Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

how come there is no British state terrorism page

Think about it Ireland,Egypt,Palestine,Iraq,Iran,India,Pakistan and half of common wealth countries. We can start a page about allegation of state terrorism. They are responsible for quite a few goverments toppling over the years. {subst:unsigned| 84.204.14.237|13:35, 16 February 2011}}

Your point is?Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well US acts of state terrorism have been rather infamous, and that's why this page popped up first. But I agree that there's enough info about British state terrorism to fill up a page (btw, your list doesn't include Colombia, where British mercenaries went allegedly with the knowledge of the UK govt. to train paramilitaries such as the AUC; the paramilitaries have been listed as "terrorist" groups by the US for some time now) -- have at it if you feel like it. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to find the concept of "British state terrorism" as the explicit subject of an appropriate book: a scholarly book (or journal article, refereed conference paper, or chapter in an edited scholarly book (not a source book)) of history or sociology or political science. Merely COATRACKING together incidents you believe are state terrorism, or which meet a general definition of state terrorism given in a high quality reliable source is Original Research. A specialist needs to have made the connection between the actions of the British state and claimed a general phenomena of British state terrorism exists. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Funny I have just such the book -- "Death Squad: An Anthropology of State Terror (The Ethnography of Political Violence)" (by Jeffrey Sluka) has at least an entire chapter on British "state terror." So insofar as the first poster of this section suggested tacking together related incidents, I agree that such an effort would be OR. But the idea of there being "British State Terror" as the explicit subject of an academic piece -- it's there. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is about British state terror in Northern Ireland,[1] not about British state terrorism in general. TFD (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hiroshima/Nagasaki subsections, Operation Mongoose retitle and shortening

First off, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki section (and its many subsections) should be one of the the first things we look at when shortening the article (as mentioned, it is too long). Much of this is already mentioned on the main article pages for this subtopic of the article, especially the 3 subsections of views and opinions (which belong in the main Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombing article anyways; not to mention that in addition to that article, there is an article titled Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which already details many of the primary debates). Of course we should recognize on the page that there is significant debate over the ethics of the atomic bombings, both in favor and against, but there's no reason to go into nearly this much detail when it's really a duplicate of what's in the linked pages. Also, the Operation Mongoose section really details more than just Operation Mongoose and so should perhaps be retitled "Cuban Project" or "Early Subversion" or something along those lines -- and furthermore, I just found there is also a relatively strong Cuba Project page that contains much of this information so perhaps this too could be shortened. I also think the section on SOA is a little misleading when it says that some anonymous "defenders of the school" point out that the alleged connection of the SOA to HR abusers is supposedly "weak," going on to state that D'Aubuisson's only link was having taken a "Radio Operations" course there. That's not totally accurate -- while D'Aubuisson might have only taken that one course there, it's well-documented that the Atlacatl Battalion trained there (see for instance page 38 of Mark Danner's book "The Massacre at El Mozote," pub. by Vintage in 1993), and they were the ones who actually *performed* the human rights abuses that D'Aubuisson ordered. In other words, the comment about D'Aubuisson is misleading (we should consider removing it), and the general statement about unnamed "defenders of the school" needs to be qualified by specifics: I'm adding a "who?" tag after "defenders of the school." 173.3.41.6 (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"allegations" and "accusations"? give me a break

There is widespread evidence of US involvement in state terrorism, especially against Cuba. The intro, before my recent edits, were very obscurantist and tried to trivialize all claims of US state-terrorism as "allegations" and "accusations," when the JM/WAVE actions alone (in coordination with the Cuban Exile terrorist groups such as Alpha 66, Omega 7, and CORU) have been extensively documented. References for a statement from another article confirming JM/WAVE involvement in the terrorist exile raids on Cuba: ^ a b c d e f The Castro Obsession: U.S. Covert Operations in Cuba, 1959-1965, Don Bohning, Potomac Books, 2005, ISBN 1574886754 ^ a b c d e Cold War in South Florida: Historic Resource Study, Steven Hach (ed. Jennifer Dickey), National Park Service Southeast Regional Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, October 2004 ^ "Twilight of the Assassins", Ann Louise Bardach, The Atlantic Monthly, November 2006 173.3.41.6 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC) (by the way, those aren't citations of the extensive evidence presented by Cuba -- those are US writers and their own research/evidence, and Ann Louise Bardach is fervently anti-Castro, and yet she still admits to the widespread terrorism practiced against Cuba by exiles in coordination with the CIA; she has done more research on this topic than all of us combined) Listen, I understand this is a touchy subject because people like George W Bush have made the ridiculous claim that the USA practices a strictly "anti-terrorist" ideology, as part of our "War on Terror," and those who feel a strong allegiance to the US government understandably will be shocked by evidence of US state terrorism and might even react with a state of denial. I mean, when people have been conditioned to think that it's the US on one side, "terrorists" on the other, then information of US involvement in terrorism could understandably lead to a state of denial for an ideologue (even in the face of clear evidence). I think that's what's at work here, with all the skepticism and denial on the talk page. I mean most skeptics, who insist that the US never practiced state terror, are clinging to Original Research almost across the board -- just look at the talk page. And then the allegations that "state terrorism" is a misnomer (such that "terrorists" are supposedly, by definition, not associated with a state), have been brought up on the "state terrorism" talk page and are thoroughly mentioned on the main page there. Those arguments need no repeat on this page. But the fact that people still bring it up here is telling -- the willingness to turn to to semantics as a last resort, speaks to their state of denial. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As we are attempting to write an encyclopedia, we should use academic sources, rather than books by journalists. TFD (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well journalists are cited all over wikipedia -- your standard is one of preference, not requirement. Not to mention that some journalists are better researchers/investigators than many academics. But anyhow, that doesn't even matter in this case; if you want academics, I got em. The ubiquity of publications regarding US state terrorism is not substantially restricted by disqualifying journalistic publications and limiting the domain to academia: there is no shortage of academic publications that discuss US state terrorism against Cuba and others -- Noam Chomsky for instance is certainly academic, he teaches at MIT. Louis Perez is a respected academic as well (a rather centrist one at that, a Cuban-American professor with many criticisms of the Cuban Revolution). If you'd prefer citations from them or other academics I can do that.

If the standard is a legal one (which, due to the emphasis on "allegations," I'm guessing it may be), I'll allow that it is true that many US-sponsored terrorists have been able to avoid trial in the US (most notably Luis Posada Carriles, who only now is being put on trial, but only for *perjury*), obviously due to the protection of their CIA patrons (which the FBI is constantly complaining about, as they'd like to see all the Cuban Exile action groups locked up); but there are high demands on the US to extradite some of these terrorists, and even with many of them escaping justice we know the leader of Omega 7 has been brought to trial in the US and convicted of several counts of murder, as have several members of DINA in Chile who collaborated with the CIA as part of Operation Condor. The US itself has been brought to international court for mining the Nicaraguan harbors, but I'll allow that this was only sabotage and not necessarily terrorism (although the Contra campaign itself included innumerable examples of anti-civilian terrorism, sponsored by the US across the board).

Perhaps we can settle this by agreeing on a sentence to add to the introduction -- something along these lines:

"Those making these allegations have offered much documentation and evidence to implicate the US in state terrorism, and some retired US government officials have admitted to US government involvement in state terrorism; however, the United States government continues to categorically deny any such activity and to date has not been accused of state terrorism in international court."

I'm open to discussion on this of course. But really we need to add *something* at least, or at most change the intro altogether. As it stands now, the introduction is very, very disingenuous. The intro only mentions accusations/allegations (as if this was the 9/11 conspiracy theory) and not the painstaking work that's been undertaken to back them up with evidence. And the intro is so short as to appear definitive, which it hardly is: at first read, most will think that these allegations are just unsubstantiated accusations. I'm fine if we don't say that "It's been proven" or anything like that, since I understand it's a touchy subject. But there needs to be something added, as these aren't mere "accusations" -- the documentation is incredibly extensive.

(by the way, I find this to be an all-around excellent article aside from the intro -- and the article body itself, as it stands, is highly informative and should make it clear that many of the supposed "allegations" are indeed qualified facts of history)

173.3.41.6 (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Having not heard a response, I went ahead and added that extra sentence. You reverted my last edit with minimal explanation and didn't respond to my last comment; so if you want to revert this one, let's at least discuss it first. I'm up for modifying it or drafting up an alternate sentence but really we shouldn't just erase it and revert to the original state. As I have explained extensively in my previous post, the previous intro was *highly* disingenuous. Insofar as "many have alleged" US state terrorism has existed, it's also true that "many have alleged" 9/11 was a US government conspiracy; however, there are many, many *more* qualified academics/etc who are making allegations with regard to the former than the latter, and 9/11 conspiracy theories have not been backed up by nearly the caliber or amount of evidence that the "allegations" of US state terror have been backed up with. Therefore, the intro needs to make it clear that these aren't just conspiracy theories or "allegations" coming from out of left field; that there is enough documentation of US state terrorism for it to be put in the history books (and like I said, there *are* history books, such as those by the centrist *academic* Louis Perez, that thoroughly detail "US terrorism against Cuba"). I think my added sentence clarifies the extensive availability of documentation -- if anyone can offer a better, more well-worded way to do that, I'm up for changing it, like I said. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I woud sugest taht you include the inlie citations, rather then just the uncites material.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again my addition has been reverted by a user who refuses to even respond to my comments or talk it over with me. Let me repeat myself: *without any addition to the intro, the intro is extremely disingenuous* -- so if people still insist on reverting me, then A: at least have the decency to talk it over here instead of taking the back door each time, and B: if you revert, I implore you to at least come up with some sort of alternative to add to the intro, so that it is clear that these aren't just some cooky "accusations and allegations" coming from out of left field, akin to, say, the 9/11 conspiracy theories. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I edited my statement and I added a citation, which seems to be the reason my edits keep getting reverted (no citation). My citation is academic (Chomsky) and not journalistic, and here is the paragraph in question that supports my statement that "the allegations of US state terrorism have been backed up with evidence" (and further qualifies the evidence as having provided for a successful international court prosecution):

"Suppose you want to bring a president of the U.S. to justice. They’re guilty of horrendous terrorist acts. There’s a way to do it. In fact, there are precedents. Nicaragua in the 1980s was subjected to violent assault by the U.S. Tens of thousands of people died. The country was substantially destroyed, it may never recover. The effects on the country are much more severe even than the tragedies in New York the other day. They didn’t respond by setting off bombs in Washington. They went to the World Court, which issued a judgment in their favor condemning the U.S. for what it called “unlawful use of force,” which means international terrorism, ordering the U.S. to desist and pay substantial reparations. The U.S. dismissed the court judgment with contempt, responding with an immediate escalation of the attack. So Nicaragua then went to the Security Council, which passed a resolution calling on states to observe international law. The U.S. vetoed it. They went to the General Assembly, where they got a similar resolution that passed near–unanimously, which the U.S. and Israel opposed two years in a row (joined once by El Salvador). That’s the way a state should proceed. If Nicaragua had been powerful enough, it could have set up another criminal court. Those are the measures the U.S. could pursue, and nobody’s going to block it. That’s what they’re being asked to do by people throughout the region, including their allies."

There we go. And I edited my statement to include the mention that not only has there been evidence presented, but that in one case it was presented when the US was brought to international court. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Chunk o' text defense AerobicFox (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A chunk of text defense implies that text is irrelevant and someone is just blabbering. I apologize for being long winded, but I've remained relevant, and blabbering to drown people out is far from what I'm trying to do (in fact, it should be perfectly clear from my text above that I am inviting responses and collaboration prior to further edits of mine, and most definitely *not* trying to drown out other comments). The edit record of the page will confirm that I am trying to resolve an issue in good faith but am continually met with reverts by some who refuse to even address the issue on the talk page. But then again, if the act of me explaining myself and trying to resolve this in good faith by inviting collaboration, is not welcome, and if some editors would evidently rather resort to back-and-forth reverts, that's disappointing. I'll keep to editing the main page and stay away from the discussion page.173.3.41.6 (talk) 05:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Preferable to reading the pages of text you've written up there.AerobicFox (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Back and forth reverts are preferable to collaborative effort and the fleshing out of a sticking point on the talk page? Heh, I guess I will stay away from the talk page then. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Then we have nothing more to discuss.AerobicFox (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm just glad we made that clear -- that you'd prefer back-and-forth reverts to actually talking something out that is evidently a sticking point. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you made this clear also:

"I'll keep to editing the main page and stay away from the discussion page."

"Heh, I guess I will stay away from the talk page then."AerobicFox (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be obvious from my contributions below that I decided not to entirely stay away from the talk page, which is my choice of course (and, I feel, is a constructive component of Wikipedia -- a way to avoid the sort of back-and-forth reverting and counter-editing that you said is preferable). I'm sorry you have such a strong compulsion to repeatedly make note of that. Although I am not going to stay away from using the talk page for constructive discussion, I certainly have had enough of your bickering and attacks, and will stay away from that. Ciao. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ciao ^_^ AerobicFox (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's bating, mate. Also twisting people's words. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Remind me to write a Wikipedia:Too lazy to read defense and it's "official". It's just an essay, it just means some people would rather not read something longer than the text of a pamphlet and instead throw in 2 lines they read somewhere else. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

about time we take down the tags, no?

looks like those tags have been at the top for some time while this article has gone through many edits. maybe it's in better shape now?? the article looks really good to me, not too POV (aside from some lingering issues with obscurantism and disingenuousness, which I've been trying to counter); i propose we remove the tags. i also don't think it's really too long -- the amount of documented examples of "alleged" US involvement in state terror, which deserve an encyclopedic mention, are so numerous (especially as the anti-Cuba and contra campaigns included too many documented cases of sabotage and anti-civilian attacks to count) that we have had to cut out mentionable examples in the building of this article. Therefore, I think we should consider this article to already be an "abridged" account of the cases of alleged US involvement in state terrorism. For a topic with such extensive history, the article is as short as I can see it being without cutting out important info (unless perhaps the wording of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki part could be shortened).173.3.41.6 (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit -- after looking at the guide to article size, it seems we are indeed getting too long with this article. I feel bad because I added a little bit recently (about the post-JFK "two track strategy" and a related citation from Didion, as well as the current status of the Posada Carrilles trial with regard to "allegations of harboring terrorists"), which makes it even longer -- but really for this information, as with so much else on the page, I don't think it should be cut just for the sake of brevity; I think this info helps the article. The article doesn't even really detail the proposed "operation northwoods" (only links to it), which is very relevant; and there doesn't look like there's room to do so, which is unfortunate. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The tags are clearly appropriate. This article epitomizes POV and SYN, and many of the sections should be cut down and linked to the main relevant article.AerobicFox (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The tags are absolutely appropriate. V7-sport (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove the tags With controversial subjects touching on nationalism and religion there will always be people opposed to the creation and maintenance. Keeping the tags makes it look like a perpetual beta version. We should come up with a standard tag that can replace the three most commonly added tags that will always be added by people that oppose the existence of controversial articles. It should be similar to the tag for "current event" and be called "controversial topic" and can encompass the standard objections. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the article is controversial. It's also that the the article is riddled with original research and synthesis. V7-sport (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

POV issues

Having followed this article for some time, I would like to address the POV issues and how they might be resolved. First, this is a notable topic and therefore should not be deleted. We have articles about topics that are controversial and even topics that describe fringe views, e.g., the Moon landing hoax. However, neutrality requires that we accurately state the degree of acceptance of various views in articles. My understanding (I could be wrong) is that the U.S. government has carried out acts that could be described as terrorism and that they have encouraged both state and non-state actors to do the same. But actions which the U.S. has carried out in times of war are not normally described as terrorism. The U.S. government has either denied many of these actions or described them using different terms (i.e., not as terrorism) and they have been justified as less destructive than convential warfare.

The article should not be written as a rap sheet, recounting details of every action that has been described as terrorism. Rather than explain the events of Operation Mongoose (an attempt to remove Castro from power), the article should explain why it has been described as terrorism, whether there are opposing views, and justifications for the action.

We should also agree to restrict sources to academic books and articles that specifically discuss terrorism. That would mean for example that we would only use Chomsky's or Michael Ignatieff's writings that have appeared in academic publications and only report their views where they have been described there.

TFD (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What you write sounds very reasonable to me and I mostly support it. Maybe what you say in your last paragraph is a bit too strong: I don't know if the article is currently abusing non-academic sources or academic sources that are not from a terrorism studies context (in the widest sense). But I expect that there are some uses of such sources that are proper, e.g. when an accusation of state terrorism in such a word (correct, questionable or plain wrong) has received a lot of attention. Also, while this article should obviously not be a coatrack for elaborating in great detail on everything bad the US has ever done, I expect that we will also not go overboard on the other side and make this article impossible to read for a general reader without a crash course in history. Hans Adler 18:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re TFD. "First, this is a notable topic and therefore should not be deleted." This article is fringe theory. It exists to dilute the meaning of terrorism. If "radio interviews" or "selling arms" or fighting in a declared war against military targets are "terrorism" then the great Satan ought not complain about those who are flying aircraft full of people into buildings full of people.

As it stands now this article is riddled with synthesis. Most of the citations don't mention "state terrorism". It has coat-racked "state sponsored terrorism" "terror" or whatever feels good at the moment to call it state terrorism. If the synthesis were purged and the article were confined to mentions of the USA supporting state terrorism it would amount to a few accusations from Chomsky, Falk and Zinn. V7-sport (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are correct and follow my recommendations then the article will read something like this:

Chomsky, Falk and Zinn have accused the U.S. of terrorism, citing a, b and c. But mainstream historians etc. have rejected their theories because of x, y, and z.

TFD (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And additionally, there's something to this subject's notability that reaches far and beyond the supposedly conflicting opinions of "fringe" academics (Chomsky/Zinn) versus "mainstream" historians; namely, the precedent for these allegations being brought by other international bodies such as Cuba/Nicaragua in international forums (UN/OAS) and in international court (ICJ), and the resulting ICJ ruling of Nicaragua v. United States (plus a mention, as we currently have, that the US tried to block its enforcement and "didn't accept" the judgment). 173.3.41.6 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

RE:TFD So If I boldly start editing to that end I will have your support? Here's the thing, real historians don't address their arguments in more then passing terms because it is inherently loaded and biased.V7-sport (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be best to discuss the sections first, although I would agree to removal of extensive amounts of material. However, I do not agree with your characterization of historians. Much of academic writing is about analyzing topics in new ways. The advantage of academic writing is that it often explains how subjects are viewed by other academics, which helps in determining the weight to provide to different views. Popular and polemical writing, even by esteemed academics, generally does not do that. TFD (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The international court ruling concerning Nicaragua states nothing about U.S. terrorism. In regards to the acts of the terrorists the court rules that it:

"does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been committed are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America;"

On another point concerning this text in the article:

"In one instance in Nicaragua the U.S. was condemned for “unlawful use of force,”"

The court rulings do not appear to even contain that quote, the closest thing it does state is that it finds the U.S.:

"in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State,"

With this in mind the following should be changed from:

"In one instance in Nicaragua the U.S. was condemned for “unlawful use of force,”"

To:

"With regards to their actions in Nicaragua, the ICJ court ruled twelve to three that the U.S. had violated international law not to use force against another state."

The dissenting opinions of one of the judges should also be mentioned to maintain neutrality. However, I am still wondering how this is relevant enough to be mentioned in the lead, or even in the article, since it doesn't find the U.S. committing terrorist acts.AerobicFox (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Another example of terrible sourcing: “unlawful use of force,” was taken from Noam Chomsky paraphrasing the ICJ's ruling in an interview on U.S. terrorism, yet it is being used here as if it were a direct quote by the ICJ(which it wasn't). There's no indication that Chomsky even had notes with him specifically concerning the ICJ's ruling during this interview, things like this in the article need to be compared with the original sources.AerobicFox (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This is sourced to an interview with Chomsky, who wrote, "They went to the World Court, which issued a judgment in their favor condemning the U.S. for what it called “unlawful use of force,” which means international terrorism...."[2] That is the problem with this type of source - we do not know whether Chomsky is asserting a fact or an opinion or, if it is an opinion, the degree of acceptance it has in the academic community. I would agree to removal. TFD (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

RE.TFD, think it would be best to discuss the sections first I'm currently dealing with cancer in the family and I don't have time for another endless battle to polish this turd. The thing about polishing turds is that you just reveal more turd which is exactly why I advocated for this articles removal. You have advocated for it's inclusion so I support your "large scale removal" idea.

