Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States and state-sponsored terrorism


 * 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. Ged UK  13:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

United States and state-sponsored terrorism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:REDUNDANT and WP:POVFORK already fully  covered in United States and state terrorism and also in even minor points are covered inCovert United States foreign regime change actions Praguegirl (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree it's just a POV content fork from United States and state terrorism. If there's anything useful then I guess a merge would be okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a POV fork? Could you please elaborate a little more? Rupert loup (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The pages are distinct. United States and State terrorism refers to US involvement with so-called state-terrorism; the use of torture, murder, and so forth by national governments. The page being nominated here is about US support to paramilitary groups that have committed terrorist activities, as labelled by reliable sources. There are plenty of RS covering this topic; take these, for example; Also, please note that the nominator is an SPA with exactly four edits, who for reasons best known to themselves changed the urls in the article such that they stopped working. I think this is ready for a speedy close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - I see how these are separate and distinct. I would be against merging because this would cause confusion, and there is sufficient content for both articles to stand alone. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - State terrorism and Terrorism are two different subjects. Like said above the article has enough content and I don't see that is written in a POV manner or has POV sources so I opposed to the deletion. Rupert loup (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. This is POV fork of United States and state terrorism. I do not know, maybe the latter article should be deleted (and this one kept) or they should be merged, however having them both is definitely too much. Speaking on the essence of this, yes, the US have supported a number of rebel groups (including right now), some of which can be arguably called "terrorist groups", however I do not see them on this page. For example, the operations in the Latin America were very much support of ordinary rebels and other political forces, which were not described as "terrorist groups" by majority of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that the U.S. has supported terrorists. This quote is on United States and State terrorism article but should also be on state-sponsored terrorism: William Odom, President Reagan's National Security Agency Director: "As many critics have pointed out, terrorism is not an enemy. It is a tactic. Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world."  —Мандичка YO 😜 18:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The very CIA admitted that they supported terrorists and made violations of human rights and there are declassified documents that prove this. It cannot be a POV fork because it hasn't other point of view of the same subject, they have totally different subjects. As I said before terrorism and state terrorism are not the same thing, nor the international community nor wikipedia consider that are the same, that's why they are separate in two differents articles. Rupert loup (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and because the terms are nearly identical, people not familiar with them may find them confusing if they are merged. But those are the terms they use so we're stuck with them. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that the people arguing for deletion have not read the source material. There are sources aplenty that talk about US support for terrorists; very few, if any, discuss state terror. The sources discussing state terrorism are Chomsky, Herman, and so forth; very different bunch. The article does not cover any old rebel group, but groups/individuals whose actions have been called terrorism. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You people probably misunderstood what I am saying. Yes, I think that "USA and state terrorism" is a legitimate subject. Yes, I think there are multiple RS about this. However, we should not have two pages on essentially the same subject. This is WP:POV fork - I agree with nominator. Hence my "delete" or "merge". And I must admit that I am generally an WP:Inclusionist - just voted to keep another page, but it was deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no misunderstanding. The source material makes it clear that the subjects are different; the sources used in the article nominated here make no mention of state terrorism, and refer to an entirely different set of events than the other article. The sources themselves are different. If you had read them, you would know this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * could you please take this serious and read the articles, the sources and what we are saying. Many people contributed with the article and I think that is a total disrespect to us that you're commenting about the deletion of an article without even care about what is the subject or what the other people said about it. We already prove that is not the same subject and citing a policy is not merit for deletion WP:JUSTAPOLICY. If you are not hiding a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position you should explain why the two articles are about the same subject and how is a POV fork, because just agreeging with the nominator is not a good reason WP:PERNOM. Rupert loup (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good faith discussion does not mean disrespect to anyone. Quite the opposite. However, this is not about respect or disrespect, but about improving encyclopedia. We have a lot of POV and promotional content that should be deleted. Yes, I realize that in many subject areas a majority of contributors have significant POV. This is one of the reasons WP will never be a reliable information resource.My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we bring it back to earth a little here? My very best wishes, you have not explained how these topics are the same when the sources are different, and they describe different events. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is very simple. Let's look at page United States and state terrorism. It tells (from quoted sources) that "the US organized a neo-colonial system of client states, co-operating with local elites to rule through terror" and below that USA "backed state terrorism in client states". This is precisely what "state-sponsored" terrorism means ("provided support to terrorist and paramilitary organizations across the world" in this page). Hence the both pages are essentially on the same subject. Please "merge" or "delete" one of them. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes little sense. "a neo-colonial system of client states, cooperating with local elites to rule through terror" is very different from state-sponsored terror, all of which occurred in countries that the US was very unfriendly towards! The article nominated here looks at incidents in Castro's Cuba, Sandinista Nicaragua, and Allende's Chile; none of which were client states, and two of which were strongly opposed to the US. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not an expert, but merely a reader. And for me (as a reader) the both pages look exactly the same. Now, what am I actually thinking? I think that both pages are just a bunch of nonsense propaganda by Chomsky and others and should be merged to Anti-Americanism. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you wrote that, because it is a clear statement of where you're coming from, even if it has no policy basis whatsoever, and is a case of just not liking it. If you persist in saying that a topic covered by numerous well-known historians is just propaganda, there is nothing more to be said here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Propaganda theories can be a notable subject. That's why we have pages like Anti-Americanism or Blood Libel. However, they must be properly presented as propaganda subjects. In particular, statements like the US organized a neo-colonial system of client states, co-operating with local elites to rule through terror should not appear as the truth. Once again, my argument for deletion/merging here is mostly WP:POV fork (please see above). My very best wishes (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That sentence is not from this article but another, and therefore is not a valid deletion rationale for this article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable subject and clearly distinct from the similarly-named articles. Dimadick (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

