Talk:United States and state terrorism/Archive 3

Debates about content
Lets discuss each section and attempt to come to a rough consensus.

I took the highly unusual step of cutting and pasting ever single comment which is relevant to every section, then I archived the earlier talk page.

Everyone is welcome to debate these sections, but I think we need to come to a consensus about what this article should include, and what it should not include, First see to comment. This worked very well with another controversial page, the predecessor to: List_of_United_States_military_history_events.

To keep the organization intact, please respond to my comments in this section, create a new section, or respond in any of the sections below. Travb (talk) 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Title of the article
After this AfD, i am going to merge this article with American terrorism, I think that is the general consesus. Travb (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this move. The term "American" terrorism is vague and ambiguous, and to me, it almost sounds like a racial slur. This article is about acts that the government of the US has undertaken. Calling it "American" accuses the population as a whole of these aledged crimes. I would equally object to an article such as "Jewish terrorism" or "Arab terrorism", however, "Terrorism by Israel" or "Terrorism by Egypt" (with good content) would be acceptable and NPOV. Material from American terrorism could be moved here, however.Self-Described Seabhcán 11:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to concur with Seabhcan.--MONGO 13:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:State_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America has 3 or 4 merge votes, I didn't know this was contentious. Travb (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For a while American terrorism was stable as American terrorism (term), as part of some deal involving Islamofascism, if I remember right. It has been about the use of the term in contemporary discourse. The name was changed at the end of May. If it is just going to be a collection of anectdotes chosen to convince readers of the US' essential moral equivalence with Al-Qaida, I have no preference what title is used. Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if we can narrow it down to one article, then it is easier to keep all the radical POV pushing in one place. According to certain perspectives, virtually any recognized government entity could be found to have committed some manner of terrorists action. I suppose for a title requirement, moving American Terrorism to this article is more accurate though I stated the opposite on the Afd.--MONGO 19:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

If the AfD is to keep I'd recommend keeping it as-is as the name. Precedent has been set to keep the other "State terrorism by..." articles, as should this one stay. It's really nothing to do (as said above) with POV pushing or anything silly like that. From my comment just now on AfD: "Nothing POV about this title, or State terrorism by Canada, State terrorism by Sweden, State terrorism by Ukraine, State terrorism by Japan, State terrorism by Israel, or State terrorism by India. The "domestic" viewpoint--that is, the 'home' view of the government or local media of that nation--has no role in determining what is considered state terrorism, really. Would domestic Canadian media or government in 99% of cases even refer to it's actions as state terrorism? Or any other nation? Of course not. To call the US article POV and unsalvageable is simply patriotic bluster. I love America, I live here, but if a sanctioned United Nations court said something we did for example is terrorism, guess what? It's terrorism. Editorial/domestic POV has no place in the content or name of an article. Facts are facts--whether they are locally disliked facts are irrelevant, I'm unhappy to admit. The article needs to stay, as do the others from the original forking based on this."

Simply put, each of the articles has merit as they exist now, and I'll politely remind everyone we are not here to support a pro-Syria, pro-Libya, or pro-United States viewpoint--anyone here for that is here for the very wrong reasons. We're here to build a factually accurate encyclopedia based on WP:V and WP:RS, and the others. Whether the source of the RS is not to one's taste is utterly irrelevant and not for consideration--does it meet RS by the written policy? If so, it counts. rootology (T) 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

--- I like rootology's idea of calling this article "Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America", and I think this naming should be applied to all countries. Why? Because who _proves_ such a thing? Do we have international trials for national governments that sponsor state terrorism? If not, then we never had anything proven. Further, it's clear that getting people to agree on a definition of state terrorism is problematic. That's why I think this series of articles, if they concentrate on noteworthy, well-sourced allegations, will be much easier to develop in an NPOV manner. Stevie is the man! Talk &bull; Work 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey stevie I am really glad you brought this up. This was one issue that I wanted to tackle with this article.
 * Unfortunatly, I have to disagree with the name change. First of all, in regards to your question: Do we have international trials for national governments that sponsor state terrorism? See Nicaragua v. US. Second, Allegation is a weasel word, please see WP:AWW.  Instead, is there any name that we can come up with which relays the idea of terrorism, but is less controversial?
 * Great suggestions though, looking forward to your edits. Travb (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How is allegation a weasel word if it's a sourced allegation from a government or notable organization? Further, I'm not interested in making any edits to this particular article.  As you can tell by my contributions, I'm working on plenty other things at the moment.  I'm just concerned about this article from afar.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 05:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry Stevie if I offended you. I wish they had another name for weasel words.  The term offends people.  Any other suggestions for the title?  I am trying to brain storm, but I am not doing to well, I am hoping we can find a name which is a "eurika" name which everyone can agree on. There maybe some people who don't even want to change the name.  We'll see what happens, another wikipedian called getting a consensus on a wikiarticle is like herding cats. Travb (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, I'm thinking "State-sponsored actions to destabilize other nations outside of war". That's my best for late night.  :)  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 05:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the best name change would be to "Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America", mainly since there has not been, aside from a few minor examples, in which the U.S. has been brought to international courts for engaging in war crimes during peacetime. I suppose to let you know where I stand politically on issues similar to this, I wouldn't have apologized to Japan for Hiroshima or Nagasaki.--MONGO 05:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Any clear nay's to my doing this right now? rootology (T) 06:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, done. Anyone objects, please rv me. :)rootology (T) 06:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object, as I stated above, but I won't rock the boat. Hopefully we can come up with a better term.Travb (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If it remains as "allegations", I would hope that articles about allegations would work in a similar vein as negative aspects in biographies of living persons. That is, each allegation should have roughly three independent verifiable reputable sources.  And this should apply to allegations of such behavior by all countries... we certainly should be even-handed on something like this.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest I did to just calm the extreme right types so that no one can scream POV about the title, and that work itself can get done. We can always move again to a better one and leave the original as needed redirects for search purposes. rootology (T) 06:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We could call it American terrorism (term); We could call it United States - evil empire of hypocrisy and badness plus they owned slaves. Maybe Allegations of state terrorism by the United States would work. Tom Harrison Talk 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The second selection looks fine with me -- seems to capture the intent. Morton devonshire 17:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Rootology wrote: To be honest I did to just calm the extreme right types so that no one can scream POV about the title User:Morton devonshire wrote: The second selection looks fine with me -- seems to capture the intent You are a genius rootology--mission accomplished, great job! I think I am going to give you a barnstar award. Travb (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So, now that we have consensus, I will rename the article tonight. Cheers.  Morton devonshire 21:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop disrupting. There is no concensus for that renaming. rootology (T) 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be consistent, LinaMishima might tell you to WP:AGF and WP:NPA, but I wouldn't want to represent her point of view. Cheers.  Happy editing!  Morton devonshire 21:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Being consistant is stating there is no consensus for a renaming and encouraging you to engage more in the calm discussion of improvements, carefully arguing a point rather than only stating a policy. Also, accepting how others might (wrongly) percieve an action and nicely explaining that this is not your intent tends to make people think more of you and get them to listen to you more. LinaMishima 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States"? Any other page only has "United States" as its title, not "United States of America". Iola k ana |T 17:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No. This page should *not* be "Allegations of state terrorism", unless you all also want to change pages about Indonesian state terrorism against East Timor to "Allegations of Indonesian terrorism", and "Allegations of PLO terrorism", and "Allegations of Syrian terrorism".


 * Those pages don't exist. Instead, we have "Terrorism by Syria", and "PLO Terrorism", and so on.  So changing this page to the weasel-word "Allegatiosn of..." is utterly contemptible and dishonest.

Terrorism Synonyms
See: thesaurus.com terrorism

Not a single one seems like a less controversial Synonym, or even a relevant synonym.

I think that this article would benefit from a name change because of the experience I had with the page, History of United States Imperialism, which was constantly being put up for deletion. I suggested changing the title, and another user came up with the Template:AmericanEmpire suddenly all of our work was not exactly mainstream but tolerated as a real encyclopedic article. Since then there has been no AfDs, and much of the controversy and attacks from other wikipedians have disappeared, all because of a simple name change. Travb (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Start at the top
This article needs a better title. "American terrorism" is needlessly POV, and "Allegations of state terrorism by USA" could imply that the allegations (instead of the alleged terrorism) come from the U.S. I'm afraid I can't think of anything better offhand. Fagstein 17:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What is more POV about the first than the second?--Paraphelion 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have similar concerns about State terrorism in Sri Lanka and State terrorism in Syria? rootology (T) 17:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that any article with the word allegation or accusation or alleged or similar terms are inherently POV and unencyclopaedic.--Kalsermar 18:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New title suggestion

 * American political violence or...
 * United States poltical violence

As per: Words_to_avoid:

''An article title may imply a conclusion about its subject: (Which was ironically quoted by a wikiuser during the AfD who voted delete). 03:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Example: an article title "Israeli terrorism" inherently implies'' that Wikipedia takes a view that Israel's actions are considered terrorism; similarly for "Islamic terrorism". By the way, both of these exist as of August 2006, and redirect to Zionist political violence and Islamic extremist terrorism, respectively. In the former case, the actual article title does not include the word "terrorism"; in the latter case it does, and might better be retitled Islamic extremist violence.


 * Look, whether y'all like it or not the simple fact is that the United States is a huge sponsor of terrorism around the world, and it is more than obvious to anyone familiar with late 2oth c. Central and South American history, or to anyone with a television tha pays attention to whats going on in the Middle East today.


 * Only last week the U.S. *sent* **bombs** to aid Israel in its **openly** **acknowledged** campaign to terrorize the Lebanese population; in doing so, it became a participant, whether stateside Americans want to admit it or not. These are opnely acknowledged, stated **facts** that both Israeli and U.S. media widely broadcast.  It's widely acknowledged that those bombs weren't targeting military installations, that they *couldn't* target military installations, and that they were targeting Lebanese civilian infrastructure with the strategic intent of terrifying the Lebanese citizenry into moving against Hizb'ullah.  By *any* definition of terrorism, that qualifies.


 * So -- yes, i disagree with "American Terrorism"; i am an American, and i had no part in any of those actions and actively opposed them. I instead think we should use the quite neutral term "State Sponsored Terrorism:  United States".  Make "State Sponsored Terrorism" a new category, and anyone who wants to add incidents and events under that heading can do so.  We should also have "State Sponsored Terrorism: Iran" and "State Sponsored Terrorism: Israel" and "State Sponsored Terrorism: Indonesia" and "State Sponsored Terrorism: China" and so on, one for each country, as the Wiki community sees fit.  But watering this page down with some nonsensical "Allgeations of...."  is just tripe for the dogs, introduced because certain American sensibilities are offended by the stark realities of their nations' activities abroad.


 * What the United States did and sponsored in '80's era Nicaragua was terrorism. What the United States is doing *today* in Haiti is terrorism.  There is no other word for it, and if certain portions of the United States population don't like acknowledging it then tough -- they can stop reading realit-based books and go back to their Fox News at Night.


 * The name of the article should be changed, and it should read "State Sponsored Terrorism: United States of America".  If others here want to put up more entries to reflect the actions of other countries, then fine, but they should at least have the integrity and patriotism to refrain from watering down the facts as they currently exist.  Stone 18 Aug 2006 17:27 Taiwan Time


 * Your position is not supported by the facts. Let's look at your claim that the U.S. gave bombs to Israel and therefore constituted some form of terrorism.  Ignoring your skewed observation of Israels acts of self-defense, the weapons the U.S. gave were precision guided munitions.  This was to limit collateral damage.  Israel had plenty of dumb iron bombs.  The U.S. has plenty more.  But the decision was to send Israel precision weapons so that collateral damage would be minimized.  This is the exact opposite of terrorism.  -- Tbeatty 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Skewed? Let's see: Israel starts a war in Lebanon 30 years ago, and then when the civilian population organizes militias to defend themselves against it Isreal then retreats. As it retreats, Israel refuses to sign a peace treaty with those same militias because it would mean giving back the land they had stolen from their peoples. Then, 5 or 6 years after retreating from the occupation, the Hizb'ullah capture a military target in the still ongoing conflict and hold it as leverage in their bid to get back the stolen land and their imprisoned compatriots. Now, you claim that the Israelis were acting in *defense*?? That they were acting in **defense** when they decided to bomb the entire country, specifically targeting civilian infrastructure that has nothing to do with the militia in question?

It is your viewpoint that is skewed, not mine.

My position is not only incontrovertibly supported by the facts, but twenty years from now people will be learning it in schools around the world. Talk to someone from Asia who pays attention to these events and 95% of them will agree with me, whether from Taiwan, Japan, the Filippines, Indonesia or Mainland China. Terrorism is the use of violent force to create terror; warfare is, instead, the domination of a country through violent means. In other words, Terrorism is when the PLO or Hamas or the United States says "If you don't accede to our demands, we will make your lives so miserable, increase the horror in your daily affairs to such a great degree that you will eventually be forced to accede." Warfare, by contrast, is when a military targets another nation with the intent of taking control of that terrirtory. The militaries move in, fight it out, and the last one standing on the battlefield is the winner.

Israel and the United States did *not* bomb Lebanon with the intention of occupying it. They did *not* target the Lebanese military, and most of their bombs fell on apartment blocs, bridges, electrical plants and hospitals -- *not* Hizb'ullah bunker. The Israelis openly stated that they were bombing the Lebanese population with the intent of "turning them against" Hizb'ullah; you can't get a more perfect definition of Terrorism than that. The fact is that the Israeli government retreated from its goal of "eliminating Hizb'ullah" quite quickly, and then spent twenty days bombing the people of Lebanon in a terrorist act.

It's obvious that you have never bothered to learn any of the relevant facts here, otherwise you'd know that it was the Israelis -- not Hizb'ullah -- who started this war, some 28 years ago or so, and so it is Israel who is the aggressor, not Hizb'ullah. The organization was created specifically as a reaction and protection against Israeli aggression.

Finally, the "precision guided" munitions were a small part of the overall package sent to Israel. Moreover, it doesn't matter whether your bomb is laser-guided, pinpoint accurate to the 2d centimeter - if you are knowingly targeting a civilian electrical plant, bridge, hospital or apartment bloc without any military value whatsoever, then you are by definition using terrorist tactics.