However, I do not agree with your characterization of historians. Zinn isn't a legitimate historian, Chomsky doesn't even make the claim. Falk is a nut, etc. Yet these are the people who have made the only charges of "state terrorism". (I think the iranian spokesman might have used the term as well) The rest is "terror', "non specific terrorism" or the like and it's inclusion here is synthesis.

The advantage of academic writing is that it often explains how subjects are viewed by other academics Not always, and the disadvantage is that you have people who are wholly unaccountable. Once tenured they can say whatever the hell they want regardless of whether or not it corresponds to reality. "Little Eichmanns" might be a cute way of endearing yourself with sycophantic students who have daddy issues, but it's a fringe point of view. V7-sport (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That is why I suggested restricting sources to academic books and articles. The peer-review process weeds out off the wall writing, unqualified people and people writing outside their area of expertise. It also demands that writers clearly distinguish between facts and opinions. It also helps us establish which views are mainstream and which are fringe. TFD (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the whole "mainstream" vs "fringe" dichotomy has been hammered at with little reasoning thus far. If the skeptics really do think "US State Terrorism" is a "fringe" topic that "mainstream" academics reject (as they keep insisting), then they can freely do as TFD suggested earlier and find some "mainstream" academics (the likes of Horowitz don't quite fit that bill -- he of course is "fringe" by the same token as academics s.a. Chomsky/Zinn, just on the opposite side) that explicitly reject the notion that the relevant acts constitute "US State Terrorism," as has been alleged by Chomsky/Zinn/Cuba/Nicaragua. Wikipedia's format of course invites the quoting and citing of this supposed wealth of "mainstream" historians who disapprove of the concept -- but until now, this set of historians has remained anonymous on the talk page. And as for the ICJ ruling -- it goes into much detail about actual Contra/CIA acts, in addition to merely saying that the US coordinated "unlawful use of force" (the ruling summary that is quoted for the article). Upon reading the ruling, or the damning Human Rights Watch report (http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/1989/WR89/Nicaragu.htm) on many of the same Contra activities detailed in the ICJ, it shouldn't come as much surprise that some (s.a. Chomsky, Zinn, Mike Davis, Tariq Ali, and other academics) have termed those acts "terroristic" (ditto with the documented JM/WAVE raids on Cuba being interpreted as "terrorist" acts by academics and representatives of nations; the violent sabotage and brazenly anti-civilian nature of the attacks and speaks for itself in both cases, so the interpretation of the acts as "terrorism" by some shouldn't be a surprise and merits mention here). I wouldn't be surprised if the ICJ itself doesn't use the term "terrorist" in the Nicaragua ruling (or HRW in the report) -- but the acts have been interpreted as such by citeable academics, and Wikipedia does use that term to recognize such interpretations, as evidenced in the similar page Iran and state terrorism (another country that has been the subject of similar ICJ trials and international-forum allegations). It's curious that some are so gung-ho about deleting this article but have no qualms with the one on Iran. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"The fundamental, and controversial, thesis on which the essays in this volume are focused"

"controversial" equals non-mainstream.

Also, we cannot prove that a view is not mainstream because you cannot prove a negative, thus it is up to you to prove something is mainstream(which "controversial" certainly doesn't indicate). It is similarly hard to find people stating it is fringe because it hasn't received mainstream attention.

"in addition to merely saying that the US coordinated "unlawful use of force" (the ruling summary that is quoted for the article)"

The ruling summary does not state this. I have linked you the ruling summary up above from the ICJ.AerobicFox (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

We establish whether views are mainstream by the degree of acceptance they have in articles published in peer-reviewed journals and books from academic and university publishers. For example, in Death squad: the anthology of state terror, published by the University of Pennsylvania Press (2000), pp. 7-10, the section "The international context: the global culture of terror and the "American connection" discusses the coverage the topic has received.[3] Fringe theories either do not receive extensive (if any) support in academic writing and when they are discussed they are identified as fringe. TFD (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have anything more than a glancing 2-page summary by an senior lecturer in New Zealand in his introduction to his collection other people's writings on terrorism to demonstrate "support in academic writing"?AerobicFox (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My view

I have reviewed the entire article, and I think it needs to stay.--Dr.SmartMD (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. How about helping to trim it down to 33 - 50% of current length. There's a lot of excessive detail that belongs in other others, and this one needs thorough fact checking against the sources. Having less text will be more valuable. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to re-write the article. I suggest we remove the "history" section because the article should explain why some actions by the U.S. have been described as terrorism, rather than assume the viewpoint that the U.S. engages in terrorism. If we can agree to that I volunteer to re-write the remaining article in a neutral manner. TFD (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I endorse removing the history section.V7-sport (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Jundullah

Why are this group in this article? The US sponsoring them would fall under State Sponsored Terrorism, not State Terrorism Tentontunic (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is ambiguity in the language used. This article is about state terrorism in the first sense, "acts of terrorism conducted by a state against a foreign state or people", which includes state sponsored terrorism. TFD (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article title is state terrorism. The article as such ought only have state terrorism in it. Tentontunic (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

State terrorism includes state sponsorship of terrorism. Would you prefer creating a separate article, "United States and state sponsored terrorism? TFD (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

State terrorism and State sponsored terrorism are two different beasts. Per WP:BURDEN explain why you feel this article ought to be used to coatrack in allegations of State sponsored terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you would take the time to read my comments in the discussion section about, I do not "feel this article ought to be used to coatrack in allegations of State sponsored terrorism". You will make more progress by cooperating with other editors rather than being combative. My suggestion was to remove the entire history section. I suggest we maintain the Jundullah subsection until we obtain agreement for that and in the meantime not remove it using bogus reasons, which ultimately will hinder improvement of the article. TFD (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Tentontunic, this is one of the main reasons this article is such a hash. It conflates just about anything into "state terrorism". Calling "terror" or state sponsorship of terrorism "state terrorism" is original research. Anything that isn't soured as state terrorism should be removed from the article. That said, I endorse removing the history section. V7-sport (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

As you have failed, quite epically to meet WP:BURDEN the section shall stay out. Do not accuse me of "bogus reasoning" as my reasoning is sound. State sponsored terrorism has no place in an article on state terrorism. I shall be removing the Contra affair section for this very same reason, unless you can explain why this is in the article? Tentontunic (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

See Gus Martin, Understanding terrorism: challenges, perspectives, and issues, p. 112: "State terrorism can be directed externally against adversaries in the international domain or internally against domestic enemies".[4] Note that this entire article is about the second type of terrorism, which is normally called "state-sponsored terrorism", while the first type is normally called "state terror". If you do not like the title, then I suggest you recommend moving it. TFD (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And does Gus say that State terrorism can be directed externally against adversaries is sponsoring terrorist groups or insurgents or is he talking about carpet bombing and the like? If you wish to have content which is obviously state sponsored terrorism in this article I would suggest you recommend moving it, it is not I who is coatracking or engaging in synth here after all. Tentontunic (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See what I wrote above: Here (again) is a link to an article in Global anti-terrorism law and policy. It says: "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defence, not terror, such as the allied carpet-bombing of civilians in the Second World War, the United States' use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the American use of more than seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos". TFD (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So I have removed the Contra affair as I said I would given no objections, next is the section Iraq (1992–1995), were in here is state terrorism even mentioned? Tentontunic (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Which I have already removed as neither source mentions terrorism in any form and one of those sources is a BLP violation.[5] This self published blog may not be used for BLP information. Tentontunic (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus for its remival. In addition two paragraphs make referance to this being the USA backing terrorism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is not required, prove it belongs here. Tentontunic (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well teh fact that its referd to as US sponserd terrorism, and the accusation is that many of the acts were in fact carried out by the CIA (I bleive a US govenment instition). That would be a reason to keep it. It dscribe4s acts of terrot allegedly caried out by the US govenment.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it describes an act of state sponsored terrorism, not state terrorism. Tentontunic (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Professor Gareau has characterized these acts as "wholesale terrorism" by the United States" Note terrorism by the united states, not carried out by groups backed by the united states.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring in content against policy is problematic, I wisjh you would not have done that. Again how is "wholesale terrorism" state terrorism? It is not. There is a difference between state sponsored and state terrorism, and this article is a mess of both. Tentontunic (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But Professor Gareau does not say state sponserd terrotrism, he say terrorism by the United States. So how is terrorism carries oout by the USA not state terrorism? Besides a state supporting terror or terrorist groups do0es nopt matter. Iran does not itself carry out attacks o9n Israle, its ues third parties to do it Iran and state terrorism, should this page be renamed?. Dooes that mean that Iran does not carry out state terrorism? But you have the germ of a good point. The articel may need to be renamed to state US sponeerd terrorism, as long of course we rename the other pages too.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Iran carries out both state terrorism and state sponsored terrorism, they are two different things. If you did not know that you do now. And should you rename the article to state sponsored terrorism then all aspects of state terrorism shall have to be removed. There is also a POV issue with both titles, as the US has been accused only. Also the section you have reverted back in, the Contra`s please read it. The Court found that this was a conflict involving military and para-military forces and did not make a finding of state terrorism Tentontunic (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So does (the accusaition goes) the united states. The Iran page included backing of terror groups and acts carries out by the Iranian govenemtn, just like this page does. As such what you are trying to do is apply differing standerds to pages on similar subjects. You are editiing against consensus. It also does not matter what the court says, what matters is the accusation. Tis page is about the accusation, not its truth (besides the claimk has no citation).Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So you wish the article titled Accusations of state terrorism and state sponsored terrorism against the United States? I have never edited the Iran pages. And I am not editing against consensus, I am editing to policy. Tentontunic (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you have never edited the IRAn page, thast my point. You do n ot have a problo with how that page is writen so why this one? Point out the policy that you feel you are up holding? And yes you are editing against consensus, as you appear to be the only edd arguing for this to be removed agaisnt two or three edss who want it to stay. Moreover I do not care if the page is renamed, you are the one arguing agsaint inclusion based oon the pages name. I am attnepting to arrive at a compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In this section four editors have commented, of those four two argue for the coatracked content to stay, two agree with it`s removal. There is no consenus for the content to be in the article. The policy is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and your failure to meet WP:BURDEN before reverting in content which has no place in this article, I shall give it a few days to see if matters improve. Tentontunic (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ionly see discussion about Jundullah , not Contra's. Also there is no Synth because sources clearly refer to the Contra backing as US terrorism. Nor is it OR for the same reason. So Burden does not apply because we have provided sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Again you fail to see the difference between state and state sponsored terrorism, to conflate the two is SYNTH, to add content about state sponsored terrorism to this article is OR, to add content not described as state terrorism is both SYNTH and OR. Tentontunic (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We must use the terms as they are defined in reliable sources, and cannot create our own definitions. TFD (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, so the current definition in this article seems to be USA = Terrorism + state sponsored + state = SYNTH. I fully expect you to now remove all instances of state sponsered terrorism form the aricle. Tentontunic (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have pointed its its common practice on wikipedia pages to include both state sponerd and state organised terrorism in these articels. The two are considderd as analosouse by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"RESlatersteven "Also there is no Synth because sources clearly refer to the Contra backing as US terrorism." The subject is "state terrorism", which is different from "state sponsored terrorism" and terrorism. I have actually gone through the references and there are only a few that use the term "state terrorism". Indeed, they are almost entirely academics who use this term. V7-sport (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry this reads like wiki layering. A source does not have to use the term exaclty. If a source says that the act was US terrorism that would be an act of terrorism by the state called the USA. Besides (as I have pointed out) we have artticels that use the term state terrorism as short hand for "Terorism sponderd by or carried oout by X". Now if this is a naming issue fine, susgest a new name but stop tryting to use sysmantics tp try and remove matrial you do not like.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"A source does not have to use the term exaclty" Well no, If you are writing an article on, say "chocolate milk" you would be right to pull off references to strawberry milk or coffee milk. WP:OR says that "The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged". Seeing as there is a difference between "state terrorism", "terrorism", "state sponsored terrorism" and even "terror" it's correct that we should insist on proper sourcing and terminology.

we have artticels that use the term state terrorism as short hand for "Terorism sponderd by or carried oout by X". Wikipedia itself isn't a source for Wikipedia, nor does it often adhere to it's own rules.

"but stop tryting to use sysmantics tp try and remove matrial you do not like." Why go there? Seriously, the point made by Tentontunic here is very valid. Allowing anything to be called "state terrorism" is precisely what has turned this article into the coatrack that it is. V7-sport (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to discus indivdual cases and not generalities. Are you saying that the material on nicuragua does not have sources that say that the US carried out terrorist attacks against nicuragua? Nor is 'anyhting' being allowed, I have removed some material already. But its clear that there are sources that say that the US carried out terrorist activites against nicuragua. they do not use the phrase " United States and state terrorism". Buut we do not need an exact match, any ore then you chould say that you cannot incluse material about Chocklate mikshakes on the chocolate milk page becasue its not the same phrase. I feel however thjat an RFC may be needed if this carries on.Slatersteven (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In order to be fair; since the ICJ does not refer to the U.S. actions as being terroristic, then the article should not include them unless someone else does. If someone else does then it should state "Person X considers these actions to be actions of terrorism". Also, if we are to include info on the Nicaragua case then we should include he below ICJ judges opinion on the matter:

"But Judge Schwebel concluded that the United States essentially acted lawfully in exerting armed pressures against Nicaragua, both directly and through its support of the contras[sic], because Nicaragua's prior and sustained support of armed insurgency in El Salvador was tantamount to an armed attack upon El Salvador against which the United States could react in collective self-defence in El Salvador's support.

Judge Schwebel held that "the actions of the United States are strikingly proportionate. The Salvadoran rebels, vitally supported by Nicaragua, conduct a rebellion in El Salvador; in collective self-defence, the United States symmetrically supports rebels who conduct a rebellion in Nicaragua. The rebels in El Salvador pervasively attack economic targets of importance in El Salvador; the United States selectively attacks economic targets of military importance" in Nicaragua.

Judge Schwebel maintained that, in contemporary international law, the State which first intervenes with the use of force in another State - as by substantial involvement in the sending of irregulars onto its territory - is, prima facie, the aggressor."-ICJ ruling(italics not my own)

Also please note that the ICJ never uses the terms terrorism or terrorist, but avoids these types of vague and debatable phrases for more accurate terms such as contra and insurgents.AerobicFox (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We shoudl have all views, and yes we should say (as I bleive we do) that "X has said the USA has engadged in terroism".Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for help

Would somebody else like to help with the History section? The subsections should be organized chronologically, and possibly geographically. I am not sure what would be best, but the current ordering is completely arbitrary and illogical. Each subsection should contain a link to the main article about the conflict, and excessive verbage and long quotes should be trimmed whenever possible. With this article less would be more. It should provide a solid overview without getting into excessive detail. The details can be moved to daughter articles or related articles. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky

I think we all agree that Chomsky is not a historian. As an outspoken political activist, he is not a reliable source for this article. It is a violation of WP:UNDUE to give his opinion in the article, unless there is independent media coverage of Chomsky being somehow significant to the debate (likely true, in which case content about Chomsky's views goes in a section about Chomsky or Notable activists). There are lots of famous people who have opined on the topic. Being famous is not by itself sufficient to be cited. We should look for high quality academic sources written by notable historians, and legal scholars. Jehochman ^Talk 18:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just read the lead of Noam Chomsky, and also Noam Chomsky#Academic achievements, awards and honors if you can take it. (Mentioning fringe in this context seems quite absurd to me.) Once you have written several books and essays on a topic that are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, you are most likely an expert and your opinion is probably worth mentioning.

If Wikipedia had been invented in the late 70s in the Soviet Union, there would have been a similar discussion on whether to include the view of Andrei Sakharov on whatever their equivalent of this article would have been.

Seriously, a country that must be protected against rational criticism of this kind by downplaying it or labelling it as fringe must be completely fucked up. But the fact that George W. Bush has still not been convicted for his crimes (let alone charged, although the proceedings in Germany could only be stopped based on the theory that the US court system would be sufficiently independent to handle that) indicates that this is actually the case. Not that it is the only country with that problem, of course. Hans Adler 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Noam Chomsky is eminently qualified to comment on an article that is far from being a straight history article. Chomsky isn't simply a famous political activist, and therefore you can't simply lump him into the same group as say Marlon Brando or Rosie O'Donnell. This man is a major figure in the political science community and therefore is extremely relevant. You can't simply dismiss him as "an outspoken political activist," b/c his work goes far deeper than that. Soxwon (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

if tyhis page was only about history (IE what the USA has done) then this might be valid. Its not, its about accusation agains tthe USA. As a leading political (and an Amerian one at that) commentator therefore Chomskys views are notable.Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In this use, his view is presented and a contrary view is presented, so I don't see an issue, though it might be a good idea to put both opinions in the same format. So getting away from people's personal political BS (and pointing out the Chomsky also has a lengthy article devoted to criticisms of him), yes Chomsky is sort of an extremist, but he is a notable one and his POV is being shown in a fairly notable manner here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is not, nor does he claim to be an historian or a political scientist. Despite his canonization on the far left as the moral arbitrator and authority on the endless crimes of the country who he has made a living condemning; he is a linguist [6].

He is a political activist who can be counted on to condemn whatever the government does at any given time. That is the only reason for his inclusion here. Might as well cite the Autorantic Virtual Moonbat.

In terms of the specific quote in question on "low-intensity warfare" as state terrorism, he certainty isn't an expert on military tactics or history. Indeed, when you read the army manual that he refers to you wonder wtf he is talking about. It was a flaky opinion borne of ignorance, indeed it is incorrect.V7-sport (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it violates undue to give so much weight to Chomsky in this article. Considering the extreme nature of his views, whether notable or not, they don't represent any sort of mainstream— scientific or public— opinion on the matter. In the example above Chomsky's point seems ill-contrived and convoluted, and without further explanation and something to show it's significance it shouldn't be represented in this article.AerobicFox (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Although Chomsky is a linguist, he has published articles on political topics in the academic press and his opinions have entered academic discourse. While his view that some military actions by the U.S. should be considered state terrorism, it is a notable opinion. Presenting different views in WP is not the same as endorsement of those views, and neutrality requires us to explain the degree of acceptance of different views, rather than to exclude views that may be controversial. TFD (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"he has published articles on political topics in the academic press and his opinions have entered academic discourse."

