Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 24

Proposed deletion/move to another article

 * ''According to Reality of Aid, in the period from 2000 to 2003, military loans and grants to the Philippines from the U.S. grew by 1,776 percent. As of 2005, according to President Arroyo the Philippines were the largest recipient of U.S. military aid in Asia and fourth worldwide; aid since then has continued to increase. U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to the Philippines almost trebled from $30 million in 2004 to $80 million in 2005, with the bulk of that money used to upgrade Philippine marine and counter-terrorism capabilities. Allegedly, development aid has been used "to intensify [military] attack[s]...against unarmed civilians including the leaders and members of legal people's organizations.""While development aid may be used for livelihood projects, infrastructure, or social services, we fear that the AFP will only use such projects to gather intelligence or launch special operations in communities that they believe are NPA bases."


 * ''By late 2006, the United States had given roughly US$300 million of aid to the AFP and delivered hundreds of American soldiers to organize and execute extended training exercises with the Filipino police and military apparatus. In May of 2006 the Philippines and the U.S. approved an agreement to establish a formal board to "determine and discuss the possibility of holding joint U.S.-Philippine military exercises against terrorism and other non-traditional security concerns.".


 * ''The United States &mdash; through the person of National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley &mdash; has broadly "congratulated the government of the Philippines...for [its] achievements [in anti-terror military actions] while at the same time acknowledging the valuable role of [its] partnership with the United States".


 * ''General Jovito Palparan has been widely condemned for his roles in the killings; notorious as the 'Butcher of Mindoro", Palparan has been officially condemned by official Philippine investigations as responsible for an extensively documented, long list of gross human rights abuses.    For instance, "[w]hen Palparan was assigned to Central Luzon in September 2005, the number of political assassinations in that region alone jumped to 52 in four months. Prior to his promotion, the regions with the largest number of summary executions like Eastern Visayas and Central Luzon were under then-Colonel Palparan." In an opinion article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer Palparan was quoted as saying: The killings are being attributed to me but I did not kill them. I just inspire the triggermen...Their disappearance is good for us but as to who abducted them, we don’t know....I encourage people victimized by communist rebels to get even. }}


 * ''President Arroyo's promotion of him to one-star general has been widely condemned as a gesture of support for military-backed state terrorism. Palparan has received advanced training and official support from the U.S. government, as well as heading up the Philippine forces in the initial 2001 invasion of Iraq.

None of this material accuses the US of state terrorism. Violates WP:SYN to argue that. Should be deleted or moved to articles like Human rights in the Philippines or Philippines-United States relations.Ultramarine (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It should just be removed. I'd love someone to try to explain with a straight face how simple foreign aid could possibly be construed as any kind of terrorims. Jtrainor (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure its quite so simple. Giving people money that you know full well will be used for terrorism is in itself aiding terrorism, though whether its actually terrorism is a bit harder. But certainly all the second part should go William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The accusation has already been made in a source that the funding of their military to carry out the acts they did with it, were terrorism. Clearly showing the relevance. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Violates WP:SYN. That another source accuses the US of state terrorism does not mean that these sources do.Ultramarine (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."Ultramarine (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify further, aid does not mean support for everything done. Quite often aid has various strings attached. For all we know the situation would be much worse without the US using aid as a leverage to decrease the human rights violations which in fact have decreased dramatically in 2007.Ultramarine (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OY VEY!TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ?Ultramarine (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ''The Ecumenical Movement for Justice and Peace documents that most of the human rights violations were committed by the AFP, the Philippine National Police, and the CAFGU (Civilian Armed Forces Government Units) under the mantle of the anti-insurgency campaign initially created as one arm of the U.S. War on Terror.


 * ''From the beginning &mdash; as early as 2001 &mdash; the U.S. State Department publicly acknowledged in a published report that "Members of the [Philippines'] security services were responsible for extra-judicial killings, disappearances, torture, and arbitrary arrest and detention," In the same report, the State Department admitted that the presence of U.S. Special Forces and other military advisers had "helped create an environment in which human rights abuses increased", commenting that 'there were allegations by human rights groups that these problems worsened as the Government sought to intensify its campaign against the terrorist Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG).'" Further, in 2003 the U.S. government &mdash; in anticipation that its military personnel would be charged with human rights abuses &mdash; offered the Philippines' government an extra US$30 million of military aid in exchange for "an agreement that would exempt U.S. soldiers operating in the Philippines from the International Criminal Court".

Again this material makes no accusation of US state terrorism. Should be deleted or moved to more general US foreign policy criticism articles or articles about US-Philippine relations.Ultramarine (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WMC's deletions
Can people answer the following questions, if possible:


 * What proportion of WMC's deletions of material in the Central American sections and others are not in the sub-articles?
 * Is there any objection to moving them there per WP:SS?
 * Which of WMC's deletions removed material that was specific to terroristic acts or support of terroristic acts? If they're listed one-by-one, we can look at them with fresh eyes.
 * What is everyone's opinion of an ideal size for this article? -- Relata refero (disp.) 19:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Size: substantially smaller than now. Otherwise, I'll repeat what I've said above: (a) stuff that can be in sub-articles, should be (b) this article needs refocussing away from being a laundry-list and towards analysis William M. Connolley (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Excessive content is being deleted. Rather than deleting whole swaths of content, I will agree that eventually section sizes can be decreased, assuming that all content is transferred to the daughter articles and summarized here. But until that is done, keep everything that was in the article here, then work on one section at a time. — Becksguy (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The article is bloated with barely relevant material. Some of it is already gone. I don't see any of the people who claim to care about this content doing anything to make sure its preserved in daughter articles. Why not? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Partially because it takes so much time to make sure that no more information is being deleted from THIS article that there is no leftover time to defend the daughter articles from POV pushers as well. Sometimes you gotta pick your battles.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Much of the material is already in the proper articles like Human rights in the Philippines, Salvadoran Civil War, Guatemalan Civil War etc. No need for this article to duplicate background material not mentioning the US at all.Ultramarine (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats excuse-making, and not at all convincing. The page is fairly stable at the moment, and whats come and gone can be easily checked. And of course its all available in the history. Face it: all those people who complained so much about "valuable" material being cut have done nothing to salvage it. Go on, please, prove me wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, just because you say so doesn't mean that I have unlimited time and energy to keep abreast of every article and Afd related to each of those articles that I am potentially interested in. When this current sham of AfD is closed then future steps can be reviewed.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When you block the people reverting you, against the version you created, its no wonder. Your continued insinuation that your violation of the rules of being an admin, and the punishment you lay out to keep your version as acceptable, may mean its time for a larger community input into your actions on this article. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been numerous editors creating the current version. The many sockpuppets reverting all changes are not interesting.Ultramarine (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as terrorism against this article, because it's in a state of war. More seriously, I would now prefer the longer version kept so that it can be edited down to a summary form with unreliable sources expunged (because it's logistically easier than searching through old versions for material), but I'm not about to take a hand in this stupid revert war. Just because I'm not reverting the reverts, doesn't mean I for one agree with them. It just means I respect the spirit of the WP:BATTLE and WP:3RR policies. With respect to WMC's approach of trimming articles down to the first paragraphs in the hopes that they would be edited into good summaries of the removed material, while I gave it the benefit of the doubt at first it now doesn't seem to have worked. It just made people angry and distrustful and has moved the edit war to a new front line. I believe it would be easier to start with the longer version and trim it down one section at a time, but if the new summary-form version has to be built from deleted material instead then so be it.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was starting to be trimmed long before WMC edited. I agree that this article has been a battleground. It will continue to be so until we agree on same basic rules regarding the article. 1. This is a general US criticism article for dumping all kinds of US criticisms. A variant of this frequently mentioned is that if a single source accuses the US for state terrorism in some nation, then we can cite any other criticism of the US or the allied nation as being state terrorism regardless of it the source make such an allegation or not. 2. Sources must accuse the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your continued repetition of this false statement does not make it any more true the thousandth time you say it than it did the first 999. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not? Please explain.Ultramarine (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, my dear young friend, if simply repeating something often enough made it true, there would have been Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq and Sadaam Hussein would have had strong ties to the 9/11 bombers. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do not explain why the argument is wrong, then the issue is settled.Ultramarine (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Answering your question 1001 times will not help this debate if you continue to not read the answer. Your 'concerns' have been addressed and disposed of multiple times on this page and in the archives. Go back and read them. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Answering once will be fine. What is your answer?Ultramarine (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we are done, because we have answered multiple multiple multiple times. Go back and read and leave this poor poor poor dead horse be. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it has, then you can simply state it here so the issue will be settled.Ultramarine (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is reverting between verbose and cut-down states, which is what it was also doing before WMC. There was and is no movement in a specific direction, just an oscillation. I agree entirely that only sources who accuse the US of terrorism should be included. They don't have to say the word "state" because the US is a state/nation so it's implied, so long as they are talking about government decisions. There are a number of such sources in the article, some of which are blinking on and off in the edit war. Let's address each section one at a time, cutting each one down to a summary of the arguments that are directly about US terrorism. Please join us in the Japan 1945 discussion to help promote the construction process.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Democide
Democide has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism. So the article should have a short summary of such research and US role.Ultramarine (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move
moved. JPG-GR (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed below that State terrorism and the United States be renamed and moved to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.


 * Support as it is an allegation, not a relationship.  Yahel  Guhan  05:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as the experimental wider scope has failed to materialize. — the Sidhekin (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support finally, let's get back on topic! Igor Berger (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as current title includes both terrorism against the US and terrorism by the US which don't work well together in an article, and because the "allegation" wording is neutral (it doesn't state the existence or non-existence of US state-terrorism)--Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The original move was unilateral anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - This naming would be in line with other similar articles in State terrorism, is more narrowly and better focused (the existing scope was too wide; terrorism against the US should be a separate subject), describes more clearly what the subject is for readers (State terrorism and the US was just too vague), and the proposed title is more neutral, per WP:NPOV. — Becksguy (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the "allegation" wording is neutral, then why not change all articles on terrorism to "alleged X". We should change the "Terrorism" article to "Allegations of Terorrism." Why isn't the "Eco-terrorism" article called "Alegations of Ecxo-terrorism"? See what I mean? The gray area about by/against can be addressed by calling it "State Terrorism by the US." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosuperpower (talk • contribs) 08:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support In line with the other "state terrorism" articles. Also WP:Words to avoid: "Example: an article title 'Israeli terrorism' inherently implies that Wikipedia takes a view that Israel's actions are considered terrorism; similarly for 'Islamic terrorism'." So inserting allegations is necessary.Ultramarine (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Allegations articles are for specific allegations. We want this article to discuss the analysis of US actions and to what degree they have impacted and overlap with the definitions of state terrorism. There is absolutely no policy-based justification to moving this to a less-academically recognisable title. -- Relata refero (disp.) 09:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See Words to avoid as stated above. Also, "state terrorism" has no agreed on definition. See the state terrorism article. Which makes allegations an appropriate title.Ultramarine (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except this article isn't about allegations alone. I note also that any WTA-based objection would be valid if the article was American State Terrorism. "Allegations of X" in an article analysing discussions that are a long way from "allegations" is simply not OK in my book. -- Relata refero (disp.) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "American State Terrorism" and "United States and state terrorism" are not allowed for the reason stated in WP:WTA. They imply that US actions are in fact proven to be "state terrorism". Which cannot be the case since there is no definition, legal or otherwise, on what "state terrorism" is. It is just a perjorative term used by certain sensationalist US critics. Which is why the other articles on "state terrorism" are appropriately called "Allegations...".Ultramarine (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see that implication at all. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support I don't think using the word means WP is taking a stand. Its not more NPOV, and not needed. But I'm ok with trying it. There was some discussion above about 'Political Violence" being added to the title. We might want to try that: Allegations of State Terrorism and Political Violence by the US? We don't want too broad as it would bury this topic/subject, nor so constrained that it we have edit warring about what is to be included or not to explain the topic/subject. I think including both terms is just right for the article topic.Supergreenred (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mixed. By is clearly an improvement on and but "allegations" is weasel wording. --BozMo talk 10:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alleged is an acceptable term according to Words to Avoid Ultramarine (talk) 10:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but doesn't change the fact that it is weasel here. State terrorism by the United States is a real and notable as a topic regardless of whether it is real (cf God). It is weasel wording to put questions into the title (we don't have allegations of God existing. --BozMo talk 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again see WP:Words to avoid for not allowed titles: "Example: an article title 'Israeli terrorism' inherently implies that Wikipedia takes a view that Israel's actions are considered terrorism; similarly for 'Islamic terrorism'." So alleged or some similar construction is necessary. All the other state terrorism articles are called "Allegations", like Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, Allegations of Iranian state terrorism, and Allegations of state terrorism by Russia.Ultramarine (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The first point is rather weak but the second is a strong argument. America may be the largest state sponsor of terrorism but it isn't a special case and I agree should fit the pattern. --BozMo talk 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * America is not major sponsor of terrorism. All the accusations against the US added together are less than those killed by for example the Soviet Union in only the Great Terror. See also democide for the real killers.Ultramarine (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I carefully said it may be not it was. However, it is obvious that it may be, depending on how you play with definitions, what timescale and whether you normalise per head of population. It is also obvious that it may not be. Anyone care? --BozMo talk 14:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Normalizing per head would certainly place the US very low. Would probably place the Red Khmers at the top.Ultramarine (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Although I think the original intention behind moving the title was an honest one, the old title would allow for a tighter article. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Tighter and more accurate. - Merzbow (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This appears to have overwhelming support (something we can (nearly) all agree on !?!). I'm going to do it soon, unless someone beats me to it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Ironically onto a chain of pages with comments like "moved State terrorism and the United States to Allegations of State terrorism by critics of the United States ‎ (Move back to original title after no consensus rename.)" and "moved Allegations of state terrorism by the United States to Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States: This is an uncontroversial move to reduced ambiguity in the wording of the title"... William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've left off editing this article for the time being, hallelujah, but as the one who suggested (but did not execute) the move to "State Terrorism and the United States" I regret that that title does not seem to work for most people. The goal of that title was to: A) Make the title more concise, since the "Allegations" one is absurdly long; 2) Create a more flexible topic whereby we addressed the general relationship between the US and the concept of "state terror" from a variety of perspectives; G) (my numbering might be screwed up here...I think G comes after two) Specifically with respect to point 2, I was hoping the title would open the article to accusations made by the US against other nations, thus providing balance to the article and a better sense of how the United States government has defined "state terrorism" over the years (I was hoping for some research into the Cold War and US thoughts on actions by the USSR and their proxies - a topic which will necessarily be excluded given the current title). It seemed like a novel solution to a number of problems, but oh well. Also it probably would have been better to move it to "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States," another former title. There is a wording ambiguity in the current title in that it can refer to allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States and to allegations of state terrorism made by the United States, as in US accusations against others (which is why the word committed was added in the first place I believe). If this is to be an article that addresses broader connections between the US and the notion of state terror then clearly the previous title makes more sense, but because it apparently is not at this point I think we need the word committed in there. Also this talk page needs to be moved to the new title.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 23:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bigtimepeace. The grammatical inconsistency in the title "Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States" raises issues. It could refer to allegations made by the US, allegations directed at the US, or both. No matter what the case, no article title should confuse or render ambiguous the scope of an article. Random  89  05:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose - "allegations" is pretty much all the evidence I need to be convinced this article fails nearly every major policy. Sceptre (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protected/unprotected
I don't think this article nees protection, it just needs people not to edit it disruptively. We clearly have a consensus for a shorter article; on that basis I've blocked Travb William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion on AN/I regarding this block as you are clearly in a content dispute by your participation here. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The history shows that it's a WP:BATTLEGROUND and that editors need blocking and the article needs protection until they learn to stop the edit wars and start building consensus. Also, there is no consensus for a shorter article. That's a major part of the dispute, and in this case, size matters. Too much valuable stuff is being deleted. — Becksguy (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what material? Much of the material is already in other articles. Like the extremely long background sections not mentioning the US at all.Ultramarine (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Awful, awful block. WMC, either you are here as an editor or an admin (it seems to be the former). Please don't protect or unprotect the page or block editors if you are here to work on the article. Blocking an editor with whom you are in a content dispute is wildly inappropriate (per the blocking policy, "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators" in case anyone is unsure about this). Whether or not "editors need blocking" is completely beside the point. If William M. Connolley is editing here he has no business blocking anyone (which is why his block of Travb was promptly overturned on AN/I).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't quite so. Will can block people if they have clearly violated a rule, such as 3RR or repeated vandalism. When it comes to things like "admin's discretion" (e.g. disruption as in this case) it's quite different. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if you look at the edit-summary you will see that Trav was edit-warring with another user, not Will. The page was protected by Tariq, so in many respects Will was not engaged in the dispute when he blocked. In any case, the point is moot as Trav has been re-blocked. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have extended the WP:ANI discussion, not only to try to fix the wheel-war occurring over Travb's block, but also for WMC to explain his edits to the article after he protected it himself. Black Kite 00:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm disturbed by the POV use of administrator tools in this content dispute. One side calls the other that they disagree with as being "disruptive' and blocks them, to restore the content they want (which is really removing most of the best content). And they do so against consensus. The admin, protects the article, makes massive changes--through protection--without allowing for consensus or discussion first, and then blocks a number of editors who opposed him, and reverts again. So who is being the disruptive one? Who is violating core policies? Who is abusing their admin tools? I think this may be a case for de-sysoping, if this abusive conduct continues. In the meanwhile I do intend to restore the legitimate content that was added through consensus, and which should never have been blanked without discussion in the very least, to to mention consensus. When we have consensus for massive changes like that, then it would be fine. Until then I will restore the material, unless someone else does so earlier. I also note that the block aginst Trav is wrong on a number of levels, and that its only one side of the POV dispute that is being punished: not one of the editors deleting the material is blocked despite their edit warring, and doing so against consensus to boot.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * William Connelly says..."We have clearly have consensus for a shorter article." You are missing the point- there is no consensus whatsoever for the "shorter" version based on your mass deletions. Why are you pretending that there is? And why are you engaging in admin actions when you are clearly no longer an uninvolved and neutral administrator? ie:) after you blocked a user who was involved in an edit war with you, after you arbitrarily removed large swathes of material without sufficient prior communication with editors, or after you voted for the deletion of the article (which incidentally makes your exhortations to others to improve the article seem pretty contradictory). BernardL (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is consensu for the shorter version (it should be even shorter if it were up to me).  If your complaining that a European green party editor is too right wing to edit this article, then it shows how far gone this article is.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is definitely consensus for a shorter version and for removal of off-topic material as well as material duplicated in other articles (the latter leads to the former). The false consensus headed up by SPTS and the various sockpuppets around here doesn't count for anythign at all. Jtrainor (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is false. The massive deletions occurred prior to any discussion and editors protested through reverts and other means. The mass deletions were done by force, using admin tools, and without consensus. The Japan section was removed simply because the editor personally doens't think its "state terrorism." Its as if WP rules and policies are being ignored here, consensus is being ignored, and now you are reinventing reality. As far as what someone's politics are, that is irrelevant. What is relevant is using your political views as a basis to POV push here, evidence by the desire to blank sourced information because one doesn't personally agree with the views.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no "clear consensus" and WCM professed political values are not relevant. He used admin tools to make mass deletions, including some very reliably sourced and topical material, taking a side in the dispute rather than more patiently finding a proactive way to lead all parties in the dispute to a consensus. This mass deletion was immediately protested in a civil manner, by myself and another editor; and since several editors on this talk page and elsewhere have indicated disapproval of the mass deletions. WCM, who has long since forfeited a position of administrative neutrality, simply declared "clear consensus" when it never actually existed. All in all, it's the worst display of administrative incompetence I have ever witnessed.BernardL (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to talk competence, you could try getting my initials right. Spelling my full name is quite tricky, so I won't expect that of you, but most people manage "WMC" without trying too hard. There is now a chance to contructively edit this page: the worst of the abusive socks are now blocked. Restoring their edits as Travb does won't be viewed as construvtive, though. Thankfully no-one else is doing that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wont be viewed as constructive by yourself who removed them without adequate discussion and consensus, of course. But lets not speak for everyone here. I view the removal as not constructive and their return to be the proper and right thing to do. We can then talk about what constructive changes to make to the article without any advantage of admin tools in doing so.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have filed an RFC regarding Williams participation here, particularly his misuse of admin tools. Please keep it all civil. Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2 --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think an RfC is at all a good idea at this time (it's an escalation that will help nothing) and I certainly won't be participating in it. However I again ask WMC to refrain from using his admin tools on this article as he is clearly involved now (simply stating that he will not do this, per our policy, would be much appreciated and help to lessen tensions). We also need to drop the sniping tone and the accusations of bad faith from both sides. There were clearly socks here and that was bad, but it is wrong to suggest, as WMC seems to be doing, that anyone who restores the material he deleted is acting like a sockpuppet. Most of it was written by good faith contributors. For example nearly a year ago I spent several hours adding material to the Guatemala section based on a scholarly book and a scholarly article. It was there for about 10 months (and it did achieve relative consensus for addition in case anyone is wondering, I think even Ultramarine agreed to it at the time if I recall) and then was deleted a little while ago (fine). Likewise I added material to the Japan section at one point, all of which was deleted (though it's partially back now). If I argue to add those back in and eventually do so I don't think that means I am mimicking abusive socks. Probably it was not intended, but WMC's tone in the statement that restoring what he deleted "won't be viewed as constructive, though. Thankfully no-one else is doing that" comes off as a bit threatening, particularly when he has already blocked one user who went against his edits. Let's try to de-escalate the tension here rather than filing RfC's and issuing (what some might view as) veiled threats.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would love to agree with you, however he has blocked two users he was in content disputes with, protected an article and edited it, and removed protection after it was instituted by an uninvolved admin. That is 3 cases of admin tools being abused in relation to the article, which is also why the RfC deals solely with this article and asks for remedies only on this article. If WMC would state he is going to be more civil and not use his admin tools at all on this article except in the case of BLP or WP:OFFICE, etc, items covered under exceptions, I would feel better about dropping it. However even people asking, unrelated people, what he was doing in those edits, have been called trouble makers. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Anti-americanism categorization
There is nothing inherently anti-American about claiming U.S. gov't policies were significantly responsible in propagating and committing state terrorism. Several sources are known to praise the US in other respects. Richard Falk, for example, has praised the U.S. historical example in fostering international human law, although he is critical of what he regards as a progressive degradation of that tradition since WWII. Many analysts here are in fact acting out of concern for America, in some cases citing the what they feel are the negative domestic impact of state terrorist policies.BernardL (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is clearly wrong to place this under the category "anti-Americanism" (did that happen at some point? I don't see it offhand). One can accuse the US of state terrorism without being anti-American (I agree with some of those accusations, and I am certainly not anti-American). Of course some of the folks making accusations might qualify as holding anti-American beliefs, but that is not at all intrinsically the case with this topic.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it happens periodically. BernardL was correct to revert that.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan and World War II
It is most unfortunate to see so much argumentation here but without a great deal of substance for argument. Too much polarization between camps causes blinding light between them. One thing for sure, a lot of information was taken out of the article very quickly. I looked and a lot looks very good!

