Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 25

Operation Ajax?
I'm surprised there is no mention of the CIA operated overthrow of the democratic government in Iran: "1953 Iranian coup d'état" --Stor stark7 Speak 01:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we need references that state that this is allegedly an act of state terrorism. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was almost positive that there was a source at one point, an ex-CIA officials, or perhaps someone on the talk page was mentioning it. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I give up, I gave it 10 minutes. I hope someone with better sources and stamina than me can find something directly connecting "state terrorism" with the operation, if such source indeed does exist. I wonder what it would be called if it was Iran that had done the same to the US? Never mind, we probably need another article though, "U.S. meddling in other states internal affairs" or similar. This is the only source I could google on short notice. I have no idea about its reliability, with my luck its just a mirror of an earlier version of the Wiki article. Nevertheless it lists Operation PBSUCCESS, Operation Just Cause, Operation Ajax, and Operation Urgent Fury as U.S. state terrorism. It also lists tha Nicaragua intervention in the 1980, and something called Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, although I see that that one is already mentioned. Food for further source searches perhaps, but not by me....--Stor stark7 Speak 02:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's probably a mirror cite of an old wiki-article, in any case it's certainly not a reliable source. I'm not sure we've ever had a source alleging that the overthrow of Mossadegh was state terrorism. It's been widely condemned, but it was a pretty straightforward coup e'etat (albeit with a lot of complex elements to it - it was not simply a case of US manipulation). Also to an extent the UK was more the driving external force behind the coup, even though the CIA had a major hand in it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was curious and looked up to see what I could find on Operation Ajax in the following reliable source: "Terrorism and the State: A Critique of Domination through Fear" a Book by William D. Perdue; Praeger, 1989. The author is was the Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology and the Director of the Contemporary World Studies program at Eastern Washington University. I present the material here for evaluation, and include additional material that might be considered beyond the scope of this article but to provide for context; I'm referring to some of the economic analysis. Here is a chapter on Ajex (excerpts) that implicates the US in the 1953 coup against democratically elected Mossadeq, and describes its resulting in an "Iranian Regime Terror: 1953-79."

"In what has been a recurring theme in the centers of Western power through this century, the Eisenhower administration feared the loss of Iran to Soviet influence, and its C.I.A. became a key-player in the British proposed operation “Ajax” (Roosevelt, 1979). C.I.A. agents assisted in the orchestration of “pro-shah” riots (Copeland, 1969:51)...The Mossadeq government fell on August 19, and the shah returned three days later courtesy of “an American operation from beginning to end (Tully, 1962:96).”...West and its shah went busily about creating the precipitating conditions that could only resurrect the dormant forces of theocratic reaction in the years to come. Iranian Regime Terror: 1953-79."

In the decade following Mossadeq's ouster, the shah moved internally to suppress the Tudeh party and the National Front (Ramazani, 1975:326). One crucial event was the formation in 1957 of the National Security and Information Organization, the acronym for which from the Farsi language is SAVAK. SAVAK was created with the aid of the U.S. C.I.A. and F.B.I, and the Israeli Mossad (Abrahamian, 1982:419)... SAVAK was to become a hated and feared arm of regime terror. Its more than 5,000 agents made ample use of torture to identify and brutally suppress political opposition from the left or right."

It was, however, the new imperial ties with the United States that implicated a superpower in the excesses of the court and the economic violence visited on the poor (Pesaran, 1985:15-50)....By means of the Mutual Security Act of 1954 and the Law for the Attraction and Protection of Foreign Investment in Iran (1955), Western (and particularly, U.S.) hegemony was assured. Foreign investors were offered guarantees against losses owing to nationalization, and between 1950 and 1970, U.S. military and economic aid to Iran amounted to some 2.3 billion dollars.

Under U.S. tutelage, Iran was absorbed into a Western model of development marked by several distinctive properties. A preference for a few large-scale projects (ranging from factories to the construction of dams and intercity transportation) disguised economic fragmentation and the continued neglect of the agricultural sector. Iran devalued its currency, increased its money supply and lent huge sums to the private sector. The resulting “boom” coexisted with inflation and deficits, leading to International Monetary Fund (I.M.F.) “stabi-lization” in 1960 with its standard austerity measures: control of private sector credit, import-controls, cuts in government services and higher interest rates. A Western-style White Revolution (a clear historical reference to anti-Red forces in the Russian Revolution), called for...privatization of state industries. These in concert with I.M.F. austerity measures...

However, massive growth in Iranian oil revenues proved only to fund its splendid dependency. At the international level, in the classic sense of “boom-erang capitalism, ” the shah used petrodollars to support Western export industries, including vast expenditures on modern armaments. In 1977 alone, Iran purchased arms worth 2.3 billion, out of a total 6.5 billion exported by the United States (United States Bureau of Census, 1979:367). Military sales from the U.S. alone for the five-year period 1973 to 1977 amounted to 15.2 billion (Halliday, 1979:95). The “development” of Iran was in keeping with the shah's commitment to convert Iran into a “Great Civilization” and the world's fifth-ranking power. Internally, the inequality of dependency relations was reproduced with wealth concentrated by class and in the cities.

The United States offered to meet the shah's obsession for sophisticated military hardware, technicians, and advisers. The shah in turn agreed to use the armed force of his state to defend Western interests in the Persian Gulf. This political alliance revealed more concretely the real power behind the Peacock Throne. But the relationship born in splendor was to end in ironic ruin.

...The hated shah was on the soil of the nation whose C.I.A. had engineered his return to power in 1953, and that had presided over the international construction of its modern dependency. It was in this context that students loyal to Khomeini took the U.S. embassy in Tehran on November 4, and provided the Imam with one tool to seize control of a potentially authentic revolution."Giovanni33 (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * US involvement in the coup can certainly be criticized. But the question is if it was state terrorism. If, admittedly arbitrarily, using one of the many definitions of terrorism which sees it as violence against civilians with the purpose of influencing the government, then a coup is not state terrorism. It changes the government directly. A separate question is if US support of the Shah makes action done by his security agencies US state terrorism.  That is dubious also according to this definition of terrorism. Again, civilians were not attacked in order to influence government policy. Again, the US could be criticized for this support but not for it being US state terrorism. If criticizing the US, we should also point out the good things the Shah did, like the White revolution, and the US would seem to able to claim credit for this.Ultramarine (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Logical, however, I think it passes in this context since it the regime is describes as perpetrating terror, targeting its own civilians (political parties, etc). The source calls it, in fact, the "Iranian Regime of Terror: 1953-79." Specifically the SAVAK as the "feared arm of regime terror. Its more than 5,000 agents made ample use of torture to identify and brutally suppress political opposition..." And, it implicates the US in supporting and bringing the regime to power. So I think we have all the logical elements there to include it. Its just a question of how and to what degree. Also, we should have multiple sources, as well. Also, I disagree taht this should be about good vs. bad "things" the US did. This is not about making judgments are trying to balance good things vs bad things. That would be too much off topic (better left in the other article that talks about the reforms). Here we are only interested in a certain aspect of the coup and its repurcusions, as they pertain to allegations of state terrorism.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * While I do agree with your logic the important thing is that we can include it if we have reliable sources, and if we do not have reliable sources we cannot include it. personally I want to work seriously on the article when it gets unprotected so we stick to the point (talking about alleged terrorist allegations) and don't use the article to talk about the details opf any alleged terrorism. So if Chomsky says it was terrorism we dont spend 2 paragraphs talking aboputt he operation, we say that Chomsky thinks it is terrorism for "x" reason. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what we're coming to agreement on, that we need to be concise in the amount of background information given aside from the allegations themselves. - Merzbow (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Background material should be used only so as to intelligently discuss the allegations, and provide relevant and direct context to them. The question is: does it help to explain the nature of the "state terrorism" in question? But we have to be careful not to bloat it (easily done!). Where to draw the line is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, do we have source accusing the US of state terrorism? A source accusing Iran of terror does not mean that this is US state terrorism. If providing background info, we must also include such on good things that the regime did like the White revolution.Ultramarine (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not quite the correct standard. Yes, it includes direct allegations accusing the US of State terrorism, of course, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that this article's scope also includes allegations of significant complicity in supporting state terror. That is what the sources above do. Also, reforms initiated that has nothing to do with state terror are off topic, in my view. They will bloat the article/section, and are best left for their own article. This is not about balancing pro/anti US, as this article is not about pro/anti US govt. policies. Its not a debate. It is a presentation of the relevant literature on allegations of State Terrorism in which the US is significantly involved.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please quote the "direct allegations accusing the US of State terrorism". No, the article is not titled "allegations of significant complicity in supporting state terror." That the US supported Iran does not make the US responsible for everything done by Iran. I see no allegations that coup involved terror although the Shah's regime later is accused of this. Also, is use of "terror" the same as terrorism? No, the definitions are more complex. If we include general background material, then we must do so in a NPOV way. If we include material about the Shah not accusing the US of state terrorism but criticizing him generally, then we must also include opposing view like the White revolution. Also, background material must be brief and summarized. There are other articles discussing the Shah's regime.Ultramarine (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is beating a dead horse again, also its a logical fallacy to claim that allegations of significant US complicity in State Terrorism means "the US is responsible for everything done by Iran." That is a straw man. No one is making that claim. But we have reliable sources implicating the US in State terrorism by funding, supporting, financing, training, harboring, etc. actions that reliable sources say are state terrorism. Therefore we can report on that. This standard has long ago been settled on so I don't see a need to rehash it, again.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly no such settlement. Please give the quotes I asked. To explain the OR more clearly. A source accuses the Shah of using terror. 1. Does not mean that the source is making an accusation of terrorism which has far more complex definitions than this. For example, is repression against political opponents terrorism? Terrorism is sometimes seen to apply only to uninvolved civilians. 2. US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime. For example, the US supported the Soviet Union heavily during WWII. Does not make the US responsible for everything done by Stalin during this period. What is needed is a source accusing the US of state terrorism in Iran. Regarding any background, it should be a NPOV summary.Ultramarine (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ... or a source accusing the US of funding or otherwise supporting state terrorism. But yeah, for the purposes of this article, sources accusing the Shah of terrorism are not useful.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. The source accuses that US of funding or otherwise supporting a state "regime of terror.' As Ultra knows there is not one agreed definition which is why we must rely on reliable sources instead of picking and choosing which qualifies per our own definition (that would indeed be OR).Giovanni33 (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See what I wrote. Since you ignored it I will repeat it "To explain the OR more clearly. A source accuses the Shah of using terror. 1. Does not mean that the source is making an accusation of terrorism which has far more complex definitions than this. For example, is repression against political opponents terrorism? Terrorism is sometimes seen to apply only to uninvolved civilians. 2. US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime. For example, the US supported the Soviet Union heavily during WWII. Does not make the US responsible for everything done by Stalin during this period. What is needed is a source accusing the US of state terrorism in Iran. Regarding any background, it should be a NPOV summary."Ultramarine (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore your points, I answered and refuted them. 1. Straw man fallacy, and 2. definition issue is OR, on your part. Read above.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Straw man fallacy"? Why? Are you arguing that the US is responsible for everything done in nations they have supported? Like the Soviet Union during WWII? Regarding "terror", it is you who are doing OR when arguing that it is a synonym of "terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd read "state terrorism" into "regime of terror". There's enough solidly referenced material here; we don't need to include stuff that's admitted by interpreting and arguably stretching the source's words:  That would just reflect poorly on the rest of the article.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats certainly a reasonable and valid counter argument, unlike the straw man fallacies by Ultra.:)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What fallacies? You have not answered my questionsUltramarine (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have twice. No need to keep repeating this on the talk page when everyone can clearly see it. It becomes a distraction. If want, you can drop me a message on my talk page and I can explain it there (many times).Giovanni33 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone who reads the discussion will see you have not answered my arguments. The place to discuss article issues is here.Ultramarine (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Using exactly your arguments I could cite sources accusing Stalin of terror during the WWII. As well as the extremely large military and economical aid to the Soviet Union. Synthesizing this I would then create a section accusing the US of state terrorism in the Soviet Union.Ultramarine (talk) 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if there are good sources that assign a significant portion of the blame on the US, i.e. that argue the US desired that outcome and supported it through various means to help to bring it out. So if we have sources that argue and connect any instances of State terror with arguments of US culpability, then yes, we could include that. However, unlike the CIA sponsored coup Operation Ajax, I doubt you have any sources that make the claims you're making. I agree with Sidhekin, though, that currently, its called "terror regime" which may not exactly be state terrorism. So that is a valid argument (unlike yours), and therefore we should look at more sources to get a better picture to see if this qualifies as an instance of state terrorism. But there is no question that the US is blamed for playing a major active role in bringing it about. Terror by proxy, though clients states, certainly counts, and in fact forms most of the allegations within this article. And no more straw man arguments, please.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "But there is no question that the US is blamed for playing a major active role in bringing it about." Again, this is not a general US criticism article but one about state terrorism. Again, do you have a source stating that Iran was US state terrorism? Then quote it please. Regarding possible "straw mans" none of my two arguments was that.Ultramarine (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually when you when you argue, "US support for the Shah does not make the US responsible for everything done by the regime," you are making a straw man argument because one one is claiming that the US is responsible for "everything."76.102.72.153 (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Giovanni, you really need to stop this thing you do where you say "X source says that US act Y was bad and reprehensible, so therefore it's state terrorism and should be in the article". That's OR and SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Giovanni is saying that. At least that is not what I got. The issue seems to be that the source describes it a terror regime. Is that the same as state terrorism? That seems to be the only issue here. "Bad and reprehensible" = "state terrorism" would be OR. But "terror regime"="state terrorism" is much closer.76.102.72.153 (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Terror is not necessarily terrorism. See above. Nor is the US responsible for everything done in nations supported. Again, please give a source making the accusation of "state terrorism".Ultramarine (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is starting to seem like a silly wikilawyering argument. "terror regime" does not have to be equal to state terrorism, however it may. If its being called a terror regime because they committed terrorism against civilians for political purposes, then its state terrorism, however there are many reasons it could have been labeled a terror regime. Again context is obviously the driving factor. I do not think this is really a case of OR or SYNTH unless the "terror regime" is not due to the regime, ie the state, committing terrorism against the civilian population. If everyone would just stop and think, instead of slinging alphabets, perhaps this page would be less hostile. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. A Terror Regime described in this context in a book called "Terrorism and the State" in which it describes a the terror regime from 53 to 79, is describing and referring to that government. As such we are talking about the State here. I think its valid. But, we should use the authors term, "terror regime" instead of state terrorism (distinction without a difference?) unless we have other sources. In any case, I'll look for additional sources when I have some time in the next few days. I agree we need to drop the wiklawyering here.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all bizarre. Overthrowing a govt, democratically elected or otherwise, isn't (state) terrorism, except by a defn so wide as to render the term meaningless. Discussion belongs under US foreign policy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that depend on the means to do it? You do realize most "terrorists" are attempting to over throw governments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Terrorism is a means; overthrowing a govermnent is an end.  But I still don't think "terror regime"="state terrorism" is going to hold up.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is another straw man. No one is claiming that overthrowing a govt is state terrorism. However, the there is nothing bizarre about the claim that this coup involved state terrorism as its quite common place both in maintaining power and establishing it through violent means. This does not mean that its the same as a coup, but a coup attempt can certainly employ state terrorism. The key to grasp is that its the method, the tactics, that is the of import here. And if we have reliable sources that make the claim about this particular conflict as employing state terrorism, that is all we need to worry about. Applying our own definitions and understanding to what is or is not state terrorism, what is too broad or too narrow, is an excercise in futility.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

No, overthrowing a govt isn't state terrorism just as war isn't state terrorism. War, or coups, supercede terrorism. No wonder this article is such a mess William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually war, coup, and other forms of conflict with violence or threatened violence frequently employ the tactic and of terrorism, esp. among state actors. This is according to various reliable sources. These are apples and oranges: goals and tactics should not be confused.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where this logic stems from. Its like saying there are no terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan since both are war zones. So when "a person" blows up a dump truck in a school killing children, it was clearly an act of war. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In empirical political science "war" is usually defined as at least 1000 battle deaths involving armed combatants. Attacks against armed persons are usually not seen as terrorism.Ultramarine (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that classify September 11th as an act of war, not an act of terrorism? Armed combatants are not civilians, so attacks against them would not fall under war by your definition. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The civilians killed in 9/11 were not armed.Ultramarine (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Time for a rename to Allegations of state terrorism?
Funny we don't have an article on Alleged state terrorism by the United Kingdom, Alleged state terrorism by Iran etc. I propose we change the name of the article to Allegations of state terrorism, this would avoid the POV issues of solely talking about alleged state terrorism by one country when there are and have been accusations against many countries from South Africa (apartheid era), Spain, Iraq (Saddam era) and a very long et al. This would solve many issues, what say folk. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a different article. In fact there is one that has a list of countries under state sponsored terrorism. See: Giovanni33 (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See Special:PrefixIndex/Allegations of state terrorism, including Allegations of Iranian state terrorism. Okay, some are just redirects, but this is not the only article there; would you propose to merge them?  I'd vote no: This article more than long enough and more than touchy enough as it is.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is too much material here specifically covering allegations of state terrorism committed by the US for it to be merged into a parent article about allegations of state terrorism in general. There are no POV issues in talking about allegations that a specific country uses state terrorism, so long as it is discussed in a balanced fashion (meaning that both arguments and counter-arguments are presented). If there is sufficient sourced material to warrant an "Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United Kingdom" article then it should be created. It is natural for subjects with large quantities of data to have these kinds of content forks.Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather continuing my point from above, on so long as it is discussed in a balanced fashion (meaning that both arguments and counter-arguments are presented), a section titled "Opposing Views" referencing a term (democide) not even in a dictionary and stating the U.S. might not be considered to be as evil as the Khmer Rouge (as an example) is hardly "balance."
 * It would appear that instead of having a bunch of events under a title stating they are alleged to be terrorism they should be described as what they are, subversive activities--and the article have a section titled "Allegations of state sponsored terrorism." THAT would be "NPOV". By taking real events with real consequences and lumping them under a title with "allegations" substantially diminishes their significance and does a disservice to nations and peoples impacted. —PētersV (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "Opposing views" should be used when the view is opposed, and "Justifications" should be used when the issue has been rationalized. For example, Hiroshima, is often not opposed, simply justified by the possible dead if they did not bomb, so a justification section may be more appropriate. Perhaps "Alternate view" --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt there are many alternative views, but the problem is that its off topic to this article, and will just repeat these other debates found in other articles. To any alternative or opposing view should really be about the topic, i.e. arguments logically connected with those that claims/arguments of state terror. NPOV does not mean, "include any argument to make the US look good" to create an artificial balance and pretend that they are opposed, let alone related, to the arguments that this article deals with. And that is the problem with most of Ultramarine's wish list additions.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As much as we are asking Ultra, and those who oppose even the topic, to see past the strict semantics, it is historically obvious that the US has argued that Hiroshima was necessary. The response to accusations has always been the death toll. The US usually does not oppose a view, just present what it feels were its justifications. I think not including these is unwittingly supressing the other PoV which we need to be careful of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PētersV - I think I follow your meaning that discussing world events under a title that includes the word "allegations" might imply that whether these events occurred is in question. I don't agree though. The article includes the atomic bombings, which no-one disputes happened. The "allegations" term concerns whether the events were terrorism, not whether they happened (although in some cases how or whether the US was involved is also disputed). I think we should give readers the benefit of the doubt that they will understand the distinction. This article reports on the notable cultural phenonema of allegations that the US has committed terrorism (sometimes including a sub-phenonema of allegations that the frequent use of "terrorism" allegations by the US is hypocritical). The article describes this phenomena, the reasoning given by those making the allegations, and the counter-reasoning of those who disagree. The counter-arguments are discussed section-by-section in order to provide a neutral point of view. That's necessary, because each sub-allegation is different and has been responded to differently. There is already an article about US foreign policy that includes more general criticisms, without using the word "allegations" (except about whether US torture behind closed doors is happening, which seems an appropriate usage). Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For my part, I believe that a lot of folks here have had their priorities backwards. I have always maintained that the body of an article is not an entity that attempts to elaborate whatever is implied by the title so much as the function of the title is to attempt to encapsulate the subject of the article. The title should not assume such significance that it is employed to mechanically delimit the subject matter of the article. Rather, it is the task of explicating a notable discourse that should have priority. The title should simply reflect the essence of that discourse.