^^ These are all of the sources of our references by him:

Hot Type
Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, Henry Holt and Company
"Noam Chomsky". Salon.com.
"Who Are the Global Terrorists?". Znet.
"On the War in Afghanistan Noam Chomsky interviewed by Pervez Hoodbhoy". chomsky.info., interview on Pakistan Television
South End Press

Since he is not demonstrated to be within any type of academic discourse related to politics here do you know of something that would validate his discourse on politics as within the academic community?AerobicFox (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"extreme nature of his views" -- w.r.t. which country? "don't represent any sort of mainstream" -- w.r.t. which community? This article is about a topic of worldwide importance, and I am pretty sure Chomsky's views are widely considered common sense and not extreme at all in Europe, for example, and that they are not far off the mainstream in the relevant academic communities. The game of American "conservatives" to simply create their own reality by agreeing with each other or trying to overtrump each other only works domestically. Outside the US people look at the facts, and many are affected by US external policies. Hans Adler 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Outside the US people look at facts", definitely going to write up a carefully worded response to this.AerobicFox (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Just take what I said out of context and attack a strawman if you feel like it. Or do you mean to claim that people outside the US also believe in the talking points of American interior politics? Hans Adler 23:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to speak for a continent. I think that's probably a good policy all around. V7-sport (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hans, what is delicately being danced around is your repeated "oh American's do this" crap. Knock it off. Don't categorize people based on your personal opinions. If you want to do that, go find a politics forum. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I find it very hard not to categorise people when I suddenly find myself in a wonderland in which people seriously propose that an internationally renowned intellectual and scholar with the exceptional stature of Chomsky (honorary degrees from at least 18 universities or colleges in North America, 8 in Europe, 5 in South America, 3 in Asia) is an extremist. This only makes sense in the context of a society's attempt to find reasons for ignoring a whistle-blower. Hans Adler 14:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

A google scholar search for Chomsky+terrorism returns 6,900 hits,[7] indicating that his views on terrorism are not entirely unknown to the academic community. The degree of acceptance they views have received can therefore be assessed. I agree however that we should avoid writings in popular publications. TFD (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar returns nonacademic results.

This search of "Glenn Beck" for instance brings back Glenn Beck's book "Common Sense" along with 1,400 results as well as his other books. Similarly, much of Chomsky's results are for his books, and not academic journals. I do agree with your above point though that we should restrict ourselves to using academic sources that feature Chomsky's views on terrorism if they can be found.AerobicFox (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It returns both or is it your position that none of the 6,900 references are academic sources. The first citation excluding Chomsky's writings, is from Journal of Palestine Studies. TFD (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

From the article you cited:

"JPS has chosen to republish the Mearsheimer-Walt study along with a sample of the responses in the press that set the framework for further discussion"(emphasis mine)

The article then goes on to list responses to the MW study from a variety of journalists and authors, such as a page and a half long excerpt by Noam Chomsky originally published in Znet. Obviously this does not indicate academic publication of his views on terrorism. If you believe his views on terrorism have been published by an academic publication then you should find an example of one.AerobicFox (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

See State terrorism and neoliberalism, pub. by Taylor & Francis (2009), p. 20: "Important works [on state terrorism] include those by Alexander George (1991), Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman (1979a, 1979b), Edward Herman (1985) and, more recently, Frederick Gareau (2004)".[8] The books referred to are the two volumes ofThe Political Economy of Human Rights (South End Press). See also Noam Chomsky bibliography#Politics which shows he has published books and articles in the academic press. Again that does not mean that Chomsky's views are authoritative, merely that they are notable. The fact that he writes in the popular press as well does not detract from his significance, any more than it does for Krugman, Ignatieff, Friedman, etc. TFD (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I accept from the above that his views are at least in academia, but reject any notions of general acceptance, and especially "authoritative". While I can see how the lack of any writing on this may require a lot of writing by Chomsky in order to give a coherent picture of "U.S. terrorism", his own political views should not have such(if any prevalence), and specific views of his should be verified to have been published by an academic source and not just his own website or an interview before their inclusion. Before presenting Chomsky in the article the reader needs to be aware of his political background(as myself, and most people I know were not aware of) in order to be able to accurately judge and give due weight to his statements.

I notice Chomsky does not once in this article define terrorism, that should be added, otherwise his calling something terrorism to the reader is essentially meaningless or a way of saying "I don't like it".AerobicFox (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Re your comments, "I accept from the above that his views are at least in academia, but reject any notions of general acceptance, and especially "authoritative"." I just wrote, "that does not mean that Chomsky's views are authoritative, merely that they are notable". Please do not misrepresent what I write. TFD (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you believe there are people that view his beliefs as authoritative? You clearly imply that up above; as I state I especially reject any notions of his views being "authoritative". I don't see any disagreement on that, unless you were indeed not implying that some people view his beliefs as authoritative.AerobicFox (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said his views are authoritative. Here is what I said before:

Here is my comment from April: Here is a link to an article in Global anti-terrorism law and policy. It says: "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defence, not terror, such as the allied carpet-bombing of civilians in the Second World War, the United States' use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the American use of more than seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos". I suggest we mention what Chomsky's opinion was then mention what the mainstream view is. There is no need to describe these events in the article. Btw, the argument that the bomb shortened the war is irrelevant to whether or not it was state terrorism, because terrorism always has an objective beyond inflicting destruction. TFD (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not distort what I have written.

TFD (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not accuse others of distorting your words as I have not stated that you believed he was authoritative, nor would I care to imply that. I may have been sloppy with my wording, but to state that I am trying to deceive you or others is patently absurd.

"Btw, the argument that the bomb shortened the war is irrelevant to whether or not it was state terrorism, because terrorism always has an objective beyond inflicting destruction."

Btw, I can't believe you just said this. You think not including the motivation for acts is relevant to them?AerobicFox (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Its clear that (whatever the accuracey of his views) Chomskey is referanced and referd to by the naccademic press. If academia considers his views notable enough to comment on then we should consider them notable enough to reprsent. If you think his views are wrong then put in the rebuatals.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we can present them as the opinions of a notable political activist. For our purposes Chomsky is like Obama or Rush Limbaugh. He's not John Morton Blum or Gaddis Smith. For the actual facts, we need to reference the most reliable historians. And no, Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Our articles are not places to put in rebuttals. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If some one has said (and thier view is notable) that Chomskey is wrong then (in order to maintain balance) we would put that it. That is what I intended my comment to convey. NPOV means putting in both sides of a debate, not just the one we agree wiht.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If we include Chomsky's views on state terrorism by the US, then we should include notable views from other pundits, such as Sarah Palin. There are many, and thus the amount of space dedicated to each would be rather small. The better place to expand upon Chomsky's views would be in the article on Chomsky. We can mention him here as a notable activist who speaks on the topic regularly, and the reader can click through to his biography to learn more. In the past this article has been over-weighted toward Chomsky's views. That aspect needs to be lightened up. I'd prefer a section on what activists and politicians are saying where we can reference Chomsky and others. It would be helpful to separate the notable opinions from the academic information. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that if some one says that (for example) the US has not carried out terrorist activity and their views are notable then they would have a place here. We do not need to include all their views or statements, just one line or two. However it could be argues that as one of the main opponents to US foreign policy Chomskeys views may represent something that (for example) Palins do not, an alternative opinion. Rather then one that represents a given political force (which Palin does). Thus Palin will have nothing new to say that Limburg or Rumsfelt have not said but chomsky may represent a dissenting voice whose opinion may differ from the mainstream (whilst still being notable).Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We could present the views of Palin et al if they have appeared in academic writing. Similarly we may ignore Chomsky's views that have not appeared in academic writing. TFD (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide the policy that says we can only include material that has appeard in accademic writings (I assume you mean accademic history, not just accademia?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship."[9] WP:FRINGE: " An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea...." --TFD (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how this applies n this case. Chomskey is an accademic, and political commentator commenting on politics. Moreover it could be argued that his is one of the most notable views on the subject of US orcstrated terrorism (perhaps a better title for the articel as well). In order for weight to apply it would have to be demonstrated that his views fly in the fact of the wider accademic consnesus, not that its not mentions by accademia.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We could use this article in Global anti-terrorism law and policy. It says: "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defence, not terror, such as the allied carpet-bombing of civilians in the Second World War, the United States' use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the American use of more than seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos". So there is an academic source that states what weight should be given to Chomsky`s views on these events as `state terrorism`. Presumably in Chomsky`s academic writing (or any reliable source regardless of the ideology of the writer) he would agree with this, because it is a matter of fact, not opinion. --TFD (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what wieght the source demonstrates. Other then saying that these are acts of terror but that they are seen as not being acts of terror by the states carrying them out. If this is the case then it seems to agree with Chomskeys assements. Perhpas we should then take each of Chomskeys claism one at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it says that while some writers (e.g., Chomsky) sees them as terrorism, most do not. TFD (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The source demonstrates that it is uncommon to refer to acts by states as terrorism even if they could be construed("allow for") as terrorism. It does not state that any acts in this article meet the definition of state terrorism or otherwise refer to this article or Chomsky's beliefs.AerobicFox (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Who said otherwise? TFD (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Slatersteven:"Other then saying that these are acts of terror..."

Reply:"It does not state that any acts in this article meet the definition of state terrorism or otherwise refer to this article..."

Clearly Slatersteven said otherwise.AerobicFox (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me but the soure makes no mention of writers. It does not say who sees these acts as not being terrorism. In fact it seems to be saying that this is how states define (and indead defend) and see their actions, not accademia or writers.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My reading is that academics reject the idea that open actions of the armed forces and police of a nation can be described as terrorism, because terrorism refers to actions carried out by non-state actors. When states commit criminal acts, they are described as war crimes, crimes against humanity, or even "state terror". Most claims against the U.S. concern sponsorship of "state terror" by foreign governments, although some involve support of terrorism in Cuba, Nicaragua, etc., where the U.S. supported insurgents rather than governments. I do not think that anyone has challenged whether this support amounted to "state sponsored terrorism", just that pro-American writers do not call it that. Here is a link to the source cited in the book. Unfortunately p. 58 is not shown. TFD (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I should point out a few things -- first off the notion that this page is entirely based on the "viewpoints" of "radical" or "fringe" sources s.a. Chomsky/Zinn is inaccurate (I don't think Chomsky is "fringe" anyhow as he is an academic at MIT, one of the most widely read voices on foreign relations in the world, and his politics/history research outside of his primary field of linguistics has been actually quite strong and widely acclaimed among other academics, who for decades have frequently invited him to speak/debate on political/historical and non-linguistic topics at other institutions outside MIT), but I'll get to that later in this paragraph, where I cite a much more mainstream source than Chomsky. For now I'd like to address this: You say "My reading is that academics reject the idea that open actions of the armed forces and police of a nation can be described as terrorism, because terrorism refers to actions carried out by non-state actors." Someone else said "it is uncommon to refer to acts by states as terrorism even if they could be construed("allow for") as terrorism." The notion that "academics" categorically reject the notion of "State terrorism" as a misnomer is not accurate at all. *Some* academics reject that and they are hardly unanimous or even a discernable majority of academics. There is a wide precedent for academics, and not only "leftist" academics s.a. Chomsky, using the term "State terrorism" and referring to "terrorist" actions by state actors such as the anti-Cuba or anti-Nicaragua actions of US agents and their assets. Also in the case of states other than the US, "state terror" has been referred to as just that: much academic literature (such as from professor John Dinges) on "Operation Condor" for instance refer to those actions of the Chilean/Argentine states as terrorism; the same standard should apply to any hypothetical similar actions by the US. Anyways, the place for that debate is on the page for State Terrorism where the issue of "state terrorism" as a "misnomer" is already addressed. Furthermore, back to the notion of Chomsky as a "fringe" source -- US Anti-Cuba operations such as "Operation Mongoose" are referred to as "State Sponsored Terrorism" in an entire chapter titled just that, in the book "That Infernal Little Cuban Republic" by the acclaimed, appreciably centrist UNC political science professor Lars Schoultz. That chapter in that book is a very good starting point for those on this talk page who are clamoring to hear from a source more "mainstream" than Chomsky who refers to US actions against Cuba as "state terrorism." Louis A Perez is also a quite "mainstream" academic and also uses the term as such. Anyways, with Chomsky, Zinn, or Peter Dale Scott, we can't outright reject their research just by labeling their ideology as "fringe" or as some combination of "-isms" -- that's ad-hominem; as these are accredited, acclaimed academics (placing them outside the domain of WP:FRINGE which mostly concerns sources that aren't "scholastic" such as blogs, highly ideological journalists, and conspiracy theorists), who they are or where they're coming from shouldn't be a huge point of skepticism, and the preoccupation with their supposedly "fringe" ideologies only reflects an ad-hominem attempt to avoid having to actually debate the substance of their allegations and their supporting research. Since he's an academic, it's not enough to just say "Chomsky is fringe" without debating the substance of his research and offering citations to contradict his findings. From what I read on this talk page, it seems there would be a wealth of such "contradictory" citations from other, more "mainstream" academics -- of course, those citations are welcome on this page. They'd be the perfect thing to balance the page with due weight, which I admit is in need. But citations of this supposed wealth of "mainstream" academic sources who contradict Chomsky, seem to not be forthcoming. 12.170.248.36 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We determine what "most academics" think by how academic sources report what most academics think. I will again present my source (for the third time in this discussion thread), Global anti-terrorism law and policy. It says: "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defence, not terror, such as the allied carpet-bombing of civilians in the Second World War, the United States' use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the American use of more than seven million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos". If the source is wrong, please provide one that is correct. We cannot rely on our own research into the matter. And no I do not think that Chomsky's writings are fringe, merely that his position on Hiroshima is in the minority. TFD (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I'll admit that, especially with regards to the WWII bombings and Vietnam, the notion of "state terrorism as a misnomer" should be explored on this page -- but we should keep in mind that this notion comes up much more thoroughly on the page for State Terrorism itself. I guess it's really two different matters -- whether or not overt military actions can be deemed "state terrorism" (most academics say no, that they are simply violations of the conventions of war), and whether or not covert actions such as the anti-Nicaragua and anti-Cuba campaigns can be deemed "state terrorism" (many academics have said yes). I think your citation is fine for this page, and I do agree that Chomsky's position on Hiroshima/WWII/Vietnam is in the minority. I was kind of responding to other posts besides just your own as well ("it is uncommon to refer to acts by states as terrorism even if they could be construed("allow for") as terrorism."), and misinterpreted your post as being a similar statement that implies "state terrorism" is a misnomer altogether -- I agree that, especially in the case of acts by the military, we should mention that the prevailing academic opinion is that it's a misnomer to call *that* "Terrorism;" but at the same time, we should restrict that to the sections on wartime "terrorism" (s.a. WWII/Vietnam), as many of the more covert actions sponsored by the US (such as those against Cuba and Nicaragua) have indeed been viewed as "terrorism" by a more wide/mainstream population of academics. Looking at your original post, I understand that you did mention this. 12.170.248.36 (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The term "state terrorism" can have different meanings. The source I provided was probably not referring to state-sponsored terrorism, although it is often called state terrorism. No one questions that the U.S. has supported terrorism and has covertly carried out terrorist actions. What is in dispute is whether overt actions by the U.S. or any other government may be considered terrorism. Chomsky says yes, because he draws no distinction between individuals acting on behalf of a government or acting alone. While one may respect that view, it is in a minority. TFD (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Very long

This article is very long, and is still a mish mash of original research, misused sources, and soapboxing. Please, let's not add to this until all the crud has been removed. Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think much has changed since you brought this up a few months ago, so I think what you were told then still applies: (a) Please provide specific examples and (b) please provide sources to back your claims. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

=I beg to differ. The article is on the long side, but not too long, when I compare it to other articles its within the range I find quite acceptable. I haven't closely read through everything and checked the sources, but I find it well cited at first glance. Where in particular do you find original research? It certainly was not in the Japanese Atomic bombing section. I came here from the main article and expected to find more in-depth scholarly views on the novel take of the bombings as a form of State Terrorism, and found it odd that an article devoted to the subject had LESS information. Luckily, I see that this was not the case and that this information was only recently omitted. Perhaps we can get others editors views about removing such a large section of information prior to actually removing it? 67.169.68.203 (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason that this section should be removed. Trimmed maybe. I don't see consensus to remove it, either. I'm going to restore it until some better reasons are given otherwise this smacks of censorship. 67.188.210.142 (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Entirely behind Jehochman on this, indeed thanks for bring this back on the radar. V7-sport (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is basically the same as at Common misconceptions which there is constantly a fear of getting too lengthy, no clear definition of what a common misconception is, and original research. Just like there this page has no central definition of what is terrorism that it is trying to introduce to the audience, or any debate about the concept that the article is trying to explore or explain. It is just a collection of XXX calling something terrorism often without any significant elaboration on how it is terrorism, or how this example of US terrorism elucidates the concept or influences the debate overall.

Imagine an article on the Kano school of painting that read like this:

XXX considers this work a Kano influenced painting.

XXX called this an example of XXX painting.

etc, etc.

The article should introduce the leading concept/s of US terrorism, and then give a section to each concept and try to use significant examples to prove it. Currently this article is trying to "prove" US terrorism is real with a laundry list of disparate sources mentioning US terrorism instead of telling us what US terrorism is, how it is different or the same to other terrorism, the controversy surrounding it, the semantic reasons for labeling these acts terrorism, and most importantly the pragmatic purpose for understanding the concept of US terrorism and how this concept can be applied in a meaningful way. So far I have seen no importance to this concept, and it seems basically the same as arguing whether Pluto is a planet, or Australia a continent. Terrorism, planet, continent, are just semantics, what in this article is not just semantic but is applicable to something?AerobicFox (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article should give voice to the scholars studying the issue. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? This issue is fairly clear, however controversial the topic is, so why not list as historical examples what incidents of state terrorism perpetrated by the US according to various scholars call incidents of state terrorism by the US? Each examples should explain the theoretical basis for its classification, so as to elucidate the subject matter. 67.188.210.142 (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is indeed too long but that doesn't mean we shouldn't add to it. It only means we should be much more concerned with cutting it down than adding to it; but if there is something relevant that isn't mentioned on this page, there's no reason it shouldn't be added just because the existing sections have amassed so much bloat over time. 12.170.248.36 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone agree to removing the history section? To me it is just a rap sheet, which makes the article advocacy. TFD (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The history section is not just a 'rap sheet." Its historical examples as case studies for incidents that bring to life what state-terrorism is, according to notable scholars. It is not advocacy because we use language of attribution. We don't make the case--that would be original research. Instead we merely report. Is reporting on this areas of scholarship advocacy? Of course not. 67.188.210.142 (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree. To be clear, I support the idea of turning this into a more cerebral examination of the concept of "state terrorism" and it's role in the USA's foreign policy instead of a litany of charges from various academics. However, the concept itself tends to draw those who see the subject in terms of a class struggle rather then in terms of international law or conventions on warfare. (Frankly, usually with the intention drawing a moral equivalence to the actions of the USA or Israel.) I'm wondering how it could be written without basically trading 1 litany of charges for another. Again, to be frank, someone like Noam Chomsky can be counted on to frame things as a class struggle where by blowing up a pizza parlor in Tel Aviv or flying an aircraft full of people into a building full of people in New York City to get rid of some of the little Eichmanns is the 3rd world equivalent of legitimate self defense. Richard Falk can be counted on for the same with a healthy dose of clinical paranoia. I'm not sure how that could be offset as the field caters to those who employ that theoretical framework and those who don't, don't speak in the same terms.

I support the concept but I'm not sure how it could be executed fairly. V7-sport (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to IP: for non-controversial topics, histories are perfectly acceptable. We could for example have an article about the U.S. and income taxation and track the history of the tax in the U,S, But when a topic involves a unique interpretation of history then a recitation of that history enforces that the interpretation is the correct one, As explained, most writers do not see overt acts of war as terrorism, and most actions discussed in the article can also be interpreted as counter-insurgency. All these events may be described in detail in other articles. The point of this article is that it shows why some writers interpret these events as terrorism and this article should explain why they see it that way and why other writers disagree. TFD (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your approach is that if we followed it we would not have any one place where an interested reader such as myself can learn about this particular approach/model. Each articles touches on it only a bit, and a more in-depth account of this approach is probably not a good idea due to undue weight, given that it is a minority view. But that is why it can and should have its own article where we can go more in-depth with a minority view. Also, it allows someone interested in the field of study to not have to guess and jump around from one article to another. Yes, war crimes, counter-insurgency, etc are how many of these things are seen in the mainstream, and that should be stated here (and I believe it does do that), but the area of interest for this article is to examine the instances where states use tactics within any arena of conflict that is deemed and argued to be instances of State Terrorism, i.e. psychological motive, targeting civilians for a political goal, etc.

