Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

 * — (View AfD)

This is unencyclopediac and unsourced. Speculative POV, anti-American bias! TheOnlyChoice 00:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * EXPAND: To include Allegations of state sponsored terrorism by Syria & State terrorism in Sri Lanka. All or nothing; all are invalid. Allegations are not appropriate. American article, especially. TheOnlyChoice 00:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thus, AfD for all three:
 * Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
 * State sponsored terrorism by Syria
 * State terrorism in Sri Lanka


 * Comment TheOnlyChoice has few or no other edits, 18 in all, and this account has been solely used for Afds, bad faith nomination by probable sockpuppet. Travb (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You've tried this tactic against this user once before, and were embarassed by the attempt. Going for 0 for 2?  Morton devonshire 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice violation of WP:AGF. --Nuclear Zer0 23:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * CommentNo it is not, it is a reasonable request by any concerned Wikipedian. Here I was not involved with any edit wars with most of you and I can say that the above account looks very suspicious.  Infact I thought about opening a Suspected Sock puppet case against that account but later decided against it. Closing Admin should do a checkuser of the above account with the most probable candidate in these discussions.RaveenS 13:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job vilating WP:AGF, nice blanket accusation. --Nuclear Zer0 23:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete all. WP is not the place for "allegations." --Sable232 00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you support all three for deletion? If not please detail why you are not. Please confirm!! TheOnlyChoice 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, it is the place for notable unproven claims, just like it is the place for notable hoaxes, so long as both are (a) notable and (b) attributable to reliable sources. You may be referring to WP:SOAP, but reporting claims that the US, Syria, Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India, North Korea, the UK, etc, etc were/are state sponsors of terrorism isn't soapboxing. The claims exist, with varying degrees of evidentiary support. But we're not here to determine the validity of claims (that's original research), only to report that they have been made, without giving undue weight to any part of the arguments. One thing that Wikipedia certainly is not, which may be of relevance here, is censored. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Agree with sable, accusations are inappropriate, we do not have allegations of XYZ against person A, so we should not slander entire countries either. Allegations is just not appropriate for Wikipedia. --Nuclear Zer0 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you support all three for deletion? If not please detail why you are not. Please confirm!! TheOnlyChoice 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes and they should at least be renamed as it seems the term state terrorism is not consistent in all sources in all articles, meaning there is self defining going on by editors which is the very proccess of WP:OR. The very idea that you can define "State terrorism" when the term "terrorism" does not even have an international definition is quite absurd and as such the term should not appear in article titles either. --Nuclear Zer0 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia does not have "Allegations against XYZ person" because of very real concerns with violating libel law, at least that's how I perceive why there are more strict codes regarding bios.  That said, allegations with merit do have a place in Wikipedia, even in bios.  In the case of various countries' foreign policies, allegation might be the only appropriate word, given the nature of the deliberate concealment that is performed by all governments in undertaking actions that might damage their reputation.  --Jackhorkheimer 02:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my point, if we know its wrong to accuse people we should avoid accusing entire nations. The problem with these articles that even goes beyond naming and basic idea is that the sections within them are usually sourced to limited articles and not presented with counter claims. Wikipedia is not a place to promote Chomsky's definition of what "terrorism" is, however it gets its own section in the US article ... Your personal opinion of some countries "foreign policy" is not appropriate terminology to define state terrorism. As noted above State terrorism does not have an definition so its the editors defining the term to match the article, which is also a violation of WP:OR. --Nuclear Zer0 02:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just for the record I do not think you have the ability to state people have to choose all or nothing. I also do not find it to be "anti-american" I just find it to be in bad taste as Wikipedia is being used to prop up the very minority world view by fringe professors and disputed authors and researchers. To see an article like this and have the only semi respectable person in it be Chomsky, is quite sad as we all know how level headed and fair minded Chomsky is. --Nuclear Zer0 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is most definitely not the place for making allegations. But it is the place for impartially documenting notable accusations. These articles are not without problems (not least layout), but they are all (potentially) verifiable and all cite sources. The potential to offend is not grounds for deletion, Wikipedia is not censored. Sections like "Attempts at defining terrorism" definitely need to go. However, encyclopaedic articles, listing occasions when the countries in question have been specifically accused of "terrorism" by notable figures, organisations and governments, are definitely maintainable. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  02:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per IslaySolomon. --Wooty Woot? contribs 02:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article has valid content and is well-sourced. If the name is a problem or if a POV dispute exists, than those problems can be taken care of separately but a deletion is not warranted. TSO1D 03:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Bad faith nom. --Hemlock Martinis 03:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a mass of badly sourced pottage, despite the long list of citations; again and again it makes unsourced allegations and then sources various statements about how awful the atrocities were. I don't see this article ever being more than a battleground of ideologies or a platform for anti-Americanism; the various subsections are probably better off having individual articles (and I suspect most of them have individual articles already).  I think a category Accusations of state terrorism would be neutral and useful. --Brianyoumans 04:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As to the other articles: I think the Syrian article could be merged with Foreign relations of Syria, since the accusations of terrorism have been a major issue in their foreign relations. --Brianyoumans 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, then -- by that measure, we should merge the Allegations...U.S.A page with the U.S. Department of State page. Stone put to sky 10:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and the Sri Lankan article... perhaps this could be merged into some sort of timeline of the Sri Lankan civil war? Most of the accusations fall short of state terrorism, to my mind, since it is probably that they were not ordered by the state (although it tolerated the military that committed them).  