This article for me has always been – at least in large part- about explaining a notable social discourse that is advanced by numerous reliable sources about the subject of U.S. state terrorism. Accordingly, the discourse encompasses far more than just allegations. Various themes are explored: including the U.S. role in the construction and maintenance of the institutions of state terrorism, ie: death squads, and para-statal counter-terror networks; the role of the arms trade; discussion of international conceptions and definitions of terrorism and the role of the hegemonic power in establishing these norms; themes concerning the relations and alliances that are established between groups in the hegemonic power and ruling groups in the periphery; analysis of possible motivations such as economic interests (including the control of crucial resources such as cash crops, drugs and oil), or the role of anti-communist ideology; the U.S. role in the evolution of state terrorist methods and technology; a critique of mainstream discourses about terrorism; discussion of coercive diplomacy as a form of state terrorism, discussion of impunity and redress for victims of state terrorism; and discussion of possible effective means of resistance against state terrorism, ie: through the vitalization of international humanitarian law, and greater democratic control of the U.S. executive and those agencies involved in formulating and executing foreign policy, (to name several themes, but not all of them).

The title that consists of “Allegations…” is far too narrow to convey the richness of this discourse, and greatly facilitates highly politicized initiatives (invariably by those unfamiliar with the literature) to suppress anything but the most minimal and truncated expression of this richness by insisting on an artificially literal and narrow interpretation of Wikipedia policy.

To reiterate, I think that one of the primary tasks of the article is to try to explain this social discourse with clarity, accuracy, and a neutral point of view. The purpose of the title is to try to encapsulate the essence of this social discourse. It may very well be that a social discourse is too complex to encapsulate in a single, succinct catch-phrase. It then to seems to me to fall upon the lead paragraph to clarify the subject of the article. After some thinking, the best title that I can come up with is: “The Discourse on U.S. State Terrorism” . It has the advantage of implying that it is not established fact but rather a dynamic public discussion, hence subject to further interventions and evolution. It may not be the “golden title” that captures everything important about the article in a single catch-phrase. Nevertheless, perhaps it is possible to convey whatever essential points that it misses in the lead paragraph(s) of the article?BernardL (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Allegations should be in the title for reasons previously stated. Also, this is not a general US criticism article. Not an article about "arms trade" or "the control of crucial resources such as cash crops, drugs and oil". Definitions of terrorism and state terrorism are discussed in the main articles about these topics.Ultramarine (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources relate the arms trade or control of resources to state terrorism or support for state terrorism, then discussion of those things is relevant here. On the name issue, I'm not that keen on "The Discourse on U.S. State Terrorism". It still implies the existence of the state terrorism, because it sounds like an article about a discourse about something that definitely exists. Like the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is a debate over something that is accepted fact. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are to have "discourse" then the title should be Discourse on Whether the U.S. Engages in State Terrorism. Books on "State Terrorism: The U.S. in XYZ" are titled to be sensational apart from considerations of factualness or neutrality.
 * I lost my uncle in the bombing of Dresden, an act I personally (along with numerous others) consider nothing short of mass murder. That does not qualify, however, for Allegations of mass murder by the United States or Allegations of mass murder by Great Britain. But perhaps Discourse on acts of war as mass murder.

Chile
This is a section that is long over due. The US involvement in Chile against Allende is quote infamous. Here is an adequate source--the book: "The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression" by Prof. Michael Stohl, and Prof. George A. Lopez; Greenwood Press, 1984. Page 51:

More recently, in the period 1970-1973, the United States worked on a number of levels to overthrow the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. In addition to nonterroristic strategies such as bribery after the election campaign, the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile. The CIA was implicated in the assassination of René Schneider, the commander-in-chief of the Chilean army, who was selected as a target because he refused to prevent Allende from taking office. "The United States government attempted to foment a coup, it discused coup plans with the Chileans later convicted of Schneider's abduction, it advocated his removal as a step toward overturning the results of a free election, it offered a payment of $50,000 for Schneider's kidnapping and it supplied the weapons for this strategy." 25 After the failure to prevent Allende from taking office, efforts shifted to obtaining his removal. At least $7 million was authorized by the United States for CIA use in the destabilizing of Chilean society. This included financing and assisting opposition groups and right-wing terrorist paramilitary groups such as Patria y Libertad ("Fatherland and Liberty"). Finally, in September 1973 the Allende government was overthrown in a brutal and violent military coup in which the United States was intimately involved. The message for the populations of Latin American nations and particularly the Left opposition was clear: the United States would not permit the continuation of a Socialist government, even if it came to power in a democratic election and continued to uphold the basic democratic structure of that society." Any objections to the section on Chile?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no official documents or other evidence showing that the US was involved in the coup which succeeded as discussed in the main article on this. There may have been US involvement in coup attempts before this. But again coups are not state terrorism. This is not a general US criticisms article. Regarding the alleged support for Patria y Libertad this could possible be mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Coups are not terrorism, but terrorism may be used for many ends, including coups.
 * "In addition to nonterroristic strategies [...] the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile." That's an accusation of terrorism right there.  Who are these professors, Stohl and Lopez?  What weight to they carry?  Do other scholars corroborate?  — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which definition of state terrorism include "economic and political chaos"? Is an embargo state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The key point is that this undertaking was "in addition to nonterroristic strategies".  It is not terrorism by definition: It is terrorism by the authors' claim.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stohl is well know, cited and I would say respected, certainly someone who works in the field, Google Scholar. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the source is a reliable one and the authors are clearly making the claim, as Sidhekin point out. They claim that the United States embarked on actions to destabilizing of Chilean society, and describe this as terror. They also state the US supported  "right-wing terrorist paramilitary group" as well. These two claims, both direct and indirect, more than meet the burden of proof for inclusion, straw man arguments aside.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the accusation of state terror? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right above you. Its even in italics and made bold. Can't miss it. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the source still stops short of accusing the United States of state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How so?Giovanni33 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What I would prefer is an actual accusation. The author, based on what I can see above, never really says that the United States has committed state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe, as Sidhekin and others have pointed out that the above passage does make an accusation of state terrorism very clearly. So we should use that. Still, I've always said that its better to have multiple reliable sources that support the same claims. So in that vein, here is another source, which might state the case in a way you might better prefer to see.

The source is one we are familiar with here as reliable. The book is: State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism by Frederick H. Gareau. He has a chapter on Chile that goes into some detail, but here are some of his relevant conclusions:

"Washington's training of thousands of military personnel from Chile who later committed state terrorism again makes Washington eligible for the charge of accessory before the fact to state terrorism. The CIA's close relationship during the height of the terror to Contreras, Chile's chief terrorist (with the possible exception of Pinochet himself), lays Washington open to the charge of accessory during the fact. That he was a graduate of an American military school and received at least one payment from the agency makes the charge more plausible. But the extent of Washington's role was further clarified..."

Here he then talks about DINA and states concludes that "The United States took charge of the overall coordination of counterinsurgency efforts between all Latin American countries."

"Washington's service as the overall coordinator of state terrorism in Latin America demonstrates the enthusiasm with which Washington played its role as an accomplice to state terrorism in the region. It was not a reluctant player. Rather it not only trained Latin American governments in terrorism and financed the means to commit terrorism; it also encouraged them to apply the lessons learned to put down what it called “the communist threat.” Its enthusiasm extended to coordinating efforts to apprehend those wanted by terrorist states who had fled to other countries in the region. This much is known. How centralized the coordination was is a more difficult question to answer. How much influence was exercised by Washington in the decision to commit terrorism is a much harder question to answer...The evidence available leads to the conclusion that Washington's influence over the decision to commit these acts was considerable." Page 78-79.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * here is another source... "“Chile became the third Latin American country to institutionalize state terrorism. Unlike their counterparts in Brazil and Uruguay, the Chilean military did not temporize. They were not interested in preserving even a façade of civilian governance, and upon overthrowing the elected government of Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 they quickly abolished or appropriated virtually every institution that had the potential to oppose them. Unlike their Brazilian counterparts, they did not embrace state terrorism as a last recourse; they launched a wave of terrorism on the day of the coup. In contrast to the Brazilians and Uruguayans, the Chileans were very public about their objectives and their methods; there was nothing subtle about rounding up thousands of prisoners, the extensive use of torture, executions following sham court-marshall, and shootings in cold blood. After the initial wave of open terrorism, the Chilean armed forces constructed a sophisticated apparatus for the secret application of state terrorism that lasted until the dictatorship’s end. …The impact of the Chilean coup reached far beyond the country’s borders. Through their aid in the overthrow of Allende and their support of the Pinochet dictatorship, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, sent a clear signal to all of Latin America that anti-revolutionary regimes employing repression, even state terrorism, could count on the support of the United States. The U.S. government in effect, gave a green light to Latin America’s right wing and its armed forces to eradicate the left and use repression to erase the advances that workers- and in some countries, campesinos- had made through decades of struggle. This “Septmember 11 effect” was soon felt around the hemisphere.” (Wright, Thomas C. State Terrorism and Latin America: Chile, Argentina, and International Human Rights, Rowman & Littlefield, 29)BernardL (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And for the same source above, on page 87: "Given that they knew about the terrorism of this regime, what did the elites in Washington during the Nixon and Ford administrations do about it? The elites in Washington reacted by increasing U.S. military assistance and sales to the state terrorists, by covering up their terrorism, by urging U.S. diplomats to do so also, and by assuring the terrorists of their support, thereby becoming accessories to state terrorism before, during, and after the fact."Giovanni33 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be further objections in light of the above sources, I think we have consensus to add this material in a Chile section. I'll do so shortly.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Jeremiah Wright?
It seems like the most prominent allegation today is the Revrend Wright's. According to abc news: Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11: ''"In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism. "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation."'' Not to joggle elbows if you have something going, but that might be something the article ought to mention. Tom Harrison Talk 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably lacks credentials as a credible subject matter expert on this material, but it is a widely distributed accusation. Thanks! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * He is notable and I have no objection to including these rather truthful allegations. I vote for inclusion. Giovanni33 (talk) 22:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that the allegations are truthful is irrelevant. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Becomes an interesting problem, while easy to source, he is not an expert in the field, nor representative of any human rights group etc. Do you have a proposed text Tom? --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Rather points out the whole problem with "Allegations of BAD THING X by Y" articles. We have children in Pakistan taught to recite the Qur'an in a language they don't understand being taught the U.S. did the 9/11 attack itself to discredit the Muslim world. Do we include that allegation too? I'm sure we can find a "notable" cleric espousing that view as well. There's no boundary between fact and polemic here. —PētersV (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, this is not an article for "bad things." That is a red-herring that I wish people would stop making. This article is only for notable allegations of State Terrorism--and that is exactly what it is. If it were all 'bad things" we would have a an article a million times the size of this one.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * And so I ask, is this supposed to be a list of fact or fiction? Or we don't care? —PētersV (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Factual, as are Rev. Writes claims. There is nothing fictional here. However, WP standards is verifiability, not "truth." That is policy I believe.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Wikipedia specifically discusses how articles are not suppose to be "truth" but verifiable. However, I see where you are going and think we can at least draw the line at reputable critic, someone with at least a publishing history in the field, or at least a critical examination. I can accept a world leaders voice, but Wright really is not notable unto himself with his Obama link. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Wright is notable only for his Obama link, not for any scholarly endeavor of his own making. - Merzbow (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Giovanni, assuming that Wright's allegations are true is original research, by your own standards. Know thyself! Jtrainor (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean Jtrainor. My position is that in WP the threshold is verifiability, not "truth"---even though his claims (at least these ones) are obviously true and factual.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholarly endeavors as the sole criterion for inclusion is wrong; notability may be enough for inclusion in this type of article. The standards for historical/scientific articles are different than one about a political opinion article, such as this one. Note that we have President Chavez, who does not have scholarly endeavors, either. But we report his views. The standards in this article include both one of notability and one of high academic quality (the latter is better). Heads of state are automatically very notable. Rev. Writes, may not reach that level of notability, even though his views have been all over the mainstream media. Perhaps if he kept speaking out and became known for these views more so than his link with Obama, then he might be ok for inclusion. I'm ok either way. However, his views should be in his own article where we can put in a wiki-link to this article.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability-not-truth is merely the criterion for assessing a contribution. It doesn't make it automatically includable. Questions of undue weight apply too. In this case, its clear the the Rev Wright is merely mouthing off and should not be included William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I still think it should not be included since Wright is not an academic or world leader, this is actually the field he is known for discussing, you can read his article for more information. If by "mouthing off" you are drawing a comparison to an outburst or something similar, then that correlation is incorrect. So while this is an area he frequently discusses, I still think he is not of the level required to have a scholarly discussion. --I Write Stuff (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Being "known for discussing" a subject is not the same as being a reputable source. Some of the comments above reflect confusion about this. A subject's notability governs their acceptance for a Wikipedia article to be written on them. For a source to be reputable a lot more conditions have to be met. Rumiton (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct. It is also a primary reason I do not approve of the addition of the material, as stated above. I was clarifying the difference in "mouthing off" as if he was blowing off steam. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Wright's views don't make the grade for inclusion here as notable, as his connection is with Obama. Although I agree with Giovanni that it isn't just academic criteria that determines includability in these kinds of articles, so that's not my reason for opposing. He is certainly notable and his views are relevant and notable in his own article. If he became a well known speaker or writer on the subject of terrorism, independent of Obama, that would be another story, most likely, and would be evaluated then for relevance here. Bob Herbert of the NY Times doesn't support him, referring to his 15 minutes of fame. And that kinda sums it up for me. — Becksguy (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Rev. Jeremiah, because of his notability, should definitely be included. One major evidence of this is that mainstream, reliable sources are reporting his views. If this can't be considered notable, then I don't know what is. Note, I'm not calling for the endorsement of the Reverend's views, only a neutral reporting of it.Bless sins (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Per above, notable is not the same as reputable. "Notability" is a standard used to decide whether or not a figure deserves a Wikipedia article. "Reputable" is a standard used to decide whether or not a figure qualifies as a source. To bring up an example I know you're familiar with, Robert Spencer is probably the most notable critic of Islam in the US, having several best-selling books. But he's not reputable, which is why we don't see his views in the Islam article. - Merzbow (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to define "reputable" in the context of wikipedia? By reputable, do you basically mean reliable? And no, Spencer is barely notable, as reliable sources do not publish his views very often. Where multiple do, you can usually find it on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Newspapers "report" on Wright's views because he's a notable individual due to the Obama mess. They do not "publish" them as expert opinion. Wikipedia is not journalism; we are still clinging on to the pretense at least of quality academic sourcing. - Merzbow (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is about allegations. The Reverend is making exactly that. If we had "quality academic"s saying things it'd no longer be "allegations" but could almost be treated as fact. Are you denying that the Reverend is making the "allegation"?Bless sins (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you strongly feel it should be included, create a sandbox and show how you see Wright material  fitting into the article as a whole. I am fairly skeptical that his credentials to speak on this topic justify inclusion, but I am willing to take a look at how you think it can be included in a way that increases the value of the article. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That stage we get to once we have determined that our sources meet WP:V. There is no point arguing over the wording of something if the sources themselves don't qualify. Merzbow, do you have any policy backing for your assertion that only "expert opinion" may be included in wikipedia (which excludes the opinions of extremists, like bin Laden that are currently in wikipedia)?Bless sins (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To me it seems that giving us two or three ACTUCAL sentances that you think would add value to the article that people could discuss in specific is much more productive than everyone writing paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs of 'theoreticals' that get us no where. I am out of this conversation until there is something specific to look at.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Organization
What is the organizational scheme for these sections? I recall there being an "Asia" section under which Japan and the Phil sections were posted at one time. The material does not appear to be organized by date either. What method is being used?DrGabriela (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Change title
Can we please change the title and focus of this article to be a proper NPOV basis? Paramilitary actions of the United States would be a neutral title that does not make value judgments, but lets us cover the relevant historical events. One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. "Paramilitary" is a factual, correct word that covers both. Also notice that this title focuses on the facts of what actually happened, rather than mere "allegations". Jehochman Talk 02:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That might make a good article, but its different than this one. For example, the atomic bombings would not fall under "paramilitary actions."Giovanni33 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm down with that title. It seems to be the most neutral one ever proposed. In addition, it would give the article some more scope and end several arguments over what should be in it. Jtrainor (talk) 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * List of grudges against the United States would seem to fit. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that would be an article I'd probably vote to delete (Unless the term "grudges' became a notable conceptual term, and we had lot of reliable sources from experts in the field of "grudgology" that discuss it.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to create your article on covert paramilitary actions and this can be a daughter article focusing on those actions that have involved terroristic aspects (and other actions by the US that have terroristic aspects). (And thanks once again Guy, for your always so insightful commentary)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you going to rename all articles with "terrorism" in their title, Jehochman? After all, "One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter."  And honestly, Jtrainor, I'd say the last thing this article needs is a wider scope.  Please don't.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We are discussing this article, not all articles. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that an article under that name should exist and would be good, but this is an entirely seperate issue and should remain as such. Subtle ways to push your own POV are inappropriate. Hooper (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all we need, another name change after the multiple moves so far (including back to one of the earlier ones). The problem with this article is that the subject matter is a battleground regardless of the article name, and changing the name again is not going to fix that. And a wider scope will just make it that much more difficult to reach consensus. — Becksguy (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is a horrible mess and probably should be stubbed, retitled and restarted. "Allegations of" is a very bad thing to put in any title because it makes the article an instant coatrack for POV pushing.  Either the US has supported paramilitary groups or extrajudicial killings, or they have not, per the reliable sources.  If they have, then we should describe what happened with neutral, non-judgmental language.  Paramilitary actions of the United States and Extrajudicial killings by the United States might both be legitimate topics.  The first would cover things like Bay of Pigs and the latter could cover things like the assassination of Ernesto Guevara. We need to focus on the objective facts, not the arguments and controversies. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article title should read: "State Terrorism by the United States". Although I dislike the neologism of "terrorism", it has unfortunately been weaved through the public consciousness.   Red thoreau  (talk) RT 19:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Terrorism" is a propagandistic term. It is highly subjective and highly disputed, whether applied to the United States, or other nations.  I like the idea of shortening the title, but can we use a term that is objective?  That's why I proposed "Paramilitary actions of the United States".  Perhaps "Attacks against civilians by the United States" or   "War crimes by the United States". The  My Lai Massacre would be one. These are all object terms that allow us to determine whether the thing happened or not.  "Terrorist" is too subjective because there is no generally accepted definition of what is terrorism and what isn't.  A terrorist is somebody you don't like who has used or threatened violence. Jehochman Talk 03:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jehochman. Let me address your arguments, and express why I disagree. I understand your wanting to make the subject less charged, and more mainstream. Terrorism is indeed a controversial term, esp. when it comes to applying to particular political entities, not the least of which are states. But this fact is not so problematic that we can't cover it in a NPOV manner. There are scholarly standards for terrorism. Yes, some people call terrorists freedom fighters, and we can report on that, but the two are in fact not mutually exclusive. And, we can report facts here objectively. Keep in mind that notable POV's from experts are themselves facts. Facts about their views. Views of notable experts about an important and growing social and academic discourse regarding the phenomenon termed "state terrorism" is an encyclopedic subject/topic. Articles as these should be able to present an intelligent discussion of the nature of this phenomenon, reflecting the discourse found within academia, and the many books on the subject. This can be presented in a manner that is not propagandistic. If we avoided all terms and concepts that were akin to this subject, wikipedia would be significantly bereft of important areas of knowledge. Facts of notable world views, philosophical systems, outlooks, methods, political trends, etc. can all be reported factually in keeping with NPOV. This article is no different in that respect. The only thing that makes it more politically charged (among US edtors) is the fact that the discussion of terrorism focuses on the actions of that country, the United States. We can cover the same actions under other conceptual frameworks, yes, but that just amounts to censoring this very legitimate and scholarly viewpoint: that of the conceptual framework of state-terrorism as applied to the various historical actions by the US. Various scholarly have synthesized the events to give them a meaning and interpretation under this concept and WP should report on it and discuss this intelligently and in a NPOV manner.