I have only put back the Atomic Bombings of Japan. This is important information to the topic here and of State Terrorism. Much scholarship argues that the institutionalized form of terrorism, what we call "state terrorism" came about within the global system of international relations as a result of changes that took place following World War ll. Much of the literature talks about state terrorism as a form of foregn policy shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass desctruction in that war. That the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of state behavior. The argument is discussed for exmample by Prof. Micahel Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988. I have read quite a bit about State Terrorism and this section provides and expository presentation to some of these ideas that are so central: the use of the atomic bombings and other bombings form the war are notable examples of State Terrorism. I can certainly expand it signifiantly, but I know the topic is that of the US role in State Terrorism. I also want to hear if people think its already too large. That seems to be part of the conflict going on now. So I won't add more information to it at this time. I do hope to have fruitful discussion by well meaning editors who share a knowlege and interest in this hot subject. But I know the article has a big hole if this is left out.DrGabriela (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed the material not discussing state terrorism. Background and question of justification discussed in the main article on this. Where both sides are presented.Ultramarine (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well thanks for not taking out the whole section this time, but what you did remove, was talking about state terrorism. In fact you took out the heart of the issue: the explication of the thinking/basis behind the analysis of it being an example of state terror.


 * For example you took this out as not talking about state terror?!--"interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal...the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world..." That goes right to the heart of why its state terrorism, argued by those who make the claim per the definition of the concept. Likewise with this removal of yours: "The sociologist Kai Erikson has alleged that the attacks "...were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing...the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration." As section on a topic is stripped of its richness and the article/content suffer if you insist to only leave in choppy sentences with writers making the claim, "x says this is state terrorism, y says this is state terrorism," etc. That is not how writing an encylopedia looks like. I urge restoration.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for confirming that your argument for including that material is entirely based on violation of WP:SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for confirming that you do not know what WP:SYNTH says. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SYN "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Jtrainer is absolutely correct.Ultramarine (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now in detail please explain the final conclusion being reached and quot the two pieces of material being used to reach the final conclusion that is a product of synthesis. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the sources mentions US state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are stating no source in the Japan section mentions terrorism? If not then I repeat: "... in detail please explain the final conclusion being reached and quot the two pieces of material being used to reach the final conclusion that is a product of synthesis."--I Write Stuff (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am stating that none of the sources I or material I removed made accusations of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "... in detail please explain the final conclusion being reached and quote the two pieces of material being used to reach the final conclusion that is a product of synthesis." If you can not I will revert the material in 24 hours, if you need more time then that to formulate your argument for why its synthesis, please let me know. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." Material is irrelevant to this article. Does not mention state terrorism. Covered in a npov way with views from both sides in the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The text also states "Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal." None of the given sources "center around" this since they do not make accusations of or mention state terrorism.14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is Coady's reasoning for why its state terrorism? --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking me? Ultramarine (talk) 14:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You stated "None of the given sources "center around" this" so I am sure you have read Coady and know his reasoning to state he is not centering his argument around that. Now please provide his reasoning. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is not an examination. If you have an argument regarding Coady, please state it. Coady was not one the sources and material removed.Ultramarine (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct it is not, and now that is has been shown that you are not familiar with the sources presented in the article, you have no basis to allege WP:SYNTH. Considering many sources as the item states, do base their argument on the targeting of innocence to achieve a political goal, the surrender of Japan, the flexing of muscle to the world, it seems you are false. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Spare me the ad hominem. If you have any argument, then state it. Again, the text states "Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal." None of the given sources "center around" this since they do not make accusations of or mention state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Where is the ad hominem? You are alleging you read the sources and they do not contain an argument for the item being state terrorism based on the point presented which is "the targeting of innocence to achieve a political goal" which is clearly false. If you would like to continue this argument, then present the two quotes that are being merged to equal a final synthesized statement, and quote that statement. Any further red herrings and circular arguments will not be accepted until you substantiate your accusation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Some allege that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." Statement incorrect. None of the sources given discuss "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure how I can put this, are you stating that the sources in the Japan section, the ones with quotes provided that are explicitly stating the term state terrorism, are not making their accusation on the basis of the "targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal"? If so you are wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am stating that none of the given sources for the text I cited mentions state terrorism. Not talking about the other material in the section that was not removed.Ultramarine (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So the information in question is directly relevant to the information in the article, since the sources in the article discuss what is above, the "targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal." So I guess it is then agreed that is fine to re-enter parts of it. I still argue against the line of morality as I just do not find that it should be included. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you agree that "Some allege that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." should be removed, then that solves a major problem.Ultramarine (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like ""Some allege that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world." I do not like "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the given source for the target committee allegation is a primary document not accusing the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The text should not say "some alleged that the Target Committee..." That was one of your edits you kept putting in. Rather that point is not in dispute. Its not a "some alleged" its an in disputed fact that the Target Committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military target. That is an undisputed fact. Its an undisputed fact that a large civilian population was targeting to create a psychological and political effect around the world." And its also a fact that these facts are the heart of why scholars view them as incidents of State Terrorism. Howard Zinn, for example who concludes its State Terrorism, cites the statement of Kai Erikson to support his case that its state terrorism. Again, that is not any editor here making up any new argument on behalf of these scholars, its simply us editors presenting THEIR arguments. What is being objected to here is allowing us to report on their arguments. Their actual arguments are being disallowed. The heart of their explanation, their reasons, for WHY its state terrorism--according to then--are being removed. This is just another from of censorship to only allow their conclusion and opinion but not state their reasoning, their argument--which gives their opinion its great strength and makes it quite convincing. Its like saying a mathematician who states his conclusion so some math problem, and then cites his "proof" the basis of his reasoning, his calculations that lead him to the answer he is claiming, and cites this other mathematician's work that he bases his analysis on. Its absurd for us to then say that we can not include that. To do so robs it of its power, and robs the reader of an understanding of the basis for the claims. In anycase this was the long term version that was added by consensus, so unless there is a no consensus that it should not remain, it should not be taken out.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Primary documents not allowed. Also does not accuse the US of state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * False, primary documents are allowed, as long as we don't use them to to synthesize a new claim based upon them. And, yes, academics who we cite, DO accuse the US of state terrorism. They cite these facts as their argument. Therefore, their argument (not ours) are fine for inclusion. This rather basic to any reference source, but esp. an encylopedia. WP is not a dictionary.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary documents is used to synthesize. Does not make accusations of state terrorism. Also you cite it wrongly. It is clearly stated that Hiroshima was a significant military target.Ultramarine (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are wrong and this discussion has not concluded. It appears as you have no clue what WP:SYN says, I ask you re-read it, then it you still believe strongly that you state the following: The first quote being used, the second quote being used, and the final statement which is a violation of WP:SYN. Your failure to do so after being repeatedly asking to substantiate your claims is a prime example of disruptive editing. Until you can answer the question in response to your challenge, I will take this as a failure to support an accusation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the target committee quote, WP:PSTS states that primary sources should be avoided. The source for the allegations regarding the target committee is a primary source. Also cited incorrectly. It is clearly stated that Hiroshima was a significant military target.Ultramarine (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, which is why we also source the person referring to it. Primary sources are not to be avoided in all of Wikipedia, they are to be avoided as a sole source since they are often assessed by the Wikipedian. Since we already covered that a secondary source, Coady et al. refer to the Targeting committee's choice, it passes the standard. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only one source given for the target committee. No "person". Coady is not listed there. If you want to add what he states, then please do. Regardless, the current description of the target committee is incorrect.Ultramarine (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a proposal for a more correct text including Coady's view?Ultramarine (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your view on what the Target committee really said and means, according to you, it not relevant. Ironically when you make these arguments, its you who is engaging in SYN and OR. But also in fact you are wrong with your straw man argument: The claim is not that they had no military value, the claim cited by these scholars, correctly, it a strictly military target was specifically rejected in favor of creating a psychological impact by targeting a large concentration of civillians in to achieve a political purpose beyond Japan. Its this fact that scholars use as a key part of their argument that its qualifies as a classic example of state terrorism, though the use of weapons of mass destruction. But we can add many more sources, if that would help?Giovanni33 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, primary sources should not be used. No scholar listed currently.Ultramarine (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When the the text is readded shortly I will list a source or two that use it as its foundation for their argument. Will have to review them to make sure I am not adding incorrect ones. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that you do not want to present your proposal on the talk page before editing the article. There are also two other problematic section "The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the United States' justification for them has been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades. J. Samuel Walker writes in an April 2005 overview of recent historiography on the issue, "the controversy over the use of the bomb seems certain to continue." and "The sociologist Kai Erikson has alleged that the attacks "...were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing...the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point?" None of these make accusations of state terrorism. So should be excluded.Ultramarine (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are you repeating yourself? We heard you and your argument has been responded to, and I think, refuted. Its a silly argument. For you to simply repeat it, without addressing the counter argument, smacks of bad faith disruptive editing to me. In a court of law when an attorney making an argument repeats the same question/point, the other lawyer will object, and judge will say 'asked and answered, move on." But you are not moving on with an intelligent discussion here, you are merely repeating the same argument as if repeating it changes anything. As it stands, your understanding of SYN has shown to be flawed. I need not repeat the arguments above that address your repeated claims as they have already been shown to be false.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about SYN regarding the primary source document. Regarding the target committee quote, WP:PSTS states that primary sources should be avoided. The source for the allegations regarding the target committee is a primary source. Also cited incorrectly. It is clearly stated that Hiroshima was a significant military target. Regarding the other two sources, SYN do apply. Sources do not speak of state terrorism. Violates SYN to argue that they do.Ultramarine (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Red-herring re military target. That is not the claim. As far your other points repeated again, to borrow a phase, ""Objection, your Honor, the question has been asked and answered." Move on.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only a primary source is listed which accoring to WP:PSTS should be avoided. Exactly because they are difficult to interpret. The interpretation which cited the primary document is incorrect. The SYN objection has not been answered. Cannot really argue that we can cite any source as evidence for state terrorism if one source criticize the US in a nation for this.Ultramarine (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The flaw is that no one here is making an interpretation. That is not our job--we agree here. We allow reliable third parties to do that and we cite their claims. That is what Howard Zinn does when he cites the statements that you removed, as the basis for his arguments that it was state terrorism and civillians were targeted. What is interesting though, with your own interpretations, is that they are rather unique to you: not a single qualified source has ever disputed the claim that is made (which you say is false). I think that should tell you something about your understanding of the historical facts here. Should not you edit in subject that you know something about?Giovanni33 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Howard Zinn is not cited as a source for the statement regarding the target committee. If you want to add his view regarding the target committee, please state your proposal here. Your incivility and ad hominem has been noted.Ultramarine (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * More red herrings. But I think I have a solution for your complaint. In addition to finding more sources that support the claims you say are wrong, why don't you show just one source that supports your claim? Your claim is that they are wrong, that is not what was done, not what the Target Committee says, that civilians were not purposely targeted, etc. If they are wrong, as you claim, then surely you can provide at least one reliable source that makes that argument? If not all we have is your personal opinion that goes against every single authority who has reviewed the question. If you are the only person in the world who believes something, do you think everyone else is wrong, and only you are right? Yes, its possible, but WP does not deal with "truth" per se. It deals with verifiable sourced material from expert sources. If they all say something, you can only counter with other sources. Not your own opinion. I note that the whole section was deleted on exactly this premise: personal disagreement with the experts. That is not valid WP policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ultra asked for a non primary source, I presented one, however it did not support the exact date so I removed that. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Historian Howard Zinn who makes the claim of State Terrorism, cites this the sociologist Kai Erikson who talks abut it not being "'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing...the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point?" Notice we are not choosing and picking Kai Erikson as a source himself, and quoting him to make the argument its state terrorism. That would be SYN. No, we are simply citing Howard Zinn's argument, who does quote KaiErikson, as the basis for his argument that its state terrorism. Therefore, it doesn't matter of Ultra says, "Kai Erikson doesnt claim State terrorism,' because Zinn does, and this is Zinn's argument. So that should also be restored. Zinn is not a primary source, either.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please state your proposed text here that explain the relationship and how it relates to state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just did exactly that. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You could be on to something. Please state a proposal that combine the current Kai and Zinn material. Your text above needs some polishing if it is to replace the current text.Ultramarine (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Valid point, and addresses the actual issue. Thank you. See this source where Zinn uses him, and this quote here: If its just a question of making the connection clearer, I have no objection. I just want to honestly report the thinking/arguments, used by those who make the claim.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal "Howard Zini argues "If the word "terrorism" has a useful meaning (and I believe it does, because it marks off an act as intolerable, since it involves the indiscriminate use of violence against human beings for some political purpose), then it applies exactly to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." He cites the sociologist Kai Erikson who wrote: "The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'combat' in any of the ways that word is normally used. Nor were they primarily attempts to destroy military targets, for the two cities had been chosen not despite but because they had a high density of civilian housing. Whether the intended audience was Russian or Japanese or a combination of both, then the attacks were to be a show, a display, a demonstration. The question is: What kind of mood does a fundamentally decent people have to be in, what kind of moral arrangements must it make, before it is willing to annihilate as many as a quarter of a million human beings for the sake of making a point." Zinn writes "in short, terrorism, condemned by governments when conducted by nationalist or religious extremists, was now being adopted as official policy. It was given legitimacy because it was used to defeat certain Fascist powers. But it kept alive the spirit of Fascism.""Ultramarine (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that adds too much gets slightly off topic, distracting from the atomic bombings. I'd make it much simple. Keep what is there in the original version as is, except add in, "Historian Howard Zinn cites sociologist Kai Erikson, who writes: "......" Then follow this up, with the Howard Zinn claim, of state terrorism, as exists in the article. Its as simple of this. No need to add in anything about Fascism, or other general comments about State terrorism (that belong on the main state terrorism page). This way we keep the text tight and focused only on the Japan bombings. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Kai asks a question. The statement regarding fascism is Zinn answer to Kai's question.Ultramarine (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I also note that Ultramarine is edit warring now with removing this material. If there is any consistency with how blocks are given to editor who keep edit warring, then a block against Ultra is indicated. Equal treatment for all edit warriors would go a long way to building good will among both sides that norms of fairness were in play here.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Added without consensus and proposal on the talk page first. However, some of the material seems fine and on topic. So this seem to have been constructive discussion.Ultramarine (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph in question is sourced to Coady. Can somebody provide the quotes from Coady's book that support the claims made in this paragraph, namely "Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Some allege that the Target Committee rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world"...? Otherwise the text is OR. - Merzbow (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that a quote would be good. Also, "Most" and "some" should be changed to Coady if that is what he is stating.Ultramarine (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Time Out
This thread has gotten so long it discourages any new editors from joining the discussion and contributing to a consensus. Can somebody possibly distill the issue in dispute and create an NPOV statement of what needs to be decided? Can we either start a request for comments to get outside input, or take the question to the NPOV noticeboard? It would be nice if the "usual combatants" who frequent this page presented their brief statements and then stepped back and allowed other experienced editors to help form a consensus. Bickering is not productive. Jehochman Talk 04:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time breaking down this thread also. The only issue I currently have with the text in this section as it is now relates to the paragraph I wrote about above, the one sourced to Coady and beginning with "Most interpretations..." I just want to see the quotes from Coady that support that text. - Merzbow (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I will have a look at it. I don't believe that is the correct reference, but I'll have to check it out. I think the references/sections were messed up by the chopping that Ultra did. I'm not saying he did anything wrong intentionally, it was just a bit careless and as a result we have things wrongly cited. I'll have some time this week to go over these sources, and if necessary, add some more sources, to make sure everything is properly sources. Also, i think we have agreement above about restoring the Sociologist quote, referenced to Zinn's citing him for his argument.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Posada
No need to duplicate the general background material here. Covered in detail in the Posada article. So should be removed.

