Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States and state terrorism (10th nomination)


 * 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. The article needs substantial cleanup, however AfD is not a cleanup process (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant    talk    16:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

United States and state terrorism
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Here's what I said eleven months ago:


 * This article has been problematic for over five years. It violates WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV persistently because it is a WP:COATRACK.  The solution is to delete this fork, and place any relevant content in the appropriate articles, such as those related to the incidents mentioned, or to United States history articles, or the histories of the named conflicts or covert actions.  We should not be scraping up bits and pieces of different things to create unbalanced, unacademic, unencyclopedic articles as has been done here.  Five years is long enough.  Repeated nominations have resulted in the same old refrain that it can be fixed.  We shouldn't accept that argument any longer.  The article hasn't been fixed after so much time because it can't be fixed.

Since then the article has not gotten better; it has gotten worse. Recently added maintenance tags include:


 * The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (September 2010)
 * This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject. (August 2010)
 * This article or section may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. See the talk page for details. (October 2010)

The reason this article hasn't been improving is that the topic is improper. Lots of different things hung together on a WP:COATRACK to create original synthesis do not make a Wikipedia article. The content here should be removed to the relevant articles, and this page deleted. Jehochman Talk 18:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Links from the 9th nomination of related AFDs that I thought may be helpful Monty845 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/American terrorism
 * Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America
 * Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
 * Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/State terrorism by United States of America (fifth nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States
 * Articles for deletion/Allegations of state terrorism by the United States


