Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 No Consensus. Efforts might be made further on the merge, but there is no consensus visible in this one. Yank sox  23:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

State terrorism by United States of America
POV article (created as "flammeable article" by authors) that lists incidents sourced to sites that are hardly neutral (see Consortiumnews.com for instance). After going through this article with an NPOV comb it will leave an almost empty article. This was created imho to push a POV and make a point. Therefor, Delete Kalsermar 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Accusing the authors of this article of created as flammable article by authors is not assuming good faith. I did not create this article as flammable article. It was a process of creating individual State terrorism articles by country to better organize State terrorism. No one claimed when I created State terrorism in Syria of creating a flammable article but when it is about the US, hell breaks loose and I become a biased author. Once this is settled, I will keep creating articles on Sudan and Iran, then let's see whether the same accusations are thrown at me RaveenS
 * Careful RaveenS, Kalsermar will want an apology for you accucing him of not having good faith, but don't hold your breath for him to ever admit he was wrong: it will never happen. It is the unwritten rule on the internet: never admit you are wrong.Travb (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wonder how many of these wikipedians who are screaming delete because of POV actually attempted to work on this article before putting it up for deletion: answer: none of them. Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines state, in the very first two sentences: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." (emphasis my own). User:Kalsermar first edit to this article was putting it up for deletion.  This not only is not in Good Faith but it is also against the suggested guidelines of the steps to follow before the article should be put up for deletion. Travb (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I requested that this AfD be Speedy closed for two reasons: first, I just merged the article into American Terrorism, as per the existing merge tag, second, the users who voted delete did not follow suggested Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines. Travb (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I support this as well. The existing name should be just a redirect for the time being. Good merge. rootology (T) 15:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC) - No longer supporting merge, just Keep per my below original vote. rootology (T) 22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For your information Travb, I did consider improving it and as I stated, it would have emptied out the article, hence the nomination. This one is so bad it is off the scale and looking at it now it is only getting worse. Also, accusing me of acting in bad faith is not assuming good faith by yourself, pot calling the kettle black and all that.... I would appreciate you striking that part of your comment out with an apology as well. The only one that appears to be screaming is yourself, most of us are just discussing things rationally based on the facts. Thank you.--Kalsermar 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I struck out the section. My apologies. The fact remains that the first edit to this page you ever made was a deletion tag.  This is in direct contradiction to the Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines.  I acknowledged my mistake, can you acknowledge yours? Travb (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that and apologies accepted. I acknowledge that I have acted in good faith and took the course of action I thought was required. My only alternative would have been to take out pretty much everything that was there and then nominate it for other reasons. I'm sorry you feel I didn't follow procedure but I did. Besides, they are suggested guidelines, thus not set in stone.--Kalsermar 18:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines state, in the very first two sentences: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." (emphasis my own). Enough said. Obviously only one of us can admit they are wrong. Travb (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Articles_for_deletion suggested guidelines state, in the very first two sentences: "Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." This will be my last comment on this matter. You have obviously not read my response.--Kalsermar 17:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for acknowledging that you did not follow wikipedia suggested guidelines. I think this is as close as I will every get to admitting you were wrong.  Obviously, acknowledgement of wrongdoing only goes one way. Typical.  Travb (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Completely POV. Wildthing61476 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep take out some POV and it'll be a good article, if enough people work on it. Sparsefarce 19:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubbify, it's not like it's untrue that the US commits acts of terror overseas. CIA is a dirty tricks agency, if it didn't do anything I'd be very curiously why anyone would spend money on it. 132.205.93.19 19:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment For everyone's information, here is American terrorism (disambiguation). Tom Harrison Talk 19:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep - wasn't this just up for deletion along with State terrorism in Syria and State terrorism in Sri Lanka? It's spun out of State terrorism due to size - it wasn't created to push a POV or make a point - it's a well referenced article on an encyclopaedic subject. WilyD 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but WOW does this thing ever need work. Whether it's initial purpose was to draw in flames, and despite my own personal distaste for something this POV, honestly, if someone can make a claim, it's probably worthwhile, but this is so POV it's off the radar. - RPIRED 20:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Uhm ... am I getting a different article from everyone else? This is basically just a sourced list of allegations of State terrorism made against the US ... WilyD 20:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Make sure you read the sources. Tom Harrison Talk 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, those are singularly disreputable sources. I'm changing my vote; there's nothing to salvage here. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please also look at how the sources are used before evaluating the article. Or are anti-American organisations unreliable for everything, even their own allegations? WilyD 20:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I counted one reputable source. Look, there are plenty of things the US government sponsored at various points, it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources for quotes.  I see two problems: 1) some of the incidents mentioned would not sourced to my satisfaction if I were to convince myself that they happened at all, and 2) other incidents that surely happened are supported only weakly. The best change for this article is a complete rewrite.  Failing that, half the sections should be deleted, twice as many added, and sources should be used for everything.  If you'd like to salvage the article, why don't you do it now -- it it's done well I'll change my vote, and others may also do so.  Until then, I don't see why we're even writing back and forth; the artile's not worth it. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which one of the sources did you deem 'reputable'? Was it Dr. Ganser of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology? or is it Professor Chomsky of Massachusetts Institute of Technology? Or perhaps you count the rulings of the International Court of Justice? The findings of the Italian Parliament? Statements by the Italian Prime Minister? Resolutions of the European Parliament? I agree that Rober Fisk may be an unreliable source, after all he has won the British Press Awards' International Journalist of the Year award only seven times.
