Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 13

Another for the Asia section, Indonensia?
What do editors think working on something about the US role in the state terror of Indonesia? In particuar, I was thinking of the coup against Sukarno and the near genocidal (500k leftists murdered), that followed? Also, more recently, US involvement with the genocide of East Timor by the Indonesian Miliary, which the US has also been accused of being complicit in.Giovanni33 04:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to add a section on how the US is responsible for the 70M killed in the Stalinist purges, and the 100M killed by Mao. I believe those are the fault of the United States as well.    MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have evidence for the claim that the US was involved, or are you only trolling, again?Giovanni33 06:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the book The New Rulers of the World and see the documentary of the same title by John Pilger for sources on this. --Jack Merridew 09:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know about the book and its on my reading list. I regularly read Pilger. Do you think a section on the topic, provided we find reputalble and notable sources that make the claims, would be a suitable addition to this article? I'd welcome any editor supplying sources they find on the subject. I think its an important area to cover.Giovanni33 11:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Suppose, just for the sake of discussion, that a descriptively adequate reference on American terrorism can be defined in such a way as to impose the extended definition we (at least some of us) seem to be using here. To provide a constituent structure for that work, the earlier discussion would need to correlate more closely than it does to Giovanni33's previous remarks further above. But let's suppose, still just for discussion, that he has in fact made his case for the different sort of analysis that he continues to demand, and tries to impose. Even then it still raises serious doubts about problems of legitimacy of state authority in this context, and the independence of supposed state actors. For any survey which is sufficiently broad to be of interest to our readers, the logical (not just textual) basis for inclusion here must be explicitly supplied in the references we provide the reader under WP:V. Presumably, the currently rather selective presentation of only a fraction of the ill deeds that could by broad implication be laid at the door of the US Capitol does less harm than a more universal treatment, but still falls short of our sourcing requirements. I hope we can all work together on that in the future. Tom Harrison Talk 11:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Would anyone like to translate that into a language I understand (I speak several besides English, but cannot parse this).--NYCJosh 18:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not get it either. Tom can you elaborate, possibly with less hypothetical's. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom is saying that even if state employees carried out terrorism. Even if this was done in the name and to the benefit of the US, and even if those actions were authorized by US elected officials and using US state resources, the blame rests with the individuals involved, not with the US. ... Seabhcan 12:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely POV
The article is of course completely POV with every section amost exclusively presenting a collection of dubious claims that the editor personally think are examples of US "state terrorism". For NPOV, I think we should add an opposing views section like this User:Ultramarine/Sandbox. Thoughts? Ultramarine 09:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it...but one wonders how long they will last. I have little hope this article will ever be neutral.--MONGO 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "The Philippines is not a United States colony" - There are many who would argue with this unsourced claim. ... Seabhcan 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Such comments says everything. Do you want evidence that the Philippines is accepted as an independent nation by the UN? Ultramarine 09:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are those who would point to the Philipine law which explicitly excludes operations of a particular, named state, from operating military force in the country (surely a unique law in the world) and its frequent non-observance. ... Seabhcan 10:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- No source or explanation regarding what this law is. More importantly, it is strange objecting to presenting opposing views. Why should only the views of one side be presented? Ultramarine 10:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never objected to inclusion of opposing views, in fact, I have always supported you including them. But they must be sourced to the same standard as the rest of the material. ... Seabhcan 10:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are refering to the sources like activist webzines in the Philliphines section that do not mentioning state terrorism or terrorism? Ultramarine 10:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your proposed section has no sources at all. ... Seabhcan 10:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of sources are given.Ultramarine 10:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- Of your six proposals, 2 have zero sources (including Philip.) 2 have one source each and 2 have 3 sources each. Thats not 'lots' by any definition. ... Seabhcan 10:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The intro has many more sources than that. The other section are less important. None of the unsourced statements are controversial, like stating that the Philippines is an independent nation.Ultramarine 10:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it's independence relevant? Where is your source which shows this connection. This section is synthesis without a source. ... Seabhcan 11:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The material regarding being a colony is no longer necessary with the current text which no longer states that the nation is a US colony. I will remove it from the sandbox. Anything else? Ultramarine 11:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exxon and BP and companies like them control everything...the U.S. may "exercise" control in some places, but real power is in the hands of the money people...and by that I include people like Chavez, who arguably controls Citgo anyway.--MONGO 10:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dont add potencially contentious material until there is consensus among editors here from both sides of the POV, and make sure to allow enough time for such editors to review and comment, and agree. Then with consensus you can add, as I did recently. That is the way to go with this article. Lets all try to avoid any edit warring, which as we know only gets this article protected. We are making lots of progress so lets keep up the good work.Giovanni33 10:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You started an edit war, so certainly no consensus. No double standard. On the other hand, NPOV must be followed, and the article is currently a soapbox for one side.Ultramarine 10:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I did not start any edit war. Are you confusing me with the anon IP? That was the only edit war going on. Edit waring is counter productive and disruptive. How to acheive NPOV is often a matter of disagreement, so working with others and getting consensus first is key.Giovanni33 10:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edits were reverted several times. There was no consensus on the talk page for your version.Ultramarine 11:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- Not true. Look above. I discussed it with everyone, and editors from both sides of the POV spectrum agreed. Therefore I had consensus. The ONLY editor to disagree with Tbeatty, and he failed to convince anyone. The only editor to revert my edits was Mongo (despite him agreeing in talk). But, the point is I didnt add the material until after discussion and left it many days while editors worked out what to include, what terms, what standards for the sources to use, etc--by editors on both sides of the fence. If you want to add material then please follow my example, above.Giovanni33 11:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * News flash...I said a brief mention, not a book supporting your radical and not really notable additions. So much for my efforts to be neutral. The only way to deal with you is to simply say NO next time.--MONGO 11:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I did keep it breif. Comprare it to the Phillipines section, and other sections. Its very small. I trimmed it down considerably to a summary, and only included the best sources. It could have easily been as large as every other section, but I respected your input on the matter. Be fair.Giovanni33 11:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So clearly no consensus. Do you agree to remove the section? Ultramarine 11:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So clearly I did have consensus. Again, look above. Only one editor disagreeing while I have support from everyone else on both sides of the fence. When you achieve the same let me know.Giovanni33 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- As you yourself stated above, several editors disagree with you, especially the current text.Ultramarine 11:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying you agree, just not on its size, is not disagreeing. It is in fact agreeing that the content is worth, just stating you would like to make an undue weight complaint. As such it is an issue for trimming and editorial work, not deleting. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add whatever you want Ultramarine...be BOLD.--MONGO 10:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Giovanni33, why did you removed this sourced material: Ultramarine 11:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because its off topic. We have had this discussion before with several other editors saying that it was off topic, and gives undue weight to Chomsky. This article is not about Chomsky, and the attacks on him do not concern what he is cited here for (his claims).Giovanni33 11:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no attack on Chomsky, only on his claims. Read it again.Ultramarine 11:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, its off topic, and doens't reply to Chomky's claims at all. It logically doesnt follow, a non-sequitur. It says: "However, actual empirical studies have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships." Show me where that issue (democratic peace theory) is an issue that this article talks about at all? Its off topic, and doesnt even address the claims Chomsky is being cited for in this article.Giovanni33 11:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article states that "Chomsky has also described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state."" Obviously npov requires opposing views. Even without Chomsky's statement this comparison is still necessary for NPOV.Ultramarine 11:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, then find the opposing view: that says the US is not a terrorist state. Democratic peace theory isnt it. Also, remember, this article is not about Chomsky, so don't give him undue weight. Stick more to the subject, instead of the authors.Giovanni33 11:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- Criticism if Chomsky is valid if he is going to be used as a source. He is not without controversy and that controversy affects his reliability and deserves mention if his views are going to be presented. --Tbeatty 13:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem - consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Chomsky's views are controversial. Pointing out the controversy of his views is not strictly ad hominem.  --Tbeatty 14:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that someone should call X terrorism because they call Y terrorism, is not even disagreeing that X is terrorism. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it attack Chomsky personally or does it attack his credibility? When parading an "expert" as notable, it is appropriate to provide information that counters his/her credibility. Me thinks thou protest too much. --Storm Rider (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It states he should have called other events, as terrorist events. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is entirely appropriate to include criticism of Chomsky, and even necessary for balance. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Policy
Is it per Wikipolicy for an article to refer to itself as it does in the opposing views section?

"For example, the current article states that 200,000 people died during the long civil war in Guatemala..."

It just didn't seem very academic and I was wondering if it was Wikipolicy to do something as such.Wiegrajo 11:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Will correct it.Ultramarine 11:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Turkey
This is interesting. Being reported in Israel, Turkey and Iran that the Turkish Foreign Minister asked the US to explain why it is supplying weapons to the Terrorist group PKK. . ... Seabhcan 11:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Turkish-US relations would break apart if rumors of US supply of arms to the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iraq are proven correct, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül said." ... Seabhcan 12:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need an article on significant events that nobody has described as US terrorism. It might be easier to maintain. Tom Harrison Talk 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we'd just end up arguing about what an 'event' is. ... Seabhcan 12:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that would be one solution or just make this page: Criticism of US foreign policy, that way it could include all the US foreign policy mishaps and not be limited to semantics and weasel words such as terrorism.Wiegrajo 12:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think an article on state terrorism as applied to nations is a valuable one. As such I would oppose this section and no one is calling it terrorism, or even citing it as support for terrorists. There was a wall being walked before and I think we need to be careful we do not jump back and forth on it.--SevenOfDiamonds 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with SeveonOfDiamons on this. Lets keep this article to the high standards we've kept it at: only reliable sources and notable thinkers who describe their observations or make claims of State terrorism of the US, directly or otherwise.Giovanni33 00:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Eastern European section
Added by Tom H is opposed. Again, I ask editors to gain some kind of consensus here first. I oppose it because it contains no sources which accuse the US of state terrorism, though this WW11 lending program. Without reputable sources that accuse the US of state terrorism, directly or otherwise, its OR to include it here. We want to keep the standards of this article high. This addition, does not meet that standard unless notable and reliable sources are produced which state the claim directly.Giovanni33 12:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually think its ok. It fits with the rest of the material. But, Tom, you will need to find a source which connects US supplies to Russian state terrorism. Without this it is OR. Shouldn't be hard to find. ... Seabhcan 12:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Giovanni, at least one source that meets WP:RS and other sources supporting the factual information contained in the accusation. But even the minimum is not being observed, that is a source that alleges it was state terrorism/terrorism of the state ... terrorism at all ... The word terrorism would be nice if mentioned somewhere, possibly terrorize ... --SevenOfDiamonds 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it was known as the Great Terror, I think, but I will see if I can find a humanities professor somewhere who has been more explicit. It's harder to find unqualified condemnation of Stalin than one might expect. Tom Harrison Talk 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you wikilinked 'Great Terror' I am sure you understand it was another term for an event. If you can find a professor then I will surely not argue further, one that meets WP:RS, not John from the local highschool. Also the event being called an act of terrorism would still not qualify, you would need a citation stating the US was supporting terrorism, engaging in terrorism or something to that fact. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a source claiming the US was complicit in Stalin's crimes should be enough. ... Seabhcan
 * It should say something about supporting, directly or indirectly, state terrorism. If its too many removed, then we lose the standards we are keeping to and then anything goes (everything is connected somehow). We need a reputable source that makes the links concerning State terrorism. So far the addition stands out as OR. If it can be fixed, fine, but I propose we move it to talk to work on it (see if it can be fixed), and then restore it. Keeping this article in high standards is important, or else the claims that we allow OR here, would become true.Giovanni33 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep this article in high standards? Hahaha! That must be some kind of a joke, eh? The standard this article sets for being horribly one-sided are probably the only thing this article can ever hope to be. Who the heck added the silly use of A-bombs as state terrorism bit? I am removing that section.--Beguiled 06:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Far from being silly bombs, their use on civilian populations were dead serious, and a host of notable academics have characterized this war crime as terrorism. If you bothered to look at he sources, you would see its not a joke. The section was discussed for a long period of time above, and is the result of many editors working in consensus. Your blanking of this well sourced material as "junk science" boarders on vandalism. I will also note that your contributions here have only been disruptive so far. If you do not cease, I will report you so please work constructively with others going forward. Thanks.Giovanni33 07:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The wasn't anything he did that constituted vandalism since he did comment. Read WP:VAND so you know the difference. As far as I am concerned, your contributions here have also been disruptive and you do not have consensus to add this highly POV content. The vast majority of commenters that feel the use of the atomic weapons on Japan to end WWII was the wrong thing to do equate their use as a war crime, not state terrorism.--MONGO 09:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever mysteriously vast majority you refer to isn't referenced by you, unlike the entire section on Nagasaki and Hiroshima is. Since you are preaching wikipolicy, you should know that as long as it is reliably sourced, with the sources claiming it was state terrorism, then it fits in the article just fine.Wiegrajo 11:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, an act being a war crime would not remove it from being terrorism, by any definition. AQ did declare war on the US, and as such you would be equating Sept. 11 as a war crime and not an act of terrorism. I can tell you for sure many people in New York would not agree with the idea that "war crimes" and terrorism are separate in all cases. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Al Qaeda is not a sovereign state with the legal standing to declare war. 9/11 was not an act of war in any sense of the word.  It was murder.   Perpetrators are subject to penalties of law including the death penalty.  Criminals would have used that defense countless times if it worked.  --Tbeatty 13:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to see the sourced definition you are working with that states what terrorism is, and explicitly states that the perpetrator cannot be involved in a declaration of war. Also I would like to point you to the current war in Iraq. The war in Iraq seems to signify that the target does not need to be a sovereign entity. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "War" in the "War in Iraq" is misnomer. Insurgents in Iraq have no legal standing.  They are arrested for crimes when caught.  They may not be released when the conflict ends.  This is the distinction between "enemy combatant" and "POW."  --Tbeatty 14:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These legal niceties are academic until someone wins. If the US wins, then you'll be right. If the insurgents win they will define themselves to be legal and thus will be. When the US was defeated in Vietnam, the illegal insurgents became statesmen and are now invited to the west for conferences. ... Seabhcan 15:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The viewpoint of "State terrorism" is such a minority, fringe view that it doesn't belong. State terrorism isn't listed on the article about the bombings for good reason. This is not the catchall article for every fringe, nut ball theory about what constitutes state terrorism by the United States. The article must still adhere to Undue Weight provisions. This section does not. --Tbeatty 13:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be more then enough sources to show Undue Weight does not apply. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural terrorism
I think I have addressed the concerns about this that some people expressed earlier. Let me know what you think. Tom Harrison Talk 13:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Its a bit silly (which is your intention, I guess) but its fine other than that. I change the first line slightly. It appeared to fail the criteria for a direct statement which you have been expounding here for some time. ... Seabhcan 13:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I should have caught that myself. Tom Harrison Talk 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Requesting a source fix. The Webster.edu sources do not meet WP:RS as they are newsgroup/forum postings. I am interested in reading the actual source of the statements. From reading the forum posting it seems the discussion was not actually on such a broad scale but limited to Haiti and the Creole language, I think the direct sources would help me better understand the connections. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also a worrisome as DeGraff is not posting directly, the person posting is  as can be seen by the header. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you fix the problem with the subject matter? The only way this could be acceptable here is if you have a source that says "Cultural Terrorism" is a form of State-Terrorism. As you may recall, the problem with your addition is that the concept is fundamentally different. State terrorism deals with unlawful political violence targeting civilians. Your concept is more akin to "cultural imperialism."Giovanni33 22:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough one source does state United States imperialism, cultural terrorism in the very same sentence. I am still not seeing a response on the sources. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ganser Ag'in
How does Ganser fulfill the requirements for WP:RS? Considering that he does have quite the following in the Joos did 9/11 circles, he might be marginally noteworthy on some of this, but the extent he is being used cannot be justified. I will trim him to size. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This has already been discussed and it was agreed Ganser is a reliable source. Your trimming removed valid information, and since there is no consensus to remove it, I've restored it.Giovanni33 22:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that there was only alot of namecalling, no concensus of reliability. How many scholarly sources quote Ganser? The few I found on Google scholar only mention him to berate his book. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with TDC. --Tbeatty 23:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree with TDC. I am not sure what makes you think someones personal opinion regarding a seperate topic removes them from being able to discuss any other. We went through this fallacy above regarding Newton looking for codes in the bible. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It goes to credibility, for one. Newton was a genius in many fields, and is still cited on his work to this day, Ganser is not a genius, and no one cites his, ahem, "research". Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can do a Amazon.Com search and get three pages of results, or which I would exclude 3 books, that prove you are wrong. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That would also be just stuff Amazon carries and not even more scientific journals etc. He is well beyond WP:RS for the points mentioned in the policy. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In general I evaluate a source by seeing who cites him in bibliographies. If Ganser's work is mainstream and respected, he has probably been cited by other mainstream, respected scholars. The thing we need to watch out for with that approach is walled gardens - some little group citing each other and promoting each other's work. Tom Harrison Talk 23:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

“This has already been discussed and it was agreed Ganser is a reliable source” When and where is this?

Ganser’s reliability was discussed in at length on the Operation Gladio talk page. User:Seabhcan asked User:Fred Bauder, a member of the Arbitration Committee to review the matter and give a strait up or down opinion on Gansner’s reliability as per WP:RS, stating “I'd prefer not to go through the trouble of arbitration for such a specific issue.” :


 * Help on WP:RS dispute


 * Hi, I wonder if you could lend an outsiders opinion to a dispute that has been raging on articles related to Operation Gladio. The dispute is whether a book on the subject is an WP:RS or not. The book is by Dr. Daniele Ganser of the ETH Zurich university. The book was published by them and Ganser received a PhD from that University for this work. ETH Zurich is very prestigious, having been the university where Einstein worked and having 21 Nobel prize winners on their staff. It is one of the fore-most universities in Europe.


 * I and others say this makes the book notable. Another group of editors say that because Ganser joined a group called 9/11 Scholars for Truth two years after the book was published, Ganser's work becomes suspect and cannot be referenced.


 * What do you think? I'd prefer not to go through the trouble of arbitration for such a specific issue. Thanks. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 16:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Answer: A source authored by a person engaged in a propaganda operation such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth would be considered unreliable. Fred Bauder 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Seabhcan, the matter has already been arbitrated and Ganser has been found “unreliable”. This was not the answer Seabhcan wished for, so instead of abiding by it, he and other supporters of Ganser declared Bauder’s opinion to be simply Bauder’s personal opinion on the matter and therefore non-binding.

As a side note, at the time this debate was going on, on the Gladio page, there existed an English league interview of Ganser in which he was asked to produce something that would back up his accusations/theories, and what did he use as proof? Wikapedia. So Wikipedia sourced to him, and he sourced to Wikipedia. If someone where to take the time to search Google, it’s probably still out there. Brimba 02:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Swiss researcher Daniele Ganser, who works at Zurich’s Center for Security Studies, has also been fooled by the forgery. Ganser treats the forgery as if it was a genuine document in his 2005 book on “stay behind” networks, Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe and includes it as a key document on his Web site on the book. Ganser writes, “FM 30-31B is maybe the most important Pentagon document with regard to the stay-behind armies.” He goes on to speculate that the bogus document may provide the blueprint for terrorist acts that occurred during the Cold War in Western Europe. Source: US State Department. Türkishce Konterguerilla as a source for your PhD work? Get real.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 03:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That was not a ruling on Dr. Ganser that was a personal opinion. The US War Hawks got fooled by a crude Niger forgery, so if Dr. Ganser got fooled too, he's in good company. We need a referee for this article. Bmedley Sutler 07:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- I haven't seen that Ganser was also fooled by a crude Niger forgery but that would not add to his credibility. He is not a reliable source. --Tbeatty 07:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points on the FM 30-31B document: Ganser mentions it on two pages out of 300. He does not cite it as definitive and does mention that the US declares it to be a forgery. Second point: the only evidence that the document is a forgery is that the US government declares it to be. Thats it. ... Seabhcan 08:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that is all very well and fine, but do we accept the credibility of someone who has been involved in September 11, 2001 conspiracy theories as well? Seems to me if someone is that easily duped (or biased) then much the rest they have to say on things involving U.S. Government matters is likely biased as well.--Beguiled 10:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you accept someone who looked for secret codes in the bible as an expert in science? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if they claimed to find evidence that a US government conspiracy at the highest levels orchestrated the plagues of Egypt. Tom Harrison Talk 12:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- Hiii OHHH. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No it was better, Isaac Newton's occult studies. Wonder if he found that stone ... Bad news is we will all be gone in 13 years ... Still watching sponge bob I see? --SevenOfDiamonds 16:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ganser also does not deal with the US government much. His studies were into the security services of European countries. This included NATO, which connected these agencies together, and MI5/6 and the CIA which trained these agencies following the second world war. His research is not a wholesale investigation of the US government. ... Seabhcan 13:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 30-31B is the only piece of evidence Ganser has, Oh sure, he has interviews with some crackpots and frauds, and plenty of speculation, but 30-31B is the documental lynchpin of his case. From an interview with those sticklers for accuracy and whose reputation for credibility is legendary, the Larouchies


 * So, this Field Manual 30-31B seems like a blueprint for the domestic control task/Strategy of Tension, utilizing SB/Gladio structures.

