Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 15

Comments on Opposing views
I have just one objection: this crazy "the support, by the US and other Western nations, for certain right-wing dictatorships is that it is rare for democracy to exist in nations with low economic development," argument can't pass a simple universality test. Other arguments are debatable, like all in a discussion, but this is simply false. If this was really American foreign policy, then why are they so worried about democracy in Cuba and Iraq? They don't think that Cuba or Iraq are economically developed, do they? "Though this kind of policy only applies to pro-American dictators" or something of the sort should be added, for the sake of reality. --200.222.30.9 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have several objections to this section. 1) it's quite poorly written with several typos. 2) much of it isn't relevant to the subject matter. 3) it's poorly argued setting up straw-men and making spurios points e.g. No-one is attributing the 200,000 deaths in Guatemala to the US, but the US was backing regimes which carried out operations (Ronald Reagan referring to genocidal dictator Efrain Rios Montt as a 'man of great moral integrity') as was directly involved in various aspects, as meticulously detailed in the article; the argument against Chomsky using research by the democide guy (I forget his name) is massively oversimplified, morally relativistic and irrelevant to this article, which is about state terrorism not deaths attributed to governments. I suggest removal of the section. Pexise 16:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, though you have a couple of good points, I believe the less is deleted, and the more is added, the better. From both sides of the debate. Though, of course, arguments that insult the intelligence of even the most illiterate Latin American have to go. I'm talking about the hypocritical blabber that makes 50% Brazilians be disappointed the Iraqis didn't put up more of a fight (which is amazing, since it's not like Saddam was anything close to a good guy). Well, maybe CIA training given to military dictatorship torturers also had something to do with it. ;) --200.222.30.9 20:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I agree that an opposing views section is very necessary for this page, but one which is well written and well argued, pointing to opposing views about US state terrorism. This section as it is now talks about democratic peace theory and some other vague arguments generally trying to justify US foreign policy and realpolitik, not specifically defending the US against the charge of state terrorism.  But then I suppose that US state terrorism is pretty undeniable, so I suppose there are no arguments against the charges. Pexise 07:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, yeah, it makes sense, I guess the author figured that state terrorism is so integral to American foreign policy, that you can't really talk about one without talking about the other. Also, I just noticed that, but "However, such acts are not approved or supported by the US government or the US military," the source is a document of the United States government. I thought it was against Wikipedia policies' to have a group being a source to an article about itself, wasn't it? And if it is, whose opinion, besides the American government, do we have that American soldiers are discouraged to infringe Human Rights? And if it isn't, the article about Hitler doesn't mention how much he loved the German kids, this is a serious flaw! --200.222.30.9 16:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Japan
This should definitely be included in the article - there are quotes from prominent academics referring to the acts as state terrorism. Regardless of whether it was ultimately justified or not, this is an important addition to the debate. Pexise 08:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bombing of Japan terrorism?? American intelligence reports indicated (correctly) that, although Japan could no longer meaningfully project its power overseas, it retained an army of two million soldiers and about 10,000 aircraft -- half of them kamikazes -- for the final defense of the homeland. (During postwar studies the United States learned that the Japanese had correctly anticipated where in Kyushu the initial landings would have taken place.)  Giving undue weight to questionable sources to advance positions, and to use Wikipedia as a soapbox is against policy. Wikipedia policy is literally the "glue" that keeps the project together.  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  03:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Junglecat, but the United States government didn't nuke Japan's military they nuked two cities full of completely defenceless civilians. The same way that they firestormed Tokio, before. So, if Japan could defend itself from an American invasion is irrelevant. --200.222.30.9 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that questions of US invasion, and other issue, are not releavent to the fact that various scholars who are experts in the field label these bombings as instances of state terrorism. That is what we report here, with no undue weight, since this is an article that focuse in great deal on precisely this question, and information is presented in NPOV and with respect to the larger consensus among academia. What your doing is asserting your POV (which is disputed among experts, btw), and making a synthesis about the truth of the claim that this is state terrorism (when that claim doesn't impact those allegations). We are not allowed to do that here on WP.Giovanni33 18:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we must disagree. Using some fringe opinion and giving it undue weight is calling actions of a declared war as terrorism is POV pushing, as by definition it is not terrorism. Was WWII terrorism by the Axis powers then? Certainly not - it was a war. Criticism of the bombings are in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. Here, by definition of terrorism it doesn't belong, and it is undue weight. Synthesis to advance the bombings as terrorism is not allowed per WP:OR. Therefore, you do not have consensus to add this. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to read the sources, of the ones I previously supplied. It is not "synthesis" since the sources call it state terrorism. I found 10 sources that use the exact term, or allege worse. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Junglecat on this. I fully support criticism of the bombings in the relevant article - Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Efforts to include this material in this article does not have consensus (as evidenced by the constant back and forth over it) and really amount to POV pushing. Dman727 23:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was concensus to add at the time. If you wish to remove, seek a concensus to remove it. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. We've covered this ground before.Dman727 00:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Here, by definition of terrorism it doesn't belong," uh...which definition of terrorism there is that doesn't plainly call "terrorism" nuking two cities, deliberately killing lotsa civilians, in order to achieve the political goal of making another country surrender? But even that's beside the point, various scholars, including legal scholars, think it is, and it's very well sourced, so it deserves space at wikipedia. There's even an entire article about the "Flat Earth Society", and if that isn't fringe, then I'm living in the wrong planet. --200.222.30.9 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Theres also an article called Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thats where it belongs. Dman727 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Content can be in more then once place, if anything you should have added a tag to the top, not removed the section. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article explores in detail only one part of the debate regarding the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a novel one: the question of it being considered an act of State Terror. Note this is not a "should it have been dropped/used or not debate. Its not a pro and con. Its about scholars who are experts in the field relevant to State Terrorism, i.e. pol. sci, international relations, historians, etc, who argue that this constitutes State Terrorism. To present this information in the main article would be undue weight. Here it fits perfectly. Check the talk history. This has already been discussed and all editors (over 17 vs 1) agreed to add it. Thus, it has been added by consensus. Please do not remove unless you have consensus to do so. Thanks.Giovanni33 00:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you do not understand consensus on Wikipedia. When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.  JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that a "wider community concensus" does not exist to remove the material. Yourself and Dman fall a tad bit short of wide community concensus. Especially when you have not given a policy reason for the material, other then we do not like it. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering that the article has been unlocked for less than 24 hours, I suspect that this conversation is just getting started. Btw, its more than just I and Junglecat. There are 3 others ATM, 2 of which are either banned or in the process of being banned in an arbcon for edit warring and sock puppetry and an anon. Hopefully we'll get a few more opinions on the matter. Dman727 00:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good then we have all agreed to wait for that concensus. See how simple that is? --SevenOfDiamonds 00:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need to wait for consensus to add this new material. (signing off for a bit) Dman727 00:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) This has already been discussed - WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Just because 17 editors like something that violates our rules, doesn't mean it remains. I don't know what else to tell you. JungleCat   Shiny! / Oohhh!  00:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can tell me how WP:OR or WP:SYNTH applies when the sources directly cite the incident as state terrorism. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

For a recap I will repost some of the sources found: Let me know where the OR comes in or Synth. I think tweaks can be made to the text. --SevenOfDiamonds 00:42, 22 September 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 ..."
 * 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"
 * I'm a long time editor who has been watching this article for years but have not gotten involved yet. I want to say that I think it is almost comical how the small group of editors repeat the same stories, but everytime everyone proves its bull. I guess they must have really bad memories. Or, they think we forget who they are? There is no OR in this section for sure. This article is one of the best referenced in fact. This section is one of the best referenced and there are twice as many more references that could be added, even. I say we add them. I say we beef up that section with more citations. I think that is what we should do everytime they make silly claims like the above. I did not get involved before but I will restore this very section. It fits perfectly here. Thank you SevenofDiamonds for brining back some of these references. Maybe you can add some of them to the article?209.247.23.141 04:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, as I stated at the start of this discussion, *there are quotes from prominent academics referring to the acts as state terrorism, regardless of whether it was ultimately justified or not, this is an important addition to the debate*
 * You can disagree about it, but that does not mean it should not be included in the article. It is certainly neither OR nor POV pushing, it is backed up with sources, if there are sources that explicitly state that it was not state terrorism, then please add them. Pexise 22:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

First sentence-dubious?
Regarding: The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by some legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations,[dubious – discuss] among others.

What is dubious about this? Anyone who has studied historic American foreign policy knows this statement is entirely true. In fact, I think 'accused' should be removed because using 'accused' makes it seem like there is no proof the U.S. has funded, trained, and harbored terrorists. There are countless examples of terrorism by the U.S.; both today and in the past.

Recently, the U.S. has been supporting terrorism against Shi'ites in Iraq. Teaming with and arming the Sunni tribes in Anbar to fight al-Qa'ida, when those same U.S. supported Sunni tribes have preivously (before the tribe agreement) killed U.S. troops, and have used their U.S. issued weapons to murder some and force 15,000+ Shi‘ites to leave Anbar to go to refugee camps with no clean water or electricity. The U.S. has armed and trained the Sunni tribes, who will use terrorism even more against Shi'ites after the U.S. forces al Qa'ida out. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The contention was with the "human rights organizations" part of the sentence. &#160; east . 718  at 01:59, September 13, 2007&#160;
 * I think that someone found a reference for two human rights organizations, no? The question was really whether it should be plural, I think. Can someone provide those references? Also, is everyone ok with the text in the above three blocks? (El Salvador, Opposing views, and Japan) 199.125.109.25 14:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The PPT The groups listed are: Hustisya, SELDA, Desaparecidos, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan. The indictment is located here --SevenOfDiamonds 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, those count. And, I included several major human rights organizations, below, in the case of state terror in El Salvador. So, that claim of being "dubious" should be removed.Giovanni33 01:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Gronky 11:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you're unfamiliar with WP:NPOV. - Merzbow 00:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For anyone not familiar with NPOV, it states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." 199.125.109.118 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Material to work on and add to the El Salvador Section
U.S State Terrorism in El Salvador

Between 1970 and 1991 the country of El Salvador became embroiled in a civil conflict characterized by massive human rights abuses and political terror. (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, St. Martin’s Press, 2000, p.85). In their retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have attributed the great majority of the violence to the actions of government forces. (From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador: Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html, "El Salvador: 'Death Squads' -A Government Strategy," Amnesty International AMR 29/21/88,October 1988 (pp.l-6, 15-21). A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed 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)

The state terror took several forms. On December 11, 1981, the U.S.-trained elite Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran army killed hundreds of men, women, and children in he village of El Mozote. Actions included decapitation, raping of young girls before killing them, and massacring men, women, and children in separate groups with U.S.-supplied M-16 rifles. (Menjivar and Rodriquez, State Terror in the U.S.-Latin American Interstate Regime.) Death squads worked in conjunction with Salvadoran Security services to eliminate opponents, leftist rebels and their supporters. (Martin, Gus, Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110). Cynthia Arnson, a long-time writers on Latin America for Human Rights Watch, argues that “the objective of death squad terror seemed not only 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, St. Martin’s Press, 2000, p.86). 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: Challenges, Perspectives and Issues, Sage Publications, 2003,p.110).

Long-time Amnesty International researcher Michael McClintock has correlated the imprint of a “White Hand on the door of potential “death squad” victims in El Salvador and Guatemala” with precedents in Vietnam, suggesting that they had access to “the same unclassified manual, through more detailed classified instructional material or through personal contact with American training personnel. (McClintock, M, American Doctrine and State Terror in Western State Terrorism, Alexander George, ed. Polity-Blackwell, 1991, p.133) In the mid-1980’s state terror in El Salvador increasingly took the form of indiscriminate air forces bombing, 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. (Lopez, George A. Terrorism in Latin America in The Politics of Terrorism, Michael Stohl, ed., p.514)

U.S. foreign policy critics have charged that the U.S. is complicit in Salvadoran state terror, in part, due to the extensive training to the Salvadoran forces who were directly responsible, together with the extensive military aid that was provided--both at time when facts concerning its state terrorism were known. An additional factor has been the US role in denying the killings and human rights abuses despite the relevant facts being known and made publicly available. Thanks.Giovanni33 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no allegation the US committed state terrorism. An allegation of being complicit in someone else's alleged state terror is not an allegation of state terrorism on one's own behalf. - Merzbow 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The scope of this article, per its lead includes: accussations of..."funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism..." The many allegations I present above, fit this exactly.Giovanni33 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then we need to change that because that's not what the title of the article says. Right now it's being used as a dump for long laundry lists of every atrocity committed by every tin-pot dictatorship in history, interspersed with a couple lines about how somebody from the US might have trained somebody there. The Japanese bombing material is relevant; stuff like this isn't. - Merzbow 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is something that we would need consensus on to change, I think. The title is short, so it may not always explain what the article is about. That is what the lead really does. I think the scope of the article is good as it is. I believe any allegations of state terrorism (not just any atrocity, as you say), but actual claims of terror by the State, is valid--provided that its cited by reputable scholars in the field, and that the accusations implicate the US govt. I think the section can be improved to make that link even better, per BernardL, below. I won't put this in the article until consensus, though. And, thanks for agreeing that the Japan Atomic Bombings section is relevant. I think that section had overwheming consensus and I hope that its not blanked again.Giovanni33 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Atomic bombing section does not belong in this article. There is still no consensus for addition.Dman727 22:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good start. The structure is sound. It's a good idea to start by letting people know what kind of state terror happened, using good sources. It is the last paragraph above all that requires more substantiation. I am confident that the last paragraph can be the most compelling of all because I am quite familiar with the scholarly work that can substantiate it. I will try to flesh this part out in the next several days. Cynthia J. Arnson's Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador is a particularly rich source for substantiating links between Salvadoran death squads and the U.S. political and military establishments, as well as a revealing analysis of U.S. denials. Here is one useful excerpt...."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 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." (Cynthia J. Arnson, p.88) BernardL 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Here is another quote substantiating claims that material military aid and financial aid to the Salvadoran regime while the crimes were being committed. (Note that Cynthia J. Arnson updated the $4.6 billion figure cited here to $6 billion.) ...."Our support for the terror extends far beyond misleading and false statements by government spokesmen. The Salvador government and army survive only through a massive influx of aid from Washington, totaling $4.6 billion dollars over the past decade. U.S. military aid (by now some $1 billion dollars) is essential for keeping in power military and security forces largely responsible for the deaths of 70,000 civilians in the past ten years. The U.S. has unfailingly supplied the tools of terror and repression to the Salvadoran military, as well as training in their use." (George, Alexander, Western State Terrorism, 5)BernardL 10:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Since it is immediately at hand we should not forget the testimony of Frederick Gareau which was part of the previous El Salvador section...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.[1]" BernardL 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree, theoretically, unless there's proof the United States was directly involved, and not just sponsored and supported terrorism they would be just accessories to terrorism, but some anti-American fellas like the CIA and Bush II think Bin Laden is responsible for the 11/9 terrorist attacks, even though he never actually stepped on those planes. So the matter is debatable. --200.222.30.9 16:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And in case I didn't make myself clear, it's my personal understanding (and, if I'm correct, most of the world's, the CIA and Bush II were only the first experts on the matter I could think of) that Bin Laden does share the blame on those crimes, so, following the same rationale, the United States share the blame for El Salvador, due to their fundamental role in providing massive assistance to the Salvadoran government (if I recall, without American support, the terror would not happen, at least not in the scale that it did). Therefore this section does belong to the article. --200.222.30.9 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hope you know what you're doing
I do hope those who are so bent on adding every last bit they can find linking the US to the world's evils know that whatever their real goal is, you're currently failing at it. If creating a neutral encyclopedia is truly your goal, then demonstrate it by balancing the material (instead of sticking in one line at the end of a 3-page section). If the goal is instead to propagandize, you're also failing at that, since anyone whose mind is undecided on the issue will immediately dismiss the article as obviously such (again due to its imbalance). I'm truly puzzled at what you're trying to accomplish here, aside from preaching to the choir. - Merzbow 06:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure why you say that. "Linking the US to the worlds evils..." No, just claims of State terrorism. That is what this article is about, and that is what must be documented in this article, if its to have any credibility. No one is talking about evil in this article. One should not want to paint anything either negatively or positively. We only report. In this case, we report on claims of State Terror perpetrated by the US govt. Our goal is just that, and nothing less. In creating a neutral encylopedia, we should cover this topic in depth. Feel free to help balance it. I'm all for that--as long as its on topic. If there is a scholar who says such and such is not state terrorism, then we can cite that here, too.Giovanni33 06:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The USA has never categorised other countries as being part of an "axis of evil", nooooo. Jackaranga 07:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I know what I am doing- but I seriously wonder whether you know what you're doing. Have you taken the time to make a serious reading of the most serious sources being referred to? There is a significant scholarly literature, what might be called "an alternative discourse on terrorism" but which has also been called "critical terrorism studies." For me, this page is first and foremost an account of a particular line of analysis in those rich source materials. Such work is far from finished, so do not be impatient. The page requires substantial amounts of refining and some expansion to make an accurate account of what that literature says. Making an account for an alternative discourse is well within the rubric of wikipedia. Considering an article like Dependency theory might be useful for the sake of comparison. The great majority of economists do not subscribe to this theory, in fact many (often inadequately informed) would refer to it as bunk. Yet it is a scholarly approach to economics and does have considerable influence in development economics. The pursuit here seems to me similar if not exactly the same. We are explicating an alternative discourse. Criticisms are welcome, in fact necessary but it seems they should be relevant to the subject matter which pertains to acts of state terrorism and allegations of U.S. linkage and responsibility. The best sources for criticism will be those that criticize the literature directly or at least provide direct counters to specific claims in the texts. Now about El Salvador, what would you care to say in defense of the U.S. elites implicated that would not be offensive to the numerous victims of state terror in El Salvador and their families? I would be interested to know. In closing, I would like to invite all editors to please read a good sample of the literature before assuming it is bunk. Reading the relevant material seems to me a pretty important prerequisite for editing this page.BernardL 12:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merzbow has made a reasonable assessment above. Going through this "article" further with a fine toothed comb reveals all kinds of POV issues. For example, the "See also" links has a link for US Invasions, however it is a redirect to List of United States military history events. OK, so I take it that all US military events can be associated somehow as terrorist activity? The link is there, is this somehow proof that the reason it was added is that anything that the US does military wise is evil? Terrorists attack civilians who are not in war by definition, to strike fear (involves violence and the threat of violence ) . Chomsky's view is a fringe view at that. Just because someone in the world says something and it becomes verifiable doesn't mean we give it equal footing to mainstream views of the world. It may warrant inclusion, but not given undue weight. If the goal of this "article" is to make the United States look like the "Great Satan", then it will never have a NPOV tone based on the fact that anything and everything goes in it - or on it like a soapbox. It will be a dumping ground for POV pushing. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  15:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you regarding the links, you should remove them. If anything specific links to incidents called terrorism should only be included. I also would not call Chomskys view fringe. Also your rheotric about "evil" and "Great Satan" are ignoring the base point that scholars, many at that, call certain events terrorism, or sponsorship of it. I am sure you equally condemn the US for calling Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and use the same language, that the US should not make them look like the "Great Satan" etc. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the links, I will try to populate a list of specific ones, or add tags. While I feel you miss the point of the "see also" section and the links within, they are suppose to expand on sections in the article, I have removed them as a act of good faith and hopefully a starting point toward reasonable discussion. I left some sources and comments above about Japan, let me know when you get a chance what is OR or Synth. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

So Giovanni and others you're saying it's my job to balance the material you add? That you should edit from one POV and me from another? WP:NPOV says that "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors". This is a crucial point. It's not enough that what you add is relevant to the article and sourced. It is expected of all editors that they also investigate other significant views and add them. I am seeing no effort or willingness to do so here. Case in point - the Japan section, which includes one line from the "pro" position against 3 pages from the "anti" position. - Merzbow 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is not what I'm saying. Its both our jobs. Its ever editors job to balance all content per consensus and NPOV policies. What I'm saying is that if you think something is unbalanced, then I welcome your help in suggesting specific correction. Just put on on talk, let editors discuss it and then we can incorporate it for improvement. That is all I'm saying. I did look for more sources that talk about the view that the bombings are terrorism, and the best I could find was to list the "public justifications" for the bombing, which the section does do. I also found one supporter of the bombings who discusses it on topic, i.e. state terrorism. Perhaps we can expand that angle a bit. As long as it stays on the topic of state terrorism. I can't be expected to come up with a finished product that is perfect, all alone--however good I am.:)Giovanni33 17:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Giovanni, I think you are missing the point. Please don't take this the wrong way, it is not both your jobs to make sure the editing you do is NPOV - it is your responsibility. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  18:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no contradiction. It is EVERY editors responsibility. I think it's also our responsibility to work collaboratively. The work of many heads is better than one. Do you disagree?Giovanni33 18:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Many editors can give a good end result provided it is done with compliance of the encylopedia's rules, no exceptions. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  19:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No disagreement from me about that.