 * Covering other subjects about US foreign policies is fine, but it's a related but different subject. Many are already are covered, and should be in the See Also section here, such as Covert U.S. regime change actions, CIA Sponsored Coups, US invasions, State Terrorism, Terrorism, American Empire, etc. If we change the title its vital that the term Terrorism is kept in the title, as there is a large and growing literature within Terrorology that discusses the US in this vein. One term that is closely associated with it, and can be added to the title is "Political Violence." So if we keep Terrorism and Political Violence, I'd support it. It does not increase the scope so much that it dilutes the specialty nature of this subject, but opens it up for less bickering, and more discussion of the topics. Again, that there is no widely accepted, non-controversial definition of "state sponsored terrorism" is not a problem; 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. Thus there is no inherent reason a neutral article can't be written about this subject.


 * 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 state terrorism committed by the US (allegations of it, rather), and it does in fact cover allegations of state terrorism by the US. I can't see the coats on this rack.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's surprising because there are pretty big coats on that rack. Most of the content on Central America and Japan have nothing to do with terrorism let alone terrorism by the United States yet the coat was hung here.  --DHeyward (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You must be reading a different article. Can you quote some content on Japan or C.A in this article that has "nothing to do with terrorism..."? I challenge you to back up that claim, substantiate it please. If you are telling the truth, it should be easy for you to do. I do find it odd that you never let anyone know of this huge problem before, if it really does exist. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. Here are the items that have nothing to do with terrorism.

3 Specific allegations against the US by region

3.1 Japan (1945)

3.2 Cuba (1956-present)

3.3 Nicaragua (1979-90)

3.4 Guatemala (1954-96)

3.6 El Salvador (1980-92)

I've opposed these items since I first edited but it's pointless to argue with the army of POV puppet warriors. We have articles on all those countries so building this coat rack article for fringe POV views is problematic. It's the "List of things we don't like" article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a response. I asked for specific text. Quote the language that you has nothing to do with terrorism. Of course, this is not your own personal POV that we care about. You understand that right? What you are alleging is that there is off-topic content in these sections that has nothing to do with the claims of State Terrorism, according to the sources presented. That should be your claim. Fine. Now please support it by quoting the relevant text, and explain how the sources do not support their relevance to the topic, state terrorism. I've read those sections and I can't find anything that isn't directly supported by the sources claims of US involvement with State Terrorism. You say it's pointless to argue, but you have yet to even make an argument, even one time. So you can't claim its pointless to argue when you have never made the effort yet.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article was "State Terrorism by the United States" for a period in early 2007. If we can't even agree on a title, how are we going to agree on content, one wonders. However, the term terrorism does have a definition—with several essential elements that all the definitions include—and that's what this article has been about, despite multiple name changes. And although the term has also been use in propaganda by various individuals/groups/countries, it still has a core meaning with more than sufficient academic sources. Deleting the word terrorism from the title would change the essential nature of the article and then it would be about another subject, several of which already have articles. I have to say I'm loosing hope that this article will stabilize unless people really work at it. — Becksguy (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, as long as you're trying to get the Hiroshima + Nagasaki stuff included in here, I'm not going to take any arguments from you that this article is not a coatrack even remotely seriously. Jtrainor (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you've never shown yourself to be a serious editor as far as this article is concerned, anyway, so no biggie there.Giovanni33 (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware the purpose of the article is "everything under the sun that anyone has ever described as an act of terrorism by the United States that has ever appeared in print that can be referenced" including acts of war characterized as such. (I did note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki don't appear in the article as of this moment.) As for "serious" editors, "dismissive" <> "discourse." The article doesn't have to be a coatrack, but it certainly is at this point given its title and structure. I mean, really, an opposing viewpoints section that states democracies have killed more people than totalitarian regimes? Are we also counting democracies that were attacked by totalitarian regimes as alleged aggressors? Never critique before morning coffee. —PētersV (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm - please re-read the actual article - you are basing your position on items that are not factually true. (see specifically that Japan/Nagasaki/Hiroshima is in the article and that the article says democracies kill fewer people than dictatorships). TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Um... The Japan section is in the current, fully protected version of the article. And no one has ever said that this article should contain "everything under the sun" described as terrorism committed by the US. Also, coatrack does not apply here, as adequately explained before per the meaning of coatrack. This article is about acts of terrorism committed by the US, as claimed by reliable sources, not terrorism by any other country or organization, or about acts of war that meet the international laws on the conduct of war, in which terrorism, war crimes, and crimes against humanity do not. This rack is conspicuous for it's absence of coats. Even those that seek to deny the illegality of the bombings are concerned. John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples why the US should not adhere to the International Criminal Court (ICC): "A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable."  And finally, also as adequately demonstrated before, the 1945 bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are reliably sourced as acts of terrorism by a state. Yes, there are also sources that say different, so we include both. As we should. To delete the section is censorship and a disservice to our readers. — Becksguy (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Japan section is full of quality sources and some notable ones are even being left out (ie: Michael Mann prof Sociology UCLA; Douglas Lackey, prof philosophy City Uni NY; Igor Primoratz prof philosophy Hebrew University,etc.) There were some vapid claims about a lack of material on Latin America. There is in fact plenty. To give two examples: 1. Before the mass deletions, the Nicaragua section contained the following from Greg Grandin, one of the foremost historians of Latin America: “Nicaragua, where the United States backed not a counterinsurgent state but anti-communist mercenaries, likewise represented a disjuncture between the idealism used to justify U.S. policy and its support for political terrorism... The corollary to the idealism embraced by the Republicans in the realm of diplomatic public policy debate was thus political terror. In the dirtiest of Latin America’s dirty wars, their faith in America’s mission justified atrocities in the name of liberty.” [71] In his analysis, Grandin emphasizes that the behaviour of the U.S. backed-contras was particularly inhumane and vicious: "In Nicaragua, the U.S.-backed Contras decapitated, castrated, and otherwise mutilated civilians and foreign aid workers. Some earned a reputation for using spoons to gorge their victims eye’s out. In one raid, Contras cut the breasts of a civilian defender to pieces and ripped the flesh off the bones of another.” [72]. 2. A good general reference concerning the U.S. role in state terror in Latin America is: When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S., and Technologies of Terror.University of Texas Press 2005”BernardL (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Afghani Islamists
Why doesn't this article mention the US funding and arming of Afghani Islamists? The Communist terrorism article considers every group supported by the Soviet Union to be "Communist terrorists", so shouldn't this article consider the Islamists to be "U.S. terrorists"? 129.215.37.190 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If the charge is made in a reliable source by someone whose opinion on the subject would be notable, such a section is a candidate for inclusion. If you have sources, please create a sandbox and draft of the section for other editors to review and comment on. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Philippines
The Philippines section currently has five sources, none of which contain accusations of state terrorism by the United States. I am proposing that the section be deleted if such a source cannot be provided. Please discuss. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All the resources seem to be in context and proper, so I'll have to disagree with your recommendation. Hooper (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about allegations of state terrorism. Those sources contain no such allegations. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going with Ice Cold Beer on this one. Jtrainor (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with HoopperBandP, where. This has been discussed before and the references support the claims. All the claims are in context too. I suggest going back in the archives to review this discussion before rehashing it again.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read the archives. The sources do not indicate any allegations of state terrorism against the United States. If I'm wrong, please show me where any of the sources makes such an allegation. Otherwise, such a source needs to be provided or the section needs to go. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire section is built around the accusations of a single individual, E. San Juan Jr, with a bunch of articles in fringe websites. And we also have the accusation of a Catholic friar also publishing in a fringe website; he certainly doesn't count. San Juan is a marginally notable former professor, but these are just webzines he's published these articles in. Unless other reliable sources can be found, I see no foundation to keep this section. - Merzbow (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the Catholic priest about whose merits you are so certain are negligible has been nominated 3 times for the Nobel Peace Prize and is recognized as an authority on human rights in the Philippines. I do however, recommend expanding the scope of the section to include material discussing the U.S. role in state terrorism by the Marcos and Aquino regimes.BernardL (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And he can't find anyone else willing to publish his views than a website nobody's heard of? Being nominated for the Peace Prize is no standard of notability: "In some years as many as 199 nominations have been received." - Nobel peace prize. He has no Wikipedia article about him (Shay Cullen), and the web article in question helpfully informs us to "For more informaetion (sic) see: http://www.preda.org." Is this the standard for high-quality sourcing we want to proud of? - Merzbow (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * E. San Juan, Jr. is of course notable (has a google hit of over 3 millilon, and so s Fr. Shay Cullen who was also awarded the prestigious Human Rights Award from the City of Weimar, in Germany. A Wikipedia article about him could certainly exist and pass notability standards.,Giovanni33 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A more correct Google search gives 25,000 hits for "E. San Juan, Jr.". Unknown how many of these are about the same person. A prize by a small city in Germany is not notableUltramarine (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Being nominated does not make someone noteworthy - not to say that there are no other reasons why he may be notable. On another note:

''President Arroyo invited thousands of U.S. Special Forces to engage in police actions together with the AFP, thus violating an explicit Constitutional provision against the intervention of foreign troops in local affairs. She followed Fidel Ramos in implementing the Visiting Forces Agreement, together with other onerous treaties, thus maintaining U.S. control of the Philippine military via training of officers, logistics, and dictation of punitive measures against the Moro insurgents as well as the New People's Army guerrillas. The Philippines became the "second front in the war on terror," with Bush visiting the Philippines in October 2004 and citing the neocolony as a model for the rebuilding of devastated Iraq.''

That isn't necessarily state terrorism, so should be removed. The second one isn't much better. Even if that is "state terrorism", it's the Philippine government. The article is about the US committing state terrorism, not supporting regimes that amongst other things are alleged to commit it. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is highly questionable whether counterinsurgency efforts could in any way be described as terrorism. Jtrainor (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not questionable at all, besides the fact that we should not be questioning what reliable sources say anyway. State Terrorism is almost always a part of the low intensity conflict/counter insurgency efforts by states. In fact, Chomsky even says that counter insurgency is just a technical term used by the powerful for state terrorism. Now, I'm not saying that we can then subsitute any claim of counter insurgency/political violence as state terrorism. No, we still need sources that make the explicit claims of state terrorism. However, its completely false--and OR--to say its "highly questionable whether counterinsurgency efforts could in any way be described as terrorism." That is not what a reading of the literature says. Rather they go hand in hand.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So a government attempting to suppress an illegal armed group in it's own territory is terrorism? Perhaps you should take up that view over at the Iraq war article to describe the current Iraqi government's activities to suppress the various folks causing trouble over there. Jtrainor (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Legality has nothing to do with it. It can be trying to suppress the pacifist vegetarian society, or the Shining Path: the issue is not who or why a conflict exists, but rather the tactics used by the state when it engages in conflict. When those tactics comprise a certain character and nature that scholars deems as terrorism, then we report on it. It so happens that much of the low intensity conflict/counter insurgency operations by State have entailed terrorism by the state, according to the literature. Nothing interesting there to me, and again its not up to use to argue the point: we only report on it. If there are reliable and notable sources making allegations of state terrorism by the US in Iraq, then it belongs in this article, with perhaps a small mention in the main article (we must remember undue weight).
 * Speaking of illegal, the US invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Those who resist an illegal occupation have the law on their side. But this is not an issue of legality. True state terrorism is illegal as it violates other laws regarding the use of force by states, but its not relevant to considerations of state terrorism per se.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the main point to decide should be if there is a source that states the U.S. government's participation in the Philippines is state terrorism. If this exists, I do not see the problem, however it should be removed if such a source does not exist. I do remember adding one, so unless someone decided to remove it, which case I can readd it, the content should stay. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * lol Jtrainor (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back to where this started... the assertion that he section "currently has five sources, none of which contain accusations of state terrorism by the United States". No-one in the discussion above has provided any source which does, only vague assertions of references to previous discussions. Unless someone provides such a source, the section is coming out William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You would like the section to come out you mean. I will look back at the older version to see if one exists. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Connolley's hearkening back to the original objection about there being 5 references without accusations of state terrorism by the U.S., I would contend that although the objection has been raised there is as yet no evidence that the references have been sufficiently scrutinized by any of the objectors. I would suggest actually reading the references, then picking out the best arguments supporting the notion the accusation in the source that the U.S. is complicit in state terrorism and then subsequently providing argumentation that the source in fact does not make the claim. It should perhaps be kept in mind that most of these have not been included for the purpose of expounding an analysis so much as providing a corroboration that there are in fact folks making the claim. Setting aside for the moment, the question of notability of the source (because it was not brought up in the original objection) we can look at reference #1 [] as follows ... The two most pertinent questions seem to be a) is it being described as state terrorism? From the text we can read: "Meanwhile, the Philippine criminal justice system (described by the Asian Human Rights Commission as “rotten”) will begin to apply this July the heinous provisions of the anti-terrorism bill to criminalize all radical, anticapitalist organizations and all public rallies critical of the neocolonial system, U.S. imperialist aggression, IMF-World Bank, and predatory transnational corporations. UN Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin has warned that the “Human Security Act” passed by Congress contradicts international principles of legality and is bound to trigger more political killings and other State terrorist abuses. Arroyo’s “lawful” terrorism is bound not only to worsen the misery of 87 million Filipinos over half of whom are direly impoverished (one million leave every year, joining 10 million overseas Filipino workers spread around the planet). State terrorism will surely feed and stoke the fires of revolutionary resistance—both peaceful and armed—against oligarchic barbarism and corporate savagery." Clearly state terrorism is being used as a description. The second pertinent question is whether significant responsibility is being attributed to the U.S. role? In the article being referred to it says: "How is the Bush administration linked to these horrors? Aside from hefty U.S. military aid to Arroyo’s security forces, the intervention of US Special Forces in the brutal Philippine counterinsurgency campaigns has precipitated and sustained these catastrophes. U.S. military aid increased from million in 2001 to 4 million in 2003 and 4 milllion in 2005, making the Philippines the fourth largest recipient of such aid (US Congress-Federal Research Division, March 2006). In effect, Bush has been using US citizens’ tax dollars to fund political killings, torture, and other atrocities inflicted on civilians quite unprecedented in Philippine history. Not even the Marcos dictatorship (1972-1986) could rival Arroyo’s excesses. Through various unequal treaties and diplomatic skullduggery, the US government has underwritten the ongoing counter-insurgency operations as part of its “global war on terrorism,” thus justifying the political murders and the unconscionable impunity of both Philippine and U.S. governments." Is that an attribution of significant responsibility or not? We should be able to go through each of the references systematically like this, actually reading them for a change, and presenting their strongest arguments, then assessing them. It seems to me that all of the objections above show no sign evidence of such close scrutiny. I don't have any particular attachment to this section as I had no hand in writing it and do not particularly approve of the methods of the person who was primarily responsible for it. I would only add that there have been other accusations made regarding the U.S. role in the Philippines as an instance of state terrorism for other time periods. Here are links to the other references in the first sentence: [], [], [] BernardL (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I must have been unclear when I started this section. I did read all of the sources, and not once is the United States accused of state terrorism. I'll take a look at the other ones that you have just provided and give my thoughts on those. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the three sources you have just provided, the first one does not accuse the United States of state terrorism. The second and third sources are already in the article and, like I've already said, also do not accuse the U.S. of state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not make yourself clear because you provided objection without any substantiation. Now regarding reference #1 above I provided some evidence that state terrorism by Arroyo is being described, and that the author believes that the U.S. has significant responsibility for the state terrorism. If you disagree use the textual evidence to deny that the claim is in fact being made. Alternatively you could state a more fundamental disagreement that only the most literal self-contained accusations are admissible for this article. In which case I would disagree.BernardL (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In sum, these sources state that the United States has provided aid for the Philippines, which has engaged in state terrorism. The conclusion that this is state terrorism has been made by the authors of this article, and not by the authors of the sources. If you don't believe that the source actually has to accuse the U.S. of state terrorism, then you are challenging our policy on original research. This talk page is not the place to challenge our policies; you are looking for WT:OR. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As has been explained on the WT:OR discussion board in the past, asserting that a source must use the same words as the title to qualify is in fact an unduly extreme interpretation of the policy. The same concepts and accusations can be made in different ways, with different words, and material that is directly related to the topic that does not necessarily use the exact terminology is also admissible. The policy states that a source cannot be used in such a way as to distort the original intention of its author. In the case of E. San Juan Jr. I do not think it distorts his intentions or his analysis at all to suggest that his work maintains that the U.S. is significantly responsible for state terrorism in the Philippines. He describes Arroyo state terror, while the U.S. relation to that terror is a central element in the analysis. In this link here [] he clearly implicates the U.S. immediately by the hyphenization in the title : "BUSH-ARROYO FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY." From the same article I have already given references to his descriptions of the state terror and his explanation of the Bush linkages. In a similar manner, here,...[], San Juan demarcates the U.S. role as a central element in his analysis, both in the title, which joins U.S. hegemony to Arroyo state terrorism, and in the section entitled U.S. patronage. A clincher I think is the following San Juan article: "Imperial Terror, Neo-Colonialism and the Filipino Diaspora"[]. After reading it is there any doubt which state San Juan thinks is the agent of "Imperial Terror"? And taking all into account can there be any doubt that San Juan's analysis belongs in a page whose topic is discussion of significant responsibility of the U.S. in state terrorism? BernardL (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Another issue, as mentioned above, is that the sources here are manifestly unreliable. It's already been discussed why the Friar is non-notable. E. San Juan Jr. maybe, but it's only two minor webzines that his words are referenced in here. We need higher-quality sources to justify a section. - - Merzbow (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this was not actually "discussed" since no credible "exploration" was conducted. It was pretty much peremptorily dismissed. Your comments regarding the friar suggested US-centrism. First, you argued that he can't be notable because he did not have his own wikipedia article, as if that was some sort of authoritative criteria especially for someone whose main domain is in the third world and for a situation that receives relatively little media coverage. There is in fact a page on Preda that includes pertinent biographical material about Cullen, for what it matters. The point was raised that he has received three nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. This in of itself does not establish notability, although it may be considered a point contributing to notability. You tried to minimize this by pointing to the large number of nominees in some years. Taken in stride with such considerations surely must be the consideration that the Nobel Committee requires that its nominations are made by individuals who meet their qualifying criteria. [] The fact that Cullen's nominations were made by elected politicians in Germany and Canada attests to a certain international notability. Subsequently it was pointed out that he received a human rights award from the city of Weimar. This was reflexively and summarily dismissed- by what criteria and by what authority? - Well, according to Ultramarine's expert opinion it is because the city of Weimar is small, therefore the award can have no importance. If we actually cared to explore rather than reflexively dismiss we might learn that ..."Every year since 1995 local people in Weimar have nominated an individual, group or organisation to receive a human rights prize in "remembrance of the historical responsibility of Weimar and as a symbol of the nameless victims of dictatorships and despotic rulers around the world." After the nomination process the presentation committee made up of representatives of Amnesty International, Terre des Hommes, UNHCR, and the Society for Endangered Peoples makes the final decision on who should receive the award for "commitment to human rights in spite of state or state-sanctioned violence or persecution." []. Perhaps, it is worth recalling that all this fuss is being made about a source who seems to be used among a group of sources providing corroboration for a general claim, not any specific analysis. Maybe after all is said and done, such considerations should be dismissed, I'm all ears to reasonable and substantiated arguments. I just do not share the callous attitude that summarily dismisses moral figures ostensibly doing important internationally recognized work to help suffering people. Incidentally Cullen has also received prizes for human rights from cities in Italy and Switzerland. He has also been featured on CNN [] and Amnesty International [] has no problem with extensively referencing PREDA. (The organization that a priori cannot be notable because you've never heard of it.}BernardL (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He may be the bestest, most lovable friar in the world, but he has no scholarly credentials on the subject, nor has he published these accusations in any reliable source. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - WP:RS. A webzine called "Independent Catholic News" with a big fat spelling error at the bottom does not qualify. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