Secondly, there is nothing about this that says that this approach is the correct one. Its only the approach that is being given coverage here. Its important to understand that we don't take any positions in regards to the correctness or truth of any of the claims being made here on Wikipedia. We only report notable views on various subjects. This is a legitimate subject of study within academia and needs to be reported on. It does not imply an endorsement of that point of view. 67.169.68.203 (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re 67.169.68.203, Please Jehochman had valid reasons for making those edits which I for one agree with. Wikipedias core content policies are maintaining a neutral point of view and exclude original research, the material that Jehochman edited did neither. If you want to add content by all means do so, but please don't blanket revert edits that were done to chip away at the OR and synth that have been a long term problem with this article. V7-sport (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Those reasons were rejected by multiple editors--not just myself. Please cite the specific original research you are claiming exits that you are removing. I don't see it. Please don't blanking whole sections, removing well cited material that can't be found anywhere else on Wikipedia. There certainly is not consensus to do this, esp. without substantiating your claims for doing so. Thanks. 67.169.68.203 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Which multiple editors? I have to step out, I'll address what you write in a bit. V7-sport (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How about we open this up for further comment by requesting comment feedback from an appropriate board? Its better to get more opinions, even a "3rd' opinion from someone who knows policy well that can guide us to address any problems that exist here. All I ask is we do that BEFORE removing so much content that I find very well cited and completely pertinent to this topic. 67.169.68.203 (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

If readers want history written from a specific viewpoint, then there are many sources they may use and we should provide links to them. But we should not have multiple versions of the same events presented from different viewpoints. We could for example have multiple versions of the history of the U.S., written from a range of views from Communist to conspiracist. All of the would contain the same facts and would be essentially WP:POVFORKS. TFD (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

True, but that is not what this is. These are historical incidents which illustrate the concept of the subject being argued exists, i.e. State Terrorism by the US. Its not a history per se, but it involves historical events. Those events can be described with a link to the larger article about the historical event. We are not replicating histories here from different points of view. What this does do is bring together the conceptual area of study on state terrorism, and gives examples to illustrate the concept of what makes it state terrorism according to various scholars on the subject from all points of view. 67.169.68.203 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You say, "These are historical incidents which illustrate the concept of the subject being argued exists". I think what you mean is that these incidents prove that the U.S. supports terrorism. But it is not our role to prove that the U.S. supports terrorism, any more than it is our role to prove that the U.S. is a force for good in the world. We could in fact takes these events and show that the U.S. has fought to protect the world from totalitarianism. TFD (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't (nor should any of us editors) make a judgment about the veracity of the claim being made. As editors our personal or political opinions don't matter here at all. Nor is even if the claims being made are true or not of interest. And certainly we don't try to prove anything as far as those claims go. That is not our job. But is it our job to present the views of the scholars who so make that case, or talk about State Terrorism by the US--from all points of view. We give voice to this academic discourse. When writers speak of cases of US State Terrorism they do so with reference to historical incidents that they use to illustrate the concepts that they argue/claim are cases of Terrorism by States, and in particular, the US. We just report on it. We don't prove it. They do. If you have an author who actually says that State Terrorism was justified to "protect the world from...," arguing from the point of view of the perpetrators of that violence, then it would also belong in this article. Again, we don't take sides. 67.169.68.203 (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

(out) Well how does the following, which is typical of the history section fit in with what you are saying:

After Fidel Castro's forces vanquished Fulgencio Batista's forces, a new government was formed in Cuba on January 2, 1959. The CIA initiated a campaign of regime change in the early parts of 1959,[54] and by the spring of 1959 was arming counter-revolutionary guerrillas inside Cuba. By winter of that year US-based Cubans were being supervised by the CIA in the orchestration of bombings and incendiary raids against Cuba.[55] Piero Gleijeses, Jorge I. Dominguez, and Richard Kearney refer to the U.S. actions against Castro during the early 1960s as terrorism. [56][57]

Nothing there is about the views of scholars, it is just about a series of events, which some scholars have interpreted as terrorism. An NPOV article would say something like, "x says that arming counter-revolutionary anti-Castro guerrillas was support for terrorism". The recitation of detail turns the article into advocacy - proving to the reader that the U.S. supports terrorism. TFD (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I created an account, finally, but I'm the IP, above. In the example you give you say there is nothing about the views of the scholars, and then you say, "its just a series of events some of which have been interpreted as terrorism." I'm confused by that and find it a little contradictory. If there are any "series of events" that are NOT given as examples by the scholars as state terrorism, then it shouldn't be here. I'd agree with you. But you said "some" of the events are interpreted as terrorism. So those "some" do belong here because its those events that the source is claiming as state terrorism. We have to check the sources to make sure they are indeed claiming that these actions are that they are referring to as state terrorism, and we can include a little bit about the context. We can't just make up a series of events and then include them all because some of those events are interpreted as state terrorism, esp. if some of the events are not even related to provide context of the historical action in question. But where, in this example, are any of those events not part the U.S. actions against Castro that the scholars speak about as examples of terrorism? The cited source is referring to the CIA actions against Cuba as terrorism, no? If the source says that, it not advocacy on our part to report it.

And yes it may very well "prove" to the reader that the US supports terrorism, but so what? As long as we don't try to prove it ourselves. An article in gravity should talk about the theory of gravity and give the examples that the sources give as examples of gravity according to them. Should we be worried about this 'proving" to the reader that gravity is true? Of course not. The same with any subject. We should only reflect the discourse found in the literature on the topic, be it convincing or not is besides the point--we should not care, provided we faithfully present the various views of those who engage with the subject. BernieW650 (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Having thought about your example some more, it could be made tighter. I'd welcome any suggested re-wording of the above passage you bring up to tie it more directly into what the sources are alleging. But, as it is now, I don't find anything misleading, since those events are the events in that the sources are referring to in the citation. We may want to read that citation in full so as to better represent their views.BernieW650 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Iliad recorded a projectile aimed above the Trojan walls falling into the city below. The Epic of Gilgamesh described particles of water falling to earth. Roman historians wrote of Carthaginians jumping from rooftops and falling to Earth. Aristotle and Newton refered to this phenomena as "gravity"." Then we provide countless paragraphs providing examples of objects falling in order to prove to the reader than "gravity" is a valid theory. TFD (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, IF a valid source on the subject making that claim makes that case along the lines you suggest, then we report that--even if you personally think its absurd and silly, illogical, etc. The criteria is not truth--its verifiability. So if a source makes those claims, giving those examples to provide support for its argument, and we cite it, then yes, we report on it. Your example unlikely to find any source that says that, though, since its rather silly. So the issue here, does the content in the article reflect accurately the source that is cited, and is that source a reputable one? Does it the information on Cuba, in particular the CIA activities as described above correspond to the argument, and historical example given by the source? If so then its valid to include however much you may disagree with its method or conclusion. This is my understanding of NPOV policies. BernieW650 (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to any neutral articles in this encyclopedia or any other that do that? This time please pick a theory about history rather than physics. I get the impression reading your views that you agree with the theories described in this article and wonder what you would think about a similar article about a theory with which you disagreed. For example the article Jewish Bolshevism seems to defend the theory that the Jews are behind Communism, by repetition of the number of Jewish people who were Communists, rather than explain it. We have to decide whether this article should persuade readers that the U.S. supports terrorism or explain why writers have claimed it does. My view is that we can trust readers to make up their own minds. TFD (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article and found nothing wrong with the article reporting those facts. But, I think it could use some expanding, maybe a section that helps to 'explain' the phenomenon, if there are any good sources that have theories about it. That would be an improvement. But, like this article, I did not feel it was written in a way that tried to prove the subject and theories, ideas, etc, as necessarily true or false. It did report facts, which are fine. Facts are not theories, but articles obviously need both, and both need to be well cited, and we need to cover the multiple views that exist on subject as found in valid sources. This means that if something is missing we add it, to bring greater balance. But we don't take down good sources that do talk about the issue.

As far as my own views, again, this is not relevant. We need to stop worrying about what we personally believe, and concern ourselves with reporting accurately what various good sources say about a subject matter, giving voices to the strongest and more articulate exponents of a particular view, along with other qualified writers on the comments/arguments/views, etc. Basically give an exposition of the subject. That is what I expect of an Encyclopedia--to inform. Hopefully the reader will be able to come away with a greater knowledge of the subject matter. If you are too worried about what we personally believe is true or not, it may suggest you are too close to the subject matter as far as having a personal opinion on it and this can have the effect of interfering with writing it in a NPOV manner, i.e. "I don't agree with these facts,' and so I want to get rid of them. I'm not accusing you of this, but I have seen it all too often in Wikipedia. We need to take a dispassionate, scholarly, and go into a non-opinionated role when we work here, esp. in controversial subjects like this. BernieW650 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are some other article I just pulled up that deal with a claim of an historical nature, as you had requested. The phenomenon of say Police Brutality in the US is closer to this article, and other related articles about incidents of violence. You will notice its explained and particular facts regarding the historical incident that relate to the subject are provided in some detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality_%28United_States%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebi_Musa_riots BernieW650 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article should not be trying to "persuade" people of anything. It should objectively report what reliable sources have to say about the United States and state terrorism, including any historical events that these sources mention as relevant to the topic. Including history does not automatically imply that it's trying to persuade people of something, other than perhaps persuading people that "this is what reliable sources have to say about the history of US state terrorism". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

In an article about United States state terrorism, it is totally in line with WP:NPOV to include historical events which have been labelled by scholars as United States state terrorism. How prominent certain editors think these views are is totally irrelevant, as has been explained to each of them before (i.e. We don't care what you think about it. If you want to show that it's not accepted by the scholarly community, provide some sources that say so). Several scholars have made claims that the U.S. has committed state terrorist acts, and have specified certain historical events as examples/evidence. There is no policy which precludes including either the claims, nor the historical examples/evidence, unless someone can provide sources that show that these views are not widely accepted, are factually inaccurate, etc. There is certainly no grounds for wiping out the entire historical section of a history/politics article just because a handful of editors are of the opinion that it's not the correct interpretation of history. The scholars cited here don't agree with them, and the scholars' views hold more weight on Wikipedia. Until someone finds other reliable sources that disagree with the history here, there is no grounds for removing it. (But it's been months since this started, and they've yet to provide sources backing their claims, so I doubt this is going to happen any time soon). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be fine if there were scholarly consensus. Where there is not, the repetition of a narrative by one or more writers serves to advocate that interpretation of history. In the example I provided Jewish Bolshevism, the repeated of mention of Jews who were Communists re-inforces the view that Communism was a Jewish movement. Readers want to know why scholars (and others) hold these views and how widely accepted their views are. Otherwise the article is a POV fork. Again, could you point to any neutral encyclopedia article that has taken the approach you recommend. TFD (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

could you point to any neutral encyclopedia article that has taken the approach you recommend. -- Every neutral article takes the approach I recommend. The approach I'm recommending is the one laid out in WP:NPOV. Namely, everyone should provide sources, and then we objectively report the views in these sources, mentioning any points of disagreement that we come across within them (weighting the opinions by their prominence in the sources). Neutrality is not determined by proclamations of editors that they "agree" with the historical facts expressed in the article. That's the approach that many seem to be recommending, and that's what I'm recommending against. I'd like to stick with what the sources say, and here, the sources clearly say that they feel that certain historical events constitute state terrorism. When, as in the case of Hiroshima, we find dissenting opinions, these should be included. But we can't just toss everything based on some unsubstantiated claims that this isn't the "right" version of history. All I'm asking is that people that want to remove well-sourced material provide some sources that justify their decision, rather than just repeating over and over again that it's misleading, incorrect, anti-American, etc. etc. etc. Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A great deal of this article isn't even accusations of "state terrorism". It confuses/conflates what are arguably war crimes, terror, warfare, diplomacy and even commerce. Agreed that we should stick to what the sources say, but if the sources aren't saying that the USA was engaged in state terrorism then they don't belong in the article. Otherwise, you have what so many editors have objected to, a POV coatrack. Providing some sources to justify that something that doesn't claim state terrorism should be removed is asking to disprove the negative. V7-sport (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

V7, please give specific sections where sources do not argue that this is state terrorism, before you remove it. I don't think this confuses war crimes, warfare, with state terror. Those are not mutually exclusive categories. Many of the scholars on the subject talk about state terrorism in the context of a war, and incidents which are already largely regarded as war crimes. But this is besides the point, and doesn't negate the classification as state terrorism by said writers. To do so, you would be inserting your own opinion to override those of the views of the authors we are supposed to be reporting on. BernieW650 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Lebanon section for example does not even explain who claims the events described were terrorism or who called them that.[10] How is that neutral? The implication is that there is an academic consensus that they were terrorist attacks and therefore no discussion of other viewpoints is required. TFD (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. The Lebanon section fails to meet the criteria that I laid out above. I have removed it. Please share any other problems you come across. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that problem with the Lebanon section. I have no problem with removing it. This is how removals should happen: bring the specific section to the attention and have us discuss it, and then if you don't meet opposition we can remove it. BernieW650 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Then we may not disagree as much as we think. I believe that all opinions should be presented, but do not see the chronological approach, with each of the numerous events described in detail as the best way to do that. Bear in mind that there are countless examples of U.s. actions that could be seen as terrorism and it is more important to explain why these events are seen as terrorism that to provide specific details of actions that are often very similar to one another. TFD (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the COATRACK argument which has appeared elsewhere on similar "X and Y" articles. The core of this article ought to be to consider the theories of scholars who claim or disclaim that the US has engaged in state terrorism. Main article pointers to specific incidents can be used to gesture at what the scholars themselves use as evidence where notable but in general the article ought to confine itself to the theorisation. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bernie, I did cite the reasoning for it's removal in the edit summary and above. If there is no accusation of state terrorism, ie "Some scholars have also argued that the bombings weakened moral taboos" then you are allowing anything to be tacked on as an accusation of "state terrorism" here. War crimes, terror, warfare, moral taboo weakening are all different things and when you allow it all up, this article just turns into a dumping ground of complaints and gripes that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I restored the passages by Falk and Selden from the original edit as they actually addressed State terrorism. V7-sport (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I see in the time it took me to get to the discussion you had reverted me again. So much for taking it to the talk page. V7-sport (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I want to discuss those changes first on here, like TFD did, and then we removed the Lebanon section. Please slow down and lets get some consensus first. Using edit summaries are insufficient, esp. when those edits are opposed. Now to address those concerns about the Atomic bombings, the claim about weakening moral taboos is about a forward effect the scholars argue as a consequence of the act, that they (Seldon, et al) allege as being state terrorism. This is not "allowing anything" its allowing a relevant 'forward effect" of the actual incident being described by the authors who allege it to be state terrorism. BernieW650 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You reverted me twice in under 5 minutes. I hadn't had a chance to post anything on the talk page and then you ask me to slow down... Those edits had been previously made by another editor, your reverting them en masse is without consensus. Yes, "weakening moral taboos", etc, is not an accusation of state terrorism.V7-sport (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because you kept removing material before gaining consensus on here. I did not revert en masse, I kept the edit by Jrtayloriv, removing the Lebanon section per the talk with TFD. But now that you are talking about the content dispute here instead of on the edit summaries, I'm happy. About the content, yes, a weakening of moral taboos is not an accusation of state terrorism. But no one made that claim. But the incident in question (the dropping of the A bomb) is alleged to be state terrorism, so therefore we should mention briefly the other views on the action: that its regarded as a war crime and that state terrorism is not even considered by most scholars on the subject, etc. This is for NPOV and weight, but just briefly since this is dealt with in the main article on the subject. Now if we introduced something else that was NOT described as State Terrorism and included that only because of "weakening of moral taboos, etc" then you would be 100% right--it can't be included. But since this action is argued as such, we should be able to talk about briefly related views on the actions in question. BernieW650 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Those edits, originally made by another editor, were made with consensus after an AFD. Additionally, I went through them and restored anything that was arguably related to state terrorism. I have discussed the reasoning here on this talk page, on your old talk page, and in the edit summaries. And yes, you obviously did revert my edit en masse, which is fine but you reverted it twice in the space of 5 minutes before I could open up the talk page which is edit warring. You may be "happy" but it shows bad faith. You have included things that are not accusations of state terrorism, obviously, in your reversion. If as you say, "no one made the claim" then it doesn't belong here. That has been the problem with this article, it as allowed "state terrorism" to become anything to anybody.V7-sport (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets focus on the content of this content dispute, shall we? Please assume good faith. My interest is to work collaboratively, and so avoid any such confusions again, please discuss on here what change you want to make and gain some agreement with others before you insist on making them. Contrary to your claim, these massive changes to the long standing version do not have consensus, obviously. So lets talk about it. About the content, again, please be specific. I addressed why the "forward effects' is relevant and should remain, along with the other views of the Atomic bombings of Japan. When I said, "no one made that claim," I'm referring to your implying that someone is making that claim by keeping it in the article, i.e. false attribution. So this is a confusion. My position is clear. I said, "But the incident in question (the dropping of the A bomb) is alleged to be state terrorism, so therefore we should mention briefly the other views on the action: that its regarded as a war crime and that state terrorism is not even considered by most scholars on the subject, etc. This is for NPOV and weight, but just briefly since this is dealt with in the main article on the subject. Now if we introduced something else that was NOT described as State Terrorism and included that only because of "weakening of moral taboos, etc" then you would be 100% right--it can't be included. But since this action is argued as such, we should be able to talk about briefly related views on the actions in question." That is the point to address. Otherwise the history section gets boiled down to only a list, instead of giving giving space to a discussion and discourse on the qualifying event listed. BernieW650 (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good faith goes out the window when you pull that. The "forward effects" section wasn't the only point of dispute here and I had restored much of it from the pervious edit. If there isn't an accusation of state terrorism, or something that can be clearly labeled state terrorism or terrorism committed by the USa, etc, it should be excluded from the article. Again "weakening of the moral taboos" or even ignoring "Geneva principles" isn't an accusation of state terrorism. Implying something like contravention of the Geneva principles is "state terrorism" on an article about the USA and state terrorism is synthesis and doesn't belong here. V7-sport (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, if there isn't an accusation of state terrorism then it shouldn't be in the article. The Japan Bombings belong because that is clearly described as an action that is alleged to be State Terrorism. Therefore, we should describe briefly for historical context the dropping of the Bomb, and briefly the other views on it per NPOV. To be clear the other views are not alleging its state terrorism which SHOULD be included BECAUSE the incident in question is qualified for discussion because IT is described as state terrorism. Otherwise, you only end up with it being a short list with no contextual discussion about the way its viewed in light of the accusation of it being state terror. Now are there any historical incidents that are mentioned which is not first anchored/ described as an act of state terrorism, within the article? If so, it doesn't belong. BernieW650 (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"I agree, if there isn't an accusation of state terrorism then it shouldn't be in the article" Thank you for stipulating that. The Japan bombings were included because there were people making accusations of state terrorism. If you find counter-arguments that state that it wasn't state terrorism, or terrorism committed by the state then fine, so be it. But if you are going to exclude things on, lets call it the "pro US state terrorism" because it's synthesis to call "terror" "state terrorism" then you need to be fair and exclude it from the "anti US state terrorism" side unless they address state terrorism. V7-sport (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You wrote :"But if you are going to exclude things on, lets call it the "pro US state terrorism" because it's synthesis to call "terror" "state terrorism" then you need to be fair and exclude it from the "anti US state terrorism" side unless they address state terrorism." I don't follow. Can you explain this? Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to exclude things because they are synthesis, as we are supposed to you need to do universally. By the way, censoring your talk page is pretty craven. V7-sport (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you say I'm excluding on the basis of synthesis? Synthesis is when we take two sources and use them to combine into something new that is not being said, hence it being synthesis. If you have an example of this in the article please point it out so we can look at it, and see if we agree, and then fix the problem. Re my talk page, I don't censor, I just don't want the petty drama. BernieW650 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, when you remove other editors comments that you don't have a counterargument for that's censorship, made all the more hypocritical when you write things to justify edit warring like "this smacks of censorship." Made even more craven when someone tries to remove their own statements and let you talk to yourself and you restore them. If you are adding material to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source that's synth. IE, weakening moral taboos=state terrorism, or even "terrorism"="state terrorism." It's also unrelated to the topic at hand and as you have acknowledged. I have to note here that you haven't stated anything to justify your blanket reversions of material that you have acknowledged "shouldn't be in the article." V7-sport (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I found your remarks on my page uncivil and needlessly argumentative and off of topic, so I asked you to stop and didn't allow you to continue, asking you instead to focus on the content dispute issues only and on this talk page. So I hope you drop the accusations, bad faith, and uncivil remarks. Lets stay on task here. Nothing should be taken personal, as you seem to. Back to the issue, the material that we are taking about is not implying any conclusion. If is is, please state how it is. It is its own conclusion, and is included for reasons I have already explained. No one is claiming that moral taboos=state terrorism. Do you think that is even being implied? We also say its regarded as a war crime and as militarily necessary to end the war quickly, etc. Basically all those views are touched on. Is there any implication that those views are stating that its state terrorism? No where is such implied. BernieW650 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing uncivil about this [11] considering the context. Remove what I wrote on your talk page. if you are going to censor you can talk to yourself. I think it shows bad faith to run it right up to 3rr,make threats and then censor the rebuttals. I haven't reverted even though I don't have 3 reversions in 24 hours. I went through each one of those edits and provided reasons why I made them, you have yet to provide a reason why you restored that content or even substantively address what I wrote. Re. Is there any implication that those views are stating that its state terrorism? No where is such implied... This is an article about state terrorism, not a forum. If it isn't about state terrorism then, as you have acknowledged, it doesn't belong here. V7-sport (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about you not being uncivil. I'll only respond to issues about this content dispute, too, so again, lets stick with the topic at hand, please. This is not a forum, but it is an encyclopedia and therefore it should discuss the topic in question. If its a discussion of the atomic bombings of Japan as state terrorism is should mention briefly the other views on the incident to put the view in perspective, with more detail about the other views found in the main article. Do you disagree with this? BernieW650 (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You obviously have a sliding scale for civility as well as what constitutes a response. As I have stated mentioning other views on state terrorism is fine, the content that you restored doesn't. I disagree with including material that isn't related to state terrorism. (Which is why another editor removed that in the first place.) Again, I went through each one of those edits and provided reasons why I made them, you have yet to provide a reason why you restored that content or even substantively address what I wrote. V7-sport (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, its not just other views on state terrorism per se, but other views on the incident, including views that don't see it as state terrorism and never mention state terrorism. This is where you need to pay closer attention to what I said. My claim was that if it's a discussion of the atomic bombings of Japan as state terrorism it should also mention briefly the other views on the incident to put it perspective and provide some balance, and context. I agree with you we should not include any incident that is not first grounded in a clear claim of it being state terrorism by the US. But once that is established context and details about the event in question and briefly mentioning the other views is permissible. BernieW650 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RE."No, its not just other views on state terrorism per se, but other views on the incident, including views that don't see it as state terrorism and never mention state terrorism"... This is an article on state terrorism. If you let it be just a laundry list of gripes then you get the conditions that have had it nominated for deletion either 10 or 11 times.