And here is a prime example of why this "article" will never be encyclopedia material. Someone just added in the links SevenOfDiamonds removed per the discussion. JungleCat   Shiny! / Oohhh!  19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They also removed two references from the general ref section and ran together "notes" and "references" into one section. I have no idea why and probably that edit should simply be undone so I guess I'll do that. Since it's an anon editor with exactly one edit I don't think it's much cause for concern.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so pessimistic. Lets give the benefit of the doubt and see what the editor says about wanting those links. Then we can come to consensus about keeping them or removing them. I'd like to see the reasons first, although, I tend to favor removal for the reasons stated above already.Giovanni33 19:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to make a comment though I don't think I'll have enough energy to get too involved in this. I think coming to some agreement on the discussion here would be very useful for this article. The disagreement here is understandable. Editors like Giovanni, who take the view that the there have been serious and fairly persuasive accusations that the US has committed state terrorism, are obviously more conversant in sources that make those arguments and therefore more able to add material along those lines (this is pretty standard here at Wikipedia--usually editors know more about sources that express their point of view, as said sources have helped form that POV in the first place). Editors such as Merzbow and Jungle Cat, who question many of the arguments (and their sources) about US state terrorism and/or the very existence of this article, are understandably most interested in preventing material which they view as being highly POV from being added into the article. Neither group is particularly wrong, and by actually working together I think a fairly NPOV article could be produced.


 * The problem is that the majority (though not all) of the debate was been about material that accuses the US of committing state terrorism--neither group of editors (and I obviously use the term "group" very roughly) has spent as much time dealing with sources that argue against the state terrorism allegations. Quite frankly most of the material I have seen in the past which argued against the terror allegations came from extremely weak sources, when extremely strong sources for this viewpoint exist as most scholars do not take the view that the US has committed state terror. Skeptics of that position need not say "the US has not committed state terror" or "Chomsky was wrong when he talked about state terror." Rather, in my opinion, they only have to question key facts of the opposing view or characterize the reality of a given situation in a completely different manner, even if they do not mention state terrorism. So, with Japan for example, if we cited material which pointed out that most/many US historians/political scientists believe that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good and necessary decision (and many if not most scholars think that--certainly at least the "necessary" part), that would obviously seriously call into question the idea that it was "state terrorism." Obviously there are other ways (and it would different from "allegation" to allegation) to argue against the arguments of Chomsky et. al.)


 * What I would propose is this. The next thing that should be worked on--by all interested editors--is writing a good "skeptical of state terrorism" argument for one of the sections. The Japan one might be good since it is fresh, or another if that does not work. A few editors from "both sides" would look for the best sources possible that refute/argue against the "this was state terrorism" arguments. After adding this material into the article perhaps some of the this-is-state-terrorism arguments would be trimmed down a bit if they were violating undue weight provisions. Assuming this exercise was successful, the same techniques could be applied to other sections of the article. I would also propose that, as a general rule, new sections accusing the US of state terrorism be placed on the talk page first (which already seems to have been happening) and that they not be moved into the article until significant opposing views had been added. This would vastly cut down on revert wars, and if we were going to work on trying to balance the Japan section it might be a good-faith move on the part of those who added it to remove it back to talk for awhile so it can be worked on.


 * I think there actually is general agreement that NPOV is everyone's responsibility from the editors above. Given that the arguments of skeptics are not as well represented as they should be, I think it would be useful for the editors who have been working constructively on this article to spend some time on that together. I can try to help with some sources if folks feel this is a good idea.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I almost completely agree, except for one point. Necessary does not denote the act was terrorism, it could have been a necessary act of terrorism ... --SevenOfDiamonds 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but my point is that if we find scholars that view the bombing of Japan as a necessary and good decision (or something along those lines), this certainly provides a counter view to the idea that it was state terrorism, without even mentioning that idea. Obviously we want those views expressed.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to keep the scope of discussion limited to the topic of terrorism---of course all POV's. I found one qualified writer who believes it was a justified terrorism, and argues that sometimes terrorism is justified (which I thought it was important to include even though his view is a minority one). But, saying its terrorism does not preclude those who think its good, instead of bad. For example on the question of torture-- as there are scholars who argue that torture is sometimes justified. We can expand on this pov as its on topic. But, I don't want to expand it to the debate over the use of the bomb itself, as that really is another topic. This would include arguments about the alleged necessity, or lack thereof, or views about it being a good decision, or bad decision. These are all off topic and belong on the other article. I do think mentioning the official public justifications should be stated, though (as they are). This is not to get into the pro/con's but simply to place it in context. The section should line to the two main articles that talk about the other subjects not directly related the question of this being an example of state terrorism.Giovanni33 04:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in basic agreement with Giovanni. I think the pertinent question is...does it constitute an act of state terrorism? Several authors are sourced to say that it does constitute such an act, for a balancing pov we should be looking for sources that refute the notion that it can be be considered a terrorist act- perhaps they might construe it as an act of war only. Nevertheless such a source should at least demonstrate consideration of whether or not it should be considered a terrorist act. BernardL 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand the point both of you are making, and fully agree that the best oppose sources are those that deal directly with the charges of state terrorism. The simple fact is that such sources may not always be available or even in existence, and in such situations I think it is appropriate to present views which, while perhaps not addressing the issue of state terrorism directly, clearly characterize whatever happened in situation X as something other than state terrorism. I don't at all want those views to overwhelm the article, since the focus is on allegations of US state terrorism, but I do think that something akin to a "this was not state terrorism" argument should be expressed in basically every section, because the simple fact is that this will be a significant viewpoint for most or all of the sections of the article. We just might have to be a bit creative about how we represent those views, and the approach would probably differ from section to section.


 * Aside from that--which can be discussed further--I would still hope that a few editors might agree to the approach I mentioned above, whereby some time is put in to craft a better-sourced "oppose" argument for a given section. Seven of Diamonds seems to have agreed that this would be a decent idea, but I'm not sure how others feel about it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For example in the case of El Salvador it could be mentioned that U.S. foreign policy perceptions were such that leftist guerrilla factions were believed to be committing terrorist acts and undermining order in the country. The guerrillas were believed to be supported by the Nicaraguans, Cubans, and Soviets, and that if El Salvador was lost to such forces, it was feared that communism would overrun the region. (Note- This is despite the fact that truth commissions have found that leftist guerrillas were only responsible for 5% of the political violence, while the figures for the government and paramilitary death squads with strong links to the government are 85% and 10& respectively. The victims of government forces were not just guerrillas, but priests, nuns, teachers, union organizers; a pretty wide selection of the population, in fact. When human rights organizations like AI and human rights watch criticized El Salvador for the crimes as they were happening U.S. administrators criticized the human rights organizations.) Is something like that what you have in mind as a balancing device?BernardL 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think those are perfectly valid ways of npov balancing. We tell the POV/side of those actors who are accused of being complicit in state terrorism, i.e. the public justifications. Of course, we should report on the response to those claims, as you have done. This gives all relevant parties a voice, but still keeps it accurate and on topic.Giovanni33 19:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Please add a sentence about that, and put excellent additions for El Salvador into the article. Those are good, referenced additions. Also, the Phillipines section should be restored. That was another section that should not have been removed.209.247.23.141 02:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To Bernard above, yes the example you give for El Salvador is along the lines of what I was thinking. The nature of the "oppose" material might be different for each section, but I think a lot of the time we will have to cite the U.S government and it's explanation of/justification for its actions. Citing scholars who contest the notion that a given action is state terrorism would obviously be the best, but citing governmental officials with an opposing view is better than nothing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop edit warring !
Hi, can you all try to agree first, instead of edit warring on this article, or it will be fully protected again like before, = everyone looses. Jackaranga 04:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the theorys on this page are really way out there. How to resolve such a conflict when people clearly have an agenda by inserting such crackpot material, and then when its removed its called edit warring?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timespade (talk • contribs) 08:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain. Personal opinions are not the way WP works. We report what valid sources say, that is relevant to the topic of the article. If this is not the case, please explain that. Also, there is a 3RR rule, and you have violated that with 4 reverts under 24 hours, which is a blockable offense. Please discuss here before making any more reversions. Thanks.Giovanni33 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User's first edits are to a semi-protected page = sleeper. Though I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue with those acting in good faith, the sources seem to support the assertions and the paragraphs in question are worded neutrally.  Timespade, if you really are trying to contribute maybe you could outline for those with more experience on this article the problems you perceive in the sources or the material.  Milto LOL pia 10:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Those edit warring IP's should just be blocked so the real culprit behind those IP's gets blocked. They are using them in abusive manners. That sleeper as obviously not a new user since his first act was to revert.209.247.23.141 02:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead citations
Do we really need 8 inline citations in the lead to say The United States of America has been accused of funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism by some legal scholars, other governments, and human rights organizations, among others ? Notice that that sentence doesn't substantiate the accusation, only states that it exists. I'm thinking four citations verify should suffice. Milto LOL pia 10:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I just combined the references, it's not like any of them were being cited twice... it should be less of an eyesore now.  east . 718  at 12:09, September 24, 2007


 * Unfortunately, a few months ago a group of editors failed to get the article deleted in an AFD so they insisted on as many references as possible. We had to comply as they were deleting sections that only had a handful of RS refs and were avoiding 3RR because there were enough of them to take turns reverting. Wayne 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A different approach is needed here
This topic is clearly too hot and I see it drawing a lot of people in. I want to suggest:


 * having exactly two paragraphs for each event, for pro (it was terrorism) and con (no it wasn't);
 * voluntary restriction to only one of each of the two paragraphs per issue -- if you edit the "pro" paragraph then don't touch the "con" paragraph and vice-versa;
 * using only peer-reviewed sources, nothing else; and
 * stating each assertion in terms of "Author(s) says ______."

Is that too restrictive? &larr;Ben B4 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd guess, for instance, I don't know if the argument for Japan can be presented in only two paragraphs, and not everyone that knows one side of the argument knows the other (some just don't have a con side, like Nicaragua). The problem with this page isn't the high number of people attracted, it's the editors that don't accept other people views and prefer to delete instead of adding, it's the overwhelming authoritarianism and disregard for other people and Wikipedia shown by editors that are just trying to get this page protected again by engaging in pointless edit wars without even discussing the changes they want in the talk page. I gave up on this one already. The English Wikipedia has too high a conservative, pro-American and anti-worldist tilt to be overcome, and I'm simply not stubborn enough. --200.222.30.9 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but just because it is a "hot" topic does not justify erecting artificial and arbitrary standards. The approach that wikipedia policies promote should be consistent for all wikipedia articles, and for that matter for all wikipedia editors (take note, Merzbow, apply your prescriptions to yourself, Ultramarine,Mongo,etc. too) . The imposition, ad hoc, of the kind of exceptional editing practices suggested necessarily requires the deliberation and consent of the entire wikipedia community. And why exactly is it considered an issue that is too "hot"? - because it offends American patriotism? Moreover, in terms of some subjects, including many discussed here, academic "peer-reviewed" literature has little or no credibility. For the most part,mainstream academic "peer-reviewed" journals and mainstream media outlets totally dropped the ball on massive repressive violence in Latin America and elsewhere, were very slow in acknowledging such repression. Their moral credibility pales in comparison to human rights activists and dissident scholars who raised consciousness about the crimes as they were happening.BernardL
 * I mean it's hot because there's too much reverting without discussion, for one thing. Plus there seems to be no attempt to soften the concerns raised in the Articleissues box. Eh, I tried. &larr;Ben B4  02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that those guidelines would be a bit too restrictive, though I do agree with the spirit of the proposal. I think editors on this article need to agree to some ad-hoc ground rules and/or try to collaborate with one another on small aspects of this article as a way to work on getting to consensus on various issues (see my proposal in the section above). I actually think it would be better if people worked on both the pro and the con paragraphs (the fact that this is not happening seems a real problem) and I think the paragraph restrictions and the peer-reviewed restrictions are simply not workable right now. I think most of the "this is state terrorism" arguments are for the most part stated in a "this author says ____" fashion and that it's probably good to continue in that vein.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the time is nigh for a review of that articleissues box. Just because it is there one should not assume that the points it raises are true, or that the box is there for constructive purposes. It contains 4 points, the last 3 of which I find questionable. If I am correct it was Ultramarine who added this box and he did not point specifically to those arguments which he found contentious, especially according to the final three points. No one since has pointed to where these problems may be- so it seems that the articlebox is there as a kind of vulgar grafitti and those who might have objections are not engaging in constructive action to rectify the problems on this talk page. Points 3 and 4 refer to the use of sources, and charges of inappropriate or misinterpreted citations of texts. I have my doubts about these charges since the critics of this article do not evidence having read the sources to which it refers. But if such cases exist they should be brought to our attention soon. Otherwise there will be justification for trimming the articleissues box down to 1 or 2 points (soon). BernardL 00:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree.Giovanni33 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Opposing views section largely consists of OR, unsubstatiated claims with no citations for arguments put forth and material which is not relevant to the article. This section should be improved, re-written or removed in order to resolve the problems in the article issue box. Pexise 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, come to think of it, that is the only section in the article where that issues box pertains to. I propose we move that issues box as the head of the section, while it remains in that very poor state. No reason the rest of the article needs to be branded due to it.Giovanni33 20:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did that. I don't expect it to last, but in the absence of credible OR/SYNTH allegations in other sections, it should. &larr;Ben B4  00:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous word order
"Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" - what's by the US? The allegations or the terrorism?


 * ...I can't think of an unambiguous word order right now, so I'll leave that to yous. --Gronky 22:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be "State Terrorism by the United States." That many of these are allegations is made clear by the sections in the body of the article. Some, though, are beyong mere allegation to established fact. Hence the title should be always be made as clear as possible. This was a long debate and resulted in title move wars.Giovanni33 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Allegations of state terrorism against the United States?  east . 718  at 01:02, September 26, 2007
 * Not bad. That might be an improvement in terms of clarifying the meaning.Giovanni33 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Allegations of state terrorism against the United States is clearly superior to the current title. Would anyone object if I (or anyone else) changed the name?  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  02:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do move it, please check and update all the double redirects that may popup. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  02:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Against the move, folks would likely misconstrue it to mean that the Iranian or North Korean states are committing terrorist attacks against the U.S. Presently I am leaning towards either Allegations of United States Responsibility for State Terrorism, or State terrorism by the United States.BernardL 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you go with the second one titled "State terrorism by the United States", the whole article will need to be cleaned up. This includes the removal of the Japan section since it is a fringe view. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually its not fringe. If you review the literature its widespread and common view within those who study the field of political violence, and state terrorism. I don't think the article needs to change with a title change like that. Its still all about state terrorism by the US--allegations and all.Giovanni33 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked you above to explain this view, you still have no responded, please do so. I listed a few sources for you not including the ones already included. I can list more but I decided to only go with ones that had the words state terrorism and Hiroshima in close proximity for quoting purposes. Please respond above under the quotes sources if anything. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) BernardL brings up a good point... Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States is another possibility. ''' east . 718 ' at 02:40, September 26, 2007''
 * East718's suggestion is the best in my opinion, though it makes for an even more unwieldy title. I'm hoping someone comes up with a silver bullet for the article title, as none of the options we have thought of up until now are that great. I don't have any big ideas right now unfortunately.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be my second option, so far (my first preference isn't likely to gain consensus anytime soon. :)Giovanni33 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States is the best title suggested so far. It clears up any ambiguity in the title. If anyone objects to that title, please speak up (and don't suggest removing allegations, because, as Giovanni33 suggested, there is no consensus for such a change) Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would also be my second choice, after State terrorism by the United States. &larr;Ben B4 07:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it, the more uncontroversial this move is. I'm going to go ahead and move the page.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  20:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputes
I couldn't help but think of this page when I read the following comic: http://meninhats.com/d/20041006.html – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, thanks a lot. I have given up on this page. The people are new, but the arguments are ALL the same.


 * Whats new is the page protections. I like how the page is now protected for long periods of time. I think they should protect it indefinetly, except for an editor to add a quarterly AfD.