there is as yet no evidence that the references have been sufficiently scrutinized by any of the objectors - this is the wrong way round. You have to show that the sources contain what they are claimed to. I agree that shows such evidence, but am dubious that its RS. It appears to be a copy of. Its RS-status is at best unclear. Do you have anything better, or is that it? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, could you specify what it is that you find "dubious" and I will see what I can do to address your concerns. I hope that you are aware that San Juan has a phd from Harvard and just last month received a prestigious fellowship to teach at Harvard, effective in the spring of 2009.[] His writings have extensively studied U.S.- Filipino relations, as evidenced by "U.S. Imperialism and Revolution in the Philippines,"  by "After Postcolonialism: Remapping Philippines-United States Confrontations", and by "In the Wake of Terror: Class, Race, Nation and Ethnicity in the Postmodern World" all by notable academic publishers (Palgrave Macmillan, Rowman & Liitlefield, and Lexington Press, respectively).BernardL (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. SJ's credentials are not the issue (at the moment). What is in doubt is whether the source is RS. It doesn't seem to be, and you haven't found anything better (if SJ is as notable as you suggest, it seems odd that no mainstream media every publish his stuff). Your source appears to be (the fact that you used a copy of this, apparently without realising it, makes it a bit more dubious). Is bay area indymedia a WP:RS? Clearly a debatable point, but not obviously answerable with Yes. It says its "a non-commercial, democratic collective of bay area independent media makers and media outlets" which doesn't help. Can you find evidence of it being used as a RS elsewhere on wiki? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was simply asking for clarification. Another source for San Juan’s views was offered- this link to the St. John's University Humanities Review []. Does this meet the approval of editors here or not, and why?BernardL (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no further objections. Source is reliable.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Philippines version added 23:49, 10 May 2008
Per WP:BRD It's true that there was no discussion, thus WMC's edit summary saying otherwise was an untruth. Also noteworthy is that after it was originally inserted it was there for about 8 hours without objections, even though Merzbow had been by this page to make a comment [] and Ultramarine was editing on wikipedia. [] If folks want to discuss issues rationally they I'm all fir it. It is to be expected. BernardL (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bold
 * Revert (x2)
 * Awaiting discussion: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not removing it. The sourcing is certainly an improvement over the old section, but it's too wordy; two-thirds of it alone are based just on McClintock. It could probably be compressed by half and would be more effective. - Merzbow (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just quickly going over the Philippines section and am noticing that apparently Prof. Falk doesnt know what he is talking about. The US was not confronted by a nationalistic government movement in the Spanish American War. The US gave weapons to those against the Spanish. It may be that Prof. Falk is talking about the Philippine-American war but how credible can the guy be if he can't even get the name of the war right? LZ (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The section regarding Lansdale seems to be quite a bit in contrast with this version "Trusting the Filipinos, allowing them to form their own solutions to their problems with a minimum of interference, and always treating them as equals were Lansdale's keys to success. He advised them on counter-guerrilla tactics and helped them lessen their reliance on conventional operations, but he always made sure they were responsible for the decisions. He maintained a low-profile and allowed Filipinos to take credit for successful operations, concurrently building pride and confidence in the AFP and their fellow countrymen. As retired Maj. Gen. Lansdale so aptly put it, the Filipinos best knew the problems, best knew how to solve them, and did it -- with U.S. aid and advice, but without U.S. domination of their effort." Lansdale and Ramon Magsaysay are almost unanimously credited for defeating the insurgency by gaining public support. This is the exact opposite of the claims made here that they terrorized the locals.LZ (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like you've found an alternative view of the events from another reliable source. When the article is unlocked, it should be added to maintain NPOV. - Merzbow (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Chile
The below was archived a little too soon. Due to protection were not were able to insert the material. I reproduce it here so editors can see there is consensus to add this material as relevant to the subject, given multiple reliable sources asserting the claims.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a section that is long over due. The US involvement in Chile against Allende is quote infamous. Here is an adequate source--the book: "The State as Terrorist: The Dynamics of Governmental Violence and Repression" by Prof. Michael Stohl, and Prof. George A. Lopez; Greenwood Press, 1984. Page 51:

More recently, in the period 1970-1973, the United States worked on a number of levels to overthrow the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile. In addition to nonterroristic strategies such as bribery after the election campaign, the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile. The CIA was implicated in the assassination of René Schneider, the commander-in-chief of the Chilean army, who was selected as a target because he refused to prevent Allende from taking office. "The United States government attempted to foment a coup, it discused coup plans with the Chileans later convicted of Schneider's abduction, it advocated his removal as a step toward overturning the results of a free election, it offered a payment of $50,000 for Schneider's kidnapping and it supplied the weapons for this strategy." 25 After the failure to prevent Allende from taking office, efforts shifted to obtaining his removal. At least $7 million was authorized by the United States for CIA use in the destabilizing of Chilean society. This included financing and assisting opposition groups and right-wing terrorist paramilitary groups such as Patria y Libertad ("Fatherland and Liberty"). Finally, in September 1973 the Allende government was overthrown in a brutal and violent military coup in which the United States was intimately involved. The message for the populations of Latin American nations and particularly the Left opposition was clear: the United States would not permit the continuation of a Socialist government, even if it came to power in a democratic election and continued to uphold the basic democratic structure of that society." Any objections to the section on Chile?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no official documents or other evidence showing that the US was involved in the coup which succeeded as discussed in the main article on this. There may have been US involvement in coup attempts before this. But again coups are not state terrorism. This is not a general US criticisms article. Regarding the alleged support for Patria y Libertad this could possible be mentioned.Ultramarine (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Coups are not terrorism, but terrorism may be used for many ends, including coups.
 * "In addition to nonterroristic strategies [...] the United States embarked on a program to create economic and political chaos in Chile." That's an accusation of terrorism right there.  Who are these professors, Stohl and Lopez?  What weight to they carry?  Do other scholars corroborate?  — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which definition of state terrorism include "economic and political chaos"? Is an embargo state terrorism?Ultramarine (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The key point is that this undertaking was "in addition to nonterroristic strategies".  It is not terrorism by definition: It is terrorism by the authors' claim.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stohl is well know, cited and I would say respected, certainly someone who works in the field, Google Scholar. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the source is a reliable one and the authors are clearly making the claim, as Sidhekin point out. They claim that the United States embarked on actions to destabilizing of Chilean society, and describe this as terror. They also state the US supported  "right-wing terrorist paramilitary group" as well. These two claims, both direct and indirect, more than meet the burden of proof for inclusion, straw man arguments aside.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is the accusation of state terror? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right above you. Its even in italics and made bold. Can't miss it. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the source still stops short of accusing the United States of state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How so?Giovanni33 (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What I would prefer is an actual accusation. The author, based on what I can see above, never really says that the United States has committed state terrorism. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe, as Sidhekin and others have pointed out that the above passage does make an accusation of state terrorism very clearly. So we should use that. Still, I've always said that its better to have multiple reliable sources that support the same claims. So in that vein, here is another source, which might state the case in a way you might better prefer to see.

The source is one we are familiar with here as reliable. The book is: State Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism by Frederick H. Gareau. He has a chapter on Chile that goes into some detail, but here are some of his relevant conclusions:

"Washington's training of thousands of military personnel from Chile who later committed state terrorism again makes Washington eligible for the charge of accessory before the fact to state terrorism. The CIA's close relationship during the height of the terror to Contreras, Chile's chief terrorist (with the possible exception of Pinochet himself), lays Washington open to the charge of accessory during the fact. That he was a graduate of an American military school and received at least one payment from the agency makes the charge more plausible. But the extent of Washington's role was further clarified..."

Here he then talks about DINA and states concludes that "The United States took charge of the overall coordination of counterinsurgency efforts between all Latin American countries."

"Washington's service as the overall coordinator of state terrorism in Latin America demonstrates the enthusiasm with which Washington played its role as an accomplice to state terrorism in the region. It was not a reluctant player. Rather it not only trained Latin American governments in terrorism and financed the means to commit terrorism; it also encouraged them to apply the lessons learned to put down what it called “the communist threat.” Its enthusiasm extended to coordinating efforts to apprehend those wanted by terrorist states who had fled to other countries in the region. This much is known. How centralized the coordination was is a more difficult question to answer. How much influence was exercised by Washington in the decision to commit terrorism is a much harder question to answer...The evidence available leads to the conclusion that Washington's influence over the decision to commit these acts was considerable." Page 78-79.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * here is another source... "“Chile became the third Latin American country to institutionalize state terrorism. Unlike their counterparts in Brazil and Uruguay, the Chilean military did not temporize. They were not interested in preserving even a façade of civilian governance, and upon overthrowing the elected government of Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973 they quickly abolished or appropriated virtually every institution that had the potential to oppose them. Unlike their Brazilian counterparts, they did not embrace state terrorism as a last recourse; they launched a wave of terrorism on the day of the coup. In contrast to the Brazilians and Uruguayans, the Chileans were very public about their objectives and their methods; there was nothing subtle about rounding up thousands of prisoners, the extensive use of torture, executions following sham court-marshall, and shootings in cold blood. After the initial wave of open terrorism, the Chilean armed forces constructed a sophisticated apparatus for the secret application of state terrorism that lasted until the dictatorship’s end. …The impact of the Chilean coup reached far beyond the country’s borders. Through their aid in the overthrow of Allende and their support of the Pinochet dictatorship, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, sent a clear signal to all of Latin America that anti-revolutionary regimes employing repression, even state terrorism, could count on the support of the United States. The U.S. government in effect, gave a green light to Latin America’s right wing and its armed forces to eradicate the left and use repression to erase the advances that workers- and in some countries, campesinos- had made through decades of struggle. This “Septmember 11 effect” was soon felt around the hemisphere.” (Wright, Thomas C. State Terrorism and Latin America: Chile, Argentina, and International Human Rights, Rowman & Littlefield, 29)BernardL (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And for the same source above, on page 87: "Given that they knew about the terrorism of this regime, what did the elites in Washington during the Nixon and Ford administrations do about it? The elites in Washington reacted by increasing U.S. military assistance and sales to the state terrorists, by covering up their terrorism, by urging U.S. diplomats to do so also, and by assuring the terrorists of their support, thereby becoming accessories to state terrorism before, during, and after the fact."Giovanni33 (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be further objections in light of the above sources, I think we have consensus to add this material in a Chile section. I'll do so shortly.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, section finally added using the sources above. I look forward to improvements of the section. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a question for others. Is using an original source OR? I see that two sections was taken out for this reason by another editor. I looked and everything was sourced, tho. ??! I d0 not see the problem. I don't see anywhere on this discussion site where any editor talks about this problem either? Lastly my other question is why are two sections being removed if the problem is one source in one? I would like someone to explain all this. Thank you all.Olawe (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Using primary sources is not in itself OR. See WP:PSTS.


 * That something is sourced, does not mean it's not OR. See WP:SYN.


 * As for why the Chile section was removed: No one has given any reason. — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See, below. There was in fact no OR, as Ultra claims (see below). As far as why he removed both sections, that is a good question. Perhaps he or WMC can explain himself here on talk, instead of edit warring?Giovanni33 (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"hanson" reference
It looks like this reference was copied oh so long ago from the Debate: I've had a long day, and it's 22:14 here, so I'm not going to check that site & cite until tomorrow. Feel free to beat me to it. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Need to change title
We still need to fix the title of this article. See Definition of terrorism. There is no generally agreed upon definition of terrorism. In addition, we should not be reporting on allegations. There are many notable people with many different opinions. We need not report on speculations of notable people. The article should be about verifiable facts. Therefore, the article should be renamed or divided if necessary, and stubbed to remove all the opinions that have been cherry picked by various POV pushers. Perhaps Violence against civilians sponsored by the United States, Militant groups sponsored by the United States, and Assassinations sponsored by the United States would be suitable topics for articles or lists, assuming that such events can be verified. I think that all the events in this article could potentially be covered by a set of articles with such neutral point of view titles. Jehochman Talk 20:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Which article would collect (alleged) cases of "criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act"? — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like Attacks against civilians by the United States. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Too watered-out. As written, this would include FBI cases like Waco Siege and Ma Barker.  Among other things.  Useless.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There should probably be a central working group on the terrorism articles like there was for apartheid, another term "no one knows" what it means. Otherwise, it's going to be hard to treat all the articles in the series fairly (e.g. Allegations of Iranian state terrorism, etc.). Otherwise we'll all start screaming WP:AAAA at eachother before too long. -- Kendrick7talk 20:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. Allegations of Iranian state terrorism is a for-shit title.  It should be replaced by Militancy sponsored by Iran, Attacks against civilians sponsored by Iran or Paramilitary activities sponsored by Iran.  The debate over whether Iran sponsors "terrorism" could be covered partially in those articles, or in the main article on Iran or a daughter article on Foreign policy of Iran. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Kendrick, thank you for linking to that page, that was amusing. Jehochman, I see your point, but short of purging all references to "terrorism" from the encyclopedia, I fail to see the merit in your argument. All we can really do is report what the reliable sources say. --John (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this has been discussed a few times already, actually. Any title change should keep Terrorism in the title. If we want to change the title is has to be with terms that are virtually exchangeable within the literature of State Terrorism, i.e. Political Violence. So State Terrorism and Political Violence by the US, would work. Otherwise, we are just, in effect, censoring this very valid social discourse dealing with the conception of state terrorism that is replete with high quality references within academia. No valid reason do do that, esp. not just because there is no agreed upon international legal definition. That fact is mentioned and causes no problem for us to report on what reliable sources do say about it. Otherwise, with such logic we could not cover many subjects, including the other terrorism related articles, including the main article on State Terrorism. The no one agreed definition argument is thus invalid. Giovanni33 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It could have been discussed a million times. This article still sucks and needs to be fixed.  Terrorism is a highly judgmental term that does not have a precise, global, legal definition.  Each country has its own idea of what terrorism is.  For a global encyclopedia like Wikipedia, this term does not qualify as controlled vocabulary.  It's just too vague.  We can certainly report on X calls Y terrorism, if that's the word X uses.  However "terrorism" should generally be avoided in our article titles and prose when a more precise word can be substituted.  Wikipedia should avoid using words in its own text that do not have a common understanding. With "terrorism" there is no global meeting of the minds on what this word means. Jehochman Talk 02:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose no one person owns it, really. We have a whole lot of articles with this word in their titles; would you be proposing a mass-rename (and if so, to what?), or is it this one particularly you don't like? --John (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the first one I have come across. We do not use the excuse, "we can't fix it instance unless we fix all the others."  Here we are. Let's fix it, and let this one be a guiding light for all the others. Jehochman Talk 03:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. One of the problems here (I've been following this at a distance without getting involved for a while now) is the continual flip-flopping of titles. Because, as you've pointed out, terrorism is a subjective term, and state terrorism even more so, there is a constant battle just in naming the article between WP:TERRORIST and WP:WEASEL. What we have had is a succession of weaselly titles designed to neutralize the inherent value judgment in calling something terrorism. The trouble is that, as numerous AfDs have established, the community feels there is a substantial body of opinion and reliable sources out there that call certain US actions "terrorism", so there is potential for an article about them. It reminds me of the saga of the list of massacres which I was slightly involved in. Perhaps if we took a similar tack as we did there and got a genuinely objective and NPOV title agreed on, we could take this article forward too. Get the title right, agree criteria for inclusion, and the article more or less writes itself. As you say, it could be a model for other articles of this type. --John (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a long comment but it will solve all of our problems. All of them! Or possibly it will be of no help at all. Either way.

I've complained about this title for a very long time, though not so much for the reasons Jehochman is complaining. Many editors have tried to brainstorm some alternative without success, though I'm open to new possibilities. I do not find Jehochman's line of thinking on this persuasive though. He notes, "Terrorism is a highly judgmental term that does not have a precise, global, legal definition...For a global encyclopedia like Wikipedia, this term does not qualify as controlled vocabulary." Perhaps (though I would hasten to add that the number of terms that lack a "precise, global, legal definition" is, well, really high). However we use this term all the time on Wikipedia. And this is not a simple matter of "well, let's start by fixing this article." The following are some of the articles we would have to re-title if we are following Jehochman's logic: Communist terrorism, Eco-terrorism, Christian terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Agro-terrorism, and Bioterrorism (among others). Those are pretty different articles (probably watched by very different editors) and it would be strange to have a conversation about removing the word "terrorism" from this article title without having a more general conversation first. If the goal is to remove it from all article titles, why not start with a broad conversation on the topic rather than a small conversation here?