Exactly who is making accusations of US state terrorism? Cuba does not seem to do so according to this recent article:. Lots of OR where primary documents are cited also.Ultramarine (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many have asked you to do this in the past, but I will ask you yet again. Please don't post multiple threads at the same time calling for large deletions or additions in different sections. This creates chaos and contributes to the difficult atmosphere of this article. What harm does it do to discuss one issue at a time? We're in no rush here, and each issue requires serious discussion. Please, post on something you are concerned about, let discussion develop for a few days, and then take action. We all need to agree to an approach like this if we are going to get anywhere.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to be accurate. To quote WP:V: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." Serious allegations should not remain if incorrect.  Discussing a few problems at the same time hardly taxes resources. Any arguments regarding Posada materia?Ultramarine (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with WP:V and the quotation from Jimbo. If there is something in particular in this article you feel is based only on 'I heard it somewhere' and which has no sources then point that out. Of course that Jimbo statement has nothing to do with the Posada issue you bring up. You are not claiming it is speculative, rather you think it duplicates other material and is not needed. There is no rush to delete that, likewise there is no rush to delete the background material from Operation Mongoose, to add in material about democide (which is a personal interest of yours), or to remove a quote from Britannica. In other words, you could have taken these on one at a time rather than posting them all within hours of each other. I'm asking you, and all of us, to slow down the pace of talk page sections in order to make it easier to collaborate. I think that is a very reasonable request.
 * This article have serious allegations. As such it is our responsiblity to assure accuracy and views from all sides. Like if anyone is accusing the US of state terrorism regarding Posada and democide material.Ultramarine (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As to the Posada material, I feel that some background information is absolutely necessary for this and indeed all of the subjects covered in the article (otherwise it would just be a collection of wikilinks to other topics). It is entirely possible that the section could be trimmed somewhat though. I would recommend you post specific suggestions here. I don't support a massive deletion from that section at this time.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ultramarine/Sandbox1 Ultramarine (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it covers the main points. If I were an anti-US type person, I'd want Venezuela has accused the US of hypocrisy on terrorism since the US "virtually" collaborated with convicted terrorist Luis Posada by failing to contest statements that Posada would be tortured if he were extradited to Venezuela removed since it seems so very weak (is it there to make the US seem guilty or the Venezuelas look silly? I'm genuinely unsure. Perhaps its worth keeping for that reason, uninterpreted) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I support it as well. - Merzbow (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me look at it more closely in the next day or three (since we are in no hurry). When I do, would you mind Ultra if I edit within your sandbox (obviously you could undo any changes) or should I just suggest changes here on the talk page?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you present the alternative text in a section below my text in the sandbox.Ultramarine (talk) 12:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've put it into the article as an experiment. No-one has argued against it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not been working on this article for very long, so I just want to point out that it has been pretty standard here to put new or re-worked material in sandboxes (or on the talk page) and then give others a chance to comment on it before moving it into the article. Sometimes this has helped to ease edit warring by forcing folks to come to an agreement before changing the article itself (it's one of the few tactics that has worked in that regard). Because I specifically said I would take a look at it shortly and probably propose some alternative or rework it, it would have done no harm to hold off on adding it into the article for a couple of days. I could have simply argued against it in some way in order to prevent it from going in, but I wanted to look at the changes more closely and come up with a thoughtful response to Ultramarine's proposal. Again, we're not in a hurry, and some allowance should be made for a little bit of discussion of significant changes, particularly when a good-faith editor specifically asks for some time to do this. I'm not going to undo your edit or anything (I'll still look at the changes more closely in the next day or so), but in the future I would appreciate it if you give folks who want to mull over a proposed change a couple of days to do so.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not been a standard although it has occurred occasionally. You have made many edits and spent considerable time on other subjects since I presented the proposal so I find it somewhat strange that you have not had time to comment on my proposal.Ultramarine (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * About two months ago on this page I wrote:

“I have never liked the Cuba section much. A major weakness is that Cuban sources: ie: Castro, Allarcon, Gramma, Radio Havana, Cuba Solidarity, are being given too much weight. Another weakness, I think, is the case study of Posada Carrilles; it would be better to abbreviate that case to at most a major paragraph and then link to his main article for the more gritty details.”

I still believe we should try to keep the Posada section to at most a major paragraph. However since that time my feelings on the importance of the Posada issue have changed somewhat since I have discovered what I think is more relevant material on U.S. involvement with him that has not been previously covered by the article. (See the association that McSherry draws between him and CORU below.)

Wikipedia policy exhorts editors to try to find the “last word” on the issues. We should try to research as exhaustively as possible. This attempt fell short in the recent re-write of the Posada section by Ultramarine. An authoritative source, Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archive is quoted, but it was not necessarily Kornbluh’s last word on the issue. Moreover Kornbluh’s comment that Posada is “our terrorist” was removed. The quote that Ultramarine selected comes from a Nation article from May-June 2005. Therein, Kornbluh indicates that all of the relevant information had not been publicly released. Further writings by Kornbluh are worth considering on the matter, not that they suggest drastic changes, but they do contain pertinent information and do evidence further U.S. links. I would suggest that more than a mere passing mention of Posada as an operative is appropriate, he was trained at Fort Bening, and later became an explosives expert and intelligence trainer. Also the sheltering of Posada in El Salvador as a director in Oliver North’s contra supply network following his escape from Venezuelan prison is probably worth considering of inclusion. These are not just random details that belong in his biographical article, they are details that concern significant U.S. association with him. The following two pages were issued at later dates than the Nation article and encompass subsequent releases of classified information: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB157/index.htm, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB202/index.htm

Even more important I think is Kornbluh’s testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee here which contains an even stronger tone concerning the unwillingness of the U.S. to disclose vital information about Posada’s activities. http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/kor111507.htm To quote Kornbluh:   “BUT THESE DOCUMENTS I HAVE SHARED ARE SIMPLY THE TIP OF AN ICEBERG OF EVIDENCE—MUCH OF WHICH REMAINS SECRET AND STORED IN THE ARCHIVES OF THE U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES.”

I note that historian J. Patrice McSherry has harshly criticized the U.S. for witholding information on this case and others related to operation Condor. Here is some evidence from McSherry concerning Bosch-Posada terrorism and U.S. links,which should also be incorporated in the paragraph.

“Bosch was the leader of a coalition of violent anti-Castro organizations named CORU, Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations. CORU was formed during a 1976 meeting in Bonan, Dominican Republic that brought together all the paramilitary and terrorist anti-Castro organizations. There, leaders decided to unify their forces under one umbrella. Interestingly, that meeting took place in June, at the same time the Condor meetings in Santiago. According to several sources, the CIA had actively approved of the Bonan meeting- and perhaps even instigated it- and encouraged CORU to “punish” Castro for Cuban intervention in Angola. The FBI was fully aware of CORU’s terrorist acts. CORU carried out dozens of bombings in the Western hemisphere (including the United States) in 1976. All five of the Cuban terrorists involved in the Letelier-Moffin assassinations were CORU members.” (McSherry, Patrice J. “Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America, Rowman & Littlefield 2005, 158)

"Moreover, an FBI agent involved in the Letelier case confirmed that Posada had participated, along with other Cuban terrorists, in a meeting in the Dominican Republic in which both the airline bombing and the Letelier assassination were planned...Declassified CIA documents also confirmed that Posada was a CIA informant until at least June 1976, when the meeting occurred." []BernardL (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Biographical details like an being an explosives expert and intelligence trainer belong on the main article about him. If anyone has made allegations that this is evidence of US state terrorism, then we could include it. Already mentioned that Kornbluth thinks that there may be more material in the archives. The McSherry allegations seem to the same as those already mentioned by Kornbluth, "lose ties between CIA and FBI officials and allies inside the Cuban exile movement enabled the bombing to go forward--despite ample intelligence that, if acted upon, could have prevented it. When the entire file is made public, as it should and must be, the degree of US responsibility will be more apparent." So I see nothing not already covered.Ultramarine (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I made my own attempt to trim the Posada section. I kept Ultra's intro, and went through the refs carefully, only keeping claims relevant to the US government - Posada - terrorism connection, while removing POV language. The resulting size of the text about splits the difference. - Merzbow (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have much problem with the changes. The claims about Posada's presence at the meeting in Bonan are backed up by an important historian from her award-winning book. They have been included. BernardL (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks fine to me. The prose and citation formatting could be improved (which probably should not be the top priority with this article) but this version is quite serviceable and is an improvement over the lengthier version it is replacing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A possible problem is that we now have a Cuba section that does not even mention Orlando Bosch, who was the leader of CORU.BernardL (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro

 * ''Terrorism, state terrorism, and international terrorism[2] remain without a single internationally accepted definition, but Britannica defines terrorism as systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

Britannica is not the final word on what terrorism is. Certainly less important than UN documents. Also talks about terrorism, not state terrorism. Britannica quote should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be replaced with the definition section that was present before, so the reader can fully understand the underlying goals and causes of terrorism. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We were talking about the intro. Cannot have ten paragraphs about the definition of terrorism in the intro. Regarding a separate section, why duplicate definition of terrorism and state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "duplicate"? no. give the reader an understanding of the framework of terrorism, its causes and goals is however important. I do not support removing a definition from the intro, since the article will contain no definition. Especially considering I have already seen you attempt to make the argument that none exist and so the article should not, how odd that you are calling for the last one to be removed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no agreed on definition of terrorism so it is wrong to list one in the intro. Britannica is also less important than UN texts. Also, that one is about terrorism, not state terrorism. The earlier section simply duplicated word for word some parts of definition of terrorism and state terrorism. Was incomplete and the subject better covered in the main articles.Ultramarine (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am not sure what you mean by "no agreed upon definition" Do you mean the world has not come together as a consensus to define the term? Or are you again discussing legal terms, of which this is not a legal dictionary. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no legal or scholarly agreement.Ultramarine (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine, if the concept of Red terror can be included in the article Terrorism in Russia as Terrorism in modern sense, then what is the problem in this article? If you want to remove real SYNTH, then go remove the mention of red terror from Terrorism in Russia article.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please discuss possible problems in other articles there. Also, I was not discussing SYN here.Ultramarine (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The argument that there is no "scholarly agreement" is also a red herring. We are not discussing the theory of state terrorism, that is for that article. We are discussing allegations made by WP:RS and WP:V sources regarding state terrorism and the United States. Presenting some idea of definitions used is helpful to the reader. I am sorry you do not agree, so I will simply state I disagree with this proposal unless the section on definitions is readded. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not presented inaccurate or misleading information. There is no agreement so that is what should be stated. Those more interested can easily click and go to the main articles. Britannica quote in particular is bad since it is less important than UN document and does not discuss state terrorism but terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree "Wikipedia should not presented inaccurate or misleading information" which is why multiple definitions should be presented. We are here to give the reader information, not withhold it because the world has not fully agreed upon it, like such a thing will ever happen. The end result is however that dictionaries and encyclopedias, as well as newspapers and academics have been able to use the term, so it exists and some understanding of it should be presented. If you would like, and can find a source, following the definitions with "However no universally agreed upon definition exists." would be just fine. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again we were talking about the intro. Cannot discuss all the numerous definitions there. Or pick a "winner". Those interested can easily go to definition of terrorism and state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your confusion, and need to repeat that we are discussing the intro, is that you fail to see the importance of the material. Some working basis of what terrorism is considered to be, classified as, etc. needs be included in the article. So I will not support removal of the only working definition, classification, etc. from the intro, without it being replaced with a definitions section, one that was removed without consensus. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We should not have a misleading intro. There is no agreement so it is inaccurate to pick Britannica as the correct definition. In particular as it does not discuss state terrorism and is less important than UN documents. Regarding a definition section, maybe there could be a short summary with those readers more interested being free to read definition of terrorism and state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't like using Britannica as a source, even if it is identified. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Proposal: User:Ultramarine/Sandbox4 Ultramarine (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not like it, seems patronizing. The insistence that there is no universally agreed upon definition is pointless, most things are not universally defined. I think you are putting to much into your own idea of what "state terrorism" is and not accepting it is simply terrorism carried out by a state. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sourced regarding no agreement. The UN thinks this is a serious problem. Any concrete objection? Ultramarine (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not a wing of the United Nations. Objection listed above. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with listing two or three concise definitions of "state terrorism" from reliable sources. Or "state-sponsored terrorism". I don't think this has to be in the lead; the "Definitions" section is fine. - Merzbow (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The UN is a political body. Naturally, we prefer academic definitions of terrorism to those of the United Nations, the United States, or Hamas. -- Relata refero (disp.) 09:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? UN conventions are legally binding. No agreement among academics regarding terrorism or state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, we do not use political as opposed to academic definitions. That's a long standing interpretation of reliability. If there's no agreed definition, we use the most common one in the lead. -- Relata refero (disp.) 09:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which policy are you citing? No agreement regarding which definition is the most common one.Ultramarine (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Basic working definitions are fine to include, and necessary for the framework of the State Terrorism, linked to the main State Terrorism article. Its a fallacy to say just because States have not come to an international consensus on a legally adopted definition, that we can not have a working definition as to what Terrorism or State Terrorism is. Lets not conflate the two, and lets not overdue this 'no agreement" bit, as it give its undue weight.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not present inaccurate or misleading information and there is no agreed defintion or agreed "basic working definitions"Ultramarine (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is not an agreed upon definition of vegetable or Science fiction either. Yet somehow, those articles manage. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's put aside the discussion of what to have in the lead and concentrate on first finding definitions. Given that we have articles called "...state terro–rism..." and plenty of sources that accuse various states of it, it's difficult to believe that no reliable source has attempted to define "state terrorism" as opposed to just "terrorism". A quick Google search of "state terrorism definition" pulled up this from some professor. I'm sure more can be found. - Merzbow (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitional discussions abound in the literature. It is common for authors to reformulate a definition of terrorism that encompasses both state and non-state actors, feeling it is more morally consistent. From Jeffrey A. Sluka's introduction to the anthology Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror..."A good dictionary definition of terrorism that avoids the ideological subterfuge of excluding state terror is 'the policy of using acts inspiring great fear as a means of ruling or conducing political opposition.' But if we want a specific definition of state terrorism that distinguishes it from anti-state terrorism, a good definition is that state terror is the use or threat of violence by the state or its agents or supporters, particularly against civilian individuals and populations, as a means of political intimidation and control (ie: a means of repression)." (Sluka, Jeffrey A. Death Squad: The Anthropology of State Terror,2)BernardL (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a paper from, Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, 2004, by two academics Steve Best and Anthony J. Nocella II that does a good job at presenting virtually all the definitions of terrorism in one place: There is an "Academic Consensus Definition," btw. All the variations of the definitions are just really minor tweaks, they all talk about violence that is used to instill fear (terror) that generally targets civillians and for political ends. These aspects not the controversial at all. The controversy is who get stuck with the label, esp. when it comes to affixing the term to State actors whose actions fit the basic definition of terrorism. We should not get stuck by this. Ultra likes to quote Kofi Anan, so I'll quote him here, too, "Regardless of the differences between governments on the definition of terrorism, what is clear and what we can all agree on is any deliberate attack on innocent civilians, regardless of one’s cause, is unacceptable and fits into the definition of terrorism."Giovanni33 (talk) 08:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your paper is talking about terrorism, not state terroirsm. If anything we should quote this " The Chairman of the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee has stated that the Committee was conscious of the 12 international Conventions on the subject, and none of them referred to State terrorism, which was not an international legal concept. If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said that it is "time to set aside debates on so-called 'state terrorism'. The use of force by states is already thoroughly regulated under international law"".Ultramarine (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you read the article in question, Kofi is arguing that the fight over a legal definition is not required because states killing civilians is illegal under the Geneva Convention. This does not mean obviously that it does not exist, just that its already covered elsewhere legally, and in a capacity for the U.N. to act. This is similar to the other quote I provided you on the Japan section where they argue that just because it saves lives, does not mean its not terrorism, you had trouble accepting this concept. To go one step further the article explains that the problem is not that its hard to define if something is terrorism, or that no definition exists, but that: "In addition to actions already proscribed by existing conventions, any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act." and further: "the moral authority of the United Nations and its strength in condemning terrorism have been hampered by the inability of member states to agree on a comprehensive convention that includes a definition" So the stopping block is not clearly the definition as an entire convention is being works on, the contents of that convention are the road block. One last part, the article specifically states: There now appears to be a global consensus on what terrorism is: attacks targeting civilians. So its clear state terrorism is states committing terrorism, so states attacks targeting civilians. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note the important difference between when he is speaking of terrorism and state terrorism. Terrorism is a legal concept covered in many conventions. State terrorism is not. Also no need for such a concept since other concepts and laws already exists which cover this. Regarding you point that the absence of a legal concept does not mean that the concept does not exist. Many different non-legal proposals. But the absence of state terrorism as a legal concept is certainly one of the more important things to mention when discussing state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that when discussing state terrorism it is important, which is why it should be added to the article on state terrorism. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Something Giovanni33 and others should probably take a look at
[] Jtrainor (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I did read it. It says clearly, "it is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it."The cited information added was relevant, directly on topic, well referenced and a product of collaborative editing among many editors of different POV's. The result was a compromised text that on the whole was pretty good. So removal should be done with equal consensus, esp. if its cited, and in light of the other facts that it went through for its inclusion, and the fact that its a long standing part of the article. I reject the notion that an editor can come and based on POV bias, delete have of it, until that editor is convinced its valid. Consensus works both ways.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The editors change, the acronyms change, but the true underlying intentions and POV stay exactly the same. Inclusionist (talk) 03:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Synth debate
I started a discussion in a neutral place to determine if the term "state terrorism" must appear in a source for it to be used anywhere in the article. In 2 days I will check again for the results and report back. This should put an end to the question of its required or not. I would prefer if anyone locates the debate that they do not chime in, this way we can keep it free from influence. --I Write Stuff (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Let wait and see what some neutral uninvolved editors who are experts on the issue of SYN, think of the issue.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course Ultramarine could not help but inject himself into the question. Hopefully other will allow the discussion to proceed unhindered. It seems the consensus is "state terrorism" is not required since a section in this article on Hiroshima, would have the section about Hiroshima, meaning information about what happened, even if not in the source alleging state terrorism is permitted. This is of course barring that you are not attempting to say the second source, the supporting one, is actually making any allegation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like we are stuck with the determination before Ultra and DHeyward appeared on the page, meaning "state terrorism" is not required in the source as long as its providing background information and the allegation is not attributed to any source not directly making it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, its good to see that our previous consensus on the matter was correct, and that Ultramarine, et. all are mistaken about their understanding of SYN. The words "State Terrorism' NEED NOT be in the source if its in context and provides relevant background material to the issues discussed by reliable sources who say the incidents in question are instances of state terrorism by the US. I hope this puts this dead horse to rest.Giovanni33 (talk)
 * I'm not sure you're representing the debate there properly. There are two items in question, that BlueBoar summarizes well: a) for a topic to be included in the article, is it necessary that some source be provided that accuses the US government of terrorism (equiv. to "state terrorism", of course), and b) given "a", can background material be included from other sources that don't make the accusation? The consensus in the debate appears to support both "a" and "b". I have no problem now with "b" as long as the background material does not overwhelm the sources that make the accusation, as they clearly did in the longer version of this article (undue weight). - Merzbow (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After re-reading your comment carefully, you do appear to mention both the points "a" and "b" so I withdraw my first sentence above. The part we'll have to work on is, of course, the details about the scope and nature of the background material allowable. - Merzbow (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed! I'm glad we have settled this thorny issue. I always thought you were right when you stated the need for clear acceptance of mechanical criteria/standards. I think the standards set by policy as articulated above will help to diffuse a lot of previous areas of contention.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not solved if claiming that WP:SYN should not be followed. If we have background material, then it must be NPOV and represent both sides on an issue. Which I have always stated. Obviously the background material should not overwhelm the article like it did previously.Ultramarine (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No one ever claimed such a thing. A group of non involved editors who have dedicated their time to Wikipedia by assisting in understanding and guiding on the issue of WP:SYN have stated the term is not needed. Like yourself I agree the background material should not out weigh the allegation material, however out weigh does not mean simply "contain more characters" it simply means it should not be overly verbose.--I Write Stuff (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is not needed in background material. If the background material is longer than the actual allegations, then is overly verbose and the reader should be refered to the appropriate article for more information. For example, the article earlier had 15 long background paragraphs about alleged human rights violations in the Philippines by various dubious sources including an email transcript. Not one of them mentioning the US.Ultramarine (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is not that the sources did not state the magic term, the real issue is it was overly verbose, however that does not mean butcher it, and further it does not mean, high character count is equal to overly verbose. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Verbose" certainly includes length.Ultramarine (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, however more specifically I oppose an arbitrary ratio imposed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has argued for anything arbitrary. Another point regarding background material is that it most obviously be NPOV and present views from all sides equally. Like including government responses.Ultramarine (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the background section, like the entire article, should follow NPOV. In that sense however I disagree that government responses should be in the background as that would be POV, as the background should come before the argument and should be free of either side. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the background only presents the view from one side, like those critical of the government, then it obviously it is not "free of either side". NPOV requires the views of all sides equally. That includes government responses to criticisms.Ultramarine (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Policies issues put to rest
The admin who carefully reviewed all the arguments of the deletionists, provided a penetrating analysis sof the debate over the Afd and has clarified several long standing policy disputes about it. He considered all the arguments presented, juxtaposed against core WP policies, which now clarified, should help stabilized article by putting to rest the mis-understanding many of the WP policies advanced by Ultramarine, DHeyward, et al. They follow below:


 * First, it has been put forth that the article is a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, because "conflating [the allegations covered in the article] must inevitably involve some synthesis since these matters are widely separated in time and space." This is unpersuasive. Many articles and lists cover issues widely separate in time and space because they have something in common. Synthesis would only occur if it were a novel idea - original research - to group the various incidents covered here under the label "state terrorism". As demonstrated by the section "General allegations against the US", however, various notable people have had this idea before, and I cannot therefore detect any irremediable WP:SYNTH problems.


 * Second, the article has been said to violate WP:NPOV. POV-tainted content (e.g. "This is a list of terrorist atrocities committed by the US") can be remedied by editing, obviously, so deletion would be only warranted if the very concept of the article makes it impossible to write a neutral article on the subject. The only reason provided in this discussion why this is supposed to be the case is that there is no widely accepted, non-controversial definition of "state sponsored terrorism". That may be so, but this article can (and should) only report that various significant people have reliably voiced the opinion that such-and-such is state terrorism by the US; but not that these incidents are indeed state terrorism. In short, no credible argument has been made that no neutral article can ever be written about this subject. (I'm not addressing the WP:COATRACK argument here because that essay is not part of the core policy, but see below.)


 * Third, only one person seems to doubt that we can write a verifiable article about this issue, and he does so by casting doubt on the sources used as being "extremist and fringe". This ignores that an article dedicated to covering allegations may well cover allegations by extremist and fringe people, if these people's views are considered significant and well-sourced. In any case, the argument is not made that the subject matter is irremediably unverifiable. Accordingly, no core policy mandates the deletion of this article, because its deficiencies (if any) can be remedied by editorial processes which include editing or merging.

My last step is to determine whether any of the "delete" arguments are so strong (i.e., well-founded in policy), or the "keep" arguments so weak, that the "delete" arguments decisively outweigh the "keep" arguments even though there is no supermajority (our usual rough approximation of a consensus) to delete the article. I do not find that to be the case. To mention only the most significant arguments:


 * The argument that the article is a battlefield has never to my knowledge been accepted as a reason to delete an article. Otherwise, we would have very little coverage of Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East or much else. If an article is too heavily contested, less destructive remedies such as protection, blocking edit warriors, or issuing general sanctions remain available. We have successfully dealt with Liancourt Rocks in this manner.


 * As to the WP:COATRACK argument, a coatrack article is an article that presumes to be about A while it is in fact dedicated to bashing B. The present article is supposed to be about allegations of state terrorism by the US, and it does in fact cover allegations of state terrorism by the US. I can't see the coats on this rack, and in any case, a coatrack article does not usually need deletion - just editing.


 * The "keep" arguments (apart from those I have already discounted) generally focus on this article meeting our inclusion criteria, such as WP:N and WP:V. These are not particularly weak arguments.

In sum, after evaluating the arguments that have been made, I conclude that not only is there no consensus to delete this article, but that we have a significant majority favouring to keep the article, and that the "delete" opinions are mostly not well founded in policy and precedent. The consensus emerging from this discussion, therefore, is to keep the article. Sandstein (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I suggest reflecting on WP policy and putting these confusions about it into the past, as we move forward. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the problems mentioned here were and are to some extent still valid: .Ultramarine (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala Section
I agree that the Guatemala material was too long, and I understand the impetus of some to reduce it, but I think consensus is clear that it we never meant to be permanently removed in whole, without anything left there in its place. I have moved most of the material to a "daughter" article, on the Civil War and the US role, but some of that material should go back into this article. Perhaps an interested editor can restore some of the best and more relevant parts to the section. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I put a bit back in, probably needs some editing, and the section is not yet telling the whole story according to the most reliable sources.BernardL (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and agreed. But its a good start, at starting fresh with that section.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it, as long as we're careful about what more we add. - Merzbow (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

over
Now that the drama of the AfD is over, let's try to get back and focus conversation on this page to be solely about the content of the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree.Ultramarine (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree - Just kidding. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Request mediation? - Straw Poll
Many of the commments on the AfD have suggested that some type of oversight might be helpful in guiding the editors of this article in their attempts to improve it. As a straw poll, is there agreement that a request for mediation at this time would be appropriate? Please note whether or not you would agree to participate in mediation:


 * agree TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * agree Ultramarine (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * agree, though I think it might be hard to find someone willing to take this on.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * agree depending on type of mediation, what they will examine and if everyone agree's to follow the decision recommended. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * agree I was also thinking of an WP:RfC. Whatever works. — Becksguy (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree Clearly more outside help is required. Becks, given the amount of talking there's been I don't think RfCs will change much. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * agree Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree The more eyes on this the better. We're clearly not getting anywhere with the regulars. Jtrainor (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - Merzbow (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * agreeBernardL (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * AgreeGiovanni33 (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This page needs dispute resolution; I would be happy to see mediation go ahead and would be bound by the results. I'm probably not going to be a part of it unless dragged in, since (despite what many may think) I'm not all that interested in the content of this page William M. Connolley (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here. Mediation is a good thing, but it would waste time if I was directly involved in it - the process rarely works if too many editors are joined in. If the main disputing parties were involved I would abide by any final decision. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree In most cases I am all for mediation, and over the years I have pushed for mediation in many forms on this page. But the mediation has failed repeatedly, and will continue to fail. The names have changed here, but the tactics are all the same. I think the only solution is arbitration. Despite the official rule that Arbcom does not get involved with content disputes, the Arbcoms rulings show that they actually do actively get involved in content disputes. (see Great Irish Famine as one example) (travb) Inclusionist (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is highly likely arbitration will be refused unless formal mediation is tried first. Try to file a case if you don't believe me. And have there been formal mediation sessions on this page? If so I would appreciate some links. If not then it should be tried. Informal mediation is sometimes quicker in getting a resolution, but with complex matters often does not go far enough. Also, Trav, you're a recent addition to the page (or have been away for some time) so I hope you won't veto mediation if you are named as a party. If you don't want to participate then I hope you will abide by any decisions agreed upon in mediation. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * John, I bolded the above text, which you must have missed: I have pushed for mediation in many forms on this page I am not "recent addition to the page".
 * John Smith, first of all the only formal mediation and straw polls on this page were initiated by me, see the new page I created: Talk:American_terrorism/Past_disagreements. I have been editing this page since at least 13 August 2006. As one of the most active editors on this page for two years, I am certain that mediation will fail in this case, because there are two diametrically opposed beliefs, with no common ground. When the mediation fails again, I will call an arbitration.
 * At this point, the animosity is so strong against me among the deletionists, that if I suggested this page be deleted they would object (I have found this out before with other suggestions).
 * But below is my suggestion, which is from a Arbcom ruling.
 * The formal mediation I see is from 2006 - Arbcomm would want something more recent then that. If mediation failed back then you should have gone for arbitration. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate suggestions to avoid Arbcom and mediation
Direct quote from Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine:


 * "Remedies: The article Great Irish Famine is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. Further terms of the mentorship are contained in the decision and will be amplified on the article talkpage."

Editors here agree to have three to five administrators mentor this article. How about it? Inclusionist (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Issues to be mediated

 * 1) Deletion of material from April 2008 onwards.
 * 2) Title Inclusionist (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments
The issues that require mediation need to be agreed upon before a request is made. Please add to the list above. Do not make POV comments, just insert the main disputes briefly. If you need to make a comment write down here. I have made one suggestion. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that the eighth AfD is closed as Keep, lets get back to our regularly scheduled battle discussion. Hopefully mediation will work. I held off pending that closure, and maybe others did also. Maybe the AfD also helped dispel some tension. — Becksguy (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, we seem to be making progress now, so is mediation necessary? It may just serve to re-add rancor. Perhaps we should put this on hold until (hopefully never) things fall apart again? - Merzbow (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Various titles this article has had
From the earliest in 2005 to the current. — Becksguy (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
 * 2) State terrorism by the United States
 * 3) Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
 * 4) Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
 * 5) State terrorism and the United States
 * 6) Allegations of state terrorism by the United States


 * Many more: See Talk:American_terrorism/Past_disagreements about the dozens of pages about this.

Original research tag
Why there is an original research tag at the top of the article? All the information are properly referenced and if anyone want the tag to stay, he/she should identify the passages which are original research.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been a long argument over certain passages, such that some people would not accept they are OR, whilst others insisted they were. There has been a large removal of material so far, so it may be that these offending extracts are gone. Maybe some of the editors who have raised OR in the past can help answer Otolemur's qn. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the times the tag was added was in response to an 'Opposing Views' section that contained few sourced items and some analysis not directly attribuatble to the sources. That material is gone. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Opposing views section is still present. If there is problem with this section, then this section either needs deletion or appropriate tags should placed in this section, not at the top of the article.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the Opposing views section is completely irrelevant in this article. The section contains a little piece of information:

Why is this information relevant in this article. This article documents the allegation against the country for sponsoring terrorism in certain times and certain places. Why the information "democracy killed fewer people than dictatorship" has anything to do here?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in 'opposing view' to the Chomsky statement about US being biggest source of terror? I have tried and failed to convince Ultramarine that 'other guys done worse' is in general not appropriate line of discussion for the article.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems weord to me that the opposing views section is so small. I would imagine that the "official" US position is that they don't do terrorism. Backing away from that there is presuably a saner core that would say "OK, we do terrorism, but its a hard world and the end result is worth it". There must be plenty of people quotable on that. Or so I would have thought; perhaps admitting terrorism is so hard that few people can be found for a defence. But even the (admittedly somewhat implausible view) that the US doesn't do terrorism must have plenty of official sources for it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right Connolley. The US and its client state agents who directly commit state terrorism do have responses, and I've pointed them out before and even provided some sources, but they were ignored, in favor of novel OR and off topic points advanced by Ultramarein as "opposing views." They don't really provide any opposing views to the claims. There are opposition views can be found in several forms: denial, saying they were doing something else and had no control over excesses, that is was self defense, or outright admission with a justification along the lines of it being necessary not to play by the rules. For example when presented with evidence that tied high state officials to the paramilitary death squads--in 1967 Mario Sandoval Alarcónr leader of (MLN), an extreme anti-Communist party, stated the following rational to the New York Times: ‘The Army was demoralized last year until we organized the White Hand…. [T]he terrorism of the guerrillas…has forced the government to adopt a plan of complete illegality, but this had brought results.” In a fraudulent 1974 election Sandoval became the Guatemalan vice president and served until 1978. In 1982 he other MLN party officials defended the party’s nickname (“the party of organized violence”) to U.S. newsmen, stating: “Well organized violence is something, you see, organized sound is melody. Organized violence would be strength. Sometimes you have to face the truth. Or that was the same in Nagasaki, in Hiroshima. You have to kill people.” So you see there are responses to the allegations when they were presented to the perpetrators. But as you can guess, this doesn't make them look too good.:)I will also point out that with in the literature analysts explain that the State found terrorism very effective, adn that it was at a disadvantage by following international law which places all kinds of constraints on the use of force-which do not apply to insurgent terrorists. So basically its argued that they have to fight fire with fire, etc. Giovanni33 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is context, since the article is about allegations, the justifications should be in relation. For instance in the Japanese section, the argument put forth after the bombing was that it would save lives, however this is not addressing the issue of terrorism, as it could have been needed, yet still be terrorism. I posted sources discussing this which is probably now buried in the archives. Saying its was needed is not saying it was not terrorism, so its not really an "opposing view" its a view in agreement with an explanation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Democide is seen as equivalent as state terrorism. Could be seen as a response to Chomsky's claim. But does not have to. The statement stands on its own. This is not an article that should only have US negative material. Agree that the section needs expansion.Ultramarine (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am horribly lost if your comment is addressing mine or not, if not please refactor and place under the person you are replying to, if it is, please clarify the relation to my comments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed you were talking about the democide material since it it mentioned at the top. If not, then it applies to those who did. Regarding the more general issue, I do not think there are many official sources stating "Hiroshima was not state terrorism" etc. Since "state terrorism" is not a legal concept and has no agreed definition, then an allegation is little more than an perjorative personal opinion. Therefore such allegations are probably just ignored by the state department etc. The same probably applies to more serious scholars who may defend against charges that it violated international law, was military unnecessary, or was not morally justified, but ignore the pointless "state terrorism" personal opinion allegations.Ultramarine (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was addressing Williams comments, which is why I posted somewhere below his. As for why you assume the arguments are ignored, I can see some reason, however I do not think they are ignore, there is just not much of a defense a government can make that will not exempt similar behavior from others in the future. But neither of us know why, so its all just speculation. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is difficult to defend against a concept without an agreed definition. "No, this is not state terrorism according to the definition we use" "Yes, it is according to our definition" etc.Ultramarine (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why as a policy we rely on a reliable source to be reliable. To have done research and not be talking crazy. We as Wikipedians should not be presenting an argument/definition that is all encompassing. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is something else that might be appropriate for the "opposing views" section. Personally I don't think we need such a section. But here s a discussion of a related matter:"...the judgment of whether an act is terrorist or not should be made independently of, and without reference to, the motives or self-perceptions of the perpetrators of that act. For example, the agents of state terrorism rarely see themselves as engaged in terrorist acts. Even the more open minded and morally sensitive of state officials will concede only that the state (especially if it is a liberal democratic state) is sometimes guilty of unfortunate and condemnable "excesses" or human rights "abuses," but never of terrorism. Such a view would effectively exculpate the liberal democratic state of the US from the charge of nuclear terrorism in dropping bombs on the overwhelmingly civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! The untenability of such an exculpation should be obvious. Once we arrive at a definition of terrorism that is balanced, neutral and objective, we can then more intelligently discuss its efficacy and ethics."Giovanni33 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Straw mans are not needed. Your view that the article does not need an opposing view section is interesting. Please elaborate.Ultramarine (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Ferguson quote again
I strongly oppose that addition of that rediculous Ferguson quote back, which was previously removed per consensus. But maybe consensus has changed. I did not revert it, when I could have, because I prefer to have discussion and respect Merzbow as a serious editor. Lets hear what others think about it.