At the least, I would change the title to eliminate the phrase "state terrorism". --Brianyoumans 04:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Gabi S. 07:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would definitely suggest either renaming the article (as per my suggestion at Articles for deletion/Islamic extremist terrorism) or merging legitimate content into the proper article(s). metaspheres 08:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We have attempted to rename the article several times, to no avail. Travb (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep An entirely appropriate article with many international newspapers, official documents and other credible sources. Deleting this article would only reinforce the impression of the English Wikipedia being an American Wikipedia, but obviously some cannot accept the fact that there have been terrorist acts carried out by the United States. Also, compare this discussion to Articles_for_deletion/Islamic_extremist_terrorism. If this article is oh so POV, make the required changes instead of a bad faith nomination like this. Furthermore I'd like to point out that the only purpose of the account User:TheOnlyChoice seems to be to nominate articles for deletion. See Special:Contributions/TheOnlyChoice --Nyp 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I do no think you have read the sources of the people actually making allegations, they come from Granma (Cuba State newspaper), FreeRepublic, GlobalResearch (blog), Radio Habana Cuba (Cuba State Radio), Cuba Solidarity (More Cuba State Media), Chomsky ( ... ), Workers World Newsletter, Emperor-Clothes.Com (Who knows?), Counter-Punch.Org (NewsLetter). Lots of sources are legit, but those just back that events happened, they are not the sources that make the accusations. --Nuclear Zer0 11:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And just where exactly do you think officially, properly sourced accusations of terrorism against the United States comes from, if not from foreign governments, the organizations which represent them and neutral human rights groups? Regardless, your list of sources is woefully misrepresentative of the actual diversity on the page.  Stone put to sky 06:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes right, what was I thinking, Cuba is entirely impartial, lets get more sources, maybe if we write a letter to North Korea they can help, maybe we can write an article on "How Jews are taking over the world", and source it with the Iranian government, I mean where else would we expect such truth to come from if not a government right? --Nuclear Zer0 23:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All articles are cited using WP:RS non of them violate WP:NPOV or WP:NOR or WP:V. I think there is a case of WP:POINT here because we just now went through CAT:State Terrorism XFD witht the same arguments. RaveenS 13:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment No we didn't. The category arguments were completely different. They were related to an asumption of guilt as applied by the category - without citation or attribution - to articles detailing violent acts. The category tacitly inferred that an allegation was fact. This article is very different and is in line with numerous other legitimate articles that detail notable claims.--Zleitzen 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Either allegations from notable groups or individuals exist. Or they don't. In this case they exist. NuclearUmpf's statement above doesn't hold water. A government statement in a state newspaper, or a government's statement to the UN is a perfectly legitimate source to carry allegations on this page. The BBC is state media, controlled by a director general appointed by the British government. Would you suggest that the BBC is not a legitimate source? Allegations made by one government are as valid as allegations made by any other. As wikipedia carries many allegations made by the United States government about other nations and individuals, taken straight from US government websites, it seems perfectly reasonable on this page to also detail allegations made by other governments about the United States.--Zleitzen 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Should be kept until consensus is reached on how to handle all these. It's no good wanting the ones that fit your POV removed ("anti-Amierican bias!" !) as others have noted.  The politcally correct "Allegations of" should be applied to all or none at the same time. Akihabara 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as above, this is the second vote for deletion. Definetly bad faith nomination. How can an article be "unsourced" with 90 sources? Travb (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There is already an article on State Terrorism generally, and this is a daughter article, as are the ones on Syria, etc. I don't like the 'Allegations' title but this is the result of a very very long discussion with the right wingers. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  15:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment As evidenced by the post above, these pages serve mostly for political bullshit and warring than anything else. There is one side who will not rest until all of Wikipedia shows America to be the guiding light of the world, and there is another side who will not rest until they successfully perpetrate their belief that America is the Great Satan. Pages like these are POV by nature. Just something to think about. --Sable232 15:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if you read the article you will be surprised by its balance. It needs improvement, but we are being constantly distracted by Afd's ArbCom's RfC's etc. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While I believe its fully sourced, its surely not biased. Most sections do not contain a counter claim. Further last time I tried to add a coutner point, it was reverted constantly. The article only reads as an attack and any attempt to add anything otherwise has been met with hostility and accusations, not from you I would like to point out. --Nuclear Zer0 16:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * disagreements with editors of an article are no reason to delete the article, there are other means of resolving conflict.Bouke 16:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason there are so few counter-arguments is because NuclearZero/NuclearUmpf/Zerofaults has generally gone out of his way to remove them. A quick perusal of the diffs is all that's needed for verification. Stone put to sky 06:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Right so I am removing the allegations cause I do not agree with them and at the same time removing the counter arguements, which if you were right, would be removing my own defense ... good job, any more silly accusations that you cannot provide difs for? Still waiting on that apology. --Nuclear Zer0 23:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * keep Bad faith nomination. Take for instance the Nicaragua case: factual information is well documented, by reputable sources, and the allegation is made explicit. It is not unsourced, the encyclopedic-ness is ok in my eyes, it is not speculative, but it could use some balancing POV: a defense of US policy should be included if it exists. In short, no reason for deletion. Bouke 16:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - The State terrorism in Sri Lanka is a blatant attempt by anti government forces and the LTTE terrorist organisation's sympathisers to use wikipedia to defame the government of Sri Lanka. Wikipedia should not be allowed for user groups with vested interests to project there own POV. If one takes the sources for the article against the government of Sri lanka, one can see that they are http://www.tamilnet.com, http://www.tamilweek.com and links like this to http://www.tamilnation.org which all are pro eelamist sites, some which are frontends for the terrorist LTTE organisation and which violate WP:RS WP:NPOV and are potentially libellous and defamatory against the Goverment of Sri lanka. Based on the above facts, a strong delete is justifiable for the defamatory and libellous article State terrorism in Sri Lanka which violates major wikipedia guidlines and is being used by groups with vested interests to push their own POV.Kerr avon 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While you may not like the points made or the sources used, these sources are notable and acceptable under WP:RS. Among the sources are also the ICRC, Amnesty International and the BBC. These sources are certainly acceptable. Further, I don't believe it is legally possible to libel a government. Libel law is reserved for individuals, not governments.... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but who says they are "State terrorism"? Human rights violations happen everywhere. Who makes the dicision to label them "state terrorism"? Wikipedia editors? Thats totally against a number of Wikipedia policies. In most cases regading to Sri Lanka the organizations such as AI and ICRC state they have got reports that the said incident happened. From who? Its anybodies guess. Has anything been proved? No. Wikipedia is a not a place gossip or unconfirmed reports. Including such totally unproven allegations in Wikipedia simply dilutes the credibility of Wikipedia. We should stick to the facts only. --snowolfD4( talk /  @ ) 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The http://www.tamilnation.org http://www.tamilnet.com, http://www.tamilweek.com cannot be considered as reliable sources as WP:RS specifically mentions that "The websites and publications of political parties and religious groups (or websites of their critics or opponents) should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution."