Likewise I continue to find it fascinating that this article is constantly attacked, put up for AfD, moved to new titles, etc., while there is little or no uproar over at Allegations of Iranian state terrorism, Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, and Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. Simply saying "we'll look at those articles later, I saw this one first" is not, in my mind, an acceptable answer (neither is pointing me to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I totally know about that). Those articles are almost certainly far worse than this one and they have been vetted far less. In any discussion of this article (including its title) it should be acknowledged that there is a systemic bias against this article and that such biases are something we are supposed to work to counter on the encyclopedia. This article catches hell in part because a large number of editors here are extremely bothered by the topic for nationalistic or other reasons (this is just undeniable I think and is not an attack on anyone who feels that way - it's a very legitimate opinion to hold). So again, if we want to talk about keeping the word "terrorism" out of articles, why start here? Why not start over at Islamic terrorism? To even ask the question is to answer it. I think this point is extremely, extremely relevant to any conversation on this topic and hope it is not dismissed out of hand.

I don't think we'll ever come to some sort of Wiki wide agreement about how to employ or not employ the word "terrorism" (in that respect we are no different from the real world). All we can do is try to report what reliable sources say about various forms of terrorism. Jehochman says "we can certainly report on X calls Y terrorism." That is what this article tries to do, admittedly not always with success. I'd love a more elegant name, but I see no more reason to strip the word terrorism from this article than from this one. It is a fact that there a number of sources which label certain actions by the US "state terrorism." There is even a literature of sorts on the topic. This article is supposed to cover that topic, and the community has decided repeatedly that that should happen. A title that mentions terrorism thus seems appropriate until we have some sort of titular policy (probably not worded right, but I did want to say titular) with respect to terrorism.

I would also point out that articles like Violence against civilians sponsored by the United States and Militant groups sponsored by the United States (which Jehochman suggests) will run up against the exact same problems as this one. Because they are such controversial topics, folks will want the titles changed to "Alleged violence against civilians sponsored by the United States" and the like. And to make a point on that issue which is guaranteed to get me in trouble, we have all sorts of articles on things which are alleged to have happened without saying "alleged" or "allegations" in the title. The Resurrection of Jesus is an alleged or supposed event, but the article is not called Supposed Resurrection of Jesus. In fact - and this last point is intentionally provocative but I think quite true and illustrative of my general point - if we were being truly NPOV we would have to admit that there is far more quality evidence that the U.S. has committed "state terrorism" than there is that a man named Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to some place called "heaven." However in general we're far more comfortable with the latter claim than the former for obvious reasons, despite the fact that Christ's resurrection is essentially impossible to source reliably.

I don't have a great suggestion for the title. I was always okay with plain old "State Terrorism by the United States" (but a lot of people hated that) and later proposed "State Terrorism AND the United States" (which I thought solved some problems, but we just moved it away from there) and at this point I'm out of ideas. We are talking about the US and about "state terrorism" (a contested concept, but a concept nonetheless, sort of like "liberalism" or "family") so it seems like those terms should be in there.

Sorry if this comment was overly long and my tone overly jocular - I find the latter helps me a bit when I'm discussing this crazy ass article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer your question about the other articles, it much more common in western society and English in particular, to describe actions by Iran as terrorism. It is not so common to associate terrorism with western nations.  It is simply a fact that Islamic terrorism and Narcoterrorism is standard vernacular in English today.  If you don't understand the difference between stripping terrorism from this article vs. the Narcoterrorism article, I can't really help you except to give you an example: the term "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People" is not offensive.  The term "Colored people" is offensive.  The same words used in different contexts can be either acceptable or not acceptable depending on the vernacular usage and it's history.    If you wanted to change the title of the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) to the Colored people Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) on the grounds that it needed to be syllogistically equivalent to National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, I would oppose you on the grounds that it is offensive and is not the mainstream view just as I oppose the word "terrorism" in this article.  Likewise, if you then decided to change the NAACP article to remove the CP term, I would also oppose.  It's pretty obvious why this is the case and it's hardly systemic bias.  Rather, the effort to create equivalencies such as these are generally the efforts of groups with a specific POV and agenda (example is the NAAWP, the hate group that tries to create a moral equivalence to the NAACP).  There is no moral equivalence and the attempts to use language to create one is a violation of the fundamental policies of WP.    --DHeyward (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very interesting reply, but I think it tends to make my point in a way. The analogy you draw is not at all apt in my view. The question here is not simply a stylistic one, or one which relates solely to language, as is the case with the examples you provide. "African-American" and "Colored" (I find it difficult to even type that word) are, in the examples you employ, descriptive terms&mdash;different words which can both describe a certain group of people. The former is far more common and generally non-offensive, while the latter is very uncommon (now) and extremely offensive&mdash;thus we use the former, obviously. "State terrorism" is not simply a descriptive term, it is an analytic one (maybe a dubious one, but that's irrelevant). Instead of the African-American example, a more analogous situation would be the debate about how we should talk about the Armenian genocide. Most of the world, including me, thinks we should call it "genocide." Some Turks might prefer to call it "mass starvation." These are not different ways of saying the same thing (with one offensive and one not, as in "colored" and "African American") they are fundamentally different analytic terms. Likewise describing the bombing of Hiroshima as "state terrorism" is not simply an offensive way to say what you should really say - perhaps "necessary act of war" - it is a completely different analytic take on a complex situation.


 * Your opening sentence somewhat makes my point about systemic bias, and the way it can operate even unconsciously. We do not make editorial decisions based on what is "more common in western society and English in particular" except when it comes to wording, manual of style issues, etc. The fact that calling the bombing of Hiroshima "state terrorism" is "not common" in Western society, or that many people find that offensive, is precisely not a valid rationale for not using this term if, as is the case, there are notable figures who describe the event that way. If they do we cover it, and that is what NPOV and this project are all about. This is en.wikipedia, but our readers are all over the world, and to intentionally write from a "Western" perspective is simply not acceptable. It's obvious that we would never make editorial decisions based on the "American" or "Irish" perspective, but the same applies to the perspective of "western society." If this project ever intentionally becomes about chronicling the common assumptions of Western society (Iran is terroristic, the US is not, etc.) then we might as well fold up shop.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is very well put. I was thinking of writing the same type of response, but since it was directed at you, I held my typing fingers back. However, also because I knew you would be able put it in a much better manner than I could have, and with a lot less words, too.:) For me it still boils down to objecting to the subject matter of the article itself, which is not up for debate, per the Afd's attemps. That is, the the discussion of US actions under the analytical/conceptual framework of State Terrorism. So, it's an objection that the community has already considered many times and rejected: State terrorism is a notable enough of a concept with quality sources that we can report on it an an encyclopedic article.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a style, it's using language to draw a moral equivalence where none exists. The "bombing of Hiroshima is state terrorism" is not the commonly held view.  Using the word terrorism is particularly offensive because it makes it equivalent to acts that are commonly held to be terrorism.  IT is the same as writing an article on the NAAWP as a civil rights organization adopting the same tone and wording as used for NAACP and using people who believe it as the reliable sources.   Or maybe more analogous would be writing an article on racist organizations and listing both the NAACP and the NAAWP as both being racist and therefore equivalent.  It would be unthinkable to do such a thing even if there were people that believed NAACP actions were sometimes racist.  It is not systemic bias to avoid being trapped into language that the vast majority of english speakers would find offensive.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin please make an uncotroversial move?
Per consensus at, this needs to be renamed Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. The current article name is hopelessly ambiguous.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is with consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But is the US "committing" the terrorism or the allegations? Still ambiguous, but longer, so I now prefer the existing name. A truly unambiguous name would be "Allegations of American state terrorism". - Merzbow (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but people don't commit allegations, do they? I think the verb is highly suggestive of some sort of crime or misdemeanor--merely alleging something isn't quite so naughty.  That being said, I like your proposed title as well.  Anything is better than the current title.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merzbow's suggestion is also fine with me, except I'd substitute "American" for US. When I traveled to South America, I ran into people who said they were also Americans, belonging to the Americas, so US is more accurate: Allegations of US State Terrorism.(unsigned comment by Giovanni33)


 * I asked Jehochman if he could help execute the move.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually if the title has never been used before, no admin assistance should be needed. Let's get the punctuation and capitalization right.  Does  everyone like Allegations of U.S. state terrorism?  I think it sounds funny.  What about Allegations of U.S. state-sponsored terrorism?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is fine, but we're going to need a lot more editors speaking up before there is consensus for a move, if this page's history is any guide. - Merzbow (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's effectively a case of rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic in terms of really making progress here, as changing the title will not fix the fact that this subject matter is a battleground. That said, I have no objection to changing the title yet again if there is any remote chance that it will increase the possibility of coming to consensus on the content. But we do need much more consensus on a proposed title and the move. And if we continue to edit war, the article may be locked again, and/or editors may be blocked/topic banned. — Becksguy (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose any change that does not address the basic neutral point of view problem. Once again, the title should be something like Paramilitary attacks sponsored by the United States.  Anyone can understand what paramilitary means: it is some sort of non-military force that operates outside the laws and customs of war.  For those acts of "terrorism" committed by regular military forces, there is a precise term to describe them:  War crimes committed by the United States. Jehochman Talk 03:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See my comment above, made before I read this. If we can get a title that will stick, the rest of the problems will be a lot easier to solve. --John (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Becksguy. *Nothing* about this article is uncontroversial, anyway :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Should be titled "United States conflicts other than war" or United States involvement in conflicts other than war or United States involvement in violent conflicts other than war or Unconventional Warfare and the United States or maybe Special Weapons and Tactics of the United States  --DHeyward (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or if we're still arguing about how POV the title should be instead of neutral titles like I presented above, we could go with "Liberation strategies for North Korea, Venezuela and Iran."  That would certainly make the inclusion of the Japan section more interesting. --DHeyward (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can share joint custody and rotate it between names every week. On my week I get to name it Almost completely bogus allegations by vaguely socialist-looking guys like Noam Chomsky that the United States beat other countries' citizens like red-headed stepchildren. - Merzbow (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not much of the above is very helpful I think. These are all completely different subjects and so it would make no sense to change the title to any of those unless it was just another way to delete the current article's subject. There is nothing wrong about an article on terrorism, nor by extension an article about state terrorism, nor one that specifically looks at US policies under the conceptual framework of state terrorism. What I see here are just your own POV's coming out. You may think these allegations are bogus, and I may think they are valid, but neither has any place here informing us of editorial decisions: our own politics should play no role here. The above just goes to show yet again that the problem here is the editors simply don't agree personally with the allegations, and hence the attempt is to censor them though Afd attempts, stubbing, blanking, and now title changing to some other topic (anything but terrorism, eh?)Giovanni33 (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If we could restrict this discussion to comments intended to be helpful, and avoid focusing on the motivations of those we disagree with, I think there is every chance of improving this article. Jehochman's suggestion seems to offer the only real hope of making this a stable article. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with his suggestions is that they either do not cover the subject matter ("paramilitary" would exclude all proper military actions "with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act") or they water it out until it includes FBI actions ("attacks against civilians" would include the Ma Barker case). Either way, it would be an article on a different subject matter.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If renamed, this should be done as suggested by Jehochman. So far, I do not see any consensus to rename here.Biophys (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The introduction of the article, generally setting the stage that the U.S. is a pioneering preemptive perpetrator of state terror et al., does little to introduce the core of the article. There's no attempt to position these contentions with regard to the academic perspective. An inventory of "ABC says XYZ" does little to provide a true background on a topic and is usually symptomatic of cherry picking supporting pushing a particular POV. Unfortunately, there is considerably more of this sort of discussion throughout the article with no indication as to who these people are making proclamations or why we care. Then there's the "Some have..." verbiage which typically is used to amplify fringe minority viewpoints. There are items which reasonably belong in an article of extra-legal (para-)military and clandestine actions which the U.S. has been charged with or which have been proven. There are also items which serve only to expand what constitutes "terrorism" (regardless of legality of activity at the time) and to indict the U.S.  You can have an article which discusses the viewpoint that the U.S. engages in activities "some" have described as terrorism. You can have an article which discusses para-military, military, and clandestine U.S. operations, proven and alleged. Putting the two together, however, purporting they are a single encyclopedic article, is opinionated synthesis. If you wish to include the military proper: Illegal US military, paramilitary, and clandestine operations would be a worthy encyclopedic topic. If you leave the military proper out, then US paramilitary and clandestine operations--the illegal can be dropped as we are no longer discussing sanctioned/unsanctioned operations by the armed forces. Either article can then include a subsection of "Alleged..." (as in, the U.S. was responsible). Even "Consideration of paramilitary and clandestine operations as terrorism," which could then be presented in the appropriate context of a debate/discourse. As it stands, there is nothing this article can be renamed to without completely rewriting it. —PētersV (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan
The consensus on talk is to keep the Japan section. Currently there are some modifications taking place on a sand box, I understand. Someone just removed the entire section again based on an invalid premise: their OR belief that its not state terrorism because it occurred in the context of a war. This has been extensively discussed and consensus is that the section is completely appropriate to the topic of State terrorism given the many high quality references making the allegation. I've restored it.Giovanni33 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Giovanni's restoration and rationale. The deletion was done by an editor that has never before edited the article or talk page. There should have been discussion here before a change of that magnitude was made in a controversial article, per the notice at the top of this page. — Becksguy (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion we need a section covering Japan. It may be wider in scope (war terrorism?); it probably ought to be shorter; but it should definitely be there.  Endorse restoration.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The consensus on talk is meaningless, since the POV-pushers have driven everyone else away. The Japan section remains, as it always was, revisionist. It's amusing that Giovanni accuses them of OR, since no reliable source calls it an act of state terrorism by the USA, the reliable sources use "war terrorism" and the combination of war terrosiam, the United States and excluding other involved states, gives the novel synthesis that this was state terrorism by the United States. Was Dresden an act of state terrorism by the UK? Was Coventry an act of state terrorism by Germany? It's just revisionist nonsense. Guy (Help!) 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "The consensus on talk is meaningless" thank you Lord God Almighty for your proclamation from on high that your personal evaluation of the situation overrides policy. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have even read the section and looked at the sources? If you did you would see that we have lot of notable people cited who have described the atomic bombing of Japan as state terrorism. These are not nobodies, either, but Princeton Professor Richard Falk, and University of Chicago Bruce Cumings, Mark Seldon, et al. If you feel this needs to be beefed up some more, I can add more reliable sources. Back when it was proposed and agreed on, consensus was to keep it relatively concise, so we left out many additional sources. We can expand this section by adding more sources, if that is the issue.


 * Your objection to this section seems largely centered on your own argument that the bombings are not state terrorism since there was a war going on. Also that its represents a scholarly revision to the traditional view. But both of these points are not relevant rebuttal to the fact that there are notable and scholarly "allegations of state terrorism by the US" when it comes to this issue. As such this Japan section meets the standards of the article, and is one of the more well-sourced sections that make this explicit claim. If you read it its hard to miss.


 * A couple words about historical revisionism is in order here. You seem to think its something that is not allowed. That is false. The word has two meanings. The correct meaning that is applicable here is that of the legitimate area of scholarship that revises previous historical pronouncements/verdicts. 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 within the article. So what is the problem? WP is not censored to only traditional views. These are significant viewpoints with much scholarly discussion published by the top experts in their field, so its correct we do give them a full voice in this article as they are discussing this very subject: state terrorism. Any good encyclopedia worth its name should discuss and report on it, esp. in an article dedicated to the subject matter.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * G33 will chatter endlessly. There is no consensus to keep. I've removed it again William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You would do well to learn from me a bit. Not that should should chatter endlessly, but a little more use of the talk page of actually engaging with the substance of the arguments would be good.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The endless chatter has worked quite well as a strategy to paralyse change, but its become too obvious. You need to find a new one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You should assume good faith. There is no strategy to prevent change. Change and progress has occurred though the collaborative discussion cycle. Sorry that you can't simply impose change by force, against consensus. WP doesn't work that way.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Per talk", eh? You are not making this any easier, WMC, by dismissing talk as "chatter".


 * '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.'


 * I've reinserted it. Consider actually using the talk page, please.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Not much point talking if people don't bother read what you write. I said G33 will chatter endlessly. Not you William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you read what I wrote? I said you dismissed talk as "chatter", not that you dismissed my talk (as "chatter" or otherwise).  (In fact, you seemed to ignore my talk completely, focussing on G33's alone, but that's another story.)  And your continued dismissals ("not much point talking") is still not helpful, nor is your revert warring.  Are you even willing to collaborate on this article, or will you insist on having it your way, without discussion?  — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy to talk to you. Talking to G33 or his socks is a waste of time, but as far as I can tell that isn't true about you. So what do you have to say? You've just said that you want the section in. I've said I want it out. These were acts of war, and wiki already has a good article elsewhere about them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Connolley, you are absolutely right. Anything the US does is by definition not state terrorism. These allegations are simply ludicrous. --Paul Pot (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The US does indulge in state terrorism (I accept Chomskys analysis). But this article is very poor William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec, of course) I've said more before, as this subject has come up often in recent times. And I have refrained from saying even more, as others already have said it, and I rarely see a good reason to repeat what others have said.  For starters though ...


 * In favour of including a section on these act: We have good sources describing them as terrorism, it is a very notable event, and the uniqueness (in many respects) of this case gives this article more depth.


 * Against what you provide: That they were also acts of war, no one denies; it is just irrelevant. One does not preclude the other.  And the usual response to a good article elsewhere would be to summarize, not to excise.  As of now, there is not in this article even a link to Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or perhaps better, Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).  If anything, I should think the existence of a good article elsewhere would be good reason to include mention of it here: Build the web, right?


 * But above all, rather than starting over and over again, see the talk that has already taken place. I recommend Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by the United States/Archive 22.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whenever I look in on this issue, I never see any real consensus for it's inclusion. The rational seems a little disingenuous, but in any case Sidhekin has made his POV on the matter clear enough. I don't think he should be the one reverting as he's been doing. I don't think the case has been made quite yet for the section's inclusion. RxS (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Why not I?  And if not I, who?  — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read the archives? This is a long-term, long-standing section that was included after consensus was reached among editors of various pov's. The sources are impeccable and those who wish to blank it have offered no valid arguments, and clearly lack consensus.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You chatter endlessly and repeat the same untruths shamelessly. There is no consensus to keep or include; valid arguments against its inclusion have been given above William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to point you to the archive's to show you clear consensus for this section? Lets talk about content, and not editors, shall we?Giovanni33 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's only consensus for it's inclusion if you ignore all dissenters and take the opinions of various sockpuppets into account. It goes. Spare me the 500 word replies, your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant as no reliable source supports your assertions on this matter. Jtrainor (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you falsely claim that there are not reliable sources that support this, then I will take it you just really are asking for more sources? So I will expand this section by adding more sources from more scholars that support the claims. Any objections? Also, if you keep making personal attacks, I will report you. See WP:CIVIL too. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide valid reason why notable material from reliable sources| presented in a neutral point of view should be removed. Whatever the number of editors saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The subsection on Japan absolutely should stay. I don't see any valid arguments for it's removal, and there was consensus to keep it. State terrorism can and has been committed during war, as these acts by definition are outside the international laws and agreements on the conduct of war, just as crimes against humanity are. Trials such as International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Rape of Nanking, Nuremberg Defense, and Nuremberg Trials support that concept as committed by other nation states. Claiming revisionism won't work either. These are critical reexaminations of historical facts, something done all the time in such areas as history, anthropology, and archeology, for example. There are even reexaminations of Biblical studies in the last century or so, two millennia after the events. The only way this is going to be resolved is to work on the article in a sandbox until there is consensus as to it's content. Because if edit wars flare up again, the article will be locked. Again. — Becksguy (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I find the question of whether the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are "state terrorism" utterly uninteresting and boring. Call it that or don't, I really don't care. There are far more interesting historical questions when it comes to those events.