 * My suggestion to change the name (and stop a lot of the controversy) went so badly a couple of months ago I am seriously considering voting "delete" next quarterly AfD. Travb (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Au contraire! This page has improved considerably thanks to the work of several diligent and serious editors. The sourcing, in particular, has improved immeasurably and now points to a significant scholarly literature on the topic. The edit warring and protection stems primarily from right-wing editors playing an exclusively destructive role, simply deleting the sourced material and not offering constructive ideas for resolution in talk. Lately, the destructive tactics are even more evident as most of the edit warring has been initiated and maintained by anonymous editors. All of this evidence will be taken to any future Afd discussion, as well the fact that there have already been several failed attempts to delete the article. Personally, I think it is time for certain editors to grow up and either edit in a wikipedia spirit, or leave the article alone.BernardL 00:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A small suggestion
This is a subject that draws A LOT of controversy. Another topic is Evolution. You may want to create a FAQ similar to what they did to state the guidelines and what has been discussed and what has been determined. It brings people up to speed more and helps reduce the edit warring a bit. Now I know this is not a scientific topic but it couldn't hurt. Spryde 18:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading over the FAQ page I think that would be a great idea. It is an annoying task to have to post the same sources on every page when the next person to appear wants to shout about WP:OR or whatever acronym they choose. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just remember, science changes less often than consensus does around here. :)
 * I would use any FAQ created to bring up each of the sections that have been committed and the sources and reasoning involved why it is there. Spryde 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would use any FAQ created to bring up each of the sections that have been committed and the sources and reasoning involved why it is there. Spryde 19:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on material to add to the El Salvador section
Just put in a page break if you want to keep it. 199.125.109.25 05:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Giovanni33 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no allegation the US committed state terrorism. An allegation of being complicit in someone else's alleged state terror is not an allegation of state terrorism on one's own behalf. - Merzbow 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The scope of this article, per its lead includes: accussations of..."funding, training, and harboring individuals and groups who engage in terrorism..." The many allegations I present above, fit this exactly.Giovanni33 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Then we need to change that because that's not what the title of the article says. Right now it's being used as a dump for long laundry lists of every atrocity committed by every tin-pot dictatorship in history, interspersed with a couple lines about how somebody from the US might have trained somebody there. The Japanese bombing material is relevant; stuff like this isn't. - Merzbow 02:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is something that we would need consensus on to change, I think. The title is short, so it may not always explain what the article is about. That is what the lead really does. I think the scope of the article is good as it is. I believe any allegations of state terrorism (not just any atrocity, as you say), but actual claims of terror by the State, is valid--provided that its cited by reputable scholars in the field, and that the accusations implicate the US govt. I think the section can be improved to make that link even better, per BernardL, below. I won't put this in the article until consensus, though. And, thanks for agreeing that the Japan Atomic Bombings section is relevant. I think that section had overwheming consensus and I hope that its not blanked again.Giovanni33 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good start. The structure is sound. It's a good idea to start by letting people know what kind of state terror happened, using good sources. It is the last paragraph above all that requires more substantiation. I am confident that the last paragraph can be the most compelling of all because I am quite familiar with the scholarly work that can substantiate it. I will try to flesh this part out in the next several days. Cynthia J. Arnson's Window on the Past: A Declassified History of Death Squads in El Salvador is a particularly rich source for substantiating links between Salvadoran death squads and the U.S. political and military establishments, as well as a revealing analysis of U.S. denials. Here is one useful excerpt...."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 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." (Cynthia J. Arnson, p.88) BernardL 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Here is another quote substantiating claims that material military aid and financial aid to the Salvadoran regime while the crimes were being committed. (Note that Cynthia J. Arnson updated the $4.6 billion figure cited here to $6 billion.) ...."Our support for the terror extends far beyond misleading and false statements by government spokesmen. The Salvador government and army survive only through a massive influx of aid from Washington, totaling $4.6 billion dollars over the past decade. U.S. military aid (by now some $1 billion dollars) is essential for keeping in power military and security forces largely responsible for the deaths of 70,000 civilians in the past ten years. The U.S. has unfailingly supplied the tools of terror and repression to the Salvadoran military, as well as training in their use." (George, Alexander, Western State Terrorism, 5)BernardL 10:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Since it is immediately at hand we should not forget the testimony of Frederick Gareau which was part of the previous El Salvador section...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.[1]" BernardL 11:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And in case I didn't make myself clear, it's my personal understanding (and, if I'm correct, most of the world's, the CIA and Bush II were only the first experts on the matter I could think of) that Bin Laden does share the blame on those crimes, so, following the same rationale, the United States share the blame for El Salvador, due to their fundamental role in providing massive assistance to the Salvadoran government (if I recall, without American support, the terror would not happen, at least not in the scale that it did). Therefore this section does belong to the article. --200.222.30.9 23:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment is just so this thread doesn't get archived.  east . 718  at 01:08, September 28, 2007

To add

 * Iran's parliament votes to label CIA, U.S. Army 'terrorist' groups Travb (talk) 00:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that and it definitely fits into this article. Where exactly, how, and to what extent, I'm not sure.Giovanni33 06:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Iran eh? I'm starting to think the best way to deal with this article and the cruft that it carries is to just let it sink under its own weight.  That is, step aside and watch as the conspiracist, pov pushers and ultra fringe go ahead and fill this article with all the cruft they can find.  That way the fringe can be happy with their creation, and while the rest will instantly recognize this article for what it is (and dismiss it).  As it is now, folks who work to keep the cruft out such as the WW II nonsense, ultimately give the article more credibility.  Perhaps its time to let nature take its course and let the the cruft pushers have their plaything. Dman727 06:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultra fringe? But CNN and all major media are reporting it. So that can't be true. Conspiracist? No, this is not a conspiracy theory. Its the parliament of a sovereign state that has voted to classify these US govt. organizations as terrorist organizations (exactly what the US does for other countries). WP does not take sides in these national disputes. WP is not guided by nationalist ideology. I think you are confusing NPOV with Truth (or truth according to you---since many people see these allegations as being quite accurate). This is not a place to argue about what is true, per se, or if you agree or disagree with these notable allegations. That NOT what we do here in WP, and esp. not in this article. We only report notable allegations and balance it with qualified sources. So far the US govt. has refused to comment, and what they have said, actually makes them look even worse. I hope your desire is for balance and NPOV, instead of an emotional, nationalist response about taking the US govt. side, because that is not appropriate. As east718 said, I'm sure there shouldn't be a problem finding an expert who disagrees that we can cite.Giovanni33 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * yes ultra fringe. Of course CNN is reporting it as they should.  They also report on antics of other outlaw states such as North Korea and Syria.  I'm glad that you seem to agree, that some actually believe such nonsense.   As I said, the cruft pushers will have their plaything, while the rest will recognize it, for what it is and dismiss the whole. Btw, we've not chatted in awhile, good luck with your arbcon. Dman727 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is about allegations... and the governmental body of a nation is certainly a serious one... if you're like me and feel this allegation should be dismissed, it shouldn't be hard to find an American pundit or expert who feels the same way to balance it.  east . 718  at 14:56, September 30, 2007
 * I agree the allegations of an outlaw state like Iran are notable, just not credible. But then again, this purpose behind this article was never about credible allegations, but rather an effort to gather and collect as much cruft as possible in an effort to push a POV. Some of the ultra-fringe have even objected to inserting balancing material (see the WW II/Japan discussion).  I'm not objecting to inserting this new piece of propaganda into the article.  Such a crufty allegation will fit quite nicely with the rest of material. Dman727 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoiding terms like "crufty" in this discussion would be helpful. I personally have quite a lot of antipathy toward the Iranian government--and have well before 9/11 and Ahmadinejad--but of course this is exactly the kind of thing that we would want in this article. I get the strong feeling that Dman727 thinks that the Iranian gov is no good as a source but that the US gov is. Obviously Wikipedia cannot and will not operate that way as it goes against our core policies. We use verifiability, not truth, which no one should have to point out at this time. I personally don't really give a damn that the Iranian parliament has labeled the CIA a terrorist organization (except for the obvious historical interest of the allegation), but it certainly has a place in this article and of course it can be balanced by opposing views with extreme ease, as East718 mentioned. Probably the way to go with this--since Chavez has made allegations along these lines as well--will be to have a section called "Allegations by foreign governments" or something similar. Obviously it would have to be balanced with statements from the US and/or third parties, but personally I think that would be very interesting material, even if many of the accusations came from governments like Iran which I do not particularly care for. I'm sure a lot of readers would feel the same way.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoiding making assumptions about how I feel about US government statements would be helpful. Wiki aside, my level of skepticism is quite high from many official sources...(and unofficial sources that push a pov).  Once again, I do not object to inserting the Iranian claims.  They will augment the credibility of the article quite nicely. Dman727 20:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are just as skeptical of US governmental sources as Iranian ones (I think that's what you are saying) I will take your word for it. It's just that I don't recall you showing up on this page in the past when people added in or proposed adding in US government sources and calling it "cruft," or complaining about US government sources (such as the State Department) which are already in the article. As such I assumed that, since you immediately railed against an Iranian parliamentary decree as being "cruft," you had very different attitudes about the efficacy of statements from the US and Iranian govs. Apologies if I was mistaken.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. Yea, don't have time to be everywhere, nor am I interested in everything. To be fair though, I would put more credibility into most official US sources than I would those of official Iranian sources, but thats more of a reflection of the nature of the Iranian state than it is of anything else.  FWIW, I'm not aware of US State department documents that accuse the US of being a terrorist nation, but they would probably make a good read. Dman727 02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We can put the Iran statement right next to the one where they claim they have no gay people. --DHeyward 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No gay people, eh? Something tells me they're wrong about that. I'm unbelievably skeptical of the US gov, but am even more skeptical of the Iranian one (perhaps not on all issues, but definitely on most). The point is that Wikipedia according to it's core policies cannot make those kind of judgments which are inherently POV and usually based on political belief. An important official statement by the parliament of a foreign nation--even one with only a very minimal level of democracy like Iran--is a valid one worthy of being discussed in this article. As I said above I think a whole section on accusations from foreign governments, written in an NPOV fashion, would actually be very interesting--sort of a collection of "the US is a terrorist state" declarations by the governments of adversarial states including US responses and third-party analysis if possible. It sounds interesting to me, and not at all crufty. Incidentally, re the State Department, obviously they have never accused the US of state terrorism (but when Hillary nominates Chomsky as Sec of State!....er, wait). However there are State Department sources in the article (at least one) refuting various allegations and it was to this that I was referring.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is a great idea for organization. A section for governments (who often just lie about each other and themselves--they seem to do best (second to killing). On the other points, still being raised by editors on this article, I'll comment that since this article deals with allegations, of course, some allegations are more credible than others as far as veracity is concerned. Some are more political and pointy in nature. We can have our own opinions about what to believe and what to dismiss as nonsense or cruft, but it should really not enter into this article in any way. Let the reader decide. I think placing the allegations by States into one section is a good idea because I think these accusers have a special place, apart from the scholars and experts who document most of these allegations found in the rest of this article. The only other place I can think of to place these kinds of allegations is in the country section (if there is one). So if we have one about allegations of State terrorism in Iran (which we do), then we can add Iran's statement in that section, under a new heading. Just ideas.Giovanni33 07:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of nuclear materials against civilian populations
This article contains new information to add to the article. Badagnani 00:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

U.S State Terrorism in El Salvador
BernardL and I have worked on this section in a sandbox, and I would like to add it to the article. I thought to place it here for other editors input. Please point out any problems in the proposed text, so that it will be a stable addition and a product of consensus. Thanks.Giovanni33 18:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed per critical suggestions below.Giovanni33 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"The United States has been accused by scholars and human rights organizations of complicity in support of State Terrorism in the country of El Salvador, in a conflict characterized by human rights abuses and political terror. In his analysis of the U.N. Truth Commision's Report on El Salvador, Prof. 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.

According to the Americas Watch division of Human Rights Watch, “The Salvadoran conflict stems, to a great extent, from the persistent denial of basic socioeconomic rights to the peasant majority. Throughout the past decade systematic violence has befallen not just peasants protesting the lack of land and the means to a decent existence but, in a steadily widening circle, individuals and institutions who have espoused the cause of the peasants and decried their fate: labor leaders, priests and nuns, political leaders, journalists, teachers and students, health workers and human rights monitors. The conflict claimed more than seventy thousand lives and turned more than a quarter of the population into refugees or displaced persons. In retrospective assessments, human rights organizations and truth commissions have echoed the claim that majority of the violence are attributed to government forces. A report of an Amnesty International investigative mission made public in 1984 stated that “many of the 40,000 people killed in the preceding five years had been murdered by government forces who openly dumped mutilated corpses in an apparent effort to terrorize the population.” In all, more than 70,000 deaths and mass human rights violations took place before a UN-brokered peace deal, was signed in 1992.

While peasants were primarily victimized, the killing of civilians extended to clergy, church workers, political activists, journalists, union members, health workers, students, teachers, and human rights monitors. The state terror took several forms. Salvadoran security forces, including army battalions, members of the National Guard, and the Treasury Police, performed numerous clearance operations, killing indiscriminately, and perpetrating many massacres and massive human rights violations in the process. The episode of the war responsible for the single largest civilian death toll occurred on December 11, 1981, when the U.S.-trained elite Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran army killed approximately nine hundred men, women, and children in and around the village of El Mozote. Human rights violations included decapitation, raping young girls before killing them, and massacring men, women, and children in separate groups with U.S.-supplied M-16 rifles. A report compiled by the villagers found that more half of the victims were under fourteen. It is reputed to be the worst such atrocity in modern Latin American history, but when news emerged of the massacre, the Reagan administration in the United States dismissed it as FMLN propaganda.

Death squads worked in conjunction with Salvadoran Security services to eliminate opponents, leftist rebels, and their supporters. The squads were a means by which members of the armed forces were able to avoid accountability. Typically dressing in plainclothes and using vehicles with smoke-tinted windows and numberless license plates, terror tactics included publishing death lists of future victims, delivering empty coffins to the doorsteps of future victims and sending potential victims invitations to their own funeral. Cynthia Arnson, a long-time writer on Latin America for Human Rights Watch, argues that “the objective of death squad terror seemed not only elimination of opponents, but also, through torture and the gruesome disfiguration of bodies, the terrorization of the population.” The prototype of the El Salvadoran death squads was ORDEN, a paramilitary spy network that terrorized rural regions and which was founded by Col. Jose Alberto Medrano, a former agent on the CIA payroll. Medrano was awarded a silver medal by President Lyndon B. Johnson, "in recognition of exceptionally meritorious service." . One of Medrano's proteges, Roberto D'Aubuisson, was trained at the U.S. army's school in Panama and at The School of the Americas. D'Aubuisson was founder of the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) whose public face was that of a rightist political party, but which also ran death squads secretly. In the spring of 1980, when D'Aubuisson was arrested for plotting against the administration of José Napoleón Duarte, a mass of documents was found implicating him in numerous death squad activities, including detailed plans linked to the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero. The Reagan administration was accused of ignoring the evidence implicating D'Aubuisson.

In the mid-1980’s state terror in El Salvador increasingly took the form of indiscriminate air forces bombing, 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.

Critics maintain that the U.S. military and economic aid played an essential role in enabling state terrorism in El Salvador. Specifically that the US government--during the period of the worst abuses-- provided El Salvador with billions of dollars, and equipped and trained an army, which kidnapped and disappeared more than 30,000 people, and carried out large-scale massacres of thousands of the elderly, women, and children. El Salvador became the fourth largest recipient of U.S. aid, behind Israel, Egypt, and Turkey. In a joint 1982 report on human rights in El Salvador, The Americas Watch Committee and the ACLU place emphasis on U.S. military aid and training because it was "being provided to the same units alleged to be engaged in violations of human rights." The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights argued that because of the extensive provision of “funding, military equipment, training and military guidance” to the Salvadoran armed forces, as well as the fact that the U.S. “identified itself unreservedly” with the causes and conduct of the Salvador military, the U.S. “bears a heavy burden of responsibility”, and moreover argued that “there may be no place else where the United States is so directly responsible for the acts of a foreign government.”

Allegations also point to the role that U.S. administrators played in both protecting the responsible military leaders from legal accountability, and the Salvadoran regime from criticism, while simultaneously maintaining the flow of over one billion dollars of military aid. According to the UN Truth Commission report, over 75% of the serious acts of violence reported took place during the Reagan administration’s time in office. Cynthia Arnson argues that when the killing was at its height, “the Reagan administration downplayed the scale of abuse as well as the involvement of state actors.” When Congress passed a law that required compliance with human rights norms and progress on agrarian reforms, the Reagan administration issued "certification reports" every six months that drew heavy criticism, particularly from human rights groups. The first certification report was submitted on January 28, 1982. On the eve of the reports The Washington Post and New York Times published feature articles by American investigative journalists describing massacres in early December of 1981 in and around the village of El Mozote. The massacres had been mainly perpetrated by the Atlacatl Battalion, the first "rapid response unit" to be trained in the U.S. The certification report was only six pages long. William Leogrande remarked that the report “contained little evidence to support the declaratory judgments that progress had been made in all of the areas required by law. The report refused to acknowledge any government complicity in human rights violations...Moreover the report flatly denied that the paramilitary death squads were linked to the government.” Leogrande further noted that “no independent human rights group agreed with the Reagan administration’s portrait of the situation.” The Americas Watch Committee and American Civil Liberties Union jointly referred to the report as a "fraud." Subsequent reports by U.S. agencies on the human rights situation were met with similar incredulity and contempt. A review of the Department of State's 1983 report on human rights in El Salvador by Americas Watch, Helsinki Watch and the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights concluded "all in all, this is a dreadful report." The Reagan Administration's actions included vociferous denunciations of their critics. In a retrospective report entitled El Salvador's Decade of Terror: Human Rights Since the Assassination of Archbishop Romero, Human Rights Watch summarized the administration's behavior thusly, "during the Reagan years in particular, not only did the United States fail to press for improvements...but in an effort to maintain backing for U.S. policy, it misrepresented the record of the Salvadoran government and smeared critics who challenged that record. In so doing, the administration needlessly polarized the debate in the United States and did a grave injustice to the thousands of civilian victims of government terror in El Salvador."