Your assertions have no merit whatsoever. User:Stone put to sky 13:12 Taiwan Time


 * (Removed)Travb (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you refrain from using terms like "an ideologue on the right" to label your fellow editors, its rude, thank you. Furthermore you should try not to lump editors into categories that you will then go and dismiss. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What is terrorism?
I think it is important to define exactly what should be in the article and what should not be in the article. "Terrorism" is a label that can apply to many actions.

Does terrorism in this article deal with:
 * political assinations?
 * war crimes?
 * torture?
 * accidental military actions?

Here is my first attempt at what terrorism is, from the deleted dictionary defintions I had put on this page before:

I personally like this defintion is best: The use or threat of violence to intimidate or cause panic, especially as a means of affecting political conduct.

So the following would be included :
 * torture

The following would not be included :
 * political assinations
 * war crimes
 * accidental military actions

Any alternatives? Signed: Travb (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not object to mediation if people think it would be useful, but I have seen way worse pages than this. One thing to remember is, there is no deadline. Another thing to remember is, an encyclopedic definition of terrorism does not come from a dozen random guys who chose to edit Wikipedia one day. We absolutely do not get to craft our own definition of terrorism, or to vote on the definition we like best. Tom Harrison Talk 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Like most of your statments Tom, I agree in part, disagree in part. Another thing to remember is, an encyclopedic definition of terrorism does not come from a dozen random guys who chose to edit Wikipedia one day. I agree.  That is why I provided encyclopedic definitions.  What would you suggest instead Tom? I am trying to get a viable comprimise.  Thus far you have provided a lot of critism of my comprimises, and provided no alternatives of your own.  The way you dismiss my idea, your statment makes it sound like I am attempting to write a new dictionary, and place my name on it.  I am attempting to avoid future edit wars, and focus our work. Terrorism is a vague term, as you showed by your  above.
 *  We absolutely do not get to craft our own definition of terrorism, or to vote on the definition we like best. Actually, we can. No matter what people claim, wikipedians vote for things all the time, and decide via consensus what should be included and what should be excluded from articles. As you showed with your  above, there is a wide variety of defintions on terrorism.  What terrorism are we talking about here?  Are war crimes terrorism? Is all torture terrorism?  I don't see an answers to those questions from you. If we don't decide on a defintion, ever war that America has ever been in can be included in this list. NYC  is wondering if we should include the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasoki.  Should we?  If we should why?  If not why shouldn't we?  Travb (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see I already linked to Definition of terrorism. I think what we are talking about are "allegations of terrorism." Cooking up our own definition, or voting on which definition we like best, would be original research. We should describe the allegation, and cite the source. As an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, that is what we do. We do not vote on a definition of 'planet', or 'bismuth'; We are just as unqualified to define terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 00:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But the people at Definition of terrorism are qualified to define terrorism? What would you consider an example of state terrorism by United States of America? Which one of the dozen examples meets your defintion? I atttempted to explain why we needed a definition of terrorism within this article. I also encouraged you to give alternative suggestions, which you have given absolutly none, and continue to give absolutly, and will continue to give absolutly none.Travb (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is, that page is not the definition of terrorism, it is an encyclopedia article about the definition of terrorism. This is an encyclopedia article about allegations of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

--- ...this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article. I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.... Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

--- Can we agree what this article is going to cover? Can we agree that, staying true to its title, it will cover allegations of state terrorism? I hope we do and if so, that means that non implemented things, or opinions that are clearly not applicable, should go. As an example I deleted the Yugoslav court case. It might not have been pretty, or necessary, for the Clinton admin to go into Yugo, but it was a military operation, not terrorism. Note to that the "court" took no action. This article should not degenerate into a list of accusations and opinions from anti-americans against anything the US has ever done, planned or even thought to have planned.--Kalsermar 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Terrorism conducted by a military does not mean it's not terrorism.--Paraphelion 09:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Terrorism is impossible to define because it is in the eye of the victim. If Al Qaida bombs me I say it's terrorism, they say its war. If I bomb them I say its war, they say its terrorism. In reality, all war has an aspect of terrorism in it - remember 'shock and awe'? The stated aim was not just to defeat the Iraqis but to demonstrate US power through a demonstration of violent power. But it doesn't matter. Wikipedia's opinion of terrorism is Original Research. What we need is cited notable beliefs and statements on what terrorism is and isn't, from both sides of the arguement. Self-Described Seabhcán 10:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We had a similar issue on another article and I proposed that attacks such as car bombings and suicide bombings were in fact the method of freedom fighters / terrorists to declare and enact war. However their status and the fact that they do not follow the Geneva Convetion makes them terrorists. See while Osama bin Laden calls it warfare, and I call it warfare, its not recognized as legal warfare by the United Nations and so it gets labeled terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This one should be easy, if it is commited by a national military during authorized operations it can never be terrorism. Therefore, downing the Iranian plane cannot be terrorism as it occured during a war scenario by the US military under full control of the authorities. If it is commited by a non-national (para)military group or an extra-national group, Hamas, Al-Qaida, IRA etc, it is terrorism, especially if commited without regard for civilian life.--Kalsermar 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The Geneva Conventions exist, and explicitly state that militaries are not to target civilians nor civlian infrastructure.  Now, we all know that happens, but to pretend that there is no consensus on what is and is not allowable in wartime is to simply pretend stupidity.  There exist conventions which we all agree are wrong;  one of those conventions states that if a state military is going to fight a war against another state military, then it will limit its targets to militaries and their instalations and won't send its armies out to murder all the farmers and taxi drivers it can get ahold of;  another is that militaries won't target dams, electrical plants, and clinics in an attempt to murder civlilians;  another that it won't carpet-bomb civilian areas that have no military value.
 * All of these strategies have been exploited by the U.S. within the last twenty-five years or so, sometimes repeatedly. Pretending like "It's war, so it doesn't matter what one does" is just wrong.  Moreover, when the U.S. shot down the Iranian airliner, the United States were *not* in any sort of a state of war.


 * Further, the IRA, Hamas, PLO and Hizb'ullah all consider themselves *militaries*; who made you God King of the world to declare that they aren't?  Certainly, now that most of their goals have been met the IRA has achieved a good measure of legitimacy.  So who can say they were illegitimate or non-military?  If it weren't for Hizb'ullah, then right now Southern Lebanon would be overrun by a hostile, racist Israeli military that, if what happened last time is any measure, would proceed to indiscriminately imprison and impoverish the native population while stealing their land at every given opportunity.


 * So who's to say that Hizb'ullah isn't a military? They certainly seem to be one to me.


 * Terrorism is defined by *tactics*, and the simple fact is that state militaries utilize terrorist tactics far more often and pervasively than to groups that are identified solely as "terrorist organizations". When the Israeli military bulldozes over a family's house that's been standing for over 100 years, and buries alive a grandfather or two underneath it, then *that* is terrorism.  When the United States pays torturers and militas in Nicaragua to move into villages and murder every male above the age of 15, then *that* is terrorism.
 * Terrorism is the use of terror as a tactic in the cause of war, and when defined as such it becomes more than obvious that Nation-States -- including the United States -- make use of terrorist tactics far more often than non-state organizations.
 * Stone 18 Aug 2006 17:53 Taiwan Time


 * Please read the article and then read the actual conventions in Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons You will see there are situations where its ok to hit civilians, just not ok to specifically target them.

3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is elcarly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. So its ok to bomb in a city if the target is not really in the middle of a bunch of civilians and you are trying to avoid bombing civilians. That just covers incendiary weapons. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read what i wrote more carefully next time. To quote myself from above: "The Geneva Conventions exist, and explicitly state that militaries are not to target civilians nor civlian infrastructure."

If your reading skills are so poor that you can't understand such an explicitly worded declaration, i'd suggest that you probably don't have the study-skills necessary to effectively edit such a complex topic as U.S.sponsored acts of State Terrorism. User: Stone put to sky

What should this article cover?
Okay, maybe asking to define terrorism in the wrong approach, because thus far both Tom and User:Seabhcan, two ideological opposites, seem to think this is pointless. How about we approach it this way:

Does terrorism in this article deal with:
 * political assinations? Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, page 197: "In his discussion on terrorism, Walzer gives examples of political assassinations. These, however, cannot be considered acts of terrorism. While they are definitely violent acts, the targets are not chosen at random but are government officials. Unless the average person is a government official there will be no real fear for their own safety. The fear comes from not knowing whether or not they will be next with the distinct possibility that they could be."
 * war crimes?
 * torture?
 * accidental military actions?

I personally think the following should be included :
 * torture
 * Many covert CIA actions, but not all covert CIA actions
 * military campaigns which "intentionally" target civilians

The following should not be included :
 * political assinations
 * war crimes
 * accidental military actions
 * military campaigns which target "legitamate" military targets, but accidently kill civilians.

...should we try to reach a consensus on each section now, or wait? Because when I write this list of what should and should not be included, certain sections automatically stay, and certain sections seem to drop out. Do we include accusations by other countries that the US is conducting terrorism, as long as we state in the article? Is this allowed as long as we clearly begin the section by stating that "Country x accused the US of terrorism..."? I think we should. What do you all think?

Maybe instead of trying to define which general acts are terrorism, it would be easier to define what general acts are not terrorism.

Signed: Travb (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * None of the above, first section, are acts of terrorism. An act of terrorism is when you specifically target civilians. Political assassinations are .... political assassinations, political figured are normally religious or governmental leaders. War crimes are war crimes, events taking place during the course of a war, declared by act of congress, are not acts of terrorism, unless specifically targetting civilians to instill terror. Covert CIA actions proven to target civilians, meaning kill them purposely are acts of terrorism and state sponsored terrorism. Covert CIA actions not targetting civilians is not terrorism. Torture is not terrorism if the person is not being tortured to instill terrorism on a larger scale. If they are publically tortured or annouced publically to be tortured or some combination that involved inflicting fear on a civilian populace then its terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with this.--Kalsermar 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What about CIA actions not targetting civilians but meant to terrorize civilians?--Paraphelion 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a distinction should be made as well as to whether the actions were authorized and who exactly commits it.--Kalsermar 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When you state:"An act of terrorism is when you specifically target civilians." what source are you citing? What source are you citing in everything you wrote here? Citing sources, what is terrorism.  Your opinion is welcome, but to be in the article, it must be verifiable. Please cite your sources. I cited several dictionary definitions of terrorism.  I look forward to your cited information. Travb (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My deepest apologies I thought we were giving opinions, you didnt cite anything you wrote up there for what should and shouldnt be considered terrorism so I thought this was a cite free zone. Can you please provide the sources that led to your conclusions please. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I could agree with this Zer0faults defintion too, including the terrorism bit. Travb (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Terrorism, Allegations of Terrorism
Perhaps this whole debate about what terrorism is, is not necessary. This is accustations of terrorism. All we need to document are other notable groups - states, NGOs, for example, that have accussed America of terrorism. Whether or not it is terrorism is not our concern. If available, we can include accuser's explainations of why they view one thing or another as terrorism, but that is not necessarily required either. The article can of course further discuss whether or not it is terrorism - as cited from notable and reliable op-ed sources.--Paraphelion 16:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically you are creating an anti-american page then. This list will just be a compilation of accusations by anyone with a wikipedia article on any topic regardless of proof. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The burden isn't on Wikipedia to proove or disproove whether it WAS terrorism, it's an article about accusations leveled against the United States of America. However, there are certainly going to be refutations of the same and comments about them from the US State Department, the White House, various press secretaries through history, the United Nations, major media groups reporting on the things I just mentioned, and so on. If you do some research you will likely find some. As mentioned above by me, the role of Wikipedia is not to bash a country, nor to support a country. It's to have articles about notable events, things, and people. Accusations of terrorism are notable. rootology (T) 16:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the page. If that is what you want it to be, you can certainly argue for that.  This is what the page is titled.  Accusation does not imply proof.  However, I would expect that only notable accusations from established organizations, such as other states and NGOs would be listed here, not anyone at all with an accusation.  Why would you assume that any accusation by anyone at all would be listed here?  Are there any other articles in wikipedia where any random non-notable crackpot with something to say is included in a related article, or are you just being disingenuous?  Additionally, I am not arguing for or against this article's existence.--Paraphelion 17:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with accusations of terrorism, if you read this article, is there is not many. Most of the articles being used as sources only list one person making the accusations, at times not even someone qualified, such as Chomsky, or at other times no such accusation existing. The second paragraph in the Cuba section does not have a single source stating the act was terrorism or the US sponsored terrorism ... Why anyone would not consider this a POV article when its sole focus is to create a soapbox for single accusations is beyond me. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Has it ever occured to anyone btw that WP is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedia's should deal in facts, not allegations or accusations? --Kalsermar 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree however it was voted no concensus in the AfD. Which really isnt a keep nor a delete. Most of the items dont even have sources that call the events terrorism or state sponsorship of it. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * >User:Zer0faults wrote: Basically you are creating an anti-american page then. And what is wrong with creating a anti-american page? The dominant users of wikipedia are Americans, and there is an overwhelming American bias and outlook. There are so many pages which have pro-American stances, subtly and openly. After all of the arguments about wikipedia policy, we finally get to the real reason that you have with the page, User:Zer0faults: you don't want to create an "anti-american page". I have asked people before, not to fling around the "anti-American" label, which is counter productive. I haven't called anyone or anyone's ideas here an imperialist, jingoist, apologist, or facist, and I never will. Labels are simply boxes which we place others in who do not have the same beleifs that we do. These boxes create walls that hinder understanding. Please don't state that you are striving for NPOV.  I don't buy that, because I am not striving for NPOV either, none of us are.  All of us are attempting to push our own value system and beliefs into this article.  Those who deny it the loudest, usually are the biggest POV warriors. I simply want a fair balance of two different conflicting view points: a leftist view, and a conservative one.  Is that asking for much? If we are truly going to have a balanced article, that means you and other conservatives like you are going to have to start researching the subject matter, and adding counter views to this page.
 * >Deleting content and hiding your ideology behind wikipedia policy is simply not an option anymore. You can either do the research, and counter these claims with research of your own, or you can continue to delete, and this page will be protected forever, which means your POV will continue to be marginalized and shrink even more from this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia every word needs to be backed up with verifiable sources.  We on the ideological left have provided numerous sources, yourself and others like you, have contributed none.  The exception has been TDC, who actually reads these sources and changes the sources to not only met his own POV, but to more closely match what the article says, bringing more balance to the article, and MONDO, who added a large portion of researched text.  Everyone else, including yourself User:Zer0faults, has hid their own POV behind wikipedia policy, and contributed nothing to the article itself.
 * User:Zer0faults wrote: This list will just be a compilation of accusations by anyone with a wikipedia article on any topic regardless of proof. User:Zer0faults, you have talked a lot about what should not be in the page, why not start talking about what should be in the page--it appears obvious that if you had your choice, this page would no longer exist, unfortunatly, there was no consensus in the AfD, and this page does exist, and will continue to exist.  Do any of the events listed on this page count as terrorism?  I have yet to see you list one event as terrorism. Please list below under each subcategory, which events you personally feel are terrorism.