 * Reading the above though, so far none of the arguments from those who want this section out of the article are remotely convincing. Our own personal analysis or beliefs (which are mainly what are being put forward by those opposed to this section) are, of course, irrelevant unless anyone here has published on these issues. Guy brings up Dresden and offers his own argument about what why he thinks this is not state terrorism. Similarly William M. Connolley says "these were acts of war." Neither are dealing with the fact that this article is about allegations that the US has committed state terrorism and that we have multiple reliable sources that allege that dropping the a-bombs in Japan was an act of terrorism on the part of the U.S. It does not matter what we as individuals think about these issues, and it does not matter if these claims are "revisionist" (which, incidentally, is a complicated word in historiography since it means different things depending on the subject in question). Bringing up the Coventry Blitz or the Bombing of Dresden in World War II is a distraction from the issue at hand. If the latter is described by reliable sources as state terrorism by the US then we could put it in this article (yes, I know the UK was there too). If the former is described somewhere as state terrorism by Germany, and if we had an article on that topic then we could include that.


 * What matters here is that Howard Zinn, Richard Falk, and, yes, even Hugo Chavez are reliable and relevant sources for an issue like this. We should report their views and the views of those opposed to them as we would for any other article. To be frank, several of those arguing to remove this are those who believe the entire article should be deleted, and as such I think their objection is partially rooted in their idea that having an "allegations of state terrorism" article is a bad idea because it lets in ridiculous accusations such as these (from their point of view). It's obviously fine to think that, but the article exists right now, and we aren't here to re-run the past 37 AfD's section by section. Allegations by notable people regarding a notable incident are exactly the kind of content that is supposed to be here.


 * It is a fact that this section has been in the article for a long time, and that it was the product of a discussion among a number of editors, some of whom don't even edit here anymore. If folks want to remove it, they need to advance an argument other than "I don't think this should be here and there was no consensus for it and the people who put it here are POV pushers." That isn't going to fly. I see no argument rooted in actual Wikipedia policies for removing this section and until one is articulated there is no reason for removal. And just to add to that, simply showing up on a talk page and saying "no consensus for this!" to a section that has existed for close to a year (I think) without providing a policy based rationale for removing it does not cut it.


 * Hopefully this won't be dismissed as "chatter"&mdash;sometimes it takes a bit of exposition to make a multi-faceted argument.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is, however, terrorism was not a word used widely at the time, especially not to describe wars. Any attempt to describe it as such is obvious historical revisionism and thus biased. Jtrainor (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And there is a massive difference between "war terrorism" and "state terrorism".  To move fomr the former to the latter is synthetic.  There are many tens of thousands of sources discussing the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and an incredibly tiny number, and none contemporaneous, use this term.  But the article is clearly going to remain a worthless pile of crap for ever, thanks to the obduracy of the "I hate the US so this is terrorism" and "I love the US so this is not terrorism" camps, any attempt at sense and sanity is doomed to fail, we might as well just tag it as a  and leave it at that.  Guy (Help!) 08:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the argument articulated by Jtrainor and seconded by Guy is quite wrongheaded, to put it charitably (for one thing if it was to be believed the academic discipline called "history" would basically have to fold up shop). Simply because a given word was not "widely used" at a given time obviously does not mean it cannot be employed at a later date to describe some event that took place during that time or the era in general. If that were the case we could not describe London circa 1700 as "pre-industrial," America during the 1950s as "homophobic," or the 16th century as a critical period in the history of "globalization." The fact that the idea of "state terrorism" was not really used during WWII (incidentally I believe the notion of "terrorism" goes back at least to the French Revolution) is completely irrelevant&mdash;employing new analytic categories to explain past events is pretty standard in scholarship. I'm rather astounded that I even had to type the preceding phrase. The "contemporaneous" view of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is, if anything, less relevant then the viewpoint of a later era when better analysis was possible.


 * Walzer uses the term "war terrorism" (I don't see how "war terrorism" and "state terrorism" are necessarily mutually exclusive concepts by the way, but that's a tangential point), however several others cited in the article accuse the US of terrorism or state terrorism (see my previous comment) So, again, we have reliable sources that make the kind of "allegations" which are the topic of the article. Yes, that is very much a minority view and should be explained as such, but it is highly relevant to the topic. We don't have a rule against covering "historical revisionism" (whatever that means to either of you) and in fact we have a rule that noteworthy minority views are covered. There is nothing new in the preceding two comments and they only express the opinions of the authors without addressing the relevant issues head on.


 * Regarding anti-Americanism or pro-Americanism, it's best we avoid those terms altogether. I'm an American and will always be one. I don't care for its rampant consumerism, its largely banal television programming, and a great many of the foreign policy decisions made in this country's history. However I like the kindness of folks in the Midwest, the bluntness of New Yorkers, the civic spirit of folks in New England, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Wu-Tang Clan, and even goddamn apple pie. So maybe I don't fit into either the pro or anti category, and maybe that's the case for some other folks here too. Maybe instead of wasting time on labeling editors, impugning their motives, and generally calling names, we can actually waste our time discussing content issues. In the meantime, I'll be waiting for some arguments for removing the Japan content which are even remotely convincing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's easy. The entire section fails WP:V and WP:SYNT. Jtrainor (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Yes, it's easy for you to say something instead of showing that what you are saying is either true or logical, esp. in the face of arguments that refute your dogmatic proclamation. You might as well proclaim that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Yes, that easy to do. Its sad to see the blatant nature of your POV tendentious editing, edit warring, disrupting this article once again by blanking sections against consensus and without any valid reason supported by policy. I see you just reverted again. What good does that do, except possibly get you blocked or banned from this article/topic?Giovanni33 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it passes WP:NPOV and WP:RS! Seriously though, you're going to have to explain how it fails those policies. I don't think it does so you need to explain your argument, not just cite policies with which we're all quite familiar.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The concept and meaning of "historical revisionism" that Jtrainor uses is apparently not the concept that most historians nor the American Historical Association use. See Historical revisionism (negationism) and Historical revisionism. The term has become pejorative and has too much ideological and semantic baggage. It has been corrupted to the point that it's no longer useful in reasonable discourse. For example, the term historical revisionism has been applied to the controversies surrounding the holocaust. Another example: Is it historical revisionism to change the long lasting legend that a few members of the last imperial family of Russia escaped being executed in 1918? In 2007 and 2008, DNA evidence finally identified all the family members, and all bodies have been accounted for, thus historically revising the previous version of two missing bodies, as well as the Anastasia pretenders. And even if the term terrorism wasn't widely used at the time, we are not writing for the world of 1945, rather for the world of the 21st century where it is used all the time. — Becksguy (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, if one is talking about the Vietnam War, the "revisionist" position is to defend the US decision to enter into and continually prosecute the conflict while arguing that the withdrawal was premature. To generally write negatively of the war is the "orthodox" position within the historical scholarship. The term has different meanings in different contexts&mdash;it can refer to the general idea of challenging dominant views on aspects of history, or it can be a certain "school" of thought within a sub-discipline of history (for example diplomatic historians who follow in the general vein of William Appleman Williams are often labeled "revisionists" whereas John Lewis Gaddis was at first considered a "post-revisionist" but is now more of a "traditionalist" - these labels would have completely different meanings in other sub-disciplines). Anyhow this issue is largely irrelevant to the matter at hand and I hope we can leave it to the side.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have readded the shorter version which reached consensus above, including by Ultramarine. For those who refuse to discuss issues on this page, and work on sandbox versions, you are removing yourselves from the "consensus." --I Write Stuff (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A shorter version is fine, but arguably the most notable view in the longer version is that of Richard Falk and I think it's obviously a mistake to leave that out (better him than C.A.J. Coady I would think). Likewise Hugo Chavez should probably be mentioned, seeing as he is a sitting president and all (presidents don't often accuse either nations of committing "state terrorism" half a century ago, so it's pretty interesting when they do). The best thing to do is work off this stripped down version since that will hopefully be seen as a compromise and stop the stupid editing warring. I do think another paragraph would be okay though length wise. Also there are now a couple of errors in the footnote formatting.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Chavez should be included for the reason tha he is a sitting president and uses the term. It is far from interesting when someone like him uses the term because it has become a generic way for people like Chavez to slag off the US. He is so ridiculously biased that he would use it whether or not it is deserved. His use of it demonstrates his hatred for America, not that allegations of state terrorism are somehow credible. Indeed using him as a source undermines the article as a whole. We want serious, more impartial people who aren't out to get at the US by whatever means they can. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For those who participated, the issues was size, and the issue of "morality" being used. I do not remember what I cut completely, but he did not make the morality based argument, feel free to swap things around, however try not to make it much larger as that general size was agreed on. If people would like to examine that, then explain in detail how it violates WP:Synth, or WP:V, etc. I would be glad, as well as I believe others would, to reply to concerns and edit as necessary. The argument of "historical revisionism" is unfortunately an act of WP:OR, as we can not make such a claim ourselves after reading through the material. --I Write Stuff (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A compromise version is better than an edit war, or nothing. It does contain both viewpoints, links back to the main article, and the size is appropriate for a summary section, per WP:SUMMARY. — Becksguy (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In reading WP:SUMMARY I note the following: "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects." It seems to me that "The Debate" is reasonably classified as the "parent article", which is where the summarization should take place. This article is for the detailed treatment of the discussion of the event as an instance of state terrorism. Nevertheless we should be concerned about economy of presentation without being so restrictive so as to miss out on important themes or sources. As it stands, the article we now have is not too long, and the Japan issue is among the most important examples. I agree with BTP that the Falk material is important. I would also place the material from Selden very high on the list, for his role as a Japan specialist, his participation in national debates about the Enola Gay exhibit (btw this link is interesting []) and for his editing of the notable anthology "War and State Terrorism." I think more discussion of the principal themes is required so that we can come up with a more cogent presentation, which I believe is the real challenge (and not length). Incidentally, in the literature the transgression of morality is often linked to what critics believe is the progressive institutionalization of state terrorism. I am now off to re-read some of the source material shortly to see if I can come up with some ideas to economize and clarify the themes discussed.BernardL (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article is more narrow to the topic and thus should allow for more depth of it, not the other way around. Those who want it deleted want the whole article deleted. Failing that they want to turn this article into a stub. It's an extension of AfD by other means, it would seem. But just like the Afd, this won't succeed thanks to WP policies.Giovanni33 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Eh? "The Debate" covers this instance of alleged state terrorism by the United States only; this article covers (in scope, though not in detail) all such instances.  I don't see how this article could possibly be read as a daughter of "The Debate".  (One is more specific than all, right?)  I agree that the Japan example is among the most important examples, but it remains an example only.  In "The Debate", it is the example.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. I think it is actually the section of this article concerning Japan which should be the seat of the details about events discussed as a state terrorist act. The "debate" article itself is a compilation of arguments from multiple viewpoints, requiring balancing, weighting, and necessary concision in light of the other camps in the "debate." From the perspective of the "debate" it is natural to minimize the details of the state terrorism arguments because in the overall perspective other more mainstream arguments require the weight due to them. The section in this "terrorism" article likewise requires balancing (including for NPOV) and weighting with the other sections of this article. I still think that this is the natural place to study U.S. terrorism in the context of the atom bombings in greater detail using a a wider range of sources and themes here, while concentrating on the main arguments/debating points in the "debate" article. Reliable sources have also the studied and described the continuity of state terrorism; the threads flowing through the earlier mass civilian bombing in Europe, to over sixty Japanese cities, continuing through the nuclear attacks and onto Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. as important themes in the discourse on U.S. state terrorism. Such discussion of the dynamic evolution of state terrorist institutions using Hiroshima/Nagasaki as an important instance in an evolutionary trajectory, goes well beyond the "debate" among scholars about the nuclear bombing acts of a specific time and place.BernardL (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The reaction of just about anyone if told "The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorism" would be "What?". It is a fringe view at best and does not present a global view of the subject. As has been explained before here, if you want to make actions that were legitimate military actions by the standards of the time (or by this time, for that matter), you open up a very dangerous slippery slope. Perhaps the Revolutionary War should also be added? What about World War I, or the War of 1812? Where does it end? Jtrainor (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It ends where the WP:V WP:RS sources end, obviously. You are not suggesting that we simply ignore WP:RS and WP:V and instead decide for ourselves what to add, regardless of the sources. Your Reductio ad absurdum is also faulty as the atomic bombings were incidents during a war, your reduction then examines entire wars. What would fit into your argument, is if the article was attempting to say the entirety WW2 was an act of terrorism. --I Write Stuff (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. By the standards advocated by Jtrainor, we would have to scrap WP:V and WP:RS, and instead go out and ask any joe on the street what they think. If they didn't know something then we can't report on it. This would mean ending WP as an encylopedia and replacing it as a popular TV night show, something like that The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, perhaps? They go out in the street and ask just about anyone what they think such and such is, and get their uninformed opinion, for comedy. Its sad to see a wikipedian feel we should adopt this standard of knowledge. Absurd unless Jtrainor is making a joke. Sadly he seems serious.Giovanni33 (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan - break 1
A fringe view is, for example, that the world is flat. As proven repeatedly here, and in past discussions here and elsewhere, there is a significant and well sourced viewpoint that the atomic bombings in Japan were acts of state terrorism, regardless of the prevalence of the term at the time. Those sources that argue against that are in denial and/or touting a specific viewpoint for ideological purposes, much like the Holocaust denial proponents. Obviously there are different significant viewpoints about the bombings. That's why we don't make editing decisions that contravene or ignore what the reliable sources say on the subject. Fringe theory as a rationale for exclusion in this case has no legs. — Becksguy (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The many quality and notable sources proves this is not a fringe view. Yes, it may be a minority view, but it's a significant and notable one. Since this is fits in exactly with what this article is supposed to report on, to refuse to report on it is inexcusable.Giovanni33 (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Becks, I don't think you can put words in people's mouths. I'm not saying that you are, but commentators may not agree that the bombings were state terrorism even if they are highly critical of them. I think that it is better to act cautiously if the term is not used by an individual. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I disagree that there is consensus to keep the section. As happens all-too-frequently Giovanni is deciding that there is consensus off his own bat. And as Guy says, if POV-pushers keep chasing people away that invalidates any call for it. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * When the reason you do not want it included is because "people on the street will be surprised to read it," you are not presenting a point that goes against the existing consensus. You call it pushing people away, when they are asked to state in detail what the specific issues are. Guy has been asked 4 times to state specific sections and statements, instead he removes the question from his talk page or disengages here, or worse just goes about mocking the entire article. You have been asked to support your claims of WP:SYN by stating the specific statement in the section that is a violation of synthesis, and the two sources being used to get that statement, however you do not. If a true consensus appears, and it is made up of more then "I do not like it," and, "John Doe on the street will not know about this." Then we can discuss real issues and determine a real consensus. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Who has been chased away, how, and by whom? (The only example of someone "chased away" that comes to my mind, would be User:Stone put to sky, but that's surely not who's on your mind, right?)  — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Stone wasn't chased away, he was banned for sockpuppetry. People have been chased away in the past - I may have wrongy to implied that happened recently.
 * I Write Stuff, I was not discussing possible previous consensus. Giovanni quite clearly said that the consensus IS to keep the section, not that there was. Please do not mix the two up. There cannot be consensus based on majority support alone. And to discount opposition based on your own attitudes is not valid in forming consensus. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I never argued majority, and I find it insulting that you would reply to me in such a manner that shows you did not read my comments at all. What you are describing as a lack of consensus is exactly the manipulation of a vote, instead of a discussion based on policy. The "remove crowd" has attempted to keep content out simply by stating "I do not like it" and since they do not, without policy based arguments, they feel that it prevents a consensus. This is a false reasoning, as consensus on Wikipedia is not a majority vote as you note, its further not a statement of everyone agreeing. The attempts to filibuster a section based on non-policy based arguments are ignored as such. If you, or anyone else for that matter, truly feel a section should not be included, you are free to argue that point on policy, in detail, and defend that position when challenged. However this is not congress, you can not prevent the inclusion of material by gathering a force who simply say no, instead of providing a detailed reason and supporting that reason against counter-arguments. --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While there are currently voices saying 'remove'- those voices have failed to provide any policy backed reasons- despite being asked many many times - why material which is WP:N from WP:RS and is presented in a WP:NPOV manner should not be included. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