<-- And from his website, where its described as his “smoking gun”


 * Among the "smoking guns" unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, which details the methodology for launching terrorist attacks in nations that "do not react with sufficient effectiveness" against "communist  subversion."


 * He found a document whose accuracy he never doubted and ran with it, not exactly a crime, but the fact that he places so much credence in it, while simultaneously refusing to even address the possibility of it being a forgery is the hallmark of a poor researcher … which is why his peers do not take him seriously. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * None of that is true, and shows that you have not read the book you are criticing. He mentions the document on 2 out of 300 pages and *does* mention questions over its authenticity. It is one source amoung 800 quoted in the book. He also rightly points out that there is no evidence that the document is a forgery, simply US government claims that it is. Amoung the "crackpots" he interviews are the former Prime minister of italy, and the former head of the CIA. Please, at the very least, read a book before you criticise it. ... Seabhcan 15:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He mentions, and brushes off in a word or two the "allegations" that it is a forgery, and then goes on to discuss its significance, and how its the smoking gun of his crackpot theories. He interviewed the former head of the CIA? Really? He cites and interview, but never directly interviewed anyone in the CIA. It also seems a bit strange how many of his sources are Communist Newspapers. Now, who didn't read the book? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To SevenOfDiamonds: No, would you? Also, let's keep this extremely ridiculous notion that the use of nuclear weapons on Japan was an act of terrorism out of this article. Thank you.--Beguiled 13:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So who exactly is credited with discovering gravity? I thought This crackpot who is obviously not a reliable source by your standards ... This is why a source is not removed because they believe certain things. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 'War time' does not excuse terror. Al Qaedia declared war on the US before 9/11. Does that excuse it? ... Seabhcan 14:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is Al Qaeda a nation? Where are they located? Inquiring minds want to know.--Beguiled 14:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you excuse all terrorism if it is committed by a 'state' then what are you doing editing an article on 'state terrorism'?... Seabhcan 14:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because I dispute that the U.S. has engaged in terrorism. The U.S. sure aint perfect and hasn't been anywhere near as decent as it should be to it's fellow nations, but the only reason most of Europe didn't end up goose-stepping their way to annual Nuemberg rallies or some far off and not so enchanting place in Siberia is because the U.S. took a stand. You're welcome.--Beguiled 14:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- That was 60 years ago. Has your generation, or the previous one, done anything since. Stop basking in the reflected glory of your grandparents. ... Seabhcan 14:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/speeches/wall.asp--Beguiled 14:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, come off it. The eastern block collapsed for economic reasons. The US had minimal impact. You know that Bin Laden claims he defeated the Soviet Union aswell. You're in good company. ... Seabhcan 14:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is the way you want to see it that's fine. I guess "the colonies" are just supposed to come a-runnin at your guys beck and call eh? Otherwise, we're supposed to sit in our cages until you summon us? I suppose the efforts by the U.S. in Kosovo weren't enough, even now? What have you done for US? See, this is a big problem in Europe. Now that the mean bear is quiet, we're just the unwanted second cousins, right.--Beguiled 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My country never had colonies (in fact, it was a colony and had to win our independence without any help. The US denied our request to the league of nations, by the way) and Europe is not only not under threat, but we collectively have a larger military than the US or even China. Remember, the EU had to send aid in 2006 to help the US fish its citizens from the sea at New Orleans. We'll be fine on our own, thanks.... Seabhcan 14:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- I get it, you're Irish. The EU offered to aide the U.S. during the New Orleans situation and the U.S. graciously accepted the aide, thank you and it's about time I might add since the Euopean economy was saved after WWII by the Marshall Plan--Beguiled 14:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, not a red cent of the Marshall aid was given to my country. But that was your grandparents again. Thanks. ... Seabhcan 15:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then somebody better change this map.--Beguiled 15:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * --Beguiled 15:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets get back on topic, namely Ganser is no an RS, and the outside input agreed with that reasoning. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a convincing argument. What was the "outside input" based on? How many editors, where is that discussion, and what was the basis of the reasoning? Looking at his credencials and what he has published, he certainly is a reliable source from my reading.Giovanni33 15:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The argument was made that Fred Bauder’s ruling was only an opinion; however, Seabhcan specifically asked for a ruling, and Fred Bauder replied. Bauder was clearly acting in his capacity as a member of the Arbitration Committee. The very reason that Fred Bauder vs. anyone else was asked to give an opinion is due to his being an arbitrator. To come along after the fact and say that it “technically” was not a ruling is, - I for one did not know that Wikipedia’s rules where that well litigated. At the end of the day the material violates not only WP:RS but WP:V “Articles should only contain material that has been published by reliable sources.” And as V states: “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.” Even without Bauder, this obligation has not been met, and the material is excludable even without his ruling, however the ruling is there and it stands. Members of the arbitration committee, acting in their capacity as members of that committee, have final say. Brimba 15:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Except he wasn't and its just your opinion that he was. Arbcom is committee, they do not act alone. Further as proven by our friend Newton, a persons beliefs do not exclude them from being able to discuss other items as reliable. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. To say this "ruling" has anything to do with Arbcom (which doesnt even deal with content disputes) is disingenuous, and fallacius reasoning (appeal to authority?).Giovanni33 19:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You ask for an opinion, and you get it, but then reject it because it does not say what you wanted it say. Irrelevant at any rate, because to the best of my knowledge Fred is not in suspended animation on his way to Alpha Centauri, and if asked he could clear this up. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Seabhcan sought out a member of the Arbitration Committee and asked him to mediate a specific question. At the same time he asked to avoid the arbitration process, stating openly “I'd prefer not to go through the trouble of arbitration for such a specific issue.” (his words, not mine) And lastly he did indeed get a specific response to his specific question.

I am familiar with American English and somewhat with the Queen’s English, but to hear you talk there must be yet a third English that I am unaware of, a form of English where what you say is not what you mean. Here in the States when someone says something (excluding politicians) they generally mean what they say, and I see no reason to think that was not the case in this instance.

Even if it is does fail as a ruling, and that is clearly debatable (if you want to split hairs, maybe not in a truly technical sense, but certainly it was within the spirit of the law); regardless, it still is sufficient grounds to cast Ganser work as unreliable as per WP:RS and WP:V Per V: “Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.” Hardly the case here; Ganser is making exceptional claims, without being an exceptional source. Brimba 01:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By your own words, this was not something from Arbcom. PS its fourth English, its beyond political, its terrestrial. As for casting Gansers work as unreliable, you are not in a position to do that. If the person meets WP:RS, which their prior publishing does, then they are a WP:RS source. As for your WP:V statement on fact checking, just because you were fooled by a forgery, does not mean you did not fact check. For instance is Dateline now inadmissable under WP:RS? Is the US government, or at least the State Department no longer WP:RS for it being fooled by the Niger forgery? Since Powell presented it as fact, do we strike out anything he stated? The idea of fact checking does not mean the source is infallable to error, just they do check facts. Ganser also in the book states the US think its a forgery, which is still the only proof ever presented of it being a forgery, the US government saying so. That would mean the facts were checked and even presented to the reader. This is also why you should read the sources before complaining about them. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your circular logic is rather unpersuasive. “If the person meets WP:RS, which their prior publishing does, then they are a WP:RS source.” No, each book, paper, whatever must stand on its own merits (feel free to show me something within the established guidelines supporting your position). Its NOT a case of once in, always in. BTW, what where the prior published works of Ganser that you are referring to?

“As for casting Gansers work as unreliable, you are not in a position to do that.” Sorry, no, Wikipedia does not work that way. Any editor, myself included, is free to challenge the reliability of any source. “The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material.” That being you and those supporting your position. That means that it is up to YOU, and those supporting your position, to establish the sources reliability (i.e. Ganser), establishing reliability can not be shrugged off by simply stating that “As for casting Gansers work as unreliable, you are not in a position to do that.” It takes something proactive on your part.

“As for your WP:V statement on fact checking, just because you were fooled by a forgery, does not mean you did not fact check.” Does he have the required “reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”? No, if he did we would not be having this conversation. Everyone makes mistakes from time-to-time, and everyone gets fooled, whether it’s the New York Times or the National Enquirer. Reputations are established over time, not from a single event. Has Ganser ever publicly acknowledged that he was fooled, mistaken, whatever, and dropped his reliance upon Field Manual 30-31B?

Ganser built his argument upon a discredit document widely acknowledged to be a forgery manufactured by the KGB (yes there is even proof of this originating from the KGB). It was his “smoking gun”, proof from the US government itself that his theories where more than acid trips. After all, without it, where’s the beef? He had to use it. Without a smoking gun, it’s hard to keep the grant money flowing.

I did a check myself and ran “Daniele Ganser” through Google News..got zero hits. If you fail to catch the significant of that statement then good luck proving his reliability and his legitimacy. In the real world he is NN. Brimba 05:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 *  2003 Nobel Prize Winner in Physics Alexei Abrikosov got zero hits in Google News too. And he won a Nobel Prize. What's your point? Google News hits are not a good test for much. Bmedley Sutler 08:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alexei Abrikosov is cited in hundreds of peer papers ... how many is Ganser cited in again? Oh, thats right, none. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Phillipines
This section seems to smell of WP:SYNT to me. Who, exactly, is claiming that this is “state terrorism”? Remember, unless someone calls it such, it cannot be in the article. Claims and allegations of Extrajudicial killings, assassinations, and general repression are not the same as allegations of state terrorism, unless someone notable is making that claim. As of now, I don’t see that in the section. It would appear that the only individual really claiming this to be an act of "terrorism" by the US is E. San Juan (is that even a real name?!?), and as we all know, extrodinary claims require some extrodinary evidence. The link, used multiple times in the article, has its source at Indymedia: PHILIPPINES: FILIPINA MILITANTS INDICT BUSH-ARROYO FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY (Bay Area Indymedia), and we all know thats does not meet the WP:RS criteria either. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Should be removed.Ultramarine 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Eastern and western Europe
I have found and added a couple of sources, made some adjustments to address the concerns expressed, and tried to better integrate the material with the rest of the page. I look forward to hearing suggestions for further improvement. Tom Harrison Talk 17:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't see that your changes satisified the objections rasied above. It contains no sources which accuse the US of state terrorism. Without reputable sources that accuse the US of state terrorism, directly or otherwise, its OR to include it here. We want to keep the standards of this article high. The source should say something about US supporting, directly or indirectly, state terrorism. And, to avoid SYNT, a reputable source itself must make the links concerning State terrorism by presenting that actual argument. So far the addition stands out as OR. If it can be fixed, fine, but I propose we move it to talk to work on it, and then restore it only after this main defect is fixed (if it can be)-like last time. Next time I suggest posting it on talk first.Giovanni33 19:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit waring against consenses to blank sections of this aritcle-esp. the Japan section
A small handful of editors are doing this, claiming they don't see any consensus on talk, so I'd like to point out the section for them above, so they can stop blanking sourced material that was added by consenses: [] --Now Archived here: [] As you can see, ALL editors on both sides of the fence agreed for its inclusion, except the lone editor Tbetty, who thus knows better but is still edit waring because he didn't get his way, and who failed to provide good reasons, or convince anyone (even those who share his POV that he was right). This that he and his friends keep removing was the end product of all these editors working together, tailored to the various conditions they requested for me to abide by. In addition to this clear talk page consensus, various other editors have supported it in edit summaries, restoring it, once it started to be taken out by the likes of Tebeatty, Mongo, and now Dan, et al. Since this section is well sourced, a product of a majority of editors from different POV's, and supported by a majority of editors working on the article, removing it in this manner is unacceptable edit warring, and will be opposed. If any of you have specific objections to the content, please discuss this on the talk page instead and gain a new consensus on the material. I'll be happy to discuss any objections you have here or on talk, and if there is a new consensus to remove or making any changes, then we can do so. Until then, you are advised to stop being disruptive to this article.

Also, I will say this qualifies as distruptive editing since this is editing against consensus, and blanking sourced material that a majority of editors support, and agreed to add in the talk page: a total of 16 editors supporting this section and reverting its blanking, with only ONE editor who stated his disagreement. In fairness, Mongo changed his mind later--after it was added and all the work was done-- but was part of the consensus to add the material discussed on the talk page (which is exactly what I added). For you to blank this, is distruptive given this action is against consensus and will just be reverted by others. If you get a new consensus among editors about changes you wants to see in it that would be fine. I'll respect consensus on the matter, and I insist on the same from others. Your current actions are unacceptable and a violation of policy.

I know you will deny these fact that consensus clearly established, but let any editor go to the section above and see that you are wrong. I even held off after consensus was reached (and editors asked me to now start the section) for a few more days to allow more time just to make sure. To review, we have Bmedley Sutler, SevenOfDiamonds, Mongo, Merzbow, BMF81, BernardL, Strothra,Seabhcan, Lifarn, Pexise, StoneinTheSky vs. You (and you did not provide any valid reasons that were accepted). Now, while you, Dan, and Mongo, have now decided to blank the section (and other good sections), be clear that it is against the consensus that was reached on this talk by editors on both sides of the POV fence. And, that this disruptive esp. since its being done by you without discussion on talk for any objections you might have. Also, consensus for this is even more clear when we consider that even more editors have shown their support for the section by reverting the blanking, inclding the admin John, Lifarn, Jack Merridew, East718, Pexise,SevenOfDiamonds, and myself. This is not even including the additional editors who showed they accepted it by simply making other edits after it was restored. Please refelect on best practices--a handful of editors are now blanking it, and attacking this articles contents, and a refusal to use the talk page to try to achieve a new consensus does not make for appropriate behavior. I think this is a very basic issue and you can figure out what it the best way to go aboug addressing any issues you have moving forward.Giovanni33 16:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Might I add that I support the inclusion of this section.  . V .  [Talk 16:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see its removal against consensus the worse kind of blatant edit waring in violation of the core norms of editing on wikipedia. I ask those editors engaged in this disruptive editing to consider that, and consider coming here first. We are all open to hear your objections and have any disputes resolved. I also insist that we enforce policy by restoring anything that is removed without consensus. Blanking well sourced material against consensus should not be allowed to stand, as its boarders on vandalism.Giovanni33 16:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your claim that the inclusions of WW II atomic bombing of Japan is terrorism meets consensus is specious. The consensus is clearly that it is not terrorism and to claim that it is is a violation of undue weight.  It is the duty of any responsible editor to remove such material. Dman727 16:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Straw man, fallacy. That is NOT my claim. My claim is that the material that was added in that section was the result of a consensus acheived here on this talk page, and your blanking it because you dont agree with it is not appropriate. Also, your claim about what is in the article is also false. Did you even bother to read it? If so, you will see that what you claim above is clearly false, as well since before I explore the minority POV (the claims it represents an act of state terrorism), the section first talks about the consensus view about those who oppose the bombing, and only aftewards reports in detail regarding the minority view, as this article should. I quote:


 * "The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification for them, has been subject to debate. In particular, the claims that these attacks were acts of state terrorism remain a matter of controversy. However, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."[120]The arguments center around the targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Specifically, the fact that the Target Committee on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. [121] They also center around claims that the attacks were militarily unnecessary, and transgressed moral barriers.[122][123][124] [125][126][127][126]".Giovanni33 17:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I read it and I've indicated to you that I did(did you bother to read me responses). I see your claim of consensus but thats about as far as it goes.  Just because you claim it is consensus does not actually make it so.  Nonethless,  it certainly appears that there is NO LONGER a consensus, as clearly there are a significant number of editors who feel that this material has no place in the article. If you wish to include the material, you'll need to build a consensus as the old one (which didnt exist anyway) has evaporated. Dman727 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, now you seem to be admitting there was consensus, but that now you claim there is no longer that consensus. Well, in that case, there is no consensus to remove. Its up to you go make a case here and get the majority, at least, to agree that its should be blanked, etc, before you actually go ahead and do that. If there is a new consensus among editors of both sides of POV's then I'll happily respect that consensus. But, it doesnt exist as of yet, so please don't blank well sourced material that was added WITH consensus from editors of both POV's.Giovanni33 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL! No.  Im saying there was no consensus and if there was its long gone. I do give you the benefit of the doubt that you feel there is a consensus in your own mind though.  There is NO CONSENSUS for inclusions of the fringe mateiral. Nice try though. Dman727 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I thank the editors who are showing good faith and building trust, and bridge by restoring material that clearlly had consensus. Again, if consensus changes as per talk, then its another matter. But as of now, this section should be defended from prematurely removing it against the consensus that was clearly established.Giovanni33 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus, especially on your version. Furthermore, exactly what policy are you referring to regarding prior "consensus" versions being protected from new edits? Ultramarine 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What other version is there? As I said many times I'm open to working with all editors and changing as per consensus. So far there is nothing but blanking going on. That is what I object to. That and only that. And, you can say there was no consensus, but I showed otherwise, above--so saying that is simply false.Giovanni33 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there was no consensus for your version and is not now. Again, exactly what policy are you referring to regarding prior "consensus" versions being protected from new edits?