 * >User:Zer0faults wrote This list will just be a compilation of accusations by anyone with a wikipedia article on any topic regardless of proof. Lets be honest User:Zer0faults: there is no level of proof which will satisfy you, this article has around 40 referenced sources, and that is not satisfactory to you.  If this article had 100 sources, I am willing to bet it would not be satisfactory to you.  I believe you start with the premise that America is the land of opportunity, a country which spreads freedom and democracy around the world, and those few times America does attrocious things, they are "mistakes" and anomalies.  This is what is called American civil religion.  It is a belief system that most Americans have to a certain degree, some more than others.  I simply don't believe in this ideology.  I believe that America has had gross human right violation and killed millions of people in its history, and keeps millions more in terrible poverty.  Can we reconcile these two beliefs?  Probably not.  But I sure am going to try.  The first step is for you to define terrorism.  Not American terrorism, but terrorism in general.  If country A kills civilians in country B, and this is labeled terrorism, then if country X kills civilians in country Y, then this should also be labeled terrorism.  I will respond to your excellent points above a little bit later.Travb (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you cannot follow policy and Assume Good Faith then do not address me further as you will be ignored. Provide sources or stop making your accusations, they sections will be removed without sources stating the events were acts of terrorism commited by the US or sponsored by it. You can write a book, but it seems what the article needs is sources and you cant seem to find any. -- zero faults   ' '' 01:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Next time you want to write 3 paragraphs addressing me, do it on my talk page please, you are making this page a mess with your accusations and violations of WP:AGF. -- zero faults   ' '' 01:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Beginning of article: Definition_and_the_term_American_terrorism
Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

in
 * The whole beggining of the article, definitions and such.--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Federal Criminal Code definition of terrorism deletion
The following was deleted, after being added today:

''The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism. ''In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:
 * ''"..activities that involve violent... ... that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and ... ...(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States... ...(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States..." Therefore, acts performed or supported by the U.S. government that meet this standard codified in U.S. law would constitute terrorism under U.S. law, at least if performed by someone other than the U.S. government.

Can the user who deleted this explain why? Or I will restore this edit. Travb (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevermind, I am restoring this deletion, the wikiuser states that it is original research, which is absurd. Travb (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, that wikiuser was Tom Harrison who as an administrator should know better. This is not the first time he has deleted fully sourced contributions with such non-explanations. I don't mean to get personal, it's not my nature, but I am glad other editors actually restored my contribution this time and called Tom on it.--NYCJosh 23:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism_of_the_term
Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

Cuba
Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America Small revert war reguarding:

...The plan does not make clear whether or not U.S. citizens or military were to be intentionally harmed or killed.

This last sentence was removed. I am not sure why. This paragraph needs to be referenced, if it is okay with everyone, if it has no references within 24 hours (21:39, 17 August 2006), it can be removed. I have added two fact tags. Travb (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain how a plan that was never implemented has a place in an article about allegations of STT? Are we going to put in every plan ever concieved by the mind of man?--Kalsermar 21:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See the extensive footnotes in this article now. I think root has already answered your question.
 * I removed:


 * http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001cov/11_Sept_2001_-_Another_Operation_Northwoods_ Excerpt from Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency, Doubleday, 2001


 * This link doesnt seem to work, if someone can get it fixed, added back to the article, but use:




 * PLEASE! Travb (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute as to whether to include Operation Northwoods under the Cuba section or the Within the US section of this article. US Terrorism was perpetrated against Cuba (Operation Mongoose = the Cuba Project) and is well documented (e.g. National Security Archive). So far I know, there is no evidence that Operation Northwoods terrorist acts proposed by the Joint Chiefs against targets in the US were carried out (thanks to the civilian leadership under JFK nixing the proposal). So the Within the US section should only have the acts proposed but not carried out in Northwoods. --NYCJosh 22:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will state it again, Northwoods was not implemented so exactly what terrorism occured here? This is not Plans of terrorism thought up by US government officials.--Kalsermar 00:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a notable plan to commit terrorism related to several aspects in the article.--Paraphelion 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly! It was a plan, are we going to deal in any and all plans ever concieved? No terrorism occured thus not covered by the topic of the article.--Kalsermar 00:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strawman - I am not making a case to deal in any and all plans ever conceived. This particular plan relates directly to the topic of the article.--Paraphelion 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I also took out the other bit under Cuba here. Which definition of terrorism does this fit into? Who was terrorized? Who got killed or targeted?--Kalsermar 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

in
 * First part of the Cuba section.

--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The section: "The United States has refused to put on trial or to extradite Luis Posada Carriles, Guillermo Novo Sampol, Pedro Remon, and Gaspar Jimenezand to Cuba or Venezuela, although they are accused of having perpetrated terrorist acts. [14]"
 * This is not an example of terrorism or state sponsorship of terrorism. If you read the sourced article it does not even claim its state sponsored terrorism. It says the US should have morally not allowed these people into the country, that is all. Furthermore if you read the article you will see there was no pressure by the US on Panama to release them, and finally they were sent to the US to prevent their torture in their home country and the crime they committed was illegal immigration, not terrorism according to what Panama was holding them on. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Zer0faults wrote: "This is not an example of terrorism or state sponsorship of terrorism" Then what is an example of terrorism or state sponsorship of terrorism? Until we define what to include and what not to include in the article,  then we will never reach a comprimise, let alone a consenus. Travb (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you read the section, or the sources provided, but the US was in no way involved with the crime. 9 years later the people are let free and given passage into the US since they were going to be tortured in Cuba and sentenced to death. I am not sure how they were sponsored if the US was not involved or funded the crime. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Zero, The U.S. is knowingly harboring these terrorists. Harboring terrorists (providing a safe haven, refusing to try or extradite) is a kind of state sponsorship. See article of State Sponsored terrorism for "harboring". --NYCJosh 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * These people were not convicted of terrorism by a recognized government. Again its WP:OR for you to assume that when no source says it was. I have had dealings with you before and hopefully you will understand the importance of sources this time around. Especially since extraordinary assertions need more then one source as well. Now if you haev anything to refute the fact that none of the sources call it state sponsorship of terrorism, feel free to present it. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero, you state: "These people were not convicted of terrorism by a recognized government." So therefore they are not terrorists. What source are you citing? Please provide a source for your allegations, otherwise your opinion is nothing more than an opinion. Zero, if I find two sources that defines this as terrorism, would this be enough for you?  I await your response. We provide a source, and then you argue this is not enough, we cite two sources, and you still say this is not enough.  Whereas you state these words, "These people were not convicted of terrorism by a recognized government." Where is your source? Travb (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said they werent terrorists. Stop putting words in my mouth because you dont have sources. All of these sections need sources, instead of arguing with me how about you go look for sources, because without them the sections will be removed. Furthermore the two sources do not call it terrorism or state sponsor of terrorism, nice you provide two, next time you should read them to see if they support your extraordinary claims. --  zero faults   ' '' 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For any information to be mentioned in WP you need sources so the onus is on you to find sources there was a conviction of terrorism, not the other way around.--Kalsermar 00:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll provide the Cuban "allegations of state terrorism" material over the next week or so, which is all well documented and verifiable. A bit busy at the minute, sorry. Actually, the Northwoods material is not that important to the story, and the shielding of terrorists in Miami is only a footnote itself - so there isn't any need to argue about it. In my eyes it could be removed now awaiting the full detailed, sourced analysis to come which I hope will put those episodes in the correct perspective. --Zleitzen 20:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So, is Cuba guilt of terrorism for shielding terrorists wanted in the US? Or how about for training, financing and directing organizations that were engaged in terrorism? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an article about the US. You are welcome to discuss verified terroism of Cuba on another page. Travb (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicaragua
Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason: ...
 * Honduras - entire section: Similar reasoning, it is not STT by the US even if true and carried out as stated. The US may have financed things, it is also a fact that they tried to persuade them from commiting terrorism. Finally, it was commited, if at all, by Honduras, not the US....--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We will discuss this later, I am troubled that it appears you took out Nicaragua vs. US, this is the best example of state terrorism in the whole article. Travb (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, what is state terrorism and what did the US do that was ST in Nicaragua?--Kalsermar 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The CIA planted mines in a busy harbor for commercial shipping, sinking at least one civilian ship. --NYCJosh 17:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it should stay if we have sources specifically stating it was an act of state sponsored terrorism. If there is no sources stating this it should obviously be removed as noone is making the allegation of state terrorism. Take note unlawful combat is not the same as terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Full agreement with Zerofaults on this, it is not terrorism. Whether it was a good or even legal thing to do isn't the issue here.--Kalsermar 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not terrorism to mine a commercial harbor in peace time?--NYCJosh 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we have supporting sources calling it an act of terrorism commited by the United States? It cant be an allegation of terrorism if no one is alleging or not enough allegations are made, as extraordinary accusations need multiple supporting sources. -- zero faults   ' '' 21:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Zer0faults I think it should stay if we have sources specifically stating it was an act of state sponsored terrorism Okay, I will provide this source, then you will not question this source, and you will then vote to keep this section? Agreed?  If I cannot find this source, I will vote to delete.  Further you state: It cant be an allegation of terrorism if no one is alleging or not enough allegations are made, as extraordinary accusations need multiple supporting sources.  What wikipedia policy are you citing Zero?  I read wikipedia verifiable sources, and it doesn't say this.  Further, you have not provided any sources stating that this is not state terrorism, not that I think about it, you have contributed nothing to this article.  In fact, I still am awaiting an answer to my question, which you ignored in the AfD:
 * How many historians would you like me to find? Give me a reasonable number, I will find this number, then I would like you to change your vote, since you will then have no basis for your vote. You complained about there only being 5 authors, so I asked how many more authors you wanted, you ignored this request, then you raised the bar, now the hurdle is historians. Now I ask you: how many historians do you want me to find? Are you going to ignore this question too? And I have no doubt when I find xxx amount of historians you will then complain that they are not reputable historians. I find the historians, then you vote for this section to stay. I don't find the historians, I will vote for this section to be deleted.  You will not complain about how reputable these historians are, you will also not argue that these historians are not really historians.  I find xxx amount of historians, you vote for this section to be kept. Travb (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lets see the sources please. -- zero faults   ' '' 01:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we regain our civility please and not tell other editors what they should do in such and such a case.--Kalsermar 00:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Middle East
Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason: ... I also question the part regarding the Baghdad bombings. This part is pure speculation on the part of some agents and the newspaper reporter. Reading the piece also trows much doubt whether anything really happened and by whom and to what effect... --Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Kalsemar, you seem to have an agenda to whitewash the record of terrorism by sabotaging this article. The US intelligence officals cited in the article were involved in US intelligence at the time the bombing capmaign took place. Why is that "speculation"? Further, according to WP rules you cannot second-guess a reliable source. If you have a source that disproves or contradicts the NY Times article, let's see it. Otherwise it has to stay up.--NYCJosh 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NYCJosh, I will say this once to you as well, do not question my good faith or accuse me of vandalism.--Kalsermar 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as the article specifically calls it an act of terrorism by the United States or specifically calls it state sponsored terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My questions regarding the Baghdad bombing are 1)there is confusion as to whom commited what acts and the details are sketchy and contradictory. There is nothing in the piece that specifically says that the US knowingly authorized a bombing of a schoolbus full of children.--Kalsermar 18:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to establish precisely whether the school bus bombing was authorized by the CIA in Langley, some CIA field officer, or some CIA asset like Allawi. We may never know that given the nature of this type of thing. We are even lucky to know as much as we do, thanks to some unusually forthcoming intel officials. But the CIA clearly authorized and funded the campaign aimed at governemnt and civilian targets, according to the article. It is not our job here at WP to go try to go beyond what the sources say. The article fully supports the terrorism charge. --NYCJosh 20:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as the article specifically states that the US sponsored or supported this act of terrorism. If it does not then we are not to put words in our sources mouths. -- zero faults   ' '' 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Western Europe: Operation Gladio
Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

Sorry, but onlinejournal.com and italy.indymedia.org do not pass WP:RS. See  You should remove those sources. Thanks. Cheers. Morton devonshire 22:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tom Harrison Talk 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will agree to not fight over their inclusion if a couple of other people agree (no offense, but everyone is pushing their own POV for better or worse... I just want NPOV, and these have been added/removed ad nauseum by 'extremists' on both sides). rootology (T) 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed - online journal appears to be non-notable (well, it's not in wikipedia), and indymedia would be a bad source, because as far as I can tell, it's highly biased.
 * If we're committed to discussing a controversial issue properly, I agree that use of sources which tend to be POV by nature should be kept to a minimum. Ideally, this article needs peer review and much contribution from wikipedians who don't hold allegiance to the U.S. I see dozens of adverbs in this article used specifically to couch accusations in the most U.S.-positive light. BusterD 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * RS doesn't say we can't use these sources it says we should cross-check them with other sources to make sure they aren't making bogus claims. As we aren't relying on those sources alone, in my opinion I think its ok. But I won't argue the point. Remove them if it makes you happy. Self-Described Seabhcán 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Indymedia is a collection of subsites, their editorial oversight is unknown and hence they fail WP:RS. -- User:Zer0faults 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero, you state: "Indymedia is a collection of subsites, their editorial oversight is unknown" What source are you citing? Or is this your personal opinion, if this is your personal opinion, then it carries no weight.Travb (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thank you for posting this, it shows you did not actually research the site before using it for a source or defending its use. Indymedia itself, describes itself as : "Indymedia is a collective of independent media organizations" -- zero faults   ' '' 17:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason: ... Furthermore, the section dealing with Gladio starts out by saying that it was a NATO operation and the USSD denies any terrorism took place. So, it isn't a US operation and thus doesn't belong here but under another article dealing with NATO.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

US is a founding member of NATO and a US general always is its top military commander. The CIA set up the Italian secret intelligence services after WWII. It is difficult to imagine GAldoio being implemendted without US cooperation and specific approval. It certainly belongs in this article, especially since WP doens't have a separate article for list of NATO terrorism. --NYCJosh 17:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The US is one of, then 16 or so, members of NATO and they cannot act alone within NATO. If it was a NATO operation then it should be in Allegations of terrorism by NATO.--Kalsermar 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Kalsemar, if you start such an article about NATO, I'll support you. As of now, there is no such article. In any case, US military planes commanded by US generals were doing much of the bombing. U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark was commander. Sec. State Albright gave the green light. You cannot say that the US did not do it solely because others participated through the institution of NATO. --NYCJosh 20:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * NYCJosh, you are mixing things up. First, this particular part pertains to Gladio, not Yugoslavia. Second, If NATO authorizes military action, and the US military carries out that action, how could it possibly be terrorism?--Kalsermar 20:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Italian Senate Report

The link provided at the end of the sentence does not mention the Italian Senate, it only mentions the Left Democrat party.