 * So, which of these is your one reputable source?Self-Described Seabhcán 08:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we are wasting our time. This is all a smoke screen for some wikipedians not liking the subject matter. Wikipedians wrap their own biases in wikipedia policy all the time. This has nothing to do with reputable sources, this has everything to do with peoples own biases.  I am truly convinced there is no hurdle high enough that wikieditors could jump to satisfy these wikipedians. Travb (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I did - are you saying I'm the only one who looked at the context? WilyD 20:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree with RPIRED that with a lot of work, this could be a useful article. It's pretty bad as is. This article is a collection of ill-sourced propaganda.  Delete it, and have someone rewrite it from the ground up. Get some legit sources this time. CRGreathouse (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep It is not as if the US government does not commit State terrorist actions around the world just like Iran, Syria and others. Second the sources are cited properly. Third this is not POV. It is a statement of fact. Armenian Genocide is POV to most Turkish historians but it is not. State terrorism is a concept that has been critically analyzed and a equilibrium of sorts achieved in Wikipedia. Based on that  definition this articles needs to be further developed not deleted. RaveenS 21:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Historians are not saying this, 5 random journalists are. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true, first Wikipedia does not say that only Historians are credible sources and second we can find number of historians who say that the United States has committed state terrorism. If that is the test to keep this article then let's find them not delete this article.RaveenS 14:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Whats not true? You read the article and seen the sources, there is no historian backing the claims. No court backing the claims either. This is simply 5 journalists views on if those events were acts of terrorism. Again just to point out no country has the United States listed as a state sponsor of terrorism or a terrorist state, not even Cuba. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ReadState Terrorism and the United States: From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism (PaperbackRaveenS
 * Comment Material that is sourced properly might be merged to American terrorism, which admitedly has its own problems. Tom Harrison Talk 21:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "No court backing the claims either." Um, please see the new entry about Nicaragua vs the United States. Travb (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Stubbify out material that doesn't meet RS, but deletion is overkill, and seems to be based on perception/views of the subject matter--which is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not to be pro-America, it's to be pro-truth, for better or worse. Clean up, stubbify if needed, and after the AfD is closed as a keep then it can be reviewed for applicable data to be merged into another article if need be. rootology (T) 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: can we limit this to one government accusing another government of terrorist activity? Gazpacho 02:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really - this article should follow the general form of State terrorism as well as State terrorism in Syria and State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Apart from which, I'm not sure we can reasonably give precedence to the opinions of governments over individuals or other groups given WP:NPOV  WilyD 03:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep But put a cleanup tag on it. Where do you think Bin Laden learned to blow things up? See: Afghan Mujahideen --Xrblsnggt 02:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge into American terrorism. This article is a POV fork and isn't extensive enough to warrant a separate article.--MONGO 06:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirct to American terrorism, an article already exists and it would be wrong to have two articles on the same subject. Please make a note of this article editors and re-evaluate your choices. Idleguy 10:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete POV by nature. The incidents can easily be placed in United States of America if they have proper citation. Konman72 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The topic is not POV, and fits a pattern of articles as mentioned by WikyD. The content can be improved - which I have been attempting. I agree with MONGO that it could be merged with American terrorism, but I think that article should be merged to this.Self-Described Seabhcán 11:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Self-Described Seabhcán's argument. --RMHED 11:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Well-sourced material could easily be merged as indicated by Idleguy above. Other material is clearly NPOV and not fit for inclusion on that basis.  Badbilltucker 13:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you give an example of what you consider "clearly POV"? Self-Described Seabhcán 13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Horribly bad POV fork. So 1 individual for each items thinks the acts qualify as state sponsoring of terrorism, or state acts of terrorism, that does not make an encyclopedic article. At least the article got cleaned up, but whats left is 5 people saying 5 different events are examples of state terrorism, are they even able to make such an claim anyway? The article would have to be renamed 5 Journalists Opinions on events they claim are State terrorism by United States of America, I say this because no court or country recognizes the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism or terrorist state, in the world that is. -- zero faults   ' '' 13:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The governments of Iran, Syria and Venezuela are constantly accusing the US of State Terrorism. See for example, Hugo Chavez said of the US in 2005, "It is difficult, very difficult, to maintain ties with a government that so shamelessly hides and protects international terrorism". Also, in 1989, Iran took the US to the International Court of Justice  for their bombing of an Iranian civilian airliner. The US settled out of court, paying $62m. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because you hold all the cards does not make that you did not steal them :-))). We have to depend on some sort of evidence when dealing the sole super power. The evidence will always be subject to question but I think we can write a credible encyclopedic article on the subject of state terrorism by the United States of America. Thanks RaveenS 14:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but even if we think Iran is full of shit, we cannot merely dismiss it as some nutjob just because we happen to be political conservatives or something. I think that's fairly clear under WP:NPOV WilyD 15:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge into American terrorism or else keep. Note that the section on Western Europe is an exact duplicate of text in the NATO article. Based on the references there appears to be some truth to it, although Italian politics has some strong leftist tendencies... so who knows? &mdash; RJH (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about merging - I think this article's title is preferable to the ambiguous and vague "American Terrorism". This article's title conforms with a standard wording used for other article's on other nation's. Anyway, the article content deals with terrorist acts carried out by the US government, rather than 'America' as a whole, which to me sounds like a racial slur. I equally would not like to see an article on "Irish Terrorism" or "Jewish Terrorism", however, well sourced NPOV content under the heading "State terrorism by the Republic of Ireland" or "State terrorism by Israel" would be acceptable.Self-Described Seabhcán 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. "American" can be interpreted to apply to the continents as well. So my revised preference would be to merge American Terrorism into State terrorism by United States of America and to keep this article. If nothing else it's a place to consolidate political viewpoints on the issue. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Close: Keep or merge Several good articles by simply changing their names simply cease to become firebrands of controversy. I find it interesting that almost every country in the world is listed here: List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_terrorism_sorted_by_state, but some people want to exclude the United States from this list. Travb (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What good article are you refering to, there is 5 journalists stating their opinion and the whole article is based around it. Its not even like they share opinions on items, they are each addressing individual items seperatly, that is barely credible enough in wikipedia standards to denounce an entire country as a terrorist state. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This article clearly meets: Verifiability. I notice that you are one of the authors who has contributed nothing to this article, in violation of suggested guidelies atArticles_for_deletion and yet you want it to be deleted. Lets admit it right now, if this article had 10 journalists, it wouldn't matter.Travb (talk) 03:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF your accusations are not only baseless but pointless. Are you telling me I have to contribute to an article in order to say its a POV topic with no possible way to source it because its basically taking the word of 5 journalists? Please keep your accusations to yourself next time. If the article actually had some content and historians calling the incidents state terrorism it would fly, instead it has journalists some in OPed pieces as its reliable sources for stating something historians have not even been ready to state. -- zero faults   ' '' 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Accusing me of acting in bad faith is not assuming good faith by yourself, pot calling the kettle black and all that.... I would appreciate you striking that part of your comment out with an apology as well. "Are you telling me I have to contribute to an article in order to say its a POV topic with no possible way to source it because its basically taking the word of 5 journalists" No, I am telling you that you have contributed nothing to this article, just as the person who instigated this deletion, despite the guidelines for deletion. You ignored that this article clearly meets: Verifiability. 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. As I mentioned above: I am truly convinced there is no hurdle high enough that wikieditors could jump to satisfy these wikipedians. Travb (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing here is state terrorism. I don't say that everything the US Government has done is right, but to call it state terrorism is an abuse of the term.--Runcorn 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read State terrorism and let us know which incidents mentioned here does not meet the criteria established thsu far.RaveenS


 * Delete unsalvagable POV with useless sources -- if someone claims that 5 journalists with an agenda is sufficient to justify a POV article, this is not an encyclopedia but a soapbox and by reading the journalism purveyed at checkout counters we'll get encyclopedic articles such as Hillary Clinton's ET baby, Pope John Paul's appearance at the 2006 Superbowl, Babies with multiple heads, legs, arms, etc., Elvis' ghost's predictions for the coming year. Carlossuarez46 21:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Define useful sources please, since when did Journalists become useless sources? Is wikipedia now only accepting academic sources. I though that died with Nupedia or are we setting our own rules. Cite WK rules please 216.95.23.178