I'm very reluctant to agree with deleting an interesting and well-cited section, even though I don't particularly accept the conclusions of the people quoted. I don't see any consensus for deleting, so let's leave it alone. ThAtSo 17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a double standard, you revert to keep arguments for one side, but revert to delete sourced arguments for the other side.Ultramarine 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an assumption of bad faith on your part. I oppose the deletion of relevant, well-written, and adequately cited text, regardless of whether I happen to agree with it. You're going to need to apologize now if you want me to take you seriously. ThAtSo 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why did you delete the sourced views of one side but keep those of the other? Ultramarine 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for that apology. You are required to assume good faith and remain civil. ThAtSo 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Add me as yet another editor who disagrees with the so-called "consensus". How many is that now? Consensus is not absolute, it can change. - Crockspot 17:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, but there was consensus clearly established. Now if you wish to see if consensus has changed, then that is fine. However, to remove the section, or any other major, drastic changes to the article, you have the forge a new consensus that supports that. That is my sole point.Giovanni33 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there was no consensus for your version and is not now. Again, exactly what policy are you referring to regarding prior "consensus" versions being protected from new edits?Ultramarine 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your repeating yourself, so I'll repeat: As I said many times I'm open to working with all editors and changing as per consensus. So far there is nothing but blanking going on. That is what I object to. That and only that. And, you can say there was no consensus, but I showed otherwise, above--so saying that is simply false. Review WP policies about reaching consensus before making major contested edits. I don't think I need to quote large sections of policy here. We should already know this stuff.Giovanni33 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, what "WP policies" are you refering to? Certainly not WP:BOLD.Ultramarine 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I see three people speaking in support of the Japan section and you alone opposing it. Clearly, there is no consensus to delete. If you have specific issues with that section, bring them up so we can improve it. Otherwise, this issue is closed. Still waiting for that apology, by the way, so I'm still not taking you seriously. ThAtSo 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are lots of other editors above disagreeing with you. I do not see Crockspot above agreeing with you, he can correct me if I am wrong.Ultramarine 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly there is more than one editor that disagree with the WW II section. Perhaps a straw poll? Dman727 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Polls are stupid. If you put one up, I'll vote with my feet. ThAtSo 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Naturally its your choice to leave or stay. Do you still believe that only one editor opposed including the section on WW II/Japan? Dman727 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine then he needs to win conensus to blank/delete as there is none for that. Such a drastic major edit is opposed. We do not get to blank sourced material that was added with consensus, esp. without even going to the talk page. No one thinks that is an acceptable way to edit on WP.Giovanni33 17:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Without going to talk page? Isn't that where we are?  Dman727 17:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, now you are, but only AFTER reverting several times, blanking well sourced material that was added only after consensus and extensive discussion among editors of all POV's here on talk. That is a big no no. Thanks for talking here, at least. But please dont blank again until there is some kind of conesensus to do so.Giovanni33 18:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * talk page discussion in not required for removing specious material. Please don't lecture to me about reverting[].  Besides that, i've discussed and opposed this material on talk page long before this current conversation.  In any event we ARE AT talk page so further beating of this dead horse is just WP:SOAP. Dman727 18:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a straw poll is called for. I count at least five editors who oppose the inclusion, but I keep reading that there is only one. - Crockspot 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page discussions IS required for you to demonstrate that the text is specious. So far, you've threatened us with an unscientific poll, but given no explanation of why you think the deletion is justified. If you don't give a reason, I'm going to have to assume you don't have a legitimate one, and respond appropriately. ThAtSo 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll walk away from the silly poll, not the article. I'm taking a statistics class right now, so I'm painfully aware of how irrelevant the results of an entirely unscientific poll are. Poll all you like, but I'm not adding legitimacy by participating and I'm not bound by the worthless results. It's up to you to explain exactly why we should delete the Japan section convincingly, but you haven't even tried. ThAtSo 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should anyone take your opinion seriously, when you refuse to admit that there are more than one opposing editors, and you refuse to abide by any kind of accurate count of how those editors feel? Your comments haven't convinced me that I should even take your opinion into account. - Crockspot 18:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really care what you think of me. What matters is that, if you can't justify deletion, I will be one of the people who will disprove the claim of consensus by reverting any attempts to delete. I will vote with my feet, not my mouth. ThAtSo 18:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the burden of proof is on the editor(s) wanting to include content. Do you still think that only one editor opposing inclusion of the WW II/japan material? Dman727 18:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen zero editors giving any reason whatsoever. ThAtSo 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, Dman, please do not ignore and disregard the consensus that was clearly arrived at before this section was added, and which includes editors from all POVs. See the section I reference above, which shows this. Clearly, more than one editor NOW disagrees, as they are blanking the section, but this is clearly being doing against that clear consensus. This is what is not right.Giovanni33 18:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually its not clear that there is a consensus at all which the body of text in this section clearly demonstrates. Dman727 18:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, but we are talking apples and organes. The point is that there WAS clear consensus to add the material, as anyone can cleary see, per above. Now, its being opposed by edtors who are blanking the section. However, they are blanking material that was added through the process of obtaining consensus. This is what is wrong. As far as now, I agree with you: there is no consensus to make ANY major edits, esp. not blanking. So before any such major edits are undertaking, a new consensus has to be reached.Giovanni33 18:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No material has an inherent right to exist in article. The only material that may stay is that which is supported by a clear consensus.  I don't think it ever existed and clearly it does not exist now. I will do this though - I'll take a look at the material and see what changes I think are valid short of removing it entirely.  Nonethless I think labeling WW II actions made under color of war as terrorist activity is minority viewpoint and a large passage devoted to such a fringe theory violated undue weight. Dman727 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There was never a consensus for you text. Again, see WP:BOLD, there is no policy demanding consensus before changing texts.Ultramarine 18:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bold does not mean edit waring by blanking well sourced material that was added through the process of gaining consenus among many editors of all POV's, as proven above. You can say there was no consensus but its a false statement no matter how many times you repeat it.Giovanni33 18:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That the inclusion immediately caused an edit war shows that you are wrong. Regardless, there is no policy stating that material cannot be changed or removed without "consensus", so please stop refering to such a policy.Ultramarine 18:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we all bring it down a notch. Arkon 18:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that the deletion was immediately reverted and contested is evidence that there was never any consensus for it. So far, nobody's offered any arguments for deletion, other than the trivially-refuted one about it being "fringe". All allegations of terrorism by the USA are genuinely controversial, so we have to be very careful not to eliminate encyclopedic text just because of the existence of controversy. What matters are reliable sources, and there are clearly a number of notable people, including heads of state and historians, who have been quoted verbatim in support of the idea that nuking Japan was terrorism. This means it's not fringe, just unpopular. Personally, I think terrorism is too strong a word, but my personal opinion is no more relevant than yours. ThAtSo 19:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And user Tbeatty has blanked it again. We need an admin to intervene, I think. I've tried to reason with him on his talk page but he insists in blanking against consensus. I think he needs a warning from an admin to stop it.Giovanni33 20:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus to add it. PLease stop adding it against consensus and there wouldn't be 5 editors reverting you.  --Tbeatty 20:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was added by full consensus of multiple editors on both sides of the POV spectrum. Some 17 editors indicated support vs 1 (yourself). Thus, it was added. Now, that you have a gang to attack this article to blank it, doesnt change this. If you wish to remove it, you should get consensus to do so, ortherwise, it borders on vandalism, and is disruption. I will report you.Giovanni33 20:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. There has been no credible explanation for why this section should be deleted, and there is no consensus to justify deleting relevant and well-cited text. Removal of such material is simply vandalism. ThAtSo 20:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni: if you have this "consensus" then why is it being removed constantly? You keep yapping about a mandate then the mandate should be supported by a stability of your version, not bu its constant removal. Me laughs.--Beguiled 21:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good questions, since you just vandalized this page by blanking this material that was added with consensus, maybe you can answer why you are doing this?Giovanni33 22:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have vandalized nothing. There is obviously no consensus for that section since multiple editors keep taking it out. Kinda hard for you to understand eh?--Beguiled 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 Removing info on the atomic bombing of Japan is against consensus, and the claims of consensus are a misuse of consensus. What if supporters of George Bush wanted to keep all sourced criticism about him from the article, and they had 'the numbers' to do so? Same here. If its sourced it should stay in. Bmedley Sutler 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Human rights organizations" accusing the US of "state terrorism" 2
Again, exactly who are these (at least two are implied)?Ultramarine 17:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of counter-arguments
Just more evidence for that this article is WP:SOAP violation. Why was the sourced arguments from the beginning of User:Ultramarine/Sandbox removed?Ultramarine 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which sourced arguments in specific? ThAtSo 17:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All those sourced arguments that you reverted.Ultramarine 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There weren't any arguments, either in the change you made or in the link you provided. In your recent edit, you didn't add arguments, just POV. I reverted the change because it biased that section of the article. And I'll revert it again if I have to, because NPOV is required. Still waiting for that apology. ThAtSo 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There were lots of sourced arguments that you reverted away: Yet just before this you reverted back a section having arguments for the other side. No double standard please.Ultramarine 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

See, the reason I can't take you seriously is that you're convinced there are "sides" in this. If I don't wholeheartedly support everything that is American, I must be some sort of commie, right? It's impossible that I want to keep an interesting section that's cited while opposing your attempt to bias another section, yes? That's what I thought. Giving up on ever getting an apology from you. ThAtSo 17:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have given no concrete arguments for why you removed the sourced material. Please do.Ultramarine 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any arguments for me to remove, just bias. If I could make myself take you seriously, I'd demand that you list the arguments and show their citations, but I can't, so I won't. Instead, I'll just chuckle. ThAtSo 17:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There were sourced arguments, like showing that Chomsky was wrong. Read again what you removed.Ultramarine 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself without answering, which is a waste of my time. ThAtSo 18:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You repeat by not answering why you removed the sourced material. See again what you deleted.Ultramarine 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

An entire section on nuking Japan, complete with citations, counts as sourced materials. A bunch of POV inserstions to an otherwise neutral section does not. Look me up once you understand the difference, but I'm not going to reply further unless you actually do your job by explaining what changes of value you made, in detail and without my having to pry the facts out, one at a time. The burden is on you to defend your change. ThAtSo 18:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you guys arguing here, this is not the sandbox, please take it to your userspace. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

We are arguing over the sourced removed material.Ultramarine 18:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's call it a day, or rather a summer
Regardless of how this article ended up for now (and I really don't know the details because I stopped paying close attention--amazing how much more "real" work I've been able to get done!) a long protection may not be a bad thing. Lots of folks here can contribute to Wikipedia in lots of great ways, and in the end this article is small potatoes, whatever you think of it. Maybe taking an uber-long break from this talk page (I can't imagine a whole lot will be accomplished) would be good for everyone. We can all meet again to fight the good fight for truth, justice, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, capitalism, communism, Noam Chomsky, David Horowitz, objectivity, encyclopedicness, the American way, the non-American way, my way, your way, her way, and, yes, the highway around the time of the autumnal equinox. Incidentaly, some very interesting preliminary research suggests that contentious editing of Wiki articles is best undertaken when there's weird shit going on with the alignment of celestial bodies we hold dear. I don't have a source for these studies, but damn it you'll have to trust me. If Wiccans of different viewpoints can get down with one another during the equinox, why not Wikians? No reason. In solidarity, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Everyone have a nice summer. Tom Harrison Talk 00:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

and yet again, a complaint about the title.
I hate wasting time on this issue but it is serious as this point has been ignored on numerious occasions in the past discussion of the title.

The title reads as if the US is making the allegations. It is worded very poorly and rewording is in order. It gives the whole page a different meaning!

Please someone answer why this semantic error is allowed to exist. I have one suggested title: Criticism of US Foreign PolicyWiegrajo 09:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I for one would support such a move, it would avoid the undefined perjorative terrorism. Since most of the article links to sources not mentioning "state terrorism", it would only reflect the subject.Ultramarine 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good. I think we should move it to this title: Criticism of US foreign policy because that removes the weasel word "allegations" and the weasel word "terrorism." What does everyone else think? I think this would be a great way to start putting more focus on this article and spend less time looking for sources that specifically say "terrorism" and arguing idealogy. Then we could outline the article in a specifically international context (as mentioned before on this talk page) and could then just focus on facts instead of OR or synth.Wiegrajo 12:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keeping the word state terrorism is important for me, as that is what all our sources are geared towards. Criticism is too broad and expansive. I raised your semantical point, as well, and that is one of the reasons I favor "State terrorism by the United States" since its clear in the body its allegations, and the subject matter is clearly about State terrorism of the US. But, I don't want to edit war about this, and I think most people understand the title as it stands.Giovanni33 12:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Though I usually agree with the points you make on here I disagree with you twice on this. Terrorism is a weasel word because it is completely a point-of-view term.  This is proven by some members here thinking that the US is guilty and some don't.  I bet you could rightfully call them liberal/internationalists and conservative/nationalists, respectively.  I also disagree with you that the current title is unacceptable. Anybody educated in correct english grammar would say that the article would be about the US making allegations of state terror, according to the title.Wiegrajo 12:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Terrorism is anything but a weasel word (a slippery word trying to undo the content it is a part of), it is a strong word - very strong, and State Terrorism should be retained, renaming it away is the ultimate in weasel words. This article is about allegations made that the United States practices State terrorism, as such the title is correct, anything else would be trying to POV away the existence of such allegations which are widespread and represent views held by a significant amount of humanity. Showing counter views should be reflected in the article, not the title - as the title already does so in using the word Allegations. The words state terrorism in the title are balanced by the word Allegation, so this title is not POV24.7.91.244 08:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposed title has merit; it removes the highly POV words of state terrorism. The fundamental concept is that there is a small group of critics who feel that US foreign poicy supports and practices state terrorism. That is their strongest (most offensive?) critique, but it is only one of many. What is needed is a article that most readers will find easily through a search and one that does not appear to support the validity of a minority position. I would strongly support the proposed article title Criticism of US Foreign Policy. --Storm Rider (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome Storm. Long time no see. I have no problem with such an article--but it would be a very big one. Charges of State terrorism is a subsection of the larger umbrella of critics of US policy (human rights violations, violations of international law, war crimes, etc--being other examples that would fall under the category grand category of "Criticism of US foreign policy." State terroism as a concept is notable enough that we can focus in on just that section, for its own article. So, I'm opposed to a name change to this valid and notable concept (yes, i know its POV--but its a notable POV that we can easily fill an article about). But, I am for other article that document and report on other signifant claims, inclding the very broad and large category/title of "Criticism of US foreign policy."Giovanni33 00:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The initial complaint here is the semantic problem - does it mean the US is making the allegations (as some say it could be read as?), or the allegations are about the US. Surely instead of converting the title to weasel words, a solution should be to fix the title whilst retaining it's meaning. In stead of reinventing the wheel, and kicking open a can of worms, should we not just apply a simple solution such as thus resolving the semantic problem? 24.7.91.244 08:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Allegations of state terrorism by the United States - to - Allegations of state terrorism PRACTISED by the United States,


 * Comment - The article should not have been moved from State terrorism by the United States to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States without consensus. The title was fine as it was, as has been discussed at length. Badagnani 03:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Change to State terrorism by the United States - the title is much simpler and to the point. It does not say there is any or there is none.  That is for the article to lay out.  The article could state "There are no credible allegations of state terrorism by the United States."  Or not.  So what if Americans find out that there is state terrorism by the United States and put Bush and Cheney and others in jail.  You can not change history by pretending it does not exist. 199.125.109.60 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly the reason not to change it (and just delete it). If you read the article, you would discover that none of the material is related to Bush or Cheney.  Your agenda notwithstanding.  --Tbeatty 05:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
User:Crockspot just tried to delete a well-sourced, relevant section without prior discussion or consensus. He also falsly accused me of personal attack, on the theory that I'm not allowed to call vandalism vandalism. When someone erases part of an article without explanation, that fits the Wikipedia meaning of vandalism to a tee, so I stand by my choice of words. ThAtSo 21:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't.--Beguiled 21:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it does. Blanking a full section of well sourced, topical material with no disccusion at talk--and against consensus---it was added by full consensus of multiple editors on both sides of the POV spectrum, is akin to vandalism. To alert other editors, some 17 established editors active on this article indicated support vs one sole objector who did not agree (but gave no valid reasons). Thus, it was added with consensus. Now, we have gang that is attack this article by blanking whole sections. That is vandalism if the word ever had meaning here. If these editors wish to remove the material, they must firstget consensus to do so, ortherwise, it borders on vandalism, and is clearly edit waring and disruption, which is a blockable offence.Giovanni33 21:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Beguiled just vandalized the page, leaving a dishonest edit comment: "removing Japan section since this is only supported by extremely radical opinions". In fact, the section cites numerous notable people, including a number of historians, and cannot be dismissed as radical. Fortunately, his vandalism was reverted. ThAtSo 22:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And he just did it again with this edit summary, using profanity: "Beguiled (Talk | contribs) (79,659 bytes) (wtf) (undo)."Giovanni33 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

 Removing info on the atomic bombing of Japan is against consensus, and the claims of consensus are a misuse of consensus. What if supporters of George Bush wanted to keep all sourced criticism about him from the article, and they had 'the numbers' to do so? Same here. If its sourced it should stay in. Bmedley Sutler 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this Thatso guy must have no consensus for his addition since he has almost broken the Three Revert Policy trying to edit war with multiple parties.--Beguiled 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Not all editors are active here at the same time (over 17 support this consensus version--and you have been reverted, as expected, by another editor). This version was added by consensus and your blanking it is against that consensus. #3RR does not apply to casess of vandalism, btw. Your edit summaries have not been appropriate, as have comments such as these you left on this page:hereGiovanni33 22:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If so many people supported this version, why it is being constantly removed? Go figure. There is no vandalism when someone is removing dubious POV pushing so get over yourself. Just because I can't log on and edit everyday doesn't mean my opinion has changed. Where are these "17" people? If there was a consensus for your version, this article would be more stable, eh?--Beguiled 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was stable until these attacks, but it was restoring to the consensus version each time right away- even while you, et al. continue to vandalize. As soon as we get this taken to arbcom, I expect several of you will get perm banned for this.Giovanni33 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Beguiled wrote this? "Oh my Gawd! So this is where all the nutjobs went to? I was shocked when I logged in and saw that the 9-11 conspiracy theory numnuts had recently gone silent. Checking my buddy Tom Harrison contributions, I saw he was now here, dealing with even bigger wackos. Yes, lets delete this pathetic waste of server space.--Beguiled 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC) This arguing is going nowhere, and users like Beguiled are continually breaking rudeness policies.. How do we start the referee / mediator process? Bmedley Sutler 22:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So far, nobody's made even a plausible argument for deleting the Japan section and nobody has come even close to gaining a consensus for deletion. Since the section is relevant, clearly written and very sourced, the burden must rest with the wannabe deleters to prove their case. The fact that they're lying and edit-warring shows that they know they have no case. My best guess is that they're embarassed by the fact that the nuking of Japan has been called terrorism. If so, that's irrelevant to Wikipedia. ThAtSo 22:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume good faith and believe that the "17" users mentioned above are legit (and not socks). Can I gather as as many editors or more and rewrite history on political articles on this encyclopedia to the way I like it, and use those editors input to claim consensus? Or would there be something wrong with that? JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No you can not rewrite history just because you don't like it. 199.125.109.60 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your analogy is faulty because no one gathered these editors and they are comprised of long time established editors of ALL POV's who regularly edit on this article. You don't need to assume good faith or anything--go and check for yourself. Its all there in the history.Giovanni33 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe my analogy is an fairly accurate depiction of what is happening here. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  22:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You just vandalized the article, leaving a patently dishonest edit comment that claimed the Japan stuff was OR. There is nothing even vaguely OR about it, so you have overturned my assumption of good faith. Vandalism is not limited by the 3RR, so I will revert again and again if I have to. ThAtSo 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverting out original research (which is forbidden) is appropriate. It is not vandalism. Perhaps you should read WP:OR. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point out the OR? Everthing is cited and verifibable. There are not claims any of us invented, nothing original, just reporting. Why do you make up such blatent lies? You have just destoryed whatever reputation you had as a decent and credible editor on this page. Shame on you!!Giovanni33 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Shame on me for helping to keep articles on the up-and-up pertaining to Wikipedia rules? Wow... JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Alot happened while I was offline commuting. First, referring to Tbeatty's edit as vandalism in your edit summary is a personal attack against Tbeatty. It is not proper to refer to legitimate content disputes as vandalism. Second, I believe that my revert was the ONLY edit I have ever made to this article. I made my one bold edit, and I gave you a NPA level one warning. You are behaving disruptively by all of these accusations. If I am a vandal, please explain how I have a perfectly clean block log. You have no consensus to include that material. It is your responsibility to build consensus before you add it back. Technically, that is vandalism. Am I calling you a vandal, or have I ever? No. - Crockspot 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not a personal attack when the actions fit the crime. Vandalism is blanking of sourced material over and over against consensus. There is nothign legitimate about that. Consneus was built, and you and others came here to blank all of our hard work. Before you do that, YOU have to build some consensus. We already did that, so shame on you too, Crock! Let this incident go down in infamy, for your reputation here.Giovanni33 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, how many times have I edited this article? You're pissing into the wind, my friend. By the way, I don't remember ever having any interactions with a user named Giovanni33, but you seem to know me. Hmmm. That's interesting. - Crockspot 00:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's offered any sort of reason to believe that there's OR going on. It's just another empty claim being used as an excuse for a revert war. In fact, nobody's offered a plausible reason for erasing the Japan text. ThAtSo 00:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we should contact an admin to reinstall that section as this was not a legitimate content dispute, it was vandalism. We dont lock pages after the vandals have done their dirty work to the article. If an admin can review this and stipulate that these concerted actions were the actions of vandals, I think we can have it restored while the page is protected. I've asked the editor who made up that dispicable lie to at least explain himself, on his talk page (OR!?!?!), and he said he would explain here. Well, I'm waiting. Lets see the OR in that section, PLEASE!Giovanni33 00:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have partially addressed this here. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  01:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * STILL WAITING. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ASNWER? The longer you take, the more you cement the veracity of the wiki-crimes I accuse you of. Yes, I accuse you. If you have any shred of validity to your blanking over and over the work of many editors with what you did to that entire section, now is the time to speak up, or else your continued silence on the matter only condemns you further. Again, WHERE is the OR?!Giovanni33 02:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading that, when a page gets protected, it's often the wrong version that gets locked into place. So the right answer is to remove the protection, then ban everyone who was vandalizing the page. ThAtSo 02:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm still going all out to assume good faith and assume that hese acts which look like, smell like, and sound like the acts of vandalism, really are not (or hold out on that remote possiblity)---so I've ased him to explain, once, twice, and three times. Still, I'm waiting, holding on to good faith, for the possiblity, however how remote, that maybe he does have an explanation for why he thinks the section is OR, as he claimed as the basis for his wholesale and repeated blanked. Now, if he can't or won't explain, then I think its safe to conclude that its tantamount to an admission of vandalism. We need a ruling that looks at all the facts and makes a determination that what occured today were the acts of vandals. I assume the Arbcom would be the place to start this process? Or a Rfc? I'm open but this wiki-crimes can not be orgotten, or swept under the rug.Giovanni33 02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's vandalism, pure and simple. Now explain this to the admins and everything will be fine. ThAtSo 03:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

El Salvador: Another Episode...
In the abundant literature related to evidence for El Salvador’s state terrorism many themes are explored; for the purposes of this article the following themes strike me as some of the most relevant: 1) documentary evidence of state terrorism, 2) the evolution of terrorist techniques employed, 3) U.S. complicity and responsibility, 4) the institution of the ‘death squad’. 5) acquiescence and denial of El Salvadoran state terrorism by the U.S. government, most media, and academia.

Selected Sources- the following constitutes the list of sources for what follows, which is just a sample of the literature...