The extensive role of U.S. "military advisers" in El Salvador has also been thought to be suggestive of systemic abuses of ethical and legal norms. According to William Leogrande’s analysis “a great deal of the Reagan administration’s policy toward Salvador was considered on what former Senator Sam Irvin called ‘the windy side of the law’. The president used his emergency powers, even when there was no emergency, to send $80 million in military aid to El Salvador without congressional review” (Leogrande, 281). The Reagan administration carried out circumventions and arbitrary re-definitions of laws stipulating the quantity and role of advisers.

Defenders of U.S. policies object to these allegations, emphasizing that the U.S. explicitly promotes professional conduct, including observance of human rights within its military and police training programs. They argue that the U.S. should not be held responsible for the actions of individuals trained by them.

Defenders also justify military aid by claiming it was necessary for defending U.S. National Security Interests. The FMLN guerrillas military efforts, including terrorist acts committed by them, seriously threatened the Salvadoran government. This was deemed a threat to "national security." As president Reagan argued in his historic national television address in 1984, "San Salvador is closer to Houston, Texas than Houston is to Washington, D.C. Central America is America; it's at our doorstep. And it has become a stage for a bold attempt by the Soviet Union, Cuba abd Nicaragua to install communism by force throughout the hemisphere,". The U.S. State Department provided detailed evidence for the links between the FMLN, Nicaragua,Cuba and the Soviet Union in its White Paper,"The Communist Interference in El Salvador." The documents argues that the U.S. chose the most viable middle path between the right and left extremes undermining the country. The U.S. supported the Duarte government which worked with "some success to deal with the serious political and economic problem that most concern the people of El Salvador." Military aid and training given to Salvador eventually professionalized their armed forces and prevented the insurrection by guerrillas from succeeding. The death of many innocent civilians is regarded as regrettable but necessary for Salvadoran and American security, and future prosperity. Concerning the air war campaign involving the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations, both the Salvadoran government and U.S. state officials maintained that peasants who stayed in the zones selected as targets are to be assumed to be guerrilla sympathizers."

Recommendations for Added Research
I respect this article and just want to congratulate all involved with it. It goes to show there is still hope for freedom of speech and somewhat radical viewpoints on the internet. For more coverage of Latin American terrorism by the United States, I recommend Empire's Workshop by Greg Grandin. It would provide invaluable research for this article. In addition, shouldn't there be some reference to the CIA free trade deals with the United Fruit Company?Wikitank 20:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Grandin is undoubtedly one of the leading scholars on US and Latin American relations working today (his best known work involves Guatemala) and though I have not even so much as flipped through it I second the notion that Empire's Workshop could be a good source for this article, though I have no idea if Grandin ever uses the appellation "state terrorism" or some close approximation of it with respect to US actions in Latin America. He definitely views US elites as rapacious imperialists, but may or may not describe their actions as "state terrorism."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Brazil and "opposing views" section
Look, I won't edit it since my english is not that good and I really like wikipedia, so I don't want to contribute with something of mediocre quality. However, being a brazilian, I really got angry at something I just saw:

"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"

I don't know about those other countries situation before their respectives coup d'etats, but Brazil was a democracy, and it has been proved that the USA had supported and financed brazilian 1964 coup d'etat(by Lindon Johnson government files, USA would provide help for such event with "Operação Brother Sam and Operação Popeye). Now, come on. Is this a respecful encylopedia or what? I mean, overthrowing a democracy in another country for the sake of a war justifies anything? These evidences are ridiculous, and I bet other countries, not only Brazil, were countries that had it's democracy. Chile, better, all of South America also suffered with dictatorships, so I'm pretty sure this point is ofensive. I'm not blaming USA of nothing, I would just be glad if somebody removes that point from the article and put up a better justification. Thank you in advance.
 * Absolutely agreed, what a ridiculous statement, I'll delete it now. Pexise 19:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. If you find a reliable source alleging US terrorism in Operation Brother Sam or Operation Popeye (I am just trying to tranlsate what you wrote), then inlcude it here and we'll fix up the English. If not, then you may still wish to add the information to the article "Covert US Regime Change Actions."--NYCJosh 21:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like an ultramarine quote, am I right? If not, my apologies to Ultra.Travb (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Correct as usual, Travb.--NYCJosh 00:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Iran section
The paragraph is a summary of the Asia Times Online article which never mentioned "state terrorism" anywhere. Just because it might meet the nebulous definition does not mean it is appropriate for editors to make the value judgment to include it. Please find a source that refers to US activity in Iran as "state terrorism" before including this. -- arkalochori  undefined  22:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the article and it mentions it several times. Here is one quote that clearly makes that accusation: "it is the US (and not Pakistan) that is sponsoring the trans-border terrorism. And what could Musharraf do about US activities on Pakistani soil even if he wanted to?"Giovanni33 07:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommendations for Added Research
I respect this article and just want to congratulate all involved with it. It goes to show there is still hope for freedom of speech and somewhat radical viewpoints on the internet. For more coverage of Latin American terrorism by the United States, I recommend Empire's Workshop by Greg Grandin. It would provide invaluable research for this article. In addition, shouldn't there be some reference to the CIA free trade deals with the United Fruit Company?Wikitank 20:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Grandin is undoubtedly one of the leading scholars on US and Latin American relations working today (his best known work involves Guatemala) and though I have not even so much as flipped through it I second the notion that Empire's Workshop could be a good source for this article, though I have no idea if Grandin ever uses the appellation "state terrorism" or some close approximation of it with respect to US actions in Latin America. He definitely views US elites as rapacious imperialists, but may or may not describe their actions as "state terrorism."--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

State Terrorism against Native Americans?
I believe this subject would make for a good section in this article. We need to find sources that describe the actions of the US govt as state terror, of course. It could point to the main article on the subject, too.Giovanni33 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support provided the sources are solid.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

American Civil Religion
The "US terrorism prophets", who are stoned by patriotic Americans, don't realize that the vast majority of Americans have a belief in American which is religious. This religious belief is especially strong for those Wikipedians who vigorously attempt to remove this page. See American Civil Religion.

Ever attempted to convert someone to another religion? It rarely works. Attempting to change a person's faith with factual arguments are usually the least successful. A good majority of Americans still believe that man came from Adam and Eve. You simply can't reason with this kind of belief system.


 * Tens of millions of Americans, who neither know nor understand their own country’s bloody crimes, march in the army of the night with their Bibles held high. And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason.
 * –-Alteration of a quote by Isaac Asimov

After the Lodge Committee which revealed to the entire US the torture, concentration camps, and mass killings of the Philippine-American War, the American public quickly forgot.

Travb (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome back Travb! Just one slight correction--really just change in emphasis. Most Americans at the time barely heard of the revelations of the Lodge Committee. Most of the damning material was buried inside the newspapers and hardly referred to again. Some things never change.--NYCJosh 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you NYCJosh. I respect your work. We should work together in other projects. If you ever need another opinion on any page or topic, please let me know.
 * I have to disagree with you, the large majority of Americans did know about the atrocities of the Philippine-American War. There was collective amnesia shortly later. Please see: User_talk:Travb/Archive_7
 * I have the Stuart Creighton Miller book which Ward Churchill quotes. I can provide quotes from the Stuart Creighton Miller book. Excellent book, which I quote a lot on the American Empire page.
 * Maybe I should collect all of those quotes in one place.
 * On a similar note, I have strongly considered making a National guilt page. Which I have a scholarly book on. Travb (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * By "national guilt" page do you mean creating an article listing major US attrocities? --NYCJosh (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the idea is whether a person should feel guilty for the past war crimes of their country.
 * One of the many examples in the book I have talks about Australia's treatment of the aborigines.
 * The aborigines want reparations just like some blacks in the US.
 * The book says there are five ways to justify having no national guilt, as illustrated by the comments of Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
 * You may think this has nothing to do with this page, but like American Civil Religion, National Guilt goes to the very essence of why this page is on Wikipedia, and why so many users want it deleted.
 * For example:
 * I probably feel much more guilty about the actions of my country in the past and present then those who want to delete this page.
 * I also have much less religious belief in America than those who want to delete this page.
 * I am also probably less traditionally religious than those who want to delete this page.
 * The big question is, how does a person change someone else's opinion about their country? So many leftist organizations attempt to show the darker side of America which the vast majority of Americans, frankly, don't want to hear. In fact most Americans are hostile if you attack their Civil religion, as they would be if you attacked their traditional religion. Travb (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also the possibility that the people defending this page are simply wrong. That the "darker side" is simply propaganda myth created by those ideologically opposed to the form of government in the United States. Occam's Razor. You decide. --DHeyward (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What about all the factual evidence? The truth not good enough for you? Pexise (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no factual evidence that the united states systematically engages in state terrorism. Certain people would like it to be true but it simply isn't.   If you think about the simple and benign "subversive" activities that the government can't pull off (i.e. oral sex in the white house or WMD in Iraq) you would see how ludicrous it is to postulate sophisticated operations that require secrecy.  Non-lethal waterboarding of a single individual can't be kept quiet but conspiracies to kill thousands of civilians can?  Seems silly to even postulate.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * RE: Occam's Razor Please don't misapply scientific methods, popularized by Carl Sagan to  bolster an empty counterpoint, which completely ignores every single point of what I wrote. Explaining away the views of millions possibly billions of people's opinion as a "propaganda myth" is simplistic. Unfortunately people often gravitate towards simple, one sentence answers to complex and troubling questions (I do too, unfortunately).
 * I am not talking about "conspiracies" please don't add simplistic derogatory labels to respected concepts. I am talking about Sociology as it applies to the United States.
 * In my experience, I find those who add simplistic derogatory labels to a conversation first usually have the weakest argument.
 * There is no point in rolling out examples, I think the Isaac Asimov misquote explains why.
 * You can't reason with an ideology, and thats why the American lefts tactics have been fruitless. I think the American left ignores the religious underpinnings of patriotism.
 * Indeed, for the majority of people (mostly Americans) who read this page, what this page's protectors are trying to "prove" is an exercise in futility.
 * "Perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy." Reinhold Niebuhr, those Americans who are the most condescending of the actions of the 9/11 terrorists are often the most forgetful of their own countries atrocities. Why?
 * User:DHeyward I acknowledge that I may be influenced by a "propaganda myth", do you acknowledge that your beliefs may also be a "propaganda myth"? T (talk) 06:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not religious and my beliefs are not the ones held by Americans so in the context of everything you wrote, the answer is no. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:DHeyward - you seem to be somewhat confused, and your argument is not consistent. Your original comment referred to the dark side of the USA, suggesting that this is a fabrication used by people who oppose the US system of govt.  You then said that there is no factual evidence of US state terrorism.  Now these are two quite different things - as can be seen in this article and its talk page, the concept of state terrorism is not easily defined and the whole subject is somewhat contentious.  However, that the USA has a dark side is quite irrefutable.  There is an insurmountable amount of factual evidence for this.  If you want a place to start, try the Human rights and the United States page - plenty of dark deeds there.  And 'water boarding' may be a minor indescretion to you, but it is torture as defined in international human rights law and it is a human rights crime. Pexise (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote:"...do you acknowledge that your beliefs may also be a "propaganda myth"?"
 * User:DHeyward: "I am not religious and my beliefs are not the ones held by Americans so in the context of everything you wrote, the answer is no."
 * User:DHeyward, you have at least one belief held by Americans:
 * That the "darker side" is simply propaganda myth created by those ideologically opposed to the form of government in the United States.
 * This is actual a quite common belief, and a common defense of the US. So you do have beliefs, may some of those beliefs also be "propaganda myth[s]"?
 * Another way to put the question is, "I admit I may be wrong, do you?"
 * Usually the people who refuse to admit they maybe wrong in a conversation are the people with the stronger and more inflexible ideology. Trav (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Good Faith
This whole article is disingenuous and does not cover anything that isn't covered in the appropriate separate articles that establish context critical to understanding the events. And for the record, violence of any kind can be abstracted to the point of being called, "terrorism". Until there is a separate article about every major country and it's alleged support of terrorism, this article serves only to cherry pick historical events out of context to serve as an oversimplified, biased political statement. This article is not worthy of Wikipedia.

Where is Spain's acts of terrorism in South America and Europe? Or the former Soviet Union's support of terrorism in Afghanistan? Or Russia's in Chechnya? Or every day in Cuba? The list goes on and on but yet only America is being singled out. This article has existed for how many years now and only one country gets it's own page? This is hypocrisy being hidden behind the justification that the facts are facts, even without context to show that smaller acts don't convey the entire picture.

And all that aside, the moment we start listing any time one group of people have been attacked by another group of people and call that "terrorism", we might as well list every group, country, race, religion, etc. throughout history and across the globe. Regardless of what happened to the Native Americans of North America, it was not terrorism. A tragedy yes, but not terrorism by any reasonable definition and even if that were debatable (and I don't mean in a college classroom), that issue is explored at length in more specific articles dealing with the events in a detailed and better way.

This is just a laundry list of historical mistakes lacking any real justification to have their own article and one might infer that only the United States has made them in it's past and furthermore, has done nothing positive for other nations and groups of people ever.

Grow up and stop believing that a handful of facts is the same as the whole story. For example, Che Guevara was a terrorist and a murderer (by any definition), not a hero. But somehow I get the sense that the same people that fight for an article like this, believe he was a revolutionary martyr. Think about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.94.246 (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't get it, if you feel some articles are missing you know that you should create them. Starting with the US makes sense as most people willing to edit the article are from there. KungFuMonkey (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are several articles on state terrorism by countries other than the US. Check out: State-sponsored terrorism, State-sponsored terrorim by Iran, etc.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy." Reinhold Niebuhr Travb (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By definition, it's only called "terrorism" when "they" do it.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually "hypocrisy" is a better word for these actions that "terrorism". Most of these items are simply alleged hypocrisy where the United States supports elements that on its face are at odds with the stated goals and policies.  They aren't terrorism but that doesn't seem to sway anyone.  Should we rename the article to "Allegations of Hypocrisy by the United States"?  --DHeyward (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to DHeyward: I agree the actions of the US are hypocrisy, as I stated above. Sigh, for the 1 millionth time, "alleged" is a weasel word. For the love of God, don't open up the name change debate again.
 * Response to 76.204.94.246:
 * Until there is a separate article about every major country and it's alleged support of terrorism, this article serves only to cherry pick historical events out of context to serve as an oversimplified, biased political statement.
 * A carbon copy of #4: Four techniques used to ignore American foreign policy history: Focus on the rival...the moment we start listing any time one group of people have been attacked by another group of people and call that "terrorism", we might as well list every group, country, race, religion, etc. throughout history and across the globe...etc...
 * This is hypocrisy being hidden behind the justification that the facts are facts, even without context to show that smaller acts don't convey the entire picture.
 * A variation of #3: Four techniques used to ignore American foreign policy history: A plea to focus on the positive
 * This is just a laundry list of historical mistakes lacking any real justification'
 * A common argument of apologists, ignoring 200 plus years of American foreign policy. Chomsky and other American leftists, attacks this apology well, but I don't have the quotes.
 * But somehow I get the sense that the same people that fight for an article like this, believe he was a revolutionary martyr.
 * I agree, see my hypocrisy quote.
 * User:76.204.94.246 entire post can be summed up by Alexis de Tocqueville
 * "History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies."
 * T (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soap box. Would you and the anon please knock it off? Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see you on the talk page ICB. If you are going to make mass deletions (or additions) as you recently did please discuss them here first (or at least after the fact). This is good form in any article, but is practically necessary in an article as contentious as this one. I have not looked closely at what you removed and probably will not anytime soon, but if you provide a rationale for your edits they are much more likely to stand than if you simply make changes without discussing them. There are all kinds of problems with this article--the primary one being that most editors interested in it have been unable to work with one another. Good faith communication has been, and remains, the best solution for moving forward. Undiscussed edits (from both sides of the debate) have often only created more difficulties.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought my edit summaries adequately explained my edits, but I have no problem discussing future changes here. I have removed two sections and one paragraph that were not adequately sourced.  The sources provided did not accuse the U.S. of state-sponsored terror. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the edit summaries were fine, it's just that mass deletions and mass additions to this article tend to provoke controversy (and edit wars), so dropping a note here is usually a good idea.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Ice Cold Beer, Wikipedia is also supposed to be a site were there is no WP:NPOV. Your POV deletions are nothing novel, it has been done for years on this article.
 * My comments are directly related to this article and its three year plus stormy history. I am simply trying to understand why so many people blindly hate this article, and why so many people so blindly defend it.
 * People don't like big picture, forest for the trees explanations of complex arguments. It takes much less energy to paint simplistic labels on each other (Such as calling the two groups here POV deletionists and POV defenders).
 * Dozens of editors have tried your POV deletions in the past, and been thwarted by POV defenders of this article. The last big push to have this article deleted was this summer, after most of the central moderates had given up on this article in disgust. After a ingenious month of this article being protected, all of the POV deletionists left to fight somewhere else, and the POV defenders stayed.
 * When the POV deletionists left, it was bad for this article in the long term. For example, the Japan argument got into the article unopposed, along with Native Americans genocide argument. The article has become even more radical and repugnant the majority of readers. POV defenders are simply making it easier for POV deletionists to delete the article later.
 * For two years I have attempted so many tactics to stop the stupid edit wars, including removing the name "terrorist" form the article.
 * If the history of this page is any guide, User:Ice Cold Beer, the POV deletions will ultimately fail.
 * They say insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
 * User:Ice Cold Beer, do you have any sane new ideas on how to stop the edit wars? T (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My "POV deletions" are supported by Wikipedia policy. Look at the stuff I removed and then look at the sources that were provided.  They were wholly inadequate.  I would appreciate if you would assume good faith on my part in the future.  Thanks, Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats what everyone says when they delete large portions of text from this page. Veteran Wikipedians know how to use wikipolicy. That said, I support your changes. T (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked at what you removed and I do see sources that support those allegations, such as with Iran, and the Reagan quotes that has to do with the US supporting terrorists, or as he called them "freedom fighters," who used the methods of terrorism. So, can you explain why you feel the sections needed to be removed? In general, an in particular with this article, its good to talk about many large deltions here first and get some consensus before taking the actions.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the source provided for the Iran section, and it appears that I was brain dead when I read it the first time. The source definitely does accuse the United States of state terrorism.  I have restored the Iran section.  However, I would like to see more than one source to show that the accusation isn't just a fringe theory.  I removed the Reagan quote because there was not a source provided indicating that the quote is related to state terrorism.  Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for restoring it. I agree there should be more than one source. I'll look for one soon.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added one.--NYCJosh (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wondering
I added a lot of material about the current state of affairs in the Philippines and its relationship to the War on Terror and U.S. financing/leadership. Unfortunately, not even the section header survived.