 * Ha, ha. I know the type, there is another wikipedian who constantly argues that sources are questionable but yet quotes Commentary Magazine, David Horowitz and Front Page Magazine. Often AfD's are another way for people to push their own POV. I find the people who yell "POV" the loudest are always the biggest POV warriors. Again, User:Carlossuarez46 has contributed nothing to this article, just as all of the other people who voted for delete. Travb (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought, maybe there is nothing to contribute to an article on this subject, just like Finnish colonization of Timbuktu would have nothing useful in it.--Kalsermar 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought, maybe there is nothing that some of you can contribute to this subject because either you don't know about it or biased againt it.RaveenS 19:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - inherently non-neutral article that seems to exist primarily as a soapbox for commondreams.org; POV fork of American terrorism; See Words to avoid; And by the way, it's not a vote: Tom Harrison Talk 12:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * First when this article was created as stub, you wanted it redirected to American terrorism then you went along with the merge request now you want it deleted. Compared to when we started, this is now a better article. RaveenS
 * Tom, that's nonsense. Of the 13 references in this article, 2 are to commondreams.org, and both of these are mearly hosted archives of articles published elsewhere: in the New York Times and The Independent.Self-Described Seabhcán 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A good article about "American terrorism" could be written and maintained. This is not that article; I no longer think merging it into American terrorism will improve the other. I don't think the anecdotes from the sources cited can be combined to mean anything at all, so you'll excuse me if I don't argue that they should not be combined in one place instead of not combined in another. Unless things change a lot, it looks like there is no consensus to delete. I look forward to seeing if this becomes in a few months a companion piece to Operation Gladio. Tom Harrison Talk 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or the otherway around, Operation Gladio should become a companion to this. Thanks RaveenS


 * Keep If "Criticism of (Religion) xxx" is kept and can be written in an NPOV encyclopedic style, this article can be too. GizzaChat  &#169; 13:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per above. MaNeMeBasat 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete POV soapbox. HGB 17:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? I think its well referenced, accurate and NPOV.Self-Described Seabhcán 17:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: please review again. A lot more references to valid sources now exist than when this was nominated. Closing admin: please review based on merits of article under Wikipedia policy, rather than on the nature of the subject matter. rootology (T) 18:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Uncle Sam wants YOU to DELETE! -- Миборо в ский 18:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please provide an argument as to why this is a delete because this is not a simple voting process. Thanks RaveenS 18:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as part of the State Terrorism in_ series. The ruling on Nicuragua, at least, seems like a legitimate source. 65.115.38.32 18:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That was me. Icewolf34 18:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per precedent of other "state terrorism by" articles(dictating not being inherently POV) i kan reed 19:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This entry on the article's talk page by one of the authors is very telling: This is exatly why we created this article so that POV fighters can fight it out in their turf than to muddy and destroy a very vlaubale article on State terrorism User:RaveenS. I've copied it here including bad spelling. Who said npov, reliable and well researched again? Kalsermar 21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This AFD is not on my intent, it is on the subject matter. I did not hide why I created this article like others, if you are going quote me them quote me fully. This is what I said in the reason for creating this article Per discussion on the State terrorism I have been peeling off by country each so called incident to make it easy for us to edit the main page. So far I have created State terrorism in Syria and Sri Lanka, looks like the consensus on both will be to keep them, hence this explosive article which is nothing but a copy of what was already there in List of State terrorism by country. My eventual aim I to have an article by every country in the world and categories under state terrorism to categorize all different incidents, ...... God help me. RaveenS 13:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)I fully expected the POV wars and all the mud slinging and also some of you calling the FBI hot line to report me as a potential terrorist subject, but that does not make State terrorism or State terrorism by United States of America or States Terrorism by Syria any more POV. Simply the arguments hide the real biases. Also the original article that I cretaed and the current one are night and day, it has improved hell of lot due to many editors. Surely I will notify some of you when I create the State terrorism by Iran next and hopefully we can carry on this discussion on that AFD page or perhaps may be notRaveenS