 * 1) Amnesty International Annual Report 1985, see also the Amnesty International Report-El Salvador:'Death Squads'-A Government Strategy
 * 2) Cynthia J. Arnson – Assistant Director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Latin American Program. Previously, she was Associate Director of Human Rights Watch/Americas, and, as a consultant, coauthored several of America Watch’s earliest reports on El Salvador. She was Assistant Professor of international relations at the American University’s School of International Service and served as a senior foreign policy aide in the House of Representatives during the Carter and Reagan administrations. She has a Ph.D. from the John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.
 * 3) Michael McClintock- Senior Advisor of Human Rights First, served as a researcher and director for Amnesty International for almost 20 years, moving from a focus on Latin America to a global portfolio in the late 1980s. He then moved to Human Rights Watch where he was deputy program director for eight years. He is author of “The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador, Zed Books, 1985” among others.
 * 4) Cecilia Menjivar, Associate Professor School of Social and Family Dynamics Program in Sociology, Arizona State University and Nestor Rodriquez, Professor and Chair, Sociology Department. Co-Director, Center for Immigration Research. Contact University of Houston, co-editors of “When States Kill:Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror” http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exmenwhe.html
 * 5) Michael Stohl-Professor and Chair, Department of Communication University of California, Santa Barbara. Formerly he was Dean of International Programs (from 1992) and Professor of Political Science at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, where he had taught since 1972. He has published 13 books and numerous articles on terrorism, political violence and international relations. His book “The Politics of Terrorism” is in its 3rd edition.
 * 6) George A. Lopez- professor of political science and Senior Fellow at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

7) Gus Martin- Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Public. Administration and Public Policy, California State University, author of "Understanding Terrorism" 8) Aldo A. Lauria-Santiago- Associate Professor, Latino and Hispanic Caribbean Studies, and History; Chair, Latino and Hispanic Caribbean Studies- Rutgers University


 * Selected quotations...


 * According to the Amnesty International Annual Report 1985, a report of an Amnesty investigative mission that was made public in May 1984 “found that many of the 40,000 people killed in political violence in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.” (Amnesty International Annual Report, 1985)


 * “From their beginnings, U.S.-led efforts in counterinsurgency planning for Latin America invoked high-level officials in a number of U.S. federal agencies…But the U.S.-trained Latin American forces did not always operate with the pinpoint precision of covert operations. On December 11, 1981, the U.S. trained Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran Army killed hundreds of men, women, and children in one blow in the village of El Mozote in El Salvador (Danner, 1993). The soldiers of the elite Atlacatl Battalion decapitated villagers, raped young girls before killing them, and massacred men, women, and small children in separate groups with their U.S. supplied M-16 weapons. (Menjivar and Rodriquez, State Terror in the U.S.-Latin American Interstate Regime in “When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror”, Menjivar and Rodriguez, eds. University of Texas Press, 2004)


 * Lauria-Santiago notes that at the time of the El Mozote massacre- “both the Salvador and U.S. government denied the very occurrence of the massacre.” (Danner,19994, Binford, 1996; Comision de la Verdad,1993) (Lauria-Santiago, Aldo A., State Terror and Repression in El Salvador, in When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror”, Cecilia Menjivar and Nestor Rodriguez, eds. University of Texas Press, 2004)


 * “A Salvadoran death squad member who described his training at S.O.A. explained how the U.S. instructor in one course emphasized “psychological techniques” and demonstrated new and more effective ways of using electric shocks during interrogations. On the final day of the course, students practiced techniques on real prisoners. “They were peasants,” the death squad member recalled, “no one noteworthy,” (quoted in Crelinsten, 1995, 50) . (Menjivar and Rodriquez, “State Terror in the U.S.-Latin American Interstate Regime”- "When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror” 19)


 * “The objective of death squad terror seemed not only the elimination of opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfiguration of bodies, the terrorization of the population.” (Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds,86)


 * “In El Salvador during the 1980’s, a Marxist revolutionary movement fought to overthrow the United-States backed government. To counter this threat, right-wing death squads worked in conjunction with Salvadoran security services to eliminate government opponents; leftist rebels, and their supporters, ORDEN was a paramilitary and intelligence service that used terror against rural civilians. Another death squad, the White Hand, committed numerous atrocities against civilians. (Martin, Gus- Understanding Terrorism, chapter “Terror from Above: State Terrorism,110)


 * “The imprint of a “White Hand” on the door of potential “death squad” victims in El Salvador or Guatemala performs much the same function. Central American officers today are perhaps familiar with that Vietnam “death squad” antecedent through access to the same declassified manual, or through personal contact with American training personnel. (McClintock, M.- American Doctrine and State Terror, in “Western State Terrorism”, Alexander George,ed.)


 * “One of the peculiarities of El Salvador’s reign of terror is that despite the fact that it was so extensive, systematic, and indeed, terrifying, its general outline and especially its quantitative aspects were relatively well-documented.” (Lauria-Santiago, Aldo A., State Terror and Repression in El Salvador, in “When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror”, Cecilia Menjivar and Nestor Rodriguez, eds. University of Texas Press, 2004)


 * “What has become especially difficult to describe and explain in El Salvador in the mid-1980’s has been yet another turn in the technology of government use of terror violence…Of deep concern to human rights monitoring agencies has been increased use of what appears to be “indiscriminate” air forces bombing of areas where noncombatant civilians but also guerrillas also operate. So, too, the planting of mines and harassment of national and international medical personnel, all indicate that although death rates attributable to death squads have declined in El Salvador since 1983, non-combatant victims of the civil war have increased dramatically. (Americas Watch, 1985a and 1985b) (Lopez, George A.- Terrorism in Latin America in “The Politics of Terrorism”, Michael Stohl,ed.)


 * “After a year that saw dramatic increases in U.S. economic and military aid to El Salvador and the sending of U.S. military advisers, the administration offered perhaps its most cynical response of the year, the certification of the improvement of human rights in El Salvador. The real issue for the administration was not that by using disputed and unreliable figures could the administration demonstrate a decline in deaths caused by the security forces and thus indicate that the regime was “improving”. (Stohl,M. National Interests and State Terrorism in “The Politics of Terrorism, M. Stohl, ed.)


 * “The United States became deeply involved in the Salvadoran conflict, committing itself to “draw the line” against communism and ultimately spending some $6 billion to counter what President Ronald Reagan considered a “textbook case” of Soviet, Cuban, and Nicaraguan aggression in the hemisphere. Throughout the decade and particularly during the years 1980-1983 when the killing was at its height, assigning responsibility for the violence and human rights abuses was a product of the intense ideological polarization in the United States. The Reagan administration downplayed the scale of abuse as well as the involvement of state actors. Because of the level of denial as well as the extent of U.S. involvement with the Salvadoran military and security forces, the U.S. role in El Salvador- what was known about death squads, when it was known, and what actions the United States did or did not take to curb their abuses- becomes an important part of El Salvador’s death squad story.” (Arnson, Cynthia J. Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador in “Death Squads in Global Perspective: Murder with Deniability”, Campbell and Brenner, eds, 88)


 * “Thus the United States would continue to supply, aid, and train the El Salvador security forces and turn a blind eye to the terrorism of the state. Continued U.S. support for the regime amounts to a form of surrogate terrorism. The Salvadoran regime maintains itself (the U.S. objective) through the use of terrorist methods and the United States assists the regime in its efforts.” (Stohl-National Interests and State Terrorism- “The Politics of Terrorism”, Stohl, M. ed)BernardL 00:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent sources, again, Bernard. Thank you for this. This is another section that was wrongly taken out completely. I might add the Phillipines section was removed prematurely, as well. Here is another valid source: In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commision's Report on El Salvador, Frederick Garneau argued for significant culpability on the part of United States governments. "As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact.By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism. Frederick H. Gareau, State Terrorism and the United States : From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism / (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2004) 41Giovanni33 10:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So are you suggesting we change the article name to Allegations of Accessory after the fact state terrorism by the United States ?--Tbeatty 23:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, civilian deaths at the hands of the government is not de facto state terrorism. Soviet Communism, Chinese Communism and North Korean Communism has killed well over 100 million civilians and none of it would qualify as state terrorism.  --Tbeatty 23:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your sources for that would make a great NPOV section and I am still not understanding why you have not helped in creating one based off of them. If you do not feel like writing the section, you can give me the sources and I will attempt to write it. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your personal opinion and not relevant here. This is not a place for OR, as your comments would be. This is a place where we report what relaible source claim on the topic of "Allegations of State Terrrism by the United States." If you go to the top of the article you will see that as the title. I'm sure its not hard to miss. The claim from my source above says: the US "gave diplomatic support to state terrorism." And reporting that is appropriate.Giovanni33 01:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand
It seems to me that, regarding the current division of opinion as expressed on the talk page, at least those who are for the inclusion of the material have a position of compromise to offer. We could allow a relevant, adequately sourced criticism of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki section. We could also include a sentence designating our material as a minority or controversial viewpoint- even though this is redundant, since it has already done in the main introduction.

On the other hand, for those who insist on deletion of the well-sourced material from university profs of global stature- well, no position of compromise is possible, with them. So they blank it, run away, and attack the user who is trying to find common ground. For them, the majority of regular editors, or at least a very significant portion, must simply be muzzled on this issue. It amounts to the censorship of significant minority viewpoints and wikipedia becomes all the poor for this loss of legitimate diversity. Also the real reason it is being forcefully vandalized is not because it's poor,but rather because it's too good, too well-referenced from major figures.

If it really is an issue with the sources (OR?!?!), then we can just add more solid sources for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, issue. The literature on this articles subject is actually quite abundant and significant. Those editors who have blanked the material that most editors agreed to add, and did so through consensus, can't win the argument by WP policies, so they become desperate and must attack, and just blank, but fail to explain themselves. The question is, will WP allow them to continue to silent significant minority viewpoints and editor such as myself who are fighting for such legitimate and important diversity of content, or will they all this gang to run rampant to supress and whitewash WP from a global Encylopedia to one that suffers from systematic bias rooted in US nationalism? I have no doubt that it will be the former, and that this group will eventually face repurcusions if they continue along the same vein in this article.Giovanni33 20:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You started out fine, then you began a steep devolution after the first paragraph. Don't expect editors to bother to address your concerns when you present them in the form of a personal attack. - Crockspot 03:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole issues is that lack of addressing, and as such will leave this page in an edit warring state everytime its unprotected. How about sucking it up and just addressing the issue? I mean noone is going to get anywhere without actually doing so. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I expressed my concerns about the sources several times last night, in multiple venues. I could clarify in more detail, but I am certainly not inclined to put in the effort while the personal attacks continue. I think some refactoring of comments is in order. I had a nice day outside today. I really could care less about this article and Giovanni's issues right now. - Crockspot 03:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you dont' care about it, I take it you wont blank well sourced material after multiple editors who do care about it, agree that its approrpriate and add it? Because that is what you did before. So, when it is restored--as it was added through consensus---you won't repeat your ignoble actions, at least not without first gaining consensus to do so. That starts by making your case and convincing others. But, if you don't care then I don't expect you to do that, and by the same token, I don't expect you to edit war in this article again, either. That would be a good thing.Giovanni33 03:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one blanked well sourced material against consensus, I don't see how you can accuse Crockspot of doing it. --Tbeatty 07:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that you have trouble reading, below? As I said, to Crockspots credit, he was not one of the guilty editors. However, you are one of the main ones to do so, over and over, so is Beguiled, Dan, and ofcourse, Junglecat. Do you want me to provide differences to prove this, along with the section on talk to prove the material was added with consensus? I've have done that already, but since you seem to miss a lot, I'll be happy to show again. But, I think you should recall the discussion. It the one where every editor agreed with me to add, except yourself. Even Mongo agreed. You were the one lone editor who did not agree, but you didn't give any good reasons.Giovanni33 18:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I edit warred? You got diffs? - Crockspot 03:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize. You were not one of the guilty editors. I hope you accept my apology. For some reason I thought you were among the three or so that did this to the material.Giovanni33 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but I'm sure I mentioned several times in the last 24 hours that I only made one edit. I'll show my good faith by critiquing the first citation. But that's all you're getting from me this weekend: "Some academics also consider that these bombings represent a genocide.[1][2]" This is misleading. The review that is also cited states: "By expanding the term “genocide” to include mass killings like Hiroshima, Frey revises the traditional understanding that genocide is only the purposeful annihilation of a specific group." Frey even points out in chapter two of his book that the bombings were not intended to wipe out the Japanese people. If the genocide bit is even relevant and notable enough to include, "Some academics also consider..." should be "One academic also considers...". - Crockspot 04:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how its misleading. Yes, the definition is applied in a non standard way by these scholars (I list two, btw). It's certainly a very small minority view point, even more smaller than those who claim it to be state terrorism. My reason for including that was simply to mention the full range of opinions, so I dind't want to get in too much detail abou the genocide view, but I'm happy with making a change to your liking. Would you be ok if we added a few words to make that point clear? For example: "Contrary to the standard definition of genocide, some consider and that these bombings represent a genocide."? Also, its not just one source, but two: Frey, Robert S. (2004). The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond. University Press of America. ISBN 0761827439. Reviewed at: Rice, Sarah (2005). "The Genocidal Temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda and Beyond (Review)". Harvard Human Rights Journal Vol.; and Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History Vol. 19 (no. 2)."Giovanni33 06:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two cites, but they both refer to Frey's view. I don't think the review endorses his view. To state it plurally, you would need to cite other scholars who express this view. And to respond to comments below, I'm specifically referring to the view that it is genocide, not the terrorism claim. The subject of this article is not genocide. - Crockspot 19:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you count the review its three cites, but its just a review of Frey's view. The third one, is:Dower, John (1995). "The Bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese Memory". Diplomatic History Vol. 19 (no. 2). How is he connected with Frey? Again, I'm completely open, if its conensus to get rid of the genocide bit. I personally don't agree with Frey and Dower, myself, but my intent was to cover the full range of views, mention the conensus view, and then go into detail about the articles subject: those who claim it is state terrorism. I do appreciate your imput, and I thank you for helping to improve this section.Giovanni33 19:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also willing to get rid of the genocide mention all together, but I will point out that the main article on the subject even mentions this view. Strangely, I was not allowed to include the state terrorism view there--not even a single word; as soon as I made the edit Mongo showed up there to revert me (and two other editors who supported my edit); he got his way to keep it out--for now, since I didn't want to edit war. Since this article is locked, I'll probably go there to suggest a re-write of that section, which does not reflect the current academic consensus properly, and have it mention that state-terrorism is also a term/concept that is used to characterize the bombing (far more so than genocide is). Maybe you can help over there, as well?Giovanni33 07:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Change my mind about the genocide comment. It should not be removed all together as it is mentioned more than once. Infact, its mentioned 4 times (one in a review). In addition to the above, the article also cites this source: # ^ Cumings, Bruce (1999). Parallax Visions. University Press of Duke, 54. Sherwin, Martin (1974). A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance. I use it to support this sentence, "University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."So, it should be mentioned briefly. The qualifying language, above, though is fine as a compromise to address your objection.Giovanni33 19:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Communal Politics: Facts Versus Myths By Ram Puniyani, Sage Publication Inc. Page 261 "This is terrorism of the mighty out to enslave the weak. This state terrorism kills the innocent non-combatants, like the ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ..." --SevenOfDiamonds 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Implicating Empire: Globalization and Resistance in the 21st Century By Stanley Aronowitz, Basic Books. Page 92 "But the retaliatory attacks against Japan, rationalized by some, simply forgotten by others, is a useful example when one is trying to understand institutional terror." Just for the hawks: "One can say there are at least two forms of terrorism: organized and institutional (or state) terrorism." --SevenOfDiamonds 14:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World By Michael P. O'Keefe, C. A. J. Coady, Melbourne University Press. Preface XV "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism." --SevenOfDiamonds 14:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent Empire By Michael Mann, Verso. Page 129 "Some bombing clear is state terrorism. That is the correct term for the Allied fire-boming of Dresden or Tokyo and, more arguably, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" --SevenOfDiamonds 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How much needs to be produced before we stop calling this OR or a fringe view? Do we have a number in mind? This way I can ask the people over at WP:RS and WP:V if it is normal to have to produced X sources, where X is the number you provide. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Any one of those authors is notable enough to justify inclusion. Although Puniyani is the only one writing outside his specialty he is still condidered an expert in the subject. To call their work OR or fringe is so rediculous that to make such a claim to justify blanking is vandalism no matter how you spin it. Wayne 18:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How do those authors source the "genocide" claim? - Crockspot 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't, but those that blanked the section claimed that the allegations of State terror were OR. Othewise, they would only remove the sentence mentioning genocide (although it is sourced and thus not OR).Giovanni33 19:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just getting started. I intend to closely evaluate every source cited, but I'm going to do it in my own sweet time. There is no hurry here. - Crockspot 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope you are, the article is protected anyway until September, so it gives you plenty of time to work. Just do not come back to me wasting my time with WP:RS, as published authors WP:RS and WP:V and now WP:OR are satisfied. Enjoy your study time. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposing views
Is this your idea of an opposing view? One reason for the United States' and other Western nations' support of certain right-wing dictatorships is because it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development. In these nations the population often lacks literacy, education, and is otherwise too poor to be able to fully participate in the democratic process. Thus supporting a dictatorship that promotes economic growth has often been seen as the best option available, anticipating that this will eventually lead to democratization. Evidence of this claim is the fact that right-wing dictatorships in all of the following nations eventually became democracies: Portugal, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, and Indonesia. However, this view has been challenged recently by arguing that research shows poor democracies perform better than poor dictatorships by enjoying better economic growth, with the exception of east Asia.[5] However, many US supported dictatorships have not become democracies, such as Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, etc. In addition, many communist countries opposed by the U.S. have also become democracies, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Ukraine, Romania, Croatia, Albania, Serbia, and Mongolia.

Defenders of the United States[Who?] point out the US has rarely used violence against another democracy. However, the U.S. has toppled many democratically-elected governments, including those of Iran, Guatemala, Haiti, and Chile when it suited its interests, showing a lack of real concern about whether or not countries in the developing world are democratic, but very real commitment, like most great powers in history, to furthering its own political and economic objectives. When the United States was involved in coups d'états against other democratic states, one explanation given was the believed perception that these states were on the verge of becoming Communist dictatorships or under communist influence. Also complicit was the role of semi-transparent, or non-transparent United States government agencies, such as the C.I.A., who sometimes did not implement the decisions of or mislead elected officials.[130] Covert actions have been facilitated by the establishment of a policy known as "plausible denial," according to which, elected officials, including the president, could plausible deny actual knowledge of illegal or unsavory operations by the CIA. Thus, these operations, if they came to light of day, could be conveniently denied and the elected officials insulated from crtique. Not only is it unsourced, it is blatant POV and should be removed immediately. I'm neutral on the rest of the article but that section is a disgrace. MartinDK 19:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I compeltely agree. Its the only part of the article that is really OR. Yet, those who are blanking this articles content, removed the valid sourced sections as OR, and leave the real OR untouched. That says a lot. To be clear, I'm all for an "opposing views" section, but not if doing so is going to mean OR (poorly written to top it off). That should have been removed and placed on talk and only added after there was agreedment to do so--like was done with the Japan section, which they then blanked.Giovanni33 19:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If we all agree that this section should come out, then an admin should be able to do that for us without affecting the other dispute. Let's gather a few more comments here. - Crockspot 19:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and by the same token, restore the Japan section after we address all valid objections to it?Giovanni33 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If and when we "all agree". - Crockspot 20:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

'''Please if you see four :::: 's please start over with none. Some of us have 640x480 screens ya' know.'''