My problem with it is not because of where it was published, an op-ed piece in the telegraph popular press, but because of the context of it being cherry picked out of context into this article, and it being a logical fallacy--a straw man, since no one makes the claim Ferguson says is not true. To cite a refuting claim against a claim that does not exist makes no sense to place in an article. The fact is that the context that its an op-ed piece in the popular press specifically directed at the Nobel prize acceptance speech of Harold Pinter is also relevant. In other words, it is NOT an historical study of Guatemala, which is the kind of academic quality this article should be citing as a counter point--not a fallacious polemic against a rival Pinter that is not specific to the Guatemalan Civil War. In short it was a sloppy sweeping attack on Pinter. Therefore it should not go into articles where there is neither evidence of commentary by Pinter nor evidence of any source making the claim that the U.S. is culpable of all 200,000 deaths.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let us note that all the Chomsky material are op-eds or interviews. So they should be removed if excluding op-eds. The article stats "the United States initiated a nearly four-decade-long cycle of terror and repression that led to the death of 200,000 Guatemalans." Professor Ferguson's is replying to such claims.Ultramarine (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, it does state the US initiated the cycle of terror. But, who in the world (just name one) makes that claim that the US is to blame for all deaths? Now, if we have anyone anywhere making the claim that all deaths are to be blamed on the US, then this would have a place. Otherwise, its pure rubbish, an insult to the very notion of an "opposing view." If we want a good opposing view, lets fine one from a historian who knows what they are talking about in this case of Guatemala, who is making a careful historical analysis, say from someone who specializes in Guatemalan History? Polemical attacks in the popular press made against others with sweeping brushes that use straw man fallacies are utterly useless except to degrade the scholarly content of the article.
 * So, yes, the US is responsible for initiating. That is a common view. Dispute that? Fine, then quote a good source that disputes it, or engages with that argument. The straw man cherry picked quote does not do this. Straw man fallacies have no place in WP as substitutes for real opposing views on a subject matter. We do have some standards here, I hope!Giovanni33 (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "who in the world (just name one) makes that claim that the US is to blame for all deaths?" The quote does. If you initiate something which has consequences you are seen as partly or wholly responsible. Again, Ferguson is replying to this argument.Ultramarine (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Initiating does not equal complete blame for all deaths. No one makes that argument. The quote doesn't. So the counter is knocking over a straw man. It doesn't dispute the claim. It disputes a claim that no one makes.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. No qualifier giving. The US alleged to have initiated something which led to 200,000 deaths. Implied that all these deaths are US responsibility.Ultramarine (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can not believe this same debate is happening here too! How many places is this same debate going on? Its crazy! Why not find a better source that makes a more intelligent counter point? A source that is less controversial? We should not be wasting our time with this.DrGabriela (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The source should be removed and find a better one. Lets stop arguing over political agendas and just be a wiki here. Hooper (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Concrete factual arguments please. If the US is not responsible for all these deaths, then there should be no problem with removing "that led to the death of 200,000 Guatemalans".Ultramarine (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The ONLY time that 200,000 is given as a number is in the ferguson quote that should be removed, so it seems that we are actually in agreement. Hooper (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Was not correct earlier but is now.Ultramarine (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Get your fingers out of your asses...
And clean up this article. Now. If NPOV is an editorial problem and not a valid reason for deletion, get rid of the NPOV violations that have plagued this article for three years. Even if you have to stub it. Sceptre (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, progress is being made currently in this direction. I think most of the NPOV problems have been solved already (they were mostly in the opposing views section). Most of the work that is left to be done resides in upgrading the quality of the information, i.e. what to report on that works best to present a discussion of state terrorism by the US. There are a few sections that some clean up along these lines could be used. That is to make them sharper, more in focus to the topic, as reflected in the literature.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Users are currently striving hard and doing their best to do so, however if you wish to add tags please explain why first. Your tags were removed because you gave no basis for why they were here.  Please remember that NPOV includes your own POV.  If you provide examples first instead of just cursing and pointing fingers, we can continue work towards a better article. Hooper (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You want the reason for those tags? One word: "Duh." Sceptre (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If the tags were as self-evident as you claim, they would already be there. Put your examples here if you truly have some so that the community of editors working on this article can work on them.  If you can not provide examples to be changed, then the tags will remain off.  Duh is not a wiki policy. Hooper (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They should be there and have been added many times... but there's a disturbing rise in the train of thought that "if the user hasn't submitted a 10,000 word dissertation, the tags should be kept off". Sceptre (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at both the article and talk page history I find nothing close to this. All tags were discussed or removed, and they were usually discussed thouroughly due to the controveral nature of this particular article.  So we're once again back to the basics: show us examples to work on or leave the article alone.  That is how articles get improved.  Not with blind tags. Hooper (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Note per the top of this page: "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.". Hooper (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tags
I come to these, well, lets say "controversal" pages often to check the tags. I keep seeing people placing tags on pages and never actually giving a good reason why or starting a discussion. There is no POV discussion going on, and the article is well sourced. It can be seen that it is a work in progress but we should not leave tags in place that aren't true to the current status of the article but instead to a slanted reader/editor's views. Hooper (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On a second note, is there anyway to screen so that only non-American editors can edit on this so that we can kill any perception pushers from either politically based agendas side? Now that would be amazing. Hooper (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I have an exception, originally being from Berkeley, California but still living in the San Francisco Bay Area? We like to consider our People's Republic here as having politically seceded from the rest of the US. As such we are rather free from nationalist biases. We could also try to be more inclusive by adopting restrictions based on this page's list of cities. Those in the top ten from the first list are allowed (I note SF is #9), and those from the second list are not. Its better than banning all editors from the US.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess who also lives in the SF Bay Area? Muhahaha! Anyways, I have no objection to removing the tags for now. - Merzbow (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You live around here? Where? We should have a mini wiki-meet some day, then. Play chess?Giovanni33 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Down in the South Bay. I noticed there is a Bay Area WP mailing list, but I haven't checked if they are organizing meets. Will take a look when I get a chance. (Oh, and I'm terrible at chess). - Merzbow (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they had a meet in SF, and it was pretty good. Lots of famous wikipedians attended, including Jimbo. When WP's headquarters moves to SF, I'll have to go visit.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing NPOV tag cleanup. Whenever an NPOV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. That's my copy/paste - since I'm doing cleanup, off goes the tag.....Jjdon (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Balance and style in the Japan section
The Japan section currently has only one opposing argument, essentially that it was more an act of war than terrorism. The argument is very brief and unexplained. It would be good to have further arguments against the atomic bombings being terrorism included, for balance. In the debate over the atomic bombings article there is a section on how the bombings were part of total war, arguing that because of Japan's "total war" approach everyone in the cities were militarised (not civilian), even women and children were working on the war effort. It also states that the cities were of special military importance. Both of these are potential arguments against the theory that it was terrorism because the cities were civilian targets, which is the main argument currently given in this article. However, as far as I can tell none of these sources mention that this is a reason it wasn't terrorism (they don't mention terrorism at all), just that they weren't civilian targets. I don't think it would be original research to include these sourced arguments after the "targeting of innocents" sentence. While they don't mention terrorism they are direct contradictions of the existing statement that the targets were civilian. I don't have a personal opinion on whether the abombings were terrorism, but I'd like to see all the relevant arguments represented here. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also still think that the Japan section (in fact, most of the sections in the article) could do with more condensing, away from being a list of quotes and towards being fewer, longer paragraphs with more logical flow (supported by the same logical flow being present in the sources). That would make them much more readable and more encyclopedic in style. I wrote a draft in this style, but received little relevant feedback. However, I see now that it's hard to achieve this kind of improvement (especially in one big go) on such sensitive topics without people mistaking it for original research or synthesis. I'll look at doing it one bit at a time so each change can be discussed separately. I also think that one editor's suggestion of an "acts of war" section that includes both the atomic bombings and firebombings like Dresden would be a logical improvement (because the same arguments have been applied to both), but again this seems restricted by perceived original research. If these things have been unarguably linked (in a way that WP:OR would clearly not be an issue) in reliable literature and an editor is aware of it, it would be good to hear about it.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that under the new broader scope for background information/arguments that are related enough to the context of the debate, it is fine, and helps with NPOV--even though it is not directly engaging in an argument counter to the claim of State Terrorism. However, I'm open to hear others thoughts on the above, and will go with consensus on the matter. So I think we should keep it for now, unless there are good objections. I've fixed the references as discussed above, as I said I would get to it this week, i.e. linking the Erikson to Zinn for proper attribution of the one who cites him for making the argument. I should be able to get the exact Coady quote this week too. I also found this fitting for the section, which I also think is close enough to these Bombings, and a central part of the State Terrorism analysis:


 * "Some scholars argue that the institutionalized form of terrorism carried out by states have occurred as a result of changes that took place following World War ll, and in particular these atomic bombings. In this analysis state terrorism as a form of foreign policy was shaped by the presence and use of weapons of mass destruction, and that the legitimizing of such violent behavior led to an increasingly accepted form of state behavior. Examples of state terrorism cited are Germany’s bombing of London and the U.S. atomic destruction of Hiroshima. The argument is discussed by Professor of Political Science Michael Stohl and George A. Lopez, in their book "Terrible beyond Endurance? The Foreign Policy of State Terrorism." 1988."


 * I think it adds nicely to the section, although its more about State Terrorism per se than this particular act of it, it does cite it as an act, having ramifications for future state behavior that is described as state terrorism within foreign policy. So its quite relevant (I threw in the German Bombings for context of the idea). Thoughts?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You restored "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." Again, does not mention terrorism and no mention of opposing views regarding thi.Ultramarine (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for blind reverting everything first, before even talking about it here. Way to go on this article, Ultra. But, to respond, it does not need to mention terrorism. You need to get over that old outlook. Its relevant because its part of the argument by the proponents of the view, and is in context. My improvements should be restored.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making many changes without explanation or discussion on talk first. Regarding the Stohl material is already in the state terrorism article. "in particular these atomic bombings" is not mentioned in the original quote by Stohl. Obviously we must include the opposing views regarding justification and military necessity if starting discussing this.Ultramarine (talk) 06:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You also made changes violating WP:WTA like changing "allege" to "point out".Ultramarine (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also Changed "Some legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have characterized the United States' World War II nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan as state terrorism." to "Legal scholars, historians, other governments, and human rights organizations have characterized the United States' World War II nuclear attacks against the Empire of Japan as state terrorism." Giving the impression there is a consensus.Ultramarine (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why did you not either 1. fix that, or 2. better yet, raise it here so I could fix that after discussion? No, you just blanked reverted everything, and your using the old false argument again that it must say "state terror." I notice you did not object or removed the above added content on the basis. This appears to me to be bad faith editing.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you not discuss these changes first? Why make such pov changes in the first place? Please read the above for what arguments I stated.Ultramarine (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I DID. Extensively, and said I would make the changes this week.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you did the many changes before posting anything in this section.Ultramarine (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed that. Anything else that you would like to discuss first BEFORE blanket reverting again?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed what? I stated numerous problems above.Ultramarine (talk) 07:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you only stated one valid problem. The 'Some" is missing. What else? Your argument about needing the words "state terrorism" is not a valid argument.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your violation of WP:WTA which I stated above being one example. As well inserting an unsupported "in particular these atomic bombings" as per above.Ultramarine (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is saying, "an in particular" words to avoid? Those are the acts of WW2 that are cited as examples in particular, of what the authors were talking about. I was just trying to be accurate and tie it to the section topic.
 * I would like editors to discuss this addition of yours: "However, there are others who argue that bombings were saved many lives, were morally justified, and military necessary as discussed in the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article." I feel that its off topic to the issue of state terrorism. The debate over the atomic bombings link is already given on the top. Why repeat it again? And, this is not supposed to be a fork of that article. Those counter points are not within context of this act being one of stat terrorism, nor even counter arguments used within argument by proponents, such as the above section by Ryan Paddy, which does address those arguments. For example, saying they saved lives does not touch on any of the arguments that its state terrorism. This is an old debate that we've had before with other editors explaining and showing you that an act can be considered a terrorist act and still be one that ultimately saves lives. The two have no connection with each other. So its not a relevant addition.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I stated "You also made changes violating WP:WTA like changing "allege" to "point out"."
 * Regarding the Stohl material is already in the state terrorism article. "in particular these atomic bombings" is not mentioned in the original quote by Stohl.
 * The sources cited for "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." does not claim terrorism. So if including this opposing views must be included.Ultramarine (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your still missing my point. This is not about any POV and then finding any other POV. It has to be logically tied to the arguments of the subject and within context. Your addition is not, as explained. Saving lives and being a terrorist is not mutually exclusive. So the one argument does not touch the other. Get it? Thus it is off topic here. Regarding the Stohl material, yes, I saw it there and looked it up. They are paraphrasing the scholars who make that argument. I verified it was correct. And, they do cite the Atomic bombings in particular. I don't see the problem of stating that. Lastly, why are you still using the "has to say state terrorism" argument. Thats a dead horse, so no need to open that up again.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you still do not reply regarding the WP:WTA violation and I will assume there is no opposing argument and will edit the article accordingly.
 * Regarding the Stohl material, please give quote and page number from the book supporting your claim of "in particular these atomic bombings".
 * The sources for "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers" are not any more logically tied to this article than the given counter-arguments. None of the sources mention terrorism but can possible be included as background material if all NPOV is respected. In addition "in this context" should be removed as again state terrorism is not mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are because military necessary and transgressing accepted moral barriers are both arguments used by those who classify such as under the rubric of terrorism. Completely logically tied, unlike your additions in the name of NPOV.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Last chance. Any concrete objection to correcting the WP:WTA violation? Do you have quote and page number regarding your claim of "in particular these atomic bombings"?
 * You ignored my point that the given sources for "both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers" does not make any connection to state terrorism. If including this background, then also the opposing views should be included.Ultramarine (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to correct if if you could explain the problem. So far you have not. What is the problem that needs correcting? Where does it say those are words to avoid? Can you quote that? If so I'll be happy to correct that so you don't have to waste a "revert." About connection to terrorism, its does not need to say terrorism. See addition of Ryan above. That is valid even though its doesn't mention terrorism. Its about a logical context to the subjects arguments pro/con. The subject is state terrorism. This also includes relevant background material discussed as relevant by those making the claims.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Some allege that the Target Committee" changed to "They point to the fact that the Target Committee". I will add a fact tag to the article regarding your unsourced claim before removing. Regarding the military necessary and moral discussion, if sources do not have to mention state terrorism, then the same applies to the opposing views. No double standard.Ultramarine (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you don't understand what I'm trying to tell you: opposing views in order to be opposing views have to be about the subject or the arguments the subject rests on, in order to counter them. Saying it saved lives doesn't engage in material related to the topic of state terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. One can save lives through acts of terror. One one argues that its state terrorism on the basis of arguments of lives saved. That is a different debate. I can't say it any clearer. So there is no double standard. The standard is one of consistent logic.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Double standard. The sources claiming "both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers" do not mention state terrorism. So double standard if excluding sources opposing this for not mentioning state terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Giovanni33 has articulated well the differences, Mr.Ultramarine. The effect of terrorism (good results, bad method has nothing to do with the fact of it being terrorism or not.  Whereas, the argument that it was not done for military purposes but to terrorize the world (as the US did, using their first stike option to continue state terror) and that the method was a "transgression of acceptable moral barriers" is talking about issues of terrorism. That is why States will deny doing it. Its violates acceptable moral norms becaues it targets innocents. This is true even if the goal is to save lives or does so in fact. Like the arguments for torture, they are considered to not be moral tactics. So, you see, this has to do with the the subject of terror.