I included in it notable human rights activists from the Philippines, multiple political monitors from the Philippines, as well as several articles from the Asia Times; the article was well-sourced, and there seems little reason to axe the whole thing as has obviously been done. I am curious if anyone here remembers the section and has any suggestions about how to bring it back/improve it?

IIIRC, there was quite a hubbub by MONGO and his little band of sycophants about my use of "a priest" as one of the sources; my argument at the time was that the priest was head of several human rights organizations located in the philippines, was personally the recipient of several international awards for his work in the area, and by virtue of his work and publications was clearly an authority on the issues in question. Even so, there was little defense of the source or the material forthcoming.

I really believe that section should be included; references can be tied in to the BAYAN pages, as well as other parts of Wikipedia. Moreover, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and while it may "only" be circumstantial, that does not disqualify it from consideration on Wikipedia boards so long as there are notable, informed commentators who are on record as saying that U.S. involvement is qualified as State Terrorism.

I am asking for the opinions of people here about how to re-introduce the section.

Finally - the Iran section is woefully inadequate. Seymour Hersh and the BBC have both reported on U.S. military actions inside the borders of Iran, and in the case of Hersh there has even, IIRC, been explicit mention that the targets were not Iranian military;  since there is no state of war declared between the two countries, that is unambiguous state terrorism. Unfortunately, the current article makes scant mention of these facts. Stone put to sky (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you bring up issues worth discussing. The Philippines material was deleted by user:TDC in one fell sweep without any discussion, without consensus, and without removing it to talk (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States&oldid=145533133). I have gone back into the history, excavated the material, and have placed it in a sandbox . I will try to review the material soon. It's immediately apparent that considerable care was taken in the writing of it. I have some additional sources, including Eva-Lotta Hedman's analysis, "State of Siege: Political Violence and Vigilante Mobilization in the Philippines" which appears in the seminal anthology "Western State Terrorism" edited by Alexander George. Unfortunately, I have to pack it in for tonight. But I'll be baack! BernardL (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, B.L.; no rush -- it's been gone a while and it'll take a while to get back up, if we decide on that conclusion. I hope others here will check out the sandbox and chime in. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: the version you've linked to was already heavily edited down, with key sources deleted by TDC's accomplices. It would be better if you could link to an earlier version (frankly, i don't know how to make a sandbox and am familiar with only the simplest of Wikipedia's search functions). Stone put to sky (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover, the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and while it may "only" be circumstantial, that does not disqualify it from consideration on Wikipedia boards so long as there are notable, informed commentators who are on record as saying that U.S. involvement is qualified as State Terrorism. Is Wikipedia a forum to consider and weigh evidence and informally try cases, or is it an encyclopedia that reports the facts as reported by reliable sources? I suggest that WP is not an court of international law. Until some formal charge is filed in an actual judicial tribunal, it is a WP policy violation to suggest that these unsupported allegations that you call "circumstantial evidence" have any formal support beyond mere speculation. The admitted attempt (quoted above) to use WP to evaluate circumstantial evidence is of itself a WP policy violation, it is an attempt to do original research. Raggz (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There are noted commentators who are on record stating that the United States is, in this case, guilty of committing acts of state terrorism. As this article itself makes clear, there are no definitively authoritative sources who make such judgements. Moreover, the title of the article clearly states "Allegations of...."; thus, that there are noteworthy sources on record who are making allegations that the United States is, in the Phillippines, guilty of State Terrorism is all that is needed for inclusion in the article.Stone put to sky (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?
''No, evidence that a formal charge has been made is not the delimiting requirement for an article such as this. It is enough that a significant number of charges have been made by notable and verifiable sources such as academic scholars and human rights organizations. In large part, it is representative of an academic discourse. There are books and article written about the subject.''


 * If "a significant number of charges have been made by notable and verifiable sources such as academic scholars and human rights organizations" claimed that OJ Simpson had murdered his wife and wrote to appeals for (1) him to be charged and (2) that detailed potential evidence, we could and should include such. We would need to be very careful not to imply that he had been charged (if he had not yet been) or convicted. It is NOT enough that these letters be from reputable sources, they also need be applied with good editorial judgement that is lacking in this article. There are a number of reliable sources that are analagous to letters demanding that OJ Simpson be indicted. These are used here to suggest that he has been convicted murder, a claim that should not be made without a reliable source for an actual conviction. Since the reliable sources only suggest that (by analogy) that OJ should be indicted and none establish an indictment or conviction, I expect to edit or delete the text to bring conformity to the citations and the text.


 * When the article has a reliable source then we need debate further. When a claim lacks any reliable source, then it may be regarded as OR and deleted. We have consensus on this?


 * The citations within this article often establish that some controversy exists but are used to suggest directly or to imply that there has been some reliable determination of these controversies. We now have consensus that citations from reliable sources used to support a claim that the source does not support are Original Research and need to be deleted? Raggz (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with that rationale your next step should be to take for a RFC (request for comment) or higher up in the wikipedia administration to get a ruling. It should be noted that you started with these mass deletions before any attempt to discuss your issues, and you are continuing to engage in destructive editing of material that was arrived at through consensus.BernardL (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not consider the deletion of Original Research that lacks even one reliable source to be destructive editing. I expect to resume editing this article soon having reached tacit consensus here. If you cannot collaberate, but require an RfC instead, fine. Raggz (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You do not have consensus, tacit or otherwise. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus cannot override policy. Jtrainor (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. But consensus on this is that this particular statement is clearly in line with policy.  End of argument.  Stone put to sky (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this is obviously disputed, someone perhaps should file an RfC. For what it's worth, I agree with Raggz about the content in question, however, I personally am not going to get involved in editing this train wreck of an article. Jtrainor (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like an excellent idea!! Please -- BE THE MAN!!!! Stone put to sky (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote from me above was responding to the following statement by you All suggestions and implications that the US was ever involved in any state terrorism lack a reliable source for this, because no charge has ever been formally made anywhere. For this reason the WP policy for aggressive deletion applies to much of this article. Raggz (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So let's review! It now seems that you tacitly admit that this implicitly threatening statement was incorrect in several respects. You have changed your position. You have dropped both the categorical "All" as well as the notion that sourced evidence and analysis cannot be presented unless formal charges have been made. Now you feel that there are reputable sources but according to you (but without giving specific examples) "editorial judgment is lacking." Moreover you imply that some claims are lacking reliable sources. That may or may not be, we will have to discuss your specific objections of specific issues. You seem to have deluded yourself into believing that your own interpretations of what constitutes both good “editorial judgment” and reliable sources are infallible and thus, YOU should have carte blanche to ravage the article, which seems to be your natural inclination. Examples of obvious candidates for speedy deletion are links to defamatory sites or sweeping categorical statements or editorializing that have no references at all. But this article is certainly not lacking in references. The kind of objections to references that you are making are debatable objections. We best work things out on a case by case basis here in talk. You have already admitted to not being conversant with aspects of the topic, and you have already made oversights that simply required attention to detail. So much for infallibility. I will be the first to admit that the article needs more work. I attribute this primarily to the complexity and scope of the subject matter, the multitude of editors that have been involved and the often conflictual climate that has not left much room for reflection among constructive editors who are knowledgeable or seriously interested in becoming knowledgeable, as opposed to those who have played an exclusively destructive role. I wonder if perhaps what is really making you anxious about the article is that the references being quoted display too much conviction in their allegations. Well, you always have the option of suggesting properly sourced material criticizing their claims, and the current criticism section needs work as it is poorly done.BernardL (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I am changing, listening, adapting... I am not implying that "some claims are lacking reliable sources", I am claiming this and claiming OR violations. I give many examples (above). The article does not lack references, but many of these are challenged because they do not match the text they support. Others are about fake trials, others allege that US immigration policy is a form of terrorism. Consensus for the many problems in the Article being ignored has shifted. See Consensus. The question how to begin the process of building consensus. Raggz (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

When "some" really means some!
to Raggz, -With regard to the statement that you have made repeated attempts to delete/change without any discussion- namely the statement "Some view the U.S. government as responsible..." - You seem to have not noticed that the footnote for this sentence actually contains three references and that, according to the text, Princeton historian Arno Mayer's statement is presented as an example.
 * “The plain and painful truth is that on any reasonable definition of terrorism, taken literally, the United States and its friends are the major supporters, sponsors, and perpetrators of terrorist incidents in the world today.” (George, Alexander, Western State Terrorism, 1)
 * "The record of Asian wars suggests that the range, scope and frequency of U.S. state terrorist actions have had no rival since World War II." (Selden, Marc. and So, Alvin.Y. War and State Terrorism, 13)
 * And there other corroborating examples besides these. (ie: Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terrorism by Jeffrey A. Sluka, which is at this moment right before me.)BernardL (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points. Perhaps we could edit in "A few authors view the U.S. government as responsible..." Will this work? I feel that this is a better reflection of the sources. "Some" might be subject to the WP Weasle words policy, a few authors is better.


 * See, we can work together. I am not insisting on my own way, just compliance with WP policies. Raggz (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cuba Redux: The Early Years
The following is some rough work on the early Cuban period. It is not intended for immediate inclusion as I have more material on the subject forthcoming. Nevertheless I am laying it out for discussion, augmentation and amelioration, whatever, bob’s yer uncle, even speedy deletion if that suits your fancy. Of particular note is the material from Jorge I. Dominguez, a Harvard professor, from the peer-reviewed journal, Diplomatic History: The Journal of the Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations.

In Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, Noam Chomsky traces the emergence of what he regards as an enduring terrorist campaign against Cuba to the spring of 1959 when the CIA first planned possible means of regime change against Castro's government and then began to arm guerrillas inside Cuba in May of that year. According to Chomsky there was a significant increase in bombing and incendiary raids perpetrated by exiled Cubans based in the U.S. and supervised by the C.I.A. (Chomsky, Noam Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, Henry Holt and Company, 80.} In reviewing the relations between Cuba and the Kennedy administration following the release of recently declassified materials, Jorge I. Dominguez, Professor at Harvard's Center for International Affairs, writes that when Castro to power the Kennedy administration was “obsessed with Cuba and the hoped-for overthrow of the Castro government.” To this end 'Operation Mongoose', "the codename for a U.S. Policy of sabotage and covert operations at Cuba” was implemented. As the Cuban Missile Crisis mounted, Kennedy put a hold on such actions. Dominguez subsequently notes that the “Kennedy administration returned to its policy of sponsoring terrorism against Cuba as the confrontation with the Soviet Union lessened.” Accordingly, “the Executive Committee of the National Security Council recommended various courses of action, “including ‘using selected Cuban exiles to sabotage key Cuban installations in such a manner that the action can plausibly be attributed to Cubans in Cuba’ as well as ‘sabotage Cuban cargo and shipping, and [Soviet] Bloc cargo and shipping to Cuba.” Domiquez further notes that on April 9 “sabotage actions were approved against a railway bridge, some petroleum storage facilities and a molasses storage vessel. Actions were subsequently carried out against a petroleum refinery, a power plant, a sawmill, and a floating crane in a Cuban harbour.” Dominguez remarks that "only once in these nearly thousand pages of documentation did a U.S. official raise something that resembled a faint moral objection to U.S. government sponsored terrorism.”  That unique moral objection was raised by a staff member,Gordon Chase, who worried about a possible Soviet reaction, and that the possible killing of innocents could elicit bad press. (Domínguez, Jorge I. "The @#$%& Missile Crisis (Or, What was 'Cuban' about U.S. Decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis)." The Journal of the Society for Historians of Foreign Relations, Vol. 24, No. 2, (Spring 2000): 305-15.)BernardL (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do academics always pretend modesty with their language?
 * Regardless (and not Irregardless!!), both your source and the material seem to be unquestionably relevant to the article (and solidly so!). I certainly have no objections to its inclusion, and am curious to hear what sort of nonsensical rantings the peanut gallery will undoubtedly come forth with, forthwith!  Stone put to sky (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We return to the serious lack of consensus on what is and what is not "state terrorism". We will have no consensus on most topics until we agree on this central issue, but that debate will need a section. Was the abortive US invasion of Cuba and example of "state terrorism"? This is not clear to me, would anyone care to offer the definition of terrorism used to apply the word to military actions between two nations? Raggz (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Philippines Revisited
Hello Stone Put to the Sky! I went searching further back into the history and substitued an older version of the Philippines section into the sandbox. [] Is that what you had in mind? Just an observation that the section solely concerns the recent administration, thus it is a particularly pressing case to discuss. But at the same time I am aware of allegations by scholars and groups like Bayan of significant U.S. complicity in state terrorism by the Marcos and Aquino regimes, and with Michael McClintock tracing elements in C.I.A. psywar manuals back to the era of the Huk rebellion. Do you (and other folks out there) deem these earlier claims worthy of inclusion and if so how should we go about meshing it into the existing Philippines section? Would considerations of length become pertinent at that point? I am going to add a section at the bottom for additional information where anyone can submit potential material or comments (including me).BernardL (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah! Thanks -- i don't know how to do what you've done.  That's looks like the original version.
 * I agree completely about the focus upon current events. That has always seemed to me the greatest fun about the Internet, and so it is something i take pride in.  I was linking to quotations by Chomsky, Kennedy, Kissinger, and Friedman long before there were ever any archives to support the hope.
 * You seem to have access to a lot of library material; that's not something i enjoy, here in Taiwan.  Even so, i'm always willing to parse and edit what i can.
 * Thanks, again Stone put to sky (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One suggestion: the article you've sandboxed would be beefed up quite a bit if there were links provided to terms like "protectorate", "colony", etc. IIRC, back when i introduced the original piece some cynical schmuck came along and linked in a bunch of apostrphes, and's, but's, and other nonsensical references to try and dilute the effect i had suggested by touching in "war on terrorism" and other such relevant minutiae.
 * Obviously i was on to something, because whoever it was felt they needed to fight the article with the dialectical equivalent of a DOS attack. Stone put to sky (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Article a Mess?
I hope you don't mind being moved out of the RfC section, if you want to, just move your text back. Raggz (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) Yes, the article is a mess. But that is simply because there exists a group of people on Wikipedia who would like to see the page deleted entirely.  Rational and good-faith attempts to work with these people to develop more professional and balanced commentary have been met by mass deletions of material and the elimination of widely acknowledged facts and sources.  Consequently, the page has now become a compendium of what it is these people can not delete.  It will, unfortunately, remain that way until the good-faith editors who are currently working here -- myself among them -- feel comfortable enough to undertake a restructuring of the article.  Until  that time comes, i suggest you work with us in a more productive manner than you have have been.  Up until now, you have simply popped on to the page and started complaining about  it's "point of view".  What i suspect, however, is that this subject is, by its very nature, one that you abhor and would like to see swept under the rug.  Until such time as you can demonstrate that you have some interest above and beyond merrely deleting the page, i am afraid that your efforts here at "cooperation" will confront a great deal of inertia.Stone put to sky (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (2) It is impossible to specifically define what terrorism means, just the same way as it is impossible to specifically define what "the meaning of life", "love", or "patriotism" means.  Nevertheless, as you can see there are three pages devoted to them.  In point of fact, the idea of "state terrorism" and how it applies to other countries is much more clearly defined than any of these three.  Stone put to sky (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is a mess. But that is simply because there exists a group of people on Wikipedia who would like to see the page deleted entirely." I tend to agree with these people. I do understand that the Article cannot develop without Consensus, and I find that argument persuasive. I might work with you if and when the article survives, but only if the title and topic gets tweaked again into an actual useable structure. I do not believe that an article ONLY about allegations has any place in ANY encyclopedia. You should start thinking about shifting the focus, or you will end up defending an article that is limited to allegations and cannot discuss actual facts. In the meantime, while advocating termination of an article defined so that it may not discuss facts, I will work with you in good faith to help make a real article.
 * I think those are excellent ideas. People who understand the history of this page know that it was originally titled "State Terrorism  by the United States", but unfortunately the title was watered down by insincere editors.  That is obviously the title the article should be held under.  Unfortunately, even under that title most of the current facts and content will remain;  while i myself would be perfectly happy to re-work the material to be less an indictment of the U.S. and more of an academic exploration, the unfortunate fact is that the cabal of vandals who have targeted this page will, in all likelihood, not allow it.  We can make a go at it, but of course the first step would be returning the title to its original state:  State Terrorism by the United States.  I think most people here support such a move, and i thank you for introducing it.  Let's give it a day and introduce an RfC, o.k? Stone put to sky (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i am afraid that your efforts here at "cooperation" will confront a great deal of inertia. We can deal with inertia. There is nothing in Five pillars that favors inertia. Don't be a mere stone, why not fly into the sky? I won't help you keep a really bad article, but I will help with the next step. What is it that you really want? Raggz (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already explained what i "really" want: a proper academic treatment of the subject.  Unfortunately, up until now your behavior and actions have done little to reassure me that you want the same thing.  As i have repeatedly pointed out to you, asking the current group of people present to acquiesce to your mass of deletions will not work:  we won't.  Similarly, complaining that the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for NPOV will not work, either;  there have been many people who were much more vicious and intransigent than you who have come by this page saying the same thing, and after 7 different nominations for deletion the page has remained.  The last three discussions, i think, didn't even last longer than a single day.
 * The Wikipedia community has determined that this particular page does meet its standards and is NPOV. Now, i would agree with you that, in a perfect world where we all met Encyclopedia Britannica standards, the article would be much different.  But i am forced to remind you once more:  the reason the article looks as it currently does is because of people coming in and making massive deletions without contributing anything material to the structure of the page.  Thus:
 * If you would like us to take your suggestions seriously, then i suggest you start making contributions to the page that go beyond demands to delete material. We would love to see this page re-worked into something less inflammatory.  However, until its detractors becomme intellectually mature enough to engage in a mutual process of exploration their efforts will simply result in a further expansion of the already hundreds of sources and pages of content that currently exist.  Stone put to sky (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Too Long?
The Article is recommended to be edited to not be so lengthy.