<-- I would like it if you can create a seperate section detailing you remaining objects to the Japan section as it was last included so myself and Giovanni can work on addressing any valid issues. Honestly I do not care for Asian studies, but this constant policy saber rattling over something that is quite a common belief, has drawn me to a position of interest. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that, since we already obtained that before the blanking started. But, disagreement must be reasoned and not simply "I dont' like it." Agreed? I also suggest we give a reasonable time line to address all valid objections, so we can restore the section before Sept. I would say a resonable time would be a week.Giovanni33 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone else, and it looks like people are giving this a break for the summer. I'm not in a big hurry. - Crockspot 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Concensus is concensus after all, and it can change quickly as other noted, it was MONGO's reasoning for changing his mind overnight. So I am sure if your objections are reached and others we can have it removed, without waiting on the possible return of people who may not return. A week sounds reasonable, unless of course more time is needed. No need for arbitrary long, or short deadlines. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The original and sourced version can be found here: User:Ultramarine/SandboxUltramarine 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That one is at least sourced and more balanced. Of course the article should present both views so why not agree to put that one in the article instead and then work towards improving it as well as the rest of the article? This article has more sources than the vast majority of articles here, a little give and take and work towards keeping the article balanced would be a great improvement. MartinDK 08:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets remove that unsourced 'POV" paragraph and add the Japan and El Salvador sections back in. There will need be more sections on Latin America too. I am collecting evidence from the articles and books of former Delta Special Forces soldier Stan Goff who directed some of the Death Squads in Latin America under orders from the American government. Bmedley Sutler 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I dont think the removal of the Phillipine secton was done properly either. It shouldn't have been removed without consensus.Giovanni33 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And change the title back to State terrorism by the United States - what's up with someone who has been blocked three times changing it anyway? 199.125.109.60 06:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Protected edit declined. I can't tell what edit, exactly, is being requested here. Sandstein 11:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

El Salvador
This entire section seems to rely on the opinion of one source, Frederick Garneau. Garneau manages to get a whopping 86 hits on goolge, none in google books, and none on google scholar. It would seem that this section does not have any quality references, and as such will be removed. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do remove it since it serves no purpose except to advance the proposition that America=evil.--Beguiled 21:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, it is also true that there are no WP:RS's for this and as such, it will go now. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I just readded the critique of Chomsky and Ganser which was removed. Without adequate critique of the critics viewpoints this article is POV and one-sided.--Beguiled 21:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then we can add more sources. The critic is notable, and he belongs here. The section should be supplemented with more sources, I agree, but there is no consensus to remove the whole section. So I restored it.Giovanni33 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Then by all means, add sources, because the single source in the article now is not notable. No book hits for him and only 86 hits on google. An extraordinary claim like “The USA engaged in State Sponsored Terrorism in so and so” needs a better source than PHD Bumblefucknobody whose only claim to fame is being the departmental chair for Women Studies at the Keokuk Community Technical Colege of Drama and Dance. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please seek community concensus before blanking, and please note concensus is not often reached in an hour, as that does not give anyone time to respond to your concerns. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, by all means lets get concensizing. Does one obsure source an article section make? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can find additional sources to add, to support the material, instead of blanking it. Did you even try, I wonder?Giovanni33 16:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where can I read the section that Torturous Devastating Cudgel deleted please? Thanks, FightCancer 10:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, and the boy who done cried wolf
People, could we please refrain from calling an edit we dont like vandalism. This  IS  a content dispute, and throwing around accusations of vandalism only make those who do it look like they are crying wolf. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but blanking sourced material against consensus, and waithout any valid reason is NOT a legitimate edit by any stretch. It is what it is, and that  IS ' vandalism.Giovanni33 01:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * calling content disputes vandalism is uncivil and grounds for blocking. --Tbeatty 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A content dispute should be obvious by now to Giovanni33. Numerous editors have disagreed with adding the section about the use of Atomic Bombs on Japan = state terrorism and the select use of references are not a strong indication that this is anymore than an extremely minor viewpoint. I have heard it referred to much more frequently as akin to a War Crime, but not as terrorism, which is the focus of this article afterall.--MONGO 04:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To blank sourced material over and over, against consensus, and not use the talk to exlain or attemt to address the problems, but just blank the entire thing is vandalism. If you want to gain consensus to remove the section because its not a signifant pov, and it does not have signifant adherents, then an editor has to get consenus first. Most disagree that these claims lack significant adherents, when we presented all the sources above for discussion and everyone agreed it was appropriate for inclusion (including yourself Mongo)--except Tebetty, who didn't give any good reasons.Giovanni33 04:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I stated on User talk:Junglecat, nine of the fifteen cited sources have serious issues, such as verifiability problems (self-published sources of transcribed primary sources), bias problems, or self-admitted reliability issues. When the majority of the sources are bad, it's better to remove the whole thing and start from scratch than leave it, per WP:V. It's a swilling together of poor sources (many allegedly primary sources) to advance a position. That does qualify as OR, and should be removed and not replaced until it is repaired. The burden is not on those removing, it is on those wishing to include. - Crockspot 04:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It uses reliable, verifiable sources to report from notable and significant adherents of the claim that the nuclear attack was an act of state terrorism. It presents the consensus view and then discusses in detail, by quoting those reliable sources (academics in their areas of expertise: Mark Selden (sociology and History- Binghampton), Alvin Y. So (Hong Kong University), Richard Falk (Princeton), Bruce Cumings (History, University of Chicago) and Ben Kiernan (History, Yale University), and Howard Zinn (History, Pol.Sci. Boston University) ). There is NO OR, and blanking the whole section over and over while failing to state why (except in edit summaries claiming OR), is not appropriate.Giovanni33 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we must be looking at different source lists, because most of the ones I viewed were hosted on various home pages. They CLAIM to be legit, but there is no verification. (Actually, one disclaims any guarantee of accuracy, nice eh?) - Crockspot 05:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

“To blank sourced material over and over, against consensus, and not use the talk to explain or attempt to address the problems, but just blank the entire thing is vandalism.” This would be correct if there was a consensus to keep the material.

“If you want to gain consensus to remove the section because its not a signifant pov, and it does not have signifant adherents, then an editor has to get consensus first.” No, it does not work that way, if a consensus is required, then it is a consensus to keep that is required, specifically (check WP:V ) there is no requirement to form a consensuses to remove an item, only legitimate ground for doing so. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. They are the ones required to gain consensuses if the material has been challenged.

It is not acceptable to add material in, and then demand a “consensus” to remove it; that would be backwards. Brimba 05:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Proof of consensus obtained prior to adding this material by editors on both sides of the fense:[] To remove, esp. blank-like any major edit--requires consensus be obtained first. It goes both ways. I abided by it to add the material, but the blanking was done by editors who jumped it to attack it--by blanking-- without consenus, afterwards. With no explanation, I call that vandalism.Giovanni33 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I was addressing the points of your argument, not the subject matter. I did check the talk section, and if you see a consensus there, sorry I do not; a numerical advantage is not a consensus. If it where AFD’s would be a lot more clear-cut as it would remove the “Keep (no consensus)” option, everything would be a strait up-and-down vote, and the outcome would be clear cut and unambiguous.

Removing material for cause is fair and legal, whether the edited out part is major or minor, as long as it follows guidelines and there is a legitimate reason for it. In cases where items are edited out and the edit summery box is left blank, then yes that would smack of vandalism; and whether vandalism or simple neglect, it should be reverted.

You are claiming consensus existed prior to anyone seeing exactly what they where agreeing to, because it did not exist in a finished form at the time “concensus” was “achieved”. Clearly more people are now involved in the editing of that section then the people who originally expressed opinions. It is YOUR job as an editor to show that there is still a consensus to retain the material. That’s how the rules are set up.

It is not a two way street. It is not a case of one once consensus is achieved, then consensus lives on eternally. Editors are free to invoke the rules laid out in the guidelines. People not involved in the original discussion a free to join in and edit. Nothing is locked in place. WP:V puts the ball in your court (or who ever is wishing to retain the material, or any material), -it is most certainly not a two way street.

When material is blanked without a reason being given, then yes that should be reverted pronto. However, if legitimate concerns are raised, then it is the job of the person wishing to maintain that material to answer the concerns. Brimba 07:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your proposed method of editing is wrong. How is someone supposed to address the concern if the objection is never explained? Simply claiming OR in an edit summary, and refusing to explain how or why they think its OR on talk or on their tak page- is not acceptable--esp. when the reason given is absurd on its surface, given the ample sources that are used in the section. No, its clear to me that when something is added with CLEAR consensus (only one editor disagreeing), then someone has no right to blank it all out later, just because they make some claim in an edit summary that is not supported by any arguments on talk. I call that the most insidious form of vandalism since it hides under the pretext of a legitimate reason. Any major edit that is clearly contested, requies at a bare minimum, that a case be made on talk before its taken. To revert and revert 3 times each, tag teaming by a handful of POV motivated editors (they wanted it alll deleted), without respect for consensus established, or respect for the process (to come here and make a case), is intolerable. I told them many times, after they were reverted by numerous editors, that I'd be happy to address any objections they had and get if fixed. But, did they bother to respond? No. Just continued the blanking. This is then just more evidence of vandalism.Giovanni33 07:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been explained many, many, many times by many, many, many editors. Explaining it in detail every time you readd the material is counterproductive as it is obviously having no effect.  Reread the comments, stop adding the Original Research and Undue Weight opinions and there will be no reason for you to continue edit warring.  --Tbeatty 07:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More lies? Never explained, never justifed and blanked against consensus of all editors who discussed the content before it was added, except yourself, whose arguments made no sense and were rejected. Getting your friends to jump in here and vandalize the article by blanking it will be opposed until the end of time. If you want the material removed, I suggest you actually make the case, as your claims are patentlly aburd. Then get consensus to change, and it wont be added in. Now it should be added in even though this page is protected because its removal was clearly vandalism.Giovanni33 08:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * giovanni, respectfully you need to move on from this point. This was not vandalism and is a simply a content dispute.  Continuing call many well established editors vandals is simply eroding your good will.  Further beating of this dead horse will honestly not help anything..(even if you are 100% right).  We are, where we are.  I kindly suggest that now is the time to start building a consensus for what changes need to be made to the article - be it inclusion of the WW II material or not.  Until then, this bickering and name calling will lead nowhere positive. Dman727 08:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Japan section may be disputed content now but the section was added after consensus so to blank it without consensus is vandalism not a good faith edit. The burden is on the editors who oppose the section to now make their case. I would point out that the name of the article is “Allegations of” and the Japan section fully complies with the concept of an allegation. As such, the only way to dispute its inclusion now is to show it has no (or minimal) reliable sources. No editor opposing has done so yet. Wayne 08:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, correct, and what I've been saying, and they have been ignoring. Ofcouse, one of the main editors who came in here just to blank this whole section against consensus, Dman727, wants to "move on" from this point. No. It stands as a valid point and until your blanking is justified by making a valid argument for it, or you achieve a new consensus for it though rationally addressing your blanking per policies, then it remains an act of vandalism that must be opposed in the strongest terms. Conensus was already to include the material. If you wish to change that the ball is in your court to do so. As of now, this is included material in the body of the article that will stand until there is consensus to remove it. I'm open to making any changes per consensus, and to fix any issues you may have of it. Simply calling it OR, when its clearly not, won't work,either.Giovanni33 08:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually gionvanni, I've moved on. Its my suggestion that you do also. You may of course continue to beat this horse and continue yell "VANDALS VANDALS!", however I honestly do not believe it will lead to anything positive for you.Dman727 08:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A consensus is not a license for lifelong inclusion. A consensus is a license for inclusion only as long as the consensus is in place.  While I personally dispute that there ever was a consensus for the material, if it was then it is certainly long gone now.  As for your suggest of bad faith edits I disagree.  I came along and saw material that I feel clearly does not belong, read the talk pages and saw no reasonable basis for its inclusion so I removed it as a responsible editor should do. Furthermore, slandering of long established editors as "vandals" is not a best practice for consensus building, not to mention a violation of WP:CIVIL and simple good manners. Dman727 08:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No you did act as any good editor should. If you went to talk as you claim you did, you would have seen there is clear consensus for it, with strong support, including across political perspetives. In fact, such consensus is rare on this article. Like I said, even Mongo reluctantly agreed to include. And, again, only ONE editor had objections to material. You can't miss that because I've pointed it out a number of times. Yes, consensus changes, and no one ever said its a life long inclusion. However, if you had objections, a good editor would bring them to the talk page (as I regularly do). Create a section, lodge your complaint, and make your case. Then allow others to respond and address it. If you felt you had to remove the section, but are opposed by a number of editors who revert you---a good editor does not keep reverting. He goes to the talk page to work out a solution and resolve the dispute. Better yet, a good editor seeks to establish a new consensus before making any major edits that are clearly contested (as this blanking was clearly contested--restored right after it was taken out each time by many editors--many more than those taking it out (who just jumped in to do only that for ths article). No, you did not act like a good editor. I have no doubt that you can be one, and maybe you are one generally. But in this particular instance your action here is to support a great wrong akin to vandalism. Being a long term established editor here is no immunity from acting like a vandal. The solution is not to remove my label, its to remove the actions that the label correctly fits: dont mass blank an entire well referenced and topical entire section that was arrived at though consensus on the talk page--without even bothering to go to talk to make your case to change consensus---and then keep doing so after you are opposed. That kind of blanking I will call vandalism as it objectively is so, no matter who is doing it. Its simply not acceptable, and I know of no stronger word to characterize it that is more fitting.Giovanni33 09:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Save the lecture - I've read your block log[] Dman727 14:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Strothra insists that your personal attack isn't technically a personal attack. Regardless, it's definitely not civil or productive, so let's stick to the issues, if any. ThAtSo 19:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Reset indent. ElinorD (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC))
 * I don't see how the above is an appropriate part of this dispute. Its off topic and centers on the editor, instead of the edits. That makes it an attack on the person, hence personal attack. Srothra, can you explain why its not, or else I'll remove it. This page should stay focus on content issues. Thanks.Giovanni33 20:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The comment above discusses the editor's edits, not him personally. Claiming to remove the comment based on WP:NPA is a far stretch. If Giovanni is embarassed by his block log, I would suggest no longer violating Wiki policies.  I've been blocked once myself before, but I'm not going to try to claim WP:NPA every time another editor brings it up in addressing the good faith of edits.  --Strothra 20:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- I'm not embarassed (I think it would be embarassing for the admins--if you look most are blocks were overturned with some wheel waring going on--nothing to be proud of), I just feel its completely off topic, and not relevant to the content dispute. The logical fallacy of poisioning the well, is in fact a special case of ad-hominen. Should we take this issue to another board to discuss, because our resolution of this issue, is also off topic on this board. However, I think allowing the above to continue is counter productive.Giovanni33 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of you should end your dispute now and move onto discussing the article. I'm not supporting the removal of the comment because it is not a personal attack, it's a comment on your edits and, as such, you cannot edit another user's comments. --Strothra 20:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I lost interest in this thread several passages up.  I've dropped the matter and I'll re-suggest that giovanni do also. Nonetheless I can only decide for myself, if anyone wants to get in this last word or continue the conversation they free to do so without further input from me. Dman727 20:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This dispute is not over, not settled. Since you reverted my message to you about resolving it on your talk page, Srothra, I guess I have to respond here (which is further off topic). The reason why this has to be resolved is that it's a repeated tactic that is not appropriate, counter productive and this needs to be made clear. You yourself concede that its mean to call into question the good faith nature of my edits (thus its focus is on the editor--not the dispute). If you disagree and insist on allowing this kind of attack to continue,  I'll file a Rfc. I'm sure this is not OK, esp. not in this article, which is rampant with allowing such divisive, off-topic, and uncivil communications by this small handful of disruptive editors. For you to side with them here only ads to the problem. We need to go in the other direction and have less tolerance for such conduct. Is a Rfc really required for you to see this? I suggest you review this fallacy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well. I'll quote: Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say.  "Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem. " Also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem:Ad hominem abusive or ad personam, the subtype it fits:Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensibly damning character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. This tactic is frequently employed as a propaganda tool among politicians who are attempting to influence the voter base in their favor through an appeal to emotion rather than by logical means, especially when their own position is logically weaker than their opponent's." In order to show this is not the case, a relevant connection need to be established between the block log and this current content dispute. Since I pointed out this block log is of blocks over a year old, and pertain to other issues not related to this, it remains an ad hominem attack. For you to also say that while its off topic, other things are off topic here, is also invalid reasoning and the logical fallacy of "two wrongs make a right."Giovanni33 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your block log is entirely relevant especially in this discussion about your accusations of vandalism over a content dispute. Your block log will be used to determine how long your next block will be.  It is not a personal attack to highlight your past behavior and how it is similar to your current behavior.  That's why there is a link to your block log in standard templates such as user5 .  You should be less concerned with editors highlighting your block history and more concerned that most users need to scroll down to see them all.  --Tbeatty 23:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. --SevenOfDiamonds 03:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I point you to WP:RS. We evaluate sources ad hominem all the time.  The reason why your arguments can't be cited while recognized experts can be is the basic premise of Wikipedia even if they are the same arguments.  Who makes the argument is everything to Wikipedia.  In the same way, Giovanni's block log is relevant.  You can parrot and plagiarize the Ad hominem article, but understanding it's application and how it relates to evaluating editors and sources is a much more important skill.  --Tbeatty 07:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Before you can even attempt to apply it you have to first understand the term. You showed below you didn't even understand this term. I hope we corrected that. An ad hominen fallacy is unacceptable, fallacious reasoning no matter where it comes up. And to invoke it is to make a personal attack. Its a sign of weakness that you can't actually argue the merits of the case, hence you attack the messenger instead.Giovanni33 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You still failed to make the connection. You say its esp. relevent in this discussion about vandalism and conent dispute. How? You make statement, but you fail to supply support for yoru claim. If you are going to make an argument you actually have to make an argument. Simply making a claim is not making an argument. The premise must be supported, not restated. I'm not concerned with block log, I'm conerned with fallacious reasoning, attacking the editor instead of dealing with the actual arguments---which I'll point out are still being ignored (and instead you want to argue about my block log of OVER A YEAR AGO that had NOTHING to do with this issue? Again, make your case or else admit that its a personal attack that you are continuing because you have no argument to make concerning the real issues.Giovanni33 01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you don't like the argument. I've only stated that an editors block log is relevant to his value as an editor.  Your disruption and incivility in referring to other editors as "vandals" is consistent with your extensive block log.  You certainly have the ability to reverse this perception but it is up to you.   No one would care about your block log if your actions weren't uncivil and disruptive.  --Tbeatty 07:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- Again, you just make claims but supply no argument. Care to try again? You say its relevant but you fail to show any relevancy of my past block log of over a year ago for matters unrelated to anything here, and this content dispute. Just saying its relevant does not make it so. That is not an argument. Its just an ad hominen fallacy. You apparently yet are not able to distinguish the two, and for that I am sorry for you. And, if you don't like to be thought of as a vandel (you and Dman727, then don't like one--as you did on this article by blanking sourced material against consenus. That IS vandalism in practice. And, this has nothing to do with my past block log, but nice try to deflect away from the facts of your shameful behavior here. Everyone has noted it.Giovanni33 08:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Evaluation of editors and sources are, by definition, ad hominem.  The reasons for your many blocks are not relveant here, however, your extensive block log is relevant.  As an example, a 3-time felony perjurer has no credibility in court when it comes to telling the truth.  He can cry ad hominem all he wants and claim that his  prior convictions for perjury have no relevance.  But the reality is that felony convictions for perjury are relevant to establishing credibility regardless of whether the content of the previous lies are related to the current discussion.  Ad hominem fallacy applies to discoverying truth, not reliability.  Ad hominem reasoning is perfectly acceptable when trying to determine credibility and reliability.  You need to understand that if you are going to continue to write sections for articles that are sourced using very dubious sources.   Wikipedia is about reliable sources, not truth, therefore arguments about credibility are perfectly legitimate.   --Tbeatty 08:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

{VERY indented post above removed, as Giovanni has duplicated it below. Indent reduced on other posts. ElinorD (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC))