 * The United States was accused of playing a large part in the campaign of anti-communist terrorism in Italy during the cold war in a report released yesterday by the Left Democrat party.
 * The explicit accusation is contained in a draft report to a parliamentary commission on terrorism.
 * The formerly communist LDP is the biggest party in Giuliano Amato's centre-left government, and the report could sour relations between Italy and the United States and unleash a storm of domestic political controversy.


 * Unless there is some confirmation that the Italian Senate acted on the report, it should be present as it currently is in the article, the delusions of a out of power party whose members took millions of dollars from the KGB to form their own clandestine armies, or is that fact too inconvient for this article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed this back, to reflect your edit, good catch, and thanks for discussing changes on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

... Iffy:
 * Gladio, as stated in this article it was a NATO op. thus not by USA' --Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I also cannot stess highly enough the fact that 30-31B is a forgery. This allegation was first made in 1979 by US intelegence and confirmed via Mitrokinh. This claim is not solely from the US, and it is the lynchpin in Gasner's book. FCYTravis, I have no idea how you got US Army out of that source or why you put it in there. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Court cases: Nicaragua_vs._United_States
Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

There is alot of A+B=C type of logic in this article, some sections use references that dont even cite terrorism. Furthermore there is a connection being drawn between unlawful combat and terrorism, with only Chmsky's opinion to support them as the same thing. Claims like the US commited acts of terrorism need more then Chomsky's opinion to support them. Cases such as Yugoslavia do not even state terrorism nor are their any sources calling it that, the case was further dismissed. Please follow WP:OR and do not link statements, find sources that do the linking. Extraordinary conclusions need more then one source as well. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would advise for now leaving unlawful combat, since the definition of terrorism does allow such things to be covered. It would be better to focus on where sources are being misinterpreted or additional conclusions being drawn - clean out the easy ones that can't be argued with at all.
 * Extrodinary conclusions need very good, strong and relibable references, rather than simply more than one. A single reference can be applied, as long as it is good. Technically, every statement needs more than one reference.
 * It is also worth remembering that a case being dismissed is exactly what this article needs - counterpoints to the general POV of the references. LinaMishima 16:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also please note that Chomsky is not a lawyer, nor does he possess a law degree, so his opinion on "unlawful combat" is not even on par with a legal opinion. Further sources should be added if that section is going to be placed back. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The removal of the Cuba paragraph was done because no source given states it was an act of terrorism or state sponsorship of terrorism, they just question the morality of such a decision. The concept of US asking Panama to release them is even questioned in the first place. Please provide sources of people stating these acts were in fact terrorism, further considering the nature of the claims they require multiple sources. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources can be easily provided to link the CIA to state terrorism in Cuba. Including ties with Posada/Bosch, payments made to Posada, money channelled to the Cuban American National Foundation via Jorge Mas Canosa, the bombing of Cubana Flight 455 and the bombing attacks of the 1990's. That these were terrorist acts is beyond question, it is a rare moment where the Cuban government and (at least outside the public eye) US Government sources are in broad agreement. I presume that US declassified documents, and the claims of the Cuban government are considered equally legitimate sources?


 * I'm also intrigued by the whole multiple sources premise. If an editor requires multiple sources for claims against the actions of nation states (which I am in general agreement with) then that should apply across the board. I'd like to see that same criteria applied to accusations against Cuba on the List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state page. No sources are provided at all at present. And I'd be interested to see the sources that are provided if offered. If they are US government sources, then Cuban government sources claiming state terrorism by the US should be equally available for this article. That seems reasonable and fair? --Zleitzen 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree all of those articles should be highly sourced as they claims are extraordinary. Furthermore if you want add more sources, however the paragraph was without a source stating the incident was an act of state sponsorship of terrorism. I am not against content, just content without supporting sources. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with that removal, as already stated LinaMishima 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with unlawful combat being linked to terrorism is the only source being provided for them being the same thing is a person who is not a lawyer. While Chomsky is popular he does not even have a law degree to be offering a legal opinion on equality of terms. Further since such a claim is being used to link two lawsuits to acts of terrorism, the claim needs to be supported by more then a sole source. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If one source covers both and it's a very good source, that's fine by me. More sources are always good, but requiring more than one can get you into the land of endless escalation. Chomsky is a world-renowned scholar, and calling something 'terrorism' isn't a legal statement, actualy - considering that the word has very few formal definitions. What we need is good sources by him, rather than interviews - ideally peer reviewed. LinaMishima 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I know Chomsky is like a Saint to the Left, but he's not an expert on terrorism (i.e. no training, experience, academic degrees or other expert credentials). As such, his opinion is no more important than would be Dog Poop Girl's opinion on the issue.  Morton devonshire 17:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also having a PhD qualifies you for that field, he is not a scholar of law. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We need to not say, "This was terrorism," but instead, "Castro and Chomsky say this was terrorism." Tom Harrison Talk 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or rather, Castro, Chomsky, the CIA, the FBI and every international organisation and media outlet on the planet describe the bombing of Cubana 455 and the bombing campaigns against Cuba as terrorism.--Zleitzen 17:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonderful then please add the section back with sources of all those people calling it terrorism by the US, not just terrorism, but acts of terrorism by the US. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said, I do not have a problem with content, I have a problem with the sources. Some dont state the events were terrorism, one source is just Chomsky taking a legal definition and stating that he feels its the equivalent of terrorism, which he is not a lawyer to be used as a credible source for that. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, Chomsky is not really an important source on this. I mean, Orlando Bosch himself has bragged enough times that he is a terrorist! I'll knock the section together in due course with appropriate sources.--Zleitzen 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stating he is a terrorist is just the first step, you then have to provide sources stating the particular act he carried uot was funded by the US or supported in some fashion, the one he is taking credit for as a terrorist. Just to clarify, stating he had contact with a group, or that he was funded by CIA/FBI before then is not the equivalent of stating they funded that incident for which he claims to be a terrorist. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some users are confused about the purpose of this article. Wikipedia's role is not to 'prove' US terrorism one way or the other. It is to present a collection of cited facts, beliefs and opinions. If we could only present scientifically provable information then there would be no article on Christianity, for example. Chomsky may not be a lawyer, but his opinion carries a great deal of weight around the world and is thus notable. We don't have to prove a person's connection to something else. Wikipedia is not a court of law. If notable opinion and publications suggest there is such a connection, then it is notable and should be included. If we were to prove or disprove something, no matter how conclusively, it would be Original Research, and should be published elsewhere. Self-Described Seabhcán 18:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. rootology (T) 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Further I never asked for anythnig to be proven, just that sources be provided stating the person did X on behalf of Y. If you cannot do that and only have sources saying they "once were funded by Y" and later did X that is not the same as saying Y is a sponsor of event X. Hence why it states A+B=C is original research. -- zero faults   ' '' 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont know what you are talking about, one of the items removed had no sources that claimed a terrorist attack happened, so it was not presenting even beliefs or opinions to that affect. As for Chomsky he is not a lawyer, therefore he is not a person of expertise in the field he is discussing, and not appropriate for citing. Also the section basically takes the word of one man to link every unlawful combat case to being terrorism, a man that is not even a legal expert. I do not mind you putting peoples opinions but they need to be widely held opinions, not just Chomskys opinions, especially when defining a legal term. Do you want this to be a good article, or a list of things Chomsky thinks are terrorism? -- zero faults   ' '' 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand WP:OR and WP:RS -- we're not trying to prove anything. We're trying to cite other reliable sources' conclusions in an encyclopedic fashion.  Connecting the dots, as you suggest, directly violates Wikipedia policy.  Chomsky is not qualified for this set of opinions per WP:RS -- he's a Linguistics Professor.  Morton devonshire 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Chomsky is not just a linguistics professor, precisely because people listen to him about other subjects too. Its not for us to decide whether they should, but they do, so his statements are notable. When Ann Coulter says something racist about arabs, we don't censor it from wikipedia because she's just a lawyer.Self-Described Seabhcán 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to write, "Chomsky said that was terrorism," that's easy. The problem comes in if you want to write, "That was terrorism.(Chomsky, 2002)" Tom Harrison Talk 19:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference is too subtle for me. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then just use the first formulation and don't worry about it. Tom Harrison Talk 20:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason:

...


 * Nicaragua - Section stating demonstrators into clashes with the authorities... - Leading demonstrators in into protests to solicit a violent response by the other side is hardly terrorism, just provocations.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We will discuss this later, I am troubled that it appears you took out Nicaragua vs. US, this is the best example of state terrorism in the whole article. Travb (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, what is state terrorism and what did the US do that was ST in Nicaragua?--Kalsermar 00:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

...
 * User:Kalsermar wrote: Nicaragua - Section stating demonstrators into clashes with the authorities... - Leading demonstrators in into protests to solicit a violent response by the other side is hardly terrorism, just provocations.

In this case the ICJ found the united states guilty of the "unlawful use of force" The unlawful use of force means terrorism, that is part of the defintion. Travb (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Unlawful Force is not terrorism, Chomsky is the only person who says so and he is not a legal expert to be used as a source. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The IJC never once said terrorism. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here is the defintion of terrorism:

Now, if you are going to debate this, I want you to find a defintion of terrorism which states that terrorism is not the unlawful use or threatened use of force. Otherwise, the dictionary defintion of terrorism stands. Further, I see no one citing any sources which state that Nicaragua vs. US is not terrorism. I await those sources, otherwise I am considering a RfC about this page, complaining that not one single person deletionist has added a single source, and are allowing their own POV to cloud the discussion. Add sources, or don't respond. Your personal opinion has no weight here. I will not play this game anymore. I have been involved in one Arbitration, and if needed, I will be happy to start the process for another one.Travb (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The term unlawful force when used as a charge is not terrorism, for you to give the def of terrorism then give the def of unlawful force = WP:OR A+B=C. Please read up on policy it seems you are unfamiliar with. Also the court case charge is unlawful use of force, not terrorism so its further WP:OR for you to attempt to rewrite that. Please provide adequate number of sources stating its terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 01:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Court cases:Yugoslavia_v._United_States
Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

out
 * Military action by national armies, thus Yugo bombing is out imho and so would the Iranian airline downing.--Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Source if you have no source, this is your opinion. Travb (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nah, you will have to come up with the source that says it is terrorism. Sorry, that's how we work around here.--Kalsermar 00:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Other_allegations_of_American_terrorism
Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America

Chomsky quote
I took out a couple of sections for the following reason:
 * U.S. Military Plans To Commit Terrorism - entire section: This article is bad enough dealing in allegations, a subject I think is highly unencyclopaedic, but so long as it is not titled Allegation of state terrorism by the United States and any plan(s) that may have been thought of but never implemented, it should at least deal with allegations of STT, not plans that were never implemented. Other than that, some of the bitses were highly speculative, like the actual killing of people. Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh
in
 * Acts that might be deemed state terrorism, Wounded Knee and Timothy McVeigh I could live with, one commited by the US one by a citizen, although I don't think the latter should be here but I can live with it.--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Blacks
out
 * Tolerance of lynching - I took this out because it isn't STT even if it is true.Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Who states that lynching is not state terrorism? I await a source.Travb (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See previous comments, cite source that it is if you wish it to stay in.--Kalsermar 00:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Massacre of Wounded Knee
The following section should be removed in my opinion:
 * Wounded Knee
 * Vietnam
 * Saddam's (or his regime's remnants) accusations

Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people, who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article. I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.  Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says.  Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

--- in
 * Acts that might be deemed state terrorism, Wounded Knee and Timothy McVeigh I could live with, one commited by the US one by a citizen, although I don't think the latter should be here but I can live with it.--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

--- in
 * Acts that might be deemed state terrorism, Wounded Knee and Timothy McVeigh I could live with, one commited by the US one by a citizen, although I don't think the latter should be here but I can live with it.--Kalsermar 0128, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

U.S. action in Vietnam
The following section should be removed in my opinion:
 * Wounded Knee
 * Vietnam
 * Saddam's (or his regime's remnants) accusations

Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people, who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article. I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.  Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says.  Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== My Lai ==

Why is it mentioned as a 'renegade' act? It was part of Operation Whella Wallawa, not some isolated accident. Green01 10:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC).

