Talk:State terrorism/Archive 3

Chomsky and South End Press
TheTimesAreAChanging, I feel you need to explain and discuss your purging of all the South End Press sources in the article. Speaking from previous experience, I know that you have major political issues with Chomsky, but he is cited all over wikipedia and academia, too; what gives you the right to decide that he (and his publisher) are unreliable? Scanning your talk page it seems that you've had this argument with others besides myself, and you cite a "consensus" about Chomsky's reliability that I cannot seem to find anywhere. Please explain your deletions, else I will revert them. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, my Wikistalker. The very last time I took Chomsky to RSN, I got the same answer; he may be an academic, but he has no historical credentials. My edit summary explained itself: None of those sources were about State terrorism; some could be added to the United States and state terrorism page. That it would be wildy undue and against the academic consensus to only feature books about America in State terrorism should be obvious.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Point 1) If that was the case, why did you not point me to that particular RSN section the first time we had this argument? Or now, for that matter? I'm not disbelieving you, its just that 'that' should have been your first line of argument, not a bloody lecture about Chomsky being a linguist. Please do that now.
 * Point 2) It is perfectly reasonable for a page about state terrorism to have links to books about American sponsored state terrorism, because last I checked, America was a state. It would be equally reasonable for this page to have books about Pakistani state terrorism. These were not the "only" books on the list, there's plenty of others, so that's a silly argument.
 * Point 3) Be careful when you make accusations of stalking. Are you really arrogant enough to believe that only you have a legitimate interest in the couple of pages where we've crossed paths? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, when did we previously have this argument, and who brought up Chomsky here? As for your stalking, you really need to do a better job of hiding it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What's that supposed to mean? "You" brought up Chomsky here to start with, by deleting his books. The last time, I added Chomsky as a reference, you reverted multiple times, I found other sources saying exactly the same thing, and you backed off. A few months later I see you popping up on another page I've been interested in, and removing Chomsky there as well. I 'don't' revert you, I just ask for an explanation, and I get accusations instead. Like I said in my comment above, which you clearly did not read in its entirety, just give me a link to the RSN discussion you supposedly had. If you're claiming consensus, why the bloody hell are you so unwilling to give me proof? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I never brought up Chomsky; you are demanding an explanation I already gave, thus seeking to impugn my motives. I honestly don't recall our previous interaction "a few months" ago. Can you please provide a link?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See the comments here: "Reliability is not a binary on/off switch. Rather, it's a sliding scale with some sources more reliable than others. Noam Chomsky's area of expertise is linguistics, not history. Given that the Vietnam War happened over 40 years ago, surely there are better sources available from actual historians. On a side note, even if Chomsky's area of expertise were history, we should not use the word "criminal" in Wikipedia's voice until there is consensus among historians for using this term." "This Chomsky work isn't an ideal source because its purpose is to critique media constructions, not to tell the history of the period." "Problematic sources aren't just a simple matter of making false statements. There is a broader and less obvious problem around their focus; Chomsky will focus on different arguments and use different emphasis, compared to a reliable source, so it's not simply a matter of taking a snippet from Chomsky and then verifying it elsewhere; more reliable and neutral sources on that topic area may well make different points, cite different primary sources, put emphasis on other parts of the topic. It's even more important to recognise this problem when writing about controversial episodes of recent history." "Bellamy's book is more recent and came from an academic publisher, unlike Shawcross and Chomsky."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I can see why you didn't put that link up to begin with, because it doesn't exactly support you, does it? It just shows a consensus about using a different source in that particular case; about Chomsky in general there was no consensus, it was an even split. So no, there's no widespread acceptance that Chomsky is not RS. In the case of this particular article, where Chomsky is not being used as a source but simply as further reading, you had absolutely no reason to remove it, unless it strictly for undue weight.