In 1976, Cubana flight 455 was blown up in mid-air, killing all 78 people on board. Carriles was arrested for masterminding the operation, and later acquitted. It is only suggested by a declassified CIA source he was involved and that the CIA had prior knowledge and this is disputed by other sources. Praguegirl (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC) '''IT IS CLEAR WP:POVFORK prior knowledge about a COUP is being called state terrorism and support to rebels which are politically resolved is also being called terrorism.[Contras]] were never banned internationally or neither are any Cuban exile group. Praguegirl (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is also Original research Chilean coup irrespective of the magnitude of the USA's role comes under Covert United States foreign regime change actions and not under Terrorism.Supporting a coup or regime change is not terrorism per WP:TERRORIST
 * Contras are called rebels in almost all sources including BBC,[CNN]] and not terrorists they  were accused of  Human rights violations as where Sandinistas when they fought from 1979 to 1989 and it is covered under CIA activities in Nicaragua further they the Contras were disbanded under a Central American plan and later Violeta Chamorro won the elections in 1990 and this issue was resolved.This was US support to a  rebellion not TerrorismContras were not a terrorist movement.
 * Cuban exiles were not terrorists .Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles had been CIA backing but none of the sources confirm that all there actions were done under orders from CIA.
 * Vanamonde93b have ever really read WP:TERRORIST ? Praguegirl (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I can't speak for, but I have read WP:TERRORIST (have you?) and there is nothing that says "Supporting a coup or regime change is not terrorism" as you flatly claimed above was "per WP:TERRORIST." It's most certainly possible to support a coup or regime change via terrorism. If you look at my example below, Iraq supported the People's Mujahedin of Iran (dubbed a terrorist group) and the goal of this group is exactly that - overthrowing the Iranian government. And what about Pakistan's support of the Taliban's rise to power (not via democracy) in Afghanistan? I really don't know what you're talking about.  —Мандичка YO 😜 13:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , IMO some of the info on the other article should be moved to this article, and that's causing some of the confusion. The U.S. never had true colonies; therefore, terrorism the U.S. sponsored in these places would be state-sponsored terrorism and should go in that article. Obviously, whether or not something meets the definition of terrorism is usually subjective. (Does Cuba sponsor terrorism? Is the KKK a terrorist group? Is Hamas? What about PETA? Was dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in WWII an act of terrorism or war? Let's not even go into those discussions.) Back to this AfD. State terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism are simply not the same act, even if the result is the same and there is crossover, just like killing someone yourself and hiring someone to kill that person on your behalf are different acts (and thus are different articles). Here is a specific example, using Iraq:
 * State terrorism: using chemical weapons to kill hundreds of thousands in Kurdistan in the 1980s
 * State-sponsored terrorism: supporting the PKK in Turkey, a separatist organisation/terrorist group at war with the Turkish government; supporting People's Mujahedin of Iran (also dubbed a terrorist group by the US and others), an organization setup to overthrow the government and responsible for multiple assassinations of Iranian leaders and deaths of civilians
 * That is how I see it. Not every country is going to have both of these articles, and conceivably there could be crossover, but ideally care should be made to make sure the same info is not on both articles because of the likelihood of confusion. —Мандичка YO 😜 12:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I updated the article, you should give it a second check. The groups and individuals are designated as terrorist and carried out acts of terrorism and all are related to the United States. This is stated in the article and in his sources. Rupert loup (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. It seems more and more likely that Praguegirl is a sock/meatpuppet, given that they are quoting obscure guidelines, but have not made a single edit to Wikipedia aside from nominating this article for deletion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject AS PER [WP:TERRORIST]]. PLEASE Contras are not terrorist and should be called REBELS and Chilean coup leaders are NOT TERRORIST .Saying United States and state-sponsored terrorism MEANS ALL OF THEM ARE TERRORISTS WHICH IS WRONG AND VIOLATES wp:npov.Praguegirl (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC) '''United States support to non-state terrorists (needs to be changed to REBELS]] has been prominent in Latin America, the Middle-East, and Southern Africa.Praguegirl (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems significantly different and well-sourced now. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, topic is notable enough, sources are easy to find. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  18:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but continue to clarify the distinction between the topics as per valid concerns above. Guy (Help!) 10:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete The name itself is a clear case of extreme POV pushing and should lead to the deletion of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * John Pack Lambert, can you explain why the title is POV pushing if numerous reliable sources use the term? Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2015 (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.