Ba'ath Party
The following section should be removed in my opinion:
 * Wounded Knee
 * Vietnam
 * Saddam's (or his regime's remnants) accusations

Reason:Whether or not these acts are described as American Terrorism or not, they are not and can never be STT because they were all (with the possible exception of Wounded Knee, acts of war or at least made during regular military operations by a regulated national military organization, namely the US military. If we want this to be Accusation of STT by USA they should be removed. This article is not accusation by people, who say something is terrorism. I would hope someone will remove these parts in the name of preserving the article according to its title.--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent points User:Kalsermar this is why we need to define what terrorism is in this article. I think the intentional targeting of civilians can be considered terrorism.  Cut and paste the sections to talk, and we will see what everyone else says.  Thanks for addressing this here on the talk page. Travb (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We do not need to, or get to, define terrorism. Using summary style, we might include a paragraph about the definition of terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

in: out: --Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Middle East section as they are allegations. Although the Baghdad bombing should be looked into as you stated.
 * Things like the Baath party allegations. These are so obvious I shouldn't have to explain why.
 * You should, and you must. Travb (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

General removal
out:
 * Plans, things that were not carried out. Why? Because it did not occur and like I said elsewhere, this is not about any and all plans ever concieved. Is this not reasonable?
 * Acts commited by non government sanctioned ops. To answer an edit summary, no, if a Libyan citizen without authorization commits an act of terror it isn't by the USA'. 9/11 is terrorism because it wasn't a regulated national military op but it is not Saudi ST because they did not authorize it (as far as we know)--Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Your argument is a strawman where you said this elsewhere and it still is here - nobody is adding any and all plans ever conceived.--Paraphelion 23:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Honduras
''In the 1980s the United States financed and trained the Honduran military. According to an article in the Baltimore Sun, the United States downplayed the Honduran military's role in torture in secret jails and extrajudicial killings in reports to Congress while privately pressuring the government of Honduras to curb the abuses. The authors states the terror campaign targeted hundreds of Honduran labor leaders, union organizers and human rights attorneys.

I took out a couple of sections for the following reason: ...
 * Honduras - entire section: Similar reasoning, it is not STT by the US even if true and carried out as stated. The US may have financed things, it is also a fact that they tried to persuade them from commiting terrorism. Finally, it was commited, if at all, by Honduras, not the US...--Kalsermar 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Court cases: Iran_v._United_States
''In 1988 Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes while enroute from Bandar Abbas to Dubai killing all 290 civilian passengers. The US said the the crew of the Vincennes had mistaken the Airbus A300 for an F-14 fighter. A later US enquiry agreed with this, attributing the event to human error. In 1989 Iran took the US to the International Court of Justice over the incident. The US chose to settle out of court, paying Iran $61.2m compensation. Despite settling out side of court, the Iranian government continues to dispute the US version of events, calling the action a 'crime'. It is supected that the Lockerbie bombing was masterminded in retaliation.

Ther problem with the iran vs. US dispute is quite sinmply that terrorism is a lousy word. It is used by people and governments the world over the describe something they disagree with, with very little consistancy. Now, I feel the iran Vs. US section is certainly within the spirit of this article, since Iran clearly still believe that the attack was on purpose and they refer to it as a crime, and there are accusations from elsewhere of a 'secret war'. Clearly, these actions fall under the Definition of terrorism.

As single action we cannot call this terrorism (as none of the references explicitly call it that), as that would be additional reasoning. However it does serve a vital part in the article, in my opinion. Either we need a new section, a new article, or a renamed article ('Missuse of US force and funding', off the top of my head, is a suggestion). LinaMishima 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is, you don't get to decide: that's the very definition of original research.  Morton devonshire 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We do get to rename the article, however, so as to bring facts within the article's remit. That is not original research. Original research in this case would be, as you said, stating something not called terrorism as terrorism. Making sure it is not called that but ensuring that it can contribute to the debate and is not out of place in the debate is called good editing. LinaMishima 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Morton devonshire I think there is some confusion about what OR is, as those above have stated. Naming an article is not OR.  Please contribute something to this article, as others have stated above:
 * ''These are your contributions to date:, , , and . Three mass deletions and rewording "Allegations of State terrorism" to "A list".
 * Thus far your POV push has been a tremendous failure. As I mentioned above, I have been able to delete 3 paragraphs from Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, 2 which have remained, whereas you have not been able to keep your deletions on this page for more than 10 minutes.
 * Maybe the iran Vs. US section should remain, as User:LinaMishima stated. Travb (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Iran vs. US section was removed here. The stated reason was: removed Iran section, none of the sources state it was a terrorist act, all state is may have been accident. None is alleging terrorism here. Which sounds reasonable, if you want this to stay in the article User:LinaMishima, please find a source which states Iran clearly still believe that the attack was on purpose and they refer to it as a crime otherwise, I think it should remain removed.
 * We already had one, - the pull-out reads 'Only one example of the many crimes committed by the US Government against the Iranian people'. However this is by-the-by, as there is no throwing about of the term terrorism. LinaMishima 22:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The next edit states: rv removal: from bbc article "Subsequent investigations have accused the US military of waging a covert war against Iran in support of Iraq." begin discussion on talk page if removed again, please The cited BBC page does not even use the word terrorism. Please find a source (magazine or book preferable please, not a blog) which states that Iranians feel this is terrorism.
 * I have to agree with Morton on this: Connecting the dots not allowed -- have to show evidence that this has been deemed to be "state terrorism" by a third-party source, not Wikipedia conclusions. Support Zero 2 Travb (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up, Iran calling it a crime does not mean Iran calling it terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 12:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

---
 * Military action by national armies, thus Yugo bombing is out imho and so would the Iranian airline downing.--Kalsermar 01:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Politics#terrorism
I posted a note on Requests_for_comment/Politics as per the suggestion of JKelly at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Travb (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for third party
As suggested before, I requested two people to give there opinion on the dispute, both helped resolve two past heated disputes I had with the most intellegent and crafty conservative I have met on wikipedia, User:Rjensen (who I also invited to help edit this page).


 * User_talk:Tyrenius
 * User_talk:Fagstein

Both got involved before because I requested their help at: Third Opinion some months ago. Travb (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not Terrorism, Allegations of Terrorism
Perhaps this whole debate about what terrorism is, is not necessary....

To try and keep the focus of the article, I moved this to under  Thanks for everyone's cooperation and hard work in making this article better. Travb (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Start at the top
This article needs a better title...

To try and keep the focus of the article, I moved this to under  Thanks for everyone's diigence and efforts in making this article better, I think we are making progress in hashing out a consensus... Travb (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved the "I'll provide the Cuban "allegations of state terrorism" material over the next week or so" to the Cuban section above. Thanks everyone. Travb (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kalsemer: removing others' comments?
Am I misreading this diff? rootology (T) 20:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhm, no, I know I did not remove anything on purpose and I will revert. I do not know how this could happen and I apologize.--Kalsermar 20:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, notifying me on my talk page would have been the nicer thing to do.... --Kalsermar 20:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wasn't trying to start a problem or anything (I should have posted it there, you are right). rootology (T) 20:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at these differences, during the 9 minutes before my edit, you'll notice only my edit is added, the intervening edits by NYCJosh and Travb do not appear so I am guessing a server error while saving the page or an edit conflict that didn't show up.--Kalsermar 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out User:Rootology. I am sure it was a simple mistake of User:Kalsermar. No damage done. Travb (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's better to do it here where people whose comments were removed might see it.--Paraphelion 23:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * True, absolutely true, to the letter. But other people might have given me a hopller and a chance to restore things and let me, who is after all the victim of circumstances here, a chance to explain it. I thank Rootology for acknowledging the mistake and accept his apology.--Kalsermar 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Herding cats: RfC immenent?
I think it is inevitable that we need to call a RfC, the first step towards arbitration. I will wait a few days and see if the third party mediators have any luck.

I don't think this group is going to agree on anything. The minute we unprotect this page, the same group of people are going to delete large sections and use wikipedia policy dubiously to push their POV. I have seen it a million times before, usually on other web blogs, and sometimes here, but never this bad on wikipedia. See: Top Ten Dodge List:Tactics to employ if you're in a logical debate and logic has not sided with you (for any number of reasons), and you are nevertheless unwilling to change your argument or opinion. The tactics that the some users use can practically be checked off, one by one from this list.

I think every section of this article has been deleted at one time or another by a few disruptive wikipedians. They have cited opinion on this page, dressed up as wikipedia policy, repeatedly, but nothing else.

I have seen pages be severly restricted, and those who were involved in the original war, and who break the strict rules after one warning get booted for a day to a month. It is obvious that some wikipedians here will continue to abuse the "edit this page" button without administrative supervision.

The irony is that the RfC and arbitration will only hurt the those who want to delete this article, not those who attempt to contribute to this page, but I am willing to bet they will not change their behavior one bit. Although these users seem proficent in wikipedia policy they don't seem to know much about the actual sections themselves, because they have never cited a single source.

I hope some wikipedians begin to start contributing to this article.Travb (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would encourage you to move forward with Rfc and Arbitration expeditiously. We must get to the point where everyone understands the relevance of Wikipedia policy.  That you cannot add original research from unreputable sources.  I would rather sort that out sooner than later.  Peace.  Morton devonshire 23:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am reminded of Top Ten Dodge List:Tactics to employ if you're in a logical debate and logic has not sided with you (for any number of reasons), and you are nevertheless unwilling to change your argument or opinion:


 * 9. Repeat yourself. A lot. When asked to go into detail or to explain your position(s), repeat your original claim. When asked for justifications or logical support, repeat your claim. Finally, when people accuse you of not answering any tough questions which might collapse your argument, angrily say that you've already answered all those questions in several different places...


 * This section could be written for you, User:Morton devonshire. Repeatedly we have asked you to back up your claims, and repeatedly you have failed to do so.


 * User:Morton devonshire as one of the users who has added nothing to this article, you have the most to lose. No longer will you be able to delete entire sections without being booted. You will also have to back up all of your opinions.  You will have to show, with  research, why particular referenced sections should be deleted.   I will wait a couple of days to see what happens with the third party intervention. Travb (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I fully support RfC and I again will point out that I resent the accusatory tone employed by some people and the derogatory terms that are used like deletionists. I am also deeply troubled that it seems to be mainly one side who employs these intimidation practices.--Kalsermar 00:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Will someone please just file a proper RfC or ArbCom? This is going nowhere, and I can't even keep up with/sort this all at this point. rootology (T) 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17_Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America
 * I guess I already posted one, and I didn't even know it, here:
 * Requests_for_comment/Politics (As per Requests_for_comment)


 * You seem to resent a lot User:Kalsermar, and appear easily offended and apt to envolve admins. But the admins disrgarded your argument. Maybe if you would have:
 * never called this AfD, and instead attempted to work on the article as per the suggested guidelines on the AfD page, attempting to reach a consensus,
 * Deleted large portions of other people's referenced work equaling 3 words added for 1,867 words deleted.
 * In addition, your comments here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents


 * We would never have found ourselves here. There is a small group of people who have deleted large sections of this page, and contributed nothing to this page.  You happen to be one of these people, instead of naming names, I simply add the term "deletionists".  Would you prefer I list every person who deletes large sections of this article, instead of using this term?  If your actions are so agrssive: AfD, deletions of other peoples work, with no contributions, I don't know what you expect, a thank you, an invitation to dinner?  Your uncomprimising behavior has caused a lot of disruption on this page this past month.  You have avoided many opportunities to comprimise, wikipedia suggestions to avoid dispute, and many attempts at consensus building.  Instead you have added 3 words and deleted 1,867 referenced words, with no clear consesus on the talk page.  Then you are surprised when people revert your deletions, and get upset about them.  If you are going to be a POV warrior, you need a little thicker skin.


 * As wikipedia policy states:


 * === A vital component: good research ===


 * Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can.  Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.  A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.


 * The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.


 * ==== Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete ====


 * The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?


 * In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly.


 * There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people on board who know about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of the biased material will not be induced to change it, we have sometimes taken to removing the text to the talk page itself (but not deleting it entirely). But the latter should be done more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased.


 * Please don't be surprised when the admins stop you from disrupting this page and deleting large sections. Travb (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How many words did I add and delete again? I keep loosing track of the statistics, if you have the numbers please provide them for my scrapbook.--Kalsermar 01:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
This is a dispute about the content of every aspect of Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, including the name of the article, and almost every word in this article.Travb (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

 * I would like to see the name of this article changed. This will solve a majority of the dispute. I would like a third party to arbitrate what is included and excluded in this article.  I would like certain users, who have only deleted referenced sections, and added no material at all, to verify their accusations with citied sources. The sources in this article met two of the three requirements of an article: Verifiability and No original research, but lack NPOV. I would ask wikipedians to either balance out the article with their own verified sources, or to cite why they are deleting these large verified sections. Those editors who have actually added content to this page, have met the burden of two of the three requirements for an article.  I invite those wikieditors, who have previously only deleted material, to add researched material to balance out the article. As per Neutral_point_of_view...The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. I invite all wikiusers to strive for balance in this article, by researching these sections and adding research which helps balance this article.  No matter what we do, sections continue to be deleted, so I requested this page be protected, requested this RfC, and requested a mediator, this has stopped a major edit war, with 3RR's etc. Nothing that the editors who contribute to this article do seems to be working and as a result, I have unfortunatly been impatient. Because I get flusttered, I have asked a lot of pointed personal questions about the editors themselves, which I suspect maybe against wikipedia policy (I can't actually find the policy--I am sure some of the other editors will). In my defense I can only say that in heated edit wars such as this, it is important to try and understand users underlying reasons for disrupting a page, I was attempting to get at the core problem: I see wikieditors using wikipolicy to push their own POV because the content is disagreeable and offensive to them. See Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. Some wikiusers have not made "a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently" instead they have deleted large portions of verified text, and added nothing to the article itself. Travb (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * I agree, surely the deletionists should propose alternatives or ask first on this discussion page, before deleting. This is meant to be a team-effort, not a one-man crusade for 'truth'. User:Green01 2:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC).