As for our previous argument, why the hell were you accusing me of stalking if you don't even remember the one time we crossed each other? It was about my use of Chomsky on the Reagan foreign policy article. I can't be bothered to find a link, since it's irrelevant here. There's also a section on your talk page. And stop bloody making random accusations. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "even split", even counting the comments of the involved parties, and while neither I nor that discussion are the final word on the matter; when you take Chomsky to RSN, the result is always the same. Obviously Chomsky is more reliable than a random blog, and is a reliable source for statements he has made, but he's not a historian and should not be given undue weight. That effectively means he shouldn't be used as a source for historical facts. I trimmed "further reading" because it was undue, and this emphasis on Chomsky has been a distraction. I was accusing you of stalking because you edited both United States support of authoritarian regimes and Iran and state sponsored terrorism back-to-back shortly after I did, then Khmer Rouge and this talk page on the same day only a few hours after me, in each case appearing to challenge my changes. Plus, I knew we had interacted before, although I couldn't recall where or why.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And, in fact, you've done this multiple times on some of these articles for a while now. I revert some IP edit to Khmer Rouge on 05:38 13 October 2013, you correct my POV on 01:14 14 October 2013. Ect. The alternative explanation is that we both have many of the same articles on our Watchlist, and edit at similar times, which is admittedly possible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, apparently you can't count, either. In that RSN discussion, Ludicroustripe, TFD, Poeaddibba, and Balgill1000 SUPPORT the use of Chomsky, while you, bobrayner, and QFD oppose. Two others don't take stances at all. That's four to three, in favour of chomsky. As for undue, are you really claiming his views are so fringe that they deserve no mention even in the reading section? that's ridiculous, however much you may hate him for pointing out uncomfortable truths.


 * Yes, we do indeed seem to watch the same pages, more's the pity. Are you denying that the Khmer Rouge section was POV? That's the only time I've actually modified one of your edits of my own accord. So take your half-baked accusations someplace else. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Itsmejudith and Amateur Editor both opposed using Chomsky, and TFD actually agreed with the principle that Chomsky can be reliable in certain contexts but should not be given undue weight. Chomsky's views are given extensive coverage in the United States and state terrorism article, and there is no need for one-sided political spam in "further reading".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ItsmeJudith opposed the specific use of Chomsky in that case, not the general. Nobody would ever insist that he should be given undue weight, so that statement about TFD is bull. Even if AE supported you, that's still 4-4, and I can't be bothered to read the discussion again to make sure. It's not consensus in any sense of the word, so stop claiming it to be. Anyhow, after looking at the readings here I'm willing to let it go on this page, seeing as there are no rabid right-wingers in the list. The general debate over Chomsky is not over, by any means. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of Chomsky too. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely not in favour of all that blanking, no consensus for it here. Gob Lofa (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * why don't you restore it, and see whether people are willing to talk about it, since the discussion seems to have died? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see you already did that. The karma of using a slow connection...anyhow, let's see if our mutual friends respond here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion died when you conceded the point; now it resumes. South End Press publishes books by political activists. Its slogan is "Read. Write. Revolt." SEP may publish books by academics, but it is not an academic publisher. Antiwar.com is a donation-financed libertarian blog, and Pilger is a journalist, not an academic. (There is no evidence Pilger's Antiwar piece belongs under "Prevention of terrorism".) The list goes on, from Progressive Press to the Marxist Monthly Review. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of these sources are experts on terrorism. Many of them do not even appear to be about terrorism in particular, for example Unpeople by BBC documentary director Mark Curtis. Including these sources over the actual experts is a pathetically transparent POV push (backed literally only by Gob Lofa's personal admiration for Chomsky, the famed linguist) and an example of Wikipedia at its worst.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not "concede" the point; I let it rest for the time, which is different. Unfortunately for you, there is no wiki consensus on this point; the discussion (which you linked to) shows a very clear divide, with no consensus against Chomsky. On this page too, you appear to be the only one against him. As I have told you many times before, the fact that he is affiliated with a linguistics department does not invalidate the host of history books he has published. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Only three people have commented here. Prior to Gob Lofa, who is an outspoken fan of Chomsky and whose argument (such as it is) is totally unrelated to Wikipedia policy, it was just you and me. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Chomsky is not an expert on terrorism.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this, which you posted above as supposed evidence of consensus on Chomsky, but upon reading proves to be anything but. As for Wikipedia not being a democracy; yeah, I know it's bloody well not. In this case, three users are each applying their understanding of policy, and coming up against each other; so unless you wish to report it someplace, the view of the majority holds. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit was perfectly clear. Before I ask RSN whether Chomsky is an expert on terrorism, can we get beyond your Chomsky fixation and agree that Antiwar.com and Curtis should be removed?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Curtis seems fine to me; books by journalists who turn to history are very common across Wikipedia, and there seems to be consensus that they are acceptable. If you have issues with that idea, you need to take it to RSN. Where is Antiwar.com used as a source? Can't see it myself, don't have the patience for a very thorough search. If it is there, you are welcome to tag the information that it is used for. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Antiwar is an external link supposedly related to "Prevention of terrorism". Not having read Curtis' Unpeople: Britain's Secret Human Rights Abuses, I'm wondering where there is evidence that it is a significant piece of scholarship focusing on "State terrorism". I'm also wondering why this article is so focused on the US when there is a dedicated article on the United States and state terrorism. Neither you nor Gob Lofa is making a particularly cogent case for this material.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it. Yeah, I'm okay with removing it, and I also feel that we can merge the external links with the further reading section. What do you mean the article is focused on the US? The only action of the US mentioned here is Hiroshima. Chomsky is necessary to the article, and to the further reading, because Chomsky and Herman contributed massively to the academic construction of the term "terrorism", especially with respect to states. Moreover, this statement itself is sourced in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine. Do we really need "America is a Leading Terrorist State?" (interview with Chomsky), The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, The Culture of Terrorism, and Herman's The Real Terror Network? (From Synthetic Terror, Made in USA to Chomsky, there are numerous sources which would seem more appropriate in the article on the United States and state terrorism, not counting the more general sources such as Western State Terrorism.) Either way, I can't say I feel strongly enough about this to try to change your mind any further.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that a thread has been opened at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. As I said there, this is not a Reliable Source debate, but more of a Due/Undue question. The discussion should continue here. Perhaps advertising this discussion with an RfC will bring in new perspectives. – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC) 03:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence
Hi, User:XXzoonamiXX. The first source's definition of "state terrorism" specifically includes other states as a potential target; if you have reasons to disagree with this definition (maybe you question the reliability of that source, or believe it's outside the academic consensus), please bring them up here. Content disputes aren't supposed to be resolved by back-and-forth changes; that's called an edit war, and could get us both in trouble. Not that we've been doing that—we're tweaking and countertweaking, without any ill will—but it's easier to hash things out here on this talk page, and move changes over to the article once there's consensus.