RE."This is where you need to pay closer attention to what I said." I'm quoting you now line by line.

RE."My claim was that if it's a discussion of the atomic bombings of Japan as state terrorism it should also mention briefly the other views on the incident to put it perspective and provide some balance, and context." and I addressed that when I wrote "If you find counter-arguments that state that it wasn't state terrorism, or terrorism committed by the state then fine, so be it." otherwise it doesn't have anything to do with the article.

RE."I agree with you we should not include any incident that is not first grounded in a clear claim of it being state terrorism by the US. But once that is established context and details about the event in question and briefly mentioning the other views is permissible." This is an article about state terrorism, not war crimes, not diplomacy, not moral taboos. It has/had problems with POV, Length and synthesis mainly because it has allowed "whatever" be called state terrorism. Mentioning other views is dandy, as long as they are other views on The USA employing state terrorism. What was removed wasn't. V7-sport (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we disagree, obviously on what is permitted. For me the focus has to be centered on what is claimed to be State Terrorism, obviously. That is what this article is about, as you correctly state. However, not everyone see's it as State terrorism, obviously. Therefore, we should mentioned this per NPOV. We should place it on context and briefly mention the other views about the incident in question. Otherwise, we lack context, and lack any relevant information about the event being described. Now how much information should be included about these other views, is a legitimate question. We don't want it bloated or too much, since that belongs in the main article.

You keep claiming Synthesis but you are not explaining how its synthesis. Synthesis is when we have two sources each making a different claim, Claim A, and Claim B, and we use both claims to arrive at a new claim ourselves, Claim C that is not found in either source. That is synthesis. You have not shown this. This article does not allow "whatever" to be called State Terrorism. Can you name some event that is covered in this article that is claimed to be State Terrorism, which is not supported by a source? BernieW650 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

However, not everyone see's it as State terrorism, obviously. Therefore, we should mentioned this per NPOV. -Again, I don't have a problem with that, however, the counterargument should mention state terrorism, as should the original charge.

What you don't seem to understand is that when I say we should also include other views briefly about the incident that is alleged to be state terrorism, this is not adding a "laundry list of gripes" because its about the SAME action/incident in question---only touching upon the other views -And again; Other views are fine, as long as they address state terrorism, which is what the article is about.

"You keep claiming Synthesis but you are not explaining how its synthesis" -I did here "If you are adding material to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source that's synth. IE, weakening moral taboos=state terrorism, or even "terrorism"="state terrorism." It's also unrelated to the topic at hand and as you have acknowledged."

"This article does not allow "whatever" to be called State Terrorism." Acts of war, war crimes, sale of arms, not trying someone fast enough, training military personnel, not getting rid of a refugee camp in Iraq, counterinsurgency, etc are all being referred to as terrorism which is why it's important to limit the article to state terrorism and attribute the charges of such to whomever is making them.

Now, you have restored passages like "Some scholars have also argued that the bombings weakened moral taboos against attacks on civilians, and allege that this led to such attacks becoming a standard tactic in subsequent US military actions. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain the only time nuclear weapons have been used in war"..About 5 or 6 times now in blanket reverts. In addition to that already being mentioned, in addition to that not being a charge of state terrorism, stating that "such attacks becoming a standard tactic in subsequent US military actions" is idiotic because dropping atomic bombs certainty is not a "standard tactic".

The burden for inclusion is supposedly on you here, blindly reverting that, incorrect citation tags and whatever else you didn’t look at is disruptive, against WP:BRD and completely arbitrary.

I deliberately waited, even though I could have reverted yesterday because I didn't want to resort to employing your tactic. At this point you are caught up. So how are you going to handle this now? If edits are made are you going to revert them within 5 minutes without reading them and run to an administrator to complain that someone else is edit warring?V7-sport (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

But you do have a problem with that because I'm not only talking about 'counter arguments, " I"m just talking about other views about the incident that is alleged to be state terrorism. To say this is the first time atomic bombs have been used on civilians is a historical fact (should be cited) but mentioned even thought it alone does not allege its either State Terrorism or not State Terrorism. This is about giving it historical context, as long as its relevant to the topic, i.e the bombings. In that context we then explore/present the views of those discuss it in terms of State Terror. 67.169.68.203 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the other views are fine even if they DON'T mention state terrorism, as long as its brief and this is because we need to balance the views about the incident in question by letting the reader know there are other related views about the subject, and directing them to the main article to explore those other views. In wikipedia some repetiation from main to daughter articles is common place, and fine, even if they are about different but related subjects, i.e. about the same incident but exploring a different question about said incident. 67.169.68.203 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your example is that its not an examples of SYN in the article. No where in the article is it claimed that these other views constitute an argument that makes it also State Terrorism. Nor is that even implied. What it does do is, again, give some contextual understanding about the related views about the incident in question. That is fine, as long it's relevant and brief.67.169.68.203 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This claim is simply not true. Examples? Please quote where it stays that these things are state terrorism AND says so without any source making this claim. If this is true, then you have a valid point. But this is simply not true. Please support that claim with a specific example so we can look at it.67.169.68.203 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, your missing the fact that the bombings, according to numerous sources are discussed as State Terrorism. So talking about that historical action (the atomic bombings), and including relevant historical facts about it briefly is allowed, because the charge is that the action itself (the bombings) ARE state terrorism. No one is making up a new charge that something else happened that is state terrorism.67.169.68.203 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you should not revert after its clear that your BOLD edit is contested by other editors. I commend you on discussing it here and reaching agreement with other editors first before continuing. As we all know edit warring is not the way to go and leads to being blocked. When the changes to the long standing version are opposed, we need discuss and if we don't agree, get other editors involvement for help. This seems to be a different understanding of policy, i.e. Syn, and what is and what is not allowed to be mentioned. Also, maybe the section is a bit on the long side, and so we can probably find some compromise to trim it if its bloated (provided the information is in some related article or the main one already). So lets look at specific parts that you suggest. We can even open up a sand box page to work together with others to come up with a version that is better and we all agree on. Then after we all agree, or its clear there is clear consensus on what is best, we can then implement it here in the main article. That is the way to go in my view. 67.169.68.203 (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

But you do have a problem with that because I'm not only talking about 'counter arguments' I"m just talking about other views about the incident that is alleged to be state terrorism

Thanks for telling me what I have a problem with. As long as they address the USA and “State terrorism” as opposed to the USA and war crimes or the USA and arms sales or the Usa and moral taboos, or the USA and none of the above, etc. No I don't.

“To say this is the first time atomic bombs have been used on civilians is a historical fact (should be cited)”

It’s cited twice now thanks to you, however it doesn’t have anything to do with accusations of state terrorism. To say that the pogo stick was patented in 1919 is a historical fact, it isn’t a charge of state terrorism.

“No, the other views are fine even if they DON'T mention state terrorism”

No, this article has had big problems with veering off into masturbatory screeds where everything is terrorism. It has also had problems with length and POV. Have a look at Wikipedia:COATRACK. You are posting in a section that says "too long" for heavens sake.

In wikipedia some repetiation from main to daughter articles is common place

Cancer is commonplace, that doesn’t make it desirable.

The problem with your example is that its not an examples of SYN in the article

What I was originally referring to was here[12] I tracked down the original book and the original page and yes, it's synthesis, but it's the authors synthesis and not original research. (Just the opinion of a "Film Composer and writer")

"Nor is that even implied."

Well yes, when you talk abut warcrimes, or taboo weakening or whatever in the context of state terrorism it's implied that they are relevant to state terrorism.

"Please support that claim with a specific example so we can look at"

You sound schizophrenic when you refer to yourself as "we". Putting information about a "war crime" or "terror" or the USA not wiping out the MEK refugee camp in Iraq in an article about State terrorism implies that this is state terrorism as well. Otherwise, why would it be here? (See the coatrack essay.)

"No one is making up a new charge that something else happened that is state terrorism."

Well yes, when you include information on a war crime or a taboo weakening in an article about "state terrorism" you imply that it is relevant to "state terrorism" or else why would it be here?

Yes, you should not revert after its clear that your BOLD edit is contested by other editors.

You are the editor reverting what was originally made by another editor, which I back. Further the burden of inclusion is on the editor who is adding material.

"I commend you on discussing it here and reaching agreement with other editors first before continuing."

I think the way you have gone about this is pretty damn small. The edit warring, the the censorship and other bullshit on your talk page, the whining to administrators and threats in the edit summary are not cool.

"As we all know edit warring is not the way to go and leads to being blocked"

You had 2 reverts within the space of 5 minutes, please, don't talk to me about edit warring and don't think you can use the prospect of blocking to dissuade me.

"So lets look at specific parts that you suggest"

I went through each one of those edits and provided reasons why I made them, you have yet to provide a specific reason why you restored that specific content. V7-sport (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, Ive restored the previous version. If you would like to add to it go ahead and we will work out it out but please don't roll back the whole lot, there's a lot of garbage that you are re-adding. V7-sport (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I will take a careful look at your changes but I think they may be premature since we didn't discuss anything specific, yet that I was able to verify as in the article in our discussions so far. If you removed a lot of sourced information about the subject that I think is valid as you did last time, I will revert it. But I'll try to see what of your edit is acceptable and valid. I'm open for compromise, esp. if the argument is that its too long, which so far is the only argument I found to be possibly valid. BernieW650 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

SO MUCH FOR TAKING A "CAREFUL LOOK AT THE CHANGES". YOU REVERTED THE WHOLE THING AGAIN. V7-sport (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I did look carefully and found one edit you had made which I was fine with. Perhaps there are others but I did not see it as you did not discuss first what changes you wanted to make, specifically. It seems you just reverted back to your last which is a rather large deletion of validly sourced material. I created a section below so we can go over what you want to change, one at a time. That way we can have some agreement or seek the assistance of others before making the changes.

Your argument that mentioning the fact that the Japan bombings were the first time atomic bombs were used on civilians should not be included because it "doesn’t have anything to do with accusations of state terrorism" is false because it is not a random fact unrelated to the subject matter. Rather it give some background information about the bombings which ARE described as State Terrorism. The analogy you used is not valid as its would be a random historical fact completely unrelated to the subject: "The pogo stick was patented in 1919 is a historical fact, it isn’t a charge of state terrorism.") However, if sources talked about the pogo stick as being used as a lethal weapon to commit State Terrorism by the US, then it would be perfectly fine to include a fact about its origin. Its relevant to a discussion and provides historical context to the subject matter. You act like some random fact is being tacked on that has nothing to do with the subject matter. This is why your analogy and argument doesn't hold up.

I asked for an example of SYN, and you stated: "I tracked down the original book and the original page and yes, it's synthesis, but it's the authors synthesis and not original research." But that is not SYN. SYN is is form of original research. Its when we, the editors, merge two sources to come up with our own novel combination and bring forward a new conclusion not supported by either source. However, good sources are allowed to do their own SYN. They are allowed their own Original Research. We only cite them. So you have a misunderstanding of the SYN policy.

You allege a coatrack. First of all that is not WP policy, its just an essay. But, a coatrack is an article that presumes to be about A while it is in fact dedicated to B. The present article is supposed to be about state terrorism and the US, and it does in fact cover state terrorism by the US. Where are the coats on this rack? Where is the apparent topic of the article really being used to hang another topic in the content? The apparent topic of this article is US terrorism. The "coat" hung over this is what? I've asked for specifics from the article many times and despite you claiming to give them to me, I still don't see them. You give one example of "USA not wiping out the MEK refugee camp in Iraq" as State Terrorism? Can you please quote the actual text in the article so we can look at it in context and see if its belongs? I don't see this in the article.

Since we are going around in circles a a a bit I recommend maybe starting a RfC process or perhaps the third opinion pages? Esp. since we have a different understanding of policy. BernieW650 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Your argument that mentioning the fact that the Japan bombings were the first time atomic bombs were used on civilians should not be included because it "doesn’t have anything to do with accusations of state terrorism" is false because it is not a random fact unrelated to the subject matter."

firstly it's included twice, secondly it's not state terrorism to be the first and only person to use the bomb to end a war. It's arguably a "war crime" but the onus is on you to relate the content to state terrorism. That IS a random fact, it has nothing to do with "state terrorism".

"But that is not SYN"

I acknowledged that specific example wasn't. It's an opinion of a "film compose-writer". It is sourced to 2 separate authors in 2 separate articles. Another mistake that you blindly reverted.

"First of all that is not WP policy, its just an essay."

Coatracks devolve into attack pages and attack pages get deleted.

But, a coatrack is an article that presumes to be about A while it is in fact dedicated to B.'

Like an article about "state terrorism" that is abut warcrimes, terror, weakening moral taboos, who used what weapon first, etc? yeah, you are building a coatrack.

I've asked for specifics from the article many times and despite you claiming to give them to me, I still don't see them"

I don't think you have read a word I have written.

You give one example of "USA not wiping out the MEK refugee camp in Iraq" as State Terrorism?

"In April 2007, CNN reported that the U.S. military and the International Committee of the Red Cross were protecting the People's Mujahedin of Iran, with the U.S. Army regularly escorting PMOI supply runs between Baghdad and its base, Camp Ashraf."..OK, that's not an accusation of state terrorism. At most that could be state sponsorship of terrorism which is a different thing then "state terrorism". Got it?

" recommend maybe starting a RfC process or perhaps the third opinion pages?"

If you want to take it to the Mediation then so be it. V7-sport (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Finally you have cited a specific example, found in the section: People's Mujahedin of Iran. Was that so hard? I do note that oddly is not something you were edit warring about. Your edit does not remove this. Looking this over, I would be okay if you removed that section as the sources are not strong enough to support the claim that its an Act of State Terrorism by the United States. Seems more along the lines of supporting a terrorist organization by protecting them, or in your words sponsorship. So if you wish to remove that section only, it will not be opposed by me.

Now, if you can, cite any other section or text specifically that you see as problem, I'm happy to work with you, doing it one at a time. Best to use the section below. The stuff we don't agree on we can leave that for a RfC page or 3rd opinion (this is different than mediation). BernieW650 (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you kidding? There are examples all over this article of material that has nothing to do with State Terrorism.

Great, I'll remove the People's Mujahedin section.

I have specified specific problems with the atomic bombs section, (as well as the cite tags, spelling mistakes and other issues that you have been reverting). V7-sport (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I assume you have specific problems with that section since that is the one you keep removing it almost in its entirety. That is why I'm opposing it strongly. Please stop. But please provide the specifics, I can see what your talking about and we can discuss if we agree if it's a problem and then how to fix it. Your claims with have some substance if you can pin point the specific text and the source that does not support that claim. Saying "all over the place" is not helpful. BernieW650 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Saying that I am removing it almost in it's entirety is bullshit. I have removed parts that had nothing to do with state terrorism or that were sourced to self published, transcribed pamphlets. That's it. AGAIN, I HAVE PROVIDED SPECIFIC REASONS WHY I REMOVED THE TEXT. AS DID THE EDITOR WHO REMOVED IT PREVIOUSLY. PLEASE PROVIDE SPECIFIC REASONS WHY YOU WANT THE SPECIFIC TEXT INCLUDED.V7-sport (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

[This looks like half the text to me] And it looks like, contrary to your claim, that is has everything to do with subject matter of state terrorism, supported by valid sources. And, no you have not provided specifics, either in this case. By specifics I mean, lets take one sentence at a time, that you see as most problematic, by quoting the actual text. Then we can look at the source and deem if its valid, and if its properly supports the statement. We can also see if we agree if the statement itself belongs in the article. You did this once with the Iran/Muhadjin section, and I did not oppose you removing that section. Since that method worked, why not do it with the Japan section? BernieW650 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So "almost in it's entirety" isn't the case.... yeah, I knew that. What, -specifically- was well sourced and has to do with state terrorism was removed per your objection? V7-sport (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See below. BernieW650 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Specific proposed changes

New section, where you can quote the actual text that you have a problem with so we can discuss that. That may be more fruitful than talking about policy. But lets do that one at a time. Then when we agree about what change that we should bring to correct a problem or make something better, we can then implement that change in the article. If we can't agree, then we move on to the next specific, pending feedback from a Rfc or Third Opinion page. Sound like a plan? BernieW650 (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, Lets do it one edit at a time, by inclusion. You have now blanket reverted edits again without any effort to explain why the text involved should be included. Per WP:BURDEN it is up to you to explain why you think the specific text you are restoring should be included in this article. Interesting how you can go a day and a half without answering me on the talk page yet you arrive on the scene as soon as there is a revert. V7-sport (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I answered Saturday, and took Sunday off. Nothing interesting about that. The text you are removing is well sourced and cited material about the subject that is the long standing version. Going back in history I see its been here a number of years. That burden has been met. If you are removing any un-sourced claims, then yes, reinclusion has the burden of providing a valid source. But, please quote the actual text here, specifically that you are removing as not having a source supporting its claim. What I see you removing is the bulk of the section that is well sourced. If you wish to remove cited material then you have to provide specific, valid reasons, or arrive at some consensus that it doesn't belong. And, yes, lets go over your proposed changes one at a time. BernieW650 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Your good faith goes out the window when you obstinately restore entire swaths of text that are redundant, contain cite tag errors, have nothing to do with the subject at hand, when you censor your talk page, restore my comments there after I removed them and run to the admins to complain that I am edit warring after you reverted twice in under 5 minutes. OK? Reinclusion has the burden not only of finding a valid source but a source that ties the text into state terrorism. A source alone doesn't mean that it should be included here. I could source what Brittany Spears wore last week but that wouldn't mean that it had anything to do with state terrorism. I HAVE provided specific valid reasons for the removal. I believe Jehochman did as well. They are not "my proposed changes" they are yours. V7-sport (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

LOOK, it's easy, look at the diffs, make a note of what you want to restore and we will talk it out here. Don't revert the entire thing. V7-sport (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good faith does not go out the window. It's core policy and not optional. Those who throw it out the window are actually violating a core WP policy, which our editing here is contingent upon agreeing to follow.