 * Some of these sites are extremist LTTE sponsored frontend sites, which are anti government, as such according to the WP:RS clause "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources", one can argue against the inclusion of the links from sites which are front ends of the LTTE.


 * Wikipedia is a place for facts and not for allegations. All the State terrorism in Sri Lanka contains are links to allegations only. Nothing has been proven, no international court or tribunal has found the state guilty of the said allegations and whose decision is it to label them as "State terrorism". The articles do nothing to add substance or something useful to wikipedia, but serves to make wikipedia a vehicle/propaganda banner which anti government individuals and the terrorist LTTE sympathizers can use to continue their disinformation campaign against our country.Kerr avon 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The LTTE is a reliable source of their own allegations ... I'm not sure anyone can reasonably dispute this. WilyD 20:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep All three. Validly sourced. What does it matter if a given source is controlled by a government agency? We routinely will source to the United States and British governments and (very, very, very incorrectly withtout "checking" them as some seem to want to do wit these sources). Those governments are no more reputable than any other. So, the US does not honor the Cuban government? The rest of the world does. Irrelevant argument, this is not the us.wikipedia.org. The American viewpoint is a minority viewpoint. RE: the others, the sourcing appears valid. · XP  · 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User is banned from editing Wikipedia. Sock puppet of rootology. --Nuclear Zer0 19:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep of Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America per IslaySolomon, but Rename State sponsored terrorism by Syria to "Allegations of..." and State terrorism in Sri Lanka to "Allegations of...". Definite reasons to keep all three as mentioned, but should keep a NPOV naming convention for all such articles. -Markeer 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Hasn't this been through here before? It's as good a place as any to handle such counter-accusations. The article is both encyclopedic and sourced, so criteria for delete is invalid. The text appears to read as neutral, but the neutrality tag at the top will probably help keep it that way. &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Original nomination says: "This is unencyclopediac and unsourced. Speculative POV, anti-American bias!".  Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!  It is most definitely encyclopaedic, it is sourced and, if the nominator thinks there's an anti-American bias I'm going to lay money the nominator is American!  Emeraude 17:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article covers an important factor in international politicals, whilst it may be difficult to keep unbias i do feel that as a persistant but rarely addressed allegation the page is relevant to help readers fully understand the motivations of involved nations. LordFenix 17:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for the purpose of merging the information into relevant articles (e.g. the Cuban information into Cuba-United States relations). If it weren't for the well-referenced material, I'd argue for deletion. This article pulls disparate information together in a way that promotes some (albeit weak) conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is "The United States has allegedly committed terrorism". The entire article serves to promote this insipid thesis. It skirts the boundary of original research by presenting unrelated incidents in the form of a discrete encyclopedia topic. Academics make their living from this sort of clerical work. Furthermore, this article has a misleadingly bland title. The word 'allegedly' is the only preventative against an extraordinary conclusion (consider Lies allegedly told by George W. Bush or Alleged war crimes of Henry Kissinger). Presenting an extraordinary assertion in the form of a seemingly innocuous and trivial assertion is pathologically sinister. In general, we should avoid turning propositions into encyclopedia articles. Such articles are trojan horses for POV warring and original research. shotwell 19:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This appears to be a content dispute put forward as an AfD. Per the article, the US and Britain use the "State Terrorism" term to refer to actions of other states as a major reason for foreign policy and military actions against rogue states or members of the Axis of Evil. If there are reliable and verifiable sources reporting that other countries allege the U.S. to have done similar actions, then a case is made for having such an article. Rather than deleting the article, edit boldly and remove any non-reliable sources such as partisan blogs, and correct any POV pushing. Edison 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this article is extremely well sourced. That it's "anti-American" isn't a valid reason to delete;  Wikipedia is not censored.  Wikipedia is not a place to make allegations, but notable rifts in foreign policy between several nations, referencing many print newspapers, seems like a very worthy article for Wikipedia, in fact, the ability to cover current affairs is part of what makes Wikipedia so much more valuable than a print encyclopedia.  Also, as pointed out above, User:TheOnlyChoice's history seems very much like a sock puppet.  DigitalEnthusiast 20:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all three per IslaySolomon. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per IslaySoloman and others. As for the assertion that Wiki doesn't document allegations or accusations, please see Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline which notes"The Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline below lists allegations of meetings, most now discounted, denied or disproven by the United States Government, between al-Qaeda members and members of Saddam Hussein's government, as well as other information relevant to the theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda." and Do_as_I_Say_%28Not_as_I_Do%29:_Profiles_in_Liberal_Hypocrisy which repeats the following allegations and accusations, with no documentation. "Hillary Clinton — Greedy Speculator, Corporate Shrill, and Petty Tax Avoider",  and Ralph Nader — Bourgeois Materialist, Stock Manipulator, and Tyrannical Sweatshop Boss" - F.A.A.F.A. 22:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the article Do_as_I_Say_%28Not_as_I_Do%29:_Profiles_in_Liberal_Hypocrisy is about a book, and the quotes you give are just summaries of what is in the book. --Brianyoumans 02:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unsourced? Seems very well sourced to me, and to pretty good sources. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep all three. While I believe that many of the allegations against the U.S. are either spurious or legalistic hair-splitting for propaganda effect, the allegations are real, and have significant currency worldwide, and are therefore notable enough for an article. The existing article has some POV problems, but it's not bad compared to some of the left-wing drivel on Wikipedia, and is eminently curable. Argyriou (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article is intergral in American History, I don't think anyone who truely cares about the United States can deny it's history so as to deny future generations lessons to improve the union. With that said, the article follows most - all of the wikipedia guidelines as generally follows a NPOV stance throughout. Strong Keep --Sharz 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Though the allegations are nonsense, I dont' see why we wouldn't have an article about them. They're just allegations, after all.  Milto LOL pia 05:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP - This is ridiculous! To say that the Allegations of Terrorism by U.S.A. article is poorly sourced or references improperly biased material is patently and utterly false!  It includes:
 * Citations by a leading international Military, Security and Terrorism researchers
 * Citations by several international organizations who routinely advise the United Nations
 * Citations from reports issued by several International Law organizations
 * Citations from leading Human Rights organizations
 * Citations from leading political and social scientists
 * Quotations from the Geneva Conventions, both first and second.