Thanks for your contributions! FourViolas (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Demarcation between state terror and state sponsored terrorism
Thankfully very few of us who edit Wikipedia, or it would seem professors who pontificate on the nature off state terrorism, have to live under state terror. So that it is easy to confuse state terror and state sponsored terrorism. Most people have in mind an image of terrorism which revolves around bombs and assassinations, and by extension believe this to be state terror when it is carried out by a state, such acts are best described as state sponsored terrorism.

State terror is a different beast to terrorism. The violence is not wanton and it is primarily directed at one's own population, or by an occupying power against the civilians of an occupied state, it is as an instrument of political control, to coerce through fear the population into aquiecence. State terror is the belief that the secret police and its informers are always watching, it is the disappearing of political enemies, it is the knowledge that gulags and reeducation camps exist and that by staying silent and being obedient one can avoid being sent to them, it is the knowledge that dissent will lead to the torture of not just yourself but everyone you care for. Where assassinations and bombings are used it will be against defectors and those who have escaped. Here the target is not those killed, but remains the civilian population, it is a message to the civilian population that there is no escape from the regime. It is what life was like behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War, it is life in North Korea today.

This article would best be served by renaming to State terror and focusing on its use as an instrument of state control, other examples and controversies hould be moved to state sponsored terrorism.--KTo288 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * KTo288, I would agree that the article needs to be completely re-written; right now it's one big coatrack. I don't necessarily see that we have to rename it, but rewriting is not conditional on renaming, in any case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge with State-sponsored terrorism
In the definition section of this article, it quotes Encyclopædia Britannica Online as saying "[e]stablishment terrorism, often called state or state-sponsored terrorism, is employed by governments -- or more often by factions within governments -- against that government's citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups." State terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism are just two synonyms of establishment terrorism. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * State terrorism is terrorism carried out by the state. It is a controversial topic, because terrorism is usually defined as being carried out by non-state actors.  State-sponsored terrorism otoh is terrorism carried out by non-state actors but sponsored by (often foreign) governments.  Sometimes this is called state terrorism as well.  So there are two separate topics, hence two separate articles, even if the terminology can sometimes be confused.  TFD (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. If you look at the table at the end of the page Definitions of terrorism you see most of these definitions allow for state actors as perpetrators of terrorism. Moreover, many people who define "terrorism" to only be insurgent activity consider "state terrorism" an entirely separate category, a crime generally worse and more serious than terrorism. 87.95.158.35 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As TFD says, the two are very distinct; one refers to terrorism by a government, the other to terrorist groups funded and supported by the government. There's plenty of global examples of both, so merging them would not really be useful. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No USA section??
When the US had the most foreign “regime” change attempts of any known nation in the history of mankind? When the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Swoboda, IS, etc, were all US-recruited, -trained, -armed, and -financed (via Saudi Arabia and Pakistan mostly)?? Is that so evil that “state terrorism” doesn’t even cut it anymore, or is this NSApedia now, or what? INB4 some NSA sock-puppet opening “\\HonestVoice\templates\ThoughtTerminatingCliches\ConspiracyTheorist.slur.tpl” and pasting it in here. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.227.76 (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)