(Per request for those whose browser can't handle the extreme indent above): Tebeatty, that is at least an argument, but your argument fails, and reveals you have a faulty conception of the term itself. This is because we are not here to determine my crediblity or reliablity--we are here to determine the reliablity and crediblity of the edits, i.e. the sources, and the arguments and reasonsoning supporting their use, as topical, relevant, encylopedic, etc: all WP policies about the content of the article. That is the issue. Since, I am not the issue here for this article's issues, then your bringing up questions of my personal "reliablity, crediblity," is indeed an ad hominem fallacy. I'm not here in court of law giving personal testimony where my credibility is at issue (then it would not be an ad hominen fallacy btw). It does become a fallacy when you shift the relevant issue to one that is not relevant, i.e. the issue about this article, which is independant of the editor making the arguments (i.e. myself). Ad hominen does not apply to discovering the truth, as you claim. Let me quote: "An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument." Do not mix up evaluation of editors and sources, as you do. They are different things. We evaulate sources--not editors. Editor are not on trial here, our sources are. Get the difference? But, good try. Now can we focus on the articles issues instead of on my past block log? Its irrelvant and therefore an ad hominem fallacy.Giovanni33 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It was your choice to turn this section into a debate about "good editors" vs. "vandals".. Since that is the essence of ad hominem your cries about how your extensive block history is not relevant and that accounts of your past behavior is not relevant to a discussion about others being "good editors" or "vandals" is laughable. Dman pointed out your hypocrisy of trying to label editors by highlighting your block log. Is it your contention that ad hominem logic is only deplorable when it is used to highlight your hypocrisy but perfectly acceptable in labeling editors you disagree with? --Tbeatty 09:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT If you feel something was against policy or "wrong", do not repeat it to make a point, or because "someone else did it first" --SevenOfDiamonds 12:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you still seem not to grasp the concept of the ad hominem fallacy. I do think I explained it rather clearly. This is about blanking sourced material against consensus and failing to even bother to explain why, much less actually attempt to gain consensus before such major contested edits. Such actions are not acceptable, and that what was done here--NOW. It has nothing to do with my past block log of last year. To respond with my block log is to evade the issue, bring up something irrelevant, hence its an ad hominem fallacy. I will note that you now seem to be invoking two fallacies. One is embracing the ad hominen, but the other, now, "two wrongs make a right,' by saying I'm being hypocritical (even though that claim is untrue, as I never behaved this way in editing), which makes it a special subset of ad hominen: Ad hominem tu quoque. Look it up.Giovanni33 09:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any background knowledge about the subject, and haven't looked at the history of the article, but I'd like to point out that it's a very bad idea to call the removal of sourced material vandalism. Whenever I see such accusations, I predict that the next thing will be a 3RR violation on the grounds that reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR, and then a block. There is a lot of material for which one could find a source but which still isn't appropriate to a particular article because it bloats it, because it's not relevant, because it tilts the POV or the article away from neutrality, etc. If an anonymous editor indiscriminately and randomly blanks large sections of different articles, while offering no explanation, by all means, call it vandalism. If several established editors remove something because they feel it doesn't belong in the article, then, sorry, no matter how well sourced the material is, the removal is not vandalism. ElinorD (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this serious? Are you honestly saying a group of established editors cannot vandalize an article ... I have been asking and no one will answer, but is edit count really a blank check to do as you please? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. I talked about indiscriminately and randomly blanking sections of different articles. I am talking about the occasional case of an anonymous editor who blanks a large portion of George W. Bush, with no edit summary, often leaving the remaining text incoherent, as the blanking might start and finish in the middle of sentences, then goes on immediately to do the same thing (again without edit summary) to Lion, then does it to Michael Jackson, then to Cod liver oil, then to University of California, then to Golden Toad, then to Mushroom, then to Swimming pool, all in rapid succession, and with no edit summary. That does happen occasionally, and I think we can call it vandalism. (Incidentally, Wikipedians are encouraged to be sensitive towards anons who blank portions of articles about living people, as the anon might in fact be the subject of the article and find something in it objectionable.)
 * As a general rule, people who vandalise don't do anything else. That's why registered users whose first edits are vandalism may be immediately blocked indefinitely as vandalism-only accounts. We don't do that with IPs, of course, as the IP may be assigned to a different person the next day. Established users are statistically far less likely to vandalise. So it's a matter of common sense to assume that featured article writers, administrators with an excellent record of housekeeping chores, and other respected editors, who disagree that a particular piece of information belongs in an article, even if it's sourced, and remove it, but don't go on immediately to do the same thing to another article, and another, and another, are probably not vandals. This is a content dispute, pure and simple, so would people please stop using the word vandalism. ElinorD (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As before, I agree with your reasoning and the facts you state are accurate (except we did not have an admin here blank this--it was a group of established editors with strong POV, and strong dislike for this articles subject matter, who have been trying to get the whole thing deleted now over 6 times). The part I disagree with is when you go from the valid generalized statement about normal assumptions we make about established users who do not randomly vandalize articles, and that they are probably not vandals (so far so good), to the specific conclusion that this is only a content dispute. That last conclusion is in error, in this case. It may happen rarely but it did happen in this case. The logical inference did not follow to support that conclusion based on the evidence we have. What we had here was vandalism conducted by a group of established who did so under the false banner of “original research is not allowed.”  It was thus not a blind type of vandalism but specifically targeted to this  subject matter;a “I don't like it, so I'm going to blank” type of vandalism, or “ I can't win by making an argument, consensus is against me, so I'm just going to hit and run” type of attack to get what I want anyway. It may not be your run of the mill common, petty vandal that you describe, but this is no less vandalism--of the POV type. Its much worse, and more rare than the common type. Its putting into affect their failed AfD attempts, but piecemeal, by blanking the best sourced sections that make this article stronger. Its distruption of the article, to get it locked in a vandalized state. To use an analogy, think of the difference between a common, petty criminal, and a dirty cop. Or, say, a politician. We have lots of examples of people in respected seats, trusted with power, who still are able to commit crimes (and often get away with it). Now, if I'm wrong, then I'll happily admit it, and apologize--if the blanking editors can answer the question: Where is the alleged OR, and why didn't they bother to explain instead of repeating blanking the whole section, against consensus? But, so far the facts support my conclusion. Giovanni33 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, and agree with everything you said, except that part where you say all it takes is being an established editor, and then its not vandalism (but if an anon does it, it is). I don't think that should be the only difference. If an anon blanks valid sourced material and does not explain the reasons, against consensus (does not even participate or try to)--just blanks it repeatedly, over and over--we can it vandalism. Well that is exactly what happened here with the only difference being they were established editors. Being established does not give them a license to do the same. It’s completely unacceptable and looks like vandalism, and without an explanation can be so called. In fact, in my view, its the worse kind of vandalism, as its more insidious in nature given we are expected to trust established editors, and think there must be a legitimate reason for it, and maybe they thought it was or really was OR, as they claimed in the edit summary. Clearly it was not, and that was a fabrication (which explains why they can't talk about it, and answer my question: Where is the OR?) No, established or not, they broke that trust when they acted like a typical vandal in the night. Let is never happen again. Before any editor jumps into an article to blank its well sourced material, and they find that they are opposed by many other established editors who regularly work on that page, and who point to the fact that the material was carefully added afar long discussion of many editors who agreed it was appropriate--but they ignore this and continue to blank over and over--then they are vandalizing the article. Only they know why they do so, but it stands unjustified, unexplained. I'm still waiting for Junglecat to answer the simple question: Where is the OR?! To me this looks like a POV attack on an article they wanted deleted, and to get the article locked in a vandalized state. Can a group of established editors do this? Sure they can. It happened here. I also agree that, even though it is vandalism to this page objectively, we still can not revert more than 3 times, until that is clearly established as vandalism (part of what makes this kind of vandal action all the more damaging). However, since a vast majority of serious and established editors on this article opposed this blanking, and supported this material (17 and counting), no one needed to violate 3RR to revert them. Their blanking was reverted right away, and the conensus section was restored.Giovanni33 10:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See my remarks above. ElinorD (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See my response above.Giovanni33 20:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"When the majority of the sources are bad, it's better to remove the whole thing and start from scratch than leave it, per WP:V." Crockspot, I'm not seeing that directive anywhere. Why not improve instead of remove? FightCancer 11:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

El Salvador and César Vielman Joya Martínez
From the 1993 book What Uncle Sam Really Wants by Noam Chomsky:link

"The Jesuits were murdered by the Atlacatl Battalion, an elite unit created, trained and equipped by the United States. It was formed in March 1981, when fifteen specialists in counterinsurgency were sent to El Salvador from the US Army School of Special Forces. From the start, the Battalion was engaged in mass murder. A US trainer described its soldiers as "particularly ferocious.... We've always had a hard time getting [them] to take prisoners instead of ears."

In December 1981, the Battalion took part in an operation in which over a thousand civilians were killed in an orgy of murder, rape and burning. Later it was involved in the bombing of villages and murder of hundreds of civilians by shooting, drowning and other methods. The vast majority of victims were women, children and the elderly.

The Atlacatl Battalion was being trained by US Special Forces shortly before murdering the Jesuits. This has been a pattern throughout the Battalion's existence — some of its worst massacres have occurred when it was fresh from US training. . ..

According to Rev. Santiago, macabre scenes of this kind aren't uncommon.

"People are not just killed by death squads in El Salvador — they are decapitated and then their heads are placed on pikes and used to dot the landscape. Men are not just disemboweled by the Salvadoran Treasury Police; their severed genitalia are stuffed into their mouths. Salvadoran women are not just raped by the National Guard; their wombs are cut from their bodies and used to cover their faces. It is not enough to kill children; they are dragged over barbed wire until the flesh falls from their bones, while parents are forced to watch." Is the following an acceptable source? link Page 199 +

Can someobody with Lexis look up Joya Martínez' testimony to the Church Commitee or whichever US panel he testified to? Bmedley Sutler 05:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Spiffy as that above quote was, no where is it mentioned that this was an act of state terrorism by the United States, and the inclusion would seem to be WP:OR. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There are a lot of sections like that.  Lot's of OR and Synthesis.  People die = State Terrorism is not a valid argument for inclusion.  --Tbeatty 14:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Give this man a cookie! Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article is a dumping ground for OR and personal essays.Ultramarine 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And make it TWO, count 'em, two cookies for Ultramarine. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

<I>"an elite unit created, trained and equipped by the United States"</I></B> Bmedley Sutler 22:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * and.... what, exactly comes after this? Cause from where I am sitting I see no text that specificly cites this as an "act of terrorism", or am I missing something? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind that I slightly adjusted the formatting of the Chomsky excerpt above for readability. In the future, I propose we consider this link ( http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html ) as it contains the entire book online.  Also, it may be worth including that Chomsky specifically stated elsewhere in December, 1991 that "all of this is international terrorism, supported or directly organized in Washington with the assistance of its international network of mercenary states."  FightCancer 10:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue at hand remains
It seems to me that, regarding the current division of opinion as expressed on the talk page, at least those who are for the inclusion of the material have a position of compromise to offer. We could allow a relevant, adequately sourced criticism of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki section. We could also include a sentence designating our material as a minority or controversial viewpoint- even though this is redundant, since it has already done in the main introduction.

On the other hand, for those who insist on deletion of the well-sourced material from university profs of global stature--no position of compromise is possible, with them. They screem "OR" "Fringe," blank it,  and run away. This is an irrational act. For them, the majority of regular editors, or at least a very significant portion, must simply be muzzled on this issue. It amounts to the censorship of significant minority viewpoints and wikipedia becomes all the poor for this loss of legitimate diversity. Also the real reason it is being forcefully vandalized is not because it's poor, but rather because it's too good, too well-referenced from major figures.

If it really is an issue with the sources then we can pour even more solid sources for this Hiroshima/Nagasaki claim. The literature on this articles subject is actually quite abundant and significant. Those editors who have blanked the material, which most editors here agreed to add, and did so through consensus, can't win the argument by WP policies, so they become desperate and must attack, by just blanking, but fail to explain themselves. The question is, will WP allow them to continue to silent significant minority viewpoints and editor such as myself who are fighting for such legitimate and important diversity of content, or will they be allowed to continue to supress and whitewash WP, turning away from being a global Encylopedia to one that suffers from systematic bias rooted in US nationalism? I have no doubt that it will be the former, and that this group will eventually face repurcusions if they continue along the same vein in this article. I ask again, where is the alleged OR that was used as the basis for blanking this section? Itsd been about a week, and not a peep for them about this point. So far, again, consensus is clear to restore this. If they have any valid argument at all for their blanking actions, let them present it.Giovanni33 01:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Giovanni, there are a number of objections beyond OR. I havent made the OR objection personally, so I'll leave that discussion to those that made it. If you care to search through the dozens of pages of discussion, you'll see that I agreed to compromise and look for a way to include the material in a NPOV.  Thats my objection - NPOV. It violates NPOV on the basis on undue weight.  Simply the material presented is incredibly fringe and a minority viewpoint..along the lines of the 9/11 conspiracy buffs. To devote such a large amount of text to frank sillyness betrays the very premise of wiki.
 * Finally, there is no consensus to restore the section as it. No matter how many times you shout "CONSENSUS","VANDALS" -  It doesn't make it so.  A consensus will be VERY obvious when it exists. Dman727 01:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So offer a proactive compromise then! Refusing to work towards building a consensus is not accaptable eitherBernardL 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was already obtained, but I'm happy to listen to any substancial changes to the consesus version above, and if you have conensus to chagne it, then that would be fine. As I said before, please make a proposal. I understand you want to add more disenting opinions that this was not an act of state terror? As I said before, I do not object to doing so, provided its on topic. That is, responses to claims that this is an act of state terrorism. (This is not a pro/con debate about dropping or not dropping the bomb). I will note that the consensus version already does include the disenting opinion, the public justications, and the academic consensus view. If you want to increase the disenting view, then please offer what you want it in (but make sure its on topic: the claim of state terrorism). I'm sure that if you do that, you will have no problem obtaining consensus for the changes you want. But, please do not disrespect the consensus version above by denying it is the consensus version (and thus belongs in the article untill such time as a new consensus for changing it is obtained.)Giovanni33 02:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't even have a consensus of whether we have a consensus, let alone the material. I am looking at the fringe material however to see what can be salvaged. Dman727 02:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Facts don't go away because you deny them, so saying we dont have conensus about consensus is meaningless. Its fact. Conensus was clearly established, as I proved above in the link to the section. Again, ALL editors agreed across political spectrums, except Tbetty, who didn't give any valid objections. Everytime you deny this reality, I will repeat it. Now you allege that the material is fringe. That is refuted by the policy that provides guidlines for "fringe." That guide specifices that if one can easily find notable adherents to a pov, then its not fringes. That has been demontrated. See what I mean about evolving, chaning, objections? First its OR, then its Fringes, and then its NPOV, then its back to fringe again. All the way, the case is never presented to back up those lies. When are you going to do that instead of just lying? As far as "what can be salvaged"--that is the wrong question. Thats all well referenced material dealing directly with the issue at hand, so there is no option to delete it. The is just more blanking. You won't have conensus to blank. Now, if you want to add more relevante disenting opinion, then you might find consensus to do that (and I"m find with that too).Giovanni33 04:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "lying"?? my my.  See my response above. I'll wait till you calm down before engaging with you again. Dman727 04:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, those claims are lies. If they are not, then please, please, please, make the case the proves its not a lie. Until then, the material is so obviously not OR, no obviously not Fringe, that to claim otherwise, is to say a bold face lie. Of course, you wont actually make the case, to support that lie, because, well, then you would prove it had a legitimate basis, and was therefore not a lie. But, alas, I'm proven right. Thereofre, consensus, is once again--even now--still to include the material. This is because objections such as yours, hollow, shallow, absurd, and without support, can just be dismissed as a lie.Giovanni33 05:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Screaming lies, vandals, and consensus doesn't make it so as we've seen. There is no compromise on policy.  The material is so obviously fringe original research that even the dullest among us would recognize it but I am not going to call you a liar for not seeing it.  --Tbeatty 05:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this the best that those editors acting like vandals, blanking sourced material added by consensus can do? Calling it, over and over again, "fringe," and "original research" in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and with no case made to support such absurd lies? I guess so. Because that is all you are doing. You can't call me a liar because the sources speak for themselves. They stand as proof that when you claim this material as OR or Fringe, you are speaking lies. And since all you do is repeat that hollow and false claim, over and over, with NO argument to back it up, then, we can dissmiss your objection as invalid, and thus, consensus--even now--remains clear: There remains no valid objection yet presented to overturn the consensus that this section has.Giovanni33 06:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you just don't see it. --Tbeatty 06:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is right, I don't. One can not see what is not there, unless they have delusions and hallucinations, but that doesn't count either in the real world. Your objections thus remain empty and false claims, and if repeated after they are shown to be such, are obvious lies. Shameful conduct, I must say, but then I understand you have nothing to go on so such desperation is to be expected. But, as I say, its easily dismissed. When you can actually substanciate your aburd claims to blank this material, then come back and present them. Maybe you will gain some consensus to make changes to the material. Until now consenus remains clear no matter how much you can't see it.Giovanni33 06:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The only consensus we have is to include the section. You can't claim a consensus to remove it based on IDONTLIKEIT. You need to have a valid reason. OR is definately not valid as even a cursory glance at sources will reveal and the number and quality of sources trumps any claim of it being a "fringe" Theory. Move on and work on improving the section instead of wasting everyones time trying to get it deleted without reason. Wayne 06:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We have no consensus to include the section. You can't claim consensus to add it based on WP:ILIKEIT.  You need to have reliable sources with notable viewpoints.  Original Research is never valid and fringe theories violate undue weight.  Move on and work on improving the encyclopedia instead of wasting everyones time trying to add material without reason.  --Tbeatty 06:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on that false comment, a second time, I'll now expand the section even more with even more sources. Thanks, Tbeatty. Glad you just gave the ok to do so. Keep it up, and it will get even bigger, and be its own featured article all thanks to you.Giovanni33 06:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Giovannni might be operating under the unfounded assumption that some kind of consensus or deal now will forever end the matter. As long as this section on JP is, I would favor including much of the material when the article is updated, at least in footnotes. Otherwise it will be mercilessly attacked by current and future editors based on the same objections.
 * Also, in addition to this, I would be in favor of a stand-alone article that could include even more.--NYCJosh 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It already has it's own main article. Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the main article.  And please, no content forks.  --Tbeatty 16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is the main article. We can have an article just about this issue, if there is enough information to present. I'm willing to keep it a very breif section-as we have--but if you keep insisting its OR, or Fringe, then I'll expand the section and create its own article for it.Giovanni33 19:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected
NB. Hey who deleted stuff from this talk page? 199.125.109.55 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

editprotected

There is no consensus for the following additions/removals. --Tbeatty 15:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no consensus for the changes that appear to be requested. To make it worse, honestly this talk page is a mess and its not 100% what changes are being requested and even if this place in the text is the correct place to agree/disagree. Dman727 16:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. There is no consensus for these edits, and the page is protected because of this dispute. It's one thing to ask for the removal of OR that everyone agrees is OR. It's quite another to try to skirt protection and get admins to add in what caused this page to be protected in the first place. I doubt that an admin would be willing to stick his or her neck out to add material to a protected page under dispute anyway, for there would surely be a shitstorm over it. Removal of obvious OR, many admins might be willing to do. - Crockspot 17:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would remind Crockspot that there was no consensus to remove the section (which was originally added through consensus) so it should rightly be replaced so it can be discussed. This is especially important considering no editor has been able to find a reason to justify removing it yet. Blanking the section was what caused the page to be protected not as you incorrectly claim, adding it. It was just bad timing that the page was protected before the vandalism could be reverted. Adding the section would not require anything remotely resembling an admin "sticking his or her neck out" as it should have been in the article when it was protected in the first place. I'll assume good faith that your incorrect claims are not an attempt to scare admins away from putting it back. Wayne 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What are the objections to inserting Ultramarines version of the opposing views section? MartinDK 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was stating the general attitude toward admins editing protected pages, for the benefit of the non admins who are asking for this slew of additions below that do not have consensus for adding. I doubt that I could "scare admins" if I tried. Again, it is reasonable, per WP:V, for an admin to remove from a protected page material that everyone agrees should be removed. It is very risky for an admin to add disputed information to a protected page. It's a fact that admins know, but apparently some run of the mill editors don't know. The comment was directed at those editors. It is a waste of talk page space to put up a laundry list of disputed additions, and expect any admin to hop to and add them. - Crockspot 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The proposed changes are supported as a consensus from a review of the talk page, including the archives. The way to create a balanced article is to include all points of view, not arbitrarily try to make them go away by asking that the article be renamed or deleted. 199.125.109.25 17:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Laying it all out like the above will only confuse and deter an admin from altering the page. To put it simply the paragraph mentioned in point 2 needs to be deleted and the section that was the subject of the revert war replaced. Checking history will show exactly what section that is. A simple 2 edits and problem solved. Then we can move on to working out how the section should read rather than argue. Wayne 18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with this approach. Further modifications can be done aftewards. Lets keep it simple sounds like a good approach.Giovanni33 23:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That section you are refering to, I think is the Japan section shown above and below. There were two other sections removed (the other is Philipines) but only the El Salvador section has been requested re-instated. 199.125.109.25 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Change title to State terrorism by the United States

2. Remove the following paragraph:

Defenders of U.S. policy argue that American military interventions were justified in response to threats such as terrorism and Soviet aggression, and in the end produced superior governments and freer societies. The theoretical framework for the concept of state terrorism, and the evidence presented for U.S. state terrorism, are matters of considerable controversy.

3. Add the following section, after Guatamala:

El Salvador
In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commision's Report on El Salvador, Frederick Garneau argued for significant culpability on the part of United States governments. As is usually the case with truth commissions, the one for El Salvador did not focus on Washington's support for the government. .. That terror was committed in El Salvador is not disputed. Those who doubt this should reread the above and realize that an estimated 75,000 were killed in this small country in the period 1980 to 1991. The truth commission found that the terrorism that was committed in the country was overwhelmingly governmental terrorism, committed by the Salvadoran army, the National Guard, and their death squads and affiliated agencies. They were responsible for 95 percent of the deaths, the guerrillas for only five percent. These were the same institutions that were the concern and the favorites of Washington—receiving its indoctrination and training and profiting from its largess. El Salvador received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. This subsidy to the tiny country during the government repression and terrorism came to average out at $100,000 for each member of its armed forces. This subsidy allowed the government to pay for the terrorist activities committed by the security forces. By virtue of this largess and the military training, notably in counterinsurgency warfare, Washington emerges in this chapter as an accessory before and during the fact.By covering up for San Salvador after it had committed terror, Washington was an accessory after the fact. It gave diplomatic support to state terrorism.