You are making lots of claims about text containing cite errors, having nothing to do with the subject, etc, however, if you want to make progress supporting these claims you have to cite the text you are talking about. You did that above with a different section (ironically not what you were removing), and I reviewed it and said I'm ok if you take that out. So lets go over any thing else you can actually quote and the problem you have with it, so we can see we will have further agreement about your changes. BernieW650 (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop the reversions, start with the text that was there when you started in on this and we will work our way back to good faith. The cite errors were in the Philippine section, that you have just mindlessly, stupidly reverted and are now laughably asking that you be treated in good faith. The spelling corrections were peppered throughout the article. You just mindlessly reverted them as well. V7-sport (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As I keep asking you, please cite the actual text with problems, spelling error, etc. I'm reverting you because your one edit is simply reverting to your contested mass blanking of most of the section that contains well sourced and legitimate content. This is strongly opposed. If there are indeed problems, if you can bring the specific problem to light here, we can discuss it. I'm sure we all want to fix spelling error, etc, but that is now what I'm seeing in your edits, and not why they are being opposed. BernieW650 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As I keep telling you, I did, repeatedly at this point. It's up to you, per WP:Burden to establish why it should be restored. What you are doing is putting sections in like "Some scholars have also argued that the bombings weakened moral taboos against attacks on civilians, and allege that this led to such attacks becoming a standard tactic in subsequent US military actions. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain the only time nuclear weapons have been used in war." when the same thing is said in the paragraph above it and below. Blindly reverting this text is completely arbitrary and the spelling errors, cite tags and redundancies that you are repeatedly restoring SHOW THAT YOU AREN'T EVEN READING WHAT YOU ARE REVERTING. What "well sourced" material am I blanking? What in specific do you object to? I've asked you that repeatedly yet you just come back with more inane questions and blanket reverts.V7-sport (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Burden is about the burden to provide a valid source that supports the conent. But what your removing is with valid sources:[Japan section that you are removing in particular is well cited]. Please list other problems specifically, i.e spelling error, etc. that you keep claiming exist. Blanking the whole section is hardly an acceptable solution. Again, specifics, one by one and we will address them, if they are real. BernieW650 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Showing the diff over and over doesn't signify that you are reading it, just looking at the pretty colors. I already listed the spelling errors, etc when I edited it. Again, What, -specifically- was well sourced and has to do with state terrorism was removed per your objection? Answer the question for once. V7-sport (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You removed so many, and looking over it, I don't see a problem with any of the sources you removed. They all look fine. Why don't we start with one source at a time that you have a problem with, and state the issue, one at a time. Thanks. As far as spelling errors, please list them here. I assure you, I have no problem correcting spelling errors. :) BernieW650 (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've answered interminable questions from you and just asked one that you keep running away from. What, -specifically- was well sourced and has to do with state terrorism was removed per your objection? V7-sport (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I said, they all are. I have no problems with the many sources you removed. Please list one at time what source has what problem, and I'll look at it.

In the meanwhile, I made a maximum effort to trim down the section. It may not be everything you want but it is a compromise and I think removes some of the bloat you are concerned about. Let me know if this trimming down is in the direction you want to go with and thus meets your approval. My comprise attempt to trim the section to what is acceptable to me If not, I'll happily self-revert. Thanks. BernieW650 (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"they all are." isn't a specific citation of a passage that was removed. It's a cop out. I'm not just talking about sources at the moment, what-specific- part of the material in question was well source, not redundant and had to do with state terrorism. I've already shown that not all of that fits the criteria, so answer the question... (after how many days?) and yes, self-revert, we are discussing a specific set of edits, no need to muddy the waters.V7-sport (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, we'll do it your way then. Btw, I removed parts of what you wanted removed, so that is not muddying the waters, its clearing it up, since we have less to dispute about. Now lets look at one at time, then. But lets start with two sources here of material you removed, which we can discuss:

"Critical scholarship has focused on the argument that the use of atomic weapons was "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Ref: |title=Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground|journal=Diplomatic History|date=2005-April|first=J. Samuel|last=Walker|coauthors=|volume=29|issue=2|pages=312..."Certain scholars who oppose the decision to use of the atom bomb, while they state it was unnecessary and immoral, do not claim it was state terrorism per se. Walker's 2005 overview of recent historiography did not discuss the issue of state terrorism. ref: Walker, "Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision",..." Let me know what problems you have with each of these sources and statements, and see if we can come to an agreement. BernieW650 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Awesome how you didn't self revert after you offered to. Guess that offer was not true. I see you also removed the "even though it was done in wartime" and yet you want me to assume good faith. Want good faith? Don't lie, weasel in disputed changes on the guise of "compromise" and edit war. V7-sport (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, assume good faith. I was removing redundancies, and trimming the section, instead of taking the whole thing out. I gave you two sources above with the text, as you had requested, so lets address that, so we can continue to make progress. BernieW650 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit, you have reneged, edit warred and made a mess.This really isn't going to work unless we go back to the previous sets of edits and add instead of start off with this slapped together set of nonsense that has come from you arbitrary reverting the work of 2 other editors. V7-sport (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I found the double reference to the atomic bombs being the first time used against civilians, which you complained was cited twice, and thus redundant. So I removed one. See you are making progress. Just need to take things slower, one at a time. BernieW650 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you read what you were reverting. Progress indeed. V7-sport (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read before, too. But, you had so many issues and not enough specifics to be able to identify what changes were good ones, since you removed so much material at once. In those cases, its best to revert it completely and then go back and find what can be changed in the direction you want, with discussion so its not contested but done collaboratively. BernieW650 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I had not "removed so much material at once". Those were edits done by another editor and that I re-went over to explain the reasoning to you. You arbitrarily restored so much material, from multiple editing sessions, from multiple editors without any genuine effort to read it through that you wound up restoring redundancies, error tags and spelling mistakes. Now you are surprised when that is pointed out. And no, it's not best to restore the whole pile of crap, it's best to add back for just this reason. Your solution to this dilemma has been to edit war. V7-sport (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't find your account here accurate, but instead of argue about it, I want to focus on our progress below. It's just not constructive to scrabble about this as it only amounts to accusations, and finger pointing. I see we are finally making progress below so lets confine ourselves to specific content dispute issues that remain. Those who want to check the history of the changes can see for themselves. BernieW650 (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re"Certain scholars who oppose the decision to use of the atom bomb, while they state it was unnecessary and immoral, do not claim it was state terrorism per se. Walker's 2005 overview of recent historiography did not discuss the issue of state terrorism." Well at least you got "state terrorism" in there. Fine, We can keep keep that sentence and I'll go one further, keep the Burleigh Taylor Wilkins quote and add that citation to the end. That gets rid of the irrelevant section and restores content you wanted. Self revert to the last version and we can use that as a starting point going forward.V7-sport (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are now dropping your opposition to removing those two sources and the associated text, if I understand you correctly? And, you are also now fine with the Wilkins quote that states its viewed primarily as war? I'm not sure what you mean by adding that citation at the end, though. I think its important enough to have that little heading to make clear that view for NPOV.

Anyway, moving on, here is another section that you removed which we can discuss next:

"According to Thomas Allen, the bombings were part of the overall military strategy to defeat Japan by forcing as quick an end to the war as possible while minimizing loss of life...." ref: Code-Name Downfall |last=Allen |first=Thomas |coauthors=Norman Polmar|pages=266–270 |year= 1995|publisher=Simon & Schuster. And, "However, there is considerable debate on the use of nuclear weapons to achieve that military objective that centers on whether killing hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians with such weapons was moral or even necessary, especially the need for a second nuclear bomb to be dropped on Nagasaki." BernieW650 (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Also when you get a chance can you please provide the specifics of your charge above, re cite errors and spelling. Specifically I refer to your comments: "The cite errors were in the Philippine section, that you have just mindlessly, stupidly reverted and are now laughably asking that you be treated in good faith. The spelling corrections were peppered throughout the article. You just mindlessly..." If you can provide the specific errors/spelling, I promise to look at them and I'm sure we would agree to correct it. :) BernieW650 (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

“So you are now dropping your opposition to removing those two sources and the associated text, if I understand you correctly?”

I’ve dropped opposition to the Wilkins quote that you mentioned earlier. If you want to add the wording “Walker's 2005 overview of recent historiography on Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb did not discuss the issue of state terrorism. “ or the like I wont object, however I see it as unnecessary and arguably misleading. (Not mentioning “state terrorism” isn’t the same thing as stating it wasn’t state terrorism.)

“I think its important enough to have that little heading to make clear that view for NPOV.”

That doesn’t make any sense. NPOV? Keeping the section “Viewed as diplomacy or state terrorism not considered“ is just not going to fly. There’s already an article on The Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It’s mentioned in The Manhattan Project, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, "Little Boy," “Fat Man” “nuclear weapon”, “history of nuclear weapons ” and undoubtedly elsewhere. This is an article on the USA and state terrorism and you are arguing for a section overtly states that “state terrorism isn’t considered”.

The section: "According to Thomas Allen, the bombings were part of the overall military strategy to defeat Japan by forcing as quick an end to the war as possible while minimizing loss of life However, there is considerable debate on the use of nuclear weapons to achieve that military objective that centers on whether killing hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians with such weapons was moral or even necessary, especially the need for a second nuclear bomb to be dropped on Nagasaki.” Doesn’t address state terrorism.

“Also when you get a chance can you please provide the specifics of your charge above, re cite errors and spelling.”

Look at the diffs.

“Specifically I refer to your comments: "The cite errors were in the Philippine section, that you have just mindlessly, stupidly reverted and are now laughably asking that you be treated in good faith. The spelling corrections were peppered throughout the article. You just mindlessly..."”

Indeed. The self-published sources citation tags that are in the Philippines section are for articles, not sections. I corrected that and you reverted it without bothering to read what you were restoring. You have done this about 8 times now, in violation of WP:BRD.

I’m going to change the section to reflect what isn’t in dispute. We can build on it from there. The following section is the difference between versions; we can argue that out here.

To start:

•“Because concentrated civilian populated areas were targeted,”

Removed because these were legitimate, defended military targets.

”and historians”

It’s primarily academics who are making these charges.

Some scholars have also argued that the bombings weakened moral taboos against attacks on civilians, and allege that this led to such attacks becoming a standard tactic in subsequent US military actions”

Weakening taboos isn’t state terrorism.

According to Thomas B. Allen the bombings were part of the overall military strategy to defeat Japan by forcing as quick an end to the war as possible while minimizing loss of life and also avoid a very costly,[sic] in terms of both Japanese and Allied casualties,[sic] invasion of the Japanese mainland”

Doesn’t address state terrorism. I'm not going to lose sleep if it's included but someone else may.

However, there is considerable debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the use of nuclear weapons to achieve that military objective that centers on whether killing hundreds of thousands of unarmed civilians with such weapons was moral or even necessary, especially the need for a second nuclear bomb to be dropped on Nagasaki.

Aside from not being a charge of State terrorism, Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets and both were defended. “Unarmed” would imply that there wasn’t a Japanese air force, anti-aircraft batteries, Navy and Army defending the city and the state.

“Historian Howard Zinn writes: "if 'terrorism' has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Zinn cites the sociologist Kai Erikson who states that "The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point?"

Was removed because it doesn’t address state terrorism and is sourced to a self published pamphlet that was transcribed, self published again and retrieved through the archives. It also is inaccurate as they were defended military targets.

- - This is the diff, [13] please consult this and build on what we have as agreement on, we can progress from here instead of reverting the whole thing which is going to take us to arbitration. V7-sport (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I had to revert you because you again deleted a large amount of well sourced content that I think legitimately belongs in the article per NPOV policies. And, we are still discussing your reasons--actually only now starting to. I'll respond to the above tomorrow, but we should not just remove all this material until we discuss why it should be removed and come to some consensus about the major change you want. And, as I said, we can make more progress by dealing with one source and statement at a time.BernieW650 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You did it again, within 5 minutes. Certainty not enough time to read what I had posted and certainty not enough time to read what I have posted on the talk page. That's edit warring. I am going to revert it again, if you want to revert what I wrote provide some kind of specific reason regarding the specific text per wp:burden or we can just go mediation at this point. I'm sick of your bad faith bullshit.V7-sport (talk) 23:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand this policy as well, getting it backwards. You don't get to force these massive changes to the article, pending someone first addressing each point right away. Rather, the changes come about to the article pending actual discussion and agreement with other editors for making them. You raised the points and I said I would address them by tomorrow. We had been making progress and I have been working with you to see what changes you want that we can find agreement about, so its disappointing that you are reverting back to editing via edit warring. That is not acceptable editing behavior, as you should have learned by now.BernieW650 (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I really suggest that the two of you step away from this for a while. --John (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I protected this and blocked one participant in the ongoing edit war. Lest this look unfair I am keen to enforce 0RR on this article once protection expires. Can I ask those interested in editing this article to list their agreement here? If we reach agreement to avoid reversion, we could even lift the protection before the week is up. To clarify, 0RR means nobody reverts another editor's work. It is meant to ensure that changes are discussed and agreed in talk before they go live. It takes a lot of good faith and patience. However the alternative is more blocks and more protection which I am keen to avoid. What do you think? --John (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I could agree with this assuming the following:

V7-Sport's latest mass deletion and tagging spree (the edit made without consensus, immediately before the article was locked) is reverted.
All further changes are applied by yourself or another uninvolved admin, only after consensus for the change has been reached on the talk page. That is, I cannot agree not to revert as long as V7-Sport is adding tags without explanation, or removing large amounts of content against consensus. If everyone can agree that such removals and tagging will not happen until consensus has been reached on the talk page, I would be fine with it. We should identify problematic sections on the talk page, and write a draft. Then when everyone agrees that the draft section is in line with Wikipedia policy (i.e. whether or not people "like it" has no relevance), the draft section can be integrated into the article by an admin.

If either of these criteria are not met, I cannot agree to this. If we can agree to them, then I can accept the restrictions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I second Jrtayloriv thoughts, here. John, what you propose is a very reasonable solution and I would agree if we start this approach from long standing version that was worked out with consensus among many editors. I know protection does not imply endorsement, but unfortunately the page was protected right after Sport V7's last edit where he wiped out all this work, prematurely. I went back in the history and found other admins worked to through compromises to arrive at that balance that was undone with SportV7's last edit which consisted of a mass deletions of sourced material under the false guise of undoing vandalism. Its true some of this material may need to go, but done so collaboratively with other editors. Otherwise its unfair to enforce and thus reward one editors rather bad behavior. So, if we could undo that last edit, and then apply your standard moving forward with a 0RR, it would make a lot of sense. Such big changes should only be carried out collaboratively with some consensus, esp. when they are opposed and were the result of many editors hard work in putting together. I remain open to working with any editor amicably, but we should not tolerate one editor forcing his changes against consensus by edit warring, and then leaving it in that state. Otherwise, we would be enforcing one editors non-collaborative mass deletion of well sourced material that he falsely called "vandalism," and which was his 4th revert in a 24 hour period, to boot. Perhaps a 1RR policy might work better as it allows editors to make bold changes but when those bold changes are contested, they must go to talk and work it out. That was the rule that I was imploring SportV7 to abide by. BernieW650 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I see good progress here. Do we have a consensus version that we can work from to reach a compromise? If so, can we see a link to it? The reason I prefer 0RR over 1RR is that it should lead to faster progress and is easier to enforce. What do folks think? --John (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus version that we can work from to reach a compromise? -- I would recommend this one for now. This is the revision just before V7-Sports most recent batch of undiscussed deletions.

The reason I prefer 0RR over 1RR is that it should lead to faster progress and is easier to enforce. -- Again, I'm fine with 0RR assuming that all edits are applied by a non-involved admin, only after consensus has been reached on talk. However, I don't think 0RR is appropriate as long as users like V7-sport are able to make streams of inappropriate edits without discussing them on talk. The current edit war was caused by his numerous attempts to make deletions without consensus, and as long as he is able to continue this sort of disruptive behavior, I think 0RR would be even worse than the current situation. Currently, while we have unfortunately been forced to waste immense amounts of time dealing with his antics, at least we are able to undo the damage. But with 0RR in place, coupled with his ability to make disruptive edits, this would no longer be the case -- everyone would be forced to sit by and let him trash the article without any recourse.

What is your view on this John? Do you think it is reasonable to require that all edits are discussed on talk? If so, I'm all for applying 0RR here, because I think that it would force people to discuss rather than having revert battles. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The version listed by Jrtayloriv is the long standing consensus version before the attempted mass deletions that certainly was strongly challenged. I'd be okay with using that as the reference point moving forward along the proposed 0RR. BernieW650 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The on-going problem with this article is that it should explain why some scholars describe some U.S. actions as terrorism and how their views have been received. Instead it appears to be a defense of their views. On the other side, some editors do not think that these views should be explained at all, and that the article should be deleted. We need to resolve this conflict. I suggest that editors look at other articles about controversial views to see how this article might be written. The Protestant ethic for example, which is about the theory that Protestantism is responsible for the commercial success of Northern Europe and North America, does not have a long history section relating the rise of Britain, Holland and the United States. TFD (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that we should include more information about the analysis used by these scholars, and how they are received, and more on the theoretical conceptions involved in making them. But I disagree that by reporting their views with proper attributive language is in any way a defense of said views, esp. if we include all views related to the subjects claims, including the fact that mainstream discourse on a particular event, for example the Atomic Bombings, fail to mention it as an incident of State Terrorism. Highlighting that this is very much a minority revisionist view is important for NPOV, even if that source does not itself directly talk about State Terrorism. This is one way to achieve balance, and why I disagreed with the very narrow standard advocated for by V7-Sport. Of course I'm fully willing to compromise and go with what the community decides per consensus.BernieW650 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD -- re: your example of Protestant ethic -- the reason we don't have a detailed history about the rise of Holland there is because that's not what the article is about. On the other hand, this article is about actions that are considered by some to be "state terrorism". If we were to write about the entire history of U.S. conflict with Cuba, then your analogy would hold -- that would be inappropriate in an article on U.S. state terrorism. However, writing a detailed history of those U.S. actions against Cuba that certain authors have claimed constitute state terrorism is not inappropriate. Describing the claims of the authors cited here requires some discussion of the U.S. actions they are basing the claims on. You can't talk about a claim that actions in Cuba were state terrorism without talking about the actions themselves. That said, I do agree that the article should not be composed simply of history, while lacking coverage of the political analysis. The problem that I see right now is that we aren't going into enough detail about the analysis of these events, and that the article consists almost entirely of history. However, I don't think that this requires removing the history, but rather building on it by adding the analyses. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this article needs to head to arbitration. There's a banned editor socking, Giovanni33, and tag teaming with some other editors to push original research and overweight the article with fringe views. It is sad when an administrator suggests 0RR as a resolution when the real problem isn't reverting, it's abusive editing by one side. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman -- If you think someone is socking, please request an SPI. And even if there does turn out to be a sockpuppet, please don't exploit the actions of a single editor to imply that the majority of editors here who are working to improve the article (as opposed to the small minority who wish to see it deleted) are "tag teaming" with him. Most of the editors here would just like to see the article improved, and have nothing to do with sock puppets, and claiming that they do is inappropriate (as you should know). You should know that weak positions are generally not bolstered by accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being or collaborating with sockpuppets - it only makes you look more desperate. But again, if you feel like you have a grounds for it, please take the issue to SPI and have it put to rest, so the rest of us can focus on improving the article.

