Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America

Mediation Case: 2006-08-17 Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Travb (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * Talk:Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America


 * Who's involved?
 * Multiple users, those on the left, who add or clarify content, those on the right who delete content, and three users who do both (Mondo, TDC, travb).


 * What's going on?
 * AfD was closed no consensus, frequent name changes to articles, editors are deleting referenced material, page was protected. No consensus at all on talk page, two admin notices about the page.


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * Name change of article, clear definition of what the article is about by consensus, stop large scale deletions on the page.


 * Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
 * No. You don't have to work discreetly.

Mediator response
Let me start this interesting case Wiki  e Zach|  talk  22:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

We can include any notable allegation
As far as I'm concerned we can include any notable allegation (subject to due weight, balance, et cetera), as long as we include it as an allegation, and not as a fact. We can write, "Ward Churchill says Bush is a terrorist.[cite Churchill]". We cannot write, "Bush is a terrorist.[cite Churchill]" Tom Harrison Talk 16:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I can respond here. I have never done a mediation like this before. If my comments are not supposed to be here, please move my comment. I agree 100% with Tom, if we don't cite who said what it is a weasel word.  I just wanted to add that it is important to keep weasel words out of the article, including the word "alleged". Travb (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is probably a policy case more than anything else. Wikipedia is founded on Verifiability, not Truth. However, allegations in this article are verifiable, even though they may not be true. So just how do we determine what should be included here (and in similar articles), how do we name it in a way that preserves NPOV, and how should it be worded? Fagstein 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Although I hate to say so, only Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee has the authority over such questions. I could help, but policy things can get really complicated. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  17:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK United States has strong and independent judicial system. Terrorism is a crime in the United States. Thus, we cannot say Bush is a terrorist, the same way as we can not say O.J. Simpson is a murderer. We are saying such and such person accused O.J. Simpson we should also say such and such person accused president Bush (Reagan, Carter, whoever). Since, I believe, there is a quite widespread view that USA is not a terrorist state, we should keep balance giving a due weight to this POV as well. abakharev 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Cuba section: paraphrasing the allegations
I think part of the reason the Cuba section comes off as original research is the length. Would you consider cutting it down to 3 or 4 sentences -- paraphrasing the allegations. In that way, it wouldn't seem like you are trying to argue that these things WERE terrorism, but merely making a bland description of the allegations by the Cuban government. Thanks. Morton devonshire 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Morton's idea would be a good comprimise, as long as no weasel words are in the 3 to 4 sentences. I think we can add a tag for those who want to read more.  On List_of_United_States_military_history_events we had a rule that each entry was one sentence long, and most of the controversial text stay on the pages which are linked in the  tag.  Like magic, the controversy ended on this page. Because of the inflammatory name and subject on Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, I know we cannot keep out all controversy, but we can shrink the entries to such an amount, and add   tags, so, like  List_of_United_States_military_history_events we can move the controversy to the individual pages. Granted, several entries IMO need to be deleted, because they do not fit into the defintion of "terrorism" or "political violence".  Please share your opinion about what should stay and what should go on: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls Travb (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I posted the resolution on the talk page. Please see. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  14:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Moving page to different name
I read some proposals to change the page name to something different. What do all parties say about that? Wiki e Zach|  talk  17:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If the name is US state-sponsored political violence, it is an invitation to original research, trying to collect factoids to prove a case. If it is American terrorism (term), then it is clear that we are writing an article about the allegetions. To me this seem central to having encyclopedic coverage of this topic. As long as the title makes it clear that we are writing about allegations, I have no great preference. I again point out that American terrorism (term) (now merged in here) was stable for several months under a similar model. Tom Harrison Talk 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we PLEASE confine this discussion to one place: Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America/strawpolls. We have all addressed this issue many times in many different places. I think it would be best to confine our comments on this issue to one central location. Travb (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If we are going to seriously discuss moving the page to another name, shouldn't we use WP:RM? Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would "vote" on the poll already set up to see where everyone stands. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I ageee with User:Wikizach, lets reach a rough consensus, then we can do WP:RM, as Tom was wise to point out. Travb (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Resolutions
Please vote on resolutions on the talk page, thank you! Wiki e Zach|  talk  19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * My name is Wikizach and I am here to help. I would like more details from both sides (who is doing this, what exactly you are upset about), because I am here to help. You can contact me at my talk page. Wiki  e Zach|  talk  22:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)