4. Add the following section, after Anti-communism (there was more deleted but it is very long):

Japan
Some legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have accused the United States of having committed acts of State terrorism as a result of the nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan at the end of World War II. The 'atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki', remain the only time a state has used nuclear weapons against concentrated civilian populated areas. Some critics hold that it represents the single greatest act of state terrorism in the 20th Century. Some academics also consider that these bombings represent a genocide. The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, as well as the effects and justification for them, has been subject to debate. In particular, the claims that these attacks were acts of state terrorism remain a matter of controversy. However, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."

5. Replace the text in the section "Opposing views".

199.125.109.55 14:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit declined. No consensus apparent. Sandstein 08:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your reason for refusing to replace the opposing views section with Ultramarine's sourced and OR free version? There is no consensus on 1-4, number 5 has not been disputed, it does not constitute a change in how much weight is given to each side of this dispute and it counts as enforcing WP:OR and WP:V which are policies that must be satisfied regardless of any pseudo-concensus. Policy trumphs concensus. Any attempt to halt such an enforcement to gain the upper hand in another dispute or try to barter when there is nothing to barter about violates WP:POINT. Still neutral on 1-4. MartinDK 10:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Japan
In general, looks like an important issue for this article. They involve the first non-experimental use of weapons of mass destruction. That's a significant landmark in state terror. Also, deliberate military attack against a civilian target is, or should be, such an important topic for this article, since their death tolls and destruction to property compared to say, the death toll of the terrorist attack that most Americans are most used to thinking about, Sept 11., are orders of magnitude larger. --NYCJosh 19:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you forget mustard gas in WWI? Small pox attacks against Native Americans? Second, the use of WMD is not State Terrorism. Nor is civilian death toll relevant in assessing whether it was state terrorism. --Tbeatty 20:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about you stay on topic, and cut down on the distractions? Save this for other sections for the article. Lets keep this threat about the above.Giovanni33 23:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's generally a good idea to try to keep the level of truth in a given thread higher, rather than insisting corrections are tangential. To correct somebody's incorrect (and relevant) claim is not in itself irrelevant, although it may not be productive. It's hardly anything that needs a snarky reply, however. (and I'll assume you meant 'thread' not 'threat') 69.143.136.139 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No I have not forgotten. Why, would you like to add those to the article? The use of WMD and the death toll alone do NOT render it terrorism, and that is not what I was suggesting. However, given that the major authorities cited DO appear to view it as such, these additional factors make this example particularly monumental and noteworthy for WP.--NYCJosh 21:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Josh, you seem to have missed the point of Tbeatty's point. The user is simply stating that the claim of the nuclear weapons use in Japan were the first use of WMD/NBCs is incorrect. One could say that the first uses were in WWI, but it's easy enough to go further back as the other user mentioned, and discuss the use of smallpox in conflict with Native Americans. However, we can go even further back and cite the Mongols and early siege weaponry. Going further back, greek fire was used to destroy large groups of structures and soft targets. At any rate, finding the "first use of WMD" is probably going to be a fruitless exercise. At least, it's not likely to produce anything that's conclusive. 69.143.136.139 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the proper citation to use for the Bard memorandum (one of the objections rasied for the blanking):
 * . As stated above this section was added with consensus, so it should never have been taking out without getting a new consensus to do so. So its default state it is to keep it included, until valid objections are raised to remove it (or fix), and that because the new consenus. Please restore with added citations (this one and the above new ones offered). Proof that consensus was attained to include the material can be seen here [] As you can see, ALL editors on both sides of the fence agreed for its inclusion, except the lone editor Tbetty, blanked it because didn't get his way, failed to provide good reasons not to include it (even those who share his poltical POV said this was ok to include). Unless there is a new consensu to remove, it should be restored. The other POV editors who later jumped in to blank it under the false and never explained pretext of (removed OR), were just acking like vandals to the article (see arguments above for this).Giovanni33 19:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The "consensus" that Giovanni declares (which I personally dispute), is long gone(there are *FAR* more than 1 editor disagreeing). The Japan/WW II material is heavily disputed by multiple editors with different views and that was what prompted the edit war which Giovanni and many others participated in.  Practically speaking, the talk page is a mess.  This issue is being discussed in 4 or 5 places on the talk page, making it difficult to follow along and have a coherent conversation.  The issue is also quite emotional among some editors as accusations of vandalism and bad faith are still flying.


 * Once the emotions settle down, uncivil accusations cease, and a reasonable dialogue structure is in place, Im sure we'll reach a consensus version quite readily. Dman727 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If that previously obtained consensus for this material, which was added, is gone, then so be it. But, until there is consensus to remove it from the article, it can not be properly removed, since it was added with consensus (no matter if that is gone now). You need to obtain a new consensus to remove, which the editors blanking did not have.Giovanni33 23:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I readily agree with DMan that this talk page is a mess. It might facilitate deliberation if instead of having one talk page in which discussions more than a few days old get buried and few editors have any detailed memory of months and months of archived talk (the same old arguments are re-hashed over and over and over again), the talk page was organized by topic. Each section of the article could have its own "talk page." I am being vague on details because I don't know if this is feasible. --NYCJosh 22:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this is anything other than a fringe view and as such has no place in this article. --Tbeatty 20:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Au contraire, Professor Richard Falk (professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton) is one of the luminaries in his field. Check out his cv (just google him or visit the Pinceton website) if you are skeptical. It is difficult to name anyone currently alive in the academy who is more prominent in his field. His view alone renders it non-fringe. When you add the others, it might be fair to say theirs is a dominant view on the issue.--NYCJosh 21:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Falk, a "luminary"? If contributing with 9/11 conspiracy theories isn't enough, he has even openly accused Israel of genocide. Radical, left wing idealogues such as him and Ganser are about as luminary as a candle on a windy day.--Beguiled 22:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As dim as that Newton fellow looking for secret messages in the bible and trying to transmute stuff into gold. Now that we have discounted gravity, what will we do? Where is that "ad hominem" macro I had? --SevenOfDiamonds 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is not valid. Just because you disagree with their views, does diminish their undisputed global stature in their respective academic fields. When you add his name to all the other luminaries who support the same view, your claim is rendered completely refuted to the point of being absurd. Next?Giovanni33 23:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear from the sources that this is not a fringe view.  . V .  [Talk 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The contribution presented above is impeccably sourced, from major sources. The ball is now in the court of those who object to it, to present relevant sources opposing these views. That is the nature of compromise and consensus, rather than deletion that constitutes both vandalism and censorship.BernardL 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Japan section is well-sourced and fitting for this Wiki article. However, I think the article could use some slight improvements on readability and syntax. For example, part of it is in the present tense and the rest in the past tense. FightCancer 11:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a few edits. The only text I removed was punctuation: a few quotation marks, commas, etc.  I also grouped the Zinn quotes together and the same with the Selden quotes.  This way we don't have to keep announcing Selden's title and rank every time we refer to him throughout the section. FightCancer 12:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Its getting close to a week now and it seems consensus is once more clear for inclusion of this material. Like last time no valid objection for inclusion has been made. In fact, I propose we do the following: each time a spurious objection is raised such as the false cry of "OR!" or "Fringe!" we simply expand the article with more sources. So each time they raise that it wil lhave the effect of increasing the sources and section, reporting on this rather significant and notable POV. I think that should serve as a proper disincentive since their real objection is "I don't like what they say, and I dont want anyone else to read it!."Giovanni33 22:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that the edit-warriors who want it included has disengaged from the article. I would appear as though there is now a consensus to not include the WW II ending in the article.  On the other hand, if those who want it included, I would suggest that they get started building a consensus. Dman727 00:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your talking about, unless your talking about the vandals who blanked it repeatedly (you included). Consensus was clearly established to include this. Now we are showign that its STILL consensus to include for I see no sustained objections to not include it back (yourelf included). However, the ball is on the side of those who want it removed since we already had consenus to include. In order to keep it out, consenus has to be obtained to keep it out. Not only is that completely lacking, consensus is still clearly to keep it. So, again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Can we come back to reality here?Giovanni33 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If there was a consensus, its long gone. I'll also remind you of WP:CIVIL and I've removed your incivil accusations. Your constant incivility is a big barrier to consensus.Dman727 00:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are still missing the point. Since consensus was obtained, then the material belongs in the article until there is consensus to take it our (or make major changes). Since YOU have no consensus to do that, the section, by default, belongs back in the article. There is nothing more incivil than blanking well sourced material over and over, and failing to provide any valid reason for doing so--and doing this against consensus. So unless you apologize for that major vandalism inflicted by yourself and a group of others, and promise to reform yourself on this matter, its a bit of a stretch to talk about being civil. I suggest, in the very least, that you acknowledge the points that has been made many times: it was added with consensus, there is no consensus to remove. On top of that, there are still no valid objections to substanciate its removal against consensus in the first place--even now. Unless you have an argument to make about these points, your posting here are of little productive value. Again, it been alsmost a week and none of those who have blanked this well sourced section have dared to show their faces here to justify what they did. I ask again, and I'll keep asking, "Where is the alleged OR" that they claimed as the basis for the blanking? Not a peep from these people. Obviously, they lied. It reminds me of the Bush claiming WMD's. Where are they? Oh, it was a lie. Conensus remains unchanged. This section must be restored.Giovanni33 00:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is certainly no consensus now. You, along with others want it included. I along with others disagree.  There is no valid reasons to include the fringe material. I acknowledge your points and fully disagree with them. I will however leave your attacks in place as your request. If you want to discuss George Bush, I suggest you go to that article. Unless you have an argument to make about these points, your posting here are of little productive value.Dman727 01:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several dissenting opinions, including mine. For one it is completely one sided. If included, then the usual defences for the bombings must be mentioned, such as the alternative cost if continuing the war.Ultramarine 22:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, its not completely one sided. I present the consensus view among academics, and also the public justiications for the bombing (the public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender) That pov is touched on sufficiently. This article and section is about the claims that the act constituted an act of State Terrorism. Its not about the pro/cons for dropping or not dropping the bomb. That belongs on the main article, where it links to. In light of the actual topic I also present an academic who supports the bombing arguing that terrorism is sometimes justified (since he is talkign about the claim of terrorism (the subject of this section) I include it. Other stuff goes in the main article. Giovanni33 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ultrmarine, clearly there are numerous dissenting opinions. I WOULD like to see a consensus form on the material.  Without a clear consensus (and not a consensus declared by one editor), it is likely that edit wars will continue and article locks will continue.  A real, true consensus will not have this problem. Dman727 01:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to add more disenting opinions that this was not an act of state terror, then by all means propose them. I do not object to doing so. But, it must be on topic. This is about the claims of this being an act of state terrorism. This is not a pro/con debate about dropping or not dropping the bomb. I have already included the disenting opinion, the public justications, and the consensus view. If you want to increase the disenting view, then please offer what you want it in (but make sure its on topic: the claim of state terrorism). And, btw, there already was consensus, which has already been pointed out to you (don't lie and say its one editor!). I'll point out the section for you again that proves this point: [] As you can see, ALL editors on both sides of the fence agreed for its inclusion, except Tbetty, who didn't provide any good reasons. This section was the end product of all these editors working together, tailored to the various conditions they requested for its addition. In all over 17 editors approved directly or indirectly. However, if you have a new consensus to make changes, then I'm happy about that, and look at your proposed changes. But, make no mistake about, consensus for the section above was already obtained. The more you deny this, the more you deny reality that I'll keep pointing out.Giovanni33 01:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no CURRENT consensus for inclusion or removal. Feel free to make all the claims you wish about the past though. Dman727 01:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since consensus was already obtained for the version above, it requires a new consensus to change it. I agree there is no conensus to remove it, so that can't be done.Giovanni33 06:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that rather than calling this a consensus issue it would be more productive to refer to it as a point of view issue, while the section clearly indicates a consensus of historians that Nagasaki was not needed to end the war, it is clearly a point of view that nothing that looks bad for the United States or people who are living or have died recently be included. That however is not even a point of view, it is gratuitous censorship. 199.125.109.55 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

missing doubletick
there's a missing doubletick on the chomsky quote in the "using the united states' own definition" section. i'd have fixed it for you, but, you know, it's protected from being fixed. cheers, 69.143.136.139 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC) editprotected
 * done. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Keeping my word--more sources for the Japan section
True to my word, everytime they continue to claim its "OR," or "Fringe" the consequence of making that false claim will be to expand the article with more sources. And, I'm sure we will get consensus to add more refrenced material to this section. So, if you don't like it, I suggest you allow this rather modest version to exist un vandalized. But, if you insist on blanking it with such absurdly false claims, then the consequence will only be to make it bigger, larger, with more sources. If you keep it up, it will be the largest section in the article, or even have its own article! The choice is yours but don't say I didn't tell you so. Now since you already started repeating those claims above (no argument to support it btw), here is my first presentation of more sources for all editor to comb threw, and find the best gems to add to the already approved per consenus, material above. Depending on how many times they repeat "OR,' or "fringe" will determine how much of to add to the article. Here are just some additional sources to start looking through...but there is a lot more. Know that I'm not lying when I said this will be the result of your continuing to claim "OR,' or "fringe." Blank the material again, and it will only grow bigger, and with more international sources (a lot to draw from). So here is the begining of that process, which I have hardly even begun yet (and not even started my research into printed materials in the many libraries I have full access too).

Japanfocus.com for many critical essays from notable authors. This is a peer reviewed acadmic journal. I havn't yet gone through it but I'm sure there's a lot of stuff we can use from it. 

Just glancing at one of the many critical papers to be found there, I noted this one by Prof. Mark Seldon, entitled: ''A Forgotten Holocaust: US Bombing Strategy, the Destruction of Japanese Cities and the American Way of War from the Pacific War to Iraq [*] Mark Selden'' I think this point he makes about one of its after effect, its ramifications is worth mentioning:

"The targeting for destruction of entire populations, whether indigenous peoples, religious infidels, or others deemed inferior or evil, may be as old as human history, but the forms it takes are as new as the latest technologies of destruction and strategic innovation, of which air power, firebombing and nuclear weapons are particularly notable. [37] The most important way in which World War II shaped the moral and technological tenor of mass destruction was the erosion in the course of war of the stigma associated with the systematic targeting of civilian populations from the air, and elimination of the constraints, which for some years had restrained certain air powers from area bombing. What was new was both the scale of killing made possible by the new technologies and the routinization of mass killing or state terrorism. If area bombing remained controversial throughout much of World War II, something to be concealed or denied by its practitioners, by the end of the conflagration it would become the acknowledged centerpiece of war making, emblematic above all of the American way of war even as the nature of the targets and the weapons were transformed by new technologies and confronted new forms of resistance. Indeed, for six decades the US (and those fighting under its umbrella) has been virtually alone in fighting wars and police actions notable for their reliance on airpower in general and the deliberate targeting for destruction of civilians, and the infrastructure that makes possible their survival, in particular. Certainly in this epoch no others have bombed on a scale approaching that of the US. The US would conceal the deliberate annihilation of noncombatants with the figleaf that Sahr Conway-Lanz describes as the myth of collateral damage, that is the claim, however systematic the bombing, that the intent was elimination of military targets, not the slaughter of noncombatants."

ACHIN VANAIK-Professor of International Relations and Global Politics (South Campus) at the Political Science Department of Delhi University

Gunnar Garbo-Former Norwegian Ambassador to Tanzania (who references Mark Selden’s work) 

Joseph Gerson - Director of Programs and Director of the Peace and Economic Security Program for the American Friends and Services Committee.

Walden Bello executive director of Focus on the Global South, professor of sociology and public administration at the University of the Philippines 

Prof. Jose Maria Sison, University of Philippines 

Michael Stohl- Professor and Chair, Department of Communication University of California, Santa Barbara. His book “The Politics of Terrorism” is in its 3rd edition. “In addition to the covert use of terror by governments outside their own borders, there is the overt employment of terror to coerce other governments to capitulate or submit to the wishes of the dominant. Thomas Schelling (1966) refers to this use of terror as the “diplomacy of violence,” and Alexander George et al. (1971) label it coercive diplomacy…Consider the following passage by Schelling and its implications “These (the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were weapons of terror and shock. They hurt and promised more hurt, and that was their purpose. The few small weapons we had were undoubtedly of some direct military value, but their enormous advantage was in pure violence….” (Stohl- The Politics of Terrorism Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel, Third Edition, 19)

Brian Martin - Professor of Science, Technology and Society at the University of Wollongong. 

So, keep it up, and this section will only greatly expand. Or, admit defeat and accept a very modest, very brief version that I agreed to. That choice I leave to you, but be clear that you don't have the option of blanking any more. Attempts will prove futile and have the opposite of your intended effect. Read and weap.Giovanni33 06:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Where do they say it was State Terrorism by the United States? This is a specific term of art not be confused or muddled with a generic term "terror".  Fear and terror are created all the time in war but it doesn't make it State Terrorism.  Also, they are "fringe" if they are going to argue that the ioverthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan is a terrorist act.  --Tbeatty 13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can any sources be cited to show these are "fringe" views? On what basis is it designated as fringe?--NYCJosh 15:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh oh, he said the word Fringe, again. Empty, false claim. Therefore, again, true to my word, here are yet more sources, which now will be added to the article. If he keeps this up, this will expand to its own article because it will get so big:


 * Communal Politics: Facts Versus Myths By Ram Puniyani, Sage Publication Inc. Page 261 "This is terrorism of the mighty out to enslave the weak. This state terrorism kills the innocent non-combatants, like the ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ..."


 * Implicating Empire: Globalization and Resistance in the 21st Century By Stanley Aronowitz, Basic Books. Page 92 "But the retaliatory attacks against Japan, rationalized by some, simply forgotten by others, is a useful example when one is trying to understand institutional terror." Just for the hawks: "One can say there are at least two forms of terrorism: organized and institutional (or state) terrorism."


 * Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World By Michael P. O'Keefe, C. A. J. Coady, Melbourne University Press. Preface XV "Several of the contributors consider the issue of state terrorism and there is a general agreement that states not only can sponsor terrorism by non state groups but that states can, and do, directly engage in terrorism. Coady instances the terror bombings of World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as acts of terrorism."