I am happy to see improvement since I last saw it, but the last few edits did not improve it. The full quote by Zinn about spirt of fascism is distracting and makes the quote too large. Its better to keep it compact as before. I set it off with quotes for formatting and easier to read.DrGabriela (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * From an outsider editor POV looking in, it appears that Ultra has an agenda to push here. Gio has sourced well the additions and the only real problem is space and proper wiki'fying.  Please allow him to continue as consensus is he is right when we only use Good Faith arguments.  Thank you. Hooper (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is still a double standard. The sources claiming "both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers" do not mention state terrorism. So double standard if excluding sources opposing this for not mentioning state terrorism. Also, you removed the fact tag without explanation. The Zinn quote is now misleading and strange since the question asked is not answered.Ultramarine (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its called a rhetorical question, Ultra. Its not meant to be answered. You changing the ? to a period changes the meaning a bit and the effect of the quote. Its also a thought provoking question/point. Not everything added needs to directly mention the words "state terrrorism" for it to be a valid inclusion. The above material by Ryan for example does not but its relevant to the discuss of the topic as its logically tied to the arguments advanced by the proponents of the thesis (state terrorism). Your additions create a pov fork and bring up a separate debate not related to any of the claims advanced by them or related to this subject (state terrorism). So there is no double standard. If there was I'd be arguing to remove the Ryan material.Giovanni33 (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a rhetorical question since Zinn answers it later in the article. The article would be a POV fork if excluding the views of one side.Ultramarine (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you find a source that doesn't mention State Terrorism but can still be a boost to the main topic of this article, then yes you can use it, and the same vice versa. Military force, especially if unnecessary, is indeed relevant to this topic.  If you have a source that you are wanting to use, let us know why, where, and how and if it is equally relevant, then it can be used.  No double standard.  Just do it. Hooper (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The opposing views sources are indeed a boost to the article in order to follow NPOV.Ultramarine (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * But if you don't have any opposing view sources then that doesn't make the article POV, it just means you lack sources for your opposition. Hooper (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are dozens opposing views sources regarding military necessity and moral justification in the main article. A bunch can easily be added.Ultramarine (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I removed your dubious tag as it is incorrect. You are the only opposition and have yet to provide a valid reason for said tag.  If you're trying for good faith adds to wikipedia then maybe you should not work on an article you have an obvious point of view on.  Its just a good way to keep yourself from getting upset if an article doesn't read the way you want it to read.  This article is currently in a decent state other than the quote being discussed below for removal.  If continued editing wars go on between the main two editors it is recommended to have third party admins come in and help with the discussion or to lock the page. Hooper (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Point to" is prohibited by WP:WTA. Do you insist on violating policy?Ultramarine (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, spare me the ad hominem and incivility.Ultramarine (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just read that policy, and I'm not following where you say this article is going against it. Please provide the sentence in question so I can give you an answer. Hooper (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Point to" is listed among "Words that may advance a point of view". Should be avoided.Ultramarine (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I read that, let me be more clear: what is the sentence in this article that you feel is going against that policy. That is what I'm not seeing. Hooper (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously what the tag you deleted marked. "They point to the fact that the Target Committee,"Ultramarine (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I can actually see the sentence. Yes it is a word to avoid but it is not Dubious by any means.  Instead of placing a tag, we should discuss a better phrasing.  Perhaps: ..achieve a political goal, highlighted by the fact that the Target Committee.... or something like this.  What type of phrase are you interested in seeing, or does the above work? Hooper (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That the target committee did is dubious so "allege" is an approprate word as per WP:WTA.Ultramarine (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't agree to that. It is a known fact that the target committee did choose to not hit a military target and went civilian.  This is a fact.  So "allege" is a very misleading and improper word.  Point to is to be avoided, so we should find a way to state the fact without using it. Hooper (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not what the source says. Hiroshima is mentioned as being a significant military target.Ultramarine (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What the source and the statement say is that they chose a target not exclusively military when they could have and had a choice. That is all.  So it is not alleging anything since they did do it, it is just mentioning that it did happen. Hooper (talk) 16:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)" From the target committee document listed as a source.Ultramarine (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statement "they chose a target not exclusively military when they could have and had a choice." is not supported by the document.Ultramarine (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so we're in agreement. You aren't keeping me.  Let's try to clarify, here is the section in question: Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. They point to the fact that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world.

So, our source are the minutes and what we know from that is that they could have hit a exclusively military site but chose Hiroshima. However, what we do not know is that they did this to hit civilians. As your last post shows, it could very well have just been good planning. So, where our sentence says ...atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents..., that is exactly where we should use Alleged. Because that is an Allegation, and not necessarilly fact. I think we can agree on this.

So moving on to the next sentence: They point to the fact that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective.... We want to change "point to" per policy, however alleged is not correct nor proper as it is not true. They did indeed chose a non-strictly military objective target. The exact wording can be debated but alleged is improper. However, to side with you some, the following tidbit: ...instead choosing a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world. should once again say alleged as it is not necessarilly the reason. So here is what I would say the new section should look like to be NPOV:

''Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Supporters of this classification highlight the fact that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective, alleging that they chose a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world.''

How do you feel about the above? Hooper (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Quote please from the target committee document supporting "they could have hit a exclusively military site but chose Hiroshima" and "they did this to hit civilians".Ultramarine (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Civilians" are not mentioned at all in the document.Ultramarine (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will quote where they chose Hiroshima and not sites that were exclusively military. I will not and can not quote that they did this to hit civilians, which is why alleged belongs where it is. You are misrepresenting that. But, as far as their possible targets: ''(4) Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100' x 2000'. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target)''. Kokura was a military target, whereas the other targets risked harming civilians. So yes, we know they did choose the targets they did over other possible targets, but we do NOT know that they did this to kill civilians. That is why Alleged belongs where i put it but not where you want it. Hooper (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Kokura is also a city with civilians. Considering that many bombers managed to miss hitting entire cities at the time, only a target covering a very large area could be chosen.Ultramarine (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another quote, since it can even be argued that even hitting the arsenal risked civilian life: ''8. Use Against "Military" Objectives

A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.'' Hooper (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That means that a valley or similar area should be chosen. Does not mention civilians.Ultramarine (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so lets try to see what can be agreed from the source:
 * A) They chose not to attack a strictly military objective
 * B) That saying they made that decision for a political agenda or to kill civilians is an Allegation and should be called such, so it is
 * C) That saying they chose not to attack a strictly military objective is true and should not be called an allegation.

Which is exactly what I did with my above suggestion for how to re-word the paragraph. Hooper (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A and C of this are not mentioned. See my comments above.Ultramarine (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which means that, once again, we are in AGREEMENT. That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. You're begining to not make sense to me. I am stating that people who claim they did this for a reason to kill civilians or for political agendas are ALLEGING that they are doing this, not that it is fact. That is why we use the word alleged twice in this paragraph. I'm not saying at all that it is fact. I'm just stating that the one place you want to add allege is a fact, and should not be worded as such. So we seem to be in agreement on that, but not in agreement on how to reword it. I have provided an example, if you would care to provide an example as well. Hooper (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * However, you are wrong: A and C are TRUE. They mention it in the above quote that they are not choosing a strictly military site, and they say why not.  They go on to say that if they did, what it would need.  So A and C are CORRECT and SOURCED. Hooper (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They are false. Again see my replies above and reply if you have more arguments.Ultramarine (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can no longer try to come to an agreement with you because you are no longer making sense to me. Not trying to be mean, I'm just stating I can no longer follow your logic. I have followed your statements above and at this point they are either A) WRONG or B) Agreed and in line with the suggested content change. So me re-reading your above does nothing but re-affirm me to make the change as it is correct with what you have asked for. I have no more arguments. And to say that they are false is to blatantly ignore half of the source. Unless you provide an example paragraph for the content change, I will make the change, as we can both agree it needs to be changed. Lets just be done with it and move on. Hooper (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "highlight the fact that the Target Committee, on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective" is still false. See my arguments above. All the listed possible targets where cities with civilians. No mention of a "strictly military target" which could be chosen. Only a very large target located in an valley or similar area could be chosen which very much limited available options.Ultramarine (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you are blatantly ignoring the subsection of the source labeled apprpriately "Military Objectives" that I quoted earlier where they specifically say that. They say in another point that if they were to choose a strictly military objective, all the qualifications it would need to be made.  This is why it is true to say they chose not to do that, but what is not true and an allegation is to try to hypothesise why.  Which is how the new paragraph reflects it. Hooper (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The "Military Objectives" section only points out that a valley or similar area concentrating the blast should be chosen. "They say in another point that if they were to choose a strictly military objective, all the qualifications it would need to be made." Huh? Quote please? Ultramarine (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will not get into an edit war with you. I came into this page because of the edit war between you and Gio. I am going to get outside assistance from the proper wiki channels and we should allow them to debate on it and decide what the new sentence should say since we can obviously not agree. Though I do not believe your "failed verificication/not in source" tag is correct. We should cease from furthur edits until others have a chance to look into it. Hooper (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the Unbalanced tag from the section when there is an ongoing dispute? Why did you not mention this in the edit summary?Ultramarine (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was my understanding, as I stated earlier, that we were actually in agreement and if you had no other example, it would be changed. That has obviously been wrong, so yes the tag should be replaced. A third opinion should be incoming and we can see what they think.Hooper (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I replied to that. Now please put the tag back while there is an ongoing dispute.Ultramarine (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Still no secondary source provided for the analysis of the Target Committee document and the phrase "Supporters of this classification highlight...", and I gave several days for this, so I've removed it until it can be sourced correctly. - Merzbow (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At what point did you "give several days" or even ask for a second source? Not saying it didn't happen but we've just recently had a huge discussion over altering this and are waiting on a third opinion wikipidian to answer the call, and its up on their project page.  Your removal seems inapppropriate.  It will be replaced shortly if you do not respond, atleast until we get a proper consensus. Hooper (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wrote about this on 19th April in the previous Japan section above, and asked for the necessary secondary sources to be added. Nothing has been done since then, so I removed the text until sources can be provided. You can't say "Supporters of this classification highlight..." without providing any sources, and you can't provide original analysis of a primary source without a secondary source. - Merzbow (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It actually has several sources that were placed afterwards by a sentence that do support that. The new wording is an attempted compromise over POV on what is alleged and what is fact.  However, it may all be mute now considering the discussion going on below (Japan again break) if we decide to leave it simple, which I support. Hooper (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did look through all of those secondary sources, and can find no mention of the Target Committee. Perhaps you can provide quotes from them that I've overlooked..? - Merzbow (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The part you quoted whas the part that said "Supporters of this classification highlight..." which the numerous links two sentences down give many many sources for supporters of this belief. If it is the Target Committee part that you meant, then that had only one source, though a quick reference just brought me 8 new reliable sources.  I was not around and missed the initial discussion, but have no problem with additional sources.  THough now we have two debates going on as a whole new debate which would supercede this is going on below.  Once a decision is made there, if we decide to keep this, I will ensure a minimum of two reliable sources. Hooper (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that the only source given is a primary document from the Committee. That cannot be used a source for what US critics argue. Please discuss your sources and proposed text here now that we have some time do it.Ultramarine (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive
I think we may be ready for an archive of the talk page, though I caution to wait until the Third Opinion is done on the Japan bit above. Hooper (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm? We have automatic archiving (per User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo); the latest run was on the 22nd.  I don't think arbitrary manual archiving would be a good idea.


 * Perhaps archive a bit more frequent, though? This page is currently archived according to the old(336h) algorithm.  If I understand correctly, this will leave threads around for fourteen days after the latest activity.  Excessive?  I rather think eight days (old(8d)) should be enough.


 * Aye/nay/other? — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize it was automated. Nice touch.  But yes, on pages like this (controversal/political/etc. articles) where the talk pages are bound to get large should have a quicker archive time. Hooper (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 8 days seems fine to me, maybe even 5, which is a typical work week. --I Write Stuff (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reduced it to 8d, as that seems at this point non-controversial, but we may of course end up shortening it more. I hesitate to do so.  For one thing, I prefer the conservative approach, making big changes a little by little, getting a feel for it before going all the way.  For another, I rather like the fact that in 8 days, someone could be off-wiki for a week, and still not risk missing the conclusion of a thread.  The utility of the latter would have to be weighed against that of a shorter, cleaner talk page though; and as anyone who's gone too long could always check the latest archives upon returning, it is not on its own decisive.  I suspect, in this case, whatever we're more comfortable with should be the whole of the law. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected
I think it is a good idea to protect this page and discuss all edits here on the talk page first. When I, a new user, came in today and didn't agree with half of you, I was put on notice twice for a rule I hadn't broken AND accused of sock puppetry. Humurous really. I'm not wanting to call things bad faith editing but all clues point to that. All future changes, other than minor spelling/grammar, should take place first here for consensus and agreement that it truly belongs. And instead of doing everything in your power to attempt to just get rid of the editor who shares a separate opinion, try actually fixing it. Moving on to next improperly tagged article. Hooper (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hooper, the whole point of the 3RR warning is to stop users before they break it. Do not imply bad faith on that part, please - that in itself is not assuming good faith. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The amusement is that nothing but bad faith has been assumed by a particular person. Giovanni received a NPA warning without actually issuing a personal attack, bad faith was assumed in Hoopers edits as he did not, nor was going to break 3RR, and further his participation here has been extremely helpful if you look above. I went to congratulate him for working a good neutral middle ground and seen the same person who has issued 4 NPA warnings, none actionable, had issued Hooper a 3RR warning. The most humorous part of it all was that Hooper had not violated 3RR and that person themselves reverted 3 times. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, what are you talking about - I hadn't reverted at all. And I was the one that reported him. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe he, like I, meant WMC. Who at the time of his report, had just finished his third revert. You did good. Hooper (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

mass blanking through protection, again!
More admin abusing their tools. This editor is involved in the content dispute, has tried to delete this article--in fact, was the nom for the recently failed Afd, and now is blanking this long term section against consensus--and through protection! A clear abuse of the tools:. Protection is not an endorsement of a version, and its quite improper to use ones tools to get it locked in the version you want it in. I ask for this to be undone.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Giovanni, I think you mean he was removing material without consensus - there is no consensus to keep it, so it is incorrect to say he is acting against consensus. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the section (which is mostly the same--now its improved) was added with consensus among all editors, including MONGO, many months ago (before you showed up here). Editors on both sides of the political spectrum were involved and agreed to the addition of the material. It was stable for many months. It was only recently blanked, and this was without consensus. Yes, currently, its disputed, but the onus is on those who want long standing material removed to do so the way it was introduced: though discussion and agreement, though the collaborative editing process we call consensus. Its the violation of this to push through mass blanking based on very false reasons, that I strongly object to. Its also being done via the improper use of admin tools by the editor involved in the dispute. Highly improper.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did MONGO agree to the exact wording, or a different version? He isn't here, so that's difficult to verify. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All the material was put in the talk page and discussed, prior. Mongo was one of the last to relent on the condition that it be kept concise. There was a lot more referenced material that could have made it much larger. You can go back into the talk archive. Its all there.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Sceptre initiated the AfD, whereas JzG (Guy) blanked the Japan 1945 section while it was protected. But I agree this is a clear misuse of tools on the part of JzG, using admin tools in a content dispute that he's involved in. JzG, perhaps you didn't realise that the article was protected when you changed it? Please revert your changes or we'll have to make a request for comment.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryan, making an "or else" threat isn't the best way to resolve this - especially given a lot of editors would see an RfC as a bit of a joke. You're more likely to win someone over in a situation like this by being a bit nicer. The worst that will happen is that if the dispute is not resolved you can say later on that you always acted in good faith. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * John, its not a threat. Its just hoping to avoid going through the next steps, which will be taken. Its allowing the editor a chance to undo a serious mistake. In the same way you would warn someone who broke 3RR to do a self revert or they may be reported and blocked. Its perfectly normal and civil.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a threat to say "or we'll have to make a request for comment". I didn't mention civility once - you brought that up. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies if it was perceived as a threat, I meant it as "here is the due process in this sort of situation, as I understand it". When an admin appears to have misused tools, they're asked to revert their changes before an RfC, that's what I understand the process to be regardless of whether RfC is perceived as working. No threat intended. Do you agree it's a misuse (perhaps accidental) of admin tools? Note that I'm only commenting on the apparent abuse of tools, not whether it would have been a good edit if the article wasn't protected.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. There's an RfC still active on Guy here. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow that admin has a lot of problems. But can someone put back that section that was taken out out valid reason? I agree this admin should not have these powers if he is causing so many violations of Wikipedia rules. The Japan section is a very good one and very much valid. Its a shame that we have POV reasons for censoring scholarly subjects. If I started to delete everything I did not agree with, there would not be a lot left, and I would be blocked (correctly). I think those who have shown they can't edit following the rules should not edit this article.Rafaelsfingers (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am asuming that many (most?) admins are not going to touch this article for a few days to give Guy the opportunity to correct his mistake. He appears to have gone off line from his JzG account shortly after removing the content from this article and it would not be good form to not give him a chance to correct his error. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If yous started deleting sections/content on this article, Rafael, you'd be re-banned for violation of the terms of your indef block being lifted. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you are getting those conditions from John. Maybe I missed something but from the talk page the only conditions were: "I am willing to unblock you on condition that you join the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club and do your very best to follow the club guidelines. What do you say? Jehochman Talk 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)"Were there some other conditions that you think are imposed on him? He is as welcome here as any other editor who works with others in a collaborative manner. Lets not bite newbies with threats of bans.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There was consensus to keep the subsection on Japan. The discussion (ahem) was on content and length. This deletion is unacceptable during protection without specific consensus to delete. Sceptre initiated the last AfD (#8) on 15 April 2008, not JzG (Guy). — Becksguy (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect User:Relata refero had it right, calling this "obviously frakking unsustainable!" That ain't working. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Title is unclear
"Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" is semantically ambiguous, particularly the use of the "by" preposition. The reader should know, without having to read the article, whether the allegations are by the U.S., or whether the terrorism is (allegedly) by the U.S. Something like Alleged state terrorism by the United States might be an improvement, but I am open to other suggestions.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Addition of a "committed" was a suggestion, probably to be discussed/voted on after we all recover from the stress of the previous title renaming. And most likely in conjunction with adding "committed" to all the other "state terrorism" articles that share the same name format. - Merzbow (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I brought this up at all the "related" pages (Iran, Sri Lanka, Russia) and response has been limited and ambiguous, but I read that to mean some editors are open to reconsidering the name. Random  89  05:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to changing all of them, but not just one. They should all be the same format. Adding "committed by" would be fine, and will add clarity. This article has had at least seven titles due to moves since 2005, which is more than two/year. So lets change with the intention to keep them that way. See my list below (mostly copied from above) and a comment/link from Travb/Inclusionist to past disagreements for an interesting read. So the article name template would be: "Allegations of state terrorism committed by ". Note that changing names does not and will not fix the contentious nature of this article, although we thought that Allegations of.... was better than the one before, #6, which was too vague. Various titles this article has had, from the earliest in 2005 to the current. Many more: See Talk:American_terrorism/Past_disagreements about the dozens of pages about this. — Becksguy (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) American terrorism [merged into next article]
 * 2) Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
 * 3) State terrorism by the United States
 * 4) Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
 * 5) Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
 * 6) State terrorism and the United States
 * 7) Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
 * "Allegations of state terrorism committed by X" is better.Ultramarine (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would support that as well. I think a greater need on counter arguments will be needed to balance it out and avoid an attack piece. Perhaps the requirement on the argument of state terrorism should not be needed, perhaps justification over opposition or opposing view. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As would I. This fixes the grammatical interpretation the the US is making the allegations, instead of being the subject of them.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Mongoose
Lots of background material not making accusations of state terrorism. All duplicated in the Operation Mongoose article. Should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The background material is topical and not excessive, and flows well with the rest. There are three fairly tight paragraphs, each one representing a different phase.BernardL (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

For wordsmithing reasons, I would like to replace the first two sentances in Operation Mongoose:
 * "A prime focus of the Kennedy administration was the removal of Fidel Castro from power. To this end it implemented Operation Mongoose, a US program of sabotage and other secret operations against the island . "

with
 * In 1961, the Kennedy administration implemented Operation Mongoose, a US program of sabotage and other secret operations intended to overthrow the Communist regime in Cuba, including its leader Fidel Castro.