While I'd still like the section out, and think that people have provided good reasons for it, I've re-added the shorter version and compressed it a bit (we don't need peoples titles etc) in the interests of removing at least some of the reasons for edit warring. And I've semi-ed the page, for the obvious reasons William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I question the 'obvious reasons' for the semi-protect - there have been 2 IP edits in the past 50 edits/15 days - edits which were seconded by existing accounts and so by no means vandalism. Rabbit has exponentially more outright IP vandalism and anyone making a request for semi-protection for Rabbit would be outright laughed at. If I weren't assuming good faith, I would think you protected it because the anon editor had views contrary to yours. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that those few people, like WMC, who are in favour of the outright removal of a section that easily conforms to wikipedia core policies are really in favour of what amounts to a form of censorship. (And no William, good reasons have not been provided, and the compelling arguments of BTP, I Write, Gio, et al. have not been effectively addressed.)BernardL (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I too don't see any obvious reason within policy to make this article sem-protect. In fact, the obvious thing is that WMC is using his admin powers again to further his own POV pushing on this article. What's new? Since he is an involved editor, he should go to the appropriate board to request semi-protect like anyone else--not protected it himself, and then revert (when he started this latest round of revert wars). The IP user's edits have been good, and it seems obvious the making it semi-protect is just a way to block that person from editing here against WMC POV. As far as the removal of good material, I object and ask that someone restore it.Giovanni33 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hallo. I am the IP user from Hawaii. I am sorry that I edit with my IP only. I have an account too and will use that from on forwards. Regards.Olawe (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I still can not make edits and I am logged into my account now. Can someone explain how I can edit the article? Much appreciated. Aloha.Olawe (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Aloha. Regarding this, please see your talk page. [] BernardL (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The more things change the more the stay the same. Why are we still talking about the Japan section? That one is one of the better sections. The fire bombings of Tokyo and later the carpet bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, and other parts of SE Asia are also part of the literature on State Terrorism that I see lacking in this article.
 * It's good to see that the Phillipines section has been worked on. As a Phillipina myself, I endorse its contents. I may contribute some to the section myself.DrGabriela (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You say you are from the Philippines? Did you see that Merzbow in his edit summary accused you of being a sock? He is accusing you of being a sock of Giovanni33. Could you clear that up please?BernardL (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about that. I only know Giovanni33 from his edits on some of the terrorism articles that I generally agree with. I hope that clears the matter up for the record. I'm not sure how to better "clear up" Merzbow's confusions but I do resent the charge. I'm no expert on WP policies about "socks" but I don't give it too much thought as it appears to be a partisan-based allegation.DrGabriela (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "She" is "within the same 30 mile radius as, and " per RFCU. - Merzbow (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, which means that it's possible for us to all meet in person since you are also within 30 miles of all these other accounts. Are you up for it? Let's organized a State-Terrorism Wiki-meet and discuss the content of this article in person, a work-shop.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is really bad form to presume guilt in such a situation as this. Dr.Gabriela if what you say is true you should go to the appropriate arbitration page. I will say what exactly what is on my mind. This appears to be a great embarrassment, in fact a SHAME for user:Merxbow.BernardL (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's bad form to assume a fact that you don't know Merzbow, and then state it as if its an established fact, instead of your own assumption (that happens to be mistaken). You should have some healthy doubt about this. In the case of this editor, it's clear to anyone who looks her edits that she is not my socket-puppet.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The audience is directed to this page to draw their own conclusions. I will "henceforth" say no more about this here. - Merzbow (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now there is no consensus to keep the Japan section, and no consensus to remove it. If there was consensus, it wouldn't get reverted so much. It is utterly pointless for either side to claim consensus in this instance, please stop it - especially you, Giovanni. The real question is whether Wikipedia policies and guidelines for content support its inclusion. They do. There are reliable, non-fringe sources making a notable claim. Therefore the existence of that claim is suitable material for Wikipedia. It's such a simple case when you look at it that way. If you have a problem with their reasoning because you think it is illogical or revisionist, then find a source that supports that perspective and include it. Your personal opinions that a source's views are poorly reasoned cannot be used as justification for removing them. The reliable sources own this page, not us. When I read that the atomic bombings had been interpreted by these sources as terrorism, I got a little shock. I'd never considered it that way before. I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not. But the reliable sources say it, and many of them are either notable persons or well-regarded experts of some sort, so it should be included. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of whether Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have the full section and this article the summary, or vice versa, I think the case is largely moot. There is no parent and no child article in this case, these are "sister articles", to coin a term. They are both high-level articles in their own right. Both of them include a number of sub-points, and whether the atomic bombings were terrorism is a sub-point of equal weight for both of them. In a Venn diagram they'd be two circles with some overlap, not one inside the other. The topic deserves a section in both of them. One of those sections should be in summary form, and link to the other, because duplication is not the wiki way. But because they are sister articles the only way to decide which should have the full section, is to consider what will best serve Wikipedia readers. I haven't formed a certain opinion on that, I just wanted to frame the discussion in a more useful way. But consider: should a reader who is interested in the atomic bombings be given a link to a page that discusses lots of other allegations of US terrorism? I suspect not. I think that it would give undue weight to the allegations page for the atomic bombings page to be a gateway to it. It's like a link saying "so you're interested in the questionable morality of the US action in this case? Well boy, have we got some other contentious stuff about the US for you!". So I tentatively support the arrangement suggested/created by Ultramarine, where this article has a summary of the full section, which is on the Debate page. That way this page will lead to the Debate page, but not vice versa. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughtful comment. One reason I'd advance for making this page the summary is that its a hotbed of reversion (I'm assuming the other page isn't). Stabalising at least one portion of it would help; and people interested in the text could read it from a stable page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My thinking on this might be a little bit different. I believe that the level of discussion of the "state terrorism" angle at Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a severe violation of WP:UNDUE. There is an enormous debate in the scholarly literature about the atomic bombings in Japan. There are two main schools and several key questions. Recent scholarship has taken advantage of new archival materials from the USSR and Japan. The extent to which the idea of "state terrorism" is discussed is essentially nil (in an earlier version of this article, I put in a paragraph explaining that, with sourcing, but that was removed at some point). In an article on the debate over the bombings, the "state terror" angle should receive, at best, a paragraph. As it stands there is a huge section on that topic, while Gar Alperovitz and his book Atomic Diplomacy (which literally began the academic debate over 40 years ago) is not even mentioned (not even in the bilbliography!, I'll actually fix that now). That article is about one of the most heated and critical debates among historians of the 20th century diplomacy and it should be based largely on the historiography, which simply does not discuss "state terrorism."


 * As such I think it makes far more sense to have the bulk of the specific material here. The "Hiroshima was state terrorism" view is a very fringe (yet notable) viewpoint. This article is by its very nature one filled with fringe but notable viewpoints and thus this should be the home for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki stuff. It can be mentioned in the other article, but to give any more than 2 or 3% of that article (and I'm serious about those numbers) to the state terror position is a major NPOV problem. What I would actually recommend is a paragraph (probably not even a section) on the state terrorism angle with a link within the text directly to the full section in this article.


 * It should also be pointed out that the only reason there is such a big section on state terrorism in the "debate" article is because the material was created over here. 99 out 100 (probably more actually) historians in the field creating an article on the debate topic from scratch would never even think to include a section on state terrorism. They'd probably start with the Alperovitz book and go from there. Still, the person who created that article actually did a very good job creating it from scratch.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to make some good points, but in turn if it is really so much of a fringe argument in any scheme of things it shouldn't be given huge amounts of space here either. That's why I support the shorter version and not the longer version of this section. - Merzbow (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, and that's a reply I would have expected and a rational one. However as I said this is an article about fringe views (though some of the views expressed in the article here are less fringe than others). We have a whole article on the Flat Earth Society, which is about a billion times more fringe than the stuff here (I hope we can all agree on that!). It's fine for Wikipedia to cover fringe views in some detail when they are notable, and the repeated AfD's of this thing prove that the community thinks the issues discussed in this article are notable. That said, I have long supported keeping each section in this article of a manageable length, i.e. a few paragraphs each, and support that for the Japan section as well. I was fine with the shorter version, though I felt a couple of crucial quotes/comments were left out. As to this particular discussion, I'm simply saying that the longer discussion of the "Hiroshima was state terror" argument (however long it is) should be in this article, not in the article on the debate over the bombings.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If it would be WP:undue to include a full discussion of the "terrorism" issue on the Debate page, but not WP:undue to include it in full on this page, that's a good argument for having the summary on the Debate page. That argument over-rides my argument for arranging it the other way, because my argument was not based in any particular policy or guideline. On those grounds I'm swinging towards your suggestion until some contrary reasoning is put forward. I agree with you that it would not be WP:undue to have it in full here, as it resembles the other detailed discussions on this page: seemingly minority views from expert and/or notable sources. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree wit Bigtimepeace, regarding undue weight for in-depth presentation of this topic within the main article on the debate. In fact, my preferred weight on that main article was simply a two word mention, "state terrorism." However, I'm not opposed to increasing it to a sentence or two, at most. My only disagreement with BTP (and he may be correct as history is more his expertise) is that this subject is very fringe. From my reading of the many notable and prominent thinkers who make this claim, it is a significant minority POV. If it was fringe, we'd not be able to find so many reliable sources and experts giving voice to it.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Notable people do make the claim (Falk and Zinn are qualified to speak on an issue like this), but within the historical scholarship it just isn't discussed from what I've seen. It's out there and worth covering, but in the grand scheme of the debate over the bombings (both scholarly and in popular debate, which is a significant component as well), discussion of the question of state terrorism is, I'm almost certain, far less than 1% of the total debate. Again though, I think it's utterly appropriate to cover that view here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I concur with the arguments maintaining that the longer version belongs in this article and the summary belongs in the “debate” article for reasons of appropriate weighting (and others), since I have already made those points above in the “Japan” section, before the break.

It is not at all actually “so much of a fringe argument.” If you look at the range of reliable sources, it's not just historians who have weighed in on the issue. Moreover, I recall, not too long ago, that Merzbow was arguing that the views of Niall Ferguson should be included in wikipedia regarding an issue concerning which he was not known to have a specialty because “he's a Harvard professor. If he had written this on the back of a Chinese fortune cookie with a toothpick, it would still count as a reliable source.” []. Well, here we have numerous profs with significant credentials and they are not merely writing op-eds, or with toothpicks on the back of fortune cookies. It’s mighty strange how things change once the shoe is on the other foot.. As I have already suggested above, those editors who took the position that the Japan section should be deleted (including William M. Connolley), were really favouring a position of censorship. Censorship of whom? Well some, but hardly all, of the distinguished scholars who claim the atomic bombings were acts of terrorism include the following:

Mark Selden (phd Yale, prof of history/sociology Binghamton) Michael Mann (phd Oxford, prof of Sociology UCLA) Walden Bello (prof Sociology Uni of Philippines) C.A.J. Coady (prof philosophy Melbourne) Igor Primoratz (prof philosophy Hebrew Uni, Jerusalem) Alvin Y. So (director and prof Social Sciences, Hong Kong Uni) Howard Zinn (prof polisci Boston) Michael Walzer (prof philosophy Princeton) Richard Falk (prof International Law Princeton, current U.N. Special Rapporteur) Douglas Lackey (phd Yale, prof philosophy, City University NY) BernardL (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In addition to Bernard's scholarly references just above, a quote from the below cited book by Francis Harbour (who is also a professor) seems appropriate here to illustrate the coverage of that decision in other venues. The U.S. decision to use atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is one of the most closely examined (and best documented) decisions in recent history, and one of of the most emotionally charged. Almost everyone who has ever thought about World War II has a strong opinion about whether the bombing was necessary and about whether it was right or wrong.  In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the bombing provoked dozens of articles in major newspapers and magazines around the country and a spate of hotly debated television documentaries.  Opinions remain politically charged as well. (Harbour 1999, page 68). It's not a "fringe argument" by any stretch. — Becksguy (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to my comments above Becksguy, then I think you may have misread them. Of course the debate over the atomic bombing of Japan is not fringe&mdash;it's one of the more notable and heated historical debates in recent memory. Saying the bombings were state terrorism is, however, most certainly a fringe view within the scholarship (and for that matter within popular opinion). Of course there are reliable sources for that view and they should be covered here. But almost none (or possible none) of the sources mentioned by Bernard are actually experts on the history behind the bombings in Japan (which is not to say that they are not reliable sources for this article, I think most or all of them are). With respect to Merzbow's point regarding Ferguson cited by Bernard, I argued vociferously against that on another page and am applying the same standard here in discussing the Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article. That article should mainly reflect the views and arguments which are most commonly articulated per NPOV. It's a simple fact that the "state terrorism" argument is very much to the side of and tangential to the main arguments about the bombings, and that that view is not heavily discussed by those most involved in the debate (against Bernard's sources above, one could put literally hundreds of books and academic articles which say nothing of state terrorism). We aren't really in that much disagreement here (the Japan stuff belongs mainly in this article, and should be mentioned in the "Debate" one) so I don't want to harp on this, but I think it's indisputable that the view that Hiroshima was state terrorism is that of an extremely small minority. It still clearly warrants coverage in this article though and mention in the other one.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, we don't have any disagreement. It's semantics--fringe, minority view, etc. I suspect there are different definitions for this, and that for WP's purpose, fringe means we can't find any reliable source for a view, and boarders on OR, i.e. only found on blogs, etc. That would make a view fringe in my book. On the other hand if numerous reliable sources can be found, its at least a significant minority view, more than enough to justify inclusion in an article dedicated to this particular view (state terrorism) but not enough for an in-depth discussion on a main article (such as the debate article). As I said we are all in agreement here on what matters. :)Giovanni33 (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My reading of the above makes it clear to me that more editors than not agree that this main article on US Terrorism is the place for the main discussion on the nuclear attacks against Japan from the United States as incidents of State terrorism. Therefore, the cut-down version is proper for other article where the notion of State Terrorism would be too much weight and the full version is appropriate here. Based on my agreement I have placed the larger version back as that is my vote on the matter.DrGabriela (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan - break 2 - The Targeting Committee
I found a book that discusses the targeting committee's selection of civilian targets for the two atomic weapons in 1945. The contents are available via Google Books. This is in addition to the other sources on the subject.

Part II of the book (pages 67-144) discusses the ethical, moral, practical, and political issues around the selection of the targets and the bombings. "Because of the desire to use civilian terror and destruction of civilian property, 'to make a profound psychological impression,' a just war theorist would have to conclude that the committees' real targets were civilian, not military. The committees intended to use the destruction of civilians and their property as an end in itself and as a direct causal means."(Harbour, p 134) This is, of course, just one quote. But it does use the word "terror", as committed by a state. An interesting read, and it expresses opposing viewpoints, including several expressed here. — Becksguy (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a great find, Becksguy. It's exactly the reference that was needed to support the existing text concerning the Targeting Committee selection of civillians to make a psychological impact.Giovanni33 (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice bit of novel synthesis there. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To say that this quotation is synthesis looks to me like a fatal misunderstanding of what synthesis is. Synthesis means taking an element from source A and combining it with an element from source B, and deriving a new element C. It's impossible to have synthesis without two or more sources, by definition. If you believe otherwise, please explain in detail. But to me, since there is only one source in this case, that dog won't hunt. — Becksguy (talk) 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like WMC is back to his deleting this material against consensus. I'll restore it but add the above reference to support the Targeting Committee claim.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What consensus would that be? Seems to me there are three views around, none of which has consensus: No Japan section, short Japan section, and long Japan section.  WMC seems to be compromising here, reverting to a version with a short section.  For my part, I think the short section is best, but couldn't that also be an acceptable compromise to all parties?  Please?  :)  — the Sidhekin (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The target committee document is a primary source which should not be used. Also the interpretation given of this document is incorrect. Finally, regarding "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers". The cited sources do not mention the target committee or make claims of terrorism. Not to mention no opposing views are given.Ultramarine (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Japan again
Ultramarine reverted two sections on the false claim of OR/Primary Source. What he failed to see was that I added another source that supports the primary source (primary sources are not disallowed, esp. if another source is used in addition to it.

This pertains of course to the targeting committee's selection of civilian targets for the two atomic weapons in 1945. The book's contents I cited is available via Google Books. This is in addition to the other sources on the subject.

Part II of the book (pages 67-144) discusses the ethical, moral, practical, and political issues around the selection of the targets and the bombings. "Because of the desire to use civilian terror and destruction of civilian property, 'to make a profound psychological impression,' a just war theorist would have to conclude that the committees' real targets were civilian, not military. The committees intended to use the destruction of civilians and their property as an end in itself and as a direct causal means."(Harbour, p 134) This is, of course, just one quote, but it suffices as it makes the argument that the Targeting Committee did select civilians an d uses that to conclude that it was "terror", as committed by a state. So there is no OR in the text.

I also note that UltraMarine (and WMC of course), deleted another whole section (on Chile) without any reason, without any discussion, despite this being discussed for weeks already, with no objections.Giovanni33 (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the discussion above about where the longer version about state terrorism should reside, shows there to be consensus that it belongs in this article. The trimmed down version belongs in the main article, but the expanded version belongs here. So this should be restored.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The target committee document is a primary source which should not be used. Also the interpretation given of this document is incorrect. There is nothing there stating that "Most interpretations of the atomic attacks as "state terrorism" center around the 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 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." Nor does your quote above support the text's claims of "most interpretations" or " the meeting of the Target Committee on May 10–11 1945 rejected the use of the weapons against a strictly military objective" or "psychological effect that would be felt around the world." Finally, regarding "The attacks in this context were thus seen as both militarily unnecessary and as transgressing moral barriers". The cited sources do not mention the target committee or make claims of terrorism. Not to mention no opposing views are given.Ultramarine (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and split this section to a new article: Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism. -- Kendrick7talk 21:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Process
Let's pick a name for the article, and rewrite. To pick a name, we should think about what article would naturally be the parent of this one and all similar. In addition, "Allegations of" is inherently creating a POV fork; the other tine would be "Denials of". Why are we only covering the views that support the proposition and not the views that oppose? That makes no sense. The article called State terrorism says that many authorities feel that terrorism cannot be done by states. "If States abused their power, they should be judged against international conventions dealing with war crimes, international human rights and international humanitarian law", said Kofi Annan. Perhaps we should follow that pattern by dividing this article into War crimes by the United States and Human rights violations by the United States. We can reorganize the content to create parallel articles for Iran and any other country that has notable events that qualify. All these articles would be a series of daughter articles with the parents being War crime and Human rights. Jehochman Talk 01:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your thinking. Down this road lies a solution, if editors from all sides can work together. --John (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above-- this entire article could stand to be split into a series of articles. Jtrainor (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We have already whole Category:Political repression in the United States. Of course "repressions by the US" are wider because they also include US actions outside the US territory. But the entire thing looks very much as a blatant propaganda to me. How could one possibly compare human rights violations by the US and by the USSR? Yes, one could reasonably argue that US brought "their order" to South Korea, whereas Soviet Union brought "their order" to North Korea after WW II. But how can one compare the empire of labor camps in North Korea with the freedom and the relatively rich and happy life in South Korea? One is evil and another is good. Still, people are looking for human rights violations by the US...Biophys (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll say it again, it would be great if we could restrict this to helpful contributions towards improving the stability of the article. This is clearly essential for it will allow its writers to focus on writing and referencing it, rather than edit-warring. A stable name that is agreed by all is a prerequisite in my opinion. Whatever your personal feelings about what it looks like to you, which I nevertheless fully understand, the notability of an article about US state terrorism has been repeatedly demonstrated at AfD. Without commenting further on the general topic, what do you think about continuing a focused discussion on renaming this article? With the right name, and detailed criteria agreed here by a substantial consensus, writing the article will be relatively simple and stress free and it could remain that way long term instead of being a drama magnet. What do you say? --John (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort to think about creative solutions to the title issue. I'm not at all trying to be obstreperous about this matter, but it does require careful forethought so we do not jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. The main rationale for this title change that I'm seeing is that "state terrorism" is a controversial term (basically because the word "terrorism" is there). The assumption seems to be that terms like "war crimes" or "human rights violations" are much less controversial. I do not believe this to be the case. Who determines what constitutes a "war crime?" Right now for much of the planet, it is the International Criminal Court. However the US is not a party to the treaty which created that body and does not recognize its authority. If the ICC decided to convict the US of war crimes in Iraq (which it almost certainly would not do) would that be reported in our article? The US does not recognize the authority of that body so why should it matter what it thinks, any more than a group of academics who say the same thing? To my knowledge no juridical or quasi-juridical body has ever convicted the US of war crimes (Nicaragua v. United States might be about the closest thing to that, though I could be wrong there). In order for an action to be a "war crime" does it have to been so judged in a court, or can anyone make the accusation? What do we accept as sources? If Noam Chomsky says the My Lai massacre was a war crime but no one else does (though that's not true) is that enough to put it in the article? We run up against the same problems as we do here.


 * "Human rights violations" is an equally contested term. I'm somewhat familiar with the academic literature on human rights norms, and the simple fact is that they are not universal and the debate about what the term "human rights" even means is incredibly complicated. Of course we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but there is no mechanism in place for determining if and when the US violated that. Or how about violations of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was pushed by the USSR during the Cold War, and which the US has signed but not ratified? Again, what sources count as far as determining violations? The UN, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Iranian government, a human rights organization in Pakistan, a prominent human rights activist in Nigeria, an academic expert in the U.S, Lebanon, or China? What sources are okay and on what NPOV ground are we standing when we make these decisions? Even if the word "allegations" is not there, we are in fact talking about "allegations" of human rights violations since there is no objective way of determining what is or is not an HR violation.