 * Incoherent Empire By Michael Mann, Verso. Page 129 "Some bombing clear is state terrorism. That is the correct term for the Allied fire-boming of Dresden or Tokyo and, more arguably, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki"


 * To quote another editors question, which you ignored: "How much needs to be produced before we stop calling this OR or a fringe view? Do we have a number in mind? This way I can ask the people over at WP:RS and WP:V if it is normal to have to produced X sources, where X is the number you provide." And, yes, if you keep it up it can have its own article as its about this particular claim that it was state terrorism, which we can expore in great detail. Is that what you want?Giovanni33 18:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More sources does not make the POV problems disappear. See WP:SOAP. If included, the common opposing views for why the bombing was necessary should be included, as well as mention of the relevant laws of war at the time which had no prohibition against such bombings. Another point it there is still no resolution to very old problems like the intro, see the section below, which should be resolved first before taking on new issues.Ultramarine 18:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bombing necessary? Now that would be the real fringe view. But, you seem to get off topic, again. The issue about droppoing or not droppong the bomb is not one that this section gets into in any detail. That is left for the main article. In this section, I present the consensus view among academics, and also the public justiications for the bombing (the public justification for the attacks given by the U.S. government then and now was mainly to save lives that might otherwise might have been lost in a military campaign to conquer and occupy the Japanese home islands which was alleged as necessary to attain the war time goal of unconditional surrender) That pov is touched on sufficiently. This article and section is about the claims that the act constituted an act of State Terrorism. Its not about the pro/cons for dropping or not dropping the bomb. That belongs on the main article, where it links to. In light of the actual topic I also present an academic who supports the bombing arguing that terrorism is sometimes justified (since he is talkign about the claim of terrorism (the subject of this section) I include it. Other stuff goes in the main article. If you want to add more from the an opposing view that talks about the claims that this is state terrorism, not NOT state terrorism, then I welcome that. But its currently balanced as it presents all view, but with a focus on this particular POV, which is the subject of this article and section.Giovanni33 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- No one knows the consensus among academics unless you present a survey. See WP:SOAP, only presenting or giving undue weight to arguments from one side is not allowed. In addition to the already mentioned problem, there is also the language. Critics "allege", supportes "write", and so on. But we should solve the old problems like the intro before tackling new. See the section below.Ultramarine 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We can cite reliable academics in the field (historian) who state what the consesus view is, which is what I've done. And, you seem to be applying the undo weight standard for main articles. This is an ancillary aricle that deals specifically with this POV, so there is no undue weight issues here. As long as the consensus view is presented, and a statement is made regarding the status and nature of this view, we are then allowed to explore this view and present it in great depth (that is the whole point of it!). This is NOT a section for giving equal weight to all POV's in porportion to academia. That standard is only for the main article; this ancilary section on an ancillary article deals with a specific minority pov: that it was state terrorism. I hope this now is clear to you because I've said it at least three times and you are ignoring it.Giovanni33 19:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you refer to a claim that there is consensus for a statement among historians that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst." Does not mention terrorism or state terrorism so should be removed as OR according to your own argumentation. Please answer the long standing issue with the introduction before starting new controversies.Ultramarine 20:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the consensu view according to the respectable historian that its attributed to. My review of the literature confirms this as accurate. Do you dispute that claim of consensus with another source? I find it accurate, and its not OR since its attributed properly to a realible source. Historians today to not beleive that the bomb is necessary, and only a very minority justify its use. The consensus is as I stated it, which is attributed to the two historians that I attribute the statement to, in the text. As long as I do that, and not not represent this pov (state terrorism claim) falsely as consensus or a majority view, then there is no undue weight issue here, as this is about presenting this POV in depth, which includes disenting POV's about this question. I'll deal with the other issues you have about the article when we get this issue resolved.Giovanni33 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You were just stating that this article only should deal with state terrorism which this material does not mention. You can not have it both ways. The introduction issue was raised first and should be dealt with before new conroversies.Ultramarine 20:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- Again, as is standard with ancillary articles that present minority theories or pov's, one needs to mention the conensus view on the matter first. That is what I do. That is why its included. Its mentioned but does not explore that, either. That is for the main article to do, and that is proper. The idea is not to present this minority view-- which this section is about and is suppoed to go in great detail about--as the majority view, or consenus view. The reason why its important to state that, framed properly, is because in sections and articles such as this, the POV it explores gets all the space (both con and pro). Other Pov's such as questions about the bombs use, other options, etc, are not dealt with here (main article content, or other articles). Here the issue is state terrorism. So, yes, other than presenting the consensus view and and framing the exploration of this POV properly, we do not enterain the other issues here. This is not a double standard its the proper standard per WP policies for ancillary articles. I'm not sure why this point has to be repeated so many times.Giovanni33 20:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not presented any evidence regarding consensus for state terrorism or terrorism, your source does not mention this. Again, solve the introduction issue before starting new controversies.Ultramarine 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I have not since that is NOT the consensus point of view, and I never said it was. I have not been clear? I've only made the above point about 5 times now. I can only guess that you are not bothering to read my responses, which is why you are raing this red herring. And, until this issue is solved, nothign else will be. Solve this first, and be serious.Giovanni33 21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this statement does not mention state terrorism or terrorism it should be removed. You just above argued that this article only deals with state terrorism and not other aspects of the bombing. I quote "this ancilary section on an ancillary article deals with a specific minority pov: that it was state terrorism." But again, we should solve old issues before starting new, see the section on the introduction below.Ultramarine 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you leave out that other part that explains why the conensus view must be stated, and the minority pov (what this section is about), must be framed a such. So, I'll just copy and past my same response above, which I'm guessing you just ignored, since it answers your question already. To repeat: "Again, as is standard with ancillary articles that present minority theories or pov's, one needs to mention the conensus view on the matter first. That is what I do. That is why its included. Its mentioned but does not explore that, either. That is for the main article to do, and that is proper. The idea is not to present this minority view-- which this section is about and is suppoed to go in great detail about--as the majority view, or consenus view. The reason why its important to state that, framed properly, is because in sections and articles such as this, the POV it explores gets all the space (both con and pro). Other Pov's such as questions about the bombs use, other options, etc, are not dealt with here (main article content, or other articles). Here the issue is state terrorism. So, yes, other than presenting the consensus view and and framing the exploration of this POV properly, we do not enterain the other issues here. This is not a double standard its the proper standard per WP policies for ancillary articles. I'm not sure why this point has to be repeated so many times."This is clear to me, so I don't know why you fail to grasp the concept. I don't think you are obtuse, so I'm guessing your just not being serious.Giovanni33 21:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- You keep refering to "WP policies for ancillary articles". Source please. Since your source does not mention terrorism or state terrorism is not relevant to this article as per your own arguments. Your claims regarding consensus is also dubious, the claim of a single historian does not establish truth. There are also consensus that continuing the war should have killed many, so it can equally be argued that this consensus should be included. Please respond to the introduction section below which should be resolved first since it was an earlier issue.Ultramarine 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because you keep completely ignoring what policy says on the question. When I say the article must frame the minority POV properly and present the consenus POV, this does not negate the point that the section is still about the issue: state terrorism. The two go together. You seem to look at thins in either/or, white and black terms. Policy is NPOV and Undue Weight. These are basic policies that you shoudl have already read. Let me quote the policy for you: "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." The is why we have to state it as such, and state the conensus pov. "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views... If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability."Since I've arleady explained this several times, and this is rather basic stuff, for you to pretend you still do not understand, and keep repeating a red herring, I will assume that you are only trolling now.Giovanni33 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * NPOV and Undue Weight states nothing regarding that "ancillary articles" should only present a consensus view from some main article. Your claims regarding consensus is also dubious, the claim of a single historian does not establish truth. There are also consensus that continuing the war should have killed many, so it can equally be argued that this consensus should be included. Please respond to the introduction section below which should be resolved first since it was an earlier issue.Ultramarine 01:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you have problems reading. I even quoted it for you so you can see for yourself there it sasy "ancillary articles." Can't do better than that. As far as claim of true, no one has made any claim of truth. That is not what we do here in WP. You again raise a red herring. What I do, however, is report what a reliable source says that is consensus. Hence, the section states, "However, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst."[12]. If you dispute that this statement of academic consensus is correct, then please cite a source that states what the conensus is, then. I will not respond to the introduction, so stop repeating yourself. One thing at a time, and this is the priority for me.Giovanni33 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read it. Does not state that an "ancillary article" should violate NPOV. There are also "consensus" that continuing the war should have killed many, so it can equally be argued that this consensus should be included. But you have argued that this article deals with "state terrorism" and not with other aspects of the bombing. No double standard please, this includes this particular claim that does not mention state terrorism. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary sources, so you have to cite many sources before claiming anything as scientific consensus. Regarding the intro, then you should make that you priority instead of creating new controversies.Ultramarine 01:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(indent). As usual, you are just going around in circles, pretending not to see or undestand the obvious. It does say ancillary article, and I've followed the guidlines for it. There are not many consensuses (this shows me you don't understand the use of the word, even). If you dispute the accuracy of the acadmic consensus view, which I have presented with proper souring and attribution, then please lets see your source that mentions what the academic consensus is among historians as to the issue. That is fine to include, briefly. (I've asked you many times already, but so far you've shown nothing). As to the other stuff, yes, it has to stay on topic of State terrorism. We do not reproduce the the other issue in this article. But we do look at all POV's about this issue (state terrorism)--aside from stating the academic consensus view and properly framing the issue (as explained by policy above).Giovanni33 01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not say that an ancillary article should violate NPOV and only present one particular view from a main article. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary sources, so you have to cite many sources before claiming anything as scientific consensus in such a controversial area. Again the important issue is the introduction which should be resovled before new controversies.Ultramarine 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no violation of NPOV. The consensus view is not the minority view, as I've explained. But its important to state what academics say is the consensus view, which I've done. if you dispute that, please show sources that say the consensus view is otherwise. Exploration of the minority view in great depth is exactly what this ancillary article is here for, and should stay on topic (providing both POV's for the issue). How many times must this be repeated?Giovanni33 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A single source is not evidence for consensus in a controversial area. Even if it was, there are other consensus like that many would have died if the war continued. Double standard to include a claim you like from another article but exclude other things such as that many would have been killed if the war continued which is not disputed. But we really should finish old things before starting new, see the introduction section below.Ultramarine 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not using a single source to show acadmic consensus I am using a reliable source who states what the academic consenus is on the bombings. Again, if you dispute that claim as not accurate, please show a short that states the consensus on dropping the bomb. Other issues and questions about how many people would have died, etc. are already detailed in the main article and are off topic. We do not get into other details such as number in this article. Its speculation, anyway, and the numbers range greatly.. We do not need to duplicate this debate here as its gets off topic. We only need to state the academic consenus view, and frame the issue, and then explore the topic (state terrorism claim).Giovanni33 02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- In science a single claim does not establish a consensus in a field, many studies are required before anything like that can be claimed. There are many sources given in the atomic bombings article showing that there is no consensus among scholars. As per NPOV such views must also be included, there is no very special exception for "ancillary articles" But again, finish earlier disputes first.Ultramarine 02:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply repeating yourself is not productive. Your repetiion is also non-responsive, as well. As I said before, a single claim does not estab. consensus--no one has done this. Instead, I have simply reported from a relaible source what the source says is acadmic consensus. Big difference between these two concepts. Now, if you dispute the accuracy of this claim, then by all means, give us some reason to doubt it with another reliable source of equal authority to the source I have used to establish the claim. NPOV includes all views relevant to the topic. Off topic views do not count, and are not to be included. But all views about the claims of state terrorism, are fine. Including those who say state terrorsim was justifified (included). or those that say its not state terrorism, etc. That is NPOV. Bringing up other debates that are a rehash of the main article is off topic to this ancillary article and section.Giovanni33 02:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A claim to consenus does not prove that it exists as a truth. You are arguing that it is a truth, allowing the exclusion of other views. But a single source is not enough for that. The sources in atomic bombings article shows the existence of opposing views. If we include you claim to consensus, then NPOV also requires the inclusion of the sourced opposing views.Ultramarine 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How many times are we going to go around in circles? I already answered that point more than once. WP does not deal with truth. The standard is verifiablity. The reliable source states the conensus view. If you dispute the accuracy of that claim then you must show other claims to the contrary about that point in question. I'm still waiting and you have produced nothing. NPOV is maintained by attributive language and by including all relevant views about the subject (state terrorism). That has been included. If you have more to include, that is welcome. Just stay on topic.Giovanni33 02:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no policy that an "ancillary article" (which this is not since it is not a subarticle of the atmoic bombing article) should only mention some views from a main article. NPOV requires the inclusion of all views. The atomic bombings article have verifiable sources showing opposing views. These views should also be mentioned for NPOV. But your article does not mention state terrorism or terrorism so there is no reason to include it here. Why are we not finishing earlier issues first, like the intro.Ultramarine 02:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

<-- ::Again, a red herring, and non responsive to the point. This subject (section) is ancilalry to the main article. It does not reproduce the issues (many) in the main article. It deals with one issue: the claims of State terrorism. All POV's about this are to be included. The academic consenus POV is to be included, which it is, as per the source I quote stating so. So your objections are off topic, again. I suggest if you still don't understand what I've been saying, you probabaly are not going to understand anytime soon, so no need to keep repeating yourself. Maybe take a break and read over my replies later with a fresh mind, or leave it to other editors. I feel this is quite easy to grasp and very clear, and I'm sorry that you seem not to understand it. Either that or you are trollign and playing games. I hope not.Giovanni33 02:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * YOu have not shown this is the consensus view. In fact, jsut the opposite. You have not answered any of the concers. Your views are not verifiable or reliable let alone truthful. We cannot prove the negative meaning the consensus is that it wasn't state terrorism. No source is going to refute such fringe allegations because they simply don't even warrant a response. This is not a mainstream view. It's simply pointless for professional peer-reviewed journals to address every crackpot theory put out by fringe elements and we shouldn't be giving them airtime in the encyclopedia. --Tbeatty 02:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Much to my surprise this has been a highly illuminating debate. I believe that the burden of proof currently lies with Ultramarine to show that among current historians, there is a consensus maintaining that not only Hiroshima but especially Nagasaki was a military necesssity. This in light of the fact that it is not only a veteran historian like Bruce Cumings who claims that "the consensus as given by a moderate and mainstream historian (J. Samuel Walker), is that the official story of Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb- that it was done to save American lives... is wrong. and The consensus also extends to the second bomb, the plutonium device detonated over Nagasaki. Martin Sherwin's 1975 book contains evidence that the Nagasaki bomb made a gratuitous contribution to the end of the war at best, and was genocidal at worst. Although Nagasaki does not draw the attention that Hiroshima does, it is fair to say that most historians agree with Sherwin.(Cumings, Bruce, "American Airpower and Nuclear Strategy in Northeast Asia since 1945, in "War and State Terrorism".) Not only is Ultramarine faced with that!- he is also obliged to refute the comments of another wikipedia editor, Strothra, who, unlike Ultramarine displays evidence of actually being knowledgeable about the subject. Strothra claimed that "Alperowitz, Frank, and Hasegawa are likely the three leading contemporary historians of this topic, however. Franks is far more conservative on the issue, of course he doesn't say that either of the bombs were necessary to defeat Japan - only that one was necessary to keep the Soviets out. No credible contemporary historian accepts that both bombs were justified and practically all acknowledge the fact that myth of necessity concerning massive troop losses if we invaded was created after the use of the bombs.Ultamarine keeps harping about the introduction as a "priority", and it seems little more than a desperate evasion. I certainly believe that there are problems with the wording of the current introduction yet nevertheless this page was blocked because of the Japan issue and not the introduction. The current introduction had a clear consensus at the time of its submission, even if some of us on both sides may disagree with it now.BernardL 19:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple points (without take a side). Theres discussion about whether we have consensus for inclusion of the WW II material into this article about terrorism...and there is discussion about whether their is consensus AMONG historians whether the bombs were necessary, if they were unncessary, gratious, or outright terrorism.  Its getting confusing following this thread as I think that some folks have mixed (unintentionally) the two consensus discussions.
 * With that said, now I'll make my own point. I think its reasonable, with nearly 60 years of detailed research and discussion that some may feel the bombs were unnecessary.  60 years is probably plenty of enough time to second guess the decision that the US made within a month or so in the middle of the worst war that the world has suffered.  However, if some contempory historians conclude that the bombings were unnecessary, that does not automatically elevate their conclusions to that of state terrorism...i.e. that which is unnecessary is not automatically state terrorism. Furthermore, contempory discussions and findings about whether the bombings were necessary is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia and fortunately we have an article those inclusions at Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki.  Back to the issue of consensus.  We do not have a consensus for including the WW II material into this article.  As to the question among consensus amongst historians of necessity, thats one that should take place at Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki.  I haven't weighed in on the introduction, but it seems that if we have multiple editors disagreeing, then we do not have a current consensus and now would be an ideal time to hammer one out (while the article is locked). Dman727 20:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no question about conensus for inclusion of the material. It was included with consensus. The issue now is there is no consensus to change it (yet). The issue seems to be what it include and what not to include in the section (the claims of OR and Fringe are not serious so they can just be ignored and dismissed, as those are just plain silly, "i dont like it" arguments). I agree with BernardL who put is very well: UltraMarine is disputing the claim of acadmic consensus on the question of the use of the bombs, as currently described. Therefore, in light of the evidence I provided to support the current text, the burden is on him to show that its wrong. That is, he must muster some heavy guns in the academic word who are equally authorities on the subject that clearly state the academic consensus is otherwise. He has failed to do this, thus far. If he does I'm sure there will be consensus to make changes accordingly. The other issue was what was relevant to include in this section. I argue that it must remain on topic: claims of state terrorism, or directly about the subject and context of state terrorism. As you point out the larger debates about the bomb are to be left for the main article. However, we must still frame this minority point of view accurately, per policy, and thus the academic consenus view should be stated. About your statement that just because "some historians conclude the bomb wasn't necessary, it doesnt automatically elevate their conclusion to that of state terrorism" is of course true. But, then again, no one has made that kind of silly leap in logic. No, we cite their views directly, as we have in the consensus version above. Otherwise, it would indeed be SYN or OR, and there is none of that in this section.Giovanni33 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Giovanni, you really need to read WP:CIVIL. Why is it that you cannot write one passage without some sort of attack? These continuous attacks will make building a consensus very difficult. Personally, I don't want to wait till the end of September to get this article unlocked, but your uncivil behavior, continuous attacks, extreme argumentativeness and refusal to work towards consensus will probably insure that it stays locked the entire term. I'm going to be out of town for a few days. Go ahead and get a last word in if you wish. In the meantime, have a good weekend. Dman727 00:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:TE cites repeating yourself much like the Ultramarine tactic above, you should note that as well. --SevenOfDiamonds 06:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where in my response to you there was an attack? I was only addressing the issues, clarifying them, and made no attacks that I can discern. Attacking a claim or argument is perfectly valid, though, esp. if its a reasonsed and logical refutation.Giovanni33 01:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Silly is not a WP:CIVIL term. This I feel this is quite easy to grasp and very clear, and I'm sorry that you seem not to understand it. Either that or you are trollign and playing games is not civil. Need more?   --Tbeatty 04:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should stop playing games. You oppose things without ever stating why other then WP:XYZ. I asked above, noone answered, but to end this silly Undue Weight, Fringe game, how many sources need to be presented, over 10 have been so far. I need a number given so I can bring it to relevant forums, WP:RS and WP:V to get some answers. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 05:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no number. It's quite simple.  The sources must not be fringe.  They should be a significant view.  The should support the claim being made.  10 have not been presented that meet those requirements.  Zero have been presented.  --Tbeatty 05:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please highlite your issues with the sources presented so far, source by source. Thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 06:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

For Giovanni and Ultramarine, stop the circular game: If I missed anything let me know, but you guys are going in circles over things already covered for no reason. Try to move the debate forward, not around. --SevenOfDiamonds 06:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Noone is citing the events of Nagasaki/Hiroshima were "state terrorism" as a "truth" or "fact"
 * 2) Reliable sources, meaning ones that pass WP:RS are stating that the events are "state terrorism" many specifically are using this term, I highlited them. Giovanni has replayed them above.
 * 3) The term genocide, if not mentioned by enough sources should be listed as a quote to someone. As long as it is listed as "Person X of University Y has stated act A = genocide" then it is permitted, barring that person meets the requirements of WP:RS.
 * 4) Undue Weight states that an item cannot be addressed in an article if reliable sources have not presented it, considering the 10+ sources, 5 or so I provided that directly state this, page numbers and quotes were provided, this requirement has been met.
 * 5) WP:NPOV This is where I agree with Ultramarine. I believe he should be permitted, and no reason not to, to present WP:RS sources that state the event was necessary to ending the war, in response to the section being drafted that states it was not. This is how NPOV work, it is not the removal of information but the balance of. However NPOV does not permit censorship on the grounds that there is no other view point. However I am sure plenty of sources can be found stating it was needed.
 * 6) Dman, not sure of the order of the postings, but I have already presented sources stating the view of many historians and they particularly cite it as 'state terrorism,' which is probably why there is growing frustration. I appreciate others joining in on the discussion, but please review the recent archives to get an idea of what has already been stated to prevent further rehasing.
 * 7) Reporting a source stating something that is a "concensus" doe snot make it a consensus, however and it should be noted as "Person X believes this is a consensus." so it is attributed and not a statement of fact.
 * This is about "state terrorism", so sources dealing with other topics should not be included. If such things are included, then NPOV requries mentioning all views. But we should resolve old problems first, see the Introduction section below, before creating new controversies.Ultramarine 13:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I do not know what you are talking about. Like usual. I think I will soon take this to Arbcom or AN/I and request a topic ban for you. This constant arguing and misrepresentations of WP:RS are a bit over board, now the constant misrepresentation of Undue Weight as a new "policy weapon" is getting out of hand and starting to become quite disruptive to the numerous pages you post on. I have seen your tenditious editing spread to 4 or so other pages where you constantly argue in circles and the minute someone does not post for a day you declare your version to be concensus. This has all grown too frustrating and your behavior is qutie no the outs with the spirit of Wikipedia. I will start coordinating everything and let you know when I make the post so you can feel free to defend yourself. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are certainly many other editors disagreeing with your view here. Please respond to my point that we should resolve old controversies first.Ultramarine 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will post it in bold Sorry I do not know what you are talking about. Like usual. I am addressing in the above, the points raised and argued in this very section, hence why I do not know what you are talking about. Until the above is addressed though, I will consider the issue on Hiroshima closed as noone can play in circles anymore. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, we should really solve old controversies like the intro before creating new ones like this one regarding the bombins. I have raised many issues regarding exclusion of opposing views, inclusion of unrelated arguments, and POV language above, so not resolved.Ultramarine 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And those have been answered. So unless you can address my points about that, and produce some sources to support your objections, then it can be considered resolved.Giovanni33 17:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, there is still no resolution to the introduction controversy. Neither have I seen any answer to my point regarding pov language. There is no agreement regarding the inclusion/exclusion issue as per above.Ultramarine 17:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all the points mentioned in this section, if someone would like to present counters, wonderful, else this is resolved. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what Giovanni33 position is regarding your views which are different from some of his. I ask him to explain his view on your views.Ultramarine 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what you are talking about. Since noone is opposing what I stated above, this is resolved, feel free to let me know if you oppose any of it. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your arguments and views on what should be included are different from those Giovanni33 has expressed previously, so we should at first hear if he agree, before going further.Ultramarine 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you agree with the above? --SevenOfDiamonds 18:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right now I am just saying that you two do not have a consensus.Ultramarine 18:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)