 * It's a false premise. The article itself is based on a premise that is neither justified nor correctable.  This is left-wing equivalnt to an article that would be titled "Allegations that Bill Clinton beats his wife"  and the supporters of the article want "deletionists" to provide evidence to balance it out.  The article is fatally flawed from it's concept.  There is no coherent policy of terorrism that is outlined in the article, there is no leadership or "terrorist" chain-of-command in the U.S. outlined.  There is no founding history that is a part of every other "terrorist" organization.  It is simply a random list of events that certain contributors deem to be terrorism and that they attribute to the United States.  As such it is not encyclopedic, just an anti-American blog.  --Tbeatty 04:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a name change, based on a name change of Israeli terrorism. Please see above.  And please refrain from using terms like "anti-American", I have not called your views imperialist, fascist, jingoist, or like an apologist.  I would apprectiate you not lableing our views. In addition, There is no coherent policy of terorrism that is outlined in the article I have actively attempted to define what this article is and is not, but I have met feirce resistance.  I welcome your constructive commments.  I don't see any proposals of your own User:Tbeatty, except to delete this entire article.  Since the AfD was "no consensus" this is not an option.  Therefore, please make constructive comprimises and help to build a consensus.  See Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ. Travb (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have instead labeled people who disagree with you as deletionists, perhaps no one should label their fellow editors. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have made edits. I made the Honduras part NPOV.  The problem is that once the truth is revealed and balanced it is no longer terrorism and was (rightfully) deleted by another editor.  This is the fundamental problem.  Once the items are "balanced" there is no reason to keep them in a one-sided article.  And I said the article was an "anti-American blog".  I have no idea what your views are nor have I characterized them.  --Tbeatty 20:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a world of difference between text that while might meet WP:V does not come anywhere near WP:RS. And, Trav, just for the record, please provide me with an instance in this article where I deleted anything? POV is not about balance, one sentence pro for a sentence con, but it is an attempt to portray both sides of a subject or issue with respect to the notability of the particular side. Some people beleive that aliens have created a base on the moon, does that mean that the moon article needs to provied 50% of its space for these theories? merge this with Foreign relations of the United States keep the relevant material, what little there is and shitcan the rest. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tbeatty and TDC, you nailed what's wrong with this whole article perfectly.Kalsermar 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't include you as a "deletionist" TDC, I have actually complimented you and Mongo's work above, I can find the sentence if you like. We are not talking about the flat earth society, saying Nicaragua vs. US is like "Some people (who) beleive that aliens have created a base on the moon" is not rational. I think you are misquoting: Neutral_point_of_view: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). These views are not minority views, like your "aliens have created a base on the moon" idea.  Please also note, I have suggested a name change above,  could we agree on this less controversial name change? Travb (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whats with you and this deletionist term, its almost like an attack, can you please refrain from labeling your fellow editors. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Since there has never been an apology from you, and I have apologized repeatedly, one can say you are an hypocrite for taking offense. Travb (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Policy demands we utilize sources that are Verifiable and of course reliable. All perspectives aside, I can't find anything in the text that supports the UN definition of terrorism, namely, that the U.S. has engaged in a peacetime equivalent of a war crime.--MONGO 05:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we can agree that all of these sources are verifiable, can't we? TDC, seems to admit such: There is a world of difference between text that while might meet WP:V does not come anywhere near WP:RS. In addition, I could dig through all of the wikipedians arguments and find many instances were they admit that their are many sources.  In regards to reliable I can also list every single referenced source, and we can determine what is reliable and unreliable.  Problem is, this is a value judgment, so quoting the national archives, the International court of justice, the New York Times, etc. may not be considered reliable to some, but reliable to others.  And even if we "inclusionists" were to establish that, for example, these three sources were reliable, then many of those conservatives here would then start to play the defintion game: argue that the article really doesn't say that this is terrorism.  So it is a lose lose situation. But less play this game anyway: Mongo, which sources do you find are not reliable? Travb (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * While there may exist millions of sources the issue is finding and presenting them, you write entire paragraphs to each response yet show no sources, its starting to make me think other then Chomsky these allegations dont exist after all. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts

 * I'd also like to mention that Stone's diatribes precisely illustrate what this article is going to be, a POV pusher's magnet of people who equate a wartime, legitimate act of Israel or a legitimate act of the US with the indiscriminate blowing up of pizza parlors and civillian airliners. If this article is ever going to be taken seriously and loose it's NPOV tags and show civil discourse between editors it needs to stick to what it should be in an encyclopaedia. An article about acts of terrorism commited by the government of the United States, terrorism that fits the word. Acts that have been commited and have been called terrorism by reliable sources or where convictions have taken place. Funny thing is that this article will somehow then seem to wither down to almost nothingness, thinking quickly the only thing I can come up with that would qualify might be Wounded Knee. If this article does not do that it will forever be a collection of accusations, allegations and anti-American diatribes. I have said before in AfD's and elsewhere, any article that deals in allegations or accusations is inherently unencyclopaedic and should not be published on an encyclopaedia that wishes to be taken seriously.--Kalsermar 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The indiscriminate blowing up of hotels and civilian airliners is exactly what I intend to discuss in this article when I have a moment. I am presently on holiday and thus separated from my usual cabinets of sources and snippets - but I'll be back on the case in time. These are acts described as terrorism by reliable sources and where convictions have taken place. Acts that are alleged to have been supported by the US and have been described as state terrorism at the UN general assembly. In other words, the very basis of this article. I've brushed around this issue about four times on this talk page but it seems to have been obscured by a whole lot of bollocks about wounded knee and the meaning of "terrorism". There are significant allegations of engagement in state terrorism levelled against the United States in Cuba 1960-97 (and beyond). Just as Ronald Reagan accused Cuba of engaging in State terrorism in 1984. That both nations have made these allegations is not in question, or in doubt. They just need to be detailed (Cuba is on the List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state page so get to work) and everyone needs to calm down.--Zleitzen 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Alleged to have been, described at the UN... The cuban accused the US and the CIA had knowledge. That does not constitute an act of terrorism carried out by the United States. This one could be an iffy but I will state again, it is nothing more than allegations. The act was carried out by non US nationals. That the groups were linked to the CIA or that the CIA had knowledge does not mean they authorized it or helped carry it out. This is something that is rightly covered in Cubana Flight 455 but does not belong here.--Kalsermar 15:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Pardon Me? The groups were linked to the CIA and these acts of terrorism are alleged to have been acts of state terrorism by the United States. All allegations made by notable sources. The very basis of this article. Get serious please.--Zleitzen 14:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, Cuba is not in the State terrorism article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Kalsermar, let me repeat myself for the fifth time on this page, please refrain from using terms like "anti-American", I have not called your views imperialist, fascist, jingoist, or like an apologist. RE: thinking quickly the only thing I can come up with that would qualify might be Wounded Knee. You stated above that their were other sections you would want to keep, have you changed your mind now? it needs to stick to what it should be in an encyclopaedia. And who gets to decide this? We all do.  That is why building a consesus is paramount.  We need comprimise, deleting large sections of text repeatedly is not comprimise, it is the beginning of and edit war.  Until some editors accept that this article will continue to exist on wikipedia, then we are going to continue to have problems.  RE: If this article is ever going to be taken seriously and loose it's NPOV tags and show civil discourse between editors it needs to stick to what it should be in an encyclopaedia.  I think the best way that this article can be taken seriously is by a balance between two opposing views. That means deletionist editors start contributing to the article. with references which support their POV. Neutral_point_of_view...The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. Travb (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Travb, I will use the term "anti-American" as often as I please, especially being a quote unquote "deletionist" I have that right. Please also be reminded that readding inappropriate text to the article to suit your POV could be considered destructive behaviour. The only way this article can ever be taken seriously is if it meets encyclopaedic standards, which means it should deal in facts.--Kalsermar 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have missed a lot since being gone. Your response is here: User_talk:Zer0faults Please notice that almost every instance of "deletionist" has been removed.  The only ones left are those by other people, and ones that I may have missed.  Please respond on User_talk:Zer0faults page, as he requested.Travb (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ganser and ST911.org
I'd like to remove reference to ST911.org in this sentence in the first section:
 * As prominent 9/11 Scholar for Truth Dr. Daniele Ganser of the ETH Zürich states,

Ganser's research was not in any way connected with ST911.org. In fact this organisation wasn't even formed until nearly two years after his research was published. He is now a member, yes, but this sentence implies that the research is somehow connected with ST911.org.

Also, I'd like to remove the "weasel words" tag from the end of the Gladio section. This sentence is a quote. If someone has a problem with the weaselness of the words they should write a letter to the Italian Senate.Self-Described Seabhcán 15:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ganser's association with a group of well know crackpots, including Lyndon Larouch BTW, goes directly to his credibility as a source in the article, considering the bulk of the material on Gladio is derived from his research. I don’t know why the weasel word tag is there, but the Italian Senate, according to the source, had nothing to do with the report. The report was issued by the Italian Left Democrat party, who had their own Soviet financed stay behind armies (PCI). Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is easy to remove the "weasel words" tag, which I added, simply site who said the sentence. I would suggest not saying the Italian Senate, since TDC pointed out that only certain members of the senate said this. I think the As prominent 9/11 Scholar for Truth is TDC's attempt to discredit Ganser. I think it should be removed.  TDC and User:Seabhcan, can we comprimise? TDC, we remove the As prominent 9/11 Scholar for Truth and User:Seabhcan states the report was issued by the Italian Left Democrat party?  TDC has repeatedly stated that much of the Gladio information is a fraud, which is not even mentioned in the Gladio article.  If this is the case, then this portion should not be in the article.Travb (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with this, at least until I have time to confirm whether or not the report was issued as he says.Self-Described Seabhcán 16:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, Ganser's association with the tin foil hat brigade is a severe negative for his credibility, and the information, especialy his use of 30-31b, need to reflect this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't you think that trying to connect research done in 1999-2003 with an organisation which only formed in 2005 in order to, as you state, damage the researcher's credibility, is a little bit of POV-pushing? Self-Described Seabhcán 21:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from Seabhcan Talk page)

Why did you edit the article after it was protected? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It is permitted to correct errors after consultation on the talk page. Self-Described Seabhcán 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It was not an "error", it was a content dispute, as the talk page spells out. And I do not believe it is ever acceptable for an editor involved in an article to edit the article after it has been protected. I would ask you to self revert until the discussion is concluded. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion, hybrid of Trav's: Terrorism in the United States
How about calling it Terrorism in the United States, rather than American terrorism? There is already Domestic terrorism in the United States, so semantically it fits and makes sense. The article scope can then cover a variety of topics with a broad scope. The "confirmed" and sourced content from this article (i.e. stuff either the US did or didn't do, allegations, court stuff, etc.); history of US terrorism (vs. us, for, etc.); linguistics, depiction in media, the whole nine. Thoughts? As we're doing it specific to the United States, I think it is important that "United States" remain in the title. American terrorism or Terrorism in America is improper usage, as it could be taken to encompass "Terrorism in the Americas" and so forth; we're not talking about Canada, or Mexico, or Central or South America. rootology (T) 16:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * With this route this article would basically become one of several sections. Lead, Definition, History, Terrorism acts on the US, Alleged terrorism by the US, Depection in media, etc. rootology (T) 16:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem in general is this article even lacks the sources proving there is allegations of terrorism by any reputable source other then Chomsky, who comes to that conclusion by stating all trials of X really are trials of Y. Removing allegations from the article would mean it should include actual acts of terrorism, which if the article cannot even prove allegations, is barely gonig to be able to prove factually the events happened as acts of terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * >I think if we ever want to edit in peace, we must remove the word "terrorism" from the title. This is what is infurating so many people.
 * American political violence or...
 * United States poltical violence
 * >Notice how your "alledged" change (a violation of Avoid Weasel Words did not help at all? Once the title was changed to "alleged" the word alleged started popping up throughout the article.  One deletionist even changed the title of the article, citing weasel words, then in his next edit, changed one entire section to "alleged".  Alleged should not appear in any article, as per  Avoid Weasel Words. It was a nice comprimise and fig leaf of peace, User:Rootology but it appears like only the "inclusionists" want to comprimise and build an encyclopedia, some wikipedians appear to simply want this article to cease to exist.  Again, I am sorry that your alleged name change didn't work, I wish it had.
 * >User:Zer0faults we are talking about the title of the article. If you have no suggestion yourself about the title, then your comments are in the wrong place.  You continually ignore my pointed questions, you still have yet to apologize for accusing me of bad faith.  If you have nothing to add to suggestions about the title, then your comments are not beneficial.
 * The suggestion above is to rename the article away from allegations when it fails to even prove those exist, maybe you should read before replying, and stop attacking me and isntead look at my points. Have a good day and please do not address me until you can address my points. -- zero faults   ' '' 16:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * >Why not start actually suggestion something instead of endlessly criticizing? It is really easy to criticize other people's work and not suggest any alternatives, instead of creating something instead.  Again, if you don't have anything to contribute about the title, then add your comments elsewhere, because they are simply an unnecessary and unwanted distraction. Travb (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not provide sources before running off and renamnig the article. That doesnt change the fact that the information is unsourced which is why its getting removed constantly. Instead of renaming the article, provide sources proving the content is even worth of being mentioned in the capacity of the US and terrorism, as acts commited by or accusations of or acts supported by etc. You state you keep repeating yourself, probably because you keep ignoring that this article needs sources and its the problem I have with it. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, you add truly nothing to this discussion. If you don't have a suggested title, you are wasting our time. All you have done is criticized this article, and contributed not one idea.  Do you have a title idea?  If not add your comments elsewhere. Travb (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL & WP:OWN, you do not own this article, refrain from telling users where they can, and cannot post. Again I ask for sources. -- zero faults   ' '' 01:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Zero, just out of curiousity, have you ever actually read a book by Chomsky (including some of his footnotes)? You seem to dismiss him so easily. --NYCJosh 21:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My humanitarian teachers were in love with Chomsky when i was in high school we actually spent 2 years discussing Chomsky and his ideas as well as reading Manufacturing Consent (seems to be his most famous work). --  zero faults   ' '' 01:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a sociology prof who was, swear to God, a chapter leader of the PLP, and he had us do a paper on mfg consent. I tore it to pieces by going through the sources and he just about had a baby. Lots of red ink on that paper, gave me an 89 though. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I spent an extra year in high school for not obeying the way the class was suppose to be taught. I was only one in class complaining about 2 years of Chomsky and what was starting to feel like indoctrination into a Chomsky cult then a course on world cultures and english. Luckily my last year I was moved into the other humanities class after a sit down with my parents and the principle and the 2 teachers who ran that humanities course, they basically stated I would fail if I wasnt getting their points, meaning agreeing with them. -- zero faults   ' '' 01:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of Sockpuppets to Avoid Scrutiny
Just a reminder that Wikipedia has a rule against using sockpuppets when making edits to the same article. Here's the policy: "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors. Multiple accounts should not be used as a way of avoiding the scrutiny of your fellow editors by ensuring you leave no audit trail. Using sock puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors can't detect patterns in your contributions. While it may be legitimate to do this from time to time (for example, by creating a special account to make edits that might serve to identify you in real life), it is a violation of this policy to create multiple accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in tracking your contributions." Morton devonshire 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting that someone talking about Sockpuppets does not sign their comment--Paraphelion 22:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah. Morton devonshire 22:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Morton wrote the comment. Travb (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Talking about Sockpuppets, why do you bring it up? Travb (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * People are sometimes unaware of Wikipedia policy, so I wanted to give them a heads up. [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 