The article is just fine the way it is. In fact, we are going to increase its length. None of the relevant information that is currently on the page will disappear. If you would like to make an alternative suggestion to deletion, then please be my guest. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When an article is too long, the first option that comes to mind is editing it to be more concise. We have no consensus for editing this way? You rejected moving some to another article on the basis that you have some issue with the Guatamala editors? (Did I understand that?) What other option might we consider? Raggz (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sister Dianna Ortiz and General Gramajo
This section should be severely edited for length - or moved to a seperate article. Raggz (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. The section on Ortiz must remain for the simple reason that a cabal of conservative editors have strongarmed the section on Guatemala to include misleading quotations, half-truths, and purposeful obfuscations of the actual situation as it relates to the article. This was undertaken with particular regard to Sister Ortiz' testimony. The only way to combat that is to include the lengthy quotation you see posted. Once upon a time an effort was made to include only a brief summary of her testimony, but unfortunately there were some irresponsible people here who were pushing their particular point of view, and they asked a bunch of their friends to come by and deface the summary. Their primary point of contention was that there were no direct sources to support the allegations made. Consequently, the testimony must now remain as it stands, thanks to the irresponsible and bad-faith editing practices of that cabal. Stone put to sky (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus Raggz (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the victim of a conspiracy, a cabal? Why not get an Administrator to help? Raggz (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, now -- that's something i'd never considered. Unfortunately, i don't have the time to bother with such things.  Why don't you acquaint yourself with the page history and then we'll see how you can help? Stone put to sky (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete or merge this entire article?
Consider the WP article state terrorism. It states: "There is no international consensus on what terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, or state terrorism is. Why do we have an article limited only to allegations about an undefined subject? Raggz (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are conflating the lack of an internationally defined legal consensus with the lack of a clearly defined subject. The subject is clearly defined and widely discussed; however, because it is a contentious legal issue, there have not yet been any moves to establish a legal framework with which it can be dealt. Stone put to sky (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmnn, perhaps... A good description. How does an encyclopedia deal with such a dilemma? I have a citation where a foreign official accuses the US of terrorism due to US immigration policy. Would US immigration policy be an example of state terrorisim? I'm not sure of your focus, you answer will help. Raggz (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You will not find such a trivial source in this article. I suggest you do more research.  Stone put to sky (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If I prove that there is such a "trivial source in this article", what then? Raggz (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I repeat: Why do we have an article limited only to allegations about an undefined subject? Raggz (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible to verify that an individual or organization has made allegations that the US has committed acts of state sponsored terrorism. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems as though every time Raggz is finally about to settle down to patiently and civilly collaborate with others he abruptly reverts back to extremist posturing. Raggz if you seriously believe that the article should be deleted then you have no business here trying to edit it. If, on the other hand you believe otherwise, you should drop the extremist posturing and the threats. How can others trying to construct a good article trust you enough to collaborate if underneath it all you really believe that it should be deleted? If you believe that it should be deleted then you should wait several months until it is once again eligible for deletion. A very recent nomination for deletion was rejected speedily and unanimously. Besides, there is no substance to your claim that state terrorism is an "undefined subject." This is a canard. Other wikipedia articles do not qualify as reliable sources, for good reasons. It is also notable that the original reference that you distorted cannot be considered authoritative. It was from a news article by a U.N. journalist; not from anyone who studies terrorism-related matters as an academic discipline. I am obliged to remind you that among the many sources who have alleged that the US is complicit in acts of state terrorism are professors from major universities such as Yale (Mark Selden, Ben Kiernan, Greg Grandin), Harvard (Jorge I. Dominguez), Princeton (Richard Falk, Arno Mayer), Hong Kong (Alvin Y. So). Philippines (Walden Bello), UC Berkely (Chalmers Johnson), East Washington (William. K. Perdue), Notre Dame (George A. Lopez), Long Island University (J. Patrice McSherry); to name just a portion. I have been gathering a master list on references to U.S. state terrorism for some time now. I have often thought about posting such a list here in talk. The problem is that the list is very very long indeed. When you state with such certainty that state terrorism is an "undefined subject" you are effectively assuming that all of these professors (and more besides) are just stupid people spilling so much ink over an "undefined subject." But at this point I think you should be truthful to yourself. You cannot possibly know whether or not state terrorism is an undefined subject according to the many analysts who make the allegation because you show no evidence of having made an honest exploration of the literature. If you were honest enough to gain some knowledge about a subject towards which you display much ignorance you might discover that discussions of definitional issues and formulations of definitions are quite common in the literature. You may not disagree with the views expressed, but at least you might have a basis to argue against the views that they actually have on the subject in a rational manner. If I can make a reading suggestion it would be "War and State Terrorism:The United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century. Edited by Mark Selden and Alvin Y. So."  You can probably find it at a bookstore or university library. The introduction is very stimulating, and for you I highly recommend the third chapter, by Richard Falk, "State Terror versus Humanitarian Law," since you are attracted to legal themes.BernardL (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this Article only limited to allegations, or may facts be cited?
Logically, we cannot use facts within this article because it is limited to allegations. Facts are beyond our topic. I suggest that the topic is itself untenable.

We could change the topic, myself, I do not favor articles that are self-limited to only discussing allegations. Raggz (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Building upon our consensus, I added new material into the Lead. It explains why we can only discuss allegations but will never discuss any actual facts. Raggz (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess we do not have consensus for the Lead? Someone reverting without posting. Please comment here. Raggz (talk) 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment was made in the edit summary. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comment was: "make editing suggestions on the talk page before starting edits to the article". Why did you revert it? Your revert was made well after my comments here. Raggz (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again: you did not clear that change with the people who are here. For future reference, i would suggest a waiting period of at least 36 hours before presuming that you have some sort of agreement here. Many of the maintainers of this page are quite busy -- i'm on a few off-days right now, so right now i happen to have the time to spend on helping you out, here -- but many of them are also quite busy and don't appear every day. Simply declaring that you are going to edit the page because you think an agreement has been reached in no way indicates an agreement has been reached anywhere except in your own mind, and waiting 30 minutes to then proceed from there to the actual edit -- without any input from the community of page maintainers -- is, as i have explained to you repeatedly, not a good method to use on this page. Simply put: if you make edits without first clearing them with the community of page maintainers here then you are almost certain to see them reverted. I have already explained to you why that is the case several times, now. Once again: my suggestion is that you create a sandbox and make your suggestions there, first. Then we can all make contributions and debate the changes without causing an edit war.

Of course, I am presuming that you are not interested in sparking an edit war. Am i wrong in that? Stone put to sky (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as a note here, my edits simply deal with the changing of two words in the current version to less POV ones. I don't see how you can possibly object to replacing "observed" with "claimed" and so on-- saying someone has "observed" is weasel wordy and POV. The word "claimed" is more in line with WP:NPOV. I also advise you to take a less confrontational attitude-- you don't own the article and neither does anyone else. Jtrainor (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. Do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. Remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity. Five pillars


 * As a general rule, 36 hours sounds reasonable to me in regard to tacit consent, if you are away (as we all will be) I would not try to use that to advantage. We can always revert. Raggz (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "It is entirely possible to verify that an individual or organization has made allegations that the US has committed acts of state sponsored terrorism. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)" Agreed on all points. Raggz (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I do see a basic problem here
This article basically has the same kind of problem that the 'list of nuclear accidents' article had-- it does not clearly define it's scope. It needs to have, in the opening portion, a clearly defined set of criteria for inclusion of particular items. Note for example the 'Scope of this article' section in []. A similar such section is what is needed here and once consensus is reachead on it, the article can be cleaned up significantly and hopefully become far less controversial. Jtrainor (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The article has clearly outlined its scope: it is a discussion of those actions of the United States that are widely considered to be acts of "State Terrorism". The reason these actions are outlined in the way they are is because constant demands for reliable, NPOV sources have been made. These sources have, therefore, been provided. However, the basic structure of the article is readily apparent: The United States is a country that has created a "War on Terrorism", yet many countries and peoples world wide accuse the United States of many acts of state terrorism. This seems a blatant contradiction, and so evidence has been provided to show that:

A) There are reliable and widely sourced accounts of acts by agents or proxies of the United States that are clearly acts of terrorism. B)  There are countries who consider these acts to be acts of State Terrorism undertaken by the United States, and C) There is wide legal, academic and political consensus that these claims are legitimate.

A) has become the largest portion of the article for the simple reason that any time summaries are offered up as evidence they are marginalized through deletions or tendentious editing. B) is undeniably true and probably the easiest portion of the article to demonstrate. For C) the page maintainers have, up until now, been satisfied with showing that the U.S.'s own definitions of "terrorism" clearl cover the actions of its agents as listed in the article below.

There is no problem with the scope; there is only a problem with that group of people who wish to see this article deleted. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are no "actions of the United States that are widely considered to be acts of "State Terrorism", what then? How do we determine what "widely considered" means? Until you offer a specific criteria, we cannot have an article, can we? Raggz (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We already have an article, and the article clearly shows that there is a wide consensus for viewing certain actions of the United States as acts of state terrorism. Simply because you do not agree with those sources does not mean that the consensus does not exist, just the same way as your disregard for the article does not imply that it fails to meet wikipedia standards. Stone put to sky (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There exists no Consensus for your claims above. If ever there was a consensus, it now has shifted. "Simply because you do not agree with those sources does not mean that the consensus does not exist." Actually you know very well what Consensus means, and you know that you do not have consensus. If you need to read Consensus, then just read it, don't debate it. Raggz (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You will need to offer some reliable source to claim that "that there is a wide consensus for viewing certain actions of the United States as acts of state terrorism". Raggz (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I insist that you make a good faith attempt to develop a consensus. A good start would be to specify what you mean by "wide consensus". You introduced "wide consensus", now please explain it. Raggz (talk) 07:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

And i, in turn, suggest you go review that page you link to and then look up "consensus" in the dictionary, because whatever definition you're using it's not one that anyone else understands. After doing your due diligence, i further suggest that you keep that new definition you've learned in mind and go review the long list of sources that we have here. Any normal understanding of the word "consensus" would clearly describe an issue that has the number, consistency, and wide array of documented sources that appear here. However you might like to spin the issue, a public consensus undeniably exists for the ideas that are herein presented. For my part i do not think you can accuse me of bad faith; i have already made many clear and simple suggestions about how we may proceed, but your response has been to ignore every one of them and continue with your attempt to delete material as you see fit. Thus, it is you -- not i -- who are rejecting wikipedia policy, and it is you -- not i -- who appears to be acting in bad faith. Regardless, i shall continue to presume that you are who you say you are -- a poster who has recently arrived at wikipedia and is interested in cleaning up some messy articles and with that in mind reiterate my suggestions:


 * A) Make a sandbox.  Introduce your suggestions there.  Elicit feedback from the community.  Once you have gotten the go-ahead from everyone here (and no, that does not mean getting a simple majority vote from a peanut-gallery of recently arrived editors), then we will proceed with altering the page.

If you can follow these two bits of simple advice then i think we'll have no problems here. Unfortunately, up until this point it seems that you are unwilling to follow the established procedure; moreover, that procedure has already long been validated by Wikipedia -- indeed, it is clearly outlined as the preferred method of use on pages such as this -- so in the context of your recent actions i think it might be safe to conclude that you are uninterested in cooperating with the community of page maintainers here. Are my deductions correct, or is there some sort of misunderstanding? Stone put to sky (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * B) Please keep in mind that the page as it currently exists is dissatisfactory in many people's eyes, myself included.  It is, however, the result of a lot of hard negotiations and mutual give and take.  Thus, you should understand that some sections are long because others have insisted that they be, and other sections are included as lengthy source material to support trivial declarations in the introduction.  The introduction, in particular, is something that has been hotly contentious and will not be easily changed.  Any edits you might suggest that appear to water down the intent or subject matter will be hotly disputed.  Thus, my suggestion is that you begin your efforts with other portions of the article.  Even so, please understand that, according to clearly established wiki policy, you should first present your edits on these talk pages and try to elicit some sort of consensus here before attempting any edits to the main page.


 * *Your comments are unclear. You want me to look up the definition of consensus and accept that if we limit the universe to the articles cited here, that they taken as a sum, project a consensus? Recognizing the necessary oversimplification, am I getting what you are saying? If this is what you are saying we can discuss this, but first I need to be clear on what you actually mean?


 * *You want me to make a sandbox? What is that, and what purpose would be served?


 * *I support WP policy, to date it seems to be great. I have no issues with any of it. Which policy are you discussing?


 * *What actions "appear to water down the intent or subject matter"? Are you declaring that there is an "intent" for this article? This implies an intent to violate NPOV? If not, please explain because this is how I understand you. Raggz (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you are having a hard time understanding what i'm suggesting. I have no doubt that this has nothing to do with either improper grammar, syntax, lexiconomy, or usage of words. Therefore, i suggest you go back and re-read what i have written until you arrive at a few conclusions on your own. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am cooperative. How might I be more so? I am seeking Consensus. What does "watering down" mean? Raggz (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should seek mediation? We could begin with that above? Raggz (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have always considered the definition section as in need of more work. It is worth discussing to determine what it should incorporate and what is non-essential, so as to provide the article with a better orientation. My current impressions are that the mainstream definitions from Britannica, 2 from the FBI, and the State Dept, are excessively redundant. If anything there should be one mainstream definition with which to compare a sampling of two or three definitions from analysts that make the allegations. It should be discussed whether the "U.S. government's own definitions" section can be either merged into the definition section or jettisoned completely. All of this can be thoroughly discussed and will take some time. I am willing to provide samples of definitions used by notable sources who make the allegation. I can also do my part to point to definitional/conceptual themes in the literature. Of course, I expect others would have interesting ideas and feedback to contribute as well. I feel that the definitions by Schmid and Stohl are worthy candidates. The Schmid definition has been described as the U.N.'s unofficial "academic consensus" definition and that of Stohl comes from his text book on terrorism, which is in its third edition." (see the references section of the article) BernardL (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The definition should be included with each allegation made. Without the definition, what does the allegation mean? The article suggests state terrorism against Cuba, but in the cite the Cuban official only discusses US immigration policy, which he cites as "terrorism". The Article does not make it clear that in this case, US immigration policy is the terrorist act, and it should. The definition section might be to vague to have any use. What is needed is an allegation-specific definition of what is meant. They needn't then match each other (as they do not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 07:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The definitions from the Dept. of State and the FBI are hardly redundant -- they are the only two official, policy-level definitions of terrorism published by the U.S. government, and by providing them both here the full foundation of the U.S. term "terrorism" is circumscribed.  The passage concerning the UN definition is also appropriate insofar as it enables people to contrast the U.S. definitions against the single most widespread International definition.  I will concede that the definitions from Britannica and the various analysts may be overkill, but at the very least these three must remain.


 * I would like to point out, however, that -- IIRC -- the Britannica and other definitions have been included at the behest of the deletionist cabal led by MONGO, et al. I myself consider them overkill, and i also consider them irrelevant to the article as a whole.  But there may be others who might protest their removal.  About that, i don't know.  Perhaps we should leave a message on the home-pages of Tom Harrison, MONGO, TDC, and JTrainor?  Those people seem to be in charge of the group, and if they don't have any objections to the removal of the content then perhaps we can go ahead and trim it down, some.  Stone put to sky (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with ANY definition used by any section alleging an incident to be state terrorism IF this definition is included with the allegation. Each section likely uses different but undefined criteria to call it state terrorism. Use the FBI definition, or any definition, but offer context for each allegation.


 * If there is consensus to remove the entire definition section, I won't oppose this IF instead each allegation gets an appropriate contextual definition so the reader knows what is alleged. You may contact any cabals that you wish, I know of none. Raggz (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On tacit consensus
Some of the editors on this and related pages have invented the notion of tacit consensus. Please note that there is nothing at WP:CONSENSUS about tacit consensus, and invoking this as a rationale for anything is a flawed and disingenuous misrepresentation of official Wikipedia policy, and should not be tolerated. If this were a legitimate reason for making a controversial edit, then it would be spelled out clearly in the official policy. It is not. Thus if editors here and elsewhere insist upon using the notion of "tacit consensus" as a justification for their removals of information or other edits likely to be controversial, then I must insist that they go to Wikipedia_talk:Consensus and obtain community acceptance and approval of "tacit consensus" first. Thank you, Silly rabbit (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for that clarification, SR. I think that was quite clear and unambiguous, and i hope our fellow editors here will all take it to heart.  Stone put to sky (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." Consensus Does anyone dispute that this is about tacit consensus? If so, how is this different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs) 05:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "if there is adequate exposure to the community" is the part that seems not to have been applied in some recent applications of 'tacit consensus' to edits to this article (and others). I am not really sure how you can monitor/measure how much 'exposure' any change/proposed change has recieved within the community to be able to move ahead on the basis that adequate numbers of interested (and potentially opposed) parties are aware. And what once may have been a tacit concensus may certainly change at a later time to visible non-concensus.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed Raggz (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in there that mentions "tacit consensus". At any rate, that's not for us to discuss on this page -- you should take that up with the wiki-policy pages and the people who work on those.  Here, we simply follow the rules.  I see nothing in there that mentions "tacit consensus", and in addition there is an explicit declaration that there must be "adequate exposure to the community" -- which, so far, none of your edits and deletions have fulfilled.  Stone put to sky (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation seems a very large step. There has been, essentially, a minor disagreement over process and now you want to step into mediation? That sounds suspiciously to me as if you expect to gain some sort of unethical back-room aid from a friendly administrator. In any event, if we need to seek mediation then so far it is over one and only one issue: whether or not you should sandbox your suggested edits and get approval for them before applying them to the page at hand. If you would like to seek mediation over this issue then please -- feel free. I do not think, however, that it would be appropriate for us to discuss anything that has to do with content until such time as you can float some suggestions for us here, on the talk page. Stone put to sky (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Stone put to sky, you do realize that mediation is non-binding, right? Jtrainor (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Silly Wabbit is quite right on this one. Raggz is again trying to bulldozer this article, with fanciful inventions like "tacit consensus."BernardL (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "I do not think, however, that it would be appropriate for us to discuss anything that has to do with content until such time as you can float some suggestions for us here, on the talk page." This might be a better mediation topic? We need to start communicating and we need mediation to do this. Would it be that hard to find a mediation topic? It is a process to enhance communication. I like your quote, how about it? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "It seems we have reached tacit consensus, does anyone here have anything more to add?" Does this seem like a WikiWMD, a WikiBulldozer? Really? Read this sentence one more time ... Raggz (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence in itself is innocuous enough; the problem is, however, that i have been vociferously denying that any consensus has been reached, and yet -- on the basis of your own fancies -- you have tried to push through the edit anyway.  Moreover, you did not float your suggested edit on this page first;  you did not ask for input on whether or not the edit was acceptable;  and then, when the edit was -- in accordance with policy -- deleted, you began decrying that mediation was somehow needed.  Thus, it was not the original declaration that was wrong, but  your entire approach towards editing this page.  Stone put to sky (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * All of your claims are possible. If such occured, I apologize. At this point, what issue now remains?