Regarding 0RR, the administrator suggested 0RR because instead of collaborating on the talk page, people are edit warring. You are right that reverting is not a problem -- the problem is repeated non-consensual edits by yourself and V7-sport, who have both explicitly stated that your interest lies in having the article removed (whether bit by bit or through AFD), which is not what the community has said it wants in the 10 deletion discussions we've had here. Instead of discussing changes, even though you both know them to be controversial, you are rapidly making changes and trying to force them into the article, rather than discussing on the talk page. Much of the revert-warring is simply a symptom of this deeper issue. 0RR will not solve this problem, What will fix it is temporary restriction on inclusion/removal of content without consensus, which will enable progress to be made on the article by forcing talk page collaboration; 0RR will simply be there to enable consensus changes to be included without having the edits immediately reverted by disruptive editors like your blocked friend V7-Sport. There was a point before your and V7-sport's most recent deletion sprees where we were actively collaborating on the talk page (on the Atomic Bombings section), and making good progress. I'd like to see this type of thing happening here again. I don't see any reason for arbitration -- 0RR and edit restrictions will solve the problem nicely. We'll discuss changes on talk, and then include them in the article. Once the article is in a state that everyone agrees is "pretty good", it can be unlocked, and the restrictions removed. If people attempt to disrupt this process, then they can be taken individually to arbitration. I don't think that taking everyone here to arbitration over V7-sport's disruption is a sensible course of action. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have requested SPI and checkuser serveral times. The guy is very persistent, and I'm rather busy in real life at the moment. I don't have hours to spend filling out paperwork, punching, spindling, and mutilating forms until the bureaucracy finally does something about it. Res ipsa loquitur. The article is a mess of OR, SYN and poor organization. Any efforts to prune, balance and filter are thwarted by tendentious editors. I've given up.

0RR is mistake in this case, because it's assuming that both sides are equally in the wrong; they aren't. One side is backed by policy and consensus, and the other isn't. Jehochman ^Talk 01:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have requested SPI and checkuser serveral times. The guy is very persistent, and I'm rather busy in real life at the moment. -- If you don't have time to deal with it, I'm sure you could coach V7-sport on how to file an SPI when he gets back from his block, if he has any trouble. I'm certain he'd be more than willing to take on the burden.

The article is a mess of OR, SYN and poor organization. -- I agree with you that there are organizational problems, but I'm not aware of an OR/SYN. Claims of OR/SYN have been repeatedly made but very few examples have been provided (none of which have remained after being mentioned). I'm sure that if editors that see original research or synthesis were to point out specific examples, that the problem would be dealt with promptly.

Any efforts to prune, balance and filter are thwarted by tendentious editors. -- I don't believe that efforts to prune or "filter" have been thwarted, especially after comparing the article's current size to its size several months ago. As far as balance, the only way to fix that is provide sources, not by repeatedly saying that the article is unbalanced.

it's assuming that both sides are equally in the wrong; they aren't. -- First of all, I don't think that there are "two sides". I think that there are a variety of viewpoints being expressed here. There is a very small minority of editors who are not willing to discuss anything on talk, who feel like anyone supporting anything short of deletion is "in the wrong", and who are edit warring instead of gaining consensus on talk for significant changes. These editors are who the restriction is targeted against. Nobody other than these people are assumed to be "in the wrong". The editors who are willing to collaborate with people they disagree with shouldn't have a problem, since they can still get valid changes made to the article by just discussing them on the talk page, even with 0RR in place.

One side is backed by policy and consensus, and the other isn't. -- Again, I don't think there are sides, and I don't think there is a consensus about much of anything here just yet. That will only come if people are forced to talk about things, rather than unilaterally forcing their own will on everyone else. This is the sort of thing that editing restrictions are designed to foster. As far as being "backed by policy", I'll first say that certain editors such as V7-sport are certainly not in line with policy, as evidenced by his repeated blocks, and the almost universal lack of support for his behavior. However, I feel like the majority of editors are more than willing to deal with violations of policy as long as they are pointed out. If you feel that there are violations of policy that have not been addressed, please bring up specifics so that people can deal with them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The article is out of protection now. I have read the discussion above. I am open to other suggestions including arbitration. Let me be very clear that 0RR applies until we agree an alternative. Editors who have been involved in this discussion can expect a block without any further warning if they revert. Uninvolved editors will get one warning then a block. We are not going back to edit-warring. Discuss here, find consensus, then let someone neutral add (or remove) whatever material. --John (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is clear, however, the problem is that version that is being currently enforced pending discussion was the last edit by V7-Sport where he blanked a large amount of content without consensus. Those big changes should not be allowed to stand after they were strongly opposed until the discussion shows what changes the community things are appropriate. Therefore, I ask that the version prior to this be restored as the default, being the consensus version. BernieW650 (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please Bernie33, if there were consensus as to the material in question there wouldn't have been any reversions. Most of those changes were performed by another editor and there has not been any consensus for the materials inclusion. Per WP:Burden we should start from here and move forward, if that's possible. V7-sport (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Train wreck

An IP has been reverting. When a banned editor is playing silly games with multiple accounts and proxies, 0RR only restrains the legitimate editors. SPI has been filed with copious evidence. Its time somebody took decisive action to resolve matters here. If that's not possible, the matter needs arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection might help. The IP is probably an open proxy and has violated 0RR. TFD (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have enacted semi-protection. Thank you for not reverting. Instead, can we highlight the unsatisfactory parts here with a view to trimming them, rewriting them, and (especially) backing them up with reliable sources? --John (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

arguably?

This article advocates the supposed premise by using the word arguably twice in the first to sentences. Arguably? What is that? That's not an encyclopedic way of presenting the issue at all. All through the article it advances the concept as if it's a long editorial. Bad article...really. RxS (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree this seems weak. How would you propose improving it? --John (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is problematic. Jehochman wrote this without discussing the changes on the talk page during his and V7-Sport's most recent edit spree. I would suggest that we revert to the version that was up for a long time before this latest batch of edits. The version I'm suggesting we revert to reads as follows (updated per discussion below):

The United States government has been the subject of accusations of state terrorism by ~~many~~ various groups and individuals, including historians, political theorists, government officials, and others. These accusations also include arguments that the US has funded, trained, and harbored individuals or groups who engaged in terrorism.

Of course, I'm sure it can be improved, but I think it's far better and more neutral than the current version. It doesn't use language like "arguably", but merely says that certain people have made allegations, without commenting one way or the other on the validity of the allegations. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is much better, who thought the current version is an improvement? Drop the word many (vague) and replace it with various... RxS (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "various" would be much better. It's hard to tell who thought the current version is better, other than Jehochman, since there was no discussion about the changes to the lead (as is the case with the dozens of other dubious edits that him and V7-Sport pushed through recently). Anyhow, I've updated the revision above to use "various". Thanks for the suggestion. Any other problems you see with this? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's great work and I agree it would be an improvement. --John (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that changing the introduction to this previous wording is a clear improvement. Thanks, Jrtayloriv, for making this suggestion. BernieW650 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that "various groups and individuals" needs to be specified. What sorts of groups and individuals? Radicals such as Noam Chomsky, and governments such as Cuba and Venezuela. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.V7-sport (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We've already been over this in the previous discussions. Saying things such as "radicals like Noam Chomsky" is inappropriate and POV, and is also highly selective. There are simply too many individuals to list of all of them in the lead. Selecting a handful of people and nations out of the many that have made the claims, and making up biased labels for them to push the point of view that the claims are all made by radicals and commies is not in line with what we are trying to do here (i.e. write an objective/neutral encyclopedia article). The sources are clearly attributed in the article, and people can make their own determinations about the individual authors, and what type of people they are. We don't need to cherrypick a handful of them that we think are especially red, label them as "radicals", and list those in the lead. (Why, for instance, did you not choose Ruth Blakely and Richard Falk instead of Chomsky and why not Nicaragua and Japan instead of Cuba and Venezuela?) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the approach by Jrtayloriv here. Lets not try to bias the reader by using labels, naming specific authors as "radicals," etc. That is pushing a POV. Nuetral language with proper citations that support the claims are more in keeping with the norms of encyclopedic writing. Otherwise its more akin to editorial writing. BernieW650 (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I went back into history and found another version of the introduction that we can also consider. This bypasses the whole issue "various individuals, groups, etc" by just stating that it has been accused. Then it allows the body of the article to talk about who does the accussing. If we can't find agreement over this point, then this might be a simple an elegant solution. The text is: "The United States has been accused of having directly committed acts of state terrorism, as well as funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism.

I agree that this is better, and avoids having us cherrypick labels for the authors; it's less grammatically awkward as well. In either case, we will eventually need to expand the lead to summarize the entire article. But for now, even though it's very short, I think that this is a good place to start. (By the way, I hope you don't mind that I removed the citations from the end of the quoted passage to make editing the talk page easier, and because they (a) aren't needed here and (b) aren't needed in the article.). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all. Thanks for the feedback and helpful tips. BernieW650 (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead should make it clear who is making the accusations. IE. The United States government has been accused by academics and members of foreign governments... Further the list of locations should be removed as there is no accusation of terrorism for many of them.V7-sport (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as "academics and foreign governments", I don't think that something along these lines is a problem, even though this is already clear from the attributions in text. Would you be satisfied with something along the lines of the following?:

The United States government has been the subject of accusations of state terrorism by various scholars and foreign government officials. These accusations also include arguments that the US has funded, trained, and harbored individuals or groups who engaged in terrorism.

.I don't really have a problem with this if you feel that this is better. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence is fine by me however I think academics is more inclusive and less pejorative then "scholars". Any objection to:

"The United States government has been the subject of accusations of state terrorism by various academics and foreign government officials."

As far as "these accusations also include arguments that the US has funded, trained, and harbored individuals or groups who engaged in terrorism." it ought to be made clear in the lead there is a difference between "state terrorism" "state sponsored terrorism" and terrorism. I'm concerned the language proposed might cause the reader to confuse the issues.V7-sport (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I like that version. Pared down and clean. You make a good point about the 2nd sentence. Is there a way to make that distinction without being overly verbose? In the meantime, any objection placing the text above into the lead? If this article is about state terrorism, the 2nd sentence should be removed for now. RxS (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No objections here.V7-sport (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism funded by the state is considered by many authors to be a form of state terrorism, in addition to acts directly committed by the state itself. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Scholar is not a pejorative term, so I'm not sure what you mean there. And, in fact, scholar is actually more inclusive than the term "academic". All "academics" are scholars, however, academics are only those scholars that work in the academy (i.e. a university, college, etc.). So the term "scholar" would actually address your stated concerns better. Regarding the distinction between "state terrorism" and "state sponsored terrorism", only some authors make this distinction, while others consider state-sponsored terrorism to be a form of state terrorism. That is something that is better addressed in the Definitions section of the article state terrorism. This article does not need a definitions section, because this is not an article about the term state terrorism itself (of course, all of this has already been covered in the RFC about the definitions section).-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"academic"–noun

"a student or teacher at a college or university."

"a person who is academic in background, attitudes, methods, etc.: He was by temperament an academic, concerned with books and the arts."

"scholar"-Noun

"a learned or erudite person, especially one who has profound knowledge of a particular subject.

a student; pupil.

a student who has been awarded a scholarship.

I think academic is more appropriate as some of the sources cited are not authorities in the field of state terrorism.

There is a distinction between "Terrorism" "state terrorism" and "state sponsored terrorism", which is why we need to be specific and this is an article about "state terrorism" as allegedly practiced by the United States.V7-sport (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no view about using scholar vs academic. Both work for me. However, Jrtayloriv is right about the alleged distinctions between the those different labels. You might see a distinction between them, but many other authors regard any of these actions directly or indirectly by a State as a form of State Terrorism, i.e. funding, arming, supporting, etc. The line is not a clear one. For this article State Terrorism is inclusive, as some of the sources we rely on apply the terms interchangeably. The issue about definitions, I think is best left for the main article on State Terrorism. BernieW650 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if terrorism funded by the state is considered a form of state terrorism than that term (state terrorism) should be enough to cover the concept for purposes of the lead right? So that leaves us with The United States government has been the subject of accusations of state terrorism by various scholars and foreign government officials. (I don't have any cares about scholars vs academic). Any objections? RxS (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's important to make the destination because this article has been nominated for deletion 10 times as a WP:Coatrack of POV. If anything can be called "state terrorism" then the article become just a litany of claims of wrongdoing, all labeled "terrorism". Previously giving radio interviews was used as an example of the USA engaging in "state terrorism". There is a recognized difference between the 3 entities of "state terrorism, state sponsored terrorism and terrorism, if we confuse the issue as has been done in the past this just becomes a mess from the get-go. V7-sport (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there have been 10 AfDs is more of a problem with the people filing the AFD, who can't accept the consensus that the article is a notable topic. Also, I'm not aware of where anybody suggested that "anything can be called state terrorism". Could you please point that out? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

RxS -- You make a good point. The discussion about what the term "state terrorism" denotes should be discussed at state terrorism . Re "Scholar vs. academic", I don't care either. I just wanted to share with V7-Sport that the term scholar is not an insult, and that it is inclusive of academics, because he had stated the opposite. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Had there not been an incredible amount of socking here I doubt there would have been consensus to keep this, especially early on. And yes, when the article has had things like radio interviews listed as proof of state terrorism (as was previously the case) or that someone who attended a class on radio operations at School of the Americas is a US trained terrorist, then yes; pretty much anything has been called terrorism.

I never thought that the word "scholar" was an insult. (The word pejorative came out of a conversation I was having with someone else at the moment I was typing the sentence, sorry for splitting my attention.) Regardless, there seems to be a consensus solidifying around the 1st sentence. "The United States government has been the subject of accusations of state terrorism by various academics and foreign government officials." You OK with that? V7-sport (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would choose the word "scholar", because it's a more appropriate term, but I'm not going to waste my time continuing to discuss it, because I don't feel that it's very important. I'll accept whichever gets chosen. Regarding moving the definitions out into state terrorism, I've been suggesting this for a very long time (since the RFC we had where you were arguing that they should stay in the article) that they should be removed. I would be fine with moving this out of the lead, and tossing the definitions section which is inaccurate (since the U.S. government has made allegations of state terrorism against other nations), incomplete (since it doesn't discuss definitions of state terrorism), and out of place (since this is an article on U.S. state terror, and not state terror in general). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like we have a deal then. I'll replace the first two sentences I mentioned at the top with the consensus version here. RxS (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

At the moment there isn't a proper definitions section, what is there was originally titled "US and international law and state terrorism" which I think should stay as it's the only thing that spells out that the US government doesn't consider many of these acts to be "terrorism" rather other things like "war". V7-sport (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that RxS.V7-sport (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Blakely

Ruth Blakely is the sole source in the section Indonesia's occupation of East Timor (1975–1999), and it appears to be based on a single book. And the same source is used for most of the next section. Are there any other sources for this? We can't hang a whole section on a single point like that, otherwise it's pretty thin and should probably be removed. RxS (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

First off, there is nothing wrong with having a single source, especially when it is a high quality scholarly source, such as Blakely's work. Regardless, though, there are other works that discuss the Indonesian genocide as U.S. state terror (see Kiernan's work for example, which is also from a scholarly publisher, and this and this by Gareau, a former FSU political science professor, or the claims of John Pilger, a notable journalist). In short, even if it were an issue to only have one source for a claim (which it isn't), that would not be a problem here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Then I'd add them, it doesn't make sense to add a whole section based on one source. If that were the case, we could fill up this article with all sorts of claims and it'd turn out useless. It's not even just a single book, but what appears to be a single paragraph. That's a pretty small base to balance it on. So in short, it certainly would be a problem. RxS (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Blakely is a solid source, and stands on its own, but I agree we should add other sources lest someone come away with the false notion that this view not more widely echoed by other scholarly work that Jrtayloriv points out. This article overall is rather well referenced, so multiple references seems to be the norm here, which is always best. 209.116.63.91 (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, let's get back on topic now please. Incidentally, I also live near San Francisco, but I am not a sockpuppet of anybody either. And I don't think it's all that great a place. But this is for discussing improvements to the article...--John (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Awesome, another San Francisco Ip address.... V7-sport (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there some problem with San Francisco? Its a great city filled with lot of progressive people that I'm sure are interested in the topics of this article. 171.65.19.25 (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll say that he does have a point regarding the number of IPs coming to this article (often as a first edit), and coming from the same area. I'm personally aware that San Francisco is a progressive city, but it's unusual that multiple IPs would be coming from this area to this particular article, and that with the exception of an IP from Malaysia that might be a proxy, that the IPs are not coming from anywhere else. Statistically, that is highly unlikely, and stinks of puppets. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

San Fransisco happens to be the home of someone who has evidentially gone off their meds. Someone who was clearly addicted to Wikipedia at one point. Someone who probably thinks that infusing the encyclopedia with his POV will have some kind of effect on the real world. ~~And a great city? Meh...~~ Seriously, at this point why is it still important?V7-sport (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll save you guys the trouble. Its me Bernie. I just didn't log in. Both those IP's are mine. I'm a member of the Stanford community as I previously disclosed, and I often like to edit anonymously. However, I never make any pretense of acting as if any of my IP's are different people. I'm careful to follow the rules. 171.65.19.25 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC) For disclosure purposes, I'll log in when I edit any article I've edited while logged in so avoid any possible confusion its another person. BernieW650 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

So as an Ogre once asked; "Bernie, how about you come clean as to what your longtime IP edits were. Where have you edited from as an IP?"V7-sport (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We need a source that explains the relative acceptance of Blakely's views. Also, we cannot use the fact that it has been alleged that the U.S. backed state terrorism in Indonesia to introduce sources that describe events but make no mention of terrorism. TFD (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD, there is no basis in policy that backs your view that "We need a source that explains the relative acceptance of Blakely's views". However, WP:RS does have the following to say: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." Taylor & Francis is a well-regarded academic press, and Blakely is a notable scholar. I do however agree with you that sources that discuss the acceptance or rejection of her views are useful, if available. They just are not, in any way, required by policy. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliability relates to facts. I have no doubt that the facts in Blakely's books, including her description of how scholars interpret these events, is reliable. However, I do not know what weight her opinions have, and that can only be established through sources that explain what weight they have. As it is, the article explains her opinion but does not say whether it is consensus, majority, minority or fringe. The implication of the way her views are presented is that the article endorses them, which may not be a neutral position for us to take. TFD (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you see her views being "endorsed". I do see her views being discussed, with attribution to her, in the article; but I'm not seeing anything that endorses them. If you could point out the endorsements of her views, I'd like to work with you to remove them. As far as determining the weight to give, the way we do that, assuming we cannot find sources that state explicitly whether her views are consensus, majority, minority or fringe, is to accumulate a collection of reliable sources that discuss the topic at hand (i.e. U.S. state terrorism) and then compare her views with the other sources to see if the are in agreement or not. If they are not in agreement, then we need to weight the views based on their prominence in these sources (See WP:UNDUE which states: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."). Again, I do agree with you, however, that it would be optimal to have a scholarly review that states how widely accepted her views are, in addition to a collection of secondary sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Blakely actually provides a helpful review of the literature how widely held these views are. She then uses Indonesia as an example to support her views on state terrorism. However instead of explaining why Blakely arrives at her conclusions, we assume that the U.S. supported state terrorism in Indonesia, then jump into a description of the events in that country. In effect we are proving the thesis that the U.S. has supported state terrorism through repetition. The events are subject to alternative explanations. TFD (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD -- I'm not sure what you mean by "instead of explaining why Blakely arrives at her conclusions, we assume that the U.S. supported state terrorism in Indonesia, then jump into a description of the events in that country". Could you perhaps provide an example of how you would write this differently to resolve the problem you see with it? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"However instead of explaining why Blakely arrives at her conclusions, we assume that the U.S. supported state terrorism in Indonesia, then jump into a description of the events in that country. In effect we are proving the thesis that the U.S. has supported state terrorism through repetition" Yes, and advocating for that by providing extraneous "context"' that has nothing to do with the original argument at hand.V7-sport (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Improper tagging

The templates on this article are all inappropriate at this point, since their presence has not been justified with specific evidence of policy violations. They should either be backed by specific issues in the article, with references to exactly which parts of WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH they violate, or they should be removed.