 * Speedy delete It's all that Jehochman has written and additionally it's an WP:ATTACK page. This is the worst article in the encyclopedia, It's existence is a continual embarrassment to the wiki project.  It's an biased, POV pushing, chock full of synthesis and it hasn't been fixed because it can't be fixed. V7-sport (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy really isn't appropriate, the only plausible speedy criteria would G10, but it seems like a stretch to apply that to an 'attack' against a nation. Furthermore there was an extensive debate in the last previous AFD s that resulted in a keep, while that is not dispositive to the outcome here, it should at least justify allowing a full discussion to take place. Monty 845 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Per G1, "partisan screeds", which is exactly what this article is. Very well, this article is an attack page though, as well as a coatrack for fringe opinion. V7-sport (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G1 is Patent nonsense, my reading of it suggests that if you can comprehend the text it passes G1. Monty 845 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable and there are valid sources. Unfortunately, few editors have attempted to correct the POV issues.  TFD (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Per nominator. Pure coatrack. Tentontunic (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If an article can't be deleted after 9 tries, continuing is not appropriate. I notice some of the previous AfDs were closed as speedy keep, on the basis of not being good faith nominations.  A summary article is highly appropriate for such a major topic. as well as the detailed articles.  The way to deal with POV is to add material, not delete the article. The addition of tags only shows a continuing dispute, not a hopeless situation. If it requires a RfC on the content, that's the route to go. here are abundant sources from all possible POVs on the subject to permit a balanced discussion.  There is no subject whatsoever that cannot be discussed with NPOV, and any attempt to claim otherwise is intrinsically a violation of NOT CENSORED.  I do not believe the current nominator capable of anything but a good faith nomination, presumably from an understandable  frustration at seeing the continuing  disputation,  but I can not say the same about some of the early responses.     DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Extremely notable topic with a very wide range of secondary, scholarly and disinterested sources. Not a polemic but simply a controversial topic. TYelliot  &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  20:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename to State terrorism and the United States, in accordance with the established pattern of Torture and the United States, War crimes and the United States, Human rights in the United States etc., and then keep. I understand why this article is unpopular with pro-US editors, and a little too popular with less pro-US ones. It's never going to be uncontroversial material, but as DGG says we aren't censored and there are clearly decent sources.— S Marshall T/C 20:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with the sentiment of the nomination, by Jehochman, but at this point, the article is well-established enough on its own to stay, so I am leaning keep. I agree to rename to State terrorism and the United States. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It is very America-centric for other countries to have these types of articles and somehow the USA doesn't. All countries do bad things in the name of realpolitiks. The articles meet every criteria in WP:GNG. I am sure the nominator is very patriotic, but we are building an encyclopedia, not a school book for Texas grammar schools. We also need to develop consistent naming within Category:Terrorism committed by country --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "It is very America-centric for other countries to have these types of articles and somehow the USA doesn'"
 * There is no other first world country with a page like this.AerobicFox (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's it! Apparently it's built into the definition of state terrorism that first-world countries can't commit it, whatever they do? Actually, no it isn't, unless the definition has been fine-tuned by a major first-world government, of course. State terrorism and France doesn't exist, but of course it should. "Among the Northern liberal democracies, the historical record shows that it is the great powers with colonial legacies, for example Britain and France, and more recently the US, that have been directly responsible for the regular use of state terrorism. Moreover, in some senses the US [...] is a unique type of actor that differs not just from small and middle-power liberal democracies but also from the other powerful liberal democratic states. Its military reach is unmatched, as is its power in the global capitalist system, and, as this study will show, so is its use of state terrorism in the South, although this is frequently with the support and involvement of other liberal democratic states." (From the introduction of the 2009 Routledge book "State Terrorism and Neoliberalism: The North in the South".)
 * That last book covers Algeria as a prominent example of French state terrorism. Due to its special focus it appears to not even mention the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior – a covert terrorist action by France which was publicly condemned as terrorism by France before the New Zealand police caught two of the perpetrators, who turned out to be members of the French military on a special mission. This is certainly enough material for a similar article on France. If it bothers you that the US is being singled out, I suggest that you write this article. Hans Adler 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps just stick "terrorism" in quotation marks throughout the article.
 * What definition exactly are they even using in this article? Typically terrorism means "Trying to inspire terror" and not "covert regime changes". Perhaps this should just be renamed to "Unjust acts of violence by the U.S.", or converted into a list article.AerobicFox (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Very notable topic, although for obvious reasons it's less notable in the US than elsewhere. (US citizens tend to have a kind of unhealthy patriotism that makes it hard for them to even see the atrocities that happen in their name, and the media's self-censorship on such issues does not help, either.) I have not examined the article to see if it's currently written in a neutral way. But I have no doubt that even if it were totally neutral there would be neutrality disputes there, due to the nature of the topic. That's not a valid reason for deletion, it's a reason for improvement (if necessary). I do believe that we need such an overview article. It's also not original synthesis:
 * While the book State terrorism and the United States: from counterinsurgency to the war on terrorism has a somewhat fringey American publisher (the British co-publisher looks more reasonable to me), War and state terrorism: the United States, Japan, and the Asia-Pacific in the Long Twentieth Century is published by Rowman & Littlefield, which appears to be perfectly respectable.