 * Denial of consensus is an important and valid part of Consensus. To be valid, a denial of consensus must be made as part of a good faith effort to seek consensus. Consensus does not permit the denial of consensus otherwise (in my opinion). Part of a good faith effort to seek consensus is a willingness to communicate. It is unclear if you are (1) unwilling to communicate or (2) unable to communicate (or both). Because I assume good faith, I presume that we are unable to communicate, and that mediation will help. If I believed that you were "unwilling to communicate", then another approach might be necessary. Perhaps the communications issues are in fact all my fault, if so, mediation will also help. Raggz (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
Not sure who posted this, but an RFC should take the form of a specific question with specific answers. This isn't even a vague question -- it's just a comment without context, made by an anonymous poster, and apparently serving no purpose. If comments really are being requested, it might be better for the poster in question -- whoever he (she? i doubt it) is -- to take a little bit of time and figure out what it is they're asking about. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that our visitors consider answering two questions: (1) is this article generally a mess requiring serious work (or merge with state terrorism) and (2) should this article specifically define what it means by terrorism when it discusses an allegation of terrorism?. I ask BernardL to list an RfC question or two as well if there are other important ones I missed. Raggz (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) No, this article has a long and heated history, and most of the problems have been pounded out with sweat and blood. It looks a lot better to me now than it did a few years ago.  (2) No, because different sources will define the term differently.  Wikipedia can not fix a definition that is considered superior to all other definitions.  That would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV.  We have to use the definitions that the sources use. MilesAgain (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The LEAD
State terrorism is an undefined phrase without any exact meaning within international law that means anyone may allege that any action by any state for any reason is state terrorism. Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven.

Someone deleted this, why? I put this in because it explains why we have limited ourselves to only allegations and no facts. If we delete this, we remain limited to allegations and cannot include a single fact, read the definition of allegation. If we put this in the LEAD, ONLY then does the article make sense to a reader. If we put this in the LEAD, only then is the article likely to survive. So keep it - or not? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No. First, that statement is more appropriate on the State Terrorism page. Second, everything that is stated in that one sentence has been clearly addressed in the appropriate parts of the article. Your desire to shuffle this one particular sentence to the top of the page is clearly an attempt to weaken the article by reducing it to a single assertion that, taken out of the proper context, is quite simply false. "State Terrorism" as a phrase is clearly defined; if it weren't then we wouldn't be able to discuss the idea here. Second, although it is not precisely defined as a legal term, international lawyers consider it an important and pressing topic of debate, not least because it has a clear and unambiguous (i.e. -- "exact") political or common definition. Finally, your statement that "Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven." is, quite simply, false. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We now have cites appearing in the lead. If you know how, please handle them because I don't know how. Probably my fault? Raggz (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not my concern. Your changes have been reverted, per "tendentious editing", "NPOV", "weasel words", and "lack of consensus". Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone deleted this, why? I put this in because it explains why we have limited ourselves to only allegations and no facts. If we delete this, we remain limited to allegations and cannot include a single fact, read the definition of allegation. If we put this in the LEAD, ONLY then does the article make sense to a reader. If we put this in the LEAD, only then is the article likely to survive. So keep it - or not? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your insistence that this addition improves the article is disputed by most of the long-term editors here. Secondly, you did not present the changes on the talk page first. Third, you have ignored all the feedback you've gotten on your proposed changes. Finally, you have pushed through with the changes even despite the well-reasoned, content-neutral arguments that have been provided as a counter to your reasoning. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "First, that statement is more appropriate on the State Terrorism page." Why? The phrase is in our title. Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that is the page that deals with discussing the concept of State Terrorism. This page uses that concept. It is an entirely different order of logic, and so appropriate when discussing the single concept rather than on a page that is addressing how that concept is perceived relative to the United States. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Second, everything that is stated in that one sentence has been clearly addressed in the appropriate parts of the article." Where does it say that there is no crime known as state terrorism in any law? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly states that there is no accepted, universal legal definition for "State Terrorism". I think it shoud be easy for you to find if you look for it yourself. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your desire to shuffle this one particular sentence to the top of the page is clearly an attempt to weaken the article by reducing it to a single assertion that, taken out of the proper context, is quite simply false. "State Terrorism" as a phrase is clearly defined; if it weren't then we wouldn't be able to discuss the idea here." I agree. I don't really know what it is. Why doesn't this article explain this? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to the article to explain what facts you personally don't know; similarly, if you want to know what "State Terrorism" is then the page to do find that out would be  here. Finally, i would suggest -- since you have just now admitted that you don't even know what "state terrorism" is -- that maybe you should find another article to go edit.Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Second, although it is not precisely defined as a legal term, international lawyers consider it an important and pressing topic of debate, not least because it has a clear and unambiguous (i.e. -- "exact") political or common definition. A reliable source, please. Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources have been given; they were deleted. However, since i am not providing this material for the page itself but am instead simply discussing what content is appropriate to include then i don't have any responsibility to provide you with evidence. My suggestion is that you google "State Terrorism" and "International Law"; in the mass of links that are returned you will find more than enough sources that will clearly validate this statement. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, your statement that "Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven." is, quite simply, false. A reliable source, please, one that says that this exists and deals with the International Court of Justice ruling? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See the above comment. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I cannot take anything BernardL has to say as particularly reliable after his little display on this talk page (personal attacks, then editing to hide them). Jtrainor (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your personal opinion about his character is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Proof that an editor is not engaged in a good faith effort for Consensus is VERY relevant. Consensus only applies to such a good faith effort. Editors that do not make a good faith effort to comply with Consensus may eventually be ignored for the purpose of Consensus. Raggz (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This line of talk is about an editor, not about the substance or issue at hand. As such its diversionary and a personal attack. I suggest we remove this line of distracting talk. This is all more the case given its directed at a very good long time editor to this article who has been very civil, and constructive. The alleged instance of incivility has been altered by the editor in question in line with acceptable norms. Thus, there is no valid basis for any of us to simply ignore him, or fail to assume good faith. Further attempts along these lines is clear evidence of not acting in good faith, and being disruptive.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with much of the above, I do agree that it should have been on the user's discussion page (as it is) and not here. Raggz (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment: Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
Not sure who posted this, but an RFC should take the form of a specific question with specific answers. This isn't even a vague question -- it's just a comment without context, made by an anonymous poster, and apparently serving no purpose. If comments really are being requested, it might be better for the poster in question -- whoever he (she? i doubt it) is -- to take a little bit of time and figure out what it is they're asking about. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that our visitors consider answering two questions: (1) is this article generally a mess requiring serious work (or merge with state terrorism) and (2) should this article specifically define what it means by terrorism when it discusses an allegation of terrorism?. I ask BernardL to list an RfC question or two as well if there are other important ones I missed. Raggz (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) No, this article has a long and heated history, and most of the problems have been pounded out with sweat and blood. It looks a lot better to me now than it did a few years ago.  (2) No, because different sources will define the term differently.  Wikipedia can not fix a definition that is considered superior to all other definitions.  That would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV.  We have to use the definitions that the sources use. MilesAgain (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The LEAD
State terrorism is an undefined phrase without any exact meaning within international law that means anyone may allege that any action by any state for any reason is state terrorism. Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven.

Someone deleted this, why? I put this in because it explains why we have limited ourselves to only allegations and no facts. If we delete this, we remain limited to allegations and cannot include a single fact, read the definition of allegation. If we put this in the LEAD, ONLY then does the article make sense to a reader. If we put this in the LEAD, only then is the article likely to survive. So keep it - or not? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No. First, that statement is more appropriate on the State Terrorism page. Second, everything that is stated in that one sentence has been clearly addressed in the appropriate parts of the article. Your desire to shuffle this one particular sentence to the top of the page is clearly an attempt to weaken the article by reducing it to a single assertion that, taken out of the proper context, is quite simply false. "State Terrorism" as a phrase is clearly defined; if it weren't then we wouldn't be able to discuss the idea here. Second, although it is not precisely defined as a legal term, international lawyers consider it an important and pressing topic of debate, not least because it has a clear and unambiguous (i.e. -- "exact") political or common definition. Finally, your statement that "Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven." is, quite simply, false. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We now have cites appearing in the lead. If you know how, please handle them because I don't know how. Probably my fault? Raggz (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not my concern. Your changes have been reverted, per "tendentious editing", "NPOV", "weasel words", and "lack of consensus". Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone deleted this, why? I put this in because it explains why we have limited ourselves to only allegations and no facts. If we delete this, we remain limited to allegations and cannot include a single fact, read the definition of allegation. If we put this in the LEAD, ONLY then does the article make sense to a reader. If we put this in the LEAD, only then is the article likely to survive. So keep it - or not? Raggz (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your insistence that this addition improves the article is disputed by most of the long-term editors here. Secondly, you did not present the changes on the talk page first. Third, you have ignored all the feedback you've gotten on your proposed changes. Finally, you have pushed through with the changes even despite the well-reasoned, content-neutral arguments that have been provided as a counter to your reasoning. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "First, that statement is more appropriate on the State Terrorism page." Why? The phrase is in our title. Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that is the page that deals with discussing the concept of State Terrorism. This page uses that concept. It is an entirely different order of logic, and so appropriate when discussing the single concept rather than on a page that is addressing how that concept is perceived relative to the United States. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Second, everything that is stated in that one sentence has been clearly addressed in the appropriate parts of the article." Where does it say that there is no crime known as state terrorism in any law? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly states that there is no accepted, universal legal definition for "State Terrorism". I think it shoud be easy for you to find if you look for it yourself. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your desire to shuffle this one particular sentence to the top of the page is clearly an attempt to weaken the article by reducing it to a single assertion that, taken out of the proper context, is quite simply false. "State Terrorism" as a phrase is clearly defined; if it weren't then we wouldn't be able to discuss the idea here." I agree. I don't really know what it is. Why doesn't this article explain this? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not up to the article to explain what facts you personally don't know; similarly, if you want to know what "State Terrorism" is then the page to do find that out would be  here. Finally, i would suggest -- since you have just now admitted that you don't even know what "state terrorism" is -- that maybe you should find another article to go edit.Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Second, although it is not precisely defined as a legal term, international lawyers consider it an important and pressing topic of debate, not least because it has a clear and unambiguous (i.e. -- "exact") political or common definition. A reliable source, please. Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources have been given; they were deleted. However, since i am not providing this material for the page itself but am instead simply discussing what content is appropriate to include then i don't have any responsibility to provide you with evidence. My suggestion is that you google "State Terrorism" and "International Law"; in the mass of links that are returned you will find more than enough sources that will clearly validate this statement. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally, your statement that "Without any definition or specific law prohibiting it, state terrorism is only possible to allege and state terrorism can never be proven." is, quite simply, false. A reliable source, please, one that says that this exists and deals with the International Court of Justice ruling? Raggz (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

See the above comment. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I cannot take anything BernardL has to say as particularly reliable after his little display on this talk page (personal attacks, then editing to hide them). Jtrainor (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your personal opinion about his character is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Stone put to sky (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Proof that an editor is not engaged in a good faith effort for Consensus is VERY relevant. Consensus only applies to such a good faith effort. Editors that do not make a good faith effort to comply with Consensus may eventually be ignored for the purpose of Consensus. Raggz (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This line of talk is about an editor, not about the substance or issue at hand. As such its diversionary and a personal attack. I suggest we remove this line of distracting talk. This is all more the case given its directed at a very good long time editor to this article who has been very civil, and constructive. The alleged instance of incivility has been altered by the editor in question in line with acceptable norms. Thus, there is no valid basis for any of us to simply ignore him, or fail to assume good faith. Further attempts along these lines is clear evidence of not acting in good faith, and being disruptive.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with much of the above, I do agree that it should have been on the user's discussion page (as it is) and not here. Raggz (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research Violations
The article is titled “Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States”. To the degree that the article integrates the text with this title, it has value. Much of the material however is actually original research attempting to prove state terrorism and this material has strong POV elements that deny the WP NPOV policy.

An analogy:
OJ Simpson could have been the subject of an article right after the double murder titled “Allegations of murder committed by the OJ Simpson”. He was initially not charged for any crime, a situation analogous for the allegations in this article because the US has not been charged for state terrorism. We could immediately find many reliable sources SPECULATING that (1) he would be charged, and that he (2) would be convicted, and (3) that he was guilty of a double murder. We would find no reliable sources that were not speculation, as is the case with the subject of our article. WHEN he was charged, only then could we move beyond mere speculation and only then could we find a reliable source that could support the allegations.

Is there any legal charge for state terrorism against the US by any judicial tribunal anywhere in the world? If so, THEN we may move beyond the mere unsupported allegation stage to the supported allegation stage. Is this the case?

Has the US been tried on this charge, or convicted on this charge? If so, these two facts support the mere unsupported allegations we now have in the article.


 * "Allegations...." was a gimme to people who were contending that the article be deleted outright, nothing more. The facts that are presented here are uncontroversial and widely admitted;  the only thing that is open to any sort of debate is whether or not the concept of "State Terrorism" is applicable to matters of international law.  The article makes it quite clear that this is, in fact, a valid concept currently being debated by the international legal establishment.  It further makes clear that the facts presented here are widely attested to and uncontroversial.  Thus, your assertion that they are "unsupported" is utterly laughable. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus that this article presents the facts. For this reason, reliable sources are required which are presently missing. Do not revert or edit without consensus. Raggz (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "The facts that are presented here are uncontroversial and widely admitted..." Fine, offer one example please? Raggz (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We have tact consensus on this point. Raggz (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you have problems with your memory, so let me refresh it. Above, Stone put to sky responded to you, clearly indicating that there is explicitly not consensus on whatever point you are trying to make.  Please stop claiming to have consensus. I find this childish, tendentious, and disruptive.  By definition, consensus does not exist because you mandate it, but as a natural part of the editorial process.  Please go and re-read WP:CONSENSUS until you feel you have understood it.  Silly rabbit (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

the question of reliable sources
The question of reliable sources comes in regard to what these reliable sources state. The sources are not challenged, but the context of what they state is. Is there one reliable source within the article that can support the allegations made? Presently they all appear to be mere unsupported allegations and there seems that not one offers evidence that the US has ever been charged in relation to state terrorism or even that this has ever been considered.

Since the US has never been even charged with this, and there is not one reliable source to claim that it has, the unsupported allegations are all like the unsupported allegations against OJ Simpson before he was arrested and charged, premature. While these unsupported allegations are from reliable sources, they remain mere unsupported allegations.


 * There are no facts in this article that are contested; to extend your metaphor into an accurate representation, it would be as if thousands of people actually saw O.J. Simpson murdering his wife and then, in his own defense, O.J. claimed that it was in fact all for her own good and in no way constituted a crime.  That is what you are arguing:  that hundreds of thousands of people can attest to the the crimes and actions cited in this article, that these people can clearly peg these actions upon agents who were working for, financed by, and/or trained by the United States, and yet despite the horrificly brutal nature of the actions people like you still want to claim that they are not crimes and do not constitute terrorist actions.  Whatever.  The page isn't here for your pleasure;  it's here to state facts.
 * The simple fact is that these acts occurred, they occurred with the knowledge, approval, support, and/or direct involvement of the United States, and these actions are clearly crimes according to whatever definition of law you or any brethren of chaos would like to invent. The page does nothing more than remark that there are people who recount this evidence and use these arguments in defense of these allegations.  Stone put to sky (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand WP:Consensus, please review the section on changing consensus.


 * Take Global Warming as an example of how to edit an excellent controversial article. What article might you suggest that I read as a model?


 * "it would be as if thousands of people actually saw O.J. Simpson murdering his wife and then, in his own defense, O.J. claimed that it was in fact all for her own good and in no way constituted a crime." An encyclopedia would wait for the indictment, trial, and conviction. An encyclopedia would not interview the witnesses and list the claims of each. You are confusing a personal blog with an encyclopedia?


 * "The simple fact is that these acts occurred, they occurred with the knowledge, approval, support, and/or direct involvement of the United States, and these actions are clearly crimes according to whatever definition of law you or any brethren of chaos would like to invent." You are here to tell the TRUTH? You are violating WP policy because the TRUTH is more important? The definition of the laws regarding terrorisim is relevant to allegations of state terrorism, don'tcha think? Who are my "brethren"? Raggz (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We now have tacit consensus on this point. Raggz (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Original Research Deletions
All suggestions and implications that the US was ever involved in any state terrorism lack a reliable source for this, because no charge has ever been formally made anywhere. For this reason the WP policy for aggressive deletion applies to much of this article. Raggz (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, evidence that a formal charge has been made is not the delimiting requirement for an article such as this. It is enough that a significant number of charges have been made by notable and verifiable sources such as academic scholars and human rights organizations. In large part, it is representative of an academic discourse. There are books and article written about the subject. If you have a problem with that rationale your next step should be to take for a RFC (request for comment) or higher up in the wikipedia administration to get a ruling. It should be noted that you started with these mass deletions before any attempt to discuss your issues, and you are continuing to engage in destructive editing of material that was arrived at through consensus.BernardL (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You find the edits destructive? In what sense? Mostly I have been reading the citations and deleting those that are not supportive of the text. If you want to read them, you will find that they all deserved deletion. Which one or ones do you dispute.


 * We agree, a formal charge need not have been made for an article such as this. If you read above I stated this as well. The problem here is the lack of any reliable sources to support the claims. There are many reliable sources that speculate about this topic. The article however does not identify these as unproven speculation. As the Talk (above) states, this article is engaged in projection of a political POV by amassing wads of "circumstantial evidence" and presenting an argument rather than presenting an encyclopedia article. This article needs to accurately identify all of this "circumstantial evidence" as unproven speculation. Why begin with an RFC? Are you unwilling to collaberate to improve this article? If so, I will take your advice but this is a waste of everyone's time. Why not just work to make the article more accurate and useful?


 * If there is any "circumstantial evidence" that you believe is supported by a reliable source that is not mere speculation, please identify it here. I missed it. A formal legal charge for terrorism would of course be one way to move beyond mere speculation, but there may be other ways. What other type of confirmation do you suggest?


 * OR deletions do not require consensus, in fact WP encourages the aggressive deletion of clear OR. I am seeking perspective here, in talk, before implementing the aggressive deletions required by WP. The deletion of citations that do not support the text does not require consensus either. There is no reason however to simply aggressively delete the OR in this article without discussion - as this would like lead to a revert war and a lack of collaberation.