 * Well, keeping this will no doubt be a good precedent to keep all the others. Tom Harrison Talk 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or the fact the others were already kept on their own AfDs is a good precedent to keep this one. rootology (T) 22:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Creating the Syrian article first was because it is a given, then Sri Lanka because I knew it well and now the US because it is the mother of all articles on this subject matter. If we as a community we can write WP:NPOV article on US state terrorism, that will stand this AFD test then my mission to create others becomes that much easier, if not it will be a tough road ahead. Either way I am on it. Anyway the AFD has made this article that much better compared to what it was earlier. AFD's do improves WP content because of the raw emotions they bring out and it's an out come not forseen by those who nominate them :)RaveenS
 * Comment While it looks like some of the info may be good, or at least salvagable for other pages, the article title is inherantly POV, and so it should at least be moved. (I would say the same about these other "State terrorism by _" articles someone above says exists) -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 23:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment what is POV about the title? that is the topic of the article, whether it's alleged or not. all articles are alleged; some are just better sourced. even if the article just said "nope, never happened", 'state terrorism by X' is the topic. an article about ESP is not called alleged ESP, whether or not you think it exists, because that is the topic of the article. --dan 05:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment What is POV about this or any article about State terrorism by country XXX ?. State terrorism by Syria is a matter of fact that has been investigated and reported by the UN. If that is POV then Armenian Genocide is POV. RaveenS 11:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment 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. rootology (T) 22:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, despite my initial reaction, per precedents with other articles. We might be interested in moving all of these to "alleged state terrorism in Fooland," or something to such effect, but that seems to be another discussion. Should remove unsourced material very aggressively, as the article will probably be a magnet for OR. Luna Santin 23:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV fork -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 02:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep a good chunk of the sources are definitely suspicious, to say the least, but overall it's a good article that could use some more work. it's much less POV than American terrorism. --dan 05:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A few commentors has said that the sources ar 'suspicious'. MONGO said they were 'radical'. Please, will SOMEONE give an example of ANY source in this article that is in any way unacceptable! It's impossible to improve this article based on vague grumbling. Self-Described Seabhcán 11:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you please just read WP:RS -- you always have this same question. BTW, you have to justify that these are reliable sources, not the other way around -- that's Wikipedia policy.  Morton devonshire 01:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Way to twist Seabhcan's words Morty, and avoid the question. No where in the WP:RS does it say that it is up to the editors to justify their reliable sources. Maybe this rule is on the yet to be created WP:Morton devonshire page, but it doesnt exist at WP:RS. Morty is refusing to bring up any concrete examples of suspicious sources, and instead he deletes large portions of the article itself, calling them "disreputable sources", here are the "disreputable sources" which Morty deleted: New York Times, The Independent and The Guardian, among others. As I mentioned above, "I am truly convinced there is no hurdle high enough that wikieditors could jump to satisfy these wikipedians."  Travb (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the diff you provide, I do see a link to The Guardian; and I see several references to The Times and The Independent, but the links seem to go to:
 * commondreams.org, counterpunch.org, cambridgeclarion.org, ethlife.ethz.ch, stragi.it, themoscowtimes.com, onlinejournal.com, indymedia.org, babaklayeghi.blogspot.com, poptel.org.uk, chomsky.info, fff.org, Tom Harrison Talk 03:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to the NYT article, which was copied word for word from the NYT. (I will correct the link to say NYT), also the Independent link is here, it was on Frisk's page, also word for word from the Independent, but I changed the link.Travb (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, The Independent and the New York Times are subscription sites. That is why I linked instead to free access archives of these articles hosted on commondreams.org, et al. If we link direct to the pay site, I think we should also provide the free links, so people can read these articles for themselves.Self-Described Seabhcán 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is just one more lame excuse, the same lame excuse that is always recycled to mask a person's POV. Travb (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - obvious POV fork. Will always be a hotbed for POV-pushers/America-haters, and can't possibly be neutral as a result.  Morton devonshire 01:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a weak argument, using your argument because an article deals with a difficult subject matter such as one pointed out Armenian Genocide then it should be deleted because people will always object to it. Untill the state of Turkey accepts that the Armenian Genocide happened there will be millions of people objecting to it on Wikipedia so we should simply delete the article untill such time may be in 1000 years that Turkey will acept that 11 centuries ago there was a Genocide of Armenian people organized by the then government of Turkey. Are you saying that all such articles should be deleted? Any reasonable person would say no to such an argument then why would you say just because this article will be attracting future American haters this should be deleted. Should article on Zionism be deleted because anti-semitics will always object to it ? I dont think so 216.95.23.157