 * Speedy because there have been so many AfDs and there is no (valid) new reason for this one. Hans Adler 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete: all pure WP:SYN. Almost none of these sources discuss U.S. State terrorism, but a single unpopular act, or a series of unpopulat act, that have been strung together to make an orginal concept of U.S. terrorism. As noted above, Category:Terrorism committed by country contains Iran, Pakistan, Soviet Union, Guatemala, and the U.S. The U.S. is clearly the outlier, and chosen not because of its "notable terrorism", but due to its high profile.AerobicFox (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: There is no counter to the belief in U.S. state terrorism presented in this article. Individual events have people defending the actions (it was ok to drop the atom bomb, ect), but there is no side that attempts to refute charges of U.S. state terrorism, most likely due to U.S. state terrorism not even being a notable topic.AerobicFox (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's always interesting to see how people stick to their beliefs and claim that things don't exist right after they have been shown an example. In addition to the two books I mentioned above, there is also a 1991 Routledge (academic publisher) book with the title "Western State Terrorism". It's abstract in the database of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service describes it as follows:
 * The fundamental, and controversial, thesis on which the essays in this volume are focused is that most significant acts of international terrorism are perpetrated, or at least organized, by the United States, its allies, and its client states.
 * And from the abstract of the book itself:
 * The author of the first chapter distinguishes between a propagandist and a literal approach to the study of terrorism, providing an overview of U.S. terrorist activities in the Middle East and Central America.
 * Or take the first three sentences of Ruth Blakeley's 2007 article "Bringing the state back into terrorism studies" in European Political Science:
 * State terrorism, along with other forms of repression, has been an ongoing feature of the foreign policies of democratic great powers from the North and the United States (US) in particular. The use of repression by the US was particularly intense during the Cold War, and we are seeing a resurgence of its use in the 'war on terror'. State terrorism, of which torture can sometimes be a tool, is defined as threats or acts of violence carried out by representatives of the state against civilians to instill fear for political purposes. full article
 * If such sources are not currently used in the article (I haven't checked) then that's a problem of the current presentation, not a reason for deletion. Hans Adler 00:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The fundamental, and controversial, thesis"
 * controversial = fringe. Even done academically such a topic has little respect, done here it doesn't even look legitimate. This article is a patchwork of unrelated events, drawing connections between them to portray the U.S. as a terrorist state. This would be fine if it were adequately portrayed as having little coverage by academia, but as it is unrelated reliable sources discussing other topics are interwoven to give the appearance of legitimacy.AerobicFox (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. (1) The Guantanomo Bay detention camp is controversial non-fringe. Also, for a government to have random citizens of other countries kidnapped and flown around internationally for torture is controversial, but not fringe. (2) There is no rule that highly notable topics are excluded from Wikipedia just because they are fringe. We have articles on astrology, homeopathy, Christian Science, hollow Earth, orgone etc. You are arguing about how the article should be written. Here we are in a deletion discussion, i.e. we are discussing whether the article should be written. Hans Adler 07:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What serious academic publication has called Guantanamo Bay "state sponsored terrorism"? To me this article appears infested with ideological POV pushing.  The topic is not proper.  Sure, the content and criticism and even illegality of US actions can be discussed in relevant historical articles.  The problem is that these events are not called "state sponsored terrorism" by the most reliable sources available.  That's a spin job being pushed by a few editors.  We need to be accurate: call things what they are, and not stretch definitions or engage in synthesizing research. Jehochman Talk 14:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 00:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep Per DGG. Soxwon (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Keep' as it's an extremely notable historical subject (though the article is admittedly too long; arguably, this is due to the wealth of documented information on the subject). There is a strong precedent for documentation and mention of this subject from academics and world governments such as Cuba and Nicaragua in international forums. There is a precedent for the US being brought to trial for these "alleged" actions in international court (Nicaragua v. United States, the ultimate ruling being against the US of course). And as someone mentioned above, there are extremely similar articles (that follow the pattern "[country X] and state terrorism") for other countries such as Iran (and in the case of that specific page, there is no deletion nomination; as far as I can see, the deletion nomination for this article relative to the lack thereof for the Iran article, only reflects that it is a sensitive subject to many US editors of English-language wikipedia, as those indoctrinated in Bush-style "War on Terror" ideology of course find it offensive but find the Iran article natural). 173.3.41.6 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Chomsky is not a reliable source for U.S. terrorism. He is a linguist academically, and a political activist on the side. Most of these sources are either from an academic who self admits the idea that the U.S. has committed terrorist acts is fringe, or from people who use their reliability in other fields to support their unrelated political positions. I have yet to see a counter argument presented in this article also which contests that the U.S. has participated in state terrorism, nor have I seen any indication that this is not a fringe view that is synthesizing reliable sources to make it appear mainstream.AerobicFox (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Louis A Perez is a more centrist academic who clearly fits the silly ad-hominem criteria of not being "fringe" (he is a Cuban-American living in the US who has put forth many criticisms of the Cuban Revolution), and has written much about US terrorism against Cuba. There are still more academics to be cited in this respect, especially on the more left side (such as historian Howard Zinn). And there is a wealth of very centrist journalism (incl. the acclaimed Joan Didion), even within the US, that terms many US-coordinated actions as "State terrorism." Anyhow this isn't the place to get into the citation war -- Chomsky himself is a strong academic and researcher whose non-linguistic work is often cited by many other academics (calling him "non-academic" outside of his linguist work only amounts to ad-hominem as far as I can see) and has been consistently invited to debate academics in academic forums on non-linguistic subjects. Aside from that: international court rulings are not "fringe" opinions. If you've "yet to see anything about this that's not a fringe opinion," you haven't looked at international court rulings. Again I reaffirm what has been brought up in the course of responses to this nomination, and to the previous 'nine' failed deletion nominations of this article: this is an *extremely notable* subject with a wide precedent for documentation. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 04:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to show disrespect to how hard you have attempted to make your above argument sound mainstream, but Perez self admits the views are controversial, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist without a history degree speaking on historical subjects seemingly from gleaning modern political editorials, and being condemned for “unlawful use of force,” in Nicaragua is not "international court rulings" that the U.S. is a terrorist state. All this is moot however, since there is no understanding between those that want to delete and those that support, we can only hope you don't start really fucking up and finding a way to make BLP violations on top of this.AerobicFox (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you didn't curse at me and otherwise attack me. When you say you "don't mean to disrespect" and go on to curse at people, it becomes clear that you obviously do intend to disrespect and are just being snide/disingenuous. As such, I'd say I'm not the one whose actions are inviting violations. Aside from your behavior, the only other things I have to address is that A: you seem to be unaware that US vs Nicaragua was an ICJ ruling (in no way invalidated by US efforts to block its enforcement), which indeed *is* an "international court ruling," not just a case of the US being "condemned in Nicaragua" as you characterize it, and B: it's telling that you keep resorting to attacking my Chomsky citation, hammering away at your conception of who he is (whatever combination and concatenation of "-isms" you assign to him) rather than disputing the essence what he says (a tact that seems the very definition of ad hominem). I've had enough of defending myself from cursing attacks or defending my citations from ad hominem attacks: my vote and reasoning should be clear. Due to the antagonistic nature of your behavior, I'm through with feeding back into it. And also due to the antagonistic behavior in this delete-nom page as well as in the previous ones for this article (so well exemplified by your attacks), and to the highly questionable good faith of a *tenth* delete nomination (in the face of overwhelming subject notability), I'm really starting to regret that I changed my vote from "speedy keep" to "keep." 173.3.41.6 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah "personal attacks" blah blah blah "ad hominems"
 * Seriously your characterization of my above post is otherworldly, and obviously we are not going to agree. My use of fucking was not directed at you in any way, and certainly wasn't cursing you out, but I suppose you latching onto things and spinning them into a web of self delusion shouldn't be surprising considering your part in the article in question. Let's just end this discussion here, I never would have nominated this for deletion after the first two times despite its being atrocious.AerobicFox (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Encyclopedia-worthy topic? Yes. Properly sourced? Yes. Well enough written? Yes. NPOV? Probably some work to be done there, but within acceptable parameters... This has been defended repeatedly and repeatedly kept and one would think that eventually this Ground Hog Day treatment of this article will end. Carrite (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a consensus exists that the article has numerous problems. I'd be very happy if those wishing to keep would lend a hand with editing. There is no joy in deleting an article.  Having tried several times, I see no way to fix this behemoth, but please do try if you think it worth the effort. Jehochman Talk 12:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to take a closer look if you tell me where to look. Is one of the numerous sections not actually about the US using illegal means to terrorise the population of a foreign country, or knowingly assisting a foreign state or non-state actor to do so? Or is the problem more subtle than that? Hans Adler 17:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is different but it's nothing subtle. Whether or not a section is "actually about" US State Terrorism, is not the only criteria for deciding whether the section should be kept. For instance, the 3 or so subsections about the debate surrounding Hiroshima/Nagasaki, are arguably about what you say they are, but they are also a complete repeat of the content of this page: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is one of the several cases where the article could be fixed. I am strongly against deletion of the article but we must admit that it is too long. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To use that section as an example, the content should be seriously trimmed, with a link to the article you mention. There should be at least one high quality academic source that links these events to state sponsored terrorism.  This same principle can be applied to all the other sections.  Any that don't have such a high quality academic source should be removed entirely.  Noam Chomsky is not such a source for this article.  He's an expert on linguistics and some topics in computer science, but not history.   Jehochman Talk 17:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion thread on POV issues and you may respond here. TFD (talk) 17:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - although it absolutely has scope for improvement (as many people have pointed out, the length is the most obvious), this article should absolutely remain in the Wikipedia corpus. It includes extremely important arguments that need to be in the public domain, and it is certainly NPOV. I feel that many of the calls for deletion come from those for whom anything that might be perceived as against the American administration is against America and American values. This is absolutely not the case, and it is important for the protection of American values that these sort of topics be discussed and understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.208.253 (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "perceived as against the American administration is against America and American values"
 * From the perspective of one who supports deletion I can speak that from my perspective it seems those for keep neither understand the arguments for deletion, nor could understand how anyone other than a super POV monster could possibly want to get rid of this article. It has so many issues; I am overwhelmed at where to even begin, or how to even approach a side that completely views the opposition as inherently bias and uncooperative.AerobicFox (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: Deletion pushes are obviously more based on nationalistic views than regarding Wikipedia policies. Subject is properly sourced and discussed in non-trivial sources. I take it that the fact that the subject is present in the mainstream media constantly for decades doesn't really count for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm regretting that my own vote was "keep" and not "speedy keep" as the bad faith behind a *tenth* groundhog-day delete nomination (in the face of overwhelming subject notability) for this article, is blatant and obvious. For the inevitable future delete-nominations of this article, we should not be so cautious about using the "Speedy Keep" option; it is entirely appropriate here. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep I agree that the article is problematic as the nominator points out with its issues but it is certainly an encyclopedic topic which should be covered and is valuable. Maybe if somebody sat down and sorted out its issues it wouldn't need to be nominated unsuccessfuly for AFD x10♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are numerous easily sourced claims about this. What's the problem? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article is a mess of synthesis. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information.  The sourced content here should be moved to the relevant articles about the relevant historical incidents.  I am not aware of any serious mainstream academic publication that says the United States has engaged in "State sponsored terrorism".  This is a fringe theory cultivated by a few radical ideologues.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox for publishing novel ideas. Jehochman Talk 14:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - per DGG, Anime Addict AA, Dr. Blofeld. IQinn (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2011 (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.