Is that wording supported by the current source? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mongoose was led by Edward Lansdale in the Defense Department and William King Harvey at the CIA. Samuel Halpern, a CIA co-organizer, conveyed the breadth of involvement: “CIA and the U. S. Army and military forces and Department of Commerce, and Immigration, Treasury, God knows who else — everybody was in Mongoose. It was a government-wide operation run out of Bobby Kennedy's office with Ed Lansdale as the mastermind.”"

"Peter Kornbluh, senior analyst at the National Security Archive at George Washington University, raised the point that according to the documentary record, directly after the first executive committee (EXCOMM) meeting that was held on the missile crisis, Attorney General Robert Kennedy “convened a meeting of the Operation Mongoose team” expressing disappointment in its results and pledging to take a closer personal attention on the matter. Kornbluh accused RFK of taking “the most irrational position during the most extraordinary crisis in the history of U. S. foreign policy”, remarking that “Not to belabor the obvious, but for chrissake, a nuclear crisis is happening and Bobby wants to start blowing things up.”[19]."

Examples of general background material duplicated in the main article. If no concrete objections it should be removed.Ultramarine (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Japan again
I've trimmed Japan. It was far too long and there is already an excellent article on this subject William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Trimmed? I would not call it a trim. You blanked it to nothing. That is like saying an AfD vote to delete is really just a "trim."--And I note you wanted this article deleted. Also your claim that there is another article where this information already is discussed is a fabrication: 1. It doesnt exist, and 2. This IS the place for it.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That do make the section neutral. The Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki article discuss the bombings extensively. Much of material here was just condemnations or rhetorical questions with little analysis.Ultramarine (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree with this. It clears up any issues with this article and helps us trim the whole article.  I like it.  Simple.  Can we check other subcategories that have main articles and do this? Hooper (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryan Paddy reverted said edits. Ryan can you provide your reasoning?  I saw the explanation you wrote but can you go into detail with your problems with the section? Hooper (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The revert in question is this. I'm not sure what RP means by barely discussed; it has one of the quotes (from M Walzer) from this page in. The difference is, that page doesn't have a large pile of quotes saying the same thing, which this page (unfortunately) does have. Once again, it looks like people just kept on dumping in extra quotes, even though there were more than enough already William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Trimming Japan (1945) to a single sentence is a poor way of approaching "bloat", it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It should be edited down in a rational manner. Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki discusses the bombings, but barely mentions terrorism. If it were to include allegations of terrorism, it would have to have a whole section to cover the discussion. Is that what is being proposed? If not, where is all the relevant, well sourced material that WMC is trying to delete going to go?--Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not oppose expanding the debate article for material not already there. Various condemnations like Chavez's could well be included. No argument or analysis but he is notable person.Ultramarine (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the present rather terse version could be somewhat expanded. But not to anything like its previous length. It should be edited down in a rational manner - is there any evidence that this was happening? I don't think so. The section was a long laundry-list of quotes that repeated each other. Clearly people felt that saying something once wasn't enough - unless it was repeated, it wasn't long enough / being taken seriously enough. People had got very fond of it, and were just fiddling with it. Rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. where is all the relevant, well sourced material that WMC is trying to delete going to go - it doesn't have to go anywhere. Wiki does not, and should not, contain all the relevant and well sourced material in the world. Its an encyclopaedia, not a library William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, this preempts the idea of turning the section into a wider ranging discussion of whether US wartime bombings of "civilians" in general are alleged to be terrorism.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably just as well. This article doesn't need expanding, quite the reverse. Find somewhere else for it; start a new article perhaps William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Better to have a debate in one article than two.Ultramarine (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly object to this mass blanking of the section. This is basically what you did the first time with this article: blanking all the information and claiming its reported elsewhere in the main article. That was then, as it is now, a complete fabrication. The valid information you blanked, which was stable and being worked in by many editors, is NOT found in other articles. Its specifically a discussion about the bombings in regards to them being State Terrorism. I also object you the manner in which you blanked the work of many articles before even discussing them and working with consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I initially supported the idea, but now having read the main article, agree that it is incorrect. It should be policy to add the information to a main article first before deleting it off secondary articles so as not to have this problem arise.  It seems like a sly way to POV push. Hooper (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the main articles should not give such detail to this view as it might be undue weight. Its exactly in ancillary articles such as this one where we can go in depths, presenting the arguments and explaining the concept as it pertains to the atomic bombings. It was doing an excellent job in doing so. Blanking it, esp. in the manner it was done, was shameful, and disruptive.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not stable and many problems with material. The current version is neutral. I think this will allow a better article. Hooper, what do you feel should be included in the debate article?Ultramarine (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally feel that the sources were proper and sufficient and the wording correct so that something to the effect of the example paragraph I put forth in our discussion above in the earlier Japan break on this page would suffice. I know you do not agree and thats why I said we should wait on a third option.  However, now we've moved onto a new plan which involved possibly changing out the entire section.  Due to the realization that there is no proper main article, we can not blanket it out.  It is simply unacceptable.  We all seem to have put forth how we believe it should go, so perhaps asking an admin to swing by, or taking a vote.  The section needs to for sure hit on the fact that there is a strong current of thought that the bombs were State Terrorism, give at least a couple examples, and make sure that we at least hit on each example with a counter-point for those who feel it was justified and not state terrorism.  So, what if we each put forth a possible example section for it here on this talk page, and then take votes.  If voting doesn't work, lets ask an admin team to swing by and assist.  That would be the calmest, proper way to go about it.  Thoughts?Hooper (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a main artcle. If something important is missing it can be added. Should preferable not have a similar discussion in two places.Ultramarine (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I want to see it added to the main article, discussed on the main article, and in a state so that it won't be removed or greatly altered before any blanketing happens here. Simple process. We need to give somebody something to link to if that is all we're doing. Hooper (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have moved the material to the main page.Ultramarine (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with the extent of the stripping, perhaps someone can create a sandbox of a small version, just not a fully stripped one. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ultramarine has created a new section and moved the material there. Can everyone please check that page and see if you are now in agreeance with the edit that WMC suggest of stripping it to a smaller version.  I think it is well done now.  Maybe we should link the main article to the exact State Terrorism section of the main page?  Let me know and I'll get it done. Hooper (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have created a sandbox (User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2) with the old Japan section in it. Lets work on that to find an agreeable brief paraphrase paragraph or two of how the section should look. Then we can change this section to reflect the new main article section being more in-depth.  The main article should be put on watch for a time to make sure the information there doesn't get drastically changed or removed.  I am unfortunately heading out the door so another editor should remove the Japan information back to the WMC format at their convience until the sandbox version is ready to go. Hooper (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I put what I felt would be appropriate under the main section. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That keeps many of the old problem discussed earlier, like completely excluding counter-arguments regarding military necessity and justification. Why not have a short NPOV version.Ultramarine (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with adding another paragraph, the bottom one is the same text I added, stating its just war. It does not completely exclude counter-arguments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not simply remove "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers." False to state "in this context" since the given sources do not discuss state terrorism. Covered from both views in the main article.Ultramarine (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Supporters of this classification argue that the meeting of the Target Committee on May 10–11 1945[4] rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective and chose a large civilian population to create a psychological effect that would be felt around the world." The only source given is a primary document. No source for "most interpretations" and "Supporters". So should be removed as unsourced.Ultramarine (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I chopped the paragraph out all together hopefully to reach a middle ground. Now the opposing side is pretty close to half, and the section is very concise. Cutting out more I could not see as acceptable, but feel free to create your own version in the sandbox. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While I still would prefer WMC's version as a compromise your proposal is better than the current version.Ultramarine (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, it is a good compromise. Lets see how the new material meshes into the main article and if all is good, lets move onto the next subsection and continue with this page until we can remove the NPOV tag. Hooper (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone has copied the section across to Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki but it looks to be a pre-edited version of the section. So it hasn't just been "moved" it seems to be a selectively edited copy without comment on what changes have been made. I'm not opposed on principle to the idea of the section being in full style in the Debate article and being in WP:SUMMARY style here, however: 1) this shouldn't be taken as an opportunity to change the content of the section in the new article without due explanation, as seems to have been done; 2) this still leaves open the possibility of the section here becoming an "Allegations of war terrorism by the US" section with a wider scope but inclusive of the Japan summary; 3) the form here should be a well-written summary of the full discussion and be one or two paragraphs long as per WP:SUMMARY, not just an orphaned sentence; 4) if the editors of the Debate article reject the section (perhaps because it is seen as bloating that article or poorly suited to its scope), it should be reinstated here as it contains notable well-sourced topics but is not large enough to constitute a whole article by itself. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only obvious changes like material already covered in this article like the discussion on military necessity.Ultramarine (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done. Bravo. That's a brilliant way to deal with POV problems, reintroduce a section chock full of them. Take a bow. Sceptre (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comments are so constructive, I believe with just this statement we can resolve all the issues in the article. --I Write Stuff (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * UM - given the dissent in this talk page, I'd say nothing is "obvious" to everyone. I, for one, don't agree with all your changes. It would be have more transparent to copy it as-is and then start making changes, rather than putting your personal take on an improvement into the first version of the copy, and it would have cost you nothing. You could have made your changes and they would have been easy for other editors to identify in a diff. It's no big deal, anything that you've removed that should go back in doubtless will be re-entered by interested parties. Just pointing it out so that those interested can do so.---Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see them here: Material removed already covered elsewhere in this article. Anything specific you disagree with? Ultramarine (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This was the current version at the time of your move: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=207979047&oldid=207975529#Japan_.281945.29] That's not the "old" version that you've just given in a comparison. Why didn't you take the current version at the time of the move? I'm happy to comment on your changes, but I disagree on what the baseline was.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again no important differences. I have added your exact text and removed things already mentioned elsewhere in the article: Note that this is by no mean a version without problems. There are no sources for " Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Supporters of this classification argue" except a primary document which obviously was not written by state terrorism classification supporters. But please continue that discussion in the debate article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The main change that stood out for me was the removal of references around the "Target Committee" paragraph. However, I've just finished reading all the references you removed and I now agree with you that they don't support the current wording well. Most of them talk about the lack of military necessity, but don't mention terrorism or deliberate targetting of civilians. Zinn talks about the bombings being terrorism due to the death of innocents, and he references Kai saying that the targets weren't destroyed primarily for military reasons, but doesn't mention the Target Committee. None of them seems to even mention the Target Committee, let alone saying that the Target Committee rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective instead choosing a large civilian population. It was discussed previously that Coady may discuss the Target Committee, but I don't have access to Coady, and haven't seen a quote to that effect from Coady here. I can see why some might want the Target Committee link in there, it allows readers to go and read it themselves. But the use of a complex uninterpreted primary source is inappropriate here without a source that interprets it. I gather that previously it said outright that the target committee did target civilians, but that phrasing would be original research so also inappropriate. It doesn't seem to be appropriate to include the Target Committee reference unless a source is uncovered that interprets it. I think the paragraph should be amended to address the arguments made by the secondary sources (e.g. Kai) based on it not being primarily not an attempt to destroy military targets but a "demonstration". --Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If no one makes these allegations regarding the Target Committee, then the paragraph with these allegations should be removed. Kai's point is already mentioned in another paragraph.Ultramarine (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sceptre, I agree that your comments here are unhelpful. If you think there is POV problem, please help to work with editors to address it. This is a troubled talk page and sarcastic comments won't help. Specific suggestions with explanations please.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Japan is out. The onus is on those seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion.  Such consensus is manifestly absent here.  As an Allied operation, planned and executed by the Allies, including Britain and Canada, who also contributed to the Manhattan Project; and in any case undertaken in time of war against an enemy combatant; this fails any then-current definition of terrorism.  Revisionist claims aside, it is far too problematic to be included.  A very short sentence to the effect that a tiny number of people have used words like terror or terrorism to describe this, may be appropriate, but per WP:UNDUE (which is policy, part of WP:NPOV) we do not give such enormous prominence to tiny minority views.  This was discussed here recently, and the warring parties have chosen to reinsert the text despite manifest lack of consensus, and that is completely unacceptable.  I believe we are now getting to the point where some of the regulars here are going to need to be topic-banned. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your personal view about what is considered State Terrorism is OR, and wrong. Its not what the experts who study and write on the subject are saying. You are also wrong about adding disputed content: that is not what happened here. The material was added many months ago, and is thus long term material, which was added through collaboration among many editors. You don't get to come here and blank it just because you disagree, without some consensus first. You blanked first. Plus, you did so through protection, a clear misuse of your admin tools. I have given you notice about this and am giving you a chance to undo your blanking.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This page is all about minority views, and consensus is not to get rid of it. I highly disagree with your edit but will not iniate reverts. Please discuss such changes on the talk page of controversal topics before making them. Hooper (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How do I tell this page is about minority views, it doesn't say it is. Is it about significant minority views? If so, is there a minority view that says bombings were a terrorist act? RxS (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The atomic bombings in Japan should absolutely be in, because the topic of whether it was terrorism is a notable subject in the modern world. Your personal opinion on whether it was terrorism is irrelevant. At least one head of state has said it was terrorism. When Joe Reader hears such a statement in the news and comes to wikipedia to get more information on the argument over whether the atomic bombings could be considered terrorism, there should be coverage of both sides of that discussion for them to read. Otherwise wikipedia is censoring a very real modern debate, pretending it doesn't exist. Please present evidence that the argument of terrorism is a "tiny minority view", and therefore WP:UNDUE. On the contrary, the references given show that a number of respected scholars suggest it was "terrorism", "war terrorism" or "state terrorism". Whether it was described as terrorism at the time of the bombings is irrelevant, what matters is that there are reliable sources stating it now. Your claim of "revisionism" is just personal opinion. Please find a reliable source saying that it's revisionism, and then that can be included in the counter-arguments in the article. Which is precisely what the section needs for NPOV, presentation of all sides of the argument. When I last looked it had two or three counter-arguments, which is pretty good balancing but more would be welcome.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed maintenance tag
editprotected Article needs to be tagged thus:

Please action ASAP, as the article is a festering pile of dung and needs to be clearly identified as such. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * JzG, please get a grip. The above is not helpful. - auburn pilot   talk  15:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the article has obvious flaws that people are attempting to come together to resolve, discussions are ongoing and people are attempting to work together, this is divisive and not needed at this time. Considering all of this drama, I want to thank Ultramarine for what I have seen as a willingness work with everyone, and everyone for a more willingness to hear out Ultra who we may have been overly critical of, and to thank those like Bigtimepeace, Ryan, DrGabriel and Hooper who have come from outside to try to help the existing group reach a fair middle ground. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't intended to be "helpful" it was intended to be a statement of my acute frustration at the abysmal state of this article. What should actuall happen, IMO, is this:
 * Reduce to a stub
 * Full protection for a minimum of six weeks
 * Not one word goes in without robust consensus on talk
 * Anybody who is in the tiniest bit disruptive gets topic banned
 * Article probation ongoing
 * Instant ban for any kind of gaming of the system
 * I think that this might finally fix the problems which have existed with this article ever since its creation, through eight AfDs, numerous titles and God alone knows how many bytes of hot air on this talk page. You can't polish a turd, let's just start again. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As the first application of this proposed rule, how about topic-banning JzG for being more than a tiny bit disruptive? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You might have said that as a half joke, but I think its seriously valid. The problem, of course, is not personal in nature. It's in regard to specific disruptive behavior on an article that needs the very opposite kind of 'cool heads" in order to progress. Many dedicated editors who are serious about fixing the article, have shown to be knowledgeable about the subject, and are working with all view points, and following policies. The problem is we have this "drive by" disruption by a few editors "hot head" editors who do not participate much, do not explain their edits, and do not remain cool. Instead, they just call the article names, try to get it deleted, and espouse their own very narrow POV that evidences their ignorance of the subject matter. Still worse, they ignore the claims of expert sources, and then violate admin tool use to push their pov. If topic bans are needed, it's precisely against these editors who are disrupting progress with these unbecoming antics. Guy fits the description, unfortunately.Giovanni33 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a really bad idea. We need to make the article better not remove editors who are concerned with doing this so the article can be left to t ose with an agenda to push. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If Guy needs to be removed so do other people that edit this page, probably. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed that making the article better is a first priority, however dividing and insulting participants is not helpful and only serves to reinstitute the battleground mentality that has recently been removed. The section just above is a good discussion on the Japan section, instead of participating in a manner that allows everyone to come together, Guy decides to drive a wedge. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The worst part is this attitude that Guy exudes because he is upset, however what about the people who have been trying to work together, who participate in discussions constantly to reach middle grounds? They are upset, they would like to see the article improved as well. Asking Guy to maintain the same level of professionalism that everyone else has been able to, is not asking much, especially when he is an admin. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Frustration, huh? WP:THERAPY much?  (For my part, I'm just disappointed.)  — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I certainly understand JzG's frustation, I think we should all wait and see where the Arbcom goes. I think it will not go in favor of those who filed it. Jtrainor (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to say that I think they're funny. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether they are funny or not is irrelevant (personally I think they lack a certain subtlety). Posting those tags does nothing to help the situation. Guy himself admits that he is not trying to help, rather he is just frustrated and wants to show it. Article talk pages are not the place to show frustration. I don't agree with Guy's proposal above, but if it were to be implemented several things Guy has done in the past couple of days would have led to a topic ban for him. Editing during protection without consensus and placing "may contain uninformed wingnut drivel" tags on talk pages are disruptive actions on a controversial article. The fact that Guy thinks he's right (who doesn't think they are right?) is not some sort of entitlement to behave in this fashion. All of us are either here to collaborate on the article while showing respect for other editors or we are not. If not then you shouldn't be here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BigT, Guy is hardly the only editor not to show respect for others. In the past a small group decided that they owned the article and that they could form consensus amongst themselves, even if editors more recently arrived disagreed. That was far more problematic. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So? You're not arguing that two wrongs make a right, are you? — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * John, you are well within your right to point out that there might be other problematic editors but that does not change anything about JzG's behavior. Incidentally, Guy seems to be the only one here who simply refuses to talk about certain issues. Earlier I posted a lengthy and very polite note about the Japan section on his talk page (I thought a one-on-one conversation away from the article talk page might make discussion easier). He responded not to my comment but with a complaint about the editors here and a call for topic bans. I then asked him if he would reply to my comment about the article and he simply deleted the entire section of his talk page with the edit summary "not interested." I'm not some troll and I was clearly trying to have a discussion about the section of the article JzG removed while the article was protected in the hopes of coming to some consensus. Honestly, how is one to deal with an editor who simply refuses to discuss an issue of contention on an article? When you are involved in disputes John, you are always willing to keep the discussion going until the issues are resolved which is great. Guy is proposing radical changes to the article but rebuffs attempts to discuss the issues at hand. Again, I really don't know what to do about that and I really don't see anyone else here behaving that way right now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I had not noticed this comment from Guy on his talk page. If he's too fed up with the article to work on it then obviously he's under no obligation to discuss anything.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for taking time out of your busy days to have a go at me, but actually I think you'll find that I am not one of the long-standing POV-pushers on this article, I'm more of a newcomer and WP:NPOV-pusher. The article is so close to irredeemable as makes no difference, and I'm not the one driving any kind of wedge, the warring parties don't need any wedges driven, they drew up battle lines long ago.  I have made a concrete proposal which, taken with other proposals below, stands some chance of fixing this horrible article: stub, rebuild with only discussion of who describes certain things as state terrorism, with the WP:UNDUE filter that it must be more than one or two obvious zealots, and discuss the details of the individual operations in their separate articles, so this does not act as an agglomerated set of POV-forks.  Sure, the people who want it to be vehemently anti-US are pretty happy right now, because they've been a numerical majority for a little while and that has resulted in their POV being the most represented, but that does not make them right any more than the pro-US POV pushers are right.  I'd almost include this with waterboarding as a litmus test for POV edits. I'm pleased that my POV is so very easy to discern, though, since I've now been attacked as a pro-US government shill and an anti-US bigot. Perhaps it's just that, as one coming in from outside, I have merely articulated something which the fans of this article have missed despite several pertinent comments in past AfDs that identify the problems very well indeed. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to stay to provide your input, working with the other editors to help develop the article. Or you can ignore the article and let other editors work through some complex negotiations to achieve consensus. However, you are not welcome to misuse your admin tools or to insult other parties at this page. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Allegation" and "terrorism" together as part of a title
You'll pardon me for not sprinkling in all the WP:WIKIACRONYMS and taking a simplistic view here... I'm sorry, but I thought "allegation" was a word to avoid as it indicates lack of neutrality. Anyone can allege something. That rather marks this entire article as a coatrack, does it not, especially as it was renamed to include "Allegations" in the title to more appropriately describe the contents. (My use of coatrack is not completely precise, but I believe my meaning is clear.) Given the even greater sensitivity around the use of the word "terrorists" and "terrorism," that's now even further afield from anything purporting to be neutral. Exactly how does this title reflect an editorial discipline worthy of an objective encyclopedia? —PētersV (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can see some of the questions you raised addressed in the previous AfD, including the coatrack claim. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we certainly are not going to call the article State terrorism by the United States as there is nothing in this article that isn't alleged. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:WTA does not include "allegations" and a WP:COATRACK is an article that seems to be about one thing but is actually about another. This seems to be about allegations of US state terrorism and it is, so there is no coat on the rack.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all "terrorism" articles use the word "alleged". For example, one can "Islamic terrorism" or "Christian terrorism".Bless sins (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Only the terrorism articles where the terrorism is disputed use the term "alleged." Last I checked, only conspiracy theorists dely the existance of Christian and Islamic terrorism.  Yahel  Guhan  23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We could ofcourse rename the article to "Undeniable facts of state terrorism by the United States", but I guess some editors would oppose that. // Liftarn (talk)


 * Yes, but not for the reasons you think. It would involve reducing the article to a stub and removing all content :) Jtrainor (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Guy's proposal
I'd suggest that that's a reasonably well-thought out idea. If someone is willing to do the grunt work to make sure that some of the deleted material, if sourced, is reproduced in the (more?) appropriate "main" articles, we can stubify this and begin the process of rebuilding. -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the main articles should have mention of this POV but not given undue weight. Instead they should point to the larger article that is able to get into depth regarding the allegations of state terrorism. In other words the main articles simply say that "this also has been termed as state terrorism by critics,...etc" and it points here for the larger discussion and detailed exposition of this viewpoint--not the other way around. However, if there are new articles created for each one of these sections, then yes, it should be smaller here and larger there, as then the new article becomes the "daughter" article that give is much more space (a whole article), whereas this article only gives it a section.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The idea of stubbing and rebuilding is a poor one for two reasons. 1) The content of this article is largely well-sourced and relevant to the topic. It presents multiple sides of the discussion, in keeping with WP:NPOV. Its problems are that it's too wordy and that it could do with even more opposing views, but those are matters for refining through editing, not a do-over. 2) The real difficulties with this page are on the edit page, where editors with opposing views are often trying hard to work together but are stymied by frequent reversions and self-proclaimed "bold" edits deleting swathes of well-referenced and relevant material. It's very hard to make constructive edits to a section that is flashing in and out of existence, everyone focuses on the existence drama and useful editing goes by the wayside. Reducing to a stub is the same thing writ large. When I first started looking at this page I thought it needed an informed admin to re-write it and lock down for minimal editing. Now I've seen what the wikipedia admins interested in this article actually do to it (mostly deleting large sections of well-referenced material instead of knuckling down to the hard work of proper editing), I'm inclined to think it would be far better off without any of their disruptive involvement, which has caused pages of angry discussion here while not helping the content of the article in the slightest.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of good information in the article and I think moving that to other articles and stubbing this one would be a great idea because the information has historical value but it being US state terrorism is problematic in the extreme. We can give a few quotes from Chomsky and others and leave it at that. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the sections may be better covered in full elsewhere, and in summary form here. That's something that can be considered section-by-section on individual merit. But that's not the same thing as stubbing the whole article. The subject of this article (roughly "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the US") was upheld in the recent AfD as a notable subject appropriate to have an article for. I don't recall any policy suggesting permanently stubbing an article on a notable subject just because it's contraversial as you're suggesting, and I think "temporarily" stubbing it is a bad idea for reasons above.--Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Ultra was working to move some material to related articles in "state terrorism" section. I am not sure how far he got, I do know he moved the Japan stuff so I cut down the section in the sandbox. You can see it here User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 (bottom) In general I would support moving the information then reducing the sections here that are larger then 4 paragraphs down to 3-4. An introductory paragraph, an allegations, and a justification, perhaps 30% or so each. The only section this may not be appropriate for is Cuba since it covers so many different operations. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So much of the article describes not alleged state terrorism but details about the events that are regarded as alleged state terrorism, and this material does not belong here. We do not, to use the first example need to know all about Operation Mongoose, we need one or 2 lines that sources impeccably these alleged terrorism claims and link tot he article. We do not need to reproduce the whole affair. And its the same for all the other examples that I can see. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which is why I shortened the Japan section and recommend a 1 paragraph lead, 1 paragraph justification for the action, if one is present, and a 1 or two paragraph of allegations. The idea of stubifying the article is a pipe dream and something that would clearly not reach a consensus. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well lets see if we can reduce the unnecessary details (anything outside the remit of the title) and then a stub proposal will not be necessary. I am particularly happy to work with the Latin American material. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I Write Stuff, I think your summary version of the Japan section at User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 looks pretty good. However, there is likely to be a tussle over whether mention of the "civilian target" argument should be covered. Giovanni thinks its an integral argument, and Ultramarine thinks its not supported by the sources. Without input from those interested parties it will be hard to get it to stick, regardless of its quality. Perhaps we could all discuss this on the talk page for your sandbox and try to reach a consensus summary version? We could also put up summaries of what each of the sources actually say (the most important thing, but often overlooked here in the heat of debate), which would inform where they are best used. --Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ultra already agreed to it above. I think it makes a nice concise middle ground. --I Write Stuff (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how much my vote counts but I think the Japan section as it was is good. It is one of the more interesting things I've read and caused me to think. Yes, the targeting of civilians part of the argument is central so that should not be taken out. But if it is not sourced we should find good sources.76.102.72.153 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also totally against the idea of stubbing the article, even temporarily. Lets continue working on one section at a time. But no trimming down to summary sections, unless there is a main article that includes all the content to be removed, or will be made to include all the content. In other words, no lost content. And the summary sections, if appropriate to summarize, need to fairly represent the different viewpoints. For example, the Japan section has to represent the reliably sourced and notable viewpoint that the bombings were acts of state terrorism, despite that fact that there was a war, and despite the fact that many Americans feel differently, since the targets were civilian. That is an intrinsic part of the definition and so it's central to the section. — Becksguy (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This idea of stubbing is no more valid than the failed Afd attempt. Its just an extension of it by other means. However, any specific problems can and should be corrected. Those critics are urged to engage with the actual material and subject, and provide specific issues that need correction. Unfortunately, I've not seen a willingness by such to be specific or helpful in this way. I have tried to engage editors in a discussion of the material but they have not been interested. for example, see: So I think we should just dismiss them as not serious about improving this article until they show otherwise.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, you want to polish the turd. Sorry, I disagree.  The article is full of bloat, crap, POV, historical revisionism and in some cases abject violations of WP:NPOV.  It is one of the worst articles we have, in my view, and always has been, see--sawing between different biases.  As noted above, we go into much too much detail about some of the individual elements, giving an extremely strong impression of novel synthesis. What might be supportable is a short list of things that are widely considered state terrorism, a list of things that a very few sources (mainly Chomsky) describe as such, and a brief discussion of "war terrorism", a revisionist term but one which has some currency as part of just war theory.  If we don't approach it on that basis, this article will revert to being a collection of POV-forks of the main articles on the individual operations, which is what it is now. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is a great article that is an important part of a scholarly literature within a subject that has been growing. Your lack of appreciation for it, I suspect, stems for your not being familiar with it. Have you read any books on the subject? And, no, it's not just Chomsky (although he was an early pioneer in the field). In any case, in order for you to be helpful, I request that you please drop vague and sweeping generalizations. Instead, please provide specific examples of alleged NPOV or SYN problems so that they can be looked at, and corrected. What I find interesting is that those who make these claims are always unable to support those claims with specifics. Either that or they have a flawed understanding of policy, as shown by the failed Afd. The arguments arguing for deletion seem to repeat some of these flaws. But we can determine the basis of your objections if you drop the irrelevant names calling (unless this is an article about "Turds"--its not), and engage the actual material in an intelligent manner.
 * You mention historical revisionism. Why is that a problem? Historical revisionism are legitimate parts of scholarship: revisions of previous historical pronouncements/verdicts. Are you saying that this is not allowed here? Keep in mind this has nothing to do with the pejorative sense of the word. The variety of historical revisionism  that is included here is of the legitimate type: a "critical reexamination of historical facts... updating historical narratives with newly discovered, more accurate, or less biased information, acknowledging that history of an event, as it has been traditionally told, may not be entirely accurate." The Japan section certainly represents a subsection of that larger revisionist POV (against the traditional historical verdict at the time)--and in fact says so within the text. So I'm not sure what your point is (unless your arguing that it's advancing a claim that is of the other illegitimate variety? If so would challenge you to support those claims with both showing us the specific instance of this in the article and providing a valid sources that informs and supports your designation, because I am familiar enough with the material to know that  if you argue this, you are wrong. Since WP is not censored, and these are significant viewpoints with much scholarly discussion published by the top experts in their field--we do give them a full voice here. Any good encyclopedia worth its name should discuss and report on it, esp. in an article dedicated to the subject matter. A short "list of things" will simply not due. We have articles for lists, but this article presents the discussion of the subject. So its much more than a list. And, its a false dilemma logical fallacy to say that it has to be either or: short list or crap.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No ad hominem please. Factual arguments and avoid discussion of persons please. Regarding the Japan section there are certainly many problems as discussed elsewhere here. For example, no mention of the opposing views regarding military necessity or moral justification presented in the main article. So I have to agree that it is currently a POV-fork although there are proposals aimed at improving it. Ultramarine (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It has to be on topic of state terrorism. The section is not a pro/con about dropping the bombs. There is a whole article where that is covered. I never make ad hominem arguments either.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The given sources for the claims of military necessity or moral justification does not accuse the US of state terrorism. So a double standard to include these sources and arguments when not including opposing views on military necessity or moral justification. Clearly a POV-fork only having views from one side.Ultramarine (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is another dead horse argument. It was settled that not everything needs to say "state terrorism," for it to be included. It must be in context and logical to the arguments of state terrorism, and supported by sources, even if indirectly. That is the standard. Making arguments about saving lives, etc. are off topic to this articles subject, unless there is some novel argument that says that if an act of terrorism involves saving lives then its really not terrorism? I don't think such a thing exists as terrorism deals with method, a tactic. For you to try to force other arguments causes it to either be off topic or OR, in this context.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not settled. WP:OR and WP:SYN applies. Clearly a double standard to argue that sources and arguments not mentioning state terrorism should be included while excluding sources supporting the US for not mentioning state terrorism. Although the version now protected do include some such sources. Another problem is that there are no sources for " Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the alleged targeting of innocents to achieve a political goal. Supporters of this classification argue" except a primary document which obviously was not written by state terrorism classification supporters.Ultramarine (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What I find interesting is that idea that in an article that is suppose to contain Synthesis issues, we are being asked to rename all instances of "state terrorism" to "war terrorism." --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in a previous section I now agree with Ultramarine's assertion that there are no sources in the Japan section whose arguments are explicitly based on the Target Committee meeting. We can't mention the Target Committee unless such a "interpreting" source is identified (and if it's not available online we'll need a quote provided to demonstrate it really does mention the Target Committee). However, I don't think any of the Japan discussion above relates to Guy's proposal. The Japan section can be balancing with more sourced counter-arguments, tidied to only include sourced material, and made more concise. All business-as-usual editing. Stubbing the article because some sections need that sort of basic wiki editing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The "historical revisionism" argument is one that should be included in the text if it can be sourced, and the "I don't think it was terrorism" argument is irrelevant. It's valid to describe contemporary academic and political dispute, which is what this article currently does. All it needs is standard wikipedia editing to balance it, ensure appropriate references are used (we would all benefit from close examination of the sources and admitting that some, like the Target Committee, are currently inappropriate), and make it more readable. -Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Already removed the info regarding the targeting committee in the sandbox version linked to above, bottom portion is my recommended version which Ultra has agreed to. Let me know what you think. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the version at the bottom of User:HooperBandP/Sandbox2 is an okay summary. If we carried on with moving the Japan section to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki then I'd be happy for this summary to replace the Japan section here and then be refined with time. The main refinement that seems necessary is that it's still a list of statements, it doesn't summarise the arguments at all. Two other issues that could perhaps be dealt with now: 1) I added the "total war" arguments that the targets were not civilian and were military. However, the summary does not argue that bombings civilians is a core argument for it being terrorism (it just implies it in one quote), and doesn't argue they weren't military. So these counter-arguments now seems orphaned, it's not clear what they are countering. If we could re-introduce the "civilian target" and "non-military target" arguments then these counter-arguments would be appropriate again. 2) I'm confused by the statement 'Professor C.A.J. (Tony) Coady is head of the Australian Research Council Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and studies political violence, Just War Theory, Terrorism, and Humanitarian intervention. He writes in Terrorism and Justice: Moral Argument in a Threatened World: "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."' So it's quoting Coady, and Coady says "Coady instances..."? Is he talking about himself in the third person, or is that last sentence supposed to be an editorial statement outside the quote?Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ultramarine, to clarify, the above users are correct in their statement that sources need to be proper and in context, but they don't necissarilly have to mention state terrorism, as long as it is in context. This goes for you as well, no one is stopping you from adding links to sources that are in context and do not mention ST, but make sure that they are in fact in context, regardless of who is adding the links. Hooper (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)