Nearly all of these sources i mention involve specific mention of "state terrorism" as a phrase (some do involve commentary on the concept of "terrorism" in general). They amount to clear demonstration of an international legal and academic consensus on the use and meaning of the phrase "state terrorism"; moreover, on the page we have gone out of our way to give every opportunity for objections and contrary evidence to be provided.

Unfortunately, it has become clear that several "editors" are intent only upon seeing the information provided there deleted from the Wikipedia record. Among others, these include "Morton Devonshire" and "NuclearZero" or "NuclearUmpf" or "Zerofaults".

In the Charges & Evidence section, we have in each case mentioned clear citations from widely available media and journalistic sources which clearly describe defined, limited conditions (as proof) and/or use the words "state terrorism" (accusations).

These are not articles making unprovable, skewed observations about negligible issues! This is not a "Brittney's Black Babies", "American Racism", or "American Evil" article.

These constant AfD's about "State Terrorism" articles are really silly. I have no idea if the Sri Lankan and Syrian articles adhere to the same rigor as we have worked to bring the U.S.A. article in line with, but obviously i think that insofar as they can, they should. Similarly, though, insofar as they cannot, they should not. Stone put to sky 06:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Geneva Conventions do not mention international terrorism, the only political scientist is Chomsky, the Human Rights orgs are not the major ones like Red Cross etc. they are actually ones I never heard of, though I am sure they are real. There is 1 citations from an international group, wouldnt call it a law org, they write about how you cannot define terrorism, they use state terrorism in the article but not in a real way, they are saying you cannot define it because terrorism lacks a definition. The leading military expert is Ganser, which I wouldnt call a military expert after that document was proven to be a forgery. SO while I am sure this will be a keep, it would be nice if you actually looked over the sources fully and researched them. There is a political scientist being used as a source because he runs a human rights group, oddly enough the web page for that group has nothing on it ... it looks like a home page. The actual "allegations" come from Cuba State News, Chomsky, obscure french human rights groups, World Workers Party etc. And next time you accus eme of something I will start going to admins, I am tired of your baseless accusations, you still never apologized for accusing me of "deleting" those other section even though I proved they were just moved down a section, woops, egg on your face. --Nuclear Zer0 10:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Everyone please witness: this is the sort of nonsense i must put up with on this page (and more than likely the author of this RfD, as well). This person has already seen that the Geneva Conventions are -- as cited repeatedly on the page in question -- the basis for most (but not all) of the official (i.e. -- legal, political, and NGO) definitions of both "terrorism" as well as "state terrorism".  Similarly, there are more than a mere few political scientists quoted on the page...and no 'egg on my face'.  Peace -- Stone put to sky 14:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me what the Geneva Convention defines as terrorism or state terrorism please? Of course you cannot because it doesn't give a definition, your WP:OR is annoying, so Stone, try not to address me since every time I prove you wrong, you refuse to apologize for your accusations. Enjoy your eggs. --Nuclear Zer0 14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This has grown very tired Zerofaults. Most of the allegations made by various people in the Cuban government (reported in "Cuba state news" rather than made by Cuba state news) - have actually been admitted to by the perpetrators. And substantiated by US declassified documents. Should we also delete any reference to the fact that the Bay of Pigs invasion was a CIA organised attack as well? --Zleitzen 13:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are talking about, who said anything about deleting references? If you participated on the page you would see I never had a problem with it, while the source is bias, WP:RS doesnt say we cannot have bias sources. Also the people who have admitted to wrong doing have not admitted to commiting terrorism. So the actual allegations of terrorism come from only bias sources  and not government admissions. This is part of the problem, the US gets accused of commiting "unlawful warfare" from a non bias source, however the source alleging terrorism is Chomsky, by stating all instances of "unlawful warfare" is terrorism, hence making a redefining a legal definition when he does not have a legal degree. My only gripe has been WP:RS sources and Seabhcan provided those. My bigger gripe will never be resolved because some people do not mind an article filled with state run papers as sources, and I do not either since educated people reading the article will see the blatant bias in it.