So that this doesn't turn into a complete mess, I'd like to separate these into a separate subsection per tag. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Why is this here? Could you please discuss exactly which part of the article is a violation of WP:NPOV. Note that you are not being asked to provide information on why you personally think the article isn't neutral; instead, someone needs to demonstrate specific violations of WP:NPOV. Please show that either (a) article content is not objectively reporting what reliable sources have to say, with attribution of opinion statements or (b) that certain views are being given undue weight (you do this by providing other reliable sources with alternative viewpoints that aren't being covered here, not by simply asserting it or claiming that certain views are "fringe" without providing sources). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. The article should present theories, not defend them. TFD (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This was discussed above with examples. In broad strokes; the article is written from an anti-US pov relying primarily on "scholars" who are not in the mainstream of political science and as such the POV tags should remain.V7-sport (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither of you gave evidence that the article is in violation of WP:NPOV. Could one of you please do so? You could do this by providing reliable sources with alternative viewpoints that you feel are not being given due weight here, places where opinions are being presented without attribution, etc. Saying that the article is "anti-US" is not evidence of the article being in violation of WP:NPOV. Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify further-- instead of making broad/general claims like "the article is written from an anti-US pov relying primarily on "scholars" who are not in the mainstream of political science", could you please provide specific examples of which parts of the article violate WP:NPOV and which specific parts of WP:NPOV they violate? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD -- You have mentioned twice now that the article is not presenting theories with attribution, but is somehow "defending" them. Again, could you please provide a specific example (preferably more than one example if we are going to tag the entire article, instead of just the offending statement). Thanks. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I and other editors have already explained that the presentation in the article advances a POV, that the U.S. had supported terrorism, and there is no need for me to copy out and analyze the various history sections in the article. TFD (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any evidence that has been presented that the article advances the position that the U.S. committed/supported terrorism. I am aware of places where the article presents (with attribution) the views of authors who believe that the U.S. has committed/supported terrorism. But presenting views with attribution does not mean that the article is advancing the position. What I'm looking for here is evidence that the article advances a position, rather than just another repetition of the claim that the article advances a position. You are correct that several editors have made the claim (repeatedly). But nobody has presented evidence that the problem actually exists. That's what I'm trying to resolve here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We went over this issue above, and TFD's argument was that simply giving details about the history of the actions are that are alleged to be state terrorism implies that that article adopts that point of view. This is false. There is no such implication. One can offer an explication and expound upon the sources claims using attributive language without the article/wikipedia taking a position about those claims. It's our job to give a voice to the authors who write about this subject, and explore their claims, by citing the relevant literature on the topic from all points of view. We merely report and reflect the discourse on the subject matter. The subject is controversial yes, and the authors who advance these claims may be in the minority/out of the mainstream of pol. sci., but so what? Article can be about minority view points. They can have their own article to go into depth of the subject matter because we would not be able to on main articles due to undue weight. Its mistaken to think this translates into wikipedia taking a position, pro US or Anti-US (whatever that means!). In short what this objection comes down to is that "this subject makes US foreign policy actions look pretty bad and I don't want the US govt to look bad." Well, that might be a personal opinion of some people but it has no business being in the editorial decisions within the wikipedia project. And certainly its not supported by policy. (Berniew650) 171.66.231.19 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to you/us to interpret what Michael Stohl and Ruth Blakely actually meant when they wrote "state terrorism" and offering an explication means that is exactly what you would have to do. It's not "our job to give a voice to the authors who write about this subject"(gag). That's certainly not supported by policy. They already have a voice and have made their own statements, otherwise we wouldn't be aware of what they have said on the subject. Again, it's not our role to shore up someone else's argument, that's when this becomes advocacy.V7-sport (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's not up to us to interpret what the authors actually meant. That is why I said we merely report and give facts about what they are claiming. That is what I mean by it being our job to allow their voice on the subject in full details, and full clarified for the reader. If we explain anything about the historical incident that the authors claim are acts of state terrorism, we have to use reliable sources for that background information to report the facts. We are not shoring up anyone's arguments, we are presenting them in the most clear manner possible. That is not advocacy that is neutrally presenting those views as the views of these various academics/scholars. BernieW650 (talk) 23:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now you have, for instance, reverted the following passage about a dozen times:

Critical scholarship has focused on the argument that the use of atomic weapons was "primarily for diplomatic purposes rather than for military requirements ... to impress and intimidate the Soviet Union in the emerging Cold War." Certain scholars who oppose the decision to use of the atom bomb, while they state it was unnecessary and immoral, do not claim it was state terrorism per se. Walker's 2005 overview of recent historiography did not discuss the issue of state terrorism."

These are "details" that you evidentially have felt strong enough to edit war to restore. There isn't a charge of state terrorism, it is ambiguous, It basically exists to say that even if these "scholars" don't consider these acts of "state terrorism" they still consider it "unnecessary and immoral". These details that you advocate for simply exist to push POV and shore up fringe arguments, neither of which is the editors role. V7-sport (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

SYNTH

Where is the synthesis? That is, which parts of the article, specifically, "combine[s] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

One example is a statement in the "Indonesia" section, "...Kadane wrote that senior U.S. diplomats and CIA officials compiled lists of communist operatives and provided a list of approximately 5,000 names to the Indonesian Army as it captured and annihilated the Indonesian communist party and its sympathizers". Since the source does not mention state terrorism, it is an example of synthesis to include it. Incidentally the statement is wrong. The source says Kahane quoted Robert J. Martens, who made the claim. TFD (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I attributed the quote to Martens. If anyone takes issue with that I'll revert. V7-sport (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If a source is being misrepresented, that is certainly a problem, and should be corrected.

As far as "synthesis", you seem to be thinking of something other than what WP:SYNTH means by the term. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, synthesis is when we "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Could you please provide an example of where exactly that is happening (i.e. not something else that you are calling synthesis)?

Using reliable sources to provide historical context for the events that the authors are talking about is not synthesis, because we are not "reaching or implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The conclusion is the view expressed by the author. We are merely providing background to make their conclusions more understandable (this does not amount to a defense of their views, but merely helps the reader understand them better). That's just how one writes a readable article. If an author says "When X happened, it was delicious", but the reader doesn't know anything about "X", that makes it where it is impossible to understand what the author is talking about, unless they are provided at least a small amount of background information on X. If we have an article specifically about the events that the author is talking about, then a link to the article will generally be sufficient. If not, we will often need a few sentences describing the events to which the author is referring, backed by reliable sources. But, if you disagree, we can discuss what you think about that in another section. (Perhaps you can start one below).

This section is specifically about the WP:SYNTH tag, and I'd like to stay focused on issues pertaining to WP:SYNTH. Whatever you think about providing historical context for historical claims, that has nothing to do with SYNTH, which is, again, when we "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". If precisely this is not occurring, then the SYNTH tags do not belong. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We are combining one source that claims the U.S. supported state terrorism in Indonesia with another source that outlines alleged U.S. actions in Indonesia. That these actions constitute terrorism (whether true or not) is your own judgment by comparing the events described with a definition of terrorism, i.e., it is synthesis. If you think that Blakely has not properly explained her views, then find a source that explains them. TFD (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

TFD -- I do believe that Blakely has properly explained her views when viewed in the context of the work that they are found in. I just feel that the extremely small snippet of her work that is presented here does not stand on its own, because it has been taken out of context. Historical context (which she either directly provides in her work, or provides references for) is needed to make the views understandable to the reader (which should be our goal). However, there are tendentious editors here that are not interested in clarifying her views, but only in removing as much (preferably all) of them as the can. If she was more extensively used as a source for historical context, then we would quickly reach a point where claims of "undue weight" began to get thrown around (even if the majority of the information cited to her were statements of fact, and not of her opinions). How do you suggest this situation be resolved? (By the way, the incidents in Indonesia -- i.e. the arms sales, U.S. government support, etc. -- are not "alleged"; they are verifiable historical facts). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with TFD that if the source doesn't say that it's state terrorism it shouldn't be held out as an example of such. "Providing context" has been an excuse to add accusations that are entirely unrelated to state terrorism.V7-sport (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Jrtayloriv. That is actually the norm, the standard for articles. When a claim is made about an historical incident that fits the subject of the article, we are then allowed to talk about that particular historical incident using any other reliable source, not to advance the claim (its already anchored by the reliable source) but to give background and context about the historical incident in question. For example, if reliable sources say the Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism, we can use other sources to describe what this Boston Tea Party entailed. The other sources for doing such a task need NOT to advance explicitly the thesis/claim that is the subject matter for its use and inclusion into the article as long as we have reliable sources that do make the original claim. The secondary sources are using to support an accurate and NPOV reading of the facts about the historical incident that is alleged to be state terrorism. This is not SYN. It seems that people are not understanding SYN or chopping off the toes to make the shoe fit. SYN is something completely different. So far no one has been able to present any evidence that there is any SYN problem problem with this article. V7-Sport went so far as to claim that the SYN was the author making the SYN, which is quite a misunderstanding of policy. 171.66.231.19 (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC) Btw, this is Berniew650 (having troubles logging in for some reason). 171.66.231.19 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact an article that explained why writers thought the action was an act of terrorism would explain that view, not go off on a tangent. TFD (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It should explain their view in full, and give information about the incidents. I don't see anything that is going off on any tangents. We should facts about the historical incident in question, and some background or relevant context to bring an understanding of the incident. When this is done the reader will be able to understand better why the writers thought the action was an act of terrorism as it would explain their view. BernieW650 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

“The recitation of detail turns the article into advocacy - proving to the reader that the U.S. supports terrorism.“ “Context” is up to whomever is making the charge and as it is reflected here, that should be limited only to the accusations of state terrorism. It’s not up to Wiki editors to cement up the foundations of other peoples accusations.V7-sport (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that giving details turns into advocacy. It may or may not prove to the reader that the claims being alleged are true. That is up to the reader to decide. Why are you worried about how well the authors prove their case? If they have a good case, that is fine. If they have a poor case, then that is also fine. Let the merits of their own view, and their own claims be explained and given an accurate representation here. That is what I mean by our job is to give their views voice. Our editorial voice is absent. We only are to fairly report on what significant voices have to say about it. Its up to those sources and their supporting facts and the arguments they make, to be a "proof" or not of their claims. And its up to the readers to decide the merits of those claims. Our job is only to report it without taking a view ourselves about it. BernieW650 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is being done to support the arguments presented, there is no other reason to present to pack on a bunch of extraneous information. For instance, previous incarnations of this article went into lists of American made weaponry that was used in such and such atrocity for the sole purpose of implicating the USA and implying support for such and such atrocity. The "detail" was there to imply US support for the event, even though the detail had nothing to do with state terrorism or US foreign policy. Again, it's not "our job is to give their views voice". That's flat out bullshit. it's our job to be dispassionate, convey what was said and not advocate for a pov, or support an idea by shoring up their argument... which is what you are doing when you take it upon yourself to give "their views voice".V7-sport (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources templates

Neither Instruments of Statecraft nor Western State Terrorism are self-published sources, so I'm not sure why they were tagged as such.

Can we agree that these SPS tags should go? --Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are correct that these are not self-published sources. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, the self-published tags should be removed. TFD (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

They are the wrong tags, they got changed somewhere along the way but were a part of the mass reversions that were being restored. Remove it if you wish, I'll look at the source in a bit. V7-sport (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

V7-Sport - you added them, and they were indeed re-included when your mass of edits was restored. Anyhow, I'm going to go ahead and remove them. If anyone comes in later that has a problem with this, please let me know, and I'll self-revert. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I added them, like I wrote, they were the wrong tags and I had changed them to the proper ones here[14] and elsewhere because "www.statecraft.org" appears to be a website owned and written by Michael McClintock. That was an individual edit that was arbitrarily rolled back. At this point the wrong tags can go until we can get to the Philippines section. V7-sport (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not see why the new tags are needed. According to the website, it provides a copy of the 1992 book published by Pantheon Books, a division of Random House, Inc. TFD (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, they were intended to be a reminder to track down the publishing history but they took on a life of their own.V7-sport (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we have consensus to remove them? --John (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

They're gone John.V7-sport (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Cuba.

The first 2 sentenses do not contain or reference accusations of State terrorism. Further, the reference for citation #47 failed verification. This is the page referenced:

Extended content

…hands on the controls seem to want a fiscal train wreck that "offers the tantalizing prospect of forcing [cuts on social programs] through the back door." Slated for demolition, Krugman contends, are Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, but the same may be true for the whole range of programs of the past century that were developed to protect the population from the ravages of private power.21

Eliminating social programs has goals that go well beyond concentration of wealth and power. Social Security, public schools, and other such deviations from the "right way" that US military power is to impose on the world, as frankly declared, are based on evil doctrines, among them the pernicious belief that we should care, as a community, whether the disabled widow on the other side of town can make it through the day, or the child next door should have a chance for a decent future. These evil doctrines derive from the principle of sympathy that was taken to be the core of human nature by Adam Smith and David Hume, a principle that must be driven from the mind. Privatization has other benefits. If working people depend on the stock market for their pensions, health care, and other means of survival, they have a stake in undermining their own interests: opposing wage increases, health and safety regulations, and other measures that might cut into profits that flow to the benefactors on whom they must rely, in a manner reminiscent of feudalism. After a surge of presidential popularity following 9-11, polls revealed increasing discontent with the social and economic policies of the administration. If there was to be any hope of maintaining political power, the Bush forces were virtually compelled to adopt what Anatol Lieven calls "the classic modern strategy of an endangered right-wing oligarchy, which is to divert mass discontent into nationalism,"22 a strategy which is second nature to them in any event, having worked so well during their first twelve years in office. The strategy was outlined by Karl Rove, the chief political adviser: Republicans must "go to the country on the issue of national security" in November 2002, because voters "trust the Republican Party" for "protecting America." Similarly, he explained, Bush will have to be portrayed as a wartime leader for the 2004 presidential campaign. "As long as domestic issues were dominating news coverage and political battles over the summer, Bush and his Republicans lost ground," the chief international analyst for UPI pointed out. But the "imminent threat" of Iraq was conjured up just in time, in September 2002. Recognizing its vulnerability on domestic issues, "the administration is campaigning to sustain and increase its power on a policy of international adventurism, new radical preemptive military strategies, and a hunger for a politically convenient and perfectly timed confrontation with Iraq."23 For the midterm electoral campaign, the tactic worked—just. Even though voters "believe that Republicans are more concerned about large corporations than about ordinary Americans," they trust the Republicans on national security.24 In September, the National Security Strategy was announced.

Manufactured fear provided enough of a popular base for the invasion of Iraq, instituting the new norm of aggressive war at will, and afforded the administration enough of a hold on political power so that it could proceed with a harsh and unpopular domestic agenda.

No mention of Cuba or terrorism, the lot should be removed. V7-sport (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

References 46 and 47 should be moved to "operation mongoose", as this is what it refers to. #52 is an editorial from "workers world" and isn't a RS. V7-sport (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Source #49 does not male allegations of state terrorism against the USA Source #50 is not a reliable source but most of the content can be covered by #51 which is. Source #54 is a call to investigate state terrorism but the accusation is of providing “safe shelter”. I also propose that we change the lawsuit section to make it clear that the USA denies the charges, and add that the lawsuit was brought on the heels of a ruling against Cuba for shooting down 2 Brothers to the Rescue aircraft. That can be done with the existing CNN source and adding info from here. V7-sport (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Source #53 (Investigator from Cuba takes stand in spy trial) doesn’t make any mention of Omega 7, Operation 40 or Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations. The section that refers to Roberto Hernández (Caballero, his actual name) doesn’t have any references that refer to US actions as state terrorism. He blames the Cuban American National Foundation.. The Photograph states the source as "Originally from en.wikipedia" which isn't a RS. V7-sport (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I did a partial revert - but retained the new information that you added. I would like to ask you to refer to sources by links to them here - sorting out #xx later can be quite difficult. Please remember that information should generally sought retained, remember to seek out sources which may corroborate content rather than remove purely on current sourcing. And I just did a revert of my revert, upon noticing the 0rr - details will follow. u n☯mi 21:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - My initial reaction was in response to the quote of Richard Helms that was removed here - in the context I found the rationale for removal to be wanting, I still believe that - on the other hand I find myself with limited time to argue the point, and I had trouble finding sources which directly related that quote with the desired wording. In light of this I will withdraw my objection at this time, Best, u n☯mi 18:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in replying, Unomi, Pesky real world responsibilities. I'll list the source titles with the reference numbers from here on in, I went back and listed them for the current round of edits All best.V7-sport (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the effort to do that V7 - as for real world responsibilities, I feel ya. Regarding refs in general, you may find this thread interesting. Best, u n☯mi 09:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the link Unomi, Makes me thankful this brand of terrorism has nothing to do with religion. V7-sport (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OK grabbing at more low hanging fruit.

Source #56, Jack Anderson 6 Attempts to Kill Castro Laid to CIA". doesn’t mention the “Mafia” as is attributed here or terrorism, state or otherwise.

Source #63 “cuba-solidarity“in addition to being a dead link (poptel.org.uk) is wholly unreliable. It’s an advocacy group that wants to end trade embargo.

Re the “Allegations of harboring terrorists” section. Harboring terrorists isn’t an act of “state terrorism”. There isn’t an argument being made here that the USA engaged Cuba in acts of state terrorism. With the exception of “The Cuban revolution resulted in a large Cuban refugee community in the U.S., some of whom have conducted long-term insurgency campaigns against Cuba.[63] and conducted training sessions at a secluded camp near the Florida Everglades. These efforts are charged to have been directly supported initially by the United States government” (which is “state sponsored terrorism”, not “state terrorism” there is no charge of complicity in these actions at all.

Source 65, “An Era of Exiles Slips Away. The Los Angeles Times.” Only mentions “terrorists bombings” re Miami. (In the 1970s and '80s, the Miami offices of his magazine Replica were bombed seven times.)

Source 66, Moral Misstep, www.washingtonpost.com specifically says “state-sponsored act of terrorism” and accuses the USA of failing “to condemn the pardoning of terrorists”. No charge of state terrorism.

Source 67, Righteous Bombers? by Kirk Nielsen focuses on “twenty Cubans in the Spiritual Guides in Exile Working Group”, a group of preachers who are allegedly soft on terrorism. No charge of state terrorism.

Source 69, "Link found to bombing". Associated Press. Doesn’t allege that the USA was engaged in an act of state terrorism…..

In addition, it’s Luis Posada Carriles was tried in the USA as to whether he lied about the Cuba bombings and acquitted.

The whole section should be struck, as it is poorly sourced and doesn’t deal with state terrorism. V7-sport (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)