Afd?
I think it's about time for another. POV cruft, needs to go! TheOnlyChoice 22:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Last AFD was less than two weeks ago. Good luck on that one. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the rambling debate on the talk page would motivate an Afd. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support an Afd if you would bring one. [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]]Morton DevonshireYo 
 * Same, there is much talk of the existence of sources, yet no one has even attempted to bring any. Considering this not even allegations are supported it seems. -- zero faults   ' '' 02:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, of course. There are 49 sources on this protected page. Of course, if the page were not protected, certain users would have deleted those sources. Travb (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a no brainer, I would of course support another AfD on the grounds of the fact it is a bunch of allegations (unencyclopaedic), not sourced, POV pusher's magnet etc. What about Deletion review, is that only to overturn deletions or review AfD that ended no consensus as well?--Kalsermar 13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there was a large group of people who voted to keep last time, being the internet and all, I am sure there "consensus" has not changed. BTW, "consensus" is just a fancy way of saying "vote".  It is apparent if a large super majority of people would have voted to keep, the article would be kept. User:Zer0faults, WP:CON, WP:CIV....(with your constant argument that it is not a vote), one can say you are a disingenious for (saying otherwise).Travb (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 46 sources to say these events happened, there are not ever 5 that say these events were terrorism on the part of the United States or sponsored by them, with Chomsky gone, I wonder if there is even 5 now. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF, also establishing a concensus through polling opinions is not a vote, disagreements over this should be brought to Jimbo Wales or you cann put a helpme tag no your talk page to have an admin explain this to you. One can say many things I guess. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Nicaragua vs. United States
I suggest that this the Nicaragua vs. United States section remove the Chomsky quote, and retain the ICJ court ruling:

The Republic of Nicaragua vs. The United States of America was a case heard in 1986 by the International Court of Justice which found that the United States had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The Court ruled in Nicaragua's favor, but the United States refused to abide by the Court's decision, on the basis that the court erred in finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. The court stated that the United States had been involved in the "unlawful use of force".


 * I vote against this since the court did not call it terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 21:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Zer0faults stated above that: Covert CIA actions proven to target civilians, meaning kill them purposely are acts of terrorism and state sponsored terrorism.

Here is the dictionary defintions of terrorism, which supports User:Zer0faults definition:

The International Court of Justice is a reliable and verifiable source. It meets WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:RS. So there should be no objection to at least one entry to this page. As a comprimise, Chomsky is out, as User:Zer0faults wanted. In actuality the actual court case discusses terrorism/terror/terrorist quite a lot, using the actual word several times. Travb (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Does the report say anywhere "the USA commited terrorist acts" or something similar? If no, the whole section should go.--Kalsermar 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes does the court case say specifically it was "terrorism" or "state supported terrorism" this would be the defining factor. Please post a source, like the full text ruling and a page number if such a statement does exist. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS the ruling if it does say "Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors." proves it does not fit in my definition of terrorism as its then obvious that the CIA did not target civilians, but had a covert op that assisted other in targetting a government, not civilians. Please do not attempt to paraphrase me in your attempts to prove points, you seem to do it badly. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CON
 * The court does not need to specifically say terrorism, because they specifically use the defintion of terrorism throughout the article. This is exactly why you refused, despite repeated requests, to provide a definition of terrorism: because the defintion of terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force.
 * Nicaragua in the case argues that the US acted as a terrorist state.
 * The court ruled for Nicaragua, futher, the court condems the United States for targeting law makers, etc.
 * "Contra guerrillas in their war against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors." You are focusing on one narrow ruling, and ignoring everything else.
 * The court quoted and used the CIA handbook, which it found was distributed to the Contra's which encouraged torture. I assume that this court case in your view meets WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:RS. Since you ignored this contention. I took Chomsky out of the picture, to comprimise, where is your comprimise, where is the consensus you talk about so much? Travb (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The court does not use a definition of terrorism, it uses a definition you think is terrorism. Your only proof of this linking further is Chomsky, he was the only person to state unlawful use of threatened force was terrorism, so this fails WP:OR. -- zero faults   ' '' 21:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot connect these dots yourself -- that violates Wikipedia's policy against original research -- if another reliable source has done that, that's fine. Cite to it (Note:  Chomsky is not a reliable source).  Morton devonshire 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So the article meets, WP:V and WP:RS. Good we have established that. Morton, why are you bringing up Chomsky? I have already dismissed Chomsky in the spirit of consensus. Lets move on, and lets build a consensus, I have comprimised, yet I see no comprimise or desire to reach a consensus on either of your sides. I am going to build a graph of what everyone wants in the article, and what they don't want, then we can build a consensus. The person who started the Afd was kind enough to list what he wants in the article, and what he takes out.  I would appreciate when I build this list, the same level of cooperation.Travb (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Twisting my words is not exactly "cooperation". Please don't do that.  Morton devonshire 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:Civil WP:AGF So am I incorrect? Please let me know, and please refrain from using words like twisted. Travb (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should just refrain from paraphrasing people, this is the second time you have been told you are doing it incorrectly. -- zero faults   ' '' 23:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, just because you say people say it meets WP:RS and WPV, even though they did not, does not change the fact they contest certain contents. If it makes you feel better to say this, that is fine, however you will be left with the same result of the content being removed after a while, no matter how badly you are mistaking their comments. -- zero faults   ' '' 23:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:Civil WP:AGF I find you both extremely uncooperative. Could I  ask you both whether this source (ICJ) meets WP:RS and WP:V? From what I recall, there are three tests a source must meet: WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR.  You both state that my interpretation of this court ruling meet WP:NOR.  Okay.  So does this court ruling meet WP:RS, WP:V? I make assumptions and draw conclusions because you have both been incredibly uncooperative, and refuse to answer my repeated questions. If we can establish A then we can move on to B.  But you both are so determined to not cooperate, that a simple question like: Does this court ruling meet WP:RS, WP:V? Is ignored, repeatedly. Can you explain what you mean by this User:Zer0faults: If it makes you feel better to say this, that is fine I am afraid assuming anything will only provoke you further.
 * Since there is no comprimise from either of you, I retract my comprimise and now insist that Chomsky stay in. You can't have comprimise and consensus when only one person is comprimising. I am still awaiting that apology from Zer0faults. Travb (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please spend less time talking about behavior, and more time talking about Wikipedia policy -- it's what matters here. And no, Chomsky can't come in, unless the opinion he is rendering is about Linguistics, his area of expertise.  Morton devonshire 23:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please spend less time being uncooperative, and more time trying to build consensus. Please let me know if this court ruling meet WP:RS, WP:V. I await your response, then we can move on. Travb (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You also do not get to decide when we "move on" please see WP:OWN about claiming ownership over articles.
 * The court ruling does not say terrorism, so while the source is a legit one, it cannot be used to prove terrorism since it does not state terrorism at all, it can be used as source to prove the events happened, therefore further sources are needed that prove the situation was a terrorist act by the united states. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CON The court ruling does say terrorism, terrorist, terror repeatedly. I have began reading the legal opinion. It is well written, but difficult to understand and incredibly detailed. I am on page 13, I think there are about 80 pages. "further sources are needed that prove the situation was a terrorist act by the united states." I quoted Chomsky, which you rejected. I stated above why the case does describe terrorism, which points you have not addressed.

Re: WP:OWN asking you a simple and direct question is not attempting to "own" the article. "one can say you are (not working in the spirit of WP:CON) for (using wikipedia policy as a weapon)."

Please let me know if this court ruling meets WP:RS and WP:V.

Also, please keep in mind as per Requests for comment: An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all'' involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.'' You refusal to answer simple and direct questions, etc, may be detrimental to your position later.

As I mentioned above, and please correct me if I am wrong, there are three hurdles a source has to meet: WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOR. We are actively arguing, WP:NOR. But does this article meet WP:RS and WP:V? Yes or no. Three/two letters on the keyboard. Travb (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The court ruling does say terrorism, it says the Senate approved the funds:

The Senate approved the supplemental appropriation, but the House of Representatives did not. In the Senate, two amendments which were proposed but not accepted were: to prohibit the funds appropriated from being provided to any individual or group known to have as one of its intentions the violent overthrow of any Central American government; and to prohibit the funds being used for acts of terrorism in or against Nicaragua.

The court ruling also goes on to state"

Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 manual entitled Operaciones sicologicas en guerra de guerrillas, and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to the general principles of humanitarian law ; but does not find a basis for concluding that any such acts which may have been commited are imputable to the United States of America as acts of the United States of America.

So as you see the court ruling did not find America guilty of terrorism, it found that the Senate actually specifically said they cannot use terrorist attacks and activities and the court found that actions taken by the Contras, while maybe encouraged by the US, was not found to be acts by the US. Can we move on now, there is obviously no proof linking the US to terrorist attacks and this incident, unlawful combat is not terrorism. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments from below
You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia so let me explain, an article needs supporting evidence that makes it verifiably true from reliable sources. We as editors cannot say the court said it was terrorism, simply because we found a definition of "terrorism" that is similar to a definition of "unlawful combat", especially when the first has many many definition, thats cherry picking information. Also WP:OR states that we cannot do A+B=C, which is exactly what we would be doing by stating the two definitions are similar and so the court stated it was terrorism. I see you can post alot but you fail to understand basic principles of Wikipedia. I have accepted the court ruling as proof the event happened, however the source does not call it terrorism and so its not a source of proof of terrorism. The dictionary definition cannot be used as a source because it violates WP:OR for you to link the two. Furthermore the only one linking the two is Chomsky who is not a law professor and not an expert in the field of law, so he is not qualified to be a source here of what a legal definition actually means. When you have relevant questions instead of your AGF violations I will address you further, I am not sure why you seem to be unable to grasp this idea since its been pointed out by 3 editors to you now and you keep asking the same circular questions. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF I have accepted the court ruling as proof the event happened Great, so the above reference, in your opininion meets WP:RS, WP:V correct? I will assume so, without a clarification.
 * Please address my points above, about what the court ruling actually says, I will not copy this here.
 * I understand all of your points fine. Please don't talk down to me. "You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia so let me explain" "I am not sure why you seem to be unable to grasp this idea since its been pointed out by 3 editors"
 * Accusing me of acting in bad faith is not assuming good faith by yourself, pot calling the kettle black and all that.
 * Why quoting Chomsky is not WP:OR
 * Now Chomsky. Chomsky is not a law professor, that is correct. Outside of wikipedia, journalists who are not law professors comment on law all of the time, and these statments are accepted as the person's opinion on the court case, and referenced material which meets WP:OR WP:RS WP:V.


 * No original research is one of three content-governing policies. The other two are Neutral point of view and Verifiability.


 * Journalists comment on complicated cases all of the time, explaining to lay people what the court case means. I am not stating (yet) that the court specifically called the US actions "terrorism".  I am quoting Chomsky who states that the court uses judicial words which define the action as terrorism. I am quoting a political commentator, who in explaining the 80 page document, interpretted the document to say that the US caused terrorism.


 *  Original research  is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source.


 * Indeed, this is not an issue of Original research, because Chomsky's material has been published this is an issue of whether Chomsky is a reliable source.


 * "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."


 * If I were to say, myself, that the court said the court "condemned the United States for what it called "unlawful use of force"--which is the judicial way of saying "international terrorism"" This would violate WP:OR. I am not saying this, I am quoting a previously published article. Which meets WP:OR.  You can accuse Chomsky of original research, but I am not Naom Chomsky.  Therefore, we have to fall back on the definition of WP:OR:


 *  Original research  is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source.


 * User:Zer0faults wrote: Furthermore the only one linking the two is Chomsky who is not a law professor and not an expert in the field of law, so he is not qualified to be a source here of what a legal definition actually means. 


 * To have original research you must have three things:


 * material placed in articles by Wikipedia users
 * that has not been previously published
 * by a reliable source.


 * (emphasis my own)


 * Number 1: I am a Wikipedia user. (Meets #1 for original research)


 * Number 2: Chomsky has been previously published. (Fails #1 for original research)


 * Number 3: Chomsky is a reliable source in my opinion, (we will discuss this later)


 * You can argue that Chomsky is not a reliable source but that does not mean that me quoting Chomsky is original research, because Chomsky has been previously published. You have too have all conditions 1 and 2 and 3 for the information to be original research.


 * So therefore, the Chomsky quote meets the WP:OR bar. The only question now is, is Chomsky a reliable source. I would suggest from now on arguing that Chomsky is not a reliable source.  To state that me quoting Chomsky is WP:OR is factually incorrect. Travb (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Chomsky is not a journalist, it actually explains in WP:RS and WP:V that journalists are allowed to make those kinds of statements because they are understood to be consulting people who do have law degrees, journalists doing it without consultation of anyone, if this can be proven, are not to be excepted. So as you see Chomsky does not meet WP:RS for this assumption. So since your whole argument is based on "journalists who are not law professors comment on law all of the time" I point you to WP:RS for more information regarding that. Its in the section titled "Law". -- zero faults   ' '' 14:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Further you are misreading WP:OR it seems
 * "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."


 * A source = court ruling stating unlawful combat
 * B source = Chomsky stating unlawful combat is terrorism
 * C conclusion = Court ruling states it was terrorism.


 * See the problem? Further Chomsky is not a journalist nor a legal expert so as pointed out above, he fails WP:RS for this matter. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Quoting WP:RS: Exception claims require exceptional evidence
 * Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
 * Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
 * Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
 * Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.


 * Please see highlited ones. Sections accusing the US of terrorism will need more then Chomsky saying it as well, if he did pass WP:RS, which he does not. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."
 * First, please see the 3 requirements for WP:OR:


 * material placed in articles by Wikipedia users
 * that has not been previously published
 * by a reliable source.


 * Chomsky has been previously published.


 * Second, A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C


 * I am not advancing position C.


 * This is what I am doing:


 * "A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position B" or "A and B, therefore B"


 * ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." (emphasis my own)


 * Chomsky has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. Quoting Chomsky is not WP:OR.


