 2008

Why are there no references to the killings in Pakistan and Syria? Syria has publicaly accused the US of terrorism http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7693583.stm

Why are there no? Because editors who ask such questions don't bother adding material (or at least proposing such additions).--NYCJosh (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Ware, Michael (2007). "U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq". CNN website, April 6, 2007. CNN. Retrieved 2007-04-06.
  2. ^ "COUNCIL COMMON POSITION 2005/847/CFSP" (PDF). Official Journal of the European Union. L 314: 44. 2005.
  3. ^ "Chapter 6 -- Terrorist Organizations". US Department of State. 2007. Retrieved 2007-07-15.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism/Archive_26&oldid=1092052787"