User:Raggz/Sandbox

RfC The primary RfC question is if this article follows the Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research policies.

We seem to be unable to resolve the fundamental issue for Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. What does state terrorism really mean?

State terrorism defined
We don't need two definitions of what state terrorism is - or is not in Wikipedia. I propose that we merge the entire definitions section into state terrorism. We would just link to that definition because there should not be one definition for the world and another for the United States.


 * Proposed: The definition of state terrorism for this article will be the same definition used by state terrorism.

Is terrorism always illegal?
There are two types of state terrorism now alleged: Legal Terrorism and Illegal Terrorism.

Moral outrage as state terrorism

 * Proposed: All allegations of state terrorism will refer in the opening paragraph to a specific national or international terrorism law that is applicable to the United States.

There are a number of allegations of state terrorism arbitrarily excluded by this proposal because they involve moral outrage by an author who finds the legal actions of the United States to be immoral.

EXAMPLE: Imagine that the Pope condems the legalization of abortion within the US to be state terrorism against unborn Americans. Although the legalization of abortion is entirely legal, it greatly offends the morality of some. Is moral outrage that leads to claimed state terrorism a claim that should go into WP as state terrorism, even though totally legal?

Does state terrorism imply to the Reader that the allegation involves the violation of some applicable international law? Is a discussion of "legal terrorism" (such as abortion) what the Reader is looking for?

Primary and fringe sources
This article relies heavily upon primary and fringe sources for allegations. Some allegations will become ineligible for inclusion if primary and fringe sources are excluded.

Fringe sources
There is debate about what WP:REDFLAG means. Claims include:


 * The nature of this topic requires that fringe sources be utilized because it is a topic where the "mainstream media" is either suppressing the truth or is disinterested in the truth. We likely have a near consensus on this, that some of the allegations are not reported by the "mainstream media".


 * There is a debate if all academics are automatically the "mainstream media" (REDFLAG).


 * There is a related debate if all "peer-reviewed" publications are automatically the "mainstream media". One side claims this is the case and the other side says that one professor may publish their blog as a "peer-reviewed" electronic journal if they get one friend to review it.


 * *Proposal: It is proposed that for sources that allege state terrorism that the WP:REDFLAG be applied to exclude claims by fringe sources that are as defined by policy, not the "mainstream media", even if fringe source has academic credentials or is published by a minor academic journal.

BernardL has claimed that WP has a mission to give "a voice" to claims that the mainstream media are afraid or unwilling to cover. There is the possibility that state terrorism has ocurred, and that this has been suppressed as claimed so that the mainstream media is not yet aware of it, or is afraid to cover this. If this is true, WP should wait until there are reliable mainstream media sources to reflect fringe claims.

EXAMPLE: Within our first cited sources is an article by Marjorie Cohn who advances two fringe theories that are not echoed by any of her colleagues or any "mainstream media" source. This is that the US aid to Israel is a form of state terrorism. (1) State aid to another does not meet any definition of state terrorism (and does not violate any international law. (2) The US policy involved is not secret, many people besides Cohn know of it. (3) The policy challenged by Cohn as terrorism resulted in the awarding of the Nobel Prize (the Camp David Accords) which represents the consensus opinion of the international community on this subject.

Cohn's opinion is claimed to be a fringe opinion by WP:REDFLAG.

(1) One side suggests that since a Nobel Prize was awarded and there is no "mainstream media" echo, REDFLAG applies.

(2) The other side arguesL

That they agree with Cohn and do not find the claim "surprising", so REDFLAG does not apply.

Marjorie Cohn holds a PhD and has published widely, so by these criteria REDFLAG does not apply.

The claim was made in a minor "peer reviewed" academic journal published by one professor, so REDFLAG may not be applied.

REDFLAG itself is inapplicable for this article because it is not possible to cover most of these allegations using "mainstream media" sources because the mainstream media is unable or is unwilling to cover stories where state terrorism is alleged.

Nicuragua v United States

 * Hansen, Suzy (2002-01-16). Noam Chomsky. Salon.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.
 * This source does not allege state terrorism by the US against Nicuragua.


 * Chomsky, Noam (2002-05-19). Who Are the Global Terrorists?. Znet. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.
 * This article does not even mention Nicuragua.


 * Official name: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984 ICJ REP. 392 June 27, 1986.
 * This source does not allege state terrorism by the US against Nicragua.


 * Morrison, Fred L. (January 1987). "Legal Issues in The Nicaragua Opinion". American Journal of International Law 81: 160-166. "Appraisals of the ICJ's Decision. Nicaragua vs United State (Merits)"
 * This source does not allege state terrorism by the US against Nicuragua. The word terrorism does not appear within it.


 * a b International Court of Justice Year 1986, 27 June 1986, General list No. 70, paragraphs 251, 252, 157, 158, 233.. International Court of Justice. Retrieved on 2006-07-30. Large PDF file from the ICJ website
 * This source does not allege state terrorism by the US against Nicuragua. The word terrorism does not appear within it.<

This section lacks one single reliable source and so denies WP:Verify This fact requires that this section be deleted for this policy and for WP:OR. In addition, the text ignores many mainstream reviews entirely in favor of fringe comments, most of which are not supported by the cited text.

Review a peer reviewed mainstream account. .

Note that consensus is not required to delete this section if deletion is done for policy compliance. There is no need to delete without giving other editors the chance to offer a single reliable source that asserts that US policy in Nicuragua was actually state terrorism. Raggz (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)