 * Is there a problem if we accurately identify all of the claims in the article as unsupported speculation? If we label it correctly, then the title and the text will be brought into synchrony. The article is about allegations only, and so need not prove any facts. The problem is that the article has a POV slant that leads the reader to believe that the charges are beyond mere unproven speculation. To move beyond mere unproven speculation, there needs to be a reliable source for this. What source is this? Raggz (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tacit consensus appears to have been reached in this section. Does anyone have anything to add? Raggz (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems BernardL has responded above. Tacit consensus has not been reached.  Please stop pretending that you are the sole arbiter of consensus.  Consensus is not a prize that can be won by out-arguing every other editor and by constantly posting longwinded arguments on the talk page.  It is something which emerges through cooperative editing.  So, I dispute this claim of consensus, as well as every other claim of "tacit consensus" on this page. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

US Immigration and Extradition Policy as Terrorism
A citation that claimed to "RICARDO Alarcón, president of Cuba’s National Assembly of People’s Power, affirmed that the United States government is an accomplice and protector of terrorism." Reading the text of the article suggests that Alarcón defined US Immigration and Extradition Policy as Terrorism. When he accused the US of terrorism, he did not mean anything resembling the definitions of terrorism used within this article. The citation was thus deleted because it is not about an actual allegation of terrorism but of US Immigration and Extradition Policy. It will be deleted again, because there is nothing in the talk section to explain the revert. Raggz (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The text of the article says that Cuban government officials have accused the United States Government of being an accomplice and protector of terrorism against Cuba. The reference attaches to this sentence, and this is precisely what Alarcón is affirming in the reference.  Am I missing something?  Silly rabbit (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are missing something. Read the citation. He is accusing the US of terrorism because he disagrees with US immigration policy. We need a reliable source that US immigration policy is terrorism. Raggz (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

During his exchange with the visitors, Alarcón referred to the deliberate delays to the trial of notorious terrorist Luis Posada Carriles in El Paso, Texas, and the struggle for the liberation of the five Cubans anti-terrorist fighters imprisoned in the United States.


 * Almost correct. The US has only tried the "notorious terrorist Luis Posada Carriles" for an immigration violation. The "notorious terrorist Luis Posada Carriles" apparently never violated any other US law. I accept that Luis Posada Carriles was a notorious terrorist, at least that reliable sources claim this. But why is he in this article at all? Why is his immigration trial in the article?


 * This article is about allegations of state terrorism by the US. Luis Posada Carriles has (apparently) not been accused of US state terrorism, but of doing it for Latin American nations. Why is he in the article if there is no US state terrorism association but only an immigration proceeding?


 * I know nothing yet about "the struggle for the liberation of the five Cubans anti-terrorist fighters imprisoned in the United States. It doesn't sound like they have anything to do with allegations of US state terrorism either? Please explain this link? Raggz (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is -- since yo openly admit to knowing nothing about these matters -- that you should stop editing until you do. Stone put to sky (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Will you please address this issue? Tacit consensus appears to have been reached in this section due to the lack of discussion on the point raised. Does anyone have anything to add? There needs to be some link to the article's topic for this to remain. For example: a link between US immigration policy as terrorism would do this. Raggz (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With an absence of comment, tacit consensus is presumed. Raggz (talk) 08:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Presume whatever you like. In reality, there is no tacit consensus. Silly rabbit (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is all that you needed to add to this section then? Raggz (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Luis Posada Carriles
Is the inclusion of Luis Posada Carriles within this article orginal research? I have read ten or so articles about him and can find no link to any alleged act of terrorism by the US. There are allegations of terrorism after he served in the CIA and US Army, but these are for Venezuela and other nations, not the US. Is there a reliable source that suggests that he had any role in state terrorism by the US? Raggz (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Carriles has been accused of planning terrorist acts involving the bombing of hotels in Cuba and the Cuban airliner in Barbados. That's the Cuban connection. While I did not have a hand in editing the Cuba stuff, it seems an important volume is Superpower Principles: U.S. Terrorism against Cuba, an anthology featuring essays by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, William Blum, Nadine Gordimer, Michael Parenti, Leonard Weinglass and others.[]. The president of the National Lawyer's Guild, Michael Avery has specifically covered the topic of Luis Posada Carriles in the recording here []. After listening to the talk, which encompasses the training of Carides, his continued support by the U.S. even when the FBI and the CIA had knowledge of his plans to commit terrorist acts, and the impunity granted to him thereafter, I fail to see how anyone could deny that allegations of significant U.S. complicity in his actions are not worth hearing.BernardL (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The key to supporting your argument is to offer a reliable source that links this terrorist to the US after he left the CIA and moved to Venezuela. This source is lacking, which by itself makes the entire section OR.


 * The next issue is if the source cited is speculating - or if the source can confirm a US connection with this terrorist. This distinction is important for the text of the article. Presently it reads as though there was a proven link to the US.


 * I have no problem at all with including this text, if (1) there are reliable sources and (2) they are properly characterized as speculative or confirming. The best confirmation would be a court verdict that he was a terrorist employed by the US, but perhaps you will discover some other means of confirmation such as a confession. The source cited was reliable, and it confirmed that he was a CIA employee prior to becoming a terrorist.


 * Alternatively, if you can establish that the Bay of Pigs was not a military invasion of Cuba, but was a form of terrorism, then the above need not apply. He is reliably established to have been involved.


 * I will be away for a few days, but will respond then. Raggz (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "I fail to see how anyone could deny that allegations of significant U.S. complicity in his actions are not worth hearing." Fine. All you need is a reliable source to establish state terrorism. Presently there are only reliable sources that establish that the US immigration policies are challenged by Cuba. There is one citation that alleges that US immigration policy is terrorism. Are we debating if US immigration policy qualifies as "state terrorism? If not, what are we debating? Raggz (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With an absence of comment, tacit consensus is presumed. Raggz (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is considerably more than the Cuba challenge. The U.S. is in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which prohibits any country giving safe haven or assistance to people involved in present or past terrorist activities. President Bush admitted giving safe haven to Carriles was an act of terrorism when he stated in October 2002 "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves". Wayne (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Has the UNSC found that your allegation is true? Do you have a reliable source that says that the UNSC has found: "The U.S. is in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 which prohibits any country giving safe haven or assistance to people involved in present or past terrorist activities."?


 * Has Carriles been convicted of anything? What and where? Raggz (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

American military interventions
"Defenders of U.S. policy argue that American military interventions were justified in response to threats such as terrorism and Soviet aggression,[5] and in the end produced superior governments and freer societies.[6]" American military interventions are not synonomous with state terrorism, are they? The citations offered are irrelevant because they defend American military interventions and not the subject of the article, state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are parsing the paragraphs wrong. Clearly there is a dichotomy set up between the acts which are considered terrorism by the rest of the world, and the U.S. defense of those acts as "military interventions". There is nothing in here that makes any categorical statement about U.S. military interventions, and your attempt to parse this particular sentence in that way suggests that your reading skills need to undergo a bit more development before you take it upon yourself to start authoring an encyclopedia article. !


 * Who wrote that above?


 * Please address the question? Does anyone assert that this text complies with NPOV? Raggz (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

American hypocrisy
Is there a need to discuss this topic in this article? "Critics maintain that the U.S. government is hypocritical because it regularly asserts a public image and agenda of anti-terrorism, and as such has two foreign policies, one publicly stated and the other covertly applied.[3][4]" Does anyone speak for this text? I challenge the relevancy of hypocrisy. Raggz (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already replied to this challenge below. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not found any reliable source that establishes that hypocrisy is a form of state terrorism. Please add it here? Without it I will assert tacit consensus. Raggz (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An assertion which would, of course, mean nothing. There is a strong explicit consensus on this page to reject any claims of "tacit consensus" so any attempt to assert "tacit consensus" is quite irrelevant, here or anywhere else.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read Consensus. You need to participate in the subject being discussed, need to try to reach consensus. If you do so, then there may be no consensus.


 * Let's do this the easy way? I am not following your objection.


 * Do we a reliable source that hypocrisy is a form of state terrorism?
 * If so, do we agree to write the article so that the reader clearly understands that state terrorism really means hypocrisy for the related text? Raggz (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does the article state that hypocrisy is state terrorism? Nowhere. What is the problem? I'm not sure. We all know what the title of the article is, but that does not mean that every single sentence needs to relate to the title precisely, i.e. that every sentence needs to be an allegation of US terrorism. Explaining that some critics who accuse the US of state terrorism see their foreign policy rhetoric as different from their real actions is highly, highly relevant info to this article. There is no reliable source that says hypocrisy is terrorism but of course that is neither here nor there since no one has ever said (in the article or on the talk page) that it is. You acknowledged at some point that you use straw men as a rhetorical tactic (it's a bad tactic FYI) so I hope you are not doing that here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "We all know what the title of the article is, but that does not mean that every single sentence needs to relate to the title precisely, i.e. that every sentence needs to be an allegation of US terrorism." Agreed. But every sentence does need to directly relate. In many cases this connection is unclear.


 * "Explaining that some critics who accuse the US of state terrorism see their foreign policy rhetoric as different from their real actions is highly, highly relevant info to this article." I do not understand why. Such has been the action of every state into antiquity? Can you name one exception? Why is this relevant if every state in every age has done so?


 * "You acknowledged at some point that you use straw men as a rhetorical tactic (it's a bad tactic FYI) so I hope you are not doing that here." If you read WP policy on the Straw Man, it is sometimes a valid method.


 * You neglected to address my questions: (1) Do we a reliable source that hypocrisy is a form of state terrorism? (2) If so, do we agree to write the article so that the reader clearly understands that state terrorism really means hypocrisy for the related text? Raggz (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I answered your first question quite clearly when I said "There is no reliable source that says hypocrisy is terrorism." Not sure how you missed that. Obviously thus my answer to number two is no. Hypocrisy is not terrorism, no one has suggested it is, let's drop it.


 * So the question is whether we are allowed to say that commentators who accuse the US of state terrorism view the US rhetoric about anti-terrorism as hypocritical given the US's real actions. I think it is very relevant to the article and "directly relates" to the issue at hand (I would not be averse to a re-wording of "hypocrisy" to something similar but perhaps less loaded). You disagree with me and there we are. Perhaps others will weigh in, but please don't bring up the "hypocrisy is state terrorism" point again. It has no bearing on the debate since the article does not say that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Bay of Pigs

 * Cuba sues U.S. for billions, alleging 'war' damages. CNN (1999-06-02). Retrieved on 2007-07-10.
 * An error that runs through the Cuban section is that the Bay of Pigs invasion was actually not a military invasion but was state terrorism. Clearly (from my pov) this is an unsupportable assertion, but I am open to hearing from anyone who believes that it was state terrorism. Does anyone believe this?


 * I propose to delete the CNN citation because it only discusses the Bay of Pigs and does not mention state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tricky case. It was certainly a covert operation. Do we have any reliable sources calling it state terrorism? // Liftarn (talk)


 * This is another straw man tactic, Raggz. Where does the article mention Bay of Pigs, and why do you object to it?  Why do you object to the CNN source?  It certainly mentions the Bay of Pigs, but it also includes statements such as the following:
 * And it details a history of "terrorism" allegedly supported by the United States, from the 1976 blowing up of a Cuban plane, killing all 73 on board, to the 1997 bombing campaign at Havana hotels that killed an Italian tourist.
 * You have misrepresented the source, and indeed the article, as though they only referred to the Bay of Pigs. By the way, this article only mentions the Bay of Pigs once, and not as an example of state-sponsored terrorism.  Silly rabbit (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Cuban material lacks even one citation connecting the US with state terrorism. For this reason it is all OR. Does the CNN article state that the US was involved in state terrorism? I read it carefully, and did not see any such text. I deleted a lot of references that only referred to the Bay of Pigs, which had nothing at all to do with terrorism. The writer seemed to think that it did.


 * I don't recall the word "allegedly" as a US link, but I could be in error. If it is not there it is OR. If it is there, does the article make it clear that the link is mere speculation? If not, it then deserves deletion or revision. Raggz (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Straw Man I do sometimes employ a version of the straw man as a rhetorical device for the purpose of seeking consensus. "However, carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. Instead, it restricts the scope of the opponent's argument, either to where the argument is no longer relevant or as a step of a proof by exhaustion." In my opinion, any honest rhetorical means to reach Consensus is a good thing. If your claims are improperly oversimplified, merely correct this.


 * Silly rabbit: You have misrepresented the source, and indeed the article, as though they only referred to the Bay of Pigs. By the way, this article only mentions the Bay of Pigs once, and not as an example of state-sponsored terrorism. I would have to go back a ways to evaluate your concern, and I will if you insist. However there are no reliable sources for anything related to Cuba that alleges state terrorism except for US immigration policy. Please give us an example of one that does make this connection? Without a link to whatever may or may not have happened decades ago in Cuba, how do we establish state terrorism - and by what definition? Raggz (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, it does not make me feel more inclined to cooperate with you, and so is therefore not in the interest of consensus-building. Please knock it off.  State your case honestly, and be willing to be overruled.  Silly rabbit (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Cuba is suing the US, as a party to a lawsuit, their staements on the subject of the suit may be presumed prejudiced. No connection between the Bay of Pigs and state terrorism by the US has been established by a single reliable source. We appear to have tacit consensus for some serious pruning of orginal research. Raggz (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No tacit consensus. I have responded to you, and you openly admit to not having read the article or the source carefully.  So please, where are you pulling this magical consensus from?  Silly rabbit (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now Silly rabbit, you have invented magical consensus? I like this... Cool.


 * May the plantiff in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit be considered to be a reliable source when they are reporting on their own lawsuit as a journalist? Granma has this role for this topic? If so, is Granma a reliable source? I say no. Do we now have magical consensus? Raggz (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have addressed your original concern (a CNN cite). Now you appear to be inventing concerns which were not even part of this thread.  What are you going on about this time Raggz?  Silly rabbit (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Raggz, please stop it. Silly rabbit was not "inventing" magical consensus--the user was characterizing your assertion of "consensus" as "magical," i.e. not real. I don't know whether or not your misreading of SR's comment was willful but I don't really care. You are editing in a disruptive fashion when you make comments like your previous one. Stop. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, no more magical consensus. She used it, I liked it, but you don't, so fine. Raggz (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you ignored my substantive point about your wild misreading of SR's comment (and your further obfuscation by claiming that SR "liked" magical consensus) is duly noted.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WHAT? I liked it, she said it. Maybe it is time to take a break. You seem to be getting heated up?


 * I will be happy to address your question, could you cut & paste it so I know what it is?


 * I repeat my prior question that remains unanswered: "May the plantiff in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit be considered to be a reliable source when they are reporting on their own lawsuit as a journalist? Granma has this role for this topic? If so, is Granma a reliable source? " (Unsigned comment by User:Raggz, around 06:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC))

Raggz, your question is irrelevant to the subject under discussion. Allow me to redirect your attention to the beginning of the thread, which you had some problem with:
 * Cuba sues U.S. for billions, alleging 'war' damages. CNN (1999-06-02). Retrieved on 2007-07-10.

This is not about a granma citation, so stop pretending that it is. CNN is doing the reporting, not granma. Granma is a plaintiff in the case, so they are certainly allowed to make "Allegations" (that is what plaintiffs do, after all). Silly rabbit (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies to Raggz for misreading who "liked" the magical consensus formulation. However the point in my previous comment about misrepresenting user comments and ignoring other users who point this out still stands.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Omega 7 & Alpha 66
From WP as cited: ''"Omega 7 was a small Cuban exile right-wing nationalist paramilitary terrorist group based in Florida and New York whose stated goal was to overthrow Fidel Castro. It is now said to be disbanded, its leaders imprisoned in the United States. It is considered a terrorist organization by the Cuban government as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigations. According to the FBI, Omega 7 members are mostly Bay of Pigs veterans trained in demolition, intelligence, and commando techniques. Omega 7 operated internationally but is said to have carried out most of its attacks in the US, these were mainly car bombings and direct assassinations, most of them done in a very flawless and difficult to trace manner. An internal split in the group helped the FBI to play the factions against each other leading to the imprisonment of key figures.

These paramilitaries have been accused of plotting and carrying out numerous assassinations of Cuban communist political leaders as well as attacks on targets, including Cuban airliners, Cuban government run hotels, embassies, and ships. A famous brother group was Alpha 66 (still existent)."

Omega 7 and Alpha 66 members have been classified as terrorists and have been arrested by the US. While reliable sources suggest that these are terrorist organizations, are there any linking them to US state terrorism. There seem none, so I suggest deletion of the related text. Any objections? Raggz (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tacit consensus appears to have been reached in this section. Does anyone have anything to add? Raggz (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what part of the article is being brought up since Raggz did not explain that. But I will submit a pro forma objection to the assertion of "tacit consensus" both here and anywhere else on the page. Raggz can detail the specific passage from the article that s/he has a problem with if that user wants the discussion to continue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read above? There is no linkage to the US, nor to state terrorism? There seems to be consensus for removing this material, as there seems no connection to the US, no reliable sources.


 * Your pro forma objection needs to also involve actual discussion on the topics being discussed. If you actually object, please detail your concerns? Raggz (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Re-read my comment. I asked you to detail the specific passage from the article with which you have a problem--I'm not going hunting for it. Please tell us the section and quote the passage directly. Then I'll comment on it. Again, there is no consensus. If you think that no one responding to one of 50 posts you made means "consensus" then you do not understand how that policy works on a contentious page like this one. But tell me specifically what you are concerned about here and maybe you can achieve actual consensus.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There seem to be no reliable sources that connect Omega 7 & Alpha 66 to any act of state terrorism by the US? The cites seem only to link Omega 7 & Alpha 66 to terrorism? Omega 7 & Alpha 66 are not the subject of this article. Is there linkage to the Topic? Raggz (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the love of God, what specific passage in the article are you talking about? This is the third time I've asked you to point me to the relevant section and passage and explain your concern in that context. Why is it so difficult for you to answer a simple question? If you do not answer this incredibly, incredibly straightforward question with your next post here I will assume you are either intentionally obfuscating or simply unable to communicate well enough to work in a collaborative fashion on Wikipedia. I'll ask again in boldface so there is no confusion:


 * What is the section of the article with which you are concerned? What is the specific passage (or passages) in that section which you see as problematic? What specifically is your problem with it?


 * Please answer here, thank you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)