 * In regards to "America-haters", name calling is unnecessary and counter productive. Your sentence illustrates that the people who scream POV the most are usually the biggest POV warriors.  Don't hide behind the weak facade of "neutrality" for your vote to delete when using such emotionally charged terms as "America-haters" shows your own biases and prejudices. Travb (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Morton, Do you have a problem with the articles on State Terrorism by other nations? Also, "america hating" has nothing to do with Wikipedia. rootology (T) 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We do not vote here, and try not attack people giving their opinions, one can say you are an America-hater for taking offense. It does not say POV-pushers are America-haters either, they are two groups being talked about. Unless you are assuming there is no such thing as an America hater. Since noone is being targetting in his comment I do not see why you or anyone here would take offense, its almost like taking offense if I say there are racists that participate in the KKK article ... That doesnt mean that all contributors are racists. -- zero faults   ' '' 03:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * one can say you are an America-hater for taking offense Would one of those people be yourself zero? nice way to call me an "America-hater" in a real subtle way. I am simply advocating that there should be no name calling. Do you support the idea that we should not be calling names here?  I have refrained from calling my ideological opposed foes names, and I would appreciate the same respect.Travb (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If you are going to act all paranoid then I have no way to talk to you civililly, please refrain from adressing me. -- zero faults   ' '' 06:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for ignoring all of my points, and thank you for reemphasing my main point, by first labeling me an American hater, and then accusing my of incivility and calling me paranoid. I am going to paint you into a corner now.  This is a game I play with people who ignore repeated questions which are inconvent.  Every single time you respond to one of my messages, I am going to ask you these two simple questions and repeat one statment, which you have ignored and attempted to obsificate (confuse) away: (1) How many historians do you want me to find before this article meets your definiton of WP:RS? (2) How many journalists do you want me to find before this article meets your definiton of WP:RS?? (3) Further, Accusing me of acting in bad faith is not assuming good faith by yourself, pot calling the kettle black and all that.... I would appreciate you striking that part of your comment out with an apology as well.Travb (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is an entirely appropriate article that covers, and will more than likely expand its cover of historical events. It appears that some will accept no evidence of terrorist acts carried out by, or under the encouragement of the government of the United States of America. American Terrorism should be merged into this one; as argued already it has a misleading and non-standard title, but does have information relevant to this article (eg Wounded Knee). - blacksand 10:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment From Bookmasters.com Edward Herman, Professor Emeritus Whalen School of the University of Pennsylvania:In his State Terrorism and the United States, Frederick Gareau shows that, contrary to the war on terror imagery of a United States hostile to terrorism and dedicated to its elimination and to democracy-building, this country has regularly supported state terrorists (and dictators) who serve U.S. economic and political interests. Using as his evidentiary base the truth commission reports that have followed the ouster of terror regimes in El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina and South Africa, along with a varied array of sources for Indonesia, Israel, Iraq (until August 1990), and Nicaragua, he makes his case for vital U.S. support for these regimes compellingly and soberly. Gareau stresses throughout how little the U.S. public is permitted to hear about what its government has done, which provides a cover for actions the public might well disapprove, and he ends with an appeal for a much needed truth commission for the United States itself. This book is a valuable addition to the literature on terrorism.Frederick Gareau himself is full tenured professor at Florida State University and holds a PhD from Amrican University. 216.95.23.6 13:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Don't see POV but a collection of relevant information on an important topic; articles of the same nature are deemed justified for other nations. Doubtful cases and conspiracy theory-related stuff were left out. Lots of sources cited. Krankman 14:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: let's not doctor other people's edits, ok? We don't need this to become a DRV fight if it's deleted--Kalsermar, your comment on voting can go on the bottom like everyone else's. rootology (T) 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's not doctor the nomination by placing things, highly unusual things I might add, out of context at the top of this page. Let's put it here then. Also, this was I believe an anonymous edit, not a comment at all and something that is not usually placed on AfD's, certainly not at the top of the nominator's text. Kalsermar 21:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment removed this block of text from the top of the page to where it should have gone.: (Keep: 19, Delete: 12, Merge to American Terrorism: 2 Merge from American Terrorism: 1) 14:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalsermar (talk • contribs)