 * I am simply quoting Chomsky. I am not advancing a new position on the wikipage. Since I am not advancing a new position, and Chomsky has been previously published. This section meets WP:OR.


 * We can discuss WP:RS later in detail. For clarity, lets please stick to WP:OR for now. As I wrote above: I would suggest from now on arguing that Chomsky is not a reliable source. To state that me quoting Chomsky is WP:OR is factually incorrect. You have quoted WP:RS in detail, which I commend. But I would like to establish that it is factually incorrect that quoting Chomsky is WP:OR. Travb (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Chomsky has not published law documents, hence he is not a reliable source for legal definitions. I will just keep posting this I guess if you are just going to keep posting the same thing. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Quoting WP:RS: Exception claims require exceptional evidence
 * Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
 * Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reputable news media.
 * Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
 * Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.


 * Just in case you missed addressing this again. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not miss it, thank you for reposting it. I will assume that the WP:OR issue won't come again from you, since you refuse (again) to answer my question. I will respond in detail in a bit about Chomsky being a WP:RS.Travb (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am done talking to you about this, I have heard your arguements and they are not satisfying my counter points, its starting to seem pointless explaining policy and guidelines to you so I will go outside the box in handling this from now on. -- zero faults   ' '' 00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What should stay in the article?
In an effort to try and build consensus, I built this graph, allowing every person the opportunity to have a say in what stays in the article, and what should be removed. The most controversial sections we can discuss here on the talk page, and attempt to reach a consensus. If I forgot anyone, please let me know.Travb (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This graph may have some merit provided it does not end up being a voting contest. Something that is against WP policy guidlines or unencyclopaedic or doesn't belong in this article cannot stay just because it got more "votes", or the other way of course. In onther words, quantity of "votes" is less important than quality of argument.--Kalsermar 18:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Alex_Bakharev Badbilltucker blacksand  BusterD   Carfiend   Carlossuarez46   CJK   CRGreathouse   Credema
' Please keep your comments short (5 words or less), longer comments can be address above. The number next to your name is the space were you reply.  '

Fagstein Faggotstein  FCYTravis   Gamaliel   Gazpacho   Give Peace A Chance Green01   Goldom   HGB
' Please keep your comments short (5 words or less), longer comments can be address above. The number next to your name is the space were you reply.  '


 * I'm sorry. Who is "Faggotstein"? Is that supposed to be a personal attack against me? Fagstein 06:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF It is actually some one who voted in the AfD, it is an actual user: User:Faggotstein There appears to be a large group of possible sockpuppets who may have voted in the Afd, but trust me, I am going to be the last one to pursue this. I would suggest doing a checkuser.Travb (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Idleguy Ikanreed  Karwynn   Kalsermar   Kilo-Lima   Kingnixon   Kungfuadam   LinaMishima   Luna Santin
' Please keep your comments short (5 words or less), longer comments can be address above. The number next to your name is the space were you reply.  '

MaNeMeBasat MONGO   Morton devonshire   NYCJosh   ONUnicorn    Paraphelion   Peephole   RaveenS   RJHall
' Please keep your comments short (5 words or less), longer comments can be address above. The number next to your name is the space were you reply.  '

RMHED RPIRED   rootology   Runcorn  Seabhcan   Scienceman123   Sheldon Rampton   Sparsefarce   SqueakBox
' Please keep your comments short (5 words or less), longer comments can be address above. The number next to your name is the space were you reply.  '

Stevietheman Stone   Tbeatty   Tom Harrison   Tony Fox   Travb   TDC   Ucanlookitup   WilyD
' Please keep your comments short (5 words or less), longer comments can be address above. The number next to your name is the space were you reply.  '

Xrblsnggt Zero faults Zleitzen   anons
' Please keep your comments short (5 words or less), longer comments can be address above. The number next to your name is the space were you reply.  '

70.255.2.74 81.177.4.29 and those I neglected to add originally
' Please keep your comments short (5 words or less), longer comments can be address above. The number next to your name is the space were you reply.  '

The Height of Arrogance
Sorry, but you don't get to decide who does and doesn't edit Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 00:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:Civil--Please let me know if the ICJ court ruling meet WP:RS, WP:V. I await your response, then we can move on. Also please refrain from calling me arrogant. No one is deciding who does and does not edit on wikipedia, please read the inuse tag information, and please refrain from editing my section to avoid edit conflicts. Thank you. I apologize if I got you angry, next time I will use the sandbox, okay? Since I am almost already done, it is too late.
 * Again, please answer the question, and then we can all move on with the Nicaragua vs. US section. You welcome to ask me anything to help further the consensus. I am working on attaining a source that shows these views are not WP:NOR, other than Chomsky, being a case not covered widely in the US, it is the only book on the subject that I am aware of. Travb (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how that can be decided until the title of the article is resolved. What's the subject of the article? The current title/subject is fatally flawed. --Tbeatty 23:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * no one can agree on a title. Remember? No one can agree on anything on this wikipage.Travb (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the content cant be salvaged then. Maybe the page as it stands is just a mess of random information, making it hard to rename because the information is not coherent. -- zero faults   ' '' 11:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CON User:Zer0faults that has been your position since the AfD started "the content cant be salvaged then". No comprimise, no consensus, no apology. A refusal to answer simple direct questions.  You have quoted wikipolicy repeatedly, but when I ask tough questions about how you quote wikipolicy and your behavior, you have:
 * (1) ask for the comments to be moved: ''"Again take this soap opera to me talk page. Further comments addressing just me will be moved there." "Does anyone object to me moving this off this page as it reads more like a soap opera then anything else."
 * (2) threatened to contact admins, ''"Continue your attempts to start a cabal against me and I will report you to admins, please comment on the content not the editors."
 * (3) stated you will ignore my questions. ''(Below)
 * "one can say you are (being quite immature and uncooperative) for (refusing to work to build consensus)." I am simply tired of the games you are playing, and realize that there is simply no way to meet WP:CON together, because of:
 * your stonewalling,
 * the name calling and subsequent refusal to apologize: "American-hater" "You are not assuming good faith", other terms: "soap box" "ranting" "banter" etc.
 * the selective application of wikipedia policy,
 * the refusal to answer basic questions to come to a consensus,
 * the refusal to accept references in this article which you actively accept in other wikiarticles (More on this in a few days, if necessary)


 * etc...


 * "One can say you are (the single biggest stumbling block to the progress and consensus of this article) for (refusing to work to build consensus)." Since there has been such difficulty with us working together, I am forced to go around you to build consensus. I encourage everyone to decide above which sections of this article can stay, and which sections of this article should go.  Lets rise above peity partisan rhetoric and peity wikipolicy sword fights. Good day User:Zer0faults. Unless you give me a compeling reason to respond to you again, for example, arguably misquoting wikipolicy as you did on your user page. I will, in your words originally here and on your user page:
 * "Your comments on this page from this point forward will be ignored."
 * "You are now being ignored in all dicussions relating to this, you may not move on but you will not hold this article hostage while you wait."
 * "Better yet take this soap opera to my talk page, as of this point any of this banter here will be ignored by me."
 * "Furthermore you are now being ignored by myself, I will not address anymore of your comments at all"
 * Have a nice day, enjoy editing Legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Travb (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * (Moved comments about Chomsky to Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America) Travb (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the things I stated I would not respond to you about and should be moved to my talk page, was your constant pandering for an apology, which i still will not reply to. Selective quoting only hurts an arguement. Some would say lots of things from looking at your userpage ... But you have actually said I was a deletionist, some would say your labeling of fellow editors is against Wikipedia policy, some would say you cant provide sources so instead attack editors. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia so let me explain, an article needs supporting evidence that makes it verifiably true from reliable sources. We as editors cannot say the court said it was terrorism, simply because we found a definition of "terrorism" that is similar to a definition of "unlawful combat", especially when the first has many many definition, thats cherry picking information. Also WP:OR states that we cannot do A+B=C, which is exactly what we would be doing by stating the two definitions are similar and so the court stated it was terrorism. I see you can post alot but you fail to understand basic principles of Wikipedia. I have accepted the court ruling as proof the event happened, however the source does not call it terrorism and so its not a source of proof of terrorism. The dictionary definition cannot be used as a source because it violates WP:OR for you to link the two. Furthermore the only one linking the two is Chomsky who is not a law professor and not an expert in the field of law, so he is not qualified to be a source here of what a legal definition actually means. When you have relevant questions instead of your AGF violations I will address you further, I am not sure why you seem to be unable to grasp this idea since its been pointed out by 3 editors to you now and you keep asking the same circular questions. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologized about the "d word", I have deleted all personal references to the "d word" on this page (I did not change other users comments who used the "d word"). If I missed a "d word", please let me know.Travb (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For future reference, do not ever move my comments, it will always be a problem without consulting me first. Thank you. -- zero faults   ' '' 14:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. I will consult you next time I move your comments. I apologize. In regards to me adding :: before your comments, I am attempting to make the article easier to follow.  Editors tend to forget to add ::, which is understandable, I do sometimes too.  I am not doing it maliciously, I am simply attempting to make the article easier to read. There is a policy page behind this.  I don't recall what policy it is called.  Do you? Travb (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Noone said you did it "maliciously", what I am saying is do not edit my comments again. Thank you for your cooperation. Try to assume good faith. there are no accusations there lol. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF You welcome. Travb (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Non content related issue
Could something be done about the layout of this talk page? It is starting to get very confusing to navigate and certain parts seem to be showing up two or three times.--Kalsermar 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What portions? Thanks for the suggestion.  Any ideas? Travb (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe everyone could cultivate brevity. Tom Harrison Talk 00:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A large portion of this text was moved to a user's wikipage, and I archived a large amount of text. I can't move some users comments around any longer with out their permission, because I promised not to.
 * Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America
 * Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America
 * Require a lot of space, because we are debating what exactly wikipolicy states.
 * Thanks for the great suggestion User:Tom harrison. Any suggestions how to implent this idea?
 * Would the conversation be easier to follow if I used the sandbox and the show preview button more often? Travb (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Update Based on recent comments on this talk page, it appears like there will be less postings here, so the problem is solved, albiet temporarily. Travb (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its time to take another straw poll on the content, people can simply give their opinion on what items should stay and what should go. We can list the items in the article and people can say if they oppose its inclusion or not. I think i will draw one up and post it tomorrow. This way we can prevent any circular discussions and see where everyone stands on each issue, there may be a concensus on certain points that we are not already aware of. -- zero faults   ' '' 00:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great idea, maybe there will be more participation in a straw poll than in my graph. I don't know how to make a straw poll, so I made the above graph, which probably accomplishes the same thing, but in a less user friendly manner.
 * Update: Reading over the straw poll page, Straw_polls isn't my graphs above a straw poll? I am attempting to foster a consensus. Why reinvent the wheel?  Unless a straw poll is radically different. I have never done one before.  Is there an example of one somewhere?
 * Update 2 Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. okay, everyone, how should we do the straw poll? Travb (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No concensus needed, its not a question based straw poll, its gonig to be a list and everyone gets to give their opinion and say if they oppose its inclusion or not. It will be done later today. -- zero faults   ' '' 09:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No consensus needed about "the nature of the survey before it starts"? I already seperated all of the comments twice:
 * Once into large sections were "everyone gets to give their opinion" and another with
 * "a list and everyone gets to give their opinion and say if they oppose its inclusion or not." (graph above).
 * What are some of the problems you see with the graph I provided above? Travb (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did the rest of the comments here go to?

Why are they missing?

Where are the arguments of the last five days?

Why have the comments of those people who do not want "Allegations of State Terrorism by the United States" largely been replaced by the arguments of zerofaults and tdc?

Could it be that the Wikipedia staff have a political bias and are using that to influence content? Or is it just that those people who can marshall a 24 hour editing presence shall be allowed to have their opinions stand?

Put back the relevant arguments and stop playing games!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.160.180.193 (talk • contribs).

apparently wiki isn't the only place deterimined individuals are working to sweep this under the rug
though there are many mirrors, the direct archive of operation northwoods was taken down today. It was worse than state sponsored terror it was plans to commit or fake acts of terror on american military and civilian targets by our government to create a "healthy wave of indigation"...sound familiar? http://128.164.127.251/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf (OWNtheNWO 04:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC))


 * Its fragmented and specifically asks particular people their opinions, not everyone. The one I am making is for everyone to voice thier opinions, not just the people created in a list above. It also attempts to make certain points with footnotes instead of people reading the content on their own and judging it based on that. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also people wont be limited in their responses to a few words not have to confine those words to the borders of the template. It was a nice effort, but as you put it not user friendly. -- zero faults   ' '' 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I eagerly await what you come up with Zerofaults, seems like a good idea you have there.--Kalsermar 18:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Antagonism?
User_talk:Travb/Archive_7 Travb (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please keep your personal issues off of the article talk space, thank you. -- zero faults   ' '' 00:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we archive the comments?
How would you all feel if we archived the old comments above  A kind of fresh start while we build a straw poll.

I was considering archiving, but I think this could serve as a sort of one example of a straw poll.

We could archive everything above if wanted.

Either way, I won't do anything until we get a "yes" or "no" from at least two people.Travb (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just go ahead and archive everything -- this page is too long. Morton devonshire 05:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay...If anyone objects, we can revert. Travb (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No arguments here!--Kalsermar 18:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw polls
I took the liberty of setting up a sub-page. I had the idea for this and then read that Zerofaults was planning similar and after consultation set it up. See Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls (Thank you for the move Travb). Hope this looks ok, I've never done this before.

I suggest we give it 4 days perhaps or a week at most to get a feeling of what is or isn't supported while contentious issues or when there's no clear consensus polls can be given some more time. I remind everyone again that this isn't a blind vote and Wikipedia policy still applies. Feel free to add polls or comments to this if you want.

I'd like to ask everyone who states an opinion to do so with some brevity and to not let this degenerate into another heated debate. There's always this talkpage for more indepth discussions. This is just to get a consensus going, not to rehash debates.--Kalsermar 21:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC), comment added 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave my input here --Kalsermar 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Debating
I have debated for the past couple of days of just abandoning this page. Those who created this page have stopped posting days ago, one went on a wikivacation citing "childness". And only myself and those who wanted this page deleted remain. I learned a lot about wikipolicy (and how others use it), and how to make a kewl graph, so it is not a total loss. Travb (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)