 * I don't mind having articles about those topics, I just don't want anyone to think that somehow those are less problematic or easier to make NPOV than this one. More importantly, the fact is that the content of this article is about allegations of state terrorism (though some of it seems to have wandered from that topic), not about HR violations, or about war crimes. What you are basically proposing is that this article be deleted, and that we talk about these issues using terms other than state terrorism even though there are notable people who use that exact term. To me that is nothing more than an AfD by other means. If you are going to make your case, you are going to explain why we cannot have an article discussing state terrorism by the United States (as some deem it) which we can clearly source, whereas it is okay to have an article about war crimes committed by the U.S. (as some deem it) which we could also source. I don't see the distinction.


 * And to Biophys, obviously life in South Korea now is vastly better than in North Korea and has been for a very long time. But the South Korean government was hardly with the angels throughout most of the Cold War. The response to the Jeju Uprising, for example, was quite brutal. Not as bad as what happened in North Korea, but very bad.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those thoughtful comments. I think a great majority of people agree that governments can commit war crimes.  There certainly may be disputes about whether an incident constitutes a war crime.  But that's not a big problem; we cover disputes all the time.  Neutral point of view requires that we document the major points of view, giving each coverage proportional to prevalence. A sizable number of reliable sources say that states do not commit terrorism.  By some definitions, terrorism is a paramilitary action by non-state actors.  When a state sends its Army into a village to kill 400+ civilians, that's a war crime, not terrorism.  Government officials who ordered the systematic killing certain ethnic groups have been convicted of crimes against humanity.  War crimes and human rights violations (and crimes against humanity) are much more widely accepted designations than State terrorism.  Frankly, I don't care if the US rejects ICC, or if different authorities quibble over what's a human right.  The fact that most of the world accepts ICC provides us with an objective standard.  If the ICC says an event is a war crime, we can report that fact, and the reader can decide whether the ICC is right or wrong.  As far as I know, there is no international organization that systematically labels things "terrorism".  This word "terrorism" is mainly used by governments and pundits as a propaganda tool to enrage the population against a perceived enemy. Jehochman Talk 03:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree that "war crimes" and "human rights violations" are more widely accepted designations than "state terrorism," but that does not change the fact that we can discuss all three, so long as there are reliable sources. It is a simple fact that there is a significant literature on state terrorism, controversial and vaguely defined though it may be. The term garners 500,000 Google hits and, more tellingly, over 1,000 on Google books, and over 5,000 on Google scholar (obviously not all of those will be relevant or reliable, but you get the point). Debated, yes, ill-defined, yes, but so are many, many other notable encyclopedia topics. The fact is that there is a meaningful discussion about state terrorism and a significant portion of that discussion relates to US activities. This article changes so much I can't keep up with it, but some of the sections make this point clear. The section on Guatemala looks different than it used to, but here we have Stephen Rabe (one of the single most respected historians of US foreign policy in Latin America during the Cold War) talking about the US initiating "a nearly four-decade-long cycle of terror and repression" and Michael McClintock (whose book is a bit dated but still cited) saying that the US believed "guerrilla “terror” could be defeated only by the untrammeled use of “counter-terror”, the terrorism of the state." Why would we not discuss this? These guys are not cranks, they know as much about the topic as anyone. With respect to Guatemala, this view is actually fairly common. On what basis do we not cover it? I would point out in all seriousness that that particular section is far, far better sourced than most article sections on Wikipedia.


 * I don't like the "allegations" part of the title and feel a better title is simply "State terrorism by the United States" or "State terrorism AND the United States" (the latter would be open to a discussion of accusations made by the US against others, and we did try that for awhile). It was opponents of the article who wanted the term "allegations" inserted since it could not be proved that state terrorism actually occurred (this relates to my point about the Resurrection and lack of proof/article titling in an earlier talk section). I have always envisioned the article as one which explains at the outset the utterly controversial nature of the idea that the US has committed state terrorism. It would then proceed by briefly discussing notable (and rigorously sourced) accusations along these lines, and leave a paragraph or more in each section for other views (from the US government or any other group) which dispute or contradict the claims made. This would be an NPOV way to cover this topic - one for which we clearly have sources. Probably the only section we got up to speed in this respect (months ago) was the Japan one, but I don't even know what that looks like now.


 * I don't think simply renaming/dicing up this article will make the problems go away, and I don't think we should rename it in such a manner that we can't discuss the fact that a number of reliable sources talk about things the US has done as being state terrorism. I don't always agree with those arguments, but it's an undeniable fact that they are out there and are articulated with some frequency by experts in the field.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Yeah, a lot of good points there. However I was not necessarily agreeing with Jehochman's specific proposals for renaming and/or splitting the article, but more to the principle that if we can find a name we can all agree on, it's going to make things a lot easier for everybody. In my opinion, people get over-focussed on article titles sometimes; as long as the right redirects are in place, what matters more is the content of the article. If we can find the right name and more importantly agree objective criteria for inclusion, a lot of the strife will evaporate away. At that point when the title of the article is stable we can begin to make real progress in the content. The "allegations" in the title is likely a well-meaning but ill-advised attempt to balance the breach of WP:TERRORIST (Extremism and terrorism are pejorative terms. They are words with intrinsically negative connotations that are generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and whose opinions and actions one would prefer to ignore. Use of the terms "extremist", "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint) with a dose of WP:AVOID (O.J. Simpson allegedly murdered his ex-wife and a friend of hers in 1994. [In the context of crimes, alleged is understood to mean "alleged by government prosecutors".]); it's like these articles where it is all written in paired sentences, pro and con. It doesn't work. My personal preference would be to rename all articles with "terrorism" in the name; it may not be practicable or seem equitable to remove it from this one otherwise. There was a suggestion a while back from User:Kendrick7 that we centralize this discussion and I think that makes sense. If we had an across-the-board agreement that all these "terrorism" and "state terrorism" articles should be renamed, we might have an even better case for stabilizing this one with a more objective title. --John (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should not use "terrorism" as a descriptive term. Sometimes we may have articles to describe a notable neologism such as Islamic terrorism.  Such an article can comply with WP:NPOV if we state that terrorism is a vague term that means different things to different people.  Even in this case Islamic militancy might be a better title.  It seems like everbody agrees that "Allegations of" is a horrible thing for a title. We should write about the subject and cover the allegations and denials within the same article rather than creating forks.


 * Can we create a centralized discussion and proposal to massively rename all the "Allegations of state terrorism" articles. We can put forth a few options and see which gains consensus:  1/ leave the titles alone, 2/ drop "Allegations of", 3/ drop "Allegations of" and rename or split the articles to "War crimes by" or "Human rights violations by" as appropriate for the content.  Jehochman Talk 17:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support this; if someone want to start Centralized discussion/Terrorism we can announce it on Template:Cent and on the related article talk pages. My only concern right now is the vague lead to the Terrorism article, but I think that can be handled locally. -- Kendrick7talk 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec with Kendrick7) I'm fine with a larger, centralized discussion about this. I'm not sure if it should just be about all of the "Allegations" articles or all articles with terrorism in the title. This issue is particularly fraught. There are certain articles where it is hard to imagine removing "terrorism" from the title because that is generally the term used, and it would be rather artificial and POV of us to change it (Islamic militancy would be better in a sense, but it would also significantly alter the content of the article since one can be a militant but not a terrorist...whatever that means). Interestingly, the very term "state terrorism" is essentially a critique of the word "terrorism" itself. "Terrorist" was generally a term that states applied to non-state actors. Those who began using the term "state terrorism" pointed out that this made no sense, why not apply the label to states who are engaging in the same kind of actions (killing civilians to intimidate and bring fear, etc.) as the non-state terrorists? It's a very fair point, and if we call "state terrorism" something else we lose the meaning of/rationale for the term just because the language itself is so problematic.


 * My point is that this is incredibly complicated. There are no good answers about how to use or not use "terrorism" and associated terms in the real world, and I think that is unsurprisingly reflected here on Wikipedia. I wish I had some answers but I've thought about this quite a bit and can't come up with any good solutions. Maybe the best starting point is to have a wider discussion about the "allegations" articles and try to standardize their titles. If we are going to make changes though, and John and others I think agree with this, we can not do so in such a way that the topic "state terrorism by the United States" (or anyone else) cannot be covered in some centralized article. I would look at any argument in that direction as a bit of a non-starter. If there's a way to change the title which makes editorial sense and which takes the phrase "state terrorism" out of the title then I'm all for it, but I'm not sure we'll find a silver bullet here. Still, any improvement which was generally agreed upon would be useful.


 * Any thoughts on the best way to have such a discussion? Obviously it could easily be railroaded or sidetracked so it should be set up with some forethought.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The word "terrorism" as first coined was referring to state actors. And again, with the British in Egypt.  It is only in recent decades that there has been a movement to apply it to non-state actions only.  Before that, it was a strategy, developed by states, and eventually picked up by non-state actors.  How do we name this strategy today, if not terrorism still?  — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, probably we have the Committee of Public Safety to thank for this term. I should have been more precise, but I was referring to the fact that in the 20th century (actually probably the 19th, I'm not sure) "terrorist" came to mean non-state actors. Oddly in a way, and I'd never thought about this for some reason, the term "state terrorism" is a return to the early or original meaning as applied to the Jacobins.


 * Anyhow I'm still open to some sort of larger discussion about this issue.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked the OED on this, and the earliest reference for "terrorism" seems to come with respect to the French Revolution. The OED's first definition says "Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the ‘Terror’." The earlies use of "terror" seems to be the late 1300s, though it only became somewhat widespread by the 17th century. Interestingly the fourth definition of "terror" as a noun says: "reign of terror, a state of things in which the general community live in dread of death or outrage; esp. (with capital initials) French Hist. the period of the First Revolution from about March 1793 to July 1794, called also the Terror, the Red Terror, when the ruling faction remorselessly shed the blood of persons of both sexes and of all ages and conditions whom they regarded as obnoxious. Hence, without article or pl., the use of organized intimidation, terrorism. Hence also White Terror, applied to the counter-revolution that followed the Red Terror, and to other periods of remorseless repression in various countries; the terror is also used simply for a similar period of repression." These are not just idle points but are well worth keeping in mind. I'm all about getting our historical bearings with respect to this or any other similar discussion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant Issue
Those here should put their insight over on Articles_for_deletion/Atomic_bombings_of_Japan_as_a_form_of_state_terrorism Hooper (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Question for Jtrainor
According to the above, it appears that the most agreeable consensus is that Japan should be included in this article (atleast until a proper parent article is first established or the debate article is done properly). Why then have you continued to remove the information from it? Hooper (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph deletion
Also, I would like propose the deletion of the following: "Regarding support for various dictatorships, especially during the Cold War, a response is that they were seen as necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships."

The quote above doesn't much further anything in the article. It reads like someone too pro-US trying to defend the US, and it not academic.

The next paragraph, in the same section, is, however, academic, viable, and cited to show another view to this topic. "Empirical studies (see democide which has been argued to be equivalent to state terrorism[127]) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships.[128][129]"

If something like this was posed for the first para, then it would be more appropriate. Lihaas (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Iran Air 655
I just want to propose that Iran Air 655 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655) be added to this list. COnsidering the Pan Am bombing over Loverbie is widely regarded as state-sponsored terrorism by Libya, this would count in the same vein againt the US. Furthermore, with the US payment for indemnities it is a sign (however denied) that the it was not a shooting down of a military aircraft during awartime. Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Iran Air Flight 655 does not call it terrorism, nor quote anyone as calling it such. It's not categorized as such, nor is it claimed by the terrorism wiki-project.  Being accepted as terrorism seems a prerequisite for being accepted as state terrorism.  In other words: This should be discussed on Talk:Iran Air Flight 655 and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * By Iran it is labeled so, surely only us labels of terrorism arent valid. There are iranian sources that call it so. Lihaas (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a discussion for Talk:Iran Air Flight 655 and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism. Please take it there.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Iran busts CIA terror network
This is pretty interesting. 

The group’s plans were devised in the U.S., according to the announcement, which added that they had planned to carry out a number of acts such as bombing scientific, educational, and religious centers, shooting people, and making public places in various cities insecure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmegan (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh huh. Announcement. By the Iranian intelligence service, which is not a reliable source for such a thing at all. Furthermore, the Tehran Times is affiliated with the Islamic Propagation Organization, which is responsible for translating and distributing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in English.

Also, given your only contribution is to this talk page, I shall assume you are another sock until proven otherwise. Jtrainor (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a perfectly reliable source, and Jtrainor needs to review WP:AGF.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I rather doubt the former, but I'd sign to the latter. — the Sidhekin (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How is it not reliable? The article is just reporting what the intelligence service announced. Is the Iranian intelligence service not a good enough source for an allegation of terrorism? Interesting way of running things around here ay. And I'm not a "sock", I just don't want to associate my normal account with this controversial article. I have never edited in this article with my main. Tone down the hostility yeesh..Parmegan (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, you'd say an upside down burning cross was a reliable source if it had something negative of the US written on it. Jtrainor (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remain civil. Lets keep the discussion on the article and the content we're discussing, not on the contributers. Personal attacks will get us nowhere fast. Now please explain why you think this source is unreliable. Do you think Tehrantimes.com made the announcement up? Parmegan (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I explained why the Tehran Times is unreliable above already. As for anything the Iranian government says concerning the US, that is obvious and needs no clarification whatsoever. Jtrainor (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not answered my question. Do you think the Tehrantimes made the announcement up? If that's not the case, then the validity of the source is not relevant by your own admission. And regarding the actual report, whether or not the accusations are true is not relevant either. They are allegations, and that's what this article is for. When a countries intelligence service makes an announcement, no matter what country, that announcement is ALWAYS relevant. Readers can decide for themselves if they're telling the truth. I find it baffling that some random nobody on wikipedia would actually have the gall to try and withhold this type of information from reaching the public. Parmegan (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoah! Wikipedia is neither the only nor the first way information reaches the public!  Try Wikinews perhaps?  Or wait until others pick up this item – if there is anything to it, I know of plenty of newspapers I'm sure'll make sure it reaches the public – and when it happens, we just may have a look at it.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This claim is without sufficient reliable sources currently, and can't be used. It's not about truth, it's about verifiability. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and there isn't enough to verify this. — Becksguy (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Becksguy and jtrainor. There is no reliable source here. The Iranian government, the ultimate source of the assertion, is not a reliable source. Noroton (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make a principled distinction between gov'ts whose press releases you deem reliable and those you don't. Whether or not the gov't is currently being demonized by the US gov't cannot be the basis for the distinction. Please support your principled distinction with a citation to WP rules.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We're not going to base a section of the article on nothing more than a press release by any government. More is needed. - Merzbow (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What if I showed you numerous WP sections based entirely on US gov't sources or allegations?--NYCJosh (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I'll create a bunch of articles about Kim Jong-Il's unusual athletic talent, cooking skill, and sexual prowess all based on North Korean government sources, and expect you to vote Keep in the ensuing AfDs. :) - Merzbow (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We actually don't necessarily disagree about the (non-) reliability of North Korean gov't statements, however North Korea is not presently an issue here. Do you have an objection to including info based on USG sources? You seem to have an objection to gov't of Iran sources but you cannot defend it based on WP rules. If you cannot articulate a reasoned defense based on WP rules, then your objection is without merit. --NYCJosh (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have an objection to including a new section in a major, controversial article like this based on one source. We need more than one source, period. - Merzbow (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Too strict for my tastes – I'd consider how much weight the source carries, how prestigious the scholar, journalist, or whatever, and how impartial. Government sources generally don't fare too well.  But the key point, where I think we agree, is that as this would be a new section in a highly controversial article, it would take some heavy weight to move me to include it.


 * By the way ... the one source for this other than the Tehran Times I've found so far, states it thusly: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2008/051908_iran_busts.htm it's obviously naive to take a report out of Iranian state-controlled media at face value]. Naïve, eh?  A kinder word than I'd choose, but okay, it'll do.  :)  — the Sidhekin (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that this is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires extraordinary sources, and that is policy. One source doesn't cut it. Multiple sources are needed, and the sources have to be independent, neutral, and with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The issue of the US vs. Iranian government as a source is not the main issue, although considering the political situation in the region, one needs to be very careful about the reliability of all sources. Personally, I wouldn't trust any government to be fully forthcoming and honest where it's interests are concerned. Again, this is about verifiability of claims, not necessarily about truth. The Tehran Times may, or may not, be reliable, but until this item is verified by other independent reliable sources, it can't be used. Period. It's really is as simple as that, so lets not read anything else into it. — Becksguy (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, here are some independent sources that report USG backing for military operations inside Iran:


 * 1. The Asia Times cites a New Yorker Magazine's investigative report, according to which the U.S. has military commando units operating inside Iran. Asia Times, February 24, 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB24Ak01.html That same article in Asia Times reported that U.S. policy is one of lighting "the fire of ethnic and sectarian strife" to destabilize and eventually topple the government of Iran. The Washington Quarterly magazine as cited by the Asia Times article, reported:

"the Sunni Balochi resistance could prove valuable to Western intelligence agencies with an interest in destabilizing the hardline regime in Tehran.... The United States maintained close contacts with the Balochis till 2001, at which point it withdrew support when Tehran promised to repatriate any U.S. airmen who had to land in Iran as a result of damage sustained in combat operations in Afghanistan." Asia Times, February 24, 2007, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB24Ak01.html


 * 2. ABC news reported, citing U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources, that U.S. officials have been secretly encouraging and advising a Pakistani Balochi militant group named Jundullah that is responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran. The Jundullah militants "stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," This militant group is led by a youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, sometimes known as "Regi." The U.S. provides no direct funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "presidential finding" as well as congressional oversight. Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to Abd el Malik Regi through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states. A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false," and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group. ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran, April 3, 2007, http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html Regi and Jundullah are also claimed by Iran to be associated with al Qaida, a charge that the group has denied. "He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.

"Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said. Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan. ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran, April 3, 2007, http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html


 * 3. Another US proxy inside Iran has been the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan (PEJAK). The New Yorker reported in November 2006 that a U.S. government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership leaked the news of secret US support for PEJAK for operations inside Iran, stating that the group had been given “a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.”. name="hersh_next_act"> http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127fa_fact?currentPage=all
 * --NYCJosh (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see an accusation of state terrorism in any of those. - Merzbow (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First, you attack the original claim because it is "only" from an Iran gov't source. You fail to make an argument based on WP rules for the non-reliability of that source. Then, when additional sources are brought to support major aspects of the claim--USG support for military operations inside Iran, you forget about the claims of the Iran gov't source that we've been discussing, independent support for which you alleged was lacking.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but your "major aspects" are not the point of dispute. We're not questioning whether there's USG support for military operations inside Iran; that's besides the point.  What is needed for anything to be included is notable claims, as reported by reliable sources, that the US is an accomplice in terrorism.  Supporter does not imply accomplice, and military operations does not imply terrorism, even if you could somehow find reliable sources saying they do: The claim must be found in the sources themselves.  — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "it is the US (and not Pakistan) that is sponsoring the trans-border terrorism" qualifies, but hey, we're already using it: Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, currently reference 88.


 * I'll pass on reading the blog, thank you very much.


 * And the New Yorker article seems to accuse Iran, not the US, of being a "terrorist state", so that one misses the mark.


 * Not much news, then. — the Sidhekin (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What Sidhekin said. Rules are not a substitute for editorial discretion, as decided by consensus. - Merzbow (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)