 * Keep as part of the "State Terrorism in" series. Good sources. --Credema 07:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kungfuadam abakharev 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Stong DELETE Stupid and POV. A waste of server space. Give Peace A Chance 15:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You should really try to explain your reasoning (and be civil while your at it, ) Self-Described Seabhcán 15:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No one is going to say that "this article is offensive to my American civil religion and ideology, and that is the reason I want this article deleted". Instead, POV warriors commonly drape their biases in wikipedia policy, using wikipedia as a weapon to push their own POV.  The really smart and talented wikipedians, regardless of their own POV, "POV diplomats", can actually research and support their POV using reliable sources.  Thus far I have seen a lot of POV warriors, but I have yet to see one conservative POV diplomat.  It is clear that User:Give Peace A Chance is a conservative, one of the many conservatives who has contributed nothing to the article in question.Travb (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just a note to all, please review article as it exists today--the sources listed I believe are somewhat different than when this AfD was filed. At best I can personally see just copyediting and structure/form issues of the article now, but it does meet all WP policies (upon which the AfD should be based). Please review the article again and if needed review your keep or delete comments based on Wikipedia policy, rather than personal belief. Thanks! rootology (T) 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. For reference, this is what the article looked like when nominated for deletion (Old Version)Self-Described Seabhcán 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Diff link between AfD'd version and the current live version, for those keeping track/score. rootology (T) 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete, POV fork. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, or Keep on the condition of a NPOV rewrite, including new title. You might as well write an article called "What's really wrong with the Catholic Church".  However, I oppose deletionism at all times because it disgusts me, I lost one of my favorite articles to it :-)  If re-writing is feasible, it's always better than deletion.  Karwynn (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you see wrong with the article as it stands? Where is the POV? What needs to be rewritten? Can you suggest a better title? Self-Described Seabhcán 17:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Karwynn, Amen to that. I agree.  I have lost several article to POV warriors.  I made a list in my archive.  I also agree this article should be renamed, to a less POV term, and a less AfD prone title. This is something I will address after this AfD is behind us. User:Seabhcan, this article does have POV, and it needs to be edited by competent conservatives to give it balance.  The Gladio section is suspect, and may not even belong in the article, so is my Naom Chomsky quote. (I thought it was an excellent point, and I did not want to be accused of WP:NOR so I was forced to add the lightning of controvery, Naom Chomsky, who I attempt to not quote directly or at all, if at all possible.)  We need competent conservative editors, who know how to research and counter the claims on this page, not POV warriors.Travb (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying its perfect, but it drives me crazy when voters cite 'POV' without explaining what they are refering to. As for the Gladio section, I believe it is the clearest and best documented example in the article. Counter examples are certainly needed, and infact, the Gladio example is probably the best place because although it certainly did exist, there is a case to be made that it was necessary at the time to defend against the greater evil of a soviet invasion.Self-Described Seabhcán 22:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the delay. I would say an "accusations of" or "allegations of" in the title would do a lot of good, as in Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials.  Additionally, there is little or no refutations of several of these claims.  It doesn't represent all sides.  But these are problems that should be worked out, not used as an excuse to delete.  I say merge because the two articles seem almost identical.  Karwynn (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You make good points. Yes, such a name change would be fine by me, if we also rename the other articles on syria, etc. I also agree that the opposing view. I'll try and find sources for them. I think the merge is fine, but I think this article title, or a variation, is better than the vague and slightly insulting "American terrorism". Self-Described Seabhcán 22:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, about the refutations part. Re: Allegations of war crimes against U.S. officials First I do not like the word "allegations" because it is a WP:Weasel Word, and I have actively attempted to delete this personally despised word from wikipedia, along with "claims" etc.  "Claims" and "alleged" is a common word of POV warriors, in an attempt to lessen the statments of those who disagree with their own POV. Second we are not discussing war crimes per say, but terrorism, as the dictionary and the US government define it.  I simply don't know what word we can replace with "terrorism".  I think an alternative to a name change may be a long introduction like American empire.  But the word "terrorism" is so politically charged, like the word "imperialism" the word "(terrorism) is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against." Is there a less emotional term we can use for terrorism? Travb (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Simultaneous comment - Everyone please remember to assume good faith. Not everyone is as perfect as you ;-) and sometimes mistakes can appear more sinister than they are.  Karwynn (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged, sorry Karwynn. I just get really frustrated.  I can be a really effective POV diplomat, but after 5 days of the same, my patience wears thin, and I start to fall back to POV warrior. Travb (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Blatant POV. Gamaliel 17:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? Please explain? Self-Described Seabhcán 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, is that your stance on the other State terrorism by_ articles? Icewolf34 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep Didn't know there was a whole series on state terrorism, so keep it but keep it npov. --Peephole 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. CJK 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this and State_terrorism_in_Syria and State terrorism in Syria --Peephole 18:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Note:Some editors have been advertising this AfD to users they know will vote for deletion. (And there has been a bit on the other side too ) This is more than a little unfair. I would remind people that this is not a vote, and you must argue the case for keep or deletion.Self-Described Seabhcán 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note -- Dude, look at the diffs you provided -- I asked Peeps to help with the ARTICLE, I didn't mention this Afd. Please stop misrepresenting facts.  Morton devonshire 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Counternote but you also suggest that the article has problems, which makes visitors more likely to be influenced in the AfD. LinaMishima 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Extra note User has been blocked/warned before against this,and has done it actually on more than one user here, here, and here. rootology (T) 19:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Counter-Counter-Punch : ) -- yes, the article has serious reliable sources problems, and every effort to delete those unreliable sources is met with resistance to Wikipedia policy. Calling that out is not a violation of Wikipedia rules.  Trying to intimidate me will not make me stop editing this article.  Morton devonshire 19:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No imtimidation, just putting everything out in the open on all sides. You know I'm almost Pavlovian with this transparency/NPOV stuff. rootology (T) 19:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In regards to asking others to vote, this is a common tactic, in fact, this is how I found out about this page, by a vote posting on another user's page by User:RaveenS no less.  So it looks like we are all guilty of this, including me.  I did this three times, as one user stated above.  Albiet we liberals and leftist are obviously not as well organized as the "Conservative POV warrior circuit".  To my knowledge, not a single person that I asked to vote on this page, actually voted :( And several of the conservative POV warriors have voted to delete, as I mentioned above. I would actually encourage my leftist brothern to ask their friends to vote.  I was once warned on my page not to "spam" others, but this was a guy who was a real prick and had it out for me anyway, and obviously ignored in my case how prevelent this behavior is.  To my knowledge this is not against wikipolicy.  Unlike  some users above, I  don't hide my actions in lame excuses or by using wikipedia policy as a weapon to push my own POV. Travb (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? I posted nothing there. rootology (T) 23:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn I hate when I do that, I meant User:RaveenS Sorry rootology. Here is the edit. My mistake.Travb (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Out of the 34 references I could only count 7 that from the description alone I would wish to investigate. It has many excellent sources, such as internationally renouned newspapers and journalistic groups, international court of justice press releases, books and official documents. I really cannot understand how people are claiming it is misreferenced. As for the POV, allmost all the article is paraphased quotes from the sources, without any true NPOV breaks. Might I remind everyone of the systematic biases and the effects this would obviously have on this AfD? LinaMishima 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep needs more NPOV but it is clearly a worthy article. --Faggotstein 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, deleting this article would make wikipedia ever less credible, SqueakBox 21:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Carfiend 22:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see no strong reason given to delete. Cries of "POV" are unexplained, and seem to conflict with the existence of other articles on this topic (State terrorism by Syria, etc.).  POV issues are dealt with in article, not by deletion.--csloat 23:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Posted at: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents to close. Lets move on and start building this article, please? Travb (talk) 23:45, 14 August 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.