--Nuclear Zer0 14:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "The people who have admitted to wrong doing have not admitted to commiting terrorism." No. They admitted to killing children, teenagers, other civilians, to publicly further their political aims. Everyone else calls it terrorism. Your "article filled with state run papers" argument is false and futile. By the way, if you don't like "state run papers". Go take that up with the BBC.--Zleitzen 14:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what subject you are refering to anymore in your insinuations, also the article as agreed on by editors requires an actual accusation, hence why they all come from fringe sources like Cuba state papers etc. You stating that my arguement is futile, is off topic, while I do not like a bias article I have already stated its going to stay bias cause the sources used. You are arguing in circles, I also already stated while they are run by the Cuban government, they pass WP:RS. Maybe you should try not to be so hostile and stop arguing in circles about things I already admitted will not change. Less hostility please, this isn't a high school class room, or a football field. --Nuclear Zer0 14:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nuclear, if Cuban state publications are inadmissible because they may be biased or unreliable, why is a US state publication admissible as evidence that the FM is fake ? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  14:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can easily provide another source, will you then provide non governmental sources for your allegations? --Nuclear Zer0 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Either the sources pass WP:RS and this page should stay - or they don't, meaning this page should be deleted. You write "[the sources] pass WP:RS". So is that the end of the matter? Will we still find you discussing the issue of these sources in the future? Even though you admit here that the sources meet WP:RS? If you think that a Cuban ambassador to the UN's statement on terrorism against Cuba is a "fringe source" - then that is merely your view. To most people, it is no more fringe than Colin Powell's statement to the UN in 2003. But as you now admit that this meets reliable source guidelines, then why is there a need for you to keep bringing this issue up? Perhaps our confusion about why you repeatedly mention these reliable sources whilst calling for a deletion of a page, may explain why you are reading what you term "circular arguments". --Zleitzen 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources pass WP:RS, the articles focus is not encyclopedic, dealing with fringe groups accusations and government propaganda agencies as its sources is a blight to Wikipedia. I have never stated the article failed WP:RS after Seabhcan added his sources, do you even read the talk page? you seem to have me confused with someone else. My deletion reasoning above also doesnt mention WP:RS, if you need help finding the person you are suppose to be addressing I can help you find them possibly. --Nuclear Zer0 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "the US gets accused of commiting "unlawful warfare" from a non bias source, however the source alleging terrorism is Chomsky, by stating all instances of "unlawful warfare" is terrorism" Chomsky is using the Americans' own definition of "terrorism". Any illegal and violent act is terrorism according to the US. Then again, so is defending yourself from an illegal occupation. The US has killed unarmed and innocent civilians in cold blood (with many of the responsible Marines loving every second of it) as well as killed/beaten children. Lovely. Coconuteire 00:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lovely and off topic, if you want to discuss the article please use its talk page. --Nuclear Zer0 11:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable topic. Khoikhoi 06:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Close Now per WP:SNOW and possibly WP:POINT. BCoates 13:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard got a snowball keep and it had less people wanting to keep: 18 keep 6 delete, versus 28 keeps here and 8 deletes. I will ask for it again. Travb (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Long a source of WP:OR and violative of WP:RS.  Given the nature of the subject, can never satisfy WP:NPOV -- will always be a hotbed for anti-American or pro-American point-scoring, and thus is unencyclopedic.  Morton devonshire 22:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's possible for any controversial article to do the same. The article isn't about "state terrorism by the US", it's about allegations.  Informative writing about allegations is easily possible in a neutral way, as long as those allegations are not given a value, right?  It's not POV to say a suspicion/viewpoint/allegation exists, only to give it some "worth" one way or another.  Milto LOL pia 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This will never be a stable page in its present form, or under this title. Consider other pages case by case. Tom Harrison Talk 22:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment:Hah! So now if you want to delete a page all you have to do is to make it unstable!? Great. Morton is in heaven. SalvNaut 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. This afd has been included in User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard. --Striver 22:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This article is POV pushing, it is constantly being updated with unreliable sources, it has caused edit wars, it is a POV collection of info (factual or not) to make a POV statement against the United States. It is not encyclopedic material. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is also a discussion about Allegations of state sponsored terrorism by Syria and State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Do youhave any thoughts about those articles?--Zleitzen 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Check them against WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If they are not properly written, conduct an AfD on those as well. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an afd on those articles as well. See top of page.--Zleitzen 23:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn’t know you could combine articles at the same time for deletion (this is my first). The only thing I needed to see was the AfD for Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. Good, burn it. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  23:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If Newt Gingrich's mother says to Connie Chung that Newt Gingrich thinks that Hillary Clinton is a (female dog), do we need to create an article, Allegations that Hillary Clinton is a female dog?  Interestingly, that topic gets 442,000 g-hits .  Just because two or more people string the same two words together in a sentence doesn't mean that we need a Wikipedia article about it.  Wikipedia could do without a lot of the articles that really serve no purpose other than to provide a forum for a political argument.  This is not an encyclopedic topic - it's a Sunday talk show topic.  It's a talk radio topic.  It's not an encyclopedia topic. BigDT 23:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is always someone in an AfD who has a completly irrelevant example. Congratulation BigDT, your example has absolutly nothing to do with this AfD. Travb (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh nevermind, Zer0faults just beat you out with this statment: "maybe we can write an article on "How Jews are taking over the world", and source it with the Iranian government" Travb (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good grief ... I thought that even minor insults may, over time, add up to incivility and personal attacks. It's not an irrelevant example - it's a direct analogy.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  We don't need articles that give a play by play of biases.  Call it WP:NPOV.  Songs called the worst ever ... Movies called the worst ever ... Allegations of Israeli Apartheid ... we don't need that kind of thing.  Wikipedia is not a polling service whose job is to archive world, national, or local opinion on any given subject. BigDT 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "maybe we can write an article on "How Jews are taking over the world", and source it with the Iranian government" ... Actually we do have precisely that, and no one is suggesting it's not worth keeping here on Wikipedia, it's properly sourced, and it's a useful notation of modern history. The article isn't suggesting that it's true, either, it's just an allegation. See The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 01:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a polling service whose job is to archive world, national, or local opinion on any given subject." - why then do we have articles such as Criticism of Hugo Chávez ? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - If the United States does something that fits a definition of "terrorism", including their own definition, then it is state terrorism! And they have committed many, many such acts. End of story. Coconuteire 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum to decide whether those allegations are true. It's for deciding whether or not to have a reference about them.  "Them" being the allegations, not the supposed acts.  Milto LOL pia 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - as somebody said, WP is not the place for "allegations."  Chaldean 00:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article could be stronger since there are many many credible sources of information regarding the extensive use of and support for terrorist activities perpetrated by the USA. 'The Trial of Henri Kissinger" by Christopher Hitchens comes to mind.  But, this article is of much higher quality than many on Wikipedia and has over sixty sources, many of which are extremely credible, ie the Guardian Newspaper in Britian (Englands third largest paper). Furthermore, there has been very little counter evidence on this forum, nor any actual discredidation of the used sources. I am annoyed at the petiness of this debate. Calling people anit-american because they are critical of a countries human rights abuses is a terrible rhetorical tactic. Much like calling anyone who crticises Israeli policy and marginalization of  Palestinians anti-semetic including academics like Prof. Finklestien, who had two parents survive Nazi concentration camps. Many of the most committed American citizens including numerous members of the National Public Radio have presented evidence of US terroism. I will stop here. Please do not delete this article, make it better, or atleast come up with some credible accusations either against the sources used or disproving the facts cited. If we only count as credible those institutions and academics who are lauded by mainstream discourses then they will be free to dupe us at every turn.-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mahakaya (talk • contribs).
 * Strong KeepWe are not judging the merit of the accusations against a country. The accusations exist, they are well known world-wide, they are the subject of legal and political action. This is part of history, and will remain so, regardless of the final verdict of the civilized world. We do not pretend to moral or legal judgment. We record what is notable and documented. What could be more notable? What could be better documented than the existence of these allegations? DGG 06:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep nominator gave no good reasons. "anti-American bias" is a completely POV statements and makes it sound like the AFD was to push POV, like how many conspiracy articles get AFD'd by people who don't believe in the conspiracy theories. Anomo 09:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article is suitable for inclusion in wikipedia if it supplies documented, non-obvious, non-source-text information about a notable phenomenon from a neutral perspective and in a summary format. Colorable accusations by other states of US complicity in state terrorism meet at least all but the NPOV and summary criteria to the extent that the accusations can be verified from reliable sources and are not mere reproductions of formal government remonstrances.
 * The concern that this article is an instance of content-forking is not misplaced; but because the article treats allegations, and as such, could include official US Government responses to the charges, the article is not necessarily POV.
 * I am worried that the article is beginning to "plead evidence" rather than confine itself to an overview treatment. Wikipedia should report controversies but not resolve them, no matter how dispassionately that resolution is attempted. External links and references can direct readers to sources that attempt to analyze and resolve the controversy. Accordingly, some of the lengthier block-quotes and more detailed statements of accusations should be summarized at a level more appropriate for reporting rather than analysis.
 * Pop Secret 11:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all per Islay Solomon, renaming as appropriate, rewriting and referencing as necessary. Article(s) on countries which have sponsored terrorism, or are prominently accused of sponsoring terrorism, are perfectly encyclopedic topics. No WP:NPOV and WP:V issues here that cannot be resolved by cooperative editing and requested moves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Sable.--John Lake 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: users interested in this AfD should also see Articles for deletion/List of massacres commited by Israeli forces &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 22:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this proto, and buy the nominator a drink. What are we, Uncyclopedia? -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the matter, 75 sources aren't enough for you? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 22:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you have not read the page, its 75 sources for events having happened, not 75 sources of allegations. I can write that an article "allegations of aliens plotting world domination during WW2" then cite 102 sources of events that actually happened during WW2 and source them, then get 3 fringe people as sources for the allegations, and bingo I have 105 sources in an article and only 3 are actually of allegations. --Nuclear Zer0 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He, he, this is funny:
 * "allegations of aliens plotting world domination during WW2"
 * "How Jews are taking over the world", and source it with the Iranian government,
 * Allegations that Hillary Clinton is a female dog do you have anymore Nuclear :) ? Travb (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I can probably come up with some more just for you, but the Hilary Clinton one wasn't mine. Care to address the point of there being less then 10% of the total sources actually containing the accusations or are not denynig that counting 75 sources as proof is kind of misleading when only 7 have accusations. --Nuclear Zer0 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that Nuclear and others define "fringe" any person or group who makes these allegations. Thus even governments of large important countries, such as Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, become "fringe" as soon as they mention US terrorism. Whole universities become "fringe", however selectively. ETH Zurich is now a "Fringe" university for the purposes of discrediting this view, however, when one of their faculty published the Theory of Relativity, they are not "fringe". I don't see Nuclear putting Einstein on AfD because he worked at a "Fringe" university. There's no way to win against this kind of logic - they want it both ways. Its called censorship. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  14:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the government of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are not the most neutral of observers. I have no problem with ETH Zurich either, not sure where I said I did. If you watch the news you would see how the Iranian president hosted a "serious conference" on if the Holocaust happened, so serious he got the best researchers, like David Duke, and did not permit anyone with an Israeli citizenship present. So while you may find the president of Iran to be neutral on certain issues, I surely wouldnt consider them neutral on issues related to the US or Jews. I also did not put Ganser up for AfD, so not sure why you would assume I would put Einstein up either. --Nuclear Zer0 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say I find this misleading as well because I never stated Ganser was not a reputable source either, simply that if you wanted to avoid the talk page drama with others, you may want to bolster your sources with non Ganser material. --Nuclear Zer0 19:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Chavez and Castro may not be neutral, but Bush is no better - I'd put them all in the same salt jar - an the US is certainly not neutral in their denial of terrorism. (I'd didn't mean you alone, but you are certainly on the more reasonable end of the same spectrum). My point is that the label "fringe" is used to dismiss things witch conflict with a predefined notion of reality. I have a Chinese friend who doesn't believe the Tiananmen massacre really happened. If it had it would have been reported in the People's Daily. The western sources which claim it happened are anti-Chinese. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney  (Hows my driving?)  19:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Business Plot is an excellent example of something that most people think is a hoax, but a Congressional committee confirmed everything.
 * What troubles me about some of the comments here, is
 * that a couple of users (those who have actively attempted to delete this article for month) say that government x is an unreliable source, and doesn't meet WP:NOR. These same editors will actively use US government documents as reliable.  I have no problem with these editors listing US government documents as reliable, but I find it disingeous that these editors refuse to accept documents from enemies of the US.
 * That to many of these conservative editors, fringe = delete. I have no problem with a web page like Flat Earth Society, but if these editors intentions are followed to their logical conclusion, no fringe groups views will be on wikipedia, no matter how notable.  Only want one version of events on wikipedia, their own version.  It is like creationists, which I would not be surprised if many of these conservative editors are, as Isaac Asimov stated: "Creationists don't want equal time...they want all the time there is."  Don't fool yourself: The issue here is not WP:NOR or WP:V, that is a smoke screen. It is clear from these editors POV this is not the real issue, WP:NPA and WP:Civil prevent editors like myself from stating the elephant in the room: Politically motivated AfD's.
 * User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard, User:Morton devonshire/conspiracy theory, User:Morton devonshire/dubioussources should and, if I have anything to say about it, will be deleted. There is something terrible troubling that a small group of like minded editors constintently destroy well referenced articles simply because they don't meet their own POV. User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard has already been put up for deletion, and was dubiously stopped early, as soon as I determine the various wikipolicy it violates, and I have a solid case, it will go up for deletion too, along with the other two pages.
 * 2 caveats:
 * If I somehow offended someone, and they are of the opinion that I violated WP:NPA please let me know, and I will modify my comments appropriately. I am very careful not to violate WP:NPA on wikipedia since my last comments on a AfD got me booted for less than a half hour.
 * I actually agree with many of these conservative editors position, that most of these conspiracy theories are bullshit. That includes 100% of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and probably Operation Gladio.  I simply feel that they have a place on wikipedia, not on the WTC or 9/11 site, because like the  Flat Earth Society, these conspiracies are believed by a small, but IMO misguided minority.  I want to ask these editors who continually delete these well referenced articles, should the Flat Earth Society article be deleted too? What is the difference? I simply disagree with the heavy handed, vicious tactics of this small minority or editors This AfD is yet another symptom of these continued tactics.
 * I will make these editors a deal:
 * I will become the most active protector of 9/11 and WTC if these AfDs stop. That means I will go against many of the editors on these pages who have to this point been allies with me, including Seabhcan, Salvnut, RaveenS etc. Many of you have seen how effective my arguments are, i think I will be a great ally. Travb (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What do governments as sources have to do with WP:NOR? The more you attempt to summarize the more you seem like you really do not get the point. Allegations is not encyclopedic. There are NOR problems that arrise, however none currently in this allegations article, but come up because people want to assume that a source stating "US violated human rights" is equal to "US commited terrorism" because in their opinion all violations of human rights are terrorist acts ... The real problem is an article on accusations is not encyclopedic. I think I will start one if this is permitted to stay soon on "Allegations of terrorism by Taiwan" and cite China's claim that they attempted to create missles that would reach the Great Dam. Then soon after another one on "Allegations the Democractic Party of America is aiding terrorism" and source it with Republican far right commentators. --Nuclear Zer0 23:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to these articles because they violate Wikipedia policies, primarily WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:Verify, and WP:Notability. The things I describe on the pages you mention are right out of Wiki policy and from Wikipedia articles.  If you don't like the policies, then feel free to try to obtain consensus for your changes to WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:Verify and WP:Notability.  Wikipedia is designed to be neutral in its treatment of subjects -- a good example of that is the Abu Ghraib article, which, although critical of the United States, treats the subject neutrally, and is well-sourced to reputable mainstream sources.  That's the kind of article that adheres to our Wikipedia policies.  Morton devonshire 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments gentlemen, I said what I felt needed to be said. Have a good evening. Travb (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep reliable sources, factual information (about allegations, there were no trials, no independent investigations, how would you expect a strong proof here?). NPOV issues should be resolved by adding opposite views, not by deleting well sourced material. It's difficult to watch how some people cannot stand this article... it only presents different worldview that they happen to have. If you feel it's innacurate, please add reliable sources of your own. SalvNaut 01:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If we're going to talk about several "allegations / conspiracy theory" pages at once, we need to set a common standard, especially since a precedent here could affect pages like Kennedy assassination theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories. First, let's get the definitions straight:


 * Allegation: X did Y
 * Verifiable fact: The allegation that X did Y has been seriously discussed in several notable sources, such as... (list sources)


 * Wikipedia cannot make the claim, "X did Y", but it can publish verifiable facts, like the one listed above. We can simply report this fact (the fact that such allegations have been widely discussed in notable sources), or we can write an article which discusses this allegation. This is where POV comes into the picture. Any in-depth article about an allegation or conspiracy theory must cover both points of view, without slipping into OR. I'd have no problem with an article in this format:


 * 1: Verifiable fact: The allegation that X did Y has been seriously discussed in several notable sources, such as...
 * (mention a couple sources which summarize the allegation itself, but in a NPOV tone)
 * 2: Verifiable fact: In the book ("They Did Bad"), Bob discusses...
 * (summary of all the published sources which support the allegation, no extra OR)
 * 3: Verifiable fact: However, an alternate explanation was put forward by the "Real Beef Research Institute" ...
 * (summary of all the published sources which refute the allegation, no extra OR)
 * 4: List all references fully at the end.


 * Oh, btw, "Hillary Clinton acts like a bitch" will always be a matter of personal opinion and judgement. Conspiracies and allegations deal with matters of fact - "It is alleged that, on this date, this happened...". People might hold opinions about it with varying degrees of confidence, but a simple allegation of fact (X did Y) is either right or it is wrong. Quack 688 09:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting points. But I'm not quite sure how events on this page affect various conspiracy articles. In the area of the article I am concerned with, the allegations are made by the Cuban government that perpetrators of terrorists acts were employed by the CIA. The alternative explanation comes from the perpetrators, who say that yes they were employed by the CIA, and admit to the acts. Its fairly straightforward. There are no opposing points of view, and it is all recorded in declassified files anyway. Just as there is no opposing view that the CIA initiated the Bay of Pigs invasion, conducted assassination attempts on Cuban leaders, tracked down Che Guevara in Bolivia and oversaw his execution etc etc. These events aren't conspiracy theories or wild allegations.--Zleitzen 11:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (leaving space for more replies on a common standard - Quack 688 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC))


 * Zleitzen, Re: US article - I haven't looked that closely at any of the articles yet, which is why I wanted to setup some ground rules above. Still, here's a couple random thoughts about the United States article:


 * 1) The title itself is a matter of opinion - what exactly is an act of terror? Does rigging an election count? What if someone says they're freedom fighters? I really don't want do get into that debate, so I'll simply suggest that covert operations might be a more NPOV term to use. Any claims that act X was a (terrorist act / liberation) need to be made when discussing that specific act.


 * 2) I'm concerned about the "Other allegations of American terrorism" section. This section simply takes a historical event (e.g. war in Iraq), and lists a single source which puts forward the opinion that it was terrorism. First, a Saddam spokesman is hardly a neutral source. Instead of putting these quotes here, they might better be used on a "war in Iraq" page, as an example of the "pro-Saddam POV'. Secondly, if you want to find some independent evidence of the US sponsoring acts of terror in places like Iraq, be my guest. But note that "a group of soldiers comitting a criminal offence", and "an act of terrorism ordered and sponsored by the US government" are two very different things. If the only evidence that such terrorism occured is that a Saddam supporter said "what the US is doing is terrorism", this should be treated as propoganda and dismissed. Quack 688 15:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * US Army Manual definition of terrorism: "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear". &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 17:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good points.
 * 1) We have been arguing about a title for months, with several informal and formal straw polls, changing the title is like Herding cats. In addition, I argued over and over that "alleged" in the title violates WP:AWW. The unsuprising response was what "is" is. (this has been a common argument for months, what WP:V WP:NOR really mean, does source x meet WP:V WP:NOR? )...
 * 1) Several editors have attempted to define what is terrorism, using US terms for terrorism. I think it is a good idea, similar to the short definition at American Empire another controversial page.  The definition section has been deleted repeatedly (in fact, every single one of these sections has been deleted by a small core group of wikipedians, opposed to this page)
 * 2) The "Other allegations of American terrorism" section was supposed to be deleted, at least that was the result of the straw poll, along with the Operation Gladio section.
 * I noticed someone put these all back in. I will remove the sections now.
 * If you are intersted in the 5 archives, the entire soap opera is there. Travb (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. Passes every relevent policy with flying colours. Biased accusations and false accusations are definitely appropriate, see Holocaust denial for instance. WilyD 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete All: Except Syria other two governments are democratically elected, well recognized countries and there is no any allegation that was confirmed by another recognized country that un-alleged for human rights violations or any human rights courts such as European Court of Human Rights, etc; And I also like to support Kerr avon's points too.  ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   Walkie-talkie  20:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Such allegations have existed since at least the late 60s – early 70s. Calling this anti-American is nothing but misleading. --Ezeu 21:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting it would be pro-American bias. This is a free encyclopedia, not a puppet organisation. Lots of people know ans believe in these allegations, and it is sourced - • The Giant Puffin •  11:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, verifiable and sourced